How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

[Erand7899]

I shake my head everytime I see a "Doctor" give someone crutches for the broken leg. I scream at them "You are creating dependency! You "Doctors" seek to empower yourselves by taking away someones will to walk again! HOW DARE YOU!!"

Then I take away their crutches and they will usually thank me while they are crawling to their car

That kind of depends on whether they plan to keep using those crutches for the rest of their lives. A safety net becomes a hammock, if there is no limit on its use.

Try this one on for size. A single woman with two kids drawing government assistance in food stamps, rental assistance, health care, etc. Lets say that comes out to $350 per week. If she goes to work at minimum wage, she earns about $300 per week, but loses much of her government assistance. Say she now has a weekly income of $450. That means she is working a 40 hour week for $100. About $2.50 per hour. How long do you think that it would take for herself, or someone she knows to figure that out?

 

[dblack]

What tax system was that? The one that wont reward and or punish?

What? What are you getting at? Is this the "it can't be perfect so we shouldn't even try" argument?

Or is it the "But we really want to use the taxation power to manipulate people" argument?

Ok follow me. YOU said we should have a system that doesnt punish or reward. YOU said that.

Nope, I didn't. I said we shouldn't use the taxation power to punish and reward. That doesn't require a perfect system, just a change in intent.

 

[natstew]

Reagan cut taxes and the deficits went through the roof. Bush cut taxes and the deficits went through the roof.

How many times do you need to see taxes cut, followed by skyrocketing deficits, before you'd at least begin to consider the possibility that cutting taxes will not pay the bills?

Deficits went through the roof because the Democrats in Congress increased spending.

Another lo-lo poster chimes in.

Bush didn't have a Democratic Congress you moron.

Bush inherited an economy on the skids and brought it back in spite of 911 and Katrina. The CLINTON recession started 11 monts before Bush moved into the White House, and 9 months before before the 2000 election. And ten there's this:

(Copied and pasted)

"Lori Ehricke
REMEMBER JAN. 3, 2007
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party gained a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault," think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5% GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

Andwhere was Barack Obama during this time?He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, "I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th, 2009."

There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us passes it on.

"The problems we face today exist because the people who WORK for a living are outnumbered by those who VOTE for a living."

But, what does it matter when the Leftist have no intrest in truth?

To the Left, BLAME is more important than CAUSE!

 

[Bombur]

"Easy and effective" doesn't address whether it can be used to discriminate. Certainly 'sin' taxes like those you mention are punishments, and should be abolished as well, buy the very act of defining 'income' is subjective and lends itself to politicking.

Income tax wouldn't be so bad if we simplified it and got rid of all the political deductions (tax incentives). But there's the rub, because calculating net income requires allowing deductions for costs of doing business, and the decision of which deductions are legitimate costs and which aren't is highly subjective. It leaves a wide window for shenanigans.

But at least clarifying intent, and banning the overt use of tax incentives for social engineering, would be a meaningful start.

I have no problem with cig or alcohol taxes whether they are based on the idea that we are recouping societal costs associated with the product or we are just trying to discourage behavior.

Then you are missing my point entirely. We should use real laws to punish behavior that is unacceptable. Not abuse the taxation power to slide crap under that table that might not pass Constitutional muster as a real legislation.

I didn't miss your point. I just disagreed with it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I shake my head everytime I see a "Doctor" give someone crutches for the broken leg. I scream at them "You are creating dependency! You "Doctors" seek to empower yourselves by taking away someones will to walk again! HOW DARE YOU!!"

Then I take away their crutches and they will usually thank me while they are crawling to their car

That kind of depends on whether they plan to keep using those crutches for the rest of their lives. A safety net becomes a hammock, if there is no limit on its use.

But there is a limit...one republicans are pretending doesnt exist. They have to pretend things are happening that arent in order to not look like callous assholes which is what is really happening....

Try this one on for size. A single woman with two kids drawing government assistance in food stamps, rental assistance, health care, etc. Lets say that comes out to $350 per week. If she goes to work at minimum wage, she earns about $300 per week, but loses much of her government assistance. Say she now has a weekly income of $450. That means she is working a 40 hour week for $100. About $2.50 per hour. How long do you think that it would take for herself, or someone she knows to figure that out?

Everyone can figure this out and they can also figure out they cant be on it forever. Since a majority of the people on welfare are working anyway that kind of messes up you idea that someone would choose welfare over work.

That is if we are talking about reality, facts and stuff like that. If we are talking about fiction then you have a point

 

[Wry Catcher]

Libs hate it because they want to use taxes to punish rich people. They don't care if the rates make sense or bring in more revenue. As long as it punishes high income earners they're fine. Obama said so himself.

Please post the quote wherein President Obama stated he wants to punish the rich? Thank you in advance for providing more evidence that you're a liar (and not very bright).

