You really believe that the deficit might be drawn down if the few people of 1% gave a little more, even in light of the fact that if they gave 100% it would have little effect? What am I missing other than the demagoguery.

I suspect many on this thread have had training and/or experience in the art of negotiating. One important rule is that you are willing to walk away from the deal I won't recite the number of cases that this tactic provided me with a win.

So when I agreed with VK original post it was because I agreed that Republicans cannot be divided and not because they walked away from the deal. A deal will get done and when it does both sides will believe they gave up too much.

As for passage of gay rights in NY...........No matter what side you take it is going to be a loser

You are always good for a laugh!

yes taxing them at pre-Bush rates would help and what exactly do they produce and please do not give me the company line of jobs,we know that is pure fantasy.

Hi Richie,
I'm not sure I understand your question. For the U.S. (i.e., us) to avoid defaulting on our obligations, it might take everyone sacrificing something.

If you are asking me if sacrificing something could help, even if sacrificing everything would be counter-productive, yes, I think so. See: "law of diminishing returns," the principles of taking something to its logical extreme and "reductio ad absurdum" (reduced to the absurd).

The point is that what this country needs to do is stop spending. Repeat; what this country needs to do is stop spending.

Ever hear the one that when you stuck in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Of course you have.

Taking more of a share of the money from the people who are already paying the lion's share of everythings only purpose is for the morale of the majority. In other words, it's the class envy thing.

Waynet doesn't want to hear that the producers drive the economy and create the theatre for employment, so I guess I can't say that again, although it's irrefutable.

What this country needs to do is to stop spending and cut taxes. Oh No, did I just say that? Let me say it again; we need to stop spending and cut taxes, especially business taxes and capital gains taxes. You want to spur growth and business activity? Or do you just want to make the bastards who have more than you pay?

Richie, you asked if we just wanted to take more of a share of the money from the people who are already paying the lion's share of everythings. Close the tax loopholes for the very rich. Giant corporations not paying a cent of income tax is ridiculous. These very rich are NOT paying the lion's share of everything. It is actually the upper middle class who are paying the lion's share. Probably most of us in The Villages are in this very class who are paying the lion's share of taxes. Your withheld Federal taxes from your pension - even though you may get a refund of some at the the end of the year - are more than what some American corporations have paid at the same time they have record profits.

I would love to have that kind of a sweetheart deal. I would love to make billions of dollars and pay no taxes on it.

The only fair thing to do is to increase taxes on the very richest people and corporations. You will say the same old thing about sharing the wealth but that is crap. Do you personally feel it is right for a billion dollar profit making corporation to pay less tax than you? I do not.

You're not as valuable. Sorry. And the subject wasn't tax loopholes. It was personal taxes that the previous poster wanted raised on the people who make more than her. It's like I said previously "If you take from Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the vote of Paul".

I Cannot Agree
 

Increasing taxes on corporations has always a favorite idea of the populists who wish to find someone or something to blame. Corporations have an obligation to their shareholders, their employees and the countries/communities in which they operate. If they fail to fulfill these obligations, they go out of business and everyone loses.

Here is a link to Exxon/Mobil's annual report. I encourage everyone to peruse it. You will find that EM had approximately 32 billion in after tax earnings and invested a similar amount in new exploration, field development and capital acquisitions/improvements.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...s_sar_2010.pdf

They spent more than one billion dollars on r&d which has yielded significant increases in fuel efficiency, lower emissions and new sources of energy. The proven energy reserves increased by 211%, providing us with greater energy security in the future. Between income taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. Exxon/Mobil pays more in taxes than it has in earnings.

Does anyone seriously think that by increasing Exxon/Mobil taxes the result will be anything other than an increase in prices and/or a decrease in Capital expenditures, new field development, r&d, etc? Exxon/Mobil must meet the needs of all of its stakeholder throughout the world and not just those of the US government. Can anyone conceive that the monies will be as efficiently and productively spent by our government as they are presently being spent by Exxon/Mobil? Perhaps we want them to move their corporate headquarters and the resultant overall corporate tax base along with their overall focus out of the US?

