Don't Just Tax the Rich

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
No the key is not higher government spending.
You properly pointed out that in order to maintain a higher level of spending that taxes have to increase (not happening unless I'm missing something - at the point of the original video posted is that we cannot raise taxes enough to support the high spending rate)
But I also pointed out that if we cut too much too soon, we're not actually saving money because the people whose jobs are lost due to the spending cuts will simply end up collecting unemployment if there are no replacement jobs for them to go to, so the government spending just gets shifted from column A to column B.

I'm not actually advocating increasing the tax rate, btw; just not dropping the tax rate so that we can keep as many people employed as possible while gradually scaling back and refocusing spending.

The government needs to spend less.
No getting around it.
I agree; but as you mentioned, cutting spending cuts someone's job or paycheck somewhere. Cutting spending (and thus jobs) without the economy being able to absorb the newly unemployed and underemployed doesn't really solve anything; it actually could slow the recovery more than continued borrowing.

I'm playing devil's advocate, btw, since you had specifically pointed out the real-life consequences of cutting the federal budget (something everyone has left out of the conversation because it's not something we really like to think about). Personally, I feel that neither solution - continued borrowing nor cutting people loose before the economy can absorb them - is a good one. That's why I called it a Catch-22: We could solve the problem easily if we weren't stuck in the middle of it.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Pitbull - Just for the record, I actually do agree with the mass majority of what you've said about cutting Defense. Phillyhangin' (with his well endowed... ummmm... well... damn I can't stop peeking... intellect, yeah that's it!!!) chimed in with a thorough response that IMO didn't need further elaboration.

And no, I wasn't "placing bait". Even the most staunch of opposites may find some common ground once in a while.
 

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Pitbull - Just for the record, I actually do agree with the mass majority of what you've said about cutting Defense. Phillyhangin' (with his well endowed... ummmm... well... damn I can't stop peeking... intellect, yeah that's it!!!) chimed in with a thorough response that IMO didn't need further elaboration.
Would you like to play some "mind games" with my "intellect"? You can bring your partner along too... :wink:
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Would you like to play some "mind games" with my "intellect"? You can bring your partner along too... :wink:

I'd do a lot more than play "mind games", that's for sure. But let's not derail the thread with my metaphorical tastes for things that are pleasantly sizable. :tongue: :biggrin1:
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male

his math didn't add up assuming that the #s he was reporting as they relate to population and that every1 in the top 2% only made 250k a year the # you get is 5trillion not 1.9 nor is 1.9 less than a third of 3.4
2238800*250000=559700000000
 

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
his math didn't add up assuming that the #s he was reporting as they relate to population and that every1 in the top 2% only made 250k a year the # you get is 5trillion not 1.9 nor is 1.9 less than a third of 3.4
2238800*250000=559700000000

Two points:

1.) He was referring to taking all the income above $250,000
which is where he got 1.412 Trillion
Which would indicate that the average household with income above $250,000 makes around $700,000 a year.

2.) Double check your math - one of us is wrong
2,238,800 X 250,000
2.2388 x 10^6 x 2.5 x 10^5 = 5.597 x 10^11
559.7 Billion

What is 10 to the 11th power? - Wikianswers - Find and edit the best answers. How to? What? Is it? Can I? Where is?
 
Last edited: