Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[U2Edge]

That I couldn't tell you. I only posted it to show we are not spending 80% of our budget on the military. Our budget today is over 4 trillion dollars, and we are not spending 3 trillion a year on military. That much I know.

Of note is that the military spending budget and the defense spending budget are two completely different budgets.

The budgets have been combined since the Obama administration.

 

[U2Edge]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

No because that would drive down consumer spending. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. You want to keep federal taxes away from the lower and middle class or at least keep them low. Its better for GDP growth. Taxes on the rich though don't hurt economic growth which is why its smart to maintain higher tax rates on them to maximize revenue coming into the government.

The goal is maximum revenue for the government without hurting economic growth. Best way that is achieved is by having the lower class pay zero in federal tax, the middle class pay a low federal tax, and the rich pay a high federal tax. It maximizes GDP growth and revenue collection for the government.

 

[U2Edge]

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

First off, again as has been said many many many times.... Our government collects more money in taxes, than the GDP of all the countries of the world minus China, Japan and Germany.

If you need more tax money... you are spending too much. Stop over spending on entitlements, and this problem disappears.

The problem isn't revenue. It's spending.

But let me respond to all that you have said.

I would agree with you that most tax deductions benefit the wealthy rather than the poor.

This is natural. Because tax deductions cost money.

There seems to be some sort of mythology about how tax deductions work. I've even heard people say phrases like "The rich get wealthy off tax deductions".

This is impossible.

For example, if I pay the bank $100,000 in interest on a mortgage on my luxury mansion, I get to a tax deduction of $100,000. That sounds like a lot.... but in reality, that only lowers my taxable income by $100,000. The top marginal rate is 37%, which means I reduced by taxes by $37,000.

So the way a tax deduction works, is I spend $100,000, in order to save $37,000. I'm not getting wealthy off this. I lost $63,000 to get a tax deduction of $37,000. If I had not purchased the manage, and not paid interest, would have saved $63,000, and paid $37,000 in tax.

All tax deductions work this way. If a rich man donates $1 Million dollars to a charity, he lost $630K in order to save $370K in taxes.

No one gets wealthy from tax deductions.

The one thing that people on the left seem to ignore though, is why the deductions exist. Do you know who started pushing for deductions? It was left wingers.

Left-wingers started this whole game of tax deductions, with FDR. The left-wing elites at ivy league schools, requested that there be tax deductions for donations to their schools.

Since then, deductions have been used throughout the left-wing, to get people to act in ways they deem good. Such as wealthy people building windmills on their property, to collect massive tax benefits.

The irony is, while the left-wing routinely pushes tax deductions for everything they want, they turn right around and start screaming that the rich take advantage of these deductions to avoid taxes.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't demand we have deductions for solar panels, and the start crying that the rich are installing solar panels, and not paying any tax. You can't pass tax deductions for energy efficient homes, and then start whining when Bill Gates avoids hundreds of thousands in tax, because he made his mansion more energy efficient.

Total United States tax revenue collection only amounts to 22% of annual GDP, a rate that is lower than 140 other countries in the world, essentially one of the lowest rates in the world.

 

[U2Edge]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

 

[Flash]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

 

[dblack]

Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

If you really believe that, why not lobby for 100% taxes on the rich?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

No because that would drive down consumer spending. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. You want to keep federal taxes away from the lower and middle class or at least keep them low. Its better for GDP growth. Taxes on the rich though don't hurt economic growth which is why its smart to maintain higher tax rates on them to maximize revenue coming into the government.

The goal is maximum revenue for the government without hurting economic growth. Best way that is achieved is by having the lower class pay zero in federal tax, the middle class pay a low federal tax, and the rich pay a high federal tax. It maximizes GDP growth and revenue collection for the government.

I really don't believe you understand how this works.

I own a widget factory. On the market, my widgets sell for $10.00 each, and because everybody needs widgets, I can make a pretty good living selling a lot of them.

The government increases my taxes from 37% to 70%. Now my widgets sell on the market for $15.00 each. How does that not hurt the consumer? And do you really think that I--the wealthy guy is going to have less?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

First off, again as has been said many many many times.... Our government collects more money in taxes, than the GDP of all the countries of the world minus China, Japan and Germany.

If you need more tax money... you are spending too much. Stop over spending on entitlements, and this problem disappears.

The problem isn't revenue. It's spending.

But let me respond to all that you have said.

I would agree with you that most tax deductions benefit the wealthy rather than the poor.

This is natural. Because tax deductions cost money.

There seems to be some sort of mythology about how tax deductions work. I've even heard people say phrases like "The rich get wealthy off tax deductions".

This is impossible.

For example, if I pay the bank $100,000 in interest on a mortgage on my luxury mansion, I get to a tax deduction of $100,000. That sounds like a lot.... but in reality, that only lowers my taxable income by $100,000. The top marginal rate is 37%, which means I reduced by taxes by $37,000.

So the way a tax deduction works, is I spend $100,000, in order to save $37,000. I'm not getting wealthy off this. I lost $63,000 to get a tax deduction of $37,000. If I had not purchased the manage, and not paid interest, would have saved $63,000, and paid $37,000 in tax.

