pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
What is BATNA and What Does It Have to Do With The Fiscal Cliff
#11
I didn't mean a 1% tax rate, i meant a tax on the top 1% of income earners.

These people make absolutely ENORMOUS amounts of money.

Did you know there's a kind of pork that rich people eat, that costs $140 per pound? Did you know that a rich guy will pay $50,000 for a set of stereo speakers, and another $5k for the cables?

Seriously....those people aint gonna miss it.
Reply
#12
Valorius;40464 Wrote:I didn't mean a 1% tax rate, i meant a tax on the top 1% of income earners.

These people make absolutely ENORMOUS amounts of money.

Did you know there's a kind of pork that rich people eat, that costs $140 per pound? Did you know that a rich guy will pay $50,000 for a set of stereo speakers, and another $5k for the cables?

Seriously....those people aint gonna miss it.

Even of those "super-rich" people were taxed 100% of their income, it would not make a dent in the National Debt. Spending would overcome it anyway.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#13
It would make a dent.

The top 400 richest people in America own 50% of all (personally held) net worth in the US (according to the chart i saw the other day).

It would make a big fucking dent.
Reply
#14
Valorius;40468 Wrote:It would make a dent.

The top 400 richest people in America own 50% of all net worth in the US (according to the chart i saw the other day).

It would make a big fucking dent.

Let me ask you something, how much annual income is the top 400 Richest people in America combined? Here's a hint, it's a number smaller than half of the 2012 deficit. Wink Tax them 100% and it won't put a dent in the debt. Especially not since it won't even cover the deficit. So the debt will continue to grow. If 100% taxation won't close the gap what do you think 1% is going to do? Give them more encouragement to increase spending.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#15
You're really flexing your Ivy league economics degree in this thread, i can see.

The entire tax code isnt putting a dent in the budget, adding more to it while slashing spending by taxing people who literally will not even notice a difference in their lifestyle anyway is a wise and viable course of action.

But i would only tax the top 1%, no new taxes on anyone else.
Reply
#16
halftrack;40342 Wrote:
Valorius;40326 Wrote:Neither one of them has a choice this time.

They have choices. Are they willing to make them?

Based solely on the truthfulness of this administration in ALL previous agreements with the GOP, can you blame the GOP for saying; "put it in writing and maybe we'll go along with it?" Remember how the negotiations for Obamacare was supposed to be on CSPAN? Remember how the Dems and the administration made a point of telling us that the GOP would be involved in the negotiations? Remember that the GOP were completely locked out of those negotiations and how Obamacare is a 100% Dem plan with virtually no GOP input, and what little GOP input that the Dems found acceptable was something that would add taxes? Sorry, I don't trust that SOB in the oval office and I sure as shit don't trust Harry Reid any further than I could pick up the Hart Senate office building and throw it!Angry
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
Reply
#17
Valorius;40474 Wrote:You're really flexing your Ivy league economics degree in this thread, i can see.

The entire tax code isnt putting a dent in the budget, adding more to it while slashing spending by taxing people who literally will not even notice a difference in their lifestyle anyway is a wise and viable course of action.

But i would only tax the top 1%, no new taxes on anyone else.

This isn't a discussion of economics. It's a discussion of the effects of a tax increase on a spending deficit. You need a Kindergarten education to understand that a smaller number isn't larger than a larger number. Increasing taxes on the so-called super rich by 1% is a joke. An empty, hollow gesture with no real-world benefits.

Since you're not going to even support your own arguments, I'll do it for you. Let's assume the top 400 richest Americans earn 1 billion dollars a year. By the way, they don't. Altogether that's 400 billion dollars. Tax them 100% and it's a 400 billion dollar a year income. What's 400 billion dollars income compared to 1.1 Trillion in spending? Still a gigantic deficit. A 700 billion dollar a year deficit to be exact. Still a larger deficit than the Bush-era deficit of 300 billion dollars a year. So, even at 100% taxation the deficit is still skyrocketing through the roof. Lower it to 1% of their income and you're down to a total income of 4 billion dollars a year. That's assuming the top 400 richest Americans earn 1 billion dollars a year each, which they don't. What's 4 Billion dollars a year income compared to 1.1 Trillion in spending? Not a dent, is what it is.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#18
Valorius;40474 Wrote:You're really flexing your Ivy league economics degree in this thread, i can see.

The entire tax code isnt putting a dent in the budget, adding more to it while slashing spending by taxing people who literally will not even notice a difference in their lifestyle anyway is a wise and viable course of action.

But i would only tax the top 1%, no new taxes on anyone else.

There are many flaws in supporting taxes increases on the uber-wealthy. The first, that it won't make a real difference to the debt level, has been pointed out.

A second, more fundamental reason, is that raising taxes never, ever results in smaller government. They just spend it and borrow even more. Spending is the problem and giving the bastards more money in the form of tax increases won't help. It's like giving a junkie a fix.

Another, is that it punishes success. When you punish successful people, it creates some unintended consequences. For example, they may stop investing here and relocate thier capital to a more friendly place.
Deal_me_in, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#19
Deal_me_in;40531 Wrote:
Valorius;40474 Wrote:You're really flexing your Ivy league economics degree in this thread, i can see.

The entire tax code isnt putting a dent in the budget, adding more to it while slashing spending by taxing people who literally will not even notice a difference in their lifestyle anyway is a wise and viable course of action.

But i would only tax the top 1%, no new taxes on anyone else.

There are many flaws in supporting taxes increases on the uber-wealthy. The first, that it won't make a real difference to the debt level, has been pointed out.

A second, more fundamental reason, is that raising taxes never, ever results in smaller government. They just spend it and borrow even more. Spending is the problem and giving the bastards more money in the form of tax increases won't help. It's like giving a junkie a fix.

Another, is that it punishes success. When you punish successful people, it creates some unintended consequences. For example, they may stop investing here and relocate thier capital to a more friendly place.

It will likely encourage them to change their income method to one that either isn't taxable or becomes taxable at a lower rate. This is why those special tax deductions needs to be removed in addition to lowering tax rates across the board for everyone. Lower tax-rates and deductions means more overall tax income. That's one thing the Romney/Ryan ticket had down to a science.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#20
I say rip off the bandaid!!!
A gun rack in a pick-up is not for holding guns. Its a place for women to hold on to. Smile
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama says 'willing to compromise' in long-term, but no fiscal talks now das 10 1,370 10-09-2013, 11:14 AM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel
  On this inauspicious Fiscal Cliff Eve Gman106 6 886 02-28-2013, 06:32 PM
Last Post: Camper
  See how your rep voted on the fiscal cliff bill bucksco 4 937 01-02-2013, 07:41 PM
Last Post: gascolator
  Fiscal Cliff Deal: Hollywood Gets Tax Incentive Extension Pocketprotector 4 922 01-02-2013, 07:05 PM
Last Post: bogey1
  Fiscal cliff: A summary of .Gov "helping" us Pocketprotector 0 548 01-01-2013, 10:13 PM
Last Post: Pocketprotector



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.