Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Raising The Debt Limit Won't Cost A Dime  
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

Somebody said raising the debt ceiling won't cost the USA a dime! I'm pretty sure it was the POTUS!
Well it just jumped $328 BILLION. Sure glad we won't have to pay interest on that!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

[Edited 2013-10-18 15:44:11]

[Edited 2013-10-18 15:44:21]

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2966 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1525 times:

The debt limit really doesn't have to do with the government debt... The government needs to borrow to pay off what it has already spent. That's the problem.


The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

They are STILL running better than a half Trillion deficit yearly now. They refuse to cut the spending and address what is driving the the negative.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19412 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1494 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 2):
They are STILL running better than a half Trillion deficit yearly now. They refuse to cut the spending and address what is driving the the negative.

If by "they" you mean Congress as a whole then it's true. If by "they" you mean the Democrats then it's not true.

There are two sides to a leger. One is revenue and the other is expenses. At present, our revenue does not cover our expenses. Part of the problem is that our expenses are too high, but an equally important part is that the "temporary tax cuts" have essentially become permanent. Our marginal tax rate is the lowest it has been in over a century (since the Civil War, I think). It needs to come up, especially on those who "earn" a disproportional amount of the income in this country.

The idea of progressive taxing is not new, it isn't communist (unless Eisenhower and Reagan were communists), and it will help balance the budget.

So why is it that BOTH parties are willing to entertain spending cuts, but ONE party will not conscion even a single cent of increased revenue?


User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

You know what would help bring in revenue....? If EVERYONE had to pay at income tax. No matter if you make $100 a year or $100 Million. If everyone had to pay something (after the plethora of credits/exemptions), then we'd have so much money you the government wouldn't know what to do..wait they'd spend it, but that's another topic.

Making everyone pay 5-10% of their income would make too much sense and be too fair. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing...but the right thing to do.



Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 4):
then we'd have so much money you the government wouldn't know what to do..wait they'd spend it, but that's another topic.

Isn't that what happened during the latter years of Clinton? The nation was running surpluses and eventually the next administration decided to "return" the money to the people and enacted tax cuts.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Im all for tax cuts on the wealthy. They pay too much. Everyone, including those making minimum wage and those with children should have to contribute to society. When 43-47% of people pay no income tax, there is a problem.


Christopher W Slovacek
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 4):
If everyone had to pay something (after the plethora of credits/exemptions), then we'd have so much money you the government wouldn't know what to do..

Actually, we would not have that much more money than we do now. A percentage of very little income is still very little money.

If you want to argue the fairness of everyone having skin in the game, that's one thing. But let's not pretend that taxing everyone would magically put a whole lot money in the government's coffers. Those who have significant income to contribute are already being taxed.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

Quoting n318ea (Thread starter):
Somebody said raising the debt ceiling won't cost the USA a dime! I'm pretty sure it was the POTUS!

If you raise your credit card limit it doesn't actually cost you anything. It's the spending which costs the money.

It's a pointless bit of semantics, but technically true.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1435 times:

You are right to some degree, but it would add quite a bit. The other half of the equation is spending. No amount of revenue will suffice if you keep spending without limits. Again, this is common sense and having a balanced budget makes too much sense to Washington.


Christopher W Slovacek
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 9):
it would add quite a bit.

It really wouldn't. It would amount to less than the revenue increases targeted at the wealthy that conservatives said would cover only a tiny fraction of the government's debt. The bottom 50% of the country has less than 5% of the wealth. You're not getting anything meaningful from them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1410 times:

Quoting n318ea (Thread starter):

Somebody said raising the debt ceiling won't cost the USA a dime!

It actually won't. Whoever somebody is actually understands what the debt ceiling is.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):
You're not getting anything meaningful from them

It doesn't need to be meaningful to the government as much as it should be meaningful to them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Well, they do pay other taxes.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12):
Well, they do pay other taxes.

So do I. I don't get anything extra for it though.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineual747den From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1370 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Im all for tax cuts on the wealthy. They pay too much. Everyone, including those making minimum wage and those with children should have to contribute to society. When 43-47% of people pay no income tax, there is a problem.

You don't understand the problem and how taxes work at all.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1354 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 4):
You know what would help bring in revenue....? If EVERYONE had to pay at income tax. No matter if you make $100 a year or $100 Million. If everyone had to pay something (after the plethora of credits/exemptions), then we'd have so much money you the government wouldn't know what to do..wait they'd spend it, but that's another topic.

Making everyone pay 5-10% of their income would make too much sense and be too fair. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing...but the right thing to do.

I definitely do think that every one should pay taxes, even the 5 odd percent you mention for the lowest earners. However it would really drive much in revenue, perhaps somewhere in the $100B range. Definitely some important revenue but certainly not enough to address the level of the actual problem.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Im all for tax cuts on the wealthy. They pay too much.

Well you are right and wrong, they pay too much but that means the rates should go up not down. There is more wealth now concentrated at the top echelons of than ever before. So I don't know anyone can claim that they are paying to much in taxes. The level of concentration indicates a failure of the current monetary policies, of which taxes are an important part. So taxes should instead go up, on the top tiers especially, as that would encourage people to spend the money to decrease their tax liability. That spending is the critical and important part as it would also increase the taxes that the full spectrum of earners pay.


Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Everyone, including those making minimum wage and those with children should have to contribute to society. When 43-47% of people pay no income tax, there is a problem.

   I do agree. Additionally no one should "get back" from taxes more than they have paid in.

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
Actually, we would not have that much more money than we do now. A percentage of very little income is still very little money.

If you want to argue the fairness of everyone having skin in the game, that's one thing. But let's not pretend that taxing everyone would magically put a whole lot money in the government's coffers. Those who have significant income to contribute are already being taxed.

  

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
It doesn't need to be meaningful to the government as much as it should be meaningful to them.

  
It means that people will think very hard about whether some new benefit is really needed or some added expense is the right thing as it will affect their pocketbook, not just someone else's.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1342 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 4):
If by "they" you mean Congress as a whole then it's true. If by "they" you mean the Democrats then it's not true.

ABSOLUTELY!

This is the same President that said it was a failure of leadership to borrow from China and run up the debt on the nations youth right?


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1312 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
When 43-47% of people pay no income tax, there is a problem.

You bet there is a problem...an income problem. If 43% don't qualify for income tax it means that what they earn is little. If by means of tax credits their net contribution is $0, then it's a sign that 43% of Americans' income is not up to par with others.

