A question for Republicans

[Listening]

The free market it what it is.....a construct.
However, when more closely modeled it works best......
And the less the government gets involved, the better.

I already explained to you a few times why your ideas are wrong. You keep denying reality.

Sorry, but you have not explained anything.

You've put forth a few weak arguments that don't hold water.

To deny it, I'd at least have to experience it.

What is your excuse ?

 

[Listening]

I'm happy for people who make millions per year, but I think it would be fair if they pay, say, half of it in taxes. Some studies suggest 70% top marginal rate (you know what the "top marginal rate" means, do you?) will not have a significant impact on their motivation. And looking at people like Gates, who give away most of what they made, I'm not so surprised.

The left is all about putting MORE money in the hands of a government that has shown they can't manage money as it is.

Go figure.

Who cares about their motivation.

When do you, Mr. Reality, address the spending problems we have ?

You do that and I am more than willing to talk taxes.

Until then, not one penny more.

 

[Full-Auto]

I'm happy for people who make millions per year, but I think it would be fair if they pay, say, half of it in taxes. Some studies suggest 70% top marginal rate (you know what the "top marginal rate" means, do you?) will not have a significant impact on their motivation. And looking at people like Gates, who give away most of what they made, I'm not so surprised.

The left is all about putting MORE money in the hands of a government that has shown they can't manage money as it is.

Go figure.

Who cares about their motivation.

When do you, Mr. Reality, address the spending problems we have ?

You do that and I am more than willing to talk taxes.

Until then, not one penny more.

My only regret is, I can not rep you again.. NOT ANOTHER DIME.........

 

[Listening]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Did you ever get a simple "yes" or "no"?

It would be ridiculous for any rational person to expect a "yes" or "no" answer to a distorted loaded biased bullshit "question."

The end.

Think about who asked the question.

He has a life sized cardboard cut out of Hope and Change in his bedroom (in his mothers house) and prays to it every night.

What else would you expect ?

 

[logical4u]

The free market it what it is.....a construct.
However, when more closely modeled it works best......
And the less the government gets involved, the better.

I already explained to you a few times why your ideas are wrong. You keep denying reality.

In every place the gov't tried to control the market, people end up with less, not more. Basically, what it boils down to: you will punish every person, no matter what their status to ensure those that know how to keep their wealth and grow it, can get no more. (If the average wealth goes up for all the "rich people" then, by definition, the average wealth for the "poor people" goes up as well: the rich donate/trash what is more valuable to others, but since they can afford "better", they buy it)

 

[Sunshine]

Everyone that owns a home and a brain should hope that the cap gains tax vanishes ,not go up,why should the Gov and so many people think that they have a right to a piece of evry single dollar a person has.

We have a spending problem,more money wouldn't fix a thing.

I agree. The lower tax on capital gains was originally intended to encourage people to save money. Even though not a person of means, my mother really understood compound interest. No one on this forum seems to get it. Nor have people on this forum truly evaluated what their needs, as opposed to their wants, are.

While my mother managed to save a lot of money, I managed to do something that most of the other mothers of my day could NOT figure out. I stayed home with my children until my husband's death. They were 9 and 11 at that time. So I had a lot of time with them. I had learned from my mother. To her saving money was worth doing without some things. To me having time was worth some sacrifice. One day one of those working moms looked at me and said, "I really don't see how you have a new house full of new furniture, go on a vacation every year, and don't work." I just replied, "I don't have Gloria Vanderbilt plastered across my ass."

In this country. We have confused 'need' with 'want'. Designer duds are wants, not needs. You can buy less expensive brands, care for them properly and they will last just as long if not longer. I bought all my furniture, solid mahogany, in the 70s at a little hole in the wall place that couldn't seem to give it away because most people were buying that ugly plastic Mediterranean shit. Within just a few years they all had to refurnish their houses to do away with so much ugly. Now 40 years later I still use my solid mahogany furniture that I got for a song. Not only do we confuse need with want, we don't recognize real value. Americans are strung along by whatever is advertised as being 'cool' or 'in' and then realize they have nothing for the money they spent.

 

[logical4u]

This country is the "great experiment", where people choose a gov't and live with liberty.

No one can be free from the society and the rules it imposes on you. That is why hiding behind absolutes like "liberty" is hypocritical.

It has made all those 'advanced countries' that you mentioned (we pay for their protection, just in case you missed that).

Just in case you missed that -- I specifically addressed that myth.

too much inequality? Do you turn down raises because a raise might make you above the average wage? Do you give the amount of your wealth away to put you on par with the average wealth? Who are you suggesting gets to set "equality" and "fair"?