You're such a lo-lo.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8]Obama: Let's Raise Capital Gains Tax Even if Less Revenue- Fairness - You might be a Leftist... - YouTube[/ame]

You think it's fine that 50 individuals can earn $$$ Billions and pay 15% tax, and are opposed to unions because union executives earn less and pay taxes at a higher rate. Teamster President Hoffa earned $383,132 in 2009.

Suggesting Obama wanted to punish Hedge Funds Executives by making them pay a bit more in taxes isn't punishment, maybe you ought to get a dictionary and learn the actually meaning of words you use.

 

[dblack]

I have no problem with cig or alcohol taxes whether they are based on the idea that we are recouping societal costs associated with the product or we are just trying to discourage behavior.

Then you are missing my point entirely. We should use real laws to punish behavior that is unacceptable. Not abuse the taxation power to slide crap under that table that might not pass Constitutional muster as a real legislation.

I didn't miss your point. I just disagreed with it.

Fair enough. I just want to be clear: you endorse using taxes to coerce behavior.

 

[Bombur]

Then you are missing my point entirely. We should use real laws to punish behavior that is unacceptable. Not abuse the taxation power to slide crap under that table that might not pass Constitutional muster as a real legislation.

I didn't miss your point. I just disagreed with it.

Fair enough. I just want to be clear: you endorse using taxes to coerce behavior.

"Coerce" is a strong word usually reserved for much stronger influences than a tax on a pack of cigarettes. I have no problem with taxing cigs with the intent of lowering the use of the product which has a clear societal cost (financial and health costs).

I have no problem with taxing cigs and getting revenue that exceeds the direct cost to the state from cigs.

 

[Erand7899]

I didn't miss your point. I just disagreed with it.

Fair enough. I just want to be clear: you endorse using taxes to coerce behavior.

"Coerce" is a strong word usually reserved for much stronger influences than a tax on a pack of cigarettes. I have no problem with taxing cigs with the intent of lowering the use of the product which has a clear societal cost (financial and health costs).

I have no problem with taxing cigs and getting revenue that exceeds the direct cost to the state from cigs.

If that is so, you would also favor taxing food because of the direct costs to the state from Obesity. How far are you willing to go to engineer a healthier society? How about a hefty tax on automobiles and trucks that can exceed 55mph? Accidents do cost the state, and high speed accidents cost more. Perhaps a tax on sports. After all, sports injuries cost the state a bundle.

Or are we back to the idea that any tax is good as long as it doesn't take any money out of your pocket?

 

[Plasmaball]

Liberals will hate this because they don't want wealthy people to stay wealthy (unless they are Dems). We need to do something to save the middle class. Even if the far left wants to eliminate middle class, we know that our country can't survive without us.

How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System
How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

No liberals do not hate wealthy people/.
No the left does not want to destroy the middle class.
Stupid partisan hack.

 

[Bombur]

Fair enough. I just want to be clear: you endorse using taxes to coerce behavior.

"Coerce" is a strong word usually reserved for much stronger influences than a tax on a pack of cigarettes. I have no problem with taxing cigs with the intent of lowering the use of the product which has a clear societal cost (financial and health costs).

I have no problem with taxing cigs and getting revenue that exceeds the direct cost to the state from cigs.

If that is so, you would also favor taxing food because of the direct costs to the state from Obesity. How far are you willing to go to engineer a healthier society? How about a hefty tax on automobiles and trucks that can exceed 55mph? Accidents do cost the state, and high speed accidents cost more. Perhaps a tax on sports. After all, sports injuries cost the state a bundle.

Or are we back to the idea that any tax is good as long as it doesn't take any money out of your pocket?

Food (generally speaking) is not comparable to cigs.

We have cops who enforce the speed limit.

I would imagine pro athletes have to pay a lot for their health care. Sports generally speaking are good for your health. See obesity issue above.

We have safety standards for cars to help reduce the cost of accidents.

We make kids wear helmets when they play sports to try and protect them.

Cig taxes have worked.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post the quote wherein President Obama stated he wants to punish the rich? Thank you in advance for providing more evidence that you're a liar (and not very bright).

You're such a lo-lo.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8]Obama: Let's Raise Capital Gains Tax Even if Less Revenue- Fairness - You might be a Leftist... - YouTube[/ame]

You think it's fine that 50 individuals can earn $$$ Billions and pay 15% tax, and are opposed to unions because union executives earn less and pay taxes at a higher rate. Teamster President Hoffa earned $383,132 in 2009.

Suggesting Obama wanted to punish Hedge Funds Executives by making them pay a bit more in taxes isn't punishment, maybe you ought to get a dictionary and learn the actually meaning of words you use.

You're such a lo-lo and a dishonest coward, ThighCatcher. You asked where Obama said that. I posted the video. Now you deflect to something else.
For the record, yes I think it's fine that individuals can earn "billions of dollars" (link to any individual earning over $2B in any year). I am not opposed to unions because of their executive pay. I am opposed to unions because they suck.
If you make someone pay more money than he was, you are punishing him. That's what fines are, goddit?

