I think this would make the economy take off. However, people would probably die trying to get this legislation passed.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I think this would make the economy take off. However, people would probably die trying to get this legislation passed.
bbi, I'd be very happy to debate you. But you are going to be required to debate facts, not opinion. That's a pretty tall wall for most wing-nuts to climb.
Right, wrong? When it comes to politics, who is the judge? Liberal, conservative...neither are right or wrong, they are simply approaches to issues. The problem with those two adjectives is that they fail miserably to define the 90% of people who fall into the middle...one of whom is me. They are miserably misused terms.
Yeah, if Dee and I are the same because we hold similar viewpoints then you and a dozen other monikers must all be the same person as well.
Based on the vitriol in your response, seems like I hit the mark.
My statement was the government shouldnt hand out toilet paper to people. Then you used your usual strawman in an effort to make it something else. Its ok. Anyone who wants to see it can go back a few pages. Pretty clear.
Im definitely not far right. Im libertarian, if anything. I share many views with each side.
Noone believes youre a moderate. I repeat - noone. Because you arent.
Still false. Suicide bombers ill throngs of people with regularity in the middle east. Of course I guess that doesnt count, because it cant help further his anti-gun push.
I can guarantee those people would trade us in terms of their own safety in public places.
The devil is in the details.
Is Warren Buffet still going to pay a lower effective tax rate than that of his secretary as he does now?
Most flat tax plans are revenue neutral to the current tax setup. Putting more money in the hands of the already wealthy at the expense of the middle class will help the likes of Mercedes, Bentley and LearJet while at the expense of GM, Ford and Wal-Mart. There is no question that the tax code should be simplified... but real growth in the economy comes from bolstering the middle class.
Lowering the tax rate for 95%+ of people who actually pay taxes, as well as cutting double taxing (corporate taxing) in half. Yep, going to kill the middle class ![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
See, if rich people get to keep an extra 15% of their money, it hurts middle class people who only get to keep an extra 10% of their money...somehow
I also love how Fuzz views not taking in the same way as giving. See, we aren't taking less money from rich people, we are *giving* them back more than we do poor people.![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
If I don't take your car, I didn't give it to you.
See, if rich people get to keep an extra 15% of their money, it hurts middle class people who only get to keep an extra 10% of their money...somehowI also love how Fuzz views not taking in the same way as giving. See, we aren't taking less money from rich people, we are *giving* them back more than we do poor people.
If I don't take your car, I didn't give it to you.
Obama "gotcha moment". There it is you're more concerned about protecting your politicle party beliefs then anything.
But we have at least one thing in common, and it's a good thing. GBB
Nice way you combine income tax with capital gains tax to make a bogus point regarding Buffett. Income tax and Capital Gains tax are two different animals. Capital gains rates are lower to encourage investment.
The bottom 50% in this country pay no income tax while the top 10% of taxpayers pay nearly 70% of income tax. Also capital gains taxes were just raised significantly (from 15% to 23.8%) two years ago along with income tax rates on those making $200,000 or more. The "rich" are the only ones subject to the Death Tax. Its never enough for some.
Last edited:
This was your statement on page 17 of this thread:
"Absolutely a luxury (toilet paper). Would it suck without them? Yes. But you could survive.
It isn't our governments responsibility to provide luxury, be it ass wipes or otherwise.."
I didn't create any straw man, all I did was reference your statement and point out how radical and ridiculous it was. You made yourself look foolish, not me.
You seem to have a real problem with the truth. Here is the actually statement:
Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let's be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency.
Lowering the rate doesn't mean you pay less tax if at the same time eliminate deductions...I guess you missed that part?Lowering the tax rate for 95%+ of people who actually pay taxes, as well as cutting double taxing (corporate taxing) in half. Yep, going to kill the middle class
I also love how Fuzz views not taking in the same way as giving. See, we aren't taking less money from rich people, we are *giving* them back more than we do poor people.
Transy, you're obviously not an accountant nor have you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately.
Again I reiterate that most flat tax plans are revenue neutral meaning that it raises the same amount of money as currently raised. If some pay more, others pay less. If your intent is to take money from those currently not paying taxes then you do realize that money paid in taxes won't be spent on the essentials on which much of our economy depends. The net effect of that is that the 200 people it takes to build a Ford or Chevy for each of those 10 poors will be replaced by the 20 who will build Mr Wealthy's Mercedes...a net loss of 180 jobs. Look, I've got nothing against Mercedes, BMW or any of the luxury brands, I drive one. But tax policy that concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands results in fewer cars, fewer groceries, fewer articles of clothing...
