Debate 10-18 - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

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!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 19th, 2011, 01:40 PM   #21
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
I'm ok with the increase in sales tax if it honestly gets offset elsewhere. The thing that I like about the federal sales tax is that all the tourists coming to our country and all the people living off of the government now get to share in some of our costs.

Newt said it the best to Herman last night. He said he thinks the concept has merit but is not as simple or straightforward as it sounds on the surface. He also said it would take years to impliment. I think he's right. He also complimented Herman on his efforts. I really like the fact that both Newt and Herman continue to take the high road.
you want to tax money you just gave to people? If you think they can get by on 9% less, just give them 9% less. If they really need what they get to get by, you'll just end up giving them 9% more to cover the 9% tax.

I'm just not seeing how a masive tax reduction for the wealthy and a masive tax increase on the poor helps solve any of our problems.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 19th, 2011, 01:55 PM   #22
feva4u
LCG
 
feva4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-01-07
Location: Petoskey, MI
Posts: 10,494
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Maybe it'll keep more people from coming here and living off the rest of our tax dollars. Maybe it'll make it expensive enough for 30 some odd million people to return home and stay there. Maybe it'll start making people that are recieving money for nothing right now pick up where the 30 some odd million left off. Stop putting food out for the birds, the birds stop coming. They either figure out how to find food on thier own, or go somewhere else to get free food. Makes sense in my feable mind anyway.
__________________
My Jeep
feva4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011, 03:06 PM   #23
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feva4u View Post
Maybe it'll keep more people from coming here and living off the rest of our tax dollars. Maybe it'll make it expensive enough for 30 some odd million people to return home and stay there. Maybe it'll start making people that are recieving money for nothing right now pick up where the 30 some odd million left off. Stop putting food out for the birds, the birds stop coming. They either figure out how to find food on thier own, or go somewhere else to get free food. Makes sense in my feable mind anyway.
I suppose that it's possible that increasing the cost of everything 9% might provide enough disincentive to keep people away. I doubt it would have a major effect though. You're not really taking down the bird feeder, you're just taking seed from the bottom and pouring it back in at the top.
I still don't understand the reasoning that increase taxes on the wealthy is a disincentive to work hard, but increase taxes on the poor is an incentive to work hard. I just don't see it working that way.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011, 03:47 PM   #24
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,065
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
you want to tax money you just gave to people? If you think they can get by on 9% less, just give them 9% less. If they really need what they get to get by, you'll just end up giving them 9% more to cover the 9% tax.

I'm just not seeing how a masive tax reduction for the wealthy and a masive tax increase on the poor helps solve any of our problems.
Yeah well these people that use their food stamps and bridge cards to buy beer, steak and other pricey foods can start paying back a little. I know a dirtbag who sells food he gets for free.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011, 03:55 PM   #25
feva4u
LCG
 
feva4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-01-07
Location: Petoskey, MI
Posts: 10,494
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Yeah well these people that use their food stamps and bridge cards to buy beer, steak and other pricey foods can start paying back a little. I know a dirtbag who sells food he gets for free.
We all do, there in lies the problem.
__________________
My Jeep
feva4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011, 05:42 PM   #26
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Yeah well these people that use their food stamps and bridge cards to buy beer, steak and other pricey foods can start paying back a little. I know a dirtbag who sells food he gets for free.
How about we reform that system rather than just taxing it?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011, 06:35 PM   #27
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I suppose that it's possible that increasing the cost of everything 9% might provide enough disincentive to keep people away. I doubt it would have a major effect though. You're not really taking down the bird feeder, you're just taking seed from the bottom and pouring it back in at the top.
I still don't understand the reasoning that increase taxes on the wealthy is a disincentive to work hard, but increase taxes on the poor is an incentive to work hard. I just don't see it working that way.
You are forgetting about the fact the cost of goods would also go down.

Its not as simple as just adding 9% to everything.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 08:12 AM   #28
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Cain himself admit's that 999 is revenue neutral, if you take it at face value, which I do not.

The real problem is not how taxes are gathered, although it is a problem.

The real problem is the amount collected and spent, and that they aren't equal to each other.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 10:18 AM   #29
ajmorell
Senior Member
 
ajmorell's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-22-07
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 3,554
iTrader: (16)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ajmorell
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
The real problem is the amount collected and spent, and that they aren't equal to each other.
That part especially!
ajmorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 10:42 AM   #30
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
You are forgetting about the fact the cost of goods would also go down.