I don't agree that we should continue to overtax everyone, but a fair share should be paid by all. And (this trends off topic but still supports my point) if you are able to get out your checkbook and give blank checks to politicians, then you certainly have enough to pay more in taxes.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

No, everyone should contribute with a net income tax of some amount/percentage. The rich pay way more than their fair share. Unfortunately, America is on a permanent downhill road because once people learn they can suck off the government and the rich, which they have discovered, there is no incentive for them to work.

If everyone paid an income tax, they would value a dollar more and do better for themselves. Dems and Repubs are both to blame for allowing 43% of Americans to pay nothing. Its disturbing.



Christopher W Slovacek
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1291 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 18):
The rich pay way more than their fair share.

As a percentage of wealth, the numbers are pretty much where they should be. You'll get some fairly minor discrepancies here and there, but overall I don't see much need for drastic changes.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 17):
You bet there is a problem...an income problem. If 43% don't qualify for income tax it means that what they earn is little.

If 43% of your society do not qualify for income tax why exactly would you be classed as a developed nation which the world regards as important on the financial stage?
The US economy with significant effect on other nations of the world is driven by consumer spending, so they make enough money to create the largest consumer market but not enough to qualify for income tax?
Either the rates do not reflect reality or this is a deliberate strategy.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1254 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Im all for tax cuts on the wealthy. They pay too much.

15% is too much? The top INCOME tax rate is 35%. But, many wealthy people feel they "pay too much" in taxes, so the try to pay capital gains, which is 15%. Us working people do not have that luxury. Us working people can not hire accountants to get us to pay 15% and then get that tax back.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Everyone, including those making minimum wage and those with children should have to contribute to society.

And they do. EVERYONE working minimum wage jobs pay taxes. Every single solitary one. That is another far right wing lie.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1240 times:

I never said I was on the far right.

It is true they pay SS and Medicare tax from their check, but many people get their income tax back. My mother is one of them. Gets a huuuge refund every year and it simply isn't right.

If I have to pay a federal income tax, so should everyone. Like I said, it won't ever happen because making everyone contribute in this way is too sensical.



Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1110 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 22):
I never said I was on the far right.

It is true they pay SS and Medicare tax from their check, but many people get their income tax back. My mother is one of them. Gets a huuuge refund every year and it simply isn't right.

If I have to pay a federal income tax, so should everyone. Like I said, it won't ever happen because making everyone contribute in this way is too sensical.

If all the exemptions and loopholes were removed that would solve your problem right there (though I bet you would scream bloody murder about being over taxed) however the lobbyists, big money interests, farm interests, vested interests, and every other "interest" would explode. And so would Congress, how can you satisfy your constituents if you can't carve out exemptions and hand out perks for the people and interests paying for you? I mean that is the lobbyists entire purpose in life (and perhaps legislators too).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1087 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 2):
They are STILL running better than a half Trillion deficit yearly now. They refuse to cut the spending and address what is driving the the negative.

Well, we are still in a war (which politicians seem to forget when looking at "cutting spending") and we still have a significant influx into the VA system because of that totally unnecessary war. We are also behind in tax collections because W & Dick didn't see a need to fund that unnecessary war they took us into.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 4):
If EVERYONE had to pay at income tax.

If you take a look at the total taxes those on minimum wage pay I think you will find that they pay a higher percentage of their income than folks like Willard. Take all taxes, including FICA, sales taxes, petrol taxes, property taxes, etc. That, in the end, is what really counts.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Im all for tax cuts on the wealthy. They pay too much



LOL! GO back to the days when Republicans were running a responsible economy - like the years Ike had a GOP Congress. Look at the performance of the economy then and today. The tax rate for the wealthy is exceptionally low these days - Romney demonstrated that with his 13% rate on $20+ Million.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Everyone, including those making minimum wage and those with children should have to contribute to society.

Put the minimum wage above the poverty line and you'll have an easier chance to see that happen.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
When 43-47% of people pay no income tax, there is a problem.

So we start with the socialist GOP $1,000 per child cash handout? Three kids gets you $3,000 a year in GOP Socialist Cash.

Or is it better to start by increasing minimum wages to the level where they gal within the lowest tax bracket?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
So do I. I don't get anything extra for it though.

You got a pretty good education that was funded in part by the taxpayers.

You also happened to have studied a course that has benefitted significantly over the years by federal dollars poured into R&D and government purchasing that keeps a lot of the aerospace industries (and their suppliers) in business.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 22):
My mother is one of them. Gets a huuuge refund every year and it simply isn't right.

Whoa! You're going after your mother? Have you reviewed her tax returns to see why she gets a refund? I used to always set my exemptions at zero in order to help avoid a tax bill at the end of the year. Odd little bits like medical expenses, property taxes, mortgage interest, etc. do impact a tax liability.

And a good accountant can also bring down your taxes with a bit of planning. If Romney can pull a $22+ million income down to the 13% tax rate you know there are some real goodies out there in the tax laws.

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 22):
Like I said, it won't ever happen because making everyone contribute in this way is too sensical.

No, it won't happen because there is too much money flowing to the politicians from lobbyists to allow it to happen.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 25, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
You got a pretty good education that was funded in part by the taxpayers.

So did a lot of other people who don't pay as much in taxes as I do.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
You also happened to have studied a course that has benefitted significantly over the years by federal dollars poured into R&D and government purchasing that keeps a lot of the aerospace industries (and their suppliers) in business.

Federal dollars which pay for concrete products. I don't get where you're going with this argument, but I'm 99% certain it's irrelevant.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
So did a lot of other people who don't pay as much in taxes as I do.

Which shows what a wise investment education is - you can make a lot of money and pay taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
Federal dollars which pay for concrete products

You passed over R&D, which has been a huge benefit for the aerospace industry.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
I don't get where you're going with this argument, but I'm 99% certain it's irrelevant.

It's very relevant. You make a lot of money in an industry that has benefitted greatly from tax dollars directed at R&D. Your studies also benefitted from a lot of that research.

Compare those benefits to, say, retailing and your industry has been on the gravy train for a long time. Reality is that you should be fighting the end of the sequestration as your industry will be negatively impacted if it continues.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 27, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Which shows what a wise investment education is - you can make a lot of money and pay taxes.

Some people just don't get, or don't care about, that message. And the public education system spends a hell of a lot of money on them too. Being dumb or unmotivated doesn't make someone cheaper to educate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
You passed over R&D, which has been a huge benefit for the aerospace industry.

Much of that R&D ends up being owned by the government, since they paid for it. And there's one more thing you're forgetting which is that most other companies don't have to get permission from the government to sell products overseas.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
You make a lot of money in an industry that has benefitted greatly from tax dollars directed at R&D. Your studies also benefitted from a lot of that research.

