CADsortaGUY
Lifer
my rhetoric? did you read your post? Yes, it was a left field rant that grossly missed the point of my post especially the part you quoted.
Communist? I said that? Who has their panties in a bunch?
CkG
my rhetoric? did you read your post? Yes, it was a left field rant that grossly missed the point of my post especially the part you quoted.
Communist? I said that? Who has their panties in a bunch?
CkG
I chose that quote because it's representative of what appears to be the basis of your stance on taxation.
You object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes." That is generally based on the idea that the "rich" (as we have not-so-effectively defined the classification of) already pay a larger percentage of their income in proportion to that which non-rich individuals do. Hopefully I'm not too off base here, besides the exclusion of the non-income based taxes tangent.
What you fail to appreciate is that this administration has drastically increased government spending while simultaneously coughing up several ill-timed tax cuts that will only exacerbate this issue of taxation five to eight years down the road. That's where my concern lies. Taxes will be raised, they HAVE to be raised. Now it's simply a matter of which income bracket will shoulder the MAJORITY of the burden (note I have not used the term "all" here, nor have I ever, nor has anyone else for that matter.) As I see it, the wealthiest tax brackets have received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts and should therefore, logically, give more of it back when it comes times to pay the piper.
Now, what if that isn't enough? What if all income brackets coughing up a portion of their tax reductions back to the feds just doesn't cut it? The poor and middle class are already struggling in this economy, is anyone willing to bet the farm that our economy will be totally back on its feet in time for the tax crunch? Doubtful. The job market is on an upswing... in Bangladesh. Is that going to make it any easier for the poor and middle class to stomach the majority of the impending tax hikes?
Any way you look at it, the lower tax brackets have less discretionary income to compensate for the increased burden of taxation. Any increase in taxes is significantly more likely to eat into the expenses for necessities such as food shelter and utilities (living expense, if you will.) The upper tax bracket, on the other hand, faces no such peril. Alternatively, they face what I would call a write off; an inconvenience. "Fair share" lost it's relevance the moment that third tax cut hit the black. You know whom you have to thank for that.
edited for sh!tty grammer
You object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes." That is generally based on the idea that the "rich" (as we have not-so-effectively defined the classification of) already pay a larger percentage of their income in proportion to that which non-rich individuals do. Hopefully I'm not too off base here, besides the exclusion of the non-income based taxes tangent.
What you fail to appreciate is that this administration has drastically increased government spending while simultaneously coughing up several ill-timed tax cuts that will only exacerbate this issue of taxation five to eight years down the road. That's where my concern lies. Taxes will be raised, they HAVE to be raised. Now it's simply a matter of which income bracket will shoulder the MAJORITY of the burden (note I have not used the term "all" here, nor have I ever, nor has anyone else for that matter.) As I see it, the wealthiest tax brackets have received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts and should therefore, logically, give more of it back when it comes times to pay the piper.
Now, what if that isn't enough? What if all income brackets coughing up a portion of their tax reductions back to the feds just doesn't cut it? The poor and middle class are already struggling in this economy, is anyone willing to bet the farm that our economy will be totally back on its feet in time for the tax crunch? Doubtful. The job market is on an upswing... in Bangladesh. Is that going to make it any easier for the poor and middle class to stomach the majority of the impending tax hikes?
Any way you look at it, the lower tax brackets have less discretionary income to compensate for the increased burden of taxation. Any increase in taxes is significantly more likely to eat into the expenses for necessities such as food shelter and utilities (living expense, if you will.) The upper tax bracket, on the other hand, faces no such peril. Alternatively, they face what I would call a write off; an inconvenience. "Fair share" lost it's relevance the moment that third tax cut hit the black. You know whom you have to thank for that.
edited for sh!tty grammer
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: PainTrain
I chose that quote because it's representative of what appears to be the basis of your stance on taxation.
