No. Spending tens of trillions of borrowed dollars to ruin our economy is much, much worse than doing nothing.
|
No. Spending tens of trillions of borrowed dollars to ruin our economy is much, much worse than doing nothing.
I think an idea needs congressional approval before any money can be spent, and I'm not seeing that happen. How much does your idea costs?
I don't have an idea. I haven't heard of anything that gives me much cause for hope. Nuke plants are the only solution that I know of, but that's not going to happen because of fear. Wind and solar are pipe dreams. Natural gas will help some. Perhaps there is some hope for hydrogen, but that would be enormously expensive up front and has a boatload of problems associated with it. I just don't have a good answer, but I do know a completely stupid one when it shows up, and the Green New Deal is likely the worst I have ever seen.Quote:
How much does your idea costs?
No worse than thinking you will build new nuclear plants in a year or two. The new green deal is actually being tried in a few places already to some degree, or another, and has a better chance of paying for itself than those rich guy tax cuts. I guess any idea about anything can be stupid to some body or other. It's not like we haven't screwed up trillions before on stupid ideas or even good ideas that were done badly.
It has absolutely, positively no chance whatsoever of paying for itself. None at all. It is projected to cost tens of trillions of dollars and will result in less reliable electricity at a much higher price.Quote:
The new green deal is actually being tried in a few places already to some degree, or another, and has a better chance of paying for itself than those rich guy tax cuts.
When have we spent trillions on stupid ideas? I guess you could throw in the Great Society programs, but other than that I have no idea what you could be referring to.Quote:
It's not like we haven't screwed up trillions before on stupid ideas or even good ideas that were done badly.
I have already specified that deficit funded 1.2 trillion dollar rich guy give away that hasn't paid for itself. Can't believe you would do away with the "Great Society" programs!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"Unlike the old New Deal, which was a response to a severe financial and economic calamity, the Great Society initiatives came during a period of rapid economic growth. Kennedy proposed an across-the-board tax cut lowering the top marginal income tax rate in the United States by 20%, from 91% to 71%, which was enacted in February 1964, three months after Kennedy's assassination, under Johnson. The tax cut also significantly reduced marginal rates in the lower brackets as well as for corporations. Thegross national productrose 10% in the first year of the tax cut, and economic growth averaged a rate of 4.5% from 1961 to 1968.[4]"
That's right up conservatives alley, so it must be the social programs you object to, which benefitted the aged, the poor, and minorities.
How do you know that? Reagan did the same thing. Kennedy did the same thing. In both cases it was given widespread credit (even in your post) for reviving the economy and tax revenues climbed, just like they are doing now. And as I've asked you before, when the bottom 80% of income earners only pay about 15% of income taxes, and when the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, then how do you give those people any really meaningful tax relief?Quote:
I have already specified that deficit funded 1.2 trillion dollar rich guy give away that hasn't paid for itself.
As for the New Deal programs, that cost was a drop in the bucket compared to the absolutely impossible bill for the Green New Deal.
Hope you had a wonderful Christmas.
My holiday ends on the 2nd of January, and it's been great so far, sincerely hope the same to you, and yours. Rreagan at least had the flexibility to raise taxes to mitigate some spending and yes I have always given him credit fr it. Those people as you call them are Americans who actually spend whatever they have in the real economy and contribute payroll taxes. More money in there pockets with a living wage circulates more money into the economy. A simple concept as opposed to rich guy's hoarding huge chunks of money and building their own wealth. Taxation is but part of the economic revenue stream and while rich guys have added to their wealth middle classers and the poor cannot perpetrating wage inequality, and wage stagnation neither of which helps the economy, or solve the circulation problem.
Just increasing tax revenues is, but a small part of the equation, and does nothing to pay on the debt, build and upgrade bridges roads and schools or give us clean air water and soil, or help a citizen pay his heating bill, or cure his cancer. Yes we have a bunch of data for that and a lot that says other things must also go into cutting taxes for anybody as outlined by Roosevelt and Johnson which Bush and the dufus didn't emulate.
