How very presidential. Awe inspiring preformance.

[Night Strike]

Considering tax cuts aren't even being considered in this debt ceiling debate, that part of your point is moot. It would also be nice if people would accept cuts in their entitlements, but that's not acceptable. All we can do is increase taxes on the rich.

You really need to get your news from other places, man. Like, seriously.

What am I making up? What tax cuts are included in these negotiations? I know the president wants tax increases. I know Pelosi and her democrats won't accept any cuts in Medicare and Social Security. It doesn't matter where you get the news from when it's fact.

OK, so tax cuts aren't being included in deficit-reduction talks. You guys are getting 3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in additional revenue. This coming from a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate. And Boehner turns it down. The Republicans realize they have a live hand grenade that they can blow up the economy with. It'd be called negotiating with terrorists in any other venue.

Continuing to spend limitless amounts of money will blow up our economy. We won't default if the president will just pay the bills that are due every month. We will be taking in $203 billion in August alone, so we will have plenty of money to pay interest, Social Security, Medicare, the military, and I believe a few other others.

The entire point of not voting for the tax increases is because they will take effect in the very near future while the "cuts" are almost exclusively in the further future, meaning they are either not increasing the future spending as much as they want or that a future Congress will just ignore the cuts and spend more money anyway. The cuts are not guaranteed but the taxes are. Which is why members of Congress who were backed by Tea Party members cannot vote for tax increases in the package. IF Congress can actually cut real spending (and not just spend $1 trillion more instead of $1.5 trillion more), then we can start discussing tax rates and deductions to start paying down our $14.5 trillion debt.

tl;dr: Stop the increases and THEN look for tax increases to pay down the debt that has already been accumulated.

[Mr_Adams]

The bottom line is, normal citizens can't win.

We could, if more than 30% voted. And if people were really willing to take necessary pain, which in this case does include some tax increases, not just cuts.

I can agree here, so long as the tax increases are for the people who don't pay taxes. The fact is that people will vote for the candidate who gives them the most until they have a vested interest in the tax dollars being spent PROPERLY. That is what it all comes down to.


Also, as far as the debt goes:



Ya, Bush made a huge mess, bringing us to 7.something trillion.

Obama has brought us to [checks http://www.usdebtclock.org/] 14.3 trillion. Yes, Bravo, other party. you are doing SO much better.

[rdsrds2120]

The bottom line is, normal citizens can't win.

We could, if more than 30% voted. And if people were really willing to take necessary pain, which in this case does include some tax increases, not just cuts.

I can agree here, so long as the tax increases are for the people who don't pay taxes. The fact is that people will vote for the candidate who gives them the most until they have a vested interest in the tax dollars being spent PROPERLY. That is what it all comes down to.


Also, as far as the debt goes:



Ya, Bush made a huge mess, bringing us to 7.something trillion.

Obama has brought us to [checks http://www.usdebtclock.org/] 14.3 trillion. Yes, Bravo, other party. you are doing SO much better.

When it boils down to it, what's the significance of the debt if we can raise the ceiling? Seems arbitrary.

-rd

[Night Strike]

When it boils down to it, what's the significance of the debt if we can raise the ceiling? Seems arbitrary.

-rd

Nothing, which is the problem. For the first 100 or so years of our country, national debt was seen as the #1 issue of national security. All of those presidents knew that the only way to pay for future wars would be to pay off all of our debts during times of peace. But then, when progressivism took hold in the government, they realized that they could use the public debt to buy votes. And now instead of looking to pay off our existing debts, the government is only looking at ways to not increase it as quickly. It's ludicrous!

[PLAYER57832]

The bottom line is, normal citizens can't win.

We could, if more than 30% voted. And if people were really willing to take necessary pain, which in this case does include some tax increases, not just cuts.

Considering tax cuts aren't even being considered in this debt ceiling debate, that part of your point is moot. It would also be nice if people would accept cuts in their entitlements, but that's not acceptable. All we can do is increase taxes on the rich.

cuts to things people in America need.

Among other issues, its rather hypocritical for the same people creating the system of greater "needs", the idea that you can "have it all".. and the ones benefitting the very most from that excess are the very ones now complaining that they cannot give even 1 penny more to pay down the US debt.

[spurgistan]

The bottom line is, normal citizens can't win.

We could, if more than 30% voted. And if people were really willing to take necessary pain, which in this case does include some tax increases, not just cuts.

I can agree here, so long as the tax increases are for the people who don't pay taxes. The fact is that people will vote for the candidate who gives them the most until they have a vested interest in the tax dollars being spent PROPERLY. That is what it all comes down to.


Also, as far as the debt goes:



Ya, Bush made a huge mess, bringing us to 7.something trillion.

Obama has brought us to [checks http://www.usdebtclock.org/] 14.3 trillion. Yes, Bravo, other party. you are doing SO much better.

