Next couple of years: bad time to be "rich"

Because for 8 years, some one in the White House has been draining and draining money, and didn't set up any way to pay it back.

 

Which is why an actual Republican is needed in the Whitehouse. Not a conservative, liberal, X-wing, religious nut, or progressive wackjob. Just a Republican in the core of its definition.

Too bad there isn't one running anymore.

The fix is easy, the balls to do it is not - well yes it is but nobody will.

 

If it were as easy as taxing us to pay off the debt, we would be in relatively good shape. But that won't work either. We can't afford the debt no matter HOW you look at it. The dollar is all but meaningless with nothing to back it up. It is loaned into existence, and doesn't really exist. We can't pay back debt with more debt. We've dug a deep hole. I'm not sure how to get out of it. Keeping gas cheap probably won't solve it. (just thought I'd toss that in).

 

No need to raise taxes. At least not income and property taxes. Tax the small non-essential items such as candy, soda, bottled water, and fast food to name a few. Or if everyone would pay their fair share we would be much better off. For example Those that have $1200 withdrawn in a year but magically get $3500 in a tax refund. Total B.S. ( Eye witness to this account with my sister-in-law after I did her taxes last year)

Then cut wasteful spending. Medicaid for pregnancies (especially for illegals) welfare abuse, "nation building", global aid to countries that hate the United States. Why the United States must go out and try to save the world without much thought for its own citizens is beyond reasoning. Stop the barricades that prevent a business from making a decent profit here making them outsource to other countries.

Of course none of this is going to happen if the greedy politicians (both dems and reps) continue to take money and favors from the PACS. Almost all politicians start out as decent minded folks then become corrupt in their obsession of fame and power.

 

What I can't stand is nearly a third of the nation isn't paying jack squally.

I think EVERYONE SHOULD PAY SOME.

Even welfare.

 

actually, 40 percent pay nothing at all.

 

Ok lets make that the last 30 years and we can have an agreement.

Also note the Whitehouse doesn't control the money, congress does. It takes two to tango. That's why the demos are cowards if they did what they promised they could have the troops out yesterday. It is called cut the funding. Anyone who believes that cutting the funding would leave the troops in harms way is not being intellectually honest.They all pretty much suck.

 

The wealthy own around 80% of the wealth of the country, and they get the biggest tax breaks currently, yet they benefit the most from Iraq, yet they don't want to help pay for it. Iraq is the first long term war cost, that a president had no intention of even remotely partially paying for. Its just a continuing drain on the US, yet no one wants to pay for it.

Iraq needs to be paid for, and if that means more taxes so be it, if it means that now the excesses of the last 8 years need to become apparent to the wealthy, so be it.

And postponing needed domestic plans to pay for the current waste is not very realistic, doesn't accomplish much in the long term.

 

If you think the Democrats have the power to cut funding, then you are fooling yourself, they don't have the power to do that, now if you are saying they should stand their ground, even without the power, then you are right.

You are right about the 30 years, but name the presidents, their term length and spending, it took two to tango, but it becomes very obvious who likes to spend and not pay it back, and it isn't the Democrats.

 

While the number is increasing for those that pay nothing, my wife and I are having to pay more.

I believe everyone should pay some. I don't mind paying a higher percentage than my Mom on retirement, but even my Mom pays taxes... I truly dislike the way so many pay nothing with their hands out for the redistribution of my family's earnings.

 

[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=Money+as+debt&total=1111&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]Money As Debt[/ame]

For those who have 47 minutes to spare.

 

What do you mean they can not cut funding? It is simple don't authorize anymore supplemental war funding bills. the President does not control the purse strings.

 

Bad time to be rich ???

When is it ever a bad time to be rich ? When taxes are high ?

What about the poor and working class, not that there's that much difference any more ? IMO, it's ALWAYS a bad time to be poor.

Anyway, maybe that's my "Socialist Canada" mindset talking, but are we all here so "rich" and have never been, or too long ago were "poor" that we concentrate on our "tax hassles" rather than thinking of those with no or little money to pay tax on ?

Anyway, off the top of my head (and I must be crazy to say this here, even in the Pancake House), I'd favor very simple flat taxes. Heck, eliminate all income taxes and replace them with a flat consumption tax. Feel free to exempt rent, clothes under certain value and basic foodstuffs so the poor would be better off than today.

Wouldn't that massively simplify taxation ? The only big problem I could forsee is illegal tax-free product smuggling... And "traders" who don't deal in cash for things, but work in the underground purchasing/trading economy. And drug dealers who can no longer be taxed on washed earnings... And, and...

 

In contrast it's *always* a good time to be poor. Yeah, I sure do envy all those poor people who make less than $200,000 per year: no AMT to worry about, free ER care when they really need it, free bags of rice and beans at Christmas. The lucky ducks!

 

That article reads like parody out of "The Onion":

...unlike "The Onion", however, the satire is lost.

As the article points out, the median income in the US is $48,200. I have little doubt that those making "$300,000 for more than a decade" might feel stretched, but that in no way makes them anywhere close to middle class. What it makes them is irresponsible with their finances.

Increasing gas costs and tuition rates affect the top 4% of income earners much less than those with lower incomes.

As Obama's economic advisor points out:

My wife and I are in the top 5% of income earners in the US, and we have no gripes about paying more tax than someone with less money. I believe that making more gives you a greater opportunity to contribute to the society you're a part of, which helped bring such success! Here's to universal health care and better education!

 

Maybe stretched is the wrong word. There's a big difference between being comfortable ($300-500k/yr household income) and being wealthy. There's a huge difference between being 98th percentile in household income (I believe $300k put you in the 98th percentile a few years ago) and being in the 99.5th percentile. I will probably have to work through my 40s to retire in the lifestyle I'd like to have. A wealthy person doesn't worry about things like that.

I don't feel squeezed, but I do feel like I've been under attack for the last eight years by the Bush economy. It's got nothing to do with how much I make or how much I've grown my net worth, but about job security and the health of the economy.

 

Drug dealers consume, too.... I would wonder what the difference would be between the tax they would make in their consumption (of cars, jewelry, etc.) vs. the taxes on washed earnings.

 

Good call, avoid putting anything back, after all the county owes you.