All Due Respect To Fox’ But ‘Taxes Are Too Low

[Cigar]

Author and economist Ben Stein joined Fox & Friends on Thursday where he stunned the hosts after he called for raising the tax rates on people making more than $2 million per year. He said that he did not think that the United States simply had a spending problem, and cited the early post-war period as an example of a time when you could have high tax rates and high growth.

“I hate to say this on Fox – I hope I’ll be allowed to leave here alive – but I don’t think there is any way we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference,” said Stein. “We’re going to have to raise taxes on very, very rich people. People with incomes of, say, $2, $3, $4 million a year and up. And then slowly, slowly, slowly move it down. $250,000 a year, that’s not a rich person.”

(more at link)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ben-stein-stuns-fox-friends-all-due-respect-to-fox-but-taxes-are-too-low/

I predict a public ass-kicking of Ben Stein ... starting .... now! :)

[IGetItAlready]

With all due respect to Mr. Stein, are we really going to keep pointing the finger at the American people while our spendaholic government does absolutely NOTHING to address their own demons? A little give and take might be in order here considering We the People are the ONLY ones ever expected to address the issue of THEIR inability to live within our means.

[Larry Dickman]

I like Ben Stein and he's entitled to his opinion even when it's wrong. I would think a man of his evident intellect would understand the boom of the 50's had NOTHING to do with high tax rates. He's extrapolating the wrong data.

And OhBama is about to lose, Mitt won't raise taxes, so it's all moot.

[Calypso Jones]

anything keeping you from paying more to the gov't Cigar? Or are you one of those who want someone else to do it.

[patrickt]

Anything keeping Cigar from paying anything to the government?

[coolwalker]

A smaller government makes for smaller taxes.

[Cigar]

Careful Crossing Bridges :)

[coolwalker]

Careful Crossing Bridges :)

The Commonwealth of Virginia takes care of it's own bridges. We have a surplus, but then we also have a republican governor.

[Calypso Jones]

Maybe if we weren't paying for Morrocans to learn how to make pottery(?) the democraps wouldn't need to increase taxes.

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/18/obama-admin-drops-27-million-to-teach-moroccans-how-to-make-pottery/

[coolwalker]

Maybe if we weren't paying for Morrocans to learn how to make pottery(?) the democraps wouldn't need to increase taxes.

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/18/obama-admin-drops-27-million-to-teach-moroccans-how-to-make-pottery/

This is the dumbest thing I've heard of since the government paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to study the flow of ketchup. The Moroccans and others in that region practically invented pottery, and we're going to spend money teaching them to do what they taught others! 18 more days is 18 too many!

[Mainecoons]

It's the spending, stupid. :rofl:

[KC]

Author and economist Ben Stein joined Fox & Friends on Thursday where he stunned the hosts after he called for raising the tax rates on people making more than $2 million per year. He said that he did not think that the United States simply had a spending problem, and cited the early post-war period as an example of a time when you could have high tax rates and high growth.

“I hate to say this on Fox – I hope I’ll be allowed to leave here alive – but I don’t think there is any way we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference,” said Stein. “We’re going to have to raise taxes on very, very rich people. People with incomes of, say, $2, $3, $4 million a year and up. And then slowly, slowly, slowly move it down. $250,000 a year, that’s not a rich person.”

(more at link)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ben-stein-stuns-fox-friends-all-due-respect-to-fox-but-taxes-are-too-low/

I predict a public ass-kicking of Ben Stein ... starting .... now! :)

To say that you can have high taxes and high growth doesn't mean that high taxes don't hurt the economy. The early post war period was also characterized by the Coca-colonization of Western Europe, which certainly helped out American businesses and manufacturers.

[Mainecoons]

And, unlike yourself Cigar, most of us here aren't ignorant partisan hacks. We know full well the Republicrats are equally guilty. This chart not only definitely shows that the spending is the problem, it shows, at least in more recent times, that Republican administrations have been just as bad if not worse when it comes to racheting up wasteful government.

766

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/13/terrifying-real-per-capita-federal-spend


At least in the 21st century, neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has shown the slightest interest in actually reining in government spending. They've got slightly different reasons for keeping the cash flowing, but it will absolutely end with the same result: a broke-down and bruised body politic with a rotten future.

[patrickt]

I have a few friends who think income taxes are too low and the one thing they all have in common is that they pay no income taxes. Amazing, isn't it, but Democrats vote only for the own self-interest.

