Hey, you socialists... Where's your answer?

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (95 posts)

59
weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years ago
Rep Tim Scott has run the numbers...

If we tax everyone over 100K income at 100%... We will not even balance THIS year's budget. Much less cover the fast-growing SS, Medicare, medicaid...

Apparently, we'd need to tax EVERYONE, every business, every employed person, at 60+% just to balance THIS year... and next year would have a massive deficit again.

Face facts... Redistribution is a failure. It's time for people to take care of their own lives. Government cannot do it for them.
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey you Republicans . . . where's your question?
  
  You can not really expect a serious answer to a load of spurious "facts" and speculation with nothing to back them up.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You, the writer of only fiction, complaining I offer no facts?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Comment treated with the contempt it deserves.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which means you realized you have no intelligent commentary on the matter.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, it means yet another unbalanced rant that can not be treated to intelligent commentary.
  
  Come on, you accuse me of writing fiction in response to the biggest heap of fiction I've seen in a long time.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Frankly, you're clueless. You have been for as long as i've seen anything written by you. You still are. You have no facts, no knowledge, no understanding. Just go away, for pity's sakes. You couldn't contribute a thing.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, he really loves me!
  
  Whereas you are full of facts and knowledge and understanding.
  I've got a better idea, you take your offensive behaviour away, you don't have a good word to say for anybody and your stock response to anybody who disagrees with you is to heap childish insults on them.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nor do you!
  Remember when they had that budget group? Bi-Partisan cutting and saving?
  Well--what they came up with JUST matched what we are losing with the Bush-Cuts!
  Get rid of those, and we START 700 bil ahead of the game (10yrs [projection)
  End the cap on FICA....and you have revenue up the wazooo!
  Stop allowing outsourcing of wealth--make them pay taxes here! Close tax loop-holes, end tax expenditures! Do you know, a quatrillionaire can take a mortgage deduction? All Americans are paying $50,000 of his mortgage!Imagine if he has 5 homes!
  Waste fraud and abuse in military/private contracting...just to name a few.
  
  We HAVE the money--it's all hoarded at the top!
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL "ending the cap on FICA" won't do squat.
  
  Again, you have no numbers. None. You cannot raise tax rates and have statically computed revenue increases. Never works. It has NEVER worked.
  
  Again, how do you fund SS ALONE, when there are only 1.4 people working for every person drawing?
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Those 400 families who have all the wealth can pay the same percentage of FICA that the rest of us do.....that would just about do it...and I'm not kidding.
  
  They have wealth equal to 120 million of the rest of us....
  That is 120 mil people's MORE worth of FICA.....you do the math!
  
  As it is now, they only pay FICA on $103,000.
  
  Imagine if they were paying it on ALL their income???
  You know---just like everybody else.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Really, you don't. I have no idea where you came up with this lamebrained nonsense, but it has no factual basis. You need some numbers, and you have to apply them to reality and explain it. You can't, you have no facts.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug Hughes just did!
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, he didn't. His own math contradicts himself.
  reply report
  60
  Alexander Peaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why does it matter, seriously? It seems petty for you to continually point out people faults and or shortcomings, (even if there are no faults of shortcoming). I don't like petty people.
  reply report
2. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The math to expose this lie is not hard. We are working in trillions but don't sweat it.
  
  The projected defcit 2011 - 1.65 Trillion (source Wall Street Journal)
  
  Total personal Income US - 12.5 Trillion (source US Department of Labor 2010)
  
  Percent of aggregate income top 5% of personal income. - 21.7% (source - US Census Bureau 2010)
  
  Do the math. The richest 5% of Americans 'earned' 21.7% of the total pie, 12.5 Trillion. That's 2.7 Trillion. The projected deficit is 1.65 trillion, or roughly half of the total income of the richest 5%.
  
  Tonto would say, "Republican speaketh with forked tongue."
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, youi do. They already pay over 50% tax rates when you combine state and federal, etc. Please enlighten us again, this time with truth, not falsehood.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Warren Buffet didn't. he paid at 12%, less than his secretary!
  GE didn't. Exxon didn't. I'll BET you most of those 5% didn't either.
  
