Quantcast
U.S. & World

Poll: Support up for raising taxes on rich to avoid fiscal cliff

Comments

Return To Article
  • Grammy3 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:02 a.m.

    I think that this was Obama's plan all along. It is to bad that people just were blind by him and his smooth talking and promises that he is not keeping. To me it is sad but now it is just to late and we all need to pay the price for what others have done and will do. God Bless America

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:37 a.m.

    @ Neanderthal: Since there will still be other sources of income, that whole "run the government for 8 days" thing is a red herring. (How long will the government run if we don't raise taxes?)

    Since not all the deficit is related to Obamacare, that also is a red herring.

    There needs to be a balanced approach of tax hikes and spending cuts - which is what is being proposed. (If we just do cuts without tax increases, how much will that reduce the deficit? Of course, the answer to that depends on what is cut and by how much, but most programs people are willing to put on the chopping block add very little to the deficit and reducing them or even cutting them entirely will do little to help - and they might make things worse.)

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    Dec. 6, 2012 6:21 a.m.

    How about cutting congressional salaries, pensions, budgets, and many other benefits for lawmakers? If my Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are on the table, why are the same benefits for Congress not equally on the table? Belt tightening has taken place all over corporate America, so why can't belt tightening occur on the beltway?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 6, 2012 6:37 a.m.

    "Fewer than half the Republicans polled favor continuing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy."

    And the GOP is fighting this because? They are obviously putting party ideology ahead of their constituents. Clearly.

    Neanderthal

    I agree, taxing the Rich is not the solution. No one has ever said that it was.

    However, it IS PART of the solution.

    Reforming Medicare is not a "viable solution" by itself.
    Reforming SS is not a "viable solution" by itself.
    Cutting defense spending is not a "viable solution" by itself.

    By your logic, we should not even look at them.

    But guess what? Taken together, a bunch of partial solutions do become "viable".

    It is not that difficult of a concept.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 6:40 a.m.

    It seems to me that what these polls really say is please do something that does not impact me. I do not make over $250,000 per year so it is ok to raise taxes there. I will be impacted by cuts to Social Security and Medicare so leave those alone. We live in a republic rather than a democracy so that our elected officials can make difficult choices that are in the interest of the country. We need courage on the part of our elected leaders to acknowledge that entitlements hold the key to solvency and future economic prosperity. While I am fine with a tax or revenue increase from the top 2%, it may be necessary to push the shared sacrifice down the chart even further through increases to many of the rest of us or cuts to the entitlements we enjoy or hope to enjoy. Now is not the time to govern by polls. It is the time to do what is right for the country as a whole as hard to define as that may be.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 6:49 a.m.

    Ahh yes, but Obama needs a straw man, someone to blame for his miserable failures. Who else could he blame than the "rich"? Those people who already pay nearly 80% of all federal income taxes. He certainly can't blame the 47%, those who pay no federal income taxes, could he? Never mind that taxing the "rich" will not even begin to solve our deficit problems for more than 8 days, its the lie that got him elected and re-elected! The bad news is now we have to face the truth; we don't have the money to fund all Obama's entitlements! Nobody does and more smoke and mirrors from the White House doesn't change that fact!

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:24 a.m.

    The people have spoken! Let it be! I hope House Republicans just get out of the way and let fate take its course. Let Obama, the man we voted for, do his thing. When things are really bad four years from now, when have incurred insurmountable debt, when the US dollar is worthless, when all the rich people and their businesses have moved to China, they will no longer be able to blame Republicans. Let's just get this over with. It's going to happen. Might as well happen sooner than later.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:24 a.m.

    Keep singing his praises that its OK to steal someones personal property. When the rich are not rich then the socialists/communists will come after the middle class.Obama wants taxes raised on everyone but he needs to start with class warfare. Remember trickle down.I hope all of you that work for a rich guy ends up in the bread line and sooner rather than later. Instead of making a rich man poor it should be make a poor man rich. Obamas plan does not have that in mind.His is to make everyone dependant on the Government. He want to bring this Country to a point where it is just one of the other countries instead of the County we have been.

