Tim Allen tweets question about taxation

[PaintMyHouse]

Anything Hitler would do would certainly appeal to the Democrats.

Hardly, but he had his day. You'd like him actually, he was big on family and patriotism.

He was big on gun control and universal health care. Like Democrats today.

The gun control was only for Jews, but he did want a healthy population. That's how you win wars. We used to know that once.

 

[The T]

Tim Allen recently tweeted a question. "How does taxing high income people help middle class people succeed?

What say you?

It doesn't. Simple as that. Only gives more power to government to buy votes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It is a numerical impossibility to raise taxes enough to cover the deficit, so spending must be cut. Which areas are you in favor of cutting?

Start with Defense and HS, by half, then raise taxes and grow the economy. That will help.

You could also raise the retirement age by ten years and implement Universal-Single Payer healthcare. That won't get you reelected but it will make a significant difference.

 

[Care4all]

The thing that's always humorous and interesting in a conversation like this, is that so many liberals seem to believe the wealthy don't pay taxes, and if they only did, all of the problems that people in the middle class have, would all go away.

I know the wealthy pay taxes, shoot, the middle class pays taxes as well as the poor...

the wealthy can get even more wealthy, even with higher taxes that help this nation pay its bills...just look at what happened under Clinton and ALL THE YEARS that there has been a progressive income tax as high as 70% and 90%....the wealthiest still get more wealth.....year after year.....and have GAINS on incomes, and are taxed only on their GAIN....

if they have a loss, even if their gross income was $1,000,000, they pay no income taxes...

if the bills are being paid, then we will need less taxes to pay for the money we owe already because we will have better interests rates on it, there will be more money available at banks for the middle class and small businesses to borrow and invest at a lower interest rate....the fed won't need to print as much money so it will reduce the inflation rate and unseen inflation rate....consumer confidence will go up, people will have more jobs, people will spend more, adding to the gdp of the nation, which will in turn also add more taxable revenue.....because everyone or near everyone will be doing better and have GAINS on their income....

Then taxes can be reduced on the wealthy....once the economy is going again, they will owe less and will have less of the total share of tax revenues...

You really are that clueless.
WHen rates are high, the wealthy shelter their income with tax free bonds and the like.

But since you are a proponent of a balanced budget, which items would you lke to see cut to achieve that? It is a numerical impossibility to raise taxes enough to cover the deficit, so spending must be cut. Which areas are you in favor of cutting?

When income taxes are low they still hold on to their money too (or use any means possible to reduce their tax obligation....) like corporations have the past decade....

There are numerous areas where the gvt could cut wasteful spending....no child left behind is one, faith based initiatives another, wasteful military industrial complex spending on things like aircraft that ends up being useless, medicaid and medicare fraud by individuals AND by institutions, welfare fraud, by adding the Public option to obamacare to increase competition on the exchanges could reduce obamacare spending long term, allow states like mine to be able to buy our Pharmaceuticals from Canada for our medicaid recipients and allowing Medicare to purchase their medications at a bulk discount or from overseas....would save billions in yearly federal spending.... and the Lord only knows how many duplicate agencies there are that could be merged or eliminated....future government worker benefits could be weened and reduced some too....Agriculture spending can be reduced as well...or use it in a ''smarter'' way....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't understand Capitalism, you won't understand Taxation. Neither you appear to have even a basic grasp of.

Is Capitalism the name for the randomly capitalizing words in sentences?

Nope. It's the proper name of our economic system, which neither of you understand.

That is just the thing, it is not a proper name, which is why only idiots capitalize it in the middle of a sentence, something anyone who wasn't handed their English grades in school would understand.

 

[The T]

Is Capitalism the name for the randomly capitalizing words in sentences?

Nope. It's the proper name of our economic system, which neither of you understand.

That is just the thing, it is not a proper name, which is why only idiots capitalize it in the middle of a sentence, something anyone who wasn't handed their English grades in school would understand.

I have no clue as to why some of you, (QW), waste your time with Paint My Face...he's such a blithering dolt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It helps because if you don't collect that tax money from the wealthy, you have to collect it somewhere else,

and where else is there? There's the high income people, and the middle income and the low income.

Reduce the revenues you get from the high incomes, and you then have to get that revenue from either the middle income, or the low income, or both.

Taking more money from the latter is taking money that is more important to their personal financial situations.

Bullshit.
You could of course not spend the money to begin with. As it is, the bottom half of wage earners pay nothing. They are the ones getting the free ride on the system.

The wealthy create the poor. They do it with their money, transformed into political power.

If rich people giving money to the government makes people poor you should raise taxes on poor people so they can get rich.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. It's the proper name of our economic system, which neither of you understand.

That is just the thing, it is not a proper name, which is why only idiots capitalize it in the middle of a sentence, something anyone who wasn't handed their English grades in school would understand.

I have no clue as to why some of you, (QW), waste your time with Paint My Face...he's such a blithering dolt.

His waste of time is not understanding what I say. He, like you, is an uneducated simpleton controlled by your right-wing puppet-masters.

