We Need to Raise taxes

[TurtleDude]

But not on the top 2%. They already pay too much and taxing them more will hurt the economy because those in the Net Tax payer cohort (120K or so and more) up to about a million are the consumers who drive the economy. Billionaires are too few in number and actually don't buy all that much. its those in that 120K to a million or so a year who are the people who make the economy grow with buying, or shrink when they cut back

so who to tax

tax the people who actually provide most of the votes for more government spending. The working poor to the mid level middle class. These are the people who are most likely to buy into the dem promise of more social spending that others have to pay for. Until this group actually suffers less income in relationship to more government spending, they will never stop voting for irresponsible government expansion and spending.

 

[Deuce]

But not on the top 2%. They already pay too much and taxing them more will hurt the economy because those in the Net Tax payer cohort (120K or so and more) up to about a million are the consumers who drive the economy. Billionaires are too few in number and actually don't buy all that much. its those in that 120K to a million or so a year who are the people who make the economy grow with buying, or shrink when they cut back

so who to tax

tax the people who actually provide most of the votes for more government spending. The working poor to the mid level middle class. These are the people who are most likely to buy into the dem promise of more social spending that others have to pay for. Until this group actually suffers less income in relationship to more government spending, they will never stop voting for irresponsible government expansion and spending.

Income disparity in this country is ever-increasing. The wealthy are gaining an ever-larger share of the wealth. Yet our economy got worse anyway. What percentage of the nation's wealth should the top 5% control, would you say? Why should I believe that this would help anything?

 

[TurtleDude]

Income disparity in this country is ever-increasing. The wealthy are gaining an ever-larger share of the wealth. Yet our economy got worse anyway. What percentage of the nation's wealth should the top 5% control, would you say? Why should I believe that this would help anything?

the top tennis players-Federer and Nadal are increasing their lead in majors over the rest of the field

the best continue to win and the less talented continue to lose.

your solution only guarantees more and more parasitic government that is doomed to collapse

you have to make those who vote for this nonsense suffer for it or they will have no incentive to stop the insanity

that is why we really need either a flat tax or a consumption tax-to take away congressional power to buy the votes of the many with the unsustainable promise that the many won't have to face higher taxes to pay for higher amounts of government spending

 

[samsmart]

the top tennis players-Federer and Nadal are increasing their lead in majors over the rest of the field

the best continue to win and the less talented continue to lose.

your solution only guarantees more and more parasitic government that is doomed to collapse

you have to make those who vote for this nonsense suffer for it or they will have no incentive to stop the insanity

that is why we really need either a flat tax or a consumption tax-to take away congressional power to buy the votes of the many with the unsustainable promise that the many won't have to face higher taxes to pay for higher amounts of government spending

That's right. Only companies that are able to afford building their own national highway transportation system should be able to do so. Small companies and contractors who couldn't possibly afford the billions it takes to build and the millions it takes to maintain such a system of roads are subject to economic darwinism and should be culled from competition with big businesses. It's only fair, after all.

 

[MaggieD]

But not on the top 2%. They already pay too much and taxing them more will hurt the economy because those in the Net Tax payer cohort (120K or so and more) up to about a million are the consumers who drive the economy. Billionaires are too few in number and actually don't buy all that much. its those in that 120K to a million or so a year who are the people who make the economy grow with buying, or shrink when they cut back

so who to tax

tax the people who actually provide most of the votes for more government spending. The working poor to the mid level middle class. These are the people who are most likely to buy into the dem promise of more social spending that others have to pay for. Until this group actually suffers less income in relationship to more government spending, they will never stop voting for irresponsible government expansion and spending.

While I don't disagree with you, that's going to be a tough sell for just the reason you detail: votes. I've also come to the conclusion that it makes no difference how much in taxes the government collects. We simply don't stop spending; don't stop entitlement programs; don't stop tax credits to the middleclass. More Taxes = More Giveaways.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's right. Only companies that are able to afford building their own national highway transportation system should be able to do so. Small companies and contractors who couldn't possibly afford the billions it takes to build and the millions it takes to maintain such a system of roads are subject to economic darwinism and should be culled from competition with big businesses. It's only fair, after all.

that is idiotic and has nothing to do with my point

 

[TurtleDude]

While I don't disagree with you, that's going to be a tough sell for just the reason you detail: votes. I've also come to the conclusion that it makes no difference how much in taxes the government collects. We simply don't stop spending; don't stop entitlement programs; don't stop tax credits to the middleclass. More Taxes = More Giveaways.

of course it won't fly, the masses who want freebies paid for by others won't learn and won't stop voting for freebies until the whole system collapses. its too bad we cannot go back and kill the idiots who put the 16th amendment into place. its so obvious what's going to happen. I cannot recall which wise man noted that a democracy fails once the public realizes it can vote themselves the contents of the public treasury but it is so true

 

[TurtleDude]

if the dems raise taxes on the wealthy, they still have no incentive to stop the spending. Dems get their power by promising non tax payers and net tax consumers more and more goodies. Cutting spending will only cost them opportunities to buy votes (as well as losing the votes of many of us who have our taxes raised-even if they cut spending)

so they have to keep spending in their vote buying ponzi scheme

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But not on the top 2%. They already pay too much and taxing them more will hurt the economy because those in the Net Tax payer cohort (120K or so and more) up to about a million are the consumers who drive the economy. Billionaires are too few in number and actually don't buy all that much. its those in that 120K to a million or so a year who are the people who make the economy grow with buying, or shrink when they cut back

so who to tax

tax the people who actually provide most of the votes for more government spending. The working poor to the mid level middle class. These are the people who are most likely to buy into the dem promise of more social spending that others have to pay for. Until this group actually suffers less income in relationship to more government spending, they will never stop voting for irresponsible government expansion and spending.

Why do we need to *pay more to the government*

Why don't they just *stop spending more and more money*

Why don't they just *stop raising the deficit purposefully and intentionally*

If I felt that paying even more in taxes would somehow help - I'd be ok with it. I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd tolerate it.
But I *know* that if they raised taxes here and there I'd *see* no change in anything. . . money would be all for naught. Government would *still* be in deep debt - running a deficit - and drowning in bureaucracy bull****.

They're like addicts - *maybe if I just have a little bit more I'll get the same high I use to get* . . . and the more they take the more they want next time.

So - keep fostering the addiction?
Or stick 'em in the clinic?

 

[MaggieD]

of course it won't fly, the masses who want freebies paid for by others won't learn and won't stop voting for freebies until the whole system collapses. its too bad we cannot go back and kill the idiots who put the 16th amendment into place. its so obvious what's going to happen. I cannot recall which wise man noted that a democracy fails once the public realizes it can vote themselves the contents of the public treasury but it is so true

Those who rob from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support.

1111111111111111111111111111111111

 

[drz-400]

if the dems raise taxes on the wealthy, they still have no incentive to stop the spending. Dems get their power by promising non tax payers and net tax consumers more and more goodies. Cutting spending will only cost them opportunities to buy votes (as well as losing the votes of many of us who have our taxes raised-even if they cut spending)

so they have to keep spending in their vote buying ponzi scheme

I am curious how you determine who is a net tax consumer. Wait... aren't you a lawyer, your whole income is derived from the governments courts. You parasitic bastard!

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I am curious how you determine who is a net tax consumer.

net tax consumer (in my interpretation) is anyone who benefits from taxes - which is everyone, really . . . just some more than others.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am curious how you determine who is a net tax consumer.

those who pay less in taxes than what they use. Someone posted the level of income-its around 117,000 a year.

ANother study came out in the last two years and it was confined to quintiles. GOing strictly from memory the bottom 20% paid a few pennies for every dollar of government services t hey receive (services paid for by the FIT) while the top 20% pay around 8.50 for each dollar. A follow up commentary noted the top 1% it was more like a couple hundred dollars.

but the fact remains-as long as those who vote for more and more government don't face increased taxes (or less wealth) by voting that way, they have no incentive to stop the insanity and the politicians who pander to them have to keep buying their votes or they will lose

as I said, the malignancy is basically unstoppable. Allowing a progressive tax system was the problem to start with

 

[TurtleDude]

net tax consumer (in my interpretation) is anyone who benefits from taxes - which is everyone, really . . . just some more than others.

that is not the accurate one-a net tax consumer is one who uses more in FIT funded services than he pays in Federal income tax

which is most tax payers given that the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes

 

[drz-400]

net tax consumer (in my interpretation) is anyone who benefits from taxes - which is everyone, really . . . just some more than others.

