John Boehner is dead wrong.

[zeke]

Spending is a very valid discussion and certainly needs to be addressed. That's not the point of this thread. Neither is Obama.

The thesis here is that the revenue discussion is far from closed. The tax code remains way to complicated and full of favoritism. It's bullshit.

Let me clarify.

FUCK THAT!

We do not have a revenue problem. The US took in $2.5 trillion last year, which is more money than Bush spent in 2008 when the Democrats were complaining about two wars being run on a credit card.

We NEED to cut spending.

A significant reduction in spending is a mere fantasy. So is a change to the tax code.

Both parties have seen to it that things are the way they are, even though they may demagogue to the contrary.
I'm pretty much done with both parties in this respect. Nothing will ever change except the deterioration of the standard of living in the US as both parties attempt to blame each other for it.

BINGO. We live in a plutocracy. Why would the plutocrats want to change a system that they have worked very hard to put in place. Especially when they (plutocrats) have never had it so good.

And what's wrong with a declining standard of living for most as long as the plutocrats are doing better all the time.

Our declining standard of living is at least as good as, or better than, any other financially struggling nation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Spending is a very valid discussion and certainly needs to be addressed. That's not the point of this thread. Neither is Obama.

The thesis here is that the revenue discussion is far from closed. The tax code remains way to complicated and full of favoritism. It's bullshit.

Let me clarify.

FUCK THAT!

We do not have a revenue problem. The US took in $2.5 trillion last year, which is more money than Bush spent in 2008 when the Democrats were complaining about two wars being run on a credit card.

We NEED to cut spending.

A significant reduction in spending is a mere fantasy. So is a change to the tax code.

Both parties have seen to it that things are the way they are, even though they may demagogue to the contrary.

I'm pretty much done with both parties in this respect. Nothing will ever change except the deterioration of the standard of living in the US as both parties attempt to blame each other for it.

You, The Monkeys have the power to change this dire prediction. Don't give up, kids.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Cash for Clunkers
PPACA
ARRA

Wait, you said one. It is a bit like Lays potato chips, no one can stop at one.

an open government bailout checkbook to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
incentives to push Chevy Volt lagging sales
Bright Source Energy - $1.4 Billion
First Solar - $2.1 Billion
Fisher electric cars in Finland - $529 Million
NextEra Energy - $1.2 Billion

I agree, you've read my mind on the Lays potato chip comment ... it's so hard to stop.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You have one single example of 'spend thrift Obama'?

Cash for Clunkers
PPACA
ARRA

Wait, you said one. It is a bit like Lays potato chips, no one can stop at one.

Spending is not the issue here. That said, prove that the cash for clunkers program wasn't the difference between the auto industry repaying it's loans ahead of schedule and clunking itself.

Just like alcoholism or any other form of compulsive addiction "destructive" behavior, it always begins with denial.

 

[sparky]

How on earth did we assme a speaker who's name is pronounced BONNER in this country anyways?

~S~

 

[Mr. H.]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

Imagine one low rate for EVERYTHING!


Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics.

Follow that up with education, education and then a little more education and then watch your children reach for the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

Believe it or not, there's even risk in launching a rocket.

Balanced budgets result from responsible budget management, not increased revenues as a mechanism to counter run-away spending.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How on earth did we assme a speaker who's name is pronounced BONNER in this country anyways?

~S~

The bigger question is, why on earth did the Democrats back Nancy Pelosi as Speaker? Choosing a Congresswoman to represent the direction the Democrats feel this country ought to take. A representative of a state which holds the biggest DEBT in the union, then turn around and wonder why our NATION'S debt has grown so drastically in the way that it has.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Now, with respect to the revenue "tax" question. There needs to be a simpler tax code, I am in favor with more of a flat 15% Federal tax tagged into every purchase we make no matter the class (including those on welfare). The flat tax is to be "in place of", not "in addition to" the current Federal tax system. This flat tax is also to be included into a balance budget amendment that says, no further tax increases would be made unless agreed upon by a 2/3 majority vote. Any additional SPENDING issues, following the date of the passage of this bill, which would therefore have a drastic effect upon our Nation's economy, would likewise require a 2/3 supermajority to pass and become law. Any future law that would have an economic impact upon the states, like further spending additions or regulations tacked unto Obamacare would require 2/3 of the states to receive approval. The Federal Government would therefor be forced to restructure itself within all departments "equally", (only cutting away those duplicate departments within the Federal Government or relinquishing responsibility of those departments ALREADY governed by the individual states and THEIR selective budgets) to work more effectively and efficiently to meet with the revenue of taxes collected. As part of this new balanced budget amendment a reduction of its national debt would become mandatory, at the rate of 5% minimum for every eight years, until our nation's debt and deficit has become balanced.

 

[Votto]

You know who shouldn't pay any taxes? House robbers. That's who. I mean you break into a house just think of all the risk you are taking on. You might only get a few bucks cash and some fake jewelry. What if you get busted before you get out of the house? Then all that work for nothing. That's why house robbers should not pay any taxes.

