Shared publicly  - 
 
The fiscal cliff would mean 90% of us will pay higher taxes.  Explore how the cliff could affect your tax bill in 2013 through our interactive project: http://on.wsj.com/TPRWev
154
82
Rich Stanley II's profile photoShaker Cherukuri's profile photoSandy Beaches's profile photoJoshua Talley's profile photo
162 comments
 
How about a one time wealth tax on all savings above 1MM (exlude primary home) to pay off the 16Trillion?
 
+Alexa Antonaras There's also the possibility of a financial transaction tax which would 1.) Raise trillions 2.) Act as a way to register dark pools 3.) Limit High Frequency Trading so we can have true price discovery
 
It doesn't matter who you tax or how much...there simply isn't enough available to be taken to balance our budget and pay off the debt.
 
Hence the onetime proposal. Top 5% own 45 Trillion in wealth. Up from 8 Trillion since 1985. Thanks to lower tax rates at the top.
 
+Shaker Cherukuri This would cause wealth to simply flee the country.  This is what's happening in France right now.  Better to create incentive for that wealth to be invested and put to work expanding the economy, thereby increasing tax revenue.  
 
The bottom line is for what we (our government) spend, we are all under taxed.  For far too long we've had it both ways--low taxes and lavish government spending.  Sooner rather than later this has to stop, and we will need to have a serious discussion about what we want our government to do and decide how to pay for it.

I believe the first step for this is to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that requires Congress to pass a balanced budget every year except in times of declared war or other national emergency as declared by a super-majority of Congress.
 
There is no such thing as a good tax.
Winston Churchill
 
+Shaker Cherukuri We do not want to see a liquidation of treasuries either! Borrowing and servicing costs would sky rocket. Who would buy a 30 year note if the government can just stop paying it and consider it a wealth tax (and not a default subject to credit swaps!)
 
+Shaker Cherukuri Confiscate people's wealth that has already been taxed two, three times?  That's obscene and immoral.  You are so very generous with the hard earned money of others.  How about you be generous with your own damn money?   It's amazing to me that so many Americans are willing to screw fellow Americans out of envy and personal greed.  As long as they don't have to pay, then they are fine with that. 
 
No, economic activity, such as receiving a paycheck, includes income tax. Wealth tax would be basically looking into peoples savings, IRA, 401ks and assets like farm land or a home. Property tax, for example, is a form of wealth tax.
 
Payable over several years. As the treasuries mature. And other bonds.
 
+Shaker Cherukuri Wow, you have an MBA and still believe US Treasuries denominated in USD are a viable store of wealth?

Especially right after you advocated confiscating them?

Nice.     
 
Gary Johnson has it right.  Don't tax income, tax consumption.
 
+Shaker Cherukuri I propose that Obama confiscate Shaker's home and car and sell them to pay off the deficit.  Obama will provide Shaker with a home he deems appropriate along with a 5 year old Hybrid car.  The surplus can be used to pay off the debt.   Shaker's home is too large and his car is unnecessarily nice.  
 
well, despite the drivel you've been fed by the MSM, +Shaker Cherukuri, some of the Tea Party reads the WSJ. 

I notice you haven't responded. 
 
+Andrew Smart  we don't need a balanced budget amendment that for one will only raise taxes and can be changed later on.  There are two ways to balance a budget cut spending or raise revenue and since the government gets its revenue from taxes.  Do you think all of the liberals who have been promising everyone the freebie stuff are going to go for?

The Constitution states what the government is to spend money on in article one section eight.  So therefor it is treason to spend money for anything outside of that, they have broken their oath to “uphold the Constitution”.  All we need to do is to hold them to it!  The problem is the bums getting the free stuff are fighting for the criminals so they can keep on the easy road.
 
Move out of cities to where you can afford to save money and buy things. Learn to live without new iPads a laptop is just as good. An apartment in city vs house in country you can own?? Paying for a parking spot wow that's crazy. People need to live where they can afford to leave not where it's cool or trendy to live
 
+Shaker Cherukuri Shaker can have five months to collect his belongings and move out before the sale of his home.  While his car will be immediately confiscated, Obama will give him a pocket full of bus tokens.  
 
+Shaker Cherukuri Shaker's bank accounts should be examined to make sure he doesn't have more money than he needs.   I think a one time 5% tax on savings above $5,000 is appropriate.
 
We could confiscate ALL of the top 5%'s wealth and we could run this country for about a year.  Then what?  Who would be left to hire people and run businesses?  This is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
 
+Shaker Cherukuri really wants the Big Government party to continue, living on his DOE contract consulting on a project to turn weapons plutonium into nuclear fuel.

How very Obama. 
 
