67% of Americans Think "Wealth Gap" Unfair
-
iclfan2
This. Guess what there are haves and have nots. Get over it. If your pissed about it, do something. It's only unfair because they don't "have" it.queencitybuckeye;947936 wrote:They may be but I'd bet most don't. More likely they operate under a model of "I have less, they have more, therefore it's unfair". -
dwccrew
This. I mean, I have a 12 inch penis. Some men only have 4 or 5 inches. Does this mean I should have to give a few of my inches away?iclfan2;949177 wrote:This. Guess what there are haves and have nots. Get over it. If your pissed about it, do something. It's only unfair because they don't "have" it. -
gut
The big lie being perpetrated is that taxing the rich more is somehow going to magically close the $1.4T deficit.jhay78;948274 wrote:Reps- very well said.
I hear this all the time with politicians calling for the rich to "give back" a little more via taxes, as if their wealth originally came solely as the result of government benevolence in the first place. -
majorspark
The 10% thinks their 12" penis is too small.dwccrew;949206 wrote:This. I mean, I have a 12 inch penis. Some men only have 4 or 5 inches. Does this mean I should have to give a few of my inches away? -
Glory Days
that means the women you bang are in the 1% hahahahadwccrew;949206 wrote:This. I mean, I have a 12 inch penis. Some men only have 4 or 5 inches. Does this mean I should have to give a few of my inches away? -
Belly35
67% of America are lazy, entitlement mofo
I have earned my right to be wealthy, others have earned their right to be poor and all those in the middle want to be wealthy they just don't want to take the risk. :laugh: -
I Wear PantsYes, everyone that isn't rich is either a lazy worthless person or someone afraid to take risks.
You guys are insane. -
Con_Alma
The other side of this is important.I Wear Pants;953109 wrote:Yes, everyone that isn't rich is either a lazy worthless person or someone afraid to take risks.
....
Just because someone has a great work ethic and is willing to take risks doesn't mean they should with certainty be rich. -
I Wear Pants
That's what I was getting at. Belly was making it out that the only reason people aren't rich or don't have jobs is because they're lazy/afraid of risk/entitled. This is untrue.Con_Alma;953113 wrote:The other side of this is important.
Just because someone has a great work ethic and is willing to take risks doesn't mean they should with certainty be rich. -
Glory Days
as long as you acknowledge not everyone who is rich isnt born into and trying to destroy the common man haha.I Wear Pants;953109 wrote:Yes, everyone that isn't rich is either a lazy worthless person or someone afraid to take risks.
You guys are insane. -
I Wear Pants
That's absolutely true. I'd say that applies to a majority of wealthy people. Nothing wrong with being wealthy and most wealthy are perfectly hard working/talented individuals. In all probability they had things that helped them get there (whether it be wealthy parents or something else) but that doesn't mean that growing their wealth didn't take talent and work.Glory Days;953289 wrote:as long as you acknowledge not everyone who is rich isnt born into and trying to destroy the common man haha.
You and I may disagree on points of how much is an appropriate tax on wealthy people and things of that matter but do not think that I wish to punish people for being wealthy. I don't. -
BoatShoes68% of Millionaires think taxes should be raised on millionaires.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/
40% of Republicans want to raise taxes on millionaires. That's not a majority but I imagine it suggests that a slim majority at best supports eliminating their taxes to zero as under the Rick Perry plan, the Paul Ryan plan, etc.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20114988-503544.html -
ohiotiger33
Wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Just because one person has wealth, doesn't mean it deprives another of wealth. Until people realize this, they will always complain about the gap. -
BGFalcons82
So what?BoatShoes;956566 wrote:68% of Millionaires think taxes should be raised on millionaires.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/
40% of Republicans want to raise taxes on millionaires. That's not a majority but I imagine it suggests that a slim majority at best supports eliminating their taxes to zero as under the Rick Perry plan, the Paul Ryan plan, etc.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20114988-503544.html
What does this do for the budget shortfall? What does it do for the national debt? What's next after further wealth redistribution? Huh?
Go ahead, raise their taxes. I'm sure Barry can find a way without Congressional approval. He can assassinate anyone anywhere anytime with his drones, what's keeping him from stealing, too?
