48 posts
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406
obamas administration WILL go after a VAT to ease the pain of massive spending the last couple decades. the entire congress will be voted out if it passes. i can't wait!
it's not all obama's fault, the groundwork was laid for this a while ago. he merely played his part
on: 08/03/09 at 12:26:15
Started by chase | Post by chase
there is little doubt in my mind that it will pass in one form or another regardless of what i think is prudent. after the fact when taxes on the middle class go up, possibly a VAT, and god knows what else to fund these programs is instituted people will look back and start to wonder if it was such a good idea. in short, most people think it is a good idea (as evidenced by the election of obama who made health care reform a cornerstone of his campaign) but have little knowledge of what it will take to sustain such a program. i think i can agree with you that i should probably stop debating this though. we both understand eachother Smiley
My Mom mentioned today that all of Britain will be going to a 50%(!) tax on everyone. I hope we're not headed down THAT path, that would really be fucked.
Actually VAT is one of the better ways to tax
and you are going to be taxed more -simple
law of economic gravity
50% on income over 150k (230k)
i.e nothing that would affect any one in this discussion
certainly not chase. But not great either better to raise indirect
taxes like VAT.
Ah...
Well, I still have a problem with success being punished, but what can you do? :-?
Raise taxes indirectly on consumption - i.e VAT.
no disincentive to work, save and invest.
This cracks me up. Conservatives have been pushing for VAT--a tax on consumption--forever.
Why? Because rich people consume very little, as a percentage of their worth, and thus VAT works out to a very low tax rate on the rich. On the flip side, poor and middle class people consume with a very large percentage of their income.
It's essentially the reverse of the current tax structure.
So I often see this touted as a tax "solution" by conservatives. In fact, your hero Ron Paul favors VAT over income tax. But, he's not Obama, and everything anyone related to Obama says is evil, because they ultimately want to take all of your money and rights, rape and destroy your family, and eat your children--I get it.
Ooh, look at who else considered this issue... and how positive the reviews were by conservatives when Bush was floating it...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29637
That's a good idea, says Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, as long as Americans don't end up with both an income tax and a consumption tax, as is the case in most of Europe.
"My worry," he told WorldNetDaily, "is that somewhere down the road, after we replace the income tax with a consumption tax, the American people will get saddled with an additional income tax."
Maybe if we all talk out of both sides of our mouths, somewhere in the middle it will become truth.
1st, i don't think i'm a republican.
2nd, ron paul isn't my hero. i like SOME of his ideas.
3rd, VAT as a supplement to current taxation will kill us
4th, i can get behind the FAIRTAX proposal; sadly it will never pass. their is no perfect way to tax people, which is what it would take to change our tax code
Yeah - that surprised me as well.
Indirect taxes are not a left wing tax.
VAT does have a lot going for it though.
It doesn't distort economic activity the way direct taxes do.
Richer people do spend more - a lot more
and the basics - things like food are usually left vat free
and the poorer spend disproportionately more on these.
A rich person buys a nice flatscreen TV for $2500, pays whatever, 30% more, out the door it's $3250. He buys a car for $45k, 58.5k out the door. Taxes = $14.250. He makes $500k a year, so he's just paid 2.8% of his income in taxes.
The middle class person buys a less-nice flatscreen for $1500, pays $1950 out the door. He buys a more modest car for $17k, $22.1k out the door. Taxes = $5550. The middle class dude makes $85k a year. He's paid 6.5% in taxes.
For the rich people, and the conservatives who serve them, it's a win-win. For the poor and middle class, it's a lose-lose. I'd support a flat tax before a consumption tax.
chase — Apr 07, 20101st, i don't think i'm a republican. - a rose is a rose by any other name - some famous dude :-X
2nd, ron paul isn't my hero. i like SOME of his ideas. - which ones ?
