2
   

Fear of a Black President

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 05:48 pm
Gee, all those huge deficits under Bush and a republican congress; shame on the democrats!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 06:35 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Gee, all those huge deficits under Bush and a republican congress; shame on the democrats!

It's been a Democrat Congress for almost 2 years trying to pass more spending--much of which Bush vetoed.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 06:35 pm
It is amazing how those Dems gum everything up, even when the Reps control all three branches of the government.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 10:10 pm
Come on people. The more value you have to protect with insurance the more you have to pay for that protection. Why should it be any different for the protection you get from the government. The more you have the more you should pay in taxes. You know. Army, air force, navy, police protection, fire department. The more you have to protect the more you should have to pay. As all good conseratives know no one should get a free ride, and everyone should pay their fair share, right.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 11:21 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Come on people. The more value you have to protect with insurance the more you have to pay for that protection. Why should it be any different for the protection you get from the government. The more you have the more you should pay in taxes. You know. Army, air force, navy, police protection, fire department. The more you have to protect the more you should have to pay. As all good conseratives know no one should get a free ride, and everyone should pay their fair share, right.


rabel, I don't think conservatives can comprehend this message.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 11:25 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Gee, all those huge deficits under Bush and a republican congress; shame on the democrats!

It's been a Democrat Congress for almost 2 years trying to pass more spending--much of which Bush vetoed.


I guess the 160 billion legislation that congress approved for the war in Iraq was vetoed by Bush. How much is this war costing the US taxpayers now? The better question is, how much more? Wonder of wonders, the federal deficit under Bush grew to it's current level because Bush has been vetoeing all them spending bills.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 11:33 pm
parados wrote:
You manufacture this "something for nothing Citizen B" that is not found anywhere in the reality of the US. Most of those on welfare have or will pay taxes at some point in their lives. You can not find me one Citizen B that has never paid or never will pay a dime but gets something from the govt.


kickycan wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Taxing the income of those earning the most at 35%, and taxing others of lesser income at 15% is not giving the wealthy a tax break. It is giving the less wealthy a tax break.


Cool. That sounds great. When do we get that?


A large portion of lower income Americans pay NO income taxes at all. They receive ALL of it back as a refund at the end of the year. Some even get a payment (EIC) in addition to paying NO income taxes. Are you aware of this?

Whether you conjecture that they 'will pay taxes at some point in their lives" in the future is immaterial.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 11:44 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Gee, all those huge deficits under Bush and a republican congress; shame on the democrats!

It's been a Democrat Congress for almost 2 years trying to pass more spending--much of which Bush vetoed.


I guess the 160 billion legislation that congress approved for the war in Iraq was vetoed by Bush. How much is this war costing the US taxpayers now? The better question is, how much more? Wonder of wonders, the federal deficit under Bush grew to it's current level because Bush has been vetoeing all them spending bills.


Prior to 1994, the Democrats controlled Congress for nearly 40 years with few exceptions.

Did they balance the budgets during those years?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 02:34 am
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
You manufacture this "something for nothing Citizen B" that is not found anywhere in the reality of the US. Most of those on welfare have or will pay taxes at some point in their lives. You can not find me one Citizen B that has never paid or never will pay a dime but gets something from the govt.


kickycan wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Taxing the income of those earning the most at 35%, and taxing others of lesser income at 15% is not giving the wealthy a tax break. It is giving the less wealthy a tax break.


Cool. That sounds great. When do we get that?


A large portion of lower income Americans pay NO income taxes at all. They receive ALL of it back as a refund at the end of the year. Some even get a payment (EIC) in addition to paying NO income taxes. Are you aware of this?

Whether you conjecture that they 'will pay taxes at some point in their lives" in the future is immaterial.


