Founding Fathers Original Tax Plan

[Timshel]

Darla makes a good point. Raising taxes a few points is not going to change much of anything.

Republicans talk about taxes because it's an easy sell, that appeals to those who are concerned about the rising burden of government but don't understand the real costs. They don't want to talk about actually reducing the cost of government (cutting or limiting growth in spending) because that's not an easy sell.

As long as the Republicans focus on the revenue side you can rest assured that they are still full of shit and will not deliver on their promise.

 

[Cancel7]

Darla makes a good point. Raising taxes a few points is not going to change much of anything.

Republicans talk about taxes because it's an easy sell, that appeals to those who are concerned about the rising burden of government but don't understand the real costs. They don't want to talk about actually reducing the cost of government (cutting or limiting growth in spending) because that's not an easy sell.

As long as the Republicans focus on the revenue side you can rest assured that they are still full of shit and will not deliver on their promise.

Darla almost passed out!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Darla makes a good point. Raising taxes a few points is not going to change much of anything.

Republicans talk about taxes because it's an easy sell, that appeals to those who are concerned about the rising burden of government but don't understand the real costs. They don't want to talk about actually reducing the cost of government (cutting or limiting growth in spending) because that's not an easy sell.

As long as the Republicans focus on the revenue side you can rest assured that they are still full of shit and will not deliver on their promise.

Yes. All the fascist totalitarians agree on globalization lies.

 

[Cancel7]

We didnt have a 13 trillion dollar debt and an Economic Crisis back in the 90's and I really dont want to get into another debate on who caused the debt...

However, My question to you is how is raising taxes during an economic crisis going to stimulate the economy? My original post was just another idea I came across and as I said...a very intriguing one. Despite what fuckhead Nigel thinks...the twerp that he is ...

I think the times we live in now are of a total different breed and unlike anything we have ever encountered since the 30's. We need to think creatively. We need to stimulate as much as possible, Keeping the cash flow loose, free and in the hands of the Public not the Government.

Bill Gates recollection of 70% Tax Rate was during a time when there was some form of protectionism going on. Besides, he lives in another stratosphere..

"We didnt have a 13 trillion dollar debt and an Economic Crisis back in the 90's "

Ummm...precisely.

"I really dont want to get into another debate on who caused the debt"

Of course you don't. If we started talking about the criminally irresponsible Bush policies of lowering taxes on the rich while fighting two wars, we might get ourselves into a tight spot where common sense would dictate reversing those two policies. And then where would we be?

"Besides, he lives in another stratosphere"

Unlike the billionaires you cited. Who are just regular joes.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dear Penthouse,

I know you'll never believe this, but I swear it's true. It all began when I was posting on this message board that had five other people on it, and one day...

Darla! Welcome back! Been too long.

 

[klaatu]

See below

 

[klaatu]

"We didnt have a 13 trillion dollar debt and an Economic Crisis back in the 90's "

Ummm...precisely.

"I really dont want to get into another debate on who caused the debt"

Of course you don't. If we started talking about the criminally irresponsible Bush policies of lowering taxes on the rich while fighting two wars, we might get ourselves into a tight spot where common sense would dictate reversing those two policies. And then where would we be?

"Besides, he lives in another stratosphere"

Unlike the billionaires you cited. Who are just regular joes.

Despite what RStringfield says .. who has suddenly subscribed to Bill Maher's idea of libertarianism .... what he says and what you are implying is wrong. Tax hikes of any kind at this time is not in our best interests.

Cato institute that bastion of libertarianism ... would agree with me.

As far as me not wanting to elaborate on the 13 trillion dollar debt.. I didnt want another topic to hijack this thread as you just attempted to do with your rhetoric ..

Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?

Exactley which billionaires in particular did I cite? I was talking about wealthy people who own businesses that employ a lot of people. Despite what you may think..not all of these people are in Bill Gates class. You see.. people who make 250,000.00 and above are not the same as people who are worth 40 billion dollars.


However I will repeat what I said earlier ..so we can get back on track.. Modest tariffs and Consumption Tax has the potential to provide tremendous tax relief to people of all walks of life, providing an invigorating cash flow. Tariffs have the potential to induce a needed spark for the manufacturing base in this country.. get America making things again and providing new jobs. Gives Entrepreneurs a new opening for business investment.

 

[Bonestorm]

Despite what RStringfield says .. who has suddenly subscribed to Bill Maher's idea of libertarianism .... what he says and what you are implying is wrong. Tax hikes of any kind at this time is not in our best interests.

Cato institute that bastion of libertarianism ... would agree with me.

As far as me not wanting to elaborate on the 13 trillion dollar debt.. I didnt want another topic to hijack this thread as you just attempted to do with your rhetoric ..

Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?

Precisely which billionaires in particular did I cite? I was talking about wealthy people who own businesses that employ a lot of people. Despite what you may think..not all of these people are in Bill Gates class. You see.. people who make 250,000.00 and above are not the same as people who are worth 40 billion dollars.


