Just like the Pied Piper

Monster Rain · November 2011

You're correct that both parties like to spend money. Bush 2 definitely spent more money than I was comfortable with. It just seems that Democrats tend to want to spend more and throw more money at a problem that hasn't been fixed by throwing money at it before. For example, Obama has already spent nearly $900 billion on jobs acts that didn't work. Now he wants to spend more and wants to raise taxes on people making voer $1,000,000 in order to pay for it. On top of that, he wants to raise taxes as part of his plan to cut the deficit, too. On one hand, he's telling a 12-member panel to cut a trillion dollars from out deficit and on the other he's asking to spend almost half that amount for his 3rd attempt at creating jobs (a large portion of which would be temporary jobs, too). Well, how can I believe that he's not going to raise my taxes, too? He's telling Congress to reduce spending while he's increasing spending and he wants tax increases to accomplish all this. Well, at some point he won't be able to raise taxes on the rich any higher and then who will he turn to? He's never realy explained why the deficit can't be cut by cutting spending without a tax increase other than to say, "It's just math." Well, I can think of plenty of ways to cut spending by a large amount without raising taxes. Some of those ways might make other countries a little upset because I'd suggest reducing or eliminating our foreign aid (especially when those countries receiving our aid say that we owe them money and our aid isn't paying down that debt for some odd reason) on a case-by-case basis. We give a ton of money away to other countries every year when we have better uses for it here. I'd love to be able to help out every other country that needs it, but we have a need for it here and that should be the priority every year when the budget is passed.

markin ball wrote:

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

satansbed · November 2011

Monster Rain wrote:

You're correct that both parties like to spend money. Bush 2 definitely spent more money than I was comfortable with. It just seems that Democrats tend to want to spend more and throw more money at a problem that hasn't been fixed by throwing money at it before. For example, Obama has already spent nearly $900 billion on jobs acts that didn't work. Now he wants to spend more and wants to raise taxes on people making voer $1,000,000 in order to pay for it. On top of that, he wants to raise taxes as part of his plan to cut the deficit, too. On one hand, he's telling a 12-member panel to cut a trillion dollars from out deficit and on the other he's asking to spend almost half that amount for his 3rd attempt at creating jobs (a large portion of which would be temporary jobs, too). Well, how can I believe that he's not going to raise my taxes, too? He's telling Congress to reduce spending while he's increasing spending and he wants tax increases to accomplish all this. Well, at some point he won't be able to raise taxes on the rich any higher and then who will he turn to? He's never realy explained why the deficit can't be cut by cutting spending without a tax increase other than to say, "It's just math." Well, I can think of plenty of ways to cut spending by a large amount without raising taxes. Some of those ways might make other countries a little upset because I'd suggest reducing or eliminating our foreign aid (especially when those countries receiving our aid say that we owe them money and our aid isn't paying down that debt for some odd reason) on a case-by-case basis. We give a ton of money away to other countries every year when we have better uses for it here. I'd love to be able to help out every other country that needs it, but we have a need for it here and that should be the priority every year when the budget is passed.

markin ball wrote:

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

us foreign aid is approx 50 billion, that includes military aid, even if you cut all of that it would barely be a drop in the ocean

and i would like to add that foreign aid isn't just about making us feel warm and fuzzy it also has a massive effect on world security

Monster Rain · November 2011

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich? One article I read estimates a tax increase on those making over $1,000,000,000 would increase revenue by $45-$50 billion per year. So if saving $50 billion per year by cutting foreign aid isn't much, then raising taxes doesn't seem like much help, either. And if that gain results in less consumer spending from that group, what becomes of the workers at the stores who have their hours cut or are laid off due to lower sales? Their income goes down, which means they are paying in less in taxes, which means that the revenue increase from the tax increase is now less than the estimated $45-$50 billion per year.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/08/15/ ... h-revenue/

