Higher Taxes

[Perianne]

There are a lot of people who need a hand up. Should working people pay higher taxes?

[ripmeister]

There are a lot of people who need a hand up. Should working people pay higher taxes?
I believe in the progressive taxation system but I also think everyone should pay some tax, be it even a nominal amount. Having skin in the game I would hope makes people more cognizant of where their money is actually going.

[DGUtley]

I'm not sure what you mean by "working people". I think that everybody should have skin in the game -- everybody should pay federal income tax. Having said that, constitutionally, I have a problem with a progressive tax system. There's nothing in the constitution that says that one can be taxed greater than the other for the other's benefit. I looked just now, and couldn't find it. Personally, I think that those that have more are called to assist those that cannot do for themselves; and, therefore, accept a progressive tax system. I abhor the jealous demonization of the wealthy, which is primarily what I see the call for 'tax the rich' really being.

[MisterVeritis]

There are a lot of people who need a hand up. Should working people pay higher taxes?
All people should pay the same tax rate. If we all did we would see uniform demands for tax cuts because we would all pay the taxes.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe in the progressive taxation system but I also think everyone should pay some tax, be it even a nominal amount. Having skin in the game I would hope makes people more cognizant of where their money is actually going.
Okay. Let's make whatever income you have its own rate and let's be progressive. Let's make your special rate 50%.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm not sure what you mean by "working people". I think that everybody should have skin in the game -- everybody should pay federal income tax. Having said that, constitutionally, I have a problem with a progressive tax system. There's nothing in the constitution that says that one can be taxed greater than the other for the other's benefit. I looked just now, and couldn't find it. Personally, I think that those that have more are called to assist those that cannot do for themselves; and, therefore, accept a progressive tax system. I abhor the jealous demonization of the wealthy, which is primarily what I see the call for 'tax the rich' really being.
As long as we adhere to Marxism as our guiding principal we will ignore our Constitution and move "Forward".

[Crepitus]

There are a lot of people who need a hand up. Should working people pay higher taxes?

In a word: yes. I would gladly pay a bit more in taxes to help out some less fortunate people. I support a progressive tax system, and I also support closing loopholes that only benefit 1% or less of the population.

[Crepitus]

I'm not sure what you mean by "working people". I think that everybody should have skin in the game -- everybody should pay federal income tax. Having said that, constitutionally, I have a problem with a progressive tax system. There's nothing in the constitution that says that one can be taxed greater than the other for the other's benefit. I looked just now, and couldn't find it. Personally, I think that those that have more are called to assist those that cannot do for themselves; and, therefore, accept a progressive tax system. I abhor the jealous demonization of the wealthy, which is primarily what I see the call for 'tax the rich' really being.

There is a reason for 5 he demonization though. With the undue influence that the wealthiest Americans can exert on the government they have a tendency 5o make it easier for them to collect more wealth. If this continues we will eventually have a small group of wealthy folks and a huge group of poor people with no one in between.

[jimmyz]

Flat tax for all.

[AZ Jim]

Flat tax for all.At what %? Let's say 20%. A man with a little family earns $30,000, and pays $6,000 making a big difference to this small income earner. A man earns $30,000,000 and pays $6M think he can get along with ONLY 24 Million?

[ripmeister]

I'm not sure what you mean by "working people". I think that everybody should have skin in the game -- everybody should pay federal income tax. Having said that, constitutionally, I have a problem with a progressive tax system. There's nothing in the constitution that says that one can be taxed greater than the other for the other's benefit. I looked just now, and couldn't find it. Personally, I think that those that have more are called to assist those that cannot do for themselves; and, therefore, accept a progressive tax system. I abhor the jealous demonization of the wealthy, which is primarily what I see the call for 'tax the rich' really being.
The reason I support a progressive system is that there should be a baseline level of income that fulfills the basic necessities. I do think there should be some sort of minimum tax for reasons aforementioned though. The government has a budget that must be met. To meet that budget a certain amount of income is necessary. If that means higher earners pay more in terms of percentage then so be it. The idea of a flat percentage tax for everyone means those at the bottom may have to give up a meal while those at the top may have to give up a luxury or two. The argument can of course be made that its the budget itself that is the problem but that's a different argument.

[ripmeister]

Okay. Let's make whatever income you have its own rate and let's be progressive. Let's make your special rate 50%.
Not sure what you mean by this other than its a jibe.

