or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 13

post #481 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

At least Obama is getting rid of his econ' team. Unfortunately his instinct will be to go further left.

Unfortunately, that's not what's happening at all.

Quote:
The administration, though, reportedly is keen on bringing in someone with significant business experience, like a CEO. Anne M. Mulcahy, the former CEO of Xerox who's been lauded for her leadership atop the company, is said to be a leading contender, despite the fact that Xerox's share price dropped 16 percent during her tenure. Other candidates include Laura D. Tyson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who separately headed both the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers under Clinton. Tyson is a longtime member of Morgan Stanley's board of directors, a position she's held since 1997.

And this.

Quote:
Lew, a former OMB chief for President Bill Clinton, told the panel that "the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation," and after discussing those issues, added that he didn't "personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don't believe that deregulation was the proximate cause."

Yeah, sounds like he's bringing in the big Socialist guns...
post #482 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you want equality of opportunity -- true equality of opportunity, and if you're not lying that that's what you want, then you would admit that Paris Hilton has far more opportunity to get filthy rich than Jaime Escalante had. That's far from equality. To promote "equality of opportunity", we have to protect those that start out with less from those that start out with economic power. Period.

Seriously. Equal opportunity would include a 100% estate tax. Equal opportunity would mean that no one has any inherent advantage. Equal opportunity would mean eugenics to make everyone have the same starting point genetically.

Or we could take a more reasonable approach...slightly higher taxes for those than can afford it, lower taxes for those that can't. Give basic human services to everyone who needs them.

Also,

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #483 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Or we could take a more reasonable approach...slightly higher taxes for those than can afford it, lower taxes for those that can't.

What you are proposing here BR is discrimination; outright, blatant, and obvious...

In just the paragraph before you are talking about equality then in the next paragraph (quoted above) you are advocated unequal treatment of individuals.

Go back and read your post... Is this the way you actually feel? Discriminate against some?

Think please...

Those in the private sector with money to invest are the ones that will hire employees to start new jobs and new businesses. If you discriminate against them with unequal taxes, unemployment will increase!

Think please...

And stop being in favor of discriminatory taxes that prompt class warfare...
post #484 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Seriously. Equal opportunity would include a 100% estate tax. Equal opportunity would mean that no one has any inherent advantage. Equal opportunity would mean eugenics to make everyone have the same starting point genetically.

Or we could take a more reasonable approach...slightly higher taxes for those than can afford it, lower taxes for those that can't. Give basic human services to everyone who needs them.

Also,


Sounds like a reasonable approach to me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #485 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, sounds like he's bringing in the big Socialist guns...

Laura d'Andrea Tyson and Jacob Lew are more recycled Clinton appointees - entrenched apparatchiks with no private sector experience. Not exactly the kind of "change" O had campaigned on bringing to Washington.

If her Clinton tenure weren't enough, Tyson has already discredited herself by openly advocating a second "stimulus" - all but a four-letter word these days. The O administration itself has shunned use of the term - along with "shovel-ready", "createdorsaved", "global warming"... "terrorist" etc



The first tool in a socialist's cabinet is to control the language of a debate. Goebbels used it to great effect. When your opposition begins speaking your language, you're halfway to victory. It's a very effective tactic - even Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck fall for it.

The only new face in that crowd is Anne Mulcahy. Her main accomplishment at Xerox was the same Carly Fiorina style slash-and-burn tactics that saved HP from extinction, leaving it a pathetic shell of its former self.

Hey, if she can do that in DC, I'm all for it.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #486 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Or we could take a more reasonable approach...slightly higher taxes for those than can afford it, lower taxes for those that can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

So we're in agreement - a flat tax!
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #487 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

...Paris Hilton has far more opportunity to get filthy rich than...

Conrad worked his A$$ off to earn that money... so that Paris would have it after he was gone... why do you feel the need to diminish his efforts by taking that money away from (him).
HE earned the $$... let it be willed to whoever HE wants it to go to!!!

