Romney tax plan would result in cuts for rich, higher burden for others [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney tax plan would result in cuts for rich, higher burden for others


Flintlocker
08-01-2012, 11:58
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

Mitt Romney’ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/mitt-romney-2012-presidential-candidate/gIQANxIecO_topic.html)s plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5 percent of Americans — and bigger bills for everybody else, according to an independent analysis set for release Wednesday. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf) The study was conducted by researchers at the Brookings Institution and the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, who seem to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate. To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers — the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.

aircarver
08-01-2012, 13:35
So ?

It's unconscionable that so few pay for most of the government and half pay nothing or less.

This is representation without taxation.

.

eracer
08-01-2012, 13:42
So ?

It's unconscionable that so few pay for most of the government and half pay nothing or less.

This is representation without taxation.

.OK.

So you're in favor of, say, a 20% flat tax on personal and corporate earnings? No exemptions, no deductions, nothing but a simple 20% of the money you or your company earns filling the revenue coffers?

SCGlock26
08-01-2012, 13:47
OK.

So you're in favor of, say, a 20% flat tax on personal and corporate earnings? No exemptions, no deductions, nothing but a simple 20% of the money you or your company earns filling the revenue coffers?

Yes as long as this applies to every wage earner in the country regardless of income level.

aircarver
08-01-2012, 13:54
Hell no.

Every individual assessed an equal share of the cost of running the country.

No corporate tax it's just passed on to the population.

Budget required to be balanced. If the gubbermint can't come up with enough money, they can't spend it.

.

wjv
08-01-2012, 13:55
We don't have an income problem. . We have a SPENDING problem.

Conservative family: Our credit card debt is too high. We need to cut back on spending.

Liberal family: Our credit card debt is too high. My boss doesn't pay me enough. I need to demand more money.

ModGlock17
08-01-2012, 14:08
We don't have an income problem. . We have a SPENDING problem.

Conservative family: Our credit card debt is too high. We need to cut back on spending.

Liberal family: Our credit card debt is too high. My boss doesn't pay me enough. I need to demand more money.

Barry's Hoodie crowd: a stimulus here, and another there. Let's just print more to spend more. We borrow from the Chinese to spend.

Drunken Sailor Brotherhood: we can spend like a drunken sailor. But at least we stop spending when we run out of money! We do have some basic fiscal intelligence.

Gunnut 45/454
08-01-2012, 14:10
Here's your problem right off the bat! "the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first." When ever you see this - disreguard anythng after it! I personally don't have a problem with having those 47% that don't pay any taxes maybe take a 10% reduction of the refunds they get!:whistling:

eracer
08-01-2012, 14:15
Hell no.

Every individual assessed an equal share of the cost of running the country.

No corporate tax it's just passed on to the population.

Budget required to be balanced. If the gubbermint can't come up with enough money, they can't spend it.

.No corporate tax?

Of course that tax is passed on to the consumer. So is every other cost of operating a business, from salaries, to health benefits, to capital expenditures, etc.

Why should income tax be treated any differently?

I understand that payroll tax is a tertiary tax, and should be abolished. But eliminate tax on corporate earnings? Seems a bit prejudicial.

I definitely agree that we need to slash government spending - across the board. But that would reduce the tax burden on every entity earning dollars as an American citizen or an American corporation - an across the board tax cut, if you will.

No good reason to put the burden of what's left on just individuals.

aircarver
08-01-2012, 14:20
Corporate tax is just passed on. It increases the government's 'take'.

I'm for limiting the government's 'take' to 10% of the economy.

and that means no 1200 taxes of whatever flavor for whatever reason.

My way all individuals pay their far share of as much government as they decide they can afford.

.

Lethaltxn
08-01-2012, 14:26
I'd be ok with a 10% flat tax with no deductions, 10% corporate tax and 5% payroll tax (although my preference would be to see that tax eleminated).
No subsidies for any sector. Let them rise and fall on their own accord.

