Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is It Time To Raise Taxes?  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Well, what do you think?

- We're fighting a war in Iraq that is costing us about $80 billion a year.
- We're fighting a war in Afghanistan (don't know the numbers on this).
- The reconstruction cost of Katrina is estimated to be at least $80 billion dollars.
- Poverty has risen for the fifth straight year of Bush's presidency.
- Social Security and Medicare is facing a problem.
- Education is suffering (no child left behind).

Combine all this with the tax cuts, and we're half a trillion dollars in debt. We're borrowing from other country's every day just to keep our government afloat (I abhor this), and we're giving corporations of every kind (oil, tobacco, media, etc.) massive tax breaks at the same time.

I despise this system, I think its actually very dangerous for our stability and economy.

We won't be leaving Iraq any time soon.
The Katrina reconstruction will take at least a year if not more.
Who knows how much longer we'll be in Afghanistan.

Is it time to raise taxes?


NO URLS in signature
122 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

If Bush and his party were truly fiscally responsible, it would be, as we can't reasonbly pay for a protracted war, a war on terror, and the billions it will cost in the aftermath of Katrina.

But they're not fiscally resposible, and won't try to pay for everything-they'll slough it off to my kids and grandkids to deal with. And, in fairniess, the American people, conditioned as they have been to hate taxes, don't want to pay for it either.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
If Bush and his party were truly fiscally responsible, it would be, as we can't reasonbly pay for a protracted war, a war on terror, and the billions it will cost in the aftermath of Katrina.

But they're not fiscally resposible, and won't try to pay for everything-they'll slough it off to my kids and grandkids to deal with. And, in fairniess, the American people, conditioned as they have been to hate taxes, don't want to pay for it either.

It's not just Bush - it's the entire Congress that is fiscally irresponsible. Katrina aside, if Congress had the guts to act responsibly, they would stop parceling out the pork that we can't afford. But they won't, and we keep spending money on projects with dubious justifications.

If I thought that Congress would spend the increased revenue responsibly, I'd be happy to pay more taxes - especially if the increase was targeted at reducing the deficit. But they won't, which is why I'm against giving the federal government more revenue.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

You know what else is mind boggling about the Republican's handling of the budget? In the week after Katrina hit, they were pushing forward the issue of repealing of the estate tax, which to me is simply childish. As Barack Obama put it...

"We need some adult supervision of the budget process and we need to take responsibility for this process. This is something that we need from the president as well as our congressional leaders."



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 2):
It's not just Bush - it's the entire Congress that is fiscally irresponsible.

Amen! Yes, it is time to raise taxes. Nobody likes taxes, but most people like the idea of possibly spiraling inflation even less. It will hurt a little, but will be a better boost to the economy than most measures currently or previously enacted by this and the previous Congress and the President.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7407 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2732 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Is it time to raise taxes?

No. Raising taxes is not going to do a damn thing. Raising taxes will only shrink wages, and increase tax liabilities for the middle income families.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2732 times:

Quoting Texan (Reply 4):
Amen! Yes, it is time to raise taxes. Nobody likes taxes, but most people like the idea of possibly spiraling inflation even less. It will hurt a little, but will be a better boost to the economy than most measures currently or previously enacted by this and the previous Congress and the President.

Texan

Yes, but if we give Congress more money, and they continue to keep the pork pump primed, nothing will change.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Halls and Jetjack,

Isn't it just as irresponsible though to lower taxes during time of war? In fact, lowering taxes while fighting two wars abroad?

We're running at a half a trillion dollar defecit now. I seriously doubt that is just the result of "pork" spending.

[Edited 2005-09-19 03:31:40]


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

http://www.gold.org/
Gold's @ $459 and being bided @ $460/ounce. $500 before the end of the year? Any takers???


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 7):
Halls and Jetjack,

Isn't it just as irresponsible though to lower taxes during time of war? In fact, lowering taxes while fighting two wars abroad?

We're running at a half a trillion dollar defecit now. I seriously doubt that is just the result of "pork" spending.

No, but pork is a big component, and illustrates just how fiscally irresponsible the Congress has become. As Senator McCain has noted:

“I would ask my colleagues whether they believe the following examples – just a select few from this conference report – constitute “emergency spending”:

• $2,000,000 to upgrade the chemistry laboratories at Drew University in New Jersey. According to its website, Drew University has a total enrollment of 2,600 students, operates with a $200,000,000 endowment, and draws more National Merit Scholars than many other top liberal arts colleges in the nation. A prestigious institution indeed, but I see no way in which funding for its chemistry labs is a critical national spending emergency.

