[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1][quote=poorgradstudent]Increasing government spending during down times and decreasing during good times also makes good fiscal sense. Labor and materials tend to be cheaper during busts, so important government infrastructure projects should be able to be completed at lower cost than they would if done during a boom. Also, borrowing costs are often cheaper during downtimes, so it actually makes a ton of good sense to complete necessary projects during recessions as opposed to trying to do them when things are good.[/quote]

I will try to live by this in my own life. Save during good times and buy assets during the down cycles. It’s a little hard to do because everybody does the opposite. People party during the good years and if you don’t join them you will have few friends.[/quote]

I don’t think you could have summed up Livinincali’s point better.

[mike92104]

I put one of these in my macbook:

I also picked up one of these (a mac version actually):

http://www.avermedia-usa.com/avertv/product/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=431

and turned an old broken macbook pro someone gave me into an HD DVR

[mike92104]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I fail to see how your list proves that prayer is knowledge based.

Scientists who are Christians discovered many things. That speaks to the science itself, not to the religion.

In fact, those scientists knew that research and knowledge was more important than petitioning God for miracles.[/quote]

Why should we assume they didn’t petition god for the skills and intelligence to make those discoveries?

Don’t get me wrong, I think all religions have their wackos including the atheists.

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
You mean this one? The one that states my position exactly as I just mentioned?
Why don’t you give up the straw man BS. The point I made is valid and correct.[/quote]

Valid point? I don’t know. Your final point, with the absurd claim that the average person pays over 50% in taxes isn’t valid. You were right about the rates when income taxes were initiated being between 1 and 7%, but rates haven’t steadily increased ever since. They’ve gone up and down. Top rates have been lower during the last 25 years than they were at any time in the 60 years before that. During WWII and immediately after, top rates were over 80%, and still 70% until the 80’s. I think the argument could be made those rates are confiscatory. In comparison, today’s rates arent.

So no, I don’t think your conclusion is based on accurate data, and not particularly compelling.[/quote]

again, Straw Man. You don’t have a valid argument against my point which was the steadily increasing amount of taxes, and the steadily increasing amount of spending going on, so you instead try to invalidate the entire argument because you disagree with some of the data I have provided.

Anyway. I done with your little game.

[mike92104]

[quote=mike92104][quote=spdrun]If you’re making $250k profit on a home sale AFTER expenses, do you think that making $9500 less will really keep you from selling? Get real. This isn’t the end of the world.[/quote]

The problem with the “it’s just a little bit” argument is that it always ignores the fact that it’s a little bit MORE. It’s another step toward total confiscation of everyone’s income. Look at the history of income tax as an example. The forst rates were between 1 and 7 percent. It only took 3 years for that to be doubled, and has been steadily increased ever since. Add to that all of the other taxes we are forced to pay, and it’s estimated the average person pays over 50% (50 f-ing %!!). So, don’t use the politicians normal tag line of “it’s just a little bit”.[/quote]

You mean this one? The one that states my position exactly as I just mentioned?
Why don’t you give up the straw man BS. The point I made is valid and correct.

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
Maybe this will help you understand my point:

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/economics/econprinciples2001/pdfs/C10-01C-820487.pdf

We’re now spending more than twice as much as we did to win WWII.[/quote]

No, your point was:

[quote=mike92104]Add to that all of the other taxes we are forced to pay, and it’s estimated the average person pays over 50% (50 f-ing %!!). [/quote]

The chart you linked to has nothing to do with percentage of income that goes to taxes. Though it is interesting, it’s almost an entirely different subject.[/quote]

No, if you read all of my posts in this thread, you’ll see that my original point was that taxes and spending have been steadily increasing usually sold to us as being “just a little bit” or “just a little bit more”. I was trying to point out that all of these small tax and spending increases have really added up over the years.

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=mike92104][quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]

No, it came from the same place yours came from.[/quote]

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html%5B/quote%5D
Those damn pesky numbers.[/quote]

There’s some serious flaws in that calculation.