I know it's tedious, but since you gave a non-answer, I'll ask it again. "And as I've asked you before, when the bottom 80% of income earners only pay about 15% of income taxes, and when the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, then how do you give those people any really meaningful tax relief?"Quote:
Those people as you call them are Americans who actually spend whatever they have in the real economy and contribute payroll taxes. More money in there pockets with a living wage circulates more money into the economy. A simple concept as opposed to rich guy's hoarding huge chunks of money and building their own wealth.
A small part of the equation? What's the rest of the equation?Quote:
Just increasing tax revenues is, but a small part of the equation, and does nothing to pay on the debt, build and upgrade bridges roads and schools or give us clean air water and soil, or help a citizen pay his heating bill, or cure his cancer.
Start with a living wage. Most states are getting it, and doing just that. A business that cannot afford to pay it's workers a living wage should NOT be in business and certainly not be rewarded with riches, and tax breaks. LOL big biz wasn't paying the old tax rates which were to high and now will only pay half the new tax rates. I posted a link before about the biggest and richest corporations not even paying their lawful share of the tax burden but of course you ignored that FACT!
It is true that many states have raised the minimum wage. It is not true that they have raised it to "a living wage". Many of them are going to 8 or 9 dollars an hour which is not exactly a "get rich" level.Quote:
Start with a living wage. Most states are getting it, and doing just that. A business that cannot afford to pay it's workers a living wage should NOT be in business and certainly not be rewarded with riches, and tax breaks. LOL big biz wasn't paying the old tax rates which were to high and now will only pay half the new tax rates. I posted a link before about the biggest and richest corporations not even paying their lawful share of the tax burden but of course you ignored that FACT!
I did respond to your "lawful share of the tax burden" link. I proposed a flat tax. You nearly fell over in a dead faint at the suggestion because, like all true liberals, you feared that YOUR taxes might go up.
Dead faint and fear of higher taxes is an exaggeration, but agree 8/9 bucks an hour is hardly a get rich quick wage, but it's a start to a more living wage standard that another raise follows in a year or two to get to the 12/15 minumum eventually in a shorter time than was set before which has been stuck on pure poverty for decades. Not for a flat tax at all as it's completely unfair without closing a lot of loopholes and eliminating deductions and benefits and makes little sense to those that live in states with state taxes. Let's not forget those states that already pay less to the government than they receive back. Maybe we should raise taxes on those states to make it more equal or fair to states that pay in more than they get back. As you say though how does one who pays so little deserve a tax break at all and address that to the mirror before you answer.
Doesn't change or address the FACT that few rich people and corporations don't pay the previous or current tax rates anyway, so even that claim is an exaggeration if not a borderline LIE to begin with. The very notion that rich and poor pay the same rate is stupid, as well as unfair, but a long time scheme of greedy conservatives with no regard to fair. The dufus and Romney have openly bragged about paying the same rates as the people who work for them and earn markedly less wage, and obviously can afford to pay people to make that a reality. They can even afford to buy the official YOU elect to act in their best interest over YOUR best interest so we get not public servants but private ones.
That explains why you are so gung ho about a lying cheating stealing dufus as POTUS! Keep holding your nose so it doesn't fall off your face.
That's kind of the definition of a flat tax. Everyone would get a personal deduction to start with. If it's 30K for a family of four, then they would pay taxes on the part above thirty thousand. As to those states with state income taxes (like Mississippi), they are already paying both fed and state taxes anyway, so that part of the deal would not change.Quote:
Not for a flat tax at all as it's completely unfair without closing a lot of loopholes and eliminating deductions and benefits and makes little sense to those that live in states with state taxes.
No one ever said they pay the tax rate. That only applies to taxable income, a concept which the flat tax would do away with. What you don't want to face is the FACT that the wealthy already pay nearly all of the fed income taxes in this country.Quote:
Doesn't change or address the FACT that few rich people and corporations don't pay the previous or current tax rates anyway, so even that claim is an exaggeration if not a borderline LIE to begin with. The very notion that rich and poor pay the same rate is stupid, as well as unfair, but a long time scheme of greedy conservatives with no regard to fair.
