Chris Rock: I’d gladly pay more in taxes

I am all for a balanced budget that includes people who pay 15% on investment income paying 35% as if it were payroll.

Yeah let them balance that!!!

Wrong.

We need higher taxes.

That's a very good visual. But how does the family pay down their debt without a new revenue stream? You can't balance your budget and hope the debt already incurred will just go away. And what if some of the family members earned vastly larger amounts of money annually than the rest of the family, and refused to pay a share that would protect the family from that debt, while living in the same house? What if the family members that are earning large amounts of money were only willing to pay 50 or 60% of what the other lesser earning family members were forced to pay? What if they were asked to pay more and all that was given was an angry response that the family members unfortunate enough to earn very little were not forced to pay more?

No, we need a self-sufficient government rather than one that cries for more and more from us ... largely because we cry for more and more from government rather than standing on our own feet.

So, they with the larger income must pay because the rest of the family can't or refuses to control their consumption?

I don't think so. Your uncontrolled habit - your problem.

Then why should the well off family members only pay 50% of what the other family members pay?

How is it that certain people do not recognize that the U.S. did not have these fiscal problems until George Bush gave his tax cuts to the rich. Not you Nuamadd, the rich. Unless of course your a millionaire with nothing better to do than communicate on this site and tell everyone you intend on keeping yours. As a matter of fact he took office with a budget surplus. He took that surplus and handed it over to the rich.

If we're talking about basic operating expenses for the home, sure, equal share. But we're talking about spending on crap that's over and above basic needs. Government overconsumption isn't in basic infrastructure and operation but rather in crap services that exist largely because people demand their government do what they will not do for themselves.

If I make the most money, sure, I'll pay my fair share like everyone else, but your overconsumption is on you, not me and, if you refuse to pay your fair share of basic needs simply because I have an income surplus, you're out of the family.

But the rich are not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney are paying 15% on hundreds of thousands of dollars a day in income. And what over consumption do you mean. Personal debt doesn't have a thing to do with government spending. Welfare and food stamps only take 1% of the budget each. The programs that Conservatives want to cut like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security don't add a dime to the deficit. If a country is already in fiscal trouble there is no money for infrastructure. A .7% tax on people making over 1 million dollars a year could have solved that problem, but you can thank a Republican Congress for shooting that one down. All the country would have to do is go back to the tax rate under Clinton, or even Reagan for that matter, and things would be much better. Things have not worked out so well since the Bush tax cuts though have they?

Nobody in a civilization stands on his or her own feet. That is the purpose of civilization, to cooperate for the mutual benefit of everyone, not to artificially make oneself rich by screwing employees out of decent wages or out of a job by outsourcing it and then screaming "communism; wealth redistribution" when those underpaid/underemployed need social aid. Nobody, absolutely nobody, no matter how rich they are is independent. The corporate rich get rich off of the labor of others.

Would the government stop wasting $$$ if we had higher taxes?

The government doesn't waste that much. The vast majority of the spending goes to improve people's lives. The majority of wasteful spending lies in the excessive military budget, and mismanaged healthcare system... which the gov't is just subsidizing because we don't have socialized medicine yet.

At the end of the day, the government does a LOT of good with the money it has, especially given the economic circumstances we find ourselves in.

It's not rocket science... but it is economics.

That is cute and all, but you have no evidence.

No, "civilization" isn't primarily about "cooperation for the benefit of all" - it is simply an agreement that you will no prey upon your neighbor as you would and must on other species. That's it.

As it turns out, not preying upon other human beings means they are agreeable to cooperation when they wouldn't likely be otherwise.

I get the argument that, if an individual becomes wealthy that somehow, because you are a member of the same society, you had a hand in their wealth and therefore deserve a share of it. How much of their earnings must they pay to you for you to be satisfied you've "gotten your due"?

Also, what do they get for having a hand in your wealth? What is their due? Do they get nothing from you simply because they have more?

Must one be penalized for being better at the game than you?

Sure, many believe "wealthy" and "predator" are synonymous. They are of simple minds.

By "overconsumption", I mean the plea on most lips that "the government should do something". What that usually entails is something they will not do themselves.

No wonder government is a behemoth sucking the life out of the nation rather than keeping the weight of expensive government off their shoulders. They asked for it, they got it.

Ironic that they whine about heavy taxation and enormous government debt and then put the blame on politicians. A politician keeps their job by giving you what you want.

You want to blame someone, look in the mirror.

Evidence of what exactly?

I respectfully disagree with the beginning of your comment. Of course, I disagree because it isn't simply conservatives or liberals but Americans in general - both - who are sucking the economy by doing less and less and expecting more and more from their government.

