LA Times - Higher Taxes Is Good For the Taxpayers

[red states rule]

Liberal logic and reasoning is a sight to behold



California GOP's no-tax-hike pledge

In swearing not to raise taxes, Republican legislators are forgetting their oath to serve the people.
December 30, 2008

Republican members of the Assembly and state Senate signed pledges to oppose any tax increase, and so far they have not moved from that position. One result is that California has a budget billions of dollars out of balance. Schools must cut education programs, physicians who treat patients eligible for Medi-Cal are going unpaid, many bond-funded construction projects have been halted and the state's credit rating is in jeopardy.

GOP lawmakers don't bear the sole blame for these catastrophes, because higher taxes are not and should never be deemed the automatic government response to an economic downturn. In fact, Republican lawmakers are correct when they argue that higher taxes can slow recovery at just the time the state needs to juice the economic machinery. But that argument frames what ought to be Republicans' main point: not that taxes must be avoided at all costs but that Sacramento must protect Californians and get the economy moving.

The no-tax pledge, or, more formally, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge -- originated and monitored by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform -- blindly promotes one policy position over the interests of the economy and even taxpayers. It's the wrong pledge.

In taking their official oaths, lawmakers are required to promise to support and defend the U.S. and state constitutions and swear that they aren't part of an organization committed to violent overthrow of the government. But by running for and taking office, they imply more than that. They commit themselves to serving the best interests of their constituents and the state.

California is facing something worse than higher taxes. The effect of a cutoff in state payments to workers who must stop building and maintaining roads, bridges, schools and waterworks would do more than simply undermine voters' intent in authorizing bonds and preparing for the future. It also would keep the workers from pumping their pay back into the economy and the corresponding tax money into state coffers. The same is true of the thousands of teachers and others who inevitably will be laid off if the state fails to come up with more revenue.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-budget30-2008dec30,0,7198583.story

[Joe Steel]

GOP lawmakers don't bear the sole blame for these catastrophes, because higher taxes are not and should never be deemed the automatic government response to an economic downturn.

Maybe not the automatic response but a good choice in this case. Bush's tax cuts subsidized the rich to the tune of billions of dollars. Taxing back that money for use in stimulating the economy is a good idea.

[red states rule]

Maybe not the automatic response but a good choice in this case. Bush's tax cuts subsidized the rich to the tune of billions of dollars. Taxing back that money for use in stimulating the economy is a good idea.

Anyone who pays incme taxes got a tax cut. The more you PAY in taxes the more your tax cut was

Even after the tax cut, the top 1% are paying 40% of all Federal inocme taxes. They are paying MORE in taxes AFTER the tax cuts

The best way for CA to balance their budget is to cut spending - and stop all spending on illegals who are bleeding the state dry

[Joe Steel]

Anyone who pays incme taxes got a tax cut. The more you PAY in taxes the more your tax cut was

Tax cuts for the rich were disproportionately large.


Even after the tax cut, the top 1% are paying 40% of all Federal inocme taxes. They are paying MORE in taxes AFTER the tax cuts

Because Bush's economic policies rigged the economy to favor the rich. That creates more income for them and that results in higher taxes.


The best way for CA to balance their budget is to cut spending - and stop all spending on illegals who are bleeding the state dry

The best way to balance the budget and serve the public is raising taxes on the rich and spending on the poor.

[manu1959]

lets see....the state is overspending....the economy is in the shitter....consumers and banks are hoarding their money ....unemployment is climbing.....and the solution is.......take more money from the employed.....

so just for fun lets apply this logic to where you work.....

sales are down....people are being laid off...but you still have you job and of course do to layoffs are doing twice as much work......so your boss instead of cutting costs.....decides your paycheck will be cut by 10% to offset the decline in sales.....

[red states rule]

Tax cuts for the rich were disproportionately large.



Because Bush's economic policies rigged the economy to favor the rich. That creates more income for them and that results in higher taxes.



The best way to balance the budget and serve the public is raising taxes on the rich and spending on the poor.