You object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes." That is generally based on the idea that the "rich" (as we have not-so-effectively defined the classification of) already pay a larger percentage of their income in proportion to that which non-rich individuals do. Hopefully I'm not too off base here, besides the exclusion of the non-income based taxes tangent.
What you fail to appreciate is that this administration has drastically increased government spending while simultaneously coughing up several ill-timed tax cuts that will only exacerbate this issue of taxation five to eight years down the road. That's where my concern lies. Taxes will be raised, they HAVE to be raised. Now it's simply a matter of which income bracket will shoulder the MAJORITY of the burden (note I have not used the term "all" here, nor have I ever, nor has anyone else for that matter.) As I see it, the wealthiest tax brackets have received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts and should therefore, logically, give more of it back when it comes times to pay the piper.
Now, what if that isn't enough? What if all income brackets coughing up a portion of their tax reductions back to the feds just doesn't cut it? The poor and middle class are already struggling in this economy, is anyone willing to bet the farm that our economy will be totally back on its feet in time for the tax crunch? Doubtful. The job market is on an upswing... in Bangladesh. Is that going to make it any easier for the poor and middle class to stomach the majority of the impending tax hikes?
Any way you look at it, the lower tax brackets have less discretionary income to compensate for the increased burden of taxation. Any increase in taxes is significantly more likely to eat into the expenses for necessities such as food shelter and utilities (living expense, if you will.) The upper tax bracket, on the other hand, faces no such peril. Alternatively, they face what I would call a write off; an inconvenience. "Fair share" lost it's relevance the moment that third tax cut hit the black. You know whom you have to thank for that.
edited for sh!tty grammer
Actually your view of my stance is incorrect. If you would have read my posts you'd understand that. I've repeatedly had to state the I'm not for LESS taxes on the rich, but rather want some sort of "proof of reasoning" behind that "fair share" argument the leftists throw out. So, No I don't "object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes."" - I'm just asking for their reasons people have for using that argument. I've repeated asked for data or any sort of "proof" to back up their opinions - nothing but crickets. I don't object to the consideration - just the fact that it is being used as a political tool(class warfare and envy) but yet has yet to be backed up by any hint of facts.
Your whole post covers the same road that's already been covered here in this thread.
Did you read down a few posts where I talked about my "ideas" for taxation? Sure they aren't all spelled out in any detail but I'm still working on specifics. My ideas would vastly differ from the current system in that it'd mainly use the income tax for almost all revenue so we could get rid of some(if not almost all) of the "regressive" type taxes that *may* place too big of a burden on America's truly poor.
re:Bush's tax cut. Since you're a relative noobie to posting here, my stance on Bush's cuts or any tax cut at this point is that I'd rather keep as much money as I can, until the Gov't can spend my money in more efficient ways and stop the wasteful entitlement spending that will bankrupt us sooner than later. I'm a less spending type guy - not neccesarily a pro-tax cut guy. I'd be more than willing to pay my "fair share"
if our gov't truly reformed it's spending habits. I'm not holding my breath thoughCkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: PainTrain
I chose that quote because it's representative of what appears to be the basis of your stance on taxation.
You object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes." That is generally based on the idea that the "rich" (as we have not-so-effectively defined the classification of) already pay a larger percentage of their income in proportion to that which non-rich individuals do. Hopefully I'm not too off base here, besides the exclusion of the non-income based taxes tangent.
What you fail to appreciate is that this administration has drastically increased government spending while simultaneously coughing up several ill-timed tax cuts that will only exacerbate this issue of taxation five to eight years down the road. That's where my concern lies. Taxes will be raised, they HAVE to be raised. Now it's simply a matter of which income bracket will shoulder the MAJORITY of the burden (note I have not used the term "all" here, nor have I ever, nor has anyone else for that matter.) As I see it, the wealthiest tax brackets have received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts and should therefore, logically, give more of it back when it comes times to pay the piper.
