6 ms·

It's odd that the word entitlements is no where in the OP. Entitlement spending is the biggest contributor to the debt. It's odd that the OP fails on basic mat

by vaadu 14y ago

It's odd that the word entitlements is no where in the OP. Entitlement spending is the biggest contributor to the debt. It's odd that the OP fails on basic math. If you took ALL of the money from the top 10% wealthiest people and put it towards the debt it would barley make a dent. It's odd that the OP fails to see what's happened in other countries when the tax rate is cranked up on the rich ... many leave the country. And many outside entrepreneurs considering the US as a place to start a business will take their ideas, their jobs and money elsewhere. The debt will only get fixed when jobs get created, the tax system gets modernized and entitlements get reformed.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
subsystem 14y ago
"It's odd that the OP fails on basic math. If you took ALL of the money from the top 10% wealthiest people and put it towards the debt it would barley make a dent." The top 1% in the US has around $12 trillion in wealth, which is about the public part of the debt ($16 trillion total). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12pwwinbulwealth07.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12pwwinbulwealth07.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
- moe 14y ago
  Thank you. I found it hilarious how vaadu led his comment with "OP fails on basic math" and then lands a turd like that...
igravious 14y ago
I've heard #3 time and time again and if that's among the best counter-arguments you have it practically in itself proves the article's position. Just so that we're nice and clear what you're saying is that the rich would rather leave a country rather than shoulder a fairer share of the social burden. I have three things to say to that. 1) If someone is that selfish I would be glad they left. 2) When taxes were much higher the rich and wealthy did not seem to leave the country. 3) The US of A appears to have had a culture of entrepreneurship in times of higher taxation and I just don't believe that this kind of economic calculus would figure in the mind of an immigrant all that much, there are a whole host of factors. Regarding #1. You're basically whining about helping the less well off in society. We should of course just let them rot and feel no compassion for our fellow human being. If you keep shouting this long enough it will definitely distract us from from the actual solution, the _just_ solution, which is increasing the taxation on the rich and creating a climate of fairer wealth distribution. But that's the problem, isn't it? You don't want to live in a fair society. You want to less in a manifestly unequal society where some make out like bandits, and some are ground down day after day. And #2. If the math is so basic why don't you run through the numbers for us? Sorry for the snark but I cannot stand people with your attitude.
- chii 14y ago
  > the _just_ solution, which is increasing the taxation on the rich and creating a climate of fairer wealth distribution. how is that a more _just_ solution? it is _a_ solution, but whether it is just or not is an opinion, and many would offer a different one. I m not saying that i don't want an unequal society. whether you tax the rich more or not, an unequal society exists not because there are rich people, but because there are people who can't escape the traps that they either born into, or fell into. When the rich see that they are unfairly taxed, they would and will want to leave. And these are not just the top hat wearing, cigar smoking people - they are hard working professionals, who managed to secure some money, so they can live comfortably.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    It's sort of weird that you criticize igravarious for saying "just solution" because it's an opinion (and so what? We can express opinions here, right?), but then you say that in such a system the rich would be "unfairly taxed", which is also an opinion. And yes, some rich people will probably leave the country if you raise taxes on them. But that's no more an argument against raising taxes on the rich than "if you increase the price of bananas, people will stop buying bananas!" is an argument against raising the prices on bananas. If we want to stop talking about opinions and subjective ideas, then what you're left with on that specific point is simply an optimization problem. The government is essentially selling a product, which is a big old package of laws, regulations, court systems, public programs, etc. which make the country a nice place to live and do business in. Taxes are the price that the government charges for that product, and compared to much of the world, that price is very low. So to say that all (or most) of the rich people would leave the country if their taxes increased is roughly equivalent to saying that the US is an inferior good, competing on price alone. And I don't think that many people, including most who make such claims, believe that for a second. At least, not as far as the wealthy are concerned.
mistercow 14y ago
>It's odd that the OP fails on basic math. If you took ALL of the money from the top 10% wealthiest people and put it towards the debt it would barley make a dent. I actually did the math on this a few years back. Old data and I don't have the exact numbers we figured, but it was (roughly) that if you took the top 10% and taxed their income at 90%, and then took the bottom 90% and taxed them at something like 2%, and had no other forms of taxes, and no changes to spending, then the debt would be paid off within a single presidential term. Please actually make sure you are informed before you go criticizing others for "failing at basic math".
- pdonis 14y ago
  and no changes to spending Which makes no sense because with that drastic a change in tax rates, spending patterns would have to change drastically as well.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Can you elaborate on how that has a relevant impact on my point?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - pdonis 14y ago
      Hm, actually I may have misread somewhat. By "spending" do you mean government spending? If so, then you're right, I shouldn't have focused on spending. Instead the problem is that you're also assuming that everyone's incomes stay the same, so you can just recompute the government's revenue by applying the new tax rates to the same income figures as before. That would give you a much higher revenue figure. But that won't happen: instead rich people will find ways to decrease their taxable income, so that the revenue increase you're calculating won't actually materialize. Check out this article: http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amou... It shows that government revenue as a percentage of GDP has been remarkably stable over large changes in tax rates.

