" If suddenly I was made aware of my wife gambling and spending money, running up credit card debts and failing to pay bill with the income that was deposited to live on what should I do? "
Suddenly made aware ? We’re starting on year 5 of wasteful spending . . . a billion here, 10 billion there, 87 billion there . . . pretty soon you’re talking real money and it’s money the U.S. can’t afford to spend right now.
If anybody, any of us, performed on their job as our congress people and president have during the past 4 years they’d be fired !
I don’t blame the rich for anything, any more than anybody else. I have taken complete responsibility for myself and my family. That’s the problem. Everybody wants to blame everybody else - congress blames the President - President blames the congress - Democrats blame Republicans - Republicans blame Democrats - poor blame rich, rich blame poor . . .
Time for folks to look in the mirror.
I mentioned before how Michigan had a tax and spend Governor who was running the state into a spending hole. The new Governor came in and said he was not going to blame anybody for the mess, that it would not help anybody. He said he wasn’t looking back, had no rear-view mirror, and was looking ahead to a better future and proceeded to get the job done.
All this blaming is counterproductive.
Suddenly . . . after 4 years ? Why didn’t voters fire all these clowns ?
The arrogance of the haves never ceases to amaze me,but as long as the sheeple go along conditions will not change,its been my experience a lot of the rich act like they are running a charity if they provide some employment,now we have people invading the country who will work for peanuts so dont expect any bargaining power.One of my bosses favorite quotes was when the subject of a raise was brought up " yeah,but theres always some poor hungry bastard that will do it for that"(wage)-Kevin
There should be no special tax on capital gains and FICA should be paid on all income from top to bottom. When there is a surplus the rate can be cut. Bring back the tariffs. That was the tax that paid the bills from G Washington until Lincoln. Use tariffs to level the playing field for domestic production.
There seem to be a couple of wrong ideas out there. First, that ‘the wealthy don’t pay taxes, or enough taxes, or their ‘fair share’’. Truth is, top earners pay much more, in both $$ and %, than lower earners. That’s as it should be, just don’t think otherwise:
Second, that ‘FICA taxes somehow benefit the top earners because there’s a cap’. There’s a cap on FICA taxes because there’s a cap on benefits, and top earners get far fewer $$ back per dollar paid in taxes. That’s OK, but don’t think they’re coming out ahead, they’re coming out behind, on a $ in vs. $ out basis.
When I was broke, I did two things: I cut spending to the bone (lunches, car repair, home repair, etc.) and did everything I could to boost my income. I don’t want to go back there but you have to attack it from both sides. A couple years is all it takes and it can unwind in a hurry with a little luck and growth.
Turns out there’s a report describing income for all returns with over 200,000 in income. Of the total income (all sources), about 10% comes from capital gains (table 5 page 28):
About 2000 B total, with about 200B from capital income.
So I can’t find anything to back up the common claim that capital income is the real source of income for the wealthy.
I’m still here and I wasn’t shocked. But what did shock me was that remark about entering year 5 of wasteful spending. I’m sorry but year 5 of wasteful spending was a loooong time ago. To me, wasteful spending started in the 60’s, but I’m sure there were people around then that were as old as I am now that felt wasteful spending went back a lot further than that.
I am not advocating that we go all the way back to those times, but no matter your values or whatever, everyone can find something in the budget that they consider wasteful, of course we all don’t agree on what that is.
Heres the real kicker as I see it. I don’t know the exact figures, I don’t know if anyone does, but as I understand it only about 10-15% of the national debt is foreign owned. Most of the bonds are held by US citizens. If that is true, then the Bush era tax cuts did not reduce the amount of money the wealthy put into the federal budget, they just loaned it to the government instead of paying a fair share of their taxes.
There seem to be a couple of wrong ideas out there. First, that 'the wealthy don't pay taxes, or enough taxes, or their 'fair share''. Truth is, top earners pay much more, in both $$ and %, than lower earners. That's as it should be, just don't think otherwise:
It’s the percentage of income that matters…NOT the amount. Since the top 1% have the majority of wealth in this country…then even with a very very low tax structure they are going to pay more. The LESS tax they pay the wealthier they get.
Why don’t we go back to the original tax structure when this country was founded…Only land owners and businesses paid taxes (aka the rich).
@texases
Rest assured that the wealthy negotiate higher interest rates on investments and savings and pay lower interest rates on borrowing. They also make available less income to be taxed as a percent of their gross.
The real fallacy is that the higher the tax rates both personal and corporate, the less they invest in the businesses they may own or are incorporated in .
The exact opposite is true. Businesses and those who manage and profit from them pay NO taxes on money’s they reinvest in wages, healthcare and operating expenses. They are then encouraged to hire more people, increase wages and benefits as the corporate and personal tax rates increase on the wealthy. The investments also in crease the wealth of the company which increases their wealth why they do divest or sell. It’ s like a mandatory savings account where they are still allowed to use their businesses atvantages like travel etc, for personal gain as well. Vacationing on the company funds happens routinely with the business owners I know, on free, non taxed funds.
Plus, they are self insured and take deductions from that, save themselves many, many thousands over a lifetime in the profit we pay to insurance companies…I could go on but my accountant and businessman bro. And friends don’t want all the beans spilled.