The truth is that this is a parlor trick to get taxes raised without cutting any spending. Comrade Coleman did the same thing a couple years ago here in C-bus. Instead of using "jobs" as his political KY Jelly, he used the police and fireman unions to convey how the town would be Beirut-West without a 25% income tax increase. Kinda like Issue 2....but I digress. -
tk421
It won't do anything for the deficit and Barry knows it. You aren't going to squeeze 1.5T dollars from the rich. At best they get another 40-50 billion a year. Chump change when compared to the out of control spending. I also wonder, once the taxes are raised on the rich and the deficit doesn't go down, who is next to be called evil? Who do they go after then? -
gut
I think they can squeeze more like $300B from the wealthy (incl. corporations). Then maybe the economy recovers and people go back to work and that brings in another $400-$500B. They make a few piddly cuts and suddenly the deficit is reduced $1T. Nevermind the deficit will still be @ $500B, look at how Obama reduced the problem (one he largely helped create)!tk421;956689 wrote:It won't do anything for the deficit and Barry knows it. You aren't going to squeeze 1.5T dollars from the rich. At best they get another 40-50 billion a year. Chump change when compared to the out of control spending. I also wonder, once the taxes are raised on the rich and the deficit doesn't go down, who is next to be called evil? Who do they go after then?
I still remember being shocked and disgusted the first time Bush ran past $400B, and now that's a number that seems like "close enough". I mean, yeah, -$400B sounds pretty good in comparison to -$1.4T! -
Glory Days
God and the rest of Heaven. how dare they get by without paying taxes to the USA!tk421;956689 wrote:It won't do anything for the deficit and Barry knows it. You aren't going to squeeze 1.5T dollars from the rich. At best they get another 40-50 billion a year. Chump change when compared to the out of control spending. I also wonder, once the taxes are raised on the rich and the deficit doesn't go down, who is next to be called evil? Who do they go after then? -
BoatShoes
Well like I've showed you before the CBO disagrees with you. If Congress does Nothing, the Budget would be balanced by 2015 because....tk421;956689 wrote:It won't do anything for the deficit and Barry knows it. You aren't going to squeeze 1.5T dollars from the rich. At best they get another 40-50 billion a year. Chump change when compared to the out of control spending. I also wonder, once the taxes are raised on the rich and the deficit doesn't go down, who is next to be called evil? Who do they go after then?
"the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP. Revenues would reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II."
We've had the discussion on here before about how Tax Revenues historically average around 18.6%. The CBO projects that the new health care taxes along with the Alternative Minimum Tax reaching lower incomes (remember if Congress did nothing), that tax revenues would rise to 23%. Those tax provisions would make a difference.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12212
As far as the long term budget picture goes, social security would be solvent for the next 75 years (as long as its been around thus far) if we removed the cap on earnings.
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
And, 67% of Americans think this is a good idea.
Bottom line is the Democrats have put forward $3 trillion for deficit reduction in the super committee and the Republicans have balked. We know the ways that will reduce the deficit and have the least effect on economic growth. But in reality Republicans by and large don't seem to really care about the deficit. They just use it as a tool to try and dismantle government. -
Cleveland Buck
That's never happened in the history of our country, but it will happen now because the CBO says so. Got it.BoatShoes;956813 wrote: "the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP. Revenues would reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II." -
tk421
And I think you and the CBO are full of crap. If Congress does NOTHING, the budget is going to balance itself. Yeah, right. You are living in a liberal fantasy land. By Obama's own budget numbers, the deficit remains over 700+ billion past 2021. Stop being such a liberal apologist and take your head out of your ass, you can't possibly believe what you just typed.BoatShoes;956813 wrote:Well like I've showed you before the CBO disagrees with you. If Congress does Nothing, the Budget would be balanced by 2015 because....
"the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP. Revenues would reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II."
We've had the discussion on here before about how Tax Revenues historically average around 18.6%. The CBO projects that the new health care taxes along with the Alternative Minimum Tax reaching lower incomes (remember if Congress did nothing), that tax revenues would rise to 23%. Those tax provisions would make a difference.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12212
As far as the long term budget picture goes, social security would be solvent for the next 75 years (as long as its been around thus far) if we removed the cap on earnings.
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
And, 67% of Americans think this is a good idea.
Bottom line is the Democrats have put forward $3 trillion for deficit reduction in the super committee and the Republicans have balked. We know the ways that will reduce the deficit and have the least effect on economic growth. But in reality Republicans by and large don't seem to really care about the deficit. They just use it as a tool to try and dismantle government.
