Is anyone not so angry about letting tax cuts expire?

[DjLoTi]

We have a massive deficit. Couldn't it possibly help to increase taxes for the wealthy? I know taxing isn't the answer, but republicans act like the Bush tax cuts is what is going to save this country from a depression... as if we already arn't in one. Why don't they focus on shrinking government, and do what they can to cut the deficit? Every dollar saved is one less dollar that is owed with interest

[specsaregood]

Besides a lot of stuff that others are sure to respond with.....you do realize we aren't ever paying back that debt, right?

[DjLoTi]

Well, since interest is at 0% right now, maybe they'll be under pressure to keep it that way, and when RP comes in and ends the fed, we'll be stuck with that 0% rate... hopefully?

[LibertyEagle]

DjLoTi, with all due respect, the problem isn't that they aren't taking taxing us enough. The problem is that they are spending too much. This doesn't even touch on the variety of other things, such as the fact that if you raise the taxes on the people who own the businesses and thus create a large number of the jobs out there, the result is that they are going to have to pass that tax increase onto all the rest of us by raising prices; not to mention not hiring some people that they probably would have hired.

Raising taxes is NEVER the answer.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, since interest is at 0% right now, maybe they'll be under pressure to keep it that way, and when RP comes in and ends the fed, we'll be stuck with that 0% rate... hopefully?

No way. The 0% interest rate was not determined by the market. It was forced by Bernanke.

[specsaregood]

.
Raising taxes is NEVER the answer.

Not to mention that the really rich have the tools, loopholes and reason to avoid the taxes.

[FrankRep]

Not to mention that the really rich have the tools, loopholes and reason to avoid the taxes.

The Rich know how to play the game, the middle class doesn't and gets screwed.

[DjLoTi]

Not to mention that the really rich have the tools, loopholes and reason to avoid the taxes.

Yeah, why not just cut the loopholes like the ones that saved Google over 60 billion? Wouldn't that technically 'raise taxes'? Would you guys be against ending the loopholes?

[MichelleHeart]

We could easily reduce the deficit by killing everybody on the welfare rolls, but that wouldn't be the ethical way to go about things, would it? The ends (reducing the deficit and balancing the budget) are justified, but the means (raising taxes) are not. Taxes are theft and good intentions don't change that.

Think of taxes as a moral issue, not an economic one. And never think of tax cuts as a "cost" to government. Taxes themselves are a cost to individuals. Cutting taxes simply means that the government steals less.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, why not just cut the loopholes like the ones that saved Google over 60 billion? Wouldn't that technically 'raise taxes'? Would you guys be against ending the loopholes?

The problem is not that the government doesn't have enough money to spend.

The problem is that they are spending too much money.

[TCE]

Uh...if they raise taxes via letting these expire, they'll make it up by spending more, but with the increased revenue, will make it look like they're doing us a great service. Keep all of the tax cuts and put pressure on Washington to cut spending. They're never going to cut spending and they'll never balance the budget, so no way do I want more of my money going to debt, bombs, and welfare.

[aravoth]

Don't need to end loopholes, don't need to raise taxes. Need to stop blowing up shit, stop "creating jobs" with borrowed money, and stop fucking funding useless departments that interfere with the natural order of human nature for Christs sake.

That'll balance yer got-damn budget!

In a perfect world, you'd just abolish the government, then you wouldn't have to worry about stupid shit like this.

But yeah, for some reason the government has the people convinced that raising taxes is the answer, as opposed to just eliminating all the unnecessary shit that politicians partake in.

[DjLoTi]

I totally agree they need to spend less. But shouldn't that be their #1 priority? Ending the wars and unraveling all the regulation? Are the bush tax cuts the 1 thing that really matters to republicans now a days? It seems to be one of the 'big deal' things

[Lord Xar]

Not to mention that the really rich have the tools, loopholes and reason to avoid the taxes.

Like Google. Who found the way to get out of paying tens of billions of tax dollars to ol' mr. obama. And of course, 75% of all google donations go to dems - and they recently hosted a "welcome Obama event".

[RonPaulCult]

We have a massive deficit. Couldn't it possibly help to increase taxes for the wealthy? I know taxing isn't the answer, but republicans act like the Bush tax cuts is what is going to save this country from a depression... as if we already arn't in one. Why don't they focus on shrinking government, and do what they can to cut the deficit? Every dollar saved is one less dollar that is owed with interest

I pretty much agree with the others that raising taxes is NOT the answer so I AM angry about the tax cuts expiring.

