"Fair Share"?

Shrinking income because, let me see, could it be from INFLATION!
What causes inflation.
Government spending more than they take in resulting in printing more and more money by the central bank. Who is hurt the worst by inflation? The people that can least afford the inflationary creep.

Poor people are not kept poor by rich people, they are kept poor by the government. The government blames the rich to insure their voting base. Get them to buy into raising taxes on the rich so the government will appear to be able to spend more and the poor stay poor.

Shrinking income because, let me see, could it be from INFLATION!
What causes inflation.
Government spending more than they take in resulting in printing more and more money by the central bank. Who is hurt the worst by inflation? The people that can least afford the inflationary creep.

Poor people are not kept poor by rich people, they are kept poor by the government. The government blames the rich to insure their voting base. Get them to buy into raising taxes on the rich so the government will appear to be able to spend more and the poor stay poor. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The Republican Period ... number one lecher of the government .... Republican said "THE FBI IS TOO FUCKING STUPID" to defend the country so we "THE REPUBLICAN" create HOMELAND SEC. and ETC... Lecher

Shrinking income because, let me see, could it be from INFLATION!
What causes inflation.
Government spending more than they take in resulting in printing more and more money by the central bank. Who is hurt the worst by inflation? The people that can least afford the inflationary creep.

Poor people are not kept poor by rich people, they are kept poor by the government. The government blames the rich to insure their voting base. Get them to buy into raising taxes on the rich so the government will appear to be able to spend more and the poor stay poor. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

2Dodgs, you forgot that another reason government spend more than it takes in is because taxes are to low, especially on the very wealthy.

What do you propose we start cutting first? Keep in mind that SS and Medicare are paid in full at present. The other large outlay is Defense. So where do you start cutting. PBS? Chicken feed. Medical research? Let us know where these huge cuts are going to come from.

Poor people are not kept poor by rich people, Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Nobody said they were.

they are kept poor by the government.

If by "kept poor by the government" you mean "kept poor by the demands of capitalism", then yeah, they're kept poor by the government.

Do you shop at Walmart?

Republicans, Democrats, the left says the right is worse, the right says the left is worse.
The fact remains that government has become to big to survive in the manner and fashion that it has become.
The idea that we cannot cut spending here or cant cut spending there is what keeps us in the death spiral.
The problem has become the government regardless of which party is in control. It is time to step up and stop the growth of government, stop the spending, and restore the nation to prosperity.

The only branch of the military that is authorized by the Constitution and required to be maintained is the Navy. In fact, understanding that a standing army would be impossible to finance long term, funding was limited to no more than two years. The citizenry was expected to be armed to defend the nation until an army could be mustered. With that, read the 2nd amendment and understand why it is there.

What i do at home is make sure my needs are paid for, and then i worry about my wants.

The country has specific needs that should/need to be met. We can argue what rises to that level and what doesn't. That's a fair argument.

But what the country wants is low taxes.

Our problem is we put too much emphasis on our wants, while neglecting our needs. Originally Posted by Doove

Worst case scenario. It's just as likely the business owner will hire someone to cover the hours she doesn't want to work. Particularly where not doing so will accomplish nothing but shooting herself in the foot given the lost income. Originally Posted by Doove

Why is it just as likely? The store owner takes on extra costs for the new employee that she would not have to pay for herself. She has to pay the employee wages, payroll taxes, SS and Medicare, and possibly other benefits. All or nearly all of that money would have gone directly into the store owners pockets if she kept working 50 or 60 hours a week. And THEN, she still has to pay the higher (60%?) income tax on what is left over.

You are essentially arguing that if we raise income tax rates at the top level, we will increase employment. If that was true, we would long ago have raised the top marginal rate to 90% and we would have 100% employment. But that hasn't happened, has it?

If what you are saying was true, then communism would have worked.

If what you are saying was true, then the high-tax countries of Europe would have lower unemployment rates than we do. But they don't. In fact their unemployment rates are typically twice our rates.

France tried to do what you are saying more directly. They passed a law mandating a MAXIMUM 35 hour work week. I work with some French professionals that frequently have to exit teleconferences because it is the end of the day and the French government actually checks parking lots to see who is working late. The idiotic theory was that if you stopped everyone from working more that 35 hours, they would simple shift the hours over that amount to the unemployed. It clearly hasn't happened.

So, no, you can't just fill the gap.

Or we get more stores. Originally Posted by Doove

Really? Where do you get the start up money for all the new stores?

Because the proposed higher tax rates are on all income, including investment income.

And if investors are paying higher taxes on the money they loan out, they are less likely to invest it in anything except the very safest of investments. If capital gains tax is, say, 40%, you will get much less investment than if it was 20%. You still incur the same risk with respect to losing your money, but your reward just got drastically reduced.

