we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com

[tbombz]

i said the 17 would grow if you kept on spending without confisscating enough wealth to pay for that spending..   and that is a FACT unless you are going to pay for the spending yourself or get others to donate voluntarily


as for your argument about whether or not i personally pay taxes...  its completely irrelevant and also blatantly untrue therefore i wont address it..

balls in court and you have yet to realize that theft is theft

[tu_holmes]

i said the 17 would grow if you kept on spending without confisscating enough wealth to pay for that spending..   and that is a FACT unless you are going to pay for the spending yourself or get others to donate voluntarily


as for your argument about whether or not i personally pay taxes...  its completely irrelevant and also blatantly untrue therefore i wont address it..

balls in court and you have yet to realize that theft is theft

No, you didn't say that, you said it would grow... you did not define why or how.

Now... Since you are amending your statement, which is fine... Why do you insist that it should be taken from the rich and not everyone?

You're saying that somehow the rich deserve to have the money they earned less than someone else?

If you truly are worried about paying it down, why not just take 90% from EVERYONE?

[tbombz]

No, you didn't say that, you said it would grow... you did not define why or how.

read it and weap

get rid of all wealth confiscation and reduce spending.. left with 17 trillion that grows larger and larger as time goes by.

 

Now... Since you are amending your statement, which is fine... Why do you insist that it should be taken from the rich and not everyone?

You're saying that somehow the rich deserve to have the money they earned less than someone else?

If you truly are worried about paying it down, why not just take 90% from EVERYONE?

its not about who deserves to pay its about how can we pay it down while causing the least amount of inconvenience/suffering.  we are going to have to steal money from people, so who would it be better to steal from? people with tons and tons of money? or people just getting by living modestly?  

[tu_holmes]

read it and weap

 
its not about who deserves to pay its about how can we pay it down while causing the least amount of inconvenience/suffering.  we are going to have to steal money from people, so who would it be better to steal from? people with tons and tons of money? or people just getting by living modestly? 

I guess your idea of wealth "confiscation" and mine are different as you started out talking about confiscation in the term of 90% and logic dictated that when you said removing that confiscation, it reduced it to a normal tax rate.

I see how I am incorrect in how you were phrasing it.

Fair enough.

It is not better to take more from one group than another... No.

If we are all in it together, and as citizens we are, then the percentage of burden should be as close to even as possible.

[tbombz]

normal tax rates are still confiscation of wealth.


% of burden should be as equal as possible?   $1 is worth 100 times more to someone who has $1000 compared to someone who has $100.     

[tu_holmes]

normal tax rates are still confiscation of wealth.


% of burden should be as equal as possible?   $1 is worth 100 times more to someone who has $1000 compared to someone who has $100.     

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean that the percentage isn't skewed... It's called math.

I don't care how the individual values it... a dollar is worth a dollar. The value of goods that the dollar buys is equal.

[tbombz]

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean that the percentage isn't skewed... It's called math.

I don't care how the individual values it... a dollar is worth a dollar. The value of goods that the dollar buys is equal.

your method of distributing the burden equally is extremely flawed and doesnt result in anything remotely resembling even distribution of burden.    people with no savings and living pay check to pay check get enough of their income taken away so that it means the difference between living poor and living modestly.. living modeslty and living well.. living well and living good..   etc...       people with billions in savings get their income taxed at a percentage that doesnt effect their lavish lifestyle one little bit...   equal sharing of burden?  i dont think so.

[tu_holmes]

your method of distributing the burden equally is extremely flawed and doesnt result in anything remotely resembling even distribution of burden.    people with no savings and living pay check to pay check get enough of their income taken away so that it means the difference between living poor and living modestly.. living modeslty and living well.. living well and living good..   etc...       people with billions in savings get their income taxed at a percentage that doesnt effect their lavish lifestyle one little bit...   equal sharing of burden?  i dont think so.

That's a feel good idea but again. The fact is that the value of the dollar is not changed based upon how many of them you possess.

[tbombz]

That's a feel good idea but again. The fact is that the value of the dollar is not changed based upon how many of them you possess.

there is such a thing as comparative value

[tu_holmes]

there is such a thing as comparative value

Too bad that buying power doesn't care about that.

[tbombz]

Too bad that buying power doesn't care about that.

buying power has a point of diminishing returns.. in both ability to pruchase goods and services and more importantly in terms of happiness/satisfaction it brings the individual..

[tu_holmes]

buying power has a point of diminishing returns.. in both ability to pruchase goods and services and more importantly in terms of happiness/satisfaction it brings the individual..

Who are you to say what makes others happy?

[whork]

save the lecture for someone who needs it 

you support some level of taxation on everybody for things such as education which you believe to be for the general good of society, therefore you support the robin hood notion of stealing from people in order to serve the greater good. you believe the ends justify the means, at least in regards stealing from people to pay for education.


period.

now, that being said...  17 trillion in debt. how to pay for it? confiscate 1/3 of middle class income over the next 30 years ? or one time wealth confiscation from the country's mega wealthy ?

The last 2 lines is interesting.

I would prefer the last but it would involve violation of human rights.

Therefore it is not a option at this point.

[bears]

there is a great need for a lot of people on this board to take a college level course in tax policy.  my god.  talk about living in a dream world.