USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
- Thread starter Foxton
- Start date
- Status
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
But who will save us from the boogeymaan? We need Missile Defense Systems!!11!!
But who will save us from the boogeymaan? We need Missile Defense Systems!!11!!
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Yup, boogeyman missile systems really gobble up the defense budget.
Yup, boogeyman missile systems really gobble up the defense budget.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
It sure does. I couldn't agree more.
It sure does. I couldn't agree more.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
I knew somebody would fall for it if I didn't put a smiley face on there. You didn't fail me.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Actually, I got a 10% raise recently.
Actually, I got a 10% raise recently.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
And the top fifth of wage earners spend roughly half of their income on consumption according to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html
The remaining half is either going to taxes or to savings (since this is gross income, not net).
Scooby - obviously, I was making the point about payroll taxes for people on the lower side of the income scale since those people are paying the bulk of their taxes to OASDI/medicare. People earning over $100k are paying much more of their taxes in the form of federal income taxes, so the payroll tax translates to a smaller portion of income as you move beyond the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. The 3% number is a reference to income tax liability of the middle 20% income group. It had nothing to do with payroll taxes. That was all clear in my previous posts, but you - as usual - choose to obfuscate.
Kepler - I don't believe there is any tax structure that could maintain the same revenue amount through all economic cycles unless it automatically adjusted the rate of taxation to compensate for slowing or quickening economic activity. And even if we found a way to do that, it'd probably make things worse (i.e. suddenly raising taxes by 30% across the board as a recession deepens probably wouldn't work too well).
Way to ignore what I said about taxing different classes of goods at different rates.
And the top fifth of wage earners spend roughly half of their income on consumption according to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html
The remaining half is either going to taxes or to savings (since this is gross income, not net).
No, I want them to pay taxes to fund the programs from which they will benefit. We are suffering from a major free rider problem in this country, and it has to end. If you guys on the left love these programs so much, how about offering to pay for them? But no, you always say the rich have to pay for them. It's beyond ridiculous. We - as in all of us, regardless of income - need to take ownership of this problem and pay more to fund the system. The current approach of having a small fraction of the population pay for most of it simply isn't working. This is why you end up with people demanding that their benefits stay the same, fiscal problems be ****ed. They don't have to pay for them, so why should they care?Yeah, that seems really fair to the poor and middle class, making them pay a higher percentage in taxes for actually wanting to live.
So instead you don't want them to be taxed at all (sans payroll)? Yeah, that has worked out well for us.
Scooby - obviously, I was making the point about payroll taxes for people on the lower side of the income scale since those people are paying the bulk of their taxes to OASDI/medicare. People earning over $100k are paying much more of their taxes in the form of federal income taxes, so the payroll tax translates to a smaller portion of income as you move beyond the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. The 3% number is a reference to income tax liability of the middle 20% income group. It had nothing to do with payroll taxes. That was all clear in my previous posts, but you - as usual - choose to obfuscate.
Kepler - I don't believe there is any tax structure that could maintain the same revenue amount through all economic cycles unless it automatically adjusted the rate of taxation to compensate for slowing or quickening economic activity. And even if we found a way to do that, it'd probably make things worse (i.e. suddenly raising taxes by 30% across the board as a recession deepens probably wouldn't work too well).
Last edited:
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
While you're at it, why bother with a standing army. Obviously they aren't needed and are incredibly wasteful in a time of peace.
While you're at it, why bother with a standing army. Obviously they aren't needed and are incredibly wasteful in a time of peace.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
ok, so what doesn't get taxed? Identify that class of objects and you'll see where the leverage will exist. Does this only apply to consumer goods?
See, this is the problem with the VAT as with other sales tax models... for many this is just a means to extract an additional tax in a means that doesn't directly affect the consumer. The VAT itself relies upon the ignorance of economics of the citizen... and it is often a product of the ignorance of the politician. The problem with replacement is that you'll find people reaping benefits meddling and leveraging against that which is not taxed... probably things that blur the line between consumer good and service. As an example, one could see a house as an item but maybe not the mortgage, at which point the mortgage itself is a sheet of paper representing ownership and is often termed relation to the loan... but the loan is just a sheet of financial paper which can be traded... and so are stocks.... so are stocks items to be VAT taxed?
