Bill Whittle on Taxing the Rich

[martybegan]

Your MessiahRushie would be proud of how you dodged any explanation of how taxing charities like everybody else would get rid of the honest ones, just like he programmed you to do.
Good job!

How many times do I have to say this, I dont listen to Limbaugh. On my drive home I either listen to 101.9 (rock) or the FAT FUCK (Mike Francesa). I havent listened to either hannity or rush in years.

It seems I can form these opinions, ALL BY MYSELF, which must be a troubling concept for you, as you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a slobbering rush-bot. That is one of the crucial mistakes of debating, not being able to place a valid reason you opponent has a view opposite of yours.

And I wasnt answering the charity part, I was answering your quip about conservatives having a low opinion of people. My point is progressives do to, seeing that they feel the need to use government to force people to pay for the social programs they want.

Reading is fundemental, or in your case, not so much.

Of course you do, just as sure as when CON$ say all Libs parrot MediaMatters or the Daily Kos. You are a perfect example of how CON$ can dish it out but cry like babies when it comes back in kind.

As you will see, I only use established CON$ervative techniques on this board so CON$ will have no room to object. Funny thing is, object they do!!!

Time for my favorite picture response:

If the only thing you are going to do is keep calling me a limbaugh listener, and spout your skewed view of things, then this debate (if there was one) is pretty much over.

 

[edthecynic]

How many times do I have to say this, I dont listen to Limbaugh. On my drive home I either listen to 101.9 (rock) or the FAT FUCK (Mike Francesa). I havent listened to either hannity or rush in years.

It seems I can form these opinions, ALL BY MYSELF, which must be a troubling concept for you, as you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a slobbering rush-bot. That is one of the crucial mistakes of debating, not being able to place a valid reason you opponent has a view opposite of yours.

And I wasnt answering the charity part, I was answering your quip about conservatives having a low opinion of people. My point is progressives do to, seeing that they feel the need to use government to force people to pay for the social programs they want.

Reading is fundemental, or in your case, not so much.

Of course you do, just as sure as when CON$ say all Libs parrot MediaMatters or the Daily Kos. You are a perfect example of how CON$ can dish it out but cry like babies when it comes back in kind.

As you will see, I only use established CON$ervative techniques on this board so CON$ will have no room to object. Funny thing is, object they do!!!

Time for my favorite picture response:

If the only thing you are going to do is keep calling me a limbaugh listener, and spout your skewed view of things, then this debate (if there was one) is pretty much over.

You and Slick Willie Whittless were never debating in the first place. You were merely pontificating. You were not the least bit interested in hearing any flaw in your pontification. you simply declared that confiscation would not produce enough money, and manufactured a rationalization to support it. Anyone who disagrees with you is a kook and a progressive who doesn't get the "point."

Slick Willie Whittless' point is flawed. It's the deficit, not the entire budget that needs to be covered. Spending cuts alone will not solve the problem, especially when the bulk of the cuts are from the miniscule amounts to help the poor. Wasteful spending should be cut and tax loopholes should be closed before programs designed to help the American people are cut. The truly wealthy will not suffer if they start to pay taxes like everybody else, and having them share in the cost of the government protecting their right to private ownership is not "confiscation."

 

[mudwhistle]

I already said on another thread that you need to eliminate all charity deductions and tax all charities. The Super Rich have perverted the charity deductions to the point where they never have taxable income after adjustments.

For example, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed Vice President, he made his tax return public. On a 7 figure income he had not one penny in taxable income. The Super Rich simply donate money, art, property, stocks, etc., to themselves as heads of their charities and get tax deductions for it.

And there's the rub, get rid of all charities because of a few families.

How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!

No. I think the left is very generous....

.....With other people's money.

 

[martybegan]

Of course you do, just as sure as when CON$ say all Libs parrot MediaMatters or the Daily Kos. You are a perfect example of how CON$ can dish it out but cry like babies when it comes back in kind.

As you will see, I only use established CON$ervative techniques on this board so CON$ will have no room to object. Funny thing is, object they do!!!