[ripmeister]

As long as we adhere to Marxism as our guiding principal we will ignore our Constitution and move "Forward".
Hyper-histrionic bloviating anyone?

[Don]

Using that logic maybe everybody should live in the same type home and drive the same type of car. Either everyone gets a Lexus or everyone has to drive a smart car. Why should a man with a small family making $30 K have to drive a smart car.

Have a realistic flat tax and no deductions and the "rich" will pay more than they do now. Most deductions were designed to help the higher earners.

[ripmeister]

At what %? Let's say 20%. A man with a little family earns $30,000, and pays $6,000 making a big difference to this small income earner. A man earns $30,000,000 and pays $6M think he can get along with ONLY 24 Million?
Yep. The first man has to cut back on food at the table or perhaps new shoes for his kids. The second has to buy the Corvette instead of the Lamborghini. Oh wait, no he can still buy the Lambo.

[ripmeister]

Using that logic maybe everybody should live in the same type home and drive the same type of car. Either everyone gets a Lexus or everyone has to drive a smart car. Why should a man with a small family making $30 K have to drive a smart car.

Have a realistic flat tax and no deductions and the "rich" will pay more than they do now. Most deductions were designed to help the higher earners.
I think there is an argument to be made here but the devil is in the details. If you accept that a certain amount of revenue is necessary then the question is how you get there.

[Kalkin]

There are a lot of people who need a hand up. Should working people pay higher taxes?

No.

[Don]

I think there is an argument to be made here but the devil is in the details. If you accept that a certain amount of revenue is necessary then the question is how you get there.

Its all moot if the federal government doesn't radically cut spending.

At a 20% flat tax the "poor guy" who earns $30 K pays $6000 and the "rich guy" making $30 million pays $6 million. That's 1000 times more than the guy paying $6000.

[ripmeister]

Its all moot if the federal government doesn't radically cut spending.

At a 20% flat tax the "poor guy" who earns $30 K pays $6000 and the "rich guy" making $30 million pays $6 million. That's 1000 times more than the guy paying $6000.
That's really where the debate is and should be, on the spending side.

[AZ Jim]

Its all moot if the federal government doesn't radically cut spending.

At a 20% flat tax the "poor guy" who earns $30 K pays $6000 and the "rich guy" making $30 million pays $6 million. That's 1000 times more than the guy paying $6000.Yes and he is left with ONLY 24 Million to play with. I believe in fairness, not wealth enhancement.

[Kalkin]

All people should pay the same tax rate. If we all did we would see uniform demands for tax cuts because we would all pay the taxes.

The "same rate" taxation is a compromise position for me. I really think everyone should pay the exact same amount. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1K per year. Let the government then live within its means.

[Kalkin]

In a word: yes. I would gladly pay a bit more in taxes to help out some less fortunate people. I support a progressive tax system, and I also support closing loopholes that only benefit 1% or less of the population.
Just because you would "gladly pay" a higher rate, what gives you the right to choose for others? Why not just have a flat fee and let folks like you donate more if it makes them feel special?

[Kacper]

Just because you would "gladly pay" a higher rate, what gives you the right to choose for others? Why not just have a flat fee and let folks like you donate more if it makes them feel special?

What gives you the right to demand everybody pay a flat fee? The answer to your question is the answer to mine.

[Peter1469]

The US does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. We need to reform the entire tax code.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "working people". I think that everybody should have skin in the game -- everybody should pay federal income tax. Having said that, constitutionally, I have a problem with a progressive tax system. There's nothing in the constitution that says that one can be taxed greater than the other for the other's benefit. I looked just now, and couldn't find it. Personally, I think that those that have more are called to assist those that cannot do for themselves; and, therefore, accept a progressive tax system. I abhor the jealous demonization of the wealthy, which is primarily what I see the call for 'tax the rich' really being.


I'm with you on a lot of that except for one thing. No one should pay federal income tax.

[Tahuyaman]

What gives you the right to demand everybody pay a flat fee? The answer to your question is the answer to mine.

The only tax which can truly be called fair is one in which everyone pays the exact same dollar amount.

