Uber rich benefit from special privileged low tax rate.

Extensions of benefits came from robbing the working class through taxes and inflation, rather than increasing taxes on the rich as a method of balancing the budget.

Republicans supported that too.

True, which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why Obama is supporting the tax cuts after he massively and recklessly increased spending without balancing the budget.

You've admitted you support the bailouts, which is exactly what I described. Feel free to explain how I was inaccurate.

Already discussed in the other thread. It's impossible for Congress to predict what the inflation rate will be when adjusting minimum wage and benefits.

Obama reappointed Ben Bernake as chariman of the Fed.
Obama and his Cognresses have supported massive debt spending, which will inevitably be paid for through inflation.

At you're finally agreeing that fiat currency is responsible for the wealth divide.

 

Actually, I don't believe much of the stimulus if any went to the banks. Do you have evidence that it did?

Your statement contains many unsupported assertions. 1) that it can't create wealth, 2) that it comes at the expense of future gorwth, 3) the assumption tht the destruction avoided will be the same as the loss of future growth.

A tax transfers wealth, and doesn't necessary destroy it, whether it creates it or not. The Govt either spends the money or transfers it. In either case, it results in greater demand, mitigating unnecessary destruction in a bad recession. The money spent creates wealth in the form of income to the eventual recipients and demand which generates more production.

You baseless, unsupported assertion is not fact, nor IMO is it rational or logical.

False. I have provided it numerous times.

What a surprise.

See above. Taking funds that are sitting unused in bank accounts and instead applying them to spending on projects or transferring people who spend the money simply transfers the wealth. But instead of sitting idle doing nothing, the money is not creating more production and jobs = more wealth.

No one disputes markets rebound. They eventually did in the depressions in the early 20th and 19th centuries as well. Preventing unnecessary destruction is a positive thing.

The fallacy in your position is your assumption that for any given business cycle, there is a fixed and unvariable amount of destruction. I disagree. Particularly in a recessionary spiral fueled by panic and fear, phsychological factors can drive the destruction far deeper than it need be, just as greed drives a speculative bubble far bigger than it should be.

 

Debt spending through inflation certainly does not help the poor and unemployed.

It probably wasn't so much his preference as it was the pressure from his corporate masters to keep the Bush tax cuts in place.

Why the hell do you want me to explain your theory to you? We both know what you believe about the Dems and Reps positions on tax cuts. It's faster to cut to the chase and simply explain why your beliefs are wrong, which is what I did.

 

How so?

They were forced to.

Obama was alwasy in favor of maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. I disagree with him on that. In my personal preference, I might agree, if and only if higher taxes were levied on the uber rich, but that was never the alternative.

My support of the bailouts in no way translates int to

"all you want to do is rob them at gunpoint and give their money to the rich so you can proclaimed that you saved the "economy", which in turn saved them."

That is your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) conclusion and theory which you falsely and dishonestly apply to me.

That is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

They don't need to. They do it retroactively. Works fine.

To say that is "pushing for inflation" is a typical bull(*)(*)(*)(*) distortion you do because you cannot defend your position honestly.

Lie.

 

You didn't say it, it was a logical deduction. In order for your belief that "organizations" can be bailed out to be true, you have to ascribe them personhood status.

The thread is clear enough.

Off-topic. If you want to discuss that, go to the Creation of the Fed thread.

Sure they are. The state is putting a gun to your head and threatening to kill you if you don't give it a certain percent of your money every year. Sounds like robbery to me.

But that's beside the point. I was referring to inflation as well.

 

Butchers eat better than most, plumbers do not pay exorbitant prices for repair, and accountants do not pay other accountants [Unless you work for the President..LOL]
I have no problem with the wealthy getting a break on what they do best...invest. Especially since you can invest as well, and at the same tax rates. So what if that's the bulk of their income, I'm not jealous why should anybody else be and it wont take care of the deficit anyway, but if you were to listen to Obama,,,THEIR ROBBING US!

 

Tell your Tea Party reps you want them to support a tax increase on the rich.

Baseless speculation. You're back to resorting to making things up.

So tell me in a post "so much for your theory," and you cannot or will not even explain what my "theory" is you were talking about. After 6-7 posts. Well isn't that cute. How clever of you. What a great debater.

This is why discussion with you is simply a waste of time. It comes down to you ultimately being dishonest and playing these stupid little games because you cannot honesty defend your positions.

 

I'm sure that most of the 1% have no problem paying a special low tax rate, at least than half the marginal rate of working people. I'm sure most the 1% have no problem with a guy like Romney payin 14% of his unearned income in taxes, while working folks pay up to 28, 33% plus FICA. I'm sure most the 1% is more than happy to let the "little people" pay higher tax rates.

For anyone else, the concept of middle class working people paying marginal tax rates twice as high as a guy like Romney so he can get special low privileged rates is an outrage of injustice.

 

Not really saying anything new.


The uber rich own the government (the politicians, the courts) always have & always will, and they own the tax code they invented, and reinvent from time to time to make it look copasetic. Oh they whine and complain out one side of their mouths, and smile all the way to the country club/gated communities with the other side counting their money. They use emotional discrimination, delusional hyperbole, and propaganda depending on people's gullibility to get what they want, ya gotta give em credit for that finesse, it is the only difference between them and the monarchy of old that took what ever they wanted and killed anybody who got in their way.


The majority of the population give them everything they desire willingly believing it is their choice to do so, and even defend them vigorously, foolishly believing with false expectations, they will one day be equally rewarded, having the wealth that is theirs for the taking, and protect them irrationally for their deceitful treachery, and blatant manipulative dishonesty.

 

Interesting thread - the comment above caught my eye.

I don't entirely agree with the premise (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that people who have earned money through direct labor are "more entitled" to keep their money. However, if we're judging based on some sort of merit system, then why do you think the government has a better claim to the money than the original recipient? I'm thinking of gift taxes and estate taxes specifically. I can understand why you'd feel the recipient hasn't "earned" this money, but what has the government done to earn the money (especially if taxes were already paid once, presumably to fund the infrastructure and systems that contributed to the first individual's ability to earn the money)? Do you also feel that money/items/services donated to non-profits (or directly to people in need) and TANF payments (among other examples) should be taxed based on the fact that the recipient has not "earned" these through productive labor? If not, could you please clarify your statement above?

 

the uber rich and the poor benefit , the middle class gets shafted .

 

Please don't apply *your* "deductions" to me. I have big problems with your "deductions" and it is dishonest to ascribe them to me.

Cute. You accuse me of creating straw man and when I ask you to show you say "off-topic".

More stupid games.

 

There are several reasons why IMO a Govt has a legitimate claim. 1) A government is necessary to maintain civilized society, and thus needs to be funded. 2) The Govt and its funding are part of the social contract of citizen of the state. 3) Our system of capitalism allows individuals to obtain great portions of the resources, wealth and income of the nation. The quid pro quo is that some of it is shared to fund the Govt and assist those that capitalism leaves behind.

 

Which is called, "feudalism," and would cost them far more than paying any proposed rate of tax. Feudalism is a system where even kings are poor, because they have to pay everything they get just to keep others from taking what they have.

But government makes it much cheaper for the landowner, which is why big landowners in countries with big governments like Japan, the USA, Britain, etc. are enormously wealthy, while big landowners in places with small or no government like Somalia are not.

"Their" land is definitely a public resource, because all have equal rights to liberty. This fact is recognized in law all over the world.

Humans definitely do work that way, as there was no such thing as private landowning for 99% of our evolutionary past.

You have no "right" to remove others' rights to liberty.

ROTFL!! Yeah, sure. That is what the feudal landowners said, and one by one they were killed and/or dispossessed, until they got government to enforce their land titles for them. Funny how some people don't learn the lesson of feudalism no matter how many times it is repeated for them.

 

This may be going slightly off topic if the original intent was to discuss capital gains taxes, and if so I'd be happy to discuss in a separate thread...

I understand that government needs to be funded, and these are reasonable arguments about why we should pay taxes in general. But you didn't really address my questions. With respect to gift taxes and estate taxes, you seemed to be asserting that someone inheriting money is less deserving of the money than someone earning his money through direct labor. Furthermore, you seemed to imply that the government should be the primary benefactor
(via higher taxes on inherited wealth).

Why (if we're judging based on the merit of having "earned it through direct labor") do you think the government should be entitled to an inheritance tax? What have they done to "earn" it in your merit system, especially if tax was already paid on the income when it was first earned (presumably for all the reasons you mentioned above)? Furthermore, if merit is determined by direct labor as you suggest, should we not also tax gifts to charity, TANF checks, and other transfers of wealth that were not "earned through direct labor" by the recipient?

 

Garbage. Working people toil on the treadmill and get nowhere while the rich ride up the escalator, getting richer without effort or contribution of any kind.

Right: it grants PRIVILEGES, which enable the privileged to take from the productive and contribute nothing in return.

What are you even talking about?

Stupid garbage. If government was me, it would not be taking from working people and giving to rich, greedy takers.

But the rich, greedy takers control the process.

How do you imagine that is relevant to what government is actually doing: taking from producers and giving to rich, greedy takers? Who gives a $#!+ where it came from? You are just trying to evade the facts about what it IS.

 

Your question is why should the Govt be "entitled" to an inheritance tax.

My previous answer at least in part answers this question as to why we need taxes at all. You acknowledge we need a government and therefore we need taxes. So the Govt is "entitled" to taxes in part because we need a Govt, and it needs funding, as well as the other reasons I described above.

So then the next part of your question is, who should pay them? Why should a person who inherits money have to pay taxes? Why not have workers pay them?

There are many factors, sometimes competing, that IMO should be weighed in determining an appropriate tax system. Some include the ability to pay, the need to have people have "skin" in the game, benefits received, relative burden of the obligation, the quid pro quo I mentioned above, and incentives to induce work, productivity, risk taking and innovation.

But relative to the inheritance issue, another factor is meritcracy. If we think that a system that rewards merit and effort, as opposed to a feudalistic system that rewards picking the right womb, is the preferable model, then our tax system arguably should not be levied more greatly on those who work for their money than those who get it as a gift or bequest for nothing more than being born into the right family. "Rewarding" heirs with tax free status does nothing more than reward them for being born into a rich family, and it means (ultimately) that those who work for their money have to pay a higher proportion of the tax to compensate for it.

If you believe in meritocracy as a important factor, then such a tax structure (heirs pay no tax) doesn't make any sense.

Finally, as to to your point about the money an heir receives having already been taxed, I think I addressed that point earlier. In the first instance, it often just is not so. For many estates, the vast bulk of the value transferred consists of unrealized capital gains that have never been taxed. Second, the heirs have not paid any taxes on it. Virtually all money that has been transferred has been "taxed already". If a guy hires me to paint his house, he pays me with money that has been "taxed already" because he paid taxes on it. But the fact that someone else paid taxes on it does not mean that the current recipient has paid taxes on it. There is not logical difference between me getting paid to paint the house and the heir receiving the gift. We both are receiving money we did not have before. And if you think the difference is that the heir may be a family member, my response goes back to feudelistic model noted above.

 

I never claimed it did.

All government spending is a transfer of wealth. It may temporarily increase production during the present time, but the wealth was not created out of nothing in order for it to be spent. The money it spends to do that came from somewhere else. The increased demand during the present will be met with an equal decrease in demand in the future from the folks that the government taxed in order to transfer the wealth.

My claim is that there is an absence of evidence that government can create wealth. If it were baseless as you claim, you'd have no trouble proving it wrong. So far, you have failed to do so.

Exactly, it's your opinion. And I disagree with it for reasons previously stated.

Where?

So you support robbing folks at gunpoint to get the economy moving? That may work in the short term, but in the long term, the folks who were robbed are going to exert downward pressure on demand that is equal to the upward pressure put by the government spending the money it took from them in the first place.

Too bad you haven't proven that it did. But I do agree that the destruction was not as bad at that time as it would have been without government bailout. But that doesn't prove that any destruction was prevented over the course of many years.

Both psychological fear and speculative bubbles will only go so far before economic reality sets in. Fear alone cannot create a recessionary spiral unless the economy is as bad as people are actually fearing.

 

It's pretty self-explanatory.

Baseless assertion. Who "forced" them to?

And now he has proven that he is in favor of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Yet you are still defending him.

You've admitted you support the bailouts, which is exactly what I described. Feel free to explain how I was inaccurate.

Tell that to folks who have been working for $7.25 an hour since 2007.

I was talking about monetary inflation, not price inflation.

So feel free to explain how the Reagan Revolution could have happened if they didn't have the Fed creating money to pay for his massive reckless government spending.

 

Show me where I said I support the Tea Party. Show me where I said I support a tax increase on the rich.

Read between the lines dude. Obama was put into office by powerful bankers and corporations, and it's his turn to return the favors. Are you really that naive or just in denial?

You and I both know what your theory is, so I can't for the life of me imagine why you would have asked me to tell it to you in the first place as anything but a rhetorical question. Sorry that I misinterpreted it, ok?

 

How about instead of continuously saying that I'm wrong, you tell me why I'm wrong. Your argument by dismissal is a logical fallacy.

If I were playing games, I would be fabricating the fact that you have made straw mans in the past. The proof is in the Creation of the Fed thread. Go read it and we can discuss it there if you want. Bringing up arguments from other threads is off topic. How is that a "game"?

But if you want an example of a strawman, see your recent "tea party" statement about me. There are plenty of examples on this forum of me calling you out on your straw man and mischaracterizations of my positions and constantly referring to people as "conservatives" who aren't actually conservative. The fact that you're even pretending like it has never happened shows that you're the one who's playing games.

 

The rich don't create prosperity, they create slaves.

 

I am sure Butchers do not mind you paying three times the amount for the same meat, I am sure plumbers feel the same. Point being, if you like or are jealous than invest like Romney did,,,,,or perhaps be a Butcher...

 

In liberal world, only rich Republicans are benefited from Bush/Obama tax cut, rich Democrats are excluded.

It's the same old stupid class warfare argument that their hero is feeding them when the election is getting closer.

Once Obambi got re-elected, he will continue to extend tax breaks for his bosses, and business as usual in DC. The super rich will get tax breaks, the poor will get handouts, the middle class will get more dicks stick in their asses.

 

Yes we should do everything we can to lower investments in this country's businesses and to push said investments overseas. The end result of such policies will be an increase in unemployment a decrese in economic prosperity and gdp and ultimately the destruction of the middle class.