Time for my favorite picture response:

If the only thing you are going to do is keep calling me a limbaugh listener, and spout your skewed view of things, then this debate (if there was one) is pretty much over.

You and Slick Willie Whittless were never debating in the first place. You were merely pontificating. You were not the least bit interested in hearing any flaw in your pontification. you simply declared that confiscation would not produce enough money, and manufactured a rationalization to support it. Anyone who disagrees with you is a kook and a progressive who doesn't get the "point."

Slick Willie Whittless' point is flawed. It's the deficit, not the entire budget that needs to be covered. Spending cuts alone will not solve the problem, especially when the bulk of the cuts are from the miniscule amounts to help the poor. Wasteful spending should be cut and tax loopholes should be closed before programs designed to help the American people are cut. The truly wealthy will not suffer if they start to pay taxes like everybody else, and having them share in the cost of the government protecting their right to private ownership is not "confiscation."

I do hope you are trying to be ironic calling me out for potificating. All Iowahawk was doing was trying to show the scale of the federal budget, a point you just are not getting. He was not proposing that liberals want to confiscate it (some do), but that confiscating all the common targets of the liberal media are just fractions of the total cost of government. Restoring the Bush Tax Cuts would get back $800 billion, OVER 10 YEARS. Thats $80 billion a year, basically 8 days of government operation.

People like you respond so forcefully to this because it shows you actual numbers, and that your cherished concepts of taking money from people with more if it than you can only get you so far in funding these massive government programs. Where you go a step further is into the conspiracy realm of ubernational families controlling all and hoarding thier money like dragons in a gold filled cave.

Guess what, if you want thier money, do it the honest way and get a gun and try to take it yourself. Dont be a coward and use the bully goverment to do it for you.

 

[edthecynic]

Time for my favorite picture response:

If the only thing you are going to do is keep calling me a limbaugh listener, and spout your skewed view of things, then this debate (if there was one) is pretty much over.

You and Slick Willie Whittless were never debating in the first place. You were merely pontificating. You were not the least bit interested in hearing any flaw in your pontification. you simply declared that confiscation would not produce enough money, and manufactured a rationalization to support it. Anyone who disagrees with you is a kook and a progressive who doesn't get the "point."

Slick Willie Whittless' point is flawed. It's the deficit, not the entire budget that needs to be covered. Spending cuts alone will not solve the problem, especially when the bulk of the cuts are from the miniscule amounts to help the poor. Wasteful spending should be cut and tax loopholes should be closed before programs designed to help the American people are cut. The truly wealthy will not suffer if they start to pay taxes like everybody else, and having them share in the cost of the government protecting their right to private ownership is not "confiscation."

I do hope you are trying to be ironic calling me out for potificating. All Iowahawk was doing was trying to show the scale of the federal budget, a point you just are not getting. He was not proposing that liberals want to confiscate it (some do), but that confiscating all the common targets of the liberal media are just fractions of the total cost of government. Restoring the Bush Tax Cuts would get back $800 billion, OVER 10 YEARS. Thats $80 billion a year, basically 8 days of government operation.

People like you respond so forcefully to this because it shows you actual numbers, and that your cherished concepts of taking money from people with more if it than you can only get you so far in funding these massive government programs. Where you go a step further is into the conspiracy realm of ubernational families controlling all and hoarding thier money like dragons in a gold filled cave.

Guess what, if you want thier money, do it the honest way and get a gun and try to take it yourself. Dont be a coward and use the bully goverment to do it for you.

There you go again, parroting the GOP hate radio drivel exactly as you were programmed.
If you hate the American government so much, leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay and have your money confiscated by the "bully" government. You won't be missed, so beat it, sucker.

 

[martybegan]

You and Slick Willie Whittless were never debating in the first place. You were merely pontificating. You were not the least bit interested in hearing any flaw in your pontification. you simply declared that confiscation would not produce enough money, and manufactured a rationalization to support it. Anyone who disagrees with you is a kook and a progressive who doesn't get the "point."

