Simple Words From Robert Reich

[St. Olaf]

So, reducing spending to balance the budget doesnt work? Or in this case, actually INCREASING more slowly?

Europe's austerity measure proved that.
Their spending cuts actually deepened their recession.

Europe has different issues and is worse off than US. Dem's make forever increased spending and higher taxes a POLICY not an solution to a recession.

No, they don't.

Increased taxes are just a fact of life with an aging population.

As far as Europe goes, their spending cuts actually deepened their recession.

That's a fact.

Interestingly enough, nations with more socialistic economies like Finland, Norway and Denmark are in good shape.

Chew on that.

[St. Olaf]

I believe in Just treatement in terms of taxes. Some level of progressive rates are OK (to me). In the end, we are taxed enough. Figure out spending.

I agree that "WE" are taxed enough.

That's why only the rich are being taxed more, which is right, because they've had obscenely huge tax breaks for many years.

[LePetomane]

I believe in Just treatement in terms of taxes. Some level of progressive rates are OK (to me). In the end, we are taxed enough. Figure out spending.

I agree that "WE" are taxed enough.

That's why only the rich are being taxed more, which is right, because they've had obscenely huge tax breaks for many years.

What do you have against people who earn a higher income than you do?

[NMRMN]

Obamas obsession with taxing top earners is like his obsession with gun control. Neither do anything to address the actual respective problem

[St. Olaf]

I agree about the gun control, although he's just bargaining and will be quite happy with the watered down bill that eventually emerges.

[St. Olaf]

I believe in Just treatement in terms of taxes. Some level of progressive rates are OK (to me). In the end, we are taxed enough. Figure out spending.

I agree that "WE" are taxed enough.

That's why only the rich are being taxed more, which is right, because they've had obscenely huge tax breaks for many years.

What do you have against people who earn a higher income than you do?

Nothing, I just want them to pull their weight like the rest of us.

[NMRMN]

Nothing, I just want them to pull their weight like the rest of us.
:flag:

As evidenced from the statistics previously supplied, they are more than carrying their weight. The fact that they are still so successful and live well should not be a concern for you or the government.

[St. Olaf]

No, they're not pulling their weight.

They can pay FAR more and still live an obscenely luxurious lifestyle.

That's unacceptable when people like us are paying an amount that causes us financial pain and sacrifice and there are so many in poverty in our nation.

[grousemaster]

No, they're not pulling their weight.

They can pay FAR more and still live an obscenely luxurious lifestyle.

That's unacceptable when people like us are paying an amount that causes us financial pain and sacrifice and there are so many in poverty in our nation.

So it' the lifestyle that bothers you? Or just that they have more money than you?

[NMRMN]

No, they're not pulling their weight.
They can pay FAR more and still live an obscenely luxurious lifestyle.
That's unacceptable when people like us are paying an amount that causes us financial pain and sacrifice and there are so many in poverty in our nation.
:flag:

I said I think some degree of progressive taxation is OK (with me). I still maintain, the ultimate issue is not revenue. Its spending. Taxing the hell out of the rich to make everyone comfortable is not just, either.

[NMRMN]

Taxing the hell out of the rich to make everyone comfortable is not just, either.

Nor would it work.

[St. Olaf]

I said I think some degree of progressive taxation is OK (with me). I still maintain, the ultimate issue is not revenue. Its spending. Taxing the hell out of the rich to make everyone comfortable is not just, either.

Both spending and taxing are a problem.

But spending will continue to go up with our aging population, so taxes have to go up.

Do you want to pay more or let the wealthy pay for it?

Because that's exactly the inevitable outcome and reality that some people seemingly want to ignore.

[minnhawk]

My definition of wealthy and yours I doubt are synced up. Are you saying that anyone making more than $250,000 is rich? $450,000? $500,000? $1,000,000?
Go after anyone making less than $500,000 would be really dumb. It would also cost jobs. Many small businesses in Minnesota are owned by people who took the time, the risk and the effort to create what they have. If you start taxing them more, they will quickly figure out how to 1) pare down costs to make it under the higher tax amounts, which means dump employees, and 2) increase cheating on their taxes to keep from paying more.

[LePetomane]

Nothing, I just want them to pull their weight like the rest of us.

We're doing more than our fair share.

[LePetomane]

My definition of wealthy and yours I doubt are synced up. Are you saying that anyone making more than $250,000 is rich? $450,000? $500,000? $1,000,000?
Go after anyone making less than $500,000 would be really dumb. It would also cost jobs. Many small businesses in Minnesota are owned by people who took the time, the risk and the effort to create what they have. If you start taxing them more, they will quickly figure out how to 1) pare down costs to make it under the higher tax amounts, which means dump employees, and 2) increase cheating on their taxes to keep from paying more.

I agree with you except for #2. I have a full time job here as well as a business in another state. I pay an accountant so I can minimize my tax burden (legally) and keep me from sharing a cell with Tom Petters or Jesse Jackson Jr.

When you mention taxation of businesses do not forget the Obamacare tax on the gross revenues of medical device companies which will force them to lay off employees. Many of these (Boston Scientific, Medtronics, St. Jude) are located in Minnesota. The left will want you to think they are laying off to preserve their profit margins. Not so.