End income tax

[g5000]

Feel free to propose a revenue neutral direction.

Arguing terminology is just dodging the issue.

Nope, terminology is everything in this case. He/they who control the language and it's meaning control the discussion.
Redefining a word in order to "prove" your point is simply moving the goalposts because you don't like the way those words (in their true meanings) affect whatever point you are trying to make.
Accepting that "tax breaks" are expenditures is straight out of Orwell.

Well, most tax breaks are given when we want to encourage specific behavior.

We give gigantic tax breaks to oil companies, because we want them to drill, baby, drill - and thus we are willing to help fund that activity.

We give subsidies to those who buy hybrid cars, because we want to not use oil, so we're willing to help pay for not using oil.

Etc.

I don't see that as particularly Orwellian.

The Orwellian aspect of it is that for a "tax cut" to be an "expenditure" we must redefine what "expenditures" and "revenues" are.

A tax cut is not a tax expenditure.

Once again, you demonstrate you know nothing about tax expenditures.

You're dismissed kid. Semantics are for the weak and I ain't playing.
Now if you think YOU are paying for the amount of money that the Gov let's me keep you are simply an idiot and cannot be helped.
You've bought into the entire Gov lie.

What a chickenshit. Go ahead. Run away, coward. You're ignorance was exposed and now you must be off!

Now if you think YOU are paying for the amount of money that the Gov let's me keep you are simply an idiot and cannot be helped.

Oh, the irony!

Your innumeracy is too entrenched.

 

[Doc1]

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative policy when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?
]

LOL, see?
You want/need to "redefine" a word so that you can "prove" your point, whatever that point may be at any given moment
You are no "Conservative" as any real Conservative would define the word. As to your question, it is a non-starter. I haven't even seen Donald's yet so I don't even knw if I support his. Unlike you I am not a blind partisan. I didn't support Bush's bailout's. I didn't support Bush's amnesty plan, so you see I wait for things to play out. I wait to actually see what someone's WORKS are, their words don't count.

You are making the exact same stupid mistaken argument the pseudocons make.

Why are you avoiding answering the question? What are you afraid of?

LOL you meant to say: " In my opinion you aren't answering my question".
I actually have, you just don't like the answer. I've been a Conservative longer than you've been alive, pardon me f I don't buy into all of your "redefinitions".

 

[g5000]

The poor bastard was too afraid to say whose tax plan he preferred. He was cornered and ran away like the ignorant chickenshit he is.

 

[Doc1]

Nope, terminology is everything in this case. He/they who control the language and it's meaning control the discussion.
Redefining a word in order to "prove" your point is simply moving the goalposts because you don't like the way those words (in their true meanings) affect whatever point you are trying to make.
Accepting that "tax breaks" are expenditures is straight out of Orwell.

Well, most tax breaks are given when we want to encourage specific behavior.

We give gigantic tax breaks to oil companies, because we want them to drill, baby, drill - and thus we are willing to help fund that activity.

We give subsidies to those who buy hybrid cars, because we want to not use oil, so we're willing to help pay for not using oil.

Etc.

I don't see that as particularly Orwellian.

The Orwellian aspect of it is that for a "tax cut" to be an "expenditure" we must redefine what "expenditures" and "revenues" are.

A tax cut is not a tax expenditure.

Once again, you demonstrate you know nothing about tax expenditures.

You're dismissed kid. Semantics are for the weak and I ain't playing.
Now if you think YOU are paying for the amount of money that the Gov let's me keep you are simply an idiot and cannot be helped.
You've bought into the entire Gov lie.

What a chickenshit. Go ahead. Run away, coward. You're ignorance was exposed and now you must be off!

I've beaten your ass all over the forum kid.
It's ok, tell yourself whatever you need to so you can sleep tonight.

 

[WillReadmore]

No, logic says that if a Tax Deduction is a Gov expenditure, by extension the money must be theirs to spend.

Wow! I'm debating with someone who doesn't know what a tax expenditure is!

Here you go: Tax expenditure - Wikipedia

With all due respect your post assumes that your position is automatically correct.
You should actually read what you post friend.

"The history of tax expenditures"

In 1967, the tax expenditure concept was created by Stanley S. Surrey, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury", as a way to represent the political use of tax breaks for means that were usually accomplished through budget spending." Secretary Surrey argued that members of Congress were using tax policy as a ``vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability" (Surrey 1985).

