|
Post by valpo04 on Aug 25, 2010 13:21:52 GMT -5
The money the rich would save in taxes would be invested, not put in mattresses. Whom do you want investing that money - you or the federal government? I'd rather have the federal government have money, for libraries, fire stations, police officers, roads, the internet, fiscal regulation, research grants, the FDA, NIH, NASA, need I go on... Sorry, but "federal government" is not a dirty word to me. I'm a little too patriotic for that. This isn't a very "loungy" discussion tho... i need to go take a nap and chill... :> peace out, all... Not liking how much of "our" money the federal government wastes doesn't make one "unpatriotic." Nice try though.
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 13:28:18 GMT -5
I'd rather have the federal government have money, for libraries, fire stations, police officers, roads, the internet, fiscal regulation, research grants, the FDA, NIH, NASA, need I go on... Sorry, but "federal government" is not a dirty word to me. I'm a little too patriotic for that. This isn't a very "loungy" discussion tho... i need to go take a nap and chill... :> peace out, all... Not liking how much of "our" money the federal government wastes doesn't make one "unpatriotic." Nice try though. waste is bad, agreed, but we weren't talking about waste, we were talking about money in general.
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 13:41:27 GMT -5
As posted previously, Sen. Lugar, hardly a "tea party" guy, is a big supporter of the National Sales Tax. Think this through for a moment. If you either give a consumption credit to the poor, or not tax certain items within reasonable levels, how is this putting more pressure on the poor. Perhaps the logic here is that the "poor", if you will, don't pay any income tax now. As for the "rich", do you think they won't spend their money? If they don't, what will they do with it? They will put it in the bank or invest it in the markets. So what does the percieved increase in savings do for our economy? Well, it would drive interest rates lower (if that's possible right now) and increase leading to businesses, many of which are small. What will the businesses do with the money? Expand, hire, buy equipment. What do businesses do with a higher stock value? Many things including paying dividends as well as expansion. Who benefits from dividends and higher stock prices? Retirerees, pensions and others who primarily add to benefits for many, not so rich. One other point. Do you know anyone who works for cash? How about the mafia? Do you think they report their income? How much is lost to this "underground" economy? A bunch. With the NST idea, these people must do something with their money unless they are going to highjack a grocery truck and payoff people with bananas and canned beans. I told you I agree with a consumption tax above reasonable levels, ie a luxury tax. Let's start with gas guzzlers, make them pay huge taxes on any consumption over a reasonable annual level, and apply it to fighting global warming. Lord knows the planet needs it. Regarding the whole argument about it being peachy keen for all of us if the rich to do well... aka voodoo economics... that's hardly a slam dunk and I'm pretty sure you know it. And sure, it would be nice to get rid of "the black market" but I hardly think it calls for a tax system overhaul. That's using an elephant gun on a mouse for sure. I understand if you want people to get to hold on to the money they earn. Just say so, and we can agree to disagree. But don't try to spin it like it's what we all need. I have to confess, I am really sick of the "everyman" message crafted by right-wing nut jobs to try to dupe the average joe. It's a pet peeve, sorry, and sometimes I jump the gun. Now what common ground can we find!? :-)
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Aug 25, 2010 13:47:31 GMT -5
I told you I agree with a consumption tax above reasonable levels, ie a luxury tax. Let's start with gas guzzlers, make them pay huge taxes on any consumption over a reasonable annual level, and apply it to fighting global warming. Lord knows the planet needs it.NSFW language... I have to confess, I am really sick of the "man made global warming is 100% true and we must raise taxes to fight it!" message crafted by left-wing nut jobs to try to dupe the average joe. It's a pet peeve, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 14:03:40 GMT -5
I told you I agree with a consumption tax above reasonable levels, ie a luxury tax. Let's start with gas guzzlers, make them pay huge taxes on any consumption over a reasonable annual level, and apply it to fighting global warming. Lord knows the planet needs it.NSFW language... I have to confess, I am really sick of the "man made global warming is 100% true and we must raise taxes to fight it!" message crafted by left-wing nut jobs to try to dupe the average joe. It's a pet peeve, sorry. yeah yeah, live in denial dude. rip george carlin. if you like rude humor, make sure you check out george in "the aristocrats".