  • JDL Magna, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    Watch words and tag lines are among the favorite devices of propagandists. Fiscal Cliff is an excellent case in point. Ask any one, even politicians what it means and you will have many different answers.

    The reality is there is no such thing as the "fiscal cliff" but rather a fictitious point of argument to force a predetermined outcome, the perfect Marxist application of the Hegelian Dialectic.

    We would all do well to look at the much bigger picture and see that the United States is fiscally bankrupt and not by accident but by design. Obama has been working the class warfare this whole time, another Marxist strategy. We cannot be distracted the from the very real peril of the total destruction of the United States by bickering over something as ridicules as a phony "fiscal cliff".

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    Wow! So more people are starting to believe that someone else should pay more for the services they are getting?

    Maybe we should test this out at restaurants. Everyone order whatever they want and after we are done eating, we can vote for who pays for the food. I guess with the deficit, the people who pay for everything that night can pay for last nights meals as well.

    Are we past the tipping point? Have the takers reached a majority? What happens if Obama gets the House for his last 2 years?

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    Raising taxes is never the answer when facing a economic catastrophe, that's just ingnoring the problem. Even the rich can't bail us out of this mess.

    And please stop proposing programs that only the rich can afford like green energy (who can afford an electric car that needs a $10,000 batter replaced every 5 years), healthcare (the rich will buy their doctors while the rest of us will have to settle for the "system") and bailouts for failed green companies and mismanaged corporations (bailouts only went to already wealthy CEO's)...

    Pres. Obama has no plan for America an it's prosperity. It's obvious becaus what he puts on the table his own party members even won't vote for. We don't need anymore evidence, it's pretty clear we are being lied too.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would kill jobs was simply "mythology."

    Monday, a gathering of the nation's top defense executives took a surprising turn when they endorsed tax rate increases on the wealthy and cuts of up to $150 billion to the Pentagon's budget. Top executives from Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, TASC and RTI International Metals appeared at the National Press Club at an event organized by the Aerospace Industries Association, the top defense contractor lobbyist.

    David Langstaff, CEO of TASC, said "In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some, This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we’re not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we’ve fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up.”

    AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, who was also at the meeting, said in a statement that a deal "will require a compromise involving an increase in both tax rates and revenue."

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:36 a.m.

    Truthseeker,

    Thank you. I was so against raising taxes, but since you just appealed to a bunch of rich CEOs who think taxes should be raised, out of fairness, I feel so much more at ease about it. Just like when 40 billionaire Warren Buffett says we should pay more taxes, out of fairness, I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with him. Because when you're a CEO who makes (and more importantly hoards) millions or billions, you know all about fairness and equity (no pun intended), right? Who's side are you on?

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    I know republicans want to cut entitlements, but why do they only want to cut entitlements for the poor and middle class? I have not seen them propose cutting the entitlement program for big oil.

    They also propose closing loopholes, like the mortgage deduction and charitable giving. Those are the only tax deductions most middle class Americans have. Why not close loopholes like the ones for private jets.

    When you look at the republican plan (if you can call it that) it hits middle and low income Americans the hardest, and as would be expected does very little to wealthy Americans.

    Republicans assume that most Americans are cannot see through their little bait and switch game.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:54 a.m.

    A Federal Budget Lesson
    * U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
    * Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
    * New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
    * National debt: $16,271,000,000,000
    * Recent proposed budget cuts: $38,500,000,00
    Obama’s proposed tax increases on the rich: $150,000,000,000

    Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

    * Annual family income: $21,700
    * Money the family spent: $38,200
    * New debt on the credit card: $16,500
    New income from taxes on your rich neighbors: $150.00
    * Outstanding balance on the credit card: $162,560
    * Total budget cuts so far: $3.85
    Got it???

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    A fundamental principle of economics as well as business is that you cannot cost cut your way into prosperity or out of a recession. Period.

  • SL Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    Soak the rich. Cut defense by 10%. This will help "defense" actually be defense instead of empire maintenance.

  • Neanderthal Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    @Kalindra:
    "Since there will still be other sources of income..."

