Obama's Tax Plan

[Alaska Darin]

So basically you're saying don't bother taxing the wealthy because they will cheat. Now that makes sense. Let's overtax the little guy instead since he doesn't have the means or wherewithal to avoid paying.

The "Big" part of you obviously doesn't refer to grey matter.

 

Do you think there could possibly be OTHER answers that don't involve regressive taxation on the citizenry? Or is that just impossible to fathom?

[justnzane]

Cripes, demand has gone down because non-wealthy people can't afford the increased costs, because their earnings in this "growing economy" aren't keeping up with increased costs. A few cents off a gallon of gas isn't much when you look at how much it went up over the past year. The "growing economy" has only helped the wealthiest, while the gap between them and the middle class and poor increases. Yeah, that's a great deal for the majority of us.

QFT, please post more in PPP. The fact of the matter is that the poor and middle class are not benefiting and have not benefited since 2000. Right now, our economy may be growing, but at a much slower rate than it should be. As mentioned earlier, many corporations and a lot of the wealthy are using loophole after loophole and the little guys (like most of us here) are picking up the slack. So, the necessity to make the wealthy pay their rightful share of is evermore needed at this point and time.

 

Also, I do have to laugh that GG and Darin gave the "I know better than you response" instead of something constructive that actually makes a point.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

The "Big" part of you obviously doesn't refer to grey matter.

 

Do you think there could possibly be OTHER answers that don't involve regressive taxation on the citizenry? Or is that just impossible to fathom?

I'm guessing here, but if the gov't continues to spend hundreds of billions per year on wars, whether it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever, and you cut taxes for the middle class, there has to be some way to deal with the revenue shortfall. What would you suggest besides taxes when you're in deficit spending mode? You can cut spending to a point, but I doubt if you can make up the difference and that always brings out major battles.

[BigAL]

The "Big" part of you obviously doesn't refer to grey matter.

 

Do you think there could possibly be OTHER answers that don't involve regressive taxation on the citizenry? Or is that just impossible to fathom?

I did not say what my position was. I merely implied that to not tax a group because they will cheat is not a valid reason for not taxing them. The grey matter is just fine. Apparently yours is suffering somewhat in the reading comprehension department.

[Alaska Darin]

I did not say what my position was. I merely implied that to not tax a group because they will cheat is not a valid reason for not taxing them. The grey matter is just fine. Apparently yours is suffering somewhat in the reading comprehension department.

I've been reading your posts for nearly a decade. I'm pretty sure I've got your position down.

 

As far as the rest of it, it comes down to Risk/Reward. Taxes like the ones being proposed tend not to work for the reasons mentioned. It's called reality. Reality IS a pretty good basis for not doing something.

 

Let's watch Mr. Obama preach "change" while proposing the same tired solutions to the same problems. Yeah, he's a real savant. Pander, pander, pander.

[John Adams]

I did not say what my position was. I merely implied that to not tax a group because they will cheat is not a valid reason for not taxing them. The grey matter is just fine. Apparently yours is suffering somewhat in the reading comprehension department.

 

Let's posit that I'm in the tax bracket Obama's targeting with the 10+% income tax increase. I will not cheat, as you say, because cheating risks jail. But here's the system Sherlock: there are other legal mechanisms to avoid tax increases, especially when they are on this magnitude. Last year I had a plan for paying less taxes. In 2010, my plan will be a lot more aggressive because I'd rather have a say in how I spend my money than hand it over to the government. Anyone who pays their taxes with a smile is a sh--head.

 

Rather than raising taxes, how about taking the novel position of cutting spending, hrrmm? Hard to fathom, I know. But it is still possible, isn't it? Is it? Please say yes.

[BigAL]

Let's posit that I'm in the tax bracket Obama's targeting with the 10+% income tax increase. I will not cheat, as you say, because cheating risks jail. But here's the system Sherlock: there are other legal mechanisms to avoid tax increases, especially when they are on this magnitude. Last year I had a plan for paying less taxes. In 2010, my plan will be a lot more aggressive because I'd rather have a say in how I spend my money than hand it over to the government. Anyone who pays their taxes with a smile is a sh--head.