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Aug 25, 2010 14:32:40 GMT -5
As posted previously, Sen. Lugar, hardly a "tea party" guy, is a big supporter of the National Sales Tax. Think this through for a moment. If you either give a consumption credit to the poor, or not tax certain items within reasonable levels, how is this putting more pressure on the poor. Perhaps the logic here is that the "poor", if you will, don't pay any income tax now. As for the "rich", do you think they won't spend their money? If they don't, what will they do with it? They will put it in the bank or invest it in the markets. So what does the perceived increase in savings do for our economy? Well, it would drive interest rates lower (if that's possible right now) and increase leading to businesses, many of which are small. What will the businesses do with the money? Expand, hire, buy equipment. What do businesses do with a higher stock value? Many things including paying dividends as well as expansion. Who benefits from dividends and higher stock prices? Retirees, pensions and others who primarily add to benefits for many, not so rich. One other point. Do you know anyone who works for cash? How about the mafia? Do you think they report their income? How much is lost to this "underground" economy? A bunch. With the NST idea, these people must do something with their money unless they are going to high-jack a grocery truck and payoff people with bananas and canned beans. I told you I agree with a consumption tax above reasonable levels, ie a luxury tax. Let's start with gas guzzlers, make them pay huge taxes on any consumption over a reasonable annual level, and apply it to fighting global warming. Lord knows the planet needs it. Regarding the whole argument about it being peachy keen for all of us if the rich to do well... aka voodoo economics... that's hardly a slam dunk and I'm pretty sure you know it. And sure, it would be nice to get rid of "the black market" but I hardly think it calls for a tax system overhaul. That's using an elephant gun on a mouse for sure. I understand if you want people to get to hold on to the money they earn. Just say so, and we can agree to disagree. But don't try to spin it like it's what we all need. I have to confess, I am really sick of the "everyman" message crafted by right-wing nut jobs to try to dupe the average joe. It's a pet peeve, sorry, and sometimes I jump the gun. Now what common ground can we find!? :-) If you believe that government has all the answers, then sorry, we won't find any. I do think there is a purpose for government, beyond defense but it has clearly gotten out of hand. If you have ever done tax work, and I have, for some extremely wealthy people, you would understand that replacing the entire tax code is not taking an elephant gun to a mouse, it is taking an elephant gun to, well, an elephant. Look, if you call the IRS on a tax question, there is a high probability that you will get a wrong answer. Have you ever seen a news report where they take a fairly simple return to several pro tax preparers and get different results from everyone? It is a complete mess run by congress who won't overhaul it, or replace it, because it is their power base. You know, "I'll vote for your tax credit that benefits the industries in your district if you build this building for me in my district." Happens all the time. I think, at a minimum, congress should be mandated to start from scratch every ten years or so. I want less government, absolutely. Why? Because it does not make any economic sense to send money from Indiana or wherever, to Washington, and then, after taking a cut for bureaucracy, send back some it it to where it came from. In the meantime, Washington spends your money on things you really don't support. It may be abortion or wars or research on ant hills, it doesn't matter. Keep most of your money for what you want to spend it on. It will actually make people more generous because right now, many assume that they don't need to help the poor because the government is doing it for them. Ask Al Gore, who gave something like $1000 to charity out his huge income. So, can we agree on anything? Let's start with: the government isn't all bad. Many things, like highways, libraries, national guards and help for poor communities are good things. It has simply gotten WAY out of hand. And I don't blame the democrats entirely. GW Bush also allowed government to grow at an unacceptable level. Right now however, with the spending currently underway, we may literally be facing a national bankruptcy. What happens then? Well, one of three things. The government just keeps printing money and you take a wheel barrel of it to the store to buy a loaf of bread (read about Germany after the war), second, we have run away inflation, (maybe you are too young to remember the 80's when inflation was way into the double digits and so were home loans) or three, we raise taxes on everyone to an unsustainable level, where an economic collapse is just around the corner. If you enjoy economics, read up on the Laffer Curve. It will show you that at some point the government actually brings in less money by increasing taxes. OK, now I'm depressed and thirsty. Oh to be able to just go down the hall to a beer machine and open a cold one!!