Starting in 1980 we started on this journey of lowering tax rates for the wealthy and so called trickle-down economics. One famous Republican called it "voodoo economics". Our middle class has been losing ground ever since. When middle-class folks move to being poor folks then they are going to vote their pocket. All of the guns and God fear that the GOP has preached for 25 years is wearing thin and people see that they've been fooled. What is ironic is that the very thing you want will be the exact thing that drives the death nail into what you wanted.
There is a reason that the meek will inherit the earth. I'll let you figure out why.
You still fail to recognize that taxes went up significantly two years ago. That didn't make the poor any better off or do anything for income inequality. In fact the poor, are suffering under Obama's policies. The rich have done every well lately mostly due to the Federal Reserve's stimulus. Those with money to invest (rich and upper-middle class) have done quite well. However, that didn't come at the expense of the poor. Its not a zero sum game as many liberals like the president seem to think.
The federal tax rates have not increased under this administration on anyone except those in the top bracket. The Bush tax cuts stay in place for all others. In fact under the economic stimulus program most people received a temporary tax break, and also benefited from the so-called payroll tax holiday. BTW I think he realizes that.
What you fail to mention is that if they cover anything on Hillary or Obama or the left in general it is secondary or even third level coverage meaning a by line. Given a minute or so. Let a Republican grab a bottle of water mid speech and it becomes first page news as a major gaf. You Lemmings are so easily manipulated.
He was calling for higher taxes on the rich. I pointed out that the "rich" (over $200,000 in income) have seen their taxes (income tax rates, capital gain rates, dividends tax and a medicare surtax) go significantly higher. I wasn't referring to those in the lower brackets. Again these higher taxes have not really done anything to help the poor.
An interesting opinion on who really drives the economy forward: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam...sses-are-not-the-backbone-of-the-u-s-economy/
Like I said, It's amusing that the people who never watch the MSM like Warrior Cat are also experts on what they do and don't report.
Fair enough - I agree here except I'm not sure I would call the taxes "significant" i.e. 0.9% Medicare and 3.8% on investments over thresholds of $250,000 for married couples.
The poor are helped by not paying more in taxes.
All tax policy planning has an aim of generating $X revenue. Policy determines who pays and at what rate.
Interesting that you would think that allowing poor people to keep more of their money doesn't help them but allowing wealthier people to keep more does help.
First I don't think big businesses necessarily need to be demonized just becasue they are big, but this article ignores the fact that for instance Wal-Mart which they use as an example has been the subject of numerous law suits for unfair labor practices, and environmental violations, including a class action suit for discrimination against women. Those suits are not without merit. However the large business community has a lot of responsible companies like 3M. Each company large or small stands on it's own record and should not be painted with a large brush.
This paragraph gives me a lot of problem:
All of the above is nice to think about, and it perhaps makes one feel good, but it’s also nonsense. Figure small businesses, for being small, almost by definition exploit their customers inadvertently for them lacking the buying power that would enable them to offer their patrons products and services at the lowest price. This doesn’t describe all small businesses, but to some degree it can be said that their existence signals inefficient use of capital that restrains our natural economic evolution.
This sounds like something right out of the Communist Manifesto. As a small businessman if I had "exploited my customers inadvertently" I would have stayed in business about as long as a snowball in Hades. Free enterprises which means free and open competition to anyone who wants to start a business big or small is the lifeblood of our economy. The author apparently isn't familiar with the concept of market forces. He doesn't understand that small businesses compete against anyone else large or small offering similar products and services. If the local deli isn't competitive with Wal-Mart on price and quality, they won't stay in business. Maybe their price is a little higher, but the quality and choices are better? The last business I owned provided eCommerce products and service to business and we generally had a much more attractive price point for most everything than our larger competitors.
Small business are not bad for the economy like this author is suggesting, what is bad for the economy is certain oligopolies that have formed in certain industries - telecommunication and integrated petroleum in particular. Does anyone think it's a coincidence that when prices for gas at the pump go up 15 cents at one station, all the others follow suit within hours (within a few cents)? I read posts on here all the time complaining about Comcast and Time Warner for charging exorbitant rates and requiring people to purchase hundreds of stations they will never watch just to get the few that they want. What to you think more competition would do to that industry, small or large?