So who benefits more from taxes, the FBI agent or a construction worker?

 

[drz-400]

those who pay less in taxes than what they use. Someone posted the level of income-its around 117,000 a year.

ANother study came out in the last two years and it was confined to quintiles. GOing strictly from memory the bottom 20% paid a few pennies for every dollar of government services t hey receive (services paid for by the FIT) while the top 20% pay around 8.50 for each dollar. A follow up commentary noted the top 1% it was more like a couple hundred dollars.

but the fact remains-as long as those who vote for more and more government don't face increased taxes (or less wealth) by voting that way, they have no incentive to stop the insanity and the politicians who pander to them have to keep buying their votes or they will lose

as I said, the malignancy is basically unstoppable. Allowing a progressive tax system was the problem to start with

Dude, most people do not stay in the same tax bracket their entire life... I mean, its not like its always the same people.

 

[TurtleDude]

Dude, most people do not stay in the same tax bracket their entire life... I mean, its not like its always the same people.

again that is not relevant to my point

and the libs were claiming that the class structure in the USA was set in stone

why don't you address the main point I make rather than play at the edges

 

[drz-400]

again that is not relevant to my point

and the libs were claiming that the class structure in the USA was set in stone

why don't you address the main point I make rather than play at the edges

how about you answer the question first... why do the poor and middle class need an "incentive" for less government spending?

Seriously, its not even an argument. It would be like me saying, what is the incentive that keeps everyone from lowering their taxes to zero? If we let the rich lower their taxes, there is no incentive that keeps them from lowering their taxes to zero!

Turtledude, if you somehow lost almost all of your income next year, and were in the bottom bracket, would you vote democrat? I doubt it. Peoples incomes are not set in stone, its not the same people recieving net tax benefits year after year (if that is something that is even determinable).

 

[TurtleDude]

how about you answer the question first... why do the poor and middle class need an "incentive" for less government spending?

Seriously, its not even an argument. It would be like me saying, what is the incentive that keeps everyone from lowering their taxes to zero? If we let the rich lower their taxes, there is no incentive that keeps them from lowering their taxes to zero!

Turtledude, if you somehow lost almost all of your income next year, and were in the bottom bracket, would you vote democrat? I doubt it. Peoples incomes are not set in stone, its not the same people recieving net tax benefits year after year (if that is something that is even determinable).

nice evasions

the rich aren't the people that the big spenders appeal to-there are not enough rich to vote in the welfare-socialists

 

[drz-400]

nice evasions

the rich aren't the people that the big spenders appeal to-there are not enough rich to vote in the welfare-socialists

There are not enough poor people either. Why does not middle class not steal from them?

My guess is most people vote on political principles, rather than what income group they happen to be a part of at the time.

 

[TurtleDude]

There are not enough poor people either. Why does not middle class not steal from them?

My guess is most people vote on political principles, rather than what income group they happen to be a part of at the time.

I think that is not true. most people aren't that well educated. many vote for short term interests.

but the problem is-the dems have to keep promising their voters more and more goodies


feel free to deny that I will check back tomorrow

 

[Johnny]

Lower taxes for everyone.

End the wars.

Close all bases overseas. That will save 700billion right there.

Get rid of the tax rules, breaks etc etc.

Tax everyone a flat tax of maybe 10%.

I'd like to see the end of the IRS all together but if we have to have it then a flat fair tax is cheaper, more efficient and increases the purchasing power of the people.

The rich have more to spend on toys, fun and investments. The poor have more to spend on what they need and to save and move up.

 

[peepnklown]

@ TurtleDude
I understand my friend, its tough love and sometimes you cannot tell people A, you have to show them A.
I still stand by my bread and butter; small government (federal/national & state) and Fair Tax.

 

[TurtleDude]

@ TurtleDude
I understand my friend, its tough love and sometimes you cannot tell people A, you have to show them A.
I still stand by my bread and butter; small government (federal/national & state) and Fair Tax.

right you are but if those who want more and more government need to start paying for it because until they do they will keep voting for more and more government