Why does the left believe a corporate tax break "steals" money from the taxpayers?

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

/----/ So if you bring home $1,500 a week after taxes and spend $1,700 a week, after a year you'll be $10,400 in debt plus interest in that debt. Well if cutting your spending isn't the answer because it's too simplistic what is the complex answer to your debt problem?

What has not penetrated your head is that tax expenditures ARE spending.

My answer?

I've only spent the past 24 pages of this topic explaining!

Repeal them. Ban them. Eliminate them. Get rid of them. Outlaw them. Banish them.

Then we can not only balance the budget, we can lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And that's before cutting even a single dime of other spending. We would have a surplus just by eliminating tax expenditures.


Clear now?

/----/ No.

 

[g5000]

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

/----/ So if you bring home $1,500 a week after taxes and spend $1,700 a week, after a year you'll be $10,400 in debt plus interest in that debt. Well if cutting your spending isn't the answer because it's too simplistic what is the complex answer to your debt problem?

What has not penetrated your head is that tax expenditures ARE spending.

My answer?

I've only spent the past 24 pages of this topic explaining!

Repeal them. Ban them. Eliminate them. Get rid of them. Outlaw them. Banish them.

Then we can not only balance the budget, we can lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And that's before cutting even a single dime of other spending. We would have a surplus just by eliminating tax expenditures.


Clear now?

/----/ No.

That's usually what happens to pseudocons who are way off the conservative reservation. None of this ever penetrates. You've been carefully and deliberately dumbed down for the express reason of keeping you incapable of grasping these things.

You are given your little bribe, and our politicians are given theirs, and the gravy train rolls happily along while you cheer the theft from everyone's pockets.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

/----/ So if you bring home $1,500 a week after taxes and spend $1,700 a week, after a year you'll be $10,400 in debt plus interest in that debt. Well if cutting your spending isn't the answer because it's too simplistic what is the complex answer to your debt problem?

What has not penetrated your head is that tax expenditures ARE spending.

My answer?

I've only spent the past 24 pages of this topic explaining!

Repeal them. Ban them. Eliminate them. Get rid of them. Outlaw them. Banish them.

Then we can not only balance the budget, we can lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And that's before cutting even a single dime of other spending. We would have a surplus just by eliminating tax expenditures.


Clear now?

/----/ No.

That's usually what happens to pseudocons who are way off the conservative reservation. None of this ever penetrates. You've been carefully and deliberately dumbed down for the express reason of keeping you incapable of grasping these things.

You are given your little bribe, and our politicians are given theirs, and the gravy train rolls happily along while you cheer the theft from everyone's pockets.

/----/ You're posting gibberish

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Speaking of baseless bullshit there has been no surplus since WWII

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

Genius. Have a bud.

/----/ I wouldn't drink Bud on a dare. Guinness is another story.

 

[AntonToo]

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

REVENUES - SPENDING = DEFICIT(-)

Yes, you can reduce deficit by reducing spending, but THERE IS A SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT SIDE OF EQUATION that many conservatives do not seem to be able to admit exists.

/----/ So 3 1/2 Trillion in taxes isn't enough? How much more? 4 trillion 5 trillion? US Total Government Revenue for 2016 - Charts Tables

....ENOUGH is when the left side of equation equals to right side of equation.

And YES for 2016 3.5T would in fact be enough to right about balance the budget, since that's how much we spent. Our actual revenues was 2.99T however.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

REVENUES - SPENDING = DEFICIT(-)

Yes, you can reduce deficit by reducing spending, but THERE IS A SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT SIDE OF EQUATION that many conservatives do not seem to be able to admit exists.

/----/ So 3 1/2 Trillion in taxes isn't enough? How much more? 4 trillion 5 trillion? US Total Government Revenue for 2016 - Charts Tables

....ENOUGH is when the left side of equation equals to right side of equation.

And YES for 2016 3.5T would in fact be enough to right about balance the budget, since that's how much we spent. Our actual revenues was 2.99T however.

/----/ did the chart confuse you?

 

[g5000]

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

/----/ So if you bring home $1,500 a week after taxes and spend $1,700 a week, after a year you'll be $10,400 in debt plus interest in that debt. Well if cutting your spending isn't the answer because it's too simplistic what is the complex answer to your debt problem?

What has not penetrated your head is that tax expenditures ARE spending.

My answer?

I've only spent the past 24 pages of this topic explaining!

Repeal them. Ban them. Eliminate them. Get rid of them. Outlaw them. Banish them.

Then we can not only balance the budget, we can lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And that's before cutting even a single dime of other spending. We would have a surplus just by eliminating tax expenditures.


Clear now?

/----/ No.

That's usually what happens to pseudocons who are way off the conservative reservation. None of this ever penetrates. You've been carefully and deliberately dumbed down for the express reason of keeping you incapable of grasping these things.

You are given your little bribe, and our politicians are given theirs, and the gravy train rolls happily along while you cheer the theft from everyone's pockets.

/----/ You're posting gibberish

That's what intelligence is supposed to sound like to you dumbed down pseudocons. Your masters absolutely depend on your innumeracy and ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf

Problem #2: The Current Code Delivers Special Interest Subsidies and Crony Capitalism. The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity. Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. In fact, Washington encourages individuals and businesses to make investment decisions based not on the most promising new technologies and innovations, but instead on the promise of tax savings. Many of these tax preferences, sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” are special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks instead of direct grants. For fiscal year 2016, such “spending” through the tax code amounts to more than $1.4 trillion, or almost three-fourths of the amount of revenue raised by the entire Federal income tax. When Washington picks winners and losers with the tax code, the American people ultimately pay higher tax rates and keep less of their hard-earned money.


Boom!

Get that through your THICK HEADS.

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

 

[AntonToo]

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

REVENUES - SPENDING = DEFICIT(-)

Yes, you can reduce deficit by reducing spending, but THERE IS A SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT SIDE OF EQUATION that many conservatives do not seem to be able to admit exists.

/----/ So 3 1/2 Trillion in taxes isn't enough? How much more? 4 trillion 5 trillion? US Total Government Revenue for 2016 - Charts Tables

....ENOUGH is when the left side of equation equals to right side of equation.

And YES for 2016 3.5T would in fact be enough to right about balance the budget, since that's how much we spent. Our actual revenues was 2.99T however.

/----/ did the chart confuse you?

Dumbass you do know that 2017 revenues are projections not actuals right?

There seems to be slightly different numbers out there, form your source 2016 was 3.25T Receipts, 3.85T spending.

But the concept is exactly the same:

....ENOUGH is when the left side of equation equals to right side of equation.

 

[g5000]

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf

Problem #2: The Current Code Delivers Special Interest Subsidies and Crony Capitalism. The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity. Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. In fact, Washington encourages individuals and businesses to make investment decisions based not on the most promising new technologies and innovations, but instead on the promise of tax savings. Many of these tax preferences, sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” are special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks instead of direct grants. For fiscal year 2016, such “spending” through the tax code amounts to more than $1.4 trillion, or almost three-fourths of the amount of revenue raised by the entire Federal income tax. When Washington picks winners and losers with the tax code, the American people ultimately pay higher tax rates and keep less of their hard-earned money.


Boom!

Get that through your THICK HEADS.

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

I have no problem with wealth being concentrated because someone invented a better mousetrap. I'm all for it.

However, a great deal of wealth is being concentrated legislatively by the American Politboro, tilting the playing field to the advantage of a select few.

I have a YUGE problem with that, bigly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf

Problem #2: The Current Code Delivers Special Interest Subsidies and Crony Capitalism. The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity. Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. In fact, Washington encourages individuals and businesses to make investment decisions based not on the most promising new technologies and innovations, but instead on the promise of tax savings. Many of these tax preferences, sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” are special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks instead of direct grants. For fiscal year 2016, such “spending” through the tax code amounts to more than $1.4 trillion, or almost three-fourths of the amount of revenue raised by the entire Federal income tax. When Washington picks winners and losers with the tax code, the American people ultimately pay higher tax rates and keep less of their hard-earned money.


Boom!

Get that through your THICK HEADS.

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

I have no problem with wealth being concentrated because someone invented a better mousetrap. I'm all for it.

However, a great deal of wealth is being concentrated legislatively by the American Politboro, tilting the playing field to the advantage of a select few.

I have a YUGE problem with that, bigly.

However, a great deal of wealth is being concentrated legislatively by the American Politboro

Any specifics?

 

[Care4all]

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf

Problem #2: The Current Code Delivers Special Interest Subsidies and Crony Capitalism. The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity. Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. In fact, Washington encourages individuals and businesses to make investment decisions based not on the most promising new technologies and innovations, but instead on the promise of tax savings. Many of these tax preferences, sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” are special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks instead of direct grants. For fiscal year 2016, such “spending” through the tax code amounts to more than $1.4 trillion, or almost three-fourths of the amount of revenue raised by the entire Federal income tax. When Washington picks winners and losers with the tax code, the American people ultimately pay higher tax rates and keep less of their hard-earned money.


Boom!

Get that through your THICK HEADS.

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

So 80% of Americans are jobless and not working eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf

Problem #2: The Current Code Delivers Special Interest Subsidies and Crony Capitalism. The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity. Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. In fact, Washington encourages individuals and businesses to make investment decisions based not on the most promising new technologies and innovations, but instead on the promise of tax savings. Many of these tax preferences, sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” are special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks instead of direct grants. For fiscal year 2016, such “spending” through the tax code amounts to more than $1.4 trillion, or almost three-fourths of the amount of revenue raised by the entire Federal income tax. When Washington picks winners and losers with the tax code, the American people ultimately pay higher tax rates and keep less of their hard-earned money.