Leave the rich alone there's more not rich than rich and they're the problem. Learn to fix your finances not take those well off
 
+Brent Alexander No no. Shaker is onto something here.   He has a computer so he must be rich.   And he reallly cares about our country and reducing the deficit while generously transferring the earnings of others to support deadbeats and government union workers.   We need to help him promote and expand that.  Let's get Shaker's bank statements and determine how best to help him infuse more cash into the government.   Let's examine his assets and determine his "true needs" and then confiscate that which we believe is unnecessary.   Then Shaker can bask in the glow of the forced benevolence he wishes to inflict on others.  
 
Alexa antonaras yep the general public is that 4% I mean how do you add 6 trillion to the debt and not expect your taxes to go up??
 
+Ken Carlos Forced benevolence.  That has a nice ring to it.  Here, this won't hurt a bit...
 
+Brent Alexander Thats simply not true. Institutionally, there are hundreds of trillions of dollars in the US. You are thinking of taxing the top 1% income at 100%, thats what could run gov't for a year.
 
I am ignorant I guess I save money and do small trades on e trade I have 2 kids married and never go hungry pay bills on time and I have money in an account for major home problems and money savings for college for my kids both in ballet and susuki violin. And can still buy a new vehicle in cash. Maybe us the 96 percent need to figure out how to manage money better so this taxing mess won't hurt us instead of finding the quick unsustainable answer tax someone else 
 
That's personal buddy but under 100000 also only major bill is house paid in full in next 10 yrs no cred card debt 07 truck bought new and 04 Camry bought new I'm only 29 about to buy next vehicle for family trips next summer
 
We could go back and forth all day about how much of whose income or wealth we could take and run the country.  That's all beside the point.  The point is, that taking from others isn't the solution.  There is a point in taxation as a percentage that removes the incentive to expand business, invest, and participate in income generating activities.
 
+Brent Alexander We can only "go back and forth" only for as long as we can ignore the relative magnitudes of the wealth and debt. Especially if we account for unfunded liabilities.

Naturally, the looters want to conversation to continue for as long as possible, because they're still getting paid.  
 
Well it does in a city under 70000 married 3&4 yr olds will not go far 
 
I liked the idea of limiting/capping deductions and lowering rates to stimulate the economy (given that subchapter S corps and other small businesses pay at personal income rates), thereby growing GDP & wealth, and broadening the base of taxpayers, which would simultaneously reduce outlays.

But our biggest liability right now, and more perilous than even the current debt, is the unfunded Medicare obligation. I like the AMA's suggestion of a defined contribution plan to allow for purchase of insurance on the open market (what some mistakenly called a voucher). 
 
+john HARLOW Is crazy, isn't he?   He is diligent, frugal and apparently disciplined in his efforts to support him and his family.   He's not asking anyone for anything.  Then we have Shaker who wants to take from others so that the 20 something lady who was in front of me in the store yesterday doesn't have to work for her food (she got her Tgiving goodies with food stamps).  Mr. Harlow, you need to get with the times.  Start hitting the malt liquor and spending your money unwisely.   Sit on your butt and collect a government check.   No need to be responsible.  It's all free.  Comes out of Obama's "stash." 
 
+Brian Crouch Yeah, romney lost the election, so we probably wont implement Paul Ryan's social engineering plan even Newt Gingrich called too radical.
 
Leave it to the RETHUGLICANS to push us off the fiscal cliff and blame it on the President AGAIN! The Tea Baggers are reason this country's credit was downgraded!
 
Thanks for taking the bait, +juan alderete, and proving yourself a partisan. Explain to me how the AMA's plan, which I cited, is social engineering? Explain to me how reducing deductions in order to increase revenues is social engineering? Explain how allowing small businesses to have reduced liability (more funds to expand) is social engineering, and what that has to do with a politician? On second thought, don't bother; I suspect we'd get nothing but pedantic calumny.  
 
+Tina Vigilante "Rethuglicans" and "Tea Baggers."  More civility from the "loving, caring left."  And continued refusal to take responsibility.  You voted for that failed lawyer Obama to continue to run the country into the dirt.  He is a narcissist and not a leader.  A real leader would move the country and Congress to a resolution.  Obama just divides with vitriol and fingerpointing just as Obamabots like you do here.  You own this now, Obama worshipper.  Enjoy you're fiscal nightmare compliments of the Community Organizer in Chief. 
 