Its not as simple as just adding 9% to everything.
I'm ignoring a lot of things so I don't have to write a book each time.

Sure, some business might lower prices due to the drop in business and payroll taxes, and that would help the poor. They might even increase the pay to employees. But I'm sure that they wouldn't pass all of the saving along to their customers and employees, some they would keep for themselves, which would tend to help the wealthy. The overall effect on the distribution of wealth would be impossible to accurately predict. It could end up a wash.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 11:44 AM   #31
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,761
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feva4u View Post
Maybe it'll keep more people from coming here and living off the rest of our tax dollars. Maybe it'll make it expensive enough for 30 some odd million people to return home and stay there. Maybe it'll start making people that are recieving money for nothing right now pick up where the 30 some odd million left off. Stop putting food out for the birds, the birds stop coming. They either figure out how to find food on thier own, or go somewhere else to get free food. Makes sense in my feable mind anyway.
I see it like this as well.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 12:20 PM   #32
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
I find it interesting that for all the comments about our politics on this site, bashing this candidate or that one, no one watched the debate.
I don't have television - I'm trying to find the time to search for it and watch it on the internets.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 12:22 PM   #33
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I'm ignoring a lot of things so I don't have to write a book each time.

Sure, some business might lower prices due to the drop in business and payroll taxes, and that would help the poor. They might even increase the pay to employees. But I'm sure that they wouldn't pass all of the saving along to their customers and employees, some they would keep for themselves, which would tend to help the wealthy. The overall effect on the distribution of wealth would be impossible to accurately predict. It could end up a wash.
Possible, yes.

But if I saw that my overall costs were going to decrease, I would lower my prices to be more competitive. Thats how free markets and capitalism work.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 01:14 PM   #34
Ironman Offroad
Cool parts peddler
 
Ironman Offroad's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-10
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Posts: 1,554
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Sure, some business might lower prices due to the drop in business and payroll taxes, and that would help the poor. They might even increase the pay to employees. But I'm sure that they wouldn't pass all of the saving along to their customers and employees, some they would keep for themselves, which would tend to help the wealthy. The overall effect on the distribution of wealth would be impossible to accurately predict. It could end up a wash.
If you lower the costs of being in business could that not give some of the not so weathy the opportunity to grow a business for themselves and hire others to work for them thus providing employment opportunities for others?
If you remove the capital gains tax, would not others with money to invest invest in such a opportunity? You have to look at the growth potential of this plan.
Ironman Offroad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 05:52 PM   #35
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman Offroad View Post
If you lower the costs of being in business could that not give some of the not so weathy the opportunity to grow a business for themselves and hire others to work for them thus providing employment opportunities for others?
If you remove the capital gains tax, would not others with money to invest invest in such a opportunity? You have to look at the growth potential of this plan.
In theory it would seem like it could work that way. In reality, I'm not so sure. Taxes now are near historic lows, and yet we don't see that happening. Taxes in the last 1940's, 50' and 60's were among the highest in history, and yet we saw great prosperity.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011, 08:13 PM   #36
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
In theory it would seem like it could work that way. In reality, I'm not so sure. Taxes now are near historic lows, and yet we don't see that happening. Taxes in the last 1940's, 50' and 60's were among the highest in history, and yet we saw great prosperity.
That prosperity wasnt because of the high taxation. The high taxation was the Governments greed in light of the countries productivity and ingenuity.

And nevermind not a sole was paying anywhere near the high end of the bracket they were in. Its never happened and never will. Thats why something like a consumption tax is so appealing... No deductions, no loopholes, no offshore crap. You spend a dollar in the US, it gets taxed.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2011, 01:32 AM   #37
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
That prosperity wasnt because of the high taxation. The high taxation was the Governments greed in light of the countries productivity and ingenuity.

And nevermind not a sole was paying anywhere near the high end of the bracket they were in. Its never happened and never will. Thats why something like a consumption tax is so appealing... No deductions, no loopholes, no offshore crap. You spend a dollar in the US, it gets taxed.
No, I didn't think the prosperity was because of the high tax rate, but it definitely was in spite of it.

And since the higher the income level the less percentage gets spent those at the high end won't be paying as much in terms of percentage of income.

I'm not completely opposed to a consumption tax, but it would need to be structured so that it didn't end up being a regressive tax.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2011, 07:18 AM   #38
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
And since the higher the income level the less percentage gets spent those at the high end won't be paying as much in terms of percentage of income.
While this is true, using it as a reason to "balance" the tax code is disingenuous. Those at the upper end of the income spectrum already carry the majority of the tax burden while the middle class and down pay anywhere from 10% to -5%. Actual tax rates.

And nevermind the AMT, which was a work around for the rich who can balance out to owe no tax, will still pay a minimum amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I'm not completely opposed to a consumption tax, but it would need to be structured so that it didn't end up being a regressive tax.
So in an attempt to simplify the tax structure, you want to automatically insert deductions and exemptions. What then, is the point of changing it? Politicians will simply continue to modify the new system to buy votes.

Bottom line........

1) The "rich" already carry the majority of the income tax burden in the US while those lower on the pole pay significantly less (as a percentage and in actual dollar value) or actually get refunds on no tax paid. I do not see an injustice there. Taxes paid as a percentage of income is irrelevant if one side of the spectrum is paying no tax, almost no tax or is actually getting subsidies for being an American Citizen. This is akin to 2 folks going out to dinner, one person is paying the tab and leaving the tip and the individual who is getting a free meal is telling the person paying they need to leave a bigger tip.

2) Any tax in the US that is actually going to be fair is going to be more regressive than the progressive system we have now. There is no way around that because everyone needs to be a cog in the wheel. Ive said it before... Even if its just $1. Running the US Government costs money and we should all be involved in the process of keeping the machine moving. Our politicians buying votes by using the tax structure is hurting the country. It is turning an entire group of people into lifetime, multigenerational dependents of the Government. Thats not what the US is about and it is unsustainable.

3) The EIC needs to end. Its one thing to listen to folks talk about the rich needing to "pay their fair share." Its another to have someone actually getting refund checks on no tax paid, chant that the rich need to pay their fair share. I harbor no ill will to anyone in poverty. I grew up in a poor household and I spent my early years working jobs with low pay, no insurance etc. But even then, I still paid income tax even if my yearly income was around $8,000. I paid some tax. But even Obama said "everyone needs skin in the game." And I agree.

4) If we, as a society, do not recognize that we are a self defeating society based on who we are electing, then there is no hope. All this talk about fairness, taxes, income, food, jobs, student loans, mortgages.... Its all a waste of time. WE are useful idiots for our elected leaders to push around on the board. You talked about the rich needing to think about paying more because it may be in their best interests... Ill counter that with the fact we all need to buckle down and stop voting for our own best interests and start putting people into office that believe in what the US used to be about. Aside from Slavery, it was equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. It was the idea that we, each of us as individuals, are the master of our own destiny. Succeed or fail, we do so because our own input and we take responsibility for ourselves in either case. There was never a notion that a centralized Government should be used as a tool to equalize all manners of society. Our founders came from big, centralized Government and did their best to avoid structuring ours to become what it has.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2011, 01:13 PM   #39
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,551
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
While this is true, using it as a reason to "balance" the tax code is disingenuous. Those at the upper end of the income spectrum already carry the majority of the tax burden while the middle class and down pay anywhere from 10% to -5%. Actual tax rates.

And nevermind the AMT, which was a work around for the rich who can balance out to owe no tax, will still pay a minimum amount.
While they do pay at a higher rate, as you had previously pointed out, that is somewhat reduced by deductions, loopholes etc...
The main reason the wealthy carry a majority of the tax burden is that they carry home a large share of the income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
So in an attempt to simplify the tax structure, you want to automatically insert deductions and exemptions. What then, is the point of changing it? Politicians will simply continue to modify the new system to buy votes.
I'm not the one wanting to radical changes to the system. I'd be happy with some tweaks to the existing system, along with large spending cut, so that we (as a whole generation) pay our own way rather then borrowing against our children and grandchildren.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Bottom line........

I mostly agree.

As I said before, you could propose just about any tax structure and justify it as "fair". That debate is never ending.
I agree that the tax code should not be a hidden welfare program. Nobody should end up with a negative tax rate.
And yes, we are pawns in a political game. The main reason there is so much talk about it right now is that we are entering an election year. Once the elections are over all is forgotten and nothing happens.
brewmenn 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 Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 02:11 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.38526 seconds with 77 queries