Boom!

Get that through your THICK HEADS.

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

So 80% of Americans are jobless and not working eh?

Guys with no jobs, like Daniel, whine about people with wealth.
I wonder if he'll ever have any of his own? What do you think?

 

[thereisnospoon]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

Every dollar a corporation doesn't pay in taxes has to be paid by someone else,

all else being equal.

The zero sum game.
It does not exist.
Every dollar paid by a business, gets passed along to the end user.
Every dollar not recovered by a business is removed from the bottom line. Meaning. one less dollar to add to the labor budget. One less dollar to the equipment budget, etc.
Taxation removes money from the economy.

Taxation does not remove money from the economy unless it goes overseas.

Where do you think taxes collected to pay for building fighter jets, for example, goes?

hint...this is where you ignore the question to pretend you're not full of shit.

"Taxation does not remove money from the economy unless it goes overseas."
Yes, it does. It happens two ways. One, government waste. Our federal government squanders much of what it collects. for example. over 60% of every dollar collected for social programs is spent on administration( salaries etc) That's absurd. Our government funds things that should be left to the private sector. Such as the arts. Public broadcasting, AMTRAK.....federal grants to universities for research on such important things like testing the sexual prowess of certain bird species while high on cocaine....Or millions spent on things like a campaign to make people feel good about their most recent automobile purchase.
Television commercials advertising about signing up for military duty.
Two, for every dollar confiscated, the reaction is to find more ways to use the tax laws to avoid paying taxes. The latter removes resources from the economy that would be otherwise invested in the economy.
You , a liberal has the NERVE to mention defense spending? Cut the bullshit.
You cannot use ( support) military spending as an example of support higher taxation then scream about the "military industrial complex"...NO!
You don't get to have it both ways....

 

[danielpalos]

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

REVENUES - SPENDING = DEFICIT(-)

Yes, you can reduce deficit by reducing spending, but THERE IS A SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT SIDE OF EQUATION that many conservatives do not seem to be able to admit exists.

/----/ So 3 1/2 Trillion in taxes isn't enough? How much more? 4 trillion 5 trillion? US Total Government Revenue for 2016 - Charts Tables

End the drug war to fund health care, right wingers.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

REVENUES - SPENDING = DEFICIT(-)

Yes, you can reduce deficit by reducing spending, but THERE IS A SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT SIDE OF EQUATION that many conservatives do not seem to be able to admit exists.

/----/ So 3 1/2 Trillion in taxes isn't enough? How much more? 4 trillion 5 trillion? US Total Government Revenue for 2016 - Charts Tables

End the drug war to fund health care, right wingers.

/----/ Are you tied of the cops chasing you down for selling pot to kids in the play ground?

 

[danielpalos]

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

/----/ So if you bring home $1,500 a week after taxes and spend $1,700 a week, after a year you'll be $10,400 in debt plus interest in that debt. Well if cutting your spending isn't the answer because it's too simplistic what is the complex answer to your debt problem?

Tax the rich until they can make it into Heaven.

 

[danielpalos]

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf

Problem #2: The Current Code Delivers Special Interest Subsidies and Crony Capitalism. The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity. Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. In fact, Washington encourages individuals and businesses to make investment decisions based not on the most promising new technologies and innovations, but instead on the promise of tax savings. Many of these tax preferences, sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” are special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks instead of direct grants. For fiscal year 2016, such “spending” through the tax code amounts to more than $1.4 trillion, or almost three-fourths of the amount of revenue raised by the entire Federal income tax. When Washington picks winners and losers with the tax code, the American people ultimately pay higher tax rates and keep less of their hard-earned money.


Boom!

Get that through your THICK HEADS.

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

Only crony capitalists, say that.

 

[danielpalos]

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

I have no problem with wealth being concentrated because someone invented a better mousetrap. I'm all for it.

However, a great deal of wealth is being concentrated legislatively by the American Politboro, tilting the playing field to the advantage of a select few.

I have a YUGE problem with that, bigly.

However, a great deal of wealth is being concentrated legislatively by the American Politboro

Any specifics?

Tax cuts for the rich and benefits cuts for the poor. Any other questions?

 

[danielpalos]

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

Better start saving son.
It starts with a job.
Get crackin'! (<<<that doesn't mean do more drugs, loser)

So 80% of Americans are jobless and not working eh?

Guys with no jobs, like Daniel, whine about people with wealth.
I wonder if he'll ever have any of his own? What do you think?

I Only "whine" about wealth Because the right wing "whines" about taxes.

I don't whine about taxes.