Skip to main content

I seem to be into examples today so I will go one more. This isn't mine but the numbers are using today's numbers.

Average new car purchase: $2,400 downpayment, $24,864 financed, payments of $479 for 72 months.

Say you bought a new car every 6 years and maintained that payment from 16 years old to 66 years old for 50 years. You went thru about 8 cars and spent over $287,000 dollars.

Let's say your twin brother didn't buy a car but instead deposited $479 a month into some account making 11% per year. At 66 years old, that account has over $15.8 million. Divided by the 8 new cars your brother gave up driving, that's almost $2 million per car.

Now all of that is without tax considerations, and nobody is going to give up driving, but it could possibly change the way some of us think. You could buy several new cars along the way, more than 8, and still have a huge chunk of money.

This was not a revenue problem, the money was there every month for both brothers for fifty years. Now the spending or lack of resulted in two very different outcomes.

Reality could have been somewhere in the middle for both, but both chose opposite ends of the spectrum. One brother enjoyed his $2 Million cost per car and never missed a beat, the other never drove and had $15.8 Million to prove it.

Seems with some planning and restraint, both could have been filthy rich, had plenty to drive, and been equally happy along the way, at least as far as cars and bank accounts go.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

You are right...but I think the percentage is more like 17-18%, if they have the proper deductions...

But really...SO WHAT?

The more private individuals can keep of THEIR OWN money...the better...You seem to under the assumption that all income belongs to the federal goverment first...and by their own grace and generosity let us keep some.


Let government be a charity, then. Pay only if you want to. Don't spend any money unless its already in the Treasury. Dock the Navy; ground the Air Force; furlough the Army. Let all the police and firemen punch out and go fishing.
All disagreements are settled by shootouts on Main Street because the courts are closed. No way to determine ownership or transfer of land because the Probate Office is closed.

If you don't want to pay for government to do all that it does, then do it yourself. You are are a responsible, independent, rugged individualist, aren't you. Got that firehose handy?
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
I seem to be into examples today so I will go one more. This isn't mine but the numbers are using today's numbers.

Average new car purchase: $2,400 downpayment, $24,864 financed, payments of $479 for 72 months.

Say you bought a new car every 6 years and maintained that payment from 16 years old to 66 years old for 50 years. You went thru about 8 cars and spent over $287,000 dollars.

Let's say your twin brother didn't buy a car but instead deposited $479 a month into some account making 11% per year. At 66 years old, that account has over $15.8 million. Divided by the 8 new cars your brother gave up driving, that's almost $2 million per car.

Now all of that is without tax considerations, and nobody is going to give up driving, but it could possibly change the way some of us think. You could buy several new cars along the way, more than 8, and still have a huge chunk of money.

This was not a revenue problem, the money was there every month for both brothers for fifty years. Now the spending or lack of resulted in two very different outcomes.

Reality could have been somewhere in the middle for both, but both chose opposite ends of the spectrum. One brother enjoyed his $2 Million cost per car and never missed a beat, the other never drove and had $15.8 Million to prove it.

Seems with some planning and restraint, both could have been filthy rich, had plenty to drive, and been equally happy along the way, at least as far as cars and bank accounts go.


Yes, you can retire a millionaire if you cram your family into a cheap, one bedroom apartment like a bunch of Mexicans. Yes, you could drive a cheap, worn-out car that cost more in repairs to keep it running than it cost to buy it. Yes, you could wear your clothes until they turned into rags and ride the bus until we stop all that socialist nonsense and you have to walk.
Yes, you could live on sardines, crackers, peanut butter, and bologna, go to an early grave from sheer deprivation and leave millions of dollars for your descendents to blow through because they don't know how to handle money. In fact, they always thought you never had any.

On the other hand, it might be Wall Street that blows your money. They convinced you not to give it to the government to blow, so they figured it was up to them.

OK, that was the fairy tale for the day. Now back to reality.

I'm all for intelligent spending choices for the money you have to work with. But what the Republicans are proposing is to embark on a plan to deliberately reduce the amount of money government has to work with.

Using your example, with income to you the same as tax revenue for the governmentl, you won't have enough money to split between a cheap car and an investment. It's one or the other.

Keep reducing income and you will end up with neither a car nor an investment. Keep on reducing income and you are forced to make a choice, as is the case for some seniors today, between food and medicine. And the final result to deliberately and continually cutting income is going to lunch at the dumpster behind the 7-11.

At that point, you will be weak enough to drown in a bathtub like Grover Norquist says he wants to do to the government.
Last edited by The Propagandist
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Remember this chart?


Yes, I do. Do you remember what I posted earlier?

If growth induced by Bush's cuts doesn't explain the surge, where did all those extra tax dollars come from? The short answer is spectacularly high corporate profits and the advancing fortunes of wealthy Americans, economists said.

Holtz-Eakin and other economists said they can only speculate about why that economic growth generated a disproportionate jump in revenue. There have been changes in the tax code, such as the 2004 expiration of a tax that allowed businesses to immediately deduct half the value of new assets. Economists said corporations chastened by recent accounting scandals may also be paying more taxes on more of their income. And with large and growing incomes going to chief executives, athletes, entertainers, and even star lawyers and academics, those people are paying more taxes.