Slick Willie Whittless' point is flawed. It's the deficit, not the entire budget that needs to be covered. Spending cuts alone will not solve the problem, especially when the bulk of the cuts are from the miniscule amounts to help the poor. Wasteful spending should be cut and tax loopholes should be closed before programs designed to help the American people are cut. The truly wealthy will not suffer if they start to pay taxes like everybody else, and having them share in the cost of the government protecting their right to private ownership is not "confiscation."

I do hope you are trying to be ironic calling me out for potificating. All Iowahawk was doing was trying to show the scale of the federal budget, a point you just are not getting. He was not proposing that liberals want to confiscate it (some do), but that confiscating all the common targets of the liberal media are just fractions of the total cost of government. Restoring the Bush Tax Cuts would get back $800 billion, OVER 10 YEARS. Thats $80 billion a year, basically 8 days of government operation.

People like you respond so forcefully to this because it shows you actual numbers, and that your cherished concepts of taking money from people with more if it than you can only get you so far in funding these massive government programs. Where you go a step further is into the conspiracy realm of ubernational families controlling all and hoarding thier money like dragons in a gold filled cave.

Guess what, if you want thier money, do it the honest way and get a gun and try to take it yourself. Dont be a coward and use the bully goverment to do it for you.

There you go again, parroting the GOP hate radio drivel exactly as you were programmed.
If you hate the American government so much, leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay and have your money confiscated by the "bully" government. You won't be missed, so beat it, sucker.

nice strawman attempt. I dont hate the american government, i just want it reduced. Sorry to say I am not leaving. Just keep repeating the same lines your sub standard cranium keeps generating, I'm sure sooner or later it will all make sense to someone.

You sir, are an Idiot.

 

[asterism]

How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!

It's not the tax deduction of the contributor that's the issue, most charitable contributions are made by people who either do not itemize or are above the federal deduction limitations. It's the micromanaging and expensive tax code on the operation that is the issue. If I receive $100,000 in contributions for my non-profit charity and I spend $95,000 on goods and services for my cause that's $95,000 going towards that under the existing policy. If it is treated as a business then there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts. Also, any enterprise that size and above would require that the staff take a salary and pay associated taxes with it.

In Florida that means the $95,000 would be considered income. Since the IRS assumes nobody works for free I'd have to take a $25,000 salary (which I could of course then just give to the same cause). That works out to $17,500 ((95,000-25,000)*.25) in federal corporate income tax, $3825 (((25,000*.062)+(25,000*.0145))*2) in payroll tax, $8250 (25,000*.33) in personal federal income tax, and $3850 in state corporate income tax.

Assuming I gave all my after tax salary from this entity away, we end up with a net of $61,575 going towards the cause. A 5% overhead rate at that level is efficient and people are moved to contribute knowing that just about all of their money is going towards a specific cause. Increasing that rate to 38% does not provide that same impetus especially towards small charities with excellent efficiency.

Changing tax policy to that end would not raise more money for the federal government, it would simply regulate those charitable organizations out of existence. Schemes to get around that by rolling up charitable activities into large centrally managed companies able to manipulate operations to avoid taxes would arise. These are horribly inefficient but the demand by people to give would still be there. All it means is that less money would actually be spent on worthwhile causes.

First of all, that $95,000 would be an operating expense for a true charity and not taxed.

You are incorrect. As I said, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts." I bought a bunch of stuff for a "Toys for Tots" type of campaign a few years back. I deducted the costs as an advertising expense because they put my company name on the banners, radio, and TV. That was disallowed by the IRS because it wasn't considered a vital business activity and I could not prove that it yielded any benefit. This is standard with non-conventional marketing, I had to prove a direct correlation of sales when Internet banners first came out. When I asked if it could then be recategorized as a charitable contribution I was denied because in the opinion of the IRS my business experienced an intangible benefit by having the name on the banners, radio, and TV. This campaign was not a registered non-profit, it was just a small group of businesspeople buying toys and giving them away at the homeless shelter and to families identified by the local social service folks (government and private).

When I asked if the problem was the recognition of my company in this group I was told "it's one of them, but if you wanted to give money to a charity and you want the deduction you have to follow IRS guidelines. Otherwise, it's a gift from you to someone else."

