The american people.... that phrase is way over used by the tea party

 

Blue3expy, tell me EXACTLY why you think the rich should 'pay a little more'?

What are the positives and what are the negatives? I want to see if you really know what you are talking about.

 

First off, what exactly do you think the "tea party" is? Who are "they"? What are "their views"? I don't know of any "tea party". I do however consider myself part of the Tea Party movement. There are many in my area who I know who also consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement. I don't share all of my views with them either. There are some fundemental principals that bind millions of Americnas together to form this movement. I belong to a movement, not a party, that want's no more than to honor the work and sacrifice that generations of our families gave so that we can live in the greatest country. There is a system in place. We don't need to change our Constitution. We need to change our attitudes, and be more like the people who built all that we enjoy today.

You know, like Romneycare, if you don't like what a big corporation, or a rich person is doing at your expense, you can refuse to spend your money on their goods or services. If you don't like GE because they cashed in on the ObamaBucks, don't buy their stuff. Don't use thier services. If you don't like BP because they spill oil, kill people and damage the environment, by fuel from Exxon. I don't like the Home Depot. I'm a tradesman and can see first hand that they are ripping off Joe homeowner with all of the cheap crap they sell. I can't completely avoid using thier store, but I try to go elsewhere instead.

If the federal government imposes taxes and you don't like how they spend them, what can you do? Nothing. If you don't like Obamacare what can you do? If you don't follow the orders from the government you will pay a fine, or tax. I'm not sure what they are calling it today. If you don't like that the federal government enslaves people by keeping them dependent on tax payer funded programs, you can do nothing. You are powerless, except for at the ballot box. Even there it's an uphill battle. You have union thug groups lying to disparage their "enemies" in the government. These thug groups really do make it look like we live in a democracy. Mob rule. Our founding fathers designed a system that was the rule of law. A representative republic. That is apparently threatening to some who would much rather have mob rule.

Everyone should pay their fair share. How about a flat rate? Someone will always have more money than someone else. It's not up to the government to decide who deserves what. It's up to us.

 

Most Americans are conservative, but you are correct most don't espouse the Tea Party's ideas, or the Republican ideas, or the Democrat's ideas, or the Communist party's ideas. No one side includes most of America, which is why the political center is so important.

The huge company doesn't pay taxes on that money, but the recipients of the money do. So what is the problem?

When I first started working full time I made $10k per year (and no this wasn't that long ago). I felt if I could make $20k per year I would be rich and for my standard of living I would have had more money than I knew what to do with. I could have easily afforded to pay more taxes. The problem is when you get a pay increase you typically get an expense increase. The other part is there comes a point when there is no incentive to make more money. The extra amount of effort to make the more money isn't worth the after tax return. I work with several people who already feel this. Our pay is right at the top of a tax bracket. If we work too much O/T we go into the next bracket. Everyone of us monitors how much O/T we get so we don't step over the line.


Mitt is a Neo-Con, which have more in common with the Democrats than old school Republicans. Bush was a Neo-Con also, why do you think Obama kept most of Bush's appointees?

 

If it is true that "most" Americans do not share the groups views, that does not mean the target voter ( of the group ) is not in a single caste, tax bracket or demographic of the population. It could be only 5% of the ranks of each tax bracket share the views of the Tea party, which means they are trying not to leave anyone out, or at least try to address all of the voting population. If nothing else, they are trying to convey to all voting groups that they are wanting to address them, not be a polarized group that only caters to business or unions ( as a generic party line ).
Congratulations the media is succeeding in polarizing you against a group for the audience they are trying to reach. Not that the information contained in the message is wrong, just who they are addressing.

GE had a gross revenue decline of 18% in 2010, the made less in 2010 than in 2009, think this might have an impact on the taxes they pay ?
The media is leading you to infer that they make tons of money as a company, and pay nothing in terms bordering on illegal.
The company as a whole lost money ( as in paid out more than they made / no income ).