For those of you who are curious, I have no interest either directly or indirectly in EM. A similar argument can be made for virtually any major US based corporation. As an example, I suggest Boeing. If our government succeeds in preventing them from opening their plant in South Carolin do you think it is more likely they will open the plant in Washington State or China? If the United States will not work with Boeing in meeting the competition from Air Bus, then there are a number of countries who have the industrial base and the will to do so.

BBQMan, I do appreciate your tone and verbage when you disagree with me. Your answer was articulate and gave good reasoning.

I have heard and seen all of these corporate reasons before about why taxes on them should not be raised. The main one that always comes out is that if they have to pay more taxes, prices to the consumer will be raised. Since their corporate profits have to be shown to their shareholders, this is probably true. Corporations like EM also state they spend almost all their profits in new explorations and in R&D. Again, maybe true. This is a form of corporate blackmail, in my opinion.

Also, look at the executives at the high levels and how much money they earn both in salary and bonus money. How about higher taxes on them?

my final thought on this thread....the current Repubs would rather destroy the U.S. economy than sacrifice one little piece of their ideological purity. They,not Obama, are the real threat to the stability of our country. The leadership and Cantor is a perfect example is shallow,cowardly and really a bunch of liars. Rich,your only response to various ideas has been to stop spending. Without raising revenues stopping spending alone cannot work. The idea that no revenue can be raised is crazy.

Stop spending, cut taxes and especially capital gains taxes, and enjoy the spurt of business activity with the inevitable rise is government revenue. Worked before, would work again. When you just take money from the producers you stall business activity, and you can see how well that is working.

Stop spending, cutting all non-essential, non-strategic programs to the bone, will slow down our increasing by the hour debt, enabling the introduction of my proposed tax cuts which will spur economic growth and get us off this slide into progressive economic oblivion. Not very hard to understand.

Bugs, I still feel that raising corporate taxes is the wrong way to go. Energy companies have and will continue to spend money wisely to deliver cost effective energy to the public. Our government does not. The horrendous waste in corn ethanol subsidies, electric golf cart subsidies, electric automobile subsidies, solar subsidies, etc. have drained this country of billions and done nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil. If anything, they have increased it. Why would anyone believe that transferring say 8 billion dollars from EM where it is being effectively to increase energy reserves and energy efficiency to the Federal government where it can be spent on one more pet project such as 'green' energy that will yield anything of benefit?

Individual taxes are another matter. I do not favor increasing them with the present tax code. Intelligent people with capable tax advisors will wind up paying no more while people in the Villages, who do not have these resources, will wind up paying more.

All deductions that do not relate to catastrophic conditions (medical expenses above a certain percentage of income, flood and fire damage, etc) should be eliminated. The government needs to get out of the behavior shaping behavior. For example, the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable giving deduction, etc. It is not the government's role to decide how I spend my money. If I choose to live in an apartment rather than a house, why should the government get involved? If I want to give my money to the dancers at the local strip club rather than the church down the block, what business is that of our government?

I still agree with Thomas Paine when he wrote, "That government is best which governs least."

Drinking The Kool-Aid, Eh?
 

A billion dollars sounds like a whole lot of money, BBQMan. But let's put Exxon Mobil's "generous" investment in research and development into some perspective.

Exxon Mobil had 2011 revenues of over $370 billion. They spent slightly over $1 billion for R&D. That's about 2/10 of one percent for R&D. They paid their shareholders more than eight times that amount in dividends. They paid executive bonuses almost as much as they invested in R&D. The gave an outgoing CEO a "golden handshake" retirement deal worth almost half of what they spent on R&D in 2010.

Forgive me, BBQMan if I'm not the least bit impressed. Your statement on how wonderful the results of their R&D spending has been indicates pretty clearly that you've been drinking deeply of the Exxon Mobil Kool-Aid.

You 'conveniently' choose not to notice the 32 Billion spent on new field development and capital upgrades, an amount four times what was distributed to the stockholders. You also dodge the key question of whether EM or the US Government is more effective in achieving a rational and sustainable energy policy.

With your thinking this confused, it's obvious you haven't been drinking kool-aid, but more likely dreaming along on LSD.