R&D aimed mostly at delivering a product for the government.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
Reality is that you should be fighting the end of the sequestration as your industry will be negatively impacted if it continues.

First, it's too late. Second, sequestration was dumb because the cuts were too indiscriminate. The bad spending didn't get hit enough and too many good programs were damaged.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1099 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
So did a lot of other people who don't pay as much in taxes as I do.

As you or your parents? And regarding those other people not paying more in taxes, did your parents earn more than $62K? That's median income for families with collage students, so if your parents earned more than that then yes, the majority of the other people din not pay as much taxes as you/your parents.

http://trends.collegeboard.org/colle...come-selected-characteristics-2011

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 29, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 28):
As you or your parents?

I pay more taxes than my parents. I don't see how anyone's parents are relevant anyway, they aren't the ones benefiting from education. If you're going to school for your parents, there's something wrong.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 30, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1090 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
I pay more taxes than my parents. I don't see how anyone's parents are relevant anyway, they aren't the ones benefiting from education. If you're going to school for your parents, there's something wrong.

Your parents paid into the taxpayer subsidized schools, not you. You will pay into your or other kids schools and education. It is how it works. You are not paying taxes for your own eduction (though you may very well be paying loans), that's not how it works.

By the way, for months here you talked about how you were stuck living with your parents and couldn't wait to get out on your own. So to claim you can't "see how anyone's parents are relevant" is disingenuous to say the least.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-10-23 23:51:03]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 31, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 30):
You will pay into your or other kids schools and education. It is how it works. You are not paying taxes for your own eduction (though you may very well be paying loans),

That's an interesting twist on the "You didn't build that" paradigm.

The idea that education is one of the things that helps one earn a living is not wrong. But the "You didn't build that" crowd uses that idea to justify those who use their education for financial gain paying more in taxes, yet it's likely those people shared a classroom with others. They can say that government funded education helped make them successful, which means they should pay for that education, but it's likely that one of their classmates is in jail or making minimum wage.

The point, is that difference between a successful person and their minimum wage classmate is not in the government. The end result is that those who say "You didn't build that" want one person to pay more for having received the same service, just because they had the ability and will to do more with it.

Yes, my education was funded partly by taxpayers. But so was that of a lot of other people who have done little or nothing with it and I shouldn't be forced to pay more for it just because I saw the value.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
That's an interesting twist on the "You didn't build that" paradigm.

And I used something similar again in the other thread too. So you can attack it there too.

It is large numbers of people and overall levels of success that help create that success, not one-sees, two-sees that do it. You are paying into a system just like those before you paid into it and it slowly grows from there. You simply can never get away from the fact the everybody helps everybody else on the large scale. I have pointed it out before that often your skills have no value (outside of your person) unless you can exchange them for something else. You exchange your service with others that grow food and build homes and fly planes and invest money, etc. and otherwise you could not have success as you perceive it. In order to make more than others, a large numbers of "others" must be part of the system you participate in and some of those others must pay you, reward you for your services. So no, you are not paying yourself, your are performing a service that is of value to others and they are paying you and "building" you. Who do you work for? Did you build that?

So attack the rubric all you wish, there is truth to it. It is not a blanket claim that "you didn't do it" and thereby perhaps don't deserve it, it is a fact that others long before you contributed to and built something that you are relying on to enhance and elevate your (chance at) success in life. It is not a bad or sinister thing trying to take something away from you. It simply is.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-10-24 00:30:33]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 33, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1042 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 22):
If I have to pay a federal income tax, so should everyone. Like I said, it won't ever happen because making everyone contribute in this way is too sensical.

Actually most countries don't tax the poor (income tax that is, in most of Europe you pay 20-25% tax on things you buy), because it wouldn't bring enough money, they don't have money to spare anyway, and enforcing the tax would cost more than the revenue it would bring.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1034 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 33):
Actually most countries don't tax the poor (income tax that is, in most of Europe you pay 20-25% tax on things you buy), because it wouldn't bring enough money, they don't have money to spare anyway, and enforcing the tax would cost more than the revenue it would bring.

But that is one reason why I do support a VAT like you use and equally why many here oppose it. I places a real burden on the "poor" but is is the easiest. lowest cost, most direct way to get everyone to pay into the system that they rely on and use to support them. I don't think it can be used exclusively as the solution but as an important element of tax and social policy it is a good thing.

I could see supporting a 10% national VAT and perhaps something on income tax that would return rates to closer to what they were during the Bush 1 and Clinton years. But both parties would cry bloody murder about how unfair it is and how it unfairly impacts their constituents (which to me, if both sides complain, probably means you are doing something right).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 35, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
So did a lot of other people who don't pay as much in taxes as I do

So, you want no or limited government but you want government to make sure you get more than the other guy? That other guy, BTW, has to work two or three jobs just to survive. The other guy makes too much to qualify for food stamps or "welfare". The other guy would have to quit two of his three jobs to come close to qualifying for "welfare" and, even then, he will probably not qualify.

Or, instead of trying to get the government to give the other guy less, get on to your party and tell them to stop blocking jobs bills or introduce their own jobs bills.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 35):
That other guy, BTW, has to work two or three jobs just to survive. The other guy makes too much to qualify for food stamps or "welfare". The other guy would have to quit two of his three jobs to come close to qualifying for "welfare" and, even then, he will probably not qualify.

And as I have noted before "the wealthy" depend on "the other guy" to do a lot of work for them and to be affordable and available. Without "the other guy" it would be less fun (and harder) to be wealthy.

A question for you Seb, could you support a 10% VAT that would apply to all all products and services (except perhaps raw food - i.e. not prepared - and medical expenses) in the nation?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 37, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1017 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 4):
If everyone had to pay something (after the plethora of credits/exemptions), then we'd have so much money you the government wouldn't know what to do..wait they'd spend it, but that's another topic.

have you ever tried doing the math on this theory?

The US has approximately 310 Million people. Some of those people are old and retired, and some have not yet entered the workforce. So that reduces us to approximately 150 Million people in the workforce. If we treated everyone the same, and collected income as a TOLL instead of a TAX (whereby everyone paid the same), what would an appropriate toll be on our lowest income earners? Maybe $1500? That's 10% of $15,000, the lowest tax bracket. (That's also a HUGE tax! but thats for a later topic.)

Okay, so lets charge everyone a $1500 toll for the right to live in American and have a job. $1500 times 150 Million people is $225 Billion dollars.

The US budget is about $3 Trillion. So that toll of $1500 would only come to 7.5% of the budget. Where are you going to get the other 92.5% from? Even if you raised it to $3000 a person, you'd still have an 85% shortfall. On top of that, you would have the most oppressive tax system on earth since maybe Judea.