[Kacper]

The only tax which can truly be called fair is one in which everyone pays the exact same dollar amount.
There is no requirement that taxes be fair, particularly when so much of our national debt is long ago spent money whose burden falls on present and future citizens. Besides "fair" is a subjective term. I pay a lot more taxes than a lot of people and I don't even have a big picture of what "fair" would even look like in this context. Sure I would like to pay no taxes. Sure I would like to pay less tax. At the same time, I would like little old ladies to not have to choose between having heat and having medicine. If you interpret "fair" to mean "equal", then do you support everybody having equal pay too, since that would only be he "fair" thing to do?

[Dr. Who]

Its all moot if the federal government doesn't radically cut spending.

At a 20% flat tax the "poor guy" who earns $30 K pays $6000 and the "rich guy" making $30 million pays $6 million. That's 1000 times more than the guy paying $6000.

How about a flat tax for everyone earning over 200,000/annum? Clearly, it doesn't make sense to tax the person making $20K/annum at the same rate as the person making $200,000 or $2,000,000 per annum. The government isn't going to get much from the lower income person but that little bit may mean the difference between living independently and needing government assistance. There is no point taking taxes and having to give them back in some kind of supplementary welfare. Additionally, it's not like the poorest person doesn't pay taxes, because they pay consumption tax every time they buy food or clothing. If they rent, a percentage of their rental costs goes to both property and income taxes.

Furthermore, philosophically, the values that society currently places on some activities above others is ultimately arbitrary. In a society where almost everyone is a doctor, doctors would make little money, but the few lawyers that exist would make a fortune. If everyone were weak as a kitten, the few people with healthy muscles would be valuable. Were an apocalyptic event to take place that obliviated all technology, farmers, hunters and survivalists would be more valuable than most "professionals", stock brokers, real estate magnates or CEOs of any kind.

[MisterVeritis]

Not sure what you mean by this other than its a jibe.
I am trying to support your desire for a progressive tax. So let's have a progressive rate you pay. Is one-half of your income to little? Would 60% be the right progressive rate for you?

[MisterVeritis]

At what %? Let's say 20%. A man with a little family earns $30,000, and pays $6,000 making a big difference to this small income earner. A man earns $30,000,000 and pays $6M think he can get along with ONLY 24 Million?
Sounds good to me. Of course, it won't be Marxist. You would have to give up the fundamental cornerstone of taxation, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


And the poor man would no longer vote for politicians willing to raise someone else's taxes.

[MisterVeritis]

Hyper-histrionic bloviating anyone?
I know you love your Marxism. And you state as much with your strong support for a cornerstone of Marxism, the progressive income tax. I do not understand why Marxism appeals to so many of you. It is unfair and unconstitutional.

[MisterVeritis]

There is no requirement that taxes be fair, particularly when so much of our national debt is long ago spent money whose burden falls on present and future citizens. Besides "fair" is a subjective term. I pay a lot more taxes than a lot of people and I don't even have a big picture of what "fair" would even look like in this context. Sure I would like to pay no taxes. Sure I would like to pay less tax. At the same time, I would like little old ladies to not have to choose between having heat and having medicine. If you interpret "fair" to mean "equal", then do you support everybody having equal pay too, since that would only be he "fair" thing to do?
You may donate as much of your income to others as you wish.

[Crepitus]

Just because you would "gladly pay" a higher rate, what gives you the right to choose for others? Why not just have a flat fee and let folks like you donate more if it makes them feel special?

Because the greedy bastards among us would have American citizens starving in the streets if it meant they had lower taxes.

[Peter1469]

Because the greedy bastards among us would have American citizens starving in the streets if it meant they had lower taxes.

That is not correct.

[Kalkin]

Because the greedy $#@!s among us would have American citizens starving in the streets if it meant they had lower taxes.
So you want to impose your version of charity upon the unwilling? How very dictatorial of you.

[Crepitus]

That is not correct.

I believe that it is.

[Kalkin]

What gives you the right to demand everybody pay a flat fee? The answer to your question is the answer to mine.
I'm not demanding people pay anything.

[Crepitus]

So you want to impose your version of charity upon the unwilling? How very dictatorial of you.

Nope. Not charity.

[Kalkin]

I believe that it is.

You probably believe in the Easter Bunny, too.

[Kalkin]

Nope. Not charity.
If it's not used for charity, what will stop "American citizens starving in the streets"?

Because the greedy $#@!s among us would have American citizens starving in the streets if it meant they had lower taxes.

[Peter1469]

I believe that it is.

I don't. We need to reform the tax code and take care of the truly needed.

[Tahuyaman]

There is no requirement that taxes be fair, particularly when so much of our national debt is long ago spent money whose burden falls on present and future citizens. Besides "fair" is a subjective term. I pay a lot more taxes than a lot of people and I don't even have a big picture of what "fair" would even look like in this context. Sure I would like to pay no taxes. Sure I would like to pay less tax. At the same time, I would like little old ladies to not have to choose between having heat and having medicine. If you interpret "fair" to mean "equal", then do you support everybody having equal pay too, since that would only be he "fair" thing to do?
Fair is everyone being treated equally or given an equal voice. If I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax, my voice should be given more credence than someone who has little to no skin in the game.

If everyone is paying the exact same dollar amount, everyone's voice counts equally.

Still, there should be no such thing as an income tax.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't. We need to reform the tax code and take care of the truly needed.. How do you determine who is truly needy and who is freeloading because they can?

[Peter1469]

. How do you determine who is truly needy and who is freeloading because they can?


I don't know.
But I also know that we aren't going to let citizens starve to death in the street.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't know.
But I also know that we aren't going to let citizens starve to death in the street.

What about the people who are too lazy to support them self or have too extensive of a criminal record that they can't get any job at all? Those people do exist.

We can't have a society where people are allowed or encouraged to live off of the labor, effort or generosity of others. We need to develop ways to encourage achievement through self sufficiency and individualism.

[Peter1469]

What about the people who are too lazy to support them self or have too extensive of a criminal record that they can't get any job at all? Those people do exist.
Yes. I don't think that tax payer dollars should go to them.

[Tahuyaman]

Yes. I don't think that tax payer dollars should go to them. some would starve in the streets.

[Peter1469]

some would starve in the streets.
Or more likely loot and steal.

[Kacper]

You may donate as much of your income to others as you wish.

I do, and in the mean time I will advocate for taking as much as yours as I wish.

[Dr. Who]

. How do you determine who is truly needy and who is freeloading because they can?

Think about it, if people are just willing to freeload, there is really something wrong with them. A normal person needs a purpose in life and has ambitions. Doing nothing every day is abnormal. Being willing to live on subsistence money rather than making a life for yourself is abnormal to human nature.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't know.
But I also know that we aren't going to let citizens starve to death in the street.
The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government to take the wealth of one citizen to give to another. If you want your state to seize your wealth that is between you and your state.

[Kacper]

Fair is everyone being treated equally or given an equal voice. If I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax, my voice should be given more credence than someone who has little to no skin in the game.

If everyone is paying the exact same dollar amount, everyone's voice counts equally.

Still, there should be no such thing as an income tax.

If your voice is given more credence, then your voice is not "equal". It would be proportional and taking more of income in proportion to your income is exactly the system we have.

As for no income tax, it is not my favorite tax but it is far more practical than most others because it guarantees a steady flow of money into the treasury. That ship sailed over 100 years ago.

[MisterVeritis]

I do, and in the mean time I will advocate for taking as much as yours as I wish.
Evil people advocate as you do. Eventually, we who have our wealth stolen will strike you. Hard. You deserve what will come.

[Kacper]

Evil people advocate as you do. Eventually, we who have our wealth stolen will strike you. Hard. You deserve what will come.

The government determines what stealing is and the government determines how much of your wealth will be taken. All you can do is leave. Feel free.

[MisterVeritis]

The government determines what stealing is and the government determines how much of your wealth will be taken. All you can do is leave. Feel free.
We always have the right to rebel. We are armed. Many of us are well trained. When it begins please stick around.

[Boris The Animal]

At what %? Let's say 20%. A man with a little family earns $30,000, and pays $6,000 making a big difference to this small income earner. A man earns $30,000,000 and pays $6M think he can get along with ONLY 24 Million?
Bolsheviks like Jimbo here would rather see the one with $30 mil be left with $3,000 after taxes.

[Tahuyaman]

Or more likely loot and steal.
Then that needs to be dealt with.

[Tahuyaman]

If your voice is given more credence, then your voice is not "equal". It would be proportional and taking more of income in proportion to your income is exactly the system we have.

As for no income tax, it is not my favorite tax but it is far more practical than most others because it guarantees a steady flow of money into the treasury. That ship sailed over 100 years ago.

The system we have needs to be scrapped. This was never intended. It fosters the idea that your voice is heard in relationship to the amount of money you provide in taxes.

