CNN/Money: Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes

[SnyderShrugged]

Again no, that would not help balance the budget. that would make it more difficult.

Are we for balancing the budget, or just ending entitlements for the sake of ending them... even if they are good and most people want them?

I'm for ending the debt problem and the disaster economic train we are all riding on. That means first drastic and painful cuts to all spending with no sacred cows left out, then fill the remaining gap with more taxation that is fairly apportioned to all. Who cares about a balanced budget if it doesnt remove the debt we already have?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm for ending the debt problem and the disaster economic train we are all riding on. That means first drastic and painful cuts to all spending with no sacred cows left out, then fill the remaining gap with more taxation that is fairly apportioned to all. Who cares about a balanced budget if it doesnt remove the debt we already have?

That's what these millionaires are for too, but you are mocking them for their efforts.

[SnyderShrugged]

But what if some people can't "afford" the apportionment level? Has the US ever had a tax code where some people weren't exempted out based on income?

It sure seemed to work for the first 150 or so years of our nation.

---------- Post added November-17th-2011 at 02:07 PM ----------

That's what these millionaires are for too, but you are mocking them for their efforts.

I'm mocking them for going a PR based route to make them look good while they seek to impose burdons on other people when they have had the ability to personally do so without impacting another person.

[NoVaO]

Here is the response from these millionaires to those who say "voluntarily send your money to the government"...

First, we are well aware that making voluntary contributions to reduce the deficit is an option that is open to us. That you seem to think reminding us of this is a constructive contribution to this serious debate indicates that you have missed the point. In our democracy, individual citizens do not get to pick and choose what government spending to pay for. ...That is an intrinsic part of living in a democracy: you don't get to opt out...

To suggest that we try to tackle this problem by making individual contributions is, frankly, insulting. It is like suggesting to someone expressing a desire to serve their country by bearing arms that they buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Afghanistan. Some problems are too big to be solved except through collective effort and shared sacrifice, and this is one of them...

[for those who say]"this debt crisis is not caused because we tax too little. It is caused because our nation spends too much." This is quibbling over semantics. Deficits result when spending exceeds receipts. Whether that happens because spending is too high or receipts are too low is a matter of perspective and priorities...

It is true that government spending levels are at historic highs, but it is also true that tax rates (and hence receipts) are at historic lows in terms of percentage of GDP. It is the combination of these two factors that has taken us from surplus to near €catastrophic deficits in a mere decade.

And lets understand something. The debt will eventually have to be paid off. It's only logical that we start with the people who can pay the most. If you don't start with the very rich, then you put the entire burden of paying off the debt on the middle class and the poor. Not only is that immoral, but it's bad economics because the middle class and the poor are the buyers that drive consumer demand. Increase their taxes, and cut spending on programs they rely on, and consumer demand will dry up.

[SnyderShrugged]

Then I insist that you stop voting, and stop expressing your opinion on any law or social policy ever again. Because it is the same exact thing.

No, it certainly is not. My opinion never mandates another person's actions for them. My opinion is always rooted in individual actions and roles over the collective approach.

[PeterMP]

It sure seemed to work for the first 150 or so years of our nation.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

So this is wrong:

"In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut."

You didn't answer the question.

Lot's of things "worked" for the first 150 years ago, including many that I don't think most people would support going back to.

[Predicto]

I'm mocking them for going a PR based route to make them look good while they seek to impose burdons on other people when they have had the ability to personally do so without impacting another person.

Stop. Just stop. This argument is :pooh:

No one is rich enough to personally balance the federal budget, much less pay off the national debt. That is not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about tax policy.

This discussion is incredibly frustrating. I'm bailing out of this thread before I say anything more hostile - heck I've already probably crossed the line. If so I apologize.

[NoVaO]

No, it certainly is not. My opinion never mandates another person's actions for them. My opinion is always rooted in individual actions and roles over the collective approach.

Man, you'd really love Somalia. Survival of the fittest. Very limited government. Barely any taxes.

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

So this is wrong:

"In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut."

You didn't answer the question.

Lot's of things "worked" for the first 150 years ago, including many that I don't think most people would support going back to.

why would a temporary war tax be wrong in the context of what I said? That doesnt make sense. You do understand that we left the direct taxation format(apportionment from art 1 sec 9) when the 16th amendment passed in 1913. (Maybe I should have been more precise in saying 137 years instead of 150?)

I did answer the question in that there werent huge issues with the original form of taxation that I just mentioned, they changed it to be able to generate more revenue in forms of non-direct taxation because they were yearning over lost money for them in real estate transactions and stock dividends that didnt technically qualify for "direct taxation". Additionally, since the apportionment direct tax format was based on state population, another option, albeit unattractive, is to move to a lower populated state.