The phrase, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts" comes from the IRS auditor who denied the deduction.

But the Super Rich do not give away 95% of what they take in like a true charity. Their endowment grows and grows and only the minimum amount needed to qualify as a charity given each year.

That is still not a reason to get rid of non-taxable status for all charities.

But even if the present law was as you claim, when the law is changed to tax charities the same law can make the $95,000 an operating expense and not taxed as profit.
Hypothetical problem solved.

Think that one through since that's how the whole mess got started in the first place, government being given the power to decide what is and isn't considered "profit."

"Inventing the Nonprofit Sector" and ... - Google Books

This source substantiates both my stated facts and your stated facts. However, it does not substantiate your solution.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The point is that how would raising taxes a few percent magically fix the problem when wholescale confiscation would barely cover the shortfall, nevermind the total budget.

One thing left out of whittle/iowahawks presentation is local taxes, people forget about those as well.

Let me say it again since you missed it. No one is saying take everything from the rich and it will "magically" be fixed. No action will magically fix anything except actual magic. So moving on.

Raise taxes, cut spending = gettin out of debt faster.

Does anyone dispute that?

 

[martybegan]

The point is that how would raising taxes a few percent magically fix the problem when wholescale confiscation would barely cover the shortfall, nevermind the total budget.

One thing left out of whittle/iowahawks presentation is local taxes, people forget about those as well.

Let me say it again since you missed it. No one is saying take everything from the rich and it will "magically" be fixed. No action will magically fix anything except actual magic. So moving on.

Raise taxes, cut spending = gettin out of debt faster.

Does anyone dispute that?

Whittle isnt saying that either. He is trying to show scale. That even IF you took all income over 250k, and all fortune 500 profits, and all assets of a few billionares (and near billionares) you cant cover the current federal budget.

I know this doesnt include other revenue, or taxes on the middle class, the exercise was one of pointing out scale.

Even going with Ed's nutter point of hidden trillions, fine. lets tax that. we would have to do a wealth tax, say 10%, if we set it up at $4 trillion, thats 400 billion, still only 1/3 of our current budget deficit. And the thing with wealth taxes is they are self defeating, as unless the person's income exceeds the tax rate you get less and less each year from it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You keep making the same bullshit argument no matter what anyone says.

Bill Whittle is making a phony arguement against a strawman. I'm not interested in his strawman arguments.

Raise taxes and cut spending...why us that not even considered in Whittles bullshit hypothesis? Like that option doesn't even exist.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not the tax deduction of the contributor that's the issue, most charitable contributions are made by people who either do not itemize or are above the federal deduction limitations. It's the micromanaging and expensive tax code on the operation that is the issue. If I receive $100,000 in contributions for my non-profit charity and I spend $95,000 on goods and services for my cause that's $95,000 going towards that under the existing policy. If it is treated as a business then there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts. Also, any enterprise that size and above would require that the staff take a salary and pay associated taxes with it.

In Florida that means the $95,000 would be considered income. Since the IRS assumes nobody works for free I'd have to take a $25,000 salary (which I could of course then just give to the same cause). That works out to $17,500 ((95,000-25,000)*.25) in federal corporate income tax, $3825 (((25,000*.062)+(25,000*.0145))*2) in payroll tax, $8250 (25,000*.33) in personal federal income tax, and $3850 in state corporate income tax.

Assuming I gave all my after tax salary from this entity away, we end up with a net of $61,575 going towards the cause. A 5% overhead rate at that level is efficient and people are moved to contribute knowing that just about all of their money is going towards a specific cause. Increasing that rate to 38% does not provide that same impetus especially towards small charities with excellent efficiency.

Changing tax policy to that end would not raise more money for the federal government, it would simply regulate those charitable organizations out of existence. Schemes to get around that by rolling up charitable activities into large centrally managed companies able to manipulate operations to avoid taxes would arise. These are horribly inefficient but the demand by people to give would still be there. All it means is that less money would actually be spent on worthwhile causes.

