Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation

Submitted by: fancylad 6 years ago in

The old gal makes some interesting point, eh I-A-B?
There are 64 comments:
Male 25
"So maybe we need to raise taxes on the poor so that they actually begin to pay for a) Their education. b) The need for police to keep them under control. c) All the public services they use like roads, sidewalks, police, garbage collection, etc."

You`re an idiot. The taxes on the middle and lower class are already higher than those of the upper-class. I paid for my education, I pay for police to keep your self-important ass from getting killed, and I pay for the services I use. I also pay for the services I don`t use like Medicaid and Welfare. I can only hope you were being sarcastic, because if you weren`t you made it clear to everyone here that you have as much of an idea about how the world works as Sarah Palin or Rick Perry.
0
Reply
Male 33
No wonder this #$%^& named Warren wants to raise taxes. She`s dipped her beak int TARP money to the tune of $192,722. She must be one of those jobs Obama saved.

Oh, and for those who are math challenged and yet call their superiors stupid: Go do a search of the Forbes web site for the article by Peter Ferrara titled "Correcting President Obama`s Myriad Tax Fallacies"

It`s applicable to Warren`s idiocy too.
0
Reply
Male 39,610
[quote]"What the hell is this class warfare poo? " [/quote]
It`s a smoke screen. A diversion.
Call it something negative to put people on the defensive
or to make it sound descriminatory. If they said "Pay a fair tax"
no one would hate the idea.

Give`m the old Razzle Dazzle
0
Reply
Male 694
What the hell is this class warfare poo?
0
Reply
Male 51
@Dong007

Ignorant.......
0
Reply
Male 44
Marxism on display for all.
0
Reply
Male 663
"You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for????" And the rest of her comments. Did everyone`s taxers pay for those roads. Why should the builder of the factory pay "extra" taxes?

Class warefare.
0
Reply
Male 646
She`s 100% correct.
0
Reply
Female 1,427
"I`d tap it."

You can`t tap it. You`ve clearly stated that you hate pussy.
0
Reply
Male 141
I agree with her simplistic point of view because it`s completely valid.

When has `fair` ever been debatable?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Screw the senate. ELIZABETH WARREN FOR PRESIDENT!
0
Reply
Male 2,384
lets give common sense a try
0
Reply
Male 2,372
This whole thing screams of:

"You wanna know whose fault it is that things are tough? Bush! Bush and rich people, like that fat-cat factory owner raking it in and not paying his fair share."

I don`t agree with her simplistic point of view for a minute.
0
Reply
Male 4,593
I`d tap it.
0
Reply
Male 688
It`s sad this even needs to be said.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: Why don`t you go check on Obama`s largest contributors in 2008, they are some the biggest banks and brokerages. Guess who Rahm Emanuel doled out the majority of the TARP funds to ? Answer, those same banks that contributed to Obama.

If you call that `democrats being for the working man` then you`re really screwed up in the head. They might back the union thugs, but that`s because they are essential to the machine politics of the metropolitan areas.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
The greatest coup the right-wing conservatives ever pulled was convincing the lower-class working man that they were working for him. All the while giving cash breaks to the dude with the yacht.
0
Reply
Male 914
... pass it on to everyone else. The best type of tax code is one that focuses heavily on sales taxes instead of business and income taxes. This fosters a society of productivity, savings, and underconsumption.
0
Reply
Male 914
In her last point, she was basically making a moral argument about distribution of wealth. I respect her intentions and her desire to help get more wealth to the poor, making them less poor, which is admirable.

Here`s something she doesn`t seem to understand. Successful entrepreneurs are already paying a lot of taxes. Marginal tax rates in the US are higher for high income earners. I believe 35% for the top bracket. Not every business in the US is an Apple or Starbucks or some kind of license to print money. Not by a long shot.

If you increase corporate taxes, even for a business that is already profitable, what you`re doing is changing the risk/reward balance. This means that businesses will have to be more selective on who they hire to ensure profitability. This can also have a discouraging effect on small businesses that haven`t reached the top tax brackets.

Basically, there`s no point in taxing corporations at all. They`re just going to pass it on to ever
0
Reply
Male 39,610

lack of leadership is silly?
But an joint economy with no direction is good... huh?
EVERYTHING requires leadership. Be it a small company, a large banking institution, or government social programs.
And I didn`t specify a single leader... A group/party/government...whatever you want to call it...someone stearing the ship.
0
Reply
Male 33
Gerry1of1,

Europe isn`t in trouble because they didn`t have a single leader. That`s just plain silly. Their problem is that you can`t have a credit based currency with multiple independent creditors. The Eurosceptics understood this from the start but were called "monetary quacks". They have been proven correct.

This entire economic mess has been caused by our various governments following Keynesian economics and other leftist fantasies.

If they recriminalized fractional reserve banking then banks would be forced to sell securities (bonds) with maturities that matched lender to borrower. Currently they borrow short and lend long, which will always fail in the end with the short term lender wants their money, NOW. That`s what a bank run is. That is what we are experiencing right now, fractional reserve deflation. Stupidly the government thinks they can solve that problem by printing fiat currency and spending it. No that does not re
0
Reply
Male 39,610

"freedom" ?

Freedom isn`t gonna lower your taxes.
Freedom isn`t going to make cheep labor in Taiwan less appealing to manufacturers.
Freedom is a social issue, not an economic one.

But yes, I`d like to see the freedoms we had when I was 20 restored.
0
Reply
Male 33
gbrzeatetee,

There were gays in the military before I was born. What`s wrong with having them defend the country like the rest of us. Heck if someone hates gays the first place they should want them is on the front lines as cannon fodder.

Of course, like you, most gay haters are irrational fools.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]There is no magic pill. No one solution that will magically make it all go away.[/quote]
Sure there is, Gerry. It`s called freedom. Maybe one day we`ll get it back. Not, however, till we get rid of this SCOAMF.
0
Reply
Male 39,610

mvangild ~ I`m agreeing tarrifs aren`t the solution. I was pointing out how the U.S. specifically engineered their own economic demise by refusing to protect itself. It was suicide.

There is no magic pill. No one solution that will magically make it all go away. Start with some easy, low tarrifs. Give companies warning so they can plan their reactions ... manufacturing in this country. Also fix the taxes. Also stop all this damn spending. And many other things are needed.
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Maybe she should ask Gibson Guitars about bands of marauders that show up at your factory and seize everything in sight.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]The old gal makes some interesting point, eh I-A-B?[/quote]
No, she doesn`t. It`s just a bunch of tired old socialist tripe. In fact, they guy building the factory has already paid, and will continue to pay, a MUCH larger share of the cost of the roads, police, fire protection, etc., than anyone who will ever work there. They should all get down on their knees and thank him, not bitch about how he should be paying more for the `privilege` of providing them with jobs and products.
0
Reply
Male 3,625
I`ll disagree with you on your second half, as last year I made $12.5k last year working a part-time job while also being a college student, but paid $500 in taxes come tax season.

Yeah it sucks, but minimum wage jobs aren`t for getting rich quick. They are unskilled work usually to tie over for students and those who lost a job and are trying to get back on their feet. In my opinion, the recent minimum wage hike was one of the worst things that happened to the economy. Suddenly unskilled work became worth just as much as low skilled work, but the low skilled workers didn`t get the raise, or at least that`s what happened in my area. Though we didn`t get hit as hard during this recession because my area already was in an economical wasteland.
0
Reply
Male 3,625
Make a global leader(s). A representative from each in the part, one who actually has education in economics. It doesn`t even have to be the entirety of the globe, it could start off as a portion of the globe that will evolve into a single entity.

I`ll admit that I`m not much of the "How to" guy but rather the idea guy, so don`t take that last paragraph too serious.

But what I mean is countries can artificially rise and lower the value of their currency, and stopping that would help overall. And like it or not, we are at the beginning stages of a world economy and have been for a while. When information can travel across the globe in a matter of seconds, and the growth of online businesses, any business is forced to compete globally.

Buying textbooks from Amazon is cheaper than buying from the campus bookstore, for example.
0
Reply
Male 527
Gerry, yeah, income tax is lower on the rich, but that`s usually because it`s made up in capital gains taxes. In 2009, when the stock market took a dive from 12,000 down to around 8,000, capital gains were fairly nonexistent.

Your second post, I pretty much agree with. As long as it is profitable to set up shop outside of this country, corporations will do so. The scary part of increasing tariffs is the cost can be passed onto the consumer, which reduces disposable income. This could in turn spark some inflation.

