How much is enough?

[Avatar4321]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

The rich LOVE that idea! To go from 39% to 4%?!?

How much will that cost us?

It costs you nothing to let people keep more of their own money. In fact, youll get to keep more of your own as well. And no one would be able to claim others arent paying their fair share unless they fail to comply with the law.

 

[007]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

Let's be real... 15% across the board. No loop holes, everyone including companies all pay the same, period.

Bullshit....The feds can run their racket on constitutional lawful duties, imposts and excises, and leave their grimy mitts out of the wallets of the people.

That's another way, but one that's got less than the chance in hell a flat tax has.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

Aren't you the same person that also said the rate should be 10% across the board? Do you just pick numbers out of your head and pretend like they mean something?

I'd love to know how you decided on 4%. This should be a riveting analysis of our financial health.

 

[Avatar4321]

The rich LOVE that idea! To go from 39% to 4%?!?

How much will that cost us?

Just your beloved socialistic welfare/nanny state....That's all.

How much will it cost to remove the corpses from the sidewalks?

Im fairly certain that when people have more money to live off of and can earn more money easier, there will be less, not more corpses on the sidewalks. And considering they are virtually non-existant now...

 

[RDD_1210]

There's no reason spending cannot be immediately cut to match revenue. None

Sure there is. It's called an overinflated military budget and multiple wars that some refuse to put on the chopping block.

And a bloated welfare/nanny state that has never delivered on a single one of its empty promises.

Good point. Medicare and Medicaid hasn't ever helped a single person in need.

 

[Oddball]

Sure there is. It's called an overinflated military budget and multiple wars that some refuse to put on the chopping block.

And a bloated welfare/nanny state that has never delivered on a single one of its empty promises.

Good point. Medicare and Medicaid hasn't ever helped a single person in need.

And they only cost in excess of than 10 times more than they were projected to....Like that's any evidence of success.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just your beloved socialistic welfare/nanny state....That's all.

There's no reason spending cannot be immediately cut to match revenue. None

Sure there is. It's called an overinflated military budget and multiple wars that some refuse to put on the chopping block.

More likely, it's called out-of-control entitlement spending - spending that exceeds total military spending by almost 350% - that some people refuse to put on the chopping block.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

Let's be real... 15% across the board. No loop holes, everyone including companies all pay the same, period.

I am being real. Poor Richard stated that a government that forced it's people to preform 1/10 of their labor to pay for their government, it would be an oppressive government. God doesn't ask for more than 10%. Why the heck should the Government get more than half of what God asks for?

Until the burden on our labor is lifted, we will have a struggling economy.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

The rich LOVE that idea! To go from 39% to 4%?!?

How much will that cost us?

It costs you nothing to let people keep more of their own money. In fact, youll get to keep more of your own as well. And no one would be able to claim others arent paying their fair share unless they fail to comply with the law.

Taxes are revenue. We are running a deficit (spending more than we take in) You propose cutting revenue. Would this help or hurt the federal deficit?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

Aren't you the same person that also said the rate should be 10% across the board? Do you just pick numbers out of your head and pretend like they mean something?

I'd love to know how you decided on 4%. This should be a riveting analysis of our financial health.

No. I said it should be less than 10% across the board. 4% is less than 10%.

I figure it's better for the people to spend 1/25 of their labor on government costs than 1/10 or, as it is now 3/10.

Of course, Im not at all attached to the delusional idea that the Federal government needs to be spending Trillions of dollars we don't have either. I think letting the people be free will be much better.

 

[Avatar4321]

The rich LOVE that idea! To go from 39% to 4%?!?

How much will that cost us?

It costs you nothing to let people keep more of their own money. In fact, youll get to keep more of your own as well. And no one would be able to claim others arent paying their fair share unless they fail to comply with the law.

Taxes are revenue. We are running a deficit (spending more than we take in) You propose cutting revenue. Would this help or hurt the federal deficit?

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

God doesn't ask for more than 10%. Why the heck should the Government get more than half of what God asks for?

So liberals/leftists/Democrrats can buy the votes necessary to gain and retain as much political power as possible.
Duh.

