Government Spending

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

they being the house, senate, and executive branch of the government. By get it right I mean, keep the federal government from causing more trouble than they solve by simply managing their spending properly.
You think this is a typical GOP rant and it isn't. It is like you are deliberately answering a different question...what is 2+2? your answer... orange... Orange is a great answer to a different question...your question would be something like what are a citizens responsibilities, and coupling with that, what are the essential services a government must provide its people? Mine is...why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?
And no, I wouldn't agree to a raise in taxes. I would say first why don't we remove the 18,000 pages of tax loop holes that are created to allow individuals the ability to get out of paying their "fair" share if they have a good enough accountant. That raises revenue, without raising taxes. If you must give them more, why not simply enforce what is on the books rather than creating new tax brackets for people to get out of paying.

"why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?...."

this is your opinion in the form of a question...anyway, my answer is blue...no seriously...I think you're framing the question based on your own bias...which is fine, but the only right answer is the one you already have in your head...

as for part of your answer that I put in bold...I fully agree....

however, I do still believe taxes need to go back to Clinton era levels...

lol, sorry, from now on 2+2 is blue

I am framing a question as the one that is in my head...that is the one I ask myself...so I guess there is bias in the question, how should I have framed it so it wasn't showing a bias?
"why raise taxes?" that is rather broad and doesn't get to the idea that I am wondering about. If we all disagree with large portions of the budget...and the legislature(all, not red or blue alone) is continually irresponsible with the funds they are given, why is the solution to give them more of people's money?

I understand the unique nature of the situation, but I look at it like a drug addict...the government is a wicked crack addict who spends money like a middle of the road salesmen at a strip club...eventually the public needs to say enough, you have enough...

I would say that the general public is the crack addict, only they want their crack for free!

mikepegg44 wrote:

you can increase revenue without changing the tax bracket. namely by getting rid of the ability to get out of paying taxes through creative accounting.

...
I thought about this a little more... then, came up with this question:
How?
The way to increase taxes without changing the tax brackets by getting out of paying taxes through creative accounting... is... by...
...
doing what?
Elimination on the Schedule A? Elimination of the business expenditure exemptions?
By just saying, 'This is what you earned... this is what you pay?
...
And I am for a 15% accross the board income taxe with no exemptions. If you make $10,000.00 a year you owe $1,500.00 If you make $1,000,000,000.00, you owe $15,000,000.00. Guy who works at the Taco Bell to Joe Union worker in Michigan to 6 term Congressman to Wall Strret douchebag to CEO of Exxon... 15%.

Go Beavers wrote:

I've heard the %15 number thrown out ever since that goober Forbes got camera time. Does anyone know what the revenue total would be if that was in place? My guess is significantly less just due to the fact that said goober proposed it.

...
Okay... 17.5% or 21.1%... whatever. As long as it is applied across the board equally. From the guy I buy tacos from to that douchebag, Donald Trump. Same percentage for everyone... no write-off for Summer homes in The Hamptons.

mikepegg44 wrote:

very simply, and it is just as you said. All tax incentives removed...no deductions for anything...you could theoretically have a lower tax rate for everyone but increase the amount of money you actually take in. I still think that a fair tax has some issues, but it is a far better solution than the present system...which again allows for creative accounting.
Removing the ability to find a loophole to change a simple dinner to a qualifying tax exemption is necessary...for more necessary than again raising taxes. I don't necessarily think we HAVE to go to a fair tax system, but a simplification of the system is a necessity...

What if that dinner was a legitimate small-business expense? Marketing, employee recognition, overtime meal, etc? I know that was just one random example you threw out there, but you're implicitly (perhaps unwittingly) advocating taxation based on revenue, which doesn't make any sense.

Mike I agree with 95% of what you post here, but you're going down a strange path there. Most "creative accounting" comes from average folks with small-businesses and rich folks with tons of "paper wealth" and good accountants. Those of us with standard W-2 salaries don't have alot of wiggle room. We have our mortgage interest writeoff and that's about it. (One could certainly argue that that needs to go away, since it artificially inflates the housing market.)