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

It's not about increasing or decreasing taxes on anyone in particular. It's about simplifying tax law and making it more fair.

Will fairness in the tax code change things for some? I hope so... if things don't need changing for some of us, they're fine. I think we can all agree that things at this moment, especially with regards to the US Tax Code, are far from 'fine'.

It's not about raising taxes on anyone in particular? Nonsense. All we hear and all we will ever hear is how taxes need to be raised on the "rich".

No one ever talks about raising taxes on the middle class or below, however, the funny part is Obama just inflicted the largest tax increase in US history on the middle class via Obamacare and no one flinched.

In the interim, we will continue to hear demagoguery on raising taxes on the "rich" even though they assumingly just raised taxes on the "rich". It is never enough and will never be enough because spending is so outrageous.

 

[emptystep]

I see. So you want to put the blame on Congress? So be it, play the blame game. All I know is that Obama proposed a budget so absurd that no one from his own party voted for it, and he has no problem signing away the spending that Congress proposes. In fact, while the DNC controlled both Congress and the Executive they could not even pass a budget, let alone balance one.

Don't get me wrong, Congress is just as much to blame. May the whole lot of them burn in Hades.

I'm calling it a night but I will check back in the morning. Please go back a few posts, reread the question, and try again.

Good night Helen Keller.

Helen Keller. That's a good one.

 

[emptystep]

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

It's not about increasing or decreasing taxes on anyone in particular. It's about simplifying tax law and making it more fair.

Will fairness in the tax code change things for some? I hope so... if things don't need changing for some of us, they're fine. I think we can all agree that things at this moment, especially with regards to the US Tax Code, are far from 'fine'.

It's not about raising taxes on anyone in particular? Nonsense. All we hear and all we will ever hear is how taxes need to be raised on the "rich".

No one ever talks about raising taxes on the middle class or below, however, the funny part is Obama just inflicted the largest tax increase in US history on the middle class via Obamacare and no one flinched.

In the interim, we will continue to hear demagoguery on raising taxes on the "rich" even though they assumingly just raised taxes on the "rich". It is never enough and will never be enough because spending is so outrageous.

You tax the rich because they are the ones with the money, and then you tax the less rich a little less, and so on and so forth. When the system works well the country moves ahead at a strong steady pace. When the system is out of balance to the less wealthy the top is shriveling up while the less fortunate are living easy. When the system is out of balance to the wealthy the top builds more wealth than it can even spend and the bottom are going to bed hungry.

Money should not run this country because it will, quite obviously, make the system out of balance. The government should run this country because this country is for and by the people, not by the people for the rich.

 

[emptystep]

It's not about increasing or decreasing taxes on anyone in particular. It's about simplifying tax law and making it more fair.

Will fairness in the tax code change things for some? I hope so... if things don't need changing for some of us, they're fine. I think we can all agree that things at this moment, especially with regards to the US Tax Code, are far from 'fine'.

It's not about raising taxes on anyone in particular? Nonsense. All we hear and all we will ever hear is how taxes need to be raised on the "rich".

No one ever talks about raising taxes on the middle class or below, however, the funny part is Obama just inflicted the largest tax increase in US history on the middle class via Obamacare and no one flinched.

In the interim, we will continue to hear demagoguery on raising taxes on the "rich" even though they assumingly just raised taxes on the "rich". It is never enough and will never be enough because spending is so outrageous.

You tax the rich because they are the ones with the money, and then you tax the less rich a little less, and so on and so forth. When the system works well the country moves ahead at a strong steady pace. When the system is out of balance to the less wealthy the top is shriveling up while the less fortunate are living easy. When the system is out of balance to the wealthy the top builds more wealth than it can even spend and the bottom are going to bed hungry.

Money should not run this country because it will, quite obviously, make the system out of balance. The government should run this country because this country is for and by the people, not by the people for the rich.

That does not mean by any measure government needs to be big. It only gets big when the system starts to get manipulated.

 

[g5000]

If for example I'm willing to risk thousands or millions of dollars on a job-creating venture with no guarantee of a single dollar returned, you can bet your ass I expect special treatment under the Tax Code. Fuck the majority of taxpayers, they aren't the ones risking capital.

If all tax expenditures were banned, the tax rates could be considerably lowered.

Your argument is the excuse given for every tax break, and has resulted in an American Politburo beholden to special interests with campaign cash donated in exchange for special tax breaks.

Every tax break has to be made up for by someone else, or by borrowing money from China. It is paternalistic intervention. It is collectivism. It is a tax penalty on everyone who does not get the break. IT is a tax penalty for not owning a house. A tax penalty for not owning the right refrigerator. A tax penalty for not using the right energy source at your business. But just listen to you bitches whine when you are forced to pay a tax penalty for not buying the right medical insurance!

