*sigh* Bill O'Reilly is right

[maxiep]

I don't disagree with that concept. It's complicated and not saying I agree they are out of control, but agree gov't is spending a lot of cash.

My point is if increasing taxes is the answer, I think it makes more sense to tax the "wealthy" (again) than this idea of a national sales tax.

In the country that already has the most progressive tax structure among developed nations in the world? We'll agree to disagree.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

In the country that already has the most progressive tax structure among developed nations in the world? We'll agree to disagree.

Fine, let's go back to the tax levels of the 1950s and 1960s, when the American economy was booming and dragging the rest of the world with it. Fair?

 

[maxiep]

Fine, let's go back to the tax levels of the 1950s and 1960s, when the American economy was booming and dragging the rest of the world with it. Fair?

Sure, if we can first bomb the rest of the world into oblivion to ensure we're the only industrial power standing after a global war. Oh, and can we also go to inflation-adjusted revenue outlays as well? Finally, to really replicate the 50s and 60s, we'd better reinstall all those closed loopholes that allowed the wealthy to avoid those oenerous tax rates at the top. Kthx.

P.S. You didn't really believe people paid those rates, did you?

 

[blazerboy30]

I don't disagree with that concept. It's complicated and not saying I agree they are out of control, but agree gov't is spending a lot of cash.

My point is if increasing taxes is the answer, I think it makes more sense to tax the "wealthy" (again) than this idea of a national sales tax.

1) Increasing taxes isn't the answer
2) What you consider "wealthy", I don't.
3) The system is going to break (even worse) if people always default to "increase taxes on those making more than me".

 

[STOMP]

I'm fortunate enough to be fairly wealthy (not gonna mention numbers, but I'm over the 250k/year thing), and I really don't mind paying more in taxes at all. I'm probably the only wealthy person in the world who will say that But I know how hard it is for many families to survive on a very limited income. I've been there. I have many friends who've been there and/or are still there. Hell I grew up in that kind of environment...there was no silver spoon in my mouth growing up.

There are TONS of excellent, excellent people who work hard every day (many harder than myself I'm sure), yet can barely support their kids. And yet here I am, after a series of fortunate events, sitting comfortably. How is that fair? I just as easily could be in their shoes too if things hadn't gone my way.

Anyway, I don't want to write an essay, but I really feel wealthy people who habitually whine about taxes are simply greedy. You don't need a 8000 square foot home, 5 hot sports cars, a yacht, a private jet, or whatever else. How about lending some extra support to the country that enabled you to live such a wonderful life to begin with???

nicely put, but I did read Kingspeed say basically the same thing about feeling fine about paying more a while back

STOMP

 

[maxiep]

Question for those who are willing to pay a bit more: Why don't you?

 

[Draco]

Question for those who are willing to pay a bit more: Why don't you?

Question for those who think there should be a national sales tax: Why don't you pay it now?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Question for those who think there should be a national sales tax: Why don't you pay it now?

Pay what now?

 

[maxiep]

Question for those who think there should be a national sales tax: Why don't you pay it now?

Thank you for answering my question by not answering my question. 21st Century Liberalism: Higher Taxes For Everyone Else.

 

[Draco]

Thank you for answering my question by not answering my question. 21st Century Liberalism: Higher Taxes For Everyone Else.

They were both very stupid questions, neither deserves an answer.

Democracy works best if everyone votes for their own interest. Why should a select few be entitled to a benefit that hurts the majority?

 

[Draco]

Why do people earning over $107,000 get a 12.4% tax break?

Why does Warren Buffett pay a lower tax rate (15% capital gains) than the cleaning lady emptying his garbadge who is in the 0% tax bracket. She pays 15.3% payroll taxes.

I'd be all for a flat income tax if it was for ALL taxes and ALL income. The rich love to bitch about how one type of tax has a progressive income rate then totally ignore all the other taxes that are highly regressive.

 

[blazerboy30]

Why do people earning over $107,000 get a 12.4% tax break?

What "tax break" are you referring to? Surely you aren't talking about the SS cap, since that would be a silly argument.

Why does Warren Buffett pay a lower tax rate (15% capital gains) than the cleaning lady emptying his garbadge who is in the 0% tax bracket. She pays 15.3% payroll taxes.

When she retires and doesn't have an income, her payroll tax will also go to zero.

I'd be all for a flat income tax if it was for ALL taxes and ALL income. The rich love to bitch about how one type of tax has a progressive income rate then totally ignore all the other taxes that are highly regressive.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare SS as a "tax" to other income tax. The point of the SS tax is that you get back, in proportion, what you put in. Regular taxes don't work that way.

 

[Draco]

What "tax break" are you referring to? Surely you aren't talking about the SS cap, since that would be a silly argument.

When she retires and doesn't have an income, her payroll tax will also go to zero.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare SS as a "tax" to other income tax. The point of the SS tax is that you get back, in proportion, what you put in. Regular taxes don't work that way.

You think individuals social security contributions go into a bank account they get to withdrawal from when they retire? That would an interesting idea, but the modern system doesn't work that way. Payroll taxes subsidized all forms of federal government general operations including defense, law enforcement, public health and business oversight. It’s very much been that way since the Democrats and Regan overhauled the system in the early 80’s.

