Do You Want the Poor to Pay More in Taxes and the Rich to Pay LESS?

But what's the share? (Don't answer that. I already know! "Everything!")

No, Maters, what I mean by their share is an equal share. Let's say 10%. Any other comments you want to make?

Oh, yeah. Plenty of comments I want to make. Dozens. But I'll stick with one for now. "Let's say 10%." Let's say it. I'm sure the rich want to only pay 10%.

You nailed it, debater! From where I sit all that's come of "trickle-down economics" is the poor and middle class getting p1ssed on! Annie

Deb, when Reagan instituted trickle down economics it led the country into a recession that started in 1987 and lasted till 1992. It also left behind an enormous debt. Fast forward to Bush Jr., who again instituted trickle down and led to the worse economic condition since the great depression. Although trickle down economics makes sense on paper your big problem is spending. When you cut taxes on the wealthy you limit initial revenue coming into the government. The puts a strain on services provided by the government, and causes cuts or major borrowing. The problem is that once the economy starts to grow again no one wants to raise taxes. You are correct to point out that republicans controlled the purse strings in the 90's and that is what kept the spending down. But, you are also ignore that there was a democrat in office that didn't approve spending that republicans wanted. They also limited the government spending by forcing them to offset that with a dollar of revenue. However, your claim that republicans controlling the purse strings cause our great economy in the 90's doesn't hold water because they did the same thing in 2004 - 2006 and the economy didn't do as well, and the deficit took off.

The trickle down economic theory has been proved to be successful. The theory actually has nothing to do with national debt or budget deficits. The theory is that by giving tax cuts to everyone including the wealthy more money will be invested and there will be more revenue for the government through more tax dollars. This has happened on every occasion that tax cuts have been instituted. National debt and budget deficits are a result of overspending of the tax dollars. This doesn't make any difference if it is trickle down economics or tax and spend economics. If the government spends more than they bring in there is going to be budget deficits which are going to increase the national debt. The only way for the national debt problems to be solved is for the government to learn how to say "NO" to all of the people that want handouts - both foreign and domestic. Most Democrats will tell you no, at the same time talking about glorious the Clinton years were, which were fueled by the capital investment money freed when Reagan dropped the taxes on high income and capital gains to a less usurious level. I guess people have trouble discerning between revenue and spending. The federal revenue has always gone up. Unfortunately, the federal spending has almost always gone up faster. Trickle down worked fine, as demonstrated in the 90s. Federal spending is what caused the debt, not trickle down. The ONLY time the budget was balanced since the 70s was when Republicans controlled the Congressional purse strings. The Democrats have NEVER balanced the budget.

crossbones you stated the reason the wages are what they are because of supply and demand. These companies seem rich but you have to understand business. I once (in the 1980's) had a neighbor who owned a auto parts supply house that delivered to local repair shops. He was telling me of some labor problems he was having. He had 10 delivery people who took company trucks out every day and delivered parts and collected the money. The drivers were upset because they were making $100 a day (this is when the minimum wage was $3.50 per hour) and collecting about $5,000 a day each. They wanted more money because he was getting rich off them. What they didn't realize was that he had paid close to $3,000 for the parts each driver delivered. Each driver drove a truck that cost at that time about $15,000 each and lasted about 3 years before they had to be replaced. He had to provide liability insurance for the drivers, then he had the insurance on the trucks, Insurance on the building and contents, Workman's Comp Insurance, Unemployment Insurance and employee benefits. He also had to hire people to package the parts, load the trucks and plan the delivery routes so that the trucks were loaded in the proper order. He also had the expense of keeping the trucks on the road and full of gas. For the first 5 to 7 years he was one of the lowest paid employee because he got what was left. But if you took a look at the books the company was "rich" because he had to have close to $100,000 in inventory, $150,000 in vehicles, the building was worth about $200,000. My neighbor handled a lost of money in his business but that is all he did was to handle he did not get to keep it all. He figured that if all went well for the next 5 years he would then start showing a profit for himself. The next time you are in a McDonalds take a close look at all the equipment and furnishings that they have and then look up the prices on some of it. Then look at the building and the land it sits on. It would not suprise me if the total value of the building and set up is close to $500,000 to $750,000 or more, just to open the doors then add in the cost of the product and the labor costs and the workers have no investment in any of that. Then think of the McDonalds around the country and yes the company is rich on paper but they have a great investment in the business. What does the employee have invested in their job? Remember that McDonalds pays them while they are being trained and pays for the training, another expense. Being in business is not the easiest thing nor the most profitable.

