http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes
Remeber this?
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
How’s that Hope’n’Change working out for ya?
The story is probably incorrect in one or more details. Reuters has withdrawn it and says a replacement will be published later in the week.
My expectation is that the main incorrect element is that the author assumed that all aspects of the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire. There are many reports that that is not the case.
So certain claimed elements of the story are probably based on this misassumption and mis-analysis by the author.
That is not to say that Obama and Congress aren’t going to ass-rape the country with taxes – it’s just that it probably won’t be exactly as written in the article.
I have no problem with taxes… if we actually had a say on the shit they spend them on. Its like giving your son or daughter the credit card to buy groceries and they come back after a shopping spree…
So how do you say that 50% (as a realistic example in many cases) of other people’s income ought to be spent?
Generous of you to have no problem with so much of their money being taken.
You have no problem with that much being taken from the middle and working classes, Bill. Why should we cry for the rich? They’re doing just fine. Or is it the number you’re fixating on?
Ryan you should learn from California’s mistakes. Taxes on the rich caused many businesses both big and small to leave the state, and with Nevada right next door who has no tax, you have a recipe for financial disaster.
That would be relevant, if I were looking for solutions within the framwork of capitalism.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That would be relevant, if I were looking for solutions within the framwork of capitalism.[/quote]
You should be looking for any viable solutions, regardless.
The whole point is that there is no viable capitalistic solution. The progressive, Keynesian-type of solution will only work for so long, and the libertarian solution will not work at all.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The whole point is that there is no viable capitalistic solution. The progressive, Keynesian-type of solution will only work for so long, and the libertarian solution will not work at all.[/quote]
So, if you believe that there are no capitalistic solutions, no libertarian solutions, and no keynesian solutions; I’m curious as to what YOUR solutions would be.
From what I’ve read of you, I think it’s safe to say that you come from a left of center political ideology. With that said, I’d like to ask you a serious question. Do you think that the US has a spending problem?, or do you think we do not tax enough? What do you think of an across the board flat tax? As an avowed capitalist and a conservative, I’ve always believed that a nation cannot be taxed into greatness. In assessing our national debt, we have to ask ourselves this question; does a nation run up a debt as ridiculous as this by spending too much, or taxing too little? I for one do not like the fact that China is now our boss…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That would be relevant, if I were looking for solutions within the framwork of capitalism.[/quote]
Also, I’d like to know what it is about capitalism that you obviously do not like?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ryan you should learn from California’s mistakes. Taxes on the rich caused many businesses both big and small to leave the state, and with Nevada right next door who has no tax, you have a recipe for financial disaster.[/quote]
See it’s stuff like this that leads me to think that no politician or economist can be this stupid in deciding policy in regards to taxes and economic growth. They have to see that the state next door is a polar opposite and people will migrate as a result. And they Do!
So either they are stupid with a capital “S” OR this is something planned behind the scenes in distributing the populations more evenly when needed. Like when an area is saturated with it’s population and everything that it brings problem wise.
Tell you what Ryan, why don’t you come out here to Cali, I think you would love it. It has ALL the amenities you would like, such as…
It has the perfect blend of “no responsibility to the individual” that someone like you could want. Don’t worry there is no rush, people are flocking the hell out of here faster than you can say gimme your money.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So how do you say that 50% (as a realistic example in many cases) of other people’s income ought to be spent?
Generous of you to have no problem with so much of their money being taken.[/quote]
Where did I mention anything about 50%… do you really want to put words into my mouth for some obscure pugnacious reason? I am a firm capitalist and believe in low taxes… however in any functioning society some taxes are bound to be needed to sustain whatever limited government there is. My quote " i do not have a problem with taxes, providing we know how they are spent" does not imply that I think we should be taxed to hell. I am referring to the wish for transperancy in government spending that is facilitated by our tax dollars, in no way did I laud profligate spending and draconian tax policies. Get some fucking reading comprehension.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So how do you say that 50% (as a realistic example in many cases) of other people’s income ought to be spent?
Generous of you to have no problem with so much of their money being taken.[/quote]
Where did I mention anything about 50%… do you really want to put words into my mouth for some obscure pugnacious reason? I am a firm capitalist and believe in low taxes… however in any functioning society some taxes are bound to be needed to sustain whatever limited government there is. My quote " i do not have a problem with taxes, providing we know how they are spent" does not imply that I think we should be taxed to hell. I am referring to the wish for transperancy in government spending that is facilitated by our tax dollars, in no way did I laud profligate spending and draconian tax policies. Get some fucking reading comprehension.[/quote]
Maybe the taxes should be spent on some valium for you lol. Getting a little overly pissy aren’t we…I mean it is politics but the f-bomb has been dropped before any heated debate even began. Take it down a notch. And as to the “know how they are spent” philosphy well that’s a novel idea, but ultimately unsatisfying. If the government said we’re going to take 90% and spend it on foreign interests and military occupation in every country around the world to “spread democracy” would you be satisfied with that? I wouldn’t.
AHhhhhh yeah, my bad. Most news I read these days just pisses me off. The real problem is the princepal agent risk that favors expansionary fiscal policy such as spending on entitlement programs medicare medicaid…etc without regards to the long term inflationary and budgetary concerns.
