The Big Tax Question

OMG! I repeat, but I have no idea what you cannot understand. Taxes are increased by more workers. It says nothing about rate. More earners pay more tax, not a higher rate. Tax rate is absolutely increased by inflation. When you earn more, you pay a higher rate. When everyone earns more (inflation), everyone pays a higher rate and the government collects a higher tax rate. There is nothing controversial about that and there is nothing complicated about that. If you want to play dumb with that, go play by yourself.

 

As I stated some posts ago the tax rate will remain the same but the revenue raised will change is that to hard for you to comprehend?

Post #10 you stated and I quote
BTW, taxes are being increased every second of every day - two different ways. First off, every additional worker increases the tax base

Taxes are not been increased Tax revenu is been increased they are 2 diffrent things

Post #12 again I quote
and the tax rate is absolutely increased by inflation

Again untrue the tax rate remains constant unless changed by goverment what changes is the tax payers personal income and they move into a higher/lower tax bracket

Now try having a conversation without resorting to insults I belive you said something similar to Moen a few posts back well try abiding by your own words

 

This is my post #11 Tax is not increased by inflation nor by more/less workers all that is increased/decreased is the amount of revenue raised (or lack of it in real terms) the tax rate will remain the same unless it is raised or lowerd by goverment

I have highlighted the relevent part which you seem to have ignored

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me as to what part of that highlighted section you disagree with as you next post went on to tell me I was wrong yet now you are trying to say that is what you meant?

 

I think this as well. Tax breaks can always be reinstated. Everybody agrees costs have gone up, yet disagrees that the govt.'s cost have. Strange.

 

That isnt raising taxes.

 

Taxes = Revenue

I don't want to see the government raise its revenue when private enterprise is suffering and having difficulty raising theirs. Increasing taxes is a vicious circle: Revenue increase = Less money in taxpayers pockets = Less private spending = Less revenue for the government = Need for more revenue for the government = Revenue increase = Less money in taxpayers pockets.

 

I am glad to see someone here know what the definition of taxes is.

 

Perhaps 9/11 didn't affect academia, but the rest of the economy did experience an economic recession. There were other contributing factors, but most agree that 9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back. It wasn't a prolonged recession, but it gave Bush the excuse he needed to continue his tax cut policy. I don't know if you remember, but a huge majority of the United States supported the costly wars which you complain about. So your point is that Republican politicians never want to raise taxes. WOW! You are so smart. Figured that out all by yourself I bet.

Now let's talk about the other end of the spectrum. Democrats always want to raise taxes. The question is WHY? Why do they want the money? I would support raising taxes on the rich if a law was written mandating that all additional revenue generated be used solely to reduce the deficit. But they won't do that. They don't want to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. They just want to spend more money.

The answer to your question is NOW. We should raise taxes with a deficit reduction clause to prevent the politicians from spending it. It will also ensure the stagnation of the economy, prevent job creation, and ensure that BO is a one term President.

 

Still havent said what part of my statement you disagree with have you? Ah of course not because you can not but dont have the honesty to admit you got it wrong LOL

 

I think we should hand out more rich man tax gifts when they get out there and fix the roads, bridges, and pick up the trash everyday.

One problem with the one term President comment there......the only thing who will be running against him, will be republicans. Nobody wants republicans in the White House so why even waste the time voting in 2012? Nobody wants another member of the George Bush era in office. He literally scared the population into voting him out and ushering Obama in to keep that party hanging out at Fox studios.

REPUBLICANS CANNOT WIN IN 2012.
They're more scary than 10 Obamas.

 