However I will repeat what I said earlier ..so we can get back on track.. Modest tariffs and Consumption Tax has the potential to provide tremendous tax relief to people of all walks of life, providing an invigorating cash flow. Tariffs have the potential to induce a needed spark for the manufacturing base in this country.. get America making things again and providing new jobs. Gives Entrepreneurs a new opening for business investment.

Tariffs? Seriously? You think tax hikes on people earning more than $250,000 are "not in our best interests" but tariffs are exactly what we need at the moment? Well, I suppose since tariffs worked out so well in 1933 . . .

And manufacturing in the United States isn't hurting as much as everyone claims. It just requires a whole hell of a lot less labor to make a whole hell of a lot more stuff than it used to.

 

[Cancel7]

Despite what RStringfield says .. who has suddenly subscribed to Bill Maher's idea of libertarianism .... what he says and what you are implying is wrong. Tax hikes of any kind at this time is not in our best interests.

Cato institute that bastion of libertarianism ... would agree with me.

As far as me not wanting to elaborate on the 13 trillion dollar debt.. I didnt want another topic to hijack this thread as you just attempted to do with your rhetoric ..

Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?

Precisely which billionaires in particular did I cite? I was talking about wealthy people who own businesses that employ a lot of people. Despite what you may think..not all of these people are in Bill Gates class. You see.. people who make 250,000.00 and above are not the same as people who are worth 40 billion dollars.

Klaatu, don't take this the wrong way, I dont mean to sound nasty, but, you whine a lot about what other people say and anytime someone posts something you claim they are derailing your thread, but you never actually dispute anything they post.

Now, let's take this paragraph you just wrote to me: "I was talking about wealthy people who own businesses that employ a lot of people. Despite what you may think..not all of these people are in Bill Gates class. You see.. people who make 250,000.00 and above are not the same as people who are worth 40 billion dollars. "

It's interesting that you would talk down to me and pretend that I don't know there's a difference between someone who makes 250k and a billionaire. But the people you originally referenced as creating jobs and threatening to leave the country, were, according to you, billionaires. Here, let me refresh your memory:

"The Job Creators will pack up and move to a State that is Business friendly..ie Tenn, Tex and Florida. We live in a global economy and Billionaires are no longer tied to American soil. "

So maybe it's you who are confused about the differences between a billionaire and someone who makes 250k? I don't know for certain, but I do know it's not me who is confused.

Here is another interesting paragraph wherein you appear to be creating strawmen:

"Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?"

No one that I know of ever said that the Bush Tax Cuts were ONLY for the rich. What many economists, liberal pundits, and just plain ole liberal voters, have said is that the Bush tax cuts MAINLY benefitted the rich, which is of course, a statisical fact.

And of course, the reason why pretty much all Democrats, and SOME liberals want to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, is because the middle class spend disposable income, having a stimulative effect throughout the wider economy, whereas, the very rich save or invest that extra money.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Klaatu, don't take this the wrong way, I dont mean to sound nasty, but, you whine a lot about what other people say and anytime someone posts something you claim they are derailing your thread, but you never actually dispute anything they post.

Now, let's take this paragraph you just wrote to me: "I was talking about wealthy people who own businesses that employ a lot of people. Despite what you may think..not all of these people are in Bill Gates class. You see.. people who make 250,000.00 and above are not the same as people who are worth 40 billion dollars. "

It's interesting that you would talk down to me and pretend that I don't know there's a difference between someone who makes 250k and a billionaire. But the people you originally referenced as creating jobs and threatening to leave the country, were, according to you, billionaires. Here, let me refresh your memory:

"The Job Creators will pack up and move to a State that is Business friendly..ie Tenn, Tex and Florida. We live in a global economy and Billionaires are no longer tied to American soil. "

So maybe it's you who are confused about the differences between a billionaire and someone who makes 250k? I don't know for certain, but I do know it's not me who is confused.

Here is another interesting paragraph wherein you appear to be creating strawmen:

"Just a note though.. if Bush's Tax policy was criminal and only for the rich upper 2%... how is it that Obama and the Democrats now acknowledge we need to maintain the tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets ... that was included in that same tax cut plan. Does this mean that you and your Democrats have been lying to the American Public for nearly 10 years by repeating the the mantra over and over again that the Bush Tax Cuts was only for the Rich?"

No one that I know of ever said that the Bush Tax Cuts were ONLY for the rich. What many economists, liberal pundits, and just plain ole liberal voters, have said is that the Bush tax cuts MAINLY benefitted the rich, which is of course, a statisical fact.

And of course, the reason why pretty much all Democrats, and SOME liberals want to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, is because the middle class spend disposable income, having a stimulative effect throughout the wider economy, whereas, the very rich save or invest that extra money.

Are you fucking on crack?

The middle class spend disposable income? Bullshit. They are buying the necissities you lying whore.

And the rich should pay more because our government is fascist and tilts society in their favor on a daily basis.

It's so ugly when libs go elitist.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I think all the sane people here (which is everyone except Asshate, although I make no great claims to sanity, personally) will agree that raising tariffs is retarded.