 

[OnePercenter]

Then of course you have the real reason

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/350237-paid-to-much-in-taxes-here-s-why.html

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then of course you have the real reason

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/350237-paid-to-much-in-taxes-here-s-why.html

Ah, the inability to spell "too"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is just the thing, it is not a proper name, which is why only idiots capitalize it in the middle of a sentence, something anyone who wasn't handed their English grades in school would understand.

I have no clue as to why some of you, (QW), waste your time with Paint My Face...he's such a blithering dolt.

His waste of time is not understanding what I say. He, like you, is an uneducated simpleton controlled by your right-wing puppet-masters.

This uneducated simpleton understands the rules of English grammar, unlike you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have no clue as to why some of you, (QW), waste your time with Paint My Face...he's such a blithering dolt.

His waste of time is not understanding what I say. He, like you, is an uneducated simpleton controlled by your right-wing puppet-masters.

This uneducated simpleton understands the rules of English grammar, unlike you.

Not that I've seen, but you are free to try,

 

[Political Junky]

Tim Allen

Allen isn't a very nice person, it seems. He dropped his last name "Dick" which seems appropriate for him.
He spent time in prison, which was reduced by turning in other dealers, and more.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Because high income people have more wealth to be taxed. Fewer than 100 people have as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population. You can tax the poor half of the world's population more, or you can tax those 85 people more because they can afford it.

How does lowering taxes for high income people help middle class people succeed?

Yeah, but taxing middle class and poor people net more taxes than getting every penny from the rich. Hence why they always end up with the bill.......

 

[AvgGuyIA]

After reading the opinions of these American communist sympathizers on the USMB, we should start hanging university professors around the country. These morons didn't come up with this demand for "wealth distribution" all by themselves.

 

[LoneLaugher]

After reading the opinions of these American communist sympathizers on the USMB, we should start hanging university professors around the country. These morons didn't come up with this demand for "wealth distribution" all by themselves.

Lots of USMB nutters have suggested similar actions. It makes us all warm with pride when one of our great patriots advocates lynching as a solution to free speech.

Keep on keepin' on!

 

[Votto]

85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people on Earth. Income revenue has everything to do with it.

The problem is that the richest 1% aren't spending enough. Conservatives keep saying that the international super-rich are in a "wait and see mode" in regards to what a black socialist President might do, so those record corporate profits are sitting overseas not being spent or taxed to pay for the public which is struggling because the international super-rich are not spending their record corporate profits on higher wages and better employee benefits. If corporations are making record profits while taxes are currently so unbearably high and still not spending their profits then what reason is there to believe that corporations would spend the increased profits when taxes are lowered?

I still don't get it. If the rich pay more then how will the poor benefit? Are you suggesting that the government will give them more? After all, entitlements will be spent no matter what revenue comes into the system.

The benefit comes from paying our Nation's Bills, shows fiscal responsibility, having to borrow less money, having to print less money, reduces inflation, increases our country's credit rating, increases money flow in the whole Nation, consumer confidence is up, and encourages businesses to spend with a positive economic outlook of the Nation in Fiscal order.....so, it not only reduces inflation and money printing, but it increases JOBS JOBS AND JOBS.

ALL OF THE ABOVE are the benefits of a FISCAL Nation and comes with paying the bills and reducing unnecessary and wasteful spending....this HELPS the middle class....

Look At the Clinton years....when we, the Nation, started to pay our bills with higher taxes, the consumer confidence went through the roof....

Are you sure that is what is going on?

In the article below, Obama was asked if he would increase the capital gains tax if it meant that overall revenue would decrease due to Laffer Curve effects. He said he would because it was the "fair" thing to do. So as we can see, Obama's tax ideology has to do with being punitive and not bringing in more revenue.

Obama's Truly Radical Capital Gains Tax Agenda

 

[Care4all]

I still don't get it. If the rich pay more then how will the poor benefit? Are you suggesting that the government will give them more? After all, entitlements will be spent no matter what revenue comes into the system.

The benefit comes from paying our Nation's Bills, shows fiscal responsibility, having to borrow less money, having to print less money, reduces inflation, increases our country's credit rating, increases money flow in the whole Nation, consumer confidence is up, and encourages businesses to spend with a positive economic outlook of the Nation in Fiscal order.....so, it not only reduces inflation and money printing, but it increases JOBS JOBS AND JOBS.

ALL OF THE ABOVE are the benefits of a FISCAL Nation and comes with paying the bills and reducing unnecessary and wasteful spending....this HELPS the middle class....

Look At the Clinton years....when we, the Nation, started to pay our bills with higher taxes, the consumer confidence went through the roof....

Are you sure that is what is going on?

In the article below, Obama was asked if he would increase the capital gains tax if it meant that overall revenue would decrease due to Laffer Curve effects. He said he would because it was the "fair" thing to do. So as we can see, Obama's tax ideology has to do with being punitive and not bringing in more revenue.

