Hjeada 0 #26 February 25, 2015 turtlespeed******But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Flat Tax makes too much sense, so we all know that won't happen. God forbid everyone is treated equally.Dudeist Skydiver #0511 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #27 February 25, 2015 Hjeada *********But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Flat Tax makes too much sense, so we all know that won't happen. God forbid everyone is treated equally. And think of all the jobs lost when people can actually understand their tax forms, and don't need accountants of tax software!"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #28 February 25, 2015 ryoder ************But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Flat Tax makes too much sense, so we all know that won't happen. God forbid everyone is treated equally. And think of all the jobs lost when people can actually understand their tax forms, and don't need accountants of tax software!And to think that welfare would be eliminated - what would the dems do for votes?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #29 February 25, 2015 turtlespeed******But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Explain how a flat tax will prevent GOP presidents from overspending.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #30 February 25, 2015 grueI was hoping there'd be a mention of "the lifestyle she became accustomed to during the marriage" or similar, so I could say "She can get accustomed to getting her own damned money". Alas, I can only say I don't want to raise taxes on the exceptionally rich, even if their spending might strike me as ludicrous. So your belief is that the special tax treatment carved out for the extremely wealthy over the past thirty years is both justified and is not something that should be subject to change? Could you possibly see your way clear to support extremely wealthy people paying the same percentage of their income in income and FICA taxes as a person who makes 100,000 per year? Would that be fair? This is a yes or no question. Why is it that income that is EARNED by one's work taxed at HIGHER rates than UNEARNED income that comes from interest or investments? In other words, why is money that is made simply by having a lot of money taxed at LESSER rates than money that is earned by actual labor? We the people sure are a gullible lot to put up with that bullshit. The tax code used be set up totally opposite to how it is now. Since the Reagan disaster of an administration, the tax code has been rewritten to flip this 180 degrees. And the gullible buy this as being a good thing. Trickle down economics was correctly called "voodoo economics" by Bush1. I describe it as "piss on the little people" economics. As Leona Helmsley said, only little people pay taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 February 25, 2015 Hjeada*** Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Flat Tax makes too much sense, so we all know that won't happen. God forbid everyone is treated equally. yeah, that would suck - all income, doesn't matter how it's obtained (the whole what income is "earned" vs not is silly, you earn it through labor, you earn it through investment/risk, you earned it via whatever means) playing favorites, whether lefty or righty bias, and treating individuals unequally is simply wrong everybody should pay, everybody should participate GOP will overspend regardless, so will DEM's - no kidding. But if EVERYONE has to now pay that much higher rate, rather than hiding the cost into whatever social demographic is unpopular, then maybe all the public will be more inclined to push for better budgeting from the politicians. You want that defense spending increase, you want those social program increases, you want those nifty new alternate energy subsidies, you want that nifty program (for the children), EVERYBODY will pay an additional x% in taxes vs last year's rates.....that really puts forward what government costs. If those increases costs me nothing, and someone vaguely tells me it costs my neighbor an additional x%, it's heard, but does it register? Right now, group A wants whatever they can force group B to pay for.... no kidding ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #32 February 25, 2015 funjumper101***I was hoping there'd be a mention of "the lifestyle she became accustomed to during the marriage" or similar, so I could say "She can get accustomed to getting her own damned money". Alas, I can only say I don't want to raise taxes on the exceptionally rich, even if their spending might strike me as ludicrous. So your belief is that the special tax treatment carved out for the extremely wealthy over the past thirty years is both justified and is not something that should be subject to change? Could you possibly see your way clear to support extremely wealthy people paying the same percentage of their income in income and FICA taxes as a person who makes 100,000 per year? Would that be fair? This is a yes or no question. Why is it that income that is EARNED by one's work taxed at HIGHER rates than UNEARNED income that comes from interest or investments? In other words, why is money that is made simply by having a lot of money taxed at LESSER rates than money that is earned by actual labor? We the people sure are a gullible lot to put up with that bullshit. The tax code used be set up totally opposite to how it is now. Since the Reagan disaster of an administration, the tax code has been rewritten to flip this 180 degrees. And the gullible buy this as being a good thing. Trickle down economics was correctly called "voodoo economics" by Bush1. I describe it as "piss on the little people" economics. As Leona Helmsley said, only little people pay taxes. My answer is very simple: I don't want their taxes raised to match mine. I want mine lowered to match theirs.