How much is enough?

[OohPooPahDoo]

What ought the tax rate be? Most Republicans seem to think that raising taxes should never occur. AND they are constantly trying to cut them.

Anyone who's balanced a household budget knows you have revenue and expenditures.

You can't afford steak if you don't go to work for 4 out of 5 days this week.
Yet we have been buying steak in spite of the fact that we don't have enough revenue coming in, because we've willfully LOWERED our revenues. Classic Ant and Grasshopper.
Idleness today at the expense of security tomorrow.

So, what should our top tax rates be?
One can see that working class people pay a higher tax rate than the rich.

And the the middle class has been expected to pick up the slack from corporations buying politicians lowering the the effective corporate tax rate though numerous loopholes and dodges.

That leaves the rich, who saw their tax rate drop by over HALF over the last 30 years or so. What benefits have we realized from all the economic activity that came from "letting people keep their own money"? Jobs? Higher wages for workers?

I would submit that we have passed the line on the Laffer curve that optimizes income by cutting taxes. Now, decreased tax revenues are actually HURTING us, as we cannot pay down our debt because we CHOOSE to not raise taxes.



The same goes for "limited" government. At what point do you "limit" government so much that it becomes impotent and ineffectual? What is the delineation ?


Until and unless we stake out some intellectual boundaries on the tax issue, we'll forever be caught in the fallacy that "If a little of something is good for you, then a LOT must be GREAT!"

Everyone knows that isn't true. Except for Republicans on taxes and limiting government.
And it makes us look like fools or uncompromising jerks.

in my household, when my expenses exceed revenue, I dont go around finding a way to increase revenue for I am likely maxing my revenue as it is.........I simply cut expenses.

Do you have the tax base of the most advanced economy on earth as your income?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me tell you why those guvmint offices that help the poor need to be shut down.

We need more kids living in cars like my nephew. My nephew does not take one single dime in guvmint assistance and he has nothing but his car. And a few "friends" in similar situations. And a new baby. The baby mama drama gets old and the babys moma was trying to get section 8 housing money but my nephew said no. The baby has recieved some guvmint provided care. ADC. Is that bad?

He will rely on himself. He says.

No job no home no money no real education, 28 years old. Got a Xanax and beer issue, felony from a gun charge (everybody's got a gun in this group). People lining up to hire him eh?

We got a lot more of this type of young people coming along from what I see. What do you do with them? Applaud? No gubmint money going to him. What do you want to take away from them next?

Conservatives preach self-reliance
Liberals enable dependence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A social worker came to this ladys house to help her with all the things that need done after a spouse dies. Would it be better for my tenant if there were no funds to pay for a social worker to help her?

If you think it would be better for all for social services to be cut severly, why do you think that?

Why is the only solution you can think of government? What about putting your cold, stingy fingers in your own wallet instead of sending someone to put theirs in mine?

Why don't you give us a realistic solution to this problem. Remember I said realistic, so you can't use the word Church or charity in your response.

Only -after- you show that either/both are not "realistic" solutuions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taxes should be raised enough to pay for all the government we're getting, when we're getting it.

If you don't like that idea, then cut spending, BUT,

you cut everybody's spending, not just the 'other' guys'. That means defense takes a BIG hit, warmongers.

As noted before...

Runaway entitlement spenidng exceeds defense spending by ~350%.
You decide how many dollars you want to cut from defense, and decide where to cut them.
I'll multiply that number by 3.5, apply it to entitlement spending, and decide where to cut them.

Deal?

 

[RDD_1210]

You can refuse to admit that your version of morality is -your- version of morality, but that it is remains a fact.

You aren't answering the question.
I asked you what standing you have to complain should others impose their differing morality on you, as you seek to do to them. This question does not requre an instance of it actually happening to be valid.
Well?

I really don't understand where you're going with this. Why don't you cut to the chase..

1: You have no issue whatsoever with imposing your version of morality on others
2: Should someone try to do the same to you, you'll squeal like a stuck pig

Tell me: who are you to impose your version of morality on others?

Problem is I'm not imposing "my version" of anything. Tell me how I said is any different than what this country was founded upon. I'll wait.

And how do you know how I'd react if "someone tried to do the same to me".

You're awfully good at making assumptions and basing your entire argument off of something that has no basis in reality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone who's balanced a household budget knows you have revenue and expenditures.

You can't afford steak if you don't go to work for 4 out of 5 days this week.
Yet we have been buying steak in spite of the fact that we don't have enough revenue coming in, because we've willfully LOWERED our revenues. .

Simple quit buying steaks, try a burger now and then.
Same thing with the government. Reel in the spending, the US should stop being the policemen of the world. Exit the mid-east, protect our own borders and eliminate foreign aid.
This would be a great start, then go after the defense spending... when you spend more than all the other countries in the world combined on your defense budget something is wrong.

Steak is a luxury.
So are entitlement programs.
Luxuries get cut first.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why is the only solution you can think of government? What about putting your cold, stingy fingers in your own wallet instead of sending someone to put theirs in mine?