---------- Post added November-17th-2011 at 02:17 PM ----------

Man, you'd really love Somalia. Survival of the fittest. Very limited government. Barely any taxes.

sigh yet another straw man argument with no bearing on the discussion.

---------- Post added November-17th-2011 at 02:19 PM ----------

Stop. Just stop. This argument is :pooh:

No one is rich enough to personally balance the federal budget, much less pay off the national debt. That is not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about tax policy.

This discussion is incredibly frustrating. I'm bailing out of this thread before I say anything more hostile - heck I've already probably crossed the line. If so I apologize.

I thought the title of this thread was "Millionares ask congress to raise their taxes"?

There is no need for anger or frustration. Simply call it like I see it.

[Predicto]

Last shot acrtoss the bow, I promise.

Did you read this SS?

First, we are well aware that making voluntary contributions to reduce the deficit is an option that is open to us. That you seem to think reminding us of this is a constructive contribution to this serious debate indicates that you have missed the point. In our democracy, individual citizens do not get to pick and choose what government spending to pay for. ...That is an intrinsic part of living in a democracy: you don't get to opt out...

To suggest that we try to tackle this problem by making individual contributions is, frankly, insulting. It is like suggesting to someone expressing a desire to serve their country by bearing arms that they buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Afghanistan. Some problems are too big to be solved except through collective effort and shared sacrifice, and this is one of them...

[for those who say]"this debt crisis is not caused because we tax too little. It is caused because our nation spends too much." This is quibbling over semantics. Deficits result when spending exceeds receipts. Whether that happens because spending is too high or receipts are too low is a matter of perspective and priorities...

It is true that government spending levels are at historic highs, but it is also true that tax rates (and hence receipts) are at historic lows in terms of percentage of GDP. It is the combination of these two factors that has taken us from surplus to near €catastrophic deficits in a mere decade.

What do you think of it?

[GSF]

ahh, the good ol "insane" cop out when someone has an opinion that differs from yours. Personally, I think it's "insane" to use the government to force your opinion at other expense.

I'll debate and discuss with anyone who desires it, there is nothing "trollish" nor insane about my perspective at all.

Hey i'm not the guy arguing that this group is doing what they are doing for publicity sake. This argument is laughable. If they were after pub they could just send a big check and notify the press. When you read what the have to say it's quite obvious they are doing what they believe needs to be done to solve the debt/economy crisis. To disagree with their opinion is 1 thing, to say it's all an act for publicity is either **** stirring or just plain dumb.

[Henry]

Eh. Nevermind. I don't want to run on this treadmill ...

[SnyderShrugged]

Last shot acrtoss the bow, I promise.

Did you read this SS?

What do you think of it?

Yep, and it's fairly meaningless. They could just as easily approached this as a unified effort to change tax policy due to their political leanings (like all people who petition congress do). But they instead decided to say "Please tax us more we dont pay enough".

I see they act as if all people of the big spending government stripe do in glossing over the monstrous spending that is the root cause of the need to increase revenues to begin with. This isnt chicken and egg. The spending is what drives the taxation up. period

[GSF]

This discussion is incredibly frustrating. I'm bailing out of this thread before I say anything more hostile - heck I've already probably crossed the line. If so I apologize.

I am feeling the same frustration with the GOP in general. I have been following their campaigns pretty closely in hopes of finding a moderate conservative with some substance. So far they all sound like SS.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm mocking them for going a PR based route to make them look good while they seek to impose burdons on other people when they have had the ability to personally do so without impacting another person.

As opposed to the Tea Party which made no effort to get their message out and/or lobby Congress. C'mon. That's so disingenous. People who want less spending could stop accepting it to.

Everyone once in a while, SS, you remind me that you are not a republican but a true libertarian who just wants a more simple government. However, in this thread, you are going out of your way to defend indefensible politics by mocking millionaires who are pointing out the rational obviousness that taxes need to be raised to get this budget balanced.

[Kilmer17]

Dammit. What did I miss here?

[PeterMP]

why would a temporary war tax be wrong in the context of what I said? That doesnt make sense. You do understand that we left the direct taxation format(apportionment from art 1 sec 9) when the 16th amendment passed in 1913. (Maybe I should have been more precise in saying 137 years instead of 150?)

I did answer the question in that there werent huge issues with the original form of taxation that I just mentioned, they changed it to be able to generate more revenue in forms of non-direct taxation because they were yearning over lost money for them in real estate transactions and stock dividends that didnt technically qualify for "direct taxation". Additionally, since the apportionment direct tax format was based on state population, another option, albeit unattractive, is to move to a lower populated state.

1. You didn't answer the question. What happens if some people decide they can't pay their taxes under an apportionment system (at ANY level of state population)? Stating that it worked for the first 150 years doesn't answer the question.