This is the problem with your logic. The math simply does not support it in any way. Making everyone pay "their share" (according to the proponents of this tax plan) and giving huge tax breaks to the rich is a guarantee to cause deficits, and huge ones at that. On top of that, it solves a problem that we don't actually have.

So what is the purpose of granting additional tax cuts to the rich? What exactly would that help?

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
When 43-47% of people pay no income tax, there is a problem.

Here's a bit of truth for you: those 43-47% paying no income tax pay a much higher percentage of their income in other taxes than the top 2% does. They pay sales tax on every dollar they spend, and every dollar they earn gets spent. On top of that, every dollar they earn gets spent on things that are more likely necessities than the rich do. Things like housing, food, and clothes, while the rich either hoard our money or spend it on lavishness (nicer housing, nicer food, nicer clothes, then cars, vacations, toys of various sorts, and myriad luxuries). Cutting taxes on the rich has been proven over and over again to simply cause more hoarding and lavishness.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 38, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1014 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 36):
could you support a 10% VAT that would apply to all all products and services (except perhaps raw food - i.e. not prepared - and medical expenses) in the nation?

No. The very wealthy would weasel out of that one, too. They would pass on their "burden" to the rest of us.

Here is the root problem:

The wealthy and large corporations own law makers. Until that is fixed, there is no way we can have a fair taxation system.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1009 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
No. The very wealthy would weasel out of that one, too. They would pass on their "burden" to the rest of us.

Here is the root problem:

The wealthy and large corporations own law makers. Until that is fixed, there is no way we can have a fair taxation system.

And the real problem is: "Until this is fixed I will not support anything else being done". As long as people cling to that mindset, we are screwed.

Follow suggestions and opportunities to fix problems, apply solutions, tweak the fixes and solutions or keep trying something different. But we have to friggin' DO something! And while I can sympathize with your frustration, to not try something simple (like this) and work to make sure it applies to all, to just toss it out as unacceptable when you don't even know the final form, that is why we are where we are.

I think this could be done and I think you could get cross aisle support (despite the howls) and it would be a good step to addressing our spending and to covering our future expenses.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 981 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Some people just don't get, or don't care about, that message. And the public education system spends a hell of a lot of money on them too. Being dumb or unmotivated doesn't make someone cheaper to educate.

That's your obsession

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
R&D aimed mostly at delivering a product for the government.

And generally that product is made by private companies.

But don't underestimate the level of knowledge transferred from those R&D programs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
The bad spending didn't get hit enough and too many good programs were damaged.

What's bad spending? With a totally unnecessary war it is far it to say that a lot of defense spending is bad spending.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
I don't see how anyone's parents are relevant anyway, they aren't the ones benefiting from education

Nope. YOU are the one benefitting from the efforts and money they have invested in you over all those ears.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
but it's likely that one of their classmates is in jail or making minimum wage.

You seem to take pleasure at turning your nose up at those less fortunate intellectually than you are.

In reality you should be very grateful that you have the level of intelligence that you have and you have a real need to stop looking down on those who are not as lucky.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
just because they had the ability and will to do more with it.

Again, looking down your nose at those not as fortunate as you are. All the while ignoring the numerous risks you face throughout your life. One drunk driver can really change your opinions on a lot of issues.

Quoting tugger (Reply 34):
But that is one reason why I do support a VAT like you use and equally why many here oppose it. I places a real burden on the "poor" but is is the easiest. lowest cost, most direct way to get everyone to pay into the system that they rely on and use to support them. I don't think it can be used exclusively as the solution but as an important element of tax and social policy it is a good thing.

If we go to a VAT we should really go to a GST system so services are included. That includes professional services, like lawyers.

The good news is that it will deliver additional tax revenues from imports.

But let's remember that the VAT/GST will be added to a sales tax averaging around 8%. Toss in the VAT/GST and you are going to deliver a big negative hit to markets. And that results in unemployment increases and federal unemployment benefits so you need to be prepared to spend a big chunk of those new revenues on unemployment benefits as well as incentives for employers to hire more people.

Quoting tugger (Reply 34):
I could see supporting a 10% national VAT

Along with the current local sales taxes? How would you handle that?


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 974 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
Along with the current local sales taxes? How would you handle that?

I agree with much of what you say, and there would be an impact, but it would do the job that is needed to be done. The key element to me is that it is relatively easy(er) to enforce and does not require millions of new people to file anything, though it undoubtedly will add an additional burden the businesses involved in collecting it. Honestly I just threw out the number of 10% as it was a round number, the right number could turn out to be 5% or something else. If I was going t implement it I would stagger it over years, say 1% or even a 1/2% per year to allow people and markets to adjust to the real impacts of it.

I am just trying to figure out ways to bring the burden to everyone (remember I support having everyone having to contribute some level of federal level taxes) that can be applied across all groups, is easier to apply, and could possibly get support from both sides of the aisle. The real battle would be all the bills that would be presented to "offset" the impact of the tax increase on legislators preferred interest groups. You have to keep those out.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 42, posted (9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 960 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 32):
You exchange your service with others that grow food and build homes and fly planes and invest money, etc. and otherwise you could not have success as you perceive it.

All of that is a willing buyer-willing seller relationship.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 35):
So, you want no or limited government but you want government to make sure you get more than the other guy?

I want the government to only do the useful things the government actually has to do and stop taking my money for use as handouts.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
No. The very wealthy would weasel out of that one, too.

No they wouldn't. That's the beauty of FairTax: no loopholes and it would be progressive for practical purposes. You'd have to live an absurdly modest lifestyle to make it regressive.



Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
The wealthy and large corporations own law makers. Until that is fixed, there is no way we can have a fair taxation system

FairTax would take care of that too: no more corporate taxes so no loopholes to lobby for. Maybe a few companies wanting their products to be tax free, but other countries have no issues with such loopholes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
That's your obsession

Which is correct, by the way.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
And generally that product is made by private companies.

...for the government. I don't understand what part of being a contractor is unclear to you.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
What's bad spending?

A lot of entitlement programs, and quite a few in other areas too, such as Amtrak and EAS.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
With a totally unnecessary war it is far it to say that a lot of defense spending is bad spending.

The war will wind down and stop incurring those costs. But there is a real danger into letting the military become decrepit as it did after Vietnam.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
YOU are the one benefitting from the efforts and money they have invested in you over all those ears.

That's exactly what I said. But here's the caveat: what did the government do to make sure I benefit more? Why am I doing relatively well while my neighbor who went to the same schools with the same teacher end up in jail? What government agency waved their magic wand for that one?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
You seem to take pleasure at turning your nose up at those less fortunate intellectually than you are.