You are right we do not have a revenue problem. What we have is a fairness problem, by many employers that do not pay their employees a fair wage for the amount of quality work they do. I was watching on the news the other day where they had a guy on there that was saying that the average employee who works at Costco for 4 years averages 18 to over 20 dollars an hour. Not only that but their minimum starting wage is a little over a 11 dollars an hour. How come in North Dakota McDonald's starts out new people at 15 dollars an hour. That is because they can't find enough people to hire. Yet in California and pretty much every other state it is a minimum wage that know one can live off of. Yet McDonald's is one of the richest businesses in this country. Same with Walmart and many other companies. You guys say you want people to be less dependent on government. It is kind of hard when many companies treat their employees so poorly and they have no excuse because they have so much revenue. It might be a different story for some of these small struggling business but many of these fast food chains and general store chains that make a boatload of money have no reason to not pay their employees a fair wage. Then the government would not have to tax so much because more people would actually be able to afford to live in this country. Plus people would have more money to spend and that is good for everyone.

Crossbones, I've thought about this for about 10 minutes. I wanted to put it in a way that didn't seem insulting, because I'm really not trying to sound insulting when I say it. But you don't seem to understand business. They're not pooling profits for an equal split or anything. I won't even touch what a "fair wage" means. I guess it means the same thing as "fair share"; i.e. keep spending more money until problems go away. Personally, I find that to be an incredibly weak approach to solving a problem. Hey, having trouble living? THAT COMPANY SHOULD PAY YOU MORE! Government should make a law! Increase the minimum wage, dammit. Pay people a LIVING wage! Let's make them do it! Yeah. People who think businesses have magical money faucets seem to approve of this approach. Wouldn't it make much more sense and provide more than a temporary solution if living was more affordable? Should we give everyone on Front Street the same type of car just to be fair, because the road is so godawful and bumpy? Or might re-paving the road fix the issue? Money is the quick, easy and temporary solution to problems politicians have no desire to actually fix. Plus it's fun to berate the wealthy and expect them to handle everything.

Deb, as I sit here the GOP is holding the middle and lower class Americans hostage to protect the rich. All we've been hearing for several years is that the "job creators" need to pay lower taxes. Actually I AGREE with that but I realize the job creators ARE the lower and middle income folks, not the rich, because without the former the latter would have nobody to buy their goods or services. As for "Obamacare", I guess a few extra bucks for yourself and the wealthiest among us is more important than the lives of millions of your fellow Americans. I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. Annie

I've not heard one Republican say lower taxes on the rich. And the working poor get every last cent paid in, back with a bonus EIC. What Obama isn't telling you is that Obamacare raises taxes ON EVERYONE. EVERYONE!

Mythociate, your name here seems to be fitting if you still buy into that MYTH that we all have an equal chance to become rich! Granted, there was a time when there really was an "American Dream" but those days have been over for quite some time, at least for a large percentage of Americans. That doesn't mean these people don't work just as hard or try just as hard as any rich person but there are just too many other factors against them. Annie

Having a disability is not the same thing as just being poor. You have a reason for your situation and if it wasn't for the disability you would have a better chance. My middle child is disabled and it kept me from working for many years because of her needs-so I do understand. It affects the entire family. Have you tried to get Social Security? Of course it won't take care of everything, but it would help. There are also programs that help the disabled become self-sufficient that are not available to the average person.

What about those of us that aren't "equally-able" to become rich? I've done the American route - I've worked for 20 years, been to school close to 15 years, have a Master's degree. But then disability struck and I couldn't work. Sure, I MIGHT luck into money, some kind soul MIGHT give me the money (wanna give me yours?) and there's nobody in my family that has inheritance money. So that leaves me with hard work. Doesn't matter how hard I work - nobody wants to hire me and I'm very limited right now as to what I can do. Since I couldn't get hired by anyone (and other reasons) I started my own business. I work at this 50-70 hours a week. Still not making enough to make ends meet. Do you actually think of the little bit I do have, I should be paying MORE taxes than someone making a decent living? I have more expenses than many people - besides the normal things, I pay over $300/month for prescriptions and more for Dr. bills - oh yea, because I don't have a job, and I have a pre-existing condition, I have NO health insurance and so far have been unable to get it. All these bills are payable BY ME at 100%. I may have been born to middle-class, but not there anymore. Do you honestly think making me pay more is going to encourage my disability to go away so I can go to work?

