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

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Steve Guilliot
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.

Exactly. I personally identify with the supposedly republican values for fiscal responsibility and smaller government...but what it says on the label isn't what comes in the package anymore. Can anyone really say Bush has been conservative with our budget? Or even that he supports smaller government? I mean, sure he says he does...but is that what he's actually doing? He just keeps creating more layers of beaucratic nonesense and instead being a "tax and spend democrat" he's a "borrow and spend republican". While I'd like less spending in a lot of departments, that probably isn't going to happen to soon. And the LAST thing I want is a "borrow and spend" policy because that just fvcks us right over in the end.

 

[JDub02]

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.

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" .. that means pay your taxes. Jesus didn't have anything bad to say about rich people either. He had bad things to say about people who weren't generous and compassionate towards their fellow humans.

The argument for lower taxes stems from simple economics. Taxes are a restriction on the economy .. the "cost" of doing business. Every time you have economic activity, you pay tax.

By lowering taxes, you lower the cost of doing business, hence more business takes place, since there is less incentive just to hang onto your money.

The tax on gasoline is very, very bad because gasoline is what drives our economy. Think what would happen if the cost of shipping things rose by 50%? Prices in stores would jump dramatically, hurting the consumer. Tourism would drop dramatically. The airlines would suffer greatly. I'm assuming by "gasoline", you mean oil based fuels. If it was strictly a tax on gasoline, the only effect would be everyone switching to diesels.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: JDub02
The tax on gasoline is very, very bad because gasoline is what drives our economy. Think what would happen if the cost of shipping things rose by 50%? Prices in stores would jump dramatically, hurting the consumer. Tourism would drop dramatically. The airlines would suffer greatly. I'm assuming by "gasoline", you mean oil based fuels. If it was strictly a tax on gasoline, the only effect would be everyone switching to diesels.

Which is precisely why we should tax gasoline. If we tax it now, and make it shipping companies exempt...we can reduce our dependence on it without adversely affecting the economy. But if we wait until when the sh|t becomes scarce and expensive, we can slash the taxes on it to zero for shipping companies and the economy will still take a big hit. And it'll be a lot harder to catch up then.

But that is another thread all together.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Well, when you make under 30k (usually under 20k) in a year, anything that takes any money is pretty much a death sentence. You already have no health insurance, so you're at the mercy of your constitution. At least with income tax there are enough exemptions and write-offs that those of us on the bottom don't really lose much (except ss which will hopefully go away soon and become a privatized option). If you tax things we absolutely must have, then we have to give up eating to get to work.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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".

One would only go to jail if one ignored IRS attempts to collect the debt. And, calling it "at gunpoint" is entirely a gross exaggeration.

Nothing but pure hyperbole.

 

[Rob9874]

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.

I have a tear in my eye. I thought I didn't like Vic, until I read this post. We have more in common than I thought. Couldn't have said it better myself. I especially like, "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?" That is so true!

 

[JDub02]

do you realize we're taxing gasoline out the wazoo right now? In NY, we're over $.60/gallon in taxes.

Increasing the tax on gasoline would seriously crush the economy. Oil drives our economy. That's the simple truth. You can make the argument that we need to reduce dependance on it, and I'll agree with you .. but those technologies are years off.

Tourism in NY state alone is a multi-billion dollar industry. And that's just one industry that would be hit hard.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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".

One would only go to jail if one ignored IRS attempts to collect the debt. And, calling it "at gunpoint" is entirely a gross exaggeration.

Nothing but pure hyperbole.

Eh? Hardly.

If one wished to not pay, then of course one would be ignoring the IRS attempts to collect the debt. The premise of this argument is not paying, remember?
And when the cops come to take you away, they will be packing guns. If you resist them, they will point those guns in your face. In other words, at gunpoint. Which is how ALL laws are enforced if necessary.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
One would only go to jail if one ignored IRS attempts to collect the debt. And, calling it "at gunpoint" is entirely a gross exaggeration.

Nothing but pure hyperbole.

LOL, yes it's a bit of an exaggeration, but not totally untrue. Refuse to pay your taxes, someone will come to collect, refuse collections attempts, they will want you in jail, refuse to go to jail, guns may very well be drawn. Recognize the exaggeration, but please don't play dense.