This is costing us over a trillion dollars a year, and has created an extremely unlevel electoral field in which every Congressman has a 98 percent chance of re-election. It has gotten to the point that a Congressman can be filmed throwing live puppies into traffic while getting a blowjob from a tranny and STILL be re-elected. And they know it, and they act on it.

So fuck you and fuck tax expenditures. They should be banned. Permanently.

 

[emptystep]

Fuck that.

Obama wants a balanced approach, he got his tax hikes, it is time to cut the fucking spending.

Spending is a very valid discussion and certainly needs to be addressed. That's not the point of this thread. Neither is Obama.

The thesis here is that the revenue discussion is far from closed. The tax code remains way to complicated and full of favoritism. It's bullshit.

Favoritism? Why pay taxes on income that is immediately spent on generating more income? Why pay taxes on income that goes towards wages, equipment, supplies, or services all in the name of generating... more income?

Perhaps you could help me understand how this currently works. So if you break even on a deal how much taxes do you pay? Nothing? If your deal goes south you get to deduct that from any other earnings? And you get to carry losses forward? And if you make a profit that profit is taxed at a lower rate because your 'risked it'?

Your right. It takes a wealthy person to understand all this stuff. That or a house robber.

 

[emptystep]

Oh, wait. I got it. So I bought a car to go back and forth to work with a couple months back. I didn't like it so I sold it today for $3000 less than I bought it for. I don't have the couple thousand dollars for a tax attorney like you do so would you simply tell me on what line of the 1040 do I put that?

(Most people live with a lot more 'risk' than you'll ever know. And it doesn't get to come off the taxes. But, hey, they have cake, don't they?)

 

[AVG-JOE]

You want a low tax rate on capital gains?

Go out and create some capital gains. And dividends.

You think that shit grows on trees?

It's earned through the assumption of risk. You don't have to be a millionaire. Set aside a few bucks for investment. It'll grown. Reinvest, put risk capital back to work. Compound your earnings and dividends. Quit the low-life bitching, get your head out of your ass, and get on the bandwagon.

Imagine one low rate for EVERYTHING!


Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics.

Follow that up with education, education and then a little more education and then watch your children reach for the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

Believe it or not, there's even risk in launching a rocket.

Balanced budgets result from responsible budget management, not increased revenues as a mechanism to counter run-away spending.

So the work begins now.

Monkey Business!​

 

[AVG-JOE]

How exactly is increasing taxes on the rich going to help anyone?

Hmmm?

The government will continue to spend the same amount regardless of money coming in, everyone knows that. If you are really worried about the mounting debt then you would not have voted for spend thrift Obama. The truth is, it just makes you feel better knowing that some rich guy is taxed a little more. Admit it.

It's not about increasing or decreasing taxes on anyone in particular. It's about simplifying tax law and making it more fair.

Will fairness in the tax code change things for some? I hope so... if things don't need changing for some of us, they're fine. I think we can all agree that things at this moment, especially with regards to the US Tax Code, are far from 'fine'.

It's not about raising taxes on anyone in particular? Nonsense. All we hear and all we will ever hear is how taxes need to be raised on the "rich".

No one ever talks about raising taxes on the middle class or below, however, the funny part is Obama just inflicted the largest tax increase in US history on the middle class via Obamacare and no one flinched.

In the interim, we will continue to hear demagoguery on raising taxes on the "rich" even though they assumingly just raised taxes on the "rich". It is never enough and will never be enough because spending is so outrageous.

Congress with the power to tax you differently from the way they tax me is congress with at least one too many powers. What's wrong with simplification? Is there a reason we need an industry whose sole function is to assist us with the paperwork required to work in America?

Google Search: tax preparation industry growth

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The revenue discussion can not be considered "closed" until the US Tax Code is considered fair and simple by a majority of taxpayers.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner says the debate over increased revenue "is now closed."

Boehner: Revenue debate is 'closed' - Tallahassee News | ABC 27 WTXL: News: john boehner, president obama, revenue debate, fbi, taxes

The only fair tax is the one you have when you buy something.

 

[AVG-JOE]

A consumption tax is a good way to balance the tax code. A modest personal income tax is also required for balance. Something fair that is based on one rate / one deduction.

My humble opinion, with a small consumption tax and a modest personal income tax, the federal government could leave business alone for the states to feed off of.

 

[Erand7899]

The revenue discussion can not be considered "closed" until the US Tax Code is considered fair and simple by a majority of taxpayers.

Fuck that.

Obama wants a balanced approach, he got his tax hikes, it is time to cut the fucking spending.

Spending is a very valid discussion and certainly needs to be addressed. That's not the point of this thread. Neither is Obama.

The thesis here is that the revenue discussion is far from closed. The tax code remains way to complicated and full of favoritism. It's bullshit.

Boehner is not opposed to simplifying the tax code, nor eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy. The word you ignore is "revenue". Obama wants to increase taxes on the rich by cutting loopholes, Boehner wants to cut the loopholes in a revenue neutral manner.