Tax Cuts

mikepegg44

KDH12 wrote:

So I don't get it

And this has nothing to do with Obama becuase we would be facing the same debate regardless of who was president

But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

We talk about a deficit and cutting spending at the same time want to keep tax cuts we can not afford.

Today I heard an interview with a House Rep who stated that the only way to stimulate (get back on track) the economy was to continue to the tax cuts for everyone including the rich, but they failed to acknowledge that we have been living with the cuts for what 3-4 years now..... they have not done much to stimulate shit to this point.

Besides people wanting to keep their money and not give it to the government what is the logic (keep in mind that 97% of us make less than 250K)

My biggest problem with federal taxes changes from time to time, but for the most part ranges between these three things

1- I hate the idea that a government that spent itself into this issue will just increase taxes to fix it...when will that end? Seriously, It sets a bad precedent. The rich pay their share of taxes, 50%...do we really want to make that number 75%? I don't know, I am certainly not one of the rich, but i just don't see the logic in allowing a behemoth to sustain its growth. the federal government needs to get smaller not larger. Until we get leaders in office who see that, we will continue to be gutted. States exist for a reason, one of those would be to TRY to solve day to day problems of their citizens...that isn't the federal governments responsibility yet they certainly seem to be going down that road.

2 - Raising taxes takes money out of people's pockets to feed a bloated budget that does many many things in the name of the united states that are sometimes reprehensible, sometimes nation building, but always a use of the resources that should be used domestically and takes that money internationally or just drops it on people's heads...literally. I don't want to give them any more money to do those things. They already get too much

3- A progressive system with a billion and one loopholes has got to go. Simplify the tax code first. Take out loopholes and tax credits for everything under the son and make people pay the rate they are supposed to already.

satansbed

im pretty much 50 50 and saved alot more than needed

KDH12

mikepegg44 wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

So I don't get it

And this has nothing to do with Obama becuase we would be facing the same debate regardless of who was president

But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

We talk about a deficit and cutting spending at the same time want to keep tax cuts we can not afford.

Today I heard an interview with a House Rep who stated that the only way to stimulate (get back on track) the economy was to continue to the tax cuts for everyone including the rich, but they failed to acknowledge that we have been living with the cuts for what 3-4 years now..... they have not done much to stimulate shit to this point.

Besides people wanting to keep their money and not give it to the government what is the logic (keep in mind that 97% of us make less than 250K)

My biggest problem with federal taxes changes from time to time, but for the most part ranges between these three things

1- I hate the idea that a government that spent itself into this issue will just increase taxes to fix it...when will that end? Seriously, It sets a bad precedent. The rich pay their share of taxes, 50%...do we really want to make that number 75%? I don't know, I am certainly not one of the rich, but i just don't see the logic in allowing a behemoth to sustain its growth. the federal government needs to get smaller not larger. Until we get leaders in office who see that, we will continue to be gutted. States exist for a reason, one of those would be to TRY to solve day to day problems of their citizens...that isn't the federal governments responsibility yet they certainly seem to be going down that road.

2 - Raising taxes takes money out of people's pockets to feed a bloated budget that does many many things in the name of the united states that are sometimes reprehensible, sometimes nation building, but always a use of the resources that should be used domestically and takes that money internationally or just drops it on people's heads...literally. I don't want to give them any more money to do those things. They already get too much

3- A progressive system with a billion and one loopholes has got to go. Simplify the tax code first. Take out loopholes and tax credits for everything under the son and make people pay the rate they are supposed to already.

except that letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire would return us to tax levels from the Clinton administration

plus most that bloated spend came from trillions of dollars going to 2 wars, hard to justify fight two wars and cutting taxes in the 2000's but with Rep President and Rep Congress it happened

now we got bills to pay and no one wants to pay up.....

KDH12

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.

ugh...the dept. of ed thing again...fine get rid of it...how much with that save...?[/quote]

I agree why does everyone have it out for Dept of Ed

why not the Dept of Agriculture or Dept of Labor or Dept of Interior of the Dept of Defense :shock:

the Dept of Ed is the #1 financier of college education without them I would not have completed undergrad or grad school.... now I owe them an arm and a leg but it is better than owing Citi bank

VINNY GOOMBA

KDH12 wrote:

I agree why does everyone have it out for Dept of Ed

why not the Dept of Agriculture or Dept of Labor or Dept of Interior of the Dept of Defense :shock:

the Dept of Ed is the #1 financier of college education without them I would not have completed undergrad or grad school.... now I owe them an arm and a leg but it is better than owing Citi bank

I've got no love for the Department of Ed at all. But, before I'd cut them all together-- Homeland Security should be first. PEACE on those guys. The DEA and ATF would be a good ones to get rid of, and take the Drug War with it. The CIA? Sure. What do they do but make us completely UNSAFE with their clandestine rogue operations and bogus intelligence that leads our President and Congress to make bad decisions. The FDA? Bought and paid for by big pharma, agri, etc... The IRS-- wait, wait... Those guys are #1-- the guys whose job it is to forcefully suck money out of the economy, and don't mind using force and seizures to do it-- whose very existence makes you wave your 5th amendment rights when you file your 1040. And of course, The Federal Reserve, who makes it all possible with their printing press to pay for it all, combined with their shady backroom dealings with other central banks.
Also, end the War on Terror, and bring our troops home from every base from around the world. Keep the DOD, but cut its budget in half.

