Skip to main content

30 replies

Definition of Insanity

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
I believe the best definition of insanity is "to continue to do something over and over again, and expect to gain a different result."
Today, Obama has admitted that it was mistake for him to vote for an extension of the debt ceiling in 2006 as a junior Senator from Illinois, YET at the same time he is telling us it is imperative for the future for us to once again raise the debt ceiling and drive ourselves further into the quagmire we find ourselves. This is coming from a man who is supposed to be "leading this country", yet he is so indecisive he crontradicts himself on a daily basis. Continuing to drive us further into debt is not the answer. Attempting to reel in the spending monster that is the federal government is a must if this country is to survive. We cannot continue to dole out entitlements, seek no effective immigration policies, and want to drive taxes even further for those who already pay.
Yes, I would say if you looked up "insanity" in the dictionary, you could find a pretty facsimile of what we currently have going on in this country today.

Hillary in 2016?  Why not?  We've already had one "girly man" serving in office for the past 7 years, we might as well give her chance as well!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

skippy delepepperskippy delepepperOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
I believe the best definition of insanity is "to continue to do something over and over again, and expect to gain a different result."
Today, Obama has admitted that it was mistake for him to vote for an extension of the debt ceiling in 2006 as a junior Senator from Illinois, YET at the same time he is telling us it is imperative for the future for us to once again raise the debt ceiling and drive ourselves further into the quagmire we find ourselves. This is coming from a man who is supposed to be "leading this country", yet he is so indecisive he crontradicts himself on a daily basis. Continuing to drive us further into debt is not the answer. Attempting to reel in the spending monster that is the federal government is a must if this country is to survive. We cannot continue to dole out entitlements, seek no effective immigration policies, and want to drive taxes even further for those who already pay.
Yes, I would say if you looked up "insanity" in the dictionary, you could find a pretty facsimile of what we currently have going on in this country today.

______________________________
Can't think of anything to add to this one.
Good Job! Wink

Keep Marching to Fiscal Sanity,
Skippy
teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Robert Mellman is considered the nations top economist. He says if wedon't raise the debt ceiling, we will have to default on our loans and it will cause an economic crisis that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

http://business.financialpost....nd-the-debt-ceiling/


Yeah, we need to reduce spending, but not making payments on our debts is NOT the way to go about it!

Well it is either now or later. The train is headed off of the tracks, if we continue to pour on the coal the wreck is going to be much worse. I am not sure how trying to reign in fiscal responsibility is going to hurt us. We continue to think that less than 50% of the people can support themselves and the other half as well. It cannot be done to everyone's satisifaction. Too many are standing idly by, more than happy to let someone else take care of them, and not wanting to help themselves at all.
skippy delepepperskippy delepepperOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
How much should the family of 4 with one wage earner making $30,000/year pay in taxes? Assume they dont have employer provided health insurance

_________________________________________

Gee Mr.Head,
Maybe you should take them under your wing.
Mines been clipped by Uncle Sam.

Keep Marching to clipping the budget.
Skippy Cool
skippy delepepperskippy delepepperOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
Originally posted by skippy delepepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
How much should the family of 4 with one wage earner making $30,000/year pay in taxes? Assume they dont have employer provided health insurance

_________________________________________


Thats not an answer. Try to stay on a topic.

_________________________________________

That is an answer, This is the topic. Gov't
hand-outs have got to end. Obama Care will be
the death of this nation. If you want to take
out a loan to support your neighbors, fill
free. Other wise if certain states want to do
the same it's within their rights. But as far
as the fed gov't goes, it's not in their
enumerated powers in the Constitution. So
State aid for the needy(truly needy)Yes, if
that state chooses. Fed gov't, not in the
Constitution.

Keep Marching for the Constitution,
Skippy Cool
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
How much should the family of 4 with one wage earner making $30,000/year pay in taxes? Assume they dont have employer provided health insurance


What that family might owe is heavily dependent on tax deductions. We can sort of guess how bad off that person is with the evil Bush taxes by going to this site and comparing minimum tax rates of the past. In 1951, the minimum (starting at $0.00) was 20%; the minimum in 1961 was 20%; the minimum in 1971 was 14%, the minimum tax in 81 started at $2300 for a single filer or $3400 for married filing jointly at 14% rate. In 1991 the tax rate started at 15% but not till a single person had earned $21,450 or a joint married filer reached $34,000. The 2001 rate was 15% starting at $0. The 2011 minimum rate is 10% starting at zero. Look at the tables for the rate you think that your hypothetical family should pay. http://www.taxfoundation.org/p...ations/show/151.html
skippy delepepperskippy delepepperOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
How much should the family of 4 with one wage earner making $30,000/year pay in taxes? Assume they dont have employer provided health insurance


