View Full Version : Dave Ramsey on Debt
UberTong
08-05-2011, 09:45
My wife and I took the Dave Ramsey Financial Peace course this year and it was great. I get the little newsletter now and typically I just delete it, but I liked the stat that came in the one today, interesting to view this way. I'm sure it will cause some kind of debate, go at it.
[B]"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey
So raise taxes......... back to 1960s levels
That's a good course! My wife and I took it about 2 years ago.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 09:48
My gut told me you'd be the first one in here. Good morning nynco ;)
UberTong
08-05-2011, 09:49
That's a good coarse! My wife and I took it about 2 years ago.
Amen buddy, helped us out a bunch. 100% debt free this October, I'm gonna be so excited I will throw a party, yall fellers can come ;).
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 10:24
Not one week ago I made that correlation on my facebook page.
I just sat down with my finances and realized that I bring home four thousand a month but I spend six thousand a month with my credit cards. I think I will take a page from the federal government on how to get out of debt. I am going to raise my limit on my credit cards and only spend 5300 a month from here on out.
"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey
What a cool analogy. Had this been put in front of the American people during this whole debacle, we would most certainly find that the vast majority of Americans would probably not be in favor of what the resolution was.
So close tax loop holes and make all investment income taxed the same as regular income.
Raise revenue.
Taxes currently are at the lowest level in over 50 years. Your own numbers show that no matter what we do, we can't cut our way out of this. So you have to raise revenue.
So raise taxes......... back to 1960s levels
Taxes, while lower than 1960's rates, are far higher revenue at lower levels. This has been shown time and time again that raising taxes doesn't fix the problem. At the heart of the problem is cutting spending. Using the family analogy again, if you are making $100K a year you are likely to be living on $100K a year, if you get a raise you might buy a bigger house or a better car. The moral being that giving the government more money is not the answer, when you are spiraling out of control with your debt you need to cut your expenses because YOU, as a person, just can't make more money, the government can - and does - and lives way beyond it's means.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 10:59
I'm gonna derail my own thread here for a minute. I just spoke with my college roommate and he is currently in PA (physicians assitants) school. I asked him how he did on final exams. He said good in everything except "MEDICAL SPANISH". Just gonna go out on a limb and say screw that hard...have at it people, that's bullshit. So not only do illegals come here ILLEGALY, but we are now catering to them.
Second item, I thought this was cool because it would never happen today in our spineless, mangina ridden society.
Today in 1981: President Reagan fired 11k striking federal air-traffic controllers who ignored his order for them to return to work.
//rant over.
time and time again......... really?
Because all the data shows that we had were paying off our debt during the 60s and our debt exploded during the time of lower taxes. As to the small uptick in revenue. Well that is because we borrowed to cover our costs. This thread is about our debt problem. So unless you figure out a way to cut taxes and spending and show how we can do that well......... that won't happen.
Voodoo economics failed........ look at our debt.
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 11:04
Taxes, while lower than 1960's rates, are far higher revenue at lower levels. This has been shown time and time again that raising taxes doesn't fix the problem. At the heart of the problem is cutting spending. Using the family analogy again, if you are making $100K a year you are likely to be living on $100K a year, if you get a raise you might buy a bigger house or a better car. The moral being that giving the government more money is not the answer, when you are spiraling out of control with your debt you need to cut your expenses because YOU, as a person, just can't make more money, the government can - and does - and lives way beyond it's means.
You can see from hard numbers that the tax rate does not ever raise the revenue over 20% of GDP and typically it sits at 18% of GDP. In fact the average revenue as a percentage of GDP from 1980 till now is 18%. Simplify the code, lower the tax rate and make everyone get some scratch in the game. Business would love it and our economy would boom.
ETA: Hard numbers http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
UberTong
08-05-2011, 11:08
You can see from hard numbers that the tax rate does not ever raise the revenue over 20% of GDP and typically it sits at 18% of GDP. In fact the average revenue as a percentage of GDP from 1980 till now is 18%. Simplify the code, lower the tax rate and make everyone get some scratch in the game. Business would love it and our economy would boom.
ETA: Hard numbers http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Not dogging on you at all tmleader, please don't think so. But I keep seeing ETA used...and maybe I'm thinking of something else, 'estimated time of arrival'...does it mean something else how you are using it, just curious. Thanks mang.
My wife and I took the Dave Ramsey Financial Peace course this year and it was great. I get the little newsletter now and typically I just delete it, but I liked the stat that came in the one today, interesting to view this way. I'm sure it will cause some kind of debate, go at it.
[B]"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey
Sly devil, I got five words in and said "Where did I read this before?" and realized, you posted it on Facebook this morning! So true. I guess the government never took Mr. Ramsey's course. I heard about it and thought it might be a good idea to take, but just haven't been motivated to give it a go.
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 11:10
Not dogging on you at all tmleader, please don't think so. But I keep seeing ETA used...and maybe I'm thinking of something else, 'estimated time of arrival'...does it mean something else how you are using it, just curious. Thanks mang.
Edited to add. I have a bad habit of finishing my thoughts after I hit submit.
Now about them BMWs....
UberTong
08-05-2011, 11:11
Edited to add. I have a bad habit of finishing my thoughts after I hit submit.
Now about them BMWs....
Ahhh gotcha, thanks....and how bout them Bimmers! Good man! Cheers dude, happy Friday.
Inconel710
08-05-2011, 11:16
time and time again......... really?
Because all the data shows that we had were paying off our debt during the 60s and our debt exploded during the time of lower taxes. As to the small uptick in revenue. Well that is because we borrowed to cover our costs. This thread is about our debt problem. So unless you figure out a way to cut taxes and spending and show how we can do that well......... that won't happen.
Voodoo economics failed........ look at our debt.
Again you have failed to look at real numbers and how people behave with their money in the real world. Here's the graph of Tax Revenue as a Percetage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_ GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg) again. Even when the marginal tax rate topped out over 50%, the government never captured more than 20% or GDP. Also notice how revenue went UP after lowering taxes in 1986 and up again after lowering taxes in 2003! That's not voodoo, those are numbers you can't argue with.[Bang]
The debt has exploded because of the failed belief in Keynesian economics and government getting too big. There's real "voodoo" economics!
Again you have failed to look at real numbers and how people behave with their money in the real world. Here's the graph of Tax Revenue as a Percetage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_ GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg) again. Even when the marginal tax rate topped out over 50%, the government never captured more than 20% or GDP. Also notice how revenue went UP after lowering taxes in 1986 and up again after lowering taxes in 2003! That's not voodoo, those are numbers you can't argue with.[Bang]
The debt has exploded because of the failed belief in Keynesian economics and government getting too big. There's real "voodoo" economics!
You are talking to a brick wall my friend. He'll fire back with facts and figures from the Daily News or something. Whatever.
two shoes
08-05-2011, 11:22
Amen buddy, helped us out a bunch. 100% debt free this October, I'm gonna be so excited I will throw a party, yall fellers can come ;).
100% Debt Free?? Even the house? AWESOME!!! You are paying for the party in cash right???
We have taken his class twice as we are slow learners... nah, just need to reinforce the materials...
We're about to pay off our car next week!!! So no vehicle debts.... small victories...
I have never been able to spend my way out of debt. I have tried a few times but it hasn't worked... The only way I am getting out of debt now is to:
1. Have an emergency fund - No a sale at Bass Pro is not an emergency - A cash cushion in case a water pump fails on a car...
2. Stop all frivolous spending- Follow agreed upon budget... this is tough at first.
3. Make more money - Sell shit or get a part time job. Dave Ramsey says to sell so much that the kids think they are next!
This year we have paid down our debt by over $15,000 but still have a long way to go.
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 11:25
You are talking to a brick wall my friend. He'll fire back with facts and figures from the Daily News or something. Whatever.
I linked to actual hard numbers from the white house that you can download in an excel spread sheet and that will not be read or understood by the left.
two shoes
08-05-2011, 11:27
I linked to actually hard numbers from the white house that you can download in excel spread sheets and that will not be read or understood by the left.
Funniest thing I have read all day....[Flower]
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 11:28
Funniest thing I have read all day....[Flower]
Christ, did I type that? Fuck that made my head hurt just now reading it. Talking on the phone and posting online do not mix.
So raise taxes......... back to 1960s levels
Govt, especially our current one, cannot be trusted with more money. To use the family budget analogy: A responsible family realises it needs to take in more money to cover its obligations. Naturally they cut as much from the budget as they can (cable, eating out, vacations, etc) and then take on a second job to bring in more revenue so they claw themselves out of debt. Once the debt is paid and they realise they can live within their means, they quit the second job and hopefully live well.
Here's what our govt would do - It would refuse to cut its spending. It would get the second job (higher taxes) and realise the additional money would allow them to take on more debt and do more pork projects. So instead of making it better they would make the situation worse. Later they would again run into the brick wall of revenue being less than obligations and then demand even higher taxes (a third job) saying 'You can't cut yourself out of this'. No thanks.
They need to cut. If the budget line item isn't vital to the function of this country, it gets cut. If it is vital, we make sure it only gets the funding it needs and not a penny more. I'm a firm believer that govt should always be under-funded by 2%. That way there is no room for pork and only the most important things get funding.
two shoes
08-05-2011, 11:32
Christ, did I type that? Fuck that made my head hurt just now reading it. Talking on the phone and posting online do not mix.
I wasn't busting your chops on the grammar, it was the:
...that will not be read or understood by the left.
That's what struck me as funny. The grammar only adds to it!
Again you have failed to look at real numbers and how people behave with their money in the real world. Here's the graph of Tax Revenue as a Percetage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_ GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg) again. Even when the marginal tax rate topped out over 50%, the government never captured more than 20% or GDP. Also notice how revenue went UP after lowering taxes in 1986 and up again after lowering taxes in 2003! That's not voodoo, those are numbers you can't argue with.[Bang]
The debt has exploded because of the failed belief in Keynesian economics and government getting too big. There's real "voodoo" economics!
So why did our Debt explode under Reagan?
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 11:37
So raise taxes......... back to 1960s levels
So many people have quoted this I now have to come back, find the ignorant post and reply to it.
According to this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z2.xls
From 1960 to 1970 our average revenue from tax receipts was 18% of GDP. With a lowest of 17% of GDP and a highest of 19.7% of GDP. Median was 17.8%. How did high taxes help again?
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 11:41
So why did our Debt explode under Reagan?
Holy fucking shit. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending. Spending.
