Americans say tax rich to balance budget
Harry Hope
From Reuters, 1/3/11:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7022AK20110103
Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll
(Reuters) - Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes
for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity
Fair poll released on Monday.
..........................................................................................................
Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the
wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll
showed.
The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut
defense spending.
Four percent would cut the Medicare government health insurance
program for the elderly, and 3 percent would cut the Social Security
retirement program, the poll showed.
_________________________________________________
I could've told you that.
Harry
Bob
news:cq24i6554cvjphnqg...@4ax.com...
Reminds you of the old story ...
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day,
ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid
their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men ? the poorest ? would pay nothing; the fifth would pay
$1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18,
and the tenth man ? the richest ? would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ? until one day, the
owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what
about the other six ? the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man
would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount,
and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid
$5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a
bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than
before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I
only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the
tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too .
. . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't
show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it
came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late, what was very
important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine
that!
Werner
Margaret Thacher told you,"The problem with socialism is that
eventually you run out of other peoples money".
The PHANTOM
> In article <634e7485-b1f1-492f-bca3-7849e8094...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Margaret Thacher told you,"The problem with socialism is that
> > eventually you run out of other peoples money".
>
>
Oh?? And where are all these unemployed "consumers" supposed to get
the money to spend "to create jobs"?? From Obama's "stash"?? Three
years worth of unemployment checks?? I see. Confiscate the "wealth"
from the people that actually hire people and spread it to those that
would rather sit on their fat ass,smoke crack,shuck and jive and let
BIG BROTHER Obama take care of them.
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. You like me! You really like me!
The PHANTOM
> In article <d78f7b1f-b1d8-4992-809f-45db004c8...@j29g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> The PHANTOM <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 12:41 pm, China Blue Ribbon <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <634e7485-b1f1-492f-bca3-7849e8094...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > Margaret Thacher told you,"The problem with socialism is that
> > > > eventually you run out of other peoples money".
>
> > > That would explain why there isn't enough consumer spending to create more
> > > jobs.
>
> > Oh?? And where are all these unemployed "consumers" supposed to get
> > the money to spend "to create jobs"?? From Obama's "stash"?? Three
> > years worth of unemployment checks?? I see. Confiscate the "wealth"
> > from the people that actually hire people and spread it to those that
> > would rather sit on their fat ass,smoke crack,shuck and jive and let
> > BIG BROTHER Obama take care of them.
>
>
HUH ?? I didn't realise I was trying to hide it. But,thanks for
admitting you've lost the debate.
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. You like me! You really like me!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jane
Taxing the rich is said to bring in $700 billion over 10 years. For
those who are short on arithmetic, that is $70 billion per year.
Will that $70 billion balance the budget? If not, the premise of your
statement is false. How much of a percentage is that $70 Billion
compared to the budget deficit?
Phlip
> > The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut
> > defense spending.
> Margaret Thacher told you,"The problem with socialism is that
> eventually you run out of other peoples money".
Yup.
Phlip
> > > BIG BROTHER Obama take care of them.
>
> > Hint: your racism is showing again.
>
> HUH ?? I didn't realise I was trying to hide it. But,thanks for
> admitting you've lost the debate.
It's how you blow off steam.
And blowing off steam is what you do when you are losing the debate.
Find a rich person who's actually HIRING and - heck - we won't tax
him!
(The Stimulus has tax cuts for hirers; but you know that.)
Phlip
> Taxing the rich is said to bring in $700 billion over 10 years. For
> those who are short on arithmetic, that is $70 billion per year.
>
> Will that $70 billion balance the budget?
Nobody said it will.
If it stimulates the economy - among the middle class who actually
adds value - then it will help balance the budget and pay down the
debt.
neoconis_ignoramus
>
>
>
>
>
> > From Reuters, 1/3/11:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7022AK20110103
>
> > Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll
>
> > (Reuters) - Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes
> > for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity
> > Fair poll released on Monday.
>
>
> > Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the
> > wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll
> > showed.
>
> > The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut
> > defense spending.
>
> > Four percent would cut the Medicare government health insurance
> > program for the elderly, and 3 percent would cut the Social Security
> > retirement program, the poll showed.
>
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > I could've told you that.
>
> > Harry
>
> Taxing the rich is said to bring in $700 billion over 10 years. For
> those who are short on arithmetic, that is $70 billion per year.
>
> Will that $70 billion balance the budget? If not, the premise of your
> statement is false. How much of a percentage is that $70 Billion
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's a start, now isn't it? 700 Billion less debt we'll have, not
even considering interest costs.
I don't think anyone was positing that it would close the budget gap,
except you. Do try harder next time.
The gap will close naturally as the economy recovers and tax receipts
increase and welfare payments decrease.