Love the name calling people need to get out of the middle school thought of blaming no matter who is president you still have to be productive 
 
+Tina Vigilante LBJ signed the law that allowed Congress to move $ from the SS Trust Fund into the General Fund for spending on whatever.  And spend they have, stuffing IOU's in the draw along the way.  Now the SS Trust Fund is a drawer full of IOU's and the General Fund is way underwater, piling on the debt.  But the TEA PARTY, in the past two or three years, caused a credit downgrade?!  Tell me another one!!!  LOL
 
+Brian Crouch You do understand that reducing deductions does not guarantee increased revenues, and can result in just the opposite?

Or is it pedantry to point out that markets are nonlinear?
 
+Brent Alexander +Tina Vigilante Tina gets all her news from that trusted source Rachel Maddow.  Tina's online looking at the bumper stickers for sale on the Daily Kos for her next commentary.   Will it be "tea bagging racists" or maybe "Bush's fault" or what.  I'm on pins and needles!
 
Lbj have a different group of people he was helping surely those people back then worked hard our workforce now days not such a ... Work force 
 
When the Middle East goes up in flames and oil prices create more economic havoc in the US, who will Obama blame?   Bush?   The Israelis?   The weather?  The Designated Hitter Rule?  
 
Can't be Barry's fault.  Tina says he's the "mostest with the bestest, ya know?"
 
+Brian Crouch Why do you pretend the AMA is some nonpolitical body making decisions in the interest of the under-cared? The AMA opposed the creation of medicare and medicaid because its an industry group representing for profit entities. The AMA continues to support privatization because the members that pay AMA to do all the lobbying are for profit providers. 

If, ceteris paribus, health care dollars are shifted to a for profit model, that means less money on care and more money for dividends, ceo pay and advertising.

Regarding taxes, we can reform the tax code any time. The republicans want to use the "crisis" of the fiscal cliff to ram through what they want.

The best tax policy possible is to finance government from financial transaction taxes.
 
Can we just go to a straight % and save everyone time and money?? Please?
 
That wouldn't serve Obama's "redistributive justice" goals. 
 
+Alexa Antoaras yea it would. Only problem is a lot of Lawyers and accountants would lose their jobs and everyone would be able to keep more of their money.
 
+Piero Lecca You are completely uninformed.   The top 1% pay over 30% of all income taxes and the top 50% pay virtually all.  Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay little to none and some get tax refunds for taxes they never paid.  Please tell me, sir, how much more do you want the earners to pay?  Here's a novel idea:  how about everyone pays a share of the income taxes?   Then those seeking tax increases like you might give a second thought to voting for a spendthrift, high taxing Democrat party.
 
+Piero Lecca I want to raise Piero Lecca's taxes.  He has plenty of money.  There are Obama voters across the country who sit at home all day and don't have enough money to keep ice on their malt liquor.  I think asking Piero to pay a measley 5% more to alleviate this ice unfairness isn't asking too much.  What do you say, Piero?  Ready to be generous with you own money?
 
The current tax code has over 5.5 billion words, countless forms and instructions, and is too complex for the average taxpayer to comprehend. As a result, businesses and individuals face huge burdens of time and money to comply with the tax code; in 2006, Americans spent over 6 billion hours filling out tax forms for the government.

Switching to a flat tax would make it simple to pay taxes, saving everyone time and money. Under a flat tax, filing taxes would take mere minutes, and decreasing compliance costs would improve the economy; all of those billions of hours we spend filing taxes could be put to productive use. Go ahead and compute your flat tax below, keeping in mind the time that you save in filling out a simple form, and that economic growth will improve your income situation immensely.
 
+Alexa Antonaras Why?  If you and others are so eager to raise my taxes, put some skin in the game tough guy.   It's easy to be generous when you don't have to pay the bill.   If you think it's such a good idea to suck even more dollars out the hands of private citizens such as me, then dammit you can pay in more as well.  Otherwise, you efforts to raise my taxes are nothing less than cowardly.
 
Most likely if we went to a flat tax rate everyone's percentage would go down. The Tax breaks are out there for those that can work their way around the system.
 
I'm a CPA and would love some kind of tax code simplification.  However, the flat tax mania is misguided; nearly everyone pays an effective rate much lower than their marginal one (self employed schedule C filers, and AMT individuals are the exceptions).  A "flat tax" is a tax increase for just about everybody
 
+Andrew Smart Well, that would depend on how you did it, now, wouldn't it?

Of course, there'd be less work for CPA/Investment advisors...
 
+Margaret Leber Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Steve Forbes, increase, increase, increase.  Google flat tax calculator and the top two results are increases. 

I would love less tax compliance work--more time for planning, investing, and helping clients run their business.

I'm not opposed to the flat tax, I'm just telling people you need to be careful what you wish for.
 