Remember all the talk about how Regan “cut” taxes? People are referring to Regan cutting taxes for the wealthy. All those tax “cuts” were packages that in total were revenue neutral! How can you cut taxes if the bill is revenue neutral? The Democrats and Regan decreased the proportion paid by higher income individuals and increased payroll taxes for people earning under six figures.

So yes I consider payroll tax to be a tax.

 

[maxiep]

They were both very stupid questions, neither deserves an answer.

Democracy works best if everyone votes for their own interest. Why should a select few be entitled to a benefit that hurts the majority?

Nice try. I constantly am lectured by wealthy people telling me I have to pay more. They are more than welcome to pay more to an inefficient organization like the Federal Government. Who knows? They may inspire some people. Instead, they just talk down to us simply by their supposed willingness to pay more. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I constantly am lectured by wealthy people telling me I have to pay more.

lol wut? you are "constantly lectured"? get some new friends man

 

[Minstrel]

Put your money where your mouth is.

If they pay the taxes they advocate, they would be putting their money where their mouth is.

Your line of reasoning is exactly as silly as saying to someone who supports war, "If you want a war, you pay for it out of your own pocket. Leave me out of it since I don't support it." Some things are too expensive for individuals to make a dent, but an entire nation can. As long as the supporters of a policy are also willing to bear the costs of it, there's nothing hypocritical (which doesn't mean what they support, whether a tax hike or defense spending, is necessarily the right thing).

 

[maxiep]

If they pay the taxes they advocate, they would be putting their money where their mouth is.

Your line of reasoning is exactly as silly as saying to someone who supports war, "If you want a war, you pay for it out of your own pocket. Leave me out of it since I don't support it." Some things are too expensive for individuals to make a dent, but an entire nation can. As long as the supporters of a policy are also willing to bear the costs of it, there's nothing hypocritical (which doesn't mean what they support, whether a tax hike or defense spending, is necessarily the right thing).

Except for the fact that "provid[ing] for the common defence" is part of our constitution. I'll pay any tax I'm legally required to pay. For those still telling me I should be willing to pay more, actions speak louder than words.

 

[Draco]

Nice try. I constantly am lectured by wealthy people telling me I have to pay more. They are more than welcome to pay more to an inefficient organization like the Federal Government. Who knows? They may inspire some people. Instead, they just talk down to us simply by their supposed willingness to pay more. Put your money where your mouth is.

I believe at an individual level everybody is free to minimize their tax liability. Peoples opinion of how to create a more effective tax structure for the good of the nation is an independent issue.

The foundation of our democratic government is we can all have a voice and opinion of how public policies are impemenented. Having that input is not dependent on donating a certain amount to charities or donating to the government. It's a right. We have the right to voice our opinon of how everybody should pay taxes. How Obama should pay taxes. How a single mom should pay taxes. How a teenager should pay taxes. How an illegal immigrant should pay taxes. How a wealthy executive should pay taxes. And how maxiep should pay taxes.

 

[Minstrel]

Except for the fact that "provid[ing] for the common defence" is part of our constitution. I'll pay any tax I'm legally required to pay.

Yes, and some people feel that more taxes should be legally required. There's no difference between that and a war in Afghanistan. The Constitution doesn't require either one, it simply allows for either one to be enacted by the government. All you really seem to be saying is, "Things I think should happen, people can advocate for. Things I don't, they shouldn't advocate for and just do it themselves."

Obviously, you're free to feel that way, but there's nothing particularly socially coherent about that view.

 

[maxiep]

Yes, and some people feel that more taxes should be legally required. There's no difference between that and a war in Afghanistan. The Constitution doesn't require either one, it simply allows for either one to be enacted by the government. All you really seem to be saying is, "Things I think should happen, people can advocate for. Things I don't, they shouldn't advocate for and just do it themselves."

The equivalent posture isn't your example. Rather it would be to say, "I think we should fight Iran" and then go over there with a gun. Or those who volunteer for the military because of the War on Terror. If you believe the government needs more money, you're free to give it.

It's like pieces of flair. Brian wears 37 pieces of flair, and has a terrific smile. Others choose to do the minimum and wear only 15. I choose to do the minimum. Let Barack Obama and TehChad be Brian.

 

[Minstrel]

The equivalent posture isn't your example. Rather it would be to say, "I think we should fight Iran" and then go over there with a gun. Or those who volunteer for the military because of the War on Terror.

No, that's simplistic, because combat is not the only sacrifice made for war. War costs a ton of money, which even people who don't believe in the war have to pay. My example is an equivalent posture.

It's like pieces of flair. Brian wears 37 pieces of flair, and has a terrific smile. Others choose to do the minimum and wear only 15. I choose to do the minimum. Let Barack Obama and TehChad be Brian.

And who determines the correct minimum?

 

[Draco]

Except for the fact that "provid[ing] for the common defence" is part of our constitution. I'll pay any tax I'm legally required to pay. For those still telling me I should be willing to pay more, actions speak louder than words.