The economy flourish when there is free and open competition, limited unnecessary regulation, and low barriers to entry. There is nothing generically about the size of the business that is necessarily "good" or "bad" for the economy.
Don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. I said that the new higher taxes on the wealthy are doing little to help the poor or reduce income inequality. Whatever congress is using the extra revenue for its not helping the poor. Obama's redistribution policies are a failure.
Also since the bottom 50% are paying no income tax, how could you possibly let them keep any more of their money. The only way to get the bottom 50% more money (with regard to income tax) is to take it from the top 50%.
Last edited:
Honest question, are you saying you think the additional revenue garnered from these taxes should have been used for social programs instead of reducing the deficit (which is actually what happened). If so that's a bit unusual position for a conservative.
Specifically you said...
You're going to have to decide which horse you are going to ride.
You want lower taxes...so if all that is done is to lower rates the net result is less revenue. Less revenue means either higher deficits or lower spending. Where is DSmith21 cutting spending and who is currently the beneficiary of that spending?
Or perhaps you want some of those 50% not paying income taxes to now pay...so who does that hurt? Do you know the income level of that 50%?
Income inequality has been going in one direction for 35 years. To act like it has been Obama's policies that started this tailspin... not sure what to tell you. For 35 years we have enacted policies that have empowered the 1% and allowed them to accumulate an even larger share of wealth. Conservatives seem to think we could continue those policies.
Perhaps you are in that 1% although I highly doubt it. The fact that they have successfully conned you into fighting their fight is amusing.
His 2016 budget requested 23 tax revenue increases and the Cadillac UCA taxes have not taken effect. The only reason more taxes have not been raised is the opposition.
I might have missed it though....did the 2012 tax increases on the wealthy close the gap?
DC area though is getting wealthier at a rapid pace and VA now leans left with all the govt contractors parsing thru thousand of pages of new regs and laws. Trickle out economics is good for the Dem party but not for any other group.
Last edited:
Exactly. Its a zero sum game. To give money to people who dont pay taxes or contribute to society, you have to take it from the other group. Its not that hard. Yet liberals refuse to admit this truth. So they try to strawman their way out of it.
For years and years we have allowed the nanny state taking more from the middle class and giving to those who wish not to contribute. The rich keep getting richer under all politicians and the middle class suffers the burden. More so when the Democrats are in charge because tax and spend is their only solution. "If we continue to throw money at the problem, it will eventually go away". This is true I guess to some degree since eventually that money will run out and everyone but the rich will have nothing. I have actually read where you and DEEE believe that we need to raise taxes to get rid of the national debt. Do you seriously think that raising taxes will stop the government from spending more money? If you do, go ahead and give all you have to the cause and get it over with. You might as well wither away now and not prolong the inevitable. I will pray for you.
What I have said is that taxes should equal spending.
If by law congress was forced to raise taxes to the level of spending then they would be forced to run for election based on the decisions they made. It is far too easy to spend when you can put it all on a credit card. The only way they could lower taxes would be to actually cut spending. What do the American people want? You want lower taxes? Then actually do what is required to do it in a fiscally responsible way. If the people want big government then they will have to pay the price.
Give me that stipulation and I'll gladly accept flatter, less progressive tax rates that cast a wider net and requires all to pay.
You cannot tax Americans enough to make up for the out of control spending. That's the problem with Fuzz's plan of spending and spending and then taxing the American people to make up for it.
Tax policy should be set irrespective of spending. Spending should then be brought below the amount of revenue. Not the other way around.
And no, not taxing someone is not giving them something. I go to work. I earn my money. The government takes some of my money in taxes. If you lower the tax rate, the government is not giving me anything.
Too bad it's too easy for the poor and old people to vote themselves government benefits paid for by my children and grandchildren. Completely immoral enslaving generations to debt to pay for the easy irresponsible choices in the present day.
Tax policy should be set irrespective of spending. Spending should then be brought below the amount of revenue. Not the other way around.
And no, not taxing someone is not giving them something. I go to work. I earn my money. The government takes some of my money in taxes. If you lower the tax rate, the government is not giving me anything.
Too bad it's too easy for the poor and old people to vote themselves government benefits paid for by my children and grandchildren. Completely immoral enslaving generations to debt to pay for the easy irresponsible choices in the present day.