All tax deductions work this way. If a rich man donates $1 Million dollars to a charity, he lost $630K in order to save $370K in taxes.

No one gets wealthy from tax deductions.

The one thing that people on the left seem to ignore though, is why the deductions exist. Do you know who started pushing for deductions? It was left wingers.

Left-wingers started this whole game of tax deductions, with FDR. The left-wing elites at ivy league schools, requested that there be tax deductions for donations to their schools.

Since then, deductions have been used throughout the left-wing, to get people to act in ways they deem good. Such as wealthy people building windmills on their property, to collect massive tax benefits.

The irony is, while the left-wing routinely pushes tax deductions for everything they want, they turn right around and start screaming that the rich take advantage of these deductions to avoid taxes.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't demand we have deductions for solar panels, and the start crying that the rich are installing solar panels, and not paying any tax. You can't pass tax deductions for energy efficient homes, and then start whining when Bill Gates avoids hundreds of thousands in tax, because he made his mansion more energy efficient.

Total United States tax revenue collection only amounts to 22% of annual GDP, a rate that is lower than 140 other countries in the world, essentially one of the lowest rates in the world.

Maybe because nearly half our citizens pay no income tax at all?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

National tax policy is about generating the largest amount of revenue for the federal government without hurting economic growth. Its not about some subjective idea of what is fair for the top income earners to pay in terms of taxes. Its about what is best for the country, not the billionaire individual.

Most of the billionaires make their money on capital gains, not income. And if you raised their capital gains to 70%, then it discourages them from investing which would do severe damage to our stock market where many of us little people keep our retirement accounts.

 

[progressive hunter]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

National tax policy is about generating the largest amount of revenue for the federal government without hurting economic growth. Its not about some subjective idea of what is fair for the top income earners to pay in terms of taxes. Its about what is best for the country, not the billionaire individual.

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no "the wealth" and never was. We do not live in a bubble where only so much money is around, and if one takes too much, that leaves too little for everybody else.

Money in the US is infinite. You can make as much as you want. Nobody is stopping you. Until the day comes where I go to a bank for a loan, and they tell me I can't have one because the rich have all the money, or I can't get a raise because my boss tells me the same, then the wealth really doesn't exist.

If we took half of all the money away from rich people, it doesn't benefit you one iota. All it does is give government more money to spend.

So for most of us wages have been stagnant for years while the rich keep getting richer. Yeah you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Sounds like some rich guy duped you again.

Just pointing out the obvious. You wealth envy people believe that if we had less rich people, it would benefit you somehow. If anything, it would be just the opposite.

Money always flows upwards and always will. If you want to stop the rich, then quit giving them your money! Get rid of that computer you are on now. That was manufactured by a multi-billion dollar industry. Since you will have no computer, you won't need the internet either. Cable and internet is another multi-billion dollar industry. And don't forget to turn in or destroy your cell phone. I don't have to tell you what the cell phone industry is worth.

Every day of every week, every month and every year, we willingly send our money to the top. You will buy gasoline sometime soon. You will stop at McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's. You might buy a new video game system, new video game, a new program or application. Maybe a new car. But one way or another, you are going to willingly send your money to those millionaires and billionaires. You can't stop yourself unless you are Amish.

Okay, now that we've established the rich got that way by making our lives more entertaining, enjoyable or convenient, is it fair to say now that we've giving them all our money for their services, they should give it back with nothing in return?

Your beliefs are funny. The rich are getting richer and wages for everyone else are stagnant. Sorry, but you are wrong. The rich sure have you duped.

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

So why does none of that happen in Somalia? Because YOU are not the only factor In how much money your going to make in life.

Because few in Somalia have any money to spend?

 

[task0778]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

 

[progressive hunter]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

so youve never read it,,,cause it does say what taxs are to be used for,,,ie, tax policy

 

[toobfreak]

Its not about what is best for any ONE individual, but about what is best for the country as a whole.

CONGRATULATIONS. You just aptly defined SOCIALISM, fool.

The United States was founded on personal liberty, meaning that your money is YOUR money, and not subject to what someone else decides would be better for others. Taking YOUR logic to its natural conclusion, ALL income should be paid to the state, then they divide it up EQUALLY so that we all end up with EXACTLY the same amount to live on! So the guy that creates a multi-billion dollar industry employing thousands makes no more than the bum sitting on his couch scratching his ass watching Oprah eating Colonel Sanders.

THAT is the butterfly net of the demented.

 

[Brain357]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

If only the voter would care and start voting out irresponsible politicians. Or all of them it would seem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

 

[task0778]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

 

[progressive hunter]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

 

[task0778]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

I highly doubt the federal gov't needs to take in 100% of everybody's income to execute the legitimate functions it needs to perform. Hence the argument about what constitutes legitimate and what doesn't.

 

[progressive hunter]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

I highly doubt the federal gov't needs to take in 100% of everybody's income to execute the legitimate functions it needs to perform. Hence the argument about what constitutes legitimate and what doesn't.

well considering that half the stuff they do now is outside their constitutional authority,,,have more faith in them