A wall-streeter says tax the wealthy archived

johnlockedema said:

ml1 said:

the link is above.

why do you not believe me? do I ever make **** up and post it here?


I do believe you, and thanks for the link. But I replied, and then when the thread refreshed I saw your link.

But again, if we taxed the rich 100% all it does is take away this years deficit, not the 16 trillion we have.


But of course your original assertion was completely wrong. And ml1 proved that with facts. You really are the personification of today's GOP.

johnlockedema said:

ml1 said:

the link is above.

why do you not believe me? do I ever make **** up and post it here?


I do believe you, and thanks for the link. But I replied, and then when the thread refreshed I saw your link.

But again, if we taxed the rich 100% all it does is take away this years deficit, not the 16 trillion we have.

sheesh. can't you ever admit, even once, that you were mistaken? because here's what you posted:

johnlockedema said:

sac, taxing the 1% at a 100% rate wouldn't solve a thing, you do know. Having to borrow close to half the money the government spends every year is the problem.



it would solve a thing (not that we would do it, or should do it of course). but it would solve one thing -- this year's deficit would be eliminated. you were mistaken. how hard would it be to admit that and just let it go?

ml1 said:

you were mistaken. how hard would it be to admit that and just let it go?


I think he's missing that part of his brain.

It's the only explanation.


I'll say again, taxing the 1% 100% does nothing to reduce the existing debt. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

Yes, it would stop adding to it.

But would that happen?

Maybe in a Kool Aid dream.

dude, you're changing the argument.

johnlockedema said:

I'll say again, taxing the 1% 100% does nothing to reduce the existing debt. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

Yes, it would stop adding to it.

But would that happen?

Maybe in a Kool Aid dream.


That wasn't what you said. Once again, you were wrong.

Nobody is going to tax the 1% at 100% so why is anybody even talking about it?

How about talking about substantive and worthwhile changes for once?

I'm guessing that became a talking point so that people stop focusing on the 1% or the 5%. because a substantial increase in the top marginal rate to say 45% up to $1MM and 50% over $1MM would actually start to put a dent in the deficit that would be meaningful. and those are increases that within the realm of possibility. but by saying it would do "nothing" even at 100% you get people to think it's useless to raise rates on the super wealthy.

ml1 said:

I'm guessing that became a talking point so that people stop focusing on the 1% or the 5%. because a substantial increase in the top marginal rate to say 45% up to $1MM and 50% over $1MM would actually start to put a dent in the deficit that would be meaningful. and those are increases that within the realm of possibility. but by saying it would do "nothing" even at 100% you get people to think it's useless to raise rates on the super wealthy.


C'mon, you just said that taxing the 1% at 100% does nothing to reduce the deficit we already have.

I'm on record here, many times, agreeing with Rattner about aligning carried interest tax rates with regular income for the fat cat hedgies (like Rattner).


Making the tax system more fair (e.g. restoring higher tax brackets for the wealthy and eliminating tricks like taking your income as captial gains) is mostly a political decision that we need to make as a society. But since the government issues the currency, it can ramp up deficit spending to a level needed to create more aggregate demand in the economy. Taxes don't really need to come into it, unless you do something like provide tax cuts for those who might actually spend money in the economy (ie. not tax cuts to the rich). Trying to balance the budget would be a disaster in light of the current economic realities (high unemployment, near zero interest rates). See the graph from economist Stephanie Kelton; note that the Clinton budget surplus (the only time the pink part of the graph goes into the +) was a time of private sector deficits. This is not the formula for stimulating job growth.

johnlockedema said:

C'mon, you just said that taxing the 1% at 100% does nothing to reduce the deficit we already have.
By "deficit we already have" I assume you mean the DEBT. The DEFICIT is the difference between revenue and spending in one budget year. The debt is the accumulated result of all the years of (mostly) deficit. I KNOW that you know the difference but many people don't, so it is helpful to use the correct terminology... unless, of course, you aren't REALLY interested in educating people but just trying to make a political point.


sac, you're right, I should be more careful to distinguish the debt and the deficit.