However, I will concede that IF our lawmakers were both trustworthy and sincere about wanting to eliminate debt, and IF they were to apply the extra tax revenue towards reducing the debt then it would be a positive thing.

That is NOT how I would expect it to go down - and I think we all know that. They will use that extra money to attack Iran or something.

Besides we could get rid of ALL income taxes and as Ron Paul says, replace it with NOTHING and STILL reduce the deficit if we drastically reduce spending (especially military and overseas spending).

So no no no no no - not the way to go about it. Be angry about the taxes. Always :)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I totally agree they need to spend less. But shouldn't that be their #1 priority? Ending the wars and unraveling all the regulation? Are the bush tax cuts the 1 thing that really matters to republicans now a days? It seems to be one of the 'big deal' things

I support your motion to tax the shit out of the people who have benefited from stifled competition and spread around a little benevolent government. If the IRS is getting 10k new agents lets put those agents to work on the right class of people.

[LibertyEagle]

I support your motion to tax the shit out of the people who have benefited from stifled competition and spread around a little benevolent government. If the IRS is getting 10k new agents lets put those agents to work on the right class of people.

You're kidding, right?

[nandnor]

No way. The 0% interest rate was not determined by the market. It was forced by Bernanke.Actually interest rate is market determined.. just the fed has a large interventionist role with its unlimited purchasing power

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You're kidding, right?

Nope. Nothing challenges beliefs about super sized government quicker than personally experiencing super sized benevolent government. If the shit is taxed out of the rich... a lot of people will personally experience super sized benevolent government.

[JamalianTheory]

Nope. Nothing challenges beliefs about super sized government quicker than personally experiencing super sized benevolent government. If the shit is taxed out of the rich... a lot of people will personally experience super sized benevolent government.

I lost you somewhere in there.

You want to try that again?

[Southron]

Until they get serious about spending, it's like giving an alcoholic more whiskey.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I lost you somewhere in there.

You want to try that again?

Since I see you are newer to the forum I will give a long version reply:

Society is based on belief. Monarchy, minarchy, anarchy, obligarchy, or any other form of archy only works only if people believe in it. Society is a majority of force where one group of people decide to use force for a given belief or beliefs.

Eternal vigilance is the magic pixie fairy dust or the glue of society, aka generational belief. Obviously the United States does not have much generational belief or we would still be following the Constitution.

The United States is failing because there is too much diversity of belief. Possible liberty solutions:

1. Convince a majority of force.
2. Geographically organize a majority of force.
3. Breed a majority of force.
4. Kill the existing majority of force.

I don't think #3 or #4 are on the table. They are never talked about, but screwing for Liberty does have a nice ring :). I prefer #2. Most people advocating liberty prefer #1 but are unable to explain how the magic education genie works. In real world application without getting into philosophy and God, truth is an evolution of thought. Most people form what they believe to be truth when they are young.

So how do you challenge the beliefs of a bunch of older people who have become rigid in their ways? Suffering or inspiration. Inspiration requires #2 where people take direct citizen action and set an example to inspire. Look, we did it... you can too. Inspiration could also be pledging lives, fortunes, and sacred honor and actually standing up to tyranny. Either defending against it, or a bunch of people showing up in DC for a pot rally or pulling a Ghandi for some other issue. Inspiration is action. Ron Paul inspires not because of what he says, it is because he has a 30 year track record acting on what he says.

Since there is no evidence people desire to inspire, in my opinion suffering is inevitable. If we are not going to organize to inspire... let's just get the shit (suffering) over with... literally.

If the shit is taxed out of the rich they are bailing the United States and there will be a lot less entrepreneurial activity happening. There will be a lot less capital, new companies, and job opportunities. So tax the shit out of them, they deserve it anyway for all of the benefits obtained from stifling competition. Repealing all of the crap stifling competition does not appear to be on the table anyway. Since we are not eliminating everything that stifles competition it doesn't matter. Tax the shit out of the rich and let people feel the effects of it.

Believe what you want to believe.