Don't miss the fact that the media is calculating effective US tax rate by taking world wide profits against the amount of US Federal taxes collected.
This means profits that were earned in other countries ( and paid taxes in that country ) are being counted against only the US taxes collected to get a percentage.
No mention of the amount of taxes they paid in the other countries.
This is just bad reporting, good thing about numbers, you can make them say anything you want, as long as you do not shine a light on what you are doing with them ( don't show your work ).
The Federal effective tax rate for the middle 20% ( those from 40% to 60% income bracket ) of the tax payers is 18.6%.
The media is presenting the effective tax rate as totaling the income of the world's middle 20% earners and using the amount of tax revenue collected only in the US to give a percentage, which would make the middle 20%'s effective tax rate look like 5.4% not 18.6%. If I did not show my work, and had this same message presented to you from 10 people, you might think it is correct, where it is wrong. Have to look at the information being presented to you, to decide if it is correct, don't take it as fact. The Forbes article passes fact checking, but failed to give the whole story ( only the facts in the story are checked, not that they are being used correctly ).

You think the middle class should pay no taxes on income ? GE had no income, that is why they had a carry over loss.
Just so you know, the top 5% earners of the group "middle class" 2 income tax return has a entry level of $ 166,000/yr or $ 85,000.00 / yr 1 income per tax return. This is the lowest annual income in the top 5% of middle class, it goes higher.

The tax revenues from the bottom ( 0.00 paid in taxes ) to the ~ top of middle class account for ~ 27% of the taxes collected by the federal gov. This covers ~ 80% of the tax payers in the country.

BTW : the "Hand Out" is not a give away, it was a loan, that had interest attached to it. Part of the $ 8B the federal government made in interest on TARP loans so far, was paid by GE. The part of GE that qualified for the loan in GE capitol. Given it was not a Chase sized bank, it still qualified by having a bank ownership. When did following the letter of the law become a bad thing ? Want to know part of the why the profits were down at GE, they had to pay the federal government part of that $ 8B in interest ( and they were also part of the forced loans for the secrete stress tests that everyone got to take, even if they did not participate in TARP funds, forced loans for interest, sounds like a street tax to me ).

Those "rich" people already do pay a little more. That little accounts for 40% of the tax revenues paid to the federal government. This is the top 1% earners in the country, which starts at $ 500,000.00 /yr.
The top 20% of the tax payers in the country account 73% of the tax revenues collected by the feds. Don't even have to be rich ( by your terms ) to pay a little more in taxes. So the $150,000 and up already pay taxes at a higher percentage in effective tax rates, and pay more as a dollar number, and as a group are the bulk of the individual taxes, hope much more should the "rich" pay ? Carter level rates of 73% in taxes ?

And what about this thought ? You make it sound as if just because a specific side made a statement, that it is wrong. Congratulations to the media, the polarization process is working well, you are doing exactly what they want you to do.

 

romneys healthcare plan is a republicans plan, so i dont see how the media wants me to think its not? all im saying is that its going to be hard for mitt romney to ride a republican wave if they want repeal of obamacare because its a modified version of romneys healthcare. romney would probably just scale it back a bit

 

your very reasonalbe, and Idk why obama would keep bush appointed people, but then again im not him lol

 

I did not say the media wants you to think it is not, they want you to think what you are, to continue the polarization of the voting public

You make this sound as if it is a bad thing, just because it came from a republican.

 

positives in my eyes are increased revenue so we can reduce the debt, sorry but the bush tax cuts were made in good times when we had a surplus. Now that we extended the cuts it just put us more into debt and that sucks.

tax rates under clinton were higher and we were doing just fine, Im not sure about the number but I believe that it was 22 million jobs created under him

negatives would be higher prices because it leaves less money to pay people and over paid ceo's so you have to make up for it with charging a higher price for final products.
there might be a decrease in hiring.

My main argument is just that why did they get extended even though were in major debt? when the bush tax cuts first took place we had a SURPLUS! now like I said were in debt. I didnt see a dying economy or stalled hiring during clinton era taxes.

just remember im young and still have to learn more obviously but if were serious about the debt we got to explore every option

 

IM NOT SAYING IT WAS BAD im saying because it was a republicans idea, romneys idea, other republicans might not vote for him if they are against health care reform

 

Just prior to Bush taking office we were in a recession due to the tech bubble bursting. It wasn't called a recession until a few months later when two quarters of negative growth became official. We hadn't even started climbing out of that when 9-11 occurred. That put our economy in a tailspin. That tends to happen when billions of dollars are suddenly taken out of the economy with no warning. Compared to the crash of '08 it was nothing, but compared to the roaring 90's it was bad. If Bush had not lowered taxes the economy would have continued the downward spiral. In fact several years after the cuts the media was complaining of a jobless recovery and that the economy was horrible. The surplus income promised by Clinton was only a projected surplus. There wasn't a real surplus. That surplus disappeared when the tech bubble burst. That tech bubble was also the reason many people were hired in the '90's. The '80's laid the groundwork for computers to hit it big. In the '90's they hit it big and much of the infrastructure we now enjoy was developed and deployed.

