What's your opinion of taxation in general?

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Extremist statements seem like they should be backed up by some kind of argument, as that statement makes absolutely no fucking sense to me.

Taxation doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can explain it.

You want the armed forces run by private companies? Yea that sounds like a fantastic idea...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I love taxes. I think of them as charity and my heart fills with joy.

If taxes were charity, you'd have the choice of not paying them.

Choice my ass. I'm giving up joy like I'm giving up breathing.

And I assume those are charity bombs blowing up Iraqi homes? $700 billion charity donation to Wall Street, and $1 billion in charity to Georgia?

Those were all gifts of third party voters that allowed Bush to get in.

 

[Xellos2099]

In reality, I believe tax cut would actually increase revenue, at least in the case of sales tax. People are always incline to buy more if tax rate are cheaper and buy less if the tax are higher. If peopel buy more and the tax revenue would naturally increase.

 

[ch33kym0use]

Taxation is ok, the problem is borrowing and spending excessively.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Half the country essentially doesn't pay income tax. It's gotten out of control.

:roll: Everyone in this country pays taxes unless they're living like the Unabomber (both in a remote cabin or in prison).

With all the credits running around and our so called 'progressive' tax scheme? No, they don't.

Just look at Barack Obama's fully refundable plans; the government is going to be handing out checks to people.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ironwing
No he won't. Bush and the Republicans have already spent any money Obama could possibly dream of spending. Obama will be mopping up after the Republican fiscal disaster and that will likely consume his entire time in office.

You have clearly ignored everything Obama has promised the masses in order to get elected. Check out his to-do list of programs sometime.

Yes I have ignored it. I pretty much ignore all the fiscal promises made by presidential candidates and focus on the policy proposals they would have much control over once elected. Neither Obama nor McCain will get to do much in the way of new programs. Bush has taken that possibility off the table by trashing/looting the treasury. A President McCain, I think, in attempt to salvage his party's reputation, will live in denial about this reality, further delaying a fix. Obama, on the other hand, isn't even beholden to his own party. He built his own fund raising machine and his own support base, running against the party ordained candidate. He is free to propose policies to start repairing the systemic fiscal fuckups produced by Republican rule.

Clinton spent a year trying to dump money into healthcare despite a deficit when he came into office in 1993, didn't he?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
In reality, I believe tax cut would actually increase revenue, at least in the case of sales tax. People are always incline to buy more if tax rate are cheaper and buy less if the tax are higher. If peopel buy more and the tax revenue would naturally increase.

Makes sense but there must be a point of diminishing returns - they would be fools if the tax was not already set at that level.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ironwing
The heavy lifting on containing spending was done by the Democrats before the Reps took over the Congress. After Newt took over, we had stalemate and stupidity. It takes a fool to think Clinton was a socialist.

Totally false.

Clinton had no plans to balance the budget prior to the Republican take over of congress.
Look at his first two budgets. Both contained $200 billion deficits for eternity.

It was not until the Republican take over in 95 that Clinton and congress made the deal that balanced the budget.

I'm really getting disgusted with PJ repeating the same lies. He's used this one countless times, and been corrected countless times, and posts as if he has not seen the info.

In fact, I'm so disgusted with him I'm not going to bother repeating the same info, I'm going to move him to the 'not worth explaining it to AGAIN' group on this topic.

There have been a number of threads lately where he posts something, gets corrected, and he does not respond. It's just tiresome.

Craig, I have provide Bill Clinton's own budget that had NO plans for a balanced budget.

Can you provide better proof than the budget that he providing to congress himself??

Here is even MORE proof.
Clinton's 1994 state of the union speech link
The word "balanced" does not even appear in the speech!!!! (The 1993 speech didn't include the term either)
The closest he comes is this:

This Congress produced a budget that cut the deficit by half a trillion dollars

Next we have 1995 state of the union delivered before the Republicans took over congress.link
The word balanced appears one time. And it is not even used in the context of balancing the budget.

I know many of you in this chamber support the balanced budget amendment. I certainly want to balance the budget. Our administration has done more to bring the budget down and to save money than any in a very, very long time.

Next 1996 AFTER the Republican take over of congress. link
Look at the difference

As we move into the era of balanced budgets and smaller government

All of a sudden we are moving into an era of balanced budgets? Wow.