Here's my compromise: Keep the Department of Ed for its placebo affect only.

Without government loans, and fractional reserve banking which creates money out of thin air (remember I eliminated the Fed?), people will be able to pay for college out of pocket, and from charitable scholarship funds. Without a tremendous amount of government money influxed into the system, colleges will have to charge a sensible tuition instead of runnin gthe racket that they do right now.

know1

KDH12 wrote:

But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

What I don't understand is why anyone wants to give more money to a government that has proven incapable of competently managing it.

If they do not extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest (which is discrimination, in my opinion) than shouldn't they lower taxes by the same amount somewhere else to offset the increase in revenue for our greedy government?

The last thing the government needs is more money and therefore more power over our lives and less freedom for all of us.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

What I don't understand is why anyone wants to give more money to a government that has proven incapable of competently managing it.

If they do not extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest (which is discrimination, in my opinion) than shouldn't they lower taxes by the same amount somewhere else to offset the increase in revenue for our greedy government?

The last thing the government needs is more money and therefore more power over our lives and less freedom for all of us.

oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:

Jason P

inmytree wrote:

oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:

It's not that they can't do anything right, it's just that they can't complete tasks efficiently.

inmytree

Jason P wrote:

inmytree wrote:

oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:

It's not that they can't do anything right, it's just that they can't complete tasks efficiently.

says who...?

Jason P

inmytree wrote:

Jason P wrote:

inmytree wrote:

oh that evil gov't, you know, the one we've had for a couple hundred years...they can't do anything right... :roll:

It's not that they can't do anything right, it's just that they can't complete tasks efficiently.

says who...?

Says I, matey!

Commy

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

See, that's why I'd support a national sales tax...it gets citizens and illegal immigrants alike when they shop!!!!!!

that is assuming everyone has money TO shop with....

Pretty sure everybody buys something...I'd tax food stamp purchases too!

Doesn't it make more sense to tax people on what they buy they to tax them on making money? This way you still get a disproportionate amount of money from the wealthy because they certainly buy a lot of stuff.

how about we tax stock market transactions?



goods sold to save lives or make life better, health care supplies, they are already taxed. things like food and shelter, things people need to survive. but this, what, trillion dollar industry of trading companies is left entirely alone.



another glaring example of who the government really serves.

KDH12

know1 wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

But why do people want to extend the Tax for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

What I don't understand is why anyone wants to give more money to a government that has proven incapable of competently managing it.

If they do not extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest (which is discrimination, in my opinion) than shouldn't they lower taxes by the same amount somewhere else to offset the increase in revenue for our greedy government?

The last thing the government needs is more money and therefore more power over our lives and less freedom for all of us.

who would manage it better

buinsess? ummmm no, not when profit is the bottom dollar

you taxes have nothing to do with lessening freedom. but your taxes do pay for everything from Libraries to police/fire to mental health services

privatization is not the answer

inmytree

Jason P wrote:

Says I, matey!

um...ok... :?

it's funny to me how "the government" is a this boogeyman that's "stealing" our money and "they can't do anything right"...but "we are the greatest country in the world"....

I don't get the hate aimed at "the government"...for me, I think is just people blaming something for their problems...now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "the government" is perfect, I just find the hate misplaced...

know1

KDH12 wrote:

who would manage it better

buinsess? ummmm no, not when profit is the bottom dollar

you taxes have nothing to do with lessening freedom. but your taxes do pay for everything from Libraries to police/fire to mental health services

privatization is not the answer

I absolutely believe that business would manage money much, much better than the government.

One of the concepts that I base this on is that business doesn't have the POWER to just force people to give them more money to cover up their incompetence. They either do it right or they go out of business.

Our government has a great big safety net and no worries about being efficient.

It's laughable that anyone would think that the government can do ANYTHING more efficiently than the private sector.

OutOfBreath

know1 wrote:

One of the concepts that I base this on is that business doesn't have the POWER to just force people to give them more money to cover up their incompetence. They either do it right or they go out of business.

Our government has a great big safety net and no worries about being efficient.

It's laughable that anyone would think that the government can do ANYTHING more efficiently than the private sector.

I think you'll have trouble running this past any serious economist. Private businesses can easily gain POWER to do what they please as in a monopoly that is not in the public's interest. Even Adam Smith recognized this. The remedy for these private monopolies is government intervention to ensure competition and fair play.