"The simplest way to think about it, I think, is we know we have growing income inequality, especially at the top," said Isabel V. Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who worked for the Clinton administration. "The very rich are pulling away from the ordinary rich and the middle class. Those very rich people pay higher tax rates. When the distribution of income shifts upward, as it has in recent years, you get a revenue kicker from that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...006101601121_pf.html


The corporations income went up as the income tax rate went down. That correlation is well known. With more money in their pockets, people invest, and purchase goods and services. Corporations use investment money to improve their business. And, provide the goods and services that increase their profits.

I assume you don't believe the profits were the result of a magical unicorn's golden manure!
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
Quick, funny and informative video that points out what has been shown many times on these boards, but many here...just as many politicians and media talking heads...just simply ignore the history of revenue and tax rates.

Tax rates have varied wildly over the years but historically the government has averaged about 18% GDP...regardless of the rate.

BUT...historically, the government spends about 20% GDP...as the host of the video points out: "There's your deficit, folks"

Watch the video and then 2 questions...

1. Why doesn't a higher rate on the "rich" bring in more revenue? This is a question I'd genuinely like to understand.

2. How the hell is Stephen King only paying 28% when the top rate is 35%?!?

[FLASH_VIDEO]<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
width="640"
height="390"
> value="never"
> value="transparent"
> /> /> value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1auo-HQk-Tk?fs=1&hl=en_US"
/> /> /><embed wmode="transparent"
allowScriptAccess="never"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1auo-HQk-Tk?fs=1&hl=en_US"
width="640"
height="390"
/>[/FLASH_VIDEO]


Not funny. Not informative. Not true.
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
I seem to be into examples today so I will go one more. This isn't mine but the numbers are using today's numbers.

Average new car purchase: $2,400 downpayment, $24,864 financed, payments of $479 for 72 months.

Say you bought a new car every 6 years and maintained that payment from 16 years old to 66 years old for 50 years. You went thru about 8 cars and spent over $287,000 dollars.

Let's say your twin brother didn't buy a car but instead deposited $479 a month into some account making 11% per year. At 66 years old, that account has over $15.8 million. Divided by the 8 new cars your brother gave up driving, that's almost $2 million per car.

Now all of that is without tax considerations, and nobody is going to give up driving, but it could possibly change the way some of us think. You could buy several new cars along the way, more than 8, and still have a huge chunk of money.

This was not a revenue problem, the money was there every month for both brothers for fifty years. Now the spending or lack of resulted in two very different outcomes.

Reality could have been somewhere in the middle for both, but both chose opposite ends of the spectrum. One brother enjoyed his $2 Million cost per car and never missed a beat, the other never drove and had $15.8 Million to prove it.

Seems with some planning and restraint, both could have been filthy rich, had plenty to drive, and been equally happy along the way, at least as far as cars and bank accounts go.


Yes, you can retire a millionaire if you cram your family into a cheap, one bedroom apartment like a bunch of Mexicans. Yes, you could drive a cheap, worn-out car that cost more in repairs to keep it running than it cost to buy it. Yes, you could wear your clothes until they turned into rags and ride the bus until we stop all that socialist nonsense and you have to walk.
Yes, you could live on sardines, crackers, peanut butter, and bologna, go to an early grave from sheer deprivation and leave millions of dollars for your descendents to blow through because they don't know how to handle money. In fact, they always thought you never had any.

On the other hand, it might be Wall Street that blows your money. They convinced you not to give it to the government to blow, so they figured it was up to them.

OK, that was the fairy tale for the day. Now back to reality.


Okay, my scenario had nothing to do with a one bedroom apartment, clothes, the bus, food, or deprivation, it was merely looking at one example of spending on a car. You could maintain all the items you mentioned at the same level you are used to.

So here is "reality" on the car example. I bought a used Honda for $3,900, been driving it for 30 months and spent $450 in repairs during that time.

During that same time period average Joe NEW car buyer spent $14,370 in car payments and $0 in repairs I will assume.

I spent $10,020 less to drive for 30 months than average Joe NEW car buyer. If we both continue at this same rate for 50 years, I have over $2,000,000 in the bank and still accomplished everything Joe did. Drove to work, had the same house, clothes, food, didn't ride the bus ever, and deprived myself of nothing except a new car in my driveway every 6 years (and the $479 car payment). Of course my taxes, tags, and insurance were far less as well but I will leave those out of the argument.

Now if I had "deprived" myself for the first four years or so and drove that hand me down my parents gave me, yet made the car payments into a coffee can under my bed, I would still be able to buy the same car average JOE buys. Difference is I buy one every 52 months, Joe buys it every 72 months. We both have exactly the same. Now if I only match him and buy every 72 months, I have the same with money to boot.

Now I realize I am boring you with this endless example, but my point is living to max allowed today is guaranteed self destruction, whether it is personal finances or Government finances.

There has to be some restraint and accountability, not just spend, credit, charge it lifestyle. There has to be some common ground somewhere in the middle. A reasonable amount of "deprivation" may be in order on some things.

