By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Ben Stein says that taxes has to be raised on the rich....

johnsobas on 21 October 2012
Ail said:
johnsobas said:
SamuelRSmith said:
klystron said:
There never was a surplus. It's a myth. It is a surplus based on standard accounting tricks the government uses. Look at the amount of united states debt outstanding per year. It never went down. Not once. Including the late 90s. Look it up. Oh heck, I'll do it for you.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Look at the numbers. You'll see they never go down. Ever.

Federal government spent over a trillion dollars on 82 means tested welfare programs. That's larger than even the defense budget. Welfare spending up 32% since 2008.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/report-welfare-governments-single-largest-budget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/

The solution is not even to cut spending (though I would love to see welfare eliminated by making any handouts civil debt against the recipients estate.) The solution is economic growth. We have been growing less each year the last several years. Most of the GDP growth has been in government spending.

Realistically you can't just shut it all down at once because sadly too many communities depend on military bases, government offices,etc, but you can slowly ramp it back. It's a balance that has to happen. Clearly making it larger is not working.

The United States won't ever get economic growth until it gets its monetary policy in order (you cannot having investment without savings, and you won't get savings with such low interest rates, and high inflation.), and it won't get its monetary policy in order until it gets its fiscal policy in order (interest rates can't rise, because then the Fed Government cannot afford the debt).

So, if the US wants to go back into prosperity, it first needs to eliminate the Federal deficit, over night. It then needs to work with its borrowers to restructure the debts, and it then needs to severely reduce the unfunded liability (though, there's less time pressure here, but some reductions need t come today).

After all that,  the Fed can allow interest rates to rise, the printing presses will stop, and the dollar will start reclaiming its value. Americans can start saving again, investing, and producing. Jobs will start flowing back into the country, and the trade deficit would also start to diminish.

... but, none of this will happen. At the current path, the ONLY result is hyperinflation, and a totalitarian Government.

I couldn't have said it better myself, this is the exactly the problem and the only way for it to be solved.  The fed has boxed us into a corner with no way out.  Nobody has the guts to face the problem that has been in the making for the last 30-40 years.  they just keep pushing it further into the future and making recovery more and more impossible than it already was.  Nothing can be solved without first defaulting on the debt or at least a very large part it, followed by massive restructuring.  


What did I say, typical american.

Lets just declare bankrupcy...

Hello to 15$ gas at the pump if you do that ...

what are you talking about?  If you don't default on the debt the consequences are much worse.  Sure you can hold off the problems a couple years longer by printing money, bailing out banks and low interest rates but eventually inflation is coming and the problem is gonna be much worse than if you just default.  There no is no pretty way to get out of the mess, the purchasing power of americans is gonna have to take a big hit but at least if you have default you have a chance to recover given time.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

Around the Network
johnsobas on 21 October 2012
Ail said:
johnsobas said:
SamuelRSmith said:
klystron said:
There never was a surplus. It's a myth. It is a surplus based on standard accounting tricks the government uses. Look at the amount of united states debt outstanding per year. It never went down. Not once. Including the late 90s. Look it up. Oh heck, I'll do it for you.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Look at the numbers. You'll see they never go down. Ever.

Federal government spent over a trillion dollars on 82 means tested welfare programs. That's larger than even the defense budget. Welfare spending up 32% since 2008.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/report-welfare-governments-single-largest-budget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/

The solution is not even to cut spending (though I would love to see welfare eliminated by making any handouts civil debt against the recipients estate.) The solution is economic growth. We have been growing less each year the last several years. Most of the GDP growth has been in government spending.

Realistically you can't just shut it all down at once because sadly too many communities depend on military bases, government offices,etc, but you can slowly ramp it back. It's a balance that has to happen. Clearly making it larger is not working.

The United States won't ever get economic growth until it gets its monetary policy in order (you cannot having investment without savings, and you won't get savings with such low interest rates, and high inflation.), and it won't get its monetary policy in order until it gets its fiscal policy in order (interest rates can't rise, because then the Fed Government cannot afford the debt).

So, if the US wants to go back into prosperity, it first needs to eliminate the Federal deficit, over night. It then needs to work with its borrowers to restructure the debts, and it then needs to severely reduce the unfunded liability (though, there's less time pressure here, but some reductions need t come today).

After all that,  the Fed can allow interest rates to rise, the printing presses will stop, and the dollar will start reclaiming its value. Americans can start saving again, investing, and producing. Jobs will start flowing back into the country, and the trade deficit would also start to diminish.

