Liberals operate out of hatred, and party line. Trying to talk sense into liberals is like trying to explain to a hungry bear that he'll get more nutritonal value out of a tofu patty than by eating you.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
I'd like to see one successful society where the country grew into an economic miracle where the rich didn't get richer. Just like with taxes, you have a static view of the rich and the poor. With taxes, you assume that if you levy a 70% tax, people will just pay it. They won't. They adjust accordingly and a lot of it is avoided. A classic example of this is the foolish tax on luxury yachts. That was class warfare. Screw that rich guy. Well, the folks that got screwed were the boat builders and all the workers that lost their jobs.
When otherwise intelligent people talk but don't make sense, they have a hidden agenda. Libs have a hidden agenda.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
That is straight out of the lib playbook. Charities help the poor and needy. And they have a pretty fine record of doing it. Why would anyone want to discourage people from giving money to them and instead have the govt take that money? Only libs because they insist that the govt help those in need because they want people more dependent on the govt, more dependent on the politicians that pander for their votes. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves on that one.
As I'm sure you know, presidents can't cut spending. Only Congress can. The last time Congress passed a budget was three months into Obama's term. The government has been funded on continuing resolutions since.
No. The Democrats lost filibuster control of the Senate in February 2010, with the by election of Scott Brown. That was less than a year into Obama's term. A third of the stimulus package was tax cuts, so at least that should warm your heart.
As for jobs, you're right. It didn't hold unemployment to 8%. But an interesting question is how much worse it would have been without the package. The Congressional Budget Office says that it would have been as much as 0.8% worse without the package.
Our tax code is flat out (pun intended) broken. Why limit the tinkering to a flat tax? That still leaves most of the paperwork and government intrusion into private affairs. Why not a consumption tax?
Straight ahead VAT. The guy who buys a Mercedes pays more than the guy who buys a Kia. Exempt food, housing, and clothing if you want to give a break to lower income folks. State sales taxes mean that most businesses already have the basis to figure and pay it. Individuals get out of the tax filing process entirely.
It would probably have to be around 23% to be revenue neutral and that would really get people's attention. But their paychecks would go up by about the same amount. They'd like that.
As I'm sure you know, the Republicans have tried to make cuts. The House has passed lots of budget proposals that do exactly that. The Senate, controlled by the Democrats, is the body that hasn't passed a budget in 3 years.
Also, Obama was on 60 Minutes just last week, talking about how wasteful spending needs to be reduced to address the deficit. And then he insists that it must be done only as part of plan that includes raising taxes. Now, if the govt is going broke, if we've already piled up $220,000 in debt for a family of four, why can't spending be cut regardless of whether taxes are raised or not? Isn't it Obama's job to eliminate waste, control spending? Why must he raise taxes to cut wasteful spending?
Waahh! Wahhhh! The Democrats only had a filibuster proof Senate for less than a year..... What excuse will you come up with next? Real presidents that were leaders, like Reagan, never needed a filibuster proof Senate. During the Reagan years, Republicans never had control of the House at all, never had a filibuster proof Senate. Yet, he got the job done and didn't make excuses.
And it's about as lame as it gets to bitch that the Dems only had a filibuster proof Sentate for less than a year. The country was and is in a crisis. How about getting off their lazy asses and doing what needs to be done? The truth is they DID pass what they deemed important. And that was primarily Obamacare and the $800bil stimulus. Now, if they spent all that time on Obamacare instead of other priorities, they have no one to blame but themselves.
That may very well be true. And if they had passed the right stimulus package, instead of one that spend $300K to create each job, by now we'd have unemployment at 7%.
A flat tax would eliminate much of the paperwork. You wouldn't have pages for deductions, pages for the AMT, pages for special energy tax credits, etc. However, I'm not opposed to considering a VAT or consumption tax approach as long as the income tax is then eliminated. One problem with a consumption tax is that the libs will never go for it. One of our resident libs here is adamantly opposed to a flatter tax system, where most income would be taxed at say 20 or 25% and most deductions eliminated. He insists on raising the top marginal rate to 70%, essentially tilting at windmills, because almost no one would actually pay it.
