TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[surveyor]

[quote=afx114]So what is it then that the tea bagger anti-tax brigade are against? The fact that we pay more taxes than Mexico and Turkey? Please enlighten me.[/quote]

The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.

There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.

Those ideas are part of the core Tea Party principles.

Bet you never heard that on the MSM.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]I’m no Tea Partier. I know little of their platform. But, they have a legitimate gripe when it comes to gov. spending. Presenting it in terms of taxes doesn’t alleviate the concern about government spending, now does it ? Is that enlightening enough ?[/quote]

Sure, I agree and also have gripes with certain government spending (military, corn subsidies, etc). I’m sure everyone does. But certainly everyone can also agree that certain government spending is beneficial (roads, police, education, etc). So the issue then becomes, how do we pay for the beneficial spending? Where is that sweet spot where taxes are low but all services required by our society are met? The best government is the one that has the most beneficial spending at the least cost to the taxpayer, would you not agree?

By all means, lets cut spending. We can leave theoretical cuts for another thread, but assuming that things aren’t going to get cut (and all signs point to the fact that they won’t be), can we at least try to pay for them?

You gotta give it to the prior administration though, they were smart. Why raise taxes to pay for a couple wars when you can be a hero abroad with your militarism and a hero at home with your tax cuts, all the while leaving the next guy holding the bag? Genius.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]I’m no Tea Partier. I know little of their platform. But, they have a legitimate gripe when it comes to gov. spending. Presenting it in terms of taxes doesn’t alleviate the concern about government spending, now does it ? Is that enlightening enough ?[/quote]

Sure, I agree and also have gripes with certain government spending (military, corn subsidies, etc). I’m sure everyone does. But certainly everyone can also agree that certain government spending is beneficial (roads, police, education, etc). So the issue then becomes, how do we pay for the beneficial spending? Where is that sweet spot where taxes are low but all services required by our society are met? The best government is the one that has the most beneficial spending at the least cost to the taxpayer, would you not agree?

By all means, lets cut spending. We can leave theoretical cuts for another thread, but assuming that things aren’t going to get cut (and all signs point to the fact that they won’t be), can we at least try to pay for them?

You gotta give it to the prior administration though, they were smart. Why raise taxes to pay for a couple wars when you can be a hero abroad with your militarism and a hero at home with your tax cuts, all the while leaving the next guy holding the bag? Genius.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]I’m no Tea Partier. I know little of their platform. But, they have a legitimate gripe when it comes to gov. spending. Presenting it in terms of taxes doesn’t alleviate the concern about government spending, now does it ? Is that enlightening enough ?[/quote]

Sure, I agree and also have gripes with certain government spending (military, corn subsidies, etc). I’m sure everyone does. But certainly everyone can also agree that certain government spending is beneficial (roads, police, education, etc). So the issue then becomes, how do we pay for the beneficial spending? Where is that sweet spot where taxes are low but all services required by our society are met? The best government is the one that has the most beneficial spending at the least cost to the taxpayer, would you not agree?

By all means, lets cut spending. We can leave theoretical cuts for another thread, but assuming that things aren’t going to get cut (and all signs point to the fact that they won’t be), can we at least try to pay for them?

You gotta give it to the prior administration though, they were smart. Why raise taxes to pay for a couple wars when you can be a hero abroad with your militarism and a hero at home with your tax cuts, all the while leaving the next guy holding the bag? Genius.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]I’m no Tea Partier. I know little of their platform. But, they have a legitimate gripe when it comes to gov. spending. Presenting it in terms of taxes doesn’t alleviate the concern about government spending, now does it ? Is that enlightening enough ?[/quote]

Sure, I agree and also have gripes with certain government spending (military, corn subsidies, etc). I’m sure everyone does. But certainly everyone can also agree that certain government spending is beneficial (roads, police, education, etc). So the issue then becomes, how do we pay for the beneficial spending? Where is that sweet spot where taxes are low but all services required by our society are met? The best government is the one that has the most beneficial spending at the least cost to the taxpayer, would you not agree?

By all means, lets cut spending. We can leave theoretical cuts for another thread, but assuming that things aren’t going to get cut (and all signs point to the fact that they won’t be), can we at least try to pay for them?

You gotta give it to the prior administration though, they were smart. Why raise taxes to pay for a couple wars when you can be a hero abroad with your militarism and a hero at home with your tax cuts, all the while leaving the next guy holding the bag? Genius.

[afx114]

[quote=sdduuuude]I’m no Tea Partier. I know little of their platform. But, they have a legitimate gripe when it comes to gov. spending. Presenting it in terms of taxes doesn’t alleviate the concern about government spending, now does it ? Is that enlightening enough ?[/quote]

Sure, I agree and also have gripes with certain government spending (military, corn subsidies, etc). I’m sure everyone does. But certainly everyone can also agree that certain government spending is beneficial (roads, police, education, etc). So the issue then becomes, how do we pay for the beneficial spending? Where is that sweet spot where taxes are low but all services required by our society are met? The best government is the one that has the most beneficial spending at the least cost to the taxpayer, would you not agree?

By all means, lets cut spending. We can leave theoretical cuts for another thread, but assuming that things aren’t going to get cut (and all signs point to the fact that they won’t be), can we at least try to pay for them?

You gotta give it to the prior administration though, they were smart. Why raise taxes to pay for a couple wars when you can be a hero abroad with your militarism and a hero at home with your tax cuts, all the while leaving the next guy holding the bag? Genius.

[Aecetia]

Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

Brian,
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved. Relationships are not mathematical formulas, they are inherently complicated with immeasurables. For instance, children are expensive to raise and take years to pay for and have no trade in value. Yet people continue to have them and raise them. With your thinking about value and pay off, you would never want to invest in children. You seem like everything has a price: the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. What ever happened to each according to their need? Why should the wealthy pay for people who refuse to work or contribute? I am not talking about disabled people or small children, so don’t even bring them up. Are the non-contributors more valuable or so inherently valuable for their mere existence or is it because they are voters. This all reminds me of bread and circuses and we all know how that ended for Rome.

[Aecetia]

Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

Brian,
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved. Relationships are not mathematical formulas, they are inherently complicated with immeasurables. For instance, children are expensive to raise and take years to pay for and have no trade in value. Yet people continue to have them and raise them. With your thinking about value and pay off, you would never want to invest in children. You seem like everything has a price: the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. What ever happened to each according to their need? Why should the wealthy pay for people who refuse to work or contribute? I am not talking about disabled people or small children, so don’t even bring them up. Are the non-contributors more valuable or so inherently valuable for their mere existence or is it because they are voters. This all reminds me of bread and circuses and we all know how that ended for Rome.

[Aecetia]

Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

Brian,
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved. Relationships are not mathematical formulas, they are inherently complicated with immeasurables. For instance, children are expensive to raise and take years to pay for and have no trade in value. Yet people continue to have them and raise them. With your thinking about value and pay off, you would never want to invest in children. You seem like everything has a price: the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. What ever happened to each according to their need? Why should the wealthy pay for people who refuse to work or contribute? I am not talking about disabled people or small children, so don’t even bring them up. Are the non-contributors more valuable or so inherently valuable for their mere existence or is it because they are voters. This all reminds me of bread and circuses and we all know how that ended for Rome.

[Aecetia]

Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

Brian,
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved. Relationships are not mathematical formulas, they are inherently complicated with immeasurables. For instance, children are expensive to raise and take years to pay for and have no trade in value. Yet people continue to have them and raise them. With your thinking about value and pay off, you would never want to invest in children. You seem like everything has a price: the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. What ever happened to each according to their need? Why should the wealthy pay for people who refuse to work or contribute? I am not talking about disabled people or small children, so don’t even bring them up. Are the non-contributors more valuable or so inherently valuable for their mere existence or is it because they are voters. This all reminds me of bread and circuses and we all know how that ended for Rome.

[Aecetia]

Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

Brian,
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved. Relationships are not mathematical formulas, they are inherently complicated with immeasurables. For instance, children are expensive to raise and take years to pay for and have no trade in value. Yet people continue to have them and raise them. With your thinking about value and pay off, you would never want to invest in children. You seem like everything has a price: the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. What ever happened to each according to their need? Why should the wealthy pay for people who refuse to work or contribute? I am not talking about disabled people or small children, so don’t even bring them up. Are the non-contributors more valuable or so inherently valuable for their mere existence or is it because they are voters. This all reminds me of bread and circuses and we all know how that ended for Rome.

[afx114]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.

There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.[/quote]

Those are very valid points and I agree with most of them. But please refer back to the graphs I posted on page 2 of this thread. I still haven’t heard anyone explain the logic behind the claim that our taxes are too high. They aren’t — both historically and comparatively speaking. Even if we raised them 5% across the board.

I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at. I understand everyone would like to pay no taxes. I understand that spending cuts need to be made. But there are two sides to this same coin: cut some, tax some, and meet somewhere in the middle.

[afx114]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.

There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.[/quote]

Those are very valid points and I agree with most of them. But please refer back to the graphs I posted on page 2 of this thread. I still haven’t heard anyone explain the logic behind the claim that our taxes are too high. They aren’t — both historically and comparatively speaking. Even if we raised them 5% across the board.

I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at. I understand everyone would like to pay no taxes. I understand that spending cuts need to be made. But there are two sides to this same coin: cut some, tax some, and meet somewhere in the middle.

[afx114]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.

There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.[/quote]

Those are very valid points and I agree with most of them. But please refer back to the graphs I posted on page 2 of this thread. I still haven’t heard anyone explain the logic behind the claim that our taxes are too high. They aren’t — both historically and comparatively speaking. Even if we raised them 5% across the board.

I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at. I understand everyone would like to pay no taxes. I understand that spending cuts need to be made. But there are two sides to this same coin: cut some, tax some, and meet somewhere in the middle.

[afx114]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

For me, I am against higher taxes for the simple reason that it is against common sense to give money to people who have proved unable to spend it properly. I will be the best judge on how to spend my money, not the government, not anyone else.

There is a certain principle of money and economics that if you are forced to spend your own money, you try very hard to spend it wisely. There is no such concern when you are spending other people’s money.[/quote]

Those are very valid points and I agree with most of them. But please refer back to the graphs I posted on page 2 of this thread. I still haven’t heard anyone explain the logic behind the claim that our taxes are too high. They aren’t — both historically and comparatively speaking. Even if we raised them 5% across the board.

I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at. I understand everyone would like to pay no taxes. I understand that spending cuts need to be made. But there are two sides to this same coin: cut some, tax some, and meet somewhere in the middle.

[Author]

Posts