    Like what?

    In fact, there's a high probability that tax revenue will diminish as job creators pull back... and possibly move their job creation capacities to somewhere overseas.

    "How long will the government run if we don't raise taxes?"

    The way to keep the government running is to make it more efficient... buy cutting our waste and abuse. The Federal government is bloated and too big.

    "Since not all the deficit is related to Obamacare, that also is a red herring."

    Obamacare will exacerbate budget problems... as well as increase taxes on the middle class... something Obama promised not to do.

    "There needs to be a balanced approach of tax hikes and spending cuts..."

    Sounds like a Democrat talking point.

    I prefer a sane approach to a balanced one... such as reducing the size of the Federal government.

    "If we just do cuts without tax increases, how much will that reduce the deficit?"

    About the equivalent of 8 days worth.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    Lets just raise taxes on everyone making less than $250,000 and no taxes on those making above that because they are the job creators and entertainers and have suffered so much in their altruistic view of humanity. It's about time we all give back to those who have given more, and when they have all of the money, the plutacracy complete, we can all eat cake.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    Hey Mountanman, you are right. But there are a large number of parasites in the moocher class that do not care about those numbers. They only believe that Obama is not going to tax them so they are fine with his approach. But they will find out that they will be impacted as this nations economy goes into a tailspin.

    I am a member of the evil rich that makes more than $250k per year. Go ahead and try to tax me to death. Believe me when I say that my employees will suffer more than I will because they will lose all of their income before I lose all of mine. And I have a lot more in reserve than any one of them has.

    I started my business and risked everything I had to make it successful. My employees risked nothing. Yet every one of them makes more working for me than they have ever made before. But if you think they will somehow do better as I do worse then congratulations, you are fully qualified to be an "Obama voter"! And you will pay a very heavy price for your ignorance.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    Republican logic:

    One time stimulus of 700B=outrageous expense that crashed our economy. Yearly income of 800B from taxes=drop in the bucket that won't make any difference at all.

  • averageguy WASHINGTON, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    Surprise Surprise, Polls indicate the majority would like to vote the minority out of their money.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    @Neanderthal
    "Sorry, but taxing the rich will give only enough tax revenue to run the government for about eight days. Doesn't sound like a viable solution to me."

    That's not the only thing Democrats want to do to help balance the budget...

    "What we needed was someone to kill Obamacare."

    Repeal of Obamacare has been scored as increasing the deficit, not cutting it as you think it does (remember, Obamacare comes with Medicare reductions and tax increases, those pay for the bill so repealing Obamacare negates the things that pay for it and thus does not help the deficit).

    @Mountanman
    Two problems with your house budget.
    1. Obamas tax increases on the rich is 80 billion a year, not 150 billion.
    2. You removed 9 zeroes from that number, if you take into account my first point and remove 8 zeroes it should be $800, not $150.

    Yes, I know that's still nowhere close to the entirety of the budget deficit. I'm one of those 12% of people who want to go off the fiscal cliff and increase taxes across the board while slashing defense spending. We'd instantly cut the annual deficit in half.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    @I Choose Freedom
    "But there are a large number of parasites in the moocher class that do not care about those numbers. "

    Oh please... you voted for a guy who promised to give you a 20% tax cut. You're just as bad as those you claim to be parasites.

  • satch Highland, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    Point 1. If you tax the wealthy, you are only taxing yourself. The money taken from the wealthy will come back to you in higher costs in your goods and services.

    Point 2. The U.S. Government is beyond ridiculous in its size and scope. Downsize please. Defend us and make treaties, other than that, leave it up to the individual states to govern themselves.

    Point 3. How can many of those in the 1% (not all) live with themselves. In the 1950's those same people made about 4-6 times what there workers made, now they make 200-400 times what there workers made. There is a reason Louis XVI was hated by his people. It wasn't just about the money either. Its the attitude, behavior, and greed- and more greed. This is coming from the point of view of a low middle-class peasant.