Why don't you give us a realistic solution to this problem. Remember I said realistic, so you can't use the word Church or charity in your response.

Only -after- you show that either/both are not "realistic" solutuions.

Sure....theres not a single example of any country who relies solely on charitable donations and the church to ensure the welfare of those most in need is taken care of. Yet you want me to believe that either of those options will work on an even larger scale such as the United States? I don't think so.

I win. You lose. I'll wait for what I'm sure will be a well thought out, coherent and insightful retort from you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting.
How can you argue 'bloated defense spending' when you admit you do not have even a basic knoweldge of what is spent, where, and why?

I didn't say I don't have a basic understanding, you did. I have seen the figures and I know that military spending is a decent chunk of our expenses (about 15% of the total I believe). I said I don't know how those military expenses break down item by item.

Question: Are you trying to have a civil conversation with me or act like an asshole and try and show me up? Let me know now, so I don't waste anymore of my time.

I guess the fact that you stop responding tells me you weren't looking to have a real conversation. Can't say I'm too surprised.

Nor can you say that you are particularly observant.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/217277-how-much-is-enough-6.html#post5094967

 

[RDD_1210]

I didn't say I don't have a basic understanding, you did. I have seen the figures and I know that military spending is a decent chunk of our expenses (about 15% of the total I believe). I said I don't know how those military expenses break down item by item.

Question: Are you trying to have a civil conversation with me or act like an asshole and try and show me up? Let me know now, so I don't waste anymore of my time.

I guess the fact that you stop responding tells me you weren't looking to have a real conversation. Can't say I'm too surprised.

Nor can you say that you are particularly observant.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/217277-how-much-is-enough-6.html#post5094967

I'm sorry, I missed that post. My apologies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What ought the tax rate be? Most Republicans seem to think that raising taxes should never occur. AND they are constantly trying to cut them.

Anyone who's balanced a household budget knows you have revenue and expenditures.

You can't afford steak if you don't go to work for 4 out of 5 days this week.
Yet we have been buying steak in spite of the fact that we don't have enough revenue coming in, because we've willfully LOWERED our revenues. Classic Ant and Grasshopper.
Idleness today at the expense of security tomorrow.

So, what should our top tax rates be?
One can see that working class people pay a higher tax rate than the rich.

And the the middle class has been expected to pick up the slack from corporations buying politicians lowering the the effective corporate tax rate though numerous loopholes and dodges.

That leaves the rich, who saw their tax rate drop by over HALF over the last 30 years or so. What benefits have we realized from all the economic activity that came from "letting people keep their own money"? Jobs? Higher wages for workers?

I would submit that we have passed the line on the Laffer curve that optimizes income by cutting taxes. Now, decreased tax revenues are actually HURTING us, as we cannot pay down our debt because we CHOOSE to not raise taxes.



The same goes for "limited" government. At what point do you "limit" government so much that it becomes impotent and ineffectual? What is the delineation ?


Until and unless we stake out some intellectual boundaries on the tax issue, we'll forever be caught in the fallacy that "If a little of something is good for you, then a LOT must be GREAT!"

Everyone knows that isn't true. Except for Republicans on taxes and limiting government.
And it makes us look like fools or uncompromising jerks.

in my household, when my expenses exceed revenue, I dont go around finding a way to increase revenue for I am likely maxing my revenue as it is.........I simply cut expenses.

Do you have the tax base of the most advanced economy on earth as your income?

Not sure what you're driving at here Sparky...

 

[RDD_1210]

Interesting.
How can you argue 'bloated defense spending' when you admit you do not have even a basic knoweldge of what is spent, where, and why?

I didn't say I don't have a basic understanding...

If you don't have a basic understanding of the process, the particulars and the necessities as you seem to admit - how then can you know that ANYTHING can be cut?
Aren't you arguing this from a position of ignorance?

So because I don't know the price of the individual bases around the world I can't know that the overall military budget needs to be cut? Where is the logic in that? Let me guess, you know how every cent is spent by our government, right? If not, maybe you have no business commenting on what should be cut either. That's using your "logic".

Are there any actual adults on this site with an ounce of honesty and the ability to have a mature conversation?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I really don't understand where you're going with this. Why don't you cut to the chase..

1: You have no issue whatsoever with imposing your version of morality on others
2: Should someone try to do the same to you, you'll squeal like a stuck pig

Tell me: who are you to impose your version of morality on others?

Problem is I'm not imposing "my version" of anything.

You are, without question.

Your version of morality states that the weak, sick, poor, etc, shodul be taken care of by those who have means. You don't see this sufficiently being taken care of by the private sector, and so you want government to force everyone to do it so that it gets done right.
Thus, you seek to impose your version of morality on everyone.

And how do you know how I'd react if "someone tried to do the same to me".

By the fact that you refuse to describe how you have standing to take exception when someone wants to do the same to you.
Well...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why don't you give us a realistic solution to this problem. Remember I said realistic, so you can't use the word Church or charity in your response.

Only -after- you show that either/both are not "realistic" solutuions.