I agree, it has merits and is worth considering. But again, you'd never get the libs to agree to it. And part of their argument is valid. You have Warren Buffet paying 14% now. Under a VAT, he'd go from paying 14% to probably paying only 1%, because like many very wealthy people, he only spends a small portion of what he earns.
When both parties manage to continue the tax nightmare, and complicated mess, it becomes clear that both parties benefit from that nightmare.
I'm wondering if a third party vote is "wasted", or if voting for Dem or Rep is a false choice, and they are all in bed together? We change Dems and Reps every few years. Debt keeps going up, and we keep wasting money on illegals, and on foreign wars.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
And it's about as lame as it gets to bitch that the Dems only had a filibuster proof Sentate for less than a year. The country was and is in a crisis. How about getting off their lazy asses and doing what needs to be done? The truth is they DID pass what they deemed important. And that was primarily Obamacare and the $800bil stimulus. Now, if they spent all that time on Obamacare instead of other priorities, they have no one to blame but themselves.
A flat tax would eliminate much of the paperwork. You wouldn't have pages for deductions, pages for the AMT, pages for special energy tax credits, etc. However, I'm not opposed to considering a VAT or consumption tax approach as long as the income tax is then eliminated. One problem with a consumption tax is that the libs will never go for it. One of our resident libs here is adamantly opposed to a flatter tax system, where most income would be taxed at say 20 or 25% and most deductions eliminated. He insists on raising the top marginal rate to 70%, essentially tilting at windmills, because almost no one would actually pay it.
The rational reason FOR charitable deductions is that private charities do a better job and do it more efficiently than the government. If you eliminate any degree of deductions for charitable giving, some level of government will (usually) have to take up the slack at a greater cost.
You also lose the ability of the individual to direct funds to causes he, but possibly few others, thinks is a worthwhile cause.
Okay. Sell a unit of blood platelets a month (not illegal). Sell a unit of blood (also not illegal). Sell a cornea (don't know).
Suppose your deprived dude mowed lawns. At two per day for $50 each, he'd net $3,000.00 per month, completely off the books.
Did you hear about the chap who started with a PAPER CLIP and kept trading upward until he owned a Jaguar?
Success can be had; consider Michael Jackson. He started life as a poor black kid and ended up as a rich white man who married the daughter of Elvis Presley.
Is America a great country, or what?
There's the motto: "Half of success is just showing up." Unfortunately, when some say they'll meet you half-way, it's the other half they're talking about.
The House passing a budget that is known to be DOA in the Senate is politics, not governance.
It can, if a majority agrees on how and what to cut. To lay this off on Democrats is wrong. They are elected to represent their constituencies, too. They feel taxes need to be raised to preserve programs that are important. You don't have to agree, but they have the right to hold those views.
The problem with the "my way or no way" approach being taken by both sides is you end up with "no way". We stagger along on continuing resolutions until we drop off the cliff.
It is his job to see that money appropriated is spent as appropriated. But when Congress appropriates money for bridges to nowhere, there is nothing he can do.
Who's making excuses? I was just getting the history straight.
It is hard to hold Obama out as an outstanding leader. But you said yourself, the Republicans have changed since Reagan. They are further right and less willing/able to compromise. The moderate Republicans (you call them "RINOS") have all but disappeared. Likewise, the conservative, largely southern, Democrats are gone as well. The middle has gone empty and both sides are hiding behind machine guns poking through barb wire.
They also passed Dodd-Frank, not a prize winner. Everyone sold out to the banks on that one. Let's bring back Glass-Steagall. Oh, yeah, they extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone. You've gotta like that.
