Pelosi: Tax Increases For Those Making UNDER $250,000 On The Table

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait- you are saying that if I have to pay 5k more I'm not paying 5k more? I've just had money taken out of my pocket and didn't at the same time? Is this Schroetengers cat thing?

No, taxes levied by the government are not the same as businesses raising their prices.

Uh, youre fail. To the consumer, its the same.

To the consumer of that specific product it is the same, but it is not inflation. Technically every time you pay a dollar in taxes everyone else's dollars become more valuable. Taxes exert DEFLATIONARY pressure, not INFLATIONARY pressure as they take money out of circulation.

Man youre usually not so.....way off base. Inflation is an increase in cost of goods or services representitive of the economy. It doesnt matter whether the increase is a result of taxes, gross cost, or greed, it is a cost to the end consumer. Therefore, it IS inflation.

Lets say theoretically a widget costs $3.00. Lets say as part of manufacturing the cost to build the widget rises $.30, and the manufacturer passes that to the retailer who passes it to the consumer. That is inflation. Let's say that same widget is taxed by the government at $.30/each. The retailer then passes that on to the consumer.

Why is it if the price goes up $.30 due to manufacturing its inflation, but if its due to taxes, it isnt?

 

[Praxis1452]

Also shira, you show your true colors. Low IQ comments, hah. Just another partisan hack that is no different than any "conservative" pundit.

The way you post you think that conservatives should applaud this new tax. LOL. If nancy pelosi had begun with let's abolish the income tax perhaps they would have responded more kindly. Any new tax will be viewed with much skepticism, the fact that you assumed thatbconservatives would love any new taxes is ludicrous.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So what this all comes down to is bullshit. This is a broad based regressive tax that will cause us to pay more at the checkout counter. Call it inflationary or not it's more money out of our pockets bottom line.

 

[spidey07]

I love seeing the deflections - but, but, but this isn't really a tax and also it's a good idea!

This is how Pelosi really thinks. If it was one bad slip up, then fine you can discard it. But this is her consistent beat. She's either willfully ignorant or wishes to cause serious harm. I think it's a little bit of both.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To the consumer of that specific product it is the same, but it is not inflation. Technically every time you pay a dollar in taxes everyone else's dollars become more valuable. Taxes exert DEFLATIONARY pressure, not INFLATIONARY pressure as they take money out of circulation.

Man youre usually not so.....way off base. Inflation is an increase in cost of goods or services representitive of the economy. It doesnt matter whether the increase is a result of taxes, gross cost, or greed, it is a cost to the end consumer. Therefore, it IS inflation.

Lets say theoretically a widget costs $3.00. Lets say as part of manufacturing the cost to build the widget rises $.30, and the manufacturer passes that to the retailer who passes it to the consumer. That is inflation. Let's say that same widget is taxed by the government at $.30/each. The retailer then passes that on to the consumer.

Why is it if the price goes up $.30 due to manufacturing its inflation, but if its due to taxes, it isnt?

I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect. Let me explain it to you in a better way:

Say America's production and property as a whole comes to 100 widgets, and in the whole country we have $200 dollars representing our entire money supply. That means that each widget is worth $2, correct? When the federal government taxes money, it takes it out of circulation. This is why budget deficits lead to inflation, because they have to circulate more money to pay for it. In this case, if the government levies taxes on widgets that end up costing the country $100, we now have the same 100 widgets but only $100 to buy them with. That means that each widget is now worth $1 instead of $2... so your dollars now are twice as valuable as they were before. Government taxation is completely separate from other forms of price increase.

So while the price of that particular pack of cigarettes may be 'inflated', it is not 'inflation' because in the aggregate the action causes the money supply to decrease. Ie: everything else becomes cheaper to buy. Now people who know a lot more about economics than I do have argued that different forms of taxation can have indirect inflationary pressures, but the direct act of taxation itself is ALWAYS deflationary.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait- you are saying that if I have to pay 5k more I'm not paying 5k more? I've just had money taken out of my pocket and didn't at the same time? Is this Schroetengers cat thing?

No, taxes levied by the government are not the same as businesses raising their prices. In a fiat currency system when the government takes in tax money it is in effect removing money from the economy. When money is removed from the economy, the value of all the remaining money increases. I know what you mean that you are paying more money out of your pocket for cigarettes, and so maybe in your personal situation things cost more, but as a society they do not.