That's fair they pay their share since they have all the wealth and make all the money. About that flat tax though, does a rich guy have that same rate above $30K? Does he have the same personal deductions?
You are thoroughly wrong on both counts. Not even close.Quote:
they have all the wealth and make all the money
Let's suppose a family of four makes 50K, so they would pay taxes on 20K. If we suppose the flat tax is 20%, then they would pay 4K, which is about 8% of their income. A person making one mil a year would basically pay about 200K, meaning he is paying 20%, or 2.5 times more percentage wise than the lower income person. Sounds fair to me.Quote:
That's fair they pay their share since they have all the wealth and make all the money. About that flat tax though, does a rich guy have that same rate above $30K? Does he have the same personal deductions?
Yes a person having twenty times the income has greater advantage from the economy and should contribute more however in such a system tax revenues would be insufficient and government would need to be shrunk you can have no thought of deductions and loopholesQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That has always been the right wing dream Clete, to shrink the government small enough to drown it in a bath tub so they can do as they please with impunity. You should read up on Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. While they have left the spotlight they are behind the scenes bundling the big money. What you thought the loony right was smart enough to elect the dufus on his own? Between Vlad and the dark money he had plenty of help.
And you really think the rich guys will stand for you closing their loopholes, havens and shelters for their wealth? What a fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Those rich guys presently pay 85% of fed income taxes, so they must not be very good at coming up with a tax plan that benefits them. And you should remember that when I first suggested a flat tax, it was YOU who nearly passed out at the very thought that YOUR taxes might go up. So if you get to try and make your taxes lower, why can't they as well?Quote:
And you really think the rich guys will stand for you closing their loopholes, havens and shelters for their wealth? What a fantasy.
LOL, are you kidding me? Paying taxes on half(?) their money, is a tribute to their power even if it is 85% of tax revenues collected. Nobody really knows the kind of money hidden offshore or even exempted from taxation. FACT remains most corporations don't pay taxes at all, and get money back from the IRS. No wonder a snake oil salesman can hustle you out of your hard earned money. Your position is inaccurate and repeating it won't change that.
When they start building roads and bridges and schools you can talk to me. Until then you need a more accurate rap BRUDDER!
Do you have any documentation on any of that (especially the underlined part), or is that just what you think might be true? And you didn't answer the question. If it is OK for you to protest against paying more in taxes, why isn't it alright for them?Quote:
LOL, are you kidding me? Paying taxes on half(?) their money, is a tribute to their power even if it is 85% of tax revenues collected. Nobody really knows the kind of money hidden offshore or even exempted from taxation. FACT remains most corporations don't pay taxes at all, and get money back from the IRS.
Look it up and correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think you have ever heard me complain about MY taxes going up, though I have complained about the dufus putting taxpayer dollars in his pocket when he visits his businesses. Big Biz has always complained about taxes and paying labor costs while they make profits up the butt.
That's why we can talk AFTER they have built roads, schools, bridges, and cleaned up their messes themselves. Fair enough? I mean you wanted single woman and lazy poor people to be held to account so you would think you would feel the same about Big Biz.
Am I wrong?
In other words, you have no documentation and have simply made it all up.Quote:
Look it up and correct me if I'm wrong.
You mean you don't have roads, schools, and bridges in Texas??? No wonder you are complaining so much. Move over here. We already have all of those things.Quote:
That's why we can talk AFTER they have built roads, schools, bridges, and cleaned up their messes themselves. Fair enough?
Always want me to do your work for you huh. Not this time since I have already provided links from a previous conversation on the subject so that makes it your turn unless you admit to alzhiemers or something. That I could understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Naw, but I'll compare your part of I20 to ours anytime, that goes for schools and bridges too. You know better than to mess with Texas.Quote:
You mean you don't have roads, schools, and bridges in Texas??? No wonder you are complaining so much. Move over here. We already have all of those things.