Joe, if you pass tax CUTS, the people who pay the most in taxes will get a bigger cut. That is common sense

It is like we both go to a 50% off sale at a store. I buy $500 and get $250 off my total

You buy $50 and get $25 off your bill. Are you going to bitch to the manager my discount was more then yours?

The "rich" are already paying about 60% or more of their income in taxes - they can't pay more.

Even Obama is now backtracking on his tax increase - at least for now

[manu1959]

Tax cuts for the rich were disproportionately large.
Because Bush's economic policies rigged the economy to favor the rich. That creates more income for them and that results in higher taxes.
The best way to balance the budget and serve the public is raising taxes on the rich and spending on the poor.

define rich........

what tax rate for the rich would you like to see.....

[red states rule]

define rich........

what tax rate for the rich would you like to see.....

With Joe, it might be a 100% tax rate and the government gives each of is an allowence

[manu1959]

With Joe, it might be a 100% tax rate and the government gives each of is an allowence

no really i am interested in what his solution his.....exactly

[red states rule]

no really i am interested in what his solution his.....exactly

I once asked MFM how much was enough and he replied "as much as we can squeeze out of them"

I suspect Joe's answer will pretty much the same

With people like Joe, the government is always underfunded, and the people are always undertaxed

[avatar4321]

Maybe not the automatic response but a good choice in this case. Bush's tax cuts subsidized the rich to the tune of billions of dollars. Taxing back that money for use in stimulating the economy is a good idea.

On what planet does taking money from people stimulate the economy?

[manu1959]

I once asked MFM how much was enough and he replied "as much as we can squeeze out of them"

I suspect Joe's answer will pretty much the same

With people like Joe, the government is always underfunded, and the people are always undertaxed

hard to write that into law......i would like a number and a %

[red states rule]

hard to write that into law......i would like a number and a %

I would to

I would also like to know at what income level, you are "rich"

According to Obama it started out at $250,000/yr and as the campaign went on it went as low as $150,000/yr

[manu1959]

I would to

I would also like to know at what income level, you are "rich"

According to Obama it started out at $250,000/yr and as the campaign went on it went as low as $150,000/yr

isn't 150,000 currently 34% for fed only....then you get to cough up state...sdi etc..... so what would that total 40% ....

[red states rule]

isn't 150,000 currently 34% for fed only....then you get to cough up state...sdi etc..... so what would that total 40% ....

more then that when you add in SS and Medicare taxes

For the most part, most people fork over 50% or more of their income in taxes

and then you add sales taxes, and property taxes

[5stringJeff]

The government can't "stimulate" the economy, because every dollar the government spends is taken, by force, from someone else, who will spend it more wisely. People spend in order to maximize their utility, and businesses spend in order to maximize profit, but government spends in order to maximize political benefits - which always produces winners and losers, based on the political party in power. So in order to "stimulate" the economy, the government needs to take less and spend less.

The reason CA's government is so far overbudget is because there's too much government. The size and scope of the government must be drastically reduced if CA is to see its way out of this crisis.

[Joe Steel]

lets see....the state is overspending....the economy is in the shitter....consumers and banks are hoarding their money ....unemployment is climbing.....and the solution is.......take more money from the employed.....

No.

The government is undertaxing. The solution is taxing those who can afford to pay more taxes.


so just for fun lets apply this logic to where you work.....

sales are down....people are being laid off...but you still have you job and of course do to layoffs are doing twice as much work......so your boss instead of cutting costs.....decides your paycheck will be cut by 10% to offset the decline in sales.....

No.

The boss cuts the salaries of some of the highest-paid employees to avoid laying-off some of the lowest-paid employees.

[Joe Steel]

Joe, if you pass tax CUTS, the people who pay the most in taxes will get a bigger cut. That is common sense

That depends on the structure of the tax cuts. Cutting capital gains taxes benefits primarily the rich.



The "rich" are already paying about 60% or more of their income in taxes - they can't pay more.

I don't believe you.

Prove it.

[red states rule]

That depends on the structure of the tax cuts. Cutting capital gains taxes benefits primarily the rich.




I don't believe you.

Prove it.