It's practical? What does that mean? A national sales tax would be practical too, right

[Kalkin]

I do, and in the mean time I will advocate for taking as much as yours as I wish.

What a jerky comment.

[jimmyz]

Because the greedy bastards among us would have American citizens starving in the streets if it meant they had lower taxes.
Your assertions are not validated by charity contributions from said greedy bastards.

[MisterVeritis]

What a jerky comment.
He is wholly evil. He reflects what evil people think.

[Tahuyaman]

Think about it, if people are just willing to freeload, there is really something wrong with them. A normal person needs a purpose in life and has ambitions. Doing nothing every day is abnormal. Being willing to live on subsistence money rather than making a life for yourself is abnormal to human nature.why should we provide subsistence to anyone who is mentally or physically capable of providing for their own support?

[Tahuyaman]

I do, and in the mean time I will advocate for taking as much as yours as I wish.

Why?

How much of yours should we take? All of it?

[Dr. Who]

why should we provide subsistence to anyone who is mentally or physically capable of providing for their own support?
I think that you have people who are mentally and physically able and then you have people who are mentally, but not physically able and those who are physically but not mentally able. I don't think that there is any question about those who are physically disabled. Of those with who are mentally disabled, it becomes more difficult. Some people are simply unemployable, not because they are raving lunatics, but because they can't even get up in the morning without someone forcing them to do so. There is something wrong with them.

[Kacper]

We always have the right to rebel. We are armed. Many of us are well trained. When it begins please stick around.
That will last about two minutes. Feel free and see how that right works out for you

[Kacper]

The system we have needs to be scrapped. This was never intended. It fosters the idea that your voice is heard in relationship to the amount of money you provide in taxes.

It's practical? What does that mean? A national sales tax would be practical too, right

Are you planning on basing people's social security payments based on what they have paid in sales tax? If not, we are back to square one.

[MisterVeritis]

What gives you the right to demand everybody pay a flat fee? The answer to your question is the answer to mine.
When we all pay the same rate we will be equal before the law.

[Captain Obvious]

When we all pay the same rate we will be equal before the law.

Including the super wealthy?

Don't stay up late waiting for that to happen.

[MisterVeritis]

Because the greedy bastards among us would have American citizens starving in the streets if it meant they had lower taxes.
Citizens are responsible for caring for themselvs.

[Crepitus]

Your assertions are not validated by charity contributions from said greedy bastards.

You mean tax write -offs?

[Crepitus]

Citizens are responsible for caring for themselvs.

Thank you for proving my point.

[MisterVeritis]

That will last about two minutes. Feel free and see how that right works out for you
You err.
You won't see it coming. A real rebellion will last for years. But you won't.

[MisterVeritis]

Including the super wealthy?

Don't stay up late waiting for that to happen.
Yes. Everyone.

[MisterVeritis]

Thank you for proving my point.
Are you incapable of providing for yourself?

[Crepitus]

Are you incapable of providing for yourself?

Total Nonsequitor. Try again please.

[MisterVeritis]

Total Nonsequitor. Try again please.
When you play games you will play alone.

[Tahuyaman]

... Some people are simply unemployable, not because they are raving lunatics, but because they can't even get up in the morning without someone forcing them to do so. There is something wrong with them.

Those people are lazy slugs. Why should they be treated as though they are unable to support them self?

[Tahuyaman]

Are you planning on basing people's social security payments based on what they have paid in sales tax? If not, we are back to square one.

Social Security is preventing you from getting rid of the income tax? Really? Do you even have a clue as to how that system is funded? It's not based on how much you pay in income tax.

[Crepitus]

When you play games you will play alone.

Lol, are you saying you wanna play with yourself?

[Common]

A country must tax for infrastructure and it must take care of their aged and indigent and sick.
Where all the in fighting about taxs comes from is how they are distributed, like subsidies to big Oil, farms and pharmaceuticals and building stadiums and giving tax free status to sports teams ETC ETC. Foriegn aid just pissing our money away.

Then theres the ageless fight over welfare, housing asst, heating asst, food stamps, on and on.
I think even the left can agree there are too many on the govt dole that should not be, they dont work they wont work and they can work.

The left makes their biggest mistake imho on illegal immigration and expecting working americans to give billions to illegal immigrants in health care and education and everything else. That all takes from americans that need.