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 16:28:16 GMT -5
OK, now I'm depressed and thirsty. Oh to be able to just go down the hall to a beer machine and open a cold one!! Amen to that! If you believe that government has all the answers, then sorry, we won't find any. Government certainly doesn't have all the answers, and the free market is an essential part of what drives our freedoms. I do think there is a purpose for government, beyond defense but it has clearly gotten out of hand. If you have ever done tax work, and I have, for some extremely wealthy people, you would understand that replacing the entire tax code is not taking an elephant gun to a mouse, it is taking an elephant gun to, well, an elephant. Look, if you call the IRS on a tax question, there is a high probability that you will get a wrong answer. Have you ever seen a news report where they take a fairly simple return to several pro tax preparers and get different results from everyone? It is a complete mess run by congress who won't overhaul it, or replace it, because it is their power base. You know, "I'll vote for your tax credit that benefits the industries in your district if you build this building for me in my district." Happens all the time. I think, at a minimum, congress should be mandated to start from scratch every ten years or so. As far as the tax code, I agree - as with the software that I write, the longer it's around, the messier and hairier it gets. When it actually works, you have to be careful about tinkering with it. But yes, I would agree that there is plenty of room for simplification and improvement in efficiency. I want less government, absolutely. Why? Because it does not make any economic sense to send money from Indiana or wherever, to Washington, and then, after taking a cut for bureaucracy, send back some it it to where it came from. In the meantime, Washington spends your money on things you really don't support. It may be abortion or wars or research on ant hills, it doesn't matter. Keep most of your money for what you want to spend it on. It will actually make people more generous because right now, many assume that they don't need to help the poor because the government is doing it for them. Ask Al Gore, who gave something like $1000 to charity out his huge income. Yep, the federal government can be inefficient. I wish we would focus on that inefficiency more, in an incremental fashion, so we wouldn't have to look for radical change. That said, there can be a benefit to a federal approach over repeatedly trying to solve the same problems over and over at the state level. Economy of scale works in your favor. Just the other side of the coin. So, can we agree on anything? Let's start with: the government isn't all bad. Many things, like highways, libraries, national guards and help for poor communities are good things. It has simply gotten WAY out of hand. And I don't blame the democrats entirely. GW Bush also allowed government to grow at an unacceptable level. Right now however, with the spending currently underway, we may literally be facing a national bankruptcy. What happens then? Well, one of three things. The government just keeps printing money and you take a wheel barrel of it to the store to buy a loaf of bread (read about Germany after the war), second, we have run away inflation, (maybe you are too young to remember the 80's when inflation was way into the double digits and so were home loans) or three, we raise taxes on everyone to an unsustainable level, where an economic collapse is just around the corner. If you enjoy economics, read up on the Laffer Curve. It will show you that at some point the government actually brings in less money by increasing taxes. I'll look into it, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Aug 26, 2010 10:59:47 GMT -5
This is a classic argument we got going on here: each side reads the logical extreme into what the other side is arguing.
*Nobody* on the right thinks the government has *no clue* how to spend our tax money properly, and *nobody* on the left thinks the government *always* spends our tax money properly.
The productive discussion is in searching for where each side draws the line between proper and improper.
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 26, 2010 11:41:43 GMT -5
This is a classic argument we got going on here: each side reads the logical extreme into what the other side is arguing. *Nobody* on the right thinks the government has *no clue* how to spend our tax money properly, and *nobody* on the left thinks the government *always* spends our tax money properly. The productive discussion is in searching for where each side draws the line between proper and improper. this
|
|