Nearly anyone with a 401K, or sells a home benefits from a capital gains tax cut

When you add up the income tax rate, the 12.5% SS tax, the 2% Meidacre tax, then state and local taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes - most people are indeed paying

If you own a business, well you can add a few more percentage points to the number

[Joe Steel]

define rich........

what tax rate for the rich would you like to see.....

The definition of rich is a matter for public discussion. I'd say the fourth quintile would be a good starting point for steeply-progressive marginal rates. They could start at 35% and head for 100%

[red states rule]

The definition of rich is a matter for public discussion. I'd say the fourth quintile would be a good starting point for steeply-progressive marginal rates. They could start at 35% and head for 100%

Who would work with a tax rate of 100%?

Or even 70% as it was under Jimmy Carter?

Who would hire people, start a business, or take risk when they know the government would take most of the money?

[Missileman]

No.

The government is undertaxing. The solution is taxing those who can afford to pay more taxes.



No.

The boss cuts the salaries of some of the highest-paid employees to avoid laying-off some of the lowest-paid employees.

The solution is to spend less, period. Only a financial retard would advocate spending more money as a solution to budget shortfalls.

In your eutopian society everyone makes the same amount tho, right?

And BTW, the people aren't here to service the government, and the government has no business CREATING financial hardships for the people.

[Joe Steel]

Nearly anyone with a 401K, or sells a home benefits from a capital gains tax cut

When you add up the income tax rate, the 12.5% SS tax, the 2% Meidacre tax, then state and local taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes - most people are indeed paying

If you own a business, well you can add a few more percentage points to the number

Very few have portfolios of sufficiently large value to make capital gains taxes significant.

SS is only 6.2 % the first $102,000. After that the effective rate diminishes so the highly-paid pay less than 6.2%. State and local taxes are trivial. The top marginal rate in Missouri is only 5%. Sales taxes are paid only on some purchases and the rich don't spend all their income.

I'd be surprised if the effective tax rate is more than 30%.

[Missileman]

The definition of rich is a matter for public discussion. I'd say the fourth quintile would be a good starting point for steeply-progressive marginal rates. They could start at 35% and head for 100%

100% tax rate? You're an even bigger imbecile than I had you pegged for.

BTW shithead, how much money did it cost you to be a citizen last year? How much of your money wound up in D.C.?

[Joe Steel]

Who would work with a tax rate of 100%?

Or even 70% as it was under Jimmy Carter?

Who would hire people, start a business, or take risk when they know the government would take most of the money?

Someone who wanted to serve his market.

[Joe Steel]

100% tax rate? You're an even bigger imbecile than I had you pegged for.

BTW shithead, how much money did it cost you to be a citizen last year? How much of your money wound up in D.C.?

Do you understand the "marginal tax rate" concept, dumbass?

[red states rule]

Someone who wanted to serve his market.

Joe, we are not here to serve the market. They tried that in Soviet Union and Cuba and look where it got them

[Little-Acorn]

The definition of rich is a matter for public discussion.

From the Democrat Dictionary for Demagoguery, Deceit, and Disingenuousness:

"Rich": You have a job.

"Filthy rich": You have two jobs.

"Obscenely rich": You create jobs.

:cool:


I'd say the fourth quintile would be a good starting point for steeply-progressive marginal rates. They could start at 35% and head for 100%
Don't get too excited over little joesteel's desire to tax people over a certain income level, at 100%, basically taking ALL their income above a certain amount. It's hardly a new idea.

Back when a famous bank robber was asked why he kept robbing banks, he replied, "Because that's where the money is!"

Little joe's tax scheme comes from the same basic idea... and with the same moral justification.

[red states rule]

Very few have portfolios of sufficiently large value to make capital gains taxes significant.

SS is only 6.2 % the first $102,000. After that the effective rate diminishes so the highly-paid pay less than 6.2%. State and local taxes are trivial. The top marginal rate in Missouri is only 5%. Sales taxes are paid only on some purchases and the rich don't spend all their income.

I'd be surprised if the effective tax rate is more than 30%.

Top rate is 35%

We pay the full SS tax Joe - companies do not pay taxes. All costs of doing business is passed onto us

State taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes are also all paid by us

It is very easy for people to pay 60% of their income in taxes. But why should you be upset, a few posts back you wanted a 100% tax rate

[Missileman]

Do you understand the "marginal tax rate" concept, dumbass?

