How do you feel the standoff in Washington would best resolved?

[DiamondDave]

Diamond Dave's post describing the 5 bullets and the idea of fair treatment was very insightful.

There is a point to be had that every program can be cut and that defense definitely has some waste. The idea that this discussion is painting me liberal I find laughable. I am merely suggesting ideas and options for a fix of the situation we face. If the cuts to spending could cover it all I would love that.

Now a question I've had for a while is why limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes is different than raising taxes on the wealthy. Don't they pay more either way?

Yes... which is why it is just another form of pandering for power by appealing to group X while double talking to group Y

And with the politician's love of power and pandering, it is exactly why you do not see more mainstream politicians pushing for the equal treatment of a true flat tax

 

[cpcreativity]

saveliberty, so it's fine for a longstanding member to come at me over the slight misquote that was three or four posts up and could have easily been checked? He called me a slime bag moron and it's okay? Whatever.

And as for the "Now is your chance for more respect post.... what? I asked a question and that was your response?

 

[percysunshine]

You need to calm the **** down. The original post was from Old. Sorry I deleted the wrong section of the quoter thing. Why would I even fake crediting you on a forum that still has the previous post up. Look before you get amped fool.

As apologies go, I guess I can accept that. Cheers.

 

[Sallow]

First, I know you don't really like reading the discussion. But we were discussing a tax increase on all rates.

Second, yes, there are people making over 250K a year who are bareley making ends meet. Small business owners, for example, who end up claiming profits on their personal statements. And there are also stupid people who make lots of money. Some members of Congress, for example.

250K for a family of 5 in NYC is not like 250K for a family of 5 in Bald Knob Arkansas....

I live in NYC. I have a co-op on the upper east side and rent an apartment in brooklyn. I just took a job making 15 grand less then my former job..which puts me under six figures. Along with my GF we are under 170k.

And we do pretty well.

250K for a family of five is pretty good here.

 

[Oldstyle]

Diamond Dave's post describing the 5 bullets and the idea of fair treatment was very insightful.

There is a point to be had that every program can be cut and that defense definitely has some waste. The idea that this discussion is painting me liberal I find laughable. I am merely suggesting ideas and options for a fix of the situation we face. If the cuts to spending could cover it all I would love that.

Now a question I've had for a while is why limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes is different than raising taxes on the wealthy. Don't they pay more either way?

President Obama has promised the progressive wing of his party that taxes will be raised on the wealthy. It's more of a symbolic thing now than any type of coherent fiscal policy. If we're really looking to address the problems with the deficit then we need to shrink the size of government spending. We've reached the point where taking 100% of the income of the "wealthy" won't even come close to paying for what we've obligated ourselves to shell out in entitlement programs. It's a no brainer what happens at that point, CD...taxes go up on the Middle Class. They have to...there's no other way it can go down.

 

[Avatar4321]

You need to calm the **** down. The original post was from Old. Sorry I deleted the wrong section of the quoter thing. Why would I even fake crediting you on a forum that still has the previous post up. Look before you get amped fool.

Usually, it's the people swearing who need to calm down.

 

[DiamondDave]

250K for a family of 5 in NYC is not like 250K for a family of 5 in Bald Knob Arkansas....

I live in NYC. I have a co-op on the upper east side and rent an apartment in brooklyn. I just took a job making 15 grand less then my former job..which puts me under six figures. Along with my GF we are under 170k.

And we do pretty well.

250K for a family of five is pretty good here.

And everyone's situation is different... 170K there with good decisions could be very do-able... 250K in a different situation for a family of 5 may be not so good... which is why blanket statements don't work and subjectivity in the tax law don't either

 

[saveliberty]

saveliberty, so it's fine for a longstanding member to come at me over the slight misquote that was three or four posts up and could have easily been checked? He called me a slime bag moron and it's okay? Whatever.

And as for the "Now is your chance for more respect post.... what? I asked a question and that was your response?

I pointed out it was a learning curve issue on the quote function in your defense. He said you were a slime bag moron IF YOU DID IT ON PURPOSE. That would be true. You didn't do it on purpose.

Wake up! You attend a liberal community college in California. You want a flat tax that the rich pay more. Your focus was on taxation for the most part. You paraphrased Obama's comments on businesses owners didn't get there on their own. You MIGHT be a little liberal? Hardly.

 

[Oldstyle]

saveliberty, so it's fine for a longstanding member to come at me over the slight misquote that was three or four posts up and could have easily been checked? He called me a slime bag moron and it's okay? Whatever.

And as for the "Now is your chance for more respect post.... what? I asked a question and that was your response?

LOL...just say you're sorry, CP and let it go. We "ALL" make mistakes and if someone can't live with that then it's not your problem. A quick..."My bad, sorry..." usually does the trick.

 

[Immanuel]

Diamond Dave's post describing the 5 bullets and the idea of fair treatment was very insightful.

There is a point to be had that every program can be cut and that defense definitely has some waste. The idea that this discussion is painting me liberal I find laughable. I am merely suggesting ideas and options for a fix of the situation we face. If the cuts to spending could cover it all I would love that.