Sure....theres not a single example of any country who relies solely on charitable donations and the church to ensure the welfare of those most in need is taken care of. Yet you want me to believe that either of those options will work on an even larger scale such as the United States? I don't think so.

This does not show your claim to be true. Please try again.
Hint:
You'll first need to define "realistic" and then illustrate how private efforts -cannot- meet that description.

 

[RDD_1210]

1: You have no issue whatsoever with imposing your version of morality on others
2: Should someone try to do the same to you, you'll squeal like a stuck pig

Tell me: who are you to impose your version of morality on others?

Problem is I'm not imposing "my version" of anything.

You are, without question.

Your version of morality states that the weak, sick, poor, etc, shodul be taken care of by those who have means. You don't see this sufficiently being taken care of by the private sector, and so you want government to force everyone to do it so that it gets done right.
Thus, you seek to impose your version of morality on everyone.

And how do you know how I'd react if "someone tried to do the same to me".

By the fact that you refuse to describe how you have standing to take exception when someone wants to do the same to you.
Well...?

Your a master strawman creator, Bravo. You keep telling me what I think despite me telling you otherwise. Enjoy your fantasy world.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess the fact that you stop responding tells me you weren't looking to have a real conversation. Can't say I'm too surprised.

Nor can you say that you are particularly observant.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/217277-how-much-is-enough-6.html#post5094967

I'm sorry, I missed that post. My apologies.

I guess the fact that you chose to not respond to the post itself means you weren't looking to have a real conversation. Can't say I'm too surprised.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I didn't say I don't have a basic understanding...

If you don't have a basic understanding of the process, the particulars and the necessities as you seem to admit - how then can you know that ANYTHING can be cut?
Aren't you arguing this from a position of ignorance?

So because I don't know the price of the individual bases around the world I can't know that the overall military budget needs to be cut? Where is the logic in that? Let me guess, you know how every cent is spent by our government, right? If not, maybe you have no business commenting on what should be cut either. That's using your "logic".

Are there any actual adults on this site with an ounce of honesty and the ability to have a mature conversation?

With you? Lose the intolerant and childish avatar and we'll talk.

 

[RDD_1210]

Only -after- you show that either/both are not "realistic" solutuions.

Sure....theres not a single example of any country who relies solely on charitable donations and the church to ensure the welfare of those most in need is taken care of. Yet you want me to believe that either of those options will work on an even larger scale such as the United States? I don't think so.

This does not show your claim to be true. Please try again.
Hint:
You'll first need to define "realistic" and then illustrate how private efforts -cannot- meet that description.

Sure it does.If private efforts were "realistic" we would see "real" examples of it being done on a scale equal to or greater than the size of our country. "Realistic" as in the "real world".

You can't though, because it doesn't exist. I win again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't say I don't have a basic understanding...

If you don't have a basic understanding of the process, the particulars and the necessities as you seem to admit - how then can you know that ANYTHING can be cut?
Aren't you arguing this from a position of ignorance?

So because I don't know the price of the individual bases around the world I can't know that the overall military budget needs to be cut? Where is the logic in that?

Quite simple, really.
If you don't know the particulars, you cannot begin to guess what can/can be cut.
If you do not know what can/can't be cut, then there's no way for you to say for certain that -anything- can be cut.

Are there any actual adults on this site with an ounce of honesty and the ability to have a mature conversation?

Yep. And I'm waitng for you to up your game to that level.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Problem is I'm not imposing "my version" of anything.

You are, without question.

Your version of morality states that the weak, sick, poor, etc, shodul be taken care of by those who have means. You don't see this sufficiently being taken care of by the private sector, and so you want government to force everyone to do it so that it gets done right.
Thus, you seek to impose your version of morality on everyone.

And how do you know how I'd react if "someone tried to do the same to me".

By the fact that you refuse to describe how you have standing to take exception when someone wants to do the same to you.
Well...?

Your a master strawman creator, Bravo. You keep telling me what I think despite me telling you otherwise. Enjoy your fantasy world.

Really?
Which part do you deny?
1: Your version of morality states that the weak, sick, poor, etc, should be taken care of by those who have means.
2: You don't see this sufficiently being taken care of by the private sector
3: Thus, you want government to force everyone to take care of those people so that it gets done right.

 

[RDD_1210]

If you don't have a basic understanding of the process, the particulars and the necessities as you seem to admit - how then can you know that ANYTHING can be cut?
Aren't you arguing this from a position of ignorance?

So because I don't know the price of the individual bases around the world I can't know that the overall military budget needs to be cut? Where is the logic in that? Let me guess, you know how every cent is spent by our government, right? If not, maybe you have no business commenting on what should be cut either. That's using your "logic".

Are there any actual adults on this site with an ounce of honesty and the ability to have a mature conversation?

With you? Lose the intolerant and childish avatar and we'll talk.

1) There is nothing wrong with my avatar, thank you. If you can't get the joke, tough.

2) I have no interest in talking with you. I know you don't have an interest in actual discussion nor do you understand the topics well enough to have a discussion like an adult. You can stick to your name calling and "thanking" the posts of the other like-minded dinosaurs.