Finally, 1997 link
He uses the word balanced 5 times. From no times in 1994 to 5 times in 1997.
And look at the context.
"My balanced budget"
"That's why this balanced budget"
"My balanced budget" again
"This balanced budget "

In conclusion. Clinton went from not even using the word 'balanced' in his first two state of the union to using it 5 times in 1997.

He goes from not even speaking of a balanced budget in his first three state of the unions to bragging about his balanced budget in 1997. If he was really committed to a balanced budget from day one then why didn't he use the most important speech he gives all year to talk about a balanced budget?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Extremist statements seem like they should be backed up by some kind of argument, as that statement makes absolutely no fucking sense to me.

Taxation doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can explain it.

You want the armed forces run by private companies? Yea that sounds like a fantastic idea...

the ideology that dissipate preaches is about as realistic as *true* communism, probably less so.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Half the country essentially doesn't pay income tax. It's gotten out of control.

:roll: Everyone in this country pays taxes unless they're living like the Unabomber (both in a remote cabin or in prison).

With all the credits running around and our so called 'progressive' tax scheme? No, they don't.

Just look at Barack Obama's fully refundable plans; the government is going to be handing out checks to people.

there are other taxes than just income taxes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ironwing
The heavy lifting on containing spending was done by the Democrats before the Reps took over the Congress. After Newt took over, we had stalemate and stupidity. It takes a fool to think Clinton was a socialist.

Totally false.

Clinton had no plans to balance the budget prior to the Republican take over of congress.
Look at his first two budgets. Both contained $200 billion deficits for eternity.

It was not until the Republican take over in 95 that Clinton and congress made the deal that balanced the budget.

I'm really getting disgusted with PJ repeating the same lies. He's used this one countless times, and been corrected countless times, and posts as if he has not seen the info.

In fact, I'm so disgusted with him I'm not going to bother repeating the same info, I'm going to move him to the 'not worth explaining it to AGAIN' group on this topic.

There have been a number of threads lately where he posts something, gets corrected, and he does not respond. It's just tiresome.

Craig, I have provide Bill Clinton's own budget that had NO plans for a balanced budget.

Can you provide better proof than the budget that he providing to congress himself??

Here is even MORE proof.
Clinton's 1994 state of the union speech link
The word "balanced" does not even appear in the speech!!!! (The 1993 speech didn't include the term either)
The closest he comes is this:

This Congress produced a budget that cut the deficit by half a trillion dollars

Next we have 1995 state of the union delivered before the Republicans took over congress.link
The word balanced appears one time. And it is not even used in the context of balancing the budget.

I know many of you in this chamber support the balanced budget amendment. I certainly want to balance the budget. Our administration has done more to bring the budget down and to save money than any in a very, very long time.

Next 1996 AFTER the Republican take over of congress. link
Look at the difference

As we move into the era of balanced budgets and smaller government

All of a sudden we are moving into an era of balanced budgets? Wow.

Finally, 1997 link
He uses the word balanced 5 times. From no times in 1994 to 5 times in 1997.
And look at the context.
"My balanced budget"
"That's why this balanced budget"
"My balanced budget" again
"This balanced budget "

In conclusion. Clinton went from not even using the word 'balanced' in his first two state of the union to using it 5 times in 1997.

He goes from not even speaking of a balanced budget in his first three state of the unions to bragging about his balanced budget in 1997. If he was really committed to a balanced budget from day one then why didn't he use the most important speech he gives all year to talk about a balanced budget?

the budget would never have balanced had it not been for the computer/internet edition of the industrial revolution. How is it that the republicans who were 'balancing the budget' in 1999 let it explode 2 years later?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111
Half the country essentially doesn't pay income tax. It's gotten out of control.

:roll: Everyone in this country pays taxes unless they're living like the Unabomber (both in a remote cabin or in prison).

With all the credits running around and our so called 'progressive' tax scheme? No, they don't.

Just look at Barack Obama's fully refundable plans; the government is going to be handing out checks to people.