Your source makes my point clear, that to view "Tax Breaks" as expenditures ALL monies belong to the Gov. "Revenues" is a misnomer, there are no real "revenues" in Gov, only confiscation.

The definition of "Revenue":

"Revenue is the amount of money that is brought into a company by its business activities. Revenue is also known as sales, as in the price-to-sales ratio, an alternative to the price-to-earnings ratio that uses revenue in the denominator.

Read more: Revenue Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp#ixzz4VhGk9LaS
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

So you see, revenue is a word that does not apply in Gov, they don't create or make anything. They confiscate.
Just because the Gov decides to "define" something in no way makes it applicable to anything or anyone. So in order to define tax breaks as an "expenditure" you must START with the idea that ALL monies belong to the Gov.

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative principle when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

I preferred Clinton's.

- no tax increases for the middle class and below

- debt free education through college.

- funded by plugging holes and raising rates on the ultra wealthy as promoted by Warren Buffet.

I'd also support picking a health system from among the numerous successful plans of other nations and tailoring it to America - thus causing significant savings on health care while ensuring ALL citizens get care.

 

[g5000]

Everyone understands what tax expenditures are, except you.

So tell me. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative policy when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?
]

LOL, see?
You want/need to "redefine" a word so that you can "prove" your point, whatever that point may be at any given moment
You are no "Conservative" as any real Conservative would define the word. As to your question, it is a non-starter. I haven't even seen Donald's yet so I don't even knw if I support his. Unlike you I am not a blind partisan. I didn't support Bush's bailout's. I didn't support Bush's amnesty plan, so you see I wait for things to play out. I wait to actually see what someone's WORKS are, their words don't count.

You are making the exact same stupid mistaken argument the pseudocons make.

Why are you avoiding answering the question? What are you afraid of?

LOL you meant to say: " In my opinion you aren't answering my question".
I actually have, you just don't like the answer. I've been a Conservative longer than you've been alive, pardon me f I don't buy into all of your "redefinitions".

It was a simple question, retard. When you don't name the candidate whose tax plan you preferred, it is not a matter of opinion that you didn't, dumbass. It is a FACT you did not name whose tax plan you preferred.

You're cornered, and want to run now.

 

[Doc1]

The poor bastard was too afraid to say whose tax plan he preferred. He was cornered and ran away like the ignorant chickenshit he is.

Son you've been completely owned here. It's ok, I've owned much better people than you. The worst part of it is that I'm just some schmuck Conservative out here in Cali and yet...you've been shown to be impotent.

 

[g5000]

The poor bastard was too afraid to say whose tax plan he preferred. He was cornered and ran away like the ignorant chickenshit he is.

Son you've been completely owned here. It's ok, I've owned much better people than you. The worst part of it is that I'm just some schmuck Conservative out here in Cali and yet...you've been shown to be impotent.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

What a chickenshit. It's truly bizarre you can't name whose tax plan you preferred.

You are obviously afraid.

 

[OnePercenter]

Our insane governor wants to do away with state income tax and he has been sockin us with taxes on everything but breathing--that will be next. And we're still paying income tax. Dream on Harley, but they never give back what they took. Believe me.

no income tax here. I pay a ten cents on the dollar in taxes. I love it. And I am close to KY so I go there and take advantage of tax free groceries

Nevada too, and you can stay in-State and buy groceries tax free.

 

[Doc1]

No, you've simply accepted the Govs redefinition of what "revenue" is.
You've accepted the word "revenue" in replacement of "taxation". In doing so it enables you to see "tax deductions" as expenditures, meaning only that the Gov takes less of MY money and in doing so it has therefore "spent" money that was never theirs to start with.
This is the real problem with Democratic Socialism, it seeks to (as it must) to redefine and control language thereby enabling folks like you and them to control how things are viewed. Most people don't pay attention, unfortunately for you I do.

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative policy when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?
]

LOL, see?
You want/need to "redefine" a word so that you can "prove" your point, whatever that point may be at any given moment
You are no "Conservative" as any real Conservative would define the word. As to your question, it is a non-starter. I haven't even seen Donald's yet so I don't even knw if I support his. Unlike you I am not a blind partisan. I didn't support Bush's bailout's. I didn't support Bush's amnesty plan, so you see I wait for things to play out. I wait to actually see what someone's WORKS are, their words don't count.

