WSJ: Who's paying what in taxes
- Thread starter GrundleStiltzkin
- Start date
d2d
New Fish
allpurpleallgold
New Fish
Yeah because America isnt a country of haves and have nots, it's a country of haves and soon to haves.
allpurpleallgold
New Fish
How about rich people start paying their employees higher wages? Then those people will pay more in taxes. Problem solved.
Yeah, but if you got rid of minimum wage, the unemployment rate would plummet. Then in 2025 we'd get to hear fat cats call people making $4 an hour on contract, living in shacks, lazy parasites. It would be just like Mexico. They're a country I think we should all aspire to emulate.
Last edited:
It's a country of whining victims I guess
AZDuck
New Fish
What's funny is that this country hit the sweet spot, taxation-wise, during the Clinton years. After Clinton's tax hike in 1992, Congress and the executive were able to start reining in spending (and some credit for that goes to the GOP, I might add) and making some sensible reforms to social spending. Suddenly we had surpluses as far as the eye could see, low unemployment, and things were looking pretty damn good. Even the recession brought on by the dot-com bust and the September 11 attack was fairly mild.
Then, we had the Bush tax cuts, which neither stimulated the economy nor created jobs. Then the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which were not paid for by appropriations, but which were waged with "contingency funding," which is to say made-up dollars minted from thin air. Then the 2008 bubble and collapse.
Since then, we had the Obama stimulus (too small to make much of an effect on the overall economy), and then the meat-cleaver of sequestration. Remember folks, discretionary federal spending isn't that much outside the military.
Then, we had the Bush tax cuts, which neither stimulated the economy nor created jobs. Then the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which were not paid for by appropriations, but which were waged with "contingency funding," which is to say made-up dollars minted from thin air. Then the 2008 bubble and collapse.
Since then, we had the Obama stimulus (too small to make much of an effect on the overall economy), and then the meat-cleaver of sequestration. Remember folks, discretionary federal spending isn't that much outside the military.
allpurpleallgold
New Fish
I didn't say anything about taxing more.
This
My point was you won't become that which you think is evil. Your success doesn't effect me negative or positive. You can work hard and fail or work hard and succeed. No guarantees in life
What's funny is that this country hit the sweet spot, taxation-wise, during the Clinton years. After Clinton's tax hike in 1992, Congress and the executive were able to start reining in spending (and some credit for that goes to the GOP, I might add) and making some sensible reforms to social spending. Suddenly we had surpluses as far as the eye could see, low unemployment, and things were looking pretty damn good. Even the recession brought on by the dot-com bust and the September 11 attack was fairly mild.
Then, we had the Bush tax cuts, which neither stimulated the economy nor created jobs. Then the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which were not paid for by appropriations, but which were waged with "contingency funding," which is to say made-up dollars minted from thin air. Then the 2008 bubble and collapse.
Since then, we had the Obama stimulus (too small to make much of an effect on the overall economy), and then the meat-cleaver of sequestration. Remember folks, discretionary federal spending isn't that much outside the military.
Discretionary spending isn't the time bomb. Agree on the 90's but the cost of the wars has been grossly inflated for political reasons. Our yearly nut is over 4 trillion and that isn't sustainable and cutting defense won't fix it.
The problem is us. We want the other guys entitlement cut. We want the other guy to ride the bus so we have more room on the freeway. We fall for bullshit on a regular basis. We vote for idiots.
As a boomer all I can say is
You're welcome