Forgetting the overall stupidity of this argument (income taxes are far from the only taxes), just look at McCain's plans for tax credits, like his $5k per person credit for health care. So it looks like McCain would have the government handing out checks too.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Extremist statements seem like they should be backed up by some kind of argument, as that statement makes absolutely no fucking sense to me.

Taxation doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can explain it.

You want the armed forces run by private companies? Yea that sounds like a fantastic idea...

the ideology that dissipate preaches is about as realistic as *true* communism, probably less so.

And the problem with both true anarchy and true communism (besides being nothing more than 2 different paths to the same destination) is that they both last about 10 minutes before devolving into true warlordism.

 

[piasabird]

In my church (Mormons) we dont pay most of our local leaders. We build all of our chuches and temples from donations. An Honest and Freely donated 10% is all it takes. So not even all people give 10% Maybe half or 75%.

A fair 10% - 15% of annual income is fair enough for me if there are no loopholes at all. There are so many loopholes now that a lot of people are paying less than 10% tax. Ask the clintons why they thought donating their used underware was a good deduction?

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: brad310
I think we'd be alot better off if they disbanded the IRS and just made everyone pay a flat tax % of income. No loopholes. Just a flat tax. It is the most fair thing that can be done. I cant believe nobody is pushing it harder.

Well that would be to obvious, logical & reasonable. Therefore this idea has no place in government.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
In my church (Mormons) we dont pay most of our local leaders. We build all of our chuches and temples from donations. An Honest and Freely donated 10% is all it takes. So not even all people give 10% Maybe half or 75%.

A fair 10% - 15% of annual income is fair enough for me if there are no loopholes at all. There are so many loopholes now that a lot of people are paying less than 10% tax. Ask the clintons why they thought donating their used underware was a good deduction?

Mormon tithes are not exactly "freely donated." A member has to pay tithes in full in order to be considered in good standing. And a member that does not pay his tithes will lose certain church benefits, like being allowed access into a Mormon temple.
Last I checked (some time ago), only about half of church members are even active (regularly attend) much less pay full tithes.

And for the record, I picked the second option in the thread poll, "A tool that has it's purposes but one that is largely oversued." Like I said, taxes are really just the cut to the house. Modern taxation in many ways goes back to the medieval feudalism era. The local count or baron would build a castle where the peasants could bring in and sell their goods in a protected environment, and in return would pay their lord a tax for the privilege of using this marketplace. Our modern system is not much different.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: winnar111
With all the credits running around and our so called 'progressive' tax scheme? No, they don't.

Just look at Barack Obama's fully refundable plans; the government is going to be handing out checks to people.

there are other taxes than just income taxes.

Yeah, so? They're not the primary funding of our federal government.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I love taxes. I think of them as charity and my heart fills with joy.

If taxes were charity, you'd have the choice of not paying them.

Choice my ass. I'm giving up joy like I'm giving up breathing.

And I assume those are charity bombs blowing up Iraqi homes? $700 billion charity donation to Wall Street, and $1 billion in charity to Georgia?

Those were all gifts of third party voters that allowed Bush to get in.

Oh yes, it is my fault. Now the truth is coming out.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wireless, the key is to control spending.

We didn't 'cut' spending in the 90s to reach a balanced budget, we controlled the increase in spending.

If Bush had controlled spending we could have rebalanced the budget by now, instead him and congress went wild.
With the Democrats in charge I expect things to get even worse.

Why would you expect that? In your example of the 90's, a Democrat was in the white house.

Which probably had something to do with Newt Gingrich and the ?Contract with America? takeover of Congress in 1994, which forced Clinton to yield to conservatives.

Takes a very special person to suggest socialists would control spending, as you seem to suggest.

The heavy lifting on containing spending was done by the Democrats before the Reps took over the Congress. After Newt took over, we had stalemate and stupidity. It takes a fool to think Clinton was a socialist.

Ideologically Clinton is a socialist. Just like ideologically Bush is a fiscal conservative. The irony is that their actions in office were opposite of their ideologies.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Oh, and you have a point with it not being socialism. It was Karl Marx?s communist manifesto that outlined and popularized wealth redistribution. Socialist is merely the politically correct term to use after Stalin, Mao, and Castro proved how disastrous it turns out.

Put a happy face on it, and it'll turn out alright this time around.