Income taxes weren't part of the constitution, yet you're still legally required to pay them.

You can have whatever opinion on public tax policies you want. But discounting someone else's tax policy opinion primarily because of how they donate money is ignorant, IMO

 

[blazerboy30]

You think individuals social security contributions go into a bank account they get to withdrawal from when they retire? That would an interesting idea, but the modern system doesn't work that way. Payroll taxes subsidized all forms of federal government general operations including defense, law enforcement, public health and business oversight. It’s very much been that way since the Democrats and Regan overhauled the system in the early 80’s.

Remember all the talk about how Regan “cut” taxes? People are referring to Regan cutting taxes for the wealthy. All those tax “cuts” were packages that in total were revenue neutral! How can you cut taxes if the bill is revenue neutral? The Democrats and Regan decreased the proportion paid by higher income individuals and increased payroll taxes for people earning under six figures.

So yes I consider payroll tax to be a tax.

Are you really trying to argue that SS payout is not proportional to amount paid in over time? REALLY?

 

[maxiep]

Income taxes weren't part of the constitution, yet you're still legally required to pay them.

You can have whatever opinion on public tax policies you want. But discounting someone else's tax policy opinion primarily because of how they donate money is ignorant, IMO

Check the 16th Amendment.

 

[maxiep]

No, that's simplistic, because combat is not the only sacrifice made for war. War costs a ton of money, which even people who don't believe in the war have to pay. My example is an equivalent posture.

Again, our Constitution says we're both to provide for the common defence and pay income tax. Congress determines the spending level of both. I know plenty of people who volunteered or re-enlisted after 9/11 because they wanted to be part of defending our country. Until people who wish to pay more tax show the same commitment, they're doing nothing more than flapping lips.

And who determines the correct minimum?

Congress determines the absolute minimum. Individuals are free to determine their own "correct" minimum over the absolute minimum set by Congress. It seems to me many folks are saying their "correct" minimum is higher than the absolute minimum. I'm just saying they should send some extra money. I think the idea of tithing is a correct one, and set aside a percentage of my income and bonus for religious and charitable organizations. I don't smugly call someone who doesn't follow the same path "greedy" or "selfish", which is what I hear all the time from those who think we should pay more in taxes.

 

[Minstrel]

Congress determines the absolute minimum.

The literal minimum is zero. The only reason Congress sets it higher than that is because the American people want it higher. What our society deems the correct "absolute minimum" is fluid and will change over time. Why shouldn't people advocate Congress increasing it? Why should we believe that the current absolute minimum is in the right place for all time?

Giving on your own is always great, for anyone. In addition, we have public policy for taxation and use of those revenues. Just as one doesn't need to enlist in the army, or donate money to the Department of Defense, to have the (ethical) right to advocate for a war, one doesn't need to donate extra to the IRS in order to have the (ethical) right to advocate for a tax increase.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Again, our Constitution says we're both to provide for the common defence and pay income tax. Congress determines the spending level of both. I know plenty of people who volunteered or re-enlisted after 9/11 because they wanted to be part of defending our country. Until people who wish to pay more tax show the same commitment, they're doing nothing more than flapping lips.





Congress determines the absolute minimum. Individuals are free to determine their own "correct" minimum over the absolute minimum set by Congress. It seems to me many folks are saying their "correct" minimum is higher than the absolute minimum. I'm just saying they should send some extra money. I think the idea of tithing is a correct one, and set aside a percentage of my income and bonus for religious and charitable organizations. I don't smugly call someone who doesn't follow the same path "greedy" or "selfish", which is what I hear all the time from those who think we should pay more in taxes.

Sending additional cash to the gov't would't even be an additional drop in the gov't bucket. But many of us are doing "something about it" by voting for a president we know is going to make us pay more money to the gov't . . . that is putting money where are mouth is.

Would be a lot easier to vote for a president who was going to put more money in my pocket . . . but I'm williing to vote for a president who I think will be good for the county even if it cost me more money.

In fact when I hear all the complaining about the president, I notice many of the same complainers are really vocal when it comes to taxes and money out of their pocket. I personally think that is what drives many to dislike Obama (because it will cost them more) . . . so they spin every topic against Obama because they really hate the idea of giving more of their money to gov't.

 

[barfo]

People are totally weird about the government and taxes. They have the same obsession with it as I had with pussy when I was 17. All-consuming, leave-all-rational-thought-behind, base-your-whole-life-around-it obsession.

I can't understand it. Government intrudes very little in my life. Yes, I have to pay a lot of taxes. So what. The sun shines tomorrow whether or not I write a check to the IRS. My friends and family love me (or not) regardless of whether I save a few thousand dollars on my taxes. I enjoy politics for the sport of it, but I'm pretty sure the world will go on spinning even if the most ridiculous looney tune (by which I mean Michele Bachmann in the present case) gets elected.

I can see getting riled about the government if it was actually oppressive. If this was Iran. But it's not. We are all free to do whatever we want. Including, of course, getting all mad at the government. I just don't see the point of that, but of course I'll support your right to do it.

barfo