There's nothing marginal about 100%.

BTW, you didn't answer the question: How much of your money wound up in D.C. last year?

[red states rule]

There's nothing marginal about 100%.

BTW, you didn't answer the question: How much of your money wound up in D.C. last year?

After he got his tax cut of course. Did he keep it or send it back to DC?

[Little-Acorn]

After he got his tax cut of course. Did he keep it or send it back to DC?

You're joking, right?

Leftists like little joesteal never intend to pay their high tax rates themselves. It's always others who must pay.

[emmett]

OK Joe....

Tell us, how much did you send to DC last year?

[avatar4321]

No.

The government is undertaxing. The solution is taxing those who can afford to pay more taxes.

Since you seem so gungho with the tax increase, lets just take the middle man out and give your money straight to me.

[Classact]

Tax cuts for the rich were disproportionately large.



Because Bush's economic policies rigged the economy to favor the rich. That creates more income for them and that results in higher taxes.



The best way to balance the budget and serve the public is raising taxes on the rich and spending on the poor.Duh, California did just that and a third of their tax base moved to other states where taxes are lower. Maybe that's why many Americans are bitching about companies moving over seas with their jobs, the taxes are lower over seas?

[red states rule]

Duh, California did just that and a third of their tax base moved to other states where taxes are lower. Maybe that's why many Americans are bitching about companies moving over seas with their jobs, the taxes are lower over seas?

I believe bthe US has the highest (or second highest) corporate tax rate in the world

Since companies do not pay taxes - they pass that onto us - no wonder companies are looking for ways to reduce their cost of doing business

For some reason, people like Joe think companies are not in business to make a profit - but to pay the highest tax possible

[Classact]

I believe bthe US has the highest (or second highest) corporate tax rate in the world

Since companies do not pay taxes - they pass that onto us - no wonder companies are looking for ways to reduce their cost of doing business

For some reason, people like Joe think companies are not in business to make a profit - but to pay the highest tax possibleYep check out this article... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2149677/posts

[Joe Steel]

On what planet does taking money from people stimulate the economy?

On the planet where the government spends tax revenue.

[Joe Steel]

more then that when you add in SS and Medicare taxes

For the most part, most people fork over 50% or more of their income in taxes

and then you add sales taxes, and property taxes

Nonsense.

Most taxpayers don't pay anything even close to 50%.

[Joe Steel]

Joe, we are not here to serve the market. They tried that in Soviet Union and Cuba and look where it got them

A taxpayer who wanted to serve his market would continue provide services even though his marginal income was being taxed at 100%.

[Joe Steel]

Top rate is 35%

We pay the full SS tax Joe - companies do not pay taxes. All costs of doing business is passed onto us

Nonsense. The employer's portion of SS is paid by the employer not the employee. It's a simple as that.


State taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes are also all paid by us

It is very easy for people to pay 60% of their income in taxes. But why should you be upset, a few posts back you wanted a 100% tax rate[/QUOTE]

No one pays anywhere near 60% of income in taxes.

[Joe Steel]

There's nothing marginal about 100%.

BTW, you didn't answer the question: How much of your money wound up in D.C. last year?

The 100% rate I mentioned is part of a progressive income tax. It is a marginal rate.

[Missileman]

The 100% rate I mentioned is part of a progressive income tax. It is a marginal rate.

I understand completely what you're talking about and it is BULLSHIT!

For everything over a certain level of income that an individual makes to be 100% forfeit to the government will never work. People will just limit their income. Very few will work for free...I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Joe Steel]

I understand completely what you're talking about and it is BULLSHIT!

For everything over a certain level of income that an individual makes to be 100% forfeit to the government will never work. People will just limit their income. Very few will work for free...I sure as hell wouldn't.

I know.

That's why I would classify income and have a different set of rates for the various classes. The 100% rate likely would only be applicable to taxpayers who wouldn't be able to earn a high income in any other than their current occupation and who wouldn't be missed if they decided to stop working. I think it would apply almost exclusively to entertainers and athletes. A highly-paid athlete, for instance, couldn't stop playing because the only other thing he could do would be flipping burgers. And if he did stop, so what? Someone else would take his place and play for less.

[stephanie]

I can't wait to become a slave for the Goverment...sounds like fun.

I just hope I get a thank you note every now and then..

[Missileman]

I know.

That's why I would classify income and have a different set of rates for the various classes. The 100% rate likely would only be applicable to taxpayers who wouldn't be able to earn a high income in any other than their current occupation and who wouldn't be missed if they decided to stop working. I think it would apply almost exclusively to entertainers and athletes. A highly-paid athlete, for instance, couldn't stop playing because the only other thing he could do would be flipping burgers. And if he did stop, so what? Someone else would take his place and play for less.

Why go through all that crap instead of just replacing the income tax with a national sales tax?

[Little-Acorn]

Little joesteal mad a few interesting quotes, which serve to outline the basic fallacy of the modern liberal agenda:




On what planet does taking money from people stimulate the economy?

On the planet where the government spends tax revenue.
Little joesteal makes the mistake of assuming that regular people would NOT spend that money, if government didn't take it from them and spend it. But in fact, people either spend all the money they make, or they save it, which puts it in play to capitalize other businesses or be loaned out to others for anything from house purchases to car purchases to credit card payments. Even people who stuff a mattress with it, eventually spend it. Money earned by people goes 100% back into the economy, every time.

But when government takes it, a portion of what they take, goes into salaries for government officials, clerks, bureaucrats, etc. - people who produce nothing and who are simply a drag on society. The taxpayers who paid that money to those bureaucrats, would have spent it much more productively... or at least couldn't have spent it any more wastefully. Society (and its taxpayers) are much better off, the more money the taxpayers keep and spend themselves. The only money that govt should take, is for things that private people CANNOT provide, such as national defense, impartial courts, foreign relations on behalf of the nation, and a few others. Government will still be wasteful in providing them. But since they are essential, and cannot be provided privately, these few things are what government must do, despite its inefficiency.


A taxpayer who wanted to serve his market would continue provide services even though his marginal income was being taxed at 100%.
Here little joesteal invents a brand-new variety of human being for us: One who exists "to serve his market". There are currently no examples of this new variety on the planet today, except for a few badly misled dupes who somehow believe that relying on others to take care of them, is better than using their own self-interest to take care of themselves, with "helping others" falling to second place and properly called charity. This new variety of human being, is absolutely essential for the survival of the socialist state little joesteal is trying to impose on the rest of us. The fact that none of them exist, is the biggest single reason that little joesteal's brand of socialism always fails, and impoverishes the people it was supposed to help.

People running their own lives, don't start by asking what's best of the others around them, or how they can best "serve the market". Instead, they ask what they and their family need, to provide the things they must have (food, shelter, education, etc.). Then they ask if there are any addition things that are not essential but would be nice - a warmer blanket for the childrens' bed, a better car to replace the one that keeps breaking down, charitable donation for thpeople less fortunate, movie tickets this weekend, etc. In fact, they do wind up "serving the market" by spending in the economy this way. But it was not their primary goal. And for the sad dupes for whom it IS the primary goal, they inevitably fall short since "the market" has no particular interest in serving them, and then they start demanding that others care for them. In societies where this wrongheadedness permeates into government, the result is that people start getting coerced into picking up the slack... by definition against their own better judgement.

These are two fundamentally wrong ideas, that little joesteal has so aptly illustrated here: (a) that government spending is somehow better than the private spending it supplanted, and (b) that people exert their best efforts when serving others rather than themselves and theirs. These two fallacies are the building blocks of the socialism that has been repeatedly tried, repeatedly fails, and repeatedly results in impoverishment, deprivation, loss of freedom, and even death on a massive scale - a fact grimly illustrated by history. Little joesteal ignores this at his peril.

The really bad news is, he's got his blinders tightly in place, is determined to ignore that history... and is trying to take the rest of us with him when he does it.

[moon]

little-acorn;

The really bad news is, he's got his blinders tightly in place, is determined to ignore that history... and is trying to take the rest of us with him when he does it.

You won't be a burden as your place is already assured.

[Joe Steel]

Little joesteal makes the mistake of assuming that regular people would NOT spend that money

That's pretty much the definition of a recession. They're caused by not spending money.



But in fact, people either spend all the money they make, or they save it, which puts it in play to capitalize other businesses or be loaned out to others for anything from house purchases to car purchases to credit card payments.

Simplistic nonsense.

Earners may save their money but that doesn't mean the money reenters the economy. Financial intermediaries may or may not lend it. And even if it is lent to borrowers, that doesn't mean the borrowers spend it. And if they do spend it, that doesn't mean they spend it in the American economy. They could import goods or make investments overseas, neither of which benefits the American economy all that much.



But when government takes it, a portion of what they take, goes into salaries for government officials, clerks, bureaucrats

Who spend the money. I just read that somewhere.



Here little joesteal invents a brand-new variety of human being for us: One who exists "to serve his market". There are currently no examples of this new variety on the planet today,

Except for everyone who works for wages, salaries or fees. Everyone who earns money serves a market -- those who buy his services.

[Little-Acorn]

Simplistic nonsense.
Translation: I can't refute what Acorn said, so I'll call it names instead.


Earners may save their money but that doesn't mean the money reenters the economy. Financial intermediaries may or may not lend it.
Lending is how they make their money. If they don't lend, they go bust.


And even if it is lent to borrowers, that doesn't mean the borrowers spend it.
Right. They borrowed it, and committed to all those interest payments as well as paying back the principal they borrowed, just so they could sit there and look at a huge pile of money sitting on their living room floor. They didn't borrow it to spend it on anything.

(The balance of irrelevant or affirming comments deleted)

It's always a hoot to see these leftist demagogues run dry when trying to defend their indefensible agenda.

Money taken by government as taxes, is inevitably spent more wastefully than money kept by the people who earned it. That's why government's functions must be strictly limited, to things private people CANNOT do. Everything else (that is, most of ordinary life) must be protected from little joesteal's government interference.

[5stringJeff]

On the planet where the government spends tax revenue.

Except that, on this planet, every dollar the government spends is either a) taxed, meaning someone who was going to spend it in the economy can't, because the government has taken it, or b) borrowed, meaning that the government is deferring taxation and paying interest until it does tax the money to pay back the loans. Either way, the government doesn't produce anything on its own; it only takes, by force, from its citizens, to pay others for services it provides.

[manu1959]

which country does this 100% tax rate work currently.....

[Joe Steel]

Why go through all that crap instead of just replacing the income tax with a national sales tax?

Sales taxes place too much of the burden of taxation on the poor. Better to place it on those who can afford it.

[Joe Steel]

Translation: I can't refute what Acorn said, so I'll call it names instead.

Try again, dumbass.

It was an Executive Summary of your posting and, as you discovered, it was followed by a shredding of it.

[Joe Steel]

Except that, on this planet, every dollar the government spends is either a) taxed, meaning someone who was going to spend it in the economy can't, because the government has taken it, or b) borrowed, meaning that the government is deferring taxation and paying interest until it does tax the money to pay back the loans. Either way, the government doesn't produce anything on its own; it only takes, by force, from its citizens, to pay others for services it provides.

So?

Taxing keeps the money flowing and that's what stimulates the economy.

[5stringJeff]

So?

Taxation decreases liberty. The more people are taxed, the less free they are.


Taxing keeps the money flowing and that's what stimulates the economy.

Incorrect. Taxation is forcible taking by the government, and is an inefficient means of spending money. The best way to keep the economy going is for the government to get out of the way and allow individuals to decide what to spend their own money on. The government's attempt to "stimulate the economy" is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Joe Steel]

Taxation decreases liberty. The more people are taxed, the less free they are.

Taxes are the price of liberty. Without a strong government, we're all slaves of the rich.


Incorrect. Taxation is forcible taking by the government, and is an inefficient means of spending money. The best way to keep the economy going is for the government to get out of the way and allow individuals to decide what to spend their own money on. The government's attempt to "stimulate the economy" is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So?

