Middle-Out Economics
- Thread starter Buck Commander
- Start date
Unless there is a link to more than you posted (unlikely) there is nothing but tax the rich gobbledy gook there.
Re: Seriously, no one on here can give an actual reason against this?
Are you now saying you OP doesn't want to take from the rich?
Then you don't know how to read. Taxation is brought up exactly ONCE, and all it calls for is a progressive tax and closing loopholes.
You very obviously didn't read the post, or if you did, it's not drawn in crayon and written at a 1st grade level so you didn't understand it.
Try reading it again. Doesn't say much of anything about taxing the rich. Thanks for missing the point and wasting my time.
Re: Seriously, no one on here can give an actual reason against this?
Please tell me where you read that?
I don't see any link to any proof that what you are claiming is so. I assure you, just because it makes sense to you does not make it so.
Where have I ever said anything positive, negative or anything else about trickle down economics?
How do you get the money from the rich if not through higher taxes?
How do you determine it is wrong for them to have any amount of money?
Miller you are reading into things that aren't there. NOWHERE in the OP did it say anything about getting more money from the rich.
You are falling back on faulty assumptions.
I've even said this is great for capitalism and great for the rich, but not ONLY for the rich. Middle Out means those in the middle class have more to spend (read the post and you'll realize, maybe, that this has nothing to do with taxation of the rich) I'll let you figure out how those in the middle are getting more money...hint, it's in the post.
Another thing that should be desirous is with more middle class, there are less people on government assistance.
From your OP:
-Create a truly progressive tax system. The richest citizens and the largest corporations pay a little more so that middle-class citizens and small businesses get the support they need to thrive. Loopholes are closed so wealthy individuals and the most profitable corporations actually pay more
Taxation is necessary. The rich in this country DON'T pay their fair share, and what's more, most of the 1% AREN'T job creators. So why do they need massive tax cuts?
The premise of trickle down theory is, if the ultra wealthy get tax breaks they will create jobs. Guess what, most of the ultra wealthy don't create jobs, so how do you justify letting them hoard the wealth they've likely inherited.
Also this only calls for a progressive tax and closing loopholes. Neither of which would affect YOU. The rich are still going to be ridiculously wealthy. NOWHERE in this post do I call for redistribution, which is what you're claiming.
This post was edited on 9/2 10:31 AM by Buck Commander
How much would you like wealthy people to pay? What constitutes "wealthy"? How much of their earnings is good enough for them?
A fair question......
A fair question......
I'm comfortable with the current 35% as long as the loopholes are closed and the wealthy are ACTUALLY paying that amount.
Progressive tax code can mean a lot of things, it doesn't automatically mean the wealthy are "supporting"the country.
Bearcat-time, do you have any fault with middle out economics? While I poke at you, I do appreciate and take your thoughts into consideration. Know that ultimately the money is coming from raising the minimum wage, not excessive taxation of the rich. (Miller was never going to get it).
You said NOWHERE in the OP did it propose raising taxes on the rich and now you just ignore that it did! It did and you don't care.
I haven't said anything about trickle down.
Redistribution is taking money from one group (the rich) and giving it to another. This article is filled with redistribution. Where do you think the money for these "investments" comes from?
-Middle-out economics means investing in the health, education, infrastructure, and purchasing power of the middle class.
-Invest in the skills and health of the middle class. Continue investments in programs that help the middle class succeed, and convert poor families into middle-class families that can purchase goods from our nation's businesses and drive our economy.
-Invest in the skills and health of the middle class. Continue investments in programs that help the middle class succeed, and convert poor families into middle-class families that can purchase goods from our nation's businesses and drive our economy.
You keep telling me to read the article (an article you refuse to cite the source of) when you clearly don't know what it says.
Seems to me the article does not advocate raising the tax rate on the wealthy but getting rid of some of the tax breaks they enjoy now, therefore making them pay more income tax. More middle class people working, and for better wages, would also increase the taxes the government takes in while decreasing those drawing government assistance of one kind or another. If we don't fix our crumbling infrastructure we'll all pay more to do it later.
