Why is everyone reaction to "higher taxes" a bad one?

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Is there anything stopping you or anyone who agrees with you from voluntarily paying more taxes to show your support? Its pretty selfish to not want to pay pre-2000 taxes simply because everyone else doesn't have to.

I imagine the families that have had to mail their sons and daughters decent body armor would have something to say about that. But to answer your question, if there were some sort of checkbox that said "3% of this total goes toward getting our soldiers home in one piece" hell yea I'd check it.

So the lack of a check box is all that's stopping you? Is there no way for you to set up an account and have x% of your pay deposited into an interest-bearing account, then make quarterly withdrawals from that account in order to write a check to the US government with written instructions as to which budget it should be added to? (I don't know if there is a way, I'm just asking.) Are you so callous and vicious that the small inconvenience of finding out is this is possible and then implementing this is worth more to you than the lives of soldiers!?

Now, you obviously realize that I'm being completely facetious with you, but do you see how this applies to your logic?

No one here is arguing that they don't want more money going toward beneficial causes or that they would refuse to pay for such things, but many realize how wasteful the government is and see the futility of raising taxes without attempting to reduce inefficiency. Imagine if the money spend on the 'war on drugs' was used to buy troops body armor. What about those limos that our politicians ride around in? Isn't protecting our troops more important than having a chilled bottle of Dom in the back?

You see where this is going?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

'Cause people work hard and have mortgage payments to make and children to feed, and they don't like some cocky college kid telling them that they are "rich" and have to pay more taxes because they make $50k/yr. and barely get by. Get it?
Our government is wasteful and inefficient. A great deal of the time, it takes our money and wastes it. It pushes us around without regard for our rights. It steals our land. It repeatedly lies to us. It jails people when they are harming no one but themselves. It invades our privacy and tells us how to live and work. And it has become as giant bloated 10 million pound gorilla sitting in everyone's lap.
I recognize that government does fulfill some vital functions, but why the fsck are you so eager to give that gorilla even more money and power beyond those vital functions? Or is it because the OP is just another one of those stupid cocky college kids with little to no income of his own and he's trying to convince other people to pay when he doesn't have to?... why, how generous of you! :roll:

edit: I love this "people are selfish" bullsh!t. You people sure are generous with Other People's Money! :frown:
Get this through yer heads. Unless something vital is being paid for, higher taxes are bad. Giving money to the black hole of government corruption for the sake of giving money to the black hole of government corruption is just plain stupid. May as well offer a vampire "just a few drops" of your blood.

*hugs you*

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Thank you Rei.

Its really messed up when we're spending billions on a single country in one of the most expensive wars of modern time, attempting to protect our borders, and acting as nation builders, and all you conservatives can think is "wah wah wah, what about my mortgage??". You call the system flawed but assume that the government will magically reduce its debt and boost its essential military prowess when we give it LESS money

Hypocrites like you make it so glaringly obvious why the Democrats don't win. To a person with a mortgage and family struggling to get by, that mortgage and family are the most important thing in the world. You establish yourself as a threat to that (as you are doing now) and you make an enemy of that person. Make too many enemies in a democracy and you ain't going very far politically.

And cKGunslinger is right about the rest. Except that an individual can always choose to voluntarily overpay your taxes. No box need be checked, just pay Uncle Sam too much and tell him to keep the change. Feel free to do so...

 

[GTaudiophile]

I give at least 10% of my pre-tax income away to charity ON TOP of federal and state taxes. There's a huge difference in giving money directly to the organization of your choice versus sending it the big, slow, fat guy known as Uncle Sam.

Do I feel my hard-earned money should go to fund abortions overseas or the National Endowment for the Arts, or NPR? NO! But I am almost forced at gun-point to do so.

I get almostm $20K of my annual income STOLEN from me in taxes! I worked until like April for the US Government. That's horse dung!

 

[conjur]

Yeah...the bulk of your Federal taxes go to fund abortions overseas and to fund NPR and the NEA.

Wow...what a stupid-ass statement.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I really don't get it. Everyone says "higher taxes" are bad. I don't understand this AT ALL. That's like saying there shouyld be no taxes at all. No roads, no bridges, no fire departments, no police.

Right. That is exactly what I would like to see. No government at all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah...the bulk of your Federal taxes go to fund abortions overseas and to fund NPR and the NEA.

Wow...what a stupid-ass statement.

I would imagine that, in GT's opinion (pardon me if this is presumptuous), it doesn't matter if it's the bulk or just a penny so long as those programs exist because of his tax dollars.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah...the bulk of your Federal taxes go to fund abortions overseas and to fund NPR and the NEA.