When such people talk and act as if I owe them something and that they are entitled to some of whatever success I attain while pretending that I just woke up with an education and work ethic or got handpicked by the government, you bet I take pleasure in it.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some liberal candidate to stroll into a fast food joint, put his arm around a burger jock and declare that he didn't build that and the wonderful American government institutions were responsible for putting him in front of that deep fryer.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
Toss in the VAT/GST and you are going to deliver a big negative hit to markets.

A lot of people would see an effective income bump when income taxes go away. Plus the "prebate" to cover tax on spending up to the poverty level.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted (9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 936 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
no more corporate taxes so no loopholes to lobby for

But, "corporations are people" as Romney says. There would be way too many loopholes for corporations and the wealthy to get rebates. They have the money to buy Congress. We, the people, do not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
I want the government to only do the useful things the government actually has to do and stop taking my money for use as handouts.

And give billions to foreign governments and corporations? Why don't you go look up how much money we give to foreign governments (like Israel and Iraq and Afghanistan) and corporate welfare vs. how much we give to workers who need food.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
No they wouldn't. That's the beauty of FairTax: no loopholes and it would be progressive for practical purposes. You'd have to live an absurdly modest lifestyle to make it regressive.

There would be loopholes because the wealthy and corporations would buy enough Congresspeople until they get their way. No one else matters but the wealthy and corporations.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 44, posted (9 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 930 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 43):
There would be way too many loopholes for corporations and the wealthy to get rebates.

There would be no loopholes for them to lobby for because they wouldn't be taxed at all in the first place. No corporate tax, and no tax on business-to-business transactions. I don't know how to make it any easier for you to understand.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 45, posted (9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 920 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
There would be no loopholes for them to lobby for because they wouldn't be taxed at all in the first place. No corporate tax, and no tax on business-to-business transactions.

So, corporations are people so people don't have to pay taxes. What a great idea *rolls eyes*



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 46, posted (9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 918 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 45):
So, corporations are people so people don't have to pay taxes. What a great idea *rolls eyes*

You clearly understand nothing about how FairTax would work.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 884 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 41):
I agree with much of what you say, and there would be an impact, but it would do the job that is needed to be done.

That's not the best way to generate more revenues. Look at current loopholes for that revenue. Start with defining all types of incomes as "income". Get rid of special capital gains tax rates where someone can make millions and may no more than 15%.

Quoting tugger (Reply 41):
though it undoubtedly will add an additional burden the businesses involved in collecting it.

That's pretty trivial. When Australia introduced the GST program it was a very simple matter for me to establish the accounts in my Chart of Accounts and add it to invoices.

Oddly enough, the most important part of preparing for a VAT/GST program is to open a Tax Reserve account at your bank. When an invoice is paid you not only make the accounting entries, you actually transfer the GST funds into that account. You simply need to remember that it is not your money. Failure to do that will end up with significant problems for the small businesses because they will use that money

Quoting tugger (Reply 41):
I am just trying to figure out ways to bring the burden to everyone

The poor already have significant tax burdens. FICA, sales taxes, petrol taxes, property taxes, etc. Add in another "burden to everyone" and all you do is increase poverty in this country.

Quoting tugger (Reply 41):
You have to keep those out.

Good luck with that. Money talks and politicians listen. No way will folks like Romney get hit.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
I want the government to only do the useful things the government actually has to do and stop taking my money for use as handouts.

That, of course after you just had 18 or so years in an entitlement program, getting your handouts year after year.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
That's the beauty of FairTax:

Surprise, your other taxes would't end. Maybe for the Romney's, but you aren't in that class.

All a VAT/GST will do is increase total tax revenues.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
FairTax would take care of that too:

"Fair Tax" is a deceptive term, like those yo-yos wrapped in the Flag pretending to be patriotic.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
I don't understand what part of being a contractor is unclear to you.

I understand contractors, just like I understand R&D investments. You simply believe that contractors will only use new knowledge on government contracts - and "never" on any other business. That is sort of like believing in the Tooth Fairy.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
The war will wind down and stop incurring those costs.

The war is slowly winding down and now will be the time to rebuild up material inventories. replace worn out capital equipment, etc. And there is a need to refresh personnel. Bringing in new ones at the low end of the ranks and move experienced ones up - and cover the retirement costs of those retiring.

It is also the time to boost funding for the VA and that funding will take generations to taper off.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
But there is a real danger into letting the military become decrepit as it did after Vietnam.

The military went to an all volunteer military after Vietnam. I guess that is what you are referring to.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
What government agency waved their magic wand for that one?

It's not the government's job to pay a monitor to sit in your house and ensure you are the ideal family. It is the government's job to ensure everyone has as equal an opportunity as possible.

As to the neighbor in prison, that's not unusual. There is a pretty even distribution of success and failures around the country. All industries (inlacing yours) will have addicts, rapists, thieves, etc. Happens in churches, happens in, say college coaching.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
you bet I take pleasure in it.

Enjoy it while you can. As I've said before, life is pretty fragile. You just haven't matured to the point of understanding that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):
A lot of people would see an effective income bump when income taxes go away.

You really believe that income taxes would go away? And here I thought you were so smart.         


User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 874 times:

The Epiphany is coming for the Liberal Socialist Democrat Party and followers of President Obama. All the smoke and mirrors of Hope & Change has yielded the most Corrupt and incompetent leadership (?) EVER to be elected.
Our Allies don't trust us. Muslims hate us. The Chinese and Russian's laugh at us.Possibly 22 Trillion in National Debt before 2016. The collapse of Obamascam and the damage it does to the economy. $600 Million and 3 years and we get a a Obamacare crash & burn....are you kidding me?? Obama Recovery of 5 years and all the part time jobs it has created.Now 50% of the USA getting Gubermint assistance and maybe less than half paying any Income Tax.
Yes the Progressive Republican's are just as guilty and have contributed to the coming disaster. My favorite is "returning to the Republican Policies that caused the collapse!" You mean the everyone has the right to own a home? Real Estate usually was the first to suffer and the thing that would lead us out of a recession. This time IT cause the collapse. Don't concern yourself with correcting me and my beliefs. Not interested! The next 3 years will prove whose "facts" are right. I will hangout with Senator Cruz and my Tea Party Crazies. You all can hang with Captain Clueless and his redistribution of wealth scam. Unfortunately it will hang us all!
Cheers!


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 49, posted (9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 854 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
That, of course after you just had 18 or so years in an entitlement program, getting your handouts year after year.

How many times do I have to say that education is something the government should fund?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Surprise, your other taxes would't end. Maybe for the Romney's, but you aren't in that class.

All a VAT/GST will do is increase total tax revenues.

