What would you do to revive the US economy?

Biggest mistake ever made..... in retrospect we should have let the "confederate" states go.
Yes, it would be very interesting to see what it would be like today. I think the "liberal" union states would have failed and the Southern States would have had to "bail" them out!! Look at all the money we would have made charging you for some sunshine in the winter...lol
 
This is where I get in trouble, why am I paying for that? I'm not saying it is not needed for Anchorage expansion, just why can't AK (this is for all states not just AK) pay for it? This is part if the states losing sovereignty as you and I have agreed on before. I'm sick of pu$$y states sending their dollars and power to Washington then sucking up to Washington to get it back. We can't have it both ways, by AK control of the waterways while spending Washingtons $$$ to build state infastructure. MM

I would tend to agree and Alaska has turned down federal money so where does it go? To another state. You have to fix the problem first. I have no problems with taking federal money for roads etc. Mike, I am sure some of the roads, bridges and interstates are recieving federal funds, so why not Alaska which is trying to expand its road system.
 
Yes, it would be very interesting to see what it would be like today. I think the "liberal" union states would have failed and the Southern States would have had to "bail" them out!!

Based upon how things turned out in the following decades, I tend not to agree with your assessment.

"Letting the South Go" would have, however, established a strong state's rights precedent that could very well have led to a dissolution of the remaining Union over the next 100 years.
 
Based upon how things turned out in the following decades, I tend not to agree with your assessment.

"Letting the South Go" would have, however, established a strong state's rights precedent that could very well have led to a dissolution of the remaining Union over the next 100 years.
Hmmm...could be, but "things" would be so different from what we know today it's hard to say....Afterall, every body that I have met that live in the south and who are radically liberal are from the north...just sayin
 
May as well start printing your own currency as well. . .

. . . I think the "self determination" thing was kind of settled back in the 1860's.

We just seem to forget that pesky 10th amendment since the FDR packed supreme court ruled the commerce clause was so expansive that the government can make you buy health insurance from a private company. OOPS my bad, that decision hasn't been made yet, but you get the idea. MM

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
Hmmm...could be, but "things" would be so different from what we know today it's hard to say....Afterall, every body that I have met that live in the south and who are radically liberal are from the north...just sayin

It appears that people from the cities are usually the most liberal. Take Illinois, it is a Republican state with a Democratic city that is more populous than the rest of the state, net effect: solid democratic. MM
 
How much do you want from the upper income taxpayers? The top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. Depending on how we define "middle class" they ALL only contribute 10% of all income taxes if they are above the 50th percentile but below the 75th percentile, or 27% if they are above the 50th percentile but below the 90th percentile.


The 70% argument is a pain. It is the shill argument that people against any sort of progressive taxation tend to make. Mostly because it involves numbers and a little thought, the people whom this argument works against, don’t understand it, and you suddenly have fairly low income people fighting for the very well off! First, of course the top earners will pay the most total gov’t tax receipts, provided that there is a decent pool of top earners. Secondly, this is the oddest argument for fairness of taxation when, thanks to years of tax rate cuts for top earners, they tend to pay lower net effective tax RATES, but still pay the most DOLLARS.

So, let’s simplify.

The population has two taxpayers. Rich makes $300,000 a year and pays 10% taxes, or $30,000, and has $270,000 to live on. He is doing very well, indeed. Poor makes $30,000 a year, pays 10% taxes of $3,000, and has $27,000 to live on. The government is has a strict Constitutionalist policy of just providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare (from the Preamble of our Constitution, and this does NOT mean food stamps for baby makers, it means in this case building roads for common use by Rich and Poor). And, in my world a constitutional amendment has been passed that the Federal budget must be balanced.

The total tax pool from Rich and Poor is $33,000. Rich has paid a whopping 90.9% of all taxes!!! The Federal budget is $40,000. $20,000 to fix the road and $20,000 to fix an Air Force plane. THERE IS A $7,000 DEFICIT THAT MUST BE MADE UP. WHO WILL PAY?????

Well, since Rich has already paid over 90% of the total tax receipts, OF COURSE IT IS NOT FAIR TO ASK HIM FOR MORE! Poor must make up the entire $7,000 deficit. His taxes balloon to $10,000, or 33% of his income. He has just $20,000 to live on. After all, he is still only paying $10,000 in taxes, and just 25% of total Federal receipts, and Rich is still paying 75% of the total taxes. (And folks, this is the world we are starting to live in.)

