Lookin' For That Apology...

[Big Fitz]

I know it's hard to believe but check it out. If you're in the bottom 60%, you pay no tax, and the top 5%, pay over 75%. I can't recall the precise figure off the top of my head but it's possibly closer to 85%.

And yes, I do know that wages are not the only forms of income. But if interest inheritance, gifts and capital gains were also included as income and taxed only at 10%, that still would be a far cry better than what they are taxed at now, and people wouldn't play so many games trying to dodge them. Just think, instead of losing HALF to tax when you win the lottery, you only are taxed 10%. Mighty nice, eh?

Of course the "wealthy" like Teresa Heinz Kerry, Warren Buffet and the 'old money' crowd with trusts and foundations would fight like hell to try and exempt themselves. This would be precisely the type of exemptions that must be stopped too. That's why they don't care about income taxes, only capital gains and the like. It doesn't affect them.

 

[Madeline]

I'll support a Flat Tax proposal, Fitz, but I'm not pinning my hopes on one emerging.

 

[daveman]

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

We have a massive country. 300 million people, the largest economy on earth,a military larger than the rest of the worlds militaries combined

Incorrect, both in terms of budget and personnel.

To claim that we need a small government to manage the worlds only superpower is just plain idiotic. We are the leader of the free world, we have massive responsibilities both at home and abroad.

To try to revert to a 19th century government is juvenile

Oh. I thought you were serious about reducing the debt. Guess not.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

We have a massive country. 300 million people, the largest economy on earth,a military larger than the rest of the worlds militaries combined

Incorrect, both in terms of budget and personnel.

To claim that we need a small government to manage the worlds only superpower is just plain idiotic. We are the leader of the free world, we have massive responsibilities both at home and abroad.

To try to revert to a 19th century government is juvenile

Oh. I thought you were serious about reducing the debt. Guess not.

Iceland has only 130 military personnel?

Fuck! Lets invade THEM! I would love a volcanic hot-springs sauna.

 

[daveman]

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

Dave, I agree we need to cut spending and reduce the size of government. You and I might not agree on which parts of government to cut, but we at least agree on the concept.

What baffles me is, how do you expect to both reduce the deficit and reduce taxes? Why is it you think a lower tax rate will increase the overall tax revenues?

Because it does.

 

[daveman]

We have a massive country. 300 million people, the largest economy on earth,a military larger than the rest of the worlds militaries combined

Incorrect, both in terms of budget and personnel.

To claim that we need a small government to manage the worlds only superpower is just plain idiotic. We are the leader of the free world, we have massive responsibilities both at home and abroad.

To try to revert to a 19th century government is juvenile

Oh. I thought you were serious about reducing the debt. Guess not.

Iceland has only 130 military personnel?

Fuck! Lets invade THEM! I would love a volcanic hot-springs sauna.

I like the way you think.

 

[rightwinger]

The top 5% of all wage earners currently pay more than 75% of all taxes. The bottom 60% pays nothing, or worse, gets more back than they paid. This would actually take the burden off the top tax brackets while still collecting the most from them (meaning that 10% of their earnings is still larger than everyone else). The ending of the redistribution would also lower the tax burden.

Combine that with appropriate spending cuts and federal departments, problem's solved quickly.

You must realize that if hiring an accountant for a tens of thousands of dollars to play loophole games that then dodge hundreds of thousands of dollars is a great savings, even though you're still having to employ someone specifically for the job of finding exemptions because someone in the government feels it's wrong for them to have what they earn or own. Better to reduce excessive rates and eliminate social engineering loopholes and dodges and just charge it flat and let the chips fall where they may.

FYI, Russia employs a flat tax of 13%.

We pay an "income tax".....top 5% pays 75% of the tax because they take 75% of available income

FYI, Russia employs a flat tax of 13%

Never thought I would live to see the day that our conservatives said we need to be more like Russia

 

[RadiomanATL]

Incorrect, both in terms of budget and personnel.

Oh. I thought you were serious about reducing the debt. Guess not.

Iceland has only 130 military personnel?

Fuck! Lets invade THEM! I would love a volcanic hot-springs sauna.

I like the way you think.

On that one page, 5.4% of their military is accounted for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The top 5% of all wage earners currently pay more than 75% of all taxes. The bottom 60% pays nothing, or worse, gets more back than they paid. This would actually take the burden off the top tax brackets while still collecting the most from them (meaning that 10% of their earnings is still larger than everyone else). The ending of the redistribution would also lower the tax burden.

.

Won't work. The Congress will never pass the cuts needed to pay for this tax cut, or the president will veto them.

Didn't work in the 80's. Didn't work in the '00's. Won't work now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then I suggest you start advocating cutting the size of government.

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

There is no spending decrease in this bill you're supporting. It's a spending INCREASE. It adds hundreds of billions to the deficit.

Why are you demanding that I insist the government be reduced at the same time you're pushing for MORE government spending, less government revenue...

...the double dose of fiscal irresponsibility that has gotten us where we are today.

unbelievable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[What baffles me is, how do you expect to both reduce the deficit and reduce taxes? Why is it you think a lower tax rate will increase the overall tax revenues? [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

It doesn't. It never has. This is the Free Lunch Myth. This is the right's eat-all-you-want-and-still-lose-weight fad diet.

Lowering taxes has never increased revenues. Of course there have been many times when tax cuts were followed in the out years by increased revenues, but as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logical fallacy knows,

simply because B follows A does not in any way prove that A caused B. In fact, revenues increased AFTER the Clinton tax INCREASE.

 

[daveman]

Iceland has only 130 military personnel?

Fuck! Lets invade THEM! I would love a volcanic hot-springs sauna.

I like the way you think.

On that one page, 5.4% of their military is accounted for.

 

[daveman]

Government will never get smaller as long as it has an unlimited credit card with ever-decreasing minimum monthly payments.

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

There is no spending decrease in this bill you're supporting. It's a spending INCREASE. It adds hundreds of billions to the deficit.

Why are you demanding that I insist the government be reduced at the same time you're pushing for MORE government spending, less government revenue...

...the double dose of fiscal irresponsibility that has gotten us where we are today.

unbelievable.

No, what's unbelievable is your insistence that ONE bill cover everything.

 

[rightwinger]

The smaller the government, the less money it can waste.

Big government is the problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will go up, lowering the deficit and paying down the debt.

Stop making excuses for having a bloated government. If you're serious about debt, insist the government be reduced.

There is no spending decrease in this bill you're supporting. It's a spending INCREASE. It adds hundreds of billions to the deficit.

Why are you demanding that I insist the government be reduced at the same time you're pushing for MORE government spending, less government revenue...

...the double dose of fiscal irresponsibility that has gotten us where we are today.

unbelievable.

No, what's unbelievable is your insistence that ONE bill cover everything.

After those Republican tax cut bills, that bill cutting spending never seems to come around..

Does it?

Why don't we cut spending FIRST....and then cut taxes

 

[Neotrotsky]

[What baffles me is, how do you expect to both reduce the deficit and reduce taxes? Why is it you think a lower tax rate will increase the overall tax revenues? [/font][/size][/color]

It doesn't. It never has. This is the Free Lunch Myth. This is the right's eat-all-you-want-and-still-lose-weight fad diet.

Lowering taxes has never increased revenues. Of course there have been many times when tax cuts were followed in the out years by increased revenues, but as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logical fallacy knows,

simply because B follows A does not in any way prove that A caused B. In fact, revenues increased AFTER the Clinton tax INCREASE.

Your wrong, sorry.

The problem is that it’s the same false liberal premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of it is seized from them in taxation. It refuses to account for real growth rates in revenues and spending. Which explains why ALL liberal social programs end up costing more than estimated. (oddly enough, always to the surprise of liberals)


For example:

The Colorado tax increase was approved by voters last year and took effect at the beginning of 2005. In order to pass the increase, proponents promised that the measure would raise $175 million earmarked primarily for expanding Medicaid. However, the tax hike only produced $11.1 million in January, which is 24 percent below the monthly average needed to generate the revenue promised
​

This just happened in NY as well
----------------------------------------


SO JFK was wrong:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference




“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.” – John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

 

[Big Fitz]

We pay an "income tax".....top 5% pays 75% of the tax because they take 75% of available income

By what right is that 75% not their property, but the government's? Do I own anything, and if so, who decides when what I earn is no longer mine? What do you have that you don't really own that I can take from you?

And please. Once again. What is the purpose of government?

 

[Big Fitz]

The Congress will never pass the cuts needed to pay for this tax cut,

Umm. What tax cuts? Extending the Bush tax rates changes nothing from the past 9 years after they're passed. There will be a tax INCREASE if they end.

Don't try to push that lie with me that they're a tax cut. There is no reduction in rates NOR a reason to "pay" for this unless you've already spent more money you don't have. These tax rates have been collected now for years and are a known quantity.

Don't try to tell me that when you went to go buy a Yugo, you saved money cause you didn't go across the street and buy a Mercedes Benz. You still bought the damn Yugo.

You don't get to redefine the language to cover a lie.

 

[Neotrotsky]

We pay an "income tax".....top 5% pays 75% of the tax because they take 75% of available income

By what right is that 75% not their property, but the government's? Do I own anything, and if so, who decides when what I earn is no longer mine? What do you have that you don't really own that I can take from you?

And please. Once again. What is the purpose of government?

Notice the word "take" from the previous poster in reference to the income

The word "earned" never crossed their mind
Funny how that works

 

[boedicca]

We pay an "income tax".....top 5% pays 75% of the tax because they take 75% of available income

By what right is that 75% not their property, but the government's? Do I own anything, and if so, who decides when what I earn is no longer mine? What do you have that you don't really own that I can take from you?

And please. Once again. What is the purpose of government?

Well, clearly in his view, the purpose of government is to mug those who have more in order to give to those who scream the loudest.

 

[Big Fitz]

We pay an "income tax".....top 5% pays 75% of the tax because they take 75% of available income

By what right is that 75% not their property, but the government's? Do I own anything, and if so, who decides when what I earn is no longer mine? What do you have that you don't really own that I can take from you?

And please. Once again. What is the purpose of government?

Well, clearly in his view, the purpose of government is to mug those who have more in order to give to those who scream the loudest.

And to think that it is NOT a robbery denies the fact that if the evil rich person decides to NOT surrender their taxes, they will be imprisoned and have their property taken from them anyway with penalties.

If they resist, they could be killed depending on the level they fight back.

You tell me this is not robbery with an official face.