Would You Volunteer an Extra 5% of Your Pay to the Federal Government?

[daveman]

Could a guy whose public employee union never gave back a goddamned thing to government demand that of the rest of us?

Leftists are very generous with other people's money.

I was a manager, not represented by a union.

But you still think everyone but you should pay more taxes.

Rightists are always after other peoples money.

No. We don't want what we earned taken away and given to people who didn't earn it.

 

[daveman]

How so? Does my money belong to someone else?

LMAO. Think (I know that's real hard, but try). You're going after my retirment. I earned it, and paid into it for over 30 years. RW assholes who got money from mommy and daddy are able to invest money they did not earn to create more wealth, for themselves.
Personal responsibilty? Country first? Total Bull Shit.

*Psssst!* Investing money creates jobs.

 

[Revere]

Your state is imploding thanks to your obscene pension which nobody but government employees can touch.

Bull shit. What do you suppose I earn in retirement? And how does it compare to Wall Street Bankers, insurance executives and slum lords who earn while they sit on their ass in jobs provided by their mommy and daddy?
How many houses on fire did they run into? How many assholes with weapons did they confront? How many victims in tears thanked them for saving their life? How many kids are alive because first responders put their own life in danger?
As for 'government employees' earning obscene pension, you've proved you don't know shit. Safety retirement is earned, most of our support staff -clerks, techs, reserves - busted their ass to serve and protectl and earned salaries not commensurate with their contribution.
You know my career, what was yours? What do and did the echo chamber contribute to our nation, their community?

Now run away and go to another thread and post your usual bull shit. I neve expect your kind to respond, though I do expect a number of idiotgrams from you and you buddies from the echo chamber.

So, you're receiving a good pension, but you're still envious of those who make more money than you do.

He talks a big game about other people who he thinks didn't "earn" their money.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

No. Why should I pay more in taxes just so the government can send it overseas to prop up foreign banks, and pay for studies in how to improve the lives of people in country XXXX?

When they stop shipping our tax dollars out of the US, and start using it to improve the lives of OUR citizens, then I'll reconsider.

 

[snjmom]

*Psssst!* Investing money creates jobs.

Since the 80's, most of those jobs have been offshore, and shorting eliminates jobs.

 

[Revere]

Who cares about offshore jobs?

Until Democrats controlled Congress, the economy was replacing thos jobs fast enough to keep unemployment low.

 

[Meister]

Wow.....1 - yes..........33 - no

 

[loosecannon]

Who cares about offshore jobs?

Until Democrats controlled Congress, the economy was replacing thos jobs fast enough to keep unemployment low.

NOT! And we all care about offshored jobs, But not you.

Are you a declared enemy of the US? Of course you are, by your own admission.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you decide whether other people's money was ill gotten or not?

Damn you're dumb. You've decided my retirement is "ill gotten". Or maybe it's simply you're envious because you lack the MQ's to pass the mental and physical tests? Likely both.

 

[KMAN]

Over 300 views and only one person said they would give 5% more to the government??? and that's only if that person received a guaranteed signed balanced budget from the White House....

I know there have been liberals on this board look at this topic yet in reality we have 0 people willing to give the Government an extra 5% of their pay....

So why are liberals/Democrats wanting to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 when they obviously don't want to give more of their own money to the Government?

 

[boedicca]

No. Every extra dollar of tax receipts leads to $1.17 of additional spending.

We are not undertaxed. The government spends too much money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You first, let me know how it works out.

 

[daveman]

*Psssst!* Investing money creates jobs.

Since the 80's, most of those jobs have been offshore, and shorting eliminates jobs.

If the government stopped impeding business and punishing success, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.

 

[KMAN]

I'm surprised vayank or his/her other liberal buddies don't have some input into this....

I guess because the poll shows who voted for what that they won't vote or comment...lol

 

[frazzledgear]

Of course I would volunteer to pay more in taxes as long as I got an ironclad guaranteed balanced budget amendment in return.

This poll and it's results are emblematic of why we have skyrocketing deficits, leaders who have abrogated their sworn duties, and why our nation is a sinking ship.