Taxes under Reagan took in a very high amount of revenue because he lowered taxes.
I maintain that Reagan only took in more revenue because he increase borrowing and spending. Which he did.
There is no free lunch.
As to tax levels of the 1960s one major difference. Those taxes back then were targeted at business and other wealthy targets more than the middle class. Today the middle class pays a larger portion of their earnings in taxes than they did in the 1960s. We need to close tax loop holes like the ones that give tax breaks to corporations for outsourcing American jobs over seas.
CrufflerSteve
08-05-2011, 11:53
Again you have failed to look at real numbers and how people behave with their money in the real world. Here's the graph of Tax Revenue as a Percetage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_ GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg) again. Even when the marginal tax rate topped out over 50%, the government never captured more than 20% or GDP. Also notice how revenue went UP after lowering taxes in 1986 and up again after lowering taxes in 2003! That's not voodoo, those are numbers you can't argue with.[Bang]
The debt has exploded because of the failed belief in Keynesian economics and government getting too big. There's real "voodoo" economics!
That model worked well in times of some real growth and confidence. A major failing al most all models is a belief in equilibrium, that things go naturally to optimal levels. Our current economic state is off the charts into the squirrelly zone. If we cut taxes I doubt if revenue will increase at all. In normal times people spend it and businesses create jobs. Now everybody will just sit on the money so no new activiity. All these models are voodoo when it comes to explaining the extremes.
nynco, I agree with your more tham most but I don't think I share your faith that more revenue now would be anything more than good money after bad. I do share many members lack of faith in the government actually living within limits without some real constraints keeping it under control. Just one little earmark here, one little emergency allocation and its back to business as usual.
Steve
two shoes
08-05-2011, 11:54
Would Dave Ramsey agree to a 10% flat tax for everyone? If you draw income from any source, you get whacked 10% Could be any percentage 8-18%
To keep math easy...
You make: You pay:
20,000 - 2,000
200,000 - 20,000
2,000,000 - 200,000
Everyone would have the same burden. I remember watching Warren Buffet claim he paid less in taxes than his secretary... I have a problem with that... thousands of pages of tax laws are bullshit.
The gov't needs to start cutting like an EMO kid... only deeper
Inconel710
08-05-2011, 12:04
I maintain that Reagan only took in more revenue because he increase borrowing and spending. Which he did.
Seriously? Tax revenue doesn't include borrowing. Try again.
You can also try reading the history books - the Democrat controlled Congress failed to live up to their side of the bargain and cut spending. So now you'll can credit them for the increase in revenue. [Bang]
There is no free lunch.
Something we agree on in principle. However your actions say otherwise.
As to tax levels of the 1960s one major difference. Those taxes back then were targeted at business and other wealthy targets more than the middle class. Today the middle class pays a larger portion of their earnings in taxes than they did in the 1960s. We need to close tax loop holes like the ones that give tax breaks to corporations for outsourcing American jobs over seas.
And here I will admit that I'm no expert on 1960's tax policy. However, with almost half of the population paying zero federal taxes, the comparison changes a bit.
Inconel710
08-05-2011, 12:11
Would Dave Ramsey agree to a 10% flat tax for everyone? If you draw income from any source, you get whacked 10% Could be any percentage 8-18%
I think he would. He's commented on the flat tax and the fair tax before and either one would be preferrable to the mess we have now.
Everyone would have the same burden. I remember watching Warren Buffet claim he paid less in taxes than his secretary... I have a problem with that... thousands of pages of tax laws are bullshit.
You have to understand what Warren Buffet said - his tax rate is/was lower than his secretary's. He still paid something like $17,000,000 in taxes that year.
That model worked well in times of some real growth and confidence. A major failing al most all models is a belief in equilibrium, that things go naturally to optimal levels. Our current economic state is off the charts into the squirrelly zone. If we cut taxes I doubt if revenue will increase at all. In normal times people spend it and businesses create jobs. Now everybody will just sit on the money so no new activiity. All these models are voodoo when it comes to explaining the extremes.
nynco, I agree with your more tham most but I don't think I share your faith that more revenue now would be anything more than good money after bad. I do share many members lack of faith in the government actually living within limits without some real constraints keeping it under control. Just one little earmark here, one little emergency allocation and its back to business as usual.
Steve
There is no confidence in our current economy because our economy is no longer built on sound economic principles. Our economy no longer produces things through manufacture. Wallstreet gambling was only 7% of the economy prior to Reagan and today now stands at close to 3 times that. At the same time Manufacture went from around 25% of our economy in the 60s to less than 7% today. Wallstreet does nothing but push paper and make bets after the initial public offering. We use their health far too much. Its like making sure the parasite is doing ok while the host dies.
As to having confidence that our gov will do the right thing. I have none in 90% of our elected officials. I think we need to change the fundamentals of how we elect or officials. But that does not mean that we should cut our gov to the point that the US is weak like today.
I think he would. He's commented on the flat tax and the fair tax before and either one would be preferrable to the mess we have now.
You have to understand what Warren Buffet said - his tax rate is/was lower than his secretary's. He still paid something like $17,000,000 in taxes that year.
As to Warren Buffet paying lower taxes.... well that is because we tax the middle class more than the rich. Rich people don't work a job and get paid wages. They invest.... I think it is not right to tax a mans hard labor more than investment income. It should be the opposite. I think its immoral to tax a Dr more than a hedgefund manager.
People don't realize if you make 1 million as wages you pay full taxes on that. Which amounts to around 40% of earnings.
If you sit on your ass or live of daddies trust fund and your earn 1 million that year, you pay a max rate of 15%.
Its wrong and that is how we need to raise taxes.
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 12:19
As to Warren Buffet paying lower taxes.... well that is because we tax the middle class more than the rich. Rich people don't work a job and get paid wages. They invest.... I think it is not right to tax a mans hard labor more than investment income. It should be the opposite. I think its immoral to tax a Dr more than a hedgefund manager.
People don't realize if you make 1 million as wages you pay full taxes on that. Which amounts to around 40% of earnings.
If you sit on your ass or live of daddies trust fund and your earn 1 million that year, you pay a max rate of 15%.
Its wrong and that is how we need to raise taxes.
Let the class warfare flow through you.
Let the class warfare flow through you.
Correct there is class warfare and the upper class is waging it and winning. Just because you want to ignore it does not change the facts.
Why the hell do you want to defend a system where you pay higher taxes so a hedgefund manager does not. Heck even a flat tax would be more just than the current insanity.
two shoes
08-05-2011, 12:23
You have to understand what Warren Buffet said - his tax rate is/was lower than his secretary's. He still paid something like $17,000,000 in taxes that year.
Ok, thank you for the clarification on the tax rate I was dumbfounded when I had heard it the first time, it makes a lot more sense now...
Still, the idea of equal burden appeals to me. Making more money should not entitle you to a lower tax rate.
Today in America we have a REGRESSIVE tax rate. Any one who tells you different does not understand how taxes really work or how a hedge fund manager or investor earns income.
I'm all for a fixed flat tax rate for everyone regardless of income source. However, the problem with this is that the libs would freak out and claim that because you make more $$$ you should pay a higher rate or if you make too little $$ to sustain yourself you should pay a lower rate.
Example:
Bob is an exec for a multi-billion dollar company. He makes $10M/yr. At 10% flat tax rate he pays $1M/year.
Jim is a small business owner who makes $100K/yr. He pays $10K in taxes.
Ron is a middle school science teacher who makes $40K/yr. He pays $4,000/yr in taxes. They all pay the same percent, but different amounts. Their after tax income is: Bob $9M, Jim $90K, Ron $36K. Ron gets mad because his taxes put him in a lower income bracket than he thinks he should be concurrent to his income. He petitions for people who make less than $50K/year to be special and pay a lower tax rate.... Even though $4K is substantially less than $1M because he feels rich people should pay higher taxes because it makes less impact on them the more they make. Fair, but to those rejects of society who refuse to use logic they want to punish those who work hard for their money (notice I'm not saying anything about investing, although that's the smart way to deal your money around if you know what you're doing and thus shouldn't be punished for that) and be lazy and not pay as much as the rich. It's all liberal bullshit to me.
jscwerve
08-05-2011, 13:46
I'll chime in I guess. Disclaimer: I know dick about economics. I think about it and my head hurts.
I do think a flat tax is a good idea. On investment income. That way all investments can be handled the same way. Same as business. the billion dollar company pays the same rate as joe blows bait shop.
Also I think that we need to give incentive for companies to bring manufacturing back to the states. I have been working in manufacturing for about 15 years now and let me tell you it's getting pretty difficult to find jobs. I don't know how to do this, import taxes? Penalties for having manufacturing facilities in other countries? I don't know how to go about that with "free trade".
I think a consumption tax would be a better idea than the income tax system. I go out and buy a $20k vehicle, I pay my (I'm guessing) 20% tax on that, the gov gets its $4k in taxes. Mr. Hedge fund manager goes out and buys a $200k bently, the gov gets its $40k in taxes. He paid more taxes, but same rate. In addition, illeagles make up MILLIONS of people that pay no taxes, yes they send most of the money back home, but while they are here they have to buy things like gas, food, vehicles, etc. Having a consumption tax instead of income tax closes the loop of people working under the table. Doesn't fix the ginormous immigration problem, but gets some money from them.
Like I said, I know just about nothing about economics, I'm a computer geek. Am I wrong to think that something like this would be a good Idea?
UberTong
08-05-2011, 13:49
I'm gonna derail my own thread here for a minute. I just spoke with my college roommate and he is currently in PA (physicians assitants) school. I asked him how he did on final exams. He said good in everything except "MEDICAL SPANISH". Just gonna go out on a limb and say screw that hard...have at it people, that's bullshit. So not only do illegals come here ILLEGALY, but we are now catering to them.
Second item, I thought this was cool because it would never happen today in our spineless, mangina ridden society.
Today in 1981: President Reagan fired 11k striking federal air-traffic controllers who ignored his order for them to return to work.
//rant over.
Man now we are on taxes, and I tried so hard to derail my own thread. Didn't even get a comment. [BooHoo] No respect I tell ya...[ROFL2][ROFL3][LOL]
Man now we are on taxes, and I tried so hard to derail my own thread. Didn't even get a comment. [BooHoo] No respect I tell ya...[ROFL2][ROFL3][LOL]
When Reagan broke the ATC union it set the tone for the destruction of most all unions and thus the downward slide of the middle class.