 

I understand bushes motives for doing it but what about obamas? It wasnt a good move by obama

 

The 1996 JEC report actually has data to contradict this thought.
The report was made at the time during the Clinton administration, the top end income tax was raised for this very reason.

Actually things were fine in his 2nd term, his 1st term, things were not looking so good. The individual W-2 numbers were not there, like the end of his 2nd term. If you want to look at the data from the 1996 JEC report, and increased tax receipts, could it have been due to the new 22M jobs created, which are not at the top end of the tax brackets that increased tax receipts ?

Are you talking about individual tax rates or corporate tax rates ? I took it to mean individual tax brackets.
For Corp tax brackets, by 2015 CAN wants to be the draw point for corporations, by having one of the lowest corp tax rates in the world. If the US gets bad enough, companies will relocate to CAN for the HQ, which would have the bulk of the tax income leaving with it, only the US operating business units would pay taxes here.
And think of it this way, they can raise the top end corporate taxes to 50%, guess who is going to pay for it in the end ? You and me, a tax on one is a tax on all. Hello and welcome to 1972. We got the oil prices up in a similar range, and you want corp taxes to be jacked up to that, want to see slow growth, this is how to do it.
I can still recall the early 70s, things were not that great, everyone got by but nobody did great, and things were slow. A lot of people did not have phones due to the cost, they used a pay phone if they had to, or walked there and talked to the person. This is in a major metro area.

Sorry, did not have a surplus when the tax cuts were made, that is why they were made. FY2001 ( SEP-00 to OCT-01 ) there was a $133.29 billion deficit.

The 1st full year for the Clinton administration's budget was SEP-93 to OCT-94 ( the FY93 was from GH Bush ) had a deficit of $281.26 billion and in 1994 things were OK, not great, just OK.
Then again GH Bush was on the same program from Ronnie who was in the mode of jump starting the economy, and getting prime from the high teens into the mid/high single digits.
Rate were still on the decline from Carter being in office, and I can recall my passbook saving account paying 7%.
Some retirees are having a crisis now, the 30 year T-bills they have been holding since 1979 / 1980 that were paying 18% APR, are now being reset to 3%. Try making you monthly expenses in retirement when your retirement pay is cut by 66%.

-> Sorry about reading your comment incorrectly, I inferred something that was not there.

 

Debt isn't caused by a drop in revenue. Increasing revenue will not necessarily reduce debt.

Think about it. Say you have a part time job, after school and weekends. They cut your hours because things have slowed. Are you in debt, or further in debt because you aren't bringing as much pay home? Well, it depends on what you spend you money on. If you had been spending a certain amount with the pay that you had been getting, you might not be able to afford the things you were spending your money on. You would have to cut your spending. If you were going out to the mall with your buds every Saturday having Chineese food, your probably going to have to cut that. If you were paying your auto insurance, you might have to take the car off the road and take the bus.

Now, say you have that same part time job. Someone leaves and you get more hours. You get more pay. If you have debt, are you going to pay it off? Perhaps you've been eyeing a new mod for your vehicle. Maybe you've been thinking it's time to upgrade the computer to a faster quad core? Maybe there is this girl you've been thinking about asking out and now you'll have the money to take her out. Even if you have debt, are you really going to use your increase in pay to pay it off quicker? I don't know about you but historicly our government has opted to add spending.

The point is, our government spends too much of our money on things that they should be trimming.

Our founding fathers made it clear what our government was for. Our government is tasked with establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing freedom for all of us and for our future generations.

 

lol its all good, and Im talking about individual tax rates, and still do you think that keeping the bush tax cuts was the right move? even though it adds alot to the debt?