There is not enough money to pay for what democrats want to give away and for those they want coddled for votes. Thats never been more true than it is today. Republicans are not blameless, they cater to the super rich and give them billions.

People that just grind out a living are the ones that are always screwed in this country.

[Kacper]

Social Security is preventing you from getting rid of the income tax? Really? Do you even have a clue as to how that system is funded? It's not based on how much you pay in income tax.

Your benefits are based on your earnings

[DGUtley]

What gives you the right to demand everybody pay a flat fee? The answer to your question is the answer to mine.

Because one is equal treatment under the law and the other isn't?

[Tahuyaman]

Your benefits are based on your earnings

and how does that prevent abolishing the income tax?

[ripmeister]

I know you love your Marxism. And you state as much with your strong support for a cornerstone of Marxism, the progressive income tax. I do not understand why Marxism appeals to so many of you. It is unfair and unconstitutional.
I don't love Marxism but I do promote social justice.

[ripmeister]

Evil people advocate as you do. Eventually, we who have our wealth stolen will strike you. Hard. You deserve what will come.
Mr. V. Who paid your salary when you were doing all your fantastic nuclear weapons and military analysis/planning stuff?

[Boris The Animal]

I don't love Marxism but I do promote social justice.Same difference.

[Kacper]

and how does that prevent abolishing the income tax?

They wouldn't know what you earnings were

[Kacper]

Because one is equal treatment under the law and the other isn't?
People have the same right to advocate for A as someone else has to advocate for opposition to A.

[MisterVeritis]

Lol, are you saying you wanna play with yourself?
The focus was on you playing games. Is English your second language?

[MisterVeritis]

We always have the right to rebel. We are armed. Many of us are well trained. When it begins please stick around.

That will last about two minutes. Feel free and see how that right works out for you
You don't know what you are talking about. When that day comes send me your home address. We can talk about it.

[DGUtley]

People have the same right to advocate for A as someone else has to advocate for opposition to A.

I absolutely agree with you; I'm just saying that one is equal treatment under the law -- and one isn't.

[MisterVeritis]

A country must tax for infrastructure and it must take care of their aged and indigent and sick.
Where does one find those federal obligations in the Constitution?

[MisterVeritis]

I don't love Marxism but I do promote social justice.
Social justice is social Marxism.

You do love Marxism. You prove it regularly here. Please continue to dig.

[MisterVeritis]

Mr. V. Who paid your salary when you were doing all your fantastic nuclear weapons and military analysis/planning stuff?
As a member of the military, the American taxpayer provided for all of my military-related needs. Does that come as a surprise to you?

[MisterVeritis]

They wouldn't know what you earnings were
That would be a very good thing.

It is time to end social security and Medicare. We should also end Medicaid. None of those programs are Constitutional.

[MisterVeritis]

People have the same right to advocate for A as someone else has to advocate for opposition to A.
You do have the right to promote tyranny. And you do.

[Kalkin]

I don't love Marxism but I do promote social justice.
By redistributing wealth from those who have it to those who need it?

[Tahuyaman]

They wouldn't know what you earnings were

You'd still receive a salary from your employer. Would the withholding for SS stop if the income tax was eliminated?

[Crepitus]

The system we have needs to be scrapped. This was never intended. It fosters the idea that your voice is heard in relationship to the amount of money you provide in taxes.

It's practical? What does that mean? A national sales tax would be practical too, right

Not in taxes, in lobbying and campaign contributions.

[ripmeister]

Same difference.
No, not really.

[ripmeister]

By redistributing wealth from those who have it to those who need it?
I simply don't live in the black and white world that you and the likes of Mr. V live in. So be it.

[Kalkin]

I simply don't live in the black and white world that you and the likes of Mr. V live in. So be it.

My world is full of colors and varying shades of grey. Do you have anything of substance to say while dodging my question?

[ripmeister]

My world is full of colors and varying shades of grey. Do you have anything of substance to say while dodging my question?
I dodged nothing. You have your point of view and your insults so I see no reason to engage. We just see things differently, that's all.

[MisterVeritis]

I simply don't live in the black and white world that you and the likes of Mr. V live in. So be it.
But you do live in a Marxist world. That is a shame.

[Kalkin]

I dodged nothing. You have your point of view and your insults so I see no reason to engage. We just see things differently, that's all.

Yes, you believe in marxist solutions to society's challenges. I do not. Do you find my accurate assessment of your position to be an insult? Why?