My view on what could be a fair income distribution is no different from that of most Americans:

I'm happy for people who make millions per year, but I think it would be fair if they pay, say, half of it in taxes. Some studies suggest 70% top marginal rate (you know what the "top marginal rate" means, do you?) will not have a significant impact on their motivation. And looking at people like Gates, who give away most of what they made, I'm not so surprised.

You are slippery.

This country was based on "Christian values" (that includes Judeo): each person polices themselves as Christians. The laws are for those that refuse to police themselves; they are not guardrails to push against and try to move to abuse the society.

So what countries, specifically did you mention that the USA does NOT pay to protect?

So when you have the opportunity to "redistribute" "your wealth", you decide to pass on that opportunity, and then continue to lecture others on how they should act "better" than you choose to do?

Many of the wealthy in this country are already paying over 50% in taxes: federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes. And do you know what they are getting for paying the lion's share of taxes to the governments? They get people that believe their personal income is off limits, lecturing them about greed. If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Gates: a perfect example: he could choose to give the money that he gives to "charity" to the federal gov't instead. Why doesn't he? Have you ever asked that? Gates, Buffet, and all the other millionaires/billionaires that want "everyone's" taxes to be raised, deliberately avoid paying taxes or go thru great steps to ensure they pay the gov't the least amount. Why do you think that is? Both of them have publically said they would be willing to pay more, yet neither, voluntarily pay more. The same with Obama: he says he would be willing to pay more, and every year, he could choose to pay extra (pay his fair share), and yet: nothing. Maybe this has never occurred to you. Maybe you just don't want to believe it. Maybe you believe that your unicorn will come and give you a ride to join the "elite" that want to rule the country and use dupes to chant their mantra.

Understand this: if the gov't is calling for taxes to be raised, it is because they want to control more of the people. If it was about income: the gov't would lower taxes (those that are doing well do not mind giving small portions away), the economy would improve (more disposable income being spent = more jobs), and more money would flow to the gov't.

 

[logical4u]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Did you ever get a simple "yes" or "no"?

It would be ridiculous for any rational person to expect a "yes" or "no" answer to a distorted loaded biased bullshit "question."

The end.

I am still waiting for them to name the "idle rich".

 

[Listening]

Everyone that owns a home and a brain should hope that the cap gains tax vanishes ,not go up,why should the Gov and so many people think that they have a right to a piece of evry single dollar a person has.

We have a spending problem,more money wouldn't fix a thing.

I agree. The lower tax on capital gains was originally intended to encourage people to save money. Even though not a person of means, my mother really understood compound interest. No one on this forum seems to get it. Nor have people on this forum truly evaluated what their needs, as opposed to their wants, are.

While my mother managed to save a lot of money, I managed to do something that most of the other mothers of my day could NOT figure out. I stayed home with my children until my husband's death. They were 9 and 11 at that time. So I had a lot of time with them. I had learned from my mother. To her saving money was worth doing without some things. To me having time was worth some sacrifice. One day one of those working moms looked at me and said, "I really don't see how you have a new house full of new furniture, go on a vacation every year, and don't work." I just replied, "I don't have Gloria Vanderbilt plastered across my ass."

In this country. We have confused 'need' with 'want'. Designer duds are wants, not needs. You can buy less expensive brands, care for them properly and they will last just as long if not longer. I bought all my furniture, solid mahogany, at a little hole in the wall place that couldn't seem to give it away because most people were buying that ugly plastic Mediterranean shit. Within just a few years they all had to refurnish their houses to do away with so much ugly. Now 40 years later I still use my solid mahogany furniture that I got for a song. Not only do we confuse need with want, we don't recognize real value. Americans are strung along by whatever is advertised as being 'cool' or 'in' and then realize they have nothing for the money they spent.

And this one deserves more rep !!!!

I'll give it when the software allows me to.

 

[Sunshine]

This country is the "great experiment", where people choose a gov't and live with liberty.

No one can be free from the society and the rules it imposes on you. That is why hiding behind absolutes like "liberty" is hypocritical.



Just in case you missed that -- I specifically addressed that myth.

too much inequality? Do you turn down raises because a raise might make you above the average wage? Do you give the amount of your wealth away to put you on par with the average wealth? Who are you suggesting gets to set "equality" and "fair"?

My view on what could be a fair income distribution is no different from that of most Americans:

I'm happy for people who make millions per year, but I think it would be fair if they pay, say, half of it in taxes. Some studies suggest 70% top marginal rate (you know what the "top marginal rate" means, do you?) will not have a significant impact on their motivation. And looking at people like Gates, who give away most of what they made, I'm not so surprised.

