If the Top 25 Hedge Fund Managers Paid Taxes Like You and Me, We'd Cut 44 Billion of the National Deficit

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>FIFY

Never thought I'd see the day on Speaker's Corner where people opposed more tits.

Depends on what they are on

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

If such a single bill or budget were created that cut spending and raised taxes within it, I'd be for that.

Is that even possible?

The first step by all (politicians and the voters) needs to be a mindest change from spend to pay down.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible...they strap totally unrelated things together now...subsidies for hog farmers in a military appropriations bill, a ban on funding for stem cell research attached to an arts and literature program...why not "fix our debt" attached to a "fix our debt" bill?

I agree without about there needing to be a change in mindset. I think they could demonstrate that change by crafting and passing a bill that both dramatically reduces spending and increases the revenue we have to pay those expenses we can't eliminate. If it only does one or the other, I won't believe the required change of mindset has occurred.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,118]

>so - they've demonstrated they are willing to always increase taxes . . .

And always willing to decrease taxes, so you have both sides there.

>(and, yes, it is a 'you first' position)

That's the problem. Gotta do both TOGETHER. If either side (whatever you want to call em) isn't willing to budge until the other side does, then we get nowhere.

>1 - reduce spending - drastically simplify the list of what we spend on.
>and then take that list and cut it more

How about just an X% cut across the board? Go by some level of breakdown, so that an agency that can't cut half a bridge cuts one bridge entirely and keeps another one

>2 - increase revenue - by simplifying the tax code - no more freebies for
>the 42% that don't pay anything - no more freebies for the super rich that
>bought themselves sweet tax arrangements to get off so easy.

That's a huge change. Will you start taxing capital so that the super rich don't get off so easy? Send poor people bigger tax bills, then tax the rich even more to build the prisons required to hold 'em when they can't pay?

I am sure there are ways around all those problems, but it won't be fast and it sure as heck ain't "simple." I'd rather solve the deficit problem now. So X% increase across the board, period.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We have a massive problem now, and we need to fix it fast. Proposing a change to the tax scheme is not a fast change. Percentage cuts and increases is.

And then, once we start paying down the deficit, then start working on all those tax simplifications. At that point we'll have time to do it right,

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There has to be a mindset change to paying down the debt and big budget cuts BEFORE they raise taxes.

I disagree, because like communism, it sounds kinda nice on paper but will not work in real life. It's a disingenious "you first" argument from the GOP, to be followed by "Meh, your sacred cow was good enough, let our's live". Remember, these are the same people who don't consider a tax break "spending", but do consider the removal of that break a tax "hike".

There needs to be some serious concessions on both sides of the deficit, and it ought to hurt the the rich, poor, and middle class somewhat equally. Massively simplify the tax code, primarily by eliminating loopholes that allow corporations/individuals to declare their income to be tax exempt. Also reduce welfare benefits substantially (again, to individuals AND industry). Cut defense spending to, say, the combined total of our 5 biggest national security threats, and road construction to only those highways that are necessary for trade between major economic hubs...let the states handle smaller stuff. Stop paying the poor to have more babies, stop giving tax breaks to those who pay them for having more babies. We've been screwing up our economy since World War 1, and it's been spiralling out of control for the last 30 years. It's time to admit our mistakes, face the reality of the situation, take a second job, eat some top ramen, and fix this. To say "let the poor tighten their belts first" is simply unrealistic, and unfair. All of us have been eating at this buffet, and we all need to do our share of the dishes to cover the tab.

Blues,
Dave

When they finish cleaning all the crap out of the budget I'll be willing to discuss giving up more of my income. Not before. .

So are you one of the top 25 hedge fund managers that this thread is about? Or are you one of the middle class that's getting screwed by the super wealthy having preferential tax treatment?

You dont have to be a hedgfrund manager to benefit from the tax treatment. what about all the employees that work there? What about all the people who benefit from their employement? people who own business's that those employees grace? or the banks that provide research and execution for the fund. Not to mention all the back office people that clear the trades. mail room guys, door man, coffee guy.... list goes on.

None of them are rich and all benefit from the hedgefund industries growth.

Very funny. So ANYONE contributing to growth should only pay 15%.

Fact is, the super rich are screwing the rest of us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There has to be a mindset change to paying down the debt and big budget cuts BEFORE they raise taxes.

I disagree, because like communism, it sounds kinda nice on paper but will not work in real life. It's a disingenious "you first" argument from the GOP, to be followed by "Meh, your sacred cow was good enough, let our's live". Remember, these are the same people who don't consider a tax break "spending", but do consider the removal of that break a tax "hike".

There needs to be some serious concessions on both sides of the deficit, and it ought to hurt the the rich, poor, and middle class somewhat equally. Massively simplify the tax code, primarily by eliminating loopholes that allow corporations/individuals to declare their income to be tax exempt. Also reduce welfare benefits substantially (again, to individuals AND industry). Cut defense spending to, say, the combined total of our 5 biggest national security threats, and road construction to only those highways that are necessary for trade between major economic hubs...let the states handle smaller stuff. Stop paying the poor to have more babies, stop giving tax breaks to those who pay them for having more babies. We've been screwing up our economy since World War 1, and it's been spiralling out of control for the last 30 years. It's time to admit our mistakes, face the reality of the situation, take a second job, eat some top ramen, and fix this. To say "let the poor tighten their belts first" is simply unrealistic, and unfair. All of us have been eating at this buffet, and we all need to do our share of the dishes to cover the tab.

Blues,
Dave

When they finish cleaning all the crap out of the budget I'll be willing to discuss giving up more of my income. Not before. .

So are you one of the top 25 hedge fund managers that this thread is about? Or are you one of the middle class that's getting screwed by the super wealthy having preferential tax treatment?

Like I said:

When they finish cleaning all the crap out of the budget I'll be willing to discuss giving up more of my income. Not before. I'm not paying more in taxes while we're spending money to upgrade federal employees to first class, teaching prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job, and painting salmon on the side of jet aircraft

.

If you aren't a hedge fund manager paying only 15% on your income, then this thread isn't about you. Pay attention and read the thread title. It's a LOOPHOLE and it should be closed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.