We’re discussing Obama’s speech. Are you? What taxes was he talking about?
I agree with that notion, though I suspect we might disagree how much “more” should be. But it’s not relevant to this particular sub-debate, which was over the meaning of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments. His sentiment seems to be that it’s not just a matter of who has the wherewithal to pay, but a matter of owing a payback because of how much society has contributed to their success. That’s a ridiculous notion.
My, we certainly are detail oriented, all of a sudden. Did he say “income taxes”? Or just “taxes”?
Thread Police doesn’t scare me any, never take Baby Face 'luc alive! Probably wouldn’t try, but still…
I’ve said this before, even in this thread, but I’m going to say it again anyway.
It’s one thing to say that the top bracket shouldn’t be raised, but it’s another thing altogether to allow “the rich” to have special treatment for certain forms of income, specifically of the “carried interest” type that hedge fund managers get away with. And the exempting of certain income from the AMT, which is supposed to be designed such that “the rich” pay a minimum percent of tax. That’s how Romney gets away with a net tax rate of < 15%.
Now, I’m not claiming that closing those loopholes will generate enough money to make a dent in the infrastructure expenditures, but it certainly addresses a big part of the fairness issue. And Obama’s proposal of The Buffet Rule isn’t all that different.
I would say your own post contains part of the incompatibility. To wit:
This country was not pristine wilderness the day Sam Walton opened his first store. I’m sure he paid a great deal in taxes once he was a billionaire, but before he turned his first penny in profit he was using roads and bridges paid for by someone else. They may have made their fortunes from the opportunities provided by the Lincoln Highway, and so on, back to the Erie Canal and the Boston Post Road. Obama’s speech was necessary to refute your exact view that any person has already “paid for what they received”. Rather, it’s a process of continuous, nationwide bootstrapping; each person paying for what the next one will receive. And the nation is better off for it.
That’s a debatable point, but what Obama was saying was that between gutting our infrastructure, our investments in research and technology versus more tax cuts for the wealthy, we need to keep our infrastructure.
I can keep saying it, but Stratocaster et al will keep ignoring it. America is not fixed and static. It is an ongoing enterprise. If we want to keep it going, we need to keep investing. If we want to shrink it so as to drown it in a bathtub, we can go the Republican way.
John, I don’t know enough about these changes to react, but I think it should be part of the debate. But whether or not a given change is a good idea has nothing to do with the rich owing a payback because of how much society has contributed to their success. That was my point.
We really don’t care how you rationalize giving your money to the government, so long as we get to collect a huge chunk of it, and leave you wondering how you’re going to remain in business and ever hire an employee again after you’ve paid the IRS. It’s simple, really.
But who’s disagreeing with this? Infrastructure requires maintenance. New infrastructure is required. We all need to pay taxes for this. And we do. And having paid our share, including our ongoing share, our obligation is over. We don’t have some residual obligation that grows as a result of our success. Why is everyone ignoring the “payback” part of Obama’s speech?
2/3 of the Federal budget is for Medicare, Medicaid, SSN and defense. The debt crisis we face is not because of schools or roads. The need to increase federal taxes on the rich is not to pay for the middle school down the road.
Then don’t get in a tizzy when someone points out that part of Obama’s rationale is ridiculous. Shrug your shoulders and move on. It doesn’t really matter how or why, so long as you get the dough.
That’s 2/3 of the budget, not the deficit. The debt is something else entirely. Do please learn your terminology.
The debt “crisis” is because of GOP tantrum’s about paying money already spent on credit.
The bulk of the *deficit *is caused by Bush’s counterproductive tax cuts, and the continuing (but no longer amusing) fantasy about them somehow “motivating the Job Creators”.
ETA: **prr **was using sarcasm. Do please learn that too.
Some of my favorite quotes about taxes, from the philosophy I share:
Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized. ~Albert Bushnell Hart, Actual Government, 1903
I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., quoted by Felix Frankfurter, The Atlantic Monthly, October 1938
The expenses of government, having for their object the interest of all, should be borne by everyone, and the more a man enjoys the advantages of society, the more he ought to hold himself honored in contributing to those expenses. ~Anne Robert Jacques Turgot
It was typed in error, Elvis, and already corrected. And if you think that the tax increases Obama is proposing will do anything material to the debt, you need to educate yourself, brother.
OK, but just to be clear, I think more Americans agree with Obama on this than with you. And while I agree with you, I can’t say that the other side is wrong-- we just start with a different set of assumptions and that’s what a democracy is for. Not to mention that the amounts we are talking about are piddling, in the grand scheme of things. Obama isn’t talking about returning to the days of 50% tax rates or higher.
Well, I think “tax the rich guys” is always an extremely popular sentiment. I’m sure that’s why Obama and his gang have such a fetish for it–people love the idea. Most people, anyway.
“Tax the rich” is the Dem’s version of a painless solution. The fact that what they’re proposing won’t solve anything is immaterial. Anyone in the bottom 98% thinks it’s a grand idea. The Pubbies’ version is “eliminate waste.” More empty rhetoric.
OK, withdrawn. Your conceptual disconnect between the budget and the debt remains, however. You’re not recognizing the revenues side of the simple arithmetic problem.
Can’t you help educate me? What effect do you think revenue increases have on debt? Or are you still embracing the decade-old myth about tax cuts generating more revenue than they cost? When do the “job creators” get around to it?
For that matter, how the hell could it happen that restoring rates to those of the Clinton surplus years would have the opposite effect this time?
Regards,
The reality-based community
This is my point exactly. These brave pioneers that built all of this stuff before we were born was already there. They were there for you, me, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, and the wino that sleeps in the dumpster.
What distinguishes us five? Is it the Erie Canal, or is it the individual effort we put forth? It can’t be the infrastructure, because we all have it equally. If it was the infrastructure, then everyone would be either Sam Walton, the wino, or somewhere in between. What distinguishes us is our own individual initiative.
For Obama to marginalize that by saying that there are a lot of smart people out there is absurd. Didn’t those other smart people have good roads and national defense?
The specific tax increases Obama proposes wouldn’t even eliminate the current year’s budget deficit, let alone put a dent in the cumulative debt. That’s my point. We have $16 trillion in debt, and we’re spitting in the ocean. We have to fix entitlements. And I don’t think that’s a dirty word or we shouldn’t have such programs. But we can’t sustain the current system.
ETA: In response to Elvis
I do find it telling that my over-the-top sarcastic summary of what Democrats want and believe in was taken seriously by Stratocaster as representing our actual views. I omitted, “and we won’t be happy until we’ve destroyed the U.S. economy bwahahaha!” as too obvious but now I wonder if he would have twigged to the sarcasm there either.
If you look at the proposals that Obama is making, I think a fairer characterization is: “Remove the special tax breaks that the rich get” rather than simply “tax the rich”. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama really wanted in his heart of hearts to soak the rich a bit more, but that’s not what he’s proposing, and I’m very comfortable with that proposal.
The Republicans are proposing much more than “eliminate waste”. They are proposing to not only keep the special tax breaks that many of the rich get, but make them even juicier.