PDA

View Full Version : The rich should pay their fair share.



LWW
09-19-2011, 03:15 PM
That's really a neat phrase for a politician.

Nobody can seriously be against it.

Now comes the hard part.

The Obama regime has determined that anyone making $250K+ per year to be either a millionaire or a billionaire.

The first part of the question is, what would "their fair share" amount to IYHO?

Please ... do not offend this august forum by simply regurgitating Obama's stated number, unless you actually believe that he just dead nailed what the number should be.

The second part is how did you arrive at that number.

I consider this question to be open to all, and I would like to hear an answer in a percentage.

Soflasnapper
09-19-2011, 04:58 PM
Clinton's era had a 39.6% rate, and actually a bit higher in net effect (as very topmost income earners had a sliding scale of less deductions allowed and phased out).

Reagan was wholly satisfied with a 50% rate, which he instituted and kept in place for 6 years until the Democrats Bradley and Gephardt 'simplification' plan got it to 28% (with many deductions taken away), to which he agreed.

I'd say somewhere between those two numbers, 39.6% and 50%, would be appropriate at the $250k level and upwards for a bit. If a surcharge at $750k to $1 million+ a year in income is proposed at about 5% more, I'd support that as well. If a true billionaire bracket were put in (annual income above $1 billion), I'd go another 5% on top of that.

LWW
09-20-2011, 12:52 AM
You left out the why?

Qtec
09-20-2011, 04:02 AM
The why.


"When economic power becomes concentrated in a few hands, then political power flows to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny."

Q

LWW
09-20-2011, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The why.


"When economic power becomes concentrated in a few hands, then political power flows to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny."

Q

</div></div>

1 - That's what we have now, so how will further feeding the beast help to starve the beast.

2 - Even if your point made sense ... why that percentage?

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 10:03 AM
Why?

Because those two rates are associated with the better two economic performances of this country in the fairly recent past.

I take that to indicate proof that such rates do not stifle economic activity, and that rather they tended to make for a balance of private and public sector finances that leads to vastly better economic activity than we experienced in the '00s under W's tax rates.

LWW
09-20-2011, 03:57 PM
So it is your opinion that taking money out of the economy spurs the economy?

Qtec
09-20-2011, 04:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so how will further feeding the beast help to starve the beast. </div></div>

How do you reckon higher taxes on the top earners is "feeding the beast".???

Be specific.

Q

cushioncrawler
09-20-2011, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it is your opinion that taking money out of the economy spurs the economy?</div></div>That iz what i am allways saying. Spending puts money into the ekonomy (ie inkreeces the size of theusofa cake).
But fully funding that spending takes money out (ie taxes take money out).
Semi-funding (ie bonds) allso takes money out (not so much if the bonds are bort by china etc).
What theusofa needs iz more debt. Debt duznt take money out, it puts money in. In GOOD -- Out BAD.

Taxing kan be a way of helping the needy, if dunn well. Taxes are (kan be) one way of slicing the cake fairerer.
mac.

cushioncrawler
09-20-2011, 05:20 PM
But, in some ways, taking money out of the economy iznt so important nowadays either. Koz banks etc lend az much az they possibly dare, the money floating around the system iz in effekt unlimited anyhow.

And the velocity of money iz very fast nowadays. If u take it away here, it pops up seconds later there. In fakt, az i allready sayd, nowadays it pops up before it iz taken away, ie it iz unlimited, ie taking money out of the system aint so important nowadays.

But, despite all of that sort of stuff, theusofa iz digging a hole anyhow. Its been nice knowingya.
mac.

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 05:27 PM
So it is your opinion that taking money out of the economy spurs the economy?

Not exactly.

The definition of rich means having money lying around that you haven't spent. If you had a lot of income, and spent it all, you would be broke, with zero money, not rich. Which is the point of taxing the upper income people a bit more.

Check the savings rate for the rich. A little extra taxation on THEM mainly reduces their saving, not their spending. So it doesn't take their money out of the economy, for the most part-- they never put their savings INTO the economy in the first place. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE RICH.

cushioncrawler
09-20-2011, 05:28 PM
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb9/Carol-Sue/14740109_86ca53850c_m.jpg

cushioncrawler
09-20-2011, 05:34 PM
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn111/thundercron/Comic%20Collector%20Live%20Covers/TradesComicstoCCL_0013.jpg

Qtec
09-20-2011, 05:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What theusofa needs iz more debt. </div></div>

What happens when you can't borrow any more money?
You can't borrow indefinitely.

Plus it costs money to borrow money, ie money down the drain.

Q

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 06:24 PM
Now, basically, the government can borrow at a negative (real) interest rate. Which is the time to borrow if any time is. Essentially, the lenders are paying the government to borrow, given interest rates below the inflation rate.

If you or I could borrow at a 1% rate, that would be tempting indeed. If you or I could borrow at a -1% rate, money might as well be growing on trees.

cushioncrawler
09-20-2011, 06:25 PM
101.1 What iz important iz produktion, ie the size of the cake.
[ok i shood start with happyness and then go to environment etc etc and then to produktion and the cake etc but i havnt got all day].

101.2 Dollars iz not cake. Dollars iz the slicing of the cake.

101.3 Cake iz jobs etc, produktion etc.

101.4 Why do u need to borrow money??? But if u do borrow, why karnt u borrow indefinitely??? So what if it costs money to borrow money??? Why worry about money going down the drain???

101.5 It duznt matter how much money iz down the drain, the full cake will allways be sliced up and shared based on the money that haznt gone down the drain.

101.5 U shood worry about cake going down the drain, not money. If u dont hav jobs then in effekt it iz cake that iz going down the drain. What iz the good of having lots of money if there iz no cake???
mac.

cushioncrawler
09-20-2011, 06:27 PM
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/fremontcafe/Birthdays/1173f236.gif

cushioncrawler
09-20-2011, 06:40 PM
http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt205/jesse_pindus/Carl%20Barks/stories/Riches%20Riches%20Everywhere/val195808b.jpg