Boehner decides tax cuts for the rich are more important than the debt

[Zero Sum 305]

It's not a bad idea, because you essentially use the same services (national defense, public education, national parks, the interstate highway system, etc) whether you're rich or poor.

Everyone benefits from these services in the same way. Does a rich person enjoy the national parks more than a poor person? Why should he pay more for their maintenance?

Not sure about the numbers, but logic would state that the poor person can't get to a national park as much as a rich person because they have to work more to make ends meet.

[^_^ 5,021]

Even with a flat tax, we're talking about the same rate not the same amount. So the rich will still pay a lot more. I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as a basket of subsistence level goods was identified, costed and exempted.. and as long as there were no deductions and the rate applied to all monies received, not just earned wages.

No, people aren't dropping dead on the street because they use food stamps despite putting in an honest day of work. They're on Medicare despite putting in an host day of work. Millions of people have long worked menial jobs and have still managed to support their families on what they take home from those jobs w/o having to rely on public assistance. In those days, the top executives didn't pull in 500 times what their employees took home either. I suspect that the latter has something to do with the former. We can deny that, of course, but that's not going to make this country a better place for our children and grandchildren.

Executives make so much today because they don't need to pay their staff as much as they used to. The pool of qualified workers is much larger than it used to be. That is our problem, not theirs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everyone benefits from these services in the same way.

I don't believe that's true. Businesses need public infrastructure. They couldn't be as successful as they are without it. They need a well educated workforce, roads, airports, ports, rail, telecommunication, power grids, etc. to even have a business. Arguably, they extract more value from that infrastructure than your average Joe. In turn, they are asked to support it more than the average Joe.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Even with a flat tax, we're talking about the same rate not the same amount. So the rich will still pay a lot more. I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as a basket of subsistence level goods was identified, costed and exempted.. and as long as there were no deductions and the rate applied to all monies received, not just earned wages.

I'd be on board with that. Those that purchased the tax system we have in place - namely the well-off - would not be on board.

[웃 910]

It's not a bad idea, because you essentially use the same services (national defense, public education, national parks, the interstate highway system, etc) whether you're rich or poor.

Everyone benefits from these services in the same way. Does a rich person enjoy the national parks more than a poor person? Why should he pay more for their maintenance?

How about you tax at an even % of income for everyone that is X amount higher than the predicted budget for the year. Say 10% just to be sure.

Then, come tax time everyone is evenly refunded back the excess over the predicted budget...

Probably a really bad idea but it would guarantee everyone a refund back each year and it would balance the budget.

[mawilson 2,133]

Not sure about the numbers, but logic would state that the poor person can't get to a national park as much as a rich person because they have to work more to make ends meet.

I work a lot more than my (poorer) friends. Where do you get this idea that rich people sit on their аsses and do nothing for their money?

[^_^ 5,021]

I work a lot more than my (poorer) friends. Where do you get this idea that rich people sit on their аsses and do nothing for their money?

Michael Moore and him are homies.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I work a lot more than my (poorer) friends. Where do you get this idea that rich people sit on their аsses and do nothing for their money?

I think its more like work, hard play hard.

[Zero Sum 305]

I'd be on board with that. Those that purchased the tax system we have in place - namely the well-off - would not be on board.

They could sign off though... and if they became patriotic and consumed in the US marketplace at the current rate most do.

[mawilson 2,133]

How about you tax at an even % of income for everyone that is X amount higher than the predicted budget for the year. Say 10% just to be sure.

So you want to give the politicians a blank check? Their "predicted budget" will bleed you dry.

[slim 1,533]

So, if national income in your utopian America is $1,000.00 then each of the 100 Americans gets ten bucks? Awesome, comrade!

Gets or pays?

What many of you folks are doing is assuming the government pays for things like a company does. It's not like they pay for supplies and overhead and then redistribute the profits to their employees.

The government is more like a non-profit where all the "volunteers" work their asses off to pay the supervisors, managers, executives and then, so they can feel better about doing it, the executives pick two of the volunteer's kids to sponsor for private school.

Not sure about the numbers, but logic would state that the poor person can't get to a national park as much as a rich person because they have to work more to make ends meet.

Poor people work more than rich people? That's news to me!

[Zero Sum 305]

I work a lot more than my (poorer) friends. Where do you get this idea that rich people sit on their аsses and do nothing for their money?

Not what I said right? Perhaps I should have rephrased it to:

Working poor people usually have to work their rear ends more than leasure-seeking rich people and thus cannot afford to make it to the US National Parks system as much.

Gets or pays?

What many of you folks are doing is assuming the government pays for things like a company does. It's not like they pay for supplies and overhead and then redistribute the profits to their employees.

The government is more like a non-profit where all the "volunteers" work their asses off to pay the supervisors, managers, executives and then, so they can feel better about doing it, the executives pick two of the volunteer's kids to sponsor for private school.

Poor people work more than rich people? That's news to me!

A lot of things are news to you.

[^_^ 5,021]

If the argument is that the bottom 5% spend a smaller share of their dollars on touring national parks than the top 5%, I think that might be correct.

Of course, the argument is skewed by other factors. When picking a place to go, the bottom 5% is more likely to pick a national park than the top 5%. Then there's geographical proximity. The poor are more likely to go to a national park near home than the rich are (they can fly more).

Etc.

[slim 1,533]

What about all those rich people spending their money abroad?

The poor keep places like Gatlinburg and Branson going. Rich people don't do that!

[^_^ 5,021]

What about all those rich people spending their money abroad?

The poor keep places like Gatlinburg and Branson going. Rich people don't do that!

Yup, that is what I'm saying.