(02-15-2011 09:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey......................

Why don't we just cut taxes more.

Mach, most of our tax dollars go into a black hole never to be seen again. If you're taxed at say 35% that's 35% of your money that's not being spent and that 35% can only be taxed once. If that tax is lowered down to 15% that's 20% more dollars in circulation and it's being taxed evrytime it changes hands. Do the math: 20% extra in a one-time tax theft, or if I was allowed to keep that monehy that would equate to an endless taxing at a lower rate each time my dollars go from one hand to the next. What do you think a bank or the mafia would see as having the better long term payout?

When you raise taxes and people stop spending because they have no money and when the gov needs more revenue the only way for them to get it is to raise taxes again. and then people have less to spend which generates even lower taxes and on and on.

I say stimulating personal spending at a lower tax rate will generate more $$$. Example: With lower taxes I can re-hire the maid service I used to have. They in turn pay taxes on their income. They also generate taxes when they buy stuff. I had to cancel them a few years ago when California's taxes went through the roof. Now they are unemployed, not paying income taxes, not generating sales taxes, but they still get my money through unemployment.

(02-15-2011 12:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 12:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Redwing

The majority here won't even read that link. They "feel" tax rates decreasing will raise revenue. It's an opinion based on "emotion".

How dare you bring facts into this argument. HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

C'mon Mach, you're above those lies.

"At current tax rates, most tax increases will increase revenues, at least in the short and medium run. The caveat is that in a fragile economy, it can be unpredictable." ~ Brian Riedl, Heritage Foundation

(02-15-2011 12:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Redwing

The majority here won't even read that link. They "feel" tax rates decreasing will raise revenue. It's an opinion based on "emotion".

How dare you bring facts into this argument. HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

I read it. Nice gymnastics going on there to conclude tax cuts don't lead to increased revenue and vice versa.

I liked the part about a 100% tax rate I keep asking you about but you don't want to address.

(02-15-2011 12:54 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 09:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey......................

Why don't we just cut taxes more.

Mach, most of our tax dollars go into a black hole never to be seen again. If you're taxed at say 35% that's 35% of your money that's not being spent and that 35% can only be taxed once. If that tax is lowered down to 15% that's 20% more dollars in circulation and it's being taxed evrytime it changes hands. Do the math: 20% extra in a one-time tax theft, or if I was allowed to keep that monehy that would equate to an endless taxing at a lower rate each time my dollars go from one hand to the next. What do you think a bank or the mafia would see as having the better long term payout?

When you raise taxes and people stop spending because they have no money and when the gov needs more revenue the only way for them to get it is to raise taxes again. and then people have less to spend which generates even lower taxes and on and on.

I say stimulating personal spending at a lower tax rate will generate more $$$. Example: With lower taxes I can re-hire the maid service I used to have. They in turn pay taxes on their income. They also generate taxes when they buy stuff. I had to cancel them a few years ago when California's taxes went through the roof. Now they are unemployed, not paying income taxes, not generating sales taxes, but they still get my money through unemployment.

I agree for the most part. The only thing I would add is that those in the top tax bracket usually already have all the assets they need so tax cuts more often than not only end up in savings accounts or are invested in markets.

I seem to remember hearing that personal savings are at an all time high.

But you pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why unemployment benefits being extended and things like the earned income tax credit and food stamps are so effective at stimulating the economy because they go directly to folks that have to spend them right now.

Guys we can say it's 35% this and 39% that. The truth. With all of the deductions NO ONE pays anything close to that.

(02-15-2011 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why unemployment benefits being extended and things like the earned income tax credit and food stamps are so effective at stimulating the economy because they go directly to folks that have to spend them right now.

(02-15-2011 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I agree for the most part. The only thing I would add is that those in the top tax bracket usually already have all the assets they need so tax cuts more often than not only end up in savings accounts or are invested in markets.

What gives you the right to determine that? What makes you think you're entitled to someone's earnings?

What gives you the right to determine that?

You want to compare an individual with that of a political party. Individuals don't decide tax rates. Voting blocs do.