[Cigar]

I have a few friends who think income taxes are too low and the one thing they all have in common is that they pay no income taxes. Amazing, isn't it, but Democrats vote only for the own self-interest.

yea they should Vote for your self-interest :)

[patrickt]

yea they should Vote for your self-interest :)

How childish. How about the best interest of their children who will have to pay the bills for President Obama's spending? How about the best interest of the country and the economy? Of course, how can that compare to an ObamaPhone and another 12 months of unemployment.

The choice is not your self interest or mine but our interests.

[Peter1469]

We could easily tax the rich more. And that added income would not dent the deficit. It is only a gesture. Our problem is spending.

[Kizzume]

I just know that CUTTING taxes for the rich is a really bad idea right now. Sure, we need to cut spending, but we also need revenue increases. If we cut spending and reduce revenue, we'll be in the same situation we're in now except we'll have less things. There's no getting around it--we need to cut spending AND increase revenues.

[Peter1469]

I just know that CUTTING taxes for the rich is a really bad idea right now. Sure, we need to cut spending, but we also need revenue increases. If we cut spending and reduce revenue, we'll be in the same situation we're in now except we'll have less things. There's no getting around it--we need to cut spending AND increase revenues.

But history has shown us that cutting taxes increases tax revenues. You create a broader tax base, collect less taxes from individuals, but from more individuals.

[Kizzume]

But history has shown us that cutting taxes increases tax revenues. You create a broader tax base, collect less taxes from individuals, but from more individuals.

It only works to a certain point and I think we've already exhausted that point. Cutting them any more than we have, particularly for the mega-rich, isn't going to help anything but the pocketbooks of the rich--unless you belief in the goofball theory of trickle-down economics.

[IGetItAlready]

I just know that CUTTING taxes for the rich is a really bad idea right now. Sure, we need to cut spending, but we also need revenue increases. If we cut spending and reduce revenue, we'll be in the same situation we're in now except we'll have less things. There's no getting around it--we need to cut spending AND increase revenues.

The problem is the current administration is a one trick pony in regard to the holy grail that is "increased federal revenue".
Even when we were dealing with the last debt limit increase and Dems and Reps had come to an agreement on closing loopholes in order to increase revenue, Obama turned around in the 9th hour and demanded an additional increase that he KNEW could only be raised with increased taxes. It was all about his approach to dividing the nation Hugo Chavez style and making the poor believe HE was the man who would get those nasty rich people for them.
Show me some meaningful spending cuts. Show me the line by line assessment of our spending in which we address waste and improve the efficiency of the money we do spend as Obama promised and I'll be more inclined to discuss potential tax increases.
As things currently stand increased revenue without spending cuts will only lead to an increased spending problem as NO ONE, certainly no one on the left has given me any indication that they have any interest whatsoever in reducing our deficit, reducing the amount of Chinese jack we incessantly borrow OR reigning in the fed's out of control spending.

Here's over $18 billion worth of useless bullshit that doesn't even touch on the administration's paybacks to campaign bundlers in the form of federal loans to now failed "green energy" firms.

WASTEBOOK 2012 (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=77c257a6-adc8-4e38-87a5-85c86d7ed4a5)

[Peter1469]

It only works to a certain point and I think we've already exhausted that point. Cutting them any more than we have, particularly for the mega-rich, isn't going to help anything but the pocketbooks of the rich--unless you belief in the goofball theory of trickle-down economics.

I agree with you about there being a certain point. I am not a math whiz, so I can't crunch the numbers.

Regarding the rich and what they do pay; the top 20% pay around 84% of the federal income taxes- that is a problem.

[IGetItAlready]

When Reagan was elected and proposed his massive across the board cuts even conservatives and Wall Street moguls were calling for "one and done" as they all felt, as did liberals, that he was going way to far. By year two of his first term the effects of his cuts on an utterly dismal economy were so drastically beneficial in generating economic recovery that his second term was almost a given.
There is something to getting more people paying into the system. And another thing people overlook in recovery models is the fact that all those uber rich people, when the economy is clipping along nicely and there is some economic certainty in America's future, SPEND. They spend on all sorts of luxuries which are in turn taxed at a higher rate than everyday living expenses which adds another boost to the economy. And at the risk of touting "trickle down", the process plays out across the economic spectrum. The middle class buy new cars and homes and the fed gets its cut. The poor find themselves new members of the middle class and the fed benefits there as well.
As Ryan stated in the VP debate, this has been tried and has worked in the past. There's absolutely NO reason to think it wouldn't work again.
This mindset of bitch slapping the rich in an attempt to get them to pay even more of a "fair share" (pfft) is short sighted and ignores history.

