Who Are Paying Taxes?

[RetiredGySgt]

We just did this a couple of days ago, and it is really boring to go over the same stuff over and over. You think that lower taxes always means more revenue. I don't. You post these articles. I post articles. We both look at the statistics from the OMB, and we draw different conclusions. Can you just discuss something different. I actually posted some ideas up there, such as a graduated capital gains tax. Why don't you tell what you like about that, or don't like about that? Just try to be specific. It is boring to read the same old "Libs love taxes," "Cutting taxes is always great!" stuff.

Just help me maintain interest.

Don't you mean, don't point out I am wrong? Do you or do you not support the repeal of Bush's cuts?

 

[red states rule]

I haven't reviewed the individual tax breaks, so I don't really know. It sounds like Angel received some help when she needed it, and it didn't sound like she was in the upper tax bracket at that moment, so I am probably okay with whatever tax break she utilized.

If Dems get their way - she will be giving it back - and then some

 

[ReillyT]

I understand libs have a problem understanding Economics 101

History shows when you lower taxes you increase revenues

Now, we need spending cuts and MORE tax cuts

Good luck with the Taxacrats running Congress

I am not an economist, but I have studied economics. It is not nearly so simple as you pretend. However, if one wanted to cut taxes more, I could probably only support this if it was accompanied by spending cuts. However, for reasons of equity, there are many programs for which I could not support spending cuts, so I wouldn't support additional tax cuts either (generally, although I may support individual tax law changes in one respect or another).

 

[red states rule]

I am not an economist, but I have studied economics. It is not nearly so simple as you pretend. However, if one wanted to cut taxes more, I could probably only support this if it was accompanied by spending cuts. However, for reasons of equity, there are many programs for which I could not support spending cuts, so I wouldn't support additional tax cuts either (generally, although I may support individual tax law changes in one respect or another).

Why should I have to pay for someone elses healh care needs? Or someone elses retirement?

The entitlement mentality is draining our resources and the money needed to keep funding them will cripple us

 

[ReillyT]

Don't you mean, don't point out I am wrong? Do you or do you not support the repeal of Bush's cuts?

This is not a simple question of right or wrong. It is very complex, and their are questions of fiscal responsibility, fairness and equity, and the role of government generally. Then, on top of all that, there are also very complex questions of economics. It is not that simple.

As for Bush's tax cuts. If I looked at them closely, I would probably support some of them, and oppose others. I am much more likely to support middle class tax cuts than I am to support tax cuts for the upper income class (which, as I noted, I am fortunate enough to fall in).

 

[red states rule]

This is not a simple question of right or wrong. It is very complex, and their are questions of fiscal responsibility, fairness and equity, and the role of government generally. Then, on top of all that, there are also very complex questions of economics. It is not that simple.

As for Bush's tax cuts. If I looked at them closely, I would probably support some of them, and oppose others. I am much more likely to support middle class tax cuts than I am to support tax cuts for the upper income class (which, as I noted, I am fortunate enough to fall in).

Considering the middle class does not pay that much in income taxes - it would not be fair to those who do pay the majority in taxes

 

[ReillyT]

Why should I have to pay for someone elses healh care needs? Or someone elses retirement?

The entitlement mentality is draining our resources and the money needed to keep funding them will cripple us

Entitlements are tricky. They are a huge financial cost, but most people wouldn't want to pull the rug out of social security right now. Also, entitlement programs prevent depressions, which is why there hasn't been a depression since the 30s. It is a little appreciated facet of these high cost programs.

 

[red states rule]

Entitlements are tricky. They are a huge financial cost, but most people wouldn't want to pull the rug out of social security right now. Also, entitlement programs prevent depressions, which is why there hasn't been a depression since the 30s. It is a little appreciated facet of these high cost programs.

We better do something - fast

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49677

 

[red states rule]

Entitlements are tricky. They are a huge financial cost, but most people wouldn't want to pull the rug out of social security right now. Also, entitlement programs prevent depressions, which is why there hasn't been a depression since the 30s. It is a little appreciated facet of these high cost programs.

BTW -Entitlements did NOT end the Depression

WWII did

 

[ReillyT]

Considering the middle class does not pay that much in income taxes - it would not be fair to those who do pay the majority in taxes

This is how I think about fairness for those who pay the most taxes.

The United States is one of the few countries in the world (relatively speaking) where there relatively societal calm stability, property rights are fiercely protected, tax rates are low by the standard of almost any fully developed country in the world, and human initiative is truly encouraged. That will be the case whether the tax rate is 31% or 40% for the highest income bracket.

