Hooray for the tax cut…

[surveyor]

pri:

There is certainly no argument that many successful people (Gates, Buffet included) were successful because of the underlying principles of the United States. Whether their success was based on the internet, financial structures, roads (UPS), railroads (Standard Oil).

However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital. If you wish a good example, look at the economies of Europe. They are breaking down from the weight of government. Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are not doing well.

If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.

Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.

Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[surveyor]

[quote=GoUSC] But at the end of the day, because I was willing to take risk I ended up with $10mil to give my kids. Why the hell should the government get any of it???? Makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

I find that there are many here who feel that being rich means that somehow you had to screw someone over or do something dirty in order to make the money, that somehow it does not really belong to the “rich.” As a result, very often there is the attitude that the government should be used as a vehicle to “remedy” the injustice and to “take” the money away through taxes, regulations, or other means.

Then there is the “hick” or “tea party” attitude that the money you make is yours, for you to choose what to do with, whether to spend it awfully or to save it for your kids, it is the freedom to choose. You personally sacrificed, scrimped, and saved your money. The money that you have, whether a small sum or a grand fortune, is literally the fruit of your labors. Is it the government’s to confiscate? To take away without due compensation?

What say you?

[Anonymous]

[quote=surveyor]However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital.[/quote]

And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital.

I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.

[quote]If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.[/quote]

I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.

[quote]Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government.

[quote]Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.[/quote]

Problem is, at any time, the “certain level” is always lower than it is now.

As far as “historical” results, you don’t know any. Cuz there are none.

There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.

Taxes were lower in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s – which decade saw more economic growth?

Taxes where very high in the 1950s – how’d we do then?

The income tax system started in the early 20th century – how did the US fare economically during that century?

Your vague references to “historical” facts are based on wishful thinking and rhetoric.

I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?

[Anonymous]

[quote=surveyor]However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital.[/quote]

And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital.

I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.

[quote]If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.[/quote]

I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.

[quote]Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government.

[quote]Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.[/quote]

Problem is, at any time, the “certain level” is always lower than it is now.

As far as “historical” results, you don’t know any. Cuz there are none.

There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.

Taxes were lower in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s – which decade saw more economic growth?

Taxes where very high in the 1950s – how’d we do then?

The income tax system started in the early 20th century – how did the US fare economically during that century?

Your vague references to “historical” facts are based on wishful thinking and rhetoric.

I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?

[Anonymous]

[quote=surveyor]However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital.[/quote]

And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital.

I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.

[quote]If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.[/quote]

I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.

[quote]Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government.

[quote]Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.[/quote]

Problem is, at any time, the “certain level” is always lower than it is now.

As far as “historical” results, you don’t know any. Cuz there are none.

There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.

Taxes were lower in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s – which decade saw more economic growth?

Taxes where very high in the 1950s – how’d we do then?

The income tax system started in the early 20th century – how did the US fare economically during that century?

Your vague references to “historical” facts are based on wishful thinking and rhetoric.

I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?

[Anonymous]

[quote=surveyor]However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital.[/quote]

And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital.

I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.

[quote]If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.[/quote]

I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.

[quote]Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government.

[quote]Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.[/quote]

Problem is, at any time, the “certain level” is always lower than it is now.

As far as “historical” results, you don’t know any. Cuz there are none.

There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.

Taxes were lower in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s – which decade saw more economic growth?

Taxes where very high in the 1950s – how’d we do then?

The income tax system started in the early 20th century – how did the US fare economically during that century?

Your vague references to “historical” facts are based on wishful thinking and rhetoric.

I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?

[Anonymous]

[quote=surveyor]However, history has shown that the economy is more constrained, less efficient, and less reliable when the government is in charge of most of the capital.[/quote]

And I’m not advocating that government control most of the capital.

I’m advocating that we raise taxes on the very wealthy a little bit to pay for things we already bought.

All of the European “historical” examples you reference were caused by debt and spending – not taxes.

[quote]If we want to get out of this recession and become more prosperous, we have to recognize that putting more capital (read: money) into the hands of the private sector will result in more economic activity.[/quote]

I do recognize that more capital is better (BTW, we are not in a recession). But we have had historically low tax rates since 2003 and we are nothing but deeper in debt. Your “solution” is not working.

[quote]Now, lower taxes is a necessary part of that. It’s nice that the government funded the internet, but it put the money into the hands of innovators. It didn’t try to do it itself. Lower taxes reward effort.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense. The government uses tax dollars to do stuff. The “innovators” are people hired/funded by the government.

[quote]Many people think that low tax proponents wish there was no tax. That is not true of me or anyone I know. I don’t mind government being funded to a certain level and I would support it. But I do know the historical results when you raise taxes. It grows the government and results in constraining economic activity.[/quote]

Problem is, at any time, the “certain level” is always lower than it is now.

As far as “historical” results, you don’t know any. Cuz there are none.

There is no correlation in American history between lower tax rates and economic growth.

Taxes were lower in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s – which decade saw more economic growth?

Taxes where very high in the 1950s – how’d we do then?

The income tax system started in the early 20th century – how did the US fare economically during that century?

Your vague references to “historical” facts are based on wishful thinking and rhetoric.

I’m still waiting for your explanation: How will we reduce the deficit by lowering taxes?

[Anonymous]

[quote=GoUSC]

[fantasy about making easy $10mil simply by “taking risk.”]

Why the hell should the government get any of it????[/quote]

Why the hell should the government get anybody’s money?

All taxes come from somebody.

What’s so sacred about your “$10mil” that makes it off limits?

[Anonymous]

[quote=GoUSC]

[fantasy about making easy $10mil simply by “taking risk.”]

Why the hell should the government get any of it????[/quote]

Why the hell should the government get anybody’s money?

All taxes come from somebody.

What’s so sacred about your “$10mil” that makes it off limits?

[Anonymous]

[quote=GoUSC]

[fantasy about making easy $10mil simply by “taking risk.”]

Why the hell should the government get any of it????[/quote]

Why the hell should the government get anybody’s money?

All taxes come from somebody.

What’s so sacred about your “$10mil” that makes it off limits?

[Anonymous]

[quote=GoUSC]

[fantasy about making easy $10mil simply by “taking risk.”]

Why the hell should the government get any of it????[/quote]

Why the hell should the government get anybody’s money?

All taxes come from somebody.

What’s so sacred about your “$10mil” that makes it off limits?

[Author]

Posts