Inconel710
08-05-2011, 13:54
Today in America we have a REGRESSIVE tax rate. Any one who tells you different does not understand how taxes really work or how a hedge fund manager or investor earns income.
That's why you become an investor! :D
UberTong
08-05-2011, 13:57
When Reagan broke the ATC union it set the tone for the destruction of most all unions and thus the downward slide of the middle class.
Give me warning next time you post something like that, I couldn't get my trashcan close enough, just vomited all over. [LOL]
Doing away with unions is the downward slide of the middle class? Unions?
I'll chime in I guess. Disclaimer: I know dick about economics. I think about it and my head hurts.
I do think a flat tax is a good idea. On investment income. That way all investments can be handled the same way. Same as business. the billion dollar company pays the same rate as joe blows bait shop.
Also I think that we need to give incentive for companies to bring manufacturing back to the states. I have been working in manufacturing for about 15 years now and let me tell you it's getting pretty difficult to find jobs. I don't know how to do this, import taxes? Penalties for having manufacturing facilities in other countries? I don't know how to go about that with "free trade".
I think a consumption tax would be a better idea than the income tax system. I go out and buy a $20k vehicle, I pay my (I'm guessing) 20% tax on that, the gov gets its $4k in taxes. Mr. Hedge fund manager goes out and buys a $200k bently, the gov gets its $40k in taxes. He paid more taxes, but same rate. In addition, illeagles make up MILLIONS of people that pay no taxes, yes they send most of the money back home, but while they are here they have to buy things like gas, food, vehicles, etc. Having a consumption tax instead of income tax closes the loop of people working under the table. Doesn't fix the ginormous immigration problem, but gets some money from them.
Like I said, I know just about nothing about economics, I'm a computer geek. Am I wrong to think that something like this would be a good Idea?
At this point a flat tax would be better than the regressive tax system we currently have. It looks like we have a progressive tax system till you realize that the mega earners earn all money through dividends and investing. Those people should not be paying less than a middle class person.
As to bringing back manufacture. I would suggest that people look to one of the founding fathers of this nation. I think we need to return to Alexander Hamilton's 11 point plan on economics and manufacture. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/17 Scroll down the page if you don't want to read it word for word from Hamilton.
A consumption tax is the largest form of regressive tax out there. Joe middle class spends all his earnings to survive. But it is impossible for a hedge fund manager to spend 1 billion a year on goods. So what happens is the "effective" tax rate for joe middle class his 100% of his earnings and it the billion dollar hedge fund manager is only subject to taxes on perhaps 1% alone.
For the first 100 years of this nation 90% of all tax revenue came in from import tariffs. We need to return to that model.
Give me warning next time you post something like that, I couldn't get my trashcan close enough, just vomited all over. [LOL]
Doing away with unions is the downward slide of the middle class? Unions?
With the rise of unions in the 1940s, so do did the middle class rise out of the poor and working class. As unions have been broken the middle class has started to disappear like today. Historical fact.
Give me warning next time you post something like that, I couldn't get my trashcan close enough, just vomited all over. [LOL]
Doing away with unions is the downward slide of the middle class? Unions?
Haha, I about fell over when I read that! I have a few friends I went to high school with and back then they worked at King Soopers. They were actually encouraged to join a union for KS employees... here's the best part, at $8.50/hr the unions were taking something to the effect of 7.5% of their earnings, and that goes in conjunction with all the other withholding like state and fed tax and SS... WTF? Remind me how unions contribute to the betterment of the middle class?
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 14:03
With the rise of unions in the 1940s, so do did the middle class rise out of the poor and working class. As unions have been broken the middle class has started to disappear like today. Historical fact.
Just like the rest of the historic facts you pepper this board with.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 14:05
With the rise of unions in the 1940s, so do did the middle class rise out of the poor and working class. As unions have been broken the middle class has started to disappear like today. Historical fact.
Hmm quite a historical fact, where were you educated mr new york and company? So you think Unions are beneficial?
For the first 100 years of this nation 90% of all tax revenue came in from import tariffs. We need to return to that model.
To what end Nynco? Would we increase taxes on all imports so that they would then do the same for our exports? This isn't the first 100 years where our imports/exports were nowhere near where they are now nor was our market the driving market of the world nor were we anything more than a small struggling country with just a couple million people. That model can no longer work in a global economy.
And the class warfare that you want to wage, who will that benefit in the end? Raises the taxes on the rich, that's what I keep hearing, yet those "rich" are the ones who create jobs and expand our economy. So we penalize them for what? For being better off than the rest of us, that's what it boils down to. The rich are easy targets, they are the haves and we are the have-nots.
Rubbish.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 14:07
Just like the rest of the historic facts you pepper this board with.
Ya you can't just stamp 'historical fact' and be done, because that is far from fact. It's like in Talladega Nights when he says "with all due respect", you can't just say whatever you want after that. Just sayin Ricky Bobby, just sayin.
jscwerve
08-05-2011, 14:08
A consumption tax is the largest form of regressive tax out there. Joe middle class spends all his earnings to survive. But it is impossible for a hedge fund manager to spend 1 billion a year on goods. So what happens is the "effective" tax rate for joe middle class his 100% of his earnings and it the billion dollar hedge fund manager is only subject to taxes on perhaps 1% alone.
Doesn't that mean that the hedge fund manager would be reinvesting his excess? Either for business (creating jobs etc), or personal? The first part of my post was about taxing investment income and businesses. The consumption tax for goods, the business and investment income taxed otherwise.
Again, economics hurts my head, but I'm trying to get a grasp on it.
It may be REGRESSIVE for the portion of the populous that pays taxes, but what is it for the percentage that pays no federal taxes?
Many people do not realize that if they have payroll taxes withheld all year long, then get every penny of it back at the end of the year, they are actually not paying any federal tax at all.
Does anyone have a good source for the actual percentage of the citizenry that actually pays any net federal payroll taxes?
Tax reform is absolutely essential, if for no other reason, to restore some sense of faith to the citizens that they can understand where the money comes from and can relate that to where it is spent.
The revenue issue of ~18% of GDP is a historical issue that seems to be pretty well documented. If the government would like to spend more than it does now, then it seems the best way to do that would be to grow the GDP. Does the GDP grow with more government regulation or less government regulation?
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 14:09
To what end Nynco? Would we increase taxes on all imports so that they would then do the same for our exports? This isn't the first 100 years where our imports/exports were nowhere near where they are now nor was our market the driving market of the world nor were we anything more than a small struggling country with just a couple million people. That model can no longer work in a global economy.
And the class warfare that you want to wage, who will that benefit in the end? Raises the taxes on the rich, that's what I keep hearing, yet those "rich" are the ones who create jobs and expand our economy. So we penalize them for what? For being better off than the rest of us, that's what it boils down to. The rich are easy targets, they are the haves and we are the have-nots.
Rubbish.
Bullshit Smoot-Hawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act) worked wonders for our country. We need to get back to that right now.
two shoes
08-05-2011, 14:10
With the rise of unions in the 1940s, so do did the middle class rise out of the poor and working class. As unions have been broken the middle class has started to disappear like today. Historical fact.
Having worked in NY at JFK airport, where a job that would have taken me 8 hours took 3 days, I have no use for the "modern" union. I had to direct their people on how to do my job. Between the coffee, lunch and smoke breaks, we only got in about 4 hours of work each day.
The 'unions' are stronger than ever each place I have been. Only one time when the company was loosing huge amounts of money and the plant was at risk of closing did they ever say "go ahead and do it yourself, we need to get this unit back up and running" Sit around and wait.
I understand the need for unions back in Upton Sinclair's days, but everywhere I have been, the union's only function was to protect the people that should have been fired. They promote laziness and working of the system.
To what end Nynco? Would we increase taxes on all imports so that they would then do the same for our exports? This isn't the first 100 years where our imports/exports were nowhere near where they are now nor was our market the driving market of the world nor were we anything more than a small struggling country with just a couple million people. That model can no longer work in a global economy.
And the class warfare that you want to wage, who will that benefit in the end? Raises the taxes on the rich, that's what I keep hearing, yet those "rich" are the ones who create jobs and expand our economy. So we penalize them for what? For being better off than the rest of us, that's what it boils down to. The rich are easy targets, they are the haves and we are the have-nots.
Rubbish.
Please tell me how it is class warfare to want a flat tax on all earnings regardless of labor or investment source? Its class warfare to argue that investors should not pay taxes on income like a worker.
As to the amount of trade... yes there is more trade now. But there was a lot more trade back then too than you realize. Shipping has improved. But the relation of society size to trade back then was very high too. Why do you think we fought the revolution? Mainly because of economics. The crown had reverse tariffs on the colonies. We were by law not allowed to manufacture.
Now before you all pile on me. I think there needs to be union reform. I don't want to abolish unions. I think they are needed as a check and balance.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 14:14
They promote laziness and working of the system.
+ a lot.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 14:22
Now before you all pile on me. I think there needs to be union reform. I don't want to abolish unions. I think they are needed as a check and balance.
What the hell do they keep balanced and checked? They promote laziness, a big shield for what is all too uncommon today, the dreaded lazy victim.
What the hell do they keep balanced and checked? They promote laziness, a big shield for what is all too uncommon today, the dreaded lazy victim.
Well then think about how to reform them. Because they do play a positive roll too.
Bullshit Smoot-Hawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act) worked wonders for our country. We need to get back to that right now.
Smoot Hawley was 20 years too late and it was not the cause of the depression. If anything, it lightened the fall. As to tariffs being bad, well, why were the founders of this nation so in favor of them?
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 14:28
Smoot Hawley was 20 years too late and it was not the cause of the depression. If anything, it lightened the fall. As to tariffs being bad, well, why were the founders of this nation so in favor of them?
[Bang]
Smoot Hawley was 20 years too late and it was not the cause of the depression. If anything, it lightened the fall. As to tariffs being bad, well, why were the founders of this nation so in favor of them?
Again, you're jumping back to a time where tariffs were necessary- like Ranger said, it doesn't work that way in the modern times. 1780's to 2000's... big f*cking difference.
Tariffs are always necessary. Regardless of time in history.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 14:37
Tariffs are always necessary. Regardless of time in history.
Historical fact. Look it up fellas. [LOL]
[Beer]
Bullshit Smoot-Hawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act) worked wonders for our country. We need to get back to that right now.
Uh-huh........ Let's do THAT.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 14:41
Well then think about how to reform them. Because they do play a positive roll too.
