The rich SHOULD pay a higher tax rate!!

Hard to justify this stance in reality. Neo-classicism and Keynesianism are currently mainstream. Though I suppose the case is easily made that most economist lean slightly left, though not in the way most of our forum goers would understand.

The majority of economists currently lean to the left on the political spectrum, or technically speaking. Keynesians, Neo-classicists, and Monetarists would likely consider their perspectives left-leaning in the modern sense. Austrians would likely consider their perspective left-leaning in the classical sense. I would agree that Keynesianism is the dominant force in regards to fiscal policy. However, in terms of monetary policy, Monetarism, or the ideas of Milton Friedman, Anna Schwartz, and now Ben Bernanke are dominant.

Neoclassicists and Keynesians have very similar fiscal policy. The only difference between the two is the concept of crowding out in regards to the success of fiscal policy. Neoclassicists tend to have a supply side approach to fiscal policy, which ironically would suggest tax cuts in such an economic climate.

On the other hand, you have Keynesians that would suggest tax cuts of a similar variety. Therefore, ignoring the term experts, the theories of the two economic schools you consider to be mainstream would suggest the need to cut taxes at this point. This does not mean that progressivity should be eliminated, as that would imply that everyone pays the same amount of taxes in a dollar amount, not just rates.

 

You know my answer already!! The necessary and proper clause!! You will of course say it has been abused, then I will say the supreme court has decided. Which is ultimately all that matters. SS is constitutional, that is not my opinion, it is a fact based on the law of this country. You may not like it, but it is a reality!!

 

What does this mean? How is it possible not to shove your morals down some one else's throats? There is no form of government that is not promoting it's own form of subjective morality. The ways in which it is promoted vary(I don't know if you are familiar with Foucault's idea of governmentality or not), which ideas are promoted vary, but promotion of morality is an unwavering reality of government!! You may not like it, but I don't see how it is possible to avoid.

 

First the bolded part. I thought you didn't want government to promote any forms of morality? Do you actually want that now.

Next up, no where in my OP did I address when, where, and by how much taxes should be raised? The point of my OP was not to justify raising taxes tomorrow, it was to justify progressive taxation in general. So you are arguing against a straw man.

 

In Marbury v. Madison: "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land."
===========================

So again, please SHOW ME where it says in the Constitution that they are to look after the Retirement and Medicinal needs of the Citizens. As anyone who understands why the Constitution was written knows; everything not SPECIFICALLY granted in the Constituion to the Government goes back to the States and the People.

 

Actually that is NOT why the constitution was written, which is exactly why it wasn't in the constitution as originally written. It was part of the first block of amendments to the constitution. One of the powers granted to federal government is to do what is necessary and proper.

PS. Madbury vs Madison was all about the power of judicial review, something you are now rejecting.

 

It rejected judicial review of something granted to Congress in the seperation of powers.

I am not rejecting Judicial review, I am encouraging it, in the proper context. The Judicial review CANNOT ADD or DETRACT from what is written, which is what is being done to come up with these other definitions for "Natural Born".

So please, try to keep up.

 

If you continue to promote your birther idiocy in this thread, I will report it!! You have dozens of threads to promote that insanity in, down where they belong, with talk of lizard people and Bush blowing up the world trade center!!

 

Seems to me the rich supply the government with $9 of every $10 dollars the govt uses. While the "poor" are 100% dependent on the govt. So the "poor" get 100% benefit from the govt. How much taxes should the"poor" pay using the "benefits from the govt scale?"

Right now they pay $00.00 in taxes and receive 100% in benefits. Some might call that unfair.

 

Except that none of it actually works that way. The rich couldn't have their wealth without the protection of the government that they then refuse to pay for. Meanwhile, the working class gets far less benefit from the government and yet pays a larger percentage of their own paychecks in taxes.

 

And to quote Ms. Thatcher on socialists, "And what do they do when they run out of other people's money?"

 

Wow that is not true at all. History shows us that those who are rich hold ALL the power. Feudalism?

 

I asked for you to SHOW ME where the Constitution specifically grants the Government the Right to set up Retirement and Medical coverage for it's Citizens.

You were the one who brought up Judicial review, and I simply noted the improper way in which it was being done not only here but with that other subject as well.

Now please, SHOW ME where the Constitution specifically gives the Government that Right.

You can't because it doesn't.

 

That they refuse to pay for?

As Dan40 so rightly pointed out, they pay the vast majority of Income Taxes in this Country and almost half of this Nation gets away with paying nothing.

If the Government actually had to follow the Constitution, they would not be allowed to have Income Taxes, because they don't treat everyone as equal when they do. In order to treat everyone as equal they would have to charge everyone the exact same amount, and I am not talking about percentage wise, I am talking about the dollar amount. The Government should not have the Right to ask how much money you make and then charge you a percentage of that amount, since that is Taxation without Representation, which is why we fought a Revolutionary War in the first place.

It is the Governments responsibility to treat EVERY CITIZEN as equals, in this regard, which means they cannot take more from some and less from others and none from everyone else.

Not sure what some people don't get about that?

 

To do what is necessary and proper to fulfill the obligations specifically set upon them by the Constitution. All else go back to the States and the People.

Not sure what YOU don't get about that?

 

That "first block", as you call them, are also known as the "Bill of Right's". Without them a majority of the States would never have ratified the Constitution in the first place.

You understand that, right?

 

The part where you impoverish the working class in order to avoid making the wealthy feel as though they're being taken advantage of on a philosophical level.

 

Whoa! Excuse me, please explain to me exactly how "I" have impoverished anyone?

 

Yeah, could he please explain how anyone from the working class or from the rich is impoverishing anyone? I'll never understand why libs can't except responsibility for their own lot in life. There always seems to have to be a bad guy or someone who is getting over on them for some unclear reason or another. Libs will never latch onto Reagan's famous words of "Pick yourself up by your own bootstraps". What a shame we have to be living in an America where we have so many helpless and needy people.

 

The top 10% already support the bottom 30-40% in terms of tax burdon. Not to mention the additional taxes that are paid everytime someone drives off the lot with a new Jag, buys a waterfront home, or a Tiffany necklace.

Lets stop this PR blitz against the rich. It feels good, but it is not realistic.

 

Then there is the 'prime mover' theory. The theory that all wealth is created by a mind in action and the most skilled thinkers are the best and most successful industrialists. Without them, there are no products and no companies to manufacture and sell them. There are no jobs. The rich create and maintain what is necessary to generate the taxes paying for government services. The rich are BENEFACTORS, not beneficiaries. You appear to have things a bit backwards.

Another way to look at this: Business without ownership and management is like a body without a brain. Cut the brain off from it's body, the body dies. You can extrapolate from that.

 

So now the Constitution is just some "philosophy", to you?!?!?!?!?

I get it now...

 

That's a hogwash opinion of yours. It is light years away from any truth.

The rich EARN their wealth and they PAY for the entire nation with their wealth.

The people in the working class are there because they choose to be there.

If you divide the nation into 5 different economic groups, in 10 years time there will be more than 50% change in each of those groups with people moving up and down into and out of each group.

The entire liberal position amounts to nothing but envy and a desire to get something for nothing.

 

Here we go again with you...Romney pays 14% on his investment income that he was already taxed at 32% when he earned it.

I am still confused as to why you cannot understand this...oh wait yes I do....it's because you don't want to.

 

No he hasn't already been taxed on it. This is entirely new income? I really wonder where you people come up with this crap at!! How can new income already have been taxed? Why does it make sense that unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income? Why should hard-working people pay more tax, than a guy sitting around doing nothing? Total nonsense.