It took more than one generation to amass that wealth, so yes, YOU are not gonna start out with the same amount of $ as Paris Hilton... but if YOU WORK hard, fail, and get back up... then maybe YOUR GRANDKIDS can be born wealthy!
Think long-term man!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #488 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Conrad worked his A$$ off to earn that money... so that Paris would have it after he was gone... why do you feel the need to diminish his efforts by taking that money away from (him).
HE earned the $$... let it be willed to whoever HE wants it to go to!!!

It took more than one generation to amass that wealth, so yes, YOU are not gonna start out with the same amount of $ as Paris Hilton... but if YOU WORK hard, fail, and get back up... then maybe YOUR GRANDKIDS can be born wealthy!
Think long-term man!

This. +1

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #489 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

... but if YOU WORK hard, fail, and get back up... then maybe YOUR GRANDKIDS can be born wealthy!
Think long-term man!

You're looking at it the wrong way King. Your children are not your responsibility, they are serfs who exist for the state's purposes. Therefore, your children have no claim to the wealth a lifetime of your work could provide for them.

Keep that in mind and it all makes sense.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #490 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Unfortunately, that's not what's happening at all.



And this.



Yeah, sounds like he's bringing in the big Socialist guns...

We'll see.


BTW you do know that HuffPo is not a news site right? It's basically a left wing cheerleader blog.
post #491 of 753

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #492 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

We'll see.


BTW you do not that HuffPo is not a news site right? It's basically a left wing cheerleader blog.

Which criticizes Obama at every turn, as I do.

So please tell me, what's wrong with the facts presented in those articles?
post #493 of 753
Senate Democrats Divided on Taxes Put the Issue Off Until After Election Day

Must be an election year. The Dems are scared enough as it is because of the coming fallout from ramming Obamacare into whatever orifice of ours they could find.

Spineless weasels.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #494 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

...The Dems are scared enough as it is because of the coming fallout from ramming Obamacare into whatever orifice of ours they could find.

Call me cynical but I think their strategy is that the tea party movement will split their opposition sufficiently to leave enough Ds in charge to orifice-ram at will.

The bomb's been dropped and the fallout is coming, it's just a question of how awful it will be. With public outrage at an all time high, and Congressional approval ratings at an all time low, Ds have nothing to gain by enacting any legislation before the election.

At best, it's a short term strategy, but they've never had any other kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Spineless weasels.

If staying true to one's principles is the quality by which "spine" is measured, Ds have shown more backbone than the Rs ever have. By that I mean their tyrannical big-government agenda has been put on glaring display, whereas in the past they kept it cloaked in pretense. Despite unprecedented public outrage, they've shown no hint of backing down - to the point of blatant disregard for Congressional rules and Constitutional principles.

If the Rs gain a majority in Congress they're the ones whose principles, as outlined in their "Pledge to America", will be tested by the ever-shrieking liberal fringe. The problem is conservatives actually respect Constitutional principles and the rule of law - it's as ingrained in their DNA as much as feel-good-ism is ingrained in libtards.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #495 of 753
Axelrod leaving White House next year to work on campaign

I don't think these are the kind of bailouts Obama had in mind.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #496 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Which criticizes Obama at every turn, as I do.

So please tell me, what's wrong with the facts presented in those articles?

Facts? Speculations are not facts. In 12 months when we know what Obama actually does we'll know if he flip flopped on his anti-business, anti-job economic plan. He can hire whomever he wants and ignore them and move left(er).
post #497 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

So we're in agreement - a flat tax!

The same number does not mean equality. A flat tax burdens the poor much more than the rich. Why not equal burden?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #498 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The same number does not mean equality. A flat tax burdens the poor much more than the rich. Why not equal burden?

I'll enjoy watching you defend that reasoning.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #499 of 753
The only reasoning I've ever seen for flat taxes is "NUMBER SAME!" But a flat tax does affect poor people more than rich people.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #500 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The only reasoning I've ever seen for flat taxes is "NUMBER SAME!" But a flat tax does affect poor people more than rich people.