Fat, there is a point where you have to look at what you can, and can't live with then you look at a situation like this. The problem with republicans is that they don't want to cut spending on anything because of their lobbyist, and their base. They don't want to cut military spending which is costing us TRILLIONS in interest alone from the Bush years. When you are looking at a budget, and you can't come together and compromise, then you have to look at other ways to balance your budget. Your problem is that the American people put their feet down, and it wasn't on your side. If the American people wanted austerity programs, they would have elected Romney, and gave him a majority in the house and Senate. Instead they sent him back to one of his mansions, and took seats away from republicans in both houses. Fat, I wish that you felt this way back in the Bush days, when a lot of our debt was created, and we are now paying the interest on that debt. I agree that spending needs to be cut, but it is spending on both sides, and if republicans don't want to cut any on their sides it will happen at the end of the year if they want it to or not. Like I have said: They are in a lose/lose situation!!!!

Fat, when haven't we had a huge spending problem? Everyone (both republicans and democrats) love spend tax pay money, but the NEVER want to spend their own (look at Romney's 2012 campaign if you want an example). You can't cut enough spending to make up for the deficits that we have. And, if you did this country wouldn't be who we are today (for better or worse).

By the way, good job trolling.

Very true, Sarah. The middle class is obsolete now. We still can't get a deal on this fiscal cliff thing. I don't think we will.

Let's just say if the current crop of Republicans ever had total power you could be sure to never see what you've paid into Medicare and Social Security. For all our sakes I hope that never happens! I think a national sales tax might work as long as it was made to be fair so it wouldn't screw the poor and middle class, as is usually the case anymore. There should be exemptions for necessities like food, clothing and medicine and the rates on some "luxury" items should be substantially than those on more bare bones items. Annie

Sorry, Debra, but Ryan's plan would not have "saved" a thing and it would have increased the deficit. Do you really want to be at the mercy of some paltry "voucher" to go find yourself private health insurance when you're 65 and older? All I can say is GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! Ryan tried to convince us during the campaign that he cares about Medicare because his mother depends on it. Sure she does, like most millionaires. Annie

Actually, Paul Ryan proposed a perfectly good plan to SAVE medicare and social security, which by 2030 will be totally unsustainable IF NOTHING is done to save it. Fear mongering is beneath you Annie.

Spending is not the problem and now would be the worst possible time for draconian spending cuts, with the economy just starting to really grow again following the greatest recession in history. Annie

You want to explain how spending is not a problem. If the National debt were put into say mathematical terms, the sign in front of it would be negative. Oh, in budget format, it is completely red. President Obama is just about to start another recession with both Obamacare and some very hefty tax raises on all classes of citizens. Oh yeah, those tax raises will likely be permanent just due to the National Deficit. I hate to break it to you but none of that "new" revenue is actually going to pay for more than an interest payment. I completely explained this whole concept in another thread. Response number 6. http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/2735391.aspx?p=1#2_24197390 Congress doesn't need to make draconian spending cuts but they do need to make spending cuts. They have to slow down the upward tick of numbers in order to stop the National deficit from reaching GDP levels. If they don't do this, then they have absolutely no choice in the matter. Congress will have to make Draconian spending cuts no matter what party that they happen to be a part of. So far, the only "cuts" that have been offered are those that aren't really cuts in the first place. If you don't acknowledge the real problem, you will never fix it. It is like telling a shopaholic, "Your spending isn't a problem. Go and spend as much as you want. As long as you work an extra day a year, you are all good at covering your debts." Seriously, how is that fixing the problem?

Umm exactly how much income is that going to bring in? The latest numbers state about eight whole days of operating expenses. IF it were all to go directly to the debt, it would cover one interest payment, maybe. So, what is really ridiculous is to think that these tax raises will actually do anything except hurt business moral. Business moral is a big deal because it is the factor that determines whether or not a company will hire. There is also a very weird law with tax raises. You can look it up. It is called the law of "diminishing returns." (The British have already experienced this and France will too very soon.) That means that whatever estimates are made about this tax raises actually result in less than the estimated amount of collection. So, that eight days might be an optimistic number. Actually, the scare tactics came directly from Ben Bernake's mouth (a President Obama appointee). He used to words, "Taxaggedon" and now "fiscal cliff." Those two terms go directly to them.

All that's being proposed and what the overwhelming majority of the American people favor is to go back to the Clinton era tax rates for the top 2%. Those who use their scare tactics and talking points are just trying to scare people into thinking the sky would fall but how ridiculous is that when it would mean an additional tax of around $40 on each $1000 in TAXABLE income (minus business expenses for these very few small businesses involved) above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals. Things were just fine when President Clinton was in office but they started to go downhill when Bush got in. If tax cuts were so great for jobs and the economy why has the last decade sucked so bad? Annie