But my point remains true-taxing the 1% at a 100% would help the deficit, but do nothing about the existing debt of $16 trillion dollars.

johnlockedema said:

ml1 said:

I'm guessing that became a talking point so that people stop focusing on the 1% or the 5%. because a substantial increase in the top marginal rate to say 45% up to $1MM and 50% over $1MM would actually start to put a dent in the deficit that would be meaningful. and those are increases that within the realm of possibility. but by saying it would do "nothing" even at 100% you get people to think it's useless to raise rates on the super wealthy.


C'mon, you just said that taxing the 1% at 100% does nothing to reduce the deficit we already have.

I'm on record here, many times, agreeing with Rattner about aligning carried interest tax rates with regular income for the fat cat hedgies (like Rattner).



you do know that the deficit and the debt are 2 different things? or don't you?

sac said:

I KNOW that you know the difference


Don't be so sure. johnlockedema proves on a daily basis how little he knows.

johnlockedema said:

sac, you're right, I should be more careful to distinguish the debt and the deficit.

But my point remains true-taxing the 1% at a 100% would help the deficit, but do nothing about the existing debt of $16 trillion dollars.


but that's not the point you were originally making. and you pretend that it was your point all along.

this is like a bad Abbot & Costello routine.

ml1 said:

johnlockedema said:

sac, you're right, I should be more careful to distinguish the debt and the deficit.

But my point remains true-taxing the 1% at a 100% would help the deficit, but do nothing about the existing debt of $16 trillion dollars.


but that's not the point you were originally making. and you pretend that it was your point all along.

this is like a bad Abbot & Costello routine.


Now you're parsing words. My comments are consistent.

Tax increases on the rich will not be enough to reduce the debt, and if taxing the 1% at 100% wouldn't either-then spending cuts are needed.

That's my point from the get go here.

And Republicans are now saying they're open to increasing revenue, trying to work with the Democrats in a bipartisan manner.

Let's see if the Democrats are willing to work with them! Wouldn't that be great? After all, Obama himself has said we need entitlement reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myYEb15AyPk

I am not parsing your words. they are below in their entirety. you are CLEARLY talking about the annual federal budget.

johnlockedema said:

sac, taxing the 1% at a 100% rate wouldn't solve a thing, you do know. Having to borrow close to half the money the government spends every year is the problem.



I'm finished. you clearly have no interest in an honest exchange if you can't even own up to your own words.

johnlockedema has NEVER been honest. Why should he start now?

Yes, it doesn't solve the existing debt, it only would reduce a deficit IN THE FUTURE. Maybe if the govt didn't spend so much we wouldn't need to be taxed so much?? Think of the savings we may have had if Obama had offered entitlement reform as he said he'd do in the second two years of his term.

It is NOT a foregone conclusion that spending cuts are needed (except perhaps politically.) Energizing the economy is another way to increase revenue and improve the deficit picture. And, it is also a MUCH LESS PAINFUL way to do that. Furthermore, many of the proposed spending cuts will have a negative rather than positive effect on the "metabolism" of the economy and therefore could be counterproductive. That doesn't mean that I believe that we should not look for places to cut spending, but I don't subscribe to the idea that such cuts are the only or best way to achieve what is needed.

Yes, I know that the last stimulus did not meet expectations and we can argue all day about whose fault that is. But that doesn't mean that we should reject it out of hand.

And, as I've mentioned several times already today, where are the suggestions for cuts to the military??? (And I'm NOT talking about health or other benefits for servicemembers or veterans ... I mean the overall size and scope of our military programs.)

Bruce Bartlett weighs in on the idea that tax cuts for the "job creators" and cutting the budget to eliminate the deficit during a recession is a bad idea. Why is anyone suggesting otherwise?

"The economy continues to conform to textbook Keynesianism. We still need more aggregate demand, and the Republican idea that tax cuts for the rich will save us becomes more ridiculous by the day. People will long remember Mitt Romney’s politically tone-deaf attack on half the nation’s population for being losers, leeches, and moochers because he accurately articulated the right-wing worldview."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

wharfrat said:

Bruce Bartlett weighs in on the idea that tax cuts for the "job creators" and cutting the budget to eliminate the deficit during a recession is a bad idea. Why is anyone suggesting otherwise?