[teacherone]

^^^+ rep (out at the moment IOU)

good post

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

^^^+ rep (out at the moment IOU)

good post

thanks. too bad the domain name... "desiretoinspire.com" is taken. I liked it a lot. :D

[JamalianTheory]

Since I see you are newer to the forum I will give a long version reply:

Society is based on belief. Monarchy, minarchy, anarchy, obligarchy, or any other form of archy only works only if people believe in it. Society is a majority of force where one group of people decide to use force for a given belief or beliefs.

Eternal vigilance is the magic pixie fairy dust or the glue of society, aka generational belief. Obviously the United States does not have much generational belief or we would still be following the Constitution.

The United States is failing because there is too much diversity of belief. Possible liberty solutions:

1. Convince a majority of force.
2. Geographically organize a majority of force.
3. Breed a majority of force.
4. Kill the existing majority of force.

I don't think #3 or #4 are on the table. They are never talked about, but screwing for Liberty does have a nice ring :). I prefer #2. Most people advocating liberty prefer #1 but are unable to explain how the magic education genie works. In real world application without getting into philosophy and God, truth is an evolution of thought. Most people form what they believe to be truth when they are young.

So how do you challenge the beliefs of a bunch of older people who have become rigid in their ways? Suffering or inspiration. Inspiration requires #2 where people take direct citizen action and set an example to inspire. Look, we did it... you can too. Inspiration could also be pledging lives, fortunes, and sacred honor and actually standing up to tyranny. Either defending against it, or a bunch of people showing up in DC for a pot rally or pulling a Ghandi for some other issue. Inspiration is action. Ron Paul inspires not because of what he says, it is because he has a 30 year track record acting on what he says.

Since there is no evidence people desire to inspire, in my opinion suffering is inevitable. If we are not going to organize to inspire... let's just get the shit (suffering) over with... literally.

If the shit is taxed out of the rich they are bailing the United States and there will be a lot less entrepreneurial activity happening. There will be a lot less capital, new companies, and job opportunities. So tax the shit out of them, they deserve it anyway for all of the benefits obtained from stifling competition. Repealing all of the crap stifling competition does not appear to be on the table anyway. Since we are not eliminating everything that stifles competition it doesn't matter. Tax the shit out of the rich and let people feel the effects of it.

Believe what you want to believe.

Well, first of all, you explained your point terribly in the post that I quoted.

Secondly, you are okay with taxing the rich....? I work for a small company and the owner can be considered rich (a multi-millionaire). Are you all for taxing the owner of my workplace? That would suck for me, because there's a bigger burden on him. That may mean less equipment for my laboratory, lesser wages for the staff, or any other number of possibilities. So I don't see your logic, AT ALL.

If you don't think the owner of the small company I work for should be taxed, where then should you draw the line? Medium sized companies? Large companies? How do you define the rich? Because what I think you are proposing to do will add tons more regulation. You may want that because you want to collapse the system, but I don't necessarily think that there will be light at the end of the tunnel for that path. After all, Obama won the last election easily, so we can easily see that most Americans have the entitlement mentality. Real talk.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well, first of all, you explained your point terribly in the post that I quoted.

My posts do not cater to newer people, hence I took the time to elaborate. My views are well known among veteran posters which is my "presumed" conversational audience and the reason I visit. I enjoy conversing with people who believe in liberty.



Secondly, you are okay with taxing the rich....? I work for a small company and the owner can be considered rich (a multi-millionaire). Are you all for taxing the owner of my workplace? That would suck for me, because there's a bigger burden on him. That may mean less equipment for my laboratory, lesser wages for the staff, or any other number of possibilities. So I don't see your logic, AT ALL.

If you don't think the owner of the small company I work for should be taxed, where then should you draw the line? Medium sized companies? Large companies? How do you define the rich? Because what I think you are proposing to do will add tons more regulation. You may want that because you want to collapse the system, but I don't necessarily think that there will be light at the end of the tunnel for that path. After all, Obama won the last election easily, so we can easily see that most Americans have the entitlement mentality. Real talk.

I advocate the Non Aggression Principle and eliminating the state. I prefer voluntaryism.

I suggest you re-read my post. I do not want to collapse the system. I only recognize that it is going to get worse. I also cited the reason, diversity of belief. And if it is only going to get worse because people are hard headed, lets get the shit over with so people can rethink what they believe.

