Another interesting article about taxes.

[Deleted]

Again I was referred to this site (warning: because of the content I assume it's a conservative site) & saw this article about taxes. The part I'll post here is something that I have been saying FOREVER & that liberals won't admit.

link: www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13196

Part I wanted to post (& that liberals WON'T ADMIT IS TRUE):

You can't tax enough. The president keeps talking about solving our deficit problems by taxing millionaires and billionaires. Congressional Democrats throw in oil companies. But you could confiscate — not tax, confiscate — every penny belonging to every millionaire in America and cover barely one-tenth of our government's total indebtedness (including the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare). Meanwhile the tax breaks for oil and gas companies amount to about $1.4 billion annually. Those tax breaks may or may not be defensible, but they amount to less than 1 percent of this year's budget deficit.

Edited: Above I said that liberals won't admit it. I should say that maybe they don't understand it (rather than won't admit it) but I understand it & I've found that liberals are just as smart as conservatives. So, I just don't understand why they don't understand.

[2kids10horses]

I don't understand it either, tex, I guess they are so wealth envious they don't WANT to understand. I'm not wealthy enough to be targeted, but I want to be, BUT, if they are going to tax all my additional income (or significant portion thereof) I probably won't WANT to work hard enough to be subject to that higher level of taxation.

But, really, I'd like to get rid of the income tax altogether, and replace it with the FairTax. I think we as a society try to do too much "Social Engineering" using the Tax Code as it's means of manipulation. Eliminating all that would allow us to focus on defining the role of government, and allocating the Revenues to those essential roles.

[Deleted]

"including the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare"

If you take every penny we have today, and try to cover all our expenses today and for the next 100 years... you will not have enough to do it!

[formerexpat]

If you take every penny we have today, and try to cover all our expenses today and for the next 100 years... you will not have enough to do it! [image]

The calculation is less than 70 years. At $115 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's over $1.64 trillion a year.

Does that really make you feel better about the numbers? Major changes in entitlements - coming soon to a town near you. I think the politicians are at least smart enough not to hang a noose around the neck of the next generation(s). I THINK.

[jkapp]

Jun 18, 2011 21:14:28 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

If you take every penny we have today, and try to cover all our expenses today and for the next 100 years... you will not have enough to do it! [image]

I think the politicians are at least smart enough not to hang a noose around the neck of the next generation(s). I THINK.

No, they're not...they could care less about the next generations. They may talk a good talk about leaving a better future for the next generations but then they do anything and everything they can to destroy it.

As they say: talk is meaningless...

[Deleted]

The thing that got me & keeps getting me is this: I'm not the smartest bulb in the pack. Yet I knew (& have been saying it over & over) that we don't have enough rich to pay for our government spending or every new entitlement program that comes down the pike (who knows what will be come up next). Yet congress went over a year without cutting spending or even making a budget. They had to know that taxing the rich wasn't the answer. They had to know that they were just making things worse. Lastly they also had to know that the crazy spending they they were doing was unsustainable.

They did nothing until the Republicans proposed a budget. Now I don't say that to mean Republicans are better or anything. I think they were trying to put everything off until after the election. Their main aim was to get re-elected & to hell with the country. The Republicans weren't trying to "save" the country. Their main aim was the same except by forcing the issue it was politically advantageous to them. Again screw the people, get elected.

Then there's the liberals on these boards. The "raise the taxes on the rich & business to pay for everything" people that also had to know that their plan just wouldn't work. Hell, a calculator & 10 minutes of research would have answered that for them even if they didn't have any common sense, so they knew. (Another bit of proof is that they didn't bother arguing with the article cause they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on). They live in a dream world where they create social programs without ever dealing with the mess's that they cause. They push for programs without any visions of how to run them efficiently or pay for them. That reminds me of a 4 year old child, I want it so do it.

This is the 2nd post of this type where I posted facts & there weren't many (if any) liberal comments. They will argue about theories until the cows come home but include facts & they never show up. No wonder our country is so screwed up. We are being lead on both sides by the blind & stupid & it gets me riled up. We wonder why our government is so screwed up & it's pretty simple. We elect our politicians from people like us. Small, petty people just trying to get their way or trying to show how smart they are with comebacks. Playing politics while the country is sinking in debt, unable to protect our borders, & being mismanaged all the way down the line. Christ, what we are going through now with this stupidity must be very smiler to what Rome went through just before it's fall.

