Don’t get fresh with me son. 8% is the long-term stock market return, and most Americans don’t have the spare cash lying around to get into it, which is exactly my point - only 50% of families have any stock at all, and most of that is in employer-helped retirement accounts.
Have you heard the phrase “past performance doesn’t guarantee future results?”
First of all, this reminds me of the bank robber’s answer when he was asked why he robbed banks…
And secondly - there is a LOT more “middle class” than there is upper class. You’re already taxing the “upper class” at much higher rates than the “middle class”. Even if you somehow taxed the 1% “rich” at a 100% rate, you STILL would not be able to cover the deficit.
I keep hearing this from tax-increase opponents, as if it is a bullet-proof argument. Guess what? It’s not. Yes, it will require more than just taxing the rich. We need to cut spending as well. But that is not a good reason to not increase taxes on the wealthy at the same time.
It is about balance; it will require sacrifice from everyone. What sacrifice do you propose to ask from job creators?
Yet I don’t see any proposals to cut spending. See DataX above: “It is all nice and dandy to claim we can cut spending … but when pushed - people who claim this will point to vague concepts. Romney refuse to mention anything specific other than PBS (and I think one other thing - cant remember what it was). None of these add up to a hill of beans.”
“Sacrifice from everyone” apparently equals “raise the taxes on the rich”. Because that is what I keep hearing from the left. Did I miss Democrats’ proposal to require sacrifice from someone else?
I have no problem with cutting spending. But cutting spending is put forth as the alternative to raising taxes. I am saying there isn’t enough to room to use spending cuts alone to bring about a balanced budget.
Sacrifice from everyone does not equal raise taxes on the rich. It isn’t like the 1% is this magical line. The plan to “raise taxes” is simply restoring the taxes to where they were when we did have a balanced budget. The fact that the tax rate has been low for the rich and would increase - is not a punishment - it is math and good economics.
Obama is going to agree to entitlement reform. Everyone knows that something is going to have to give in that area.
The rich can complain all they want and try to buy another election. It isn’t going to help them. The idea that raising the tax rate from 35 to 39.6 is going to hurt them or the economy isn’t supported by voters, history, or common sense.
Nobody wants to pay higher taxes or lose benefits. I really can’t feel sorry for them. It is nothing personal. And I have been in the 39.6 bracket before - I didn’t LIKE paying as much as I did, but really takes giant balls to complain about the situation I was in.
They get plenty of benefits from our current system.
Funny, I remember the Democrats wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire across the board, but the Republicans objected. So then the Democrats moved the bar up to only ending them for those making 250k or more, and the Republicans raised all hell. And in a final attempt to find some common ground, they upped it to millionaires, and still the Republicans shriek.
I think you’ll find that most Democrats are fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire altogether, especially here on the Dope. I’m as annoyed as you are that the conversation is currently limited to millionaires and billionaires, but that’s a direct result of Republicans stonewalling for the last several years. Can’t cry about it now.
You should tell Obama and Democrats. I don’t think they heard the same thing you have been hearing.
That eight percent is steady over pretty much any 25+ year period since the turn of the twentieth century. The only 20 year period with a return under 5% was 1909-1929. Source
Instead of just talking in cliches, please try and think about what would actually happen if we had such a disastrous period for equities. Our economy couldn’t handle that. We are talking about so many paradigms changing, for that to happen, that there’s very little meaningful that we can say about the state of stocks, or taxes, or incomes through and after such a period. Maybe the rich won’t be rich because they’ll be eating worms and shooting the rest of us off their worm-rich land.
Beyond squibbling about particular points, surely you understand the idea: once you have a certain amount of money, you don’t have to work to get more of it. The money does the work itself. “But drew870mitchell,” the protests arise, “that’s what capitalism is all about!” Yes, but it’s generally accepted that people getting money without earning it is an antisocial outcome. So we try to find a happy medium that encourages both investment and work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/29/the-gops-medicare-confusion/
Obama has indeed put forward Medicare cuts for some time now. The problem both parties face is that a large voting block doesn’t want them to touch Medicare. Ironically, “small government” Republicans are beholden to this group more than Democrats, so they’ve been a bit more cagey about what they would cut exactly. It’s the Democrats who are putting forward a better picture of what exactly they would cut.
They did? I remember Obama, even in '08, campaigning on a promise that no one who made less than $250k would have his taxes raised.
I was thinking before that, but I may be misremembering based on articles like this that show more bipartisan support for extending certain tax cuts than I thought they had at the time. I know Democrats objected to the cuts at first, but apparently gave up opposition when it came time to extend them.
As an aside, reading articles from 2004 is depressing:
John Kerry fails to predict the future:
It’s also important to recognize that there was a certain economic event in 2007/08 that made lots of people think raising taxes across the board was a bad idea. I don’t think it makes sense to compare what might or might not have been good policy in 2004 with what is good policy now. We’re still not out of the hole yet!
Terr, you’ve obviously got a huge bias on this issue.
Will you acknowledge that the ‘should they pay triple?’ rhetorical question you asked was unfounded hyperbole?
Your choice of wording the present rate as ‘soaking’ the rich is also unwarranted. Rich people in the US pay lower taxes than in most other developed countries, maybe any other developed country, for all I know. They also pay less than rich people have paid in this country since Hoover or something.
You also presented only one side of the story saying that in earning 8% in the stock market, investors risk losing 50-70% of their holdings.
The 8% rule-of-thumb takes that into account. Some stocks double in a year, or do better. Diversifying and keeping the money in for at least 5 years makes losing money almost impossible.
Depends on what you mean by losing money. I’ve had a well-diversified 401K/IRA for almost 15 years, and while I haven’t technically lost money over any 5 year period, there are plenty of periods where I’ve lost money to inflation. (i.e. periods where the stock market has been flat, but the interest in bonds cannot both beat inflation and make up for the stock market.)
A question is a hyperbole?
SHOULD they pay triple? I mean, they can afford it, no?
So do middle class people. Is that an argument for raising their taxes too?
You guys have to be consistent. If 8% is a “surefire” thing, then why stick the money into Social Security treasuries that pay much less?
**So for me there are two questions:
- Why do most people think it’s so much less? I would say the left’s propaganda about it was wildly successful and most people have been fooled into thinking that**.
I guessed 25% and I don’t think there is propaganda that fooled “most people”. I think people became aware of how little some people were paying with Romney. I would venture to say without that huge “scandal” people would have guessed much higher.
**
2. All those who thought it was much less and now find out it’s 30% - does that influence your opinion on whether they should be taxed more? Double the “middle class” effective rate is not “fair” enough? Should it be triple?**
They should be taxed at the 39.6 percent rate that is being asked for by the dems. Back to the Clinton rates. I don’t hear many people saying we should go back 75 years and start taxing at 80%.
:rolleyes: wank wank wank wank. The answer to your question is exactly what started the side conversation in the first place. Do you like arguing in circles?
I don’t see it. Can you tell me why Social Security funds are stuck in 2% Treasuries rather than 8% “surefire” stock market? You were claiming that people don’t have enough money to put in stock market. But everyone pays Social Security - so why is that not put into stock market to generate those guaranteed returns?
Are you going to deny it a million more times?