• $500,000 for the Oral History of the Negotiated Settlement project at the University of Nevada-Reno.

• $2,000,000 to continue funding for the Southeast Regional Cooling, Heating and Power and Biofuel Application Center in Mississippi.

• $4,000,000 to pay off debt at the Fire Sciences Academy in Elko, Nevada.

• $2,000,000 for the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences in Michigan.

“Mr. President, we simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. Let’s be clear about what we are doing. The government is running a deficit because it is spending more than it takes in. So for each one of the earmarks in this bill, we are borrowing money – and saddling future generations of Americans with unnecessary debt. If we had no choice but to act in this way, this might be a understandable, temporary method of budgeting. But the fact is that we do have a choice.

“At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this:

“If we continue on our present path, we’ll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO’s long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have.”


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):
Raising taxes will only shrink wages, and increase tax liabilities for the middle income families.

And you think Bush and your party give a DAMN about "middle income families", JetJack? Not one iota. They only care if the rich and big business make out like bandits. That's what drives them.

If you believe what you wrote-and you do-you're bereft of reality.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):
No. Raising taxes is not going to do a damn thing. Raising taxes will only shrink wages, and increase tax liabilities for the middle income families.

That's why the tax code needs to change and the top 10% and specifically the top 1% need to pay much more in taxes since they are taking much more from the money pot.

Raising taxes only on certain groups will do a damn thing, and it won't shrink wages and increase the middle class tax burden if the raising of taxes is not put on them like it usually is.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

Halls,

Let me give you some more intriguing numbers. These to me are much more important than pork spending.

1. The Pentagon is spending $5 billion dollars a month on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. The Pentagon is currently spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq and just under $1 billion a month in Afghanistan for reconstruction.

3. The Congressional Budget Office estimated recently that the government next year would have a record deficit of $480 billion.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/09/07/costsofw.htm

I realize the article is old, but the numbers still hold today.

Now congress is saying to cover the costs of the Katrina disaster, they're going to cut funding from other programs. Now correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't it the funding cuts to FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers which added to the disaster?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing.../2005-09-18-katrina-spending_x.htm

How can you fund two wars and the rebuilding of a major urban city, while having tax cuts for the wealthy at the same time? Even if you don't believe the tax cuts are for the wealthy, how can you support two wars and the Katrina recovery with any sort of tax cut?

The Republicans in congress say to pass another tax cut by repealing the estate tax. This is outrageous. Now their next solution is to further cut spending on federal programs. I can't take this anymore. I don't think this country can take it anymore, this is a very dangerous edge wear standing on.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 11):
That's why the tax code needs to change and the top 10% and specifically the top 1% need to pay much more in taxes since they are taking much more from the money pot.

For once, I agree with B744F. You could siginficantly raise revnue in this nation, by closing the loopholes the rich always use, have them pay a higher percentage, and easing the burden on the "gasp" middle class.

Please-conservatives-spare me "don't punish the rich" bullshit. The gap between the richest and poorest is growing ,and the only ones truely benefitting from this "great" economy are the rich. Raising the percentage they pay by a few % won't effect in any way how to spend. They can't spend what they have right now as it is. They'd never miss a few more % points.

Yes, they earned it, and they're benefitting from this economy, the least they can do is give back to it at a higher rate than those who do an honest days work and struggle to make it.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 12):
The Republicans in congress say to pass another tax cut by repealing the estate tax. This is outrageous. Now their next solution is to further cut spending on federal programs. I can't take this anymore. I don't think this country can take it anymore, this is a very dangerous edge wear standing on.

And let's not forget it's always the Republicans who label Democrats 'tax and spend liberals' I would say pot-kettle-black: but somehow there is a bit more irony to the situation to me then that simple expression. I'd have to say scorched dirty AGED pot calling the brand new out of the shrinkwrap kettle black here.


User currently offlineSeptember11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

very serious fiscal issue right here... By law, government shall not bankrupt the United States of America.


Airliners.net of the Future
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20487 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 14):

And let's not forget it's always the Republicans who label Democrats 'tax and spend liberals'

Maybe we should start calling the Republicans "the borrow and spend conservatives".