Kablam
08-01-2012, 14:43
It's funny that whenever tax cuts are proposed, some "researchers" squawk about how revenues will drop by $xxx dollars increasing the deficits. Two things to consider there: 1) The empirical evidence most often points to the opposite. Revenues more often go up. 2) Spending usually doesn't go down. More often it goes up. The economy will thirve with low taxes, but if spending keeps rising astronomically, guess what. Yup...deficits go up. We have had huge gov revenues during this run up of the debt during Bush (some) and Obama (TA-DA!).

Brucev
08-01-2012, 14:44
Best method is a progressively graduated tax plan. Apply it with exception to every source of income, regardless of source. Apply it to all income whether earned domestically or overseas. If the rich, libertarians, etc., don't like it, let them go somewhere else and live. There are plenty of other nations where they can go. Let them go.

BobbyT
08-01-2012, 15:13
Best method is a progressively graduated tax plan. Apply it with exception to every source of income, regardless of source. Apply it to all income whether earned domestically or overseas. If the rich, libertarians, etc., don't like it, let them go somewhere else and live. There are plenty of other nations where they can go. Let them go.

Ah yes. The Detroit / Newark / Haiti model.

aircarver
08-01-2012, 15:13
Why progressive ?
Why punish success ?

.

brickboy240
08-01-2012, 15:20
Since the "rich" have been paying most of the tax burden already in America and the middle and lower classes want no cuts in freebies and more handouts....they SHOULD be made to help pay.

..it is only fair if you WANT all these entitlements.

-brickboy240

Kablam
08-01-2012, 15:23
Maybe try something along the lines of paying for what you use. I think it was alluded to already. That way 80% of the population (not exactly I know but simple this way) pays for 80% of government instead of 20% paying for 80% of government as is the case now. Then if there is not enough money, reduce the size of government until the 80% can pay for 80% of it. In other words, everybody pays the same for government. Gets rid of the scourge of our existence as a nation, wealth redistribution and large intrusive government. I have a hard time with progressive taxes (ther's that word again), especially after reading the Communist Manifesto.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 15:25
Ah yes. The Detroit / Newark / Haiti model.

Always try to keep your focus on the subject at hand. the subject is not failure of any particular city administration, etc. or failure of some third world country.

The subject at hand is taxation in the U.S. The best means of financing fed. govt. operations is through a income tax progressively graduated.

aspartz
08-01-2012, 15:25
No corporate tax?

Of course that tax is passed on to the consumer. So is every other cost of operating a business, from salaries, to health benefits, to capital expenditures, etc.

Why should income tax be treated any differently?

Because the corporation cannot vote.

The corporation is unable to change the very government that is taking its money.

Any plan where someone is allowed to vote but pay no income taxes is also just as bad for the opposite reason.

ARS

aircarver
08-01-2012, 15:26
Maybe try something along the lines of paying for what you use. I think it was alluded to already. That way 80% of the population (not exactly I know but simple this way) pays for 80% of government instead of 20% paying for 80% of government as is the case now. Then if there is not enough money, reduce the size of government until the 80% can pay for 80% of it. In other words, everybody pays the same for government. Gets rid of the scourge of our existence as a nation, wealth redistribution and large intrusive government. I have a hard time with progressive taxes (ther's that word again), especially after reading the Communist Manifesto

:thumbsup:

.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 15:27
[QUOTE=aircarver;19260378]Why progressive ?
Why punish success ?

Why progressive? Because it puts the puts the burden on those with the greatest ability to pay.

Punish success? Nope. Simply pay your fair share of the cost of govt. services, etc.

Now what's so hard to understand about all that?

Kablam
08-01-2012, 15:29
Ah yes. The Detroit / Newark / Haiti model.

Bulls eye! :thumbsup:

aircarver
08-01-2012, 15:30
[QUOTE=aircarver;19260378]Why progressive ?
Why punish success ?

Why progressive? Because it puts the puts the burden on those with the greatest ability to pay.

Punish success? Nope. Simply pay your fair share of the cost of govt. services, etc.

Now what's so hard to understand about all that?

Because none of it is correct.
Charging some people more for government is unconscionable.