2. If that information is correct as early as 1862 there were different levels of taxation on people based on income. In under 100 years, there was a graduated income tax based on the level of the income people made. That's what these people are talking about.

[Larry]

Even though I am personally against abortion, I dont desire forcing any one individual to do anything. On this issue, I dont believe the one group should try to force higher taxation on the others.

But you do believe that one group should force drastic government reductions on everyone.

You don't object to one because of some noble belief against government force. You object to government force that you don't agree with.

Forcing spending cuts onto everybody in the country, you got no problem with, at all.

Nor to you have any problem at all with people demanding such cuts, who don't personally give back all of their government services.

To you, somebody who thinks that America would be a better country if millionaires paid higher taxes, who doesn't personally, voluntarily hand over their cash (and nobody else's), is a hypocrite.

But the idea of somebody demanding government spending cuts, who isn't willing to personally hand back the services they get from the government? "Not even in the same ballpark".

---------- Post added November-17th-2011 at 02:30 PM ----------

I am feeling the same frustration with the GOP in general. I have been following their campaigns pretty closely in hopes of finding a moderate conservative with some substance. So far they all sound like SS.

In defense of SS, no, I don't think they do.

They may all sound like Rush Limbaugh, but that's a different animal.

[SnyderShrugged]

Eh. Nevermind. I don't want to run on this treadmill ...

what you arent understanding Henry, is that I dont have a big problem with the discussion on tax rates for the wealthy, and for all of us. Its a valid and needed discussion.

It's that they seemingly did it under the guise of altruism that bugged me.

We have already established that they could in fact ":donate" to the treasury to reduce the debt. They have even acknowledged it. But then they go to the next page and say it's because they "really, really want to pay more", when they mean "we really, really want everyone in our niche to pay more"

They should just be straight on it is all.

[mjah]

Just as it makes EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT IF SENSE that anybody who wants to cut government spending should do without any and all benefits of having a government. (While still paying the same taxes).

Just reminding all that this really does make exactly the same amount of sense as the "Why don't YOU just give more out of YOUR own pocket?" line of reasoning. Which is to say, none at all.

And I have yet to see that fact legitimately, logically challenged head-on, either here or anywhere else.

A dumb lazy and sound bite, nothing more.

[SnyderShrugged]

But you do believe that one group should force drastic government reductions on everyone.

You don't object to one because of some noble belief against government force. You object to government force that you don't agree with.

Forcing spending cuts onto everybody in the country, you got no problem with, at all.

Nor to you have any problem at all with people demanding such cuts, who don't personally give back all of their government services.

To you, somebody who thinks that America would be a better country if millionaires paid higher taxes, who doesn't personally, voluntarily hand over their cash (and nobody else's), is a hypocrite.

But the idea of somebody demanding government spending cuts, who isn't willing to personally hand back the services they get from the government? "Not even in the same ballpark".

---------- Post added November-17th-2011 at 02:30 PM ----------

In defense of SS, no, I don't think they do.

They may all sound like Rush Limbaugh, but that's a different animal.

My abortion stance is probably somewhat unique because I dont take a religious nor political stance. To me, its simply the baby is one of millions of individuals and should be granted the same exact rights as you and I are.

but thats an aside from this thread.

On the other points, yes, I have no issue at all with shared overall sacrifice of Federal largess when we simply dont have the money to do so and when the economy is so shaky.

[Thiebear]

If they are that rich they could fix this behind the scenes working with Congress.

Both sides of Congress would then pass a law removing the Bush Tax cuts on that group and can hold up a doc with the signatures to prove they were asked and this isn't an attempt to attack millionaires.

To use the analogy they are: They own the weapons and bullets and contractors that fund the war and can make changes as they see fit in a more strategic level: Thanks for waiting till now.

Millionaires of their level are not individuals.. they are entities that can and do more.

[SnyderShrugged]

1. You didn't answer the question. What happens if some people decide they can't pay their taxes under an apportionment system (at ANY level of state population)? Stating that it worked for the first 150 years doesn't answer the question.

What did people in 1900 do when they couldnt afford their taxes? I assume there was a process followed. And I already mentioned btw, that the option to move to a lower population state (thus less taxes under the direct taxation method) was always there.

2. If that information is correct as early as 1862 there were different levels of taxation on people based on income. In under 100 years, there was a graduated income tax based on the level of the income people made. That's what these people are talking about.

I understand completely what they are talking about. I just disagree with their approach, and most of their argument as long as the spending is glossed over.

[NavyDave]

Man, you'd really love Somalia. Survival of the fittest. Very limited government. Barely any taxes.

Very poor comparison since even liberals can not turn the USA into a 3rd world, anti capitalist, Muslim nation. well anytime soon

[Jumbo]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?358607-Boots-to-asses&p=8696056&viewfull=1#post8696056