:roll:

The concept of wealth redistribution predates Marx by several millennia, smart guy. It's in the Bible several times over FFS. And even socialism predates Marx by at least 100 years.

I bet you can't even tell us any of the fundamental differences between communism and socialism.

Please provide the quotes that sanction robin hood wealth redistribution in the bible. I may need to denounce my faith. Thanks.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
Ideologically Clinton is a socialist. Just like ideologically Bush is a fiscal conservative. The irony is that their actions in office were opposite of their ideologies.

:roll:

Ideologically, Clinton is Third Way.
While Bush was never a fiscal conservative, it just happened that a lot of his followers are/were fiscal conservatives, and mistakenly believed that Bush was one too.

Originally posted by: JS80
Please provide the quotes that sanction robin hood wealth redistribution in the bible. I may need to denounce my faith. Thanks.

Well then, it's a good thing I wasn't talking about Robin Hood style wealth redistribution. :roll:

However, the Bible says over and over and over again that it is a sin to neglect the needs of the poor, be it on an individual or societal level, and that God will punish that sin.

You want quotes? Okay... you want OT or NT? The OT will be more in depth about the sin on the societal level, with God saying he'll punish whole nations who do not care for and give to its poor and weak at the govt level (Jeremiah 5 is a good example), while the NT will promise damnation to those are not charitable on the individual level (just about any chapter and verse in the Gospels). Which are you looking for?

This is your faith and you don't know this? Bad news though, all the major faiths preach this. That's why Ayn Rand was an atheist.


edit: Let's not forget the custom of Jubilee from Leviticus 25, perhaps the ultimate example of wealth redistribution mandated by the Bible. Among other things, it effectively banned the practice of owning land in fee simple title.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I love taxes. I think of them as charity and my heart fills with joy.

If taxes were charity, you'd have the choice of not paying them.

Choice my ass. I'm giving up joy like I'm giving up breathing.

And I assume those are charity bombs blowing up Iraqi homes? $700 billion charity donation to Wall Street, and $1 billion in charity to Georgia?

Those were all gifts of third party voters that allowed Bush to get in.

Oh yes, it is my fault. Now the truth is coming out.

You will never see anything as your fault. It would just be evidence you are exactly as you feel you are.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
Ideologically Clinton is a socialist. Just like ideologically Bush is a fiscal conservative. The irony is that their actions in office were opposite of their ideologies.

:roll:

Ideologically, Clinton is Third Way.
While Bush was never a fiscal conservative, it just happened that a lot of his followers are/were fiscal conservatives, and mistakenly believed that Bush was one too.

Originally posted by: JS80
Please provide the quotes that sanction robin hood wealth redistribution in the bible. I may need to denounce my faith. Thanks.

Well then, it's a good thing I wasn't talking about Robin Hood style wealth redistribution. :roll:

However, the Bible says over and over and over again that it is a sin to neglect the needs of the poor, be it on an individual or societal level, and that God will punish that sin.

You want quotes? Okay... you want OT or NT? The OT will be more in depth about the sin on the societal level, with God saying he'll punish whole nations who do not care for and give to its poor and weak at the govt level (Jeremiah 5 is a good example), while the NT will promise damnation to those are not charitable on the individual level (just about any chapter and verse in the Gospels). Which are you looking for?

This is your faith and you don't know this? Bad news though, all the major faiths preach this. That's why Ayn Rand was an atheist.


edit: Let's not forget the custom of Jubilee from Leviticus 25, perhaps the ultimate example of wealth redistribution mandated by the Bible. Among other things, it effectively banned the practice of owning land in fee simple title.

I am bound by the new testament. Please provide gospel scripture that sanctions taxation for wealth redistribution. Thanks. If you can provide it I promise I will renounce by Christian faith.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JS80

I am bound by the new testament. Please provide gospel scripture that sanctions taxation for wealth redistribution. Thanks. If you can provide it I promise I will renounce by Christian faith.

So, you place your money politics above your religion.

What did Jesus say to the guy who wanted to follow, who had a lot of belongings?

 

[Craig234]

ProfJohn, I'd yet again respond to your logical errors on Clinton's deficit reduction if I had reason to believe you would listen and stop repeating the same errors. I don't.