... but, none of this will happen. At the current path, the ONLY result is hyperinflation, and a totalitarian Government.

I couldn't have said it better myself, this is the exactly the problem and the only way for it to be solved.  The fed has boxed us into a corner with no way out.  Nobody has the guts to face the problem that has been in the making for the last 30-40 years.  they just keep pushing it further into the future and making recovery more and more impossible than it already was.  Nothing can be solved without first defaulting on the debt or at least a very large part it, followed by massive restructuring.  


What did I say, typical american.

Lets just declare bankrupcy...

Hello to 15$ gas at the pump if you do that ...

what are you talking about?  If you don't default on the debt the consequences are much worse.  Sure you can hold off the problems a couple years longer by printing money, bailing out banks and low interest rates but eventually inflation is coming and the problem is gonna be much worse than if you just default.  There no is no pretty way to get out of the mess, the purchasing power of americans is gonna have to take a big hit but at least if you have default you have a chance to recover given time.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

Mr Khan on 21 October 2012
klystron said:
RedInker said:
Taxing the rich is a must. But neither Obama or Romney have the balls to mention this. Ive said this before America has to get its debt down or the country will go pop like Greece and the ramifications will fuck up the whole global economy.


One of the problems with "taxing the rich" is that you must consent to the government to define the meaning of rich. Someday you'll be on the wrong side of that line because the definition will always change. This is why I don't like giving the government the power to draw a line and treat people differently on one side of it or the other.

That's a pretty poor line of reasoning. Surely there must be an objective measure of wealth, even for the "small businessman" argument that i've heard against using the income definition of wealth.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

RVDondaPC on 21 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
RVDondaPC said:
Kasz216 said:
RVDondaPC said:
Instead of Taxing the Rich the Federal Government should create a "saved the deficit" Monument built on Federal land. Then everyone can volunteer to do their part and donate money to reduce the deficit. Then there can be different plaques or statues dedicated for each tier of person donating depending on how much they donate. If someone donates $1 million or so, they get their own statue. It's a much better way to feed the egos of the super rich rather than tax their money away which makes them angry. I'd also bet a lot of regular middle income people would gladly donate $20 or so and feel good about themselves to help the cause.

All politicians argue about taxes which just gets people upset or angry, no one ever talks about donating which invokes feel good emotions. I think they under estimate the power of people wanting to do good.

Of course taxes are never really about the deficit anyways. It's just two sides arguing for themselves. The deficit is just an argument tactic for each side to further their cause.


Nah.  Those rich people would probably just promote their time to help the poor.

Like Bono or Jay-Z.

They could be spending most of their wealth to help people... yet are farily light when it comes to their own pocket books.

The ones who actually tend to care about this stuff are the people who don't want a big deal made about it.

Politics related but honestly a good example is someone like Mit Romney really.  I think I read he gave something like 30% of his income to chairty?  Doesn't even bring it up when people call him a heartless rich dude.

Bill Gates has a huge ass foundation where he does alot of good, but he doesn't actually talk about it much.  They just do stuff.

Not sure what point you are making...

That appealing to peoples recognition won't be that helpful.

Nor their good will...

 

Paying for the government's debt is like paying for a gambling addicts gambling debts....

while said addict is placing a new line of bets for today's games.


So forcing them to pay the debt through taxes is a better option? How does that make sense? People are paying the "Gambling addicts gambling debt" regardless. Even if only a tiny fraction of the debt is raised, it is atleast raised in good will. Something taxes never ever do. Wealthy people don't like being taxed, they love giving their money away as a sign of wealth. Ofcourse you need something to signal that wealth and that is the monument. 



richardhutnik on 21 October 2012
MDMAlliance said:
klystron said:

With all due respect to Dr. Stein, I suggest he and you all watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ and see why the rich don't have enough money to run our bloated government.


That video you linked, that guy is twisting things a lot and obviously has some kind of superiority complex.  So many things were neglected in that video that it's stupid.  One obvious thing that is missing is pretty much any form of tax coming from anywhere else.  Where does sales tax go?  Where does everyone elses taxes go?  What about all the other taxes that we have that aren't just taxes on corporations and income?  Also, those numbers he mentioned ARE significant.  Significant enough to the point where balancing the increase of taxes with cuts in spending where they are questionable could pull us out of a deficit.  That video is overly biased.

edit: also when he mentioned the military, he should have doubled the amount due to the fact that if that were to happen, the deficit would have decreased by that same amount, in theory.