I prefer to inspire. For instance, I did not support the Campaign for Liberty, I felt grassroots should organize themselves and did not need a leader such as Ron Paul to do it. People did not want to do that. I advocate geographical organization, liberating one county, and working up. People do not want to do that. I advocate pledging lives, fortunes, and sacred honor standing up to tyranny. People do not want to do that. You misrepresent my position because you are new to this forum.



but I don't necessarily think that there will be light at the end of the tunnel for that path

Instead of going on some tangent misrepresenting my positions how about you offer up a solution or re-read my post and rebut something specific.

[qh4dotcom]

52% of wealthy people making over 200K per year voted for Obama after he made it very clear he was going to raise their taxes. So obviously 52% of those folks would be thrilled to have their taxes increased
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

[brandon]

In addition to what everyone else said, raising taxes does not always raise gross tax revenue. There is a model for this called the laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve). Basically, once taxes reach a certain point, further tax increases reduce productivity so much that they actually decrease tax revenue. I'm sure our economy is at the point where letting those tax cuts expire will reduce tax revenue.

[klamath]

The loophole term was created to play politics with the tax code by creating class warfare.
Claiming your dependents is a loophole. Writing depreciation off on your house is a loophole. Writting your mileage off is a loophole. Do you hear these things called loopholes? Would you be for closing these horrible loopholes?

[MelissaWV]

52% of wealthy people making over 200K per year voted for Obama after he made it very clear he was going to raise their taxes. So obviously 52% of those folks would be thrilled to have their taxes increased
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

...or they know how to get out of paying taxes.

The characterization of $200,000/year as the magic number of which you are wealthy (as a national level) irks me, incidentally.

* * *

DJ think of it this way:

You are kind of into this girl. She's fairly hot, she likes the things you like, and you two get along fine. The only trouble is that every time you go out, the dates get exponentially more expensive. The first date, her meal cost you $40. The second date, you wound up dropping just over $100 on food and a movie. By the tenth date, you were expected to show up with flowers, a gift, tickets to a concert, and provide for her food. After a month, you are saddled with purchasing lavish gifts of over $1,500 every time you see her.

By the time the year is up, she is demanding you pay her rent, her car note, her insurance, buy her personal products, and still spend at least $100 for every meal (she has ridiculous taste). As we head towards the second year, she gets to the point she wants to eat her meals only off of new plates and be served by a new servant in her home every time. You are supposed to hire her a chef for these meals, and you spend a great deal of time going to stores to buy new china and silverware, new stemware, and certainly new linens (she doesn't wash the napkins and won't allow you to; she wants only unused, clean, crisp cloth napkins at every meal).

Keep in mind that your benefits have not increased. She cannot put out anywhere near the amount that would make up for the tens of thousands of dollars you're going to wind up spending every year on her upkeep. She cannot become so hot and sexy that you wouldn't mind the fact it seems that, by the third or fifth year, you might be spending $500,000+ every year on her whims. In fact, she is aging, yet her demands are increasing. You, also, are aging and dealing with more stress to have to support these habits.

One day, as you arrive with your bag full of diamonds and her newest designer handbag, she says that you don't make enough money and you need to get more jobs in order to pay for what she wants. You ignore it, because you really like her for some reason. The next day, you say you want something for yourself, and she again repeats that you should get yourself another means of income, because she is not giving anything up, and could you please pass the imported glacier water that's $300 a bottle.

Why would you keep doing this? Do you really believe the "solution" is to continue to make more and more money, or does your dummy of a girlfriend need to learn that she'd better cut back her desires or you won't support them anymore? Didn't you want to break up with her two paragraphs ago? :p

Moreover, has she done something sinister and smart by adopting this tactic? Think about it. If she said "oh, you're right" and went back to "only" costing you $100/meal, would you be glad of it? Would she have you convinced that you were somehow getting a bargain?

Now compare that to the Government. They don't need more money. They need to stop living in la-la land.

[Rancher]

DJ think of it this way:

You are kind of into this girl. She's fairly hot, she likes the things you like, and you two get along fine. The only trouble is that every time you go out, the dates get exponentially more expensive. The first date, her meal cost you $40. The second date, you wound up dropping just over $100 on food and a movie. By the tenth date, you were expected to show up with flowers, a gift, tickets to a concert, and provide for her food. After a month, you are saddled with purchasing lavish gifts of over $1,500 every time you see her.

