- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Before I answer yet another question of yours while you ignore the same one over and over and over again:
So why are you repeatedly unable to give me the straight answer about where you are getting this claim about exchange of value being a necessary component for taxation?
Its an opinion based on what taxes ought to be based on and it is the basis of a consumption tax which is far preferable to the class warfare taxes you support
So this is simply more of your own pontification based on your own personal belief system which has at its highest goal your own personal tax cut.
Understood. And all this time I thought it was some principle or law or something with actual foundation attached to it.
My work here is done for the night.
and your posts are based on a desire for the government to confiscate more wealth of other people
I will let others judge what is more disgusting
Your work? are you being paid by your dem employer to post stuff here?:roll:
and your posts are based on a desire for the government to confiscate more wealth of other people
I will let others judge what is more disgusting
Your work? are you being paid by your dem employer to post stuff here?:roll:
I believe he has said several times that he thinks everyone's taxes -- including his -- should go up, so that dog won't hunt. Some people think that the good of the country is more important than the size of their refund check.
Not at all. My posts are based on a love for America and its people. I have made that very clear in post after post. My work here was an expression to refer to my posts to get to the bottom of your claims and allegations and that has been done when you clarified that it was merely your own belief and had nothing to do with any law or principle.
No Turtle - I am not paid to post here... but sure wish I was. If you know somebody paying - please let me know.:2wave:
Well if they do that you should be able to link that, right?You were educated several times in the last year over the fact that even the IRS uses the term death tax
you pretended that only right wingers use this term to describe the abomination that vests upon the death of a high net taxpayer
This thread has gone some 12 pages just since I last asked for input. I'm too tired to get into it in great detail right now.
My problem with the discussions on taxing all transfers of wealth or death taxes or wherever people are looking for it and focusing on the wealthiest is that it smacks of communism. This large group can pay a little more to make it seem better, but this small group can pay WAY more, so lets hit them if they have too much for the good of the many. We have a $15 trillion debt, a $1.4 trillion deficit, and are spending $3.6 trillion right now. That's a little over $10k for every person in the country a year.
Somehow with this incredible spending, we are ranked 18th in education, our healthcare rating is dropped, we are downgraded in S&P, outsourcing labor is cheaper, and we are in a recession. I'm not getting into the source of each of these because of the great lengths each one can get to.
If you want to start hitting the wealthy in even more ways even though throwing money at the problems has done nothing but make them worse, you are going to end up with one last chance to tax them. That will be on their way out of the country.
Finding ways to dig at the wealthy for more money is not the solution I think we should be looking at here. Making a cheaper, more efficient government should be the first priority by miles. Exacerbating the problem by giving more money to the government hasn't helped in the past. The only way I would support an increase in taxes is if the government learns to live off what it has now and that money goes only to paying off the incredible debt it incurred failing us up to this point.
Ya know it use to be about the nobility and the peasants not accepting the nobilities god given rights.
and I and many others disagree that feeding the federal hog even more is for the good of the country
so be a patriot=start paying as much taxes as I do, then you can lecture me on what is important
This thread has gone some 12 pages just since I last asked for input. I'm too tired to get into it in great detail right now.
My problem with the discussions on taxing all transfers of wealth or death taxes or wherever people are looking for it and focusing on the wealthiest is that it smacks of communism. This large group can pay a little more to make it seem better, but this small group can pay WAY more, so lets hit them if they have too much for the good of the many. We have a $15 trillion debt, a $1.4 trillion deficit, and are spending $3.6 trillion right now. That's a little over $10k for every person in the country a year.
Somehow with this incredible spending, we are ranked 18th in education, our healthcare rating is dropped, we are downgraded in S&P, outsourcing labor is cheaper, and we are in a recession. I'm not getting into the source of each of these because of the great lengths each one can get to.
If you want to start hitting the wealthy in even more ways even though throwing money at the problems has done nothing but make them worse, you are going to end up with one last chance to tax them. That will be on their way out of the country.
Finding ways to dig at the wealthy for more money is not the solution I think we should be looking at here. Making a cheaper, more efficient government should be the first priority by miles. Exacerbating the problem by giving more money to the government hasn't helped in the past. The only way I would support an increase in taxes is if the government learns to live off what it has now and that money goes only to paying off the incredible debt it incurred failing us up to this point.
Obama, for example, proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. Approximately $1 trillion in revenues, $1 trillion in cuts to military spending and $2 trillion in cuts to domestic spending. The Democrats on the super committee proposed $3 trillion over 10 years with the same proportions.
Did you read that outloud to yourself? The 'proposed cuts' (nonspecific) is in DEFICT spending...spending which currently runs approx 1.3 to 1.4 trillion a year. In the course of 10 years we can expect an additional 13 to 14 trillion in added debt, not including debt payment increases. At BEST, the 'proposed' cuts (where IS that actual budget that spells out to all those senior citizens that the president proposed 'massive' medicare cuts?)reduce the debt increase by 4 trillion...which means we will still face, under a best case scenario, an ADDITIONAL 9 trillion in debt added to the current 15.5 trillion. Sorry...you REALLY want me to believe that is a serious cut proposal? (and again...where IS that budget bill? Where are the magic beans that will actualize those numbers? How do you consider a 'discretionary rebate' a serious cut proposal? Or for that matter...how do you call a 'provider tax' a 'cut?)Obama, for example, proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. Approximately $1 trillion in revenues, $1 trillion in cuts to military spending and $2 trillion in cuts to domestic spending. The Democrats on the super committee proposed $3 trillion over 10 years with the same proportions.
And somehow, someway you are against cutting four trillion dollars from our deficit?
not at all - his complaint seems to be that he prefers actual, real cuts as opposed to theoretical, imaginary ones.
So, for example, if I suggest that we Increase Revenues by $1 Trillion and leave it at that, that doesn't really tell you if I'm raising tax rates and scoring it that way, simply changing my growth assumptions and scoring it that way, or selling a bunch of stuff and scoring it that way.
Ditto if I say that we have already cut $1 Trillion from the military budget due to the fact that we didn't maintain the Surge in Iraq indefinitely. Or if I say that I have cut $7 Trillion from the budget by canceling an invasion of Iran. Those aren't actual cuts, and they shouldn't be scored as such.
As far as taxes, it shouldn't just be higher taxes on the wealthy. I think the system should be more progressive, but there are too many not contributing any income taxes at all.
But the problem is on both the spending and revenue sides of the equation. It's only logical to address them simultaneously. This "first let's do this" deal is a common refrain from the Right. First let's seal the border, then.... First let's cut taxes, then.... First let's cut spending, then.... These are most often dodges where "then" means "never."
Exactly Will! This is the thing that just slays me....Progressives love to say a certain amount of cuts occurred over a "ten year" period, to baseline budgets which actually means that they will agree to cut 'proposed' increases in future congresses that they have no idea, or control over at the moment. IT CUTS NOTHING!
j-mac
Actually what it also cuts is the ability of the right wing to keep screaming and whining about the huge debt increases five and ten years from now. And all by itself that sound of silence is a tremendous national accomplishment.
Yeah...I am. 4 trillion dollars isnt even a start. 4 trillion over 10 years? And people like you drop to your knees in worship...see??? gosh! They are going to fix everything!And somehow, someway you are against cutting four trillion dollars from our deficit?
You know what is truly pathetic? You arent even joking. You HONESTLY believe that 9 trillion in added debt spending is 'progress' and that will 'shut up the right'. At the end of the day...you dont give a **** about the debt or about who has to pay for it. You carry about politics and the left 'winning'. Only people like you would jump on that Charlie Sheen version of 'winning'.Actually what it also cuts is the ability of the right wing to keep screaming and whining about the huge debt increases five and ten years from now. And all by itself that sound of silence is a tremendous national accomplishment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?