Taxes don't remove money from the economy. You clearly don't know what you're talking about

Question: are you disputing Keynesian economics or Eskimo's understanding of the Keynesian economics?

Unless government spending is zero, that money is still in the economy.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To the consumer of that specific product it is the same, but it is not inflation. Technically every time you pay a dollar in taxes everyone else's dollars become more valuable. Taxes exert DEFLATIONARY pressure, not INFLATIONARY pressure as they take money out of circulation.

Man youre usually not so.....way off base. Inflation is an increase in cost of goods or services representitive of the economy. It doesnt matter whether the increase is a result of taxes, gross cost, or greed, it is a cost to the end consumer. Therefore, it IS inflation.

Lets say theoretically a widget costs $3.00. Lets say as part of manufacturing the cost to build the widget rises $.30, and the manufacturer passes that to the retailer who passes it to the consumer. That is inflation. Let's say that same widget is taxed by the government at $.30/each. The retailer then passes that on to the consumer.

Why is it if the price goes up $.30 due to manufacturing its inflation, but if its due to taxes, it isnt?

I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect. Let me explain it to you in a better way:

Say America's production and property as a whole comes to 100 widgets, and in the whole country we have $200 dollars representing our entire money supply. That means that each widget is worth $2, correct? When the federal government taxes money, it takes it out of circulation. This is why budget deficits lead to inflation, because they have to circulate more money to pay for it. In this case, if the government levies taxes on widgets that end up costing the country $100, we now have the same 100 widgets but only $100 to buy them with. That means that each widget is now worth $1 instead of $2... so your dollars now are twice as valuable as they were before. Government taxation is completely separate from other forms of price increase.

So while the price of that particular pack of cigarettes may be 'inflated', it is not 'inflation' because in the aggregate the action causes the money supply to decrease. Ie: everything else becomes cheaper to buy. Now people who know a lot more about economics than I do have argued that different forms of taxation can have indirect inflationary pressures, but the direct act of taxation itself is ALWAYS deflationary.

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira
I'm a little confused here: Conservatives for years have been pushing their so-called "Fair Tax," which is essentially a VAT of 30%. To be fair, conservatives want their "Fair Tax" in place of the income tax, which they'd do away with. But if I were a conservative, I'd be behind Pelosi's proposal as a first step toward a "Fair Tax" system.

But what do we see in this thread: Conservative posters are opposed, presumably because its origin is a liberal politician.

So tell me, conservatives, how come a "Fair Tax" won't ruin our economy, yet a "VAT" will be fatal?

Because this isnt a first step towards a fair tax\flat tax on consumption?!?!?!?!? This is in addition to income tax and will never be repealed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait- you are saying that if I have to pay 5k more I'm not paying 5k more? I've just had money taken out of my pocket and didn't at the same time? Is this Schroetengers cat thing?

No, taxes levied by the government are not the same as businesses raising their prices. In a fiat currency system when the government takes in tax money it is in effect removing money from the economy. When money is removed from the economy, the value of all the remaining money increases. I know what you mean that you are paying more money out of your pocket for cigarettes, and so maybe in your personal situation things cost more, but as a society they do not.

I am not quite following your line of thinking on this. Is the govt taking that money and burning it, burying it, or locking it away? No, they will be spending it as well, often times borrowing against it.

Now you are right they are removing it from the private sector which has an opportunity cost. Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: shira
I'm a little confused here: Conservatives for years have been pushing their so-called "Fair Tax," which is essentially a VAT of 30%. To be fair, conservatives want their "Fair Tax" in place of the income tax, which they'd do away with. But if I were a conservative, I'd be behind Pelosi's proposal as a first step toward a "Fair Tax" system.

But what do we see in this thread: Conservative posters are opposed, presumably because its origin is a liberal politician.

So tell me, conservatives, how come a "Fair Tax" won't ruin our economy, yet a "VAT" will be fatal?

You seriously believe that garbage? You're saying that conservatives should support a VAT without any other corresponding tax decreases, and hope that at some unspecified point in the future Democrats will agree to disband the income tax system?

1) Pelosi stated that this potential VAT would be revenue-neutral for middle class (and, I assume, lower-class) taxpayers (not sure what income cutoff qualifies for Pelosi's "middle class"), which to me implies there WOULD be a "corresponding income tax decrease" (for other than the rich).