[Tahuyaman]

Not in taxes, in lobbying and campaign contributions.


So, you want to put limits on our ability to influence government, but give them more power to confiscate our earnings. Why does that not surprise me?

[barb012]

There is a reason for 5 he demonization though. With the undue influence that the wealthiest Americans can exert on the government they have a tendency 5o make it easier for them to collect more wealth. If this continues we will eventually have a small group of wealthy folks and a huge group of poor people with no one in between.

If you look at the IRS tables for any given year on the numbers in each income bracket, you will see that what you just stated is already evident.

[barb012]

If you review the IRS tables, you will eventually figure out that between State, local and federal taxes the total earnings of the population, half of those total earnings are paid for in taxes. We do not need to raise taxes. The government has a spending problem and should be limited to stay within their budget. They waste so much of our money that if people had the actual details of how our money is spent they would be shocked.

[MisterVeritis]

If you review the IRS tables, you will eventually figure out that between State, local and federal taxes the total earnings of the population, half of those total earnings are paid for in taxes. We do not need to raise taxes. The government has a spending problem and should be limited to stay within their budget. They waste so much of our money that if people had the actual details of how our money is spent they would be shocked.
We could cut every unconstitutional program by 1% (a real cut) every year until we begin to pay down the debt.

[Crepitus]

If you look at the IRS tables for any given year on the numbers in each income bracket, you will see that what you just stated is already evident.

And getting worse.

[MisterVeritis]

And getting worse.
The Marxist ideal of soaking the rich doesn't really work, does it? People are far better at spending their money that the state is.

[AZ Jim]

We could cut every unconstitutional program by 1% (a real cut) every year until we begin to pay down the debt.Right out of the Rand Paul playbook.

[Tahuyaman]

Right out of the Rand Paul playbook.

What's wrong with that?

[Tahuyaman]

And getting worse.

And you want to make it worse.

You support giving government more power to confiscate our earnings and place stronger limits upon our ability to address grievances and influence their actions.

[MisterVeritis]

We could cut every unconstitutional program by 1% (a real cut) every year until we begin to pay down the debt.

Right out of the Rand Paul playbook.
The Penny Plan (one penny out of every budgeted dollar) first showed up five or six years ago. I cannot say if Rand Paul supported it or authored it. It is a good plan.

Debt is the problem; The Enzi Penny Plan is the solution
This country is more than $19 trillion in debt. Our pattern of unsustainable spending means that interest payments on our debt will soon rise to the point where balancing the budget as a matter of policy is beyond the reach of Congress. We shouldn’t let that happen. I have a Penny Plan that would balance the budget in five years. The Penny Plan, or the “One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2016”, would cut a single penny from every dollar the federal government spends.

https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/penny-plan

[barb012]

Do you understand that the higher the deficit means that every year the interest on it is paid by the taxpayers right off the top of all taxes collected. To lower the deficit means a lower payout for interest which the government does not want to happen for that particular revenue account.

Every election there is always talk of wanting to decrease our deficit to appease the public but in actual reality they have no intention or motives to reduce it. It is after all our money that is paying each's year interest, not theirs.

[Kalkin]

Right out of the Rand Paul playbook.

Right out of the Good Idea Book, actually.

[ripmeister]

But you do live in a Marxist world. That is a shame.

Not really, but if you want to think that I'm ok with it.

[ripmeister]

Yes, you believe in marxist solutions to society's challenges. I do not. Do you find my accurate assessment of your position to be an insult? Why?
Maybe I have you confused with someone else. You seem to use "idiot" a lot in your condemnations. If that's not you I apologize.

[Tahuyaman]

Right out of the Good Idea Book, actually.

Rand Paul has several good ideas.

[Kalkin]

Maybe I have you confused with someone else. You seem to use "idiot" a lot in your condemnations. If that's not you I apologize.
I try to mix in "moron" sometimes.

[MisterVeritis]

But you do live in a Marxist world.

Not really, but if you want to think that I'm ok with it.
Sometimes people call themselves Progressives because Marxist just seems too sharp-edged.

When you believe the Federal government ought to take far more from someone else than they take from you based on their ability to pay you are, at your core, a Marxist. You have expressed your support for a progressive income tax where some pay little (or nothing) while others pay far, far more.

[Crepitus]

And you want to make it worse.

You support giving government more power to confiscate our earnings and place stronger limits upon our ability to address grievances and influence their actions.

