Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=afx114]Nate Silver … [/quote]
Something not right about those numbers.
How can taxes stay level while spending as a pct of
GDP soars ? The gov must have some revenue stream other than taxes.[img_assist|nid=13190|title=Govt Spending vs GDP|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=390|height=250]
FROM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.pngParticipant[quote=afx114]Nate Silver … [/quote]
Something not right about those numbers.
How can taxes stay level while spending as a pct of
GDP soars ? The gov must have some revenue stream other than taxes.[img_assist|nid=13190|title=Govt Spending vs GDP|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=390|height=250]
FROM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.pngParticipant[quote=afx114]Nate Silver … [/quote]
Something not right about those numbers.
How can taxes stay level while spending as a pct of
GDP soars ? The gov must have some revenue stream other than taxes.[img_assist|nid=13190|title=Govt Spending vs GDP|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=390|height=250]
FROM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.pngParticipant[quote=gandalf]You’re technically correct, sdduuuuuuuude…
Determination of progressive/regressive isn’t constrained to levying of taxes, and includes how such dollars are spent.
[/quote]The thread is about taxes. The term “progressive tax” is constrained to the levying of taxes.
[quote=gandalf]
Overall, I would like to see less ‘policy’ implemented through tax law — percentages, deductions, incentives, etc. The original policy objectives are often subverted, unintended consequences.
[/quote]
With you 100% there.[quote=gandalf]
As for NO tax….How would you pay for government then? Are there things the government does that are worthwhile?
National defense?
Roads and highways?
Clean water?
Public school system?
Police and fire?[/quote]You are assuming all those require the government. They don’t. I’ll give you Defense and Police. The others should be funded by those who use them the most.
Just because SOME taxes are needed doesn’t mean that the expression “There’s no tax like no tax” isn’t valid 🙂
Participant[quote=gandalf]You’re technically correct, sdduuuuuuuude…
Determination of progressive/regressive isn’t constrained to levying of taxes, and includes how such dollars are spent.
[/quote]The thread is about taxes. The term “progressive tax” is constrained to the levying of taxes.
[quote=gandalf]
Overall, I would like to see less ‘policy’ implemented through tax law — percentages, deductions, incentives, etc. The original policy objectives are often subverted, unintended consequences.
[/quote]
With you 100% there.[quote=gandalf]
As for NO tax….How would you pay for government then? Are there things the government does that are worthwhile?
National defense?
Roads and highways?
Clean water?
Public school system?
Police and fire?[/quote]You are assuming all those require the government. They don’t. I’ll give you Defense and Police. The others should be funded by those who use them the most.
Just because SOME taxes are needed doesn’t mean that the expression “There’s no tax like no tax” isn’t valid 🙂
Participant[quote=gandalf]You’re technically correct, sdduuuuuuuude…
Determination of progressive/regressive isn’t constrained to levying of taxes, and includes how such dollars are spent.
[/quote]The thread is about taxes. The term “progressive tax” is constrained to the levying of taxes.
[quote=gandalf]
Overall, I would like to see less ‘policy’ implemented through tax law — percentages, deductions, incentives, etc. The original policy objectives are often subverted, unintended consequences.
[/quote]
With you 100% there.[quote=gandalf]
As for NO tax….How would you pay for government then? Are there things the government does that are worthwhile?
National defense?
Roads and highways?
Clean water?
Public school system?
Police and fire?[/quote]You are assuming all those require the government. They don’t. I’ll give you Defense and Police. The others should be funded by those who use them the most.
Just because SOME taxes are needed doesn’t mean that the expression “There’s no tax like no tax” isn’t valid 🙂
Participant[quote=gandalf]You’re technically correct, sdduuuuuuuude…
Determination of progressive/regressive isn’t constrained to levying of taxes, and includes how such dollars are spent.
[/quote]The thread is about taxes. The term “progressive tax” is constrained to the levying of taxes.
[quote=gandalf]
Overall, I would like to see less ‘policy’ implemented through tax law — percentages, deductions, incentives, etc. The original policy objectives are often subverted, unintended consequences.
[/quote]
With you 100% there.[quote=gandalf]
As for NO tax….How would you pay for government then? Are there things the government does that are worthwhile?