    Point 4. Americans need to quit blaming the wealthy. The problem is the government. While I don't like the way greed has infested the wealthy class, take control and responsibility of your own life. People just want free handouts. Nothing is free.

    Last point. See Mountainman's comment. Right on the money.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    I Choose Freedom said:
    “But there are a large number of parasites in the moocher class.
    Believe me when I say that my employees will suffer more than I will because they will lose all of their income before I lose all of mine.
    And I have a lot more in reserve than any one of them has.
    My employees risked nothing.
    Yet every one of them makes more working for me than they have ever made before.
    And you will pay a very heavy price for your ignorance.”

    So kneel before me and pay omage that I might find favor in your bidding.

    Spoken like a true pluracrat, what an arrogant attitude towards to your fellowman, no less your employees.
    I’m glad to see your not my neighbor.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    To Neanderthal:

    You say that Obamacare will increase taxes on the middle class and cause budget problems. Do you have any facts or sources to back that up??? Please don't count fox news as a source.

    Just because you believe something does not make it "true".

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    @ Alt134 I read that Obama has changed his mind and now wants $1.5 trillion over 10 years in tax increases. That's the number I used. But your are correct in my line about increased income of $150.00. It should be $1500 for the family income. But the points I am trying to make is clear.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:40 a.m.

    To Satch:

    I disagree. All of the research I have seen says that most rich people put the money they save from tax cuts into bank accounts (some of them in the Caymen Islands and Switzerland) rather than pump it back into our economy. Your information is a myth created by Fox news and the rich. :)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    @atl134
    Salt Lake City, UT
    @I Choose Freedom

    Oh please... you voted for a guy who promised to give you a 20% tax cut. You're just as bad as those you claim to be parasites.

    11:01 a.m. Dec. 6, 2012

    =============

    Agreed!
    Perfect!
    Loved it!

    Mitt Romeny and 20% tax cut to everybody campaign promise!

    Malarkey! Hahaha!

    Thanks atl134

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:40 a.m.

    JoeBlow: "I agree, taxing the Rich is not the solution. No one has ever said that it was."

    Then why is it the only thing Obama has put on the table himself and he rejects any other proposals that contain anything else???

    If you think otherwise, please tell me what spending cuts he is proposing. (I mean real cuts - as in spending less next year than this year, not those magic, make-believe cuts that just mean spending increases less than what was planned.)

    The solution requires less spending, much less. That means smaller government and is against everything Obama stands for.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    Satch I agree with you on 1-3,
    But the Government has a responsibility to not let monopolies and corporate interests write the laws so that the money stays where it is in the hands of very few. If the wealthy are writing the laws that only benefit them, then some blame lies with them, although most blame should be on those easily bribed politicians by the wealth to do their bidding.

    Lobbyist are just a way to legally bribe our representatives by way of their own greed to work for a few select people instead of all of us.

  • not here COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    To all of you on here that says we can't raise taxs on the rich because it will stop them from createing jobs and they will take there money over seas. I say oh well, where is the jobs? Hey GOP you ran in 2010 on the platform of jobs,jobs and more jobs still waiting on them. Now i ay lets go over the cliff and start new next year and clean house in 2014 and a gain in 2016.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    atl234: "Oh please... you voted for a guy who promised to give you a 20% tax cut. You're just as bad as those you claim to be parasites."

    Spoken like a true liberal. Letting someone keep more of their own hard-earned money makes them an equal parasite to the government.

    So if your wife lets you keep $20 out of your paycheck to spend as you see fit, then you are the same parasite to the family budget as your lazy brother-in-law who is living in your basement while he is "between jobs" and going through his third divorce.

  • not here COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:59 a.m.

    @ capitalist2:

    What counter offer has the GOP put back on the table and what loop holes are they willing to close? Or are they like Romny and just say trust me we will close some but we need to support the rich.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    raising taxes won't do squat to lower the deficit ... but it all sounds good to the uninformed. In 2007 when the Bush tax cuts were installed the US government had the BIGGEST revenue year ever....something you won't here on MSNBC. Tax cuts allow small business to expand and hire and more tax payers equate to more tax revenue. Pretty simply economics but of course socialists don't rely on economics... they are all emotion and here - say.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    @Joecapitalist2
    "Spoken like a true liberal. Letting someone keep more of their own hard-earned money makes them an equal parasite to the government."