Since you are the one who made the completely ridiculous statement, then it's up to you to back it up. If you don't understand that, then maybe you're the one dealing with Alzheimers.Quote:
Always want me to do your work for you huh. Not this time since I have already provided links from a previous conversation on the subject so that makes it your turn unless you admit to alzhiemers or something. That I could understand.
So you do have schools, roads, and bridges? Then why did you say you didn't? Are you confused tonight? Mess with Texas? That made me laugh. No one is Mississippi is worried about what Texas does.Quote:
Naw, but I'll compare your part of I20 to ours anytime, that goes for schools and bridges too. You know better than to mess with Texas.
Not this time since I have already provided links from a previous conversation on the subject so that makes it your turn unless you admit to alzhiemers or something.
Just trying to help guy, Ms could use the help.
Then you should have no problem in locating them. At any rate, big biz and wealthy people are doing just what you and I do. They are trying to minimize what they have to pay in taxes. A flat tax would solve much of the problem.Quote:
Not this time since I have already provided links from a previous conversation on the subject so that makes it your turn unless you admit to alzhiemers or something.
I've been hearing that for years JL, from your side.
Ok Jl, taxes are levied on net profit, which is what is left over after expenses and various writeoffs, but if you wanted to have a fair system you would have to tax gross income with no deductions, this stops tax avoidance. So what do you consider a fair rate, 10% perhaps, remembering that whatever it is business will attempt to have others pay by increasing prices
You and I don't have lawyers and accountants and lobbyist writing laws making deductions, or showing us tax shelters, and havens, nor the disposable income to buy elected officials favor and donate to their campaigns. Maybe you do but I don't. Is it even reasonable to expect rich guys to stop their loopholes, deductions, and tax shelters if they haven't so far under any taxing scheme? Where do you even get a congress that could make them?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It might be something to consider. For me, I wouldn't tax corporations at all. The best approach is to tax the dividends paid out by corporations.Quote:
if you wanted to have a fair system you would have to tax gross income with no deductions, this stops tax avoidance.
We use a CPA to do our taxes and I would suggest everyone do it. Costs a couple hundred bucks but well worth it. As to a flat tax, it could begin by the two of us agreeing it should happen, but you are too fearful it might cause your taxes to go up.Quote:
You and I don't have lawyers and accountants and lobbyist writing laws making deductions, or showing us tax shelters, and havens, nor the disposable income to buy elected officials favor and donate to their campaigns. Maybe you do but I don't. Is it even reasonable to expect rich guys to stop their loopholes, deductions, and tax shelters if they haven't so far under any taxing scheme? Where do you even get a congress that could make them?
If it feeds and educates poor kids, and builds, schools, roads, and bridges I have no objection to taxes going up, even if they were in poor states like yours that take more from the feds than they give. I worry a lot more about the price of necessary stuff like gas, lights, and MEDS way more than taxes to be honest.
That's more your thing than mine.
Yes Tal when you don't pay them they are not a concern
Try reading with no gas, lights, or internet in the middle of a cold winter. Concern is an understatement.
You have to have internet to be able to read???
The internet does expand the reading options quite well, as well as gives me more flexibility and convenience. It's as necessary as a phone for communicating with my peeps since kids and Gkids cousins and FRIENDS are in different cities, states, and countries.
I get your point. It is certainly nice to have, but it is hardly a necessity. Same thing goes for cell phones. In fact, they can both end up as negatives. Now lights and heat are a different matter.Quote:
The internet does expand the reading options quite well, as well as gives me more flexibility and convenience. It's as necessary as a phone for communicating with my peeps since kids and Gkids cousins and FRIENDS are in different cities, states, and countries.
One mans luxury can be anothers necessity sometimes but I get your point, as it's hilarious to see devices stuck to so many peoples faces.
I don't think it is a joke it is pathetic
Let the kids enjoy their new toy, before they get exiled to Mars next year.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:47 AM. |