.

brickboy240
08-01-2012, 15:32
But most of the public services get used by more poor people than rich people. So then why is it that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" when the class that uses public services most pays little or nothing?

Hey...you all want all these freebies....surprise!...they're not free. Since govt is broke...how about YOU all chipping in and helping pay for all the free crap...ok?

If the middle and lower classes had to shell out more of THEIR income to pay for this stuff....then maybe they'd see the merit of cutting the waste and unnecessary stuff...eh?

-brickboy240

Kablam
08-01-2012, 15:32
Why progressive? Because it puts the puts the burden on those with the greatest ability to pay.

Punish success? Nope. Simply pay your fair share of the cost of govt. services, etc.

Now what's so hard to understand about all that?

Once again...who determines this arbitrary "fair share"? Obama? Congress? ACORN? OWS 99%ers? Unions? I never hear the answer to this question.

My response is directed at Brucev whom I was quoting, not Aircarver. The Quote got messed up.

brickboy240
08-01-2012, 15:35
According to the IRS's own damn numbers, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of all income taxes.

Now again....how is it that the top earners are "not paying their fair share?"

According to the numbers....they already pay most of the freight.

-brickboy240

aircarver
08-01-2012, 15:38
Post # 25:

You ran my quote together with one I don't agree with ??

.

Kablam
08-01-2012, 15:39
Edited my post. Sorry aircarver.

series1811
08-01-2012, 15:41
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

Mitt Romney’ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/mitt-romney-2012-presidential-candidate/gIQANxIecO_topic.html)s plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5 percent of Americans — and bigger bills for everybody else, according to an independent analysis set for release Wednesday. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf) The study was conducted by researchers at the Brookings Institution and the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, who seem to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate. To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers — the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.

You forgot to tell us how many puppies would have to be killed.

How old are you? You can't be out of college and in the real world.

According to the IRS's own damn numbers, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of all income taxes.

Now again....how is it that the top earners are "not paying their fair share?"

According to the numbers....they already pay most of the freight.

-brickboy240

You see, liberals have to pretend that isn't true to make their arguments work (for their base, anyway).

aircarver
08-01-2012, 15:44
Edited my post. Sorry aircarver.
S'awright !

QUOTE s are a pain ! ... :supergrin:

.

Lethaltxn
08-01-2012, 15:44
Always try to keep your focus on the subject at hand. the subject is not failure of any particular city administration, etc. or failure of some third world country.

The subject at hand is taxation in the U.S. The best means of financing fed. govt. operations is through a income tax progressively graduated.

I believe we are. You, however, seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball.
All of those are experiments in what you would like to do. It doesn't work, and I don't know how many places you leftists want to destroy to prove that point.

aircarver
08-01-2012, 15:46
All of those are experiments in what you would like to do. It doesn't work, and I don't know how many places you leftists want to destroy to prove that point.

:thumbsup:

.

Kablam
08-01-2012, 15:57
Looking at the title of this thread, my response to it is simply, "Good."

aircarver
08-01-2012, 16:12
Looking at the title of this thread, my response to it is simply, "Good."

Right On !

It's about F'n time 'others' had a higher burden .... :supergrin:

.

2-8 Marine
08-01-2012, 17:17
Here's your problem right off the bat! "the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first." When ever you see this - disreguard anythng after it! I personally don't have a problem with having those 47% that don't pay any taxes maybe take a 10% reduction of the refunds they get!:whistling:

I think you nailed it.

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 17:47
I'd be OK if people that didn't pay into federal income tax system, got absolutely nothing back.

I just want them to pay THEIR fair share.

aircarver
08-01-2012, 17:52
Tricky words, "fair share" ... :upeyes:

.

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 17:55
Tricky words, "fair share" ... :upeyes:

.

No money in + Earned income money out = not fair.

JFrame
08-01-2012, 17:56
Tricky words, "fair share" ... :upeyes:

.


Yeah -- it's a good idea to be leery of any words Obama uses so promiscuously.


.

aircarver
08-01-2012, 17:58
No money in + Earned income money out = not fair.

No money in + Earned income money out = ludicrous ! ... :wow:

.