satansbed wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

You're correct that both parties like to spend money. Bush 2 definitely spent more money than I was comfortable with. It just seems that Democrats tend to want to spend more and throw more money at a problem that hasn't been fixed by throwing money at it before. For example, Obama has already spent nearly $900 billion on jobs acts that didn't work. Now he wants to spend more and wants to raise taxes on people making voer $1,000,000 in order to pay for it. On top of that, he wants to raise taxes as part of his plan to cut the deficit, too. On one hand, he's telling a 12-member panel to cut a trillion dollars from out deficit and on the other he's asking to spend almost half that amount for his 3rd attempt at creating jobs (a large portion of which would be temporary jobs, too). Well, how can I believe that he's not going to raise my taxes, too? He's telling Congress to reduce spending while he's increasing spending and he wants tax increases to accomplish all this. Well, at some point he won't be able to raise taxes on the rich any higher and then who will he turn to? He's never realy explained why the deficit can't be cut by cutting spending without a tax increase other than to say, "It's just math." Well, I can think of plenty of ways to cut spending by a large amount without raising taxes. Some of those ways might make other countries a little upset because I'd suggest reducing or eliminating our foreign aid (especially when those countries receiving our aid say that we owe them money and our aid isn't paying down that debt for some odd reason) on a case-by-case basis. We give a ton of money away to other countries every year when we have better uses for it here. I'd love to be able to help out every other country that needs it, but we have a need for it here and that should be the priority every year when the budget is passed.

markin ball wrote:

I think that is just a myth that has been ingrained in the popular psyche. Regan raised taxes and the deficit a lot. Bush 2 raised the deficit a lot. Both parties seem to spend with reckless abandon.

us foreign aid is approx 50 billion, that includes military aid, even if you cut all of that it would barely be a drop in the ocean

mikepegg44 · November 2011

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

Jason P · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

Yeah, well, at least those elitist pigs will be paying their fair share, dag-gummit!

Which brings along another point ... if / when taxes are raised, is everyone cool??? The 1% will be paying their fair share and Obama will have his revenue.

Problem solved????

If the answer is "NO", perhaps there are other issues more pertinent to address in solving our countries issues. If it's "YES", then activity on this board should drop significantly.

satansbed · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

there is more than income taxes though, there are also financial transaction taxes that are worth looking at and closing more tax loopholes.

Monster Rain · November 2011

And what types of financial transactions are you suggesting be taxed or taxed at a higher rate?

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

there is more than income taxes though, there are also financial transaction taxes that are worth looking at and closing more tax loopholes.

satansbed · November 2011

something like a financial transaction tax levied at 0.1 per cent on stocks and bond trades, and 0.01 per cent on derivatives which was proposed by the eu commision

Monster Rain · November 2011

We already pay taxes on earnings from the sale of stocks, bonds, etc. and we are taxed on dividend income as well--and they're taxed at a higher rate than you suggested we impose. Also, increasing the tax rate on those things would not only raise taxes on the rich, which is was Obama and the Democrats are trying to tell us are the only ones they want to get a tax increase. Many middle-class and lower-class people trade stocks and receive dividends. The elderly would certainly be impacted by this as a good deal of them have stocks that pay dividends quarterly and they hold on to those stocks solely for the income. Until recently, I worked as a bank teller and I was in an area with several retirement communities. There were dozens of elderly customers who would bring in stacks of dividend checks every quarter and deposit them into their accounts. I myself am nowhere near rich and I have an online stock brokerage account and would definitely not want to see my dividends or profit from the eventual sale of my stocks suddenly be taxed at a higher rate.

satansbed wrote:

something like a financial transaction tax levied at 0.1 per cent on stocks and bond trades, and 0.01 per cent on derivatives which was proposed by the eu commision

mikepegg44 · November 2011

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

And how much extra money would we take in through a tax increase on the rich?

if we doubled income tax we would still run a deficit. Plus, an increase in rates doesn't not always mean a directly measured increase in revenue anyway.

there is more than income taxes though, there are also financial transaction taxes that are worth looking at and closing more tax loopholes.

I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.

Jason P · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.

The last thing we want to do is give new revenue streams to our government. That's why I soured on the 9/9/9 plan. What's to stop congress from increasing a national VAT tax after it's established?

satansbed · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.

yes but its about balance and compromise two, i would advocate cutting the deficit 70 percent through cuts and 30 % through tax increases, over a period of ten years it would be a fair and balanced way of cutting the deficit, because spending cuts do harm the middle and working class more than it hurts the wealthy. by at least increasing some taxes it lessens the burden on the most vulnerable,

now at the same time these cuts have to happen. and there is no point getting two sentimental, but small tax increases will also have to happen

mikepegg44 · November 2011

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.

yes but its about balance and compromise two, i would advocate cutting the deficit 70 percent through cuts and 30 % through tax increases, over a period of ten years it would be a fair and balanced way of cutting the deficit, because spending cuts do harm the middle and working class more than it hurts the wealthy. by at least increasing some taxes it lessens the burden on the most vulnerable,

now at the same time these cuts have to happen. and there is no point getting two sentimental, but small tax increases will also have to happen

you wouldn't take a morbidly obese man who just had a heart attack to celebrate at old country buffet, and you shouldn't give a government addicted to spending any more money because they got themselves in trouble. Convince me they have changed, and if the reason is right they can have more...

