So you're saying 90% of us need help, through no fault of our own? And that the other 10% should be forced to "collectively" help us out?

You're also aware that a majority of that 47 million "choose" to forego health insurance in favor of things like vehicles & plasma TV's? Your position requires that either we force them to spend money on something they don't want or for the rest of us to be forced to pay for something they choose to "not afford".

"Ability to pay" is an interesting concept - who, exactly, decides what that means? You? Me? Cause if it's me, I suspect I can lower my tax bill. If it's you, whoa Nelly.

Several of them. 

It's not the responsibility of the government to provide health insurance or health care to anyone.  End of story. 

Your statements prove to me once again that you will only be happy when American is a socialist welfare state.  We don't have to "collectively" help anyone, and it's not my responsibility to foot the bill for people who choose whether it's direct or indirectly to be poor.

Island Dog

What about all the other issues I listed:

I have enough respect for our military that I would not send them (officers and enlisted alike) into a war that was not needed to protect our country and has not made us safer at home.

I believe we should conduct the fiscal affairs of this country in a responsible way which means we do not run up the debt and hand it off to our children.

I believe there should be some fairness. People who do their part should be able to live and the taxes should be predicated on your ability to pay.

For those through no fault of their own need help, we collectively should help them.

I believe the President and those under him should be enforcing g our laws-- tax laws, immigration and border security.

We need to be following an energy policy that moves away from the entanglements that we find our selves in because we must purchase so much oil from foreign countries.

I believe in FAIR trade policies that enable equal access to other countries markets as they have access to our markets.

As far as health insurance, even Bush has stated that is a serious problem for the country!

Ignorance? Ignorance seems to be your home port. With the tax cuts we ended the depression caused by higher taxes of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush. On top of that we have been able to fund the war and pay down the debt ahead of schedule. Think of what we could accomplish if we were not at war. A war started by attacks upon the US. Think of what we could do if we cut spending of useless programs that don’t work or programs that are not essential to our general well being. National endowment of the arts wastes millions of dollars supporting the arts. The arts are a great thing but not essential to America. There are a host of programs that the government funds if cut would save billions and help balance the budget. We must fund the war but there are other places we can save money without raising taxes. The tax cuts have boosted the economy why end them when we know that every time we raise taxes the economy tanks and every time we cut taxes the country grows?

Paladin77

You do not know what you are talking about. Bush has not EVER paid down the debt. It has increased EVERY year he was in office. What Bush is talking about is reducing the RATE at which the deficit is growing not actually reducing the National Debt. You either are just stupid or refuse to accept reality. On January 20, 2001 the National Debt was $5.728 Trillion Dollars. On Jan 20 2007 the National Debt was $8.675 Trillion Dollars according to the Bureau of Public Debt, Dept. of the U.S. Treasury.

Gene, you should explain your point of view with your own words.

Here on JU, we've been telling you for years that the rich pay most of the taxes. And then suddenly, Ben Stein says the same thing and it's "stunning".

The rich have a lot more than the poor. You say this is bad but you don't explain why it's bad.

You say you think people who make more should pay simply because they make more.  So the guy who works 60 hours a week in a horrible factory job ends up working a lot more hours for the government than the guy who's paid the same per hour but only works 20 hours a week. And you think that's fair?

I may a lot more than most people. I'm in the top 1%.  How? Because I have spent the last 13 yeras of my life working pretty consistently at least 60 hours a week or more. I have had very few vacations (average has been around 5 personal days per year).  I work nights and weekends, all year round. 

..But in your view, I should simply pay vastly more (even as a %) because I can afford it?

Does your cable company charge you more than someone poorer? How about your electricity and phone? Why are government services any different?

You are a socialist, Gene.  And like most socialists, you have no idea how the economy works.

I don't care what Bush says about it.  You bash him constantly, call him a liar, and now he's credible on this issue.  It's not the governments responsibility to provide health care or health insurance. 




I made the mistake long ago of running down every one of your DNC/socialist talking points to prove you wrong.  Everyone here has shown how your points make no sense.  You continue to be a mouthpiece for the DNC and never hold democrats accountable for their actions, it's all about Bush.  What have democrats done to protect the border, what have democrats done to get us away from foreign oil......nohting, thats what.