 

[RDD_1210]

And a bloated welfare/nanny state that has never delivered on a single one of its empty promises.

Good point. Medicare and Medicaid hasn't ever helped a single person in need.

And they only cost in excess of than 10 times more than they were projected to....Like that's any evidence of success.

Keep those goal posts moving.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It costs you nothing to let people keep more of their own money. In fact, youll get to keep more of your own as well. And no one would be able to claim others arent paying their fair share unless they fail to comply with the law.

Taxes are revenue. We are running a deficit (spending more than we take in) You propose cutting revenue. Would this help or hurt the federal deficit?

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

Cutting revenue in no way necessarily leads to deficits. Everyone knows this.

 

[Nosmo King]

It costs you nothing to let people keep more of their own money. In fact, youll get to keep more of your own as well. And no one would be able to claim others arent paying their fair share unless they fail to comply with the law.

Taxes are revenue. We are running a deficit (spending more than we take in) You propose cutting revenue. Would this help or hurt the federal deficit?

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

 

[007]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

Aren't you the same person that also said the rate should be 10% across the board? Do you just pick numbers out of your head and pretend like they mean something?

I'd love to know how you decided on 4%. This should be a riveting analysis of our financial health.

No. I said it should be less than 10% across the board. 4% is less than 10%.

I figure it's better for the people to spend 1/25 of their labor on government costs than 1/10 or, as it is now 3/10.

Of course, Im not at all attached to the delusional idea that the Federal government needs to be spending Trillions of dollars we don't have either. I think letting the people be free will be much better.

We'll never see it. Not in our lifetime. Not unless there's another Civil War. The "vote" will never bring about that kind of change. We see this ACTING like they want to change things and TALKING like they want to change things EVERY ELECTION, and then they get elected, and they conveniently FORGET all those big, fancy things they said and promised. It happens every mother fucking time, and it ain't gonna change.

 

[007]

Taxes are revenue. We are running a deficit (spending more than we take in) You propose cutting revenue. Would this help or hurt the federal deficit?

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

Federal AND state governments should go through government agencies ONE BY ONE, and eliminate anything that isn't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Think they'll ever do that?

Not just no, but FUCK NO. Once government grows, it never goes back.

We're fucked.

 

[Jarhead]

Taxes are revenue. We are running a deficit (spending more than we take in) You propose cutting revenue. Would this help or hurt the federal deficit?

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

Why dont you ask the politicians what they would cut when they promise to cut spending.
Democrats are promising to cut spending as long as they can increase taxes on the wealthier Americans.

OK...what will they cut?

 

[Avatar4321]

Taxes are revenue. We are running a deficit (spending more than we take in) You propose cutting revenue. Would this help or hurt the federal deficit?

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

is it really so difficult to discuss this without setting up straw men?

I've mentioned many times, I oppose any spending that is unconstitutional. Any program the Federal Government does not have authority to engage in should be restored to the States or done away with.

Doing that alone would eliminate close to 75% of our current spending.

Defense spending can and should be cut in any area where it's being done inefficiently.

Food, medicine, and shelter are not going to be taken away from anyone if the government does not spend money. There have always been other sources for them, there always will be.

 

[Nosmo King]

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

Federal AND state governments should go through government agencies ONE BY ONE, and eliminate anything that isn't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Think they'll ever do that?

Not just no, but FUCK NO. Once government grows, it never goes back.

We're fucked.

National Parks. Absolutely necessary or lease the mineral rights to the highest bidder and clear the roads for the strip mines and oil derricks?

Aid to Dependant Children. Absolutely necessary, or let them starve because America's poor isn't poor enough. They have no flies on their lips and their bellies aren't bloated.

Social Security. Absolutely necessary or it's just too bad that you had to give back those pay raises so your company could afford to move to Singapore. I guess you should have saved more instead of putting your children through college!

Medicare. Absolutely necessary, or should senior citizens take their chances on the "free market" whebn buying medical coverage? Too bad Pop! That heart condition means no insurance for you! That's how freedom works!

What's trivial to some means the world to others. I guess it all comes down to how brutal you want the citizens of the world's richest country to be treated.