Let me know when you start...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #501 of 753
10% of 20,000. That $1,000 can mean the difference between eating, paying the rent, paying the utilities, et cetera.

10% of 2,000,000. Being left with $1.8 million, that person can still live in opulence. It doesn't make a dent.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #502 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

10% of 20,000. That $1,000 can mean the difference between eating, paying the rent, paying the utilities, et cetera.

10% of 2,000,000. Being left with $1.8 million, that person can still live in opulence. It doesn't make a dent.

Better. Not great, but better.

So let's go back to your claims:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The same number does not mean equality. A flat tax burdens the poor much more than the rich. Why not equal burden?

How do we objectively measure "burden?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #503 of 753
Why not work with me to find out since you now see that SAME NUMBER doesn't mean EQUALITY?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #504 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Why not work with me to find out

Because it is you who have made the claims. Not me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

since you now see that SAME NUMBER doesn't mean EQUALITY?

I don't see that at all. The percentage is the same, but the dollar amounts are different...very different.

So how do we objectively determine this thing called "burden?" Is there any way to do so?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #505 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

10% of 20,000. That $1,000 can mean the difference between eating, paying the rent, paying the utilities, et cetera.

10% of 2,000,000. Being left with $1.8 million, that person can still live in opulence. It doesn't make a dent.

First the pickybutt in me has to note that it is $2,000 but I'm sure you meant that anyway.

Second what if the $20,000 was being paid to someone living on government land in a travel trailer or motorhome. Then it would cover them just fine.

Finally, most people making that level of income do not make in consistantly. Everyone has good years and bad years and when you are in the investor class versus the salary class, this becomes profoundly true. Many folks making this type of money are entertainers, athletes, you name it. It becomes more like a windfall and might represent only a few years of their lives where they earned that.

Take the esteemed Steve Jobs and his journey. He was pushed out of Apple. He took his money and went on to create or fund other companies like NeXT and Pixar. What if the benevolent government had simply declared one time winning the lottery was enough, and that he ought to give them 80-90% of the "winnings" because he could still live well for the rest of his life per their reasoning.

Where would Apple be now? Where would all the wealth and innovation that has happened be now? Do you think the government can give us that instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Why not work with me to find out since you now see that SAME NUMBER doesn't mean EQUALITY?

I think he meant that you were gettint started trying to explain, not that he agrees with your claims.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #506 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let me know when you start...

Let me know when you have an answer.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #507 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Let me know when you have an answer.

Let me know when you have a clue.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #508 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let me know when you have a clue.

I do. You have no answers!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #509 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I do.

I know it's hard, but being honest with yourself will go a long way toward understanding. It's never too late to start.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #510 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I know it's hard, but being honest with yourself will go a long way toward understanding. It's never too late to start.

You forgot this part in your quote of me :
Quote:
You have no answers!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #511 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You forgot this part in your quote of me :


No I didn't. I deliberately excluded that lie. I did leave in the other one though.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #512 of 753
Anything over $20,000 is more money than anyone needs to survive... so everyone will give to the government anything over 20K that they have. The government shall then give some of it back to bring EVERYONE up to 20K.... the rest will be for the government to use as they see fit.

It's only fair. Someone shouldn't be able to live better than someone else simply because they have more money!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #513 of 753
Quote:
I, like the president before me, am a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and my wife, like the first lady before her, works at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where she is a doctor who treats children with cancer. Our combined income exceeds the $250,000 threshold for the super rich (but not by that much), and the president plans on raising my taxes. After all, we can afford it, and the world we are now living in has that familiar Marxian tone of those who need take and those who can afford it pay. The problem is, we cant afford it. Here is why.

Read more: We are the Super Rich
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #514 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

... their tyrannical big-government agenda has been put on glaring display, whereas in the past they kept it cloaked in pretense. Despite unprecedented public outrage, they've shown no hint of backing down - to the point of blatant disregard for Congressional rules and Constitutional principles.

