The US will not recover until taxes on the rich are raised.

[LennardiVooDoo]

Anybody want to take an actual $ bet? I also think that the US will slip into another recession, or at least stay at the same level of GDP indefinitely until the plutocratic economic system is changed.

A large accumulation of wealth at the top is what caused the great depression and the great recession.

I know it's a long read, but please read it before posting. It's the simplest yet most effective explanation on how income inequality lead to the great depression, and how in general, drastic inequality makes recessions inevitable.

"As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery.

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spend by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.

Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.

I recommend to anybody who has the ability to think logically and not be a mindless corporatist, to read the book Aftershock. It has an excellent argument against income inequality, and how it directly lead to the Great depression and the great recession, while income equality, such as 1945-1975, lead to the great prosperity.

[marskman]

Very simplistic view of things, but you are correct. Historically, income equality has correlated with national success in every country. Still, such drastic redistribution isn't the answer. The problem created wasn't one of overproduction really, but one of overestimating the money supply. The ratio between credit:money supply is a fragile one and when it got too high, debts couldn't be paid. The key is a federal regulation of that ratio across the board.

[skinny buckeye]

you kids need to get yor ass back in school and learn a few things.

[David77]

you kids need to get yor ass back in school and learn a few things.

^ This

"If you are not a socialist by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by the time you are 30, you have no brains."

[leafs43]

lol.

S&P was clear before this happened. *Cut 4 trillion dollars or get downgraded. *Instead we cut a superficial 1 trillion with an imaginary future 1.5 trillion and acted shocked that they downgraded us. *Then in the aftermath the same derpa derps that couldn't cut anything are yelling, "Raise taxes!"

[Streetbull]

Let's give more tax dollars to Washington. That'll encourage them to be frugal...yes, it will.........

[aceshin]

itt people think you can be serious about dealing with the deficit without raising revenues.

[nutsy54]

Alright OP: Exactly how much revenue will be generated when "taxes on the rich are raised", and how much will that reduce our deficits and/or overall debt?

[trailwarrior]

itt people think you can be serious about dealing with the deficit without raising revenues.

How true!

Republicans didn't used to be so retarded...

"While his 1952 landslide gave the Republicans control of both houses of the Congress, Eisenhower believed that taxes could not be cut until the budget was balanced. "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, [and] reduce income," he said, "until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced." Eisenhower kept the national debt low and inflation near zero."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._D._Eisenhower


National Debt was low and Eisenhower still insisted on maintaining high tax rates for the wealthy!

Top Personal Income Tax Rate
1952 92%
1953 92%
1954 91%
1955 91%
1956 91%
1957 91%
1958 91%
1959 91%
1960 91%
1961 91%
1962 91%
1963 91%

Top Corporate Tax Rate
1952 52%
1953 52%
1954 52%
1955 52%
1956 52%
1957 52%
1958 52%
1959 52%
1960 52%
1961 52%
1962 52%
1963 52%


brb getting a lower paying job so I can pay off my debts


.

[Zigrakil]

^ This

"If you are not a socialist by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by the time you are 30, you have no brains."

"a witty saying proves nothing"

[all pro]

“Millionaires and billionaires,” President Obama says derisively, must make more “sacrifices” and live by the same rules the rest of America lives by. But there are seven little words that will never appear on the White House teleprompter: “And that means you, too, George Soros​.”

For all his (and his wife’s) bashing of greedy Wall Street hedge-fund managers, Obama has shown nothing but love to the world’s most famous hedge-fund mogul. The feeling is mutual and deep(-pocketed).

Soros and his family shelled out $250,000 for Obama’s inauguration, $60,000 in direct campaign contributions and untold millions more to liberal activist groups pushing the White House agenda. While the class warrior-in-chief assails conniving financiers who exploit loopholes and corporate titans who imperil the planet, he lets the Soros exemptions to his attack-the-rich rules slide like butter on a hot plate.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/01/o...soros-waivers/

[trailwarrior]

"Millionaires and billionaires," President Obama says derisively, must make more "sacrifices" and live by the same rules the rest of America lives by. But there are seven little words that will never appear on the White House teleprompter: "And that means you, too, George Soros​."

LOL!!!

Can George Soros, Michael Bloomberg save New York's troubled young men?
Christian Science Monitor – Thu, Aug 4, 2011
By By Ron Scherer

"On Thursday, Mr. Bloomberg announced that the city, combined with his own philanthropy and that of billionaire George Soros, would spend $127.5 million over three years to try to cut down on some of the factors that result in higher rates of poverty, incarceration, and unemployment among young minority men."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...bled-young-men


.

[all pro]

LOL!!!