  And, even if they did...how is it their incomes grew so much, while most people just staggered, or went under?
  Could THAT have been gvt policy?
  
  Like Cheney said: "You are our base, and we will support you"....uyup!
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  GE got billions from the federal government, arranged by Democrats and Obama. Why would you complain about that? Obviously, it was to do what the government wanted them to do. So, why are you now complaining?
  
  BTW, GE is not a person. BTW, you're not doug hughes, either.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  GE is too a person, thanks to Citizens United.
  
  Free as a bird to spend all the money they want on another psy-op!
  
  "Poor Poor rich people, always the beat upon, torn down opressed minority".
  
  Minority, yeah....op-pressed? Only their shirts! By their man-servants!
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, GE is not a person. But the people AT GE have the right to speak. As does any person. Either you believe in free speech, or you don't. Which is it?
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I believed in Howard Stern's free speech!~ Christian Coalition felt differently.
  
  I believe free speech is not really free--it's bought and paid for, like eveything else. The bigger the "mouth", the more free your speech!
  
  Since Limbutt, Beckles or any of them have never been fined to my knowledge, and they say foul things to rival Stern, and worse!, on a regular basis.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You still haven't answered. Buffet pays at a published FEDERAL tax rate of nearly 50%. As does EVERY rich person. You have yet to explain how you'll get all this money by increasing tax rates.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, for one--they'd have to start PAYING them!
  
  Loop-Holes and Lawyers,"Only the little people pay taxes."
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  YOU SAID IN THE OP -
  
  "If we tax everyone over 100K income at 100%... We will not even balance THIS year's budget"
  
  That's a lie. Maybe like a good soldier you are repeating a lie. It's still a lie. The total income of the just the richest 5% covers the deficit almost twice.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oly has the integrity to admit when he is wrong. He's done it more than once. I respect that.
  
  Do you have any integrity?
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have the highest integrity of anyone here.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then admit you're wrong, Mr. Integrity. Oly has done it; AnnCee has done it; I have done it; Doug has done it. I'm sure I missed many others who have done it.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I only admit I'm wrong when I am wrong. I'm not wrong. What are you accusing me of being wrong about?
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  PP - I don't know if you followed Star Trek TNG. Warf said it best (speaking of the Borg who the teabaggers remind me of)
  
  "They have no honor. That is our greatest advantage."
  
  People are catching on to the brutal deceit behind the tea party. The downward trend in approval shows the movement is deflated.
  
  The lies must be exposed. The people who spread the lies must be stripped of credibility. It's a war for the hearts and minds of moderate voters.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, you know, your dishonesty never fails to amaze me. You do it right here, in the open, while screaming I'm lying.
  
  I'm not lying. I merely stated what Rep Tom Scott's conclusions were.
  
  I figured you'd go off on a rant and accuse me of lying. No, really, that's rep tom scott's conclusions. I didn't lie. I accurately stated them.
  
  But it was a nice trap for you. You jumped in, with both feet, as did a whole lot of people. Oh, and you still posted wonky numbers with contradicting math. I'm honest... And that stands. But you can read the post above... and see for yourself... I didn't change it. You are just so blinded by your rage and hate that you can't see truth staring you in the face. Thanks for playing and so clearly demonstrating what and how and who you have made yourself into.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Rep Scott told the lie.
  
  You only repeated it. And you throw sand in the eyes of anyone who looks at real numbers.
  
  Warf got it right.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why would a person of integrity knowingly repeat someone else's faulty calculations without revealing that they are fully aware it's garbage?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  His credibility is already gone, along with his integrity.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The richest 5% have tax rates of over 50%, just under 50 to the federal government alone. They also pay the majority of federal income tax. Please square your numbers with reality.
  
