All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/12/2012 2:27 PM
I would assume that if a President promises to help put people back to work that he has some control over things.  Is that a bad assumption?
11/12/2012 2:46 PM
DUBYA= LOSING 750,000- 800,000 JOBS PER MONTH

OBAMA= GAINING 150,000-200,000 JOBS PER MONTH
11/12/2012 2:51 PM
A president can do all he wants (and it seems this one is certainly trying) to fend off unemployment but there are a multitude of factors at work which can impede those efforts.

I know I would rather have Obama trying to create jobs than Romney's "five point plan" which he never explained beyond what he hoped it would accomplish - no details at all on how to get there.

I also agree with Obama that the rich need to pay more, and I think Republicans are being ridiculous and pushing us toward the "fiscal cliff" by trying to defend not increasing taxes for people who can easily afford to pay them.



11/12/2012 3:14 PM
Seeing that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the federal income taxes collected, the argument that "they need to pay more" just doesn't seem to have any merit beyond the left's "class warfare" rhetoric.

How much is enough?
11/12/2012 3:30 PM (edited)
Considering by many estimates the top 1 percent of highest incomes control over 40 percent of the wealth in the nation, they should be paying MORE than just the 38 percent number you state here (I'm not sure that's even accurate).

The argument the wealthy should be paying more has incredible merit based on that alone. Add to that the idea the wealthy can afford to pay more in taxes while the middle and especially lower classes would be financially burdened by similar increases leaves no doubt the wealthy should pay more.

As for how much is enough - I would say when the lower class pays next to nothing and the middle class pays only what it can reasonably afford with the rest of the income tax burden placed onto the wealthy, then it's enough. I would add we need to change the tax code and remove the loop holes and deductions which allow the wealthy to pay much lower than their real income tax rate. Make income taxes based upon your income bracket and have it increase substantially for those who make incredible amounts of money.

Keep in mind none of what I'm saying is coming from someone who is on "the left", as I consider myself a moderate but if anything I lean conservative.

11/12/2012 3:36 PM
Didn't you already classify yourself as a socialist?  That would be "the left".

The source of the 38% number (my bad, it's actually 36.73% as of 2009) is the Internal Revenue Service.

Top 1% pays 36.73%
Top 5% pays 58.66%
Top 10% pays 70.47%
Top 25% pays 87.30%
Top 50% pays 97.75%
Bottom 50% pays 2.25%

11/13/2012 8:33 AM
You demonstrate one of the main problems with most people's mindset - they only see in terms of black and white.

I'm a socialist, yes. However, I lean more right than left when it comes to most issues. Therefore, I'm not "the left" at all. This is why terms like "left" and "right" mean little in a political sense - because not everyone is one or the other. People can be liberal in some aspects and conservative in others.

For example, I tend to lean to the "left" when it comes to economic issues but to the "right" when it comes to social and ethical issues.

Regardless of your numbers, the rich should be paying more than they are right now. They can afford it.

11/13/2012 9:09 AM
"They can afford to" is not a valid reason to expect them to, or to demand that they do it.
11/13/2012 11:02 AM
Posted by bistiza on 11/9/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Much like your feeling about our military?
I haven't even explained much about my feeling on the military. I made a single comment which was largely misinterpreted, and that comment had nothing to do with whether or not Romney cares about the middle and lower classes (in fact, those are two very different topics).

Some of my feelings on the military, since you seem interested:

1. I don't want think about what is going on with the military at all. I simply don't have the time or the ability to concern myself with it. All it would do is make me worry about things I cannot control, which would only serve to cause stress I don't need.

2. I think many people in America worship military and veterans too much. There are too many holidays for it (ironically, "veterans day" is coming up on the calender), too many celebrations of our achievements, and too many people wanting to thank you just for being a part of it all when you were just doing your job the same as anyone does theirs.
I know this was posted a few days ago, but ....  Insulting.  You have no idea why military people do what they do, as evidenced by this.  I don't doubt that there are some serving that feel the same as any job, but your broad brush strokes couldn't be further from the truth.

You don't owe them thanks, but you are indebted to those who are willling to protect your rights, nevertheless.

Your feelings are what they are, so I don't consider them invalid.  But they are insulting to those of us who did count the cost and were willing to take the risk.
11/13/2012 11:21 AM
"They can afford to" IS a valid reason to expect the government to make them pay their fair share. There is no reason people who struggle to get by should pay taxes that put them in more financial peril when there are those who can easily afford to absorb more of those taxes. The rich should be paying more than they are now, that is for certain.