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 12):
I realize the article is old, but the numbers still hold today.

I'm not questioning your numbers. But my numbers are a more important indicators of how irresponsible Congress has become. Congress spending money on an oral history project when we have a massive deficit is akin to you taking the family out for a weekend at the Four Seasons when you are about to be evicted from your home due to non-payment of the mortgage.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 12):
The Republicans in congress say to pass another tax cut by repealing the estate tax. This is outrageous. Now their next solution is to further cut spending on federal programs. I can't take this anymore. I don't think this country can take it anymore, this is a very dangerous edge wear standing on

Do we need to cut back spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Can we do it immediately? No. But until Congress demonstrates the fiscal discipline needed by cutting pure pork, taxpayers like me won't believe that they can be trusted with more revenues.

Quoting B744F (Reply 11):
Raising taxes only on certain groups will do a damn thing, and it won't shrink wages and increase the middle class tax burden if the raising of taxes is not put on them like it usually is.

The Random Word Generator strikes again.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Read this article written by Fareed Zakaria. It takes five minutes, but I think it reflects my feelings on this situation perfectly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9379241/



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
Maybe we should start calling the Republicans "the borrow and spend conservatives".

Well, since they have called the Democrats the "Tax and Spend Liberals" for years, I think it's time to turn the tables: call the GOP the "Tax cut and spend Conservatives".


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
The Random Word Generator strikes again.

The "I will not address your comments because I haven't a clue how to respond" genius strikes again


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):

Do we need to cut back spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

That's not the issue. You can't cut spending there. Hell, our troops don't even have proper body armor, so I wouldn't approve of cutting spending there.

What the issue is is that the Republican's in power have extreme budget irresponsibility. How can we support major tax cuts at the time of two wars and the rebuilding of New Orleans? Just by cutting the estate tax, our government will lose $290 billion in revenue!! (source in the last link I posted) That's a lot of money, how can we afford to lose that kind of revenue? What is the motivation behind this?

Not only is this ridiculously irresponsible, I just don't trust them anymore.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting September11 (Reply 15):
very serious fiscal issue right here... By law, government shall not bankrupt the United States of America.

I can't believe I missed your post. Is this true? Where does it say this, the constitution? If this is true, its frightening.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Is it time to raise taxes?

Time to cut spending, if we delay to the transportation & the medical prescription bill, that would net us about 60 Billion US dollars......

Cut the spending, cut the spending.....



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

MidnightMike,

One correction, I believe the new transportation bill is around $231 billion dollars. Its got over 6,000 extra projects tagged onto it. Now there is some government irresponsibility. Its fucking ridiculous.



