"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"

2456735

Comments

  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SactoMan01 View Post


    This is all the MORE reason we need to seriously look at doing something now at least two decades overdue: a MASSIVE revision of our tax code to drastically simplify it and make it encourage American citizens and businesses to keep their savings and capital investments in the USA as much as possible.



    That's why I want to see our income tax reduced to what Steve Forbes proposed several years ago with a true flat tax, with a tax filing so simple it would make the current IRS 1040-EZ form look complicated in comparison. And best of all, we get rid of the payroll tax, tax on bank account interest, tax on dividend payments, alternate minimum tax and capital gains tax, essentially meaning you can save and invest completely tax-free; that could result in a GIGANTIC land rush of liquidity into the USA, which would right there provide the basis for real economic recovery.



    Right now, Americans spendi over US$300 BILLION per year just to comply with income tax laws; under the Forbes' proposal, we could cut that to less than 1/3 of what we spend now, freeing up around US$200 billion per year to be used in more economically productive activities.



    Well You saw what it took for Healthcare Reform ( what a circus ). Can you imagine how cooperative the two parties would be over this?



    Much as I agree it's needed.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Well You saw what it took for Healthcare Reform ( what a circus ). Can you imagine how cooperative the two parties would be over this?



    I'm sure if the reform was done in the same manner, you can expect the same result. 2000+ page documents that no one has read and that we have to pass to see what is in them and how they work isn't any sort of model to hold up or be proud about. Likewise muck like those reform efforts, if the the rhetoric claims a "reform" but instead doubles the requirements and costs, then expect opposition.



    The health care "reform" has been shown to be a total scam already. It excluded the Medicare cost fix as an example and those high risk pools are already going bankrupt almost before they've started as it is already clear that "savings" won't be achieved in any form or fashion with the high cost patients via best practices, electronic records or anything short of outright rationing.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I'm sure if the reform was done in the same manner, you can expect the same result. 2000+ page documents that no one has read and that we have to pass to see what is in them and how they work isn't any sort of model to hold up or be proud about. Likewise muck like those reform efforts, if the the rhetoric claims a "reform" but instead doubles the requirements and costs, then expect opposition.



    The health care "reform" has been shown to be a total scam already. It excluded the Medicare cost fix as an example and those high risk pools are already going bankrupt almost before they've started as it is already clear that "savings" won't be achieved in any form or fashion with the high cost patients via best practices, electronic records or anything short of outright rationing.



    I'm sure this ( tax reform because that's what we're talking about except for the example of cooperation between parties ) would go really smooth if there was just one party running the show ( like the Republicans ). Uh huh.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    I'm sure this would go really smooth if there was just one party running the show ( like the Republicans ). Uh huh.



    For so-called healthcare "reform" there was "just one party running the show"...the Democrats. What happened?
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    For so-called healthcare "reform" there was "just one party running the show"...the Democrats. What happened?



    That isn't what I saw. But if the matter of " Tax Reform " came up can you imagine the show being any different no matter who's in charge?



    The thing is the two parties aren't exactly getting along right now and it's not just the Democrats.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    That isn't what I saw.



    Seriously? What sort of Reality Distortion Field have you been subject to? Do you deny that the Democrats have the presidency as well as had filibuster-proof majorities in the House and Senate throughout the whole healthcare "reform" debacle?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    But if the matter of " Tax Reform " came up can you imagine the show being any different no matter who's in charge?



    Just like there has been no healthcare (or health insurance) reform in this country, nor will there ever be any tax reform in this country outside of a revolution.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Seriously? What sort of Reality Distortion Field have you been subject to? Do you deny that the Democrats have the presidency as well as had filibuster-proof majorities in the House and Senate throughout the whole healthcare "reform" debacle?









    Just like there has been no healthcare (or health insurance) reform in this country, nor will there ever be any tax reform in this country outside of a revolution.



