The People Are Taxed To Much!

[Darkwind]

That is how it should be. None of any of this means anything if someone can come take it way.

I think we can keep the current spending for the next four years.

Enough time to seriously reduce government spending everywhere else and start to bring down our debt. We face a bigger threat from China in our debt to them then we do from all the military we will spend over the next 50 years.

If Medicare spent 6 times as much as was necessary per patient, right-wing deficit hawks would be screaming their heads off.

But when we spend the same outrageous amount on the military, there's not a peep.

Interesting.

Can't grasp the notion that defense spending is a legitimate expenditure of the U.S. Government and that there is no medicare spending if there is no United States?

 

[ihopehefails]

I view the military as an asset to my life because it is needed to protect us because who would go out there and kill off those who threaten our security? I don't have to worry about the military coming in and tellling me what to do like most of what the government now days does.

Look, I'm no pacifist, I'm a veteran for God's sake. But the amount of money we spend on our military is absurd.

There is no possible reason for us to have such a huge military presence in the world, except, frankly, a desire for world domination.

Now I'm glad that having a military that's larger than the militaries of the rest of the world COMBINED makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

But making you feel warm and fuzzy is certainly no reason to devote 20% of our federal budget to military spending, when our deficit is at such a ludicrous level.

Welfare makes a bunch of other people feel warm and fuzzy inside, but folks like you and the OP sure want to do away with most of that.

So, I'll tell you what. We'll make a 25% cut to Welfare if you make a 25% cut to the military. (One of those will save us a HELL of a lot more than the other.)

Sound good?

World domination...doesn't this belong in conspiracy theory?

 

[beowolfe]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

If you go back and check our history, you'll find that your assumptions are not true. There have been generations who paid a greater percentage of their income in taxes and their children still did better.

 

[beowolfe]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

Just can't leave partisianship out of a discussion, huh...

 

[beowolfe]

Its due to a shrinking middle class which was grown by the FDR programs.


The right has worked really hard to diminish the middle class in favor of the 1%.

I'm trying to figure where you get your info from because if you actually propose taxing people less then wouldn't that mean that more money in the pockets of those that are being taxed? Its like saying taking no action is an action that harms someone else and I can't see how taking no action can be called as an action that actually harms other people.

Perhaps it is what good communist should say?

Let me see if I can give you an analogy that will make it clear. You see a man accosting a woman in a parking lot. You do nothing. When you get home, you hear on the news that the woman was raped. Now can you see how no action can result in harm to another?

 

[beowolfe]

A big part of our economic problem is that because of corporate interests, we are playing policeman of the world. Just like the former USSR, we cannot continue military spending at the rate we have since the end of WWII and keep having the next generation do better than the current one.

 

[ihopehefails]

Its due to a shrinking middle class which was grown by the FDR programs.


The right has worked really hard to diminish the middle class in favor of the 1%.

I'm trying to figure where you get your info from because if you actually propose taxing people less then wouldn't that mean that more money in the pockets of those that are being taxed? Its like saying taking no action is an action that harms someone else and I can't see how taking no action can be called as an action that actually harms other people.

Perhaps it is what good communist should say?

Let me see if I can give you an analogy that will make it clear. You see a man accosting a woman in a parking lot. You do nothing. When you get home, you hear on the news that the woman was raped. Now can you see how no action can result in harm to another?

Those are apples and oranges because someone engaging in a transaction that involves no fraud or deceit or violation of someone else freedom should not be interfered with by anyone. To do so would be violating the free will of the participants. This would include a business transaction conducted a million times over.

Now a woman being raped is a little different because she clearly does not want to be raped so I would be obliged to assist but even if I did nothing you still can't say that I was guilty of raping her.

 

[Darkwind]

A big part of our economic problem is that because of corporate interests, we are playing policeman of the world. Just like the former USSR, we cannot continue military spending at the rate we have since the end of WWII and keep having the next generation do better than the current one.

This is incorrect. A big part of our economic problem is government. Government is a dampener to economic stimulus and growth. A small amount of government is required to curb excesses and to punish those who break laws. Should government get out of the way, the economic engine of capitalism will ramp up to a sustainable level. We all have to understand that military spending is not the problem. It is the excess, extra-Constitutional spending that is currently going on that is the problem.