When Peter has too much and Paul has too little, a little robbery is a good thing.

[stephanie]

When Peter has too much and Paul has too little, a little robbery is a good thing.

isn't that the Communist motto...so the Democrat party should just change thier name to what they really are, the Communist party of the United States...

[Joe Steel]

When Peter has too much and Paul has too little, a little robbery is a good thing.

isn't that the Communist motto...so the Democrat party should just change thier name to what they really are, the Communist party of the United States...

The Democrats aren't even close. They're a bit better than the Republicans but that's not saying a lot.

[Missileman]

Sales taxes place too much of the burden of taxation on the poor. Better to place it on those who can afford it.

That's bass-ackwards thinking...cause check it out...if poor people have no money to spend, then they aren't spending any money, and if they aren't spending money, they AREN"T being taxed.

[Joe Steel]

That's bass-ackwards thinking...cause check it out...if poor people have no money to spend, then they aren't spending any money, and if they aren't spending money, they AREN"T being taxed.

Poor people have some money to spend but not enough for everything they need. Making them spend some of it on taxes is wrong.

[5stringJeff]

Taxes are the price of liberty. Without a strong government, we're all slaves of the rich.

Again, wrong. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, especially against those who would use the coercive power of the State in order to line their own pockets. A strong government only enslaves its citizens.


When Peter has too much and Paul has too little, a little robbery is a good thing.

Who decides who has "too much?" Or "too little?" Not you, and not a faceless government bureaucrat. Determining what you want to achieve and enjoying the fruits of your labor is a cornerstone of a free society. Having a Czar, Lord, or slavemaster determine what your "fair share" of your labors is no one's right.

[Silver]

Poor people have some money to spend but not enough for everything they need. Making them spend some of it on taxes is wrong.

poor Meathead Joe....obviously spent his tax rebate check on Koolade....

[avatar4321]

Poor people have some money to spend but not enough for everything they need. Making them spend some of it on taxes is wrong.

everyone should pay the same percentage. Everyone should have a stake in their government. What's the point of representation then?

[red states rule]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SJY-S7joE4I/AAAAAAAAFSo/wrvr-E6MkvU/s400/tax.bmp

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/tax-facts-of-day.html


It is clear, a tiny minority of taxpayers are paying the huge majority of taxes in this country

Liberals see the producers and employers as a renewable money source

[Joe Steel]

Again, wrong. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, especially against those who would use the coercive power of the State in order to line their own pockets. A strong government only enslaves its citizens.

A strong government is the only guarantor of freedom. Good government is expensive.


Who decides who has "too much?" Or "too little?" Not you, and not a faceless government bureaucrat. Determining what you want to achieve and enjoying the fruits of your labor is a cornerstone of a free society. Having a Czar, Lord, or slavemaster determine what your "fair share" of your labors is no one's right.

Tax bills begin in the House. The People decide.

[Joe Steel]

everyone should pay the same percentage. Everyone should have a stake in their government. What's the point of representation then?

Equity is more important than mere arithmetic equality. Higher taxes on the more affluent serves equity.

[Joe Steel]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SJY-S7joE4I/AAAAAAAAFSo/wrvr-E6MkvU/s400/tax.bmp

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/tax-facts-of-day.html


It is clear, a tiny minority of taxpayers are paying the huge majority of taxes in this country

So?

They still don't pay enough.

[emmett]

This thread should be moved to humor! Why you guys even continue to debate this topic with someone obviously so handicapped, no..... intellectually challanged, is beyond me.

Oh and RSR.... your continued underhanded tactics of using factual data to support your contentions..... well.... that's just unamerican brother! Maybe you should try useless innuendo and and top it off with some baseless rhetoric. Then maybe you might be able to attract some interesting debate from our respected constituancy.

[Missileman]

Equity is more important than mere arithmetic equality. Higher taxes on the more affluent serves equity.

Equity would mean EVERYONE contributing in some way. I get the idea however that your definition of equity includes you being able to suckle the government teet without contributing a damned thing.

