New tax proposal

[Sharpienads]

Since nobody seems to be able to agree on how to avoid the "fiscal cliff", I have a proposal to offer:

All those that either a) voted for Obama or a Democrat congressman/senator, or b) anybody that's ever used the phrase "[so-and-so] needs to pay their fair share" that wasn't being sarcastic and/or wasn't talking about those that already pay a higher tax rate than the individual speaking the aforementioned phrase will have their tax rates increased.

All those who did not vote for either of the above and did not utter such nonsense as the aforementioned phrase will stay at the current tax rate.

Oh yeah, and no spending increases.

That's what I call a compromise!!!

[merl]

You are obviously not paying your fair share. Your income taxes will increase 5%, medicare 8% and deductions will be capped at $5000. These increases shall be retroactive to 2009.

[T-Giv]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Sharpienads]

You are obviously not paying your fair share. Your income taxes will increase 5%, medicare 8% and deductions will be capped at $5000. These increases shall be retroactive to 2009.

Oooooh, yeah I like the retroactive idea. Too bad it's unconstitutional. But hey, why let that old, outdated document that was written by rich, white, slave-owning men get it in the way?

[merl]

Oooooh, yeah I like the retroactive idea. Too bad it's unconstitutional. But hey, why let that old, outdated document that was written by rich, white, slave-owning men get it in the way?

the constitution is a living document open to interpretation :)

[jhood001]

If they could present a 10 year plan that would cut our debt in half that required a 15% tax increase from me personally, I would gladly go for it. The problem is, they won't.

I'm not opposed to paying taxes or even more taxes on top of what I pay so long as I get something in return for it... Like a future for the kids I don't even have yet.

[merl]

If they could present a 10 year plan that would cut our debt in half that required a 15% tax increase from me personally, I would gladly go for it. The problem is, they won't.

yeah, give em more, they just spend more. everyone deserves their slice of the pie.

[jhood001]

yeah, give em more, they just spend more. everyone deserves their slice of the pie.

Exactly.

[Sharpienads]

If they could present a 10 year plan that would cut our debt in half that required a 15% tax increase from me personally, I would gladly go for it. The problem is, they won't.

I'm not opposed to paying taxes or even more taxes on top of what I pay so long as I get something in return for it... Like a future for the kids I don't even have yet.

I might be open to this idea IF there was a correlation between revenues and spending. But there isn't, and I doubt there will be any time soon. It just sucks because the debt has to get paid off somehow, but it's not right to expect future generations to pay it off. And I don't want to pay for it because I didn't want it in the first place. If only there was a way to make people responsible for their own actions...

[Bailey Guns]

My proposal would be that all:



presidents and former presidents since 1960 including their estates for those deceased
vice presidents since 1960 (as they preside over the senate and sometimes cast votes) including estates of those deceased
current and former members of congress since 1960 (regardless of the number of terms they served in the house or senate) including estates of those now deceased
cabinet members since 1960 including estates of those now deceased (as they were responsible for submitting budget proposals for their departments)
any other federal employee responsible for submitting budgets since 1960 including their estates (waived for military members)


would be required to pay off the debt. All their wealth in all forms should be confiscated including their pay, retirement pay, estates, investments, trusts, etc. The "rich" didn't get us into the fiscal disaster were in now. Elected and appointed federal public servants did. They're just using the "rich" as scapegoats.

This is a truly bipartisan solution and one which, I'm certain, most taxpayers would endorse.

[Irving]

Who else has a What Would Washington Pay bracelet?

[TS12000]

Can we please stop using the nomenclature "revenues" please.

[Sharpienads]

Can we please stop using the nomenclature "revenues" please.

Because...

[TS12000]

Because...

1. Because it's a sidestep to make the action more palatable to the public

2. A payment garnered through monopoly on force and imprisionment that is not optional is not a revenue. You are being jacked.

If the "business" of government depended on actual revenues and not theft they would be out of business in a day.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Can we please stop using the nomenclature "revenues" please.

Why? "Revenues" is an accurate word that encompasses income to the government from taxes, fees, sales, etc. The problem isn't the word, it's how Democrats have redefined the language so revenue only equals increased tax rates, moderate is now ultra-conservative and ridiculously radical is now moderate, "balance" only comes after they reset the scales by placing their collective arses on it, "shared burden" now means the government gets all your stuff and none of theirs, and "fair" means whatever the heck they want it to mean. Oh yeah, and you're a "racist classist homophobic denier" if you object to anything they want to do.

[TS12000]

^ I defer to the more articulate gentleman above, I guess it just rubs me the wrong way but he say it good