Adding a new bracket for the ultra-wealthy will do nothing to damage
growth. Been proven many times before.
Werner
Many knowledgable people think the dollar will collapse instead of the
economy recover.
The PHANTOM
Find a "poor" person that's hiring and send him a :"check".
The PHANTOM
With who's money??
Sid9
"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be1a93a3-e28c-4f62...@n2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
.
.
Nope.
This is especially posted for the economic illiterates who I fence with on a
daily basis:
January 2, 2011
Deep Hole Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
(his bio and creds here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman)
If there's one piece of economic wisdom I hope people will grasp this year,
it's this: Even though we may finally have stopped digging, we're still near
the bottom of a very deep hole.
Why do I need to point this out? Because I've noticed many people
overreacting to recent good economic news. What particularly concerns me is
the risk of self-denying optimism - that is, I worry that policy makers will
look at a few favorable economic indicators, decide that they no longer need
to promote recovery, and take steps that send us sliding right back to the
bottom.
So, about that good news: various economic indicators, ranging from
relatively good holiday sales to new claims for unemployment insurance
(which have finally fallen below 400,000 a week), suggest that the great
post-bubble retrenchment may finally be ending.
We're not talking Morning in America here. Construction shows no sign of
returning to bubble-era levels, nor are there any indications that
debt-burdened families are going back to their old habits of spending all
they earned. But all we needed for a modest economic rebound was for
construction to stop falling and saving to stop rising - and that seems to
be happening. Forecasters have been marking up their predictions; growth as
high as 4 percent this year now looks possible.
Hooray! But then again, not so much. Jobs, not G.D.P. numbers, are what
matter to American families. And when you start from an unemployment rate of
almost 10 percent, the arithmetic of job creation - the amount of growth you
need to get back to a tolerable jobs picture - is daunting.
First of all, we have to grow around 2.5 percent a year just to keep up with
rising productivity and population, and hence keep unemployment from rising.
That's why the past year and a half was technically a recovery but felt like
a recession: G.D.P. was growing, but not fast enough to bring unemployment
down.
Growth at a rate above 2.5 percent will bring unemployment down over time.
But the gains aren't one for one: for a variety of reasons, it has
historically taken about two extra points of growth over the course of a
year to shave one point off the unemployment rate.
Now do the math. Suppose that the U.S. economy were to grow at 4 percent a
year, starting now and continuing for the next several years. Most people
would regard this as excellent performance, even as an economic boom; it's
certainly higher than almost all the forecasts I've seen.
Yet the math says that even with that kind of growth the unemployment rate
would be close to 9 percent at the end of this year, and still above 8
percent at the end of 2012. We wouldn't get to anything resembling full
employment until late in Sarah Palin's first presidential term.
Seriously, what we're looking at over the next few years, even with pretty
good growth, are unemployment rates that not long ago would have been
considered catastrophic - because they are. Behind those dry statistics lies
a vast landscape of suffering and broken dreams. And the arithmetic says
that the suffering will continue as far as the eye can see.
So what can be done to accelerate this all-too-slow process of healing? A
rational political system would long since have created a 21st-century
version of the Works Progress Administration - we'd be putting the
unemployed to work doing what needs to be done, repairing and improving our
fraying infrastructure. In the political system we have, however,
Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte, delivering the Republican weekly address on New
Year's Day, declared that "Job one is to stop wasteful Washington spending."
Realistically, the best we can hope for from fiscal policy is that
Washington doesn't actively undermine the recovery. Beware, in particular,
the Ides of March: by then, the federal government will probably have hit
its debt limit and the G.O.P. will try to force President Obama into
economically harmful spending cuts.
I'm also worried about monetary policy. Two months ago, the Federal Reserve
announced a new plan to promote job growth by buying long-term bonds; at the
time, many observers believed that the initial $600 billion purchase was
only the beginning of the story. But now it looks like the end, partly
because Republicans are trying to bully the Fed into pulling back, but also
because a run of slightly better economic news provides an excuse to do
nothing.
There's even a significant chance that the Fed will raise interest rates
later this year - or at least that's what the futures market seems to think.
Doing so in the face of high unemployment and minimal inflation would be
crazy, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
So back to my original point: whatever the recent economic news, we're still
near the bottom of a very deep hole. We can only hope that enough policy
makers understand that point.
Fred Brown
> Margaret Thacher told you,"The problem with socialism is that
> eventually you run out of other peoples money".
Hey look! It's the human bumper sticker, mindlessly is slogans again!
Why do you supposedly hate socialists when the only reason why you
joined the army was for food and shelter, and now you're on medicare
while your rent is paid by social security checks. And you never
mentioned that you live in a socialist blue state.
Vandar
That tale is a good example of why it's important to pay attention in
math class.