Now, what if that isn't enough? What if all income brackets coughing up a portion of their tax reductions back to the feds just doesn't cut it? The poor and middle class are already struggling in this economy, is anyone willing to bet the farm that our economy will be totally back on its feet in time for the tax crunch? Doubtful. The job market is on an upswing... in Bangladesh. Is that going to make it any easier for the poor and middle class to stomach the majority of the impending tax hikes?
Any way you look at it, the lower tax brackets have less discretionary income to compensate for the increased burden of taxation. Any increase in taxes is significantly more likely to eat into the expenses for necessities such as food shelter and utilities (living expense, if you will.) The upper tax bracket, on the other hand, faces no such peril. Alternatively, they face what I would call a write off; an inconvenience. "Fair share" lost it's relevance the moment that third tax cut hit the black. You know whom you have to thank for that.
edited for sh!tty grammer
Actually your view of my stance is incorrect. If you would have read my posts you'd understand that. I've repeatedly had to state the I'm not for LESS taxes on the rich, but rather want some sort of "proof of reasoning" behind that "fair share" argument the leftists throw out. So, No I don't "object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes."" - I'm just asking for their reasons people have for using that argument. I've repeated asked for data or any sort of "proof" to back up their opinions - nothing but crickets. I don't object to the consideration - just the fact that it is being used as a political tool(class warfare and envy) but yet has yet to be backed up by any hint of facts.
Your whole post covers the same road that's already been covered here in this thread.
Did you read down a few posts where I talked about my "ideas" for taxation? Sure they aren't all spelled out in any detail but I'm still working on specifics. My ideas would vastly differ from the current system in that it'd mainly use the income tax for almost all revenue so we could get rid of some(if not almost all) of the "regressive" type taxes that *may* place too big of a burden on America's truly poor.
re:Bush's tax cut. Since you're a relative noobie to posting here, my stance on Bush's cuts or any tax cut at this point is that I'd rather keep as much money as I can, until the Gov't can spend my money in more efficient ways and stop the wasteful entitlement spending that will bankrupt us sooner than later. I'm a less spending type guy - not neccesarily a pro-tax cut guy. I'd be more than willing to pay my "fair share"
CkG
Well I somewhat resent the "noobie" comment as I have been a highly dedicated troll of these message boards since 1998
I've many different monickers but keep losing log-in info coupled with changing ISP's. Sad, yes. Noobie, no. Now, if you're refering to this thread, I've been on it from just about day one. I'm actually starting a macroeconomics class on momnday that I hope will shed some light on the numbers you and several others have been throwing around Until then, I'm taking the gist of your verbal argument and doing my best to approach it logically/humanely.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: PainTrain
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: PainTrain
I chose that quote because it's representative of what appears to be the basis of your stance on taxation.
You object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes." That is generally based on the idea that the "rich" (as we have not-so-effectively defined the classification of) already pay a larger percentage of their income in proportion to that which non-rich individuals do. Hopefully I'm not too off base here, besides the exclusion of the non-income based taxes tangent.
What you fail to appreciate is that this administration has drastically increased government spending while simultaneously coughing up several ill-timed tax cuts that will only exacerbate this issue of taxation five to eight years down the road. That's where my concern lies. Taxes will be raised, they HAVE to be raised. Now it's simply a matter of which income bracket will shoulder the MAJORITY of the burden (note I have not used the term "all" here, nor have I ever, nor has anyone else for that matter.) As I see it, the wealthiest tax brackets have received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts and should therefore, logically, give more of it back when it comes times to pay the piper.
Now, what if that isn't enough? What if all income brackets coughing up a portion of their tax reductions back to the feds just doesn't cut it? The poor and middle class are already struggling in this economy, is anyone willing to bet the farm that our economy will be totally back on its feet in time for the tax crunch? Doubtful. The job market is on an upswing... in Bangladesh. Is that going to make it any easier for the poor and middle class to stomach the majority of the impending tax hikes?