WHy are we obsessed with making poor people pay taxes? Also, the reason the deficit ballooned under Obama was because of the economy tanking under Bush. While I wish we could have passed more recovery measures, and to that extent this is something of Obama's economy, most of the deficit is stuff Obama didn't do (even if you think the stimulus was a total failure, which it most certainly was not, that's $800 billion)

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The bottom line is, normal citizens can't win.

We could, if more than 30% voted. And if people were really willing to take necessary pain, which in this case does include some tax increases, not just cuts.

Ah! The virtue of privations! Tell me, Player, if your crops were failing, would you sacrifice the nearest virgin for the benefit of the people?

-TG

[Phatscotty]

The bottom line is, normal citizens can't win.

We could, if more than 30% voted. And if people were really willing to take necessary pain, which in this case does include some tax increases, not just cuts.

I can agree here, so long as the tax increases are for the people who don't pay taxes. The fact is that people will vote for the candidate who gives them the most until they have a vested interest in the tax dollars being spent PROPERLY. That is what it all comes down to.


Also, as far as the debt goes:



Ya, Bush made a huge mess, bringing us to 7.something trillion.

Obama has brought us to [checks http://www.usdebtclock.org/] 14.3 trillion. Yes, Bravo, other party. you are doing SO much better.

WHy are we obsessed with making poor people pay taxes?

Because they do not pay their fair share?

[JoshyBoy]

WHy are we obsessed with making poor people pay taxes?

Because they do not pay their fair share?

This is an interesting point. What is a "fair share"? Should "poor" people pay only relative to what they can afford, or a set amount? What if they can't afford to pay that amount? How about no taxes of any kind for anyone? Would a tax free society work?

I hate politics/economics...

[Phatscotty]

WHy are we obsessed with making poor people pay taxes?

Because they do not pay their fair share?

This is an interesting point. What is a "fair share"? Should "poor" people pay only relative to what they can afford, or a set amount? What if they can't afford to pay that amount? How about no taxes of any kind for anyone? Would a tax free society work?

I hate politics/economics...

Everyone should pay something.

replacing the highly unjust income tax system with a fair tax or national sales tax would accomplish this.

I think the saying is something like "It's time everyone needs to have some skin in the game"

[BigBallinStalin]

The bottom line is, normal citizens can't win.

We could, if more than 30% voted. And if people were really willing to take necessary pain, which in this case does include some tax increases, not just cuts.

I can agree here, so long as the tax increases are for the people who don't pay taxes. The fact is that people will vote for the candidate who gives them the most until they have a vested interest in the tax dollars being spent PROPERLY. That is what it all comes down to.


Also, as far as the debt goes:



Ya, Bush made a huge mess, bringing us to 7.something trillion.

Obama has brought us to [checks http://www.usdebtclock.org/] 14.3 trillion. Yes, Bravo, other party. you are doing SO much better.

When it boils down to it, what's the significance of the debt if we can raise the ceiling? Seems arbitrary.

-rd

Great question.

In the short-run, it doesn't matter too much for one's upcoming election because most of the voting public is geared towards thinking in the short-run.

However, as the federal government allows itself to incur more debt, servicing that debt will increasingly consume more of their budget. So, as one continues to borrow, it still must be paid*, and if servicing the debt consumes 50% of your budget, then you have that much less of money to spend on public goods. It's like a forced 50% budget cut, with all the terrible consequences that follow.


*(or, one can default, which would be interesting).

[GreecePwns]

Coincedence? I think not.

[BigBallinStalin]

WHy are we obsessed with making poor people pay taxes?

Because they do not pay their fair share?

This is an interesting point. What is a "fair share"? Should "poor" people pay only relative to what they can afford, or a set amount? What if they can't afford to pay that amount? How about no taxes of any kind for anyone? Would a tax free society work?

I hate politics/economics...

Maybe. So far, the upper 2/3s of Somalia have fared relatively well compared to other sub-Saharan African countries, and Somalia has no state. Interestingly, the lower 1/3 of Somalia has a state (i.e. government), and that section is performing worse than the north.

More on Somalia:
http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia (short article)

Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement? (20-page pdf)



Basically, it depends on which public goods the state is deemed to provide (and deems itself to provide). Some argue that society can't take care of its own; therefore, a state must be used to provide certain goods. Some argue that society can take care of itself without the need of a state or with a very minimal one.

[Phatscotty]

Coincedence? I think not.

Socialism is solely determined by the rate of income taxes?

a 40% tax rate in a budget where 55% of the money goes to social programs is far different than a 70% tax rate where only 10% is paid out for social programs.


The tax rate has hardly anything to do with whether someone is socialist of not. The drive to redistribute the wealth is a far better indicator. It's what is done with the money they take, not what % they take.

You know this

[GreecePwns]

That wasn't the point at all. Look at the graphs.

[Phatscotty]

That wasn't the point at all. Look at the graphs.

Oh, I see.

Isn't is true though, that no matter what the rate is, over the last century, America only gets about 18% from people when all is said and done?

Also, if I may ask about your correlation. What would a 0% income tax make the charts look like?

[Woodruff]

When it boils down to it, what's the significance of the debt if we can raise the ceiling? Seems arbitrary.

-rd

Nothing, which is the problem. For the first 100 or so years of our country, national debt was seen as the #1 issue of national security. All of those presidents knew that the only way to pay for future wars would be to pay off all of our debts during times of peace. But then, when progressivism took hold in the government, they realized that they could use the public debt to buy votes. And now instead of looking to pay off our existing debts, the government is only looking at ways to not increase it as quickly. It's ludicrous!

Those damn Republican progressives. <rolling eyes>

[Woodruff]

Everyone should pay something.
replacing the highly unjust income tax system with a fair tax or national sales tax would accomplish this.
I think the saying is something like "It's time everyone needs to have some skin in the game"

The "Fair Tax" is actually highly regressive and not at all fair to the poor OR to the middle class.

[GreecePwns]

Guys, the Fair Tax is just another step in Marx's "bourgeois producing their antithesis." If you want to drive a wedge in the middle class, keep supporting the Fair Tax.

[Phatscotty]

Demanding that the people who pay far more than their fair share pay even more under the guise of "paying their fair share" while at the same time defending people who pay not a single penny is thee most hypocritical thing I have heard in my life.

[Mr_Adams]

So long as you have a class of persons who do not pay into the tax system, you will have a class of citizens with no vested interest (IE Don't give a damn) about how the moneys are misappropriated. Then you have a class of people who will vote for whoever will give them the most, not spend wisely what they take in. This is why it is critically important that the lowest tax bracket not be a net monetary gain to the individual. Otherwise these individuals see the answer to every situation as "tax more", when they don't even know what it is like to sign over 40% of one's income with nothing to show for it.

[Nobunaga]

... Taxing the evil rich to pay down the debt is nothing but smoke & mirrors meant to maintain / increase class envy and redistribute earned wealth. It is socialist idealogy, plain and simple.

... Taxing everyone in the US who makes over 500K a year, at 100%, would take something like a thousand years plus to pay off the last 2 years of federal spending. ... so why are we targetting the "millionaires and billionaires"? ...

... See paragraph 1.

...

[Symmetry]

So long as you have a class of persons who do not pay into the tax system, you will have a class of citizens with no vested interest (IE Don't give a damn) about how the moneys are misappropriated. Then you have a class of people who will vote for whoever will give them the most, not spend wisely what they take in. This is why it is critically important that the lowest tax bracket not be a net monetary gain to the individual. Otherwise these individuals see the answer to every situation as "tax more", when they don't even know what it is like to sign over 40% of one's income with nothing to show for it.

Erm, so this is meant to be an argument that doesn't apply to the richer members of society, with the dodgy tax loop holes, off shore accounts, tax havens, and exemptions?

Or do you actually apply the principle that "So long as you have a class of persons who do not pay into the tax system, you will have a class of citizens with no vested interest (IE Don't give a damn) about how the moneys are misappropriated" to corporations and wealthy citizens too?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, I'm just interested in when and where you apply that statement, or what excuses you have for not applying it to the wealthy, if that's the case.

[Mr_Adams]

So long as you have a class of persons who do not pay into the tax system, you will have a class of citizens with no vested interest (IE Don't give a damn) about how the moneys are misappropriated. Then you have a class of people who will vote for whoever will give them the most, not spend wisely what they take in. This is why it is critically important that the lowest tax bracket not be a net monetary gain to the individual. Otherwise these individuals see the answer to every situation as "tax more", when they don't even know what it is like to sign over 40% of one's income with nothing to show for it.

Erm, so this is meant to be an argument that doesn't apply to the richer members of society, with the dodgy tax loop holes, off shore accounts, tax havens, and exemptions?

Or do you actually apply the principle that "So long as you have a class of persons who do not pay into the tax system, you will have a class of citizens with no vested interest (IE Don't give a damn) about how the moneys are misappropriated" to corporations and wealthy citizens too?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, I'm just interested in when and where you apply that statement, or what excuses you have for not applying it to the wealthy, if that's the case.

Oh, yes, there absolutely should be a tightening of the tax system. Lower rates overall, get rid of the loop holes, make everybody pay some, then we have a start. absolutely the vested interest is universal. Corporate laws also need to be revised, as the system allows for far to much corruption and massive inefficiencies, with money going to people who don't earn it.

[Woodruff]

Demanding that the people who pay far more than their fair share pay even more under the guise of "paying their fair share" while at the same time defending people who pay not a single penny is thee most hypocritical thing I have heard in my life.

I agree. You should stop defending the guys that can afford the best tax attorneys. It's quite hypocritical.