Frogboy

I did not say that: "The rich have a lot more than the poor. You say this is bad but you don't explain why it's bad.” What I have said is that the distribution of wealth is skewed too fare toward one side. That is in part because of the taxes. The very wealthy for example pays far smaller % of their income to Social Security taxes then the low and middle income workers. If your annual income is 1 Million dollars you are paying about.6% of your income in Social Security Taxes where a person making $25,000 is paying 6.2%. How is that fair? The wealthy can pay slightly higher income taxes (like those in effect in the 1990's) with NO adverse impact on their life style. If we have a slight shift in the wealth to the middle and low income working families it would not only help many meet their most basic needs but they would spend almost 100% of that income that was shifted and help the economy.

If you have a seven figure annual income (that would place you in the top 1%) then you paying another 5% in federal Income taxes would not impact you life style. What will impact all of us is the fact we are operating this government at a substantial deficit and have piled up a National Debt of almost $9 Trillion dollars which we must pay interest on EVERY Year. We will be paying $500 Billion PER YEAR in interest. That interest comes from the taxes you and I pay and is money that is not available for other obligations like Social Security and Medicare benefits.

I worked about 40 Years and paid my taxes so my parents and grandparents could receive their Social Security and Medicare. Now that I am retired I do not apologize for the expectation that my Social Security and Medicare benefits are paid by those now working. The Bush plan to set up private accounts did not solve the issue of how to pay the benefits to the Baby Boomers. In fact it made that problem worse since the money that would have been shifted to private accounts was pledged to play Baby Boomer benefits. The imbalance was far bigger under the Bush Social Security suggestion then to do nothing. HOW is that a solution? In addition, after the Boomer Bubble passes there is no indication that Social Security will not return to something like today when the system is able to pay retirement benefits from the taxes paid by working Americans.

We need to bring fiscal responsibility to the federal Government. If we plan to spend $2.9Trillion dollars then we must have a tax system and tax rates that will generate that amount of revenue. We do not have that in place. In addition, because we have acted irresponsibility since 1980, we need to begin repaying the nearly $9 Trillion dollars in Debt which will require a SURPLYS to be generated and then applied directly to repaying the debt. That will mean even higher taxes to balance the budget and produce a real SURPLUS.

Wealth isn't distributed. In a capitalistic society, wealth is earned. Person A provides Person B with a product or service in exchange for money.

Of course. That's because social security is CAPPED. There's only so much you pay in and that's how much gets paid back. 

What does fairness have to do with it. If I make $1 million and put $60k into a bank aboutn I am putting in .6%. On the other hand, if I make $20k and put in $1000 into the bank then I am putting in 5%.  So what is your point?

Social Security is, in theory, supposed to be a retirement plan by the government.  If I were emperor, I would do away with it entirely and then no one would have to put anything into it.

There are so many things wrong with this statement I'm not sure where to begin.

First, what we pay in has nothing to do with whether we can afford it or not. The government, like the electric company, exists to provide its individual citizens with a service.  Stealing one man's earned income to give to another is wrong.

Secondly, you clearly have no idea of what the "rich" do with money. You are correct in that their lifestyles wouldn't change if you taxed them more. That isn't the point. The people with the highest incomes INVEST their money. That's HOW you get rich in the first place. You keep investing your money to make more money.  That investment is what creates jobs, opportunity, and new goodies for us to use. 

Taxing the rich more won't hurt the rich personally, but it will, in the long-run, hurt everyone else through fewer jobs, a slower increasing in standard of living.

Moreover, the # of Americans who don't have access to "basic needs" is trivial. I've mentioned this before but the poorest 25% of Americans live pretty well on average. Most have DVD players, TVs, Internet access, cars, and a slight majority of them even own their own home. They even get free medical care via Medicaid.  But even that's irrelevant. It is not the responsibility of the government to give away other people's earned money to other people.

You basically see the government as something that RULES us. This is completely contrary to what the founding fathers intended.  They saw the government as a glorified neighborhood association. For the first hundred years or so, the govenrment only taxed for services rendered.

You are correct, it woudn't affect my lifestyle. I'd just have to lay off a worker or two because that's where my excess income goes to -- investing in my business.

I have also pointed out, repeatedly, that it is well known that the budget would be easily balanced if we simply FROZE spending increases for a couple years. No cuts needed. Just quit increasing spending until the tax receipts catch up.  The tax recepts of the federal government have nearly doubled since Bush came in. Imagine the surplus we would have if they hadn't increased spending at an even faster rate.

So you admit social security is a pyramid scheme. 

I also work but instead of relying on the government to help my mom, I help her directly financially.  Free citizens do not need the government to do the right thing. They do the right thing because they are free people.  I'm sorry you need the government to intercede for to take care of your parents and grandparents.

Take a look at this graph from the CBO:

Historically, the federal government was only confiscating around 18% of the generated wealth of the country. 

