US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion [title changed]

[Iriemon]

Re: Tax reciepts WOW

Left talking points and spin if you check it out you will see that by far the Wealthy pay almost all the taxes in this country as it is........

Wrong. Though I will agree the wealthier pay a higher % of the tax. They should

 

[Iriemon]

That is true but if democrats were in power it would be twice as bad......And what is worse the money would be spent on failed social programs and their would be no tax cuts, in fact there would be huge tax increases.......

You have it completely backwards. Spending increased twice as fast under Reagan/Bush/Bush than under Clinton.

And if you recall, it was this administration that passed the last major Govt program in that past couple decades.

 

[Iriemon]

Your right they have been spending like a drunken sailor but there have been some unseen circumstances like 9/11 2 wars and the biggest natural disaster on the history of this country, but if you think its bad now just let the dems be in charge.....They have never seen a failed social program or a tax hike they did not like...........They love spending money as long as its not their own........

As opposed to the pass the buck Republicans who love borrowing it.

You are Exhibit A as to why our country has $8 1/2 trillion in debt and a $400 a year interest expense.

 

[Iriemon]

Ever notice how all the Democrat led areas of the US are not the Utopias that Dems said they would be? Like take New Orleans (pre-Katrina) foor instance. All the crime, poverty, and corruption! I thought the Libs ran **** better? I guess not. Or look at another lib "Utopia", like France. Poverty, taxation, and crime are high. Lib run Britain has one of the highest crime rates in the World. Liberals cannot lead. It's not in their system.

LOL I don't know any Dems that claimed there would be any utopias. Do you have a cite?

But if you want to compare stats between red states and blue states let's have at it.

 

[Iriemon]

we both are. clearly we each see a different way of accomplishing the same goal.

one allows me to keep more of what is mine to begin with.

the other allows other people to dictate how much of my money I have to give to the government.

I don't have any problem with cutting spending. I have stated many times that I'm for slashing govt spending.

The problem with "accomplishing" the goal of balancing the budget is that there is not cutting spending political option. The only options are the Republicans and keeping borrowing, or the Democrats raising taxes to increase revenues.

Which do you choose? More borrowing or higher taxes.

The pass the buck generation chose the former, Republicans pandered to them, and we now have $8.5 trillion in debt. It's no big mystery.

 

[Deegan]

Tax cuts work, but only if you cut spending, spending is too high, and this has to change. My real concern is the social spending, something has to be done about this, especially S.S, it is going to bankrupt this country! This is great news though, no one should just brush this new record off as irrelevant, it is a very good sign.

 

[Iriemon]

Tax cuts work, but only if you cut spending,

Someone at least has a clue.

spending is too high, and this has to change. My real concern is the social spending, something has to be done about this, especially S.S, it is going to bankrupt this country! This is great news though, no one should just brush this new record off as irrelevant, it is a very good sign.

Actually, while SS is a long term issue, in the past 20 years SS has generated $2 trillion more in revenue than the Govt has spent. That money was supposed to be saved in a trust fund for the boomers' retirement, but has been stole to finance the Republican deficits; which is why you hear them say the deficit may "only" be $250 billion this year. That includes $200 billion in extra SS revenues that they are stealing to partially pay for the deficit. Without it, the true deficit is more like $450 billion!

What a scam, huh?

I'll post the data if you want.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I don't have any problem with cutting spending. I have stated many times that I'm for slashing govt spending.

The problem with "accomplishing" the goal of balancing the budget is that there is not cutting spending political option. The only options are the Republicans and keeping borrowing, or the Democrats raising taxes to increase revenues.

Which do you choose? More borrowing or higher taxes.

The pass the buck generation chose the former, Republicans pandered to them, and we now have $8.5 trillion in debt. It's no big mystery.

if those are our only options, I suggest people like you start donating more money.

that should solve the problem.

 

[faithful_servant]

Empircally doesn't happen. "Starving" the government by cutting revenues doesn't decrease spending, it just borrows more and future taxpayers -- our kids -- get stuck with the bill. Taxes were slashed in the 80s and spending increased faster and taxes were slashed in the 00s and spending increased faster. It was in the 90s when taxes were higher that spending increase more slowly.

Also doesn't make sense on a global level. As long as taxes are low, people aren't going to get upset about spending. Most Americans could care less that the Govt is running up a huge debt. But raise taxes 20% and make people actually pay for all the pork, entitlements and war games, and people will start paying attention to what is being spent.

All of your arguments completely ignore the benfits to the economy that tax cuts create. All of your worship o fthe Clinton era psuedo surplus ignores the fact that the tax increases killed future growth and were only successful as long as they were because of the dotcom economy.

Tell me, Irie, how do you expect an economy to grow if you keep sucking the growth capitol out of it?

Why do think that the rich should be punished for being successful?

Why do refuse to pay what you yourself has stated to be your fair share of taxes?

Why do you think that buying a big boat is such a big deal?

Why do you think that people shouldn't enjoy the fruit of their success?

Why do you think that we should reward people for being unsuccessful?

Who do you think employs more people - rich people or poor people?

Where do you think that this money comes from?

Do you think that the gov't is better at handling money than private parties?

Do you believe in Keynes economic theories?

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
I don't have any problem with cutting spending. I have stated many times that I'm for slashing govt spending.

The problem with "accomplishing" the goal of balancing the budget is that there is not cutting spending political option. The only options are the Republicans and keeping borrowing, or the Democrats raising taxes to increase revenues.

Which do you choose? More borrowing or higher taxes.

The pass the buck generation chose the former, Republicans pandered to them, and we now have $8.5 trillion in debt. It's no big mystery.

if those are our only options, I suggest people like you start donating more money.

that should solve the problem.

This is the Republican plan for balancing the budget? Anyone who complains about the debt has to pay more to the government.

 

[Iriemon]

All of your arguments completely ignore the benfits to the economy that tax cuts create. All of your worship o fthe Clinton era psuedo surplus ignores the fact that the tax increases killed future growth and were only successful as long as they were because of the dotcom economy.

Tell me, Irie, how do you expect an economy to grow if you keep sucking the growth capitol out of it?

Why do think that the rich should be punished for being successful?

Why do refuse to pay what you yourself has stated to be your fair share of taxes?

Why do you think that buying a big boat is such a big deal?

Why do you think that people shouldn't enjoy the fruit of their success?

Why do you think that we should reward people for being unsuccessful?

Who do you think employs more people - rich people or poor people?

Where do you think that this money comes from?

Do you think that the gov't is better at handling money than private parties?

Do you believe in Keynes economic theories?

Wow a lot of questions, but first, where's my cookie?

 

[ProudAmerican]

This is the Republican plan for balancing the budget? Anyone who complains about the debt has to pay more to the government.

its part of my plan for sure.

only a pure hypocrite would bitch that we dont pay enough taxes, without being the very first to volunteer more of his own money.

 

[Stinger]

That is the "external" tax rate. They (mostly) talk about a 23% tax, but that is the "internal" rate.

For example, suppose something costs $100.00. They add $30 in tax, so the after tax cost is $130. But then they say of that $130, $30 is tax, so the tax rate is 30/130 = 23% and that is what they say the tax rate is, even though most of us would think that it is a 30%.

Pretty slick huh? Their site is chock full of little sleight of financial hands like that.

It's "Inclusive" and Exclusive" not internal and external. The income tax is an Inclusive tax so the rate for the fair-tax is quoted that way because that is the tax it replaces. As an exclusive tax it is 30%, but the effect on the taxpayer is the same.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Figure 5: 23 percent tax-inclusive vs. 30 percent tax-exclusive

Nothing "slick" about it, trying to claim they were trying to hide the actual cost was trying to be slick though.

[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

That tax rate if you analyze the numbers comes up way short of being sufficient. The actually tax rate (to generate sufficient revenues to cover spending) would have to be in the neighborhood of 40% or more.

You've shown no evidence of that.

 

[Iriemon]

It's "Inclusive" and Exclusive" not internal and external. The income tax is an Inclusive tax so the rate for the fair-tax is quoted that way because that is the tax it replaces. As an exclusive tax it is 30%, but the effect on the taxpayer is the same.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Figure 5: 23 percent tax-inclusive vs. 30 percent tax-exclusive

Nothing "slick" about it, trying to claim they were trying to hide the actual cost was trying to be slick though.

[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Saying it is a 23% tax, when for most people if you add a $30 tax to something that costs $100 that would be a 30% tax, is "slick" IMO.

But if you want to talk about slick and misleading, that little chart is another perfect example.

When you look at this chart, you think Wow! With the fair tax, I keep all my money. I can spend the same, and I’ll have an extra $23 left over to save or buy more stuff, and the Govt gets the same tax revenue!

Amazing! What a great idea!

But here's the little trick -- if you spend $77 with the Fairtax system, the tax is included in that $77 as a 23% internal tax (ie the tax is 23% of the price). Therefore, the Gov’t only gets .23 x $77 = $17.71. You’d have to spend the entire $100 for the Govt to get the 23% tax.

Cute, eh?

Plus, the implication is that the $77 you spend gets you same amount of stuff as the $77 you spend now, which ignores the fact that with the Fairtax there is a 23% sale tax embedded in the price, so you are really only getting $77-23%=$60 worth of stuff. With that 23% tax, you’d have to spend $100 to get the same amount of stuff ($100-23%=$100-$23=$77). You essentially end up in the same place as before.

But that is not what the chart is meant to suggest, of course. That is the misleading part of it.

You've shown no evidence of that.

Not in this thread. This is not a thread about the fairtax. But I'll add "in my opinion". We can start another fairtax thread and debate it again. I'm sure my posts on it are buried somewhere.

 

[Iriemon]

its part of my plan for sure.

only a pure hypocrite would bitch that we dont pay enough taxes, without being the very first to volunteer more of his own money.

I personally don't see what is hypocrtical about bitching that the government has borrowed $3 trillion since 2001 and not volunteering to give more of your assets to the government than necessary.

IMO, it is purely hypocritical to claim you are against debt and deficits while at the same time demanding that the tax cuts stay in place, given that the government has not cut spending.

Unless, off course, you think a huge debt is a great thing for the country, which maybe the Republicans do.

And, IMO, only a pure idiot would pay the government more taxes than is necessary.

But everyone is entitled to their own opinions.