I tell you what, why don't you get back to me when you've used up all the hyperbole, then we'll talk.

[Tahuyaman]

I tell you what, why don't you get back to me when you've used up all the hyperbole, then we'll talk.

Your deflection is noted.

[Crepitus]

Your deflection is noted.

Where do you see deflection in "we'll talk"?

[Boris The Animal]

No, not really.
Two words: Prove It!! Because the way that Common Sense Americans (see also: Conservatives) see it, social "justice" is just a euphimism for Communism.

[resister]

Where do you see deflection in "we'll talk"?
:rollseyes:

[ripmeister]

Two words: Prove It!! Because the way that Common Sense Americans (see also: Conservatives) see it, social "justice" is just a euphimism for Communism.
I can understand that. Perhaps its just a case of labels and perceptions. When I see or hear Marxist as a label I see it as a far left label involving state ownership of the means of production. That is the extreme. There is a continuum with this stuff though. Citing "Social Justice" and redistribution of wealth as things that have value makes one an easy mark for the "Marxist" label. I certainly lean in that direction on some issues but I reject the label "Marxist" for the aforementioned reason. In the final analysis though its really irrelevant and its just a label. While I don't always succeed I try to avoid applying labels because in my experience people are more complicated than what a narrowly defined label would imply.

[Boris The Animal]

I can understand that. Perhaps its just a case of labels and perceptions. When I see or hear Marxist as a label I see it as a far left label involving state ownership of the means of production. That is the extreme. There is a continuum with this stuff though. Citing "Social Justice" and redistribution of wealth as things that have value makes one an easy mark for the "Marxist" label. I certainly lean in that direction on some issues but I reject the label "Marxist" for the aforementioned reason. In the final analysis though its really irrelevant and its just a label. While I don't always succeed I try to avoid applying labels because in my experience people are more complicated than what a narrowly defined label would imply.To the bolded, which is the goal of the Left in the US. It's not "extreme" to them.

[ripmeister]

To the bolded, which is the goal of the Left in the US. It's not "extreme" to them.
I know of very, very, very few who would aspire to that.

[Ethereal]

Democrats, by and large, profit off of tax dollars. Many of them work for the government or for businesses that are heavily dependent on government contracts, subsidies, and regulations. So of course they are big fans of taxation and raising taxes because they are profiting off of the arrangement. Probably every hardcore Democrat on this forum depends in some way on tax money for their livelihood. Naturally, they cannot frame their support for taxation as a mercenary lust for money, so they must dress up their profit motive in socially benevolent rhetoric about "health", "safety", "welfare", etc. This is fundamentally no different than how every ruling class in history dating back to the Pharaohs attempted to frame their taxation policies. Nothing has changed in that regard. The state still operates on the same basic premises and narratives that it always has.

[Docthehun]

Democrats, by and large, profit off of tax dollars. Many of them work for the government or for businesses that are heavily dependent on government contracts, subsidies, and regulations. So of course they are big fans of taxation and raising taxes because they are profiting off of the arrangement. Probably every hardcore Democrat on this forum depends in some way on tax money for their livelihood. Naturally, they cannot frame their support for taxation as a mercenary lust for money, so they must dress up their profit motive in socially benevolent rhetoric about "health", "safety", "welfare", etc. This is fundamentally no different than how every ruling class in history dating back to the Pharaohs attempted to frame their taxation policies. Nothing has changed in that regard. The state still operates on the same basic premises and narratives that it always has.

Everybody profits off tax dollars. Rich Republicans do.

[Ethereal]

Everybody profits off tax dollars. Rich Republicans do.
Not everybody. The middle class may get some return on their investment in the form of infrastructure and the like, but it is not accurate to characterize that as "profit" in the same way that being on the government payroll is. That said, you are absolutely right that many rich Republicans profit off of tax dollars which is why you will never see me defending Republicans as an organization or as a general principle. For whatever reason, some people choose to interpret my criticisms of Democrats as an endorsement of Republicans. This is simply not accurate. Indeed, my strident and frequent criticisms of the Republican party are on record for all to see. But as the old saying goes, none are so blind as those who will not see.

[Perianne]

I suppose someone could say I profit from taxes. The government steals thousands of dollars from my pay, turns around and gives my money to the hospital for someone's hospitalization, and in turn I get paid from my own dollars that I paid in.