By the time the year is up, she is demanding you pay her rent, her car note, her insurance, buy her personal products, and still spend at least $100 for every meal (she has ridiculous taste). As we head towards the second year, she gets to the point she wants to eat her meals only off of new plates and be served by a new servant in her home every time. You are supposed to hire her a chef for these meals, and you spend a great deal of time going to stores to buy new china and silverware, new stemware, and certainly new linens (she doesn't wash the napkins and won't allow you to; she wants only unused, clean, crisp cloth napkins at every meal).

Keep in mind that your benefits have not increased. She cannot put out anywhere near the amount that would make up for the tens of thousands of dollars you're going to wind up spending every year on her upkeep. She cannot become so hot and sexy that you wouldn't mind the fact it seems that, by the third or fifth year, you might be spending $500,000+ every year on her whims. In fact, she is aging, yet her demands are increasing. You, also, are aging and dealing with more stress to have to support these habits.

One day, as you arrive with your bag full of diamonds and her newest designer handbag, she says that you don't make enough money and you need to get more jobs in order to pay for what she wants. You ignore it, because you really like her for some reason. The next day, you say you want something for yourself, and she again repeats that you should get yourself another means of income, because she is not giving anything up, and could you please pass the imported glacier water that's $300 a bottle.

Why would you keep doing this? Do you really believe the "solution" is to continue to make more and more money, or does your dummy of a girlfriend need to learn that she'd better cut back her desires or you won't support them anymore? Didn't you want to break up with her two paragraphs ago? :p

Moreover, has she done something sinister and smart by adopting this tactic? Think about it. If she said "oh, you're right" and went back to "only" costing you $100/meal, would you be glad of it? Would she have you convinced that you were somehow getting a bargain?

Now compare that to the Government. They don't need more money. They need to stop living in la-la land.
Very impressive! Write a book and teach this concept to young people. :cool:

[MelissaWV]

Very impressive! Write a book and teach this concept to young people. :cool:

I'm... not a young people anymore? :(

[spudea]

1. the bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent.

2. People are much more aware of direct taxes than the inflation tax, thus more people will realize how crippling our government has become to our economy.

3. Its a good argument against a neo-con who loves the wars or a liberal who loves welfare, if you want the government to do it YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Let all the cuts expire and thats just one step closer to President Ron Paul

[Rancher]

I'm... not a young people anymore? :(
I don't know anything about you except you seem to almost always get it right in my mind. When I went to grade school we did not have books that taught these concepts. You are a good writer and could teach them how the real world works. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

That was very good, Melissa. :)

[Deborah K]

Yes, excellent analogy, Melissa!

[ctiger2]

It's 700 billion over 10 years or 7 billion per year. That's nothing. The govt. could take 100% of all the peoples salaries and it would still be in deficit. They spend too much. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid need a 50% haircut.

[qh4dotcom]

Very good, Melissa

[Brian4Liberty]

What I find interesting about all discussions on the "Bush" tax cuts is absolutely no specifics on what the hell was cut and by how much. We hear it's about the rich, or it's about small business or Obama's magic income limits. It's just class warfare and spin.

The tax code as it is today is an utter disgrace. Bush and Obama need to take their tweaks of this monstrosity and shove them right up their asses. The entire tax code needs to be thrown out and replaced by a flat tax, with no deductions, no exceptions, no loopholes, no social and economic engineering attempts, no favoritism, no cronyism and no corporatism. Even better, eliminate income taxes completely and replace them with a flat, untargeted, no exceptions tariff. Then the IRS can get off the backs of the people and spend their days counting cargo at ports.

[Theocrat]

We have a massive deficit. Couldn't it possibly help to increase taxes for the wealthy? I know taxing isn't the answer, but republicans act like the Bush tax cuts is what is going to save this country from a depression... as if we already arn't in one. Why don't they focus on shrinking government, and do what they can to cut the deficit? Every dollar saved is one less dollar that is owed with interest

I care about tax cuts expiring. Do you know why? Because the rent is too damn high.

[erowe1]

We have a massive deficit. Couldn't it possibly help to increase taxes for the wealthy?
No, it couldn't. It would only give them more money to spend and more of the economy to control, without decreasing the deficit.


I know taxing isn't the answer, but republicans act like the Bush tax cuts is what is going to save this country from a depression... as if we already arn't in one. Why don't they focus on shrinking government, and do what they can to cut the deficit?
Good question. But you don't shrink the government by giving it more to spend. You have to starve it.