I'm sorry, did I cut you off? "They play a positive role too" ... which is?
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 14:43
Uh-huh........ Let's do THAT.
This thread has me [Rant2] at my computer. I need to stop.
This thread has me [Rant2] at my computer. I need to stop.
You need to learn how to control you anger. Its not healthy. I am not trying to be a dick either.
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 14:47
You need to learn how to control you anger. Its not healthy. I am not trying to be a dick either.
You need to learn how to control your ignorance. It's not healthy. I am not trying to be a dick though.
UberTong
08-05-2011, 14:48
Haha good exchange there.
[Pop]
You need to learn how to control your ignorance. It's not healthy. I am not trying to be a dick though.
[ROFL1][Beer]
hollohas
08-05-2011, 16:18
I'm sorry, did I cut you off? "They play a positive role too" ... which is?
I'll jump in because I'm still waiting for nynco to answer the question too...What's the positive role of unions TODAY?
I'll jump in because I'm still waiting for nynco to answer the question too...What's the positive role of unions TODAY?
Protecting middle class wages, keeping working conditions safe, ensuring that people are retrained rather than fired, negotiating for healthcare benefits.... and many more.
United we stand, divided we fall. I am not in a union never have been. But I see that there needs to be a balance and unions serve as a check on the abuses.
But I see that there needs to be a balance and unions USED TO serve as a check on the abuses.
Corrected for my point. Unions served a point when government regulations were loose, before wages were regulated and when working conditions were deplorable. That day is gone. If Kathy Lee can't run a sweat house in Malaysia without getting stoned to death then it's going to be damn difficult to run one right here. Unions were great, once, now they are serve very little purpose but to serve themselves.
Corrected for my point. Unions served a point when government regulations were loose, before wages were regulated and when working conditions were deplorable. That day is gone. If Kathy Lee can't run a sweat house in Malaysia without getting stoned to death then it's going to be damn difficult to run one right here. Unions were great, once, now they are serve very little purpose but to serve themselves.
As the unions have waned all of those things have weakened. So apparently the elimination of them is causing an effect. Take them away completely and you can be sure that the corporations will buy our congress into weakening those laws more.
As the unions have waned all of those things have weakened. So apparently the elimination of them is causing an effect. Take them away completely and you can be sure that the corporations will buy our congress into weakening those laws more.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Unions brought these to our attention - these were the jobs that "those folks" had, now it's quite different and reverting back to that time couldn't happen. Where unions had the voice then, we have the voice and knowledge to do something about it. Think about it, if you can't have a smoke within 50 feet of a buildings entrance because some waitress at Hooters got watery eyes, what makes you think that an employer will get away with anything these days?
They are getting away with lowering wages and eliminating healthcare benefits today. Right now, today... your premise that it will not happen is proving wrong right now.
jscwerve
08-05-2011, 16:59
As the unions have waned all of those things have weakened. So apparently the elimination of them is causing an effect. Take them away completely and you can be sure that the corporations will buy our congress into weakening those laws more.
Wow. Unions brought us things like OSHA, MSHA, and dozens of other regulatory agencies that protect the worker. The unions were needed in there time to bring these things into the public. They are not needed anymore. Now I am in manufacturing and have been for a long time. I have seen first hand what unions can do to cripple a company. Been to Detroit lately?
jscwerve
08-05-2011, 17:05
They are getting away with lowering wages and eliminating healthcare benefits today. Right now, today... your premise that it will not happen is proving wrong right now.
What companies are these that you say have lowered wages? Companies will lower wages through turnover by hiring new employees at lower rates yes, but lowering wages on it's employees, but outright lowering I have not seen. I may be wrong of course, just haven't seen it. Now if I get canned from my job and there is someone willing to do my job for lower pay, that is their responsibility. Just because I want $50/hr to shovel elephant shit at the carnival doesn't mean that should be the going rate for elephant shit shovelers, if they can find someone to do it for $8/hr, more power to them.
Reform unions is the answer, not elimination. There needs to be balance. I agree that Unions have caused issues esp in Detroit. But the main reason Detroit has a problem has to do with the eliminations of tariffs. No American can compete in a nation where the cost of living is 5000 dollars a year when the Americans cost is 50K. Unions did not do that to us, corporations and the politicians they own outsourced the middle class.
They are getting away with lowering wages and eliminating healthcare benefits today. Right now, today... your premise that it will not happen is proving wrong right now.
Sorry, I cannot agree. I own several businesses and I eliminated health care in lieu of granting pay raises to all my employees so they can purchase their own health care since it's far less expensive than a company plan.
jscwerve
08-05-2011, 17:20
Reform unions is the answer, not elimination. There needs to be balance. I agree that Unions have caused issues esp in Detroit. But the main reason Detroit has a problem has to do with the eliminations of tariffs. No American can compete in a nation where the cost of living is 5000 dollars a year when the Americans cost is 50K. Unions did not do that to us, corporations and the politicians they own outsourced the middle class.
I think we differ on that one. I do think we need to do something about bringing back manufacturing to the states, I don't know if tariffs can be the answer. As for Detroit, the unions have the biggest hand in destroying the industry in that city. Example: All manufacturing facilities have machine operators and assemblers, lets say a typical wage for an assembler at a non-union plant is $12/hr. Not great pay, but not bad for unskilled labor. Same type of unskilled labor at a UAW infested plant in Dertoit/Flint/wherever is forced by unions to pay the worker $25/hr, plus another $5/hr into the union pension fund. That's great for the worker to make that kind of money for putting a bolt into a door. Not so great for the company having to pay its employees that much and not being able to develop new product for lack of R&D funds.
Drilldov2.0
08-05-2011, 17:21
So close tax loop holes and make all investment income taxed the same as regular income.
Raise revenue.
Taxes currently are at the lowest level in over 50 years. Your own numbers show that no matter what we do, we can't cut our way out of this. So you have to raise revenue.
Your own logic is laughably off base. We could tax 100% of every taxpayer's income and we would not even make a dent in the debt we have right now.
Higher taxes are never the answer.
And on the topic, I am still on Baby Step #2. Should be debt-free by this time next year.
Does anyone have a good source for the actual percentage of the citizenry that actually pays any net federal payroll taxes?
The top 1% of earners pay about 38% of all federal income tax.
48% of Americans pay zero or negative net income taxes (due to earned income credits).
I'll have to find the documentation, but the numbers are pretty solid.
Edit: Info comes from the IRS
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_indincome_allcharts-20101005.pdf
The top 5% of earners account for almost 59% of federal income tax. This is for people making more than $159,614 in 2009.
Your own logic is laughably off base. We could tax 100% of every taxpayer's income and we would not even make a dent in the debt we have right now.
Higher taxes are never the answer.
And on the topic, I am still on Baby Step #2. Should be debt-free by this time next year.
The vast amount of wealth earned in this nation comes from investments... there is no logical reason why a working man should be taxed more than an investor. We have a budget shortfall. The only way to fix this is to cut and tax more. Tax those who have the most and already don't pay enough.
I hear a great deal about flat tax for all....... why are you afraid of a flat tax for investment income? Income is income is income...
Todays current economic reality and why the top 10% pay so much..... because the rest of us are not getting paid period.
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgf1q1fBd61qa0uujo1_500.jpg
todays reality post 2007 is even worse for the middle class.
So close tax loop holes and make all investment income taxed the same as regular income.
Raise revenue.
Taxes currently are at the lowest level in over 50 years. Your own numbers show that no matter what we do, we can't cut our way out of this. So you have to raise revenue.
That is where you are wrong. Cut all the entitlement programs. Defense cuts meed yo be made. More power given back to the people and responsibility with it. If you want taxes raised then you can personally donate to whatever program or organization you choose but I am tired of the government spending my money for me.
You are just chalk full or horrible ideas.
time and time again......... really?
Because all the data shows that we had were paying off our debt during the 60s and our debt exploded during the time of lower taxes. As to the small uptick in revenue. Well that is because we borrowed to cover our costs. This thread is about our debt problem. So unless you figure out a way to cut taxes and spending and show how we can do that well......... that won't happen.
Voodoo economics failed........ look at our debt.
No a .gov spending what money it has coming in, not a metric shit ton more. You fail.
Sniper, You are just chalk full or horrible ideas too
I maintain that Reagan only took in more revenue because he increase borrowing and spending. Which he did.
There is no free lunch.
As to tax levels of the 1960s one major difference. Those taxes back then were targeted at business and other wealthy targets more than the middle class. Today the middle class pays a larger portion of their earnings in taxes than they did in the 1960s. We need to close tax loop holes like the ones that give tax breaks to corporations for outsourcing American jobs over seas.
And you really think they are going to keep business or jobs here when their taxes take a major hike? Your libtard sense is even near off the charts from all the other ones we have on here.
.
More taxes kills jobs. Less jobs is more entitlement money to pay for basics. No spare change means the economy slows. That slows business which cuts more jobs.
That is where we are at now and you are proposing to keep the same failed logic going. You need to go to front range and take economics for dummies.
Taxes on business use to make up over 20% of all gov revenue in the 1960s. Today less than 7%. Most large business pay NO taxes. See GE... That leaves the small businessman paying all the taxes that those mega corporations do not any more. End their tax breaks. Then lower the rate on all business. Make it a level playing field.
Today in America we have a REGRESSIVE tax rate. Any one who tells you different does not understand how taxes really work or how a hedge fund manager or investor earns income.
No proof again. Just spouting bullshit like a true libtard. Where is the ignore button when you need one.
I think we differ on that one. I do think we need to do something about bringing back manufacturing to the states, I don't know if tariffs can be the answer. As for Detroit, the unions have the biggest hand in destroying the industry in that city. Example: All manufacturing facilities have machine operators and assemblers, lets say a typical wage for an assembler at a non-union plant is $12/hr. Not great pay, but not bad for unskilled labor. Same type of unskilled labor at a UAW infested plant in Dertoit/Flint/wherever is forced by unions to pay the worker $25/hr, plus another $5/hr into the union pension fund. That's great for the worker to make that kind of money for putting a bolt into a door. Not so great for the company having to pay its employees that much and not being able to develop new product for lack of R&D funds.
You should look at just how much money the car companies can pull in the amount of jobs they provide and how much they actually spend on r&d and concepts and sponsoring and advertising.
jscwerve
08-05-2011, 17:55
You should look at just how much money the car companies can pull in the amount of jobs they provide and how much they actually spend on r&d and concepts and sponsoring and advertising.
