Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

 

[bripat9643]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

- No, that wasn't me, but I don't understand your logic anyway. You seem to be creating a fallacious syllogism of the form:

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

That's not a good example of a false syllogism since the conclusion is true. A better example is as follows:

1. All dogs have four legs
2. A table has four legs
3. A table is a dog.

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

Unlike the rest of us,the rich have more choice in how they take their income

Right now, capital gains rates are low, so they prefer taking income as a capital gain.

More reason to tax capital gains the same as any other income

Punish success

- Oh, good. Bumper stickers. That'll elevate the debate.

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

Unlike the rest of us,the rich have more choice in how they take their income

Right now, capital gains rates are low, so they prefer taking income as a capital gain.

More reason to tax capital gains the same as any other income

In order to "take income as a capital gain," you actually have to make a capital gain. If your stocks don't increase in value, then you haven't earned squat.

- And that has what to do with the price of squid in Peru?

 

[The Rabbi]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

- No, that wasn't me, but I don't understand your logic anyway. You seem to be creating a fallacious syllogism of the form:

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

That's not a good example of a false syllogism since the conclusion is true. A better example is as follows:

1. All dogs have four legs
2. A table has four legs
3. A table is a dog.

- Let me lay it out for you.

- Only the rich pay capital gains taxes.
- Eliminating income taxes shouldn't affect the rich.

See what's missing? Whether or not the rich pay income taxes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

38 pages and not one rational, pragmatic, realistic response by any member of the New Right Wing.

Were you really interested in the suggestions or did you just want to just take potshots at people?

I really really wanted the board to think about the issue. Not you in particular, people who really can think outside of the box.

 

[bripat9643]

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

Unlike the rest of us,the rich have more choice in how they take their income

Right now, capital gains rates are low, so they prefer taking income as a capital gain.

More reason to tax capital gains the same as any other income

In order to "take income as a capital gain," you actually have to make a capital gain. If your stocks don't increase in value, then you haven't earned squat.

- And that has what to do with the price of squid in Peru?

The libs in here seem to believe that converting your income to capital gains is as simple as snapping your fingers. That isn't the case. People who earn a lot in capital gains, like warren buffet, do so because they are smart investors or they own a big chunk of a very profitable company.

 

[The Rabbi]

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

- No, that wasn't me, but I don't understand your logic anyway. You seem to be creating a fallacious syllogism of the form:

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

That's not a good example of a false syllogism since the conclusion is true. A better example is as follows:

1. All dogs have four legs
2. A table has four legs
3. A table is a dog.

- Let me lay it out for you.

- Only the rich pay capital gains taxes.
- Eliminating income taxes shouldn't affect the rich.

See what's missing? Whether or not the rich pay income taxes.

This is somehow relevant to this thread, how?

 

[The Rabbi]

38 pages and not one rational, pragmatic, realistic response by any member of the New Right Wing.

Were you really interested in the suggestions or did you just want to just take potshots at people?

I really really wanted the board to think about the issue. Not you in particular, people who really can think outside of the box.

You have never thought outside the box. Outside the box of condoms, maybe. But anything that challenges your view that gov't is good, and more gov't is better is instantly dismissed.

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

I don't know if you're THE dumbest - it's really tough to say, there are so many to choose from - but your inability to grasp basic logic, combined with a thoroughly disagreeable personality, place you at the bottom of the heap.

I know what policies were passed, you ignorant halfwit.

I just can't guess which ones you might happen to be referring to, not being able to read the mind of a dimwitted hobbit.

 

[Steinlight]

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

- No, that wasn't me, but I don't understand your logic anyway. You seem to be creating a fallacious syllogism of the form:

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

That's not a good example of a false syllogism since the conclusion is true. A better example is as follows:

1. All dogs have four legs
2. A table has four legs
3. A table is a dog.

- Let me lay it out for you.

- Only the rich pay capital gains taxes.
- Eliminating income taxes shouldn't affect the rich.