You are slippery.

This country was based on "Christian values" (that includes Judeo): each person polices themselves as Christians. The laws are for those that refuse to police themselves; they are not guardrails to push against and try to move to abuse the society.

So what countries, specifically did you mention that the USA does NOT pay to protect?

So when you have the opportunity to "redistribute" "your wealth", you decide to pass on that opportunity, and then continue to lecture others on how they should act "better" than you choose to do?

Many of the wealthy in this country are already paying over 50% in taxes: federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes. And do you know what they are getting for paying the lion's share of taxes to the governments? They get people that believe their personal income is off limits, lecturing them about greed. If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Gates: a perfect example: he could choose to give the money that he gives to "charity" to the federal gov't instead. Why doesn't he? Have you ever asked that? Gates, Buffet, and all the other millionaires/billionaires that want "everyone's" taxes to be raised, deliberately avoid paying taxes or go thru great steps to ensure they pay the gov't the least amount. Why do you think that is? Both of them have publically said they would be willing to pay more, yet neither, voluntarily pay more. The same with Obama: he says he would be willing to pay more, and every year, he could choose to pay extra (pay his fair share), and yet: nothing. Maybe this has never occurred to you. Maybe you just don't want to believe it. Maybe you believe that your unicorn will come and give you a ride to join the "elite" that want to rule the country and use dupes to chant their mantra.

Understand this: if the gov't is calling for taxes to be raised, it is because they want to control more of the people. If it was about income: the gov't would lower taxes (those that are doing well do not mind giving small portions away), the economy would improve (more disposable income being spent = more jobs), and more money would flow to the gov't.

This year was a wake up call for me. I haven't itemized in years. But this year, I got a catastrophic illness. So I pulled the form and lo, I do have enough medical expenses to itemize. But what really blew my mind is that if I itemized nothing else but my state and local income taxes and my property tax, I have still paid out way more than the standard deduction and can itemize on taxes paid alone. I am trying to decide if it is worth going back and amending some of my returns as this one took me by surprise because TN, where I lived for 2 years, had no income tax.

I am that 'single mother' people are always harping about. Except I took my federal benefits following my husband's death and went to school so I would have good earning power. WTF? Now they want me to pay MORE taxes. Shit!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

No! The idle rich should pay the same rate on capital gains and dividends as people who work.

The idle rich should pay higher rates on their income and interest than people who work.

Hey, wait, that's the way it's set up now.

 

[Listening]

No one can be free from the society and the rules it imposes on you. That is why hiding behind absolutes like "liberty" is hypocritical.



Just in case you missed that -- I specifically addressed that myth.



My view on what could be a fair income distribution is no different from that of most Americans:

I'm happy for people who make millions per year, but I think it would be fair if they pay, say, half of it in taxes. Some studies suggest 70% top marginal rate (you know what the "top marginal rate" means, do you?) will not have a significant impact on their motivation. And looking at people like Gates, who give away most of what they made, I'm not so surprised.

You are slippery.

This country was based on "Christian values" (that includes Judeo): each person polices themselves as Christians. The laws are for those that refuse to police themselves; they are not guardrails to push against and try to move to abuse the society.

So what countries, specifically did you mention that the USA does NOT pay to protect?

So when you have the opportunity to "redistribute" "your wealth", you decide to pass on that opportunity, and then continue to lecture others on how they should act "better" than you choose to do?

Many of the wealthy in this country are already paying over 50% in taxes: federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes. And do you know what they are getting for paying the lion's share of taxes to the governments? They get people that believe their personal income is off limits, lecturing them about greed. If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Gates: a perfect example: he could choose to give the money that he gives to "charity" to the federal gov't instead. Why doesn't he? Have you ever asked that? Gates, Buffet, and all the other millionaires/billionaires that want "everyone's" taxes to be raised, deliberately avoid paying taxes or go thru great steps to ensure they pay the gov't the least amount. Why do you think that is? Both of them have publically said they would be willing to pay more, yet neither, voluntarily pay more. The same with Obama: he says he would be willing to pay more, and every year, he could choose to pay extra (pay his fair share), and yet: nothing. Maybe this has never occurred to you. Maybe you just don't want to believe it. Maybe you believe that your unicorn will come and give you a ride to join the "elite" that want to rule the country and use dupes to chant their mantra.

Understand this: if the gov't is calling for taxes to be raised, it is because they want to control more of the people. If it was about income: the gov't would lower taxes (those that are doing well do not mind giving small portions away), the economy would improve (more disposable income being spent = more jobs), and more money would flow to the gov't.