by vaadu 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

subsystem 14y ago

"It's odd that the OP fails on basic math. If you took ALL of the money from the top 10% wealthiest people and put it towards the debt it would barley make a dent." The top 1% in the US has around $12 trillion in wealth, which is about the public part of the debt ($16 trillion total). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12pwwinbulwealth07.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12pwwinbulwealth07.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

moe 14y ago
Thank you. I found it hilarious how vaadu led his comment with "OP fails on basic math" and then lands a turd like that...

igravious 14y ago

I've heard #3 time and time again and if that's among the best counter-arguments you have it practically in itself proves the article's position. Just so that we're nice and clear what you're saying is that the rich would rather leave a country rather than shoulder a fairer share of the social burden. I have three things to say to that. 1) If someone is that selfish I would be glad they left. 2) When taxes were much higher the rich and wealthy did not seem to leave the country. 3) The US of A appears to have had a culture of entrepreneurship in times of higher taxation and I just don't believe that this kind of economic calculus would figure in the mind of an immigrant all that much, there are a whole host of factors. Regarding #1. You're basically whining about helping the less well off in society. We should of course just let them rot and feel no compassion for our fellow human being. If you keep shouting this long enough it will definitely distract us from from the actual solution, the _just_ solution, which is increasing the taxation on the rich and creating a climate of fairer wealth distribution. But that's the problem, isn't it? You don't want to live in a fair society. You want to less in a manifestly unequal society where some make out like bandits, and some are ground down day after day. And #2. If the math is so basic why don't you run through the numbers for us? Sorry for the snark but I cannot stand people with your attitude.

chii 14y ago
> the _just_ solution, which is increasing the taxation on the rich and creating a climate of fairer wealth distribution. how is that a more _just_ solution? it is _a_ solution, but whether it is just or not is an opinion, and many would offer a different one. I m not saying that i don't want an unequal society. whether you tax the rich more or not, an unequal society exists not because there are rich people, but because there are people who can't escape the traps that they either born into, or fell into. When the rich see that they are unfairly taxed, they would and will want to leave. And these are not just the top hat wearing, cigar smoking people - they are hard working professionals, who managed to secure some money, so they can live comfortably.
- mistercow 14y ago
  It's sort of weird that you criticize igravarious for saying "just solution" because it's an opinion (and so what? We can express opinions here, right?), but then you say that in such a system the rich would be "unfairly taxed", which is also an opinion. And yes, some rich people will probably leave the country if you raise taxes on them. But that's no more an argument against raising taxes on the rich than "if you increase the price of bananas, people will stop buying bananas!" is an argument against raising the prices on bananas. If we want to stop talking about opinions and subjective ideas, then what you're left with on that specific point is simply an optimization problem. The government is essentially selling a product, which is a big old package of laws, regulations, court systems, public programs, etc. which make the country a nice place to live and do business in. Taxes are the price that the government charges for that product, and compared to much of the world, that price is very low. So to say that all (or most) of the rich people would leave the country if their taxes increased is roughly equivalent to saying that the US is an inferior good, competing on price alone. And I don't think that many people, including most who make such claims, believe that for a second. At least, not as far as the wealthy are concerned.

mistercow 14y ago

>It's odd that the OP fails on basic math. If you took ALL of the money from the top 10% wealthiest people and put it towards the debt it would barley make a dent. I actually did the math on this a few years back. Old data and I don't have the exact numbers we figured, but it was (roughly) that if you took the top 10% and taxed their income at 90%, and then took the bottom 90% and taxed them at something like 2%, and had no other forms of taxes, and no changes to spending, then the debt would be paid off within a single presidential term. Please actually make sure you are informed before you go criticizing others for "failing at basic math".

pdonis 14y ago
and no changes to spending Which makes no sense because with that drastic a change in tax rates, spending patterns would have to change drastically as well.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Can you elaborate on how that has a relevant impact on my point?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - pdonis 14y ago
    Hm, actually I may have misread somewhat. By "spending" do you mean government spending? If so, then you're right, I shouldn't have focused on spending. Instead the problem is that you're also assuming that everyone's incomes stay the same, so you can just recompute the government's revenue by applying the new tax rates to the same income figures as before. That would give you a much higher revenue figure. But that won't happen: instead rich people will find ways to decrease their taxable income, so that the revenue increase you're calculating won't actually materialize. Check out this article: http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amou... It shows that government revenue as a percentage of GDP has been remarkably stable over large changes in tax rates.