But what else should they have spent their time on? A radical fix to the tax code would have helped, followed by a promise not to mess with it for 10 years. I would suggest the biggest job killer is uncertainty and that is both parties' fault.
OK. You're going to have to give some support to that one. What does the right package look like and how does it get us to 7%?
So you believe the Senate runs the show and the House can only pass what the Majority Leader of the Senate says it can? That's *not* the way the Constitution works.
No, it's not wrong. Democrats are where the increases have come from. They're fighting to KEEP INCREASING. Ever hear of "baseline budgeting"? Democrats live by it.
Sometimes war is inevitable. Compromise only works if both sides are playing. Giving half a loaf every week will get you pretty close to a loaf in a short time. We can't afford it.
Bridges to nowhere don't constitute 40% of the "budget" (there isn't one) that's unfunded.
s/history/spin/
Nonsense. It's the Democrats who have gone over the left edge. There are no more Zell Millers in the party. They've all been driven out.
Are you really that stupid? Olympia Snow? Susan Collins? OTOH, the Democrats have even chased the center-left (e.g. Lieberman) out of the party.
Thrown out. It's not just the Southern Democrats. *ANYONE* not on the left edge has been thrown out.
No arguments there.
Yes, you really do. ...if you want the economy to get off its ass.
Promises can't work. It's unconstitutional, for one and not at all smart. Reform is truly needed. Back to the Reagan rules would be a big step forward.0
Get government's boot off business' neck and you'd be there already.
The Dems keep insisting on tax increases on the rich. That's job killing thing to do. I'm glad the Reps are blocking tax hikes on the rich. The rich are already over taxed.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
The problem with the "my way or no way" approach being taken by both sides is you end up with "no way". We stagger along on continuing resolutions until we drop off the cliff.
That's my take too. Obama is running radio ads for example to encourage senior citizens to apply for food stamps. We;ve gone from around 15 mil on food stamps in 2000 to 47mil today. Do we really need that? And now, to top it off, the Dept of Agriculture is working with the MEXICAN govt to get the message to the illegal aliens coming here on how they too can apply for food stamps. Unbelievable. And you would think we have a country of starving people, but in reality we have an obesity epidemic.
The point is that even Obama has stated time and time again that there is waste in govt that can be eliminated to help reduce spending. There is absolutely no reason that can't be done regardless of doing anything with taxes. Let's say you had a family that was having financial difficulty, deep in debt, borrowing more each year. The kitchen window is open, it's 20F outside and the heat is being wasted. Would you insist that the window can only be closed if daddy gets a raise?
And compromise is what has gotten us to where we are now. The out of control spending during the Bush years was a good example. We could also raise taxes and it would not matter, they would still have a huge deficit because the govt would spend even more. Govt spending has gone from 18% of GDP in 2000 to 25% now. Back then we had a balanced budget. As recently as 2007, we had a deficit of just $161bil. Spending has gone up 40% from
2007 to 2011. Yet, we're supposed to believe that NOTHING can be cut, without a tax hike?
Yeah as if Obama is frugal and it's Congress forcing him to spend. That's a hoot. His proposed budgets would have spent EVEN MORE. His budget was so ridiculous, that even his own party chucked it on arrival. If Obama wanted to take a step at reducing the deficit all he has to do is come up with a proposal to start cutting excessive govt spending and waste. Put it forth. They call that leadership.
I pointed out that the Democrats had control of the House and Senate for the first two years and they rammed through what they wanted. When you then claim that they only had a filibuster proof Senate for part of that time, that in my book is making excuses. REagan got an economic recovery plan through Congress when the Democrats controlled the House during his entire two terms in office. He only had control of the Senate, and never a filibuster proof one either. Another difference is his plan worked.
That's pretty much it. The Republican party is one that Ronald Reagan would not only recognize, he'd embrace it, because it's values and goals are the same as his were.