As for SS, yes let's remove the cap on earnings but keep the cap on benefits, that way the rich can keep on paying more and more for the poor and not get their benefits back. Why don't you just call that what it is, stealing? You want the rich to pay more for SS, but not receive 100% of their money back in benefits. -
tk421
Yes, it's amazing isn't it. Even through 2 world wars, the revenue has never been so high but Obama is going to make it happen. hahahahahahah, that's fucking hilarious.Cleveland Buck;956829 wrote:That's never happened in the history of our country, but it will happen now because the CBO says so. Got it. -
tk421
The White House budget for 2012, Obama's very own numbers, put receipts as % of GDP never going higher than 20%, and that's still higher than the historical average.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
You are a fool, plain and simple if you believe that crap about the CBO and the budget balancing itself. I have a better chance of turning into a woman, growing wings and flying to Mars to start another human civilization than that has a chance of happening. -
Cleveland Buck
In 1920-21 the economy crashed after the inflation of WWI. The government cut spending in half. What a bunch of buffoons, am I right? The economy never recovered. Oh wait, it recovered after a year correction. Sorry.BoatShoes;956813 wrote: Bottom line is the Democrats have put forward $3 trillion for deficit reduction in the super committee and the Republicans have balked. We know the ways that will reduce the deficit and have the least effect on economic growth. But in reality Republicans by and large don't seem to really care about the deficit. They just use it as a tool to try and dismantle government.
After World War II we had 10 million troops coming home. The market could never hope to absorb all of that labor. We were destined to have a severe recession without huge government stimulus. Oh wait, spending was cut by 60% and the economy boomed.
Your professors are wrong. Spending cuts free the economy. They do not restrict it. The government needs to be dismantled. -
BGFalcons82
I'm confused. If nothing is done, the budget magically balances in 4 years? So, as long as the Bush tax cuts of 2002-03 expire, then all will balance out and their will be great rejoicing. No cuts necessary. No other tax raises necessary. All because the CBO says so. Wow. What are all the arguments about anyways, eh?BoatShoes;956813 wrote:Well like I've showed you before the CBO disagrees with you. If Congress does Nothing, the Budget would be balanced by 2015 because....
"the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP. Revenues would reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II."
We've had the discussion on here before about how Tax Revenues historically average around 18.6%. The CBO projects that the new health care taxes along with the Alternative Minimum Tax reaching lower incomes (remember if Congress did nothing), that tax revenues would rise to 23%. Those tax provisions would make a difference.
The AMT is the salve for all that ails us, eh? The tax, originally set up to catch a few hundred evil rotten fat cats in the early 70's which would now ensnare tens of millions of taxpayers because the Congress decided not to index it to inflation. According to the CBO and yourself, Americans earning more than $100,000 will gladly pony up the AMT cash, they won't change their spending/living habits one smidgen, and there will be a glut of money flowing into tax-cheat Geithner's hands. Typical liberal tax and spend theology.
I suppose the fact that this heinous money-grab has been patched year after year due to its hideous nature and outright revolt from the taxpaying Americans means nothing now. No more patches, eh? Shut up and take it...right? Obama's millionaires are now people with adjusted gross incomes over $100,000. Welcome to Amerika, folks. -
fish82
Seriously man...every time I read your stuff I think of Doc Brown sitting behind the keyboard banging away. :laugh:BoatShoes;956813 wrote:Well like I've showed you before the CBO disagrees with you. If Congress does Nothing, the Budget would be balanced by 2015 because....
"the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP. Revenues would reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II."
We've had the discussion on here before about how Tax Revenues historically average around 18.6%. The CBO projects that the new health care taxes along with the Alternative Minimum Tax reaching lower incomes (remember if Congress did nothing), that tax revenues would rise to 23%. Those tax provisions would make a difference.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12212
As far as the long term budget picture goes, social security would be solvent for the next 75 years (as long as its been around thus far) if we removed the cap on earnings.
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
And, 67% of Americans think this is a good idea.
Bottom line is the Democrats have put forward $3 trillion for deficit reduction in the super committee and the Republicans have balked. We know the ways that will reduce the deficit and have the least effect on economic growth. But in reality Republicans by and large don't seem to really care about the deficit. They just use it as a tool to try and dismantle government.