No the problem is we let stupid people vote and we get dumbass empty suits elected to the whitehouse so good luck hope you enjoy the ride
 
So tax the wealthy more so there's no incentive to work hard and become wealthy right? Tax the "poor" less to give then incentive to stay poor? I have a free 80 acres of land that I am going to build shanties on then I will go collect some poor from inner cities teach them to farm and then travel back inside and sell my organic food to you people for a raised price 
 
Exactly how many "how"s are there available under "flat tax". I can only think of one way. Flat.

Got any others?
 
If we look hard to get save money stop paying elected officials pres senate the house money let them work free and see you will run for office. Pay the stipend for travel and hotels. Get real people in office who really know the people. 
 
thought it was just gonna be that evil1%.guess not
 
Of course ill have to murder the homeless afterwards in order to not have to supply medical for the homeless but hey that's free fertilizer 
 
So what? I believe the taxes, along with the minimum wage, should have be raised and have supported such action for a while now.
 
All I have heard for weeks from Upper middle class america Incomes from 50-80% is that they don't want the top 10% paying more taxes. Deductive logic says would suggest that the people below the top 10% are therefore going to pay more. They continue to volunteer to pay more, Let it be so.
 
stop spending on special interests in the government will be much further ahead
 
Good thing we re-elected a joker not willing/going to do anything about this, and willing/going to place all of the blame on the opposition.
 
+Margaret Leber 7Million? No, they seem to be willing by my calculations to be willing to move their tax rate to 25%, and generate half a trillion dollars in revenue. 
Of course they aren't even on this chart of tax increases. household incomes from 50-100K.

The ironic thing is that their taxes won't go up, yet they are certainly the ones fighting for tax breaks for the High income individuals. All while spouting how "nobody wants to reduce benefits, and want someone else to pay for it." The additional spending from the past 12 years will certainly be paid for by someone besides them, that is obvious. 
It's just beautifully ironic and absolutely hypocritical.
 
+Eric Davis Ah, so they are not actually "volunteering to pay more", then.  

They are "volunteering" that other people pay more.

You can always count on a liberal to be generous...with someone else's money.

The debt that is actually acknowleged is now 14 trillion dollars. The true total, denuded of accounting tricks, is much, much more. 

"Eat the rich" won't put a dent in it. 
 
The wsj numbers are wrong for the low income individuals. They have ignored the normal deductions, exclusions, and the eitc. Sloppy
 
Quit paying the politicians. They get paid no matter how horrible of a job they do. 
 
The taxes we as individuals pay including the top1% only equate to 2trillion a year. We as a country spend 6 trillion according to the national debt clock. Lets see here 6-2=4... where does the left think they can squeeze 4 trillion out of? Taxing nothing is nothing..
Most of the truely wealthy Americans have NO income. So they pay nothing in taxes. The key is to get business both small and large to generate revenue (taxable) and promote growth. By allowing companies and individuals to shelter and move money offshore it moves said wealth out of the flow of capitol here in the us. Taxation is unnecessary if there is no revenue and no growth as there is no flow of capitol to tax.. By creating incentives for corporations to invest in infrastructure and manufacturing here in the usa we will have no need to raise taxes. Individuals who earned their wealth, deserve to keep it. Those that spend it here should be rewarded. Those who shift equity overseas or into complicated vehicles to manage risk should be willing to accept penalties or tarrifs for goods and services imported and exported, and must be held accountable to shareholders with revenue/bonuses equity in the instance the horse they bet on dies. The problem really is that money (capitol) is created out of thin air by banks by issuing credit. Lets tax that revenue generation? Why nit tax the bank for every loan or credit account they create? Why not forbid banks from doing this in the first place.. Seems like everyone is more concerned about people who earned their wealth than the people STEALIN OUR WEALTH....
Leo Lee
+
2
3
2
 
I do not care of paying more tax when America needs my help.
 
Maybe its just me but perhaps its time we all chip in..... Time to pay our dues
 
Yes they are +Margaret Leber It's like an unpaid credit card bill. Somebody has to pay. You can't get blood out of a turnip. Tax the bottom 40% out of every dime they make and you won't cover it.
Taxing them at 30% you get about 200Billion in revenue(who knows how much further into poverty you push them) or reduce your 14 trillion down to 12 in ten years. If you tax the lower 40% of this country by 80% they still only generate 35% of the Revenue. You would still have Deficits.

progressive taxation means that those who make more pay more.

So, if the top 20% don't contribute more, the next two brackets DO pay more. Since the 40-60% section/quintile makes as a houshold income 35-55 Thousand, you aren't going to get much out of them either.

Again, its Very amusing that the 50-100K folks suggest that the top 20% don't go back to 35% or so, Since what you suggest "they are being very generous with Their money" because to make up that difference in revenue  they go to 25% from 15%. Ironic since that isn't even on the table. Yes, These people the 50-100K are being very generous with other peoples money.