For someone with money, it is truly one of the best and most secure places in the world in which to live. However, that security didn't happen by accident. We have stability in part because we don't have the kind of underclass that occurs in many countries, and because there is a fair amount of opportunity for social mobility. Still, it is better to be rich than to be poor. If we choose to maintain the system, it requires a certain expenditure on the part of those who reap the greatest benefit from living here (the wealthy). As the rich attain the greatest security in the system, where so many are not rich, so should we pay a little extra to maintain the system.

 

[red states rule]

This is how I think about fairness for those who pay the most taxes.

The United States is one of the few countries in the world (relatively speaking) where there relatively societal calm stability, property rights are fiercely protected, tax rates are low by the standard of almost any fully developed country in the world, and human initiative is truly encouraged. That will be the case whether the tax rate is 31% or 40% for the highest income bracket.

For someone with money, it is truly one of the best and most secure places in the world in which to live. However, that security didn't happen by accident. We have stability in part because we don't have the kind of underclass that occurs in many countries, and because there is a fair amount of opportunity for social mobility. Still, it is better to be rich than to be poor. If we choose to maintain the system, it requires a certain expenditure on the part of those who reap the greatest benefit from living here (the wealthy). As the rich attain the greatest security in the system, where so many are not rich, so should we pay a little extra to maintain the system.

The point is - they earned their money. They took risks by investing their money. They are providing jobs.

Libs want to punish achievement by taking more and more of the money they earn

The top earners are forking over about half their income in taxes - how much more do you want them to fork over?

 

[ReillyT]

BTW -Entitlements did NOT end the Depression

WWII did

Well, I didn't say that entitlements ended the depression, I said that they prevent any further depressions. Deficit spending ended the depression, through programs like the TVA, and also to fund WWII. However, the security of large government expenditures that are guaranteed and financed through deficit spending prevents future depressions (along with a greater understanding of monetary policy).

 

[red states rule]

Well, I didn't say that entitlements ended the depression, I said that they prevent any further depressions. Deficit spending ended the depression, through programs like the TVA, and also to fund WWII. However, the security of large government expenditures that are guaranteed and financed through deficit spending prevents future depressions (along with a greater understanding of monetary policy).

Entitlements do nothing - they only make people dependent on government

and someone else pays for them

 

[ReillyT]

The point is - they earned their money. They took risks by investing their money. They are providing jobs.

Libs want to punish achievement by taking more and more of the money they earn

The top earners are forking over about half their income in taxes - how much more do you want them to fork over?

You can choose to view it as punishment if you like, but that is not how I view it. I think of it sort of like jogging. I am a reasonably healthy man, and I want to stay that way as long as I can. I don't like jogging. Jogging hurts and I would rather not do it. However, I do want to stay healthy. Jogging is the price I pay for continued health. You could say it is punishment, but I consider it a long-term investment in my continued physical prosperity.

 

[ReillyT]

Entitlements do nothing - they only make people dependent on government

and someone else pays for them

Well, that was a truly thoughtful post, responding to all of my points in a careful and considerate manner. Well done cutie.

 

[red states rule]

You can choose to view it as punishment if you like, but that is not how I view it. I think of it sort of like jogging. I am a reasonably healthy man, and I want to stay that way as long as I can. I don't like jogging. Jogging hurts and I would rather not do it. However, I do want to stay healthy. Jogging is the price I pay for continued health. You could say it is punishment, but I consider it a long-term investment in my continued physical prosperity.

But you CHOOSE to jog - the government just takes the money

 

[red states rule]

Well, that was a truly thoughtful post, responding to all of my points in a careful and considerate manner. Well done cutie.

People have this mind set they are entitled to things from the government. Nothing is free - and the producers are paying for them

 

[ReillyT]

But you CHOOSE to jog - the government just takes the money

Well, we as a democracy choose to vote for representatives who decide these tax rates, so in effect, we can also choose to tax certain people at higher rates for long-term health. Of course, not everyone chooses to jog, and likewise, we don't always choose to vote into office those who might raise taxes on the upper class. However, in both cases, I personally feel that it is the healthy thing to do.

 

[ReillyT]

People have this mind set they are entitled to things from the government. Nothing is free - and the producers are paying for them

True, nothing is free, and there is a definite cost to entitlement programs. However, in looking at the overall health of the country, I think most people believe that entitlements are part of that overall health. It is the reason that no government, Republican or Democratic, has attempted to change the overall system of government entitlements.

 

[red states rule]

Well, we as a democracy choose to vote for representatives who decide these tax rates, so in effect, we can also choose to tax certain people at higher rates for long-term health. Of course, not everyone chooses to jog, and likewise, we don't always choose to vote into office those who might raise taxes on the upper class. However, in both cases, I personally feel that it is the healthy thing to do.

Dems promised they would not raise taxes on the :middle class" - yet they did just that

They promised they would reduse the prok and cut spending - they are doing the opposite

And they expect the producers to pay the bill

It will not help the economy - it will hurt it