In general the idea of the VAT is to collect taxes in a background sort of way... the strong disadvantages are that it will require a large bureaucratic mechanism to implement... but of course we already have this in the Obamacare bill (just as the Obamacare rationing was in the Stimulus) so we'll have the mechanism but its going to cost us a lot to have it. But the goal, in the end, is to hoodwink the tax payer in attempt for a liberal governing mechanism to attempt to pay for its continued largess.
Anyhow, the VAT as an addtional tax generally will hurt our economy... any tax raises should be transparent, IMO... and should be done, not with facilitating the welfare state, but paying off our bills upon which we are paying compound interest. The problem is that liberals haven't given up on that dream and they don't give up on the dream of a properly managed unicorn state. This is why they're in here looking for nonsense ways to cut back on the military and inventing sunshine and roses scenarios which don't exist and ignoring perils that do.
While we're on that topic.... can anybody remember which continent the Russians continue to threaten in regards to gas and oil? And which countries is it which the Russians actively threaten the freedom of the citizens within those countries?
5mn, we know you're dishonest... but at least try to answer this. If your goal is to show that conservatives and republicans want to spend on something therefore we must spend on everything, what everything do you want to spend on and how much better will it make us when we all magically pay our taxes to obtain it. I'd really love to know. What do you believe can actually be accomplished provided we had these hypothetical funds?
edit: more to the point with the VAT... tax goods directly and you tax production... tax income and you tax potential. I believe the VAT will be more harmful to the economic engine than an income tax would be.
ok, so what doesn't get taxed? Identify that class of objects and you'll see where the leverage will exist. Does this only apply to consumer goods?
See, this is the problem with the VAT as with other sales tax models... for many this is just a means to extract an additional tax in a means that doesn't directly affect the consumer. The VAT itself relies upon the ignorance of economics of the citizen... and it is often a product of the ignorance of the politician. The problem with replacement is that you'll find people reaping benefits meddling and leveraging against that which is not taxed... probably things that blur the line between consumer good and service. As an example, one could see a house as an item but maybe not the mortgage, at which point the mortgage itself is a sheet of paper representing ownership and is often termed relation to the loan... but the loan is just a sheet of financial paper which can be traded... and so are stocks.... so are stocks items to be VAT taxed?
In general the idea of the VAT is to collect taxes in a background sort of way... the strong disadvantages are that it will require a large bureaucratic mechanism to implement... but of course we already have this in the Obamacare bill (just as the Obamacare rationing was in the Stimulus) so we'll have the mechanism but its going to cost us a lot to have it. But the goal, in the end, is to hoodwink the tax payer in attempt for a liberal governing mechanism to attempt to pay for its continued largess.
Anyhow, the VAT as an addtional tax generally will hurt our economy... any tax raises should be transparent, IMO... and should be done, not with facilitating the welfare state, but paying off our bills upon which we are paying compound interest. The problem is that liberals haven't given up on that dream and they don't give up on the dream of a properly managed unicorn state. This is why they're in here looking for nonsense ways to cut back on the military and inventing sunshine and roses scenarios which don't exist and ignoring perils that do.
While we're on that topic.... can anybody remember which continent the Russians continue to threaten in regards to gas and oil? And which countries is it which the Russians actively threaten the freedom of the citizens within those countries?
5mn, we know you're dishonest... but at least try to answer this. If your goal is to show that conservatives and republicans want to spend on something therefore we must spend on everything, what everything do you want to spend on and how much better will it make us when we all magically pay our taxes to obtain it. I'd really love to know. What do you believe can actually be accomplished provided we had these hypothetical funds?
edit: more to the point with the VAT... tax goods directly and you tax production... tax income and you tax potential. I believe the VAT will be more harmful to the economic engine than an income tax would be.