You can tax the bottom 60%(these evil Takers) of this country at 50% and you don't get to a balanced budget. I can tax the top 20% at the same rate and I get one immediately.
an across the board increase of 10% on all brackets gets us into the Black, but taxing the bottom. But I don't know why you would do that when you can get almost the same revenue by taxing the top 2 quintiles by 10% the middle by 5% and leave the other two. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY TO BE TAXED.

It also make even better sense to move the top bracket to where it was in 2000 and a modest increase to the second, leave the rest alone and if the economy can recover a little more, we could hit a balanced budget, in a year or two.

Certainly some cuts to spending would be nice, but the best ones are in the defense budget, It seems like that is never a possibility. In fact I remember Mitt Romney wanted to increase that spending by 2 trillion dollars. Somehow all the cuts proposed tend to be in insignificant things that barely reduce the budget by .25% or .05%.

Like I said, somebody has to pay the bills... and it's going to be the people "With Money" not the ones "without money", it is always that simple. 
 
As per David Brooks on Charlie Rose, Top 5% own 45 Trillion in wealth. Up from 8 Trillion since 1985. Thanks to lower tax rates at the top.

The proposal from Brooks was a 20% one time tax on that 45 Trillion to reduce the 16 Trillion by more than half.
 
+Eric Davis Tax everybody at 100% and you won't cover it, so spare us the class warfare; it's pointless and futile. 

The USD has been "dead man walking" since before WWII. FDR administered the first killing blow, and Nixon applied the coup de grace to pay for Kennedy and Johnson's war.   
 
What's so bad about a flat tax? That way we all pay the same percentage of our income. Plus, it won't punish the wealthy for being wealthy.
 
I am planning on staying poor and rather unproductive. Being rich and business-y brings way too many headaches. Why even try to build an empire when I'm not expected to profit from it. It's suddenly a bad thing now for businesses to profit. 
 
sorry +Margaret Leber you pay off the debt in about 3 years that way. I'm guessing you must be living in some kind of weird conspiracy zone.... The class warfair started in the 1970's and has been waged against the middle class. Ya, spare us the class warfare.
 
I have a feeling this conversation is going to end quite soon, that's the most idiotic assertion I've heard on taxation in weeks.

And that's saying something. 
 
+Scott Hendry if you reduce the top 20% of tax payers down to 20% from 25% roughly, that they currently pay.  It's deductive logic. Somebody has to make up for that 5% they aren't paying. if you put that burden on the next bracket. they probably end up paying more than 20%. Reduce them to 15% and you generate even less revenue.

If you force corporations to pay 15% I think you may be able to generate enough revenue. But, the middle quintile pays 11% roughly which means their taxes go up. as do the other 40% lower than that, and you don't generate that much gain.

That is the only way a flat tax works is through additional taxes on corporations. If there aren't additional revenues. it's a tax increase for the third and fourth "quintiles" people making 40-80%. The median wage is $25K, the bottom of that range is probably 18K per year? and we think we can get more money out of people making $350 per week? That is under $10 per hour, and they do have health insurance costs. It's actually a couple that brings in about $400 per week between two incomes and health insurance. $800 is rent and then $800 for expenses  you probably have $200 just in fuel for their cars. another $200 in utilities. that leaves you $400 for  groceries and expenses.
 
That taxing people 100% is stupid ?? +Margaret Leber Yes I agree it's unfeasible to tax people at 100% but you made it. Obviously people need money to live on. 
I agree this was a VERY stupid Assertion but you made it.

That the revenue generated would pay it off, except everyone would have no money for expenses I would suggest that is what anyone is suggesting when they say The bottom 2 quintiles should pay more. THEY CAN"T. so you have to live in reality where we need lower than 100% in taxes... and we work our way down. your thesis was even that much money wouldn't get us into the Black. Which is Ridiculous  It generates about 12 Trillion dollars, this year and 144 over 10 years.
 
+Eric Davis Here is the approximate breakdown for Revenue: 40% Personal IT, 40% Payroll Tax, 10% Corporate IT, 10% Other.
 
No matter what you do with tax rates, revenues will be about 20% of GDP. Of course at a 100% rate, GDP could get pretty small. You'll still get 20% of it, but what's 20% of nothing?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenue.jpg

And as long as the Fed keeps printing to monetize the debt, the actual spending power of anything denominated in USD slowly vanishes.
 
+Shaker Cherukuri - You are spot on! The wealthy have just used Congress to underpay taxes all this while. Lets collect all those back taxes and we will be back in black!
 
+Eric Davis I made that assertion to make a point, and you then claimed you'd "pay off the debt in three years that way". That's when I began to suspect what an unhinged looter I was talking to.

