VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:35:30 10/14/09 Wed
Author: Jeffman
Subject: Ahhh I see
In reply to: Paul Davis 's message, "Re: The problem with that is nobody wants to cut the spending" on 09:54:35 10/12/09 Mon

I dont agree that it would limit political power and influence. As long as they have more money or power they will have more influence. So unless we go to full bore socialism that problem will exist.

The other problem you might find with the global economy is that they take their money somewhere else where the tax burden is lower. With the uber wealthy already paying 90+ percent of all tax revenues today... where will the govt replace those revenues?

>Well, I'd say that in that context it doesn't matter,
>since I'm not in favor of taxing the uber wealthy for
>REVENUE, but as a means of limiting their political
>power and influence. There are a number of changes
>I'd make to the tax system, some that no doubt would
>surprise you, but they aren't for revenue.
>
>Quite a few Congresses have been responsible with
>money, and there will be more in the future. However,
>faced with war or economic disaster, they will spend
>money they don't have. And we've had nearly
>continuous war since 1950. So what do you expect? If
>the US quits playing world policeman, then we might
>manage a balanced budget.
>
>>But truthfully... if we had all the taxes on the uber
>>wealthy that you are talking about, do you think we
>>would be less in debt or that congress would just find
>>more creative ways to waste the money?
>>
>>
>>>And the current list of tax cuts are stupid as rocks,
>>>but they can't repeal them as would make sense,
>>>because they want those big campaign checks, yes
>>>indeed.
>>>
>>>While Dems are bad enough, the Repubs have really
>>>ticked me off on this tax business. McCain in
>>>particular, he was making his own party angry by
>>>insisting they needed to balance the budget, and he
>>>was lying about how it could be done! I can't
>imagine
>>>a current Republican (leader) even having a desire to
>>>balance the budget. What I was told, by a delegate
>to
>>>the national convention in the 90's, that they were
>>>intentionally keeping the budget unbalanced, because
>>>they wanted to force the removal of Social Security
>>>and other social programs. Apparently this has
>become
>>>a total party focus since the time when he was a
>>>delegate. (This was all closed door stuff, as you
>can
>>>imagine.)
>>>
>>>Anyhow, given that the discretionary budget, which is
>>>90% of what people think of when they think of
>>>government, is about equal to the deficit in 2006, to
>>>totally remove the deficit without raising taxes, and
>>>doing it all in two years, as McCain was claiming,
>>>would require having nothing active but the miltary
>>>and social security administration. Doesn't seem
>>>likely, more like impossible.
>>>
>>>Make me dictator, I'll put a 105% tax on all personal
>>>income over something like 20 million a year, not
>>>because of some vendetta against the wealthy, but
>>>because creating a group of uber wealthy is against
>>>the best interests of the actual citizens of the US
>as
>>>a group. The warping of public policy to please a
>>>truly minute minority is not in any way something the
>>>founders wanted or expected to be allowed, and it is
>>>not something that should be permitted. And stock
>>>option "gifts", "bonuses" or what have you would most
>>>certainly be counted as personal income under my
>>>regime. If you can spend it or have the use of it,
>>>it's yours and you'd pay taxes on it, whether title
>>>was yours or owned by a corporate entity.
>>>
>>>And Bill Gates would not fall under that, because he
>>>hasn't cashed out his stock from Microsoft, and it
>>>wasn't a gift from the company. He built it, he owns
>>>it, and he hasn't cashed it out and put it in his
>>>pocket, at which point he would pay taxes on it.
>>>Anyone with personal expenditures of over 20 million
>a
>>>year is crazy anyhow, IMHO, and I really don't care
>>>how "necessary" they claim this nonsense is. And
>they
>>>don't stimulate the economy in any real way, no
>matter
>>>how they throw it around, there aren't enough of them
>>>to do that. If it really was necessary, they'd not
>be
>>>throwing money in bucketsful to the congress to buy
>>>votes enough to keep their crazy setup going year
>over
>>>year.
>>>
>>>Where it really is irritating me is that they are so
>>>often (Scaife is a perfect example) bent on forcing
>>>public policy into a philosophical mold to match some
>>>idea they like, even though their money insulates
>them
>>>from any bad effects of the policy! IOW, to them a
>>>policy may appear "perfect", even if it's badly
>flawed
>>>or even a disaster, BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL THE
>>>EFFECTS! This is utterly disasterous, and it's
>>>ongoing right now.
>>>
>>>Who do you think spends millions on ads fighting
>>>public spending on elections? This tiny handful
>knows
>>>as a group that's the quickest and most likely way
>for
>>>them to lose power, and ten minutes after that
>they'll
>>>be taxed from hell, so they'll do anything to prevent
>>>it. Look up how Steve Kangas died sometime.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And yet even in the Obama administration we still
>>have
>>>>those tax cuts and he has said that he wont raise
>>>>taxes until the worst of this recession has gone
>>past.
>>>>
>>>>Ive said it before and I will say it again. The
>>>>problem isnt that we arent paying enough taxes, the
>>>>problem is that congress can spend it faster than we
>>>>can send it to them. Is there any doubt in anyones
>>>>mind that if taxes increased 200% across the board
>>>>that congress would spend that and increase the debt
>>>>even more? Im all for a few new taxes if thats whats
>>>>required to clean up some debt or even to pay for
>the
>>>>war, but as long as congress continues to spend our
>>>>tax money on crap like a bridge to no where or to
>>look
>>>>at the spawning habits of the tree cricket, then I
>>say
>>>>no more taxes until you cut spending.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.