NYTimes: it is necessary to raise taxes on the middle class

Logic would suggest that Social Security eligibility should adjust to reflect improving life expediencies.

Logic would suggest that a nation buying healthcare should use their large buying power to negotiate prices for drugs and services.

Logic would suggest that the science of extending life has progressed to a point where it's use requires a cost/benefit analysis for public expenditures.

Logic would suggest that in the age of Mutually Assured Destruction, maintaining a military at the rate of the other top 14 nations in the world combined is not necessary for our national security.

 

No.

Is $160?

 

Agreed, but I also think that in the face of overall diminishing value of SS, you should give young workers the option to opt out.

It's easier for a company to make a bad deal seem like a good deal if they are only negotiating with one entity.

True if we plan on paying to keep people alive. This goes hand in hand with the comment above. Even our seniors should have more responsibility in shopping for their own healthcare, even if we are going to pay for it.

We live in a time where there are factions that don't care about mutually assured destruction. That said, the military should in no way be insulated from cuts.

 

So the Bush tax cuts weren't just for the rich?

 

No, but they reaped a disproportionately huge share of the gains. And we are now facing the consequences of enabling plutocracy.

 

More than income taxes, capital gains taxes are absurdly low now. Even Reagan raised capital gains to match income taxes because he thought it was wrong that finance was being taxed at a lower level than income.

Being taxed at 15% is ridiculous. That thing needs to go up significantly.

 

I missed this


The empirical evidence shows that they're exceedingly rare to nonexistent.

And the anectdotal evidence you've provided is very suspect.

Thus far, we're at 0 households out of xxx-hundred million who are shown to have an effective tax rate of 50%.

 

If you include state and local, you will definitely hit a total tax burden of 50% (or more) in several states.

 

No you wouldn't, as you would deduct them adn they're not that high in any event.

EDIT - here's some good data on the issue. YOu'd be hard pressed to find a single state that imposes a combinedl rate of higher 7-8% on income on any group...and even if you roll in property & consumption taxes it's very difficult to get past 10%. .

Add that to the 21% effective federal tax rate that most people pay...how does that get you to 50?

EDIT 2 - those graphs are pretty interesting insofar as they show how regressive lots of state tax codes are.

Way to go, Tennessee, soaking people who make less than $18,000 the bottom for 12% and the people at the top who make over $463,000 at 3%.

 

Now comes the question: would basso lie to prove a point?

 

In regards to personal space vs space used for business? No, he does not.

 

Then move out of NYC.

 

Do you routinely reread 6 page threads on the board to make sure you didn't miss anything?

 

If you really are DD, this is the most delicious post you've ever made.

DD

 

Really not sure why I keep getting this.

 

He got busted for missing another rebuttal just a few posts back. Wasn't that hard to find... i didn't read through 6 pages in routine fashion or not.

Good debates in this thread, generally, btw. Fairly civil.

 

And we answered this question the last time he tried to play the "I'm a rich guy who pays lots of taxes" card in 2009.

Por supesto!
http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showthread.php?t=163989&highlight=basso+wife&page=6

This, of course, was when his wife quit her nonexistent job in 2009 because of "Obama's tax increases" in 2011, which required a time machine then, and since taxes remain at the same rate today, would have proven especially foolish 3 years later.

 

That thread was hilarious.

Yes it's pretty safe to say that basso would lie and has lied in an effort to make a point.