This year was a wake up call for me. I haven't itemized in years. But this year, I got a catastrophic illness. So I pulled the form and lo, I do have enough medical expenses to itemize. But what really blew my mind is that if I itemized nothing else but my state and local income taxes and my property tax, I have still paid out way more than the standard deduction and can itemize on taxes paid alone. I am trying to decide if it is worth going back and amending some of my returns as this one took me by surprise because TN, where I lived for 2 years, had no income tax.

I am that 'single mother' people are always harping about. Except I took my federal benefits following my husband's death and went to school so I would have good earning power. WTF? Now they want me to pay MORE taxes. Shit!

I hope you are doing well health wise.

There is little that is more important.

 

[Sunshine]

You are slippery.

This country was based on "Christian values" (that includes Judeo): each person polices themselves as Christians. The laws are for those that refuse to police themselves; they are not guardrails to push against and try to move to abuse the society.

So what countries, specifically did you mention that the USA does NOT pay to protect?

So when you have the opportunity to "redistribute" "your wealth", you decide to pass on that opportunity, and then continue to lecture others on how they should act "better" than you choose to do?

Many of the wealthy in this country are already paying over 50% in taxes: federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes. And do you know what they are getting for paying the lion's share of taxes to the governments? They get people that believe their personal income is off limits, lecturing them about greed. If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Gates: a perfect example: he could choose to give the money that he gives to "charity" to the federal gov't instead. Why doesn't he? Have you ever asked that? Gates, Buffet, and all the other millionaires/billionaires that want "everyone's" taxes to be raised, deliberately avoid paying taxes or go thru great steps to ensure they pay the gov't the least amount. Why do you think that is? Both of them have publically said they would be willing to pay more, yet neither, voluntarily pay more. The same with Obama: he says he would be willing to pay more, and every year, he could choose to pay extra (pay his fair share), and yet: nothing. Maybe this has never occurred to you. Maybe you just don't want to believe it. Maybe you believe that your unicorn will come and give you a ride to join the "elite" that want to rule the country and use dupes to chant their mantra.

Understand this: if the gov't is calling for taxes to be raised, it is because they want to control more of the people. If it was about income: the gov't would lower taxes (those that are doing well do not mind giving small portions away), the economy would improve (more disposable income being spent = more jobs), and more money would flow to the gov't.

This year was a wake up call for me. I haven't itemized in years. But this year, I got a catastrophic illness. So I pulled the form and lo, I do have enough medical expenses to itemize. But what really blew my mind is that if I itemized nothing else but my state and local income taxes and my property tax, I have still paid out way more than the standard deduction and can itemize on taxes paid alone. I am trying to decide if it is worth going back and amending some of my returns as this one took me by surprise because TN, where I lived for 2 years, had no income tax.

I am that 'single mother' people are always harping about. Except I took my federal benefits following my husband's death and went to school so I would have good earning power. WTF? Now they want me to pay MORE taxes. Shit!

I hope you are doing well health wise.

There is little that is more important.

Yes, so far. My update is in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/206376-for-my-friends-and-enemies-alike.html

And I'm getting read to post something funny there.

 

[ilia25]

The free market it what it is.....a construct.
However, when more closely modeled it works best......
And the less the government gets involved, the better.

I already explained to you a few times why your ideas are wrong. You keep denying reality.

Sorry, but you have not explained anything.

Deflationary spiral, rings a bell?

You've put forth a few weak arguments that don't hold water.

To deny it, I'd at least have to experience it.

We all just had experienced a tremendous market failure. But you lack the basic understanding of how the economy works -- instead you keep repeating "it's the government's fault" like a clockwork toy.

When do you, Mr. Reality, address the spending problems we have ?

We don't have a spending problem, we have the insufficient revenues problem:

The red line shows government spending rising steadily with the population growth -- as they should be and as they have been forever.

The blue line shows the tax revenues -- first drop in the beginning of 2000s, mostly the result of Bush's tax cuts (the revenues were falling long after the mild recession was over). Then a huge drop at the end of 2008 as the financial crisis started the recent recession.

This should be obvious to anyone capable of reading a chart. The problem is that most republican voters can't.

 

[Big Fitz]

The red line shows government spending rising steadily with the population growth -- as they should be and as they have been forever.