In a Progressive taxation system, which has been around for many years, and tested against our Constitution many times, we would ask Rich to pay 20% of his income. So, he pays $60,000, leaving $240,000 to live on (handsome, indeed) and Poor still pays $3,000. With total tax receipts of $63,000, the gov’t is floating in cash, and has the ability to make repairs to the Capital building next year.

So, the next time you hear “THE TOP PAY 70% OF ALL TAXES,” think about the above for a little bit.

And, the hits on Warren Buffett in some posts are interesting. He advocated both CAP GAINS tax increases, and INCOME tax increases for top earners. As he put it, CAP GAINS were much higher 40 years ago, and people still made investments when they were sensible. And Mr. Buffett was a case in point, and practiced what he preached in the 1970’s. So, he has not advocated for taxes that put him at advantage because he is heavy on cap gains over income. And heck, I get most of my news from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and I still figured this one out!!
 
The 70% argument is a pain. It is the shill argument that people against any sort of progressive taxation tend to make. Mostly because it involves numbers and a little thought, the people whom this argument works against, don’t understand it, and you suddenly have fairly low income people fighting for the very well off! First, of course the top earners will pay the most total gov’t tax receipts, provided that there is a decent pool of top earners. Secondly, this is the oddest argument for fairness of taxation when, thanks to years of tax rate cuts for top earners, they tend to pay lower net effective tax RATES, but still pay the most DOLLARS.

So, let’s simplify.

The population has two taxpayers. Rich makes $300,000 a year and pays 10% taxes, or $30,000, and has $270,000 to live on. He is doing very well, indeed. Poor makes $30,000 a year, pays 10% taxes of $3,000, and has $27,000 to live on. The government is has a strict Constitutionalist policy of just providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare (from the Preamble of our Constitution, and this does NOT mean food stamps for baby makers, it means in this case building roads for common use by Rich and Poor). And, in my world a constitutional amendment has been passed that the Federal budget must be balanced.

The total tax pool from Rich and Poor is $33,000. Rich has paid a whopping 90.9% of all taxes!!! The Federal budget is $40,000. $20,000 to fix the road and $20,000 to fix an Air Force plane. THERE IS A $7,000 DEFICIT THAT MUST BE MADE UP. WHO WILL PAY?????

Well, since Rich has already paid over 90% of the total tax receipts, OF COURSE IT IS NOT FAIR TO ASK HIM FOR MORE! Poor must make up the entire $7,000 deficit. His taxes balloon to $10,000, or 33% of his income. He has just $20,000 to live on. After all, he is still only paying $10,000 in taxes, and just 25% of total Federal receipts, and Rich is still paying 75% of the total taxes. (And folks, this is the world we are starting to live in.)

In a Progressive taxation system, which has been around for many years, and tested against our Constitution many times, we would ask Rich to pay 20% of his income. So, he pays $60,000, leaving $240,000 to live on (handsome, indeed) and Poor still pays $3,000. With total tax receipts of $63,000, the gov’t is floating in cash, and has the ability to make repairs to the Capital building next year.

So, the next time you hear “THE TOP PAY 70% OF ALL TAXES,” think about the above for a little bit.

And, the hits on Warren Buffett in some posts are interesting. He advocated both CAP GAINS tax increases, and INCOME tax increases for top earners. As he put it, CAP GAINS were much higher 40 years ago, and people still made investments when they were sensible. And Mr. Buffett was a case in point, and practiced what he preached in the 1970’s. So, he has not advocated for taxes that put him at advantage because he is heavy on cap gains over income. And heck, I get most of my news from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and I still figured this one out!!
Yep, I've said the same thing in a different post...'there sure are a lot of people who aren't rich sticking up for those that aren't. Nobody listens. Good post.
 
Last edited:
The 70% argument is a pain. It is the shill argument that people against any sort of progressive taxation tend to make. Mostly because it involves numbers and a little thought, the people whom this argument works against, don’t understand it, and you suddenly have fairly low income people fighting for the very well off! First, of course the top earners will pay the most total gov’t tax receipts, provided that there is a decent pool of top earners. Secondly, this is the oddest argument for fairness of taxation when, thanks to years of tax rate cuts for top earners, they tend to pay lower net effective tax RATES, but still pay the most DOLLARS.