Had enough, this conversation is pointless. Blocked, 
 
bla bla bla... Conspiracy fed thinking. BTW your chart is "Top marginal tax rate on individuals" not what you are asserting "Marginal tax rate".... OOPS your chart doesn't prove your thesis.
 
Would that be American Unthinker? Even if your thesis was true, that would mean we were generating 3 trillion in revenue (20% of 15Trillion GDP) That and a small rebound in the economy... and we are in the Black.
Which is my thesis, we can increase revenue to say 20% we get very near Balanced budgets. +Margaret Leber 
 
+Alexa Antonaras
All this happened because they voted democratic lmao. Welcome to your social change lol NOW SLEEP ON THE BED YOU MAKE !!!
 
YIPEEE!@!!!! there is my snoopy dance PROVED HER CHART WAS BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA!!! and SHE BLEW UP!!!!  and blocked me. Data is always better than paranoid Bullshit.
I want to know if she is a Liar... Or STUPID. I suspect LIAR! as her chart showed NOTHING like her Claim.
 
Fortunately for me I have more than a Highschool education... Seems like that can't be said for most these NumbSculls... SNOOPY DANCE
 
Be careful there +Eric Davis Remember even Snoopy got shot down a few times. Have you had a chance to read Aftershock?
 
I have no doubt there is economic trouble down the road. I think market wise we are in a 30 year cyclical Bear market. our economy goes nowhere for 15 more years. You want to know why.... BECAUSE OF THE MONEY PRINTING FROM 1980-2008. That was the Inflation. In 1990 I could work at minimum wage for 4 hours and have enough money for a date and a tank of gas. now I'm 40 and it takes me over a day to have that much money. that is the "Class Warfare". But I kid you not, More Tax cuts and Deregulation arn't going to turn things around. You can't cut taxes on the top 20% anymore. The "Freeloading" 47% are so because they are BROKE. 

That moron Mitt Romney thought "Middle" was $250K? That I think is either the bottom 90% or 95%. How can you know so little about income brackets, and still be able to run for president. The Middle class makes 35-60K per year (household income, not individual). Half of them in near Poverty, trying to feed their kids on nothing.
 
One of the gifts we all receive with O's 2d term, thanx to the Libs.
 
35000 is low two parents with part time job? 
 
Lower Middle class is a household income of $30,000-35,000. income. that means their Combined income. 30-40% of the rest of America makes less than that. they are Lower class.
 
Middle class is 50,000 to 90,000
 
We have it easy here. I'm all for a small increase if we can get rid of the debt & move toward a surplus.
 
Eric you're crazy you really think there's that much
 
The median Household income is 55K, how does that work? +john HARLOW That is dead center.
 
I'm not saying its FAKE, but it wont cause immediate change. The economic growth will go from 2% to 1.9% over a year. Taxes would raise and would suck, but it will be more of a hill.
 
+Eric Davis were you going to ignore me? I just wanted to know if you had read Aftershock? You seem to be giving out a lot of information and I was just wondering if you were getting your facts from that book.  
 
+ed wong That is the "fiscal cliff" it's these tax rates in the WSJ post 90% of everyone's taxes go up. "oooohhhhh scaaarrrry..."
 
All because the asshats over in the House want to suck that lobbyist cock and not tell those who have benefitted the most from our society to pay more into it...
 
+Arjaya Mahajana +Arjaya Mahajana  I didn't mean to ignore you. I think some of that is the thesis of that book. I haven't read it. I'm assuming you are talking about the Robert B. Reich book. I spent 3 years on and off reading about the developing financial crisis from 2007-2010. I read a ton of the financial contrarians, the general public doesn't understand "money printing" "Inflation" "deflation" etc. 
One of the causes of the great depression was "Deflation". here we have ten zillion people concerned about "Money Printing". The financial crisis are the similar. 

It's not like me to Hold back on telling people what I think, Or i'll end up in a 4 day debate here. There is a tug of war going on between Inflationary forces and deflationary forces. The deflationary forces of the, as I stated "Reduced median Income from 63,000 to 55,000 in the past 4 years" that is a deflationary force. The big bad banks that had to reduce their financial leverage from 30 times to 10 times in the course of 1-2 years. That is a Deflationary force. That is "Money Printing" that happened from 1996 or 1998 through 2008. That was money printing. Some people called it "price appreciation" what happened to their house value, but you can also think of it as Inflation.  All the dollars in the world in the big banks leveraged at Ten to one, going to Thirty to one. As larry Kudlow would say "too much money chasing too few goods", not that I agree with . But that is literally hundreds of trillions of dollars, I don't remember the numbers but I think it was 300-500 trillion in money that disappeared  Libertarians are getting their underwear in a bunch over one trillion in stimulus dollars. They are even pissed off because some of it was "Pissed away", I think when it was purposed they knew it would be pissed away. I think the only way to make sure it wasn't would have been to give it out like welfare to the bottom 20%, nobody spends like the poor, but the rest of america would have been pissed off.