Honestly, increasing tariffs should have been done while we were on our bubble. Now, with serious unemployment and the threat of an economic downturn, it may have unintended consequences. It`s not a bad idea, but one that probably needs to be considered further.
0
Reply
Male 39,610
[quote]"we should be thinking more about a global economy rather than "local" economy" [/quote]
A global economy cannot work without a global leader. Look at the European Union. They merged their economies but in a leaderless format and you see the mess they are in. Broke countries are dragging prosperous ones down with them.

We cannot aid or help any countries if our own is broke. 47% of workers in the U.S. don`t pay income tax because they earn less than 20K per year. In other words, all most half the working adults are earning a poverty wage. How can you build a prosperous country on that? You can`t. You can however take us back 150 years to when it was just 2 classes...the super rich and the super poor.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Everyone pay 18%, period, get rid of loopholes, get rid of deductions, and everything will be fine.
0
Reply
Male 3,625
Though I completely agree with what you said Gerry, but the fact is that we should be thinking more about a global economy rather than "local" economy.

No one country could take care of itself by itself. The lack of tariffs is why we have lower prices.

Sugar from Brazil should be cheaper than corn in America but because of subsidies on corn and tariffs on sugar, corn syrup is used more than sugar.
0
Reply
Male 527
Actually, it`ll be a while before I continue, I want to find some data to support my argument first.
0
Reply
Male 527
Baalthazaq, I`m not keen on that article. It asserts that the tax rate is low because the tax revenue divided by the GDP is low, therefore the tax rate is low. There are a number of reasons why the comparison between the last few years and past years fails, mostly due to the decreased revenue due to unusually high unemployment, lack of capital gains taxes (thanks to the stock market crash), and increased GDP due to the economic stimulus package. He then goes on to assert that the statutory tax rate is manipulated to show that corporate tax rates are higher than what they are. Okay, fine, so what are the statutory tax rates of these other countries listed in his list? He then says that the statutory corporate tax rate is high, but that isn`t relevant. Why not? Finally, the list of countries listed don`t include the countries that the U.S. is losing jobs to, such as Mexico or China. (cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 174
@FartSmeller: you`re a retard who`s completely missed the point. Now go back to watching OReilly. Btw, have you heard about those gays in the military?
0
Reply
Male 39,610

Jobs went overseas because the U.S. does not impose tarifs. Other countries, in order to keep jobs at home, tax imported goods which keeps locally produced products competative. The U.S. not only does not do that, we send foreign aid to the countries taking the jobs.

Business will always go with cheeper labor. Either overseas or hiring illegals as long as the government allows it. You want to stop jobs going over seas the gov`ment has to make it unprofitable to do so.

Ah, but then it`s those very corporations who purchased the politicians so that ain`t gonna happen.
0
Reply
Male 39,610

Average tax
30% for middle class
20% for rich

And there`s a problem with increasing tax on the rich why?

Oh, that`s right, because 47% of the people pay no income tax at all. "Broaden the tax base" as Perry/Romney/Bachman say. Of course, those 47% earn less than 20K a year but whether they can afford a tax is really not the point, is it.
0
Reply
Male 33
Actually, only half of income earners pay taxes, and if you include all those who are dependents it`s even a smaller fraction of the population who pay for roads, schools, police, etc. in the first place.

So maybe we need to raise taxes on the poor so that they actually begin to pay for a) Their education. b) The need for police to keep them under control. c) All the public services they use like roads, sidewalks, police, garbage collection, etc.

Plus Beth is one stupid bitch for not understanding that the people who benefit most from roads, school, police, etc. are not the rich. All those trucks on the road delivering food, gas, etc. are NOT delivering consumables that the rich utilize. The vast majority of it goes to the poor and middle classes. So it is they who benefit the most from it.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
That was basically an argument that there must *be* taxes, (which is true for more reasons than she said), not what those taxes should be set to.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah we wouldn`t want to be like Canada.
0
Reply
Male 525
OutWest, that`s the Golden Mean fallacy.

The first problem is that the government thinks that it has the right to the money earned by other men, as if that money belongs to the government and not the producers.
0
Reply
Male 546
Same liberal clap trap I`ve heard since the 60`s.

Now add the opposite far right, and you can see why stuff is all messed up.

Somewhere in the middle of the two is where we need to be. So that a government by the people and for the people is reached. Not her far left or their far right ideologies.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
"Fair Tax..... End Of Line"

Sure, tax wealth equally. That`d be fair. Or are you talking about "Fair tax" (C)(TM) which is basically a slogan attached to an economic principle to make it more palatable?

Seriously, the fair tax applies consumption.
To the bottom 20% on 180% of their income goes on consumption. (The poorest people consume more than they earn).