Oh, absolutely, they are huge companies that spend billions on those things, I wasn't saying they didn't. I agree with you. I was just saying that the unions had a big hand in the decline of the American auto industry. Hell, I've been employed by the auto industry myself (in manufacturing). Of course the plant I worked in was purchased by a forign company and got shut down. [Tooth]
The vast amount of wealth earned in this nation comes from investments... there is no logical reason why a working man should be taxed more than an investor. We have a budget shortfall. The only way to fix this is to cut and tax more. Tax those who have the most and already don't pay enough.
I hear a great deal about flat tax for all....... why are you afraid of a flat tax for investment income? Income is income is income...
Are you a socialist? Tax more to give to those who are lazy and don't do shit. Taxing those people more (me included) is not going to do a damn thing but give the. Gov more money to blow on worthless programs. I don't want my money funding abortion or welfare or Medicaid. If I want to help someone I will donate. For the tree huggers and whale humpers that equates to tossing a couple more plankton in the mouth of blue whale. He isn't going to suddenly get full and not eat any more.
Todays current economic reality and why the top 10% pay so much..... because the rest of us are not getting paid period.
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgf1q1fBd61qa0uujo1_500.jpg
todays reality post 2007 is even worse for the middle class.
Find a reliable source. This comes from the state of the worst of the worse who can't control their spending despite some of the highest taxes in the country.
Sniper, You are just chalk full or horrible ideas too
Please explain one to me oh man of men....
Todays current economic reality and why the top 10% pay so much..... because the rest of us are not getting paid period.
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgf1q1fBd61qa0uujo1_500.jpg
todays reality post 2007 is even worse for the middle class.
http://thereformedmind.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/federal-progressive-income-tax-pie-chart.jpg
Since you like charts...the "rich" already pay more actual dollars into the kitty, and receive fewer benefits per capita (since they don't rely on social programs, social security, Medicare, etc.).
Drilldov2.0
08-06-2011, 11:12
The vast amount of wealth earned in this nation comes from investments... there is no logical reason why a working man should be taxed more than an investor. We have a budget shortfall. The only way to fix this is to cut and tax more. Tax those who have the most and already don't pay enough.
I hear a great deal about flat tax for all....... why are you afraid of a flat tax for investment income? Income is income is income...
I am all for a flat tax across the board... including those bottom 50% who currently pay nothing. A federal consumption tax would be beneficial as well.
But before we start taxing the people and businesses even more, we need to cut the size of the massive, bloated government which has grown exponentially under this President, starting with the useless Czars. Our economy cannot sustain further tax increases for the wealthiest and corporations right now. They will simply move their wealth and businesses to an environment more conducive to profitability, which would only hurt us more.
You want to explain how expanding the administrations current tax, spend, print, increase regulations policy, which resulted in a .4% GDP growth in the first Quarter of this year, would somehow suddenly work now after proven to be a dismal failure?
Our government doesn't seem to be able to grasp even basic math, let alone economics.
Taxes on business use to make up over 20% of all gov revenue in the 1960s. Today less than 7%. Most large business pay NO taxes. See GE... That leaves the small businessman paying all the taxes that those mega corporations do not any more. End their tax breaks. Then lower the rate on all business. Make it a level playing field.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes. Their customers do, as a pass through expense. If the market will not support higher prices (due to foreign competition), businesses have a few choices: Cut costs (labor is usually the greatest expense, so to reduce costs they either reduce the number of employees, reduce what they pay employees, or move production to areas with more favorable conditions, i.e. overseas), accept a lower profit margin (unlikely, and not fiscally responsible for continued survival in many cases), or change their business model to offer an inferior product for the same cost.
http://thereformedmind.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/federal-progressive-income-tax-pie-chart.jpg
Since you like charts...the "rich" already pay more actual dollars into the kitty, and receive fewer benefits per capita (since they don't rely on social programs, social security, Medicare, etc.).
Given the proportions of earnings that those upper classes take in, the number should be even higher and it would be even higher if we had a flat tax on all forms of income.
The conservative mime about the middle class paying not enough taxes is a well articulated misleading statement (lie). They look at income tax alone. They don't include payrol taxes, (which there are several forms of this graph around) things like soc sec and medicare which the poor and the middle class pay a higher rate as a percentage of total earnings than the wealthy. Make over 100K and you pay NO soc sec. Make wages from cap gains, you pay neither. It looks like the wealthy pay so much but this is because they earn WAY more than we do. In fact since the 80s their income has tripled while the middle class has lost wages.
Easy way to explain why the rich pay so much......... 99 people in a room they all make 50K a year. Say they are all taxed at a flat rate of 25%. Then Bill gates walks in the room..... guess what Bill gates at the same flat rate still pays 99% of the taxes in the room. Heck you could tax the other 99 guys at 100% and Bill would still pay 99%.
Truth is if we stopped this stupid game of classifying investing different from a Drs working wages, we could fix our deficit and pay down the debt in no time. "But thats class warfare"........ you are correct and the middle class is losing. Its the other classes that started it.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes. Their customers do, as a pass through expense. If the market will not support higher prices (due to foreign competition), businesses have a few choices: Cut costs (labor is usually the greatest expense, so to reduce costs they either reduce the number of employees, reduce what they pay employees, or move production to areas with more favorable conditions, i.e. overseas), accept a lower profit margin (unlikely, and not fiscally responsible for continued survival in many cases), or change their business model to offer an inferior product for the same cost.
This is wrong....... when taxes go up, business has several choices, only one is pass the cost onto the consumer. Either cut profits, cut wages or raise prices. Or a 4th, invest profit back into the business to hide it from gov taxes. Which is what many did in the 1960s.
Wallstreet has seen the largest profits in history for the last 2 years while the rest of us got the shaft. When are you going to think outside your box? Because your box does not seem to have the answers?
As to moving production over seas, that should be taxed on any products that those traitor companies want to import. We should lower taxes here and tax the shit out of imports. Just like the founders of this nation did all the way till Reagan.
About the debt.......Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.
“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
Even Wallstreet is turning against the GOPs cut only plan.
yes, lets give the government more money. they have been oh so responsible with the amount they are given thus far, why not give more? is that some kind of a joke?
we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. the government is far bigger and involved in far more than it was originally designed to be. and we are supposed to now give them more, after they have completely blown all the money we gave them? you can't be serious.
if politicians put a REAL plan, with SERIOUS intentions to cut the debt, and set taxes higher for one, two, or a few years, with it all laid out on how much of the debt they were going to reduce, and completely cut off certain worthless organizations that the government should never have been involved in to begin with, then i would be all for raising taxes. i want to do my part to help the country. giving an irrepsonsible government more money, to a poor, simple minded fool like myself, doesn't make a lot of sense. sometimes with addicts, you have to cut them off to make them realize their errors.
So close tax loop holes and make all investment income taxed the same as regular income.
Raise revenue.
Taxes currently are at the lowest level in over 50 years. Your own numbers show that no matter what we do, we can't cut our way out of this. So you have to raise revenue.
to rational folk, its not about "cuts only". raising taxes is fine if it actually made a difference. im not for giving anyone more money until they prove they can be responsible and are seriously changing their ways, and that means cuts. not little, stupid, tiny cuts. big, massive, back to the basic, back to the way it was designed to be, cuts. hurtful cuts. the kind of cuts that are painful but needed in the long run. the kind of cuts that get you kicked out of office but save the country. when that happens, they can jack up my taxes all they want if it will help this country.
About the debt.......Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.
“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
Even Wallstreet is turning against the GOPs cut only plan.
This is wrong....... when taxes go up, business has several choices, only one is pass the cost onto the consumer. Either cut profits, cut wages or raise prices. Or a 4th, invest profit back into the business to hide it from gov taxes. Which is what many did in the 1960s.
Wallstreet has seen the largest profits in history for the last 2 years while the rest of us got the shaft. When are you going to think outside your box? Because your box does not seem to have the answers?
As to moving production over seas, that should be taxed on any products that those traitor companies want to import. We should lower taxes here and tax the shit out of imports. Just like the founders of this nation did all the way till Reagan.
biggest profits in history will always happen...why? because the dollar doesn't buy as much as it used to in your precious 60's you talk about. Inflation going through the roof doesn't help either. You are stuck inside your own box, suffocating on your own flatulents because your head is up your ass.
then in your last paragraph you say to lower taxes and tax imports. but yet a page ago you were all for raising taxes on the rich and businesses...so what is it? did we get through to you or are you just retarded still and I proved it yet again?
CrufflerSteve
08-06-2011, 21:02
biggest profits in history will always happen...why? because the dollar doesn't buy as much as it used to in your precious 60's you talk about. Inflation going through the roof doesn't help either. You are stuck inside your own box, suffocating on your own flatulents because your head is up your ass.
then in your last paragraph you say to lower taxes and tax imports. but yet a page ago you were all for raising taxes on the rich and businesses...so what is it? did we get through to you or are you just retarded still and I proved it yet again?
I believe he was talking about taxes on the rich vs. taxes on corporations. There are some serious loopholes in taxation. Hedge funds generally charge 2% of the total and 20% of profits. They have more freedom than regular mutual funds since they can do shorts and anything they damn well want. These are unregulated with virtually no reporting. They pay a 15% tax rate vs. the usual 35% rate for investments. They have grown to be a huge part of the market and the managers, some of whom take in billions, pay lower taxes than most of us. Such crap is a major argument for flat taxes. For fun read about John Paulson and ABACUS.
It is also fun to talk about those evil Democrats who want to take our money but they include people like Chuck Schumer, "The Senator for Wall Street". We all know of him for his anti-gun rhetoric but he has never seen a deregulation or tax break for the wealthy he didn't like.
Sniper7, perhaps you should study logical fallacies. Excessive use of ad hominem tends to be used to mask the poverty of the arguments someone is advancing. It might be fun but shows lack of mastery of the subject.
Steve
I think you read what you want to read. I have been consistent. I said that we need to tax all income the same. This will raise taxes on some people who have the system rigged so they don't pay. People who make billions on long term cap gains and those worthless trust fund babies from boulder will now have to pay taxes like everyone else. This will raise their rates. But I think this will generate so much revenue that we could lower taxes (only after we pay off our debt).
I also said that we need to end all corporate breaks. Only ones that should exist are for national interest reasons. Now we have billion dollar companies like GE who pay NO taxes while middle class small businessmen do. Its market manipulation and the mega companies buy our gov to get those breaks while small companies can't afford to.