What that family might owe is heavily dependent on tax deductions. We can sort of guess how bad off that person is with the evil Bush taxes by going to this site and comparing minimum tax rates of the past. In 1951, the minimum (starting at $0.00) was 20%; the minimum in 1961 was 20%; the minimum in 1971 was 14%, the minimum tax in 81 started at $2300 for a single filer or $3400 for married filing jointly at 14% rate. In 1991 the tax rate started at 15% but not till a single person had earned $21,450 or a joint married filer reached $34,000. The 2001 rate was 15% starting at $0. The 2011 minimum rate is 10% starting at zero. Look at the tables for the rate you think that your hypothetical family should pay. http://www.taxfoundation.org/p...ations/show/151.html

________________________________________________

The only fair way is to change it to a flat 10% regardless of
income. If States need welfare programs it should not be the feds.
expense, that is unconstitutional.

Keep marching to Sanity,
Skippy Cool
Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
Assume after payroll taxes they have $27,000 left.

Insurance for family of 4 $1100*12=$13,200

Housing $500*12 = $6000

Food $150*52 = $7800

Power, Water, Garbage $150*12 = $1800

Clothing $150*12 = $1800

Gas, insurance for auto $150*12 = $1800

School supplies

Doctor visits

Medicines

Entertainment

New tires

School lunches

Am I forgetting anything?
skippy delepepperskippy delepepperOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Assume after payroll taxes they have $27,000 left.

Insurance for family of 4 $1100*12=$13,200

Housing $500*12 = $6000

Food $150*52 = $7800

Power, Water, Garbage $150*12 = $1800

Clothing $150*12 = $1800

Gas, insurance for auto $150*12 = $1800

School supplies

Doctor visits

Medicines

Entertainment

New tires

School lunches

Am I forgetting anything?

___________________________________

And again, not the responsibility of the Fed. gov't. The
Constitution does not provide or allow this. The Constitution
has certain enumerated powers of the Fed. gov't. The states
are to take care of and provide these other things, including
welfare, health care ect.. if they so choose. Not entertainment.
If the people of this great country want to add or change the
Constitution, they can thru the Amendment Process. We can't
continue to borrow money from our enemies for things that are
Un-Constitutional.

Keep Marching to Fiscal Sanity,
Skippy Cool
Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
Actually with the built in provisions in the Bush tax code to get it to pass the Senate, that family would probably get a check from the IRS such that hypothetical family would be paying a negative income tax rate; they get free money.


The question was, "how much should they pay", not how much do they pay. That family wold be one of the 50% that pay little to no income tax, beyond payroll taxes, so I ask again, how much should they pay??????
73RangerXLT73RangerXLTHall of Famer
Why stop at entitlements. Why not cut defense spending, ending the unconstitutional wars.
Why not cut the welfare for the rich with tax breaks and rebates for exporting their businesses.

Why not closing up tax loopholes so companies like GE actually pay taxes.
We continually hear the mantra that the rich pay too much, then find out they pay nothing at all.
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
Still not responsive, move to strike.

The Fair Tax is sort of a progressive consumption tax in theory with a rebate or "prebate" for normal living allowances. The hypothetical family would decide their own tax payment and not a commissar. If they were frugal they should pay very little in taxes. If they choose to live beyond their means the punishment is at their own hands.
73RangerXLT73RangerXLTHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
Still not responsive, move to strike.

The Fair Tax is sort of a progressive consumption tax in theory with a rebate or "prebate" for normal living allowances. The hypothetical family would decide their own tax payment and not a commissar. If they were frugal they should pay very little in taxes. If they choose to live beyond their means the punishment is at their own hands.


A consuption tax is one of the inequitable taxes we could have. the poor and middle class spend just about all they earn in expenses for daily living. The wealthy on the other hand could avid taxes by not spending their money, ( which would actually be a drain on the economy), or they could take it out of country and pay no taxes at all.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
Still not responsive, move to strike.

The Fair Tax is sort of a progressive consumption tax in theory with a rebate or "prebate" for normal living allowances. The hypothetical family would decide their own tax payment and not a commissar. If they were frugal they should pay very little in taxes. If they choose to live beyond their means the punishment is at their own hands.


A consuption tax is one of the inequitable taxes we could have. the poor and middle class spend just about all they earn in expenses for daily living. The wealthy on the other hand could avid taxes by not spending their money, ( which would actually be a drain on the economy), or they could take it out of country and pay no taxes at all.