Thankfully there is a bill that just passed the house that will hopefully be ENDING this practice

H.R. 3578: Baseline Reform Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

Nice little nuggets in the summary for what it will do:

Revises the formula for calculating the baseline for discretionary spending for the budget year and each outyear to eliminate adjustments for: (1) expiring multiyear subsidized housing contracts; (2) administrative expenses of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the Unemployment Trust Fund, and the Railroad Retirement account; (3) offsets to federal employees' annual pay; and (4) certain inflators used to adjust budgetary resources in the Act. Amends the Act to define: (1) Medicare as programs within budget function 570; (2) Medicaid and other health-related spending as programs within budget function 550; and (2) other direct spending as programs other than those within budget functions 550 and 570, excluding Social Security and net interest.

Let's see if it gets stopped by the senate or vetoed by P-BO.

The blue line shows the tax revenues -- first drop in the beginning of 2000s, mostly the result of Bush's tax cuts (the revenues were falling long after the mild recession was over). Then a huge drop at the end of 2008 as the financial crisis started the recent recession.

Yes, but then why the rise after 2003? If it was the bush tax cut's fault, the line should have continued to go down since that was the cause of it. It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with post 9/11 shocks now, could it? Or the remnants of the internet bubble bursting, or the beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003.

Oh no. it's all the tax cuts fault which are still in place.

This should be obvious to anyone capable of reading a chart.

Very obvious that you don't get causation versus corollary at all. I can also see that for about 2.5 years, revenues fell by only 200 billion, but then the subsequent 5 years it rose over 800 billion from the low and would have probably kept going for a while till the housing and credit bubbles popped.

The problem is that most republican voters can't.

More like we don't make assumptions as stupid as you do.

 

[rdean]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

 

[Big Fitz]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I dunno. Someone with experience successfully handling billions of dollars would be a refreshing change of pace, don't you think?

 

[logical4u]

I already explained to you a few times why your ideas are wrong. You keep denying reality.

Sorry, but you have not explained anything.

Deflationary spiral, rings a bell?

You've put forth a few weak arguments that don't hold water.

To deny it, I'd at least have to experience it.

We all just had experienced a tremendous market failure. But you lack the basic understanding of how the economy works -- instead you keep repeating "it's the government's fault" like a clockwork toy.

When do you, Mr. Reality, address the spending problems we have ?

We don't have a spending problem, we have the insufficient revenues problem:

The red line shows government spending rising steadily with the population growth -- as they should be and as they have been forever.

The blue line shows the tax revenues -- first drop in the beginning of 2000s, mostly the result of Bush's tax cuts (the revenues were falling long after the mild recession was over). Then a huge drop at the end of 2008 as the financial crisis started the recent recession.

This should be obvious to anyone capable of reading a chart. The problem is that most republican voters can't.

Isn't that about the time we started having serious illegal alien problems, where people came here, took jobs, and did not pay taxes on those jobs? The feds then started passing laws giving those same illegals "benefits" without having them contribute. Thank you, it shows clearly how illegals are hurting our country and our economy.

 

[ilia25]

The red line shows government spending rising steadily with the population growth -- as they should be and as they have been forever.

Thankfully there is a bill that just passed the house that will hopefully be ENDING this practice

No it won't -- the spending will continue to grow even if that bill is passed. If only becuase the discretionary spending, excluding the military, count only for 18% of US budget. Even if you completely shut down NASA, Homeland Security and everything else in it, you'd be lucky to reduce the deficit by half.

Of course you could not possibly know that -- you vote Republican.

Yes, but then why the rise after 2003? If it was the bush tax cut's fault, the line should have continued to go down since that was the cause of it.

No, it should not have. The tax revenues are supposed to grow with the economy -- unless something like a tax cut slows them down even though the economy is growing.

So even after tax cuts revenue were bound to start growing again -- but they started growing from a low base and too late in the cycle, ensuring that US were running bigger deficits for longer time.

It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with post 9/11 shocks now, could it?

If course it did -- the revenues started to drop even before Bush's tax cuts. But the cuts accelerated that drop and made sure that it continued long after the recession was over.

Oh no. it's all the tax cuts fault which are still in place.

Oh no -- you made yourself look silly. Again.

This should be obvious to anyone capable of reading a chart.

Very obvious that you don't get causation versus corollary at all.

What is the world are you talking about???

I can also see that for about 2.5 years, revenues fell by only 200 billion, but then the subsequent 5 years it rose over 800 billion from the low and would have probably kept going for a while till the housing and credit bubbles popped.

Well, popping the bubble was unfortunate, although inevitable. But in any case, the US have no "spending problem". It was the tax revenues that were lagging behind -- partly because of the recessions, partly because of the tax cuts.

 

[Big Fitz]

What is the world are you talking about???

Reality. Something you obviously have no clue about and seem to be allergic to. To explain this to you would take too much time I'm not interested in wasting on you. I don't find teaching remedial economics and civics to an ignoramus entertaining.