There is no way we can cut our way out of this mess alone. We need to fix the rigged tax structure.
As to taxing imports.... hell yeah. The more we tax foreign companies, the lower we can put the tax rate for all business in America. For the first 100 years of this nation import tariffs paid for 90% of all gov. I rather like the idea of sticking it to other countries to pay for our gov. Sounds grand...
I believe he was talking about taxes on the rich vs. taxes on corporations. There are some serious loopholes in taxation. Hedge funds generally charge 2% of the total and 20% of profits. They have more freedom than regular mutual funds since they can do shorts and anything they damn well want. These are unregulated with virtually no reporting. They pay a 15% tax rate vs. the usual 35% rate for investments. They have grown to be a huge part of the market and the managers, some of whom take in billions, pay lower taxes than most of us. Such crap is a major argument for flat taxes. For fun read about John Paulson and ABACUS.
It is also fun to talk about those evil Democrats who want to take our money but they include people like Chuck Schumer, "The Senator for Wall Street". We all know of him for his anti-gun rhetoric but he has never seen a deregulation or tax break for the wealthy he didn't like.
Sniper7, perhaps you should study logical fallacies. Excessive use of ad hominem tends to be used to mask the poverty of the arguments someone is advancing. It might be fun but shows lack of mastery of the subject.
Steve
maybe you should also think that just because someone does well with money, makes a lot of money or works hard for a lot of money doesn't mean they should get the living shit taxed out of them to benefit the social programs that lazy people rely on to make sure they don't have work for shit in their life. I am not saying these people have wonderful lives that are fulfilling, as I see it every week where I fly to, but what they are given for nothing is above and beyond what anyone should receive for doing not a damn thing.
The people who fought and died for this country didn't do so because they wanted to see the placed taxed to living shit again.
For those talking about taxing the "rich". Obama pretty well defines that as 200K a year and 250K as a couple. maybe that seems like a lot to most people now, but back in nynco's held so dearly 60's a million bucks also seemed like a lot of money, isn't as true today. in 20 years those tax laws will probably be in effect in one way shape or form.
As to your loopholes, please tell me you have paid YOUR taxes on everything you have sold face to face requiring paying such taxes, that you have paid taxes on the internet purchases you have made after colorado passed that law last year:
http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2010/02/26/colorado-internet-sales-tax-bill-signed-by-governor/
Just because you don't make the money that other people make doesn't mean they should get the shit taxed out of them. That isn't a logical fallacy, that is words from a guy who doesn't want to get the shit taxed out of him to pay for others laziness and lack of trying or some libtards wet dream about saving the planet or making the world safe for everyone or making sure everyone has a great comfortable life.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
a step in the right direction, but needs to be accompanied by massive cuts in spending to work.
I think you read what you want to read. I have been consistent. I said that we need to tax all income the same. This will raise taxes on some people who have the system rigged so they don't pay. People who make billions on long term cap gains and those worthless trust fund babies from boulder will now have to pay taxes like everyone else. This will raise their rates. But I think this will generate so much revenue that we could lower taxes (only after we pay off our debt).
I also said that we need to end all corporate breaks. Only ones that should exist are for national interest reasons. Now we have billion dollar companies like GE who pay NO taxes while middle class small businessmen do. Its market manipulation and the mega companies buy our gov to get those breaks while small companies can't afford to.
There is no way we can cut our way out of this mess alone. We need to fix the rigged tax structure.
As to taxing imports.... hell yeah. The more we tax foreign companies, the lower we can put the tax rate for all business in America. For the first 100 years of this nation import tariffs paid for 90% of all gov. I rather like the idea of sticking it to other countries to pay for our gov. Sounds grand...
you are living in dream land. Everyone who makes money figures out a way to hide it from being taxed or being tracked in one way or another whether it is the drug dealers or the investment bankers with offshore bank accounts.
You keep talking about raising taxes to pay off debt...never has the debt been paid off yet it has been proven time and again in this thread that raising taxes does anything but give the politicians more money to blow. Until there is hard rules and possibly a constitutional amendment as to how much of the .gov income must be used to pay off the debt, how much is to be set aside into "savings" once the debt is paid off and strict limits on when that savings can be touched (such as times of recession or war) then raising taxes is out of the window. It has been tried time and time again, in this country and others and continues to fail. look of the definition of insanity, it applies perfectly.
As I said you read what you want to read. Its like you create strawman arguments and dance a victory dance when you take it down.
As to why you think its wrong to tax rich people the same as the middle class, I am at a loss. It makes absolutely no sense. I think you fall back on misunderstood ideology rather than common sense. But really I think it is just - you're stubborn.
Sharpienads
08-07-2011, 01:18
Well then think about how to reform them. Because they do play a positive roll too.
Here's a way to reform them and every other program liberals have started/taken over: Make them optional. If unions are so great, people will want to join. If they're not as great as some would have us to believe, they will fall apart once optional.
Same with things like social security. I for one would give up all my SS contributions if I could invest in my own retirement, and I'm sure a lot of other people would too. But it is mandatory, so I have to participate. If it's such a good program, why is it mandatory? If it was that good, enough people would want to participate to keep the program going. SS is such a joke... an unconstitutional joke.
To quote Andrew Wilkow: "Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory."
Sharpienads
08-07-2011, 01:47
Also, can anyone define a few terms for me?
-Rich
-Middle Class
-Tax Loopholes
Flat tax or fair tax, either one sounds about a million times better than our current tax code. If the treasury secratary can't do his taxes right, what makes you think I can? If we had a flat tax of 10%, where EVERYONE paid the same percentage regardless of income, it would save a lot of time and money. I could put 10% of my paycheck in a savings account every month, know EXACTLY how much I owe, earn interest in the meantime, and send a check to the gubment in April. No witholdings, no complicated forms, no excuses. The form could look like this:
How much did you make: _________
x .10
Total owed in taxes: _________
Make checks payable to Uncle Sam. Thank you for your patriotism.
I also belive you should have to pay taxes to be able to vote. And since everyone should be able to vote, everyone should pay taxes. No more people voting to spend other people's money. Everyone needs skin in the game.
As for the cut spending or raise revenue, as others have already stated, we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Get rid of unconstitutional departments. Education, EPA, welfare, agriculture, etc. If you think they're so awesome, pass an amendment giving the federal government the power. Next, cut the budget. The budget can be cut everywhere, defense included. Anybody who has ever been in the military can identify a hundred places where the defense budget could be cut without taking away pay for troops or their benifits.
Bottom line, if we actually stuck to the constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Drilldov2.0
08-07-2011, 01:48
As I said you read what you want to read. Its like you create strawman arguments and dance a victory dance when you take it down.
As to why you think its wrong to tax rich people the same as the middle class, I am at a loss. It makes absolutely no sense. I think you fall back on misunderstood ideology rather than common sense. But really I think it is just - you're stubborn.
Where are you getting this nonsense? The rich pay more proportionally, as you said. But why do you think taxing them more is a good idea?
You never answered my post about the flat tax across the board, Which includes taxing the lower 50% which does not pay taxes currently.
As I pointed out, you could tax every person in the US 100% and there is still a deficit (and not even a dent in the debt) to the amount of spending this administration is continuing, and this administration insisted on a debt limit increase for purely political reasons.
Now back to the real world. Since we spend more than we take in and could ever possibly tax, even at 100% tax rate, what logical solutions do you have? You don't, because there are not any.
The only solution is CAP the current spending, cut useless programs and trim down outrageous entitlements, Gut the government and their over-reaching claws, reduce taxes, yes even for those evil corporate entities.
You keep referring to increased "revenue" that means tax increase on producers. You simply cannot "stimulate" the economy by taking even more money out of the private sector and putting it into the govt. Your thinking is absurd and has been proven to be a failure.
The Dim- controlled senate tables every bill that would actually do something. Cut, Cap and Balance would have been a strong first step. But they would never approve something holding themselves accountable.
See how far the Mack Penny Plan gets in the Congress.
Where are you getting this nonsense? The rich pay more proportionally, as you said. But why do you think taxing them more is a good idea?
You never answered my post about the flat tax across the board, Which includes taxing the lower 50% which does not pay taxes currently.
As I said, you guys read what you want to read. Then assign me your strawman to take down.
Actually no the really rich people pay less of an effective tax rate than the middle class. Look up the term "effective tax rate". Read away for proof of how they get taxed less than you...
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
I don't care if the rich pay a larger percentage of the total revenue. They make WAY more. If we taxed them at a flat rate as everyone else, they would pay even more than they do now. Why? Because they get paid insanely more than the middle class.
I think the "Fair tax" is insane and unfair. I think a national sales tax is wrong. What I advocate for is a FLAT TAX on ALL forms of income... I would rather a progressive tax, but I would take a flat tax over the regressive taxes we have today. Also, no cap on Soc Sec 2% across the board on all income forms and I am sure there would still be a surplus. No taxbreaks to game the system. All poor and rich pay the same.
Drilldov2.0
08-07-2011, 05:15
As I said, you guys read what you want to read. Then assign me your strawman to take down.
Actually no the really rich people pay less of an effective tax rate than the middle class. Look up the term "effective tax rate". Read away for proof of how they get taxed less than you...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
I don't care if the rich pay a larger percentage of the total revenue. They make WAY more. If we taxed them at a flat rate as everyone else, they would pay even more than they do now. Why? Because they get paid insanely more than the middle class.
I think the "Fair tax" is insane and unfair. I think a national sales tax is wrong. What I advocate for is a FLAT TAX on ALL forms of income... I would rather a progressive tax, but I would take a flat tax over the regressive taxes we have today. Also, no cap on Soc Sec 2% across the board on all income forms and I am sure there would still be a surplus. No taxbreaks to game the system. All poor and rich pay the same.
So basically what you are saying, and have said; is that you think if you work harder and earn more you should have to pay more in taxes? Well as I and many have shown, the most successful have already paid more in taxes.
You like to talk about taxes. The real issue is spending vs. income. Raising taxes will do nothing but put more money into the inept hands in Washington. So what do you propose to do about cutting the current debt and deficit spending, what exactly should be cut in your mind? Raising taxes does nothing, effectively. So what should be cut?
And don't give me your oft-repeated, lame line of "you guys read what you want to read" bullshit. I am dealing in facts and numbers, so propose to me, wait all of us, your plan beyond higher taxes that actually makes economic, not theoretical sense. Raising taxes now furthers the decline of our economy. Govt. taking "revenue" out of the private sector reduces jobs and hampers the economy.