I will go a step further. Cut military spending, eliminate tax loopholes, and stop subsidizing private industries that are making huge profits already. I believe that the entire country ran up the debt and we should pay it off as a country. The middle class has been hit hard in the last ten years. Wages are flat, unemployment is high, and everything costs more. The middle class is tapped out. So where is the money? Well, one estimate has the private sector sitting on 2 trillion dollars most of which came from the bailout funded by we the tax payers. If they can afford to sit on that kind capital, they can afford to pony up more in taxes to help reduce our national debt. Why are we only looking at cuts in social programs? Why not cut the military? Why not tax the rich? Why not close loopholes? The pain should be across the board not only focused on poor people that are already suffering.
Thanks for actually answering the question. Few here are willing to examine their own ideology.
One additional point. When Reagan took office, the country had 1 trillion dollars in debt. This is a fact, not an opinion. He raised the debt limit 18 different times in 8 years. When he walked out of office, the national debt was 3 trillion dollars. Bush 1 added 2 trillion in 4 years to the national debt. Bill Clinton not only balanced the budget, he handed Bush 2 a surplus. Bush 2 added 5 trillion dollars to the national debt in his 8 years. So if you total up just the Republican's contributions to the 14 trillion national debt, they account for over 10 trillion dollars. Now who are the Spendy-Wendy's in this country?

 

Several comments on your rant;
Do you realize that the last three congresses account for over 40% of out national debt? (Congress writes and passes the bills, not the president.)
Using the strict definition of "middle class" (the middle 1/3 of all income), 50% of them pay no income tax.
The private sector must sit on that kind capital, because they must prepare for the upcoming tax increases BO keeps threatening them with. They are virtually required to do so by law to cover the pall of the dip's proposed tax increases.

BTW, apparently you have not yet read Coburn's proposed budget. You might be surprised.

 

A republican's view: (IMO)

If a republican president is critisized, blame the democratic congress.

If a democratic president is critisized, it's his fault not the republican congress.

If both the president and congress are democrats, whine about everything.

If both the president and congress are republicans, all is well in the world.


*The above is true (IMO) for the hard-line republicans, roughly 1/4 of the party. Most of the rest listen to the hard-liners though, and follow their lead (like sheep). There are also some republicans who are getting tired of all the BS from BOTH parties. The same could be said for the democratic side. I'm sure I'll see a similarly styled retort shortly LOL

 

And that is exactly why it is still Bush's economy, right?

 

He did contribute to our current economy in a negative way, the housing bubble was burst due to his incompetance.

I know you'd rather blame Obama for our current situation, and you may have a few points, but ignoring what others have done to cause the crisis is typical of a hard-liner.

Bush Jr. was an incompetant fool, but I also blame Clinton for some of our current problems.

 

Wow. The private sector must have some forsight to be holding on to so much capital for so long. I mean wven before Obama started running for President. How'd they know that so long ago?

 

You are welcome, but it has nothing to do with ideology. While Republican politicians will always oppose tax increases, that is not the belief of all Republicans. The politicians can't support tax hikes because they will lose votes in the next election. Many Republican citizens have no problem with an occasional tax increase provided that the money is going to be used properly. The Republican position is that a tax increase during an economic recovery will result in stunted job growth and limit economic expansion. Democrats seem to think that philosophy is a myth of Reagan's trickle down economics. The fact is that it has merit. When people like Steve Wynn say they will not expand until Obama is out of office, it should ring loud an clear that the Republican concern over tax hikes is very real. Furthermore, Democrats have never used the additional revenues provided by tax increases to reduce the deficit.

I answered your question, now please answer mine. If we raise taxes, do you really believe that the money will be used to reduce the deficit?

 

Probably not all of it. To say it will all be used to reduce the deficit/national debt would not be learning the lessons history has taught us. Clinton certainly used tax increases to pay down the deficit but the debt continued to rise under Bush anyway. Medicare part D was unfunded, two wars were unfunded, TARP was unfunded, and the debt exploded. Why would they do such a thing if they are the party of fiscal conservatism? Read this and tell me where the Republicans have varied from this plan over the last three decades.

 

Perhaps that is exactly why "Angry old white uneducated basement-dwelling shut-ins" formed the Tea Party.

 

When all is said and done, they'll vote Republican anyway. They'll vote Republican because they still believe the nonsense that the Right is the party of fiscal conservatism in spite of 30 years of evidence to the contrary. What good is a group of people that are angry with their own party but vote for them anyway? At least the Democrats respond to their disagreements with their own party by staying home on Election Day. They refuse to hold their noses and pull the leaver for someone they don't like. It can be argued that this practice puts them at a disadvantage but it also holds their party to a higher standard. If you know that your base will vote for you no matter who you run, you end up with people like Palin, Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Cain. Not your stellar choice of candidates.