I see what you mean. Those poor people are so selfish. Greedy low-income bastards!
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 02:52 am
A better perspective is to look at the point where an individual qualifies to be exempt, and then look to see if it is possible to afford housing and food at that pay.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 06:47 am
While poor may not have to pay income tax, they are paying excise and other taxes, such as those on gasoline, telephone service, etc. There is also FICA and Medicare.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 10:31 am
In Illinois you pay 6 to 7 % on dam near every dollar you spend up front. Dosent make any difference wether your a billionaire or only make $1,000 a year.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 10:47 am
ican wrote :

Quote:
What true conservatives actually advocate is complying with the rule of law; for example, specifically complying with the tax law specified in the USA Constitution:
"Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

We advocate that because we know the USA Constitution states:
"Article VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Taxing all dollars of income at the same rate, regardless of whose dollar it is, when it was earned, how it was earned, how many other dollars are earned, how many other dollars are owned, would be a uniform tax rate.

For example: if the uniform tax rate on all dollars of income were 10%, then a person earning:
$1,000 would pay $100 tax;
$100,000 would pay $10,000 tax;
$10,000,000 would pay $1,000,000 tax;
$10,000,000,000 would pay $1,000,000,000 tax.


in the 1960's - under a liberal canadian government - justice porter was appointed to bring together economists , business people , accountants ... ... to come up with a major tax reform .

their solution - unfortunately - was a very simply one :
ALL income , from work , interest , dividends , inheritance , theft (yes , that too ) would be added together - there would be NO exceptions to any income .
except for a basic exemption , there would be no other excemptions - NONE ! .
no subsidies of any kind to business would be allowed .
the commision showed that individual tax returns would fit on the back of a postcard and that the tax code would only take up a few pages .
they also demonstrated that a fairly modest tax was able to support government operations .

you can guess what happened : a howl went up from just about every source , including industries looking for handouts from government and lower taxes , tax "professionals" , employees of the tax department .. and the list goes on .

the tax code has now become so complicated that the regulations , rulings , forms etc. will fill whole rooms at tax lawyers' offices and tax offices .

the tax department has also decided that "advance" rulings may be changed at the option of the tax department at the time of filing .

even the ordinary tax return has usually about 12 to 20 pages !

no other government has ever again even talked about simplifying the tax system - too many people make a living from it .
hbf
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 10:53 am
hbg, Your post reminded me of something I read many decades ago about a flat tax; that taxing "all income" at 15% for everyone will do away with all the tax codes, and all tax returns can be handled on a postcard. Not only that, but the government will get enough funding for all the programs that was in existence at that time plus a surplus.

Just imagine; no more IRS or tax accountants that reduce everybody's income just to figure out our taxes.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 11:02 am
c. i. wrote :

Quote:
Just imagine; no more IRS or tax accountants that reduce everybody's income just to figure out our taxes.


what are you trying to do ? destroy the very fabric that holds nations together (the hatred of the tax department Laughing ) : NEVER !
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 12:29 pm
I wouldn't think so; it's capitalism with a capital "C."
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 12:34 pm
H & R Block said that the Internal Revenue Code is a perfect jewel. Although this is quite self-serving, it is not too far from the truth.

There are no simple solutions to complicated problems. The real complexity in the Code is in finding what a person's income is. We have a complicated economy, which is getting even more complicated by the day, and is it quite tricky to find what a person really made on a transaction. (This, of course, doesn't apply usually to someone whose income is limited to a salary.) For example, regarding pension income, one must frequently refer to actuarial tables to properly spread the cost basis over the years of receipt.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 01:44 pm
Our's is all long-term and taxable because they're 401ks.

What's really funny now is that money market accounts pay something like one percent interest per annum, and that's taxed too!

In the mean time, our government gives tax breaks to the most wealthy in our country; go figure.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 01:50 pm
CI, a good example are oil companies, which receive tax expenditures of various sorts, despite reaping windfall profits.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 02:07 pm
Precisely! Guess who gains most from those subsidies? CLUE: It's not the middle class or the poor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 05:19:39