marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > akanska Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I want taxes lower not so much bc I think I > > > shouldn’t pay them as much as I think the > gov’t > > > shouldn’t have an inflated budget to waste. > If > > i > > > for one second thought that they had a > > reasonable > > > plan to pay down the deficit, make some > > meaningful > > > investments I’d be all for it- but now it > seems > > to > > > me that its an downward sticky spending > machine. > > > > > I’m ok with increasing revenue- but the > > > expenditure trend is going the wrong way!! > > > > > > This is an argument for lower taxes that I can > > support, at least in principle. The challenge > is > > trying to figure out what parts to cut. It > always > > seems to boil down to, “yeah, let’s cut off > those > > guys’ retirement funds!” > > > We spend more money on defense than all of the > other countries in the world combined. The cold > war is over. That’s your answer. True we do spend a ton on defense. Perhaps some of that needs to be reduced. My personal opinion is that high defense spending has given the US tremendous benefits, but I’m certainly not against reducing waste. I’d like to see the ROI on defense rather than just the absolute number.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really honestly, how many people on here fall into > the 250k tax bracket, let alone know someone who > falls into that category? So many are making wide > assumptions about what these “rich” folk will do. > > All i gotta say is my parents and many of my > parent’s friends have moved to lower tax states > such as Texas and Florida. Interestingly enough, > they are now talking about moving to places such > as the Caymans. I know this is a sample bias, but > all my old clients were CEO and CFOs and would > echo similar statements regarding themselves and > their businesses. These people are 100% talk, just like the Dems who threatened to move to Canada. I also know plenty of these folks, mostly Republicans, and none of them are considering moving. > Marcus you especially are quite arrogant to think > that people won’t move to lower cost areas. > Businesses and rich folks have been doing this for > years. What makes you think they will stop unless > you do so by force? Why can’t we just stop > spending so damn much and promote a business > friendly environment? Right. Because for years people and businesses have been flocking to Alaska, South Dakota and Tennessee. > God your thick. 100% win.
How many people moved out of the country when we already had the 39.6% rate 10 years ago? Also, let’s put this into perspective: let’s say I make 500k - *twice* the minimum “rich guy” limit. An increase from 35% marginal rate above 250K to 39.6% means I pay a total of 250k*.046 = $11,500 more taxes per year. That’s probably less than I’d pay for landscaping in any given year - I’m really going to move out of the country for that? Besides that, the only example anyone seems to mention for where these rich people would go are tiny island nations like the Cayman Islands. You think a substantial influx of rich people isn’t going to cause these countries to rethink their own tax laws?
why do so many people seem to think that military spending can just be cut because its money that is thrown into some dark pit that disappears and have no use in the economy. You think the failure of the auto industry destroyed cities? Think about what would happen to hawaii or san diego or any of the other large metropolitan areas that depend so greatly on the military for their economic stability. Do you realize the DOD is the largest employerin the US? I’m not going to get into the pro’s and con’s as I have not studied the situation- I am simply constantly surprised by the way people completely fail to take this fact into consideration. There are plenty of programs where people get paid for NOTHING- here at least there are some benefits- relevant on the job training, growth opportunities for those of the lowest resources, R&D, etc.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Really honestly, how many people on here fall > into > > the 250k tax bracket, let alone know someone > who > > falls into that category? So many are making > wide > > assumptions about what these “rich” folk will > do. > > > > All i gotta say is my parents and many of my > > parent’s friends have moved to lower tax states > > such as Texas and Florida. Interestingly > enough, > > they are now talking about moving to places > such > > as the Caymans. I know this is a sample bias, > but > > all my old clients were CEO and CFOs and would > > echo similar statements regarding themselves > and > > their businesses. > > These people are 100% talk, just like the Dems who > threatened to move to Canada. I also know plenty > of these folks, mostly Republicans, and none of > them are considering moving. > > > Marcus you especially are quite arrogant to > think > > that people won’t move to lower cost areas. > > Businesses and rich folks have been doing this > for > > years. What makes you think they will stop > unless > > you do so by force? Why can’t we just stop > > spending so damn much and promote a business > > friendly environment? > > Right. Because for years people and businesses > have been flocking to Alaska, South Dakota and > Tennessee. > > > God your thick. > > 100% win. Not Alaska, SD or Tennessee, but South Carolina, Florida, Texas… Many have outsourced overseas… I realize that may have occurred for a variety of reasons, but I’d wager that higher taxes aren’t going to help.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why do so many people seem to think that military > spending can just be cut because its money that is > thrown into some dark pit that disappears and have > no use in the economy. You think the failure of > the auto industry destroyed cities? Think about > what would happen to hawaii or san diego or any of > the other large metropolitan areas that depend so > greatly on the military for their economic > stability. Do you realize the DOD is the largest > employerin the US? > > I’m not going to get into the pro’s and con’s as I > have not studied the situation- I am simply > constantly surprised by the way people completely > fail to take this fact into consideration. There > are plenty of programs where people get paid for > NOTHING- here at least there are some benefits- > relevant on the job training, growth opportunities > for those of the lowest resources, R&D, etc. Por ejemplo? BTW on defense spending: U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in January 2009 that the U.S. should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: “What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance’s persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners.”
here is the real problem you treehuggers: something like 45% of people PAY ZERO TAXES. wrap your mind around that. so when people talk about handouts, they are right. those handouts are also votes, mind you. thanks barack! buying votes with his credit card - the Treasury. i cannot wait to get this joker out of here and repeal every single thing he has done.
starbuk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > here is the real problem you treehuggers: > > something like 45% of people PAY ZERO TAXES. wrap > your mind around that. so when people talk about > handouts, they are right. those handouts are also > votes, mind you. thanks barack! buying votes > with his credit card - the Treasury. i cannot > wait to get this joker out of here and repeal > every single thing he has done. You running for President, huh? Would you like some sugar with your tea to calm you down?
starbuk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > here is the real problem you treehuggers: > > something like 45% of people PAY ZERO TAXES. wrap > your mind around that. so when people talk about > handouts, they are right. those handouts are also > votes, mind you. thanks barack! buying votes > with his credit card - the Treasury. i cannot > wait to get this joker out of here and repeal > every single thing he has done. Yeah! Buying votes with money is simply wrong! Cursed democrats for doing it! Jeez if only a party could find out a way to woo corporations… And what makes you think that the people who dont pay taxes are all poor? I know pleny of people in the higher tax brackets that dont pay taxes, or reduce their income so little they drop brackets. And by all means people, move! Im sure you can enjoy the protection of the US if you live in another country. Hell, there are plenty of countries in Africa with no taxes move there. Are we going to lose a bunch of jobs because people in this tax bracket are the only ones who create jobs? Yeah all business owners who make 250k+ can easily move their business to the Caymans by wrapping it in a little box and mailing it UPS. Democracy would be a great form of goverment if it werent for all those pesky citizens voting for someone who will make their lives better.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > akanska Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > why do so many people seem to think that > military > > spending can just be cut because its money that > is > > thrown into some dark pit that disappears and > have > > no use in the economy. You think the failure > of > > the auto industry destroyed cities? Think > about > > what would happen to hawaii or san diego or any > of > > the other large metropolitan areas that depend > so > > greatly on the military for their economic > > stability. Do you realize the DOD is the > largest > > employerin the US? > > > > I’m not going to get into the pro’s and con’s as > I > > have not studied the situation- I am simply > > constantly surprised by the way people > completely > > fail to take this fact into consideration. > There > > are plenty of programs where people get paid > for > > NOTHING- here at least there are some benefits- > > relevant on the job training, growth > opportunities > > for those of the lowest resources, R&D, etc. > > Por ejemplo? > > BTW on defense spending: U.S. Secretary of Defense > Robert Gates wrote in January 2009 that the U.S. > should adjust its priorities and spending to > address the changing nature of threats in the > world: “What all these potential adversaries—from > terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising > powers—have in common is that they have learned > that it is unwise to confront the United States > directly on conventional military terms. The > United States cannot take its current dominance > for granted and needs to invest in the programs, > platforms, and personnel that will ensure that > dominance’s persistence. But it is also important > to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy > has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for > example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is > still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and > 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or > partners.” your reply spoke nothing to my point… like usual 