Jonesee
08-01-2012, 18:18
Once again...who determines this arbitrary "fair share"? Obama? Congress? ACORN? OWS 99%ers? Unions? I never hear the answer to this question.

My response is directed at Brucev whom I was quoting, not Aircarver. The Quote got messed up.


Technically, 3 of your list determine the tax rates.
1)The President
2)The Congress
3)The 99% and more accurately, the 51% of voters that determine #s 1 & 2

happyguy
08-01-2012, 19:06
To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers — the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.

The reason they make this assumption is because it is nearly inconceivable that a politician would actually shrink the size of government and cut spending. They assume spending levels would remain the same or continue to trend upwards.

I find it hard to believe he would actually scale back government but you never know.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Fed Five Oh
08-01-2012, 19:10
Punish success? Nope. Simply pay your fair share of the cost of govt. services, etc.

Now what's so hard to understand about all that?That's some funny democrats.

The Machinist
08-01-2012, 19:16
The federal income tax should be abolished. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be abolished. They're going to end one way or another. May as well taper them off now, rather than wait until a collapse forces it overnight.

JW1178
08-01-2012, 19:39
Wow, the right wing people are trying to paint a picture of the top earners in the US as these people who work so hard, that they get up and bust their butts harder than the other 90+% of people out there. That's horse crap and people know better.

A majority of the real wealthy don't "work" but make their money by what the own. It takes money to make money, and they use their money to make more money. Then the right wing people want these people to have it even better. The idea is that they will further invest into business that will help the economy. It kind of works, but not directly.

Another idea that doesn't wash is the idea that if a company is making more money, they will pay higher wages and hire more people. While it is true as a business expands, it will hire more, the rest isn't true. Often, the companies with the most profit margins are the stingiest when it comes to paying their employees. If more profits meant more jobs and more pay, our economy would be rocking harder than ever. Look at the stock market and some of the profit reports by some of the biggest companies, higher than ever.

Also, there is a difference between taxable and gross income. It's apart of the problem, but let me say this. If after all your deductions and exemptions you have $250,000 of income, must be nice. If you took that money and expanded your business and you wouldn't be taxed for that income.

One thing we can almost all agree on is that we have a really screwed up tax code. They take the tax rate, make is really high, have different rates for different kinds of income, then they make a system of deductions, exemptions, and credits. It's screwy math that ends up with a screwy equssion that is grossly unfair and just plain wrong. You end up with two people of the same income level paying two totally different amounts in taxes. You have people who don't even pay taxes getting thousands of dollars back. Then you have wealthy people paying less taxes than people not even half their income.

Example, General Electric didn't even pay taxes last year, but you people with small businesses sure did. I guess GE earned that money, all the more power to them, right? Romney pays about 15% income tax... how many of you pay more than that. Speaking of Romney, if he want to run on this kind of plan helping the "top earners" in this country, we will have another four years of Obama, and that we can't afford and might not survive.

Speaking of Obama, he is the worse. He does talk about redistribution of the wealth and all, but he promotes this screwy system and wants to make it worse. His plans help some of the wealthiest people, while hurting small business and that keeps the biggest businesses strong so those who own those are making money hand over fist. They don't have to worry about the smaller businesses taking their spot on the top of the hill because they now have the advantage. Enviromental credits for companies that have the money to splurge on those type of investments. Not to mention how much the wealthy want to make off carbon credits and such.

Do you ever wonder why some of the wealthiest people are die hard supporters of the Democratic Party? Why in the hell would a billionair support a communist or a socialist? I'll tell you why, the Democratic Party supports a the system that makes them rich. This system allows for some of the wealthiest to make tons of money, pay little or no taxes, and prevents any smaller competitors from possibly taking their spot. (once again, a reference to GE, as well as Exxon/Mobil, ect) They know the game and play it well, they know they have to give a few things up, to get the most in return. You would think that compainies like Exxon would be up in arms doing everything they can to promote Romney, especially when Obama restricts their drilling, but they aren't.