National defense?
Roads and highways?
Clean water?
Public school system?
Police and fire?[/quote]You are assuming all those require the government. They don’t. I’ll give you Defense and Police. The others should be funded by those who use them the most.
Just because SOME taxes are needed doesn’t mean that the expression “There’s no tax like no tax” isn’t valid 🙂
Participant[quote=gandalf]You’re technically correct, sdduuuuuuuude…
Determination of progressive/regressive isn’t constrained to levying of taxes, and includes how such dollars are spent.
[/quote]The thread is about taxes. The term “progressive tax” is constrained to the levying of taxes.
[quote=gandalf]
Overall, I would like to see less ‘policy’ implemented through tax law — percentages, deductions, incentives, etc. The original policy objectives are often subverted, unintended consequences.
[/quote]
With you 100% there.[quote=gandalf]
As for NO tax….How would you pay for government then? Are there things the government does that are worthwhile?
National defense?
Roads and highways?
Clean water?
Public school system?
Police and fire?[/quote]You are assuming all those require the government. They don’t. I’ll give you Defense and Police. The others should be funded by those who use them the most.
Just because SOME taxes are needed doesn’t mean that the expression “There’s no tax like no tax” isn’t valid 🙂
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
You and the other guy are trying to make it sound like “progressive tax” means “tax I like” and “regressive tax” as “tax I don’t like” which is unacceptable.Know what a term means and use it properly or don’t bring it up.[/quote]
Not the first time this has been said to BriBri.
LOL.[/quote]
brian significantly reduces the value of this site for me, filling up interesting threads with the same stupid shit over and over again with no basis of thought behind it. Hoping he goes the way of powayseller soon.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
You and the other guy are trying to make it sound like “progressive tax” means “tax I like” and “regressive tax” as “tax I don’t like” which is unacceptable.Know what a term means and use it properly or don’t bring it up.[/quote]
Not the first time this has been said to BriBri.
LOL.[/quote]
brian significantly reduces the value of this site for me, filling up interesting threads with the same stupid shit over and over again with no basis of thought behind it. Hoping he goes the way of powayseller soon.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
You and the other guy are trying to make it sound like “progressive tax” means “tax I like” and “regressive tax” as “tax I don’t like” which is unacceptable.Know what a term means and use it properly or don’t bring it up.[/quote]
Not the first time this has been said to BriBri.
LOL.[/quote]
brian significantly reduces the value of this site for me, filling up interesting threads with the same stupid shit over and over again with no basis of thought behind it. Hoping he goes the way of powayseller soon.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
You and the other guy are trying to make it sound like “progressive tax” means “tax I like” and “regressive tax” as “tax I don’t like” which is unacceptable.Know what a term means and use it properly or don’t bring it up.[/quote]
Not the first time this has been said to BriBri.
LOL.[/quote]
brian significantly reduces the value of this site for me, filling up interesting threads with the same stupid shit over and over again with no basis of thought behind it. Hoping he goes the way of powayseller soon.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
You and the other guy are trying to make it sound like “progressive tax” means “tax I like” and “regressive tax” as “tax I don’t like” which is unacceptable.Know what a term means and use it properly or don’t bring it up.[/quote]
Not the first time this has been said to BriBri.
LOL.[/quote]
brian significantly reduces the value of this site for me, filling up interesting threads with the same stupid shit over and over again with no basis of thought behind it. Hoping he goes the way of powayseller soon.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Progressive means that you pay back to society in the same proportion that you get out of society.
If a group earns 50% of GPD, it should pay 50% of the taxes.
A progressive tax system should also consider wealth. Taxes should also be proportional to wealth because society protects that wealth and gives it value.[/quote]
You are using a term with a specific meaning – i.e. “progressive tax” to mean something that you want it to mean. It has nothing to do with what you give or get from society.
It means a tax that increases in percentage as the taxable base value grows.
You and the other guy are trying to make it sound like “progressive tax” means “tax I like” and “regressive tax” as “tax I don’t like” which is unacceptable.
Know what a term means and use it properly or don’t bring it up.
-
AuthorPosts
