Why does everybody worry so much about tax cuts/raises? - Page 3

adios · #21 10-17-2004, 06:35 AM

Good post. The other thing is that different income streams are taxed differently as you allude to with Edwards. To me it's obvious that the people who get screwed the most in paying taxes are those receiving a W-2.

adios · #22 10-17-2004, 06:35 AM

Wowser damn fine post!

jakethebake · #23 10-17-2004, 11:36 AM

This post is so bad that I can't even begin. There are more holes here than Swiss cheese. YOU! Out of the gene pool!!!

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people don't have the money to pay for some of this stuff. Yes, the government is overinflated and probably should be cut back. But I also believe taxes should be RAISED, because you have to pay for things, surprisingly enough. But I think people deserve to have health care, education, and some other things without paying quite a bit of money for them. Most private schools and medical care is definitely not cheap. There are benefits to most of the programs we pay due to taxes. The key is how to make these programs better, and of course, eliminating some programs.

I don't believe in setting price controls, but I do believe in the government using taxes to pay for certain things, like the Police, the Fire Department, Defense, all things that we should pay for. That's what it comes down to, paying for services. And the government does force taxes because there are some things that benefit a lot of people. They must be paid for.

[/ QUOTE ]

MrSoul · #24 10-17-2004, 01:38 PM

When the price of gas rises, it encourages more oil exploration because the higher prices now make it profitable to do so. When more gas gets supplied, the price drops. This is the basic law of supply.

jakethebake · #25 10-17-2004, 01:55 PM

I understand your point and am not necessarily disagreeing with you but...

1. If you're wealthy you'll have income unless you're keeping it in your mattress.

2. There's an assumption that to get wealthy you had an income at one time and have already been taxed on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the problem with a graduated income tax.

First, the tax is on income, not wealth. This means that wealthy people who don't generate an income don't have any tax burden, while average people who might receive a much-needed windfall do.

Case in point. A husband and wife get a small business loan for $100,000 to open a corner store. The business does fairly well, the family is able to pay off the loan over 10 years and still pull a yearly salary of $30,000--middle class. After that 10 years, they decide to sell the business. Their hard work over the last decade has payed off and the business for about $250,000 (not unreasonable for the yearly income it generates).

All of the sudden our middle-class working family finds themselves in the top tax bracket. That year they literally end up paying more in taxes than they brought home the last 4 years! Are they rich? By no means. But the idea that this family wouldn't benefit from a so-called "tax cut for the rich" is ludicrous. Unfortunately, there are certain politicians out there that believe taxes should be raised on anyone who earns more than $200,000 in a given year.

Just something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

jakethebake · #26 10-17-2004, 01:57 PM

...The original poster seems to have stopped posting on this one. That guy was an idiot!

lastchance · #27 10-17-2004, 02:16 PM

Ok, my argument sucks. Tell me why.

tripdad · #28 10-17-2004, 02:35 PM

the US Government, as most of us agree, wastes far too much of our money. this will not stop unless we starve them of income. the only way to do that is to lower taxes each and every time the political climate dictates we can do that.

will we run massive deficit for a while? absolutely. but it is definitely for the long term good that we do this.

another thing that would help is having a constitutional amendment requiring 2/3 vote of the house and senate to raise taxes. this, however, would more than likely reduce chances that taxes would ever be cut.

cheers!

jakethebake · #29 10-17-2004, 02:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, my argument sucks. Tell me why.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're such a mess it's hard to even know where to start with this! You were probably one of those kids whose parents forced him to share when he was a toddler and who therefore learned that it was o.k. to force one to give up what was his own private property for another's use. I think this may be the root of many of our society's socialist tendencies today. That and too many people watching the Brady Bunch. Remember how the boys couldn't even have a club house of their own? Remember how when Peter (or was it Bobby?) found the wallet the parents redistributed the wealth to all the kids? Think about it a minute and I bet you can come up with more of Sherwood Schwartz's Socialist rantings. Phew...o.k. let me slow down and breathe.

I happen to believe that slavery is the worst think that a human can inflict on another. And I define slavery as depriving one of the fruits of his (or her if we have to be pc) labor. It's not "ownership" of the person. That's just a legal formality.

It appears that YOU are for slavery because you are FOR the government depriving ME of the fruits of our labor. People deserve healthcare? Why do they? Have they earned it? Those that have earned it can pay for it with the money they have earned. Should we enslave the doctors and scientists and force them to provide the services for less than they think they should? Taking the money from me to pay him is effectively forcing me to provide my labor (whatever it is) for less than I would otherwise.

Furthemore, comparing the price of private education and healthcare under the current socialist structure is not relevant. If we didn't have socialist education and healthcare then private providers would have a larger market and could provide for much less. Not to mention they wouldn't have to pay the taxes which would also allow them to provide the service for less.

You think people wouldn't pay for fire protection? People already pay for private police protection (ie. security services). All for these could be privatized. Then there's the post office. Which spends on advertising to compete directly with private enterprise! There's a travesty. If you have to advertise then obviously there's enough private enterprise to provide the service so why is the government providing it at all?

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people don't have the money to pay for some of this stuff. Yes, the government is overinflated and probably should be cut back. But I also believe taxes should be RAISED, because you have to pay for things, surprisingly enough. But I think people deserve to have health care, education, and some other things without paying quite a bit of money for them. Most private schools and medical care is definitely not cheap. There are benefits to most of the programs we pay due to taxes. The key is how to make these programs better, and of course, eliminating some programs.

I don't believe in setting price controls, but I do believe in the government using taxes to pay for certain things, like the Police, the Fire Department, Defense, all things that we should pay for. That's what it comes down to, paying for services. And the government does force taxes because there are some things that benefit a lot of people. They must be paid for.

[/ QUOTE ]

jakethebake · #30 10-17-2004, 02:47 PM

Hmmmmm.....Interesting. I kinda like it. The problem is they'd keep spending and you'd just get the old inflation tax kicking in instead of a hard tax.

[ QUOTE ]
another thing that would help is having a constitutional amendment requiring 2/3 vote of the house and senate to raise taxes. this, however, would more than likely reduce chances that taxes would ever be cut.

cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]