[manu1959]

Equity would mean EVERYONE contributing in some way. I get the idea however that your definition of equity includes you being able to suckle the government teet without contributing a damned thing.

even raul castro isn't as wacked as joe steel.....raul is allowing farms to to sell in the open market and is starting to move away from a flat salary structure.....

[avatar4321]

Equity is more important than mere arithmetic equality. Higher taxes on the more affluent serves equity.

Not really seeing how equity comes into it. My guess is you dont know what it means.

Everyone paying the same percentage already makes the wealthier pay more in taxes.

Now not paying any taxes and then trying to tell others how their taxes should be spent is not equitable at all.

[DragonStryk72]

Tax cuts for the rich were disproportionately large.

but they're still paying 40% of the taxes, it's not a balanced tax system. Do you have any idea how much it costs to maintain the progressive tax system?

Because Bush's economic policies rigged the economy to favor the rich. That creates more income for them and that results in higher taxes.

Um, no, vast amounts of government waste increases taxes, not letting people keep what they earned.

The best way to balance the budget and serve the public is raising taxes on the rich and spending on the poor.

No, the best way to balance the budget is to stop spending money you don't have, and showing the poor what responsible leadership looks like, because the majority of people learn by observing both positive and negative behaviors. ;

[DragonStryk72]

This thread should be moved to humor! Why you guys even continue to debate this topic with someone obviously so handicapped, no..... intellectually challanged, is beyond me.

Oh and RSR.... your continued underhanded tactics of using factual data to support your contentions..... well.... that's just unamerican brother! Maybe you should try useless innuendo and and top it off with some baseless rhetoric. Then maybe you might be able to attract some interesting debate from our respected constituancy.

no, no, if he were mentally handicapped, Emmett, there'd be an excuse for it, but honestly, he's a natural foil to RSR, the whole balance thing. RSR takes it too far to the right, and Joe takes it way too far left. Two sides of the same coin left on the railroad tracks for too long.

[Yurt]

if higher taxes are good why is obama promising TAX CUTS :laugh2:

[red states rule]

if higher taxes are good why is obama promising TAX CUTS :laugh2:

$300 billion in tax cuts

Tax cuts for individuals, married couples, and - gasp - for businesses

Not a huge tax cut - but it is a start

[Joe Steel]

Equity would mean EVERYONE contributing in some way. I get the idea however that your definition of equity includes you being able to suckle the government teet without contributing a damned thing.

Try again, dumbass.

This time use a dictionary.

[Joe Steel]

Not really seeing how equity comes into it. My guess is you dont know what it means.

Everyone paying the same percentage already makes the wealthier pay more in taxes.

Now not paying any taxes and then trying to tell others how their taxes should be spent is not equitable at all.

Try again, dumbass.

This time use a dictionary.

[Joe Steel]

if higher taxes are good why is obama promising TAX CUTS :laugh2:

I not familiar with Obama's proposal. However, generally, small tax cuts to low-income taxpayers is a good way to give them money to spend and thus booset economic activity.

[red states rule]

I not familiar with Obama's proposal. However, generally, small tax cuts to low-income taxpayers is a good way to give them money to spend and thus booset economic activity.

You mean there is something you do not know Joe??????

Obama tax plan is not tax cuts. It is an expanded welfare plan where he gives tax cuts to people who do not pay income taxes

The bottom 50% of earners pay less then 3% of all federal income taxes.

I have a thread on Obama's so called tax cuts

[Missileman]

Try again, dumbass.

This time use a dictionary.

Hey fuckhead...I'll guarantee there isn't a definition of equity that includes the wealthy paying MORE...so I suggest you break out the Websters.

[Missileman]

I not familiar with Obama's proposal. However, generally, small tax cuts to low-income taxpayers is a good way to give them money to spend and thus booset economic activity.

It's only a band-aid. Once that money is used up, you're right where you started, in need of a boost.

[5stringJeff]

A strong government is the only guarantor of freedom. Good government is expensive.

Government cannot guarantee individual freedom. In fact, the stronger a government is, the less free its citizens are.


Tax bills begin in the House. The People decide.

If you think today's version of Congress is in any sense representative of "the People," you must be loony. Districts are horrendously gerrymandered by the two parties so they don't have to compete. It's a political duopoly.