Kimberly Strassel says it much better than I:
Quote:
As Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist notes, the country has been witness to "pure, distilled government." It has been led by an administration staffed with career politicians and academics who have insisted that government can solve all. It hasn't worked.

Why Business Bashing Has Flopped - Former CEOs and Wall Street vets are holding up well against Democratic attacks

Quote:
... Twenty months of Democratic business-bashing has not turned the electorate against entrepreneurs. Quite the opposite. This election is highlighting a political turn, not unlike that of the late 1970s, in which voters are looking to free-market, pro-growth candidates to turn back government.

As she writes:
Quote:
Thank you, Democrats.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #515 of 753
What would you guys say to a flat tax? On top of that, treat all income equally, be it inheritance, capital gains, profit from resale of assets, whatever. There are no "tax shelters".

All we need to do to maintain a high standard of living would then be to set a high standard deduction, like $30,000. Everybody gets a $30,000 deduction from their taxes no matter what.

It would simplify the tax code. Everybody would be equal. The flat tax rate could be tied to the budget somehow.
post #516 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What would you guys say to a flat tax? On top of that, treat all income equally, be it inheritance, capital gains, profit from resale of assets, whatever. There are no "tax shelters".

All we need to do to maintain a high standard of living would then be to set a high standard deduction, like $30,000. Everybody gets a $30,000 deduction from their taxes no matter what.

It would simplify the tax code. Everybody would be equal. The flat tax rate could be tied to the budget somehow.

This would be a vast improvement. Personally I'd like to see us get rid of personal and corporate income taxes altogether, but your suggestion would be a vast improvement over what we have now. I would probably modify this slightly to exempt savings and interest from savings. The best tax structure for long-term and consistent economic growth and wealth accumulation for everyone is to stop taxing income, productivity, profit and savings and swing the taxation toward consumption instead.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #517 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What would you guys say to a flat tax? On top of that, treat all income equally, be it inheritance, capital gains, profit from resale of assets, whatever. There are no "tax shelters".

All we need to do to maintain a high standard of living would then be to set a high standard deduction, like $30,000. Everybody gets a $30,000 deduction from their taxes no matter what.

It would simplify the tax code. Everybody would be equal. The flat tax rate could be tied to the budget somehow.

In my opinion, a "flat tax" ought to assess everyone equally. The US budget divided equally among taxpayers would equal about $29,000 for 2010. Everyone gets a bill: Flat tax. Pay up!

Now, the "flat tax" advocated by key Republicans in 1994 was essentially what tonton describes. Dick Armey and Richard Shelby introduced a bill that proposed a "flat" 17% tax on income after substantial personal allowances. They described the the tax code as it existed in 1994 thus:

Quote:
An Unfair Tax System

Perhaps the greatest ball-and-chain on America's freedom and prosperity is the income tax. After eight decades of being "reformed," our tax system is so complex ...
  • Even the Internal Revenue Service can no longer give accurate advice on it.
  • The IRS sends out eight billion pages of forms and instructions each year. Laid end to end, these would stretch 28 times the circumference of the earth.
  • Americans spend 5.4 billion man-hours each year calculating their taxes -- more man-hours than it takes to build every car, truck and van produced in the United States.
  • The tax code puts a drag on our economy worth an estimated $232 billion a year in compliance costs, an amount equal to $900 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

Remember this was sixteen years ago. The issues have become even more egregious since then.

Quote:
The flat tax will restore fairness to the tax law by treating everyone the same. No matter how much money you make, what kind of business you're in, whether or not you have a lobbyist in Washington, you will be taxed at the same rate as everyone else. While applying only the single rate to all income, the flat tax is also progressive -- thanks to the generous family allowance. A family of four earning $30,000 would pay no income tax, the same family earning $50,000 would pay 6 percent, and the family earning $200,000 would pay 14 percent. The family allowances also take millions of lower-income taxpayers off the tax rolls entirely.