I think the right wing idea is to make it hard on the working guy, such as the blue collar guy, keep his job scarce and his wages low, that way he won't go out and become your competition. So you want that cashier at the gas station working 3rd shift or that Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman to pay more so that the CEO and Wall Street Tycoon can keep more of that money they "earned". Really????

happyguy
08-01-2012, 20:05
Wow, the right wing people are trying to paint a picture of the top earners in the US as these people who work so hard, that they get up and bust their butts harder than the other 90+% of people out there. That's horse crap and people know better.

A majority of the real wealthy don't "work" but make their money by what the own. It takes money to make money, and they use their money to make more money. Then the right wing people want these people to have it even better. The idea is that they will further invest into business that will help the economy. It kind of works, but not directly.

Another idea that doesn't wash is the idea that if a company is making more money, they will pay higher wages and hire more people. While it is true as a business expands, it will hire more, the rest isn't true. Often, the companies with the most profit margins are the stingiest when it comes to paying their employees. If more profits meant more jobs and more pay, our economy would be rocking harder than ever. Look at the stock market and some of the profit reports by some of the biggest companies, higher than ever.

Also, there is a difference between taxable and gross income. It's apart of the problem, but let me say this. If after all your deductions and exemptions you have $250,000 of income, must be nice. If you took that money and expanded your business and you wouldn't be taxed for that income.

One thing we can almost all agree on is that we have a really screwed up tax code. They take the tax rate, make is really high, have different rates for different kinds of income, then they make a system of deductions, exemptions, and credits. It's screwy math that ends up with a screwy equssion that is grossly unfair and just plain wrong. You end up with two people of the same income level paying two totally different amounts in taxes. You have people who don't even pay taxes getting thousands of dollars back. Then you have wealthy people paying less taxes than people not even half their income.

Example, General Electric didn't even pay taxes last year, but you people with small businesses sure did. I guess GE earned that money, all the more power to them, right? Romney pays about 15% income tax... how many of you pay more than that. Speaking of Romney, if he want to run on this kind of plan helping the "top earners" in this country, we will have another four years of Obama, and that we can't afford and might not survive.

Speaking of Obama, he is the worse. He does talk about redistribution of the wealth and all, but he promotes this screwy system and wants to make it worse. His plans help some of the wealthiest people, while hurting small business and that keeps the biggest businesses strong so those who own those are making money hand over fist. They don't have to worry about the smaller businesses taking their spot on the top of the hill because they now have the advantage. Enviromental credits for companies that have the money to splurge on those type of investments. Not to mention how much the wealthy want to make off carbon credits and such.

Do you ever wonder why some of the wealthiest people are die hard supporters of the Democratic Party? Why in the hell would a billionair support a communist or a socialist? I'll tell you why, the Democratic Party supports a the system that makes them rich. This system allows for some of the wealthiest to make tons of money, pay little or no taxes, and prevents any smaller competitors from possibly taking their spot. (once again, a reference to GE, as well as Exxon/Mobil, ect) They know the game and play it well, they know they have to give a few things up, to get the most in return. You would think that compainies like Exxon would be up in arms doing everything they can to promote Romney, especially when Obama restricts their drilling, but they aren't.

I think the right wing idea is to make it hard on the working guy, such as the blue collar guy, keep his job scarce and his wages low, that way he won't go out and become your competition. So you want that cashier at the gas station working 3rd shift or that Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman to pay more so that the CEO and Wall Street Tycoon can keep more of that money they "earned". Really????

Envy is really ugly.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Kablam
08-01-2012, 20:17
Technically, 3 of your list determine the tax rates.
1)The President
2)The Congress
3)The 99% and more accurately, the 51% of voters that determine #s 1 & 2

Yup. That's working out well isn't it? 47 percent or so of wage earners pay no income tax. Who are they voting for now? Fair? Perfect example of why the constitution purposely did NOT set up a democracy as our form of government. You may have missed the sarcasm in that post. I'm perfectly aware of how "fair share" gets into tax law. It's all of the examples I gave and more. Much more detail available in Cloward and Pivens writings.

Lethaltxn
08-01-2012, 20:24
Wow, the right wing people are trying to paint a picture of the top earners in the US as these people who work so hard, that they get up and bust their butts harder than the other 90+% of people out there. That's horse crap and people know better.