The assumption that just because something is private it automatically means they do it better and more efficent is what's laughable. They CAN, yes. But it depends a lot on what we're specifically talking about, the nature of the good/service in question, the scale of operations and so on.

Peace
Dan

inmytree

know1 wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

who would manage it better

buinsess? ummmm no, not when profit is the bottom dollar

you taxes have nothing to do with lessening freedom. but your taxes do pay for everything from Libraries to police/fire to mental health services

privatization is not the answer

I absolutely believe that business would manage money much, much better than the government.

One of the concepts that I base this on is that business doesn't have the POWER to just force people to give them more money to cover up their incompetence. They either do it right or they go out of business.

Our government has a great big safety net and no worries about being efficient.

It's laughable that anyone would think that the government can do ANYTHING more efficiently than the private sector.

business go out of business all the time...every day...in fact, in sure a business is shuttering the windows and locking the doors right now...

I find it laughable that you don't understand that...

VINNY GOOMBA

inmytree wrote:

know1 wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

who would manage it better

buinsess? ummmm no, not when profit is the bottom dollar

you taxes have nothing to do with lessening freedom. but your taxes do pay for everything from Libraries to police/fire to mental health services

privatization is not the answer

I absolutely believe that business would manage money much, much better than the government.

One of the concepts that I base this on is that business doesn't have the POWER to just force people to give them more money to cover up their incompetence. They either do it right or they go out of business.

Our government has a great big safety net and no worries about being efficient.

It's laughable that anyone would think that the government can do ANYTHING more efficiently than the private sector.

business go out of business all the time...every day...in fact, in sure a business is shuttering the windows and locking the doors right now...

I find it laughable that you don't understand that...

The fact that businesses go under everyday is actually a good thing, as it is purely natural. Supporting failure only leads to greater failure when it is executed by force. Not everyone who attempts to do business is going to be a true success in terms of their goals, but everyone who attempts it leaves something behind for everyone else to learn from. Those who are not delivering goods and services on par with or better than their competition have to change course and strategy to do so, or else they are better off liquidating and being absorbed by other businesses. They could be bought by businesses already well established, or other ones on the up and up. The fact of the matter is, government's best role in this process is to make sure that contracts are enforced between private parties. They are the mediator, the unbiased third party bound to a code that prohibits them from playing favorites. And that is the ultimate beef that Free Market people have with government. They play favorites. They play favorites with everything from energy to education, while their role is supposed to be much more limited by making sure that voluntary exchanges are being performed exactly as they are spelled out, and to bar theft, fraud, and extortion.

Yes, businesses are motivated by profit. The profit motive is capable of yielding both the best and worst results simultaneously. Innovation as well as complete-control monopoly are both born from profit. Can we agree that profit is a concept that is never likely to die?-- it's here to stay so long as man has any form of ego, like all of us, it has its good and its bad points and is not perfect.

People are ultimately choose what is best for them given their options. We know that monopolies yield no options. However, complete-control monopoly DOES NOT EXIST in an Austrian Free Market System. Monopolies are derived from government, from elimination of choice via regulations and laws that make the playing field anything but level, as well as grants, subsidies, and no-bid contracts from government. It's blatantly obvious that nearly head of every government agency is a former CEO of a big business who had been previously given advantages by government to obtain their position of power. This in turn keeps the benefits flowing from whatever Agency to whatever business. Unfair. No matter how bad a certain business wants to take over a market, or even the whole world, it is totally impossible without the force of the government to back it.

Governments create more trusts than they bust. I can liken it to the military industrial complex in how that corporate merger has made us less safe than more safe. Are companies like KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater wrong for their motives? Definitely. But who cuts them the check? GOVERNMENT.

cincybearcat

Commy wrote:

how about we tax stock market transactions?



goods sold to save lives or make life better, health care supplies, they are already taxed. things like food and shelter, things people need to survive. but this, what, trillion dollar industry of trading companies is left entirely alone.



another glaring example of who the government really serves.

Hmmm...not liking the idea of taxing people's $ when they are trying to save for retirement...but day-trading, etc...interesting idea.

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

business go out of business all the time...every day...in fact, in sure a business is shuttering the windows and locking the doors right now...

I find it laughable that you don't understand that...

They sure do. You know why? because if they don't do a good job and run efficiently, they can't just go get more $ to pay for their mistakes and keep things going. Gov't does that, and does that for some businesses as well.

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Says I, matey!

um...ok... :?

it's funny to me how "the government" is a this boogeyman that's "stealing" our money and "they can't do anything right"...but "we are the greatest country in the world"....

I don't get the hate aimed at "the government"...for me, I think is just people blaming something for their problems...now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "the government" is perfect, I just find the hate misplaced...

It's not hate of the government...it's hate of the fact that if they spend too much they just take more money. No one else can do that, and neither should the government.