Even if you can pretend we could, what direction would our cowardly representatives and don't-tax-me-bro voters choose? France-like 70+% on wealthy.
Worst rationale on here since he stated ISIS would lose due to people getting tired of them and kicking them out. Stunning lack or reasoning.
This. But sadly it's reversed. And those benefiting from this foolishness outnumber those that arent. So it'll likely never change.
That's why this country has no chance. It's not a matter of if. Just a matter of when.
No, I am not saying that increased tax revenue should go to new social programs. Heck, we can't even afford the programs already in place. The President sold them as a way to help the poor and reduce income inequality. I only point out that his policies are not achieving his stated objectives.
As for deficit reduction, you have bought into the Obama half truth on that. The deficits did drop after 2011 but only because the massive stimulus spending went away. Obama's deficits are still larger than Bush's. They are just lower than the record deficits team Obama set in his first three years in office.
You are so dead set in disagreeing with me that your reasoning fails you.
Politicians today sell what bacon they bring home to the district and their pledges to keep taxes low. They do so because there is no link between the bacon and the taxes required to acquire that bacon. Today there is spending...tomorrow we will consider taxing. Paying is passed on to our children and grandchildren because that is the easy decision to make. Our children and grandchildren can't vote.
By linking the two it forces those hard decisions to be made. It cuts up the credit card. You seem to think that it is easier for a politician to vote for a tax increase than a spending cut. I beg to differ. My plan forces the government to live within its means and stops it from burdening our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with ever increasing debt.
The status quo hasn't worked. If you think that the poor and old can vote themselves benefits, that would be true irrespective of budgeting process. I guess you're more ok with passing the bill for that spending to your children than you are paying yourself. Regardless of how you try to spin it, that is exactly what you are saying.
D, you do realize that the 2009 budget was submitted by W...right?No, I am not saying that increased tax revenue should go to new social programs. Heck, we can't even afford the programs already in place. The President sold them as a way to help the poor and reduce income inequality. I only point out that his policies are not achieving his stated objectives.
As for deficit reduction, you have bought into the Obama half truth on that. The deficits did drop after 2011 but only because the massive stimulus spending went away. Obama's deficits are still much larger than Bush's. They are just lower than the record deficits team Obama set in his first three years in office.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[3] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.
I am for less government spending before raising more taxes. The current tax level should be enough to cover current spending. I would start by going after the billions wasted on government programs. Medicaid/Medicare alone account for $50-$60 Billion in fraud every year according to the FBI. That's 10% of the current deficit right there. Get rid of all the social security disability cheats and you nearly fix the revenue shortfall in that program. Government pensions and benefits are much higher than the private sector. Those need to be brought to market levels. Get rid of wasteful military spending on those programs that the pentagon doesn't even want but that congress forces onto them. These are just a few examples of spending cuts.
Yes, I want some but not all of the 50% who are not paying income tax to contribute a little more in tax. We need more people with skin in the game. I especially want people who make a living doing illegal things like prostitution, drug dealing, illegal gambling, etc. to pay into the system. Those people don't file tax returns. The best way to do this would be a change in our tax system. I would reduce the income tax rates and apply it to only the top 10%-15% of taxpayers. Then I would add a national sales tax (like Europe's VAT) to make up for the lost revenue. Tax consumption more and earnings less. A national sales tax is also much harder to cheat than our current system so you gain extra revenue from less cheating. Food, clothing and shelter would be exempt from the tax (that is where the poor spend almost all their money). This would keep the system from being regressive. At least that's one idea.
Last edited:
Every respected organization and committee that has looked at the problem of deficit spending and the mounting federal debt, including the most famous one, the bipartisan Simpson/Bowles commission, has concluded that deficits cannot be eliminated, and the debt cannot be reduced without BOTH spending cuts and additional revenue.
A comprehensive bill to achieve both is what is needed. The revenue part can probably be accomplished through tax reform without raising individual rates on the vast majority. You can either support that, or by default you elect to stay on the current course which is a ticking time bomb.
Nice try. Bush's submitted budget was not anywhere near a trillion dollars. It was Obama's emergency stimulus that drove the spending level above a trillion that year. Remember all those non-shovel ready projects and clean energy boondoggles like Solendra that were part of the 3 year stimulus.
Last edited:
Similar threads
