If you think taxes should be raised...

[Paulie]

Oddly enough, those "moderates" are the very people who refer to others that do the same thing as "hypocrites".

That's why it's cool to be a moderate...so you can get away with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Have ANY of the "raise taxes" people said they voluntarily pay extra to the IRS?

I haven't seen one...

 

[maineman]

Have ANY of the "raise taxes" people said they voluntarily pay extra to the IRS?

I haven't seen one...

silliness. at issue is if any of the "raise taxes" people would be angry or in general disagreement if they did, in fact, owe marginally more taxes than they do now.

 

[Alpha1]

No...the issue is do the "raise taxes people" really support paying higher rates than at present....
And if they do...why wait for the government to act....if you support paying a higher rate...pay it.................
Pay it and STFU.....

 

[jreeves]

For-profit companies exist for the SOLE purpose of making a profit.
Why would the CEO of the company NOT be more concerned about profit?

I wonder if these tax rates hinder corporations from turning profits? Or for that matter paying more to their employees?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html

 

[Larkinn]

Have ANY of the "raise taxes" people said they voluntarily pay extra to the IRS?

I haven't seen one...

Why would they? Its a stupid argument you are making.

 

[Larkinn]

No...the issue is do the "raise taxes people" really support paying higher rates than at present....
And if they do...why wait for the government to act....if you support paying a higher rate...pay it.................
Pay it and STFU.....

K, I'll give them my yearly income. Well that sure solved ALL of the governments financial woes. No, wait, actually it didn't really do anything.

As opposed to raising taxes on everyone, which would do something.

 

[jreeves]

K, I'll give them my yearly income. Well that sure solved ALL of the governments financial woes. No, wait, actually it didn't really do anything.

As opposed to raising taxes on everyone, which would do something.

Oh wait, a liberal for raising taxes on the "poor", we are making progress here.

 

[Larkinn]

Oh wait, a liberal for raising taxes on the "poor", we are making progress here.

So you support raising taxes on the poor, but not the rich?

How absurd.

 

[jreeves]

So you support raising taxes on the poor, but not the rich?

How absurd.

You stated raising taxes on everyone. No I think everyone should pay their fair share and shouldn't get a free ride from the government. When the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes, then there is a problem.

 

[Larkinn]

You stated raising taxes on everyone.

I was explaning the difference between one person paying more and raising taxes on everyone. Obviously my view is a bit more nuanced than "raise taxes on everyone".

No I think everyone should pay their fair share and shouldn't get a free ride from the government.

Right...lets tax the people who are barely making ends meet because they should pay their "fair share". When they lose their home and then job and have to go on welfare, well thats their own fault.

Not taxing them benefits society, and them. By the way...why don't I hear you complaining about taxing corporations their "fair share"?

When the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes, then there is a problem.

The top 50% of wage earners pay so much of the taxes because they earn the lions share of the income in this country . I know, I know...its silly to tax the people who make money, it makes so much more sense to tax people out of their homes! Wonderful idea.

 

[jreeves]

I was explaning the difference between one person paying more and raising taxes on everyone. Obviously my view is a bit more nuanced than "raise taxes on everyone".



Right...lets tax the people who are barely making ends meet because they should pay their "fair share". When they lose their home and then job and have to go on welfare, well thats their own fault.

Not taxing them benefits society, and them. By the way...why don't I hear you complaining about taxing corporations their "fair share"?



The top 50% of wage earners pay so much of the taxes because they earn the lions share of the income in this country . I know, I know...its silly to tax the people who make money, it makes so much more sense to tax people out of their homes! Wonderful idea.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html

No, I'm sorry I don't believe the government should be in the business of income redistribution, governmental charity or otherwise. I don't think our founding fathers did either, I didn't see them spending 680 billion dollars(or the equivalent in colonial times) on social programs.

Funding governmental charity creates more poverty it doesn't eliminate poverty.

By saying they should pay their fair share, I mean they should get a job.

 

[Larkinn]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html

From your site:

Average statutory rates can differ dramatically from average effective tax rates

No, I'm sorry I don't believe the government should be in the business of income redistribution, governmental charity or otherwise.

Oh well then lets just let people starve to death. Awesome policy there.

I don't think our founding fathers did either, I didn't see them spending 680 billion dollars(or the equivalent in colonial times) on social programs.

They didn't have the resources to do that then. By the way did you know that the common law used to say that companies couldn't gouge consumers and that if prices for any product were too high, the company could be sanctioned? That was in the days of our founders, btw.

Funding governmental charity creates more poverty it doesn't eliminate poverty.

This is moronic. Provide some evidence please.

By saying they should pay their fair share, I mean they should get a job.

A lot of people in poverty in this country have jobs.

 

[jreeves]

From your site:

Average statutory rates can differ dramatically from average effective tax rates



Oh well then lets just let people starve to death. Awesome policy there.



They didn't have the resources to do that then. By the way did you know that the common law used to say that companies couldn't gouge consumers and that if prices for any product were too high, the company could be sanctioned? That was in the days of our founders, btw.



This is moronic. Provide some evidence please.



A lot of people in poverty in this country have jobs.

Corporate tax rates are still second highest in the world. It is your responsibility to feed your family it's not government's responsibility to feed your family. Your comment about colonial prices is an obvious deflection of the comment regarding social spending in colonial times.

Social spending has rised consistently in the last four years....Look at Dept. of Health and Human Services actual budget the last four years....

http://www.federalbudget.com/

 

[Larkinn]

Corporate tax rates are still second highest in the world.

Which is NOT the same as effective tax rates. It doesn't matter what it says the rate is they have to pay if they can deduct everything they always do, ever. It matters how much they actually pay. Find me numbers for that.

It is your responsibility to feed your family it's not government's responsibility to feed your family.

"I am not my brothers keeper"...

Some of us care about our fellow human beings. If you want to be a heartless fuck, go for it. But if you don't care enough about others enough to help them live, don't expect me, or anyone else, to care enough about your "income redistribution" complaints to listen to them.

Your comment about colonial prices is an obvious deflection of the comment regarding social spending in colonial times.

Haha, no. It was an asinine comment. The US didn't have that much money back then. It was 1) Not a world power. 2) Significantly smaller than it is now. 3) Had just gone through a fairly brutal war.

Social spending has rised consistently in the last four years....Look at Dept. of Health and Human Services actual budget the last four years....

http://www.federalbudget.com/

[/quote]

I care why? This shows evidence of nothing. By the way, the HHS isn't focused on getting people out of poverty.

 

[jreeves]

Which is NOT the same as effective tax rates. It doesn't matter what it says the rate is they have to pay if they can deduct everything they always do, ever. It matters how much they actually pay. Find me numbers for that.



"I am not my brothers keeper"...

Some of us care about our fellow human beings. If you want to be a heartless fuck, go for it. But if you don't care enough about others enough to help them live, don't expect me, or anyone else, to care enough about your "income redistribution" complaints to listen to them.



Haha, no. It was an asinine comment. The US didn't have that much money back then. It was 1) Not a world power. 2) Significantly smaller than it is now. 3) Had just gone through a fairly brutal war.

I care why? This shows evidence of nothing. By the way, the HHS isn't focused on getting people out of poverty.[/QUOTE]

First of all you made the assertion that they pay as much, so the burden of proof is on you not I.

I'm not a heartless fuck, I don't believe our government should be spending 680 billion dollars when it's only going to create more and more spending. This is a funny assertion though if we keep throwing money to people in poverty, its going to somehow fix the underlying problems that cause poverty.

Do you have a guess on how much exactly the original government threw towards social spending? So because we are a world power we should be spending 680 billion dollars on social programs? We're spending a ton of money on the war's in Iraq and Afgan. right, but we still defecit spend to fund social programs right?

Isn't the Dept. of HH funding welfare, foodstamps.... Are those not social programs to get people, by your definition, out of poverty?

 

[Larkinn]

\

First of all you made the assertion that they pay as much, so the burden of proof is on you not I.

Exactly what assertion did I make?

I'm not a heartless fuck, I don't believe our government should be spending 680 billion dollars when it's only going to create more and more spending.

Err this makes no sense.

This is a funny assertion though if we keep throwing money to people in poverty, its going to somehow fix the underlying problems that cause poverty.

When did I make that assertion exactly? There are two issues here, the underlying cause and helping people to survive. We need to address both issues.

Do you have a guess on how much exactly the original government threw towards social spending?

I don't really care as it has nothing to do with any current arguments.

So because we are a world power we should be spending 680 billion dollars on social programs?

Actually probably more.

We're spending a ton of money on the war's in Iraq and Afgan. right, but we still defecit spend to fund social programs right?

Your right. Lets cut the military budget then.

Isn't the Dept. of HH funding welfare, foodstamps.... Are those not social programs to get people, by your definition, out of poverty?

No they aren't. Those are programs to help people in poverty survive.

 

[jreeves]

Exactly what assertion did I make?


Err this makes no sense.



When did I make that assertion exactly? There are two issues here, the underlying cause and helping people to survive. We need to address both issues.


I don't really care as it has nothing to do with any current arguments.


Actually probably more.


Your right. Lets cut the military budget then.


No they aren't. Those are programs to help people in poverty survive.

That corporations are taxed at the second highest rate in the world. Yes it does, the last four years social spending has went up.

Now your claims morph into two different issues. The simple fact is this, social spending keeps increasing and increasing, all the while social program junkies can't collect enough governmental assistance. Their children are raised in this enviroment, receiving assistance. They grow up, out goes the hand. As far as your new issue the underlying cause, I believe if we used the money to train and educate the poor that would be money well spent. That would have a positive social impact, they would become tax payers, instead of tax drainers.

My point is that there is no constitutional basis for taking from one and giving to another, as matter of fact that is stealing.

Yep, so we can even spend more in the next generation to feed the social program junkies.

Yep, lets cut the military and risk our national security. So we can fund failed social programs.

Ok, but social program spending has went up as a whole. Where is the reduction in cost that your dent in poverty has produced?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh wait, a liberal for raising taxes on the "poor", we are making progress here.

No, a liberal uwilling to voluntarily do what he thinks is right, unless everyone else is forced to do it too.

 

[Paulie]

By the way...why don't I hear you complaining about taxing corporations their "fair share"?

Wouldn't corporations fall into the category of "everyone"?