 

[JDub02]

Here's how we should be taxed ..... Fair Tax

National sales tax. No programs would be cut. There are no loopholes, everyone pays. If you buy, you pay. Simple as that. There are no more tax shelters, no more "under the table", no more IRS.

Figures estimate the tax would need to be 26%. Estimates have been made that a company spends roughly 26% of it's revenue figuring out taxes. That means all of us would have alot more money to spend every paycheck on goods that wouldn't be much more expensive.

And for poor people, everyone would get reimbursed for tax on spending up to the poverty line.

 

[1EZduzit]

The "have nots" are always willing to share with the "haves". When enough people consider themselves "havenots" then somebody who wants to raise taxes on the "rich" will stand a very good chance of being elected. If for no other reason then spite on behalf of the "have nots".

It's capitalism at it's finest.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: JDub02
do you realize we're taxing gasoline out the wazoo right now? In NY, we're over $.60/gallon in taxes.

Increasing the tax on gasoline would seriously crush the economy.

Not hardly. I was in Europe last month and gas was 1.29 Euros per liter. That's 4.87 Euros per gallon. That's over $5/gallon for gas. I think ours could go up to $3, and it would still be a steal compared to Europe.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The "have nots" are always willing to share with the "haves". When enough people consider themselves "havenots" then somebody who wants to raise taxes on the "rich" will stand a very good chance of being elected. If for no other reason then spite on behalf of the "have nots".

It's capitalism at it's finest.

I think "inherited-nots and "inheriteds" is more appropriate.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The "have nots" are always willing to share with the "haves". When enough people consider themselves "havenots" then somebody who wants to raise taxes on the "rich" will stand a very good chance of being elected. If for no other reason then spite on behalf of the "have nots".

It's capitalism at it's finest.

I think "inherited-nots and "inheriteds" is more appropriate.

I never thought of it like that, but your right.

Edit:

Isn't it strange how the people who want to get rid of the inheritance taxes say it's "not fair" but could care less about people who are working full time and have no benifits, retirement, health care or even paid vacation and don't even make enough money to support themselves without assitance.

Now tell me, how fair is that??

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Welcome to Disneyland, IHMJ, where half of the Bush taxcuts go to the top 10%, and half of that to the top 1%...

See, the flaw behind that logic is that tax cuts are not a tangible item that is given back to taxpayers. The government is not handing out money. They're just taking less. Jhhnn, you don't currently send me any money. I would like you to send me $100/week, but I don't require it. So can you say that I'm giving you a $100 refund every week? I think that's damn generous of me.

If the Top 10% are paying 67% the taxes, it makes sense that they'll pay less when less taxes are required. Let's say all taxes collected were $1,000,000 (for math's sake). Here's how much each income percentage paid:

Top 1%: $374,200
Top 2%-5%: $190,500
Top 6%-10%: $108,600
Top 11%-25%: $166,800
Top 26%-50%: $120,800
Bottom 50%: $39,100

The Top 10% paid $673,300 of every $1 million. If a refund is given, how can you say they don't deserve it?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The "have nots" are always willing to share with the "haves". When enough people consider themselves "havenots" then somebody who wants to raise taxes on the "rich" will stand a very good chance of being elected. If for no other reason then spite on behalf of the "have nots".

It's capitalism at it's finest.

I think "inherited-nots and "inheriteds" is more appropriate.

Indeed, nobody in the history of the world has ever earned money. All those "rich bastards" are direct descendants of Adam, who received his fortune directly from God. Why he chose to leave his wealth to only lazy Conservatives is still a mystery.

It's very hard to take some relevant 'liberal' points at face value when they so often wind up ensnared in what appears to be nothing more than petty jealously.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Isn't it strange how the people who want to get rid of the inheritance taxes say it's "not fair" but could care less about people who are working full time and have no benifits, retirement, health care or even paid vacation and don't even make enough money to support themselves without assitance.

Who are these people? I mean the ones who dislike inheritance tax and "could care less" about hard-working people getting the shaft. Are you sure these aren't just some more of those "boogymen" that people like to invent?