Can George Soros, Michael Bloomberg save New York's troubled young men?
Christian Science Monitor – Thu, Aug 4, 2011
By By Ron Scherer

"On Thursday, Mr. Bloomberg announced that the city, combined with his own philanthropy and that of billionaire George Soros, would spend $127.5 million over three years to try to cut down on some of the factors that result in higher rates of poverty, incarceration, and unemployment among young minority men."


.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Obama
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...ational-servic...

[trailwarrior]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...ational-servic...

LOL x2 !!


I can't seem to find the page you wanted.
.

[JUSA]

I would love to see tax loopholes slashed - better that that even, simplify the tax code overall. It's odd how liberals tend to be the most against things like a flat tax system when it's the overly complicated mess we have now which allows some people to legally avoid paying much of anything.

As for the topic of the OP: Hmm. I personally think that unless the US really re-thinks it's role in the world and the amount our Gov't spends we're ****ed no matter what. A few extra coins from taxes on the rich (that the super-rich will probably still find ways to loophole out of, anyway), isn't the solution.

[Zigrakil]

I would love to see tax loopholes slashed - better that that even, simplify the tax code overall. It's odd how liberals tend to be the most against things like a flat tax system when it's the overly complicated mess we have now which allows some people to legally avoid paying much of anything.

As for the topic of the OP: Hmm. I personally think that unless the US really re-thinks it's role in the world and the amount our Gov't spends we're ****ed no matter what. A few extra coins from taxes on the rich (that the super-rich will probably still find ways to loophole out of, anyway), isn't the solution.

Neither is cutting SS, Medicare, Welfare, and every other program that allows your country to maintain a social conscience. And please, don't give me that bullsh!t about 'abuse.' I know for a fact that no statistics correlate welfare to abuse, so don't even bring it up. So much of the argument is just meaningless rhetoric. You want to cut something? Get rid of useless **** like tax cuts and an excessive military. But nooooo, instead of looking to the obvious problems, you want to blame all your woes on those damn poor people "taking your hard earned cashed," or whatever fox news's catchphrase of the day happens to be.

I've said it*elsewhere*and I'll say it again here: the Tea Partiers sold out their country to try and make Obama look bad. If you think the Tea Party is actually behaving logically and proposing logically/morally sound solutions, you are a bona fide dip**** and should refrain from ever discussing politics again.

[nutsy54]

I've said it*elsewhere*and I'll say it again here: the Tea Partiers sold out their country to try and make Obama look bad. If you think the Tea Party is actually behaving logically and proposing logically/morally sound solutions, you are a bona fide dip**** and should refrain from ever discussing politics again.

Gee, because the "logical and moral" answer is to continue heading towards President Obama's budget goal of a $20 TRILLION national debt by the end of the decade - When $1 TRILLION per year (20% of all Federal revenue) will be needed, just to pay the interest on that debt? Yeah, why would anybody be opposed to that plan?

[frasersteen]

It blows my mind that some people seem to think the rich should pay less than the poor.

Taxes should be proportional to wealth.

Top 1% controls over 20% of the wealth in the US so they should be paying at least 20% of taxes

[leafs43]

It blows my mind that some people seem to think the rich should pay less than the poor.

Taxes should be proportional to wealth.

Top 1% controls over 20% of the wealth in the US so they should be paying at least 20% of taxes

Top 1% pay roughly 40% of all income taxes.

[yankeemarko1]

It blows my mind that some people seem to think the rich should pay less than the poor.

Taxes should be proportional to wealth.

Top 1% controls over 20% of the wealth in the US so they should be paying at least 20% of taxes

Taxes are already proportional to wealth. *The top earners already pay the majority of taxes.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[nutsy54]

It blows my mind that some people seem to think the rich should pay less than the poor.

Taxes should be proportional to wealth.

Top 1% controls over 20% of the wealth in the US so they should be paying at least 20% of taxes

Newsflash: The rich already pay FAR MORE than everyone else. Why do people like you need to create this false claim that says otherwise, or that pretends "some people" think taxes on the rich should be drastically reduced, below the levels paid by the rest of the population?

Newsflash #2: We have an income tax in this country, not a "wealth" tax.

