Bush tax cut analysis

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Agree. The budget needs balancing. Time the rich ponied up like they used to.

They never did until 1913. The income tax was created solely to force the rich to pay "their fair share". If taxes weren't necessary at all you'd still be crying about "the rich".

I cannot think of any reason why I would like the government to take my property in order to give it back to me if I follow their rules, paper work, and regulation, with interest. Let me just keep my money.

Hey Tater, "means testing"???????
Can I point you back to the bit about cutting expenses being very expensive?

BTW, when pensions was a major outlay, total government spending as a % of GDP was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

Yes back then you had a tiny military, an export led economy and very little overseas commitments.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

They never did until 1913. The income tax was created solely to force the rich to pay "their fair share". If taxes weren't necessary at all you'd still be crying about "the rich".

in 3 years it will be 100 years of taxes. Taxes are a necessary thing. Unless you live in Monaco (a country basically existing just because it has no taxes) or Somalia you probably have them. The thing is, The Mega rich pay a disproportionate amount. They have so much expendable income yet are not asked to pay much more than the rest of us (unless you are cripplingly poor).
so when it comes down to it, me making 5,000 for school and having somwhere around $900.00 taken out has more effect than a rich man having his 35% top rate taken.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hey Tater, "means testing"???????
Can I point you back to the bit about cutting expenses being very expensive?


Yes back then you had a tiny military, an export led economy and very little overseas commitments.

We either cut entitlements, or close shop. The rest of the budget is practically noise.

Yeah, "means testing." SS/Medicare should be a safety net ONLY. So only people who will literally starve to death without it should get it. Once that is set, the FICA tax rates can be dropped (or the cap lowered).

Regarding overseas commitments, the current % spent—~25% of GDP—would be fine without entitlements. Then the total is more like 10% of GDP, of which the military is ~ half.

So with virtually no entitlements (nothing but a safety net for the most poor), we could maintain our military, etc, and still spend a fraction of what we do now.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

in 3 years it will be 100 years of taxes. Taxes are a necessary thing.

Yes they are. Without them a government can't exist. But creating taxes just to soak the rich is an abuse of the reason governments exist in the first place. You can argue the value of helping others all you like, but forcing someone else to fulfill a moral obligation as you see it is abuse, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

The thing is, The Mega rich pay a disproportionate amount. They have so much expendable income yet are not asked to pay much more than the rest of us (unless you are cripplingly poor).

By whose standard? Taxes exist so government can function. Anything more than that is an attempt to legislate your personal morality, pure-and-simple.

so when it comes down to it, me making 5,000 for school and having somwhere around $900.00 taken out has more effect than a rich man having his 35% top rate taken.

That statement makes no sense. You making "5,000" what? If you only make $5000 per year you pay no taxes. I know a guy who gets a huge tax break because of his nine kids. The people who prudently decided to help the population problem by having none have to pay for their schooling. Right? Wrong?

The problem with money isn't this country isn't the bloated individuals with "too much money" - it's the bloated government that keeps spending other people's money to expand its own wasteline (and yes, I misspelled that intentionally).

Yes, taxes are necessary. But they are still a necessary evil, and until you see it that way you will continue to think that government is the answer to all our problems, when in fact it is the creator of most of them.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yes they are. Without them a government can't exist. But creating taxes just to soak the rich is an abuse of the reason governments exist in the first place. You can argue the value of helping others all you like, but forcing someone else to fulfill a moral obligation as you see it is abuse, no matter how you sugarcoat it.


By whose standard? Taxes exist so government can function. Anything more than that is an attempt to legislate your personal morality, pure-and-simple.


That statement makes no sense. You making "5,000" what? If you only make $5000 per year you pay no taxes. I know a guy who gets a huge tax break because of his nine kids. The people who prudently decided to help the population problem by having none have to pay for their schooling. Right? Wrong?

The problem with money isn't this country isn't the bloated individuals with "too much money" - it's the bloated government that keeps spending other people's money to expand its own wasteline (and yes, I misspelled that intentionally).

Yes, taxes are necessary. But they are still a necessary evil, and until you see it that way you will continue to think that government is the answer to all our problems, when in fact it is the creator of most of them.

Oh, man - excellent post Steve!

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Oh, man - excellent post Steve!

+1 !

[Takeda Shingen]

As a related anecdote, I have always found the class warfare endorsed by the Left to be just as repugnant as the ethnocentric fear endorsed by the Right.

When the government asks for personal property (money) it is deemed necessary. If a person asks the same question it is deemed a crime.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

When the government asks for personal property (money) it is deemed necessary. If a person asks the same question it is deemed a crime.

If you don't want to live in a society, you can move to someplace without a functioning central government like Somalia.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If you don't want to live in a society, you can move to someplace without a functioning central government like Somalia.

And another +1 !

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

When the government asks for personal property (money) it is deemed necessary. If a person asks the same question it is deemed a crime.

And likewise when the government spends money it can't repay it is applauded for going and taking it from people who still have some. If you or I do the same they applaud the people who come and arrest us.

[Oberon]

The difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich can move to the Virgin Islands, or Jersey or the UAE or at the very least move their money around. The poor often don't have that luxury, they are static cash flows which makes them easier to extract funds from than the rich who can be adept at hiding it. By rich, of course, I mean those with six figure salaries, the extremely rich, the kind of people that most people think of when the terms 'fat cat' get thrown around.

Eh, capitalism is an awkward thing, some places it works, others it doesn't, and it depends on how you look at it really. No way that everyone is going to be treated the same, not on this planet, not in any of our lifetimes, so you just have to live within the system you live in. Grass isn't always greener...after all, look what happened after Lenin.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That statement makes no sense. You making "5,000" what? If you only make $5000 per year you pay no taxes. I know a guy who gets a huge tax break because of his nine kids. The people who prudently decided to help the population problem by having none have to pay for their schooling. Right? Wrong?

oh no, I pay them, I just have to file a tax return to get a refund. But i only get income refunds. If what you are saying was true, i would have and extra 900 in my account right now. which would really help because I could use that cash right about now for school.

also steve, I was not talking about taxing the rich for a "HA! sucks to you" sort of approach, Im talking about how our government is in a money crunch, and the bush tax cuts helped put us there. We need that extra revenue. It will be an unpopular move for sure, But it's not unprecedented.