The prebate ensures the poor have adequate funds for necessities. Few rich are misers, they like their luxuries and are willing to pay for them. As far as not spending their funds, its not a drain if the funds are invested.
L LE89Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Assume after payroll taxes they have $27,000 left.

Insurance for family of 4 $1100*12=$13,200

Housing $500*12 = $6000

Food $150*52 = $7800

Power, Water, Garbage $150*12 = $1800

Clothing $150*12 = $1800

Gas, insurance for auto $150*12 = $1800

School supplies

Doctor visits

Medicines

Entertainment

New tires

School lunches

Am I forgetting anything?


Maybe they could denounce their US Citizenship, leave the country, sneak back in, and get most of the above for free.

But to answer your question, if both parents are working, I would morally say they owe close to zero in taxes.

If only one parent is working, by choice, they should owe something above zero, not a lot, but not zero.
teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
Why stop at entitlements. Why not cut defense spending, ending the unconstitutional wars.
Why not cut the welfare for the rich with tax breaks and rebates for exporting their businesses.

Why not closing up tax loopholes so companies like GE actually pay taxes.
We continually hear the mantra that the rich pay too much, then find out they pay nothing at all.

The corporation itself should pay no tax. Taxes are being paid by the employees. Taxes should be paid by those who recieve dividends from stock investments in to the corporation. the corporation itself actually exist only on paper, and is not really an entity. Each individual step in the process is currently taxed.
As to the family of four, my guess is by the time they finsih with their deductions, they will pay nor owe no additioanl taxes.
If a fair tax plan was institued whereby the first $40K of a family's earnings were exempt (in order to pay for groceries, insurance, and utilities) then a standard (non-progressive) tax rate should apply. Why should someone who earns more pay more in a percentage for the same use of the roads and infrastructure? Of course the old Socialist mantra of "to whom much is given, mush is expected" rears its ugly head, which is just absolute BS.
Back to the original premise of this post, why does Obama think we should now raise the ceiling limit, when he admits it was a bad idea to do so when he was not the man in charge????
KP Kenny PowersPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
How much should the family of 4 with one wage earner making $30,000/year pay in taxes? Assume they dont have employer provided health insurance


Well, I know the EGTRA of '02 reduced the taxes that a family of 4 making $40k paid from $1400 to $0. So I am guessing that under your scenario that family would pay nothing and imo should pay nothing.
73RangerXLT73RangerXLTHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
Why stop at entitlements. Why not cut defense spending, ending the unconstitutional wars.
Why not cut the welfare for the rich with tax breaks and rebates for exporting their businesses.

Why not closing up tax loopholes so companies like GE actually pay taxes.
We continually hear the mantra that the rich pay too much, then find out they pay nothing at all.

The corporation itself should pay no tax. Taxes are being paid by the employees. Taxes should be paid by those who recieve dividends from stock investments in to the corporation. the corporation itself actually exist only on paper, and is not really an entity. Each individual step in the process is currently taxed.
As to the family of four, my guess is by the time they finsih with their deductions, they will pay nor owe no additioanl taxes.
If a fair tax plan was institued whereby the first $40K of a family's earnings were exempt (in order to pay for groceries, insurance, and utilities) then a standard (non-progressive) tax rate should apply. Why should someone who earns more pay more in a percentage for the same use of the roads and infrastructure? Of course the old Socialist mantra of "to whom much is given, mush is expected" rears its ugly head, which is just absolute BS.
Back to the original premise of this post, why does Obama think we should now raise the ceiling limit, when he admits it was a bad idea to do so when he was not the man in charge????


Yates,
The supreme court has ruled that corporations are indeed individuals and has recently insured that these untaxed corporations are allowed to funnel unlimited supplies of their untaxed wealth into the political process so that you and I, who are taxed, have no political standing.

So yes, tax the heck outta them.
teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
The you change the rules about how they "funnel" money to these crooked lobbyists. The corporation, as a pure form, is already taxed. The employees and stockholders are all taxed at different rates, this would be nothing more than a double dipping of the government into the coffers. I do not like to see them being able to manipulate the government to their bidding, BUT IMO the answer is to change the rules and tax monies that are not divided to the parties of the corporation (ie, these monies being used for government meddling). We are in agreement that this is wrong, but to think that you can richen the treasury by taxing the corporations will do nothing but take the money from the workers and the investors. The money belongs in the hands of the workers and investors, do you not agree?
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
To return to the original topic on insanity;
Continuing the Bush tax cuts, especially for the rich, IS that insanity.
By any metric you wish, our country was in much better shape under the Clinton era tax codes than after Bush took over and de-funded the country by the huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich and super rich class.
To continue cutting taxes, and not allow the tax cuts to expire is fiscal suicide for our nation.
We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×