[Deleted]

Who here has said that raising taxes on the rich and business will pay for everything? Who here has suggested we only look at the tax side of the equation... we need a two part solution, increase taxes and STRATEGICALLY cut spending...

[Deleted]

What fall of Rome are you referring to oldtex?

[NoMoreLunacy]

Two words: Gut Medicare.

Republicans need to aggressive here. I feel that they have not been that vocal about gutting Medicare as they were during the Ryan budget BS days. I am counting on them to be bold and making it clear tot he public that they are out to Gut Medicare and give tax cuts to the rich. On principle, as otherwise the spending is not sustainable.

god, if there is a god ...

[Deleted]

Who here has said that raising taxes on the rich and business will pay for everything? Who here has suggested we only look at the tax side of the equation... we need a two part solution, increase taxes and STRATEGICALLY cut spending...

oped research the numbers. Taxing the rich (even if your a true believer) you have to know might backfire The truly rich will say FU & leave. Taxing businesses, well that just gets passed on. We buy enough stuff from over seas to set a goal of increasing the taxes here & making the overseas stuff even cheaper by comparison. Again another plan that will cut the economy of the U.S. off at the knees. As for strategically cutting spending, get a clue it didn't happen (strategically or otherwise). Your party had control of the white house & both houses of congress & they spent more than anyone has in history (except maybe in WWII & I think they even out spent the spending then). They aren't interested in cutting spending. They want control & the way to get that is to spend spend spend. Make the people grateful & they will vote for you. It's simple.

Rome of course when they were great. Just as in 20 years someone will be saying The U.S. back when they were great.

Come on oped, think about this. Doesn't it make sense? Do you really think raising taxes on business will help the economy (their product will cost more because they will pass those taxes on)? Will taxing the rich 80% make them work harder to earn more money (even when we know taking 100% of their pay won't help us)? Do you REALLY think that some day soon Democrats are going to all of a sudden just flip a switch (without being forced to) & cut spending (again strategically or otherwise)? They will say what they need to, promise what they need to, do whatever they need to for the election. Yes, republicans will do the same but right now they are an unknown (who knows maybe just maybe they learned their lesson). We do know that the democrats haven't learned their lesson just like we know that their plan to get out of this mess won't work (do your own research, don't take it for granted that the article is right).

Think it over, think it over hard. If your still convinced & there is no doubt in your mind that your party isn't wrong in this then there's really no other reason to even talk (or in this case post) about it. Read the article on this post. One of the big problems between the 2 parties is that each have a bunch of "facts". Well I believe that a true "fact" will only support one side or the other. The spin that you put on them is just smoke & mirrors because a fact is a fact. I believe that the fact here is that the democrats don't want to face this issue at all, much less before an election.

[2kids10horses]

tex, I couldn't agree with you more. Our Federal Government is bloated. There are so many duplicated services. Do we really need Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? (Freddie was created because Fannie was successful, and "needed" competition. Huh? A Federally chartered organization needs competition?)

FHA, the VA, and the Department of Agriculture all do mortgage lending. Why? Shouldn't they all be consolidated? Wouldn't that save money?

What's the difference between the Coast Guard and the Navy?

Why do we have a Department of Education? Are there Federal schools?

We have Federally chartered banks, and State chartered banks. Why?

Bloat. The Federal Government has gotten fat (like a lot of us Americans). And until we put ourselves on a diet, we're gonna die an early death of overconsumption. (And when I mean overconsumption by our Government, I mean it has become too large of a part of our GDP.)

[Deleted]

oldtex, research the numbers. We are at historically low tax rates. The market routinely handles tax rates at 20% of GDP. We are at 14%... Yes, top brackets of 70-90% are puntive... but 15% on capital gains and a top bracket of 35% are no where NEAR 70-90%... and historically we have been very successful, had huge gains, under slightly higher tax rates...

Cutting taxes on the rich did NOTHING to increase jobs under Bush... he hardly had a net total increase of private sector jobs under his eight years. Jobs are are created by supply and demand, not because some business says, hey, we have more money, lets add a job... .... If the little people have no money to buy goods and services... there will be even less reason to add more jobs... and until we have balanced trade, health insurance, environmental standards, etc... there will be no reason to add more jobs here...

The idea that we can't handle an increase in taxes without going belly up is crazy... we have often had much, much higher tax rates and performed much, much better as an overall economy than we do now... your statements just have no basis in fact or logic...