First of all, that $95,000 would be an operating expense for a true charity and not taxed.

You are incorrect. As I said, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts." I bought a bunch of stuff for a "Toys for Tots" type of campaign a few years back. I deducted the costs as an advertising expense because they put my company name on the banners, radio, and TV. That was disallowed by the IRS because it wasn't considered a vital business activity and I could not prove that it yielded any benefit. This is standard with non-conventional marketing, I had to prove a direct correlation of sales when Internet banners first came out. When I asked if it could then be recategorized as a charitable contribution I was denied because in the opinion of the IRS my business experienced an intangible benefit by having the name on the banners, radio, and TV. This campaign was not a registered non-profit, it was just a small group of businesspeople buying toys and giving them away at the homeless shelter and to families identified by the local social service folks (government and private).

When I asked if the problem was the recognition of my company in this group I was told "it's one of them, but if you wanted to give money to a charity and you want the deduction you have to follow IRS guidelines. Otherwise, it's a gift from you to someone else."

The phrase, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts" comes from the IRS auditor who denied the deduction.

But the Super Rich do not give away 95% of what they take in like a true charity. Their endowment grows and grows and only the minimum amount needed to qualify as a charity given each year.

That is still not a reason to get rid of non-taxable status for all charities.

But even if the present law was as you claim, when the law is changed to tax charities the same law can make the $95,000 an operating expense and not taxed as profit.
Hypothetical problem solved.

Think that one through since that's how the whole mess got started in the first place, government being given the power to decide what is and isn't considered "profit."

"Inventing the Nonprofit Sector" and ... - Google Books

This source substantiates both my stated facts and your stated facts. However, it does not substantiate your solution.

The fly in the ointment is you are making claims about a non-registered charity and applying then to a registered charity.
Can't you see the flaw in that?

 

[asterism]

The point is that how would raising taxes a few percent magically fix the problem when wholescale confiscation would barely cover the shortfall, nevermind the total budget.

One thing left out of whittle/iowahawks presentation is local taxes, people forget about those as well.

Let me say it again since you missed it. No one is saying take everything from the rich and it will "magically" be fixed. No action will magically fix anything except actual magic. So moving on.

Raise taxes, cut spending = gettin out of debt faster.

Does anyone dispute that?

Raising taxes will not help one bit. The tax rate is already too high and the tax code is too complicated for any organization other than large inefficient businesses (who have not caused any recovery from any recent recession) to work around it. We need a cut in spending and a cut in the effective tax rate of small businesses. Federal revenues will grow when the economy grows. Growth comes when small businesses expand.

 

[martybegan]

You keep making the same bullshit argument no matter what anyone says.

Bill Whittle is making a phony arguement against a strawman. I'm not interested in his strawman arguments.

Raise taxes and cut spending...why us that not even considered in Whittles bullshit hypothesis? Like that option doesn't even exist.

Because all he is doing is presenting numbers. He isnt really proposing a solution. Just because you dont like the numbers (or bill whittle) doesnt make them wrong. Also note that his source, iowahawk, is at heart a satirst, that being said the general presentation on the scale of the issue is not incorrect.

Anger is a sign of being unable to counter the argument presented or frustration with dealing with an idiot. PS, im not an idiot. If you cant have a civil discussion, please Go Try French Opera instead.

We have been raising taxes at the local level for decades. How is that going for the states right now? There is a huge fight in new york over capping property tax increases at 2%. When a 2% per annum increase isnt enough to fund what you want to do, you have serious problems.

 

[asterism]

First of all, that $95,000 would be an operating expense for a true charity and not taxed.

You are incorrect. As I said, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts." I bought a bunch of stuff for a "Toys for Tots" type of campaign a few years back. I deducted the costs as an advertising expense because they put my company name on the banners, radio, and TV. That was disallowed by the IRS because it wasn't considered a vital business activity and I could not prove that it yielded any benefit. This is standard with non-conventional marketing, I had to prove a direct correlation of sales when Internet banners first came out. When I asked if it could then be recategorized as a charitable contribution I was denied because in the opinion of the IRS my business experienced an intangible benefit by having the name on the banners, radio, and TV. This campaign was not a registered non-profit, it was just a small group of businesspeople buying toys and giving them away at the homeless shelter and to families identified by the local social service folks (government and private).