It's the system that's abusive because it conditions people to be dependent on the government, and it has manipulated the minds of otherwise intelligent people to see living on welfare as more desirable than getting a good education followed by a good paying job. Example: When a college professor friend of mine was asked why the Indians on a particular reservation didn't leave in order to improve their situation, her response was, "They'd lose their welfare." Unfortunately this is the mindset of too many, and maybe that's why our country is so far in debt. If passing their "dependency mentality" down to their children was an exception, shouldn't the number of welfare recipients be going down? http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-100-million-now-receiving-federal-welfare_649589.html http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias-mother-why-a-single-mom-is-better-off-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/ Getting on welfare should be difficult. Isn't it suppose to be for those who are really incapable of caring for themselves either through advanced age or health issues? Isn't it the competition within the market that keeps prices low? Personally, I would rather have the freedom to choose to reject this company's coverage for that company's, or to reject coverage altogether rather than to have the government have any say in the matter. The price of everything the government gets its hands on goes sky high and the quality goes down. A perfect example: education. If you'll reread my first response, you'll see that I said, "I know this would have to be done gradually since we've become so dependent on the government..." Of course you can't end Social Security for those already on it or those who are scheduled to go on in the near future. I don't know what the answer is, but I can't imagine a private sector company doing a worse job with Social Security than our government has. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine any private sector company doing worse than our government on anything, except perhaps the military.

During the GOP primaries Herman Cain mentioned this model for social security: http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/cbigelow/chilean-model-of-social-security But of course that would take the POWER away from Washington D.C. Can't have that happening.

As for healthcare and free markets; why is cosmetic surgery getting cheaper and cheaper? Because most insurances, most especially government insurance programs like medicaid and medicare do not cover it. Free markets work to keep costs down. Medicare and medicaid drove prices of medical care UP. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/how-to-transform-medicare-into-a-modern-premium-support-system

Except, it isn't only the Bush tax cuts that expire in 2012. Ben Bernake, President Obama's appointee calls it "Taxaggedon." If it were only that, then you argument might be a little plausible. However, there are two other huge taxes coming down the line at the beginning of 2013. The first is the end of the temporary reduction on the Social Security tax. The second is the very unpredictable Obamacare tax. It is unpredictable because there are still some very huge questions about it. Exactly, how much income do you think is going to be raised by this?

Oh, and you didn't adequately compare the economic conditions such as the fact that Clinton had an Internet Bubble and it ended just as Bush took office. The housing bubble and financial bubbles were both set to burst. It was just a matter of when and what President.

You're wrong, they may pay no federal income taxes but they certainly DO pay other taxes. I'd have thought you'd be proud of the EITC since it was something Ronald Reagan was very proud of himself. Don't take this the wrong way, Deb, but it kind of sounds to me that as far as your friends go with a friend like you, who needs enemies...lol! I don't know about you, but I have no problem with the working poor being able to get some money back, which is put into the economy and helps create jobs, not to mention helping to keep a lot of hard working people out of poverty. For most people, being able to claim the EITC is just a temporary thing, but not always. Anyway, I'm sure most of them would do anything to get to where they earn enough to no longer rely on that extra check. Our economy has been based on a progressive tax code for a very long time and it's really the only fair way to do it considering the huge gap between rich and poor. Annie

Hey! I've personally put a lot of time into this discussion through my incredibly longwinded posts. Please, for the love of all things holidays, let's stop moving the goal posts on what "taxes" mean! Is it income taxes, state-specific, federal-specific, consumption taxes, property taxes -- what? Which taxes do you mean? As Debra states, your post seemed to be more about federal taxes, and it seems to me specifically income taxes people are paying in. It's the same thing as skewing the debate by omitting explanations over the percentage of tax vs. the total. Not for nothing, but if you guys are correct (meaning Annie and others who want more tax paid), then the language shouldn't have to be gamed to show you're correct. It should be able to stand on its own without being misleading and without changing the distance of the kick every new comment.

YOUR post was about federal taxes. I replied in kind. They get every last cent paid in federal taxes back, so they pay no federal taxes. EVERYONE who buys pays sales tax, and if they own a car they pay property taxes, so what. That was NOT the discussion topic. FEDERAL TAXES were. I keep asking and no one answers me; what do we do when the well runs dry and NO ONE GETS ANY HELP? Better to cut back NOW while we still have a chance to save the programs most needed, like disability and food stamps for those on fixed income and Social Security for those who depend on it for their entire income. And I absolutely hate it when you say...don't take this wrong...cause I know you are about to insult me. Btw...did you know Warren Buffet of the Buffet rule fame has spent BILLIONS avoiding paying legitimate taxes? A flat tax would disable the loopholes HE and others hire hundreds of lawyers to help them jump through.

The whole country would suffer if the working poor were made to pay more taxes. Believe it or not, as a proud liberal I agree that those who "never did a day's work" who honestly could should have to earn their way but I don't think there are that many that fit that description these days. Annie