I am all for fixing tax loopholes, I am all for fair tax rates, I am all for calling out Politicians that lie, D/R/T. I am all for creating simplicity in the tax code. I am all for making GE pay more taxes than I do. Raising tax rates will NOT bring back companies that left the US for other tax havens, it will just cause more to leave. I guess we could put armed guards at the US borders and airports and refuse to let taxpayers leave. Maybe we can use those same guards to refuse entry to the tax suckers entering the country.

In other words my stance is, fix the existing problems first and then if income is still a problem we will fix that next.
This whole thread is ridiculous and shows how the two factions actually think about things. If at the end of the month I do not have enough money left to pay my bills, is because I was not paid enough, or I spent too much?
Then in order to fix that the next month, instead of saving a little extra I decide on buying an extra roll of Skoal or case of Budweiser. At the end of the month, I am still short, is it the man I work for or my own fault?
No one wants to except any personal responsibility. It is someone else who needs to come along and bail me out. It is someone else who is stealing the money out of my pocket, getting rich off of my hard labor. Its the big fat rich guy who lives in the nice house who is keeping me down!
Envy. Jealousy. A failure to except any repsonsibility.
True Blue....just for you, could you please define who is "rich" in your estimate. Those who are sucking the lifeblood out of the system and creating a drain on society. Please give us the exact figure that you and the Democrat progressives feel one has to earn per year to qualify as rich, and what would be an acceptable rate of taxation on those people.
Any of you other leftists feel free to fall in behind old Blue and give us your numbers as well. Let's finally determine what it is that dtermines "the rich" and what is considered fair taxation on them....Here's your chance.
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
NO! I want it all and I want it NOW! Even if it means a tax increase for folks that have worked and saved all their life.


Who are talking about and what is your point?

That is the typical liberal's attitude. They want the same pay and possessions as someone who has worked and saved their money. So instead of saving for something they borrow until they can't and then want to tax the rich to pay for their mistakes.
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
This whole thread is ridiculous and shows how the two factions actually think about things. If at the end of the month I do not have enough money left to pay my bills, is because I was not paid enough, or I spent too much?
Then in order to fix that the next month, instead of saving a little extra I decide on buying an extra roll of Skoal or case of Budweiser. At the end of the month, I am still short, is it the man I work for or my own fault?
No one wants to except any personal responsibility. It is someone else who needs to come along and bail me out. It is someone else who is stealing the money out of my pocket, getting rich off of my hard labor. Its the big fat rich guy who lives in the nice house who is keeping me down!
Envy. Jealousy. A failure to except any repsonsibility.
True Blue....just for you, could you please define who is "rich" in your estimate. Those who are sucking the lifeblood out of the system and creating a drain on society. Please give us the exact figure that you and the Democrat progressives feel one has to earn per year to qualify as rich, and what would be an acceptable rate of taxation on those people.
Any of you other leftists feel free to fall in behind old Blue and give us your numbers as well. Let's finally determine what it is that dtermines "the rich" and what is considered fair taxation on them....Here's your chance.


TB, Prop, any one?????
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
NO! I want it all and I want it NOW! Even if it means a tax increase for folks that have worked and saved all their life.


Who are talking about and what is your point?

That is the typical liberal's attitude. They want the same pay and possessions as someone who has worked and saved their money. So instead of saving for something they borrow until they can't and then want to tax the rich to pay for their mistakes.


Who are you talking about and what is your point?
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

In other words my stance is, fix the existing problems first and then if income is still a problem we will fix that next.


If your paycheck isn't enough to cover your electric bill, and the power company refuses to take less, do you have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

If you think you have spending problem, tell the power company to come pull the meter, and you will sit in the dark and have no juice for the refrigerator, etc.

If you recognize that you have a revenue problem that can be easily remedied by increasing your income, then you won't have to make the decision to turn off the electricity and you can remain in modern civilized society and provide decently for your family.
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

In other words my stance is, fix the existing problems first and then if income is still a problem we will fix that next.


If your paycheck isn't enough to cover your electric bill, and the power company refuses to take less, do you have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

If you think you have spending problem, tell the power company to come pull the meter, and you will sit in the dark and have no juice for the refrigerator, etc.

If you recognize that you have a revenue problem that can be easily remedied by increasing your income, then you won't have to make the decision to turn off the electricity and you can remain in modern civilized society and provide decently for your family.

_________________________________

If you personaly your family runs short, mabey you could give up smoking
or that 6-pack or something else. You could get a 2nd job or have a
yard sale. You don't go and rob your neighbor or hold up a 7-11.
The same should go for gov't. If the gov't. runs short you don't spend
more and rob the tax-payer.

Skippy Cool
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
This whole thread is ridiculous and shows how the two factions actually think about things. If at the end of the month I do not have enough money left to pay my bills, is because I was not paid enough, or I spent too much?
Then in order to fix that the next month, instead of saving a little extra I decide on buying an extra roll of Skoal or case of Budweiser. At the end of the month, I am still short, is it the man I work for or my own fault?


What if your spending remains the same, but your paycheck get smaller each month. Do you really have a spending problem, or is that a revenue problem?

And suppose Mr. Ryan, who advises the man you work for, proposes that next year your paycheck shrinks by another third?


http://www.ourdime.us/34/budge...-the-budget-deficit/

While spending has increased every year since 2000, revenue(tax receipts) is about the same level as it was in 2000. Accounting for inflation, that means that in 2009, people and companies paid fewer taxes than they did in 2000 when the budget was balanced and there were far fewer tax payers.