To the top 20%, 47% of their wealth goes on consumption.

You create a caste system, you destroy the middle and lower classes, you make it harder for anyone to be upwardly mobile.

You also cripple consumption, and disrupt your own economy to boot.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
"by taxing the hell out of the businesses, we risk losing more jobs to China, Mexico, Thailand, etc."

Read. Raising taxes, and "taxing the hell out of" are different.

Excessive taxation is economically damaging.

Falling for the notion that any taxation is excessive taxation, is however silly, and is equally damaging.

Lets make it simple: You know that deficit we care about? Romney is happy to add ~$7 trillion to it, by removing taxes.

How do you think that is for the economy?
0
Reply
Female 2,761
How about we don`t spend money we don`t have?

Can we turn the government over to an annoying debt collection agency?
0
Reply
Male 1,252
Fair Tax..... End Of Line
0
Reply
Male 1,745
taxing the rich isn`t exactly the answer, because they will just pass the extra cost along to consumers anyway.
0
Reply
Male 3,625
blink, maybe I misspoke. What should have put down was that she makes it sound like every business owner does that. I`m sure that there are business owners who "play by the rules" (rules that are entirely made up). Yes, those that lie in the books should be reprimanded, for a lack of a better term, but not every business owner should suffer for those more "creative" than them.

Change the law and the practice, don`t punish the successful.
0
Reply
Male 871
Whats wrong with asking a millionaire to pay more?
they can afford it!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah democrats like to tax so the nation can afford republicans.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Fine. I will elaborate:

What Duckboy said.

What Crakr said.

What mvangild said.

I can`t be bothered to elaborate on liberal cronies. Thank God you`ll all be gone in a year.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@DuckBoy87, umm, YES, that is EXACTLY what she is saying. There are plenty of companies that pay ZERO taxes because they "claim" losses or depreciation and show zero profit on paper even though they stash away $$$ in the bank. I actually attended a deposition once where a company owner said that he used a specific accountant b/c he is well-known for "balancing" the profits of a company against losses so that his company NEVER has to pay any taxes. Those tax loopholes should be closed.

Unfortunately, the Republican PR machine has categorized "closing tax loopholes" to be synonymous with a "tax hike."
0
Reply
Male 527
I like her; she`s smart. However, by taxing the hell out of the businesses, we risk losing more jobs to China, Mexico, Thailand, etc. They`re in it for the money, not trying to better everyone else. One company I used to work for moved their entire engineering organization to Mexico, moved the people to El Paso (or Laredo, I can`t remember which), and had them cross the border to get to work every day. The talk of "social contract" is lost on them because it is in the interest (albeit short-term) of the stockholders to move where the tax system isn`t so restrictive, and allows for a better profit. Tax the rich, fine. But cut slack to the businesses that hire, and cut more slack the more people they hire. That increases your tax base, puts more people to work, and generates cash flow.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Democrats have yet to meet a tax they don`t like, unless of course it was a tax on the big union thugs that vote for them.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Great! So...how much is enough? What`s the "fair share" that the factory owner owes?

I have a feeling, the answer is always "MORE."
0
Reply
Male 3,625
I see her point, but she makes it sound like the factory owner doesn`t pay his portion for the roads that everyone uses.

Why should he pay more for public commodities than the next guy? I`m not talking total, but percentage. It`s not like the entire police force is standing guard outside his factory. Plus he probably has his own private security to watch the place, that he pays out of his pocket.

On the education part, can we really blame him for using a resource that is readily available?

And he is setting a chunk on for the next kid. He is hiring that next kid, which would cut into his profit.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
I love this woman because she scares the crap outta repulicons.
0
Reply
Male 260
@auburnjunky

*(spoken in the voice of a baptist preacher)*

And thus, the entirety of her argument was laid waste to, shattered irrevocably by an intellect so grand that it can brush aside the entirety of a political doctrine with but a single word, spoken from the blessed lips of a TRUE genius:
"stupid."
0
Reply
Male 1,646
I like her spunk. She has many points; but they are all obvious, when she proposes a plan on WHAT to do, then I`ll listen.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Stupid.
0
Reply
Male 525
Fair Taxation: an oxymoron if I`ve ever heard one...
0
Reply
Male 25,417
meh..
0
Reply
Male 20,829
Link: Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation [Rate Link] - The old gal makes some interesting point, eh I-A-B?
0
Reply