Any way you look at it, the lower tax brackets have less discretionary income to compensate for the increased burden of taxation. Any increase in taxes is significantly more likely to eat into the expenses for necessities such as food shelter and utilities (living expense, if you will.) The upper tax bracket, on the other hand, faces no such peril. Alternatively, they face what I would call a write off; an inconvenience. "Fair share" lost it's relevance the moment that third tax cut hit the black. You know whom you have to thank for that.
edited for sh!tty grammer
Actually your view of my stance is incorrect. If you would have read my posts you'd understand that. I've repeatedly had to state the I'm not for LESS taxes on the rich, but rather want some sort of "proof of reasoning" behind that "fair share" argument the leftists throw out. So, No I don't "object to the consideration that some people feel the rich "aren't paying their fair share of taxes."" - I'm just asking for their reasons people have for using that argument. I've repeated asked for data or any sort of "proof" to back up their opinions - nothing but crickets. I don't object to the consideration - just the fact that it is being used as a political tool(class warfare and envy) but yet has yet to be backed up by any hint of facts.
Your whole post covers the same road that's already been covered here in this thread.
Did you read down a few posts where I talked about my "ideas" for taxation? Sure they aren't all spelled out in any detail but I'm still working on specifics. My ideas would vastly differ from the current system in that it'd mainly use the income tax for almost all revenue so we could get rid of some(if not almost all) of the "regressive" type taxes that *may* place too big of a burden on America's truly poor.
re:Bush's tax cut. Since you're a relative noobie to posting here, my stance on Bush's cuts or any tax cut at this point is that I'd rather keep as much money as I can, until the Gov't can spend my money in more efficient ways and stop the wasteful entitlement spending that will bankrupt us sooner than later. I'm a less spending type guy - not neccesarily a pro-tax cut guy. I'd be more than willing to pay my "fair share"
CkG
Well I somewhat resent the "noobie" comment as I have been a highly dedicated troll of these message boards since 1998
Well, out with it - who be you?
Sorry - I can only go by the date and post count of your current nick.As to my numbers - the links are gov't sourced and this one gives a break down of tax revenue. I'm all about fixing the tax situation(well spending first
) not just bringing in more $$, but more data is needed to come up with a realistic picture of the revenue stream(imo) and how much is needed for an efficient American gov't.CkG
Just came to the realization that my profile wasn't visible, but there you go. If there was a way I could do a search for user names based on my real name you'd probably find 5 or 6 accounts over the last 5 years. As of now I use 2 of them because I kept forgetting my password for this user name so I had to start a new one at work; JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn. Please don't beat me mods, nothing to hide here
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: PainTrain
Just came to the realization that my profile wasn't visible, but there you go. If there was a way I could do a search for user names based on my real name you'd probably find 5 or 6 accounts over the last 5 years. As of now I use 2 of them because I kept forgetting my password for this user name so I had to start a new one at work; JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn. Please don't beat me mods, nothing to hide here
Ah, so johnnyjohn be you.
Doesn't suprise me now that I knowCkG
Great arguments on all side and fronts on the Tax , Rich Vs poor etc.
However all of it is moot if the working class is still overburdened to the point of leading to a revolt so it doesn't matter if the Tax codes are changed or re-written to a Flat Tax if the lower incomes can still not handle the burden.
If the Mules back is breaking, shifting the weight isn't going to lighten the load.
However all of it is moot if the working class is still overburdened to the point of leading to a revolt so it doesn't matter if the Tax codes are changed or re-written to a Flat Tax if the lower incomes can still not handle the burden.
If the Mules back is breaking, shifting the weight isn't going to lighten the load.