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 February 25, 2015 One day you'll figure out that the key to happiness and the end of rage comes when you start looking to help people instead of tearing down and hating others. I've seriously never seen you say anything good about anyone or anything. You've got a lot of hate and contempt, though. Have you considered actually trying to like something? To even point out the good parts of those whom you disagree with? Really. I do not like to see people have their lives dominated by name throwing and contempt. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #34 February 25, 2015 funjumper101 Could you possibly see your way clear to support extremely wealthy people paying the same percentage of their income in income and FICA taxes as a person who makes 100,000 per year? Would that be fair? This is a yes or no question. Why is it that income that is EARNED by one's work taxed at HIGHER rates than UNEARNED income that comes from interest or investments? In other words, why is money that is made simply by having a lot of money taxed at LESSER rates than money that is earned by actual labor? To put numbers on this: SS tax (aka "FICA") Taxed on earnings up to $118,500. No tax on additional earnings. 6.2% if you work for an employer. 12.4% if you are self-employed. Capital Gains taxes: 15% on long-term capital gains. (gains on assets that have been held for over one year). Tax brackets for income earned from employment: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #35 February 25, 2015 grue******I was hoping there'd be a mention of "the lifestyle she became accustomed to during the marriage" or similar, so I could say "She can get accustomed to getting her own damned money". Alas, I can only say I don't want to raise taxes on the exceptionally rich, even if their spending might strike me as ludicrous. So your belief is that the special tax treatment carved out for the extremely wealthy over the past thirty years is both justified and is not something that should be subject to change? Could you possibly see your way clear to support extremely wealthy people paying the same percentage of their income in income and FICA taxes as a person who makes 100,000 per year? Would that be fair? This is a yes or no question. Why is it that income that is EARNED by one's work taxed at HIGHER rates than UNEARNED income that comes from interest or investments? In other words, why is money that is made simply by having a lot of money taxed at LESSER rates than money that is earned by actual labor? We the people sure are a gullible lot to put up with that bullshit. The tax code used be set up totally opposite to how it is now. Since the Reagan disaster of an administration, the tax code has been rewritten to flip this 180 degrees. And the gullible buy this as being a good thing. Trickle down economics was correctly called "voodoo economics" by Bush1. I describe it as "piss on the little people" economics. As Leona Helmsley said, only little people pay taxes. My answer is very simple: I don't want their taxes raised to match mine. I want mine lowered to match theirs. Well, eliminating the Department of Defense would help reduce the discretionary financial needs of the government more than any other action. static.nationalpriorities.org/images/fb101/2014/presidents-proposed-discretionary-spending.png And before you attack "entitlements", heed This Guy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #36 February 25, 2015 kallend*********But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Explain how a flat tax will prevent GOP presidents from overspending. Loaded question. You assume they will overspend. Did you beat any of your students again?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #37 February 25, 2015 turtlespeed************But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Explain how a flat tax will prevent GOP presidents from overspending. Loaded question. You assume they will overspend. Nonsense. It's a fair question given his statement, and assumes nothing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #38 February 25, 2015 kallend*********I was hoping there'd be a mention of "the lifestyle she became accustomed to during the marriage" or similar, so I could say "She can get accustomed to getting her own damned money". Alas, I can only say I don't want to raise taxes on the exceptionally rich, even if their spending might strike me as ludicrous. So your belief is that the special tax treatment carved out for the extremely wealthy over the past thirty years is both justified and is not something that should be subject to change? Could you possibly see your way clear to support extremely wealthy people paying the same percentage of their income in income and FICA taxes as a person who makes 100,000 per year? Would that be fair? This is a yes or no question. Why is it that income that is EARNED by one's work taxed at HIGHER rates than UNEARNED income that comes from interest or investments? In other words, why is money that is made simply by having a lot of money taxed at LESSER rates than money that is earned by actual labor? We the people sure are a gullible lot to put up with that bullshit. The tax code used be set up totally opposite to how it is now. Since the Reagan disaster of an administration, the tax code has been rewritten to flip this 180 degrees. And the gullible buy this as being a good thing. Trickle down economics was correctly called "voodoo economics" by Bush1. I describe it as "piss on the little people" economics. As Leona Helmsley said, only little people pay taxes. My answer is very simple: I don't want their taxes raised to match mine. I want mine lowered to match theirs. Well, eliminating the Department of Defense would help reduce the discretionary financial needs of the government more than any other action. static.nationalpriorities.org/images/fb101/2014/presidents-proposed-discretionary-spending.png And before you attack "entitlements", heed This Guy. DoD needs a visit from a big, big pair of pruning shears. The entire F-35 program is demonstrative of how fundamentally retarded our spending is. Also DHS, most of it can just be thrown away. Most of our foreign military aid, especially Israel, Egypt, Saudi, etc… IRS… I'm a BIG fan of the idea of substantial government reduction.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #39 February 25, 2015 kallend***************But you know what I meant. Lower everyone's rate to that of a he'd fund manager. Of course, then the progressives will really flip out. Laffer economics was discredited years ago. All it has led to is enormous deficits. Even GOP presidents can't resist growing government spending. Yet one more good argument for Flat Tax Explain how a flat tax will prevent GOP presidents from overspending. Loaded question. You assume they will overspend. Nonsense. It's a fair question given his statement, and assumes nothing. The flat tax should put better constraints on the budget.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #40 February 26, 2015 >No. I think everyone should pay the rate of hedge fund managers. Not that the >hedge fund managers should pay the oppressive rates of others. That's fine. But you have to have a few less wars, buy a few less fighter planes and ships, have a few less embassies etc. _first._ Cutting taxes and just hoping that the spending will go away is . . . how we got into this mess in the first place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 February 26, 2015 billvon>No. I think everyone should pay the rate of hedge fund managers. Not that the >hedge fund managers should pay the oppressive rates of others. That's fine. But you have to have a few less wars, buy a few less fighter planes and ships, have a few less embassies etc. _first._ Cutting taxes and just hoping that the spending will go away is . . . how we got into this mess in the first place. Indeed. It is about time to suck it in. But note that the political process is the main reason why the F-35 isn't going anywhere. The manufacturing of the plane is spread out into over 40 states. The lesson learned from Apollo - when only a few states and house districts have the manufacturing and mission, all the other states can attack the program. The goodies are spread out Into a well dispersed pork barrel where just about everybody gets a bite. That program ain't going anywhere. Period. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 28 #42 February 26, 2015 How about getting every citizen to start paying FICA, then we can talk about a flat income tax. Amazing the groups of people that benifit from being EXEMPT from their basic Social responsibility to medicare and social security. Yet we can with fairness burden others with twice that responsibility regardless of thier income levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #43 February 26, 2015 richravizzaHow about getting every citizen to start paying FICA, then we can talk about a flat income tax. Amazing the groups of people that benifit from being EXEMPT from their basic Social responsibility to medicare and social security. Yet we can with fairness burden others with twice that responsibility regardless of thier income levels. I started writing a longer response but the first thing I wrote sums my opinion up pretty well... Basic social responsibility my ass. It's either a tax and an expenditure like anything else, or it's some national treasure we should all be so thankful for. You can't pretend it's the latter and fund it like it's the former. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richravizza 28 #44 February 26, 2015 champu***How about getting every citizen to start paying FICA, then we can talk about a flat income tax. Amazing the groups of people that benifit from being EXEMPT from their basic Social responsibility to medicare and social security. Yet we can with fairness burden others with twice that responsibility regardless of thier income levels. I started writing a longer response but the first thing I wrote sums my opinion up pretty well... Basic social responsibility my ass. It's either a tax and an expenditure like anything else, or it's some national treasure we should all be so thankful for. You can't pretend it's the latter and fund it like it's the former. I argee completely, This has always amazed me that the very people that live the socialist dream,the front line protectors of society have Exempted themselves and their Conrads. firemen,school teachers,local, state and county Cops,federal V.A.employees,and so on. Just lay it on the Laborers, and them well off self employed folks .....LOL Leona Helmsly quote was quite telling of our Social Leadership. TAX is for the POOR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hjeada 0 #45 February 26, 2015 billvon> That's fine. But you have to have a few less wars, buy a few less fighter planes and ships, have a few less embassies etc. _first._ Cutting taxes and just hoping that the spending will go away is . . . how we got into this mess in the first place. And a few less social programs, healthcare, etc...reductions in spending needs to happen across the entire budget, just not the spending you don't happen to agree with.Dudeist Skydiver #0511 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 February 26, 2015 Hjeada***> That's fine. But you have to have a few less wars, buy a few less fighter planes and ships, have a few less embassies etc. _first._ Cutting taxes and just hoping that the spending will go away is . . . how we got into this mess in the first place. And a few less social programs, healthcare, etc...reductions in spending needs to happen across the entire budget, just not the spending you don't happen to agree with. when spending less comes up, some of the guys here have a prejudice/stereotype that the person wanting reduced spending is a pro-military cliche. So they put forth examples of cut they assume will 'hurt' the other person's position. They they reply - "absolutely, but cut other stuff too". over and over and over again. seems to me that lately, most people here that talk about reduced spending want it across-the-board. Not one sided at all. so they don't fit that stereotype. Only the hard lefties seem to stay in the stereotype (and only the really partisan members) want to reduce military only.....but that's not a reduction, they just want that money moved to their pet projects. example - "if we didn't spend billions on a war, we could have spent it (my pet projects)" = money is the governments I prefer - "if we didn't spend billions on a war, we wouldn't have spent billions (or we could have paid down our debt)" = money is the people's The attempt to frame spending cuts as 'us vs them' is a waste of energy here and just trolling in the form of "my overspending is more important than your overspending". I'd rather join forces with "spend less". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #47 February 26, 2015 >And a few less social programs, healthcare, etc...reductions in spending needs >to happen across the entire budget, just not the spending you don't happen to >agree with. Definitely. We need to cut across all programs, including the sacred cows (like veteran's benefits.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 February 26, 2015 billvon>And a few less social programs, healthcare, etc...reductions in spending needs >to happen across the entire budget, just not the spending you don't happen to >agree with. Definitely. We need to cut across all programs, including the sacred cows (like veteran's benefits.) yay - that's 3 confirmed - we get about 100M more that vote for this and maybe congress will get the message ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #49 February 26, 2015 rehmwa******> That's fine. But you have to have a few less wars, buy a few less fighter planes and ships, have a few less embassies etc. _first._ Cutting taxes and just hoping that the spending will go away is . . . how we got into this mess in the first place. And a few less social programs, healthcare, etc...reductions in spending needs to happen across the entire budget, just not the spending you don't happen to agree with. when spending less comes up, some of the guys here have a prejudice/stereotype that the person wanting reduced spending is a pro-military cliche. So they put forth examples of cut they assume will 'hurt' the other person's position. They they reply - "absolutely, but cut other stuff too". over and over and over again. seems to me that lately, most people here that talk about reduced spending want it across-the-board. Not one sided at all. so they don't fit that stereotype. Only the hard lefties seem to stay in the stereotype (and only the really partisan members) want to reduce military only.....but that's not a reduction, they just want that money moved to their pet projects. example - "if we didn't spend billions on a war, we could have spent it (my pet projects)" = money is the governments I prefer - "if we didn't spend billions on a war, we wouldn't have spent billions (or we could have paid down our debt)" = money is the people's Should be the same thing. "Government of the people by the people for the people." Unfortunately it has become government of the people by the wealthy for the wealthy. When it comes to selecting cuts, I suggest going where the money IS, rather than where the propaganda says it is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 February 26, 2015 kallendShould be the same thing. "Government of the people by the people for the people." So you quote "should be the same thing" CAN HAVE a lot of undermeaning worth consideration... (But I understand what you are saying and agree with the post overall) So I'll digress....It kind of depends on how you think of "the people" the people - individuals with unique positions and capabilities, the right to own property, and able to choose where and how to contract with others of the same the people - thought of as a generalized collective, or society as a whole and singular entity I think both are true to some extent, but the focus on which end of the spectrum a person envisions really does drive how a person looks at resources and governance. It 'should be' a tricky balance - not an all or nothing type of debate...but it never is ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
