OT: So the debt grows…

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=nocommonsense]It’s this same “thug” logic that the communist countries used to rob the “rich” to give to the “poor”.[/quote]

Most government spending goes toward Social Security and Medicare. There is no means test to receive these – both the rich and poor receive benefits. The basic qualification is simply to have paid into the programs and to be old.

Any increase in the marginal tax rate above $250K won’t go toward these programs anyway. It will go toward the general, discretionary budget.

About half of the discretionary budget goes to defense. Another big chunk goes toward the unemployed (some poor, some not – the qualification is to recently have had a job and lost it.) Much of the rest goes toward roads. Some of it does in fact, go directly to the poor in the form of miscellaneous heath and entitlement programs, but this is a small fraction compared to everything else.

So the vast majority of the the small increase in marginal tax rate under debate here will not go to the “poor.” Money spent on defense goes to pay military salaries and defense contractors. People in the military aren’t poor, and defense contracting is a pretty lucrative business. Highway funds also go to contractors. Like most privately-owned businesses, the majority shareholders tend to be wealthy.

Another important factor is how the economic benefits of government spending are distributed.

Who benefits more from a massive military that protects economic interests around the globe? Is it the CEO of Exxon, or the filling-station attendant?

Who benefits more from the interstate highway system? The CEO of Walmart and his “warehouse on wheels” of semi trucks, or the construction worker who commutes 20 miles/day on the freeway?

Despite what Glenn and Rush may preach in their daily sermons, the economic effects of federal taxes are hardly as simple as “robbing” the rich to pay the poor.

These days, it is more the case that taxes are about robbing the working class to support the interests of the wealthy. Recent economic trends, such as the shift in distribution of wealth from the middle class to the top percentiles, are strong evidence of this.

But don’t stop listening to Glenn – the real thugs have a lot of power, but they still need your help.[/quote]

Fantastic post, pri_dk.

[ocrenter]

the issue at hand is quite simple.

we entered two wars without obtaining proper source of funding. Instead, we decided to cut taxes across the board.

we still have one war continuing on. At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

getting that portion back is perfectly legit. and it is a very valid argument.

but then we immediately get the “hey that’s communist” comment.

this is a classic example of what this country has degenerated to…

[ocrenter]

the issue at hand is quite simple.

we entered two wars without obtaining proper source of funding. Instead, we decided to cut taxes across the board.

we still have one war continuing on. At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

getting that portion back is perfectly legit. and it is a very valid argument.

but then we immediately get the “hey that’s communist” comment.

this is a classic example of what this country has degenerated to…

[ocrenter]

the issue at hand is quite simple.

we entered two wars without obtaining proper source of funding. Instead, we decided to cut taxes across the board.

we still have one war continuing on. At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

getting that portion back is perfectly legit. and it is a very valid argument.

but then we immediately get the “hey that’s communist” comment.

this is a classic example of what this country has degenerated to…

[ocrenter]

the issue at hand is quite simple.

we entered two wars without obtaining proper source of funding. Instead, we decided to cut taxes across the board.

we still have one war continuing on. At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

getting that portion back is perfectly legit. and it is a very valid argument.

but then we immediately get the “hey that’s communist” comment.

this is a classic example of what this country has degenerated to…

[ocrenter]

the issue at hand is quite simple.

we entered two wars without obtaining proper source of funding. Instead, we decided to cut taxes across the board.

we still have one war continuing on. At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

getting that portion back is perfectly legit. and it is a very valid argument.

but then we immediately get the “hey that’s communist” comment.

this is a classic example of what this country has degenerated to…

[nocommonsense]

[quote=ocrenter] At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

[/quote]

1)Your first sentence is of the mentality that the people’s money/income rightfully belongs to the government, and therefore rightful for the taking—not typical communist thinking you say?

2)Regarding your second sentence on tax cut for the rich, the rich only gets 14% of this proposed deal. I say that’s not unreasonable for this population who pay >95% of all income taxes in this country.

[nocommonsense]

[quote=ocrenter] At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

[/quote]

1)Your first sentence is of the mentality that the people’s money/income rightfully belongs to the government, and therefore rightful for the taking—not typical communist thinking you say?

2)Regarding your second sentence on tax cut for the rich, the rich only gets 14% of this proposed deal. I say that’s not unreasonable for this population who pay >95% of all income taxes in this country.

[nocommonsense]

[quote=ocrenter] At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

[/quote]

1)Your first sentence is of the mentality that the people’s money/income rightfully belongs to the government, and therefore rightful for the taking—not typical communist thinking you say?

2)Regarding your second sentence on tax cut for the rich, the rich only gets 14% of this proposed deal. I say that’s not unreasonable for this population who pay >95% of all income taxes in this country.

[nocommonsense]

[quote=ocrenter] At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

[/quote]

1)Your first sentence is of the mentality that the people’s money/income rightfully belongs to the government, and therefore rightful for the taking—not typical communist thinking you say?

2)Regarding your second sentence on tax cut for the rich, the rich only gets 14% of this proposed deal. I say that’s not unreasonable for this population who pay >95% of all income taxes in this country.

[nocommonsense]

[quote=ocrenter] At the very least, we need to get some of that lost revenue back. we know comparatively speaking, tax cut for the very rich simply doesn’t stimulate the economy.

[/quote]

1)Your first sentence is of the mentality that the people’s money/income rightfully belongs to the government, and therefore rightful for the taking—not typical communist thinking you say?

2)Regarding your second sentence on tax cut for the rich, the rich only gets 14% of this proposed deal. I say that’s not unreasonable for this population who pay >95% of all income taxes in this country.

[briansd1]

I believe that the accurate figure is that 1/4 of the tax cuts go to the top 1%.

The debt may not grow if the fiscally responsible have their way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906439.html?hpid=topnews

[briansd1]

I believe that the accurate figure is that 1/4 of the tax cuts go to the top 1%.

The debt may not grow if the fiscally responsible have their way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906439.html?hpid=topnews

[briansd1]

I believe that the accurate figure is that 1/4 of the tax cuts go to the top 1%.

The debt may not grow if the fiscally responsible have their way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906439.html?hpid=topnews

[briansd1]

I believe that the accurate figure is that 1/4 of the tax cuts go to the top 1%.

The debt may not grow if the fiscally responsible have their way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906439.html?hpid=topnews

[Author]

Posts