Some of the numbers are similar to the numbers Krugman and Reich and Brad DeLong, well... it's because they are the numbers. It's what the CBO gives us to work with. For some reason some people use strange numbers, I never know where they get them. I mean, somebody threw out 90K for "Middle class" at 90K that is the top 25%. that is where they start in incomes. What is mind blowing to me, is how we don't realize how much the "Middle class" is broke. I told this family they were in the Upper class, because they were making 70K. They were barely making it with 5 kids,and in foreclosure.

I love the "Media" you see guys on cable news, everyone of them thinks "I'm middle class" People on CNBC CNN MSNBC, many of them making 100-200-500K per year. Keith Olberman was making over a million. I don't think there is a person in those buildings, even the camera men who are "Middle class". But when you listen to them... they sure to put on the song and dance. "Oh, I don't have Donald Trump kind of money... that is RICH" No, trump is the 1% or the .01%. Warren Buffett is the .01%, not the 1%. 

This is kind of the sick thing in america right now, we have this Illusion that Obama is spending Trillions in "Obama Phones" and "Planned Parenthood" etc. It's crazy talk with not data to back it up. It's a chart that shows the "Top tax rate which is supposed to show the "Marginal tax rate". I don't know if that was somebody intentionally lying to ME/US. Or if they were legitimately stupid. I read through most the blog posts of that web site, its an AEI web site but they don't make that Claim, I wanted to see what blog post they had and see if it backed up this thesis, and if "They" were this stupid to make this claim. This suggest Strongly that margaret leber was a Fake and a Fraud. Trolling this Thread for the American Enterprise institute. Trying to work for the corporate interests against YOU, and against us. Against this great country of ours. It's Damn well unpatriotic to lie and to misrepresent to get what you want. I'd be ashamed to be them. Once shown a fraud they ran. They were smart enough to know like a Con-Man when to cut and run.

 This debt was built during 12 years ,of Iraq war, and tax cuts for the rich, which were supposed to pay for themselves. 12 years kids? 12 years those tax breaks were supposed to pay for themselves. It's time... we have waited long enough. It's lucy and the football, and we are Charley brown. yet, here it is again and they say "More tax cuts it will fix the economy"... sure lucy, lets line up for the football again. Luckily the country said no.

 I just argued with whoever about whatever, and they want lower taxes. I wouldn't doubt if they aren't the Middle class, I'd bet they are the Sub 30K per year crowd. They want their payroll tax back. That 7% that goes to social security. If we gave that back to people, when they retired... they really would be on welfare  It's actually quite republican of us to force them to pay for their retirement, so "We" don't have to put them on welfare at 65.

bla bla bla... lets get to thanksgiving :)
 
+Joshua Talley That is actually very interesting. I'm dying to know how accurate it is, sure J.K rowling as a rapper is nebulous.
 
+Piero Lecca are you living on the absolute minimum and giving all the rest to govt like a good little communist or are you just wanting everyone else to do so?

If you ignore the fact that Mitt gave away more last year than you will ever earn, taking more of his money would mean less to invest, less people hired to take care of his houses, etc. you think the chef would be better getting s welfare check instead of a paycheck?

The rich love their country and realize the welfare-mentality is destroying it. You, sir, ARE the problem. Get a job instead of demanding a handout.
 
Sorry to break It to you people, but you cant tax yourself out of a recession. Raising taxes on the rich wouldn't put a dent in the federal deficit not to mention they are the ones creating all the jobs in this country. The wealthiest 4% of americans are already being taxed 60% of there income as it is.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winson Churchill
 
The only way to "solve" our problems is to go back to what worked... Limit the power of govt to almost nothing, eliminate welfare and social programs, allow charities to help the needy and poverty to encourage the lazy to work. With low taxes, jobs will be created for those who wish to find them.

Don't like that... Then just wait for the collapse when the govt cannot steal enough to meet the obligations and China will no longer bail us out.
 
How is it Americans forgot that we have a government for the people?  Why don't we expect it to work for us rather than fight against it?
 
Brian Wood: I agree completely-- "The rich love their country and realize the welfare-mentality is destroying it. You, sir, ARE the problem. Get a job instead of demanding a handout." I aslo think that the house of representatives should give Obama nothing until he terminates "ObamaCare"
 
Amazing how many people are defending greed, yet don't realize that "Obamacare" is the same shit plan Gingrich proposed during the Clinton Administration.
 