  How can, if their tax rates are 50%, they be expected to pay signfiicantly more?
  reply report
3. 59
  Alison Rodriguezposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You use the deficit as your example of the inefficacy of taxation. Yet, you conclude by saying people need to take care of themselves. How is the budget deficit a direct effect on everyday lives? My dad to day does not change with the ebbs and flows of fiscal policy. Opinion aside, your logical methodology is weak. You attack taxation, yet your solution is innocuous and nondescript. What exactly do you mean by "taking care of ourselves?" Pave our own roads? Deliver our own mail?
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent question!
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The amount of our taxes that pay for raods, brudges, etc, is very, very small. Without looking up the exact numbers, it's likely around 10% for the states, and about 2 percent for federal. So, you can't argue that cutting taxes is a threat to roads or mail. They're not the issue, as it concerns spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amount to generally less than 10% of the budget each year. Removing them won't make a significant dent in a deficit that's 45% of the total budget.
  
  I didn't use "the deficit as an example of the inefficacy of taxation". I have no idea how you'd come up with that, unless it was some kind of diversionary tactic.
  
  The problem with our budget is just blatant overgrowth of government - which is doing too many things, doing them badly, and spending nearly 80% of it's revenues giving money taken from one person to give to another.
  
  We are not undertaxed in any way. Our government is just overspending. What we the people are willing to pay... Is what the government must be willing to live within. And what our representatives are supposed to budget and then spend... and no more.
  
  The issue is simple, really. And, not hard to fix, if you simply ignore Democrats lies.
  reply report
  59
  Alison Rodriguezposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Apparently, we'd need to tax EVERYONE, every business, every employed person, at 60+% just to balance THIS year... and next year would have a massive deficit again." Hypothetical example to demonstrate the inefficacy of taxation
  
  "Face facts... Redistribution is a failure." Your appeal to the preceding point.
  
  I'm not sure how I can make it more clear. It certainly wasn't a diversion tactic; I was just responding to your rhetoric and appealing to rules governing logical syllogisms. Also, Republicans have been every bit the big spender as the Democrats. Look at budgets from the beginning of the Bush presidency until now. Perhaps your argument has less partisan appeal than you think.
  reply report
4. 81
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I can only assume by "take care of their own lives" that you mean that we should abolish the federal reserve banking cartel, and take control of our own country - rather than be manipulated by Zionist?
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Clapping hands!!!
  reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
Rescind Bush tax cuts, remove cap on FICA.
reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
Close corporate tax loop-holes, fine those who out-source their money.
Good enought to take from the people here?
You can pay taxes here!
reply report
59
weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years ago
For those of you whose head is not buried like John Holden, you can find the relevant numbers, as it concerns federal budget, the revenues the goverment gets, and what source they come from...

It's easy to find, and if you don't go find it yourself, then it's because you don't want to know the truth.

What IS of relevance is this: If you take all future projected spending by state and federal government, for the next 40 years, and all future projected incomes of Americans (all Americans), the numbers are only a few trillion apart (less than 5 trillion).

In other words, we will have to be taxed... at 100% of our wages, to pay for the things Ralph Deeds, Mighty Mom, Ilovemychris, and all the other hateful ranters demand.

Of course, that's not possible.

Only an idiot, a complete fool, would insist that the present course be maintained. But here they are, demagoguing the issue with fanatical zeal. Why? It's all about keeping power, and nothing else. They claim that taking power and redistribution power away from Washington DC is "fascism" and "tyranny".

Yeah. Nobody is really that stupid people. So, wise up, let them play their mindlessly stupid word games... And ignore them. Demand answers... they ahve none. They don't know the numbers, nor any relevant facts... All they do is mount rhetorical, hate-filled, animosity inducing verbal campaigns against their fellow Americans. That alone is evidence enough they're not worth listening to.
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So...the war for States Rights has been won by attrition? In this atmosphere, the south will surely rise again. Hope y'all saved your stars and bars.
  reply report
2. 78
  Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Advocating healthcare for all Americans is the epitome of hatred. If so, I'm proud to spew that venom!
  