My position on taxes is that, higher taxes are unprincipled within the context of American freedoms. That is first and foremost the reason why they should be kept down to the range of 25-33% at the highest.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" -John Marshall

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I think all the sane people here (which is everyone except Asshate, although I make no great claims to sanity, personally) will agree that raising tariffs is retarded.

My position on taxes is that, higher taxes are unprincipled within the context of American freedoms. That is first and foremost the reason why they should be kept down to the range of 25-33% at the highest.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" -John Marshall

So on tariffs you have no argument besides "it's retarded". And on taxes you just pull numbers out of your ass.

We need tariffs to keep domestic industry stimulate, to create jobs and therefore demand. what argument do you have against that logic, i mean, besides you being a globalist brainwashed idiot?

 

[Minister of Truth]

I have no arguments against that logic, seeing as how there is no logic to argue against. It would be like arguing about Santa's beard.

Taxes must first be looked at through the window of American freedoms, and then through the window of utility.

 

[Timshel]

I think all the sane people here (which is everyone except Asshate, although I make no great claims to sanity, personally) will agree that raising tariffs is retarded.

My position on taxes is that, higher taxes are unprincipled within the context of American freedoms. That is first and foremost the reason why they should be kept down to the range of 25-33% at the highest.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" -John Marshall

Taxes are no more a burden on your freedom than government debt or inflation. It is the burden of government that threatens our freedom, not the method of financing.

I have no problem with cutting taxes or keeping them low, but the primary concern should be the COST of government. As long as Republicans want to play games with smoke and mirrors I have absolutely no faith that they intend to do anything differently.

The GOP should STFU about taxes. Obama was right, tell us how you are going to cut or limit the growth of government or you are just blowing smoke.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/21/answering-obamas-what-would-yo

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I have no arguments against that logic, seeing as how there is no logic to argue against. It would be like arguing about Santa's beard.

This is completely logical:
We need tariffs to keep domestic industry stimulated, to create jobs and therefore demand.

What don't you understand about that? do you just want america to go down the toilet? why?

Taxes must first be looked at through the window of American freedoms, and then through the window of utility.

Our freedoms are broken when our policymakers are completely sold out to corporate interests and the government only serves the interest of billionaires.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Stringfield you know we need protectionist measures to save america. Why are you such a sold out and traitorous internationalist fascist?

 

[Cancel7]

Are you fucking on crack?

The middle class spend disposable income? Bullshit. They are buying the necissities you lying whore.

And the rich should pay more because our government is fascist and tilts society in their favor on a daily basis.

It's so ugly when libs go elitist.

Asshat, your mother must have been an interesting woman.

As to your "point", you seem to have become infuriated by the very suggestion that parts of the middle class may have disposable income. I guess this is a personal trigger for you. Has it been a while since you've been able to buy anything other than the "necissities", or, as would be more correct, the necessities?

Certainly, plenty of people are in your position then. Two things:

1) Of course, purchasing necessities stimulates the economy. Food, medicines, shampoo, whatever, all of these things we would consider necessities are purchased, and creating, moving, stocking, and selling them creates jobs. If someone who is in the position to afford necessities only, and you take money away from them, then some of those "necessities" are going to have to be cut out.

2) There are still large parts of the middle class who do have disposable income. I make weekly purchases which in no way could be considered "necessary". I am not rich, I am middle class. No matter how much it enrages you, large portions of the middle class do still have some disposable income.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Asshat, your mother must have been an interesting woman.

As to your "point", you seem to have become infuriated by the very suggestion that parts of the middle class may have disposable income. I guess this is a personal trigger for you. Has it been a while since you've been able to buy anything other than the "necissities", or, as would be more correct, the necessities?

Certainly, plenty of people are in your position then. Two things:

1) Of course, purchasing necessities stimulates the economy. Food, medicines, shampoo, whatever, all of these things we would consider necessities are purchased, and creating, moving, stocking, and selling them creates jobs. If someone who is in the position to afford necessities only, and you take money away from them, then some of those "necessities" are going to have to be cut out.

2) There are still large parts of the middle class who do have disposable income. I make weekly purchases which in no way could be considered "necessary". I am not rich, I am middle class. No matter how much it enrages you, large portions of the middle class do still have some disposable income.

But the point is that the rich have MORE disposable income than the middle class. You're inverted paradigm is laughable.

 

[Timshel]

So on tariffs you have no argument besides "it's retarded". And on taxes you just pull numbers out of your ass.

We need tariffs to keep domestic industry stimulate, to create jobs and therefore demand. what argument do you have against that logic, i mean, besides you being a globalist brainwashed idiot?

Protectionism does not work. You might be able to convince a few dropouts or fellow inmates in the asylum with your nonsense. But in the real world it is a settled issue.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Protectionism does not work. You might be able to convince a few dropouts or fellow inmates in the asylum with your nonsense. But in the real world it is a settled issue.

It does work. We became a rich and powerful nation BEFORE we began outsourcing every possible function.

Explain how tariffs wouldn't stimulate the domestic economy and create jobs.

Explain how it won't, fucker.

It's not a settled issue, that's just your brainwashed idiocy peeking through.

try slapping yourself.