Any VAT/GST that does not include ending other taxes would NOT be FairTax. That is a tenet of the system - it has to be the tax and not just a tax otherwise there isn't much point.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
You simply believe that contractors will only use new knowledge on government contracts - and "never" on any other business.

I never said they don't, but the government is not shy about asserting control over intellectual property, whether it's theirs or not.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
The military went to an all volunteer military after Vietnam. I guess that is what you are referring to.

No, I'm referring to the drop in funding and general lack of acceptance for anything military related during the Ford and Carter administrations. Reagan managed to turn it around, but it was pricey.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
As to the neighbor in prison, that's not unusual. There is a pretty even distribution of success and failures around the country.

So if the government wields such power to make people, such as myself, relatively successful then why don't they do that for everyone?

Or could it be that people really do build it themselves? Some may have an easier time than others, but how else would people who receive the same services from the government find themselves on divergent paths?

And, do liberals tell everyone that they didn't build it, or just people who work hard and do what they're supposed to do?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
You really believe that income taxes would go away? And here I thought you were so smart.

I'm talking specifically about FairTax, which is not just a VAT but a comprehensive reform and a key part of those reforms is removing other federal taxes. There's plenty of room for debate whether a new sales tax on top of current taxes would be beneficial, but that would not be FairTax.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 50, posted (9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 848 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
do liberals tell everyone that they didn't build it, or just people who work hard and do what they're supposed to do?

You keep throwing these talking points out there like a good shill, but, you fail to realize: your party has proclaimed themselves the party of God and Christianity. You also fail to realize that Jesus was a Socialist. You are doing the exact opposite of what your God tells you to do. You are trumpeting how greed is good and screw everyone else. Where in your holy book does it say that?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 51, posted (9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 845 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 50):
You also fail to realize that Jesus was a Socialist.

Jesus wasn't that great of an economist. Neither were Karl Marx or Paul Krugman so maybe it's a beard thing.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 50):
You are doing the exact opposite of what your God tells you to do.

You do realize that you can help people without going through the government, right? And really such willing assistance is much more meaningful in a religious context than that which is extracted by force.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5422 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 843 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
That's not the best way to generate more revenues. Look at current loopholes for that revenue. Start with defining all types of incomes as "income". Get rid of special capital gains tax rates where someone can make millions and may no more than 15%.

I am fine with removing loop holes and very much believe that cap gains should be treated as normal income and taxed as such. There is no reason to treat it other wise an history has shown that overall investment is not affected by lower the tax on it (beyond the pikes that occur when the rates change and the markets adapts to the new rules). However I also think that not paying any federal tax, whether wealthy, a corporation, or poor, is also not desirable.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
That's pretty trivial. When Australia introduced the GST program it was a very simple matter for me to establish the accounts in my Chart of Accounts and add it to invoices.

I agree, I don't think it would be much of a burden but we don't know exactly what it would be and I fell it important to acknowledge that it could be if not done properly.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
The poor already have significant tax burdens. FICA, sales taxes, petrol taxes, property taxes, etc. Add in another "burden to everyone" and all you do is increase poverty in this country.

I do not believe it would increase the poverty. I think people must pay into the system, even a small amount, even it adds some burden. I know what you are trying to say but the tax would be as helpful as it is burdensome and would create a more stable environment in the nation and that in turn will help improve and reduce the poverty level.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
I'm talking specifically about FairTax, which is not just a VAT but a comprehensive reform and a key part of those reforms is removing other federal taxes. There's plenty of room for debate whether a new sales tax on top of current taxes would be beneficial, but that would not be FairTax.

Provided the tax is graduated and increases as earnings and wealth increase then I can certainly support it. Otherwise it would be very poor policy. The tax structure we currently have is far too complex with too many carve outs etc. and needs to be simplified greatly.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 53, posted (9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 838 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
You do realize that you can help people without going through the government, right? And really such willing assistance is much more meaningful in a religious context than that which is extracted by force.

Since we are not Catholic, we could not get any assistance except from the government. Even Salvation Army could not help much other than "you can only take so much because we have other families to feed". Such Christian morals. Still didn't help that we could not really pay our heating bill in the winter. "Christians" will give up to a point where they will not help those free loaders. I know. I have been on the receiving end of those glares. "Judge not lest ye be judged" means nothing to you people. As long as you got yours, you don't care.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 54, posted (9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 836 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
Provided the tax is graduated and increases as earnings and wealth increase then I can certainly support it. Otherwise it would be very poor policy.

In effect it would be, just with spending rather than income.

Under FairTax, every household in the US would receive a monthly prebate equal to the tax on spending up to poverty level. For a family of four, poverty level is about $23,000 and the proposed tax level would be about 30%, so over the year a family of four would be paid $6900. If they buy less than $23,000 worth of goods, they pay negative tax.

If you spend $30k in a year, you'd pay a tax of $9,000, for a net tax of $2,100. If that $30k represented all of the income of a family, they've paid a 7% income tax.

A slightly better off family might spend $45k of $60k income. Their net income tax is 11%. If they spend $50k, they would pay 13.5%.

A solidly middle class yet modest family might buy $60k worth of goods and services on an income of $100k. They would pay 11% of their income in taxes, similar to the second family, but they have to use only 60% of their income vs. 75% and would bank nearly $29,000 in savings and investments.

A "1%" family with an income of $450k that spends $250k of it would pay about 15%. If they wanted the 11% tax rate with respect to income, they could only spend $188,000, which is doable but not that likely.

So, Fair Tax could be regressive, but in practice probably wouldn't be.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
Even Salvation Army could not help much other than "you can only take so much because we have other families to feed".

How awful.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
"Christians" will give up to a point where they will not help those free loaders. I know. I have been on the receiving end of those glares. "Judge not lest ye be judged" means nothing to you people. As long as you got yours, you don't care.

So you're annoyed that people don't give you enough free stuff, and you want the government to take what you want for you?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 55, posted (9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 832 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
Since we are not Catholic, we could not get any assistance except from the government. Even Salvation Army could not help much other than "you can only take so much because we have other families to feed". Such Christian morals.

Are you saying we should give you as much as you want???

Don't you find it mildly ironic that the Food Stamp Program, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever, while the National Park Service puts signs everywhere that say "Don't feed the animals" because the animals will become dependent and won't learn to provide for themselves? The Park Service guys seem to get the idea - maybe we should swap all the employees from NPS and the Dept of Agriculture (which runs the food stamp program) - We might get a lot of lazy deer but a few people might get off their asses.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 56, posted (9 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 810 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
Whoa! You're going after your mother? Have you reviewed her tax returns to see why she gets a refund? I used to always set my exemptions at zero in order to help avoid a tax bill at the end of the year. Odd little bits like medical expenses, property taxes, mortgage interest, etc. do impact a tax liability.