I dont' really know that you could raise the minimum wage enough to make that much of a difference, but I think you could get more revenue by lowering the max tax rate to around 30% and then, as you said, doing away with ALL the loopholes. Whether we want to believe it or not, companies and private ownership businesses if they are big enough, will still go where they can keep more of their earnings if it is feasible for them (i.e. Canada*). A pro-growth environment from a tax standpoint will help the middle class hopefully be able to start more small businesses, have more disposable income, etc., and lowering the max tax, while closing loopholes will give a little something to larger businesses as well. On a different note...
I still believe we need to be working on more fuel sources that come from the USA. Clean coal, wind (where applicable), natural gas, safe drilling and refining of petroleum (it can be done), and solar. Look at what they are doing in the Dakotas. Lots of jobs with excellent pay. As 3R said, we need to be repairing our infrastructure.
I still believe we need to be working on more fuel sources that come from the USA. Clean coal, wind (where applicable), natural gas, safe drilling and refining of petroleum (it can be done), and solar. Look at what they are doing in the Dakotas. Lots of jobs with excellent pay. As 3R said, we need to be repairing our infrastructure.
Solar must be starting to make an impact, power companies are asking for fees on solar users instead of them having to pay them back when their meter runs backwards. I haven't seen any comments on here about the huge solar plant out west that is frying birds that fly over it because of the huge solar panels, mirrors and some kind of tower setup. Pretty sure it's in Arizona. I see a commercial a lot about for a power plant that is using a solar and natural gas combo. Only using gas at night or when it's cloudy to produce electricity. Sounds like a good idea to me.
All solar "plants" will be backed up by natural gas because solar is not a reliable baseload source of energy and it won't be for the foreseeable future. Solar farms are not clean forms of energy.
Utility companies charge customers when they put electricity back in the grid because a) they're doing customers a service by dissipating that excess electricity, something the customer usually can't do themselves and b) it's a pain in the rear to dissipate that electricity.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Utility companies charge customers when they put electricity back in the grid because a) they're doing customers a service by dissipating that excess electricity, something the customer usually can't do themselves and b) it's a pain in the rear to dissipate that electricity.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Actually they are wanting to charge them because the more that convert to solar the less the utility company's have to spend on infrastructure.
Coach good to have you back, boring without you.
Having said that, you've never, and will never support me a day in my life.
Hey can people sell insurance part time? Looking for extra income since I handed over the landscaping business to my nephew. Between work, kids, and coaching I need something that isn't super time intensive.
I'm saying solar farms are not clean because a good portion of the electricity generated from solar farms is natural gas produced, not solar.
Yes, I believe nuclear is clean.
You can believe what you want about why utilities charge what they charge. That's the explanation from people who I know that are involved with utilities.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yes, I believe nuclear is clean.
You can believe what you want about why utilities charge what they charge. That's the explanation from people who I know that are involved with utilities.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Ya, we have just got done helping to construct 1 large one and 3 small ones. That's the explanation I was given. I would have to look it up but I believe that was one of the reasons that the utility companies wanted to treat them different then a regular customer. I haven't seen anything around the sites that deals with natural gas...
-Create a truly progressive tax system. The richest citizens and the largest corporations pay a little more
To the tax the rich crowd, "a little more" on top of eliminating "tax breaks" is a small price to pay if you are rich.
If the rate now is 35% and you take "a little more" (we'll say 40%) and eliminate deductions, then add state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. you get to 50% easily. That hardly seems "fair" to me.
Agreed but, there is nothing in the OP that makes this happen. It is just stated as fact that it would.
Starting to notice a GOP trend..
They never admit they were wrong.
Heck WCS said the Dow would be under 5000 pretty quick after odumbya beat mclame. I dont even recall him saying 'oops'
I cited a passage from YOUR article that directly contradicted what he said (as i've done with you) showing he was wrong. You have yet to cite any evidence of anything including your source, studies, inacuracies on my part, etc. Yet you continue to claim superiority.
You aren't smart enough to know why you're wrong, and you'll never admit you're wrong, so why exactly should I bother?
Anyone with half a brain, including conservative posters understand this fairly easily.
You may even know underneath your conservative brainwashing that this is a good idea. You'll never admit it though, so I'm done playing your game.
You're wrong, everyone else knows it, so I'm fine. Claim victory if you want. You're still wrong and looking at the issue backwards.
Similar threads