When I asked if the problem was the recognition of my company in this group I was told "it's one of them, but if you wanted to give money to a charity and you want the deduction you have to follow IRS guidelines. Otherwise, it's a gift from you to someone else."

The phrase, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts" comes from the IRS auditor who denied the deduction.



That is still not a reason to get rid of non-taxable status for all charities.

But even if the present law was as you claim, when the law is changed to tax charities the same law can make the $95,000 an operating expense and not taxed as profit.
Hypothetical problem solved.

Think that one through since that's how the whole mess got started in the first place, government being given the power to decide what is and isn't considered "profit."

"Inventing the Nonprofit Sector" and ... - Google Books

This source substantiates both my stated facts and your stated facts. However, it does not substantiate your solution.

The fly in the ointment is you are making claims about a non-registered charity and applying then to a registered charity.
Can't you see the flaw in that?

What flaw? It illustrates my point and refutes yours. Your solution is to remove tax exemption from all charities. I have seen how it worked out when a group of for-profit enterprises engaged in charitable work. There is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts that way. Your subsequent solution is to change the law and allow certain charitable deductions, which I said is how the non-profit sector got started anyway.

Am I speaking over your head or are you just too stubborn to admit you are wrong?

 

[edthecynic]

You are incorrect. As I said, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts." I bought a bunch of stuff for a "Toys for Tots" type of campaign a few years back. I deducted the costs as an advertising expense because they put my company name on the banners, radio, and TV. That was disallowed by the IRS because it wasn't considered a vital business activity and I could not prove that it yielded any benefit. This is standard with non-conventional marketing, I had to prove a direct correlation of sales when Internet banners first came out. When I asked if it could then be recategorized as a charitable contribution I was denied because in the opinion of the IRS my business experienced an intangible benefit by having the name on the banners, radio, and TV. This campaign was not a registered non-profit, it was just a small group of businesspeople buying toys and giving them away at the homeless shelter and to families identified by the local social service folks (government and private).

When I asked if the problem was the recognition of my company in this group I was told "it's one of them, but if you wanted to give money to a charity and you want the deduction you have to follow IRS guidelines. Otherwise, it's a gift from you to someone else."

The phrase, "there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts" comes from the IRS auditor who denied the deduction.



That is still not a reason to get rid of non-taxable status for all charities.



Think that one through since that's how the whole mess got started in the first place, government being given the power to decide what is and isn't considered "profit."

"Inventing the Nonprofit Sector" and ... - Google Books

This source substantiates both my stated facts and your stated facts. However, it does not substantiate your solution.

The fly in the ointment is you are making claims about a non-registered charity and applying then to a registered charity.
Can't you see the flaw in that?

What flaw? It illustrates my point and refutes yours. Your solution is to remove tax exemption from all charities. I have seen how it worked out when a group of for-profit enterprises engaged in charitable work. There is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts that way. Your subsequent solution is to change the law and allow certain charitable deductions, which I said is how the non-profit sector got started anyway.

Am I speaking over your head or are you just too stubborn to admit you are wrong?

You don't speak for me!!! I stated the obvious, that money spent for charitable purposes are overhead for a charity, not profit. The phony charities perverted by the Super Rich do not spend very much money on charitable purposes. They accumulate more and more wealth that the heads of the "charity" control.

Your arrogant condescension blinds you to the obvious difference.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The point is that how would raising taxes a few percent magically fix the problem when wholescale confiscation would barely cover the shortfall, nevermind the total budget.

One thing left out of whittle/iowahawks presentation is local taxes, people forget about those as well.

Let me say it again since you missed it. No one is saying take everything from the rich and it will "magically" be fixed. No action will magically fix anything except actual magic. So moving on.

Raise taxes, cut spending = gettin out of debt faster.

Does anyone dispute that?

