We have a revenue problem, absolute proof we need to raise taxes

[Shelzin]

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

Along with eliminating all deductions(/incentives/abatements/credits/bribes/etc...) not directly attributed to calculating net income.

Amen.

 

[alan1]

A graph from the Heritage Foundation...just so you can't fall back on attacking the source.

Take a look...take a GOOD look at the last 32 years. Look for the HIGHEST spending peaks, and the LOWEST revenue valleys. Now plant these names in your little right wing minds...Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Did Heritage screw up the spending as a percent of GDP numbers?

Or perhaps you haven't a clue and should just sit this one out.



LOL

Does it matter when you are comparing spending vs. revenues? Do you agree or disagree that the desired balance is to take in at least as much as you spend?

I would put that the other way around.
The desired balance is to only spend as much as you take in.

 

[Bfgrn]

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The chart you yourself posted shows revenue higher. And revenue is expressed in terms of GDP, not in absolute dollars.
A double fail.

REALLY Rabies????? Ronald Reagan - In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

Let's take a LOOK...

...................

 

[The Rabbi]

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The chart you yourself posted shows revenue higher. And revenue is expressed in terms of GDP, not in absolute dollars.
A double fail.

REALLY Rabies????? Ronald Reagan - In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

Let's take a LOOK...

...................

I'm really not here to give you a lesson in how to read charts. The chart says what I wrote. Revenue went up.

 

[alan1]

Low incomes paying the same rate as upper incomes is fair?

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.

 

[Bfgrn]

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The chart you yourself posted shows revenue higher. And revenue is expressed in terms of GDP, not in absolute dollars.
A double fail.

REALLY Rabies????? Ronald Reagan - In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

Let's take a LOOK...

...................

I'm really not here to give you a lesson in how to read charts. The chart says what I wrote. Revenue went up.

Oh, excuse me...revenues went up, even though the Heritage Foundation chart says they went down. It kind of fits with the size and scope of your tiny little brain...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

 

[Shelzin]

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.

I don't think that anyone making less than 10k is going to have the ability to save any money. I really think you have to have a living wage in there, or poverty line if you will as Amy said.

 

[AmyNation]

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

Along with eliminating all deductions(/incentives/abatements/credits/bribes/etc...) not directly attributed to calculating net income.

Agreed.

The tax code needs to be totally scrapped instead of the constant additions we keep doing.

However, I don't see us switching to a flat tax anytime soon as a majorty of both party reps (including mitt and Obama) oppose it.

 

[dblack]

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.

Seems reasonable enough to simply exempt the first 10 grand or so, for everyone. If we're going on pure principle, I'd have to object to income tax altogether as a fundamental intrusion on privacy.

 

[AmyNation]

Yes.

I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.

I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.

That's a line in the sand for me. I wouldn't support any tax code that raises taxes on the working poor.

I don't think anyone who's impoverished can afford it, these are people who are working but most likely also receiving assistance from the state. Allowing them to keep what little money they do make, can help them get on their feet and off government assistance.

 

[Bfgrn]

Geezus are you fucking stupid.
The chart you yourself posted shows revenue higher. And revenue is expressed in terms of GDP, not in absolute dollars.
A double fail.

REALLY Rabies????? Ronald Reagan - In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

Let's take a LOOK...

...................

I'm really not here to give you a lesson in how to read charts. The chart says what I wrote. Revenue went up.

Hows this Rabies...is that better?

............

 

[Mac1958]

.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would require both parties to justify their taxation and expenditure initiatives and would also require both parties to grow the fuck up and cooperate.

.

 

[Shelzin]

.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would require both parties to justify their taxation and expenditure initiatives and would also require both parties to grow the fuck up and cooperate.

.

*sighs*

Yeah. But I think we should talk about it... And I'd love to have it come up in the debates. In a intelligent manner. Not a side step...

 

[The Rabbi]

REALLY Rabies????? Ronald Reagan - In office January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

Let's take a LOOK...

...................

I'm really not here to give you a lesson in how to read charts. The chart says what I wrote. Revenue went up.

Oh, excuse me...revenues went up, even though the Heritage Foundation chart says they went down. It kind of fits with the size and scope of your tiny little brain...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

The chart actually shows they went up. If you knew how to read a chart it would help. Perhaps some remedial work?

 

[Mac1958]

.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would require both parties to justify their taxation and expenditure initiatives and would also require both parties to grow the fuck up and cooperate.

.

*sighs*

Yeah. But I think we should talk about it... And I'd love to have it come up in the debates. In a intelligent manner. Not a side step...

What are you, nuts?



.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have a spending problem, absolute proof we need to fire some people.

Fixed it for ya.

'We' have...

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now, perhaps as low as 7 percent. Here’s how public sector employment fared during the first years of the Clinton and Bush terms (also recessionary) compared to under Obama:

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now

Yes, we must immediately hire more public sector workers everywhere, no matter if the states and cities can afford it. No matter how much new debt that would cause. No matter if their bloated unaffordable pensions are only 50% funded. Whether or not these public employees are actually needed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That our FEDERAL and state governments piss money away foolishly is a given.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.

That same group of people pay very low percentages of their incomes back in taxes.

There's the two root sources of our nation's economic woes.

Most of the money is redistributed to the wealthiest people in America.

Really? More than 50% of tax revenues?
Can you prove it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Historical Tables | The White House

Revenue for 1981:599.272
Revenue for 1988:909,238.

Revenue nearly doubled under Reagan's plan.

Again, you fail, BigFuckingGreenNinny.

 

[bripat9643]

Paul Krugman is the source of your graph. In other words, it's probably total complete fucking bullshit. Is he counting reductions in the military or not? I'll bet he's played all kinds of games with the numbers. You can never trust a blatant partisan left-winger like Krugman to post honest numbers.

We have a spending problem, absolute proof we need to fire some people.

Fixed it for ya.

'We' have...

If it weren’t for all the lost jobs in the public sector — mostly teachers, police, firemen and sanitation workers at the state and local level — unemployment would be significantly lower right now, perhaps as low as 7 percent. Here’s how public sector employment fared during the first years of the Clinton and Bush terms (also recessionary) compared to under Obama:

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Shelzin]

.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would require both parties to justify their taxation and expenditure initiatives and would also require both parties to grow the fuck up and cooperate.

.

*sighs*

Yeah. But I think we should talk about it... And I'd love to have it come up in the debates. In a intelligent manner. Not a side step...

What are you, nuts?



.

I know... It's a lot to ask for from bought politicians...