Talk about scare tactics and FUD. Bush and Cheney look like optimists compared to some liberals. :roll:

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Isn't it strange how the people who want to get rid of the inheritance taxes say it's "not fair" but could care less about people who are working full time and have no benifits, retirement, health care or even paid vacation and don't even make enough money to support themselves without assitance.

Who are these people? I mean the ones who dislike inheritance tax and "could care less" about hard-working people getting the shaft. Are you sure these aren't just some more of those "boogymen" that people like to invent?

Talk about scare tactics and FUD. Bush and Cheney look like optimists compared to some liberals. :roll:

No kidding! I'm against the "inheritance tax" (which I thought was called the Death Tax), and won't get a dime when my parents die. My parents are both 52, and don't have a dime saved for retirement or anything. They don't have a savings account. Just paycheck to paycheck. The reason I oppose the Death Tax is because it's unfair. Not because it benefits me in any way.

And I admit I don't pander for "people who are working full time and have no benifits, retirement, health care or even paid vacation and don't even make enough money to support themselves without assitance". The difference in mindset between liberals and conservatives is personal accountablility. Conservatives say every person is responsible for their own situation, and liberals say that the "have nots" are victims of society, and it's society's obligation to take care of them. Do you know why I busted my ass and incurred tens of thousands of dollars of debt to finish college? Because I am responsible for my future, and didn't want to work 2 jobs to barely make ends meet, or not have health care. So if someone else chose the other path, I feel bad for them, but I am not responsible for paying their way.

 

[judasmachine]

...because ppl are greedy and only look out for themselves.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: JDub02
do you realize we're taxing gasoline out the wazoo right now? In NY, we're over $.60/gallon in taxes.

Increasing the tax on gasoline would seriously crush the economy.

Not hardly. I was in Europe last month and gas was 1.29 Euros per liter. That's 4.87 Euros per gallon. That's over $5/gallon for gas. I think ours could go up to $3, and it would still be a steal compared to Europe.

Yah, but they're so close together they don't have nearly the transportation costs that we do. Driving across Europe is like driving from Philly to Cleveland.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
...because ppl are greedy and only look out for themselves.

That has already been debunked. Taxes are not charity. If I want to help the homeless, I give to an appropriate and worthy charity.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: judasmachine
...because ppl are greedy and only look out for themselves.

That has already been debunked. Taxes are not charity. If I want to help the homeless, I give to an appropriate and worthy charity.

Also, altruism is not an obligation. Read Rand.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: judasmachine
...because ppl are greedy and only look out for themselves.

That has already been debunked. Taxes are not charity. If I want to help the homeless, I give to an appropriate and worthy charity.

Yep. I give 10% of my income to my church as tithe. I give more through work to the United Way.

Look at Bill Gates .. the man's loaded .. but he gives millions and millions away in charity every year. But he's evil according to liberals because he had the audacity to make himself rich.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
...because ppl are greedy and only look out for themselves.

Indeed. Everyday I come home from work and my kids ask for some food, I just say "Dammit, I worked for this money! Go get a job if you want to eat. I don't care if you are only 8 years old." Then during the holidays, I always make a habit of berrating the Salvation Army and waving my wad 'o cash in thier faces, saying , "Ha! I'm going to spend this on video games and beer! Screw you and your poor people!" And when the collection plate comes around at church, I always make a point to say "God doesn't need this money. If He want to help that family that just lost thier parents in an accident, let Him get a job and pay for it!" Yep, I'm just a greedy, selfish bastard, just like all the other non-liberals. Mwuhahaha!

:roll:

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: judasmachine
...because ppl are greedy and only look out for themselves.

That has already been debunked. Taxes are not charity. If I want to help the homeless, I give to an appropriate and worthy charity.

Yep. I give 10% of my income to my church as tithe. I give more through work to the United Way.

Look at Bill Gates .. the man's loaded .. but he gives millions and millions away in charity every year. But he's evil according to liberals because he had the audacity to make himself rich.

Hey, my work does United Way too. Your company doesn't start with an "I" does it?

Don't get libs started on Bill Gates. "Hate the good for being the good"