  Why don't you answer the question that we have been asking repeatedly?
  Where were you and all you other "responsible budgetists" when this deficit was being run up with two unfunded wars 2000-2008?
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Slanderous slurs! I'll have you know that I'm not a budgetist, and in no way can I be considered responsible!LOL
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Consider this. If medicaid and medicare were done away with, and all citizens above a certain income level (Just to be generous, say $50,000 per year) were required to be self insured, then the funds necessary to ensure the remainder (including those who are currently covered by medicare and medicaid would be funded, and two separately funded programs would become one program (easier to manage) Cut out care for non-citizens and we might just be able to do it w/o deficit spending. These are two entitlement programs that have been a constant thorn in the side of the U.S. budget for decades. Consolidation can't be bad. Right now, the wealthiest, the poorest and the most aged or infirm have medical care. The segment of our society which suffers most in this healthcare mess are the lower income working class, who, by the way, perform nearly all of the hard work and labor needed to keep this nation moving. Hell, even the southern slaveholders knew that an unhealthy worker can't work.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, what fanciful nonsense. You have no idea of the scope of the dollars, do you?
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't on Hubpages back then. What IS your point? You really don't have one, this is just nonsense.
  reply report
3. 60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/
  
  Total Revenue $4460 billion
  
  Total deficit $1645 billion
  
  Who has his head in the sand?
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, what a load of nonsense. This site has wholly wrong and misleading information.
  
  The ACTUAL federal revenues for 2010 were a little over 2.1 trillion and for 2011, the revenues are expected to be about 2.4 to 2.6 trillion. This is easy to find. the CBO, treasury, etc, all post the numbers. This site has them ALL WRONG. It is fiction.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes of course it's wrong, it disagrees with you.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My Gawd. You are clueless beyond belief.
  
  http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039
  
  There is a link titled "Budget PRojections" in the right hand column, with the ACTUAL numbers, which totally conflict with whatever crap is on the link you provided.
  reply report
  60
  canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The U.S. is insolvent buddy, at least as long as it continues on its current path. The real debt of the U.S. including the shadow banking sector and unfunded liabilities including 2 illegal wars is north of 100 trillion. Can't wait to see Boner try to pay that one off.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Insolvent isn't the proper word. Where do you find 100 trillion dollars of liabilities and over what time period?
  reply report
  60
  canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  U.S. debt clock - watch 'er tick while washington fiddles.
  
  http://www.usdebtclock.org/
  
  INSOLVENT - BANKRUPT - IN DEBT UP TO EYE BALLS - call it what you want.
  
  Oh yeah, watch for debt default in May 2011. Gonna be great fireworks
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So you just made it up?
  reply report
  61
  CHRIS57posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well - reading multiple sources and doing maths i get:
  4,4 Trillion total revenues (fed, state, local)
  2,1 Trillio total deficit,
  In my understanding John is quite close.
  
  4,4 Trillion tax revenues is some 30% of the GDP. Lets make it simple and say the total deficit is 15% of the GDP.
  To get a balanced budget my simple maths tells me to increase taxes about 15% of the GDP.
  You think that is impossible? No Sir, all Scandinavian economies run tax rates between 40 and 50% of GDP, and they apparently do very well.
  
  So of course it is possible to balance the budget. It is only a matter of who is willing to pay the price.
  
  If i were you, i would start wondering where Rep Tim Scott had learned his maths.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We don't want to live in the poverty of Scandanavia, either.
  reply report
  61
  CHRIS57posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, a good one, poverty in Scandinavia, you must be joking.
  
  I do business with Scandinavian countries (mostly Denmark and Sweden) and i do business with the US. Travel to places quite a lot. What makes me take part in these forum conversations is a little passion for the poverty i start observing in the US.
  Americans deserve better, but they definitely don´t deserve maths illiterates like the Rep you quoted.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not interested in a country where the average citizen must live by government handout or be homeless.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, he's talking about you, the US!
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, your defense of the nonsense is to: Add all governmental revenues to claim that 4.4 trillion is the federal income. Ignore all state deficits and liabilities and just focus on the federal, and then use those phony numbers to create a false conclusion.
  
  Let's get this straight... here's the TRUTH, which you so fanatically ignore.
  