NO URLS in signature
25 MidnightMike : It was the tax cuts that gave the economy a kick start, there was an economic slowdown, started in year 2000 & was accelerated after 9/11. Due to the
26 Halls120 : While we can't cut military spending in Iraq right now, we sure as hell can cut back elsewhere. Like why do we continue to maintain a large military
27 MidnightMike : No, the spending cuts had nothing to do with Katrina. The floods would have still taken place, the leevys would have broke, about the only thing that
28 MidnightMike : You're right! Well, there we go, delay the transportation bill, & we can cover the price tag for Katrina.
29 Halls120 : Just what in hell are you trying to say? What "certain groups" are you referring to? Are you suggesting that if we raise taxes on this unnamed "certa
30 MidnightMike : I have heard this before, & I never liked it. About the only thing that I have heard, that is fair to all, is a flat tax. Keep it simple (Thank you S
31 Halls120 : Just the kind of pork I was referring to. Mike is correct. Flood control programs have been underfunded in Louisiana for at least the last 30 years.
32 Falcon84 : Sure. Someoene who makes $40 grand a year, is forced to pay exactly the same as someoene, say, making $65 million a year. And who makes out like a ba
33 AeroWesty : I've asked this same question in a few other threads lately when the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan have come up, and no one's stepped up to the pla
34 Gilligan : Name a time when higher taxes have ever led to a better economy please. Why should anyone have to pay more taxes? Why not have the government live wi
35 Post contains links LAS757300 : The economy did quite well after Clinton raised taxes in 1993. WRONG http://www.rev.state.la.us/sections/individual/default.asp
36 Tbar220 : I have serious issues with this. We pay the government with our hard earned money. They're role is to protect and improve the lives of its citizens.
37 Lehpron : What is the big deal with taxes? A government cannot run without it and people like to keep all the money they earn. I don't see the point of cutting
38 Halls120 : To steal from an overworked movie line, you had me until you got to the "killing" part. If taxes need to be raised, then everyone needs to share the
39 Falcon84 : The gap between richest and poorest is increasing: THAT is nothing more than income redistribution, my friend. Time to even the score a little.
40 Gilligan : It did even better after the budget was balanced in 1996. I disagree. The governments powers and limits are enumerated in the Constitution. Promote t
41 Halls120 : Where in the Constitution does it guarantee that all citizens will enjoy a relatively equal income? Seems to me that if those on the bottom want to r
42 LHMark : Falcon's right. A by-product of the richest "admirably earning" their millions is the fiancial hardship, job loss, and distress of the middle class an
43 Halls120 : Speak for yourself. By any measure, I'm part of the middle class. I'm experiencing no distress resulting from my economic station in life, and even i
44 LHMark : Actually, I'm doing pretty well right now. But, as anyone who's worked in the corporate sector can attest, profit is king, and it's rarely attained v
45 CMHSRQ : Lots of different ideas on this. I'm personally not for increasing taxes. 45% of my income already goes to taxes and fees. I don't want anymore going.
46 Mir : At least there's tax to pay for the spending, as opposed to the current administration, who prefers to spend and leave where the money is going to co
47 Tbar220 : Absolutely agree with you there. I don't want to get taxed more either. But the problem right now is, we're supposed to be making sacrifices for the
48 CMHSRQ : It's always easier to spend other peoples money. There isn't someone overseeing the government. That's because there was gridlock. Democrat President
49 Post contains images ANCFlyer : period. You forgot the $300million for the Alaska Bridge to No Where . . . the one no one wants . . . but we got it anyway! Absolutely agree . . .
50 Tbar220 : CMHSRQ, Yea, now that Republicans have control, they basically have a blank check.
51 CMHSRQ : Yea, and as a person who usually votes conservative it really pisses me off, same with the Ohio state government, tax and spend, tax and spend.
52 Tbar220 : CMH, I have respect for true conservatives. But I have little respect for the current Republicans who in the 2000 election harped continuously "compas
53 B744F : no they would just be in BK court complaining about high wages and evil Unions Halls, meet common sense, you should really get to know it. Yes if you
54 CMHSRQ : B747F I don't agree with you here either. How do you figure? It will have an effect in some way it's impossible not to. So lets say you increase the
55 Halls120 : Hmmm. B744F criticizes me for not responding substantively to his post. So I do. And this is what I receive in return - a specious statement virtuall
56 MidnightMike : I think that you listened to President Clinton a little toooo much. foreign debtors have always bought US Treasury Bills. In the 1990's it was the Ja
57 MidnightMike : Falcon I know that you are smarter than this, so, I am assuming you read the question wrong. A flat tax is just that, a flat percentage across the bo
58 Tbar220 : MM, Always means since the 1990's? You think this has only been a problem since the beginning of the century? I never claimed that. We've been doing t
59 MD-90 : That's a load of steaming ****. Who do you think creates jobs for the middle class and the so-called "poor?" Boohoo. Somebody sounds jealous...