Obama's Truly Radical Capital Gains Tax Agenda

I don't know if that is what is going on or not, honestly. But I do know that is what should be going on....

(NOTE! I have not read your link yet)

As far as Capital gains tax being restructured again, I don't have a problem in reviewing its so called "fairness"...I view earnings through Labor as more important than Earnings through Capital just as President Lincoln did....

and I am not certain why those who work for a living and make $250k a year as a salary should pay 39% on their taxable income while those who sit on their bums and just put $1,000,000 in the stock market and sell off at a $250,000 dollar gain, should only have to pay 15% in taxes on that taxable income (gain)???

At the same time, I can see how having lower Capital Gain rates could spur more sell offs and get the gvt more tax revenues to pay the bills sooner....

so as said, it's worth a discussion and debate....

 

[The Rabbi]

I know the wealthy pay taxes, shoot, the middle class pays taxes as well as the poor...

the wealthy can get even more wealthy, even with higher taxes that help this nation pay its bills...just look at what happened under Clinton and ALL THE YEARS that there has been a progressive income tax as high as 70% and 90%....the wealthiest still get more wealth.....year after year.....and have GAINS on incomes, and are taxed only on their GAIN....

if they have a loss, even if their gross income was $1,000,000, they pay no income taxes...

if the bills are being paid, then we will need less taxes to pay for the money we owe already because we will have better interests rates on it, there will be more money available at banks for the middle class and small businesses to borrow and invest at a lower interest rate....the fed won't need to print as much money so it will reduce the inflation rate and unseen inflation rate....consumer confidence will go up, people will have more jobs, people will spend more, adding to the gdp of the nation, which will in turn also add more taxable revenue.....because everyone or near everyone will be doing better and have GAINS on their income....

Then taxes can be reduced on the wealthy....once the economy is going again, they will owe less and will have less of the total share of tax revenues...

You really are that clueless.
WHen rates are high, the wealthy shelter their income with tax free bonds and the like.

But since you are a proponent of a balanced budget, which items would you lke to see cut to achieve that? It is a numerical impossibility to raise taxes enough to cover the deficit, so spending must be cut. Which areas are you in favor of cutting?

When income taxes are low they still hold on to their money too (or use any means possible to reduce their tax obligation....) like corporations have the past decade....

There are numerous areas where the gvt could cut wasteful spending....no child left behind is one, faith based initiatives another, wasteful military industrial complex spending on things like aircraft that ends up being useless, medicaid and medicare fraud by individuals AND by institutions, welfare fraud, by adding the Public option to obamacare to increase competition on the exchanges could reduce obamacare spending long term, allow states like mine to be able to buy our Pharmaceuticals from Canada for our medicaid recipients and allowing Medicare to purchase their medications at a bulk discount or from overseas....would save billions in yearly federal spending.... and the Lord only knows how many duplicate agencies there are that could be merged or eliminated....future government worker benefits could be weened and reduced some too....Agriculture spending can be reduced as well...or use it in a ''smarter'' way....

No, that is not true. When Reagan simplified and lowered rates the high income earners paid many more dollars to the Treasury.
You've named about $1B in spending. That is woefully inadequate in a $1T deficit situation. Reimporting drugs from Canada is a shitty idea held by people who don't understand economics.

 

[The Rabbi]

The benefit comes from paying our Nation's Bills, shows fiscal responsibility, having to borrow less money, having to print less money, reduces inflation, increases our country's credit rating, increases money flow in the whole Nation, consumer confidence is up, and encourages businesses to spend with a positive economic outlook of the Nation in Fiscal order.....so, it not only reduces inflation and money printing, but it increases JOBS JOBS AND JOBS.

ALL OF THE ABOVE are the benefits of a FISCAL Nation and comes with paying the bills and reducing unnecessary and wasteful spending....this HELPS the middle class....

Look At the Clinton years....when we, the Nation, started to pay our bills with higher taxes, the consumer confidence went through the roof....

Are you sure that is what is going on?

In the article below, Obama was asked if he would increase the capital gains tax if it meant that overall revenue would decrease due to Laffer Curve effects. He said he would because it was the "fair" thing to do. So as we can see, Obama's tax ideology has to do with being punitive and not bringing in more revenue.

Obama's Truly Radical Capital Gains Tax Agenda

I don't know if that is what is going on or not, honestly. But I do know that is what should be going on....

(NOTE! I have not read your link yet)

As far as Capital gains tax being restructured again, I don't have a problem in reviewing its so called "fairness"...I view earnings through Labor as more important than Earnings through Capital just as President Lincoln did....

and I am not certain why those who work for a living and make $250k a year as a salary should pay 39% on their taxable income while those who sit on their bums and just put $1,000,000 in the stock market and sell off at a $250,000 dollar gain, should only have to pay 15% in taxes on that taxable income (gain)???

At the same time, I can see how having lower Capital Gain rates could spur more sell offs and get the gvt more tax revenues to pay the bills sooner....

so as said, it's worth a discussion and debate....

That isn't what happens. Try again.