And a good accountant can also bring down your taxes with a bit of planning. If Romney can pull a $22+ million income down to the 13% tax rate you know there are some real goodies out there in the tax laws.

If we are talking principle, why is it bad for the rich to use loopholes to avoid taxes but not for the poor?
Do we believe that the person who was poor when they get rich they change and have different morals?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Second, sequestration was dumb because the cuts were too indiscriminate. The bad spending didn't get hit enough and too many good programs were damaged.

Sequestration was supposed to get the law makers to agree on and pass a budget, let's not try to put in the light as if it was something intended to be used, its purpose was compel action, not be a financial tool for the economy.

Quoting tugger (Reply 34):
But that is one reason why I do support a VAT like you use and equally why many here oppose it. I places a real burden on the "poor" but is is the easiest. lowest cost, most direct way to get everyone to pay into the system that they rely on and use to support them. I don't think it can be used exclusively as the solution but as an important element of tax and social policy it is a good thing.

I could see supporting a 10% national VAT and perhaps something on income tax that would return rates to closer to what they were during the Bush 1 and Clinton years.

VAT may be useful in the USA where the majority of the population do not work for the government, in countries in the Caribbean for example where the majority of the workforce actually work for the government it creates and endless loop of poverty as the primary revenue stream going into the economy is the government payroll.

The USA already has Sales Taxes in virtually all states, which is used to fund the local governments, if a Federal VAT is introduced it will generate a lot of new tax income as VAT like Sales Tax is usually placed on consumer items that the man in the street must buy, hence the reason why it is so popular with those who want persons to pay more. If it is offset by a reduction in the Federal Income tax or a simplification of the rules the overall result could be beneficial, more income would be received as more persons are paying. Every government wants to expand their tax base as the more persons paying the more money is received.
Two aspects to that, one is obvious - more money - the other less so, more control.


User currently offlineual747den From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 57, posted (9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 796 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 48):
The Epiphany is coming for the Liberal Socialist Democrat Party and followers of President Obama. All the smoke and mirrors of Hope & Change has yielded the most Corrupt and incompetent leadership (?) EVER to be elected.
Our Allies don't trust us. Muslims hate us. The Chinese and Russian's laugh at us.Possibly 22 Trillion in National Debt before 2016. The collapse of Obamascam and the damage it does to the economy. $600 Million and 3 years and we get a a Obamacare crash & burn....are you kidding me?? Obama Recovery of 5 years and all the part time jobs it has created.Now 50% of the USA getting Gubermint assistance and maybe less than half paying any Income Tax.
Yes the Progressive Republican's are just as guilty and have contributed to the coming disaster. My favorite is "returning to the Republican Policies that caused the collapse!" You mean the everyone has the right to own a home? Real Estate usually was the first to suffer and the thing that would lead us out of a recession. This time IT cause the collapse. Don't concern yourself with correcting me and my beliefs. Not interested! The next 3 years will prove whose "facts" are right. I will hangout with Senator Cruz and my Tea Party Crazies. You all can hang with Captain Clueless and his redistribution of wealth scam. Unfortunately it will hang us all!
Cheers

As a Democrat I just want to thank you and tell you that you have my full support. Please don't change your views and keep spreading the word, people like you guarantee that Hillary will be our next President without a doubt! The Democrats could also end up with a super majority under her if this keeps up and I love that idea. People like you and your friend Ted Cruz terrify people in heavily educated parts of the US which are thankfully where most voters reside.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 788 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 55):
Are you saying we should give you as much as you want???

When a family of five is allowed only a week's worth of food for a month, I think that is over the top. But, those freeloaders should get nothing, right?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 55):
Don't you find it mildly ironic that the Food Stamp Program

Except you are wrong. When an animal's diet is roots, leaves, and berries and is suddenly fed plastic, they will die. When bears are hungry, they WILL obliterate cars to get to the food they smell inside. Much like humans. They will dine and dash when they have not eaten in a week because selfish people refuse to give the hungry $50 a month in food subsidies. Plus, most people these days make too much to be on food stamps. If they do qualify, they don't get much of a subsidy, anyway.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 59, posted (9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 787 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 54):
So you're annoyed that people don't give you enough free stuff, and you want the government to take what you want for you?

I am annoyed that self-proclaimed "Christians" sit on their high horse and look down on those who have very little and claim it is their own fault. Those who have very little who were born into poverty, can not find a job because they were all taken overseas or moved to another state. Those who have very little are forced to work for the lowest wage possible and still get nothing and are treated poorly no matter how hard they try. They can not afford to get an education, they can not afford to move to where the jobs are, they can not afford to eat, they can not afford health care. Because of decades of "trickle down" economics and "Christians" taking everything and leaving nothing.

I am not annoyed at getting "free stuff". I am annoyed that idiots who screwed up the economy blame the victim and take even more from the victims. I am annoyed the idiots who screwed up the economy keep moving the goal posts.

I also find it interesting that people perceive me as "liberal" immediately and without thinking jump right to "you just want free stuff" and dismiss anything I have to say. How democratic. No one's opinions counts but yours. Thanks for showing your true colors.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 54):
A "1%" family with an income of $450k

Wouldn't that be nice if the 1% went as low as $450K? What world do you live in?

[Edited 2013-10-26 10:38:41]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 60, posted (9 months 6 days ago) and read 765 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 56):
Sequestration was supposed to get the law makers to agree on and pass a budget, let's not try to put in the light as if it was something intended to be used, its purpose was compel action, not be a financial tool for the economy.

Either way, it's a failed policy.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
Wouldn't that be nice if the 1% went as low as $450K? What world do you live in?

One that deals with numbers, data, and statistics. According to this article, the top 1% in 2010 (which is the latest data I could find) starts at $370,000 and peaked at $426,000 in 2007.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/economy/top-1-percent/

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
I am annoyed that self-proclaimed "Christians" sit on their high horse and look down on those who have very little and claim it is their own fault.

I don't consider wanting control over my own possessions to be a high horse. Complaining constantly that my countrymen don't give me enough free stuff is a somewhat higher perch if we're honest about it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
Those who have very little who were born into poverty, can not find a job because they were all taken overseas or moved to another state.

Not being qualified for any jobs besides those that are menial and cost driven plays a part in that too.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
I also find it interesting that people perceive me as "liberal" immediately and without thinking jump right to "you just want free stuff" and dismiss anything I have to say.