Wow...what a stupid-ass statement.

I would imagine that, in GT's opinion (pardon me if this is presumptuous), it doesn't matter if it's the bulk or just a penny so long as those programs exist because of his tax dollars.

And he's "almost forced at gun point" to give that penny?

Give me a break.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah...the bulk of your Federal taxes go to fund abortions overseas and to fund NPR and the NEA.

Wow...what a stupid-ass statement.

I would imagine that, in GT's opinion (pardon me if this is presumptuous), it doesn't matter if it's the bulk or just a penny so long as those programs exist because of his tax dollars.

And he's "almost forced at gun point" to give that penny?

Give me a break.

Yes, he is. One penny being an exaggeration as taxes are rounded to the nearest dollar... but yes, it is possible that one could go to jail for underpaying their income taxes by as little as one dollar. Of course, that never happens because the taxpayer would just cough up the dollar, but I think the fact that the possibility exists justifies calling it "at gunpoint".

 

[Genx87]

Reduce spending or at least hold spending and let revenues catchup.

If you raise taxes it just goes into the bottomless pit that is the govt. It is obvious if the federal budget is 2.1 trillion a year and they cant pay their bills. The I am afraid there has to be a shatload of waste somewhere.

For as much as people want to piss and moan about the cost of the war in Iraq. It has cost us around 120-150 billion over 18 months. That represents about 3.3% of the budget over the past 18 months.

Compare that to WWII where we dropped 2 trillion over 4 years with a much smaller economy and tax revenue.

 

[tallest1]

Wow, I was preparing my defense and Vic and Gunslinger answered it for me! While the government is undoubtedly wasteful, money IS making its way to more important efforts " it doesn't matter if it's the bulk or just a penny so long as those programs exist because of [our] tax dollars. " -- And yes, Vic, a mortgage and family is less important when that extra billion could decide whether a cloud of anthrax floats over your home or not. You can't have things both ways because you might be able to get soup on the table today but our children may not be so lucky when they get older.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami

pay far too much in taxes to support bloated social programs

you mean like $400 billion post-cold war military? $250 billion for a semi-working missile shield and another $200 billion for JSF?

Or our greatest Welfare State: IRAQ

Lockheed Halliburton: Corporate Welfare dwarfs all that of the poor

As we are $8 trillion in debt and projected to be $10 trillion in just a decade, it is obvious we are underpaying or overspending, thanks to BUSH its BOTH.

He who shifts tax burden to middle class away from the rich, leave no billionaire behind.

You do realize that that the money for things like missile defense, DoD contracts, and fighter jets doesn't just end up in some "rich white man's" bank account, despite what some would have you believe, right? Contractors employ people, people like you and me, people who pay taxes, taxes that go towards Social Security, Medicare, etc. Other money gets spend on investments and property, things that spur the economy, makes people wealthier, thus creating more taxes. It's a bigger circle than some narrow-minded people would imply. It's not a black-n-white, "Get rid of corporations and feed the poor" issue. Some people realize this. Many of those same people oppose higher taxes for the sake of having higher taxes.

What benefits do we get from mis-managed social programs? Sure, some people get legitimate help, which is a good thing, but many others get a 'free ride' and that money spent becomes 'lost' and may never make it back into the economy in any meaningful way. Shouldn't we concentrate on reform first, before we just keep forking over more money into the pit? If there was a charity that help dying children, would you donate money to them, even if they had the disclaimer that they kep 98% of the funds for "administrative purposes?" Probably not, but does that make you "selfish and uncaring?" By your logic, yes. By mine, no. It makes you smart. It shows you understand the big picture, not just the surface issue.

And since I saved quite a bit in taxes the last few years, that must mean I'm rich instead of middle class, no? Well hell! That's news to me. I guess i can finally move out of that doublewide me and my family have. Maybe I can trade by Mazda in for a nice new BMW. :roll:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Generally, people are selfish.

The funny thing is the number of Christian Conservatives who hate taxes. Jesus didn't say much about homosexuals...he did say a lot about rich people though.

:thumbsup:

That's why I call so-called "Christians" mammonists. They simply worship mammon.

 

[tallest1]

Okay, so if you're unwilling to sacrifice for the well-being of our children (nevermind that a chunk of it would get wasted) because of big government, please tell us what should be done to change that and when? Should we wait until the government has a big pile of money sitting around because with our debts that won't happen anytime soon

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Wow, I was preparing my defense and Vic and Gunslinger answered it for me! While the government is undoubtedly wasteful, money IS making its way to more important efforts " it doesn't matter if it's the bulk or just a penny so long as those programs exist because of [our] tax dollars. " -- And yes, Vic, a mortgage and family is less important when that extra billion could decide whether a cloud of anthrax floats over your home or not. You can't have things both ways because you might be able to get soup on the table today but our children may not be so lucky when they get older.