  Federal deficit: 1.6 est
  State deficits and unfunded liabilities 1.0 trillion
  
  Actual GDP (not fictionalized, as in government spending as if it were production) 11 trillion.
  
  Combined state and federal spending as a percentage of GDP, roughly 40 percent.
  
  You made the illogical conclusion that GDP is the total of paychecks, which can simply be directly converted to tax rates to confiscate. It cannot. The GDP is much larger than the total of all payroll. In fact, the total of all payroll is a smallish fraction of GDP.
  
  But, total payroll in the US, meaning the combined paychecks of EVERYONE who gets one.... Is less than half of the GDP. What you have to do, is to explain HOW you get 5.6 trillion dollars out of payroll that's less than half of 14 trillion. Especially when HALF of the paychecks (the bottom half) are not taxed, except for FICA.
  reply report
4. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Calling named members "hateful ranters" is a personal attack, Wehol! Don't get carried away with your blustering!
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The hate filled rantings are also a personal attack, but I don't see you complaining about them. Maybe you just like to have hate filled rants posted...but object to them being objected to.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey--AnnCee called me an insect!!! Where was the outrage for moi?
  I TOLD her, it's Dragonfly, NOT insect!!
  We don't bite, we sting.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are wrong as usual, Wehol! Referencing members by name and calling them "hateful ranters" is a personal attack. Just ignore my warning if you like, but don't say you weren't warned about it!
  
  Personally, I don't care. But it helps your argument none at all.
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hate-filled rants? Are you talking to yourself? Consider this: The level of military spending now, in 2011, is at the same level, if not greater than the military spending at the height of the cold war. Where is the enemy? The terrorists? The threat that present situation poses does not justify the slice of the budget that the pentagon has always expected. We are closing schools! How are we to be expected to compete in the world markets if our kids don't get the education they need. Our priorities are all screwed up.
  reply report
74
barryrutherfordposted 13 years ago
Last time I looked the cost of the war in Iraq alone which was a Republican initiative has cost to date 785 Billion and Counting.

There one lot of wasted money. Then the tax cuts to the super rich that was not needed. How many Bentleys can you drive at once?
reply report
1. 59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What business is it of yours?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you don't want an international discussion, don't discuss it on an international forum.
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What business is it of his how much anyone else has? Or anyone, for that matter/
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What has that got to do with the cost of war?
  reply report
  59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing. The comment was about his complaining abuot how many bentleys one drive at one time.
  reply report
  60
  Alexander Peaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am seeing a lot of redundancy... It sounded like a rhetorical question, meant to lend a larger perception on wastefulness. It does seem wasteful to have too many cars, but that is a person's own prerogative if they choose so. So, in a way, you are right wehold, it is no ones business what one does with ones money.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I've been saying about my uterus!
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We hold these truths? Your truths? You seem awfully defensive...Methinks you doth protest too much! Must be one o' them thar FATCATS.
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 13 years ago
"What business is it of his how much anyone else has? Or anyone, for that matter/"
Especially the mafia.
reply report
1. 59
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have some point?
  reply report
  60
  Alexander Peaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think that his point was that no one has any business sticking their nose into the mafia's affairs? Right, knolyourself?
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 13 years ago
"But the people AT GE have the right to speak. As does any person."
Don't see GE on these forums. If they speak they spend millions doing it. Don't think speech is exactly free.
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 13 years ago
"U.S. debt clock"
Anybody remember the 'Lock Box'. More American parody.
reply report
62
Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago
the only coherent answer is Anarchy

Let those who make proper decisions with their property be the ones to retain it!
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 13 years ago
"Americans deserve better, but they definitely don´t deserve maths illiterates like the Rep you quoted." Americans are deprived ones. Good they got their media to
telling them how great they are. Rate at about with Nigeria on the scale of economic equality.
reply report
64
I am DB Cooperposted 13 years ago
I'm a little confused by the math being used here. I've tried doing a little research, and here's one quote from another forum that's interesting:

"According to the most recent data (2008) there were 11,967,000 households earning between 100k and 150k , 4,561000 households earning between 150k and 200k, 1,726,000 households earning between 200k and 250k and 2,230,000 households earning more than 250k.
Even if we massively lowball the calculation by assuming that each household earns the bare minimum within their bracket and each already pays the maximum tax possible at such a level, increasing that to 100% would bring in about 2 trillion more."