You are making the exact same stupid mistaken argument the pseudocons make.

Why are you avoiding answering the question? What are you afraid of?

LOL you meant to say: " In my opinion you aren't answering my question".
I actually have, you just don't like the answer. I've been a Conservative longer than you've been alive, pardon me f I don't buy into all of your "redefinitions".

It was a simple question, retard. When you don't name the candidate whose tax plan you preferred, it is not a matter of opinion that you didn't, dumbass. It is a FACT you did not name whose tax plan you preferred.

You're cornered, and want to run now.

Son, it is a fact that what one says often never equates to what one does. Is that something that escapes you?
I may be the one screaming disagreement with trump's plan.....nobody else's plan matters now do they?
Trump is the President Elect so HIS is the only one that matters, we'll see what he does.
Kid's like you deal in and with what if's and maybe's, I don't. I deal in what is.
You'll just have to grow up a bit.

 

[Timmy]

There's no need for an income tax, or any tax, liberals will voluntarily give most of their money to the government for redistribution. Right libs, you people will lead by example, practice what you preach?

Take a peak at the give budget sometime. 30% goes to military shit but it's Medicare coverage for old people that upsets you ?

And ?

Nukes are part of the Energy department

Vet affairs IS military spending

Pentagon costs make up part of "labor " and "health" (example : DOD retireee payments )

There's defense aspects to "international affairs" and "science ".

In fact , you'd find defense spending buried in pretty much all those budget subsets .

 

[Timmy]

Our insane governor wants to do away with state income tax and he has been sockin us with taxes on everything but breathing--that will be next. And we're still paying income tax. Dream on Harley, but they never give back what they took. Believe me.

no income tax here. I pay a ten cents on the dollar in taxes. I love it. And I am close to KY so I go there and take advantage of tax free groceries

Nevada too, and you can stay in-State and buy groceries tax free.

MASS doesn't tax essentials like food and clothing . Unless it's prepared food .

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no need for an income tax, or any tax, liberals will voluntarily give most of their money to the government for redistribution. Right libs, you people will lead by example, practice what you preach?

Take a peak at the give budget sometime. 30% goes to military shit but it's Medicare coverage for old people that upsets you ?

And ?

Nukes are part of the Energy department

Vet affairs IS military spending

Pentagon costs make up part of "labor " and "health" (example : DOD retireee payments )

There's defense aspects to "international affairs" and "science ".

In fact , you'd find defense spending buried in pretty much all those budget subsets .

They will explain this to you when you get to junior high.

 

[g5000]

I am a conservative, fool. The reason I call people like you "pseudocons" is because you don't recognize a core conservative policy when it is kicking you in the balls.

Now please answer my question. Of the 19 Presidential candidates in 2016, whose tax plan did you prefer the most?
]

LOL, see?
You want/need to "redefine" a word so that you can "prove" your point, whatever that point may be at any given moment
You are no "Conservative" as any real Conservative would define the word. As to your question, it is a non-starter. I haven't even seen Donald's yet so I don't even knw if I support his. Unlike you I am not a blind partisan. I didn't support Bush's bailout's. I didn't support Bush's amnesty plan, so you see I wait for things to play out. I wait to actually see what someone's WORKS are, their words don't count.

You are making the exact same stupid mistaken argument the pseudocons make.

Why are you avoiding answering the question? What are you afraid of?

LOL you meant to say: " In my opinion you aren't answering my question".
I actually have, you just don't like the answer. I've been a Conservative longer than you've been alive, pardon me f I don't buy into all of your "redefinitions".

It was a simple question, retard. When you don't name the candidate whose tax plan you preferred, it is not a matter of opinion that you didn't, dumbass. It is a FACT you did not name whose tax plan you preferred.

You're cornered, and want to run now.

Son, it is a fact that what one says often never equates to what one does. Is that something that escapes you?
I may be the one screaming disagreement with trump's plan.....nobody else's plan matters now do they?
Trump is the President Elect so HIS is the only one that matters, we'll see what he does.
Kid's like you deal in and with what if's and maybe's, I don't. I deal in what is.
You'll just have to grow up a bit.