So, don’t plead high end poverty like the poor are hording all the money…Even if the tax rate was 100% for those at the top, they would live like kings and gain wealth at just as rapidly if not greater then they do now through what is actually, a mandatory savings and investment account.
Oh, and then there are tax shelters…and on and on…
.
Part of the problem surrounding the issue of raising the debt ceiling is that it absolutely is not a question about approving future appropriations. Most people seem to have an incorrect understanding of what this bill actually represents.
While it seems counter-intuitive, when Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling, they are actually giving the treasury the approval to pay the bills that were already incurred, and–of course–those expenses were incurred when Congress agreed–in the previous fiscal year(s)–to spend money on various and sundry projects. So–if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, they will actually be telling our creditors that we do not intend to pay our current obligations, and that is a sure-fire way to reduce the credit rating of The US. Reducing our credit rating has the immediate result of forcing the govenment to pay higher rates on the money that we borrow–from the Chinese or other sources.
The debt limit must be raised in order to pay the bills already incurred by our Congress, and failure to do so will result in much larger problems for us. While we need to get our spending under control, we also need to pay our current bills or we will just wind up paying more in the long run on any borrowing that the Treasury Department does.
Over-simplification (or, in many cases incorrect reporting) of issues like this just puts the American public in the position of advocating something that is very different from what they perceive it to be.
So–let’s repeat this truth one more time: Raising the debt limit is necessary in order to pay the bills that we have already incurred.
That is very different from limiting future pork-barrel projects.
Just as a family must pay its current bills in order to preserve its credit rating, so does our government.
And, just as a family needs to reduce its future expenditures and increase its income, so does our government.
However, paying existing bills and reducing future expenditures are two totally different concepts.
Both are necessary in order to put a family or our government on a firmer fiscal base, but they are two completely different issues.
but it seems so apparent to a great many. The truly wealthy pay 15% while working people pay that in FICA alone + “income tax.” And yes, half the FICA is hidden and the “job creators” can say they pay it. But they shuffle that expense around to suit the point they wish to make. They shuffle all the numbers to suit the point they wish to make.
@SidneyKGottlieb–I think we have come quite a ways from the time I was a child to the present in impacted the environment, but we still have quite a ways to go. I remember living by the railroad tracks at one time when I was growing up in the 1940s before we moved to the country. Most of the locomotives were steam powered and the boiler was fired by coal. The windows of the house were always dirty from coal soot. Years later in the 1960s, my wife and I had an apartment near a railroad. With the diesel-eledtric locomotives, we didn’t have a soot problem. In the early 1960s, I lived in a small town in Southern Illinois and many residents burned coal for heat. When I would come into town, I could really sense the aroma of burning coal.
"I lived in a small town in Southern Illinois and many residents burned coal for heat. When I would come into town, I could really sense the aroma of burning coal. "
China’s there now, the record air pollution there is a real issue for everybody. Folks shouldn’t think that we can do much about CO2 emissions on our own, we’re becoming an ever-smaller part of that problem, especially with the major increase in natural gas use.
@triedaq
"I could really sense the aroma of burning coal"
You 're being kind Tri. I used to burn coal for a while and I didn’t find the smell particularly pleasant like wood. Bearable, yes…an aroma ??? The dust permeated everywhere. We didn’t last 2 years even though it was very cost effective and much less labor intensive. The kids really liked it when I said…" it’s time for hour long showers tonight, we need to cool down the boiler…too much steam venting from the heat pipes. "
If that is true, then the Bush era tax cuts did not reduce the amount of money the wealthy put into the federal budget, they just loaned it to the government instead of paying a fair share of their taxes.
essentially that is what we did. During W's early years, USA had an inverted rate structure, Rate-of-returns for loans & investments were far higher than borrowing. We boorowed $35000/year-4 years for son's education because the loans were <4% vs our EE's were yielding 4% and equities yielding >6%. We took the excess and tax cuts to further fund 401k and thereby reducing taxes. Student loan interest is topline deductible and investments were in son's name which were longterm and qualified LT dividends.
more:
We let the EE interest pay the interest on the student loans. And the gains in the investments pay down the loans’ principal. When son graduated, he theoretically had a net balance of $0. However, we chose not to extinguish the loans but to leave a portfolio and giving son more options. Loans today are now fixed at 3% -Would you ever pay off these loans if you didn’t have to?
“they don 't realize is that the 100,000 is made at the expense of the smaller investor. Money is seldom “made”, it just gets shuffled around”
??? If the stock market goes up, EVERYBODY owning stocks makes money. This whole ‘if somebody make money then I must be losing money’ idea is nuts! And you can be sure that LOTS of wealthy people took a bath in the last recession. Could they afford it better? Sure, but folks think that the rich got richer at that time. Not true for the VAST majority of them.
And if you actually want to deal with facts regarding income and who pays how much, it’s easy to find, the statisitics for 2009 are available at the IRS site. You’ll see that anyone earning over $500,000 paid 22.6% or more of their gross income, and 26.3% or more of their taxable income. Both % values are higher than that paid by any lower-income group, as it should be. http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income