Republicans were so giddy with their 1994 victory that they believed they could actually accomplish this. So what was wrong with it? It raises the same revenue for the Treasury as the existing code. It retained popular deductions like mortgage interest. It contained generous family and individual allowances. It didn't tax "the poor" one nickel. And - as they pointed out - a "flat tax" is a progressive income tax, not the John Galt "flat tax" that I described at the beginning of this post.

Remember what I wrote about language framing a debate. The "flat tax" isn't "flat" at all.

So why aren't we sending in a post card instead of reams of documents prepared by paid tax professionals at a cost of $billions per year? Simple. Republicans withered under blistering attacks from the shrill left. As if they didn't need any more reason, Rs deserved to be kicked out of office for that alone. Talented men and women finally in positions of leadership, with no backbone to defend the principles they held.

As an income tax, a simple "flat tax" is a superior concept to the mess we have today. What's wrong with the idea? The left's attack on the Armey - Shelby "flat tax" came down to one and only one issue - that it benefits "the rich" unfairly. Let's think about that.

The tax code we now have not only confiscates income exponentially, it phases out deductions at higher brackets. Despite the obvious fact that this discriminates against those who earn more than others, it's all done in the name of "fairness". Is it really? Suppose you earn a lot of money - say, $250,000 like the "Super Rich" in the story above. They allegedly pay $100,000 in taxes. Sure, that's a lot, but they're left with $150,000 to scrape by. What about the ultra-super rich, who earn $250 million? Let's just say they're paying $100 million in taxes. Do you think they're worried about getting by on the $150 million left? I don't know, I don't earn quite that much, but I doubt it.

This is our progressive tax code. Has it accomplished its intended goal of "fairness", or is it simply accommodating the shrill left, whose main motivation is feeling good that someone else is paying more than they are? Meanwhile, the broad swath of middle class remains choked with having to comply with Byzantine regulations that punishes their hard work and only serves as a deterrent to success.

Under an Armey / Shelby "flat tax", those hyper-rich with incomes of $250 million would pay $42,000,000 in taxes (forget about allowances - they're insignificant to these folks). The shrill left will cry "more tax cuts for the wealthy" as the Rs crumble into a whimpering pathetic heap. Think about that - these are people who had been paying $100 million. Do you think paying that much less will have a significant effect on their lives? If you were of the opinion that $100 million was not significant to them under our present tax scheme, why is an additional $58 million significant? Because it represents lost Treasury revenue? Wrong, since the Armey / Shelby "flat tax" is revenue-neutral. What do you think they'll do with that extra $58 million left in their checking accounts at the end of the year? How would you spend it? What do you buy when you already own too many houses, cars, boats, and toys with enough personnel on your payroll to maintain them all? Many of them will donate it. There are only so many small islands on the market.

Think a progressive tax is "fair"? Why? Does it just make you "feel good" that the hyper-rich are wasting so much in taxes? How does that help you, as you struggle to figure out your tax bill?

All I'm asking is that you think about it, honestly, to the extent that's possible with liberals, who are so much better at feeling than thinking.

A broad swath of middle class includes millions of people who own and operate small businesses that employ the vast majority of Americans. They are the engine that drives economic success in this country, and it's hurting. Congress's recent actions have served to throw sand in its crankcase, leaving us with widespread misery, mortgage defaults, bank failures, and pension deficits. The Federal government is running absurdly high deficits, and even Democrats have come to realize letting the Bush income tax cuts expire next year would do more harm than good. Clearly, the tax code is broken and needs to be scrapped. The "super-rich" really don't care what happens - it's the middle class that gets hurt by it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton

It would simplify the tax code. Everybody would be equal.