A majority of the real wealthy don't "work" but make their money by what the own. It takes money to make money, and they use their money to make more money. Then the right wing people want these people to have it even better. The idea is that they will further invest into business that will help the economy. It kind of works, but not directly.

Another idea that doesn't wash is the idea that if a company is making more money, they will pay higher wages and hire more people. While it is true as a business expands, it will hire more, the rest isn't true. Often, the companies with the most profit margins are the stingiest when it comes to paying their employees. If more profits meant more jobs and more pay, our economy would be rocking harder than ever. Look at the stock market and some of the profit reports by some of the biggest companies, higher than ever.

Also, there is a difference between taxable and gross income. It's apart of the problem, but let me say this. If after all your deductions and exemptions you have $250,000 of income, must be nice. If you took that money and expanded your business and you wouldn't be taxed for that income.

One thing we can almost all agree on is that we have a really screwed up tax code. They take the tax rate, make is really high, have different rates for different kinds of income, then they make a system of deductions, exemptions, and credits. It's screwy math that ends up with a screwy equssion that is grossly unfair and just plain wrong. You end up with two people of the same income level paying two totally different amounts in taxes. You have people who don't even pay taxes getting thousands of dollars back. Then you have wealthy people paying less taxes than people not even half their income.

Example, General Electric didn't even pay taxes last year, but you people with small businesses sure did. I guess GE earned that money, all the more power to them, right? Romney pays about 15% income tax... how many of you pay more than that. Speaking of Romney, if he want to run on this kind of plan helping the "top earners" in this country, we will have another four years of Obama, and that we can't afford and might not survive.

Speaking of Obama, he is the worse. He does talk about redistribution of the wealth and all, but he promotes this screwy system and wants to make it worse. His plans help some of the wealthiest people, while hurting small business and that keeps the biggest businesses strong so those who own those are making money hand over fist. They don't have to worry about the smaller businesses taking their spot on the top of the hill because they now have the advantage. Enviromental credits for companies that have the money to splurge on those type of investments. Not to mention how much the wealthy want to make off carbon credits and such.

Do you ever wonder why some of the wealthiest people are die hard supporters of the Democratic Party? Why in the hell would a billionair support a communist or a socialist? I'll tell you why, the Democratic Party supports a the system that makes them rich. This system allows for some of the wealthiest to make tons of money, pay little or no taxes, and prevents any smaller competitors from possibly taking their spot. (once again, a reference to GE, as well as Exxon/Mobil, ect) They know the game and play it well, they know they have to give a few things up, to get the most in return. You would think that compainies like Exxon would be up in arms doing everything they can to promote Romney, especially when Obama restricts their drilling, but they aren't.

I think the right wing idea is to make it hard on the working guy, such as the blue collar guy, keep his job scarce and his wages low, that way he won't go out and become your competition. So you want that cashier at the gas station working 3rd shift or that Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman to pay more so that the CEO and Wall Street Tycoon can keep more of that money they "earned". Really????

In other words, your jealous that others have money. Classy!

Sam Spade
08-01-2012, 20:39
So a cab driver that works an 80 hour week has a "fair share" that's bigger than a cab driver who works a 40 hour week?

Kablam
08-01-2012, 20:44
JW. Most of your post points to how the gov has screwed this up. That's a result of so much gov intrusion on the economy. The "right wing" view, which I prefer to call the conservative view, is more aligned with what you're saying than your post would project. You have the right wing confused with the progressive GOP. Food for thought FWIW.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 20:50
[quote=Brucev;19260420]

Because none of it is correct.
Charging some people more for government is unconscionable.

.

Unconscionable? Why? Be specific. Please do not simply spew talking points.

Lethaltxn
08-01-2012, 20:52
Wrong thread.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 20:53
I believe we are. You, however, seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball.
All of those are experiments in what you would like to do. It doesn't work, and I don't know how many places you leftists want to destroy to prove that point.

Like it or not... a city is not a nation. And like it or not, a third world undeveloped country is not a superpower.