Perhaps Tim Scott was saying this tax wouldn't pay off the debt as it stands this year, and wasn't referring to stemming the annual growth in the debt?!?! I think even a basic look at the math shows that a huge chunk of the debt would be paid down with this type of tax (not that I'd advocate a tax as severe as this). If Scott is suggesting a tax like this would fail because it wouldn't be able to pay off the debt accumulated over the course of decades in a single year, he's kind of missing the point. Nobody should expect the debt to go away with one simple huge tax increase. It should be lowered over the course of many years through revenue increases and spending decreases.

Another thing about this whole debate: isn't Tim Scott also suggesting that a tax increase is absolutely necessary? If he thinks a 100% tax on the rich won't lower the debt at all, how much can he possibly believe spending decreases on their own can help?
reply report
1. 60
  Alexander Peaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. No one can expect the deficit to disappear completely all in one year. It would be absurd.
  
  Don't hold me to this, but I believe that over-taxation decreases productivity?
  reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
So, what are you willing to pay?
reply report
60
Alexander Peaseposted 13 years ago
This is off topic, and will probably be duly notice by wehold, but why is it whenever someone presents evidence in the forums, he tells them that they are lying? And then when he makes statements, no one can question it?

It seems unfair for him to hold people at a different level than himself. Wehold, if you are so desperate for truth, then look it up and do some research yourself. Don't expect hubpages to answer all of your questions, exactly as you want to hear them. That is not the function of the forums. The function is to encourage positive feedback and discussion amongst hubbers.

If you believe that these forums will answer all of your questions, then you are only going to cause yourself frustration and misery. That is, unless you enjoy accusing people of lying. If so, that would make you an arrogant bigot, who looks down on others, (and being that way would also make you drastically narrow-minded). Although, I'm not actually saying that you are any of these things, (and they only apply if you like making accusatory statements).

You would do better asking people questions, on the questions board than using the forums. It seems that you are searching for specific answers to your questions, answers that people in the forums can't seem to provide. Also, if you are seeking like-minded people, you will not find that here either. Hubpages is a diverse community of writers and from my experience, no two writers share the same perception.
reply report
77
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
"unless you enjoy accusing people of lying."
That's my take on it

But, we are at least getting somewhere with him.
modernday got him to say he wanted a 45% reduction in gvt spending.
Now, I'd like to know what percentage he's willing to pay in taxes.

THEN we will be getting to the ideas part!!
reply report
1. 60
  Alexander Peaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Be careful, he may accuse you of lying about him saying that so, I find it best not to quote him in any aspect.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Every time he responds to me, he calls me a liar
  I've been blogging since 06, though....and faced some REAL psycho's...so.
  You must get a thick skin.
  Only one who makes me want to punch him is *&^.
  HE is like a viper.
  reply report
  60
  Alexander Peaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Be careful, you would not want to make any threats to another hubber. This is a thin line, however much I agree with you.
  
  Wow, you are a real veteran of blogging, I am impressed, Thumbs Up!
  Only recently have I actually taken to writing online. And yes, I have quickly learned to develop thick skin. Besides, when you get down to the basics, they are only words on a screen.
  reply report
  77
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. "Nothing but a G thing baaby."
  reply report
59
qwarkposted 13 years ago
.face the FACT people: We owe a debt so large that it can NEVER be paid off!
I haven't the slightest idea how this is all gonna resolve itself.
If all nations begin to fail, we'll ALL be relegated to begging for "alms!"...but no one will have any to give!
The next 10 yrs will determine the fate of all of us.
Just my opinion.
Got any better ones?
Qwark
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Hey, you socialists... Where's your answer?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Hey, you socialists... Where's your answer?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies