A busted argument for not raising taxes

[rudder]

Yay, fun with numbers! :\

Your points are meaningless. Your Plan Fails and is absurd.

Judging by this intelligent, thoughtful insight... I can see the validity of your argument. I am glad at least someone on P&N, such as yourself, can offer many valid counterpoints to my argument. Kudos to you. With that I am unable to offer any more to this thread.

 

[fskimospy]

It's funny how easy it is to tell who here works for a living and who lives in their parent's basement (or college dorm on their parent's dime).

Oh is it? Tell me which one you think I am.

 

[sandorski]

Judging by this intelligent, thoughtful insight... I can see the validity of your argument. I am glad at least someone on P&N, such as yourself, can offer many valid counterpoints to my argument. Kudos to you. With that I am unable to offer any more to this thread.

Throwing a bunch of nonsensical Statistics into the conversation is not "intelligent". It's just Red Herrings and Monkey Wrenches.

 

[PokerGuy]

Oh is it? Tell me which one you think I am.

The blowhard elitist who thinks he knows a whole lot but in fact knows very little. That's pretty much spot on no?

 

[fskimospy]

The blowhard elitist who thinks he knows a whole lot but in fact knows very little. That's pretty much spot on no?

Look, let me help you out.

Even if I ignore the fact that your answer wasn't either one of our good friend Quantumpion's options, that was really lame. If you're going to try and insult someone you want to make sure that your insult doesn't apply to yourself and you should avoid employing words my grandpa would have used. (blowhard?)

Failing that, you should at least try to make it witty or have it rhyme or something. Just saying "YOU THINK UR SMART BUT UR NOT LOL" isn't helping anyone.

 

[Jaskalas]

They'll throw you into poverty and then hand you a check, while patting themselves on the back for what a great job they did helping the poor. Oh, and by the way, to qualify for that payback you're going to live life they way they dictate.

The only catch to that argument is how did they put you into poverty? They pinched your employer, your employer pinched you. They pinch your currency, everything you buy costs more. Liberals believe this does not happen, Conservatives believe it does.

Starving the beast is the notion of assaulting that which is hurting Americans, their own government. It is to ease pressure on your employer and your currency to give them the buoyancy to give you more wealth.

Either you believe wealth comes from government and it must siphon off more to give more, or you believe in reducing its negitive impact on the economy. These two views of reality are in NO way compatible, but here we are a divided nation of two people fighting for control to do what we think is best - and the result is a stalemate where nothing good is happening regardless of what you believe.

To each side the other is the 'enemy' that prevents us from correcting the problem, and as time progresses the problem gets worse. The pressure to fix it is rising and so long as that continues one cannot guarantee a peaceful outcome. It'll come to head as a crisis and civil unrest while the two versions of reality duke it out.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I'm not going to read this entire thread, so this point may have already been made.

You are right that revenue and spending aren't linked proportionally when revenue decreases. That's the entire problem. People are inherently going to try to get as much "free" stuff as they can (and their needs are going to increase as the population ages) and they'll elect leaders who will do this for them, which means spending will pretty much constantly increase, regardless of revenue. If Congress was forced to balance the budget each year, I think you'd end up with a much better debate of exactly what spending is necessary and what level of taxation is appropriate. You'll end up making some tough decisions (to cut programs or increase taxes), but I feel that it would be a much more responsible government. Then you couldn't have politicians increasing spending without increasing revenue or decreasing revenue without decreasing spending. Obviously you need to have some exceptions to this (ex. expenses for fighting a war declared against us), but you have to make it pretty difficult to do this, so that we don't end up in the same position where every entitlement is an "emergency."

 

[piasabird]

How much more tax you want to pay?

Just stick in a second check when you pay your taxes!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I would certainly agree to some type of balanced budget amendment that would force spending to match revenue. It should require revenues be increased before new spending is authorized and include trigger levels that would force automatic spending cuts if revenue drops. And yes give some leaway for circumstances like war, but that should be temporary like 6 months, then if the spending will continue automatic tempory tax increases should kick in until the war/conflict is over.

 

[JTsyo]

43% of wage earners in the U.S. pay no Federal income taxes. Out of 151 million tax payers... 65 million owe nothing or even get money back. This same 43% are benefiting from tax credits... whether it be homebuyers, hybrid car buyers, child tax credits, EIC, etc.

The deficit can be reduced by reducing spending. Allowing people who pay taxes to keep more of their money will stimulate the economy and eventually as the economy grows... tax revenues can catch up with spending.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for people to see that every $1 spent by the federal government comes from somewhere.. whether it be borrowed or received by the IRS. That $1 spent by the government gets very little return.

How does money spend by people simulate the economy but not the money spend by government? Money taken by the government is guaranteed to be spend (it's getting them to stop that's tricky), but the same can't be said for money left from tax cuts.

 

[QuantumPion]

How does money spend by people simulate the economy but not the money spend by government? Money taken by the government is guaranteed to be spend (it's getting them to stop that's tricky), but the same can't be said for money left from tax cuts.

Just because the government spends money doesn't mean it is put to good use. When you get to spend other people's money without consequence or oversight, you tend to waste it. Spending money just for the sake of it hurts the economy because you are purely consuming wealth without creating any.

 

[her209]

Just because the government spends money doesn't mean it is put to good use. When you get to spend other people's money without consequence or oversight, you tend to waste it. Spending money just for the sake of it hurts the economy because you are purely consuming wealth without creating any.

Consumers hurt the economy? Now I've heard it all.

 

[Abwx]

How does money spend by people simulate the economy but not the money spend by government? Money taken by the government is guaranteed to be spend (it's getting them to stop that's tricky), but the same can't be said for money left from tax cuts.

True...
Indeed, the US has a vast margin left unused...
Taxation rate in %age of GDP is close to, and sometimes
in excess, of 50% in EU countries, while the US is
at a mere 28%....

 

[Jhhnn]

True...
Indeed, the US has a vast margin left unused...
Taxation rate in %age of GDP is close to, and sometimes
in excess, of 50% in EU countries, while the US is
at a mere 28%....

Ebil Soshulists! EBIL!

The bastards don't even let their capitalist shift all their investment offshore, and actually run a neutral balance of payments! They have the dreaded universal healthcare, too, where nobody goes bankrupt over medical bills! In Germany, teh ebil Union Bosses even sit on the BOD of major corporations! The horror!