 

Rather than raising taxes, how about taking the novel position of cutting spending, hrrmm? Hard to fathom, I know. But it is still possible, isn't it? Is it? Please say yes.

Sure cutting spending is an option (the preferred option). Again, I have not said a word as to what my positions are. I am well aware that there are legal ways of avoiding paying taxes. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I do feel it is a necessary evil. I also feel the tax code should be simplified so that the various loop holes and tax shelters that many corporations take advantage off are eliminated. There's no reason why the American people should be paying for the tax breaks of companies who are reporting billions of dollars in earnings. Are you okay with that?

[finknottle]

Sure cutting spending is an option (the preferred option). Again, I have not said a word as to what my positions are. I am well aware that there are legal ways of avoiding paying taxes. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I do feel it is a necessary evil. I also feel the tax code should be simplified so that the various loop holes and tax shelters that many corporations take advantage off are eliminated. There's no reason why the American people should be paying for the tax breaks of companies who are reporting billions of dollars in earnings. Are you okay with that?

 

You do realize that those companies are owned by shareholders like you? That tax break ultimately flows to the shareholders.

 

Wouldn't it be better all around if people just bought stock in the companies they are lambasting for their profits? You can invest in Exxon, you know. The way some people are talking about it, you would think that it is a can't-miss investment worth mortgaging the house over.

[Alaska Darin]

Sure cutting spending is an option (the preferred option). Again, I have not said a word as to what my positions are. I am well aware that there are legal ways of avoiding paying taxes. I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I do feel it is a necessary evil. I also feel the tax code should be simplified so that the various loop holes and tax shelters that many corporations take advantage off are eliminated. There's no reason why the American people should be paying for the tax breaks of companies who are reporting billions of dollars in earnings. Are you okay with that?

Make sure you complain extra loud when those evil corporations react to your "proposal" by shipping jobs overseas to places that understand how the real world competes. You know, as opposed to the one where the richest government in the history of the world cries poverty and a good percentage of the voting populous actually believes it.

 

Yeah, it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what your "position" is.

[bowery4]

You do realize that those companies are owned by shareholders like you? That tax break ultimately flows to the shareholders.

 

Wouldn't it be better all around if people just bought stock in the companies they are lambasting for their profits? You can invest in Exxon, you know. The way some people are talking about it, you would think that it is a can't-miss investment worth mortgaging the house over.

 

Maybe people like me would invest in the stock market more if we had the money to do so.

Getting rid of loop holes only works for a little while too, but it is worth it.

I think we need to stop spending so much on the military, (our way of investing in EXXON these days it seems) now there could be some money spent in a wiser way, but no. We would rather have failing infrastucture endless war and cheap gas, right.

BTW, people don't have to get nasty because they don't agree. Oh and I am refering to the people implying that some other people are stupid not the one I quoted

[BigAL]

Make sure you complain extra loud when those evil corporations react to your "proposal" by shipping jobs overseas to places that understand how the real world competes. You know, as opposed to the one where the richest government in the history of the world cries poverty and a good percentage of the voting populous actually believes it.

 

Yeah, it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what your "position" is.

So what is the solution from the all wise and mighty Alaska Darin? I know, lets eliminate taxes and regulation by the government and trust in the belief that the companies will do the right thing by us. It's not like they would really do anything to manipulate energy prices ala Enron. Those things don't happen anymore.

[Alaska Darin]

So what is the solution from the all wise and mighty Alaska Darin?

How about returning to a smaller, Constitutional government? Or is it just too hard to fathom that large intrusive government causes more problems than it solves?

I know, lets eliminate taxes and regulation by the government and trust in the belief that the companies will do the right thing by us. It's not like they would really do anything to manipulate energy prices ala Enron. Those things don't happen anymore.

Ah, the old "all or nothing" argument. Politicians count on that, so keep it up. They like the job to be as easy as humanly possible.

 

You do understand that your disdain for big business is quite hypocritical given the United States government is the largest, wealthiest corporation in the history of humanity, right? And something so large would never use their power to manipulate the taxpayer to make themselves richer either? You know, like selling a bill of goods to start a multi-trillion dollar war? Or passing legislation to give a Prescription Drug Benefit while buying up pharmaceutical stocks?