For an $80 bill, the tenth guy should pay $47.20, the ninth $14.40, the
eighth $9.60, the seventh $5.60, the sixth $2.40, the fifth $0.80, and
the four leeches remain the same.
Phlip
Tax the rich, unless they create jobs.
Now whine about how I have "class envy", and how we shouldn't
redistribute wealth from people who "earned" it.
5875 Dead, 1018 since 1/20/09
Yo, moron: find a poor person who has some money to spend, and see if he
helps stimulate the economy.
I realize you are a pathetic belly crawler, but your rich masters will
NOT keep the economy going, because they really don't give a shit about
little morons like you.
--
Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
January 21, 2010
Phlip
> >> > The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut
> >> > defense spending.
>
> >> Margaret Thacher told you,"The problem with socialism is that
> >> eventually you run out of other peoples money".
>
> > Yup.
>
> Nope.
Yup.
I'm pointing out that people who recite the "Socialism" ditty always
have a blind spot for our socialized military industrial complex.
Redistribute that wealth, folks, or the terr'ists win!
Neolibertarian
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Told us what? That morality is subject to a vote?
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity.
Marcus Aurelius
is one of the main reasons why our nation is suffering it's current
economic tragedy. Thus, Americans correctly judge that appropriate
taxation of these " Monopoly Capitalists" is a prudent, just, and
efficient means to end this same economic, and social tragedy.
What is “monopoly capitalism”?
In “monopoly capitalism”, capital is exported out of a nation instead
of the goods and services produced by a nation’s own citizens.
What is “capital”?
“Capital” is money, labor, and industry.
“Monopoly capitalism” tends to concentrate both wealth and political
power amongst a few individuals and entities.
“Monopoly capitalism” tends to destroy “true capitalism” which is
characterized as possessing “free enterprise” and “competition”.
“True capitalism” tends to spread and increase wealth and political
power amongst the general citizenry.
“Monopoly capitalism” tends to impoverish the general citizenry.
Economic theorists assert that “monopoly capitalism” is the last stage
of capitalism before some form of socialism replaces the same.
One of the characteristics of “monopoly capitalism” is to engage in
aggressive wars for the purpose of furthering the unjust goals of
“monopoly capitalism”.
If we are to maintain our individual freedoms and our relatively high
standard of living, American citizens must appropriately and
assertively address and correct the injustices inherent in “monopoly
capitalism.”
One way of doing the same, in my opinion, is to change our current
“winner take all”, “Gerrymandered”, and “bought” political electoral
system to some form of “proportional” electoral representation.
The same would make it much more difficult for special interests to
gain the unjust control of the political system that our current
system facilitates.
I
Ray Fischer
The richest man would have gotten 70% of the food and owned the
restaurant, the next richest would have gotten 25% of the food,
the 3rd richest would have gotten the last 5% of the food, and
the other suckers would still be paying their share of the bill
and the poorest would be stuck washing the dishes.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
>Margaret Thacher told you,"The problem with socialism is that
>eventually you run out of other peoples money".
That's also the problem with capitalism.
Phlip
>
> > Find a "poor" person that's hiring and send him a :"check".
Bosses say they will hire if sales go up.
But you knew that.
The PHANTOM
> In article <36def609-7761-44ba-8f26-fcd8f54df...@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> The PHANTOM <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > (The Stimulus has tax cuts for hirers; but you know that.)
>
> > Find a "poor" person that's hiring and send him a :"check".
>
> with money and together create a new business. Too bad banks have stopped
> loaning money to businesses.
>
Kinda' like the genius that thought up the brilliant idea of
spending $800,000 of American taxpayer's money to teach Kenyan
Africans how to wash their balls.
The PHANTOM
They also said they'd hire if Obama and big brother got out of their
business.
jane
You didn't answer the question; what percentage will the deficit be
reduced if we tax pull in that $70 Billion (AND it is $70 Billion /
yr.; Your $700 Billion is over TEN years)
The percentage is extremely important if you want to make an educated
decision. For example, can you state, with absolute certainty, that
this tax on the rich will not hurt this fragile recovery? I certainly
can not state either way, and I doubt that you can either.
SO, if there is a possibility that the tax might hurt the recovery,
then we HAVE to know the percentage of the deficit reduction to know
if it is worth taking the risk.
If the percentage of deficit reduction is small, then it makes the
most sense to delay the tax increase, wait until the recovery is
strong and stable.
AFTER the recovery is strong and stable, then it makes sense to
eliminate the Bush tax cuts on ALL, including the middle class and
lower. Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich will reduce the
deficit by only $70 Billion per year, BUT eliminating ALL of the Bush
Tax Cuts will reduce the deficit by $370 Billion per year.