2) I'm not advocating anything. Based on previous conservative rhetoric supporting the "Fair Tax," I expected this VAT idea to get conservative support. At the worst, conservatives could offer a counter-proposal that would make any VAT totally revenue neutral. But I'm not hearing that. I just hear conservatives saying that a VAT would be fatal to American business. So I asked a question.

So you see, I'm just a truth seeker.

1. With near 50% of the people in this country effectively not paying federal income tax. How much more tax cutting is possible? Or is she going to start giving prebates?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Say America's production and property as a whole comes to 100 widgets, and in the whole country we have $200 dollars representing our entire money supply. That means that each widget is worth $2, correct? When the federal government taxes money, it takes it out of circulation. This is why budget deficits lead to inflation, because they have to circulate more money to pay for it. In this case, if the government levies taxes on widgets that end up costing the country $100, we now have the same 100 widgets but only $100 to buy them with. That means that each widget is now worth $1 instead of $2... so your dollars now are twice as valuable as they were before. Government taxation is completely separate from other forms of price increase.

Nothing in that entire paragraph makes any sense; and, tax money is NOT supposed to be taken "out of circulation." In fact, tax money is used for projects X, Y, and Z, thus continuing the circulation of those dollars.

As to the rest of your example, I don't even know where to start... none of it makes any sense.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

You just perfectly summed up the fucked up thinking that currently permeates our entire Government, as well as the very reason we're in a deeper hole than we've ever been in before. The bold section is particularly telling.

Well done ace.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

You just perfectly summed up the fucked up thinking that currently permeates our entire Government, as well as the very reason we're in a deeper hole than we've ever been in before. The bold section is particularly telling.

Well done ace.

It's not telling at all, I really think you just don't understand how our currency system works. The government creates money by spending, the government destroys money by taxing. That's how it works.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

I am going to double check, but I am fairly certain that every econ and finance teacher I have had since high school disagrees with you. Just an FYI, the Federal Reserve seems to believe it is in charge of the money supply NY federal reserve. Also, what do you think the federal debt is, if they just make the money, wouldn't they never be in debt? Oh, and treasury bills, why does the government have to sell them if they can just make money?

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I needed to hammer the point home, you are just plain wrong. The government deficit is the difference between spending and taxes, which builds up into debt. The government gets its extra money through selling securities, to cover the deficit. The government does not create new money.

The Money supply is determined by the Central Bank, in the United States, the Federal Reserve System.

Source, Macroeconomics, pg 251, Abel, Bernanke Croushore.

Edit: I fail at typing.

 

[IGBT]

is'nt this what you guys wanted when you voted for the obama and his willing accomplices??

 

[Praxis1452]

You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

I am going to double check, but I am fairly certain that every econ and finance teacher I have had since high school disagrees with you. Just an FYI, the Federal Reserve seems to believe it is in charge of the money supply NY federal reserve. Also, what do you think the federal debt is, if they just make the money, wouldn't they never be in debt? Oh, and treasury bills, why does the government have to sell them if they can just make money?

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I needed to hammer the point home, you are just plain wrong. The government deficit is the difference between spending and taxes, which builds up into debt. The government gets its extra money through selling securities, to cover the deficit. The government does not create new money.

The Money supply is determined by the Central Bank, in the United States, the Federal Reserve System.

Source, Macroeconomics, pg 251, Abel, Bernanke Croushore.

Edit: I fail at typing.

Congress DELEGATES its authority to coin money to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve does not do so with powers inherent outside the government. In case anyone is interested in this theory on money creation it's called Chartalism

Regardless of if you buy into that or not, it's widely accepted that taxation removes money from circulation, thus causing deflation. I'm not really sure who argues otherwise?

EDIT: Also, the government could be out of debt tomorrow if it wanted to be. It would be an awful idea, but they could do it.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not telling at all, I really think you just don't understand how our currency system works. The government creates money by spending, the government destroys money by taxing. That's how it works.

wow.

First and foremost, Federal taxation is/was designed to raise revenue. For what, you ask? To cover Federal spending.

Any perversion of that concept is above and beyond the actual intent of Federal taxation, and probably lies at the very root of our ever-increasing economic woes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

Well you can certainly reasonably argue that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

Well you can certainly reasonably argue that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Ah-ooga!
Ah-ooga!

Divert! Divert! Divert! This isn't a tax.

Ah-ooga!

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

What did the government do with that $100? Chance are it was redistributed to employees or used to purchase goods made through private enterprise which puts it... wait for it... back into the economy.