If we cut the Federal government to its very base level, leave existing taxation in place, eliminate unfunded federal mandates on the States, you will see debt and deficit dwindle to zero within two terms of the Presidency. Taxes could then be rewritten to be equitable and fair and stop becoming a burden on the average citizen.

This is essentially resetting government and the economy. Once debt and deficit are elimiated, so many problems can be solved.

 

[Vast LWC]

Can't grasp the notion that defense spending is a legitimate expenditure of the U.S. Government and that there is no medicare spending if there is no United States?

Why would I need to "grasp" a concept that has no basis in reality?

"Provide for the common defense" and "Provide for the General Welfare" are in the same sentence in the constitution, but right-wingers seem to think that the founuding fathers only meant one to actually apply.

Since medicare has not been struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional since it was enacted, then obviously most people, and most Judges, feel differently.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is incorrect. A big part of our economic problem is government. Government is a dampener to economic stimulus and growth. A small amount of government is required to curb excesses and to punish those who break laws. Should government get out of the way, the economic engine of capitalism will ramp up to a sustainable level. We all have to understand that military spending is not the problem. It is the excess, extra-Constitutional spending that is currently going on that is the problem.

If we cut the Federal government to its very base level, leave existing taxation in place, eliminate unfunded federal mandates on the States, you will see debt and deficit dwindle to zero within two terms of the Presidency. Taxes could then be rewritten to be equitable and fair and stop becoming a burden on the average citizen.

This is essentially resetting government and the economy. Once debt and deficit are elimiated, so many problems can be solved.

Over-spending on defense is just as much of a stimulation or dampener as spending on other programs. Just because Republicans like ludicrous levels of defense spending more than other spending does not make it any better.

At least with other spending a large portion of the population see a benefit. Defense spending benefits go to a very small portion of the population that happen to work in the military-industrial complex.

Hell, most of the time, increases in defense spending don't even benefit individual soldier's paychecks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Simple solutions to complex issues may have unintended consequences. For example, George W. Bush pushed through a tax cut which increased the federal deficit, on which we pay interest. Where is the cost benefit to the taxpayer in that?
I'd rather we pay as we go, as suggested by Obama. But an earmark to one member of congress is a critical need to another (and an emotion based argument in the final anaylysis).
btw, many of the taxes we pay are local and state, and don't forget to include fees charged for many things which once were free.

The tax cut didn't increase the deficit.

The runaway spending did.

There have been three major tax cuts this century and all three of them increased government tax revenues.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high productio

the fact that the fucking government spends like a fleet of drunken sailors can't have anything to do with our deficits right?

 

[Vast LWC]

The tax cut didn't increase the deficit.

The runaway spending did.

Actually it did. Revenues decreased in relation to the GDP, increasing the deficit.

When the market collapsed and trillions of dollars in fake capital dissappeared overnight, the lower level of taxation combined with that brought tax revenues down by 11% overnight.

There have been three major tax cuts this century and all three of them increased government tax revenues.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

Because, just like now, there was a massive bubble that formed from investor overleveraging, which was caused, in part, by extremely low capital gains tax rates.

There was a whole bunch of non-existent capital that was being taxed, that dissappeared overnight in the market crash of 1929, leading to the great depression.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high productio

the fact that the fucking government spends like a fleet of drunken sailors can't have anything to do with our deficits right?

The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased revenue, because they were within the limits set by the Laffer curve. Once you get beyond those limits, as George W Bush's tax cuts did, you face declining revenues.

Even though Laffer is now recanting on his previous work, his original theory, which clearly stated that taxes above or below a certain level in relation to GDP caused losses in revenue.

Repubicans always seem to forget the "or below" part of the equation.

 

[Darkwind]

Can't grasp the notion that defense spending is a legitimate expenditure of the U.S. Government and that there is no medicare spending if there is no United States?

Why would I need to "grasp" a concept that has no basis in reality?

"Provide for the common defense" and "Provide for the General Welfare" are in the same sentence in the constitution, but right-wingers seem to think that the founuding fathers only meant one to actually apply.