 

Try one consistant train of thought once in awhile.

[BigAL]

How about returning to a smaller, Constitutional government? Or is it just too hard to fathom that large intrusive government causes more problems than it solves?

 

Ah, the old "all or nothing" argument. Politicians count on that, so keep it up. They like the job to be as easy as humanly possible.

 

You do understand that your disdain for big business is quite hypocritical given the United States government is the largest, wealthiest corporation in the history of humanity, right? And something so large would never use their power to manipulate the taxpayer to make themselves richer either? You know, like selling a bill of goods to start a multi-trillion dollar war? Or passing legislation to give a Prescription Drug Benefit while buying up pharmaceutical stocks?

 

Try one consistant train of thought once in awhile.

Returning to a smaller Constitutional Government is an easy thing to say, but it's an answer that is devoid of any practical way to implement such a thing. What would be your plan? What government agencies and programs should be eliminated? NASA's a waste, lets get rid of that. Who needs the Antitrust division? Fish and Wildlife... forget about it.

 

Seriously though. There is a tremendous amount of waste in the government, and I have no problem with scaling back some of the ridiculous agencies that there are, but my question remains as to how you implement these things. To me, it's debatable if the government structure we have today causes more problems than it solves. I'm not sure if it's the structure or the idiots we elect on both sides of the aisle.

[meazza]

Returning to a smaller Constitutional Government is an easy thing to say, but it's an answer that is devoid of any practical way to implement such a thing. What would be your plan? What government agencies and programs should be eliminated? NASA's a waste, lets get rid of that. Who needs the Antitrust division? Fish and Wildlife... forget about it.

 

Seriously though. There is a tremendous amount of waste in the government, and I have no problem with scaling back some of the ridiculous agencies that there are, but my question remains as to how you implement these things. To me, it's debatable if the government structure we have today causes more problems than it solves. I'm not sure if it's the structure or the idiots we elect on both sides of the aisle.

 

Or how about the voters who have the attention span of children who only vote based on what they want to hear rather than reality?

[Chilly]

Or how about the voters who have the attention span of children who only vote based on what they want to hear rather than reality?

 

Is it possible for the people to know reality?

[meazza]

Is it possible for the people to know reality?

 

Yes, but not everyones reality is the same.

[Alaska Darin]

Returning to a smaller Constitutional Government is an easy thing to say, but it's an answer that is devoid of any practical way to implement such a thing. What would be your plan? What government agencies and programs should be eliminated? NASA's a waste, lets get rid of that. Who needs the Antitrust division? Fish and Wildlife... forget about it.

I'm glad you said "forget about it" - it saved me a ton of typing.

Seriously though. There is a tremendous amount of waste in the government, and I have no problem with scaling back some of the ridiculous agencies that there are, but my question remains as to how you implement these things. To me, it's debatable if the government structure we have today causes more problems than it solves. I'm not sure if it's the structure or the idiots we elect on both sides of the aisle.

It's both, really. The partisans only care about the empires they build and the power they can broker to set themselves up for life. It's really sickening.

[Alaska Darin]

Or how about the voters who have the attention span of children who only vote based on what they want to hear rather than reality?

Man, you are really growing up.

[Chilly]

Yes, but not everyones reality is the same.

 

I'd disagree, I think its possible to get a much better picture of the state of things than most people do, but since we peons won't have the information that the politicians do, we won't ever get an accurate picture of reality.

[meazza]

I'd disagree, I think its possible to get a much better picture of the state of things than most people do, but since we peons won't have the information that the politicians do, we won't ever get an accurate picture of reality.

 

A lot of the information that we require to make accurate election decisions are more than available to all of us. Unfortunately what I think is that a lot of people seem to not want to actually hear the truth about our economy and think everything is a "quick fix". For example, the massive loss of shareholder wealth that we have witnessed over the last year is correlated with the massive speculation that went on for the last 5 or 6 years in the housing market and that we need to ride it out.

 

Noone wants to hear that, they'd rather hear that some magical fiscal policy will be implemented and all of a sudden, the markets will boom again.