The problem is the federal goverment is too large. The mules back would not breaking if the fed did not consume 20% of the GDP.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
You see ElFenix - people completely dismiss your point unless you lead them to it
Even then they call it a rant or party line rhetoric. The thing is - that people have eaten up this "fair share" BS for too damn long and it's going to take a lot of work to break it's hold on people's minds. Logical reasoning and progression is one of those tools You got caught up on the overall picture item when it wasn't really the main fight. Ofcourse we need to look at the overall picture(in CONTEXT) but at this point it is to muddy to paint an accurate picture(which is what I said but eveyone kept trying to twist it) - hence my call for a simplified and more transparent tax situation so people can't bitch and moan and hide behind unverifiable accusations like "fair share" Unfortunately some people don't see the problems with out current tax system and just want to blame the rich - meh...atleast I tried. Someday people will learn.CkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
But what is "waste"? Except for foreign aid and other overseas expenses, is it not spent in America on salaries, goods, and services? Federal money spent on welfare and health care still trickles back into the economy. The Pentagon's budget goes back into salaries, supplies, and equipment. Even the taxes used to repay interest on the Federal debt goes back to our "investors". I'd never really thought along these lines until I saw your comment, so maybe I'm missing something obvious. Thoughts?
I agree with you, what is usually called waste isn't "lost".
Another point is that any large enterprise, private or public, is going to have some efficencies based on size and some inffecienciencies, some poeple like to find these ineffeciencies in govenrment spending and call them waste and pretend we could get rid of that spending, but it's inherent in any large organization.
Basically to really cut government spending you need a consensus to actually change government policies.
IMHO be far the easiset category to change is to reduce the size of the debt which reduces the amount of interest payments. To get there we needed to wait to have tax cuts instead of having them for the sole purpose of getting Bush elected.
Another point is that any large enterprise, private or public, is going to have some efficencies based on size and some inffecienciencies, some poeple like to find these ineffeciencies in govenrment spending and call them waste and pretend we could get rid of that spending, but it's inherent in any large organization.
Basically to really cut government spending you need a consensus to actually change government policies.
IMHO be far the easiset category to change is to reduce the size of the debt which reduces the amount of interest payments. To get there we needed to wait to have tax cuts instead of having them for the sole purpose of getting Bush elected.
Well, money is "lost" when it isn't recirculated into the money supply. If someone shoves $100,000 under their bed, that's a loss of at least $90,000 to the money supply. If they spent the money, they could increase the money supply by $100,000 over and above the $100,000 they spent, no problem.
I consider the post count currently (244 posts vs 44 posts) in favor of "Turns out it IS all the fault of the rich" to indicate that it REALLY IS all the fault of the rich. Just as I suspected all along ...
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I consider the post count currently (244 posts vs 44 posts) in favor of "Turns out it IS all the fault of the rich" to indicate that it REALLY IS all the fault of the rich. Just as I suspected all along ...
I bet we could change that
Actually the thread that needs to be created is "Turns out it IS all the fault of the Politician. Proof inside!"
CkG
I beg to differ, CAD. The politician is just an extension of some kind of interest backed by some kind of dollar amount. The politician couldn't exist to represent special interest in an overly effective way if our political system didn't allow it.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
PainTrain, is that you?
I don't see how your post contradicts mine...except for the "I beg to differ..." part.
CkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I think he is suggesting that the politician is merely a tool, that it is the special interests who wield the tool who are at "fault". I'm not sure I fully agree with this analogy, however. We don't blame tools because they lack the intelligence and morality to differentiate between right and wrong, and the free will to control how they are used. Politicians, on the other hand, have intelli . . .Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
PainTrain, is that you?
I don't see how your post contradicts mine...except for the "I beg to differ..." part.
CkG
I'm sorry, where was I going with this?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think he is suggesting that the politician is merely a tool, that it is the special interests who wield the tool who are at "fault". I'm not sure I fully agree with this analogy, however. We don't blame tools because they lack the intelligence and morality to differentiate between right and wrong, and the free will to control how they are used. Politicians, on the other hand, have intelli . . .Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
PainTrain, is that you?
I don't see how your post contradicts mine...except for the "I beg to differ..." part.
CkG
I'm sorry, where was I going with this?
exactlyWho are they suppsed to represent? Who do they represent? Now again - I think we need a new thread.
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter