Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Oct 1, 2010.
Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?
Yes, but ultimately, there should be a fair and/or flat tax. Then we could truly set a budget based off of GDP and require congress to stop over spending. Once we have a budget and surpluses for many, many years, we can vote for more social programs or tax cuts. Until then, all non-critical spending must stop.
Not only should the cuts not be extended, but the tax rate for the wealthiest in this country should be astronomically raised.
You're asking the wrong questions...
The country as a whole needs to debate what the role of government ought to be. If you want the government to take care of you from cradle to grave and to continue to spend us and future generations into oblivion with entitlement plans and nanny-state policies, then we can't afford meaningful tax cuts. If you want to return to a smaller and more constitutional federal government which produces maximum liberty and minimum intrusion into our personal lives, massive tax reductions are within our reach.
Without a reduction in SPENDING, a reduction in taxation is almost meaningless. Yes, the Bush "Tax Cuts" should be extended, and new (far more aggressive) "tax cuts" should be added as well. Eventually, we need to accept some sort of 'flat' or 'fair' tax system in its place.
Ah, yes. Two very regressive tax systems that ONLY benefit the wealthy. Wouldn't have expected anything else from you.
I love it...we should steal from you because your too successful.
Sorry Johnny, but the class made overall B on the test, but since you made an A and susie made a C, I am going to give her 10 points from your test. Now everyone has a B. Happy days! What is that Johnny? It is unfair that Susie gets a B and did not study? Johnny, that is racist, homophobic, women hating, capitalist talk. We have a special camp, I mean, class for you. Report to Mrs Hitler's class immediately.
The only things I think should be extended is the Child Tax Credit and Itemized Deductions.
How about defining "fair" tax on the basis of a parabolic curve that has a d/dx of 1 at the 75th percentile (meaning the rate climbs slowly to that point an increasingly quickly above it).
Godwin'd in only 7 posts. Nice.
WTF? Who's stealing from anybody? Everyone is part of society. It costs money to maintain a society. If someone doesn't want to pay taxes to keep society going, buy an island and move to it. But don't expect any of us to help you when you need defending or anything else.
You also buy into the myth that everyone who's wealthy earned it.
Tax cuts for the wealthy: Absolutely not
Tax cuts for the middle class: It depends. I'm middle class. If my taxes were raised to pay for two illegal wars and more defense crap, no. If my taxes are raised to pay for improved roads, healthcare for everyone, and better schools, yes.
Your premise is wrong.
Further, I still have yet to hear a suitable explanation of why we should tax the guy who makes 50K a year $5,000 and the guy who makes 100K $20,000, (numbers obviously simplified) other than "well, he's the one with the money and he won't miss it".
WTF? Who's stealing from anybody? Everyone is part of socialism. It costs money to maintain socialism. If someone doesn't want to pay taxes to keep socialism going, buy an island and move to it. But don't expect any of us to help you when you need defending or anything else.
My point exactly... We bought an island called America with blood.
It's been stated countless times that the wealthy get more benefit from the government's services than the poor. Some of this tax is visible (for instance, they'll pay higher taxes). For other things, like the FDIC insuring their 100k deposits, the police and fire department being able to respond to a crime or fire at their 10,000 sq ft home, there is no explicit tax. The additional benefit they glean from government instituted structure is greater than that of those who make less than they do. Couple that with the inherent recognition that the wealthy get more wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle classes, and it makes sense for them to have a higher share of the taxes.
I also like the arbitrary distinction between stealing and taxes. The middle class family that pays 20% of their income in taxes is doing their civic duty. The rich guy who pays an effective 15% rate after income and capital gains are accounted for is being stolen from.
Apparently you have America confused with someone else.
I'm sick of this punishing the rich crap. Taxes aren't a punishment they are a necessity. How about this: how about before the Bush tax cuts we had a surplus budget and now we don't. So going back to the still historically low pre-Bush cuts rate is not a punishment. Its going back to the way things were when the economy was doing great. How about a thank you from the rich for the 8 years or so that they got a tax deduction as our economy went down the toilet?!? If Bush had never cut the taxes, the rich would still have lower taxes then they did for a lot of the past century, so why don't they take whatever money they saved at the expensive of this country while we tried to pay for two wars and be a little grateful for the 10th vacation they can take with that money instead of bitching that things are going back to the way the were AS PLANNED!!!
ungrateful, unpatriotic, selfish dicks, every single one of them
Oh horse s***. You right wingers want to have all the things government has to do without paying for it. Guess what? Things like wars cost money. If you lower taxes during a war what happens? Oh wait...DEBT- massive amounts of it. The USA is not an island. We are a society. We have to pay for the things government does. We can't keep lowering taxes and expecting all our debt to magically disappear, and our country to keep running all by itself.
I hate to break it to you, but our current government and its programs have been tested, and they are Constitutional. You throw that phrase in there like some part of today's government is wrong, when it isn't. I point that out before I respond substantively, because what you've done is try to imply that anything opposed to your viewpoint is unconstitional. That's just not true. We can disagree about choices, but to imply that your choice is the only one that is Constitutional is disingenuous, if not blatently false.
Really? Then why did GWB do it? Oh wait, I know. He was a Neocon, and nothing like the GOP you support today!
Do you have ANY anectodal evidence that cutting taxes increases economic activity, increases job creation, etc... If so, please share.
Only if the flat/fair tax replaces ALL TAXES. If it doesn't, but instead only replaces the income tax, it is a regressive tax, and should be resisted with force.
Do you realize that tax rates are marginal? That means the first x,000 are taxes the same as everyone else, but any amount more than that is taxed at a slightly higher rate. It isn't a theft, but an additional tax rate on income above a certain level. It's not theft. It's just a cost of doing business. Oh, and seeing as you just failed massively in understanding tax law, I would be remiss if I didn't point out your education system, math, statistics and logic fails at the same time.
Crap, beat me to it.
Extend them temporarily for the middle class, but eventually they will need to go up as well.
What a sad perspective. The entire world can be defined as 'oppressor' vs. 'victim.' The fat man could get fat was by taking advantage of the skinny man. I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1017858
No logical person with common sense could read the words that the founders wrote and determine that the Federal Government has the right to regulate something simply because it is remotely connected to 'commerce' in this country, or that it may be stated to support the general 'welfare' of any individual citizen. Such reasonings would leave the federal government an limited by no enumerated power whatsoever... with nearly limitless ability to do anything they wanted.
Any program which is justified under these clauses is a straight-up unconstitutional measure passed by so-called judges who are willingly ignoring their oath of office. Such programs should require an amendment to the constitution, and these judges should lose their chairs, this much is clear.
You, with all due respect, need to study history a bit more. The entire constitution is a limit on the powers of government... the entire thing the founders set out to do different in America from Europe was to create a country with maximum liberty and minimum government.
Honestly ask yourself this... why enumerate powers of the government in the constitution at all... if the powers can be expanded at whim by a liberal reading of the term 'general welfare.'
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States:
10th Amendment of the Constitution
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is always the analogy people use...but it doesn't work exactly. This is to assume that someone who makes less money per year didn't work as hard.
Johnny is an executive assistant to a CEO. He makes $100,000 a year booking his flights and buying him new socks. Susie makes $20,000 working on roofs in Florida in the summer.
Let's not begin to pretend that Johnny works way harder than Susie for what he has. Does Johnny work hard? Possibly. Does Susie work hard? Absolutely. But because her job is labor, as opposed to an office job, it's considered lesser, and thus she's paid a fraction.
At the end of a day, Johhny heads back to his posh downtown loft and cooks a steak on his interior grill, while Susie heads home to her apartment in the projects, which she shares with three other people just to break even. Then she leaves for her second job...cleaning the common areas of Johnny's building.
Susie works way, way harder...why shouldn't she get some help here? I am NOT talking about drug addicts, homeless bums with no desire to work, criminals, or any of that sort...I'm talking about honest, working people.
Don't bring up that Susie needs to work harder to make more, because someone will have to take her place, and the cycle will start again. What it comes down to is that in order for society as a whole to function better, those at the top have to put more into the system than those who have nothing to put. While I'm sure they do as a whole, adding more cuts is hardly necessary.
Again, I am *not* supporting those who want to leech. I'm supporting those who work their butt off, but still can barely afford basic living expenses, While those who make more than enough to live and afford multiple houses want to pay even less than they do already. Yes, I'm a stinking liberal.
Taking something because I have more of it is theft. Period. It is not the cost of doing business, it is the way immoral people try to justify their behavior. Obviously your education system lacked morals, thus you can not derive the logic of theft.
Do you honestly think Susie is paid less because it's considered 'lesser?' You're not to experienced with basic economics and free market theory, are you? I suggest you read through this thread a little bit as well: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1017858
You still fail to understand. Go back and read his post again. Taxes are not theft. PERIOD.
You also have an interesting definition of theft.