As for taking care of each other, I'm all for that, truly but, as a libertarian, I oppose the position that says people must be and can be rightly forced to do so. That's misuse of government and individuals who think so are no friend of liberty and likely missing the empathy they claim to want from others.

Sure, you can use the force of government to take money from everyone for whatever purpose you assume is right, but no mandate or law will make them care for each other if they don't. You do not have a compassionate society simply because you compel people to pay. In fact, as we've seen in history, you're likely to create a society of resentment and fear only making matters worse.

As for Mexico and Chile, I don't simply want low taxes - I want no taxes and no government at all. Unfortunately, my fellow man cannot and/or will not consistently behave respectfully toward me and each other thus making at least a basic government unavoidable. I see you likely make the assumption you need government to create a socialist utopia.

I do not desire a socialist utopia - I desire only the freedom to do the best I can and promise that my neighbor has the same freedom. Sure, we'll cooperate, but only because each of freely chooses to do so. When my neighbor's in need, I help when I can but won't be pressured when I can't. Perhaps you cannot live like that.

I can.

And not one word on the fact that you are the one of the lowest taxed countries in the developed world and what effect that might be having on your current fiscal problems. How are you going to keep paying for that military empire? Libertarian or not, it's not going away any time soon. What are you going to do when only the wealthy can afford an education? That's not to far away. How do you plan on maintaining your infrastructure? It's just about shot now. What are you going to do with your elderly in 20 years? A large and recently disenfranchised middle class is a recipe for disaster. This is the road your headed down. Your government isn't being misused. It isn't being used at all. Well except by Corporations and the very wealthy I suppose.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. And that is not hyperbole. Do you know what no or small government looks like? Somalia. Socialist utopia. You people have got communism on the brain. You are quickly on your way to becoming a third world nation.

That we don't need higher taxes, that the government is the least efficient method of getting money to those who need it, etc.

Ummmm social security? The most efficient social program that has ever existed. costs are tiny, nearly all of it goes to those in need. There is no other non-profit bigger than a million a year that is that efficient (and don't even get me started on churches). Social security spends hundreds of billions.

You are conservative, so you aren't allowed to use the military budget as an example (even though I may tend to agree with you regarding that).

Slashing the budget destroys lives. Hiking taxes on the wealthy does.... nothing because they only get taxed on profits. their money is BIG and SLOW and it doesn't affect the economy as positively as the SMALL FAST money that people with un-met demand spend it.

The right answer is raise taxes on the wealthy, because it doesn't hurt anybody, cut the military budget because it is the most bloated, wasteful budget, socialize medicine so that we actually have a functional, cost effective health care system.

Those three things can balance the budget, easily, without hurting the economy. It is what Clinton did, save the socialized medicine.

But 15% of a million is a good deal more than 50% of $50,000. If the point is to pay one's fair share, how exactly is that fair? Is the assumption that the million consumes more of the infrastructure to earn than does the $50,000? What if the million is earned in a single day in online trading, while the $50,000 is earned over a year's time driving back and forth iver public roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. Is the $150,000 too little and the $25,000 still too much? Just how exactly do you define "fair share" anyway? Is that definition a smart one? A fair one?

How?

No, I'm no millionaire and, since you mention it, I remember receiving at least one check during the Bush years that had something to do with returning government surplus to me.

How is that giving it all to the rich?

(I'm neither conservative nor liberal by the way. I dislike them both pretty equally. Bush was a nightmare of a president.)

No. We've seen that no matter how much government receives in revenues, it's continually hungry for more. Why? Americans want more and more from their government, i.e., universal healthcare and other desires really outside the proper role of a government. Rather than keeping our cookie jars safe from theft, it has become the cookie jar and the thief all rolled into one.

No, not conservative. Not liberal either but in tne classical sense. These days, it's come to mean "socialist".

Not me, not by a longshot.

The U.S. is not and never will be Somalia. Somalia is a mess for many reasons - too small a government isn't among them.

Communism on the brain? Can't speak for others but, I have civilized principles on the brain, i.e., no human being is the property of another or, more accurately, human shall not prey upon human. Socialism is the opposite of those values so, yeah, how could I not be opposed to it?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that an opposition to socialism is an opposition to voluntary cooperation. It is not. It is an opposition to what is actually a contradiction in terms human beings attempt to treat as though it were not - compulsory cooperation.

There's no such thing. There's either cooperation or obedience. One is not the other.

So, are you deciding for others what does and does not hurt them? Are you deciding for others what is more than enough wealth? Are you deciding for others what is more than enough income?