GIVE ME A TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRAT any day over a cut tax and spend Republican.

You guy's are all over that cut tax part. Now cutting spending? The deal McConell and Obama came up with in December shows me no one is interested in balancing the books. Republican's will be thrown out on their asses if they try to cut entitlements.

(02-15-2011 01:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What gives you the right to determine that?

You want to compare an individual with that of a political party. Individuals don't decide tax rates. Voting blocs do.

GIVE ME A TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRAT any day over a cut tax and spend Republican.

Damn, you just eliminated 95% of the Republican party.

Give me a tax cutting, spend cutting politician. But go on pretending you don't see all the posts on here about CUTTING SPENDING.

(02-15-2011 01:19 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I agree for the most part. The only thing I would add is that those in the top tax bracket usually already have all the assets they need so tax cuts more often than not only end up in savings accounts or are invested in markets.

What gives you the right to determine that? What makes you think you're entitled to someone's earnings?

Determine what? I did not determine anything. I simply stated my belief that tax cuts for the top bracket usually end up in savings accounts instead of stimulating the economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13...m=referral

(02-15-2011 02:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 01:19 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I agree for the most part. The only thing I would add is that those in the top tax bracket usually already have all the assets they need so tax cuts more often than not only end up in savings accounts or are invested in markets.

What gives you the right to determine that? What makes you think you're entitled to someone's earnings?

Determine what? I did not determine anything. I simply stated my belief that tax cuts for the top bracket usually end up in savings accounts instead of stimulating the economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13...m=referral

I'm pretty sure that the 'top bracket' didn't get rich by dropping their money into a savings account, where it earns a fraction of a percent in interest.

They take the money and either expand their own operations, or invest in other companies, who then expand their operations.

(02-15-2011 01:27 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guy's are all over that cut tax part. Now cutting spending? The deal McConell and Obama came up with in December shows me no one is interested in balancing the books. Republican's will be thrown out on their asses if they try to cut entitlements.

Maybe. But, they'll be thrown out if they don't.

That's the problem. Entitlements are the biggest part of the budget.

Now we can't get big gov't pared down b/c every faction wants "their share."

It's almost like someone had a plan...

(02-15-2011 11:07 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 10:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's good Reb, but Obama lost me with the tax cut deal he signed in December. We all ***** and complain but at the end of the day. Both parties just keep the foot on the gas pedal............ off the cliff. Wish we had another Clinton.

the foot on the gas pedal............ off the cliff, has nothing to do with tax rates. You continue to identify the problem, spending, but you want to attack something else.

What do you think revenue would be if tax rates were 100%?

Probably the same amount as if tax rates were 0%.

(02-15-2011 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why unemployment benefits being extended and things like the earned income tax credit and food stamps are so effective at stimulating the economy because they go directly to folks that have to spend them right now.

UNREAL.

That's a VERY tortured perspective of reality. Paying somebody 1/3 the wage they would get making a car ... performing a service ... or doing damn near anything of value ... so they can sit at home and do nothing. As for the rest of the 2/3 of the value that's lost in that mix? Well apparently that doesn't matter. Certainly if they had a job they wouldn't be spending a dime more than they would on welfare, right?

(02-15-2011 02:17 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-15-2011 01:27 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guy's are all over that cut tax part. Now cutting spending? The deal McConell and Obama came up with in December shows me no one is interested in balancing the books. Republican's will be thrown out on their asses if they try to cut entitlements.

Maybe. But, they'll be thrown out if they don't.

That's the problem. Entitlements are the biggest part of the budget.

Now we can't get big gov't pared down b/c every faction wants "their share."

It's almost like someone had a plan...

Unfortunately I don't think they will be thrown out if they don't. They're more likely to get thrown out if they cut entitlements, same as with Democrats.

I would think they could at least cut back the entitlements that Bush added. If they (Dems and Repubs) can't even agree on that, I have little hope.