60 SlamClick : Absolutely! But let's take Congress and the President out of the loop. Let us vote directly on this issue. Every voter in the United States gets to vo
61 DL021 : One question....if we raise taxes tell us where that money will come from. What will suffer? I don't mean the rich people so many here would gleefully
62 Cptkrell : Hell no, it's not time to raise taxes. I haven't read every comment on this thread, so I apologize if I repeat or mirror previous thoughts. Simply clo
63 Lhmark : read my second post before yapping at me like a hypertensive chihuahua.
64 Post contains links Pope : After preparing my 2004 taxes, I added up the federal, state and local tax burden I pay. My total taxes exceed 52% of my gross income. In essence, I'
65 AeroWesty : Due to Bush's 2003 tax reform along with very little earned income and mostly dividend, capital gains or non-taxable income in 2004, combined with no
66 Pope : Well, I work for a living (as do most people - even the "evil rich 10%'ers) so while I don't begrudge you your financial windfall, I don't believe th
67 AeroWesty : I don't need to, I voted for the other white meat. Now pay the bill that you incurred at the ballot box.
68 MidnightMike : Before President Clinton gets to much credit, it was the Republican Congress at the time, working with President Clinton to balance the budget. Now,
69 AeroWesty : Would you like to put some numbers to that? Remember that the prosperity brought to our nation under Clinton allowed for the 30-year bond to be suspe
70 Post contains links MidnightMike : Prosperity during the Clinton Administration, some of the kudos have to go to the Republicans at the time & the Contract with America agenda: http://
71 AeroWesty : That's a very nice list of public acts, however, it does not support your claim numbers-wise of the funny math you asserted was used with the budget
72 Halls120 : I'd love to see someone who is in favor of higher taxes for the rich alone quantify the level of taxes they want the rich to pay. I'd have to pull ou
73 Post contains images BHXFAOTIPYYC : Raise taxes ? Why, so the government can blow more of your "hard earned" ? OK, I'm the other side of the Atlantic, but I suspect we may have similar i
74 Post contains images AeroWesty : I'd give up my tax cut for a Democratic president and congress ... oh wait, we'll have that by 2008. I'm actually a proponent of a federal sales tax,
75 B744F : Well lets go back in time to the biggest economic boom in our history, during the 40s and 50s, where taxes on the upper class reached 60% That's a lo
76 Halls120 : If you bothered to read Pope's original post (reply 64), you'd see that he was referring to his TOTAL tax bill - which includes federal income tax, F
77 Pope : These sorts of taxes are the most regressive because the poor tend to spend a much higher portion of their income than the rich. Unless you exclude t
78 AeroWesty : Which I already made provisions for here: As a tax rate, I don't have a number for you, but I'm sure someone in the budget office could pick a number
79 B744F : Welcome to the kettle Mr Pot That has nothing to do with raising or lowering income taxes. And you forgot taxes on your booze Try what again? I alrea
80 Halls120 : They probably could, but no one seems to want to do this - I think because everyone is quite frankly afraid to. I'm not so sure a VAT or GST is the a
81 Post contains images AeroWesty : I wouldn't mind that, either, since I start out every month with $500+ in health insurance and medical-related expenses. The only thing that I mind i
82 Pope : Another one-liner noticably absent any facts to support the contention. Yet I said nothing about raising or lowering my income taxes. Instead, I said
83 AeroWesty : Maybe you should state what's fair to you and we could discuss that? I'm willing to pay my fair share. Now as I've said before, I pay under 10% of my
84 B744F : If by "the government" you mean federal and state all grouped into one evil tandem, then I see nothing wrong with that. You think all these opportuni
85 Pope : Time and time again, I've said that the way to make our tax system more fair is to do away with the regressive FICA scheme. That would directly addre
86 Pope : I don't group them into an "evil tandem". I call government what it is - government. Are you saying that this level of taxation is enough or should i
87 AeroWesty : That's a commendable list there. Now back to your question, percentage-wise, what is fair to you, and why do you support politicians who promote tax p
88 Pope : That's really two separate questions: 1. I would say that any aggregate tax burden that takes more than 50% of anyone's earnings is per se unfair - wh
89 Cptkrell : Now that I've spent a while digesting all the responses to the subject at hand, I believe I am of the opinion that taxes should be reduced to ZERO and
90 Post contains images AeroWesty : I should have caught this in my first reply to your post, but I didn't. My bad. I don't believe this will work at all, unless what you're envisioning
91 B744F : So total anarchy is your choice? What do you call forcing the population to work for slave wages, taxing the lower and middle class so the super weal
92 Pope : Most state sales taxes are structured as both a sale AND use tax. Therefore, if you cross the state line and buy something to take advantage of the t
93 AeroWesty : Okay, so you believe in paying less than the people you voted into office feel is your fair share, not rolling back the provisions of the 2003 tax cu
94 Cptkrell : B744F; Of course I'm not talking about anarchy. Fool. A "neighbor" from six or so miles away offered his farm cottage to put up a few releatives from
95 Pope : That's not what I said. I specifically addressed my opposition to the cap gain / dividend tax cut. Again a conclusion not supported by my statements.
96 Pope : How much higher. Draw the line. Take a position and defend it. If I (not a member of the super rich) am paying over 50%, what should the super rich p
97 AeroWesty : Hmm, I didn't see it in any of your 10 points, but I see it in a later post that you decided to go with it as the lesser of two evils, and you believ
98 Pope : I don't believe in the status quo. I strongly believe that specific steps can be taken to make the system more fair. However, neither of the two majo
99 AeroWesty : You still have wholly avoided the question of why a poverty-level family should pay more taxes in relative terms than I do and what you'd do to make
100 Post contains links and images NUair : The smartest post yet! Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from
101 Post contains links and images NUair : After some further research... http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid 2000 Corporate profits -> $817.9 billion 2000 Corporate tax (IRS) -
102 Post contains images AeroWesty : Enough to fund a few months of war?
103 Pope : Be careful, you need to factor in losses over that period. A loss in one year can be carried over and reduce taxes in a subsequent year. You picked t
104 AeroWesty : Actually you bring up an interesting point, since FICA is split 50/50 between employer/employee. I actually wouldn't be opposed to a one-for-one redu
105 Post contains images Halls120 : The reason why this simple yet effective idea won't work is that the term "living within its means " is completely foreign to most all Congressmen an
106 B744F : So you honestly believe without the government, everyone would be able to take care of the displaced persons after a disaster? Your choice? What do y
107 Pope : Here's another interesting way at looking at FICA. 7.65% x 2 is 15.3%. 15.3% EXCEEDS the maximum an individual is allowed to contribute to a qualified
108 B744F : Considering a market crash needs to happen every 10 years to fight inflation, I'd say we would have a large group of homeless retirees
109 AeroWesty : With the Presidio in her backyard, there was of course a personal interest in it by Boxer, but there were other issues going at the time. One was tha
110 Pope : Please. The adults are having a real discussion. If you want to brandish your petty little conspiracy theories, take them elsewhere. Around here ever
111 AeroWesty : With us having one of the lowest savings rates in the developed world, I'd be all for it. I am also a proponent of the self-directed 401(k) that allo
112 Halls120 : How about providing some statistics to back up your assertion? Did you rely on any in reaching your conclusion, or did you simply pull it out of your
113 AeroWesty : I had moved out of California by then, and not heard that part of the story. That's priceless!
114 Cptkrell : B744F; I apologize for using inappropriate language (ie: "fool"). I sometimes slip into the next beverage before keyboarding. I will, however, stand b
115 B744F : So why are you still here? Go ahead, prove I'm wrong. Enjoy. yes of course, everyone whos statements go against your idea of reality is full of hot a
116 B744F : If you would read up on the Federal Reserve system you would find you are just borrowing a piece of paper the Fed issues and regulates with discount
117 Cptkrell : B744F; last item first...you say you don't believe in redistributing income but you believe in REGULATING income? That sort of blows out of the water
118 Post contains images Halls120 : What statistics? Whose statistics? As usual, your random word generator is operating at full tilt. In other words, you can't provide the statistics.
119 Pope : It's impossible to prove that you're wrong because all you offer is opinions but state them as facts. When confronted with real facts you resort to i
120 Cfalk : I think that pretty much exposes your thinking. You are even beyond socialism. Money does not come from the government. It comes from the added value
121 MD-90 : The government is a parasitical leech that sucks value out of the economy. It creates no wealth.
122 Ftrguy : Another well thought out statement by MD-90. Why do you think we have the economy we do have? Because the government has allowed us to have free trad
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...
Is It Time To Get Rid Of GMT? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 02:20:43 by Alcregular
Is It Time To Be Energy Independant? posted Sat Oct 9 2004 06:24:22 by NWDC10
Is It Time To Redefine The Pecking Order? posted Wed Jan 21 2004 21:36:42 by MD-90
Is It Time For Non-aviation To Go Away? posted Wed Apr 3 2002 20:27:26 by Auswnfan
Why Is It Easier To Get Up When I Get Less Sleep? posted Sun Dec 17 2006 04:59:42 by FSPilot747
Is It Safe To Microwave A Potato? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 06:49:09 by L-188
Is It Illegal To Write On US Currency? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 18:32:10 by VarigB707
Why Is It Unfashionable To Be A "Liberal"? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 05:13:59 by Singapore_Air
Is It Possible To Travel Through Iraq? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 23:54:33 by PlymSpotter
Is It Easy To Flirt With FAs During A Flight? posted Fri Apr 21 2006 14:55:14 by CY319