Also, I'm surprised the person I was responding to +1'd that...we asked for Universal Healthcare both times around and got the broken, screw-everyone private health insurance system made mandatory instead.
 
I'm defending greed? how so? I am defending progressive taxation. Just as we have had for thousands of years.
 
Before raising taxes politicians
have to see how much corruption money they can save
 
I like how the government is now suddenly the bestest and mostest efficientest manager of money forevah. USPS... DMV... Medicare... SSO... INS... TSA... paragons of efficiency and balanced budgets apparently.

People from the left say tax money is not used on entitlements enough. People on the right say it's not used on defense enough. It sounds to me that the government is just absolute shit when it comes to knowing what it needs to spend money for it's citizens. Every year, every cycle, time and time again, the government has proven itself as ridiculously inefficient. Anyone who thinks it knows how to manage it's tax revenues are delusional or willfully ignorant.

So how does it makes sense that people are arguing to give it more money to throw away? Anyone care to dispute that every person contributing to social security is not going to get the same amount that they've put in their entire working lives? Or that Medicare will NEVER run like United Healthcare or Aetna or AFLAC?

And to you saying "Maybe you should give back because you're using roads and bridges." STFU. These infrastructures would've been paid for two generations ago and maintained for the next 1000 years if that's really what the government is supposed to be. Your strawman is stupid and should be tied to a post and beaten with a stick.
 
Sad and scary that +Piero Lecca seems unable to understand the crucial difference between money taken from the taxpayer at gunpoint funding government handouts "redistributive justice" and personal charity, with decisions as to who gets how much arising from personal judgement rather than being a political football, decisions made to buy votes.

Do you really not understand that this matters? A lot? Or are you simply blinded by your envy? Your gangnam-style profile photos sure make you look like a 1% wannabe. 
 
I don't mind paying more taxes, its only gonna be like $500 a year more for me. I waste that on buying coffee and egg and cheese sandwiches every day.
 
Yeah, it's a great thing when your price of admission to the looter club is so low. 
 
I wish my price of admission would be higher. That means I'm making a really good living and can live more comfortably than what I live now. I wouldn't mind paying more either.
 
I once heard that was a christian philosophy +Jorge Rodriguez to those that much is given, much is expected.

There are lots of people who would love to be making enough to pay heavy taxes. The Horror of the 38% bracket... I may have to get the nanny or the maid to get me out of bed, I'd be so depressed.
 
Great leverage, for the low, low cost of $500 you can take vast sums of money from people who are much more successful than you. At gunpoint. 

Which is what makes you a contemptible looter. Blocked.
 
The Fairfax would fix a lot of these problems, but we must cut spending by at least 20%.
 
Tax this Tax that, it is only another 1% or 4%. Don't be so cheap,think of others. These TAXES once in place never go away. Where will it end? I am taxed enough every which way. The genuis "think tank solution" to every problem more tax. Worked well for California's economy.And are they ever the Smartest most Liberial thinkers of us all.
 
+Jorge Rodriguez the increase for you might be just an egg and cheese and coffee... But do you think you should skip breakfast so the govt can pay a paper-shuffling moron more money to determine the color you can paint your house our the number of nails per inch you need in a treehouse or whatever else they are regulating this week?

And for those of us looking at a much larger increase with even worse impacts by govt...
 
+Brian Wood I was just illustrating that I enjoy certain luxuries that I can do without. I think the government should do the same, and I do agree with spending cuts. But I think if we really want to tackle the deficit, we as taxpayers need to contribute more. 
 
+margaret leber won't be in the 1% she  isn't even literate enough to be able to read a chart. She probably can't even balance a checkbook +Piero Lecca 
 
+Piero Lecca Don't kid yourself, son: By your own testimony you're already that kind of greedy selfish bastard. And unfit to advise others on anything. much less religion.  
 
+Piero Lecca Yet not so generous as to allow people to keep what they earn and decide for themselves who to give it to. You want it in the hands of the leftists, redistributed to their clients. 

Yes, I'm sure you ship a lot of USD out of the country. How generous.

Oppa Gangnam Style blocked. 
 
+Jorge Rodriguez if three govt cut back to the duties they are suppose to do, taxes would be almost zero. Then we can talk about a few bucks each to retire the debt
 
+Piero Lecca while i doubt you well be in the one percent, so what? If you give away you're money to charity as Romney does our give it to govt as a good marxist should is YOUR business.

Demanding that others must pay more to support your fascist dreams is not OK.
 
Just look at Denmark how the high taxes has destroyed our society......
Add a comment...