Since medicare has not been struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional since it was enacted, then obviously most people, and most Judges, feel differently.

You completely skipped the part about navies or what?

 

[Darkwind]

This is incorrect. A big part of our economic problem is government. Government is a dampener to economic stimulus and growth. A small amount of government is required to curb excesses and to punish those who break laws. Should government get out of the way, the economic engine of capitalism will ramp up to a sustainable level. We all have to understand that military spending is not the problem. It is the excess, extra-Constitutional spending that is currently going on that is the problem.

If we cut the Federal government to its very base level, leave existing taxation in place, eliminate unfunded federal mandates on the States, you will see debt and deficit dwindle to zero within two terms of the Presidency. Taxes could then be rewritten to be equitable and fair and stop becoming a burden on the average citizen.

This is essentially resetting government and the economy. Once debt and deficit are elimiated, so many problems can be solved.

Over-spending on defense is just as much of a stimulation or dampener as spending on other programs. Just because Republicans like ludicrous levels of defense spending more than other spending does not make it any better.

At least with other spending a large portion of the population see a benefit. Defense spending benefits go to a very small portion of the population that happen to work in the military-industrial complex.

Hell, most of the time, increases in defense spending don't even benefit individual soldier's paychecks.

Are you kidding? The population sees no benefits from defense spending? Wow...

BTW....medicare hasn't been struck down because it hasn't been brought before a proper court.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you kidding? The population sees no benefits from defense spending? Wow...

BTW....medicare hasn't been struck down because it hasn't been brought before a proper court.

I said from overspending on defense, like we are currently doing.

and yes it hasn't been brought before a proper court because no-one thought the unconstitutional argument credible enough to bother pushing it up the judicial ladder.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The tax cut didn't increase the deficit.

The runaway spending did.

Actually it did. Revenues decreased in relation to the GDP, increasing the deficit.

When the market collapsed and trillions of dollars in fake capital dissappeared overnight, the lower level of taxation combined with that brought tax revenues down by 11% overnight.

so it was the market crash that decreased revenues. It would be impossible for revenues to not decrease during such an event. If taxes were higher, the stock market bubble still would have decreased government revenues.

There have been three major tax cuts this century and all three of them increased government tax revenues.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates


Because, just like now, there was a massive bubble that formed from investor overleveraging, which was caused, in part, by extremely low capital gains tax rates.

There was a whole bunch of non-existent capital that was being taxed, that dissappeared overnight in the market crash of 1929, leading to the great depression.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high productio

the fact that the fucking government spends like a fleet of drunken sailors can't have anything to do with our deficits right?

The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased revenue, because they were within the limits set by the Laffer curve. Once you get beyond those limits, as George W Bush's tax cuts did, you face declining revenues.

Even though Laffer is now recanting on his previous work, his original theory, which clearly stated that taxes above or below a certain level in relation to GDP caused losses in revenue.

Repubicans always seem to forget the "or below" part of the equation.

And democrats/ progressives always forget the "above" part of the equation.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased revenue, because they were within the limits set by the Laffer curve. Once you get beyond those limits, as George W Bush's tax cuts did, you face declining revenues.

Even though Laffer is now recanting on his previous work, his original theory, which clearly stated that taxes above or below a certain level in relation to GDP caused losses in revenue.

Repubicans always seem to forget the "or below" part of the equation.

And democrats/ progressives always forget the "above" part of the equation.

I'm well aware of the "above" part of the equation, we passed that quite a while ago. We're now well into "below".

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

I am middle income, I have no dependents, no significant deductions, and my federal income tax bill is less than 10% of my income. And I know that alot of people at my income level with dependents etc., are paying alot less than that.

I don't see that as excessive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

That usually is the rub, isn't it?

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

Defense spending is not mandated in the Constitution. It is authorized. Using the constitution to justify excessive unnecessary spending on the military is idiocy.

 

[Oldandtired]

That usually is the rub, isn't it?

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

Defense spending is not mandated in the Constitution. It is authorized. Using the constitution to justify excessive unnecessary spending on the military is idiocy.

Only opinon calls it unecessary.
It very well may be....but that is still your opinion.
Just wanted to clarify that.