So, let’s simplify.

The population has two taxpayers. Rich makes $300,000 a year and pays 10% taxes, or $30,000, and has $270,000 to live on. He is doing very well, indeed. Poor makes $30,000 a year, pays 10% taxes of $3,000, and has $27,000 to live on. The government is has a strict Constitutionalist policy of just providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare (from the Preamble of our Constitution, and this does NOT mean food stamps for baby makers, it means in this case building roads for common use by Rich and Poor). And, in my world a constitutional amendment has been passed that the Federal budget must be balanced.

The total tax pool from Rich and Poor is $33,000. Rich has paid a whopping 90.9% of all taxes!!! The Federal budget is $40,000. $20,000 to fix the road and $20,000 to fix an Air Force plane. THERE IS A $7,000 DEFICIT THAT MUST BE MADE UP. WHO WILL PAY?????

Well, since Rich has already paid over 90% of the total tax receipts, OF COURSE IT IS NOT FAIR TO ASK HIM FOR MORE! Poor must make up the entire $7,000 deficit. His taxes balloon to $10,000, or 33% of his income. He has just $20,000 to live on. After all, he is still only paying $10,000 in taxes, and just 25% of total Federal receipts, and Rich is still paying 75% of the total taxes. (And folks, this is the world we are starting to live in.)

In a Progressive taxation system, which has been around for many years, and tested against our Constitution many times, we would ask Rich to pay 20% of his income. So, he pays $60,000, leaving $240,000 to live on (handsome, indeed) and Poor still pays $3,000. With total tax receipts of $63,000, the gov’t is floating in cash, and has the ability to make repairs to the Capital building next year.

So, the next time you hear “THE TOP PAY 70% OF ALL TAXES,” think about the above for a little bit.

And, the hits on Warren Buffett in some posts are interesting. He advocated both CAP GAINS tax increases, and INCOME tax increases for top earners. As he put it, CAP GAINS were much higher 40 years ago, and people still made investments when they were sensible. And Mr. Buffett was a case in point, and practiced what he preached in the 1970’s. So, he has not advocated for taxes that put him at advantage because he is heavy on cap gains over income. And heck, I get most of my news from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and I still figured this one out!!

The flaw in your logic is 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes at all. It's the real gripe for most of here that have 5 or 6 figure annual federal income tax bills.
 
The flaw in your logic is 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes at all. It's the real gripe for most of here that have 5 or 6 figure annual federal income tax bills.

It is not a flaw in the logic. It is not even addressed here, as are 99.9% of all issues economic.

My logic is discussing the 70% claim, and how it is used against people.

I tend to agree with you that if 47% of wage earners pay no taxes something is wrong. They don't have anything in the game. As I said, a completely different issue.
 
Everyone is so careful with words. Of the 47% not paying income tax, many are still paying SS/Medicare wage taxes.

For the record, I tend to think both ends of the spectrum (high and low) are a bit messed up. The deductions and credits game really make a mess of what could be a simple and effective progressive tax system.
 
We just seem to forget that pesky 10th amendment since the FDR packed supreme court ruled the commerce clause was so expansive that the government can make you buy health insurance from a private company. OOPS my bad, that decision hasn't been made yet, but you get the idea. MM

Pfff. Like the 4th ammendment, which went by the wayside after 9/11, the 10th ammendment has no relevance today ;)
 
.

For the record, I tend to think both ends of the spectrum (high and low) are a bit messed up. The deductions and credits game really make a mess of what could be a simple and effective progressive tax system.

There is a lot of wisdom in this comment. My take during the Bush years (voted for him twice) was that they were looking for anyway they could to just reduce taxes, at any cost. If not just by basic rates, then by screwball deductions, programs, etc., all while, as Cheney put it, "Deficits don't matter."

Apparently, they do.

And, we have the tax code from Hell.

And, a lot of people got written out of the tax code.

And, now people are complaining about it.

Doesn't anybody pay attention to what your government is, or isn't doing?

Or, is it always okay as long as something goes your way?

The government that was paying it's bills in the 1990's seemed to be doing better by most of us then the mess we have now.

If anybody noticed.
 
