[Aardwolf]

What? Just because I'm a commie doesn't mean I'm a vegan!

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, I like my meat how I like my flag...nice and red.

oh hai fbi it's a joke

[Aardwolf]

Yeah, I like my meat how I like my flag...nice and red.

oh hai fbi it's a joke

We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of.

Quoting from memory, no guarantee of accuracy

[Kosh]

Well, you just illustrated a main problem with big government in all forms.  When Congressmen can do whatever spending they want to buy votes, **** happens.  Unfortunately most people in Washington seem to have an entitlement mentality of their own which tells them we exist to serve them, not the other way around.

This is going to seem radical, but nuking the site from orbit just to be sure we killed off all the lobbyists and politicians is probably the best option.

Yes and from 1994 until 2006 which party was in charge? The Republicans. When Clinton was running a surplus, instead of advocating the debt to be paid down, what did they want? Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Grossly irresponsible. So on one side there's borrow and spend and on the other side there's tax and spend. 

[Liberator]

Well, the tax cut thing is in line with the basic platform of the party:  Lower taxes = good.  The thing about the federal budget running with a surplus means that the government took too much money from the citizens so the logical thing to do would be lower taxes so that they don't have to get it taken in the first place.  It's also logical that the ones paying the most taxes would also receive the largest reductions, of course that's politically uncomfortable for those of us who what to get their way by demonizing and running down the reputations and integrity of the people that are essentially bankrolling your vote-buying...er, welfare programs.

[Nuclear1]

Lib, we've been over and over this.

The rich aren't suffering from a tax increase. They still control 50% of the wealth in the country.  They can afford to bankroll welfare programs, since they've got the means to do so.

It's easy to demonize the rich because they essentially set themselves up for it.  Golden parachutes and private jets just don't make me shed a tear for them.  Now, if the wealthy were more generous willingly, through charity and philanthropy, I believe they should get a significant tax credit on that, but as it stands, they can suck it up and pay for it.

[karajorma]

Liberator highlights the biggest problem with America. It's not that the American Dream makes everyone believe that one day they might be rich and a tax on everyone with $50m worth of assets might hurt them, it's that everyone believes that one day they might be super-rich and a tax on people who earn $50m in some ridiculously short period of time would hurt them.

The majority of the money in the country is not in the professions you might one day have like doctor or lawyer. It's not even in the hands of people with the sort of money a lottery winner might have. It's all in the hands of a few ultra rich people who can easily afford to make $400m a year rather than $500m. Why the **** anyone would be against a tax increase on those who earn over $10m a year is beyond me but opposition to that sort of change is astounding.

[Kosh]

Well, the tax cut thing is in line with the basic platform of the party:  Lower taxes = good.  The thing about the federal budget running with a surplus means that the government took too much money from the citizens so the logical thing to do would be lower taxes so that they don't have to get it taken in the first place.  It's also logical that the ones paying the most taxes would also receive the largest reductions, of course that's politically uncomfortable for those of us who what to get their way by demonizing and running down the reputations and integrity of the people that are essentially bankrolling your vote-buying...er, welfare programs.

Clinton did cut back spending on welfare programs, as well as early on raise taxes somewhat. The result? Surpleses that should have been used to pay back the debt. Did the economy collapse as the republicans predicted from the tax hike? No.

In reality a great deal of tax dollars (IIRC 1/3 of the federal budget) go to just paying the interest on the debt, if we pay off a  significant portion of the debt, then we can look at lowering taxes because we wouldn't have to shell out so much. Funny thing about debt, if you spend more to pay down the principle you actually save money becaue it lowers interest payments. So why aren't we doing this?

And BTW, if you're going to have a tax cut, cut it for the middle class. They are the ones getting squeezed by inflation and out of control healthcare, university, and housing costs. Under the Bush tax cuts large swaths of the middle class got nothing. If things continue this way we'll be facing an enormous sovereign debt crisis sometime in the next 5-10 years, and when that happens the implosion will make what happened in Argentina in '99 look like a firecracker.

Liberator highlights the biggest problem with America.

Another big problem is the total lack of leadership on both sides of the isle to actually deal with this situation. It's going to take a combination of tax increases AND spending cuts in order to properly reign in the deficit and actually start paying off the debt, but no one is interested in doing that.

[SpardaSon21]

I believe the top tax bracket for the federal income tax starts at $250,000 for joint filers.  Not exactly the "ultra rich".

[karajorma]

So make a new bracket.

They won't of course, cause it's wrong to have a bracket at, let's say, $2m and $20m

[General Battuta]

The prototype is usually generated as a sort of average of all exposed examples of group members.

Scientifically, maybe. But what about the rest of us?

No, what I'm saying is, that's actually how the human brain constructs prototypes. It's not a conscious process.

What I mean is that although we certainly work based on prototypes, and those prototypes are based on what we are exposed to, there's still the problem that what gets exposed to people is always being slanted by someone, purposefully or not.

That's definitely true.

[Nuclear1]

I believe the top tax bracket for the federal income tax starts at $250,000 for joint filers.  Not exactly the "ultra rich".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/

Democrat Barack Obama said Friday he would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000, which would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.

Yeah, actually, it is.  No need for a new bracket...there's barely enough at the >$250K level already.

Look, my mom has a master's degree in business and marketing from one of the best non-Ivy League Business schools in the country...she's been working at Eli Lilly since she was 30...20 years later, she still only makes $100K.  Just because $250K isn't in the millions, doesn't mean it's not a whole hell of a lot of money.

[Scotty]

Why can't just have a flat tax?

Seriously.  Someone with a background or knowledge of econimics please explain why.

[iamzack]

30% of $30,000 leaves $20,000

30% of $250,000 leaves $175,000

[Liberator]

I'd much prefer a Fair Tax.

[Scotty]

30% of $30,000 leaves $20,000

30% of $250,000 leaves $175,000

That doesn't exactly answer my question.  Why does it have to be 30%?  Why not 15%?  (30% leaves $21,000, by the way.)  15% would leaves $25,500.  I know for a fact that that level of income is livable.  I live on it.

[iamzack]

my point is that at low incomes, a flat tax is going to be significant, and at very high incomes, a high percent barely makes a difference. take 90% of $100 million and you still have $10 million left, which is more than most of us will make in our lifetimes. at our level of national debt, it makes no sense to pass up that kind of tax revenue.

we as a country racked up trillions in debt, we as a country have to pay it off.

it's like we think ignoring debt makes it go away.

[Liberator]

Also, the G'Ment has to start learning to operate within it's means, NO MORE DEFICITS!

[Scotty]

we as a country racked up trillions in debt, we as a country have to pay it off.

it's like we think ignoring debt makes it go away.

However, "the rich" did not rack up those trillions in debt, but we're making them pay it off.

[iamzack]

well, okay then, our options are

1) have everyone from every income level pay the same amount (a very small amount, because we'd have to accommodate the ability of poorer people to pay)

2) have everyone pay based on their ability (a little from poorer people, a lot from tremendously wealthy people & corporations)

guess which one will take many generations longer...