Now a question I've had for a while is why limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes is different than raising taxes on the wealthy. Don't they pay more either way?

President Obama has promised the progressive wing of his party that taxes will be raised on the wealthy. It's more of a symbolic thing now than any type of coherent fiscal policy. If we're really looking to address the problems with the deficit then we need to shrink the size of government spending. We've reached the point where taking 100% of the income of the "wealthy" won't even come close to paying for what we've obligated ourselves to shell out in entitlement programs. It's a no brainer what happens at that point, CD...taxes go up on the Middle Class. They have to...there's no other way it can go down.

I wonder if this promise will be as good as his promise not to raise one dime of any kind of taxes on those making less than $250k/year... a promise that he broke in his first month of office when he raised cigarette taxes. For some reason, I believe he intends to keep this promise just as he intended to keep that promise.

I suspect he will increase taxes on the middle class and in four years we will still be debating ending the "Bush Tax Cuts".

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

Twenty posts in is a bit too early for a meltdown. Relax. We all have our safeties on believe it or not.

 

[saveliberty]

Its like someone turned the lights in the basement off...

 

[cpcreativity]

For the record I did actually type four *'s haha not a swear word.

And yeah my bad shouldn't have used them or called percy a fool. It's just if you look back not many people even slightly acknowledged anything besides the tax thing and began looking a bit like an attack so I got defensive.

Anyway, without calling me a liberal simply because I suggested that the rich can pay a slightly higher percentage in taxes. How is closing loopholes and eliminating deductions different than raising taxes?

Next, I saw some great points regarding the complexity of the tax code and spending cut options. I agree completely that spending should actually be cut in the same way you do, but would that alone actually bring us to where we need to be?

 

[Oldstyle]

Diamond Dave's post describing the 5 bullets and the idea of fair treatment was very insightful.

There is a point to be had that every program can be cut and that defense definitely has some waste. The idea that this discussion is painting me liberal I find laughable. I am merely suggesting ideas and options for a fix of the situation we face. If the cuts to spending could cover it all I would love that.

Now a question I've had for a while is why limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes is different than raising taxes on the wealthy. Don't they pay more either way?

President Obama has promised the progressive wing of his party that taxes will be raised on the wealthy. It's more of a symbolic thing now than any type of coherent fiscal policy. If we're really looking to address the problems with the deficit then we need to shrink the size of government spending. We've reached the point where taking 100% of the income of the "wealthy" won't even come close to paying for what we've obligated ourselves to shell out in entitlement programs. It's a no brainer what happens at that point, CD...taxes go up on the Middle Class. They have to...there's no other way it can go down.

I wonder if this promise will be as good as his promise not to raise one dime of any kind of taxes on those making less than $250k/year... a promise that he broke in his first month of office when he raised cigarette taxes. For some reason, I believe he intends to keep this promise just as he intended to keep that promise.

I suspect he will increase taxes on the middle class and in four years we will still be debating ending the "Bush Tax Cuts".

Immie

If you crunch the numbers it simply doesn't work...even under the most optimistic scenarios. We simply can't pay for what we're obligating ourselves to unless we put in place massive tax increases on the Middle Class as well as the wealthy. Anyone who says that won't happen is either extremely deficient in mathematics or they're lying to you.

Look, if we really want to fix this thing before it get too far out of control then the way to go is automatic across the board cuts to ALL government programs. They're all inherently wasteful...that goes for Defense...that goes for Medicare. Cut the cost of government as well. Why does every politician in Washington now require 10 "aides" to read the damn legislation that they wrote and they are voting on? Maybe if they had to read it themselves it wouldn't be the epic "gobbledegook" that it now always is!

 

[HUGGY]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?

Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

No. We cannot "agree" to lies and theft. SS is not an expense the government can just change at a whim. It is an obligation to those that payed into it with terms that were known to all at the time they started participating. If the government wants to change the format for a replacement of SS that would be something different. They can cut off Americans paying in all together and from the start of that no one gets any SS in their future old age.

BUT everyone that has been paying into the current SS system is owed what they put into it WHEN they have been gauranteed they would recieve it. Anything else is theft and fraud.

If the repubs start stealing some 50 year olds retirements out in the open like you are talking I wouldn't be suprised to see some elected representatives have some "accidents" if ya know what I mean. It's a good thing I am well into the age the pubes wouldn't dare screw with. Why don't you(the pubes) try and steal my hard earned SS you thieving pigs and let's see what happens? I don't plan to live a hell of a long time longer anyway...I'd love to take a few traitorous thieves out with me.

 

[DiamondDave]

For the record I did actually type four *'s haha not a swear word.

And yeah my bad shouldn't have used them or called percy a fool. It's just if you look back not many people even slightly acknowledged anything besides the tax thing and began looking a bit like an attack so I got defensive.

Anyway, without calling me a liberal simply because I suggested that the rich can pay a slightly higher percentage in taxes. How is closing loopholes and eliminating deductions different than raising taxes?