Looking at these numbers it’s hard to see how cutting spending can be the only strategy to cutting the budget deficit. Especially, when decreases in revenue has every bit to do with how we got here. If you don’t believe me, let’s look at the data another way. See the chart below.



The chart may require a little explaining. The Blue line is how much the budget deficit increases every year or the “rate of increase”. For example, in 2001 the “deficit’s rate of increase” went up by 119 billion when we went from an 86 billion surplus to a 32 billion deficit.1 The red line is the amount of increase in spending. The orange is the decrease in tax receipts. Therefore, adding blue and orange together will get you the blue line. If you want to decrease the budget deficit, you want all 3 of these lines to be negative.
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

In other words my stance is, fix the existing problems first and then if income is still a problem we will fix that next.


If your paycheck isn't enough to cover your electric bill, and the power company refuses to take less, do you have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

If you think you have spending problem, tell the power company to come pull the meter, and you will sit in the dark and have no juice for the refrigerator, etc.

If you recognize that you have a revenue problem that can be easily remedied by increasing your income, then you won't have to make the decision to turn off the electricity and you can remain in modern civilized society and provide decently for your family.


If your monthly power bill is higher than your monthly income, you certainly would be considered poor and qualify for assistance, and have a multitude of problems obviously with income being the number one problem. Since it was easily remedied in your example by increasing the income, why did your subject choose to be underemployed in the first place?

You keep referencing to the poor as if I am saying I don't want Government to provide for those who are unfortunate, unable, and in need. I think I have more than been clear about that, that is exactly who the Government should provide for. I am all for it, can I possibly be more clear?

Question for you, the Government steps in and helps your above example subject family, life is now good, eight months later he buys a brand new car, charges a vacation trip to Florida for a week on his new shiney credit card. Wham....figures out he still can't pay the power bill, all over again.

Now what do we have here, a spending problem or an income problem?
quote:
Originally posted by skippy delepepper:
If you personaly your family runs short, mabey you could give up smoking
or that 6-pack or something else. You could get a 2nd job or have a
yard sale. You don't go and rob your neighbor or hold up a 7-11.
The same should go for gov't. If the gov't. runs short you don't spend
more and rob the tax-payer.

Skippy Cool


So now government is the robber who sticks up the 7-11?

The next time your trash gets picked up, go out there and tell the guys (or girls --who knows?) that they are nothing but thieves and you are tired of them stealing from you.

Go by the fire house and tell all those sucking off the public to get their dirty thieving hands out of your pocket.

Then go by the police station and let them know that you are tired of them ripping you off, so go out and get a real job.

That'll probably be about as far as you get that day.
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by skippy delepepper:
If you personaly your family runs short, mabey you could give up smoking
or that 6-pack or something else. You could get a 2nd job or have a
yard sale. You don't go and rob your neighbor or hold up a 7-11.
The same should go for gov't. If the gov't. runs short you don't spend
more and rob the tax-payer.

Skippy Cool


So now government is the robber who sticks up the 7-11?

The next time your trash gets picked up, go out there and tell the guys (or girls --who knows?) that they are nothing but thieves and you are tired of them stealing from you.

Go by the fire house and tell all those sucking off the public to get their dirty thieving hands out of your pocket.

Then go by the police station and let them know that you are tired of them ripping you off, so go out and get a real job.

That'll probably be about as far as you get that day.

__________________________________________

You tell me whats the difference?
If you refuse to pay the over-inflated taxes what happens? It may not
be as quick as a 7-11 hiest but, they rob you anyway. If you refuse first
the charges of income tax evation. Second if you refuse to allow them to arrest
you they will use force. Third you get shot.
Hey I'm all for legit expenses of the fed.gov't. Military, Represenatives we
send to Washington. But the trash, the fire dept., police dept, and other local
expenses are just that local expenses. They get paid by local taxes. The feds.
have got to stop trying to meddle in local affairs and stay within thier
enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Skippy Cool
I'm all for private charity. I think that is the best way to go. The closer you are to the object of your giving, the more control you have over how your money is spent and can monitor its effectivess.

Having said that, there will be those who will not be the object of anyone's private charity, for whatever reason. We as a society for the past 80 years have said that we are not going to forget about those who have run out of rope and have nobody to turn to and nowhere else to go for help but to the government.

That takes money. That money comes from taxpayers. When taxpayers stop paying, that money is no longer there unless the government borrows it.

As long as there is a government, it will require money to operate. It will tax or borrow or print. There are no other options.

Printing is the same as counterfeiting, in my book. Borrowing will cost more in the end, because there will be interest attached. The least expensive way for government to get the money it needs to operate is to tax.

Some say they are taxed enough already. Consumption (or excise) taxes hit hardest on those at the bottom of the income scale, in that it is the same for everybody. A dollar in gas tax, or sales tax, or any other excise tax is a dollar paid by everybody whether you make $20 thousand a year or $20 million. Every dollar in that kind of tax that has to be paid is a dollar less to buy the thing that tax is levied on. For example, in Tuscaloosa with its total sales tax of 9%, whoever buys anything with cash is already in the 9% tax bracket as concerns your purchase whether you are the one that makes the $20 or the $20 million.

It costs a certain amount to provide the basics of food, clothing, and shelter. We no longer live out on the wild frontier where if you shoot it you eat it and clothe yourself from its pelt, and you can simply walk out in the woods, chop down a few trees and make a house to live in. Those things, as a general rule, have to be bought.

If the single mother making $20 thousand a year spends every single penny to support her family, she already has $1800 whacked off the top as her available income, because is what the 9% sales tax would amount to. That might not seems like a hardship to the person making $20 million, but to the single mother that might equal three months rent.

Now, as concerns income taxes. There are those who argue for a flat tax of, say, 10% for everybody. Those making little pay little; those making a lot pay a lot. But, they say, it is only fair that everybody get taxed at the same rate. That be fine for the person making $20 million; he would still have $18 million to live off of. But for the single mother, that would be $2000. That's in addition to the $1800 she pays in sales tax. So now that single mother is left with $16,200 for the year to support her family. That is a grand total of $1350 per month. That's just her 10% income tax and 9% sales tax. She hasn't even begun to buy groceries or pay rent and utilities. Do the kids need shoes? Is winter coming and they've outgrown their last year's jacket?

There are children here in Tuscaloosa who, if it weren't for private charity every fall, they would have neither shoes nor coats. You may know some who spend their kid's shoes and coat money on wide-screen TVs, but I don't.

So, I think I've established that excise taxes hit hardest on those at the low end of the income scale and a flat income tax isn't much better. Now let's talk about income taxes.

As a percentage, the same might seem fair. But that percentage, in reality, represents an amount, and that amount taken out of an already meagre income may leave very little to provide that amount we have established that it takes to provide the minimum of food, clothing, and shelter.

A progressive income tax doesn't hurt those who are already on the edge, and surely won't wipe someone who is far away from any financial hardship.

So who is best able to fund the government: The single mother making $20 thousand a year who is already in the 9% tax bracket before she spends the first dime, or the person with $20 million a year who, even at a 50% tax bracket with absolutely no deductions, would still have $10 million dollars to ride out the year on? As I have in the past, I still say

TAX THE RICH!
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
But the trash, the fire dept., police dept, and other local
expenses are just that local expenses. They get paid by local taxes.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have seen those 'services' used to justify socialism more times than I can count.


And federal expenses like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are just that, federal expenses paid for by federal taxes.

It appears that whatever money any government spends -- whether federal, state or local -- are legitimate services if you want them, and socialism if you don't.
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

In other words my stance is, fix the existing problems first and then if income is still a problem we will fix that next.


If your paycheck isn't enough to cover your electric bill, and the power company refuses to take less, do you have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

If you think you have spending problem, tell the power company to come pull the meter, and you will sit in the dark and have no juice for the refrigerator, etc.

If you recognize that you have a revenue problem that can be easily remedied by increasing your income, then you won't have to make the decision to turn off the electricity and you can remain in modern civilized society and provide decently for your family.


If your monthly power bill is higher than your monthly income, you certainly would be considered poor and qualify for assistance, and have a multitude of problems obviously with income being the number one problem. Since it was easily remedied in your example by increasing the income, why did your subject choose to be underemployed in the first place?

You keep referencing to the poor as if I am saying I don't want Government to provide for those who are unfortunate, unable, and in need. I think I have more than been clear about that, that is exactly who the Government should provide for. I am all for it, can I possibly be more clear?

Question for you, the Government steps in and helps your above example subject family, life is now good, eight months later he buys a brand new car, charges a vacation trip to Florida for a week on his new shiney credit card. Wham....figures out he still can't pay the power bill, all over again.

Now what do we have here, a spending problem or an income problem?


Analogy, simile, metaphor -- not literal examples. Sort of like a parable.

I'm not talking about a poor family made poor by lack of income, I'm talking about a poor government made poor by tax cuts. I'm not talking about a poor family in need of charity, I'm talking about a government in need of more revenue to adequately fulfill its responsibilities without needing to borrow as much or running such a huge deficit.

All the talk about income, spending and whether we need to cut spending or increase income, is really about illustrating the issues facing government using easy to identify personal situations.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear from the beginning.
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
But the trash, the fire dept., police dept, and other local
expenses are just that local expenses. They get paid by local taxes.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have seen those 'services' used to justify socialism more times than I can count.


And federal expenses like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are just that, federal expenses paid for by federal taxes.

It appears that whatever money any government spends -- whether federal, state or local -- are legitimate services if you want them, and socialism if you don't.

Federal taxes come from us. Those expenses are promises made to us for the taxes we pay. Those three programs have reached the point where there is not enough people WORKING to balance out the ratio of recipients. Either we cut those programs some how or change eligibility or they go under for every one. The government bet in 1935 that we would all DIE before we hit 65 and no one would collect SS. It never expected to make all those payouts. It also never separated the money to cover the future needs. SS was borrowed from repeatedly with worthless IOU's in its place.
So you can take all the money from the Fortune 500 groups and pray that you will get enough to last for a year or two. All the rich people put together might get you a half trillion taking the money at 100% ONE time. Now you have a 13 and a half national debt. YAY!
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Federal taxes come from us. Those expenses are promises made to us for the taxes we pay. Those three programs have reached the point where there is not enough people WORKING to balance out the ratio of recipients. Either we cut those programs some how or change eligibility or they go under for every one. The government bet in 1935 that we would all DIE before we hit 65 and no one would collect SS. It never expected to make all those payouts. It also never separated the money to cover the future needs. SS was borrowed from repeatedly with worthless IOU's in its place.
So you can take all the money from the Fortune 500 groups and pray that you will get enough to last for a year or two. All the rich people put together might get you a half trillion taking the money at 100% ONE time. Now you have a 13 and a half national debt. YAY!