Now... please demonstrate exactly how a progressive income tax is somehow damaging to America? Be specific. Please avoid simply spewing talking points.

Lethaltxn
08-01-2012, 20:56
Like it or not... a city is not a nation. And like it or not, a third world undeveloped country is not a superpower.

Now... please demonstrate exactly how a progressive income tax is somehow damaging to America? Be specific. Please avoid simply spewing talking points.

Ok, here's a better option, so you don't have to hear me spewing my "talking points".

Why don't you tell us which nation has done what want and been successful.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 20:59
But most of the public services get used by more poor people than rich people. So then why is it that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" when the class that uses public services most pays little or nothing?

Hey...you all want all these freebies....surprise!...they're not free. Since govt is broke...how about YOU all chipping in and helping pay for all the free crap...ok?

If the middle and lower classes had to shell out more of THEIR income to pay for this stuff....then maybe they'd see the merit of cutting the waste and unnecessary stuff...eh?

-brickboy240

There is not and never has been a free lunch. If your beef is that you don't get to choose the services, etc. you want to support cafeteria style, tough. You'll just have to accept the inconvenience of paying for what you and others get. Just as others have to accept the inconvenience of what you and they get. If you've got a problem with that, then you'll just have to have a problem with that. Because other than blowing here about what you don't like, it doesn't look like you are anyone who thinks like you do will get to do anything except have problems with reality.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 21:00
Once again...who determines this arbitrary "fair share"? Obama? Congress? ACORN? OWS 99%ers? Unions? I never hear the answer to this question.

My response is directed at Brucev whom I was quoting, not Aircarver. The Quote got messed up.

Who decides what's fair? Easy. We the people decide. Cool.

MZBKA
08-01-2012, 21:13
I'd be interested in where the people who say they want the government to take up only 10% of the economy got their 10% number. My guess is they pulled it out of their butts.

A flat tax with no or very few deductions and user fees would be the most fair. Tax gas at the required level to maintain roads etc.

MZBKA
08-01-2012, 21:14
I'd be interested in where the people who say they want the government to take up only 10% of the economy got their 10% number. My guess is they pulled it out of their butts.

A flat tax with no or very few deductions, as well as user fees would be the most fair. Tax gas at the required level to maintain roads etc.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Kablam
08-01-2012, 21:15
Who decides what's fair? Easy. We the people decide. Cool.

If its so easy, why are so many people (progressives, OWS, unions, our president and his ilk for example) spending so much energy barking about how unfair the system is. Also, See my previous comment about democracy. You may not like it, but this redistributive debacle that is spinning out of control and about to ruin the greatest nation in history, is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid when they set up our republic. A permanent voting majority based on what they get from others is counter to "fair." Sheesh I hate that word.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 21:39
Ok, here's a better option, so you don't have to hear me spewing my "talking points".

Why don't you tell us which nation has done what want and been successful.

You need to learn to compose a complete sentence.

Brucev
08-01-2012, 21:50
If its so easy, why are so many people (progressives, OWS, unions, our president and his ilk for example) spending so much energy barking about how unfair the system is. Also, See my previous comment about democracy. You may not like it, but this redistributive debacle that is spinning out of control and about to ruin the greatest nation in history, is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid when they set up our republic. A permanent voting majority based on what they get from others is counter to "fair." Sheesh I hate that word.

The left whine for the same reason the right whines... their ox is getting gored. Specifically that want someone else to pay more. Cool. That's just the way people act. They want to pay as little as possible and get as much as possible. It is no different if someone runs a shovel digging a ditch or if someone plays with a computer stealing money on Wall Street.

America will be fine. The whiners will moan and groan about how things are unfair. They always do. Let 'em. The rest of the nation will go right on and deal with reality. Reality is that taxes will go up on those who make more than an average income. So what? They can afford it. Let 'em pay. Reality is that govt. spending on unnecessary programs such as the military, etc. will be cut. So what? There's plenty of fat in these programs. Cut 'em.

