Beyond the pail

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Oct 30, 2012.

  1. Sydde, Oct 30, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012

    Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #1
    Some comments from Mitt:

    source
    ... Romney went on to express the general principle that, given the crushing national debt, "we should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, 'What are the things we're doing that we don't have to do?'"

    King gave him a chance to back off: "Including disaster relief, though?"

    Romney didn't blink. "We cannot - we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," he said, adding that "it is simply immoral ... to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids."​


    I think we know what that means. It is that positive view of things, "Every crisis provides justification, every disaster is an opportunity, they are not 'victims' but 'resources'." This is the outlook that Ms. Klein wrote about, disaster capitalism. Because, you know, it is immoral to help each other if we are preventing someone else from fixing it for a profit.
     
  2. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #2
    Personally, I look at the 'crushing' national debt and think 'tax the rich'. But that's just me.
     
  3. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    To me its more making people sacrifice for the services they request from government. If 300 million people benefit from something we should have 300 million people paying for it. Giving politicians a blank check is where our problems start.
     
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    Personally, I look at the 'crushing' national debt and think 'stop spending so damn much.' But that's just me.
     
  5. BladesOfSteel macrumors regular

    BladesOfSteel

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    St. Paul
    #5
    Why do you think "tax the rich"?

    Even if you taxed the rich at 100% that doesn't solve anything. At most, it would run the government for 5-6 months.

    Then what?

    While "taxing the rich" and "make them pay their fair share" are good talking points, in reality, it doesn't fix the problem.

    But that is just me.
     
  6. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #6
    There is a known solution for most of "the problem". It is described, usually somewhat negatively, as Financial Repression:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression

    It works. Even its critics admit that.

    The one part that it won't fix: healthcare.
     
  7. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    If you tax the wealthy a little more, what happens is that the investment strategies of the wealthy change from passive investments to more active and/or risky investments. In addition, the taxes collected support all sorts of economic activity. Those two, in combination, invariably result in economic growth, a larger tax base, a little less income/wealth disparity, and a growing society.

    No one is suggesting that the wealthy be taxed 100%, but since the 80s, the vast, vast majority of the growth in this economy has gone to them. They can, and should, pay for the debt that led to their growth/income.

    If you really want to solve the problem, you have to responsibly cut spending, responsibly reform the biggest social programs, and you have to have an equitable way of paying for government. Right now, we have historically low taxes on the wealthy. They should be paying more in a deficit economy.
     
  8. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #8
    Agree - and nicely expressed.

    I was debating with myself on how to express a measured and moderate response to those who replied to VulchR but you beat me to it.

    You've summed up much of the case for taxing the wealthy. There is a further argument, too, that of fairness, without which the old ideal of the 'commonweal' becomes corrosively undermined.

    If a society is constructed which is seen to be solely - or mainly - to the advantage of the wealthy and powerful, which allows them to abdicate any responsibility for costs or actions taken, while simultaneously clawing in whatever benefits they can persuade, or buy, from those in power, then all sense of shared social responsibility and communality is eroded, to be replaced by a crude value system where wealth, power and status are conferred upon a few, who then tend to view the rest with an unhealthy and profoundly unpleasant degree of corrosive contempt.
     
  9. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #9
    That's what a lot of people think. To me, it's from a lack of imagination. Instead of figuring out and dealing with the root cause of the problems we face, we look to people who pay the large majority of the tax revenue in this country and try to suck more out of them. Why? Because we can.

    We're a society that loves to try and solve problems without ever doing anything about the symptoms.
     
  10. BladesOfSteel macrumors regular

    BladesOfSteel

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    St. Paul
    #10
    Do they ("the rich") pay more for a gallon of milk? Rather, should they? Because they can afford to do it, right? They should be at paying at least twice as much for a gallon of milk.

    The top 1% of income earners pay nearly 37% of the federal income tax. How much more do you want them to pay? What is their "fair share?"
     
  11. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #11
    Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

    For instance, how much would we save if we brought all of our troops home from the Middle East? Why have we been spending so much money for so long? Imagine all the money that has been wasted over the past decade and what it could have done for Americans.

    I do agree that there are some problems some try to solve without looking at the bigger picture: Aid for the poor and abortion stand out. Instead of trying to take away aid/welfare and outlaw abortion, maybe we should spend some time figuring out the whys instead of assuming taking something away is going to instantly fix everything.
     
  12. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #12
    With you 1000% on both of those examples.
     
  13. mcrain, Oct 30, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    Well, if they have almost all of the wealth (apparently, their tax burden is low enough to allow massive accumulation of wealth)
    [​IMG]

    And vastly larger income, then they probably should pay at least 37% (Buffet rule?), but really, shouldn't we have tax rates similar to other times in our history where we have had to deal with tough times? After the great depression or how about after WWII?