[DjLoTi]

The loophole term was created to play politics with the tax code by creating class warfare.
Claiming your dependents is a loophole. Writing depreciation off on your house is a loophole. Writting your mileage off is a loophole. Do you hear these things called loopholes? Would you be for closing these horrible loopholes?

So the loophole term is just politics? I heard they were funneling money into tax free areas. Sounds kind of like a loophole to me.



* * *

DJ think of it this way:

You are kind of into this girl. She's fairly hot, ...

haha ok you lost me here, lol.. j/k



No, it couldn't. It would only give them more money to spend and more of the economy to control, without decreasing the deficit.

Good question. But you don't shrink the government by giving it more to spend. You have to starve it.

What if they didn't spend the money, and just applied it towards the deficit? E.g. the increased tax revenue is applied towards our debt? I'm not talking about pulling in more tax dollars so they can spend more. Our problem is our empire (domestically and overseas). Rome is burning. If conservatives focus on stopping tax cuts and not reducing the empire, we'll never get anywhere



DjLoTi, with all due respect, the problem isn't that they aren't taking taxing us enough.


See what I'm saying? The problem is our empire and our domestic disorder. They need to stop spending a billion dollars on an embassy in the UK and bring the troops home, ect.

I think conservatives are misguided in making the bush tax cuts a key issue to solving our crises



...or they know how to get out of paying taxes.

The characterization of $200,000/year as the magic number of which you are wealthy (as a national level) irks me, incidentally.

* * *

DJ think of it this way:

You are kind of into this girl. She's fairly hot, she likes the things you like, and you two get along fine. The only trouble is that every time you go out, the dates get exponentially more expensive. The first date, her meal cost you $40. The second date, you wound up dropping just over $100 on food and a movie. By the tenth date, you were expected to show up with flowers, a gift, tickets to a concert, and provide for her food. After a month, you are saddled with purchasing lavish gifts of over $1,500 every time you see her.

By the time the year is up, she is demanding you pay her rent, her car note, her insurance, buy her personal products, and still spend at least $100 for every meal (she has ridiculous taste). As we head towards the second year, she gets to the point she wants to eat her meals only off of new plates and be served by a new servant in her home every time. You are supposed to hire her a chef for these meals, and you spend a great deal of time going to stores to buy new china and silverware, new stemware, and certainly new linens (she doesn't wash the napkins and won't allow you to; she wants only unused, clean, crisp cloth napkins at every meal).

Keep in mind that your benefits have not increased. She cannot put out anywhere near the amount that would make up for the tens of thousands of dollars you're going to wind up spending every year on her upkeep. She cannot become so hot and sexy that you wouldn't mind the fact it seems that, by the third or fifth year, you might be spending $500,000+ every year on her whims. In fact, she is aging, yet her demands are increasing. You, also, are aging and dealing with more stress to have to support these habits.

One day, as you arrive with your bag full of diamonds and her newest designer handbag, she says that you don't make enough money and you need to get more jobs in order to pay for what she wants. You ignore it, because you really like her for some reason. The next day, you say you want something for yourself, and she again repeats that you should get yourself another means of income, because she is not giving anything up, and could you please pass the imported glacier water that's $300 a bottle.

Why would you keep doing this? Do you really believe the "solution" is to continue to make more and more money, or does your dummy of a girlfriend need to learn that she'd better cut back her desires or you won't support them anymore? Didn't you want to break up with her two paragraphs ago? :p

Moreover, has she done something sinister and smart by adopting this tactic? Think about it. If she said "oh, you're right" and went back to "only" costing you $100/meal, would you be glad of it? Would she have you convinced that you were somehow getting a bargain?

Now compare that to the Government. They don't need more money. They need to stop living in la-la land.



Haha ok Melissa, everyone was raving about your post, so I had to come back. It's a good story (lol, "One day, as you arrive with your bag full of diamonds and her newest designer handbag". Love it. "Didn't you want to break up with her two paragraphs ago? =P .. totally), but it sounds like you're talking about an inflation tax. I'm talking about the Bush tax cuts specifically. I think conservatives should focus on the right things instead of giving themselves a big group hug after the tax cuts are continued (i'm sure it'll happen because Obummer will cave)... what a loser

[MelissaWV]

I was addressing how Government spending is out of hand. You are basically paying for bags of diamonds for all kinds of little Governmental agencies. Of course, that's only metaphorically speaking. Buying them bags of diamonds would be cheaper.