Last edited:
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
For those of you concerned with the legitimate expenditures of government. President Obama just spent 1.5 million in tax expenditures to visit Hawaii for 9 days or so. In the preceding 28 years... 26 Christmases were spent either in the District or in Maryland, one was spent in Sarajevo and the other on a South Carolina beach (both Bill Clinton). In these difficult times, maybe the president should reign himself in?
For those of you concerned with the legitimate expenditures of government. President Obama just spent 1.5 million in tax expenditures to visit Hawaii for 9 days or so. In the preceding 28 years... 26 Christmases were spent either in the District or in Maryland, one was spent in Sarajevo and the other on a South Carolina beach (both Bill Clinton). In these difficult times, maybe the president should reign himself in?
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Yup eliminate armies standing in Germany, UK, Italy and Spain for starters. That was easy.
Because everyone knows GOP presidents travel for free.
Yup eliminate armies standing in Germany, UK, Italy and Spain for starters. That was easy.
Because everyone knows GOP presidents travel for free.
WeWantMore
New member
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
To say the least. I wouldn't support it regardless of who was in power. If we can't set a budget through open debate among the people's representatives, screw it, let's go back to the days of Divine Right. (Provided the king leads his troops into battle on the front line.)
To say the least. I wouldn't support it regardless of who was in power. If we can't set a budget through open debate among the people's representatives, screw it, let's go back to the days of Divine Right. (Provided the king leads his troops into battle on the front line.)
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
I guess I'm not quite sure of the point of it either. I mean, the Republicans have a healthy majority, it's not like it's a one seat edge. You'd think they'd be able to pass whatever they like budget wise on the floor anyways.
I guess I'm not quite sure of the point of it either. I mean, the Republicans have a healthy majority, it's not like it's a one seat edge. You'd think they'd be able to pass whatever they like budget wise on the floor anyways.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Certainly. It just seems like an unneccesary battle to fight.
In other news, Michael Bloomberg is doing a heck of a job isn't he? Sorry about your presidential aspirations buddy.
Certainly. It just seems like an unneccesary battle to fight.
In other news, Michael Bloomberg is doing a heck of a job isn't he? Sorry about your presidential aspirations buddy.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
My wife brought up an interesting point last night re: the "new" "requirement" to preface legislation with its "Constitutional" "justification." She thinks it's bad strategy for the GOP. Her reasoning: if you believe in expansive powers you mumble the Elastic Clause and get on with it. But Republicans can't do that because it undercuts their entire conspiracy theory about activist liberals roaming the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. My rejoinder was (1) it's so inside baseball nobody but she and Charlie Cook cares, (2) the GOP will just find their own boilerplate that happens to appeal to their own constituents, (3) every Spring the umps call balks tight for the first two weeks in March, then everybody goes back to business as usual, and (4) it's pandering -- what do you expect?
Does anybody think the Republicans may have bitten themselves with a small helping of careful what you wish for? I doubt it, but it would be funny.
My wife brought up an interesting point last night re: the "new" "requirement" to preface legislation with its "Constitutional" "justification." She thinks it's bad strategy for the GOP. Her reasoning: if you believe in expansive powers you mumble the Elastic Clause and get on with it. But Republicans can't do that because it undercuts their entire conspiracy theory about activist liberals roaming the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. My rejoinder was (1) it's so inside baseball nobody but she and Charlie Cook cares, (2) the GOP will just find their own boilerplate that happens to appeal to their own constituents, (3) every Spring the umps call balks tight for the first two weeks in March, then everybody goes back to business as usual, and (4) it's pandering -- what do you expect?
Does anybody think the Republicans may have bitten themselves with a small helping of careful what you wish for? I doubt it, but it would be funny.
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Or you know, you actually write down what part of the Constitution gives you the authority.
It might be tough sometimes though, as Ezra Klein pointed out the other day, the Constitution is "over 100 years old".
Or you know, you actually write down what part of the Constitution gives you the authority.
It might be tough sometimes though, as Ezra Klein pointed out the other day, the Constitution is "over 100 years old".
- Status