Please... the last time a cloud of antrax floated over the US was... when?
Peddle yer chicken little elsewhere...

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: tallest1
Wow, I was preparing my defense and Vic and Gunslinger answered it for me! While the government is undoubtedly wasteful, money IS making its way to more important efforts " it doesn't matter if it's the bulk or just a penny so long as those programs exist because of [our] tax dollars. " -- And yes, Vic, a mortgage and family is less important when that extra billion could decide whether a cloud of anthrax floats over your home or not. You can't have things both ways because you might be able to get soup on the table today but our children may not be so lucky when they get older.

Please... the last time a cloud of antrax floated over the US was... when?
Peddle yer chicken little elsewhere...

tell Cheney, Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge that. I'm only echo'ing the fearmongering we've been fed the past 4 years

 

[beyoku]

Thats one thing i really dont mind is taxes. For the good of the country i dont really mind a swing up or down. I rarely notice it, kind of like contributuions to 401K. I have never complained about taxes, sometimes though we have to call in to question the way that they are used/misused.

 

[Steve Guilliot]

As noble as smaller government and lower taxes are, now is not the time to cut taxes. This country has expenses, and no matter how much we whine about $xx being taken from us, the money HAS to come from somewhere. The less we pay in taxes now, the more our children will pay... plus compounded interest. Foolish.

Obviously, the first line of fiscal responsibility has to be cutting waste and reducing unecessary spending. But it's just fantasy to think that will get us out of this current situation soon enough. I'm an independent supporting Kerry, but even I know the GOP of today is not the fiscally conservative GOP of 50 years ago. Consider what Reagan and now Bush Lite have done to the national debt, then consider how fiscally conservative Clinton's admin was. Even diehard neocons have to understand how different the Republicans are today. The old line "Tax and Spend Democrats" is just that, old.

 

[lordtyranus]

Does anyone really think that Kerry will spend less than Bush is?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Does anyone really think that Kerry will spend less than Bush is?

Does anyone think you would actually believe it if he did?

Remember when someone said Kerry would cut gov. jobs? You said it was part of his high-spending plan. That's right, somehow cutting spending was playing into the communist goal of raising spending. :roll:

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Does anyone really think that Kerry will spend less than Bush is?

I surely do. If not less spending he will at least think about where the money will be coming from before he takes the plunge. Way more fiscally responsible than Bush has been in his term. Surely he can't do WORSE.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Does anyone really think that Kerry will spend less than Bush is?

less ... not likely
The same ... possibly
More ... most likely

The difference will be spent on what...Under Kerry there will be more money towards domestic issues and useless social programs making them more bloated...Bush will keep money in military, space agency and other govt programs...neither is that great IMHO but I would rather have the latter than the higher taxes associated with the former.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Does anyone really think that Kerry will spend less than Bush is?

Clinton did.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Therein lies the flaw. How many times has the government increases its income over time and said "Wow. look at all the money I have now. I know, let's give it back to the people"?

Early in Bush's term it was "lets give the surplus back to the people". It can happen. But yes it would require restraint on our governments side.

LOL! And how many times has he been criticised and flamed for doing that! Let's see, ~3 years ago x 356 days per year x 3 times per day x 63 Million Democrats = WOW!

Who's going to make that "mistake" again anytime soon?

Hopefully he will be heavily criticised for it again in November.

 

[Jhhnn]

Welcome to Disneyland, IHMJ, where half of the Bush taxcuts go to the top 10%, and half of that to the top 1%, but the funride is called "middle-class taxcuts". Where 1/3 of all non-SS expenditures are made on borrowed money, and corporate pork is King, particularly for energy, defense and pharma. It's a place where complicity in the destruction of the fiscal integrity of the govt can be bought for a pittance, and illusionists rule. When challenged to lay out a balanced budget w/o raising taxes, all you'll hear is La-la-la-la... from the Bushfans...

To be fair, Engineer, debt maintenance (interest) for 2004 is projected at a mere $309B, the third largest single expense behind all of HHS and a bloated military. It'll be $400B RSN, if the Repubs are allowed to continue... probably get there anyway, even if borrowing stopped tomorrow, just on the basis of rising interest rates.

Don't sweat it, just listen to the hypnotic droning of the VP- "Deficits don't matter, deficits don't matter..." go fondle your guns, bible, plastic sheeting and duct tape, knowing you'll survive the next time the terrarists strike- It's God's Will.