Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 17th, 2011, 11:29 AM   #21
g00fy1
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
 
g00fy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-19-10
Location: Monroe, MI
Posts: 396
iTrader: (14)
The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.

The top 10 percent of earners paid 70 percent of Federal Income Taxes.

With that said how can anyone think the "rich" aren't getting taxed enough?

The truth is that we have the most progressive tax structure in the world. Keep over taxing the wealth earners and they will leave for friendlier tax countries, in fact they are.

You could CONFISCATE 100 percent of the wealth of every millionaire and billionaire and you would only have enough to run the country for a few months then that would be it because there would be no more to take.

Throughout our history it's been proven time and time again that lowering tax rates generates more revenue for the government. Even JFK understood this, "an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits".

Either we get back to fiscal responsibility and a fully constitutional government or we will go the route of the old USSR and dissolve. Don't think for a minute that just because it's the U.S.A. that it can't happen.
g00fy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 12:40 PM   #22
stinkpickle
bitter clinger
 
stinkpickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-07
Location: Millbury, OH
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: (9)
well said.
stinkpickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 01:41 PM   #23
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00fy1 View Post
The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.

The top 10 percent of earners paid 70 percent of Federal Income Taxes.

With that said how can anyone think the "rich" aren't getting taxed enough?

The truth is that we have the most progressive tax structure in the world. Keep over taxing the wealth earners and they will leave for friendlier tax countries, in fact they are.

You could CONFISCATE 100 percent of the wealth of every millionaire and billionaire and you would only have enough to run the country for a few months then that would be it because there would be no more to take.

Throughout our history it's been proven time and time again that lowering tax rates generates more revenue for the government. Even JFK understood this, "an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits".

Either we get back to fiscal responsibility and a fully constitutional government or we will go the route of the old USSR and dissolve. Don't think for a minute that just because it's the U.S.A. that it can't happen.
What point are you wanting to "get back" to? Taxes right now are among the lowest in history, especially for the rich. The only reason the top 1 percents share of taxes is going up is that the top 1 percents share of income is going up. Their actual tax rate is low compared to most of the history of income taxes in this country.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 02:12 PM   #24
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,502
iTrader: (7)
I like anyone that wants to cut spending.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 02:43 PM   #25
g00fy1
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
 
g00fy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-19-10
Location: Monroe, MI
Posts: 396
iTrader: (14)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
What point are you wanting to "get back" to? Taxes right now are among the lowest in history, especially for the rich. The only reason the top 1 percents share of taxes is going up is that the top 1 percents share of income is going up. Their actual tax rate is low compared to most of the history of income taxes in this country.
As I said, fiscal responsibility. We will never tax ourselves out of this, it will take massive spending cuts.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
__________________
Life is tough, even tougher if your stupid. - John Wayne
g00fy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 02:57 PM   #26
ScOoTeR
GLFWDA Member #07520
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,222
iTrader: (35)
I gave up on the tea party; ever since I found the lemon party, I know I have a group that is aligned with my interests.

They have a great website: lemonparty.org
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 03:54 PM   #27
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
We have the lowest top tax rate we've had since 1931, except for a few year at the end of the Reagan/beginning of Bush #1 administrations. In the last 98 years of income tax the top rate has only been lower in 16 of them. Many years it was much higher, as high as 92%. We've had a national debt since before the Civil War.
So again, when was this era of "fiscal responsibility" you wish to return to?

I don't think we can save our way out of this.

Last edited by brewmenn; August 17th, 2011 at 04:17 PM.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 03:55 PM   #28
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
I gave up on the tea party; ever since I found the lemon party, I know I have a group that is aligned with my interests.

They have a great website: lemonparty.org
For some reason I'm thinking I shouldn't check that site out from work...
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 04:32 PM   #29
stinkpickle
bitter clinger
 
stinkpickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-07
Location: Millbury, OH
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: (9)
Im not so sure a tax cut is what I want as much as NO MORE HAND OUTS. Im tired of hand outs to countries that hate us, the "poor" who don't do a darn thing to help them selves out (apply for a pell grant and get your self to school, get a job, it can be done, I friggen did it!). Im tired of parasitic groups who suck dollars from the government for example: the arts and stupid research (cow farts and their effect on the environment). I hate seeing state governments throwing money at schools that have a leadership problem not a money problem. Did I mention giving money to countries that hate us? I cant stand seeing the government take taxes to pay for over priced services that the private sector can handle. Trash collection comes to mind. If the tea party supports those views then count me in.
stinkpickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 08:40 PM   #30
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 19,959
iTrader: (21)
I like what the tea party has done in bringing about awareness that a new group CAN make a difference.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 09:05 PM   #31
upchuck
Senior Member
 
upchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-16-07
Location: grand rapids, Michigan
Posts: 1,094
iTrader: (3)
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/...us-reagan-cult
upchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 10:17 PM   #32
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by upchuck View Post
Very good article.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011, 10:56 PM   #33
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,863
iTrader: (5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
We have the lowest top tax rate we've had since 1931, except for a few year at the end of the Reagan/beginning of Bush #1 administrations. In the last 98 years of income tax the top rate has only been lower in 16 of them. Many years it was much higher, as high as 92%. We've had a national debt since before the Civil War.
So again, when was this era of "fiscal responsibility" you wish to return to?

I don't think we can save our way out of this.
You're right, You can't save money if you're in debt. . You also can't Spend your way out of debt. Which is the current method of 'balancing the budget". At least Saving/not spending will get us CLOSER to the goal then farther away. I think it's completely feasible to stop piling on the debt. Would it be easy? No. Will it be worth it? I dunno, but I'll ask the 2 month old laying next to me when he turns 25. I'm sure he'd be happier with our country getting out of debt.

I'm also in the pool of thought that the Government CAN'T get us out of the Economic slum that we are in. It's up to the people to start living in thier means and not relying on the Government to 'help them'.

I'm also against taxing the wealthy more. I'm poor, BTW. There shoudl be a flat rate. EVERYBODY pays an amount. No tax deductions. Just a flat rate. I don't know what the percentage woudl be, but it would be Uniform 10K/year to 500K a year. If you tax the wealthy more you're punishing them for being responsible with thier money and becoming wealthy. If that's how you want it then fine. But realize that if you punish people for becoming wealthy there is no motivation for people to be wealthy. Then you just get some kind of welfare state but now that all the wealthy people are gone there are no cash cows to fund said welfare. What do we do then? Tax the "Kind of wealthy".
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2011, 01:04 AM   #34
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
You're right, You can't save money if you're in debt. . You also can't Spend your way out of debt. Which is the current method of 'balancing the budget". At least Saving/not spending will get us CLOSER to the goal then farther away. I think it's completely feasible to stop piling on the debt. Would it be easy? No. Will it be worth it? I dunno, but I'll ask the 2 month old laying next to me when he turns 25. I'm sure he'd be happier with our country getting out of debt.

I'm also in the pool of thought that the Government CAN'T get us out of the Economic slum that we are in. It's up to the people to start living in thier means and not relying on the Government to 'help them'.

I'm also against taxing the wealthy more. I'm poor, BTW. There shoudl be a flat rate. EVERYBODY pays an amount. No tax deductions. Just a flat rate. I don't know what the percentage woudl be, but it would be Uniform 10K/year to 500K a year. If you tax the wealthy more you're punishing them for being responsible with thier money and becoming wealthy. If that's how you want it then fine. But realize that if you punish people for becoming wealthy there is no motivation for people to be wealthy. Then you just get some kind of welfare state but now that all the wealthy people are gone there are no cash cows to fund said welfare. What do we do then? Tax the "Kind of wealthy".
So from 1932 to 1981 no one was motivated to get wealthy? The top tax rate through those years ranged from 63% to 94% source , and yet those years are among the most prosperous this country has ever seen. I understand the theory that if you keep taxes on the wealthy low that they will help keep the economy moving by investing and spending money, but the taxes are historically low source and yet we're still not seeing much economic growth. The theory isn't working.

The average rate (for 2008) was 12.24% source , so that would have to be your flat rate to bring in the same amount of money as now. I can't argue that it wouldn't be fair, but with the gap between rich and poor already widening I'm not sure if it would be good for the country in the long run. Revolutions start when you have nothing left to lose.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2011, 01:33 AM   #35
@_'-'
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-20-10
Location: MICHIGAN
Posts: 507
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So from 1932 to 1981 no one was motivated to get wealthy? The top tax rate through those years ranged from 63% to 94% and yet those years are among the most prosperous this country has ever seen.
There was WWI, WWII, the korean war, Vietnam and the Cold war that fueld the american economy in the early years.
@_'-' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2011, 01:46 AM   #36
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooleo8 View Post
There was WWI, WWII, the korean war, Vietnam and the Cold war that fueld the american economy in the early years.
So why aren't the Afghanistan and Iraq wars having the same effect?

And WWI was before 1932.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2011, 08:08 AM   #37
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So why aren't the Afghanistan and Iraq wars having the same effect?

And WWI was before 1932.
Because war is not productive, anyone with two brain cells to rub together should understand that. It's no different than having one guy dig holes and another guy fill them in. Sure they both have jobs but nothing is really being accomplished.

The reason the economy is in the tank is because it is based on the Keynesian theory which, over the last 100 years, has proven itself to be a failure. No amount of tax hike will save us from our debt and no one will cut spending of any significance. This ship is going to sink.

Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2011, 11:37 AM   #38
g00fy1
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
 
g00fy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-19-10
Location: Monroe, MI
Posts: 396
iTrader: (14)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
We have the lowest top tax rate we've had since 1931, except for a few year at the end of the Reagan/beginning of Bush #1 administrations. In the last 98 years of income tax the top rate has only been lower in 16 of them. Many years it was much higher, as high as 92%. We've had a national debt since before the Civil War.
So again, when was this era of "fiscal responsibility" you wish to return to?

I don't think we can save our way out of this.
I didn't say an "era" of fiscal responsibility, just "fiscal responsibility". Fiscal responsibility would be spending OUR money responsibly. Here's a couple of links to some of the ridiculous shit our government spends OUR money on:

20 Most Ridiculous Examples
PDF: Wastebook, 100 Examples

Why do people immediately go after the successful? Why punish them for our government's irresponsibility? For 2011 the federal INCOME tax bracket for income above $379,000 is about 35%. That's not enough?!? Maybe we should steal 70% so we can continue things like "Studying Male Prostitutes in Vietnam $442,340" or "Teaching South African Men How to Wash Their Genitalia $823,200" or maybe "Studying World of Warcraft and Other Virtual Games - $2.9 million". It's bullshit and people have had enough!

Sure, we can save our way out of this, it's the only way to do it without further burdening the citizens who are burdened enough by having to basically work almost 3 months for free just to cover their taxes.

The federal government has gotten so far away from what it was initially intended to do. It's an out of control monster at this point and the only way to tame it is to stop feeding it.

Between 2000 and 2010 total federal spending grew 62%. Discretionary spending has risen 104% since 1990 while Defense and Homeland Security outlays have grown 51% since 1990. According to the OMB we will double our national debt by 2020 and the interest on the debt will quadruple in the same time frame unless we control our budget.

One of the problems is our baseline budgeting. Every one of the recent stimulus bills and the Obamacare bill is now included in our projected budget from now on. The automatic annual increases to the baseline budget rises $9.5 trillion in the next 10 years without adding ANY more NEW spending. It's absolutely out of control.

I'm rambling on here but my point of fiscal responsibility has a simple analogy: When you spend too much and get yourself into too much debt, should your employer be forced to give you more money under threat of prison time or should you stop spending?
g00fy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2011, 08:03 PM   #39
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
You said "back to fiscal responsibility" which implies that at some point you think we were fiscally responsible. I was just wondering when you think that was. For much of our nation's history when things happened that required the government to spend money, like wars and depressions, taxes were raised to help pay for it. Fiscal responsibility. In the early 1980's we stopped doing that. Under Reagan, rather than doing the "fiscally responsible" thing and raising taxes, we just started borrowing money and leaving our children and grandchildren to figure out how to pay for it. Now the bill is coming due and no one wants to pay.

I agree that we need to cut spending a lot. I agree that much of government spending is wasteful. But I don't think we can cut our way out of this. All the things in the report you posted come to only about 0.3% of the budget. To get to a balanced budget without raising taxes will require going after the big ticket items, defense and entitlements. If you cut entitlements enough to get rid of the deficit you'll have to increase military spending just to quell the riots. What's happened in Europe will pale by comparison. The wider the separation between rich and poor becomes the worse it will get until we end up with either a police state or a socialist revolution.

The reason people go after the successful is obvious. They are the ones with money. If you need money you go to someone with money to get some. You can't get money from someone without any. Is 35% enough? For most of the past 100 years the answer people came up with is "no".

What really amazes me about the tea partyists is how they have been able to convince the sheeple that taxes, especially on the rich, are high right now, when in reality they are near all time lows.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2011, 10:39 PM   #40
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,863
iTrader: (5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So from 1932 to 1981 no one was motivated to get wealthy? The top tax rate through those years ranged from 63% to 94% source , and yet those years are among the most prosperous this country has ever seen. I understand the theory that if you keep taxes on the wealthy low that they will help keep the economy moving by investing and spending money, but the taxes are historically low source and yet we're still not seeing much economic growth. The theory isn't working.

The average rate (for 2008) was 12.24% source , so that would have to be your flat rate to bring in the same amount of money as now. I can't argue that it wouldn't be fair, but with the gap between rich and poor already widening I'm not sure if it would be good for the country in the long run. Revolutions start when you have nothing left to lose.
I'm not saying tax breaks for the rich. I'm just saying that the majority of our country, in my assumption, are not considered 'wealthy'. How much of the majority of that poor actually pay taxes? I'm saying that we should get rid of the Useless tax table and do X% for everybody. It has nothing to do with the rich. It has to do with the poor. Because the poor are a majority of the make up of our country they have a larger ability to create tax revenue. At the moment they pay very little in taxes because of the tax tables but if everybody paid X% you woudl be getting a ridiculously larger amount of Tax revenue from the poor. But at the same time the weatlhy would be paying the same tax and that might even allow them to create more business because they dont' have a higher tax. Seems simple to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post

The reason the economy is in the tank is because it is based on the Keynesian theory which, over the last 100 years, has proven itself to be a failure. No amount of tax hike will save us from our debt and no one will cut spending of any significance. This ship is going to sink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria...s_Cycle_Theory

exactly.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.29329 seconds with 51 queries