If taxes removed money from the economy, our money supply would be $0 after a couple years.

What's wrong with you?

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire. Do you even know how our currency system works? You seriously don't know that taxation lowers the money supply?

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

I think everyone here is getting confused because they are trying to relate spending by the government to spending by your household. They are nothing alike. Taxation serves to free up the government to spend more money without causing inflation if it wishes to do so, the government is not actually taking your money and recirculating it.

I am going to double check, but I am fairly certain that every econ and finance teacher I have had since high school disagrees with you. Just an FYI, the Federal Reserve seems to believe it is in charge of the money supply NY federal reserve. Also, what do you think the federal debt is, if they just make the money, wouldn't they never be in debt? Oh, and treasury bills, why does the government have to sell them if they can just make money?

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I needed to hammer the point home, you are just plain wrong. The government deficit is the difference between spending and taxes, which builds up into debt. The government gets its extra money through selling securities, to cover the deficit. The government does not create new money.

The Money supply is determined by the Central Bank, in the United States, the Federal Reserve System.

Source, Macroeconomics, pg 251, Abel, Bernanke Croushore.

Edit: I fail at typing.

Congress DELEGATES its authority to coin money to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve does not do so with powers inherent outside the government. In case anyone is interested in this theory on money creation it's called Chartalism

Regardless of if you buy into that or not, it's widely accepted that taxation removes money from circulation, thus causing deflation. I'm not really sure who argues otherwise?

EDIT: Also, the government could be out of debt tomorrow if it wanted to be. It would be an awful idea, but they could do it.

I don't think that is what you said.

The government didn't do anything with the money it taxes, for all meaningful purposes it piles it up on the White House lawn and lights it on fire.

Government puts new money into the market by giving people dollars in exchange for their services. This choice is dependent in literally zero way on how much money they have taken in taxes that year. Government spending is not constrained by taxation in any way, shape, or form outside of inflationary pressure. (and technically extreme inflation is not a direct constraint either, just a bad idea.) The government is not like your household, because while you as a person are spending currency someone else creates, they are spending currency THEY create. They can circulate new money if they wish, but it's not like they are actually taking your money and circulating it like someone does out of a Starbucks cash register.

One part of the government does take your money, and then distribute that very same money back out again, it may be a different physical bill, but it is the money you paid in taxes. Taxes are Government revenue, spending are the outlays, and the difference is a surplus or deficit. They do not pile the money up and light it on fire, figuratively speaking. They spend the money they receive through taxes, they make up the difference in securities.

They DO NOT create money just by spending more, that spending must be matched to fund raising through the sales of securities. The government does not create money when it spends, it borrows money to spend that extra cash. That is why we pay interest on our debt.

The federal reserve system changes the money supply through open market activities, reserve requirements and interest rates. You seem to be confused with the idea of inflation through spending, as well. But, the federal reserve system is not in any way involved with government spending.

But, back to the original point I was making, Boberfett is right, the government takes your $100 dollars and spends it for you. If they want to spend more, they ask for more money and promise to pay it back with interest. Then they take that other nice person's money and spend it. Later they take someone else money from taxes, and give that taxpayers money to the nice person who loaned the government money.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

Well you can certainly reasonably argue that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You were talking about consumers and taxes. You were wrong, and I proved it.

I simply stated my opinion to help you understand why people are against it. It's very simple and it has something to do with what you were talking about.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Just for the record, Obama already levied one of the highest tax increases in history on those making less than $250k when he raised the cigarette tax by more than a dollar-per-pack last Spring.

This would just be more icing on the cake of broken promises.

Fuck Pelosi. She has no business remaining in power, and I can't for the life of me figure out the reason why she's still there... wait, nevermind, it's fucking California. Duh. :|

Only affects people who smoke, and affects those over 250k who smoke as well...so your statement = fail.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Just for the record, Obama already levied one of the highest tax increases in history on those making less than $250k when he raised the cigarette tax by more than a dollar-per-pack last Spring.

This would just be more icing on the cake of broken promises.

Fuck Pelosi. She has no business remaining in power, and I can't for the life of me figure out the reason why she's still there... wait, nevermind, it's fucking California. Duh. :|

Only affects people who smoke, and affects those over 250k who smoke as well...so your statement = fail.

Bullshit. The poor by large are the biggest smokers.

Obama lied, taxes rised.