Oh yes you can!
Remember when Clinton imposed a "luxury" tax on, for example, boats that cost more than $100,000?
There were two results of this action:
Sure you can.... ever heard of drug dealers? So, what corner junky is going to collect and remit sales tax?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
Trader, do you think those are insulting terms? Dyed in the wool, liberal, socialist? I think they are descriptors, not insults.
I view the Democrat party as promoting more government spending, control, and a lot less freedom. I'd even go so far as to say socialist. The recent take over of the banks and auto manufacturers, that's socialist. When government owns the means of production.
Christ> > I'm asking, gently, your political leaning. If the name is not accurate,
Sorry, but the Democratic party today IS liberal and is becoming more liberal each year. The days of democrats like JFK, Truman, and Patrick Moynihan are long gone.
You sure wouldn't know that from listening to the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a long, long list of them.
That helps me define Dan Espen, in my view.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
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.
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
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.
Congress at the urgent request of President George W. Bush passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP", funded at $700 billion.
Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies. You're in some kind of deluded dream world.
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.
>
Those appear to be cherry picked instances though. The IRS figures show that there are BIG differences in the effective rates between the top and bottom groups. Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.
He hasn't yet earned most of what he has earned since he takes relatively little salary and most of his wealth is in B-H stock. These we will never taxes from because he will most likely hold them until death and is giving most of it away as a tax deduction. We also wouldn't see them under a sales tax scenario.
>
You are getting closer, I'll have to admit. Now, define working poor objectively. (g).
After the war all bets were off.
Of course they have. They gave them money and the government has in the past, and is currently, telling many of these companies what they can and cannot pay in dividends, executive bonuses and other areas.
Both of these instances, though, preceded the wars. The latter, CwA had been pretty much emasculated by 1999 or so.
I don't think that "dyed in the wool" is a critical or insulting term. It is synonym for sincere. Now, I'm going to describe you as sensetive, and easily offended.
The Democrat party for the last years I've been observing. Promoting increased taxes and regulations. Reduced freedom, and also a resulting reduced capitalism. Chanting "the rich didn't pay their fair share, and we need to raise taxes on the rich" does not promote capitalism.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
No you started with 3 labels that most people consider pejoratives.
dyed in the wool liberal socialist
I'd vote for Chris Christi for governor. I like the job he's doing but I normally vote Democrat. I'm neither dyed in the wool, liberal nor socialist.
As you should know, the Democratic Party has been capitalist for a long time.
And, I opposed the socialist take over, under GWB, also.
When the business is beholden to the government, by way of forced loans. The government can then dictate policies. Tell the business what to do, and how to run things.
So, Obama is the majority share holder in GM, but he's not running the company?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
Congress at the urgent request of President George W. Bush passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP", funded at $700 billion.
Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies. You're in some kind of deluded dream world.
How about spending cuts, to reduce the deficit? Maybe cut spending to year
2006 levels, for example?Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
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.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:roOdnd9ILblb8BPSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Yes, if you look only at the rates levied on "earned income" (wage and salary). "Unearned income" from capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate.
Making things worse, the "payroll taxes" (Social Security and Medicare) are levied only on earned income, and on the lower end of that to boot. For earned incomes above the social security cap, the higher the income the *lower* the effective rate of the so-called payroll tax (which is, of course, just another income tax with a different name).
In other words, a massive income redistribution scheme. That is not a good thing.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:roOdnd5ILbmW8xPSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
I'm comfortable with using the Federal government's definition of the poverty level, perhaps by applying some multiplier. Seems to me it should be based on family size.
Taking money away from those who work, to give that money to people who don't work. Sounds communist to me. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
I thought the USA was a constitutional republic with liberty and justice for all. Not a regime that rewards the idle.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
In other words, a massive income redistribution scheme. That is not a good thing.
The best specifics I could find was that Buffet had a total reported income of $63mil and paid $7mil in tax. Even if you had a 20% sales tax rate, he would have to have spent $35mil to generate a sales tax equal to what he paid under the current system. Anyone here believe Buffet is spending $35mil a year? More likely he's spending just a few million a year, if that. Meaning under a sales tax based system, he would pay far less. Take a look at Romney or any other top earner's incomes that are public and I'd like to see one where a sales tax system would yield the govt anywhere near the same amount.
It's a problem because it shifts more of the tax burden on those with little or modest incomes. The poor and middle class would get socked. I have no problem with a tax system that is graduated to some degree, nor do I think most people do. Also, those rich people benefitted from the infrastructure. Shouldn't the rich pay a lot more for the military to in part, protect their wealth, than the guy making $10,000?
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.