[Mainecoons]

I just know that CUTTING taxes for the rich is a really bad idea right now. Sure, we need to cut spending, but we also need revenue increases. If we cut spending and reduce revenue, we'll be in the same situation we're in now except we'll have less things. There's no getting around it--we need to cut spending AND increase revenues.

I don't disagree. However, the only real way to dent the deficit is to repeal ALL the Bush tax cuts, most of which went to the middle class. Simply repealing the above $250K tax cuts raises a piddling $100 billion per year against a deficit that is 10 times as large.

The problem has become that the U.S. is a lousy place to do business, thanks to the government cancer and the convoluted tax code. Simply cutting taxes will accomplish nothing. What is needed is a wholesale rollback of government at all levels to around 1960 or thereabouts. But as long as we have folks like yourself, respectfully, who are in complete denial about the incompetence and negative impact of most of what government does now, it isn't going to happen.

As long as the country is trapped in the grandiosity of thinking it can police the world, as long as it is trapped in the feel-good nonsense of thinking that, for example, the Federal government can make a positive contribution to education at the local level and should be allowed to be involved in it in any way, as long as we continue to piss away money and destroy lives with the "Great Society" welfare state, it isn't going to happen.

Until well meaning liberals like yourself, Kizz, face the reality that your ideas are a failure because, although they feel good at the onset, they are perverted and destroyed by government to the point that they hurt everyone and are driving the country into decline. Liberals need to understand that government is very limited in what it can do effectively and find another vehicle that might actually help people instead of degrading them and their nation.

[Morningstar]

I agree with you about there being a certain point. I am not a math whiz, so I can't crunch the numbers.

Regarding the rich and what they do pay; the top 20% pay around 84% of the federal income taxes- that is a problem.

That's not a problem at all.

The progressive income tax is designed so that only the very highest earners pay in.

That's the whole point!

[Peter1469]

That's not a problem at all.

The progressive income tax is designed so that only the very highest earners pay in.

That's the whole point!

It absolutely is a problem on a number of levels.

1. Income tax from the top 20% doesn't come close to funding government.
2. The bottom 80% have every incentive to vote for people who will take more from the top to give to them.

It leads to economic collapse. It is where we are heading today.

[Morningstar]

It absolutely is a problem on a number of levels.

1. Income tax from the top 20% doesn't come close to funding government.
2. The bottom 80% have every incentive to vote for people who will take more from the top to give to them.

It leads to economic collapse. It is where we are heading today.

Everybody pays the same tax rates. Why doesn't anyone understand that?

[Morningstar]

I am subject to a 10% marginal rate on the first $8700 I earn.

A billionaire is also subject to a 10% marginal rate on the first $8700 he earns.

I am subject to a 15% marginal rate on $8701-$35,350, and so is a billionaire.

So on and so forth.

[Peter1469]

I am subject to a 10% marginal rate on the first $8700 I earn.

A billionaire is also subject to a 10% marginal rate on the first $8700 he earns.

I am subject to a 15% marginal rate on $8701-$35,350, and so is a billionaire.

So on and so forth.

Fuzzy math.

And if you earn somewhere around $50K or less, after deductions you have zero tax liability. And when a person runs for president and says they are going to give you more, you and those who aren't paying for that stuff are more likely to vote for that person.

You are voting for economic collapse. Those addicted to all this free stuff are going to suffer more when that collapse occurs. There could be food stored a mile away, but you would starve waiting for a government program to get it to you- for free of course.

[Morningstar]

Fuzzy math.

And if you earn somewhere around $50K or less, after deductions you have zero tax liability. And when a person runs for president and says they are going to give you more, you and those who aren't paying for that stuff are more likely to vote for that person.

You are voting for economic collapse. Those addicted to all this free stuff are going to suffer more when that collapse occurs. There could be food stored a mile away, but you would starve waiting for a government program to get it to you- for free of course.

Now wait a minute. I earn around $50k a year, and yes, my tax liability is very low.

But that was G. W. Bush who gave me that break. So, if you want me to pay more, than you should be for allowing the Bush tax cuts to end, shouldn't you?

[Morningstar]

Everyone says that the Bush tax cuts were all directed at the very rich. That's not true.