Newsflash #3: The top 1% earn 20% of all income... And pay 38% of all income taxes. So, I guess that far exceeds the requirement you laid out, huh?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[Zigrakil]

Gee, because the "logical and moral" answer is to continue heading towards President Obama's budget goal of a $20 TRILLION national debt by the end of the decade - When $1 TRILLION per year (20% of all Federal revenue) will be needed, just to pay the interest on that debt? Yeah, why would anybody be opposed to that plan?

you know it's always baffled me that every other country can survive with way more social services than the USA but still turn a decent surplus or minimal deficit. why is the US different? hey what do you guys budget for the military again? i could go on, but it's not necessary. your country is a withering cesspool of waste, and that waste isn't because of the poor, or even for the poor.*

[nutsy54]

you know it's always baffled me that every other country can survive with way more social services than the USA but still turn a decent surplus or minimal deficit. why is the US different? hey what do you guys budget for the military again? i could go on, but it's not necessary. your country is a withering cesspool of waste, and that waste isn't because of the poor, or even for the poor.*

Interesting that you need to start an off-topic tirade on military spending - which is only 18% of the Federal Government's total budget. Guess what? We could have eliminated the entire Defense Department this year, and still had an $860 Billion deficit. Based on President Obama's 2012 budget proposal, removing all the Defense spending next year would have still produced a $400 Billion deficit.

Maybe you need to look somewhere else for your scapegoat.

[Zigrakil]

Interesting that you need to start an off-topic tirade on military spending - which is only 18% of the Federal Government's total budget. Guess what? We could have eliminated the entire Defense Department this year, and still had an $860 Billion deficit. Based on President Obama's 2012 budget proposal, removing all the Defense spending next year would have still produced a $400 Billion deficit.

Maybe you need to look somewhere else for your scapegoat.

ONLY 18%? Considering the projected defense-related expenses for 2012 are over a trillion $, I'd think that's a pretty hefty chunk. The fact that you see nothing wrong with spending a fifth of your budget on a bloated, useless machine kinda demonstrates the fallacy in conservative reasoning. Between the "big 3" spending sinks (Medicare, Defense, and SS) Defense is easily the least applicable to the average citizen and the easiest one to cut without actually bothering anyone (except right wing lunatics who think we're still in WWII). So why are you all clamoring for cuts to the other two, but remaining all very hush hush about defense? The answer is pretty obvious: you don't give a **** about the economy. You just don't like giving your money to people you think don't deserve it.

If it were me, I would have reversed idiotic tax cuts (looking at you, Bush) and scaled down irrelevant programs like the DoD and its ilk.

[Tekkendo]

you know it's always baffled me that every other country can survive with way more social services than the USA but still turn a decent surplus or minimal deficit. .....*

LMAO. "decent surplus or minimal deficit" ? dude, you need to do some research.. most of your posts contain inaccurate stuffs.

[trailwarrior]

you know it's always baffled me that every other country can survive with way more social services than the USA but still turn a decent surplus or minimal deficit. why is the US different? hey what do you guys budget for the military again? i could go on, but it's not necessary. your country is a withering cesspool of waste, and that waste isn't because of the poor, or even for the poor.

How True!

Military spending makes up 54% of the federal budget...






Addicted To War by Joel Andreas.

[tnel00]

It blows my mind that some people seem to think the rich should pay less than the poor.

Taxes should be proportional to wealth.

Top 1% controls over 20% of the wealth in the US so they should be paying at least 20% of taxes

I don't even know where to begin...

just stay out of threads like these from now on you f*cking retard

[Streetbull]

Interesting that you need to start an off-topic tirade on military spending - which is only 18% of the Federal Government's total budget. Guess what? We could have eliminated the entire Defense Department this year, and still had an $860 Billion deficit. Based on President Obama's 2012 budget proposal, removing all the Defense spending next year would have still produced a $400 Billion deficit.

Maybe you need to look somewhere else for your scapegoat.

In the 1950's, about half of the federal budget was for the military. Now its around 20%.

The goal of libs is to always weaken this country. They hate America, seeing it as a threat to their dreamland of socialism/communism.
"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it." -- Ronald Reagan

[skinny buckeye]

It blows my mind that some people seem to think the rich should pay less than the poor.

Taxes should be proportional to wealth.

Top 1% controls over 20% of the wealth in the US so they should be paying at least 20% of taxes

and this idiotic statement shows the mindset of the avg dem Obama voter. They don't even know the numbers, just repeat their msnbc talking points and march in line for their govt handout.

[NickD25]

It blows my mind that some people seem to think the rich should pay less than the poor.

Taxes should be proportional to wealth.

Top 1% controls over 20% of the wealth in the US so they should be paying at least 20% of taxes

I bet the top 1% in this country pays more than 20% of the total. I heard some statistics for my state during the recent Government shutdown here. The Dems wanted to raise taxes on the top 2 percent here. That same top 2 percent already accounts for more than 40% of the states total tax revenue already. I would bet its a similar situation on the national level as well.

I know lots of people who get gigantic refunds due to all the social credits and what not like earned income credit. These people end up paying in absolutely nothing and in lots of cases get refunds far greater than what they had withheld over the course of the year. If you ask me that's a big problem. No one should be getting more back then they pay in and everyone should be paying something if the rest of us are expected to. my .02