We control this government and are ultimately responsible for it. And this me first, take no responsibility, attitude is gonna be our undoing.

If you don't like the terms of your social contract organize, rise up and change it like men. Or are you mice unworthy of the gift the founders secured for you?

You can't have a balanced budget on the federal level because there are times when it is critically necessary for it to spend more than it may take in. For example, if we are attacked or invaded by a foreign country I doubt anyone would insist the federal government stop providing for our defense because it cannot do it without violating any balanced budget amendment -or disaster relief after California drops into the ocean. Do we just let people starve or die of exposure in such cases? Or consider the fact we have signed treaties with a slew of countries guaranteeing our assistance in the form of both money and military presence (which also costs money) in the event THEY are attacked. We sign such treaties in the belief that the existence of that nation better insures our own as well as the mutual promise to assist us if attacked. It would mean our treaties aren't worth spit because upholding that treaty would hinge on current revenue at any given time -when it should hinge on the best interests of the nation. Not the best interests of our pocketbook on any given day. A balanced budget amendment it is a demand that federal government give less priority to EVERYTHING else BUT our pocketbook which becomes our number one priority, above and beyond ANYTHING else that may be in our best national interests, more than the lives of Americans and more than whether it impacts our national interests even in the most dire way in the near or far future. "Best national interests" covers a wide range of ways and events that could significantly impact our nation either positively or negatively, sometimes years down the road - and that must be left to the best judgment of those we elected to govern. NOT left to what is just best for our pocketbook at that very moment regardless of any other kind of impact it may have on lives or our nation in the near and far future! That is unreasonable and dangerous to human life and even our very existence.

A balanced budget amendment would naturally require federal government to look the other way in the face of events that result in very real human suffering both here and abroad that can be relieved by emergency aid or military assistance and no one is going to approve of that. There are other instances where it is necessary for government to borrow to lessen the impact of the very sharp economic fluctuations or to keep the vital services of government going even in the face of dire economic straits -for example, in a global economy and the bottom suddenly falls out and causes a massive drain on government revenue before government can even react - should federal government just shut down entirely and put up a sign on the door that it will remain shut down until further notice? A balanced budget amendment on the federal level, unlike the state level, would result in an unstable and unreliable federal government. State governments do not provide some of these critical services that federal government does -so it is much easier for them to adhere to balanced budget requirements without ignoring suffering, respond to emergencies or provide state level critical services. On top of which when states are overwhelmed by sudden emergencies and don't have the resources to respond effectively -it is federal government expected to step in and pick up the slack. And it does more than 200 times a year -we only hear about the biggest of emergencies, not the smaller, more local but very intense emergencies federal government is asked to provide assistance with.

No one benefits by having an unreliable federal government -but what if it meant you could never rely on any government service/entitlement payment/function since it would necessarily be lowered or even cut off entirely depending entirely on current revenue? If going this route I think it would be better to require Congressional spending, both old and new, to not exceed estimated revenue by a set percentage with the exception of invasion, attack, a Congressional authorized war or a Presidential declared state of emergency.

But the only problem with that is politicians do what they always do by trying to game the system and look for ways to get around it and would definitely end up corrupting whatever method was used to estimate revenue -just like they have corrupted the CBO which is supposed to give an unbiased, apolitical report about the true cost of proposed law. They are NEVER correct, it is ALWAYS significantly underestimated and they have never been anywhere close to accurate for years because politicians gamed it and requires the CBO to use ONLY the data politicians choose to give it to make those estimates. It is how they got the CBO to claim Obamacare would lower health insurance premiums and lower the deficit when common sense alone tells you that isn't possible. Not until after they rammed it through was the CBO given the FULL data and then OOPS, turns out Obamacare will make the cost of health care rise FASTER than it would have without it, will make health insurance premiums MORE costly than without, will make companies choose to DROP health insurance benefits entirely as too expensive to even afford. Politicians would absolutely figure out how to corrupt ANY means and method used to estimate future revenue within a few years or to call just about anything an "emergency" or a "crisis" all in order to duck around the limitations.