As to the founding fathers... they are all dead and buried. So is the world in which they lived. If they wanted to lock America into the past, then they fouled up royally. They are dead and gone. America lives. Cool. America not only lives... but America will continue to develop. It will not likely be the change you or I prefer, but it will be the change that is chosen by "we the people." For better or worse I'll take that change over some sort of future vision dictated by those who assume they have the right to "rule."

countrygun
08-01-2012, 21:55
If its so easy, why are so many people (progressives, OWS, unions, our president and his ilk for example) spending so much energy barking about how unfair the system is. Also, See my previous comment about democracy. You may not like it, but this redistributive debacle that is spinning out of control and about to ruin the greatest nation in history, is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid when they set up our republic. A permanent voting majority based on what they get from others is counter to "fair." Sheesh I hate that word.


Isn't it funny how the liberal dims are allways running around flapping their jaws about "Democracy" and "People Occupying and protesting this and that, is "democracy in action" until they do a head count,find out they are in the minority and then it's "The majority is oppressing us" and they start looking for ways around the democratic system to get their way.

Kablam
08-01-2012, 22:36
The left whine for the same reason the right whines... their ox is getting gored. Specifically that want someone else to pay more. Cool. That's just the way people act. They want to pay as little as possible and get as much as possible. It is no different if someone runs a shovel digging a ditch or if someone plays with a computer stealing money on Wall Street.

America will be fine. The whiners will moan and groan about how things are unfair. They always do. Let 'em. The rest of the nation will go right on and deal with reality. Reality is that taxes will go up on those who make more than an average income. So what? They can afford it. Let 'em pay. Reality is that govt. spending on unnecessary programs such as the military, etc. will be cut. So what? There's plenty of fat in these programs. Cut 'em.

As to the founding fathers... they are all dead and buried. So is the world in which they lived. If they wanted to lock America into the past, then they fouled up royally. They are dead and gone. America lives. Cool. America not only lives... but America will continue to develop. It will not likely be the change you or I prefer, but it will be the change that is chosen by "we the people." For better or worse I'll take that change over some sort of future vision dictated by those who assume they have the right to "rule."

Darn those stupid old founders. Things have gotten so good since we threw their founding principles under the bus. You are right about one thing though. Unnecessary programs like the military :upeyes: will be cut. Unfortunately not in a rational manner, think the upcoming sequester, but as a result of the productivity and wealth of our society being squandered in the name of democracy and the huge government intrusion that necessarily results. It sure seems that allowing the gov to continue to tax at will and particularly punish successful people for the reason you state ("they can afford it") sets up a system "of future vision dictated by those who assume they have the right to 'rule'."

Lethaltxn
08-01-2012, 23:51
You need to learn to compose a complete sentence.

So you have no answer. That's what I thought.

The Machinist
08-02-2012, 05:21
A majority of the real wealthy don't "work" but make their money by what the own.
So what?

JFrame
08-02-2012, 05:46
A majority of the real wealthy don't "work" but make their money by what the own.

So what?


Yeah -- sounds good to me...It's a situation to which we can all aspire, if that is what floats our boat...


.

aircarver
08-02-2012, 06:02
[quote=aircarver;19260432]

Unconscionable? Why? Be specific. Please do not simply spew talking points.

Either you get it or you don't.

.

series1811
08-02-2012, 06:26
Yeah -- sounds good to me...It's a situation to which we can all aspire, if that is what floats our boat...


.

I'm working hard to go that point myself. I never knew there were so many people working so hard to keep me from getting there (and doing damned little else).

Yes, there is no doubt that Romney and the Republicans are the friends of the high achievers and those highly motivated to work hard to make their life better.

There is also little doubt that Obama and the Democrats are the friends of those who want to do as little as possible, and who are easily convinced that life is a lottery that they lost out on, and that the persons who have money ("you didn't build that, the government, did") should equalize it by having it redistributed more fairly by the government.

You see both sides depending on who is posting here.

aircarver
08-02-2012, 06:30
You see both sides depending on who is posting here.

Obviously one side sees it as some of us should work harder to benefit them, and be grateful for a bowl of rice and an admonition to 'work harder' .....:upeyes:

.