[2kids10horses]

Those higher marginal tax brackets we had in the past also had much higher deductions! No one paid those 90% rates. Nearly everything was deductable! All consumer interest, state income and sales taxes... the list goes on and on.

The key metric is "effective tax rate". I think is been pretty much the same.

Look, what did or did not happen under this president or that president is irrevelent. The economy is like the Titanic, it turns very slowly in a macro-economic way.

What you are totally overlooking is that "the economy" is not just what happens here in the US anymore. It used to be that the US was so dominant globally, that we WERE the global economy. Not anymore. GM, Ford, and whatever company Chrysler is these days don't compete against each other anymore, they compete against Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Honda, Kia and Hyndai (or however you spell it).

We need to become more competitive GLOBALLY so that companies will set up operations HERE, in the USA. When they do that, they will create jobs HERE, in the USA. So, how do we make it more attractive for companies to set up business here, rather than China, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, or Korea? Make it more attractive to do business here than there. How do you do that?

You know the answer: Lower Taxes.

Lower taxes on the corporations, the jobs will come.

By the way... this whole concept of "evil, greedy corporations" is silly. Corporations are just a way to organize a business. People (shareholders) own the corporations.

So, if you have a 401K at work, and it's invested in stocks via a mutual fund or something, if you call corporations "evil and greedy", then you are just slapping yourself in the face!

[jkapp]

Jun 19, 2011 7:19:52 GMT -5 oped said:

oldtex, research the numbers. We are at historically low tax rates. The market routinely handles tax rates at 20% of GDP. We are at 14%... Yes, top brackets of 70-90% are puntive... but 15% on capital gains and a top bracket of 35% are no where NEAR 70-90%... and historically we have been very successful, had huge gains, under slightly higher tax rates...

Cutting taxes on the rich did NOTHING to increase jobs under Bush... he hardly had a net total increase of private sector jobs under his eight years. Jobs are are created by supply and demand, not because some business says, hey, we have more money, lets add a job... .... If the little people have no money to buy goods and services... there will be even less reason to add more jobs... and until we have balanced trade, health insurance, environmental standards, etc... there will be no reason to add more jobs here...

The idea that we can't handle an increase in taxes without going belly up is crazy... we have often had much, much higher tax rates and performed much, much better as an overall economy than we do now... your statements just have no basis in fact or logic...

And during those higher tax times, we didn't have NEARLY as many social programs draining tax funds like we do today. Raising taxes does nothing to alleviate the drain of those programs...if all we do is raise taxes and keep the programs (while "strategically" cutting spending - i.e. no social program cuts) then all you are doing is increasing the amount of money government pisses away.

I know what "strategically" cutting spending means to the left - basically, cutting defense spending and oil (and other corporate) subsidies ONLY. But what is truly needed is MASSIVE cuts to all levels of government, and even ending or consolidating many programs many "feel" are needed. But with Dems in control that will never happen...they will just continue to spend and rack up debt to appease their voter base.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...the problem is, imo, that we need a controlled burn to avoid/delay a collapse... but many govt. programs will go away... it's just a matter of time... and trouble... increasing taxes will only manipulate the timeline a bit...



...btw, I've got a match...

[workpublic]

cut both guns and butter

[Deleted]

I give up. The liberal line is the liberal line & nothing else makes sense to them because they "see" nothing else. It's all or nothing for whoever wins the election because there is no middle ground.

I think I'll go down & apply for whatever they give you when your out of work. I haven't worked in 20 years so I must qualify. Besides I kind of want a boat & can't afford it. After it's paid for I think I'll shop for a new rifle. Maybe I can find a way to transfer to welfare. If I get it then it won't be abuse of the system, after all everybody on welfare "deserves" it. Yep, that's the ticket.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jun 19, 2011 12:44:38 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I give up. The liberal line is the liberal line & nothing else makes sense to them because they "see" nothing else. It's all or nothing for whoever wins the election because there is no middle ground.

...I hear ya... still, I must admit that I don't really see much of a middle ground, either...

[mwcpa]

"I give up. The liberal line is the liberal line & nothing else makes sense to them because they "see" nothing else. It's all or nothing for whoever wins the election because there is no middle ground"

while I am not left or right....I need to add this.....

I give up. The conservative line is the conservative line & nothing else makes sense to them because they "see" nothing else. It's all or nothing for whoever wins the election because there is no middle ground....

....the statement made goes both ways.... that is where the problem lies.... the extremists on both side do not know how to compromise, they all act like 2 year olds....