My statements on the military are not meant to be insulting nor should they be taken that way.  I just speak the truth. You're right - I don't owe anyone thanks for merely doing their job. I also don't owe them any debt for "protecting rights" or anything else. There are plenty who are willing to do the job if they aren't, so there isn't any need to bow down and worship those who do it.
11/13/2012 11:24 AM
"They can afford to" IS a valid reason to expect the government to make them pay their fair share.

The numbers indicate that they are already paying more than their "fair share".  You (and Obama) are asking them to pay MORE than their fair share.  "They can afford to" is not a valid justification as to why they should be expected to.
11/13/2012 11:28 AM
Posted by bistiza on 11/13/2012 8:33:00 AM (view original):
You demonstrate one of the main problems with most people's mindset - they only see in terms of black and white.

I'm a socialist, yes. However, I lean more right than left when it comes to most issues. Therefore, I'm not "the left" at all. This is why terms like "left" and "right" mean little in a political sense - because not everyone is one or the other. People can be liberal in some aspects and conservative in others.

For example, I tend to lean to the "left" when it comes to economic issues but to the "right" when it comes to social and ethical issues.

Regardless of your numbers, the rich should be paying more than they are right now. They can afford it.

It doesn't matter what rate you decide to soak the rich with.  You'll never match spending, so no, they cannot "afford it".  WE cannot afford it.  Raising taxes will not spur recovery, and since tax revenues are driven mostly by overall economic health, they (revenues) may actually go down.

Please explain how raising tax rates will help anything.  You do realize that when rates go down across the board, the share of the revenues paid by wealthy go UP, right?  I'll leave the research of the tax information at the IRS to you.  By your logic, and by historical precedent, the rich pay MORE when rates are lowered.  That tells me that we are on the inverse side of the tax curve.  (0% = $0 revenue, 100% = $0 revenue ===> so there must be a peak somewhere).  You can't get around the math. 

We have two very basic problems here:

1.  Raising taxes may  give you less revenue (and probably will if it has the effect of slowing down the economy).  But even if it does give you a minute gain in revenue in the short term, it would have almost ZERO appreciable affect on the deficit/debt.

2.  Spending is already likley far above the peak of whatever revenue you would hope to gain from a rate increase.

So holding spending cuts hostage to tax increases in order to save the country from the fiscal cliff is irresponsible at best and immoral at worst.  This "balanced approach" is no such thing.  It's simply an opportunity for the current administration and the left to penalize the rich and capitalize politically.  Everybody wants the rich to pay more, but nobody knows how much more or how to make that happen.  And no one gives the moral justification, that just because people want it, that they should be able to take whatever amount they want of someone else's money to make it happen.  I personally cannot see how I have any moral right to demand that a rich person pays more on their next dollar than me.  Because they can afford it doesn't make it right.  There is not one dollar that anyone else has earned that I have a moral right to take.  Furthermore, if I am as much a human as a the rich guy, I'm pulling my weight if we pay the same.

If they want more revenue, they would NOT raise taxes.  If they want the rich to pay their "fair share", which no one defines, they would not raise taxes.  I don't see how raising taxes would help in the manner that people say it will.
11/13/2012 11:31 AM
It would be nice if none of you quoted bistza's post.  

"Fair share" is a bullshit phrase.   "They can afford to" is stupid.  

"Fair share" is obviously a moving target.   It was determined years ago and now it's no longer "fair".   Until 2016 when the next guy decides what he thinks it should be.

"They can afford to" is beyond stupid.   I can afford to do a lot of things I choose not to.   Does that mean I should do them?
11/13/2012 12:19 PM
The numbers actually indicate the wealthy are NOT  paying anything close to their fair share. Take Mitt Romney, for example. He paid less percentage wise than many middle class Americans, and yet he made $20 million or so last year. That's not his fair share at all.

Fair share is also a perfectly reasonable phrase, much to MikeT23's dismay, as is "they can afford to".

Fair share is only a moving target based upon economic factors including inflation (when you're talking about total money).

They can afford to because they have the money to pay for taxes others can't afford. The idea you can afford to do things but choose not to is irrelevant because what you choose to do has nothing to do with the tax rate.

The reason they can afford to is reasonable is because the idea is to lower the taxes on those who CANNOT afford to pay them, and the easiest and most direct way to do that is to compensate for a loss of revenue from the lower classes who can't afford those taxes by making the wealthy who can afford them pay more.

As a percentage of their income, asking the wealthy to pay every cent of income tax for the bottom 10 percent of earners in this country (who would then pay nothing in income taxes) wouldn't even make a dent.

11/13/2012 12:21 PM
There is not one dollar that anyone else has earned that I have a moral right to take.

That's YOUR belief, and you are entitled to it.

I disagree with that and believe the rich don't always earn what they have (in many cases they don't earn it or deserve it) and embrace any modern day "Robin Hood" type effort of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.