    Because we have a massive deficit. The tax cuts would be paid for by increasing the deficit for future generations. The great-grandkids don't care if the deficit came from too much gov't spending or too little revenue, as far as the deficit is counted, they both count the same way; they're both bills left behind for them to pay. If we had a surplus instead of a deficit, I'd be totally fine with paying it back to the people in the form of tax cuts, but that's not what we have.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    BTW --

    Whatever happed to Grandpa Hatch, the Senior Senator running that all powerful Senate Finance Committee and his Constitutional Balanced Budget Ammendment?

    Oh ya-
    Like our other Utah Sentor Mike Lee,
    He won his election and quietly slinks away to hide and morphs back into who he really is - Senator Nobody.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:53 p.m.

    Reagan raised taxes. Apparenly he was a socialist/communist!

  • gramma b Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 1:15 p.m.

    So what if 99 percent of the people voted to take something belonging to the remaining one percent? That vote would be immoral and wrong and is entitled to no respect at all. It means absolutely nothing if a majority favors taxing someone else so that they can take the fruits of another man's labor. It is merely another symptom of how far our populace has degenerated.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 6, 2012 1:35 p.m.

    So, gramma b, what exactly is your solution? Shall we get rid of taxes altogether? Does that seem like a plausible solution? There has been a tax code for an awfully long time, and I would bet that you have reaped the rewards of "another man's labor" in some aspect of your lifetime via whatever governmental program you have possibly taken advantage of. If I am incorrect, then you can put me in my place. But unless you have lived a self-sustainable lifestyle for your entire life, then you have reaped the rewards of another man's labor!

  • gramma b Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 2:07 p.m.

    I reaped the rewards of my father's labor when I was a child, then my husband's labor, until I got my sixth child in school and went to professional school myself. Family relationships are the only relationships which should give one person a legal claim to property belonging to another. Since then, I have been forced to pay more in taxes than I will ever get back, whether through social security or Medicare.

    I don't mind paying my "fair share" for services that we all use, like reasonable infrastructure and regulation and defense. I mightily resent having my income redistributed to others who did not earn it. I especially resent being forced to support women who, through their own choices, have been burdens on society through their entire adult lives, and are raising a new generation of burdens on society. The fact is, the most productive members of our society are already paying more than their "fair share." That is why so many are now willing to vote for bigger government. It doesn't cost them anything. That is immoral.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 2:42 p.m.

    I'm quite sure that if we put it to a family vote of whether or not we should raise allowances to $1000 per week or not, my wife and I would be outvoted by our four children.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 2:47 p.m.

    Turn off the lights, the partys over. The lib's can't add and the Republicans can't lead. That leaves the rest of us to clean up for our politicans.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 2:54 p.m.

    @Church member:
    "You say that Obamacare will increase taxes on the middle class and cause budget problems.Do you have any facts or sources to back that up???"

    My health insurance is going up. I call it a tax... My in-law will be billed a couple-a thousand per year in fines (SCOTUS called it a 'tax') since he doesn't have health insurance.

    Does that help?

    "Just because you believe something does not make it 'true.'"

    I believe all you have to offer.

    @Church member:
    "All of the research I have seen says that most rich people put the money they save from tax cuts into bank accounts... rather than pump it back into our economy."

    Too funny! What do you think putting money in bank accounts do? Ans: Banks lent it to businesses which pumps the economy.

    @not here:
    "Hey GOP you ran in 2010 on the platform of jobs, jobs and more jobs still waiting on them."

    Shouldn't you be asking that to the guy who won 2010?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 6, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    I listened to Limbaugh driving back from Atlanta today..... Not much I can say about that other than I can see where a whole lot of these comments come from.