Ben Stein, as numbers of others who have had ties to Republican administrations and have a background in economics (Ben Stein does have a college degree in economics and has adviced individuals in Washington on economic policy) that budget cuts alone isn't going to be enough to get the budget balanced.  Taxes are going to have to be raised, because revenues are too low.  They would rather not do this, but it is seen as a necessity.  And it isn't about "let's punish the rich and successful!" but rather "What way does the least harm to the least amount of people?"



Around the Network
klystron on 21 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
klystron said:
RedInker said:
Taxing the rich is a must. But neither Obama or Romney have the balls to mention this. Ive said this before America has to get its debt down or the country will go pop like Greece and the ramifications will fuck up the whole global economy.


One of the problems with "taxing the rich" is that you must consent to the government to define the meaning of rich. Someday you'll be on the wrong side of that line because the definition will always change. This is why I don't like giving the government the power to draw a line and treat people differently on one side of it or the other.

That's a pretty poor line of reasoning. Surely there must be an objective measure of wealth, even for the "small businessman" argument that i've heard against using the income definition of wealth.

So if a president says he wants tax policy that raises taxes on everyone making $250,000 a year, you are ok with that? So what happens if the next president wants the line drawn at $25,000? You ok with that then? What if it becomes $250,000 and stays there and hyperinflaction has the poverty line at $300,000. Is that ok?

The small business argument is a very valid argument. Most small businesses are subchapter-S corporations where the business income is filed on top of the owner's individual tax rate. If you don't like the argument then advocate simpler tax policy.;

I simply cannot understand the argument that we should raise taxes rather than cut spending. We've had so much government spending the last four years if it was going to fix the economy it would have. We should fix spending at a percentage of GDP and leave it there.



richardhutnik on 21 October 2012
klystron said:
Mr Khan said:
klystron said:
RedInker said:
Taxing the rich is a must. But neither Obama or Romney have the balls to mention this. Ive said this before America has to get its debt down or the country will go pop like Greece and the ramifications will fuck up the whole global economy.


One of the problems with "taxing the rich" is that you must consent to the government to define the meaning of rich. Someday you'll be on the wrong side of that line because the definition will always change. This is why I don't like giving the government the power to draw a line and treat people differently on one side of it or the other.

That's a pretty poor line of reasoning. Surely there must be an objective measure of wealth, even for the "small businessman" argument that i've heard against using the income definition of wealth.

So if a president says he wants tax policy that raises taxes on everyone making $250,000 a year, you are ok with that? So what happens if the next president wants the line drawn at $25,000? You ok with that then? What if it becomes $250,000 and stays there and hyperinflaction has the poverty line at $300,000. Is that ok?

The small business argument is a very valid argument. Most small businesses are subchapter-S corporations where the business income is filed on top of the owner's individual tax rate. If you don't like the argument then advocate simpler tax policy.;

I simply cannot understand the argument that we should raise taxes rather than cut spending. We've had so much government spending the last four years if it was going to fix the economy it would have. We should fix spending at a percentage of GDP and leave it there.

The argument is not rather.  The argument is whether or not taxes need to be raised or not.  Even Obama agreed to budget cuts.  He even agreed to more, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire on income $250,000 or greater.

There is an issue now with tax revenues, due to the economic slowdown.  As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues are lowest in decades. 



Kasz216 on 21 October 2012
RVDondaPC said:
Kasz216 said:
RVDondaPC said:
Kasz216 said:
RVDondaPC said:
Instead of Taxing the Rich the Federal Government should create a "saved the deficit" Monument built on Federal land. Then everyone can volunteer to do their part and donate money to reduce the deficit. Then there can be different plaques or statues dedicated for each tier of person donating depending on how much they donate. If someone donates $1 million or so, they get their own statue. It's a much better way to feed the egos of the super rich rather than tax their money away which makes them angry. I'd also bet a lot of regular middle income people would gladly donate $20 or so and feel good about themselves to help the cause.

All politicians argue about taxes which just gets people upset or angry, no one ever talks about donating which invokes feel good emotions. I think they under estimate the power of people wanting to do good.

Of course taxes are never really about the deficit anyways. It's just two sides arguing for themselves. The deficit is just an argument tactic for each side to further their cause.


Nah.  Those rich people would probably just promote their time to help the poor.

Like Bono or Jay-Z.

They could be spending most of their wealth to help people... yet are farily light when it comes to their own pocket books.

The ones who actually tend to care about this stuff are the people who don't want a big deal made about it.

Politics related but honestly a good example is someone like Mit Romney really.  I think I read he gave something like 30% of his income to chairty?  Doesn't even bring it up when people call him a heartless rich dude.

Bill Gates has a huge ass foundation where he does alot of good, but he doesn't actually talk about it much.  They just do stuff.

Not sure what point you are making...

That appealing to peoples recognition won't be that helpful.

Nor their good will...

 

Paying for the government's debt is like paying for a gambling addicts gambling debts....

while said addict is placing a new line of bets for today's games.


So forcing them to pay the debt through taxes is a better option? How does that make sense? People are paying the "Gambling addicts gambling debt" regardless. Even if only a tiny fraction of the debt is raised, it is atleast raised in good will. Something taxes never ever do. Wealthy people don't like being taxed, they love giving their money away as a sign of wealth. Ofcourse you need something to signal that wealth and that is the monument. 

It makes sense because... like I said... it's not going to be effective.

Not until the deficit is closed... and for a number of years.

 

Not to mention such a monument would likely end up taking up the entire state of Montana before we actually paid off the debt, just due to the sheer size of our debt.



MDMAlliance on 21 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
MDMAlliance said:
klystron said:

With all due respect to Dr. Stein, I suggest he and you all watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ and see why the rich don't have enough money to run our bloated government.


That video you linked, that guy is twisting things a lot and obviously has some kind of superiority complex.  So many things were neglected in that video that it's stupid.  One obvious thing that is missing is pretty much any form of tax coming from anywhere else.  Where does sales tax go?  Where does everyone elses taxes go?  What about all the other taxes that we have that aren't just taxes on corporations and income?  Also, those numbers he mentioned ARE significant.  Significant enough to the point where balancing the increase of taxes with cuts in spending where they are questionable could pull us out of a deficit.  That video is overly biased.

edit: also when he mentioned the military, he should have doubled the amount due to the fact that if that were to happen, the deficit would have decreased by that same amount, in theory.

Ben Stein, as numbers of others who have had ties to Republican administrations and have a background in economics (Ben Stein does have a college degree in economics and has adviced individuals in Washington on economic policy) that budget cuts alone isn't going to be enough to get the budget balanced.  Taxes are going to have to be raised, because revenues are too low.  They would rather not do this, but it is seen as a necessity.  And it isn't about "let's punish the rich and successful!" but rather "What way does the least harm to the least amount of people?"


I was questioning the video in context of this thread, and you don't need to have a degree to tell his obvious biased slant on the subject.



Kasz216 on 21 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
klystron said:
Mr Khan said:
klystron said:
RedInker said:
Taxing the rich is a must. But neither Obama or Romney have the balls to mention this. Ive said this before America has to get its debt down or the country will go pop like Greece and the ramifications will fuck up the whole global economy.


One of the problems with "taxing the rich" is that you must consent to the government to define the meaning of rich. Someday you'll be on the wrong side of that line because the definition will always change. This is why I don't like giving the government the power to draw a line and treat people differently on one side of it or the other.

That's a pretty poor line of reasoning. Surely there must be an objective measure of wealth, even for the "small businessman" argument that i've heard against using the income definition of wealth.

So if a president says he wants tax policy that raises taxes on everyone making $250,000 a year, you are ok with that? So what happens if the next president wants the line drawn at $25,000? You ok with that then? What if it becomes $250,000 and stays there and hyperinflaction has the poverty line at $300,000. Is that ok?

The small business argument is a very valid argument. Most small businesses are subchapter-S corporations where the business income is filed on top of the owner's individual tax rate. If you don't like the argument then advocate simpler tax policy.;

I simply cannot understand the argument that we should raise taxes rather than cut spending. We've had so much government spending the last four years if it was going to fix the economy it would have. We should fix spending at a percentage of GDP and leave it there.

The argument is not rather.  The argument is whether or not taxes need to be raised or not.  Even Obama agreed to budget cuts.  He even agreed to more, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire on income $250,000 or greater.

There is an issue now with tax revenues, due to the economic slowdown.  As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues are lowest in decades. 

Except that's not REALLY the issue.

Tax Revenue as a  percentage of GDP is lower then it's ever been.

This is largely due to the fact that government is a larger percentage of GDP then it's been.  Meaning taxable income is a lower percentage of GDP.

Government Receipts now are higher then they were in 2005... so it's not really lagging behind as much as you would think.  

If you jack up government spending, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will decrease... even if tax receipts and every other single part of the economy stays the same.

 

If you only let the Bush Tax cuts expire... we surpass 2007 level taxes... by 12% in 2013.  At 2,900 Billion.

Tax receipts at the end of Clinton's era were only 1,900 Billion. (2005 was 2153 billion fyi.)