Geo
Jane, as usual nice analysis. The only thing I would take issue with
is your last paragraph. Short of a balanced budget amendment or some
other law requiring paying down the debt eliminating the tax cuts
assumes the money collected will be used to actually pay down the
debt. If history is any guide that will not happen...ever. Check out
this link from the Wall Street Journal on this exact thing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620502560925156.html
Bret Cahill
>
> Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll
>
> (Reuters) - Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes
> for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity
> Fair poll released on Monday.
>
> ..........................................................................................................
>
> Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the
> wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll
> showed.
>
> The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut
> defense spending.
>
> Four percent would cut the Medicare government health insurance
> program for the elderly, and 3 percent would cut the Social Security
> retirement program, the poll showed.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> I could've told you that.
>
> Harry
If tax cuts for the rich were ever popular then the Looneytarian Party
would be a major party and the GOP would never have had to go bottom
fishing for the winger dingers in the first place.
Bret Cahill
"The right to tax . . . embodies all other rights."
-- a political philosopher who ain't on the innernet
jane
I agree completely, but that was outside the scope of this thread. I,
personally feel that the deficit reduction will require both tax
increases and REAL spending cuts, not just reductions in spending
increases.
Our current spending is overblown and bloated. Since the current
budget is bloated, then it can be cut. BEFORE any tax increases are
enacted, congress, at the very least, should hold 2011 spending to no
more than the 2010 spending. There are areas where spending needs to
be increased, but those programs should be funded by real spending
cuts in programs that shouldn't even exist.
Bob
news:chine.bleu-6D43C...@reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.example.com...
> In article
> <76983c67-bbd8-4b7a...@l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Geo <geot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> other law requiring paying down the debt eliminating the tax cuts
>> assumes the money collected will be used to actually pay down the
>> debt. If history is any guide that will not happen...ever. Check out
>
> surplus
> was proof we were overtaxed. He got elected and plunged the country deeper
> in
> debt.
The last time we reduced the national debt was in 1957. That
president was Dwight Eisenhower, so you must be talking about
the next president, John Kennedy.
Phlip
> president was Dwight Eisenhower
A fiscal conservative. Who knew?
5875 Dead, 1018 since 1/20/09
Yeah, an actual conservative. One that would drummed out of the GOP
today.
Poor Republican who thinks he's Rich
I haven't lost my stock team job at Wal-Mart...and I do not want to
see the wealthy taxed more...since that means more taxes for me.
Ray Fischer
> Kinda' like the genius that thought up the brilliant idea of
>spending $800,000 of American taxpayer's money to teach Kenyan
>Africans how to wash their balls.
And that would obviously be you.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 3, 5:52 pm, neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Adding a new bracket for the ultra-wealthy will do nothing to damage
>> growth. Been proven many times before.
>
>You didn't answer the question; what percentage will the deficit be
>reduced if we tax pull in that $70 Billion (AND it is $70 Billion /
>yr.; Your $700 Billion is over TEN years)
And what percentage will it increase if we DON'T increase those taxes?
>The percentage is extremely important if you want to make an educated
>decision.
LOL! I haven't notice that you have ANY regard for educated
decisions. Again and again you seem determined to promote policies
which are more of the same old failed trickle-down policies that have
nearly destroyed this country.
> For example, can you state, with absolute certainty, that
>this tax on the rich will not hurt this fragile recovery?
Can you state, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that it will hurt?
It will certainly help the deficit.
>SO, if there is a possibility that the tax might hurt the recovery,
>then we HAVE to know the percentage of the deficit reduction to know
>if it is worth taking the risk.
You need to give me $50,000 unless you can state, WITH ABSOLUTE
CERTAINTY, that failing to do so will not hurt the economy.
Pay up.
Ray Fischer
>"China Blue Ribbon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:chine.bleu-6D43C...@reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.example.com...
>> In article
>> <76983c67-bbd8-4b7a...@l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Geo <geot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> other law requiring paying down the debt eliminating the tax cuts
>>> assumes the money collected will be used to actually pay down the
>>> debt. If history is any guide that will not happen...ever. Check out
>>
>> Last time that happenned a goober ran for president claiming a yearly
>> surplus
>> was proof we were overtaxed. He got elected and plunged the country deeper
>> in
>> debt.
>
>The last time we reduced the national debt was in 1957.
Came real close in 2000.
Geo
The incompetent one said as much, so it must be true. How's that?
> Pay up.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
> rfisc...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
jane
You are such a mindless twit. Whenever you have nothing to say, you
mindlessly say, " ...lie, lie again,..."
Go through my post line by line and tell me where I lied.
Ray Fischer
Where is that $50,000 you owe me?
> Whenever you have nothing to say,
According to YOUR words, you must give me $50,000 unless you can show
"with absolute certainty" (your words) that refusing to do so will not
hurt the economy.
Pay up.