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals will hate this because they don't want wealthy people to stay wealthy (unless they are Dems). We need to do something to save the middle class. Even if the far left wants to eliminate middle class, we know that our country can't survive without us.

How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System
How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

No liberals do not hate wealthy people/.
No the left does not want to destroy the middle class.
Stupid partisan hack.

Wrong
Wrong
Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Erand7899]

"Coerce" is a strong word usually reserved for much stronger influences than a tax on a pack of cigarettes. I have no problem with taxing cigs with the intent of lowering the use of the product which has a clear societal cost (financial and health costs).

I have no problem with taxing cigs and getting revenue that exceeds the direct cost to the state from cigs.

If that is so, you would also favor taxing food because of the direct costs to the state from Obesity. How far are you willing to go to engineer a healthier society? How about a hefty tax on automobiles and trucks that can exceed 55mph? Accidents do cost the state, and high speed accidents cost more. Perhaps a tax on sports. After all, sports injuries cost the state a bundle.

Or are we back to the idea that any tax is good as long as it doesn't take any money out of your pocket?

Food (generally speaking) is not comparable to cigs.

We have cops who enforce the speed limit.

I would imagine pro athletes have to pay a lot for their health care. Sports generally speaking are good for your health. See obesity issue above.

We have safety standards for cars to help reduce the cost of accidents.

We make kids wear helmets when they play sports to try and protect them.

Cig taxes have worked.

Worked for whom? Not the smokers who are paying $50 per pack so that you can feel good about reducing consumption.

We do a lot of good things for safety, but even with protective devices, accidents happen with automobiles and trucks, and both kids and adults get seriously injured in sports. Yet, you hesitate to consider a tax on either. Mainly, I believe, because that tax would affect you personally.

Don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.

 

[Bombur]

If that is so, you would also favor taxing food because of the direct costs to the state from Obesity. How far are you willing to go to engineer a healthier society? How about a hefty tax on automobiles and trucks that can exceed 55mph? Accidents do cost the state, and high speed accidents cost more. Perhaps a tax on sports. After all, sports injuries cost the state a bundle.

Or are we back to the idea that any tax is good as long as it doesn't take any money out of your pocket?

Food (generally speaking) is not comparable to cigs.

We have cops who enforce the speed limit.

I would imagine pro athletes have to pay a lot for their health care. Sports generally speaking are good for your health. See obesity issue above.

We have safety standards for cars to help reduce the cost of accidents.

We make kids wear helmets when they play sports to try and protect them.

Cig taxes have worked.

Worked for whom? Not the smokers who are paying $50 per pack so that you can feel good about reducing consumption.

We do a lot of good things for safety, but even with protective devices, accidents happen with automobiles and trucks, and both kids and adults get seriously injured in sports. Yet, you hesitate to consider a tax on either. Mainly, I believe, because that tax would affect you personally.

Don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.

$50 a pack? hyperbole much?

Driving is needed for people to get to work and buy things. We don't want to discourage it. If anything we should tax it less. It is not even remotely comparable to smoking. We do tax it and try and make it safer though so your point is ridiculous.

We want people to exercise. We do try and make it safer.

 

[dblack]

We want people to exercise.

So what? This is my point in a nutshell. We shouldn't be using government, via taxes or otherwise, to arbitrarily force people to do something just because "we" want them to. Government should prevent that kind of bullying, not initiate it.

 

[Plasmaball]

Liberals will hate this because they don't want wealthy people to stay wealthy (unless they are Dems). We need to do something to save the middle class. Even if the far left wants to eliminate middle class, we know that our country can't survive without us.

How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System
How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

No liberals do not hate wealthy people/.
No the left does not want to destroy the middle class.
Stupid partisan hack.

Wrong
Wrong
Pot, meet kettle.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[The Rabbi]

No liberals do not hate wealthy people/.
No the left does not want to destroy the middle class.
Stupid partisan hack.

Wrong
Wrong
Pot, meet kettle.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

^^
Most intelligent post from you yet! At least you didnt say anything that was incorrect.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Liberals will hate this because they don't want wealthy people to stay wealthy (unless they are Dems). We need to do something to save the middle class. Even if the far left wants to eliminate middle class, we know that our country can't survive without us.

How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System
How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

No liberals do not hate wealthy people/.
No the left does not want to destroy the middle class.
Stupid partisan hack.

Wrong
Wrong
Pot, meet kettle.

You dont even realize you just called yourself a hack

 

[The Rabbi]

No liberals do not hate wealthy people/.
No the left does not want to destroy the middle class.
Stupid partisan hack.

Wrong
Wrong
Pot, meet kettle.

You dont even realize you just called yourself a hack

Displayig your usual keen insight, I see.