    Speaking of Atlanta.... "I am a member of the evil rich that makes more than $250k per year. Go ahead and try to tax me to death. "

    Well, if you are truly part of that over 250k crowd, you are also equally aware that you pay nothing near the nominal advertised rate. Each year I get a nice 5 figure check back from the government because I have a good accountant. I am sure if that your making that king of income, you too have an accountant that is taking advantage of every tool available.

    For example - I have several "income" properties that under current tax rules, I show a 6 figure loss on. The average working class still doesn't get that. 30% of my income is capital and long term gains - I pay no FICA or Social Security on that income.

    So lets be honest here. Unless you are a complete idiot... which I am sure you are not.... you will not be paying 35 or 38 percent tax.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 4:04 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil:
    "Not much I can say about that other than I can see where a whole lot of these comments come from."

    And it's just as easy to see where all the Lib comments are coming from.

    "Each year I get a nice 5 figure check back from the government because I have a good accountant."

    You have an extremely poor accountant if he's letting the government hold that much money until you file for a refund.

    "For example - I have several "income" properties that under current tax rules, I show a 6 figure loss on. The average working class still doesn't get that."

    Perhaps you should try to get some properties that you can get a six figure income on.

    "30% of my income is capital and long term gains..."

    The tax on those gains will be going up with Obama in our White House.

    "... I pay no FICA or Social Security on that income."

    And you'll get no benefit from the SS fund when you get old and decrepit.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:58 p.m.

    @southmtnman:
    "A fundamental principle of economics as well as business is that you cannot cost cut your way into prosperity or out of a recession. Period."

    The government is not a business. And it's goal is not prosperity for itself. A fiscally responsible government will aim to balance the budget annually, live within it revenues, and exercise frugality.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:58 p.m.

    @Gramma B: Since when? Be more specific? Since professional school? If so, then you corroborate my point: We've had taxes for an awfully long time! But I don't imagine you took advantage of tax deductions for your house, the amount of kids you had, etc. If you didn't, great! If you did, then someone had to pay for that!

    Your second paragraph is just plain contradictory. Either you don't mind paying taxes or you do. Who are these people you think your income is being redistributed (nice buzz word) to? Although I do think you are insinuating who these people are, so I will ask you and everyone else a question: Should we as a society let those who are poor and cannot work just die? Please, if we are not going to have programs to help them out, please, please tell me what your solution is for these people?

    And these women you talk about, I'm certainly not sure where you are going with that, but you know there are men most likely involved also, right?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 8, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    WRZ..... actually no..... I choose not to take 100 deductions. Right now, if I put those funds in say savings of bonds, I would get a yield of what, at best 1 or 2 percent. I have had to do battle with the IRS in the past. Trust me, the cost of gambling I have everything in perfect balance isn't worth the risk. Been there, done that.

    Then your comments on the properties, you show you don't get how it works. I don't want to show a profit on those properties. Don't confuse what can be listed as a loss, and what the real net economic effect is. If I put 50k down on a property, that in 10 to 15 years translates into a 400 to 500 k asset, and I will have not had to personally fund any of that equity growth... I prefer to take that path.

    WRZ, if you can have personal asset growth without having to show income, or personally fund that growth... that is the perfect solution. Your comments show you don't understand how the game works. The whole game is showing personal wealth growth without showing income.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 9, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    Sorry Muslim Brotherhood, but we're broke, and won't be able to give you anymore money.

    That wasn't hard to say! Let's try that with other countries, and governments.

    What causes a large amount of poor people?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 9, 2012 4:44 p.m.

    Is it fair that half our people don't pay federal income tax, while we increase on the ones who already pay eighty percent?

    Half our people are too poor to pay income tax? Are on some form of welfare? Two thirds of our school children are on free/reduced lunch. Fifty million people on food stamps?

    This is the United States of America, and we shouldn't be on our knees begging for entitlements. Shouldn't be demanding any group of people to carry the load.

    Let's have some pride. As for me, I'll starve before having someone pay my way.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 9, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    The wealthy know how to avoid paying taxes. Foreign Bank accounts, etc.

    People like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, know how to shelter their money.

    So, who are the rich ones to pay increased taxes?

    Small business owners! The backbone of American employment.