Jump to content

Raising Taxes Would Raise Revenue


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You wouldn't put that increased revenue towards the deficit? BTW, what kind of infrastructure?

Not while interest rates are so low. I'd go for energy improvements, water, transportation of all sorts, pollution control and so much more.

 

You are against all that?

Hi, I'm chef, I whine about thread titles in between picking my nose looking for boogers

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my fear with tax increases is intitially they are design for one purpose, roads and bridges- then when they are set to expire, all of the sudden those taxes are already being paid, so why not keep them in place and fund another project? so on, and so on.

 

I voted against a proposal in Colorado that I think we should definitely fund because politicians want to extend a hospitality tax that was used to rebuild the convention center. My contention was vote for a new, project specific tax with finite time on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not while interest rates are so low. I'd go for energy improvements, water, transportation of all sorts, pollution control and so much more.

 

You are against all that?

.

So, you would forego fiscal responsibility and further tax the wealthy so that the federal government could fund more "Solyndras" and other "shovel ready" projects? Do you really believe that the government can/should direct how investment monies are allocated? Why would you give money to an administration that has virtually no members with prior business experience? What makes you think that a community organizer and a bunch of communist wannabes can/should take money from people and decide how it should be spent? Do you really need government to decide everything for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have clients that have greatly increased their incomes over the many years we've worked together. They've increased their debt payments with some eliminated all debt, saved more and more and they are the ones that are going to be in great shape in the future.

 

I also have clients that have greatly increased their incomes over the many years we've worked together. That increased income has given them a false sense of security and have not saved more, some have even saved less. Their spending has always outpaced their increased income. They have more debt than when they started and are going to be in a terrible place in the future and are completely oblivious to the train wreck they are headed towards no matter how often I point it out to them.

 

Of these two scenarios which one best represents our government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How old are you again??

What is your problem dude?

So, you would forego fiscal responsibility and further tax the wealthy so that the federal government could fund more "Solyndras" and other "shovel ready" projects? Do you really believe that the government can/should direct how investment monies are allocated? Why would you give money to an administration that has virtually no members with prior business experience? What makes you think that a community organizer and a bunch of communist wannabes can/should take money from people and decide how it should be spent? Do you really need government to decide everything for you?

Lol, you are shot!

I have clients that have greatly increased their incomes over the many years we've worked together. They've increased their debt payments with some eliminated all debt, saved more and more and they are the ones that are going to be in great shape in the future.

 

I also have clients that have greatly increased their incomes over the many years we've worked together. That increased income has given them a false sense of security and have not saved more, some have even saved less. Their spending has always outpaced their increased income. They have more debt than when they started and are going to be in a terrible place in the future and are completely oblivious to the train wreck they are headed towards no matter how often I point it out to them.

 

Of these two scenarios which one best represents our government?

Our government is never going to retire. Its always going to be working, so your comparison with people saving for old ages is really pretty stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your problem dude?

 

You're talking about boogers as a 40-something (I still don't believe it) and you ask me what MY problem is??

 

Our government is never going to retire. Its always going to be working, so your comparison with people saving for old ages is really pretty stupid.

 

At least when Americans go into debt most of the interest payments go back to the US economy. Not so much with the government's debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're talking about boogers as a 40-something (I still don't believe it) and you ask me what MY problem is??

 

At least when Americans go into debt most of the interest payments go back to the US economy. Not so much with the government's debt.

Oh no, never talk about boogers. Chef thinks its beneath him, whatever

 

 

And what??? Well, genius, where do the interest payments go? Lol, this ought to be good, chuckle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There it is again: Infrastructure! :lol:

 

Any time tax reform comes up, "Oh, but what about the infrastructure?" :rolleyes:?

 

Hey clowns: How about you show us that you can actually spend $1 on infrastructure, and actually have $.90 go to an actual project, rather than what we currently have, which is $.10, if we are lucky, because every political hack, union boss, city official, mayor/governor, takes their cut of the $1 before it gets anywhere near a project?

 

We have a massive trickle-down government problem, which makes all infrastructure spending totally pointless.

 

The Stimulus(remember that Epic FAIL?), failed not because it wasn't big enough, but, because every police union president and city mayor and dog catcher skimmed their share of it and 0 multipliers were created. A Keynesian stimulus without multipliers? Is not a Keynesian stimulus.

 

So please, lets cut the crap with the "I" word. Show me the government can spend $50 correctly, just most of the time, and we'll work our way from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An answer worthy of your intellect..

No, it was a worthy answer to you idiotic point. Hey, BP had an oil spill therefore capitalism is bad.

 

There, I just did what you did, made a totally stupid statement, only yours was serious and mine wasn't. Ergo, you are not to be taken serious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it was a worthy answer to you idiotic point. Hey, BP had an oil spill therefore capitalism is bad.

 

There, I just did what you did, made a totally stupid statement, only yours was serious and mine wasn't. Ergo, you are not to be taken serious

 

Stop obfuscating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...