By what right?

If cutting the federal budget hurts lives, perhaps it's because those lives ought never been the burden of federal government - nor ultimately of the taxpayer - in the first place. My wife has much experience managing public housing and I have worked in the field myself in addition to having been a civil servant and a military veteran, so I'm well acquainted with how budget cuts affect the people depending on federal money. I'm saddened to see them struggle and empathize having once been among them. I'm saddened to see people paying more and more of their income - yes my wife, me and our close friends and their famlies - because government continually adds to its enormity because it is asked to do so by the voters and their not-so-representatives.

Yes, a decrease in taxation will hurt many because it will mean a decrease in government services. Those services have never been legitimate functions of government. The pain isn't the fault of cuts - the pain is the fault of those who irresponsibly expanded government beyond its real purpose and ability to manage and fund. Blame it on those who made promises against money not theirs to spend.

Little or no government is Somalia. And there would not be a thing anyone could do in the any country with little or no government to stop it from happening to them. Did you give any consideration to how organized religion would react to little or no government? If you did not become Somalia, how long before religion decided you should be a theocracy? And if you didn't become a theocracy, how long before individual groups decided they should take power over others? It seems to me the only person dreaming of a utopia is you.

Your government is hungry for revenue because they do not get any. You can not seem to grasp that Americans pay taxes like Mexico and Chili. YOU DON"T HAVE A TAX BURDEN! Your government is tax starved. It's not a case of no matter how much government receives in revenues, it's continually hungry for more. Only Mexico and Chili take in less. It's a case of no matter how little Americans pay in taxes, they want to pay less. And millionaires wanting to pay 15% while working Americans pay 40 -50% is not a good deal. It is the definition of greed. And working Americans do not pay 40 -50% in taxes. Your tax rate to G.D.P. is 24%. And the people who absorb most of that G.D.P. only pay 15%, unless their top Corporations who pay nothing in taxes. Zero. Almost half of your G.D.P. is Wall Street who produce nothing. 15% is what Canadians pay in combined sales taxes alone. It's no wonder we do not have your problems. As a matter of fact, so many of Americans are the working poor that 35% of Your citizens can't afford to pay any income tax at all. These are Americans that already have little or no government. That's right, so many of your citizens are already called the working poor, your no government, no tax utopia is almost half way accomplished.

Glad you dropped by cmc101, you are welcome... =)

Damn Ambill94, you are on Fire today!!! Voted Up!!!! =)

I'm confused on what more he (Chris Rock (and they (Buffet, Gates, etc) by extension)) could be doing?

Nothing confusing here...money talks bullshit walks...old story...

Just getting sick of posers...there's too damn many of them...:)

1. Add some zeros onto the check they send in with their taxes

2. Don't hire accountants to take advantage of all the tax loopholes

I hear Ya.... =)

So because they take advantage of what is offered to them they are the scoundrels? That seems to negate the real issue at hand.

No, not scoundrels at all. To me the issue is so simplistic. If they want to pay more in taxes why don't they simply do so?

I tell ya...if I had that kind of money I wouldn't willingly give it over to the government; particularly one that I thought would squander it. Instead I would donate to charities, organizations or individuals that I thought worthy.

I would do the same as you. The question that would then be before us is "do we right off the charitable contributions on our taxes"?

If that is what the law allowed...yes, I would. If the laws were different then I would behave differently. They aren't, however, and just like anyone who feels they work hard for their money I'm going to find every legal avenue to control as much as possible.

Or spending it on the American People!!!!

The devils in the details isn't it.

Hey can you share??? =)

Sure i can if he does

If I don't have money I do have the time to share

Ok Coool... =)

Time is better than money... =)

when a person is in need the best thing you can do
is be there
It is not what you can do or say

I agree... =)

A little Grateful Dead on Friday afternoon:

"We can share the women, we can share the wine.
We can share what we got of yours cause we done shared all of mine."

I can share everything but the Women.

There is more than one, do you have to have them all? Lol!

YES!

Lol! If I ever come south to help you with your ground hog problem, I'll know just what to bring!

You can bring munchies. :) The Wife gets mad when I bring other women home. AHA HA HA HA No really She does.

My wife just yelled from downstairs "what so funny?" as I was reading your comment!

Munchies it is.

Ya want to see her get mad just bring another woman home.

Smokin' Comment!!!! =)

I didn't expect you to agree! Chris Rock may mean well, I don't trust these millionaire patriots.

Well I did and you are correct... =)

you have the right to vote their ass out

Can hardly wait for the day to approach.

That Norquist Fella is Pretty Powerful... =(

Agreed!!! =)