Look as it this way. Let's say you have money invested already. Somebody wants to borrow $500K to open a small store. If the cap gains is 20%, you have to sell $625K of your assets, pay the 20% capital gains tax ($125K), and then lend the remaining $500K. So, you have to make at least a 25% return ($125K) on the $500K just to get back to even (at $625K). Only after that point will you be making money.

Now change the tax rate to 40%. Now you have to sell $833K in assets, pay the 40% capital gains, ($333K), and then led the remaining $500K. Now you have to make a 66.6% return on the $500K just to get back to even. But your risk of losing your money is just as high.

The higher you raise capital gains taxes, the less attractive investing becomes. So people do less of it and you get less economic growth.

There is a reason why capital gains taxes are lower than incomes taxes. Generally, you have no choice but to work (and pay income taxes). But you always have a choice not to invest.

It is inarguable that people and businesses modify their behavior and choices in response to tax policies. It is often described as "dynamic scoring" and the government too often ignores it when dreaming up pie-in-the-sky tax revenues schemes.

Go ahead and argue all you want about how much the "rich" should pay. Until spending is under control, we will not have solved the problem. Go ahead. Do the math. Tax all income over $250k at 100%. You won't cover the federal budget for ONE YEAR! Then try it again in Year 2. There won't be the income to tax, and we are worse off than before. We have to get away from the income tax because the class warfare bullshit keeps us from addressing the real issue - SPENDING!

You could take everything the so called "w3ealthy" has and or earns and it wont make a dent in the deficit. Once you take it all then who do you take it from to continue the spending.
If it is as you say, that taxes are not high enough, then taxes should be higher for ALL of us.

A better solution is to overhaul the government and live within our means. This may include all aspects including military and entitlements.

How about the republican solution of cut taxes and borrow.It is what we have done since the start of the republic.

It is so fu*cking hilarious how you teawipes trot out every historical non sequiter under the sun to "make your case."

Let's do away with the standing army and have everyone be in the National Guard (for free, btw). Idiots.

Yep, taxing the very wealthy won't make a dent in the primary cause of the budget deficit which is created by the hugest drain - "defense" spending. Since the DOD budget is approximately 1/3 of the overall budget, I could live with eliminating every discretionary program if the DOD kicks in 33.3 times that amount in cuts to their budget in addition to having all of the money for a standing army cut as well.

Hmmmm, looks like the Marine Corps is going to get a lot bigger...heh heh heh.

It's cool too, that there will be all of those military bases available for startup businesses. I bet the rent will be really cheap.

Saw CNN's Piers Morgan last night. What an unadulterated Dem stooge. Would not give up on raising taxes on the top earners even if modifying deductions on top earners produced the same tax revenue.

BTW, Obama was retained in office to keep the flow of reparations coming.

Obama was retained in office to keep the flow of reparations coming. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Turdfly, Obama won! You lost!

Get over it!

HILLARY 2016!

Go ahead and argue all you want about how much the "rich" should pay. Until spending is under control, we will not have solved the problem. Go ahead. Do the math. Tax all income over $250k at 100%. You won't cover the federal budget for ONE YEAR! Then try it again in Year 2. There won't be the income to tax, and we are worse off than before. We have to get away from the income tax because the class warfare bullshit keeps us from addressing the real issue - SPENDING! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What would you cur?

Then with the present form of government we have, what do you think can be cut.

I have said that our current form of government is the problem.

Each congressman wants pork for his district and then cries about government spending.

But most folks on here only praise our form of government. I think it is past it's prime.

It is so fu*cking hilarious how you teawipes trot out every historical non sequiter under the sun to "make your case."

Yep, taxing the very wealthy won't make a dent in the primary cause of the budget deficit which is created by the hugest drain - "defense" spending. Since the DOD budget is approximately 1/3 of the overall budget, I could live with eliminating every discretionary program if the DOD kicks in 33.3 times that amount in cuts to their budget in addition to having all of the money for a standing army cut as well. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Historical? How about 2013

Just for reference, here is the proposal for FY2013 DoD budget

1. FY 2013 BUDGET SUMMARY
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 President’s Budget develops a defense strategy to transition from emphasis on today’s wars to preparing for future challenges; protects the broad range of U.S. national security interests; advances the Department’s efforts to rebalance and reform; and supports the national security imperative of deficit reduction through reduced defense spending.

The FY 2013 Base Budget provides $525.4 billion, a reduction of $5.2 billion from the FY 2012 enacted level http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbu...rview_Book.pdf

They could only find $5.2B to cut? Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Apparently the Obama administration does not see that those huge DoD cuts are needed. They are are only proposing to cut approx 1% for FY2013. If its such a huge black hole, you would think they would be cutting the shit out of "defense".