So basically what you are saying, and have said; is that you think if you work harder and earn more you should have to pay more in taxes? Well as I and many have shown, the most successful have already paid more in taxes.
Well as I have said many times........ you guys read what you want or need to read. ^^^^^^^^^ this is a strawman argument.
I have said and I have repeated this many times. Flat tax on all forms of income. Since the uber rich have currently set up a system where they pay a lower taxrate on investment income than we pay from labor income, this will raise taxes on them. But this is not unfair to ask them to pay the same rate as everyone else. We should not have a system that punishes the middle class and lets the rich off from paying the same taxes as them. If you think that only taxing the middle class is good and that the "kings" should not pay.......... well you need to explain that logic to me. It makes no sense.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 10:41
So close tax loop holes and make all investment income taxed the same as regular income.
What a great incentive to make people work and invest.
That's probably one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen posted here.
What a great incentive to make people work and invest.
That's probably one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen posted here.
Really, so why should workers be punished more. Infact, if you tax dividend income more, it incentives investors to make longterm investments rather than short term. I rather like the idea of people working towards a long term healthy America rather than slitting our throats for 1 quarters earnings.
Now for investment income, no taxes would be paid on the initial investment amount. Losses of initial investment amounts could be written off on other profits. There should also be an inflation index added to keep the value of the original investment from being taxes.
As to why you think its better to tax workers more than the investor class, well you need to explain that more than with just an insult.
why are we still talking about taxes? taxes shouldn't even be a debate until the government has learned to live within their means, and they are light years from that point.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 11:05
How simply does it have to be said before liberals can understand? From FoxNews:
David Beers, global head of sovereign and international public finance ratings at S&P, told "Fox News Sunday" that governments and Congresses come and go, but spending on entitlements persistently drags U.S. debt further into the red.
"The key thing is, yes, entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest," Beers said.
The rich DID NOT get us into this financial mess. The rich pay their fair share of taxes. Reckless fiscal policy and spending more money than we have by politicians got us into this mess. Now they're looking for a scapegoat and they've settled on the "rich" because, for the most part, politicians are a bunch of chickenshit cowards. And democrats don't want to reform entitlement/welfare programs because they'll piss off their base.
50% of our society that effectively pays zero taxes is part of the problem. We simply can't afford to support these deadbeats any longer. That does not include the small minority who truly need help.
This is not an issue that can be solved with bumper-sticker slogans like "make the rich pay their share". It's a typical liberal strategy designed not to solve the problem but to pander to the (mostly) uneducated and unmotivated masses.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 11:07
As to why you think its better to tax workers more than the investor class, well you need to explain that more than with just an insult.
I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.
So all you got are insults. Predictable...
So the rich paying their fair share means that as you get richer, you should pay LESS of a taxrate than the middle class? This is what you are saying.
As to the S&P stuff, you left something really important out.
“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
It’s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 11:37
Apparently you have difficulty discerning insults from truth.
And yes...I left a lot of important stuff out. I suppose I could've cut/pasted the entire report here. I was trying to be brief. That's sort of the point of using an excerpt.
And I told you what the problem is. It's not a matter of anyone paying more taxes. It's a matter of those not paying, paying their share. But more than that it's a matter of our government not spending money we don't have.
I gave you an answer. You just don't like the answer thus you fall back to the only thing you have. Attacking the messenger.
You are a typical liberal.
(Yes...that is an insult)
Well if you would could comprehend what I was writing you might get past your hate for all things liberal.
If there is a flat tax on all forms of income, the poor will pay too. But you can't seem to get that obvious fact.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 11:50
No, I do get it. I'm not against a flat tax. I would prefer a national sales tax as the collection sources/procedures are already in place.
But that's not the point. The point is:
The government perpetually spends more money than it takes in.
The biggest reason for that is entitlement spending.It really is that simple.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 11:51
Oh...
Don't hold your breath waiting for me to get past my hatred for liberal ideals.
Actually no, one of the biggest reasons is the military. Soc Sec and medicaid are paid for by specific taxes and not payed for from the general fund.
So since you are all for lowering taxes to the small gov levels of the 1800's does that mean that you are for abolishing our standing military and returning to what the founders envisioned? You do know the founders put into the constitution that the militarys' existence must be voted on every 2 years.
Oh...
Don't hold your breath waiting for me to get past my hatred for liberal ideals.
As the saying goes........ ignorance is bliss...
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 12:03
As the saying goes........ ignorance is bliss...
Is that why liberals are always so happy?
Is that why liberals are always so happy?
I have been told countless times on the forums that all liberals are "angry liberals"... so...
Sharpienads
08-07-2011, 12:53
Actually no, one of the biggest reasons is the military. Soc Sec and medicaid are paid for by specific taxes and not payed for from the general fund.
You're wrong about several things here. First of all, we spend more on Social Security than defense, and spend more on Medicare and Medicaid than we do on defense (both are entitlements).
Secondly, defense spending is something that is specifically authorized by the constitution in Article 1, Section 8. I don't see any power for the federal gubment to spend on my retirement or healthcare.
Third, although there are specific taxes for SS and M&M, you can't tell me that that money is safely locked up in 310+ million little boxes labeled with individual SSN's just waiting to be paid out to the SSN holder and seperated from the general fund. If you believe that you are crazy. The general fund has been beefed up with SS taxes, and SS has been paid from the general fund.
So since you are all for lowering taxes to the small gov levels of the 1800's does that mean that you are for abolishing our standing military and returning to what the founders envisioned? You do know the founders put into the constitution that the militarys' existence must be voted on every 2 years.
Who said 1800's? I don't know of anybody that is against a debt to GDP ratio. Nobody is talking about cutting the gubment to hard numbers at what they were in the 1800's. That's ridiculous. If our country keeps growing, our federal budget will grow as well. But it SHOULD grow within it's constitutional bounds.
The military's existence isn't voted on every two years. Per Article 1, Section 8, appropiations for the army must be renewed every two years. Congress is mandated to "provide and maintain a Navy".
I should have been more specific. Yes the standing Army is voted on every 2 years.
As to Soc Sec and medicare, they are paid for by specific taxes and are not taken out of the general fun. Unless you are advocating robbing them to pay for items that are to be out of the general fund, they should not be mixed with those types of spending. Both Soc and medicare pay for themselves out of those specific taxes. Now the US gov has borrowed against those funds and that needs to be paid back. Or are you saying we should not honor our debt obligations?
Drilldov2.0
08-07-2011, 13:03
Well as I have said many times........ you guys read what you want or need to read. ^^^^^^^^^ this is a strawman argument.
I have said and I have repeated this many times. Flat tax on all forms of income. Since the uber rich have currently set up a system where they pay a lower taxrate on investment income than we pay from labor income, this will raise taxes on them. But this is not unfair to ask them to pay the same rate as everyone else. We should not have a system that punishes the middle class and lets the rich off from paying the same taxes as them. If you think that only taxing the middle class is good and that the "kings" should not pay.......... well you need to explain that logic to me. It makes no sense.
Well it is useless talking to you since you either haven't read my previous posts or simply just didn't understand them.
I get it now, you only want to tax our way out. (impossible) you have no concept of the current crisis and are only spouting dimtard talking points and rhetoric. NO WHERE did I say tax only the middle class. And we don't have a system that punishes the middle class. Are you certain you live in the United States?
Well it is useless talking to you since you either haven't read my previous posts or simply just didn't understand them.
I get it now, you only want to tax our way out. (impossible) you have no concept of the current crisis and are only spouting dimtard talking points and rhetoric. NO WHERE did I say tax only the middle class. And we don't have a system that punishes the middle class. Are you certain you live in the United States?
I agree we need to cut things. But to only cut things is not the way.
I also think we are punishing the middle class if we have a system where Warren Buffet pays less of a tax rate than his secretary. No way around that, that is punishing the middle class and rewarding hedgefund managers like Buffet. Unless you can explain how it is not punishment to tax his secretary at 30% and then only 17% for the billion dollar earner (buffet).
So how is that fair?
Sharpienads
08-07-2011, 13:12
As to Soc Sec and medicare, they are paid for by specific taxes and are not taken out of the general fun. Unless you are advocating robbing them to pay for items that are to be out of the general fund, they should not be mixed with those types of spending. Both Soc and medicare pay for themselves out of those specific taxes. Now the US gov has borrowed against those funds and that needs to be paid back. Or are you saying we should not honor our debt obligations?
I noticed you said "should" there. How it's supposed to be and how it is aren't necessarily the same, and seldom are with our government.
And here's the bigger problem than our debt: our unfunded liabilities. Our unfunded liabilites are over $60T (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-owes-62-trillion-in-debt_n.htm)
Our government made a promise to those people, and the promise must be honored. I would gladly opt out of entitlement programs and be *gulp* responsible (some politicians/libtards might need to look that word up in their dictionaries) for myself and not add to those unfunded liabilities. But, as I stated before, these programs are so great they have to be mandatory. I don't think any rational person is talking about not paying our debts and obligations. But we definately don't need to be adding to them.
60 trillion is a false number. It takes into account future costs of medicare and soc sec. Both of which are financing themselves through specific taxes. The number is created to mislead people.
As to the other portions of that debt......... well taxcuts did not seem to pay for themselves. So now our generation is saddled paying the debts of the previous generations taxcuts. They chose to pass the buck to you... It was wreckless and short sighted and doing more wreckless and short sighted things will not fix that mess.
I wish we had Eisenhower back on the GOP ticket
Sharpienads
08-07-2011, 13:43
60 trillion is a false number. It takes into account future costs of medicare and soc sec.
It is an estimated number, not necessarily a false number.
Both of which are financing themselves through specific taxes. The number is created to mislead people.
The Social Security Administration would beg to differ:
"Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years."
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
And it's not the first time this has happened. So they obviously aren't doing a very good job of funding themselves. Oh, I know... we can just raise the SS and M&M taxes!!!
Well as I have said many times........ you guys read what you want or need to read. ^^^^^^^^^ this is a strawman argument.
