OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

Page 6 of 8  


See my other post.
Sure you can distort anyone's words.
The mortgage discussion was just discussed on this evening's PBS Newshour.
The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction as "encouraging home ownership". The people that would fight repeal were home builders and banks.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's reassuring.

I see your problem. You're impressed with "experts" that the media puts forth. Most of them don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. An "expert" is any damn fool who's opinion supports the way they want to tell a story.
Here's my expert take. The "corporate welfare" mantra is a good example of where you and Democrats are coming from today. By trying to call anything and everything welfare, you seek to legitimze handing out money to people for doing nothing, which is what real welfare is and at the same time, you get to attack capitalism. Yes, the banks benefit from issuing more mortgages. So, do lumber companies, electricians, HD, and the taxpayers using that particular deduction. Are they all on welfare too? Feel free to consult with your talking head.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NO!
You think I put "experts" in quotes for fun?

No, an expert in this case is someone that convinces the staff of the PBS Newshour that they are knowledgeable on the subject. If you'd like to research the subject and post your results go ahead.

I don't have to.
First the traditional welfare system that you are ranting about was scaled back a long time ago with the help of Newt and company. I'm fine with that. I'm also open to further reforms.
Second, if you don't believe me, remember Dwight Eisenhower. He warned all of us about what was going to happen. We give 3 billion in aid to some country and it turns out it's 3 billion to buy US made military equipment. I call that welfare.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well then why did you cite the expert that agreed with your position?

So now you're back to the expert being knowledgable. Are you confused?

Scaled back? Yeah, it was scaled back a bit two decades ago by trying to make it so that it was not a lifetime program. But if that was so successful, why are we spending $1.5tril this year on social programs?
The total cost since 1965 when LBJ declared war on poverty is now about $16tril, equal to the national debt. Back then the poverty rate was around 15%. It still is.

It depends on who that country is and what the circumstances are. Giving aid to Afghanistan or Germany to counter the Soviet Union during the cold war sounds like a mighty fine investment. Right now I'd be giving it to the revolutionaries in Syria.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan, do you think it's the government's job to encourage us to do things we would not otherwise do? Should the government organize the tax code, to "encourage" people to do things or not do other things?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
The "expert" identified the primary goal of the mortgage deduction as "encouraging home ownership". The people that would fight repeal were home builders and banks.
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting how you just turned "multiple purposes but one of them is welfare" into "is really welfare".
Does SS help out banks? What do you think?
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That argument may be valid at high mortgage rates But at around 4% with tighter access, that one doesn't hold much water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I look at tax cuts from a conservative right wing view. Means less government theft of my money, and less intrusion into my life. If you view tax cuts as "welfare for", that's the liberal view. Yes? If not, please tell us your actual views.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes but one of them is welfare for banks.
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Getting toward my limit of replying to top posting.
We can, and should, raise taxes to reduce deficits. Isn't deficit reduction a conservative goal?
I'm for less government intrusion too!
The government is stealing my money when they waste it. Like they do with the military, DEA, TSA, and countless other agencies. Unfortunately, neither party is going to reduce the size of government. History has proven that.
What's needed from candidates are specific proposals. Hear Romney's last "secret" speech? He had no clue what he would cut.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases if I saw any reason (from both parties) to suggest that the increases would actually be used for deficit reduction and not just spent. Over the last 30 years, there have been only two times where the year over year %age increase went down (ex. from 3% per year to 2.5% per year) for more than 2-3 consecutive years. The first was the initial 5 years of Gramm-Rudman before they started all the work arounds. THe next was the first 5 years of the Contract with America, although that barely made it to 5. Both times were short lived as Congresscritters from both parties cracked under the strain of respectabilty and started to spend again.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/2012 2:23 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

After the war<s> all bets were off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gonjah <gonjah.net> wrote:

Both of these instances, though, preceded the wars. The latter, CwA had been pretty much emasculated by 1999 or so.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How about spending cuts, to reduce the deficit? Maybe cut spending to year 2006 levels, for example?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:

I would be a lot more sanguine about tax increases if I saw any reason (from both parties) to suggest that the increases would actually be used for deficit reduction and not just spent. Over the last 30 years, there have been only two times where the year over year %age increase went down (ex. from 3% per year to 2.5% per year) for more than 2-3 consecutive years. The first was the initial 5 years of Gramm-Rudman before they started all the work arounds. THe next was the first 5 years of the Contract with America, although that barely made it to 5. Both times were short lived as Congresscritters from both parties cracked under the strain of respectabilty and started to spend again.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're quite the buffoon. Now I know you're gonna get insulted and your shorts all up in a knot over that, but so be it. Only a buffoon would admit the govt is wasting money and then want to raise taxes to allow it to continue to happen. If you had a child that you gave $5 to and they spent it buying a rock from another kid, would you give them $10 so they could continue? Or would you make them wait awhile for their next regular allowance so they learned a lessson?
If enough people demanded better of their govt, we might get it. At least the Tea Party is doing that. Teh govt is taking in MORE money right now than ever before in history. Federal spending rose 40% from 2007 to 2011. We don't have a tax problem, we have a SPENDING problem.

That's OK. Obama got elected running on just fumes from "hope and change". It worked for him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm starting to get a more clear picture of Dan Espen. Wants higher taxes, and wants higher taxes on the rich. Claims that Democrat party is "for capitalism". You know, that's pretty clear, by now.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

You're quite the buffoon. Now I know you're gonna get insulted and your shorts all up in a knot over that, but so be it. Only a buffoon would admit the govt is wasting money and then want to raise taxes to allow it to continue to happen. If you had a child that you gave $5 to and they spent it buying a rock from another kid, would you give them $10 so they could continue? Or would you make them wait awhile for their next regular allowance so they learned a lessson?
If enough people demanded better of their govt, we might get it. At least the Tea Party is doing that. Teh govt is taking in MORE money right now than ever before in history. Federal spending rose 40% from 2007 to 2011. We don't have a tax problem, we have a SPENDING problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 17, 6:09pm, "Stormin Mormon"

Bingo! It's just like the Democrats saying, this tax cut will "cost" us this much money. Like it was their money all along. But you can't blame them. That is actually how they look at it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That helps me define Dan Espen, in my view.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Bingo! It's just like the Democrats saying, this tax cut will "cost" us this much money. Like it was their money all along. But you can't blame them. That is actually how they look at it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"common welfare" <> individual welfare

Nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We could have civil discussion if we left politics out of it.
Obama just tried to close those loop holes you mention, but it got filibustered in the Senate.
I didn't miss any part. And until you specify the offsets a flat tax just gives a huge tax break to the rich. Especially the ones that get their millions in their pay check.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately politics is and always has been at the very center of tax policy.

As it should because he wants to do it while maintaining the existing tax code rates, pushing people into ridiculous tax rates.

If we had a flat tax rate of say 20%, Warren Buffet would pay more tax. So would Romney. Obama would pay the same amount he just did on his $800,000 income.

Pretty much ONLY the ones that get their millions in their pay checks and who aren't also using other loopholes to reduce that amount. Loopholes that lead to all kinds of misallocation in capital because people are forced into strategies to avoid taxes, rather than putting their money where it makes the most sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.