Raising taxes will not help one bit. The tax rate is already too high and the tax code is too complicated for any organization other than large inefficient businesses (who have not caused any recovery from any recent recession) to work around it. We need a cut in spending and a cut in the effective tax rate of small businesses. Federal revenues will grow when the economy grows. Growth comes when small businesses expand.

Raising taxes doesnt affect the debt?

 

[martybegan]

Let me say it again since you missed it. No one is saying take everything from the rich and it will "magically" be fixed. No action will magically fix anything except actual magic. So moving on.

Raise taxes, cut spending = gettin out of debt faster.

Does anyone dispute that?

Raising taxes will not help one bit. The tax rate is already too high and the tax code is too complicated for any organization other than large inefficient businesses (who have not caused any recovery from any recent recession) to work around it. We need a cut in spending and a cut in the effective tax rate of small businesses. Federal revenues will grow when the economy grows. Growth comes when small businesses expand.

Raising taxes doesnt affect the debt?

Not when every time you raise taxes, you raise your expenditures. While conservatives do have issues with raising taxes, progressives have never met a social program they didnt like. Any increased revenue is just used to fund more programs, and any cuts arent real cuts at all, just reduction in increases, i.e. raising the budget by 4% instead of the planned 6% and calling that a cut.

Here's a deal. Cut spending down to what the goverment's current revenue is, then come back to us when you want more $$ to re-instate certain programs, dont just leave the programs and then try to figure out how to fund them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Raising taxes will not help one bit. The tax rate is already too high and the tax code is too complicated for any organization other than large inefficient businesses (who have not caused any recovery from any recent recession) to work around it. We need a cut in spending and a cut in the effective tax rate of small businesses. Federal revenues will grow when the economy grows. Growth comes when small businesses expand.

Raising taxes doesnt affect the debt?

Not when every time you raise taxes, you raise your expenditures. While conservatives do have issues with raising taxes, progressives have never met a social program they didnt like. Any increased revenue is just used to fund more programs, and any cuts arent real cuts at all, just reduction in increases, i.e. raising the budget by 4% instead of the planned 6% and calling that a cut.

Here's a deal. Cut spending down to what the goverment's current revenue is, then come back to us when you want more $$ to re-instate certain programs, dont just leave the programs and then try to figure out how to fund them.

I didnt say that. Heres the question again:

Raising taxes doesnt affect the debt?

 

[asterism]

Let me say it again since you missed it. No one is saying take everything from the rich and it will "magically" be fixed. No action will magically fix anything except actual magic. So moving on.

Raise taxes, cut spending = gettin out of debt faster.

Does anyone dispute that?

Raising taxes will not help one bit. The tax rate is already too high and the tax code is too complicated for any organization other than large inefficient businesses (who have not caused any recovery from any recent recession) to work around it. We need a cut in spending and a cut in the effective tax rate of small businesses. Federal revenues will grow when the economy grows. Growth comes when small businesses expand.

Raising taxes doesnt affect the debt?

Show me when the debt was ever decreased due to tax increases. If fact, show me a year where the debt was ever decreased at all.

 

[edthecynic]

Raising taxes will not help one bit. The tax rate is already too high and the tax code is too complicated for any organization other than large inefficient businesses (who have not caused any recovery from any recent recession) to work around it. We need a cut in spending and a cut in the effective tax rate of small businesses. Federal revenues will grow when the economy grows. Growth comes when small businesses expand.

Raising taxes doesnt affect the debt?

Not when every time you raise taxes, you raise your expenditures. While conservatives do have issues with raising taxes, progressives have never met a social program they didnt like. Any increased revenue is just used to fund more programs, and any cuts arent real cuts at all, just reduction in increases, i.e. raising the budget by 4% instead of the planned 6% and calling that a cut.

Here's a deal. Cut spending down to what the goverment's current revenue is, then come back to us when you want more $$ to re-instate certain programs, dont just leave the programs and then try to figure out how to fund them.

There you go parroting your MessiahRushie's BS again.

The government always grows when the Regressives are in control. Reagan, the premier CON$ervative of all time, added a whole new government cabinet-level department, The Department of Veterans Affairs.