I have said and I have repeated this many times. Flat tax on all forms of income. Since the uber rich have currently set up a system where they pay a lower taxrate on investment income than we pay from labor income, this will raise taxes on them. But this is not unfair to ask them to pay the same rate as everyone else. We should not have a system that punishes the middle class and lets the rich off from paying the same taxes as them. If you think that only taxing the middle class is good and that the "kings" should not pay.......... well you need to explain that logic to me. It makes no sense.
thats fine to play the libtard game of class warfare and hate the rich and complain because poor ol' me pays more than joe schmo even though joe makes more money. frankly that crap doesn't matter to me. life isn't fair, get over it. but i also have no problem having the rich lose their tax breaks and pay a flat rate, thats fine. whatever. the reason i really don't care is that it doesn't do squat to our current problem, so why are we even discussing it? thats something that should be talked about after we dig ourselves out of this shit hole situation. changing those taxes are a drop in the bucket.
is there a debate that the government is grossly over spending and involved in way more than they should be? if not, then lets fix that first before giving them more money, which really means more power.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 13:49
Nynco, I think you just got schooled.
Now...tell me again about these "accounts" from which SS checks are drawn on. Do you actually think there is an account somewhere from which all SS payments are made? If that's the case, why was Obama recently saying if the debt ceiling isn't raised "we won't be able to make SS payments"?
I already know the answer to those questions, BTW, I'm just curious what your take will be.
Nynco, I think you just got schooled.
Now...tell me again about these "accounts" from which SS checks are drawn on. Do you actually think there is an account somewhere from which all SS payments are made? If that's the case, why was Obama recently saying if the debt ceiling isn't raised "we won't be able to make SS payments"?
I already know the answer to those questions, BTW, I'm just curious what your take will be.
Because SS funds were borrowed from to pay for what the previous generation would not pay. Its pretty simple. Unless you are trying to say that the US should not honor its debts to soc sec trust fund.
thats fine to play the libtard game of class warfare and hate the rich and complain because poor ol' me pays more than joe schmo even though joe makes more money. frankly that crap doesn't matter to me. life isn't fair, get over it. but i also have no problem having the rich lose their tax breaks and pay a flat rate, thats fine. whatever. the reason i really don't care is that it doesn't do squat to our current problem, so why are we even discussing it? thats something that should be talked about after we dig ourselves out of this shit hole situation. changing those taxes are a drop in the bucket.
is there a debate that the government is grossly over spending and involved in way more than they should be? if not, then lets fix that first before giving them more money, which really means more power.
So you agree with me that all income should be taxed at a flat rate. Which means no taxbreaks and no 80,000 page (what ever) tax code.
We can't fix our deficit without closing those loopholes. I don't think it is possible to cut our way out of this mess without crashing our economy worse than it is now.
Sharpie........ I would fix Soc Sec by making it a flat tax on all revenue. No more cap. We could lower the rate and still cover our bills.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 13:58
Here's a question for you:
Is it possible for you to provide an honest answer without putting words into the mouths of others?
What lead you to believe I said, implied or inferred that we shouldn't honor our debt to the SS system?
To the contrary, it's my belief the politicians who robbed the SS funds to pay other bills should be shot for doing that.
I would ask the same of you...
Here's a question for you:
Is it possible for you to provide an honest answer without putting words into the mouths of others?
What lead you to believe I said, implied or inferred that we shouldn't honor our debt to the SS system?
To the contrary, it's my belief the politicians who robbed the SS funds to pay other bills should be shot for doing that.
Also what I am doing is asking leading questions. I want you to answer. If you disagree then let me know.
So you agree with me that all income should be taxed at a flat rate. Which means no taxbreaks and no 80,000 page (what ever) tax code.
We can't fix our deficit without closing those loopholes. I don't think it is possible to cut our way out of this mess without crashing our economy worse than it is now.
Sharpie........ I would fix Soc Sec by making it a flat tax on all revenue. No more cap. We could lower the rate and still cover our bills.
sure i have no problem with flat tax. that means we stop this garbage of 50% of the country not paying taxes though, too. but that still does squat for the debt problem. we can absolutely cut our way out of the debt problem, just no one has near the balls to even consider it. you can't take handouts from people that you promised them to. and the government, and unfortunately many sheep as well, believe we NEED the government in control of lots of useless organizations that the states could handle themselves. because everyone has been trained to think that, theres no way we can go back. we are stuck at our spending levels and probably only going to increase our spending since liberals have successfully infiltrated education (and more and more young people are brainwashed on the new definition of the word "fair" and "opportunity" and "responsibility" and "compassion"). increasing taxes and making small cuts won't get us out. not even close. look at the numbers. its not like we have a small problem and we need to tighten the belt a little. we are in a disaster and no one is serious about getting us out because they want to be re-elected. its sad, but we now live in a society where people would rather give things away that we can't afford to in order to feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and completely neglect the responsibility we have to keep a good budget. thats not even just liberals, its everyone. america got fat and got rich and in the process lost all ability to reason. now its all about feelings. as such, this debt problem is only going to get worse. mark it down.
and no, i don't use paragraphs on the internet.
Sharpienads
08-07-2011, 14:41
Well at least we all agree on simplifying the tax code.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2011, 14:44
Well at least we all agree on simplifying the tax code.
Speaking of tax dollars...
Shouldn't you be out killing terrorists?
Sharpienads
08-07-2011, 14:59
Speaking of tax dollars...
Shouldn't you be out killing terrorists?
I should be... but unfortunately that doesn't happen too often in my AO. They must know I'm here so they're on their best behavior.
sure i have no problem with flat tax. that means we stop this garbage of 50% of the country not paying taxes though, too. but that still does squat for the debt problem. ---- increasing taxes and making small cuts won't get us out. not even close. look at the numbers. its not like we have a small problem and we need to tighten the belt a little. we are in a disaster and no one is serious about getting us out because they want to be re-elected.
Increase taxes and make large cuts. I think the DOD has TONS of room to trim. I also think we need to end all these unnecessary wars. I tend to agree with Ron Paul in that regard.
Increase taxes and make large cuts. I think the DOD has TONS of room to trim. I also think we need to end all these unnecessary wars. I tend to agree with Ron Paul in that regard.
im not against defense cuts, except when they do defense cuts instead of social cuts on BS programs. defense was one of the few things the federal government was actually supposed to be responsible for and spend tax dollars on. like with raising taxes, before defense cuts i want to see serious cuts made in areas that the federal government has zero business being involved in. once they show they can do that, ill consider defense cuts more.
Nynco continues to get owned. Your libtard reasoning is best left on your flowerpower forums with those who are like you. I am questioning if you even like guns and are simply here to be annoying and prove liberals are truly ignorant and further justify our dislike toward them and their ideals because you certainly are doing a wonderful job of it in your short time here.
two shoes
08-07-2011, 22:59
Reading these posts as of late, from what they start as and what they de-evolve into, forces me to this realization: Arguing over the internet is just like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded... ;)
UberTong
08-08-2011, 09:38
Our government will never be able to call into Dave's show and yell "I'm debt free!!!"
Just sayin.
I'm just curious to one major thing that I keep seeing with taxes and the rich... Nynco- why do you hate rich people so much? Did they kill your puppy? Did they poop in your cheerios? I have some very rich friends who claim that they pay too much in taxes while some way down on the totem pole get breaks because they don't make very much. You propose that a flat tax would work, but the rich would still only pay so much and we should make them pay more. Why? A lot- not all- of these "rich #%" that you say should be paying more worked their asses off to get to where they're at (again not all of them did but a number put in a lot of work to make what they make) so why punish them for being successful? Just because person A makes $10M a year and you make $50K a year doesn't mean that person A deserves less of his income. You're saying that we should punish the excessively rich and that line of thinking is why liberals are usually the poorer folks who think they DESERVE stuff that they didn't work for... fuck that, you work for what you get, you don't get a free hand out. Don't like it, move. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but in theory you go to college, get a degree, get a job, work your ass off and make money. If you don't finish high school, you get an unskilled labor job, you work your ass off, you get minimum wage, and you're stuck in poverty... that's how the theory works. May not actually end up that way, but that's how my family found success, that's how a lot of people made something of themselves. I'm sick of liberals thinking it's somehow the higher echelons of society that owe something to everyone else just because they make more money. It's plain and simple bullshit. Just because someone makes $100+K a year doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to a piece of that. Why share the wealth when it goes against that idea that the harder you work (or in some cases the smarter) the more you make? Just because I make this much money doesn't mean I'm eager to pay my taxes so that a poor family in Denver can afford to put rims on their car and buy their kids designer clothes. I'd rather my taxes go to paying for police/fire/ems, military, roads, schools, and ensuring that we have adequate services for thing we actually need. I'm sick of paying for other people who can't support themselves. /rant
Again I don't really think taxes mean much in the debt talks since they are a drop in the bucket, but in my opinion the best way to do taxes is have everyone, I don't care how rich or how poor, pay the same. So let's say it's 20 percent. Everyone pays the same so there is still incentives to do well and you get rid of all the loopholes. But that's just a simple man 's opinion
I'm just curious to one major thing that I keep seeing with taxes and the rich... Nynco- why do you hate rich people so much? Did they kill your puppy? Did they poop in your cheerios? I have some very rich friends who claim that they pay too much in taxes while some way down on the totem pole get breaks because they don't make very much. You propose that a flat tax would work, but the rich would still only pay so much and we should make them pay more. Why? A lot- not all- of these "rich #%" that you say should be paying more worked their asses off to get to where they're at (again not all of them did but a number put in a lot of work to make what they make) so why punish them for being successful? Just because person A makes $10M a year and you make $50K a year doesn't mean that person A deserves less of his income. You're saying that we should punish the excessively rich and that line of thinking is why liberals are usually the poorer folks who think they DESERVE stuff that they didn't work for... fuck that, you work for what you get, you don't get a free hand out. Don't like it, move. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but in theory you go to college, get a degree, get a job, work your ass off and make money. If you don't finish high school, you get an unskilled labor job, you work your ass off, you get minimum wage, and you're stuck in poverty... that's how the theory works. May not actually end up that way, but that's how my family found success, that's how a lot of people made something of themselves. I'm sick of liberals thinking it's somehow the higher echelons of society that owe something to everyone else just because they make more money. It's plain and simple bullshit. Just because someone makes $100+K a year doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to a piece of that. Why share the wealth when it goes against that idea that the harder you work (or in some cases the smarter) the more you make? Just because I make this much money doesn't mean I'm eager to pay my taxes so that a poor family in Denver can afford to put rims on their car and buy their kids designer clothes. I'd rather my taxes go to paying for police/fire/ems, military, roads, schools, and ensuring that we have adequate services for thing we actually need. I'm sick of paying for other people who can't support themselves. /rant
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.