- This topic has 180 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM #341867February 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM #341349
DWCAP
Participant[quote=kewp][quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now![/quote]
If it is true that Government deficit spending is the only thing keeping us afloat right now than we are already screwed.
Plus, you still have not answered the question at all. Why cant we cut the budget enought to meet current and projected tax income?
Is your answer because then we would fall into a deeper recession?
February 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM #341674Participant[quote=kewp][quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now![/quote]
If it is true that Government deficit spending is the only thing keeping us afloat right now than we are already screwed.
Plus, you still have not answered the question at all. Why cant we cut the budget enought to meet current and projected tax income?
Is your answer because then we would fall into a deeper recession?
February 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM #341776Participant[quote=kewp][quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now![/quote]
If it is true that Government deficit spending is the only thing keeping us afloat right now than we are already screwed.
Plus, you still have not answered the question at all. Why cant we cut the budget enought to meet current and projected tax income?
Is your answer because then we would fall into a deeper recession?
February 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM #341804Participant[quote=kewp][quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now![/quote]
If it is true that Government deficit spending is the only thing keeping us afloat right now than we are already screwed.
Plus, you still have not answered the question at all. Why cant we cut the budget enought to meet current and projected tax income?
Is your answer because then we would fall into a deeper recession?
February 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM #341899Participant[quote=kewp][quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now![/quote]
If it is true that Government deficit spending is the only thing keeping us afloat right now than we are already screwed.
Plus, you still have not answered the question at all. Why cant we cut the budget enought to meet current and projected tax income?
Is your answer because then we would fall into a deeper recession?
February 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM #341395meadandale
Participant[quote=kewp][quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
[/quote]
Who said anything about MY goods and services? I don’t think you read my post very clearly.
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
February 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM #341719Participant[quote=kewp][quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
[/quote]
Who said anything about MY goods and services? I don’t think you read my post very clearly.
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
February 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM #341821Participant[quote=kewp][quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
[/quote]
Who said anything about MY goods and services? I don’t think you read my post very clearly.
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
February 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM #341849Participant[quote=kewp][quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
[/quote]
Who said anything about MY goods and services? I don’t think you read my post very clearly.
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
February 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM #341943Participant[quote=kewp][quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
[/quote]
Who said anything about MY goods and services? I don’t think you read my post very clearly.
My point was, government employee spending is NOT keeping the economy afloat. The taxes that support those employees was confiscated from other people that most assuredly were just as capable as spending the money–on the same things that the public sector employees are buying.
February 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM #341410Participant[quote=lubenthrust]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.[/quote]Right, and those original homeowners were paid 1/5..or less than the current buyers are in annual salary. Gas was also a dime a gallon once. Things change.
My next door neighbor is the original owner of his house. He paid about $15k for it brand new in 1954. Should he be paying north of $4k/yr in property tax (what I pay), more than a 1/4 of his purchase price, just because some new home buyer thinks this would be more fair? I certainly don’t think that THAT is fair. He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. And I know for a fact that he can’t afford that much in property tax nor can thousands or millions of people in his position.
February 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM #341734Participant[quote=lubenthrust]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.[/quote]Right, and those original homeowners were paid 1/5..or less than the current buyers are in annual salary. Gas was also a dime a gallon once. Things change.
My next door neighbor is the original owner of his house. He paid about $15k for it brand new in 1954. Should he be paying north of $4k/yr in property tax (what I pay), more than a 1/4 of his purchase price, just because some new home buyer thinks this would be more fair? I certainly don’t think that THAT is fair. He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. And I know for a fact that he can’t afford that much in property tax nor can thousands or millions of people in his position.
February 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM #341836Participant[quote=lubenthrust]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.[/quote]Right, and those original homeowners were paid 1/5..or less than the current buyers are in annual salary. Gas was also a dime a gallon once. Things change.
My next door neighbor is the original owner of his house. He paid about $15k for it brand new in 1954. Should he be paying north of $4k/yr in property tax (what I pay), more than a 1/4 of his purchase price, just because some new home buyer thinks this would be more fair? I certainly don’t think that THAT is fair. He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. And I know for a fact that he can’t afford that much in property tax nor can thousands or millions of people in his position.
February 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM #341864Participant[quote=lubenthrust]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.[/quote]Right, and those original homeowners were paid 1/5..or less than the current buyers are in annual salary. Gas was also a dime a gallon once. Things change.
My next door neighbor is the original owner of his house. He paid about $15k for it brand new in 1954. Should he be paying north of $4k/yr in property tax (what I pay), more than a 1/4 of his purchase price, just because some new home buyer thinks this would be more fair? I certainly don’t think that THAT is fair. He’s paid PLENTY of taxes over the last 80+ years of his life. I don’t begrudge him a thing. And I know for a fact that he can’t afford that much in property tax nor can thousands or millions of people in his position.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.