Army… good bad effective or not…whatever. The point it you cannot just cut something that is the largest single component of American job base and not take into consideration the effect it would have on the economy.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > akanska Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > why do so many people seem to think that > > military > > > spending can just be cut because its money > that > > is > > > thrown into some dark pit that disappears and > > have > > > no use in the economy. You think the failure > > of > > > the auto industry destroyed cities? Think > > about > > > what would happen to hawaii or san diego or > any > > of > > > the other large metropolitan areas that > depend > > so > > > greatly on the military for their economic > > > stability. Do you realize the DOD is the > > largest > > > employerin the US? > > > > > > I’m not going to get into the pro’s and con’s > as > > I > > > have not studied the situation- I am simply > > > constantly surprised by the way people > > completely > > > fail to take this fact into consideration. > > There > > > are plenty of programs where people get paid > > for > > > NOTHING- here at least there are some > benefits- > > > relevant on the job training, growth > > opportunities > > > for those of the lowest resources, R&D, etc. > > > > Por ejemplo? > > > > BTW on defense spending: U.S. Secretary of > Defense > > Robert Gates wrote in January 2009 that the > U.S. > > should adjust its priorities and spending to > > address the changing nature of threats in the > > world: “What all these potential > adversaries—from > > terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising > > powers—have in common is that they have learned > > that it is unwise to confront the United States > > directly on conventional military terms. The > > United States cannot take its current dominance > > for granted and needs to invest in the > programs, > > platforms, and personnel that will ensure that > > dominance’s persistence. But it is also > important > > to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. > Navy > > has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for > > example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet > is > > still larger than the next 13 navies > combined—and > > 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or > > partners.” > > your reply spoke nothing to my point… like usual > Army… good bad effective or not…whatever. > The point it you cannot just cut something that is > the largest single component of American job base > and not take into consideration the effect it > would have on the economy. So we should not cut programs that are redundant in the era of modern warfare simply to keep people employed. Is that not a form of welfare?
People can argue the extremes of what may or may not happen all day. But we’ve all studied this BS enough to know that any increase in taxes, regardless of the size, more often than not, will have negative consequences on business and the motivation to create more wealth. The only way you can argue that an increase in taxes will benefit the nation as a whole is if the government is spending their newfound revenue effectively, efficiently, and on the right things. Clearly this isn’t the case. Will a ~4% increase end the world? Probably not. But I personally don’t think its the right move for right now.
… it should be lower on the totem pole than the welfare where you get nothing in return… no?
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > … it should be lower on the totem pole than the > welfare where you get nothing in return… no? Yes! One should not sinply get free money for popping kids when they cannot afford them. The physically able should not be allowed to abuse and game the system. Go after the welfare scammers. But dont make cuts in education, infrastructure and research.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > … it should be lower on the totem pole than the > welfare where you get nothing in return… no? Yes! One should not sinply get free money for popping kids when they cannot afford them. The physically able should not be allowed to abuse and game the system. Go after the welfare scammers. But dont make cuts in education, infrastructure and research.
.
Well if the republican/conservatives on this board don’t care for this tax hike, they should have thought about that when they voted for the president who signed it into law.
lets hope there is something left of our country by the time democrats are done with it
Right. Defense spending = jobs. Welfare spending/food stamps = food created by a magic particle reconstuction device that requires no labor, capital, investment.
Yeah, those democrats and their wars spreading our military around the globe and running up the deficit.