Middle income families got a huge break from the Bush tax cuts.

The high percentage that the top 20% pay is a RESULT of the Bush tax cuts!!!

So what the hell are Repubs bitching about, exactly?!?

[Peter1469]

Now wait a minute. I earn around $50k a year, and yes, my tax liability is very low.

But that was G. W. Bush who gave me that break. So, if you want me to pay more, than you should be for allowing the Bush tax cuts to end, shouldn't you?

I want to eliminate the entire tax code and replace it with the Fair Tax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QRpWir4eDrs

[Peter1469]

Everyone says that the Bush tax cuts were all directed at the very rich. That's not true.

Middle income families got a huge break from the Bush tax cuts.

The high percentage that the top 20% pay is a RESULT of the Bush tax cuts!!!

So what the hell are Repubs bitching about, exactly?!?

By and large Bush was a liberal. That is what republicans and libertarians are complaining about.

Yes, Bush tried to buy the votes of the lower 47% by giving them an effective zero federal income tax liability.

[Morningstar]

Something just doesn't add up, republicans.

If you want the rich to pay a lower share of the overall tax burden, you need to allow the Bush tax cuts to end, not continue them or cut taxes even further.

What is up with this nonsense?!?

Use your heads!

[Peter1469]

Something just doesn't add up, republicans.

If you want the rich to pay a lower share of the overall tax burden, you need to allow the Bush tax cuts to end, not continue them or cut taxes even further.

What is up with this nonsense?!?

Use your heads!

Go ask a republican.

[KC]

I want to eliminate the entire tax code and replace it with the Fair Tax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QRpWir4eDrs

A tax on consumption is the only true fair tax.

Question: An income tax was originally struck down as unconstitutional, before we amended the Constitution. Is it Constitutional, then for the fed to levy a tax on consumption?

[Mainecoons]

Something just doesn't add up, republicans.

If you want the rich to pay a lower share of the overall tax burden, you need to allow the Bush tax cuts to end, not continue them or cut taxes even further.

What is up with this nonsense?!?

Use your heads!

Genius, go look at who got the lions share of the money with the Bush tax cuts. Hint: It wasn't the rich! Dooh!


Earlier this month, President Obama renewed his pledge to raise taxes on high-income earners, premised upon the belief that they do not pay their “fair share.”[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftn1) However, the latest data reveals that their share, whether fair or not, has actually gone up in recent years, while the share paid by everyone else has gone down. For instance, the top 20 percent of households now pay more than 94 percent of federal income taxes, a record high. The data also shows that effective tax rates have been going down for almost everyone, except the top 1 percent of households. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of a long-term trend in income inequality, but rather temporary peaks caused by two historic stock market bubbles. For instance, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing stock market collapse, the share of income earned by the top 1 percent has collapsed back to where it was in the late-1980s and mid-1990s.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/cbo-report-shows-increasing-redistribution-tax-code-despite-no-long-term-trend-income-inequality

Here's a fairly elementary explanation of who actually got the most relief from the Bush tax cuts.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/who-benefited-most-bush-tax-cuts

More complicated and with a lot of data:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

[Morningstar]

Genius, go look at who got the lions share of the money with the Bush tax cuts. Hint: It wasn't the rich! Dooh!



That's what I said. That is precisely what I said...

Why do republicans bitch about the 47% not paying taxes when it is their policies that allowed those 47% to not pay taxes?!?

[Mainecoons]

I can't figure out what you are advocating. Do you want ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire? Do you have a clue as to what a hammer blow to the economy when combined with ObamaCare that would be?

[birddog]

Bro. Dave Gardner, the great southern comedian said in the 60s, "We need to tax the poor people more so they will have the incentive to RISE ABOVE IT!":wink:

[Morningstar]

I can't figure out what you are advocating. Do you want ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire? Do you have a clue as to what a hammer blow to the economy when combined with ObamaCare that would be?

I don't really care, either way.

But, if we keep them, than 20% will continue to pay 80% of the taxes. That's how it works.

[Peter1469]

A tax on consumption is the only true fair tax.

Question: An income tax was originally struck down as unconstitutional, before we amended the Constitution. Is it Constitutional, then for the fed to levy a tax on consumption?

It seems as if the constitutional taxing authority supports a consumption tax.

[Morningstar]

A consumption tax is regressive. I haven't heard a compelling argument in favor of it.

[coolwalker]

The most fair and equal tax is a national sales tax. No one can hide from that! No one.