Those three programs have reached the point where there is not enough people WORKING to balance out the ratio of recipients.

There are enough people working to pay all that. Unfortunately, they don't work in this country any more.

So you can take all the money from the Fortune 500 groups and pray that you will get enough to last for a year or two. All the rich people put together might get you a half trillion taking the money at 100% ONE time.

Deficits come from tax cuts. Raise taxes to have less of a deficit next year; make prudent tax cuts that don't throw anybody into the street but think it unnecessary to have another Navy carrier group (this will make 11) and cut defense budget drastically(see below).



Gradually the two lines between government revenue and government spending which have growing apart will come together and the government deficit will head toward zero.

And why are they not working in this country anymore? Taxes on businesses are higher here than other countries. Wages are lower. Profits are higher for companies. We don't hate profits do we? Isn't that the whole point of being IN business?

I agree we don't need another carrier just like the Pentagon did want more any more F22 ( i think that's right) but wasn't it Reid who kept that?

Unless we do all, raise taxes on those making a million or more, (I think that would eliminate hitting the small businesses),cut spending, and trim back entitlements, those two lines will never meet.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
And why are they not working in this country anymore? Taxes on businesses are higher here than other countries. Wages are lower. Profits are higher for companies. We don't hate profits do we? Isn't that the whole point of being IN business?


They get their higher profits that way by throwing people out of work. Then, their higher profits are no benefit to those people with no job; in fact, those people should resent those higher profits because that is the very reason they don't have a job.

You say they don't have a job because they priced themselves out of the market? How low is low enough?

I cannot believe we are actually having a discussion like this in the United States of America -- can we outbid a person in the Third World on how little we are willing to work for, just to be able to have a job?
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
But the trash, the fire dept., police dept, and other local
expenses are just that local expenses. They get paid by local taxes.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have seen those 'services' used to justify socialism more times than I can count.


And federal expenses like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are just that, federal expenses paid for by federal taxes.

It appears that whatever money any government spends -- whether federal, state or local -- are legitimate services if you want them, and socialism if you don't.


In addition, we have a socialist military, socialist police, socialist firemen, socialist school system, socialist National Parks, socialist post office, socialist religious organizations, and so on ad infinitum. What would be news would be if you can find something in this country that is not socialistic.
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

In other words my stance is, fix the existing problems first and then if income is still a problem we will fix that next.


If your paycheck isn't enough to cover your electric bill, and the power company refuses to take less, do you have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

If you think you have spending problem, tell the power company to come pull the meter, and you will sit in the dark and have no juice for the refrigerator, etc.

If you recognize that you have a revenue problem that can be easily remedied by increasing your income, then you won't have to make the decision to turn off the electricity and you can remain in modern civilized society and provide decently for your family.


If your monthly power bill is higher than your monthly income, you certainly would be considered poor and qualify for assistance, and have a multitude of problems obviously with income being the number one problem. Since it was easily remedied in your example by increasing the income, why did your subject choose to be underemployed in the first place?

You keep referencing to the poor as if I am saying I don't want Government to provide for those who are unfortunate, unable, and in need. I think I have more than been clear about that, that is exactly who the Government should provide for. I am all for it, can I possibly be more clear?

Question for you, the Government steps in and helps your above example subject family, life is now good, eight months later he buys a brand new car, charges a vacation trip to Florida for a week on his new shiney credit card. Wham....figures out he still can't pay the power bill, all over again.

Now what do we have here, a spending problem or an income problem?


Analogy, simile, metaphor -- not literal examples. Sort of like a parable.

I'm not talking about a poor family made poor by lack of income, I'm talking about a poor government made poor by tax cuts. I'm not talking about a poor family in need of charity, I'm talking about a government in need of more revenue to adequately fulfill its responsibilities without needing to borrow as much or running such a huge deficit.

All the talk about income, spending and whether we need to cut spending or increase income, is really about illustrating the issues facing government using easy to identify personal situations.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear from the beginning.


No apology necessary as I was being a little tounge and cheek myself. But my question still stands (analogy, simile, metaphor, etc.), what happens once life is now good for the metaphoric "Family", and they run up their debt again? How do you separate the unwilling, the stupid, and the unable? How do you bring about accountability? I'm not saying it isn't a great ideal, just would like a working plan. I will never accept that we just have to put up with the unwilling and the stupid, that it just comes with the territority of helping those in need, and I admit I have no super solution but I am willing to listen as long as I am listened to. My question still stands.
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
I'm all for private charity. I think that is the best way to go. The closer you are to the object of your giving, the more control you have over how your money is spent and can monitor its effectivess.

