Are Americans getting fed up with govt tilting the playing field toward special interest groups?

[Little-Acorn]

Spending tax money on Special Interest groups is, and always been completely illegal.

Tax expenditures are paid for with higher tax rates and deficit spending.
So that means they are paid for by spending tax money on special interest groups.

A complete non sequitor. (Latin for "does not follow")

General taxation has nothing to so with spending on Special Interests. Congress has the power to do the first, and is forbidden to do the second in the Constitution.

Back the subject:
Our government has become more and more an engine for handing out goodies and making laws to benefit various minorities and other special interest groups, instead of protecting the rights of all.

Are Americans finally getting fed up with this constant diversion of govt resources and power, and seeking ways to get back to what government should have been?

 

[sealybobo]

Governments have been investing in infrastructure, science and exploration like since the dawn of civilization. Some of these interest are good for our country...Some aren't.

Not everything is black and white.

Sorry dude,but I can no longer put up with the constant harping on infrastructure.

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

 

[Rotagilla]

Governments have been investing in infrastructure, science and exploration like since the dawn of civilization. Some of these interest are good for our country...Some aren't.

Not everything is black and white.

Sorry dude,but I can no longer put up with the constant harping on infrastructure.

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are Americans getting fed up with govt tilting the playing field toward special interest groups?

No, but they are getting tired of these ridiculous loaded question fallacies from the right.

 

[g5000]

Spending tax money on Special Interest groups is, and always been completely illegal.

Tax expenditures are paid for with higher tax rates and deficit spending.
So that means they are paid for by spending tax money on special interest groups.

A complete non sequitor. (Latin for "does not follow")

Just because you don't understand how you are being robbed doesn't mean it's a non sequitur.

An allegory:

Bernie and Ted earn identical incomes.

Bernie and Ted's fair share of the federal budget is $1000. This means Bernie and Ted are each responsible for $500 at tax time.

But wait! Ted bought the right kind of refrigerator the government wanted him to buy. He gets a tax deduction! Ted also bought other government-approved products.

Ted's tax burden is now $400 instead of $500, thanks to tax expenditures awarded to him. "Woo hoo!", exclaims Ted, "I get to keep more of my own money!"

But Ted is wrong.

Since the federal tax burden for Ted and Bernie is $1000, and Ted is only paying $400 and Bernie is paying $500, tax revenues are going to come up $100 short. There will be a $100 deficit due to Ted's tax expenditures.

What to do...what to do...

So the government raises everyone's tax rates by 5 percent.

Now Bernie owes $525, and Ted owes $425 ($525 - $100 deduction).

Has Ted really saved $100? Nope. His taxes are only $75 lower now, and Bernies are $25 more. And their total tax payment is still $50 short of the goal of $1000.

After the 5% tax hike, Ted's $100 deduction is paid for by each of them paying $25 more, plus a $50 deficit.

And that is how our current tax structure is actually managed, boys and girls. We have this ridiculous system whereby two people earning identical incomes pay radically different taxes, and we have a budget deficit.

And the rube with the deductions isn't getting as much as he thinks he is.

Now along comes a deficit hawk who wants a balanced budget. And so taxes are raised 10%.

Now Bernie is paying $550 instead of the original $500. And Ted is paying $450 (after taking out his deduction).

We now have a balanced budget. But look. Ted's $100 deduction has really only netted him $50. And where did that $50 come from? It came out of Bernie's pocket!

And this is why tax expenditures are no different than food stamps or Obamaphones. Someone else has to pay for them with higher tax rates. And you aren't making out as much as you think you are.

But wait! It gets worse!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uplo...erest-Deduction-Affect-the-Housing-Market.pdf

One widely cited 1996 study by Dennis Capozza, Richard Green, and Patric Hendershott estimated that eliminating the mortgage interest and property tax deductions would reduce housing prices in the short term by an average of 13 percent nationwide, with regional changes ranging from 8 to 27 percent.

Ted's mortgage-interest deduction (MID) has been factored into the price of his house! Because of the mortgage-interest tax deduction, Ted's house (and everyone else's houses) cost more.

So for Ted, his entire tax deduction is a total wash. He isn't getting to keep his money. His taxes are higher, and his house cost more.

So who is REALLY getting the money?

Well, who benefits from higher house prices?

That's right. Builders, banks, brokers, and real estate agents.

Mortgage Interest Deduction: $484 billion

The MID cost taxpayers $484 billion between 2010-2014.

Guess how much the budget deficit was for 2014?

$483 billion.

And that is just ONE tax expenditure, kids.

The Real Estate special interests spent $26,723,151 on House campaign contributions, $11,255,447 on Senate campaign contributions, and $95,563,540 on lobbying in 2014, for a total of $133,542,138.

They didn't spend that money for nothing, boys and girls. It netted them a profit of $96 billion, every penny of which came out of YOUR pockets.

 

[g5000]

Now let's say another budget hawk manages to slash and burn the budget in half and reduces Bernie and Ted's cost share down to $500 instead of $1000.

Cut spending, right?

Now Ted and Bernie each owe $250. Woo hoo!

But wait! Ted still gets his $100 tax expenditure!