    We just had a massive recession and still have historically low tax rates! How can you not see that as fiscally unsound.


    ---U.S. Income, 2005

    Combined income of 300,000 Americans who make up the top one-tenth of one percent of the population -$500 billion = Combined income of the 150,000,000 Americans who make up the lower 50% of the population - $500 billion

    Keep in mind the income disparity has grown and been exacerbated by the recession.

    (edit) More knowledge: [​IMG]
    Looking at that chart ^ does $250,000 seem like "middle class"?
     
  14. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    Hasn't anyone ever told you that life isn't fair? ;)

    On a more serious note, 'fair' is a loaded term that really shouldn't be used because of its arbitrary nature. What is pragmatic? What is sustainable? Those are better questions to ask than what is fair.
     
  15. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    "What is sustainable"? How about a system the avoids class war? When economic growth was good, the wealthy in the US seemed to learn that they could get away with anything provided there were enough jobs to go around. Well, there aren't any more. My worry is that the wealthy people is the US don't get this and will cling to their sense of entitlement, provoking some sort of ruinous social upheaval. When people perceive a system no longer benefits them, they set about dismantling it.

    IMO the only way of avoiding disaster is to jettison the 7000 page tax code and start with something 'fair' - making people above certain salary levels pay a fixed % tax on their income and assets (yes, assets) would be a good start.
     
  16. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    If I had all the specifics figured out I'd be out saving national economies left and right and not debating about policy on an internet forum. ;)

    Sustainable is sustainable. Excessive taxing is not sustainable. Insufficient taxing is not sustainable. Excessive spending is not sustainable. Insufficient spending is not sustainable. The devil, of course, is in the details. Increasing the tax burden on the middle class and poor is not sustainable because they already live on the slimmest of margins. The top few percent, on the other hand, can easily absorb an increased tax burden. What someone perceives as 'fair' isn't relevant, IMO. Like I said before, I think it's a loaded term that obscures the discussion.
     
  17. Dmunjal, Oct 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2012

    Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
  18. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #18
    Hilarious to contrast the two. Reich's video is pure class warfare... "Those bastards have more than you! Make them pay more! They don't deserve that money, they should pay their fair share" while the second video deals with the actual fiscal reality we're dealing with and gives a bleak assessment of how bad our spending problems really is. Anyone who can watch the second video and then continue on with the lie that our financial problem is simply that the rich aren't taxed enough... is truly a troubled individual.
     
  19. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
  20. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    Those aren't opposing views on taxing the rich. The first video is grounded in reality (though excessively uses the "F" word) and discusses taxing the rich while the second video pulls a straw man straight out the hyperbole infused FUD locker and outlines why a course of action no one is suggesting we do won't work.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Yes. They probably buy organic milk, and they probably get it delivered to their door, both of which are more expensive.
     
  22. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #22
    As I understand it, the rich often pay less for basics because they can buy in bulk or from rich friends and get a discount. Retail is for suckers.
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    Plus, since these "people" are really "small businesses" they deduct as business expenses many of the things you and I cannot.
     
  24. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #24
    It's not using strawmen, it's not hyperbole or FUD... they're taking the insane logic perpetuated by one side of the political spectrum in this country that our financial problems in this country are due to rich people making to much money and that it can be solved by 'making the rich pay their fair share'. They point about the absurdity of this idea, then proceed to take it to it's logical conclusion by coming up with even more crazy and extreme ways to take money from the rich to try and cover our deficit. In the end, you're left with a very clear understanding that it isn't a revenue problem we're experiencing, it's clearly a spending problem... and that you can tax the rich all you want, the problem we face won't be solved in that way.
     
  25. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    In the end you've been duped. No one is denying we have spent too much. Democrats have been complaining about deficits since Reagan. In fact, we Democrats actually do something about them. We enact fiscally sound policies that curb spending, encourage economic growth, and enact reasonable tax rates.

    It is absolutely insanity to suggest Republicans are the party who suddenly understand fiscal responsibility. Just because the deficits exploded at the end of the Bush administration and the economy crashed doesn't mean Obama's policies so far haven't been more fiscally sound than any Republicans would have been. In fact, if you look at where we are, we have shrinking deficits, an economy that is growing, and we have jobs being created.

    Can things be better? Sure they can, but you can't obstruct everything that the Democrats try (even your own ideas) and then claim you're better qualified to run the country.

    I'm sorry, but Romney's plan is fantasy, as is the video you posted.

    What are we talking about here? A small percentage increase on income over $250,000 and the right wing is acting like it's the end of the world. We have HISTORICALLY low taxes right now, and they won't agree to ANY revenue increases? How is that responsible?
     

Share This Page