Having said that, there will be those who will not be the object of anyone's private charity, for whatever reason. We as a society for the past 80 years have said that we are not going to forget about those who have run out of rope and have nobody to turn to and nowhere else to go for help but to the government.

TAX THE RICH!

You bring up an excellent point. These poeple do not want to "owe" anything to anyone nor have them have any say nor control over how they spend the monies given to them. They do not want to be personally responsibile. It is not anyone's business if they want to buy cigarettes, liquor, or meth with that money. because they know the government willnot cut them off if their behavior does not change.
You need to watch a great little film called "The Wild Wonderful Whites of West Virginia" to get a glimpse into the typical physche of this mentality. The Whites on are their fifth generation of government dependency. The father of the klan was a union cola miner who discovered that the government subsidies were there to be pilfered. One of them makes the remark that "she is crazy, and gets a check from the government each month to prove it (laughing)". They make their money buying pills and reselling them, on top of their government checks. NONE of them have jobs, the local government says they have a bigger problem with them than most anyone else, but also says they are not the only family there that lives this way.
The coalminer's union taught them how to do this, and it has perpetuated to the point where they are totally dependent on the government.
Originally Posted by mad American:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
NO! I want it all and I want it NOW! Even if it means a tax increase for folks that have worked and saved all their life.


Who are talking about and what is your point?

That is the typical liberal's attitude. They want the same pay and possessions as someone who has worked and saved their money. So instead of saving for something they borrow until they can't and then want to tax the rich to pay for their mistakes.

Most rich people don't work and never have. They think that unearned income should not be taxed. They think that the only people who should have to pay taxes are those who, unlike them, have to work for a living. Why are you on their side?

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

You are right...but I think the percentage is more like 17-18%, if they have the proper deductions...

But really...SO WHAT?

The more private individuals can keep of THEIR OWN money...the better...You seem to under the assumption that all income belongs to the federal goverment first...and by their own grace and generosity let us keep some.


Let government be a charity, then. Pay only if you want to. Don't spend any money unless its already in the Treasury. Dock the Navy; ground the Air Force; furlough the Army. Let all the police and firemen punch out and go fishing.
All disagreements are settled by shootouts on Main Street because the courts are closed. No way to determine ownership or transfer of land because the Probate Office is closed.

If you don't want to pay for government to do all that it does, then do it yourself. You are are a responsible, independent, rugged individualist, aren't you. Got that firehose handy?

Yes, the choice is to be a "rugged individualist" or to stand by quietly and accept being $14 trillion in debt...with no end in sight...You don't think there is a little wiggle room in between?

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by skippy delepepper:
If you personaly your family runs short, mabey you could give up smoking
or that 6-pack or something else. You could get a 2nd job or have a
yard sale. You don't go and rob your neighbor or hold up a 7-11.
The same should go for gov't. If the gov't. runs short you don't spend
more and rob the tax-payer.

Skippy Cool


So now government is the robber who sticks up the 7-11?

The next time your trash gets picked up, go out there and tell the guys (or girls --who knows?) that they are nothing but thieves and you are tired of them stealing from you.

Go by the fire house and tell all those sucking off the public to get their dirty thieving hands out of your pocket.

Then go by the police station and let them know that you are tired of them ripping you off, so go out and get a real job.

That'll probably be about as far as you get that day.

 

 

You really seem like a smart guy...so surely you can see the problem with your responses, right?

 

There is a world of difference in the "government" that provides fire protection and the "government" that has us $14 trillion in debt, and is openly arguing (both sides) to have us somewhere around $20 trillion in debt by 2020.


 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
...As long as there is a government, it will require money to operate. It will tax or borrow or print. There are no other options...

 

That leads to the question of legitimate government and the proper role of government.  In the American tradition, government's role is to protect life, liberty, and property...Not provide a laundry list of wants and desires...but that's not the point of this thread.

 

...TAX THE RICH!

 

Back to the original post...OK, we get it, you and many others want to "tax the rich"...as originally pointed out, "tax the rich" doesn't really seem to help us.

 

Whether you want to look at %'s of GDP or actual dollars...The Federal government always...ALWAYS...spends more than it brings in, regardless of tax rates and revenue.

 

In respect to that irrefutable, non-debatable, crystal clear historical FACT...I ask the question that was asked in the original post...How is "taxing the rich" going to be different this time?

 

How in the world are we going to "tax the rich" $14 trillion dollars? 

 

Cuts have to be made.

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Say you want to buy a cheeseburger, coke and fries from me. I give you the cheeseburger, coke and fries and say, okay, that'll be $4 please. You hand me $3. I say, um, sir, we have a payment problem here. You say, "No, we have a price problem. You're charging too much. We don't have a payment problem. I'm not paying you too little." 
Glad you understand the problem. We're telling the governments they're charging us too much, we're not paying too little. 
Originally Posted by teyates:
quote:
Originally posted by The Propagandist:
I'm all for private charity. I think that is the best way to go. The closer you are to the object of your giving, the more control you have over how your money is spent and can monitor its effectivess.

Having said that, there will be those who will not be the object of anyone's private charity, for whatever reason. We as a society for the past 80 years have said that we are not going to forget about those who have run out of rope and have nobody to turn to and nowhere else to go for help but to the government.