It really isn't an issue of compromise, it is about sustainability...we cannot continue on the path of spending more than we take in...and until hard cuts are made they shouldn't take in any more. if they would worry more about supporting practices that create a business friendly environment with a healthy unemployment rate, they wouldn't have to raise anyone's taxes to get more money.
I am all for simplification of the tax code, but I think there is more revenue that can be raised other ways rather than simply raising taxes...

satansbed · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I realize that, but everyone talks about clinton era tax rates and blah blah blah...closing loopholes is a great first start, but that can affect everyone, not just the rich remember... Luxury taxes have proven to crush particular industries...see the boat market in delaware I believe it was tried there...killed the market...
taxing financial transactions more than the amount they are now would probably have the same affect as raising rates on the rich...short term possibly a little more revenue, long term probably a slow down in financial transactions and the money moving somewhere else to invest. Capital gains tax rates show that you can grow revenue by lowering rates as well as shrink revenue with raising rates. Now that isn't to say that will happen for sure, The incentive to invest becomes less when you are taxed more for doing it..if I have a pile of money and invest it, the risk I took could have been large, I make a little money on the sale of the stock after taking the risk and am taxed on it, eventually it isn't worth taking the risk. 1 percent doesn't seem like a lot of an increase, but over time and for active traders and investors it becomes a lot of money...and I can promise you if it is a success that rate will rise in the future.

yes but its about balance and compromise two, i would advocate cutting the deficit 70 percent through cuts and 30 % through tax increases, over a period of ten years it would be a fair and balanced way of cutting the deficit, because spending cuts do harm the middle and working class more than it hurts the wealthy. by at least increasing some taxes it lessens the burden on the most vulnerable,

now at the same time these cuts have to happen. and there is no point getting two sentimental, but small tax increases will also have to happen

you wouldn't take a morbidly obese man who just had a heart attack to celebrate at old country buffet, and you shouldn't give a government addicted to spending any more money because they got themselves in trouble. Convince me they have changed, and if the reason is right they can have more...

It really isn't an issue of compromise, it is about sustainability...we cannot continue on the path of spending more than we take in...and until hard cuts are made they shouldn't take in any more. if they would worry more about supporting practices that create a business friendly environment with a healthy unemployment rate, they wouldn't have to raise anyone's taxes to get more money.
I am all for simplification of the tax code, but I think there is more revenue that can be raised other ways rather than simply raising taxes...

but you wouldn't just starve him either,

i think its far more complicated than that

mikepegg44 · November 2011

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

you wouldn't take a morbidly obese man who just had a heart attack to celebrate at old country buffet, and you shouldn't give a government addicted to spending any more money because they got themselves in trouble. Convince me they have changed, and if the reason is right they can have more...

It really isn't an issue of compromise, it is about sustainability...we cannot continue on the path of spending more than we take in...and until hard cuts are made they shouldn't take in any more. if they would worry more about supporting practices that create a business friendly environment with a healthy unemployment rate, they wouldn't have to raise anyone's taxes to get more money.
I am all for simplification of the tax code, but I think there is more revenue that can be raised other ways rather than simply raising taxes...

but you wouldn't just starve him either,

i think its far more complicated than that

the government isn't "starving either" at a little less than 2 trillion a year.
I am not advocating no tax dollars. I just don't think they have shown they can be responsible, so they should not get any more.

Jason P · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

the government isn't "starving either" at a little less than 2 trillion a year.
I am not advocating no tax dollars. I just don't think they have shown they can be responsible, so they should not get any more.

I think we are going to need the extra tax revenue when we go to war with Iran in the next few years.

mikepegg44 · November 2011

Jason P wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

the government isn't "starving either" at a little less than 2 trillion a year.
I am not advocating no tax dollars. I just don't think they have shown they can be responsible, so they should not get any more.

I think we are going to need the extra tax revenue when we go to war with Iran in the next few years.

without it, and a balanced budget amendment we couldn't go to war

Just like the Pied Piper

Comments

Categories