Taxation isn't the answer, and "letting the tax cuts expire" isn't really any skin off of anyone's nose that matters to the Government. There are some businesses and citizens, as usual, who'll see their incomes fluctuate based on the expiration. The bigger businesses won't feel this mousefart in a hurricane. The poor already don't pay much of anything in taxes. There are loopholes all over the place to crawl through and hide. It isn't really going to do much either way.

The point we're trying to make is that "higher taxes" are not going to fix anything. If you gave that hypothetical girlfriend a million dollars, she'd spend it, and she'd expect a million more tomorrow. That is what the Government has become.

[erowe1]

What if they didn't spend the money, and just applied it towards the deficit? E.g. the increased tax revenue is applied towards our debt?

But that's not one of the options. They can't write a bill that says "We will let the tax cuts expire and however much our revenue in that scenario exceeds what it hypothetically would have been had we not let them expire will be used to decrease the deficit by way of us not increasing spending beyond what it otherwise hypothetically would have been." There's no way to quantify those hypotheticals, so it would just be an imaginary condition.

To legislators more revenue = license to spend more.

I agree with you about conservatives not cutting spending. We need to starve them.

[Agorism]

Letting the tax cuts expire is part of Obama's anti-business agenda.

[DjLoTi]

What I'm saying is that we are already buying these bags of diamonds. Lets stop buying the bags of diamonds! The bailouts and the handouts and the wars are the biggest things that are killing our economy...

So 2 questions - Are people in favor of ending tax loopholes since they increase taxes?

and shouldn't we be focusing just as heavily, if not more, on cutting spending as we should with preventing tax increases? Granted, I realize nobody from congress is going to come here and read this... =P

[erowe1]

So 2 questions - Are people in favor of ending tax loopholes since they increase taxes?
I'm not sure how loopholes increase taxes.
But if you mean to ask if we would favor a revenue neutral tax reform where we lower all tax rates in exchange for eliminating all the various deductions and credits, I personally would favor that. But I would never consider anything revenue-neutral something to get excited about. We want government revenues to go down.



and shouldn't we be focusing just as heavily, if not more, on cutting spending as we should with preventing tax increases?
Definitely. But those aren't mutually exclusive things. And one way to hamper spending (at least theoretically) is to keep revenues to a minimum.

[DjLoTi]

I'm not sure how loopholes increase taxes.
We want government revenues to go down.

Definitely. But those aren't mutually exclusive things. And one way to hamper spending (at least theoretically) is to keep revenues to a minimum.

Ending loopholes would increase taxes. Are people against ending tax havens for corporations?

And I know if the government gets less, it can spend less, but we're spending over 250 billion dollars a year on our deficit. The faster we can lower our deficit, the less we'll have to pay on interest. I think the more the government can make, the faster it can pay the debt and we will get our of debt. It either that or we declare insolvency.

[low preference guy]

Ending loopholes would increase taxes. Are people against ending tax havens for corporations?

And I know if the government gets less, it can spend less, but we're spending over 250 billion dollars a year on our deficit. The faster we can lower our deficit, the less we'll have to pay on interest

We're not going to pay the debt. It's impossible. And we shouldn't. Why should you pay for compromises that were done without your consent? If will also set a nice precedent that people shouldn't trust governments to pay back debt, so they won't lend money to govs. anymore.

This is happening sooner or later. Politicians simply won't take money from hurting voters to give it to non-voters (chinese). As Peter Schiff said, they'll just say the Chinese acted like predatory lenders.

[Humanae Libertas]

I have a great idea! Lets establish a VAT Tax like Gelnn Fake & Shill O'Reilly suggested:

YouTube - Bankster Shills GLENN BECK & BILL O'REILLY Call For MORE TAXES On The AMERICAN PEOPLE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYRZgIL-hUk)

[erowe1]

Ending loopholes would increase taxes. Are people against ending tax havens for corporations?


Sorry. I had a brain fart. I was thinking you meant that loopholes increase taxes, rather than ending loopholes would increase taxes.

I wouldn't be for ending loopholes unless it was balanced out by a cut in tax rates. But if it's just ending loopholes so that tax revenue goes up, then I'm against it. the less taxes anyone pays, including corporations, the better.