The best method is know who the heck you are voting for and their positions and AVOID returning lifers to Congress. I don't care how much you may like a particular person -after a few terms it is time to replace them and to do so on the primary level and deny them the party backing for another term. Power corrupts and there is a direct correlation to the length of time someone has been wielding power to their arrogance, their sense of entitlement and their level of corruption - whether they get caught or not.

I favor term limits as the best way to control federal government spending because it is the lifers who think the best way to get re-elected for the 10th time is by figuring out more ways to SPEND as well as constantly creating new laws, new regulations, figure out new ways to expand their power over us and interfere in our lives -and one of the first ways they do it is by increasing spending. People who are out no matter what after 2 terms would be less likely to do that since it will not help them get re-elected by showing their constituents how they gamed the system to benefit his/her own constituents at the expense of everyone else. Until we do have term limits, do your part to be a responsible and well informed voter and stop returning the lifers to Congress.

We don't need nonstop new laws year after year but that is exactly what Congress does and they do because otherwise career politicians, most of whom never held a real job in their lives, would have to go get one! The bullshit Congress passes every single year is driven by career politicians with too much power and time on their hands. I say remove the time -and it will result in reducing their power over us and serve as a natural lid on the nonstop pressure they feel to constantly increase their spending.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Over 300 views and only one person said they would give 5% more to the government??? and that's only if that person received a guaranteed signed balanced budget from the White House....

I know there have been liberals on this board look at this topic yet in reality we have 0 people willing to give the Government an extra 5% of their pay....

You would think, with the recent passage of the New Health Care bill under Pelosi-Reed, there would be a drastic increase of Liberals willing to show their support by giving at least 10% in personal contributions to the Federal Government to ensure its continued success. Isn't this after all their "Patriotic Duty", at least according to their chosen elect Joe Biden?

So why are liberals/Democrats wanting to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 when they obviously don't want to give more of their own money to the Government?

 

[Avatar4321]

No. Not at all. They are taking more than they should as it is. And I am hardly Rich

 

[boedicca]

No. Not at all. They are taking more than they should as it is. And I am hardly Rich

The objective is not to Tax The Rich.

The objective is to increase taxes on the broad middle class via not adjusting tax brackets for inflation.

That's why The Rich has been defined down from $11M in 1913 to $250K today.

There just aren't enough Rich to feed Big Government; and the truly Rich can leave and/or just live on their wealth. The poor working slobs who take responsibility for themselves are basically stuck and primed for milking.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Francis Dummer (Yes the name pricks up one's ears...but it gets better) says in a letter to the NYT:

" Some of us want our taxes raised. Take me. I have $5,000 this year beyond what I need. Advertisements suggest that I should spend this extra money on a diamond-encrusted wristwatch.

But I would rather buy better schools, more federal research on health, public roads without tolls, financially sound Social Security and vehicles for the troops with enough armor to resist Afghan explosives.

By myself, I can not buy such public goods and services. My money must be added to the money of others through the tax mechanism.

Alas, “taxation” has become a dirty word. And for Americans who struggle to get by, taxes are a sacrifice. But for those like me, who have good housing, a car, health insurance and money left over, paying taxes is one way to get what we want.

Why are Republican leaders against permitting us to do so? Is it because they own the watch company?
"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/opinion/lweb04tax.html?_r=1


To which James Taranto of the much hated WSJ's Best of the Web helpfully supplies this address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service

Next time someone suggests we raise taxes so that such 'good work' can be done we should supply this address and ask them to put their money where their, supposedly charitable, mouth is. Don't be surprised, however, if we are then informed just how stingy and uncaring we are.

Oh, about the school thing, here in NJ the leftist courts have determined that part of the money we pay for schools in our own districts goes, that's right, to another (Abbott ) district. You see, just like that money you pay the government to put into 'your Social Security Fund', once the government gets your money they spend it on anything they want to and ,if you complain, you will then be invited to go pound sand.

JM

 

[JamesMorrison]

Could a guy whose public employee union never gave back a goddamned thing to government demand that of the rest of us?

Leftists are very generous with other people's money.

Yep. Margaret Thatcher once quipped that socialism doesn't work because sooner or later it runs out of other peoples' money.

JM