Who should pay, and how much

[IMDaugur]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

 

[Dis]

So what did you come up with?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ari Fleischer Says It's Bad for Our Democracy to Exempt Half the Country From Income Taxes - WSJ.com

 

[IMDaugur]

So what did you come up with?

Most of you would not like my numbers and the taxes and spending cuts I would propose, so with that said, it is up to those of you who want to cut taxes and spending to come up with your own plans. As I said, a ballpark estimate is all that any of us would expect. Parroting either the right or the left will accomplish nothing. Numbers are what it is all about.

 

[editec]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

 

[Skull Pilot]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

I disagree. There should be a some sort of minimum tax that must be paid by everyone. I don't care if it's $5 a week but everyone should contribute.

 

[IMDaugur]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

As a couple they would both be making over twelve dollars an hour each, and that is considered an excellent wage by most employers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

As a couple they would both be making over twelve dollars an hour each, and that is considered an excellent wage by most employers.

I know people who manage to own a home and raise a kid on a combined income of 50K. They even have electricity and cable. Shocking huh?

 

[IMDaugur]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

I disagree. There should be a some sort of minimum tax that must be paid by everyone. I don't care if it's $5 a week but everyone should contribute.

Everyone does pay taxes, if you work, you pay into Social Security no matter what your wage, sales taxes, if you drive taxes on gasoline and auto registration fees, misc sin taxes, those and others, even if you do not pay any income tax. But that is not the point of my original post, it is what some of you posting here would do if taxation and government spending decisions were up to you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

At this stage of the game?

Two people making $50K combined in most parts of the USA shouldn't pay any taxes whatever.

They are basically POOR (if they were not asset rich to begin with)

I disagree. There should be a some sort of minimum tax that must be paid by everyone. I don't care if it's $5 a week but everyone should contribute.

Everyone does pay taxes, if you work, you pay into Social Security no matter what your wage, sales taxes, if you drive taxes on gasoline and auto registration fees, misc sin taxes, those and others, even if you do not pay any income tax. But that is not the point of my original post, it is what some of you posting here would do if taxation and government spending decisions were up to you?

I was referring to income tax which more than 40% of the population do not pay.

 

[IMDaugur]

As the day wears on I hope there will be those who have the knowledge and willingness to post some basic numbers that will show the ways to cut taxes and government spending, while giving the nation and it's people the services needed, as I stated in my original post. So far no one's response has made any substantial contributions in that respect.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As the day wears on I hope there will be those who have the knowledge and willingness to post some basic numbers that will show the ways to cut taxes and government spending, while giving the nation and it's people the services needed, as I stated in my original post. So far no one's response has made any substantial contributions in that respect.

it's been done to death already and the argument always degenerates to partisan politics and since you have proven yourself to be no different than any other moonbat partisan, you tell me why this exercise will be any different than the ones already done?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

End the wars and then cut the income tax.

 

[IMDaugur]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

You are positive that your proposal would get the country back on track and provide jobs and affordable housing, education, repair infrastructure, support the wars, etc? You offer no numbers to support your position, it is easy to eliminate agencies in theory, but what are the repercussions or advantages when this is done in realty? Talk is cheap, the needs of the American citizens are not. The wealthy need roads to move their products and supplies, it is alright for the rest of us to walk or drive on dirt trails, but how would you explain your failure to serve the needs of the wealthy in this and many other ways that require great amounts of tax dollars?

 

[Iriemon]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

Why is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

How about we start by eliminating from the Budget at the Federal level ALL Unconstitutional Departments policies, business practices and laws.

You know , get rid of HUD, Depart of Education, All Welfare programs for non Government employees, ALL Social Programs for ALL non Government employees. What a concept. The Government at the Federal LEVEL is required by the Constitution to justify all expenditures and there is a very short list of things they can tax us to pay for.

Further it is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to require the Individual States to do things that cost the State money that is not reimbursed from the Federal Treasury.

How about THAT. Something like 60 percent of our Budget goes for Social Programs, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL You know ILLEGAL.

Why is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to do those things.

 

[IMDaugur]

For those who propose cutting social programs, that is fine, but there will still be the need for government subsides to corporations and agriculture. These are GOP favorites, and do not benefit the poor so they must be preserved. Housing subsides help sell homes, and that benefits many large corporate builders, so cutting those would also be out of the question. If the legislative layman wants to make cuts in federal agencies, it is best to understand who put these policies in place, and if it was done to benefit corporate interests or other influential people, eliminating favorable programs to these powerful folks will not be acceptable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For those who propose cutting social programs, that is fine, but there will still be the need for government subsides to corporations and agriculture. These are GOP favorites, and do not benefit the poor so they must be preserved. Housing subsides help sell homes, and that benefits many large corporate builders, so cutting those would also be out of the question. If the legislative layman wants to make cuts in federal agencies, it is best to understand who put these policies in place, and if it was done to benefit corporate interests or other influential people, eliminating favorable programs to these powerful folks will not be acceptable.

No, government subsidies need to go. Let the market decide who wins and who loses, not the government.

 

[Iriemon]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

Get out of Iraq. Saves about $125 billion a year. Reduce military spending to 2000 GDP adjusted levels. We don't need to spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Saves another $150 billion a year.

The Warren Buffets don't need to be on the SS dole. Make SS means tested and phased out for those who have more than $100k of income. Overhaul health care. Tighten up wasteful spending in Govt.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts. That will provide another $200-250 billion a year. Add a debt reduction surcharge tax up to 50% on those making over $1m a year.

Aside from temporary anti-recession stimulus spending, that should get us back into a surplus budget. Or pretty close.