The 70% argument is a pain. It is the shill argument that people against any sort of progressive taxation tend to make. Mostly because it involves numbers and a little thought, the people whom this argument works against, don’t understand it, and you suddenly have fairly low income people fighting for the very well off! First, of course the top earners will pay the most total gov’t tax receipts, provided that there is a decent pool of top earners. Secondly, this is the oddest argument for fairness of taxation when, thanks to years of tax rate cuts for top earners, they tend to pay lower net effective tax RATES, but still pay the most DOLLARS.

So, let’s simplify.

The population has two taxpayers. Rich makes $300,000 a year and pays 10% taxes, or $30,000, and has $270,000 to live on. He is doing very well, indeed. Poor makes $30,000 a year, pays 10% taxes of $3,000, and has $27,000 to live on. The government is has a strict Constitutionalist policy of just providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare (from the Preamble of our Constitution, and this does NOT mean food stamps for baby makers, it means in this case building roads for common use by Rich and Poor). And, in my world a constitutional amendment has been passed that the Federal budget must be balanced.

The total tax pool from Rich and Poor is $33,000. Rich has paid a whopping 90.9% of all taxes!!! The Federal budget is $40,000. $20,000 to fix the road and $20,000 to fix an Air Force plane. THERE IS A $7,000 DEFICIT THAT MUST BE MADE UP. WHO WILL PAY?????

Well, since Rich has already paid over 90% of the total tax receipts, OF COURSE IT IS NOT FAIR TO ASK HIM FOR MORE! Poor must make up the entire $7,000 deficit. His taxes balloon to $10,000, or 33% of his income. He has just $20,000 to live on. After all, he is still only paying $10,000 in taxes, and just 25% of total Federal receipts, and Rich is still paying 75% of the total taxes. (And folks, this is the world we are starting to live in.)

In a Progressive taxation system, which has been around for many years, and tested against our Constitution many times, we would ask Rich to pay 20% of his income. So, he pays $60,000, leaving $240,000 to live on (handsome, indeed) and Poor still pays $3,000. With total tax receipts of $63,000, the gov’t is floating in cash, and has the ability to make repairs to the Capital building next year.

So, the next time you hear “THE TOP PAY 70% OF ALL TAXES,” think about the above for a little bit.

And, the hits on Warren Buffett in some posts are interesting. He advocated both CAP GAINS tax increases, and INCOME tax increases for top earners. As he put it, CAP GAINS were much higher 40 years ago, and people still made investments when they were sensible. And Mr. Buffett was a case in point, and practiced what he preached in the 1970’s. So, he has not advocated for taxes that put him at advantage because he is heavy on cap gains over income. And heck, I get most of my news from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and I still figured this one out!!

You obviously don't have a firm grasp of math or statistics...
 
There is a lot of wisdom in this comment. My take during the Bush years (voted for him twice) was that they were looking for anyway they could to just reduce taxes, at any cost. If not just by basic rates, then by screwball deductions, programs, etc., all while, as Cheney put it, "Deficits don't matter."

Apparently, they do.

And, we have the tax code from Hell.

And, a lot of people got written out of the tax code.

And, now people are complaining about it.

Doesn't anybody pay attention to what your government is, or isn't doing?

Or, is it always okay as long as something goes your way?

The government that was paying it's bills in the 1990's seemed to be doing better by most of us then the mess we have now.

If anybody noticed.

I do not think the tax codes is the problem.
Maybe you should compare the entitlements and the foreign aid and all the pork barrel spending today against the same 1990's.
I think you will be amazed at the handouts we are giving away everyday.
If you really want to get exicited see (it is public record) what the daily interest in dollars not % we pay out 365 days a year.
Check out the above items and you will see where the real problem lies.
Bob
 
Pfff. Like the 4th ammendment, which went by the wayside after 9/11, the 10th ammendment has no relevance today ;)

I have been reading countless articles about Syria, Egypt, Libya, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, North Korea, and others. Whatever route unfolds regarding our economy there is something as important, if not more, that must be protected at all costs; our right to seriously critique the economy, government, etc..

People in the aforementioned are literally shot, beat up, imprisoned, and killed for doing less than we are doing on this thread....

In the best of these countries people are throwing rocks at armed soldiers, who are returning real bullets, just for the right to hold an election.....

Our country is light years away from China, and all the rest, etc., when it comes to freedom, we need to keep that distinction clear, while we, the U.S., is pulled further into a "global economy"......
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,944
Messages
1,422,730
Members
60,927
Latest member
Jaguar65
Back
Top