22 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackHow about scaling back or increasing the efficiency of non-essential government programmes at the same time as raising income tax for the wealthy? If the budget problem is as bad as you say we obviously need both spending cuts and tax increases.
The problem isn't that the wealthy don't pay enough (and deduction continually rapidly decrease). It is that the government continues to spend like crazy: once again see today NYT Fiscal spending in 2008 was 2.9 trillion
fiscal spending this year 3.8 trillion. That's at 31% increase in a non-inflation time period. We simply need to scale back government because reagardless of how much you tax the increases are simply unsupportable.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeThere is no justification for a 31% increase in spending during this presidency. We already got rid of the Bush cuts for what the government deemed the wealthy but kept the for everyone else. I wouldn't raise taxes at all and I certainly wouldn't raise taxes only on one segment of our population.
How about scaling back or increasing the efficiency of non-essential government programmes at the same time as raising income tax for the wealthy? If the budget problem is as bad as you say we obviously need both spending cuts and tax increases.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeHow about pulling our military out from all over THE WORLD and massively reducing it's size after we quit trying to be the World Police?
How about scaling back or increasing the efficiency of non-essential government programmes at the same time as raising income tax for the wealthy? If the budget problem is as bad as you say we obviously need both spending cuts and tax increases.
That should be good for a few trillion.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarThe federal government has not ignored this problem. Instead of passing a bill to increase the retirement age, however, the Dems plan on setting up death panels and the GOP plans on throwing granny off the cliff in terms of health care. That way neither party should have to raise the retirment age becuase there will simply be fewer to retire.
It seems to me that if we are going to live in a country that pays people when they retire, we need to make adjustments. We do make small adjustments due to inflation, but we also need to make adjustments in retirement age!
Social Security in the United States began in 1935 with a retirement age of 65.
I'm using the numbers from this site for average ...[text shortened]... e and you fix the problem! I think that an adjustment every 10 years would be about right.
Brilliant!!
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackThe segment of the population being asked to pay the higher taxes is the segment that can afford to pay. That's why they're being asked to foot the bill.
There is no justification for a 31% increase in spending during this presidency. We already got rid of the Bush cuts for what the government deemed the wealthy but kept the for everyone else. I wouldn't raise taxes at all and I certainly wouldn't raise taxes only on one segment of our population.
To be honest, any country that has a massive deficit and substantial spending obligations is behaving with tremendous fiscal irresponsibility if it doesn't raise taxes for the rich.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeI find it amazing that a large segment of our population believes that we can continue to expand govenment and raise taxes on one segment of the population.
The segment of the population being asked to pay the higher taxes is the segment that can afford to pay. That's why they're being asked to foot the bill.
To be honest, any country that has a massive deficit and substantial spending obligations is behaving with tremendous fiscal irresponsibility if it doesn't raise taxes for the rich.
22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackWhy, when that section of the population is the section that can afford to pay higher taxes?
I find it amazing that a large segment of our population believes that we can continue to expand govenment and raise taxes on one segment of the population.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeI think we have exceeded the limit of fairness.
Why, when that section is the section that can afford to pay higher taxes?
I also think when you have major new programs like Obama's healthcare initiative everyone should pay.
Almost everyone could pay more taxes, the truth is no one (and justifiably so) wants to sacrifice.
22 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by TeinosukeEven though that "segment"of the population foots most the bill now, how much more would you prefer they pay ? Do the Math. If you taxed that segment 100% of their income what would that bring in annually ? As said many many times before, we do not have a revenue problem but rather a SPENDING problem.
The segment of the population being asked to pay the higher taxes is the segment that can afford to pay. That's why they're being asked to foot the bill.
To be honest, any country that has a massive deficit and substantial spending obligations is behaving with tremendous fiscal irresponsibility if it doesn't raise taxes for the rich.
edit: They are being ASKED to pay ?! Because they can AFFORD it ?! Whew!🙄
22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackI think we have exceeded the limit of fairness.
How so, when tax rates for higher earners have fallen drastically in the last thirty years or so?
I also think when you have major new programs like Obama's healthcare initiative everyone should pay.
The point of those programmes is to ensure that those who can't afford healthcare have healthcare provided for them. If the state doesn't ensure that the rich shoulder the lion's share of the burden, it defeats the object.
Almost everyone could pay more taxes, the truth is no one (and justifiably so) wants to sacrifice.
For the rich, it's not really any sacrifice.
22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonTop tax rate in Britain in Margaret Thatcher's first term was, I believe, 60%. If even the twentieth century's most radical Conservative prime minister could live with that for four years, it can't be that unreasonable.
Even though that "segment"of the population foots most the bill now, how much more would you prefer they pay ? Do the Math. If you taxed that segment 100% of their income what would that bring in annually ? As said many many times before, we do not have a revenue problem but rather a SPENDING problem.
edit: They are being ASKED to pay ?! Because they can AFFORD it ?! Whew!🙄
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou think that 75 is a reasonable age of retirement for a fireman, policeman, physical education teacher? What about a nurse that works 15 hour shifts? I for one would be sceptical of the abilities of a 75 year old in all these areas...and I've not even mentioned vocations such as construction or labouring! 75 might be ok if you have a cushy desk number, but not if you really 'work' for living!
75 is a fair age for retirement, I think.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by Curlyman83Perhaps that means a nurse needs to save more money if they work fewer years and want to retire/ cut back before Social Secuirty is avaiable.
You think that 75 is a reasonable age of retirement for a fireman, policeman, physical education teacher? What about a nurse that works 15 hour shifts? I for one would be sceptical of the abilities of a 75 year old in all these areas...and I've not even mentioned vocations such as construction or labouring! 75 might be ok if you have a cushy desk number, but not if you really 'work' for living!
People who work at desks have "real jobs" too -- in fact I'd argue that people who use their mind have real jobs and people who use just brute force can and should probably be replaced by machinery.