TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]I do not believe the rich get better protection than the poor for their taxes. [/quote]

They may not get better individual protection, but the value their wealth is protected.

Houses and other assets have value because society protects and enhances the value.

[surveyor]

[quote=afx114]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.[/quote]

Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.

Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.

So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.

[surveyor]

[quote=afx114]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.[/quote]

Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.

Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.

So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.

[surveyor]

[quote=afx114]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.[/quote]

Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.

Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.

So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.

[surveyor]

[quote=afx114]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.[/quote]

Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.

Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.

So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.

[surveyor]

[quote=afx114]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.[/quote]

Most people think that taxes are high enough. Perhaps they have not been historically high. But do you really want to raise taxes at this time? With the economy in such bad shape? History shows they tried this before and it didn’t work (Smoot-Hawley anyone?). If you raise tax rates 5%, will you be willing to accept the x% rise in unemployment? My answer is no. Perhaps that is the attitude of the Tea Party.

Maybe they are too high NOW because of the economic situation. Maybe they are too high NOW because the government is contemplating raising them. Maybe they are too high NOW because business are reluctant to increase their hiring.

So while a time based graph is nice, you have to recognize the current conditions and place them in proper context. I think you’ll agree with me that things haven’t been this bad in a long time.

[SK in CV]

You know surveyor, I agree with you. And that kind of makes my point. And despite Dick Armey’s assertion, the few voices on the right that did step up and criticize the spending never got much traction. They were never in revolt. He wasn’t in revolt. Armey, through his Freedomworks, was a primary organizer of the Tea Party movement, but the out of control spending of the previous administration wasn’t meaningful enough to him to start it until there was some other guy sitting in the White House. Until there was both political capital and a hook in it. From the outside, I think I know what that hook is.

[SK in CV]

You know surveyor, I agree with you. And that kind of makes my point. And despite Dick Armey’s assertion, the few voices on the right that did step up and criticize the spending never got much traction. They were never in revolt. He wasn’t in revolt. Armey, through his Freedomworks, was a primary organizer of the Tea Party movement, but the out of control spending of the previous administration wasn’t meaningful enough to him to start it until there was some other guy sitting in the White House. Until there was both political capital and a hook in it. From the outside, I think I know what that hook is.

[SK in CV]

You know surveyor, I agree with you. And that kind of makes my point. And despite Dick Armey’s assertion, the few voices on the right that did step up and criticize the spending never got much traction. They were never in revolt. He wasn’t in revolt. Armey, through his Freedomworks, was a primary organizer of the Tea Party movement, but the out of control spending of the previous administration wasn’t meaningful enough to him to start it until there was some other guy sitting in the White House. Until there was both political capital and a hook in it. From the outside, I think I know what that hook is.

[SK in CV]

You know surveyor, I agree with you. And that kind of makes my point. And despite Dick Armey’s assertion, the few voices on the right that did step up and criticize the spending never got much traction. They were never in revolt. He wasn’t in revolt. Armey, through his Freedomworks, was a primary organizer of the Tea Party movement, but the out of control spending of the previous administration wasn’t meaningful enough to him to start it until there was some other guy sitting in the White House. Until there was both political capital and a hook in it. From the outside, I think I know what that hook is.

[SK in CV]

You know surveyor, I agree with you. And that kind of makes my point. And despite Dick Armey’s assertion, the few voices on the right that did step up and criticize the spending never got much traction. They were never in revolt. He wasn’t in revolt. Armey, through his Freedomworks, was a primary organizer of the Tea Party movement, but the out of control spending of the previous administration wasn’t meaningful enough to him to start it until there was some other guy sitting in the White House. Until there was both political capital and a hook in it. From the outside, I think I know what that hook is.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Wow.

So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.

AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?

WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?

Mexican drug cartels?

Good grief.

Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]

Exactly, gandalf. You hit the nail on the head.

This is why I support a progressive income tax, and why I believe ALL income should be treated equally. One could even make the argument that investment income should be taxed at a higher rate because the earner is less “productive” than someone who only has earned income.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Wow.

So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.

AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?

WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?

Mexican drug cartels?

Good grief.

Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]

Exactly, gandalf. You hit the nail on the head.

This is why I support a progressive income tax, and why I believe ALL income should be treated equally. One could even make the argument that investment income should be taxed at a higher rate because the earner is less “productive” than someone who only has earned income.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Wow.

So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.

AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?

WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?

Mexican drug cartels?

Good grief.

Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]

Exactly, gandalf. You hit the nail on the head.

This is why I support a progressive income tax, and why I believe ALL income should be treated equally. One could even make the argument that investment income should be taxed at a higher rate because the earner is less “productive” than someone who only has earned income.

[CA renter]

[quote=gandalf]Wow.

So what you’re basically saying is Goldman Sachs has contributed lots of value to society.

AIG? Countrywide? Washington Mutual?

WorldCom? Enron? Peregrine?

Mexican drug cartels?

Good grief.

Wealth is loosely correlated to contributions to society, but more often, it correlates with power and ownership of capital and resources.[/quote]

Exactly, gandalf. You hit the nail on the head.

This is why I support a progressive income tax, and why I believe ALL income should be treated equally. One could even make the argument that investment income should be taxed at a higher rate because the earner is less “productive” than someone who only has earned income.

[Author]

Posts