Next, I saw some great points regarding the complexity of the tax code and spending cut options. I agree completely that spending should actually be cut in the same way you do, but would that alone actually bring us to where we need to be?

Considering the amount of things the government is spending on that it is not empowered to do or that it should not do.. spending cuts are the only real answer... granted the tax code needs to be fixed.. with the amount of loopholes, exemptions, people not paying into federal income tax, etc, it is a broken system that cannot simply be fixed by raising taxes on 'the rich... not to mention the whole unequal treatment part that I already discussed

 

[Oldstyle]

For the record I did actually type four *'s haha not a swear word.

And yeah my bad shouldn't have used them or called percy a fool. It's just if you look back not many people even slightly acknowledged anything besides the tax thing and began looking a bit like an attack so I got defensive.

Anyway, without calling me a liberal simply because I suggested that the rich can pay a slightly higher percentage in taxes. How is closing loopholes and eliminating deductions different than raising taxes?

Next, I saw some great points regarding the complexity of the tax code and spending cut options. I agree completely that spending should actually be cut in the same way you do, but would that alone actually bring us to where we need to be?

When it comes to the deficit, Cody...I always fall back on the analogy of a bucket of water...the bucket being our government structure and the water being our tax dollars. As time had gone by our "bucket" had developed huge gaping holes in it that the water...ie our tax dollars...is gushing out of.

Now what would be the logical thing to do if you were faced with that leaking bucket? Would you search for more sources of water to try and keep the bucket full...or would you simply patch up the holes?

Simplistic, I know...but at heart I'm still the boy who grew up on a dairy farm and sees things in a simplistic fashion. I'd patch up the bucket. What do you think?

 

[Oldstyle]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?

Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

No. We cannot "agree" to lies and theft. SS is not an expense the government can just change at a whim. It is an obligation to those that payed into it with terms that were known to all at the time they started participating. If the government wants to change the format for a replacement of SS that would be something different. They can cut off Americans paying in all together and from the start of that no one gets any SS in their future old age.

BUT everyone that has been paying into the current SS system is owed what they put into it WHEN they have been gauranteed they would recieve it. Anything else is theft and fraud.

If the repubs start stealing some 50 year olds retirements out in the open like you are talking I wouldn't be suprised to see some elected representatives have some "accidents" if ya know what I mean. It's a good thing I am well into the age the pubes wouldn't dare screw with. Why don't you(the pubes) try and steal my hard earned SS you thieving pigs and let's see what happens? I don't plan to live a hell of a long time longer anyway...I'd love to take a few traitorous thieves out with me.

Ah, Huggy? The Government has been stealing out of the SS system for years now. The reason that it's in so much trouble is that they HAVE been raiding the general fund to pay for OTHER things. You never cease to amuse...

 

[saveliberty]

For the record I did actually type four *'s haha not a swear word.

And yeah my bad shouldn't have used them or called percy a fool. It's just if you look back not many people even slightly acknowledged anything besides the tax thing and began looking a bit like an attack so I got defensive.

Anyway, without calling me a liberal simply because I suggested that the rich can pay a slightly higher percentage in taxes. How is closing loopholes and eliminating deductions different than raising taxes?

Next, I saw some great points regarding the complexity of the tax code and spending cut options. I agree completely that spending should actually be cut in the same way you do, but would that alone actually bring us to where we need to be?

Thank you CP. Just because someone can pay more doesn't make it fair or proper.

Closing loopholes and ending deductions creates a more equal tax situation. So you raise more money AND things are fairer. Also, reducing tax code complexitiy is a real benefit. The two things about a flat tax are, first you simplify what everyone pays. You also eliminate political power, if they can't pick and choose winners.

Having the rich pay at a higher rate is a progressive tax. I think I suggested you might have those tendencies. Progressives are in the liberal camp. Do yourself a favor, there are many tests you can take online to see what your political leanings are. Google one and see.

 

[HUGGY]

For the record I did actually type four *'s haha not a swear word.

And yeah my bad shouldn't have used them or called percy a fool. It's just if you look back not many people even slightly acknowledged anything besides the tax thing and began looking a bit like an attack so I got defensive.

Anyway, without calling me a liberal simply because I suggested that the rich can pay a slightly higher percentage in taxes. How is closing loopholes and eliminating deductions different than raising taxes?

Next, I saw some great points regarding the complexity of the tax code and spending cut options. I agree completely that spending should actually be cut in the same way you do, but would that alone actually bring us to where we need to be?

When it comes to the deficit, Cody...I always fall back on the analogy of a bucket of water...the bucket being our government structure and the water being our tax dollars. As time had gone by our "bucket" had developed huge gaping holes in it that the water...ie our tax dollars...is gushing out of.

Now what would be the logical thing to do if you were faced with that leaking bucket? Would you search for more sources of water to try and keep the bucket full...or would you simply patch up the holes?

Simplistic, I know...but at heart I'm still the boy who grew up on a dairy farm and sees things in a simplistic fashion. I'd patch up the bucket. What do you think?

My SS didn't come out of your stupid tax bucket.