That's exactly what you complain about incessantly. "Oh, my cheese isn't good." or "The oil companies took my mortgage payment." or whatever crap you're whining about at a given time.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 746 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
You clearly understand nothing about how FairTax would work.

You clearly don't understand the difference between the theory and how it would work in reality with all the other taxes that are in force, from national to local levels.

Quoting n318ea (Reply 48):
has yielded the most Corrupt and incompetent leadership (?) EVER to be elected.

How fast you forgot W & Dick with their totally unnecessary EGPO War (you do remember that there were no WMDs in Iraq? Right?), their Great Recession, the Financial Sector, etc. W & Dick caused more damage to this country than any president in my live time because of their ignorance, corruption and greed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
How many times do I have to say that education is something the government should fund?

It always warms my heart to read your support of entitlement programs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
it has to be the tax and not just a tax otherwise there isn't much point.

There isn't any point with a so called "fair" tax, unless you're wealthy.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
I'm referring to the drop in funding and general lack of acceptance for anything military related during the Ford and Carter administrations.

When you end a war that had half a million personnel in a war zone you will have reduced military spending. There ewas also a need to reduce the number of personnel in the military, just like there was after WW II.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
Reagan managed to turn it around, but it was pricey.

Reagan was spending money like a drunk sailor. His goal was to push the USSR into changing direction - and that was successful. Unfortunately Reagan didn't return to normal after he "won".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
Or could it be that people really do build it themselves?

Name one person who built it all by themselves? No help from the education systems, or infrastructures. etc.

Just name one single person.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
Some may have an easier time than others

Some people have a strong intelligence, others are pretty well handicapped.

Some people have great memories, others have problems in that area.

Some people are in pretty good medical shape, others have hearing or sight problems,or difficulty with fine motor skills (like writing).

And then there are the medical issues, like autism (which has increased dramatically), epilepsy, downs, etc. There is actually a pretty long list that you should be grateful you are not on.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
or just people who work hard and do what they're supposed to do?

Like those working their rears off at minimum wage jobs because that is the only that they can find?

Can we include them on your list?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
I'm talking specifically about FairTax, which is not just a VAT but a comprehensive reform

So we start with some ideal tax plan for the wealthy and then adding all of the loopholes that the wealthy have fully paid for and expect to continue?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
You do realize that you can help people without going through the government, right?

And you realize that if that handled the situation fully at the national level then there would be significant reduction possible in payments helping people?

Quoting tugger (Reply 52):
I think people must pay into the system, even a small amount, even it adds some burden.

I don't believe you understand just how deep poverty can be in this country.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7067 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 744 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
- and that was successful. Unfortunately Reagan didn't return to normal after he "won".

Well the military industrial complex wanted to keep churning making weapons, a/c etc so another war was created and all over the USA willing participants were found, the war on drugs.
Cars, planes, helicopters, resources for SWAT teams, rather than building ships they diversified.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
So we start with some ideal tax plan for the wealthy and then adding all of the loopholes that the wealthy have fully paid for and expect to continue?

If the wealthy are taxed at what the Dems want and 50% more, how much additional revenue will that be and what effect on the current deficit?
I'd rather not quote Fox figures and derail the thread.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 63, posted (9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 737 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
You clearly don't understand the difference between the theory and how it would work in reality with all the other taxes that are in force, from national to local levels.

You either enact it or you don't. I wouldn't support a 30% sales tax unless it means dropping other taxation. End of story.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
When you end a war that had half a million personnel in a war zone you will have reduced military spending. There ewas also a need to reduce the number of personnel in the military, just like there was after WW II.

We both know that after Vietnam it got a lot worse than that. Ending a war and cutting some personnel is one thing, but that doesn't explain why we invaded an island with no accurate maps.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Reagan was spending money like a drunk sailor.

It was expensive, but it fixed what was broken and ultimately won the Cold War and the Gulf War. If it weren't for Reagan, the Gulf War would have been the war Hussein expected.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Unfortunately Reagan didn't return to normal after he "won".

He left office. Bush and Clinton, however, did.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Name one person who built it all by themselves? No help from the education systems, or infrastructures. etc.

I never said nobody gets help. I said that the difference between someone who does well and someone who does not is not the government, since tons and tons of people all get the same help. You're giving the government credit for something they didn't do. It's like chalking up a win in a spec racing series to the car, when the last place finisher had an identical car.

So, when are liberals going to take credit for the homeless and imprisoned? When will they take credit for the junkies and the lazy?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Like those working their rears off at minimum wage jobs because that is the only that they can find?

"Minimum wage job" not "minimum wage career." What did they do that makes a minimum wage job the only job they can hold?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
So we start with some ideal tax plan for the wealthy and then adding all of the loopholes that the wealthy have fully paid for and expect to continue?

What loopholes are there to add in FairTax? All you have to do is not spend money and there would be no income tax, no capital gains tax, and no corporate taxes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
And you realize that if that handled the situation fully at the national level then there would be significant reduction possible in payments helping people?

I don't think the government should be handling it at any level.

Quoting par13del (Reply 62):
If the wealthy are taxed at what the Dems want and 50% more, how much additional revenue will that be and what effect on the current deficit?

Not enough to fix the deficit.

The national debt won't kill the country. It isn't good, but it isn't fatal. What I hate is people deciding that they have a claim to some of what I make despite providing me nothing for it. And the John Fogerty model of taxation. And adding to the debt and expecting people like myself to pick up the tab.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGrisee08 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 353 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 627 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Im all for tax cuts on the wealthy. They pay too much

I'm all for taxing the hell out of the rich. Leave the middle class and poor people alone. Why should wealthy people not have to be taxed as much? I think they don't pay enough



You're Losing The Game!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Meet The Man That Really Cost McCain The Election posted Thu Nov 13 2008 19:59:32 by Superfly
What Is The Speed Limit Where You Live? posted Mon Apr 16 2007 15:59:53 by ThePRGuy
The Gay Couple Won! posted Sat Jan 21 2006 15:36:19 by Dtwclipper
Do You Drive The Speed Limit? posted Tue Feb 8 2005 12:27:48 by SLC1
What's The Speed Limit Mean To You? posted Sun Nov 28 2004 13:00:36 by ConcordeBoy
To The "Gore Won In 2000" Types: posted Tue Nov 18 2003 02:46:37 by Galaxy5
The Children Who Won't Grow Up posted Sat Oct 18 2003 20:35:07 by Teahan
What Does The War On Terrorism Cost? posted Mon Mar 31 2003 23:55:33 by Bromma1968
What If The South Had Won The Civil War? posted Fri Jan 10 2003 00:31:50 by MD-90
The 80's: Why Won't They Die? posted Sun Mar 11 2001 02:20:27 by Matt D