TAX THE RICH!

You bring up an excellent point. These poeple do not want to "owe" anything to anyone nor have them have any say nor control over how they spend the monies given to them. They do not want to be personally responsibile. It is not anyone's business if they want to buy cigarettes, liquor, or meth with that money. because they know the government willnot cut them off if their behavior does not change.
You need to watch a great little film called "The Wild Wonderful Whites of West Virginia" to get a glimpse into the typical physche of this mentality. The Whites on are their fifth generation of government dependency. The father of the klan was a union cola miner who discovered that the government subsidies were there to be pilfered. One of them makes the remark that "she is crazy, and gets a check from the government each month to prove it (laughing)". They make their money buying pills and reselling them, on top of their government checks. NONE of them have jobs, the local government says they have a bigger problem with them than most anyone else, but also says they are not the only family there that lives this way.
The coalminer's union taught them how to do this, and it has perpetuated to the point where they are totally dependent on the government.


I looked up a few of those people. They look like they've popped off their string. Around here we have a class of people we call "sorry white trash." That would be a compliment to these people. Sounds like they should be headed either to prison or the asylum.

Originally Posted by Renegade Nation:
Quick, funny and informative video that points out what has been shown many times on these boards, but many here...just as many politicians and media talking heads...just simply ignore the history of revenue and tax rates.

Tax rates have varied wildly over the years but historically the government has averaged about 18% GDP...regardless of the rate.

BUT...historically, the government spends about 20% GDP...as the host of the video points out: "There's your deficit, folks"

Watch the video and then 2 questions...

1. Why doesn't a higher rate on the "rich" bring in more revenue? This is a question I'd genuinely like to understand.

2. How the hell is Stephen King only paying 28% when the top rate is 35%?!?

If what you know about economics was gasoline, it wouldn't power a ****ant's motorcycle around the inside of a cherrio.

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
In 2004, Congress approved a one-year tax holiday as part of a jobs package, resulting in companies bringing back $362 billion. But, as Fortune's Tory Newmyer pointed out in February, studies have shown that most of the funds went to shareholders. Even while Congress passed several rules to make sure the funds would get invested back into the companies, not very much went to research, investment or hiring.

If the cost savings from lower taxes don't go to new investments or more jobs, could they at least lead to higher wages for workers, as Ryan's plan suggests?

If history tells us anything, that's unlikely. The effective corporate tax rate has been steadily declining for decades. Corporations paid more than 49% of their profits in federal taxes in the 1950s, 38% in the 1960s, 33% in the 1970s and 25% in the 1980s. All the while, U.S. wages have been stagnant for years even as productivity has risen. Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% -- far outpacing wages, which grew by only 12% during the same period


http://finance.fortune.cnn.com...nt-create-more-jobs/
Those dividends were, of course, taxed. 
Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
In 2004, Congress approved a one-year tax holiday as part of a jobs package, resulting in companies bringing back $362 billion. But, as Fortune's Tory Newmyer pointed out in February, studies have shown that most of the funds went to shareholders. Even while Congress passed several rules to make sure the funds would get invested back into the companies, not very much went to research, investment or hiring.

If the cost savings from lower taxes don't go to new investments or more jobs, could they at least lead to higher wages for workers, as Ryan's plan suggests?

If history tells us anything, that's unlikely. The effective corporate tax rate has been steadily declining for decades. Corporations paid more than 49% of their profits in federal taxes in the 1950s, 38% in the 1960s, 33% in the 1970s and 25% in the 1980s. All the while, U.S. wages have been stagnant for years even as productivity has risen. Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% -- far outpacing wages, which grew by only 12% during the same period


http://finance.fortune.cnn.com...nt-create-more-jobs/
Those dividends were, of course, taxed. 

 That is the point!  Taxing profits which are then paid as dividends means they are taxed twice.  Corps should pay an excise tax on revenues regardless of profits, writeoffs or any other tax dodge schemes, so the government is financed at a level proportionate to the economic activity. 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
quote:
Originally posted by skippy delepepper:
If you personaly your family runs short, mabey you could give up smoking
or that 6-pack or something else. You could get a 2nd job or have a
yard sale. You don't go and rob your neighbor or hold up a 7-11.
The same should go for gov't. If the gov't. runs short you don't spend
more and rob the tax-payer.

Skippy Cool


So now government is the robber who sticks up the 7-11?

The next time your trash gets picked up, go out there and tell the guys (or girls --who knows?) that they are nothing but thieves and you are tired of them stealing from you.

Go by the fire house and tell all those sucking off the public to get their dirty thieving hands out of your pocket.

Then go by the police station and let them know that you are tired of them ripping you off, so go out and get a real job.

That'll probably be about as far as you get that day.


This is the same stupid argument made by all the left wing statists. Its all control by the all powerful state or nothing. Statism or move to Somalia, where there is no government.

 The argument defies common sense and the experience of government in the US.

 

Government expeditures have out stripped the combined total income of the top 10 percent of the nation.  First, bring spending under control. Then, if a recovering economy doesn't generate sufficient revenue, we'll talk.  First, put out the fire, round up the spooked herd of cattle, and get the camp in order.  Then, we'll talk!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×