Oops. We STILL have a $100 deficit which must be paid for by higher tax rates and/or deficit spending. Ted's government gift still has to come out of someone else's pocket. His own, and Bernie's.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is the OP avoiding the posts of Rotagilla in this thread due to his agreeing with them or his being completely put off by them?

 

[LoneLaugher]

To make it an even playing field sure!

No, to create equal outcomes... whether deserved or not. A VERY different thing.

It's like a baseball umpire saying a poor player in a baseball game can have four strikes before he's out, while better players will be called out after only two strikes.

That's not the umpire's job. He has to call the balls and strikes equally for all players. If some of them consistently do better, it's not within government's power to call the game differently.

Except in the liberals' world, where the umpire must call things differently for each individual, depending on who the liberal decides who "deserves it more".

Nope. That's a rhetorical bowl of shit.

 

[Rotagilla]

Are Americans getting fed up with govt tilting the playing field toward special interest groups?

No, but they are getting tired of these ridiculous loaded question fallacies from the right.

 

[Rotagilla]

Is the OP avoiding the posts of Rotagilla in this thread due to his agreeing with them or his being completely put off by them?

...and more importantly...who cares?

 

[Little-Acorn]

To make it an even playing field sure!

No, to create equal outcomes... whether deserved or not. A VERY different thing.

It's like a baseball umpire saying a poor player in a baseball game can have four strikes before he's out, while better players will be called out after only two strikes.

That's not the umpire's job. He has to call the balls and strikes equally for all players. If some of them consistently do better, it's not within the umpire's (or government's) power to call the game differently.

Except in the liberals' world, where the umpire must call things differently for each individual, depending on who the liberal decides who "deserves it more".

The inevitable result, is that everybody is soon fighting for the umpire's favor, instead of playing baseball.

 

[g5000]

Ban tax expenditures, and people who earn identical incomes will pay identical taxes. And the robbery stops. No more transfer of wealth to special interests.

It does not get more level than that.

You also remove the incentive for special interests to spend all that money on campaign donations and lobbying. Instant campaign finance reform!

You also simplifying paying taxes. Down to one page.

Who profits from your taxes being so damned complicated?

Accountants.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Nope. That's a rhetorical bowl of shit.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what the poster said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with it, even though I can't identify it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Ban tax expenditures,

As usual, when a liberal can't refute the argument that proves him wrong, he starts ranting hysterically like that. And then changes the subject.

 

[konradv]

I don't expect Trump to do anything on that score. He's in favor of eminent domain being used to help business. That's what right wimgers were screaming holy hell about a few years ago, when Souter was the swing vote on a USSC ED decision.Donald Trump and Eminent Domain | RedState
Souter Gets Taste Of His Own Eminent Domain Medicine

trump follows the laws that are in place...he didn't invent them...if you don't like the laws that are in place, talk to your representative...character attacks on him for following the law are amusing...

I didn't say a thing about it one way or another. Quit putting words in my mouth. It was RIGHT WINGERS that were up in arms about eminent domain, but think Trump is just great. Try reading a post with understanding before responding, please.

 

[Rotagilla]

I don't expect Trump to do anything on that score. He's in favor of eminent domain being used to help business. That's what right wimgers were screaming holy hell about a few years ago, when Souter was the swing vote on a USSC ED decision.Donald Trump and Eminent Domain | RedState
Souter Gets Taste Of His Own Eminent Domain Medicine

trump follows the laws that are in place...he didn't invent them...if you don't like the laws that are in place, talk to your representative...character attacks on him for following the law are amusing...

I didn't say a thing about it. Quit putting words in my mouth. IT was RIGHT WINGERS that were up in arms about eminent domain. Try reading a post with understanding before responding, please.

don't raise topics you don't understand and you won't get embarrassed.

 

[sealybobo]

Governments have been investing in infrastructure, science and exploration like since the dawn of civilization. Some of these interest are good for our country...Some aren't.

Not everything is black and white.

Sorry dude,but I can no longer put up with the constant harping on infrastructure.

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope. That's a rhetorical bowl of shit.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what the poster said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names and hope somebody thinks there's something wrong with it, even though I can't identify it.

Nobody calls for equal outcomes. Nobody suggest that some people deserve four strikes. That's nutter claptrap. You buy it as it allows you to feel better about yourself. Like most nutters.....you think you are a harder worker than all working poor people. You think your station in life on day one is meaningless.

Refuting what you have said isn't just easy.....it's boring.

 

[g5000]

Ban tax expenditures,

As usual, when a liberal can't refute the argument that proves him wrong, he starts ranting hysterically like that.

Hilarious!

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea, you moron. Something Reagan himself implemented, though he couldn't totally ban all of them for political reasons. You retards are so far gone you don't even recognize an actual conservative principle any more.

And the math clearly went a mile over your head, even though I dumbed it down as much as possible for you.

You know, when I make this presentation in public (with pictures so even the innumerate can grasp what is happening) everyone gets really pissed. Really, really pissed. And party affiliation makes no difference.

They get it.

Too bad you are too stupid to get it.

 

[konradv]

don't raise topics you don't understand and you won't get embarrassed.

Nice try. You're the one with the understanding deficit, clown.