Just something to think about:

Federally, I'm in the 28% tax bracket ($82,400 to 171,850) although I'll probably pay a little less. California taxes me at 9.3% for each dollar I earn and then re-taxes me at 8.75% when I try to spend what's left. My property tax rate is 1.2% on a 650k home but that doesn't include nearly 2 dozen special assessments with schools being the biggest ones. There are hidden taxes built in to smokes (87 cents per pack) and booze ($3.30 per gallon for the hard stuff and .20 per beer) and when I buy them I pay sales tax on the hidden taxes. My taxes supposedly pay for roads but if I want to use a few of them I have to pay tolls and if I want to park I have to feed the meter - these are double taxes. My utilities bills have a variety of taxes and special assessments. My vehicle registration tax is 1.15% and I have two cars. A fee has been added to my home owners insurance to help pay for fire protection for areas hundreds of miles from me. The combined state/federal tax on gas is 66.1 cents per gallon. There is a special fee charged to all new tires sold. There's an E-waste fee. The list is endless.

When you look at this, the government in all its incarnations, ends up with more of my money than I do. How can anyone justify raising taxes? If the government can take this much from me and a lot more from people who make a lot more than me then they just don't know what they're doing. To think that some of my money is in one of Murbarak's bank accounts just pisses me off.

(02-15-2011 02:48 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Just something to think about:

Federally, I'm in the 28% tax bracket ($82,400 to 171,850) although I'll probably pay a little less. California taxes me at 9.3% for each dollar I earn and then re-taxes me at 8.75% when I try to spend what's left. My property tax rate is 1.2% on a 650k home but that doesn't include nearly 2 dozen special assessments with schools being the biggest ones. There are hidden taxes built in to smokes (87 cents per pack) and booze ($3.30 per gallon for the hard stuff and .20 per beer) and when I buy them I pay sales tax on the hidden taxes. My taxes supposedly pay for roads but if I want to use a few of them I have to pay tolls and if I want to park I have to feed the meter - these are double taxes. My utilities bills have a variety of taxes and special assessments. My vehicle registration tax is 1.15% and I have two cars. A fee has been added to my home owners insurance to help pay for fire protection for areas hundreds of miles from me. The combined state/federal tax on gas is 66.1 cents per gallon. There is a special fee charged to all new tires sold. There's an E-waste fee. The list is endless.

When you look at this, the government in all its incarnations, ends up with more of my money than I do. How can anyone justify raising taxes? If the government can take this much from me and a lot more from people who make a lot more than me then they just don't know what they're doing. To think that some of my money is in one of Murbarak's bank accounts just pisses me off.

Stop being so greedy!

(02-15-2011 02:48 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Just something to think about:

Federally, I'm in the 28% tax bracket ($82,400 to 171,850) although I'll probably pay a little less. California taxes me at 9.3% for each dollar I earn and then re-taxes me at 8.75% when I try to spend what's left. My property tax rate is 1.2% on a 650k home but that doesn't include nearly 2 dozen special assessments with schools being the biggest ones. There are hidden taxes built in to smokes (87 cents per pack) and booze ($3.30 per gallon for the hard stuff and .20 per beer) and when I buy them I pay sales tax on the hidden taxes. My taxes supposedly pay for roads but if I want to use a few of them I have to pay tolls and if I want to park I have to feed the meter - these are double taxes. My utilities bills have a variety of taxes and special assessments. My vehicle registration tax is 1.15% and I have two cars. A fee has been added to my home owners insurance to help pay for fire protection for areas hundreds of miles from me. The combined state/federal tax on gas is 66.1 cents per gallon. There is a special fee charged to all new tires sold. There's an E-waste fee. The list is endless.

When you look at this, the government in all its incarnations, ends up with more of my money than I do. How can anyone justify raising taxes? If the government can take this much from me and a lot more from people who make a lot more than me then they just don't know what they're doing. To think that some of my money is in one of Murbarak's bank accounts just pisses me off.

True. But we need to figure out how to accomplish spending cuts, since it's apparently not possible at this time. Congress needs to grow some ***** and get it done.