Congress has shown no willingness to treat people equally - just the opposite. The reason we'll never have a "flat tax" in my opinion is that people in power crave control over you and I. Republican or Democrat - once elected to Congress, they're all psychopaths. The tax code is not used to raise revenue as much as it is for social engineering. This is immoral. So, for that matter, is confiscating a man's earnings or his property. The government has no business knowing what I earn. Our income tax is a hindrance to economic success. It's wrong on so many levels.

The US economy is in bad shape, but it can recover easily, and more quickly than anyone would believe given its current state. The only requirement is a Congress with enough resolve to make it so:

It Isn't Just Lost Jobs--It's the Lost Jobs Machine

Quote:
(Republican economist) Douglas Holtz-Eakin suggests a three-pronged attack. First, he would stop using the tax system to achieve social goals and change it to focus, almost obsessively, on fostering economic growth. Second, he would liberate corporations to devote more capital to jobs by curbing the use of them as "vessels for social benefits" such as health insurance, which would be provided in other ways.

A flat tax is certainly a contentious issue, but in my opinion, any income tax is wrong. It's wrong to take from another, whether you're a bank robber or a mob called the government. It's none of your damn business how I earn my money, how I decide to invest it, what kind of house I live in or how many children I claim as dependents. The income tax should be abolished. Find another way to raise revenue. There are many, many other alternatives, all of them "fairer" than what we have now.

Quote:
The flat tax rate could be tied to the budget somehow.

Yes, it should, but that's not bloody likely. The US still needs to raise revenue for its omnipresent wars to end all wars and other contingencies. You won't likely be able to ratchet up rates from one year to another, nor would that be expedient enough anyway. The US functioned for years on import duties alone, and could work for many more with a consumption based tax. I'd be all over something like a European-style value added tax - as long as it eliminates the income tax, completely, permanently, and for good.

Kill it. Drive a stake through its heart.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #518 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No I didn't. I deliberately excluded that lie. I did leave in the other one though.

It' hardly a lie as I've asked you several questions which you've either ignored, evaded, or gave back an insult as an answer. So much for your arguments.

And I'm not the only one who can see this. What do you think this post from Tonton was all about?
Quote:
And so he goes again. He has absolutely no argument against what's been said, so he simply states that his opponent is ignorant.

If he had an argument, he would state it. But he won't. Watch. As Jimmac says, "no answers here".

Free market capitalists have no answers. Just dogma.

Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer during the economic downturn.

Count... 5. 4. 3. 2. 1...

MJ1970 attacks the source. Which would be hard, since the source is Forbes Magazine's annual non-editorial reporting of the income of the top 400 Americans.

I'm not trying to attack you but your logic which is incomplete. Once you get to a certain point it falls apart like a house of cards because in the end there are certain things you can't get around. Also you're not the only conservative here who makes a lot of noise and then when the questions get tough can't back it up.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #519 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It' hardly a lie as I've asked you several questions which you've either ignored, evaded, or gave back an insult as an answer.

OK Sweetie. I believe I have. But let's lay it out. Answers to what...specifically?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Once you get to a certain point it falls apart like a house of cards because in the end there are certain things you can't get around.

Uh huh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also you're not the only conservative here who makes a lot of noise and then when the questions get tough can't back it up.

I would not consider myself a "conservative" per se. But whatever.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #520 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK Sweetie. I believe I have. But let's lay it out. Answers to what...specifically?




Uh huh.




I would not consider myself a "conservative" per se. But whatever.

Quote:
OK Sweetie. I believe I have. But let's lay it out. Answers to what...specifically?

In no way am I any kind of " Sweetie " to you. I'm a guy on a forum who's asked you questions I'm not going to repeat. You were asked and now you can look them up yourself.
I already looked up a quote relating to one.

Quote:
I would not consider myself a "conservative" per se. But whatever

That's just the point. We don't really know where you stand. You comment alot about others and their views but you really don't tie yourself down to anything. When asked or commented on you sinmply say something like " I'm not that ". What hogwash!

This let's you dance around making comments about others but when someone pins you down you evade or insult.

With this in mind it makes your aruments worthless.

like I've said no answers. Still.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?