And of course in line with that same sentiment, nobody is going to risk there ass by saying “yup, we need to raise taxes” thus they do it by stealthy measures as mentioned in the article. And this will continue because its damn near impossible to stop entitlement programs and people are generally very short sighted.
“You cant cut my prescription drug coverage OMG!” Aaaaaaaaaaaand then people young, like myself, end up paying for it. A return to incentives that promote growth, trim spending, and then use the windfall from said growth to cover the remaining budgetary outlays would be all to common sense…
[quote]666Rich wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So how do you say that 50% (as a realistic example in many cases) of other people’s income ought to be spent?
Generous of you to have no problem with so much of their money being taken.[/quote]
Where did I mention anything about 50%… do you really want to put words into my mouth for some obscure pugnacious reason? I am a firm capitalist and believe in low taxes… =[/quote]
“Obscure pugnacious reason?”
It seems the reason would be that I know what is actually going on and it seems you don’t.
You say you have “no problem with taxes,” and it’s already the case – as I said, it’s a realistic example already in manny cases – that many pay approximately 50% of their income in taxes BEFORE Obama’s increase.
So exactly how is that example figure irrelevant? It’s not.
Unless you think it’s putting words in your mouth to apply your statement to the real world instead of some mistaken idea that isn’t the case? Let’s assume your post wasn’t trying to talk about taxes on the planet Mars or perhaps in the Cayman Islands. It was about the US, correct? So how is it putting words in your mouth to bring up amounts such as many do pay in the US?
When the topic of the thread is rate or amount of taxation, and you say you have no problem with taxes (except for concern on how they are spent.)
My guess is you personally don’t pay much taxes. Try paying the top rate, plus Social Security (if self-employed you have to pay the “employer’s share” too), Medicare, property taxes, and if applicable state income taxes and then it will be your own money that you can say you have “no problem” with paying. It will be around 50%. It can be over that actually.
Not even counting sales tax.
The reason I guess that you personally don’t pay much taxes is because if you did you would know that my figure is in fact reflective of the US at this time for anyone who makes even a moderate financial success of themselves. If you don’t know that, which it seems you didn’t know till now, it must be because it is totally outside your personal experience.
So, your having no problem with taxes is either not knowing what is going on, or being generous when it’s other people but not you having to pay such amounts. One or the other. I didn’t want to assume it was just not knowing what was going on.
Once again, you misinterpret me. I am aware of the figure of what people pay in taxes irregardless of my own personal income. And once more, to reiterate in my post I do not believe in high taxes… I feel they are prohibitive to growth and I have written academic papers on the matter. My sentiment was and is only this in my original post “transperancy and accountability in taxation POLICY”. For example, how our tax dollars fund two wars that a majority of the population did not want, as well as a variety of earmarked spending.
I am not saying " I have no problem with the government taking 50% of my and others paycheck". I mean really, theres no reason to argue because you are really getting the wrong idea from my post. I am aware of what people pay, I do my own taxes, and I am informed about tax rates considering I read Forbes and the Economist daily. Yes we are in a quasi socialistic state and our tax rates are strikingly similar to Germany’s, commonly viewed as a socialistic nation. So once again if you want to get it into your head that I am some sort of socialist spend happy beaurocrat you are sadly mistaken. If you are really curoius I will email you economic and budgetary policy papers I have written specifically with treatises on the federal budget deficit and spending and taxation policies related to.
Well, when in a thread about amounts of taxation and with the title “Tax Hike” you post that you have “no problem with taxes” except for a concern on control of how they are spent, is the problem misinterpretation?
And when you follow up with acting as if 50% is just putting a wild figure into your mouth, rather than recognizing that it is talking in very many cases about the actual situation, is it unwarranted to figure that either you weren’t aware that this is already going on or that you are being disingenuous? (I didn’t want to assume the second.)
Why in the world wouldn’t your post have been in reference to what is actually going on?
You seem to want to pin a communication problem on me. If it makes you feel better then do so. Each can judge for himself where the problem lies here: whether in how you expressed yourself or how I read each of your two posts.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:From what I’ve read of you, I think it’s safe to say that you come from a left of center political ideology. With that said, I’d like to ask you a serious question. Do you think that the US has a spending problem?, or do you think we do not tax enough? What do you think of an across the board flat tax? As an avowed capitalist and a conservative, I’ve always believed that a nation cannot be taxed into greatness. In assessing our national debt, we have to ask ourselves this question; does a nation run up a debt as ridiculous as this by spending too much, or taxing too little? I for one do not like the fact that China is now our boss…
[/quote]
Yes, I do believe the US has a large spending problem. I usually, however, try to detach my personal sentiments from the analysis. In other words, irrespective of my opinion, IF you wish to maintain US spending at the present level, there will eventually have to be tax increases somewhere. Our problem, I think, is mainly political. We have all these things that we want to do (military, entitlements, and all the rest), yet for political reasons we are reluctant to take the steps necessary to pay for them, but also reluctant to cut many programs, for largely the same reasons. So in short, we spend too much AND tax too little (relative to our “desired” level of spending, not my personal opinion).
I am not a fan of a flat tax, I favor a graduated income tax in agreement with Adam Smith. However, I don’t necessarily think that it has to be insanely steep. The steepness will depend on other factors.