Obama has been anti-business since day one. He's railed against drug companies, insurance companies, wall street, oil companies, coal companies.... He's blocked the Keystone pipeline. He rammed through Obmacare which placed new uncertainties on businesses and increased healthcare costs. He allowed the Labor Dept to block Boeing's new plant to build the 787 in SC that employes thousands and further impacts not only tens of thousands of jobs in the USA, but around the world as well.
Now, I suppose we're just supposed to cooperate with this guy and all get along. But that just isn't possible. For proof as to why, just look at what OBama just did to Netanyahu. Netanyahu was in NYC for the UN meeting. He asked to meet with Obama. Seems reasonable. After all, the mid-east is a powder keg, Iran is building a nuke, Israel is getting more nervous and threatening to act. Obama said he was just too busy. He did find time to go on Letterman, The View and meet in the oval office with a pirate. After all, it was "speak like a pirate day". You have to keep your priorities in order, right?
Let's see. You want the rich to be taxed so that the federal govt gets 70% of their income. Most states have an income tax, as do some cities. Combined that could easily result in over 80% of ones income going to govt. So, with the money gone, how could the rich guy give it to charity? Simple math, really.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Yep. You mean with $20 million in income, and a net rate of say 40% of total income, none of the after tax income ($12 million) would be available for charity?
Who said none of the after tax income would be available for charity? But it's clear that if you don't exempt charity from taxation, then a rich person will have LESS money available to give to charity and LESS incentive to give it. And under what moral authority do you think govt has the right to take 80% of what someone makes? A family sells a farm that's been in the family for generations. I'm comfortable with the govt taking 205, maybe 25% of that. Why do you need to take almost all of it?
Why do you insist on money be cycled through a govt full of waste and fraud? Who do you think has a better idea of who is truly needy in your town? The local church or a trillion dollar dept in DC? What exactly do we have to show for the trillions in welfare that has been spent since 1965 on the war on poverty? The poverty rate is about the same, kids are dumber than ever. We do have generations of the same family that have relied on welfare and lots of families without fathers as a direct result.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
Weren't we talking marginal rates? And now you seem to posit that government has a monopoly on waste and fraud. I'm sure you can come up with examples of waste and fraud in businesses. Madoff, banks high honchos, just 2 examples.
No we were not talking about marginal rates. I specifically asked you how much of a rich person's total income the federal govt should take. You replied with as much as 70%.
That is the whole point to the discussion about a flat tax. Few people ever paid the 70% marginal rate when it existed. It's just a fiction that libs like and can't get over. And today, with a top rate of 35%, neither OBama, nor Romney, nor Warren Buffet are paying 35% of their income to the govt. Most taxpayers, including the rich are falling somewhere in the 15 to 25% range of their total income. With a flat tax rate of say 20%, get rid of most of the deductions, exemptions, etc, you'd be there without all the economic distortions and unfairness that the various existing deductions and exemptions create. And Warren Buffet would be paying the same rate as his secretary, but a whole boatload more money. Instead of paying 15% of booko millions, he'd be paying
20% of booko millions and 100 times what his secretary pays. What's wrong with that?
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
Oops. My bad.
The case for progressive taxes is that bare necessities take an awfully large portion of incomes for people in the less than 150K AGI brackets. Just a baseline exemption doesn't take care of that. You need a sliding scale. Where the different "slices" of that graduated scale should fall, and what exact rates, that is open for discussion, but a flat tax (which you have admitted is an oxymoron) is not my favorite (as you know).
Which deductions, credits, exemptions should be eliminated is also an important question. Some of these are long-standing social engineering (if that's what you want to call it), e.g. deductions for state, property etc taxes and for home mortgage interest. I think the exuberant consumption (especially in housing) that was fueled by many factors, but also the deductions above, should indeed be limited and pushed back, but that has to be done over time so as not to disrupt the economy.
Hmm. We could go back to the various Bush policies, unfettered by a Democratic-majority Congress, and get unemployment below 5%. Is that what you had in mind?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.