"The economy continues to conform to textbook Keynesianism. We still need more aggregate demand, and the Republican idea that tax cuts for the rich will save us becomes more ridiculous by the day. People will long remember Mitt Romney’s politically tone-deaf attack on half the nation’s population for being losers, leeches, and moochers because he accurately articulated the right-wing worldview."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/


The question remains: why are so many in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, so smitten with the deficit reduction meme? Methinks that the Pete Peterson/Erskine Bowles/Alan Simpson crowd have triupmphed - Wall Street really wants to get its hands on Social Security. But it still boggles why so many are falling for the idea that the national budget is like a household budget and needs to be balanced.

wharfrat- Thanks for posting the Bartlett article; it took him a long time, but one needs to admire his honesty. Kudos to American Conservative for publishing it too.

Alfa75 said:

The question remains: why are so many in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, so smitten with the deficit reduction meme? Methinks that the Pete Peterson/Erskine Bowles/Alan Simpson crowd have triupmphed - Wall Street really wants to get its hands on Social Security. But it still boggles why so many are falling for the idea that the national budget is like a household budget and needs to be balanced.


I think two reasons-
1. It's a "quick fix" politically expedient
because
2. Our gov't. is run by a plutocracy.

Changing social security is going to be political poison. Even modest changes for the better in Medicare tends to be political poison.

Tom_R said:

Tom,

Why only the wealthy/high income folk?

TomR


"Because that's where the money is."

Kidding aside, society as a whole decides what it wants to do. It also decides, as a whole, how to pay for it. These are legitimate questions that we answer actively or passively.

We have decided that the services that government provides are indispensable. There is not a single service where there is near-unanimous agreement that we should eliminate it.

The places where we have to agree on are:

- How much we should pay for each service
- How we pay for the government

Each service has an opportunity to continue to do what it's been doing but at lower cost. There is a duty to investigate how to do the same (or better) at the same or lower cost. A good example of this now is medical care. Government workers get health insurance as part of their compensation, but the cost of health insurance is rising rapidly. What can we do about this? I don't know, but it's a good question.

We pay for government through taxation, which comes in various forms. Pretty much everyone pays some forms of taxes. So no one is saying that only the wealthy should pay taxes. But the need for the federal government to raise revenue ought to come from raising some taxes on the wealthy. Why the wealthy? Because most people who are not wealthy don't have any extra money to give the government. We've seen our effective incomes stay flat or decline in recent years. We spend more and get less, generally speaking.

So that's my answer to the question, "Why raise taxes on only wealthy people?" I assume that's really what you meant.

Another approach to that question is, why not the wealthy? They would not suffer, as far as I can see.

Now I did use the word "ought" above, which indicates an opinion, not a fact. It is my opinion, and it's the opinion of a growing number of Americans. I don't know what fraction, but I suspect it exceeds 50% now and is rising at a substantial rate over the last three or four years. I think we have consensus among the people.

I'd love for the Democrats to say to the Republicans-we have a number we want to hit in new revenue. See if you can hit this number by whatever means you want-targeted tax increases, specific loophole closings, just get to that number.

And the Republicans should say to the Democrats-we need entitlement reform to the tune of X dollars, you give us a plan where you can reach that number-extending retirement age, targeted health care cuts or ways to cap increases, etc.

Then they should all sit down together over a beer.

Esquire had an article a year or two ago where they basically did just that.

ml1 said:

that is factually untrue. taxing the 1% at 100% would eliminate all of the projected FY13 federal budget deficit. I'm not suggesting we do it.

but we should have our facts straight.

Well that is untrue. If you tell someone you will tax them at 100% their income will be 0. Or would you still go to work if you're not going to get paid?

All this class warfare, jealousy at the successful and envy is so ugly. And un-American.

It is so tiresome, this "soak the rich" mentality from people who are not producers.

Liberals know nothing about history.

Hey, why do you think this country is so rich, because we've followed your socialist ideals? It's funny.

The left is also so quick to talk about rights. Homosexuals should have the right to marry, and we can't put that to a vote!! Women should have the right to abortions, and we can't put that to a vote!!

How about my ability to keep the fruit of my labor? According to some, if 51% of the people say that the most successful can keep only 20% of the product of their labor, that's OK. How about that right, eh, my socialist friends?

You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!

Advertisement

Advertise here!

Rentals

Sponsored Business

Find Business