See what's missing? Whether or not the rich pay income taxes.

This is somehow relevant to this thread, how?

- Askyour buddy BriPat, who brought up the issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

I don't know if you're THE dumbest - it's really tough to say, there are so many to choose from - but your inability to grasp basic logic, combined with a thoroughly disagreeable personality, place you at the bottom of the heap.

I know what policies were passed, you ignorant halfwit.

I just can't guess which ones you might happen to be referring to, not being able to read the mind of a dimwitted hobbit.

So you cannot grasp which Democrat policies affected the economy, and somehow this is my fault? I truly pity someone who has to go through life with an "intellect" like yours.
You've been spanked so many times on this thread I am shocked you havent given up. Part of your stupidity I guess.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is so much that needs elimination it is difficult to know where to start.

How about this? Let the Fed Gov do only what the Constitution grants it. That means eliminating most of it. Then put term limits on Congress. Eliminate the party system...no political parties period. Limit campaign funding to a small dollar amount and corporations can't provide campaign funds.

The Fed Gov has no authority to subsidize ANYTHING. End the subsidy entirely.

Let the states decide how they will handle things....hence, the people in each state get to decide.

Let's see, Alabama reinstates separate but equal and eliminates the income tax. The State collects a sales tax and shares property taxes with the counties. All public hospitals are closed, staff laid off and each school district is responsible for it's own curriculum. Libraries are privatized and all social services are to be provided by religious institution and private for profit charities. As a Free to Work state each individual must negotiate their pay and benefits with no expectation of equal pay for equal work.

How long until Alabama will need to build a Berlin Wall?

Would you like a baseball bat to use on that straw man?

 

[Pksimon2007]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I really really wanted the board to think about the issue. Not you in particular, people who really can think outside of the box.

So now you get to define who and who does not "think out of the box?" How can you tell?

Smells like a McCarthyist ran through here.

You really are a model far leftist, Wry. All you did here the past day and a half was look for fodder to attack people with. You just like alienating a way of thought in favor of another.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

You understand the bottom 47% of wage earners not only pay no income taxes, they actually get back more than they paid in. So your regressive argument is wrong because it fails to consider refundable tax credits.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

I don't know if you're THE dumbest - it's really tough to say, there are so many to choose from - but your inability to grasp basic logic, combined with a thoroughly disagreeable personality, place you at the bottom of the heap.

I know what policies were passed, you ignorant halfwit.

I just can't guess which ones you might happen to be referring to, not being able to read the mind of a dimwitted hobbit.

So you cannot grasp which Democrat policies affected the economy, and somehow this is my fault? I truly pity someone who has to go through life with an "intellect" like yours.
You've been spanked so many times on this thread I am shocked you havent given up. Part of your stupidity I guess.

- I can't grasp what is in the moldering space between your ears, which is what you actually asked me to divine.

Spanked?

lol!!! I'm being told by a borderline mongoloid that I've been "spanked". Imagine my fretfulness over the affair!

 

[The Rabbi]

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

I don't know if you're THE dumbest - it's really tough to say, there are so many to choose from - but your inability to grasp basic logic, combined with a thoroughly disagreeable personality, place you at the bottom of the heap.

I know what policies were passed, you ignorant halfwit.

I just can't guess which ones you might happen to be referring to, not being able to read the mind of a dimwitted hobbit.

So you cannot grasp which Democrat policies affected the economy, and somehow this is my fault? I truly pity someone who has to go through life with an "intellect" like yours.
You've been spanked so many times on this thread I am shocked you havent given up. Part of your stupidity I guess.

- I can't grasp what is in the moldering space between your ears, which is what you actually asked me to divine.

Spanked?

lol!!! I'm being told by a borderline mongoloid that I've been "spanked". Imagine my fretfulness over the affair!

I'm not the one claiming he doesnt know what Democrat economic policies did to income inequality.