Your preferred tax plan will indicate your knowledge. That's why you are too afraid to say whose tax plan you preferred. You know you fucked up and will have your ignorance exposed the moment you name the one you preferred.

If you even know anything about the candidates' tax plans. Which I am starting to think you don't have a clue about any of them.

Stop dodging, coward.

 

[g5000]

CFED: Yes, Tax Programs are Just Another Kind of Federal Spending

Are tax expenditures just another form of federal spending?

The simple answer is an emphatic “yes!”

Even the conservative think-tank the Tax Foundation wrote approvingly of a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noting that it “echoes what many economists all over the political spectrum agree on: that tax expenditures are really just spending in disguise…effectively subsidizing all the activities associated with their tax expenditures, like higher education, home ownership, or renewable energy.”

 

[Timmy]

There's no need for an income tax, or any tax, liberals will voluntarily give most of their money to the government for redistribution. Right libs, you people will lead by example, practice what you preach?

Take a peak at the give budget sometime. 30% goes to military shit but it's Medicare coverage for old people that upsets you ?

And ?

Nukes are part of the Energy department

Vet affairs IS military spending

Pentagon costs make up part of "labor " and "health" (example : DOD retireee payments )

There's defense aspects to "international affairs" and "science ".

In fact , you'd find defense spending buried in pretty much all those budget subsets .

They will explain this to you when you get to junior high.

What's your point?

Right off the bat VA + Military = 20%

That's before even sniffing Homeland Security stuff .

 

[g5000]

CBPP Issues Report on Tax Expenditures

The report echoes what many economists all over the political spectrum agree on: that tax expenditures are really just spending in disguise and that their use shrinks the tax base and forces up tax rates.

Boom! Exactly what I have been telling you, Doc.

 

[g5000]

When tax expenditures are correctly viewed as spending, it becomes clear that states need to be accountable for how much they are spending through their tax codes. Tax expenditures need to be evaluated based on their effectiveness and in light of the principles of sound tax policy.

Learn something, Doc. Learn something.

 

[Doc1]

LOL, see?
You want/need to "redefine" a word so that you can "prove" your point, whatever that point may be at any given moment
You are no "Conservative" as any real Conservative would define the word. As to your question, it is a non-starter. I haven't even seen Donald's yet so I don't even knw if I support his. Unlike you I am not a blind partisan. I didn't support Bush's bailout's. I didn't support Bush's amnesty plan, so you see I wait for things to play out. I wait to actually see what someone's WORKS are, their words don't count.

You are making the exact same stupid mistaken argument the pseudocons make.

Why are you avoiding answering the question? What are you afraid of?

LOL you meant to say: " In my opinion you aren't answering my question".
I actually have, you just don't like the answer. I've been a Conservative longer than you've been alive, pardon me f I don't buy into all of your "redefinitions".

It was a simple question, retard. When you don't name the candidate whose tax plan you preferred, it is not a matter of opinion that you didn't, dumbass. It is a FACT you did not name whose tax plan you preferred.

You're cornered, and want to run now.

Son, it is a fact that what one says often never equates to what one does. Is that something that escapes you?
I may be the one screaming disagreement with trump's plan.....nobody else's plan matters now do they?
Trump is the President Elect so HIS is the only one that matters, we'll see what he does.
Kid's like you deal in and with what if's and maybe's, I don't. I deal in what is.
You'll just have to grow up a bit.

Your preferred tax plan will indicate your knowledge. That's why you are too afraid to say whose tax plan you preferred. You know you fucked up and will have your ignorance exposed the moment you name the one you preferred.

If you even know anything about the candidates' tax plans. Which I am starting to think you don't have a clue about any of them.

Stop dodging, coward.

Now I'm just laughing at you.
Carly Fiorina's tax plan is immaterial. The ONLY one that matters is the Donald's, and we really don't know what that is yet. You are free to cast aspersions and call names, but that just reveals your exasperation, youth and inexperience. It pisses you off that I will not play your "what if" game.
Reality and "What if's" are vastly different and I don't deal in things that are not real, call it experience.

 

[g5000]

Like I have been pointing out for years. When you try to take away a pseudocon's government gifts, they scream louder than a welfare queen.