    I can understand coming from a parallel universe and all. If the shoe was on the other foot it would have made no difference. Surely an independent like yourself would agree? However you are right about the last statement. Too many ( powerful ) would have too much to loose.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    If the shoe was on the other foot it would have made no difference. Surely an independent like yourself would agree?



    If by "shoe on the other foot" you mean the Republicans having the presidency and filibuster-proof majorities in the House and Senate, yes, I do agree.



    The best I can hope for is strongly divided government. This is what happened during the Clinton years. This is not ideal since many bone-headed things can still get done, but I think it's the best we can hope for.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,120member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post


    If Best Buy normally sells an ink cartridge for $9.99, and they have a week-long sale on many items including the ink cartridge which has a sale price of $8.99...... is it a "price increase" when the sale ends as announced after one week and the ink cartridge returns to its everyday low price of $9.99?



    You're asking the wrong question. You can call it whatever you want. If Best Buy's sales of said cartridge are flagging, would they raise the price back to $9.99?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    I'm sure this ( tax reform because that's what we're talking about except for the example of cooperation between parties ) would go really smooth if there was just one party running the show ( like the Republicans ). Uh huh.



    Interesting reply. It is interesting because you declare so many to be partisan and even pull out your PPD nonsense all the time yet there wasn't a single mention of party in what you replied to there. If anything there was only pure criteria for determining a judgment that could easily be applied to any party in power.



    How strange it is that the partisan one does all the accusations of being partisan.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    You're asking the wrong question. You can call it whatever you want. If Best Buy's sales of said cartridge are flagging, would they raise the price back to $9.99?



    Obviously you're asking the wrong question. The real question is why didn't all notice that the person unwilling to pay $9.99 is an asinine, greedy, racist, ignorant, liar in the first place and thus should not be entitled to the printer cart and should have the $9.99 taken from him so as to help all the tolerant and well intentioned people in the world.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Interesting reply. It is interesting because you declare so many to be partisan and even pull out your PPD nonsense all the time yet there wasn't a single mention of party in what you replied to there. If anything there was only pure criteria for determining a judgment that could easily be applied to any party in power.



    How strange it is that the partisan one does all the accusations of being partisan.







    Obviously you're asking the wrong question. The real question is why didn't all notice that the person unwilling to pay $9.99 is an asinine, greedy, racist, ignorant, liar in the first place and thus should not be entitled to the printer cart and should have the $9.99 taken from him so as to help all the tolerant and well intentioned people in the world.



    It's just that your position was so transparent. And for the record I've listed both parties in this discussion so that hardly makes me polarized anything.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    If by "shoe on the other foot" you mean the Republicans having the presidency and filibuster-proof majorities in the House and Senate, yes, I do agree.



    The best I can hope for is strongly divided government. This is what happened during the Clinton years. This is not ideal since many bone-headed things can still get done, but I think it's the best we can hope for.



    We might be in agreement here. Both sides working together ( even if they're fighting all the way ) is what they're supposed to do.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    We might be in agreement here. Both sides working together ( even if they're fighting all the way ) is what they're supposed to do.



    Let me ask you this:



    If the Republicans had the presidency and filibuster-proof majorities in the House and Senate would you support the Democrats in doing anything legally possible to stop the Republicans from ramming through whatever legislation they wanted? Would you consider the Democrats to be standing on principle in doing this?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,120member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Let me ask you this:



    If the Republicans had the presidency and filibuster-proof majorities in the House and Senate would you support the Democrats in doing anything legally possible to stop the Republicans from ramming through whatever legislation they wanted? Would you consider the Democrats to be standing on principle in doing this?



    Doesn't it depend on the legislation?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    It's just that your position was so transparent. And for the record I've listed both parties in this discussion so that hardly makes me polarized anything.



    Nice rationalization for your very bad behavior.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,268member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171







    and







    and









    No one is talking about this issue. I can see it now: Obama will argue that since the economy is not yet recovered despite trillions in spending, we need to now deal with the deficit by letting tax cuts expire. Don't worry...it's not really a tax hike, we're just letting the tax breaks for "the rich" expire. Strike that....we're just "not renewing them."