Just to name a few:

We hear all the time that half of Americans don’t pay any income taxes. The top federal rate is currently 35%. In order to use 17% for the “average”, that would mean that virtually every dollar of income that go to those that do pay taxes, must be subject to just under the maximum tax. Obviously, that can’t be true, since even high income taxpayers still pay lower rates on their income below the top tax bracket. In fact, most people who do pay taxes, don’t have a single dollar subject to the maximum rate.

Similar, but even more ridiculous on the state tax. The same 50% of taxpayers who pay no income tax referred to above, presumably pay little or no state tax, so including the maxiumum state tax rate as the average is absurd. It also fails to take into consideration the states that have no income tax or rates substantially lower than 10.1%.

All income is not subject to sales tax. In fact, no income is. Only spending. The caclulation in the link assumes 100% of income is taxed at a relatively high sales tax rate. Effectively impossible, since we’ve already deducted federal and state income taxes which can’t possibly be spent on taxable consumption.

The others aren’t near as egregiously wrong. But the last one is pretty funny. It lists estate, inheritance and gift as separate taxes. They are essentially the same thing. And amount to, on average, about $110 per taxpayer. That would be slightly over .1% of annual income for average taxpayers. Additionally, it lists something called “deficit allowance”. I’m reasonably sure there is no such thing as a “deficit allowance” tax.

But yeah, facts are pesky. And that link doesn’t contain many. It’s probably theoretically possible for some people to pay >50% in taxes. Whether it actually happens very often is pretty unlikely.[/quote]

Maybe this will help you understand my point:

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/economics/econprinciples2001/pdfs/C10-01C-820487.pdf

We’re now spending more than twice as much as we did to win WWII.

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]

No, it came from the same place yours came from.[/quote]

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

[mike92104]

[quote=spdrun]How do you propose to pay for government services? Magic?

Printing money is an unpredictable tax, and unpredictable inflation is bad for business. Not to mention that it favors spenders over savers, and Americans save too little as it is.[/quote]

Why does the government need more and more and more funding year after year?

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]Add to that all of the other taxes we are forced to pay, and it’s estimated the average person pays over 50% (50 f-ing %!!). [/quote]

That estimate would probably be no closer to reality than an estimate of 10%. 10% sounds a lot better. I’d go with that.[/quote]

Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?

[mike92104]

You could give it to me.

[mike92104]

Duplicate post

[mike92104]

[quote=spdrun]If you’re making $250k profit on a home sale AFTER expenses, do you think that making $9500 less will really keep you from selling? Get real. This isn’t the end of the world.[/quote]

The problem with the “it’s just a little bit” argument is that it always ignores the fact that it’s a little bit MORE. It’s another step toward total confiscation of everyone’s income. Look at the history of income tax as an example. The forst rates were between 1 and 7 percent. It only took 3 years for that to be doubled, and has been steadily increased ever since. Add to that all of the other taxes we are forced to pay, and it’s estimated the average person pays over 50% (50 f-ing %!!). So, don’t use the politicians normal tag line of “it’s just a little bit”.

[mike92104]

[quote=deadzone][quote=mike92104]Again, the checkpoints used to be a means of checking your immigration or citizen status. Now they are used as a dragnet to search anyone they see fit for any violation.[/quote]

What’s the problem with that? As a citizen I am happy to know they are pulling dirt bags off the street who are driving drunk, no license/insurance, etc. I assume you guys are the same ACLU types who are against the checkpoints in Escondido? Of course in Escondido if they (the police) find an illegal they can’t do anything with them except impound their car since California is basically a “sanctuary” state.[/quote]

Tell me where you would draw the line? At what point do the random searches begin to violate the 4th Amendment?

[mike92104]

I use sprint, and their unlimited plan is just that. I know they don’t have 4g in san diego yet, but the 3g works fine. I like that I can watch netflix all day on my phone without incurring any additional fees.

[Author]

Posts