But by the end of the Clinton administration (thanks to the Internet bubble) it was over 20%.  Most conservatives, such as myself would like to see that number around 15%.

The recession and tax cuts brought it down to 16%. It's back to 17% and trending to reach 18% by 2010.

Your basic problem is that you have no understanding of economics. You think if we just raise taxes everything will be fine. But that's not how it works. If you raise taxes, you are simply shifting wealth from the private sector into the public sector.  And who has a better track record of producing wealth? People like me or some clueless politican in Washington? 

Moreover, even if you raised taxes the 40% needed on the wealth to balance the budget next year, it would only be a temporary solution. In other countries, the government represents up to 30% of the GDP and guess what? They have debts too. Governments will always spend what they get because they have an incentive to do so. 

That is why the tax recepts and spending receipts aren't a good measure of what our tax rate should be.  The real question is, what % of our economy do we want the government confiscating.  Once you make that decision, then it's just a matter of the government living within its needs and making sure enough taxes are being collected to meet that number.

Look closely at this graph, Gene.  The government's tax income today is the same as it was when Bush came in.  Yet we have these scary deficits you mention.   So what is the cause then? Spending. We increased spending across the board:

You see the problem? Since Bush came in, spending just went berzerk. And it's not because of the Iraq war alone. The government went on a spending spree.

So to sum up:

1. Rich people are rich because they invest their money.
2. If you tax the rich more, it won't affect their lifestyle but it will mean they have less to invest (look at how quickly the economy jumped back largely thanks to the tax cuts).
3. If the rich invest less, people lose jobs.
4. It is immoral IMO to advocate that the government should confiscate money from one person to hand to another who provided no service to the original person.
5. Tax rates and spending levels are the wrong metric. It's what % of the economy you want the government to be involved in.
6. We have a deficit today because we increased spending.
7. Tax cuts are why the economy grew so fast after the recession.

 

“The government, like the electric company, exists to provide its individual citizens with a service.”

That is correct. However unlike the electric company the revenue does not equal the expenses for the federal government. There is no substitute for paying for what we spend. I know some will argue we should spend less but that fact remains OUR elected officials in the executive and legislative branches have approved the level of spending but have failed to levy taxes to pay for those services that we choose to deliver. THIS MUST END and we must repay the $9 trillion dollars that we have spent that we have not paid for to date.

People are rich for a variety of reasons. Some inherit the wealth. Some create the wealth by forming companies that provide goods or services people purchase. When a person is fortunate to have wealth far in excess of the average we must look to that group to help shoulder more of the cost of society. The reality of Social Security is that most people do not and would not provide for their retirement which would just create another problem if it were eliminated it as you suggest. The fact remains Social Security and Medicare exist and people have worked their lives with the promise of receiving their benefits just as our parents and grandparents did because the baby boomers paid their taxes.

No matter how many excuses you provide we must balance the federal budget and repay the debt. I have two degrees in Business and spent 35 years successfully operating the business functions of profit and non profit organizations. We simply can not afford the tax cuts that Bush passed. The Comptroller General has documented that the NEW revenue from the so called supply side investments resulting from the tax cuts to the wealthy have produced only 1/2 the lost revenue from the tax cuts. In other words we cut taxes and only saw 1/2 of that revenue loss in the form of new tax revenue from the increased tax from the supply side investments. As Bush 41 said, it is Voodoo Economics. It did not work when Regan tried it and it has not worked when Bush tried it. Time for a new policy. BALANCE the Federal Budget and pay down the debt!

......and there you have it folks.

from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

What I am suggesting is a small increase in the tax rate for the rich i.e. 5%. That is not Communism nor would it adversely impact the wealthy. It would help solve the disastrous fiscal policy of deficit after deficit. Nothing anyone has said changes the fact we need to balance the federal budget and begin repaying the $9 Trillion Dollar National debt!

What I am suggesting is a small increase in the tax rate for the rich i.e. 5%. That is not Communism nor would it adversely impact the wealthy. It would help solve the disastrous fiscal policy of deficit after deficit. Nothing anyone has said changes the fact we need to balance the federal budget and begin repaying the $9 Trillion Dollar National debt!

Your supposed "small" increase to a person making say 2 mil a year is $10K. Not what I'd call a "small" chunk of change. "Balance" the budget? First thing we need to do is STOP increasing the spending.

Because to most people, they don't care about it.  It doesn't affect their daily lives and I would be most people couldn't tell you the defnition of "deficit".  You have proposed taxing individuals up to 50% of their income, and only on select people who you think should shoulder the burden.