    <Obama Tough Guy Teleprompter Voice> "I...refuse...to let a bunch of...millionaires...dictate what happens with the people's money. So, we're going to...uh...ask them to pay their fair share. So long as I am President, I will work to ensure that the people's money is spent responsibly."

    </OTGTV>



    He'll argue this is no time for "greed." Biden will tell us it's time to "get with the program and be patriotic...be part of the deal." Pelosi will continue to tell us that unemployment benefits actually create jobs, and we need tax revenue to pay for them.



    I think I'm going to get a few of those exemption cards.



    6 months until some really nice tax cuts for most people- http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...igh-income.cfm
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,120member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    It's just that your position was so transparent. And for the record I've listed both parties in this discussion so that hardly makes me polarized anything.



    Trump posted this:



    Quote:

    I'm sure if the reform was done in the same manner, you can expect the same result. 2000+ page documents that no one has read and that we have to pass to see what is in them and how they work isn't any sort of model to hold up or be proud about. Likewise muck like those reform efforts, if the the rhetoric claims a "reform" but instead doubles the requirements and costs, then expect opposition.



    The health care "reform" has been shown to be a total scam already. It excluded the Medicare cost fix as an example and those high risk pools are already going bankrupt almost before they've started as it is already clear that "savings" won't be achieved in any form or fashion with the high cost patients via best practices, electronic records or anything short of outright rationing.



    To which you replied:



    Quote:

    'm sure this ( tax reform because that's what we're talking about except for the example of cooperation between parties ) would go really smooth if there was just one party running the show ( like the Republicans ). Uh huh.



    He said nothing about Republicans. You sarcastically speculated and framed the issue in a hyper-partisan way. He was merely criticizing the current "reforms." Are those criticisms not valid in your view?



    Concerning your speculation though, it's clear that Republicans would be doing much better. We know this because for all their faults when they had the Presidency and both houses, they didn't pass bills like are being passed now. They didn't take over large swaths of the economy. They didn't run 1.6 Trillion dollar deficits. They didn't raise taxes every chance they got.



    What's happening now is unprecedented. There is essentially no conceivable way it could be worse.
  • kingofsomewherehotkingofsomewherehot Posts: 3,983member
    Arguments about Rep v. Dem are pointless.



    The government (no matter who has been in "control") has been on a spending binge for decades... and it gets worse with every year.

    The ONLY way to pay for it is to increase taxes AND decrease spending (an actual decrease, not just a reduction in the rate of increase... something politicians advertise as a decrease.)



    I would have no problem with very high tax rates (for a limited time) if i believed the federal government at large would actually use it to pay off our debt and not just spread it around as pork. But because I don't feel "they" spend the tax money wisely, I don't see any point in giving them MORE.



    Everyone has an opinion, and with matters like this, you've got a VOTE to make that opinion heard where it might matter.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    The ONLY way to pay for it is to increase taxes AND decrease spending (an actual decrease, not just a reduction in the rate of increase... something politicians advertise as a decrease.)



    I value your opinion here but as a U.S. citizen who had no part in the Government's fiscal incompetence causing this deficit I respectfully disagree with any tax increase that will force me to pay twice for the government's foolishness (once in high taxes and once again in deficit repayment). You are right as rain that we need to decrease spending but increasing taxes simply forces citizens to issue dual payments on the government's problem. Have them cut federal spending to pay for all; no way citizens should be forced to solve a problem the government itself originated. Our state is one in which fiscal soundness and balanced budgets are required; I demand no less from the federal apparatus. Taxing the citizenry is no way to repair federal mismanagement. btw... Want a fiscal pattern to follow here? See New Jersey Governor Chris Christie...
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    What's happening now is unprecedented. There is essentially no conceivable way it could be worse.



    Oh dear God. Please don't say that. Murphy's Law and all that.
Sign In or Register to comment.