3rd, VAT as a supplement to current taxation will kill us - foolish taxation policy kills you
4th, i can get behind the FAIRTAX proposal; sadly it will never pass. their is no perfect way to tax people, which is what it would take to change our tax code -
Fairness is obviously subjective- but clearly a mix of taxes is going to be more fair - tax rules need to be kept as simple and impossible to avoid as possible - so people don't waste shit loads of time on avoiding them and get on with doing what they do for a living - but the rich should be paying proportionally more than the poor in any society that is skewed where 1% owns/consumes 10% of GDP
The problem with politics is this
the vast majority of the population are middle class/ middle income - the numbers represent the biggest tax take and vote for government.
Elections are fought around the arguments of the middle class.
But the country as a whole is not in a normal distribution.
It is heavily lob sided.
a large number of poverty level poor on one side and a small number of uber wealthy oligarchs on the other.
Whatever happens taxation increases will will be the same for the middle lot in the 90%.
Just swings on how it is distributed between the rich and poor.
poor have raw numbers and little organisation,
the rich have serious organisation - things like having a media outlet.
If you are neither rich nor poor - VAT is a better tax raise than income tax.
At least the rich pay that when they spend - rich people don't pay significant levels of income tax - they organise their affairs so they don't - they end up with far more spending money than their income.
Even a street level crook selling crack will have to pay VAT when he buys his 3D TV with the proceeds.
It is in the mix
charger — Apr 07, 2010A rich person buys a nice flatscreen TV for $2500, pays whatever, 30% more, out the door it's $3250. He buys a car for $45k, 58.5k out the door. Taxes = $14.250. He makes $500k a year, so he's just paid 2.8% of his income in taxes.
The middle class person buys a less-nice flatscreen for $1500, pays $1950 out the door. He buys a more modest car for $17k, $22.1k out the door. Taxes = $5550. The middle class dude makes $85k a year. He's paid 6.5% in taxes.
For the rich people, and the conservatives who serve them, it's a win-win. For the poor and middle class, it's a lose-lose. I'd support a flat tax before a consumption tax.
If you went for a VAT only tax system it would lead to that scenario.
Also ignoring the fact the guy earning 500k would go on beyond the middle class dude and be buying a Ferrari and generally throwing his wad around and would be on remuneration deal that avoided the income tax that only the suckers pay - but he pays VAT.
The poor - well not charging VAT on essential everyday items would help them relatively.
It is no revolution - and 30% is a crazy first step - it would be 5% max I imagine to start with - if only to manage the inflationary angle.
It will rise over the years :)
I fucking can't believe it. I was listening to some fox radio today and I thought of you Chase. Seriously. I would have bet any amount of money on you saying something about this. Your predictable now, congrats.
Fox radio is just shiting on news right now, about this subject for one thing. I swear people must not no a goddamn thing about whats going on now because the callers were eating the shit up. Although, John Gibson got his ass handed to him by one caller wanting evidence of some bullshit he was trying to sell. Couldn't provide it and was noticibly pissed. He's such a ignorant cunt fuck.
I hate to inform you of this Chase, but your a conservative, with or without the republican lable....doesn't matter at all. I wouldn't say that to your face though, you might shoot me.
Next gripe will be the arms deal with Russia, right?
That arms deal with Russia came out fantastically well for us, and spectacularly badly for the Russians. However, I'm sure conservative and tea partiers will find a way that it is just another example of Obama destroying America.
charger — Apr 08, 2010That arms deal with Russia came out fantastically well for us, and spectacularly badly for the Russians. However, I'm sure conservative and tea partiers will find a way that it is just another example of Obama destroying America.
Well, fox is saying exactly opposite, of course. I think we have about 5000 nukes. Same with Russia if what I've read is correct, or close. Why in hell would we ever need more? No other countries are close to that kind of stockpile of nuclear weapons. Nor will they ever be.
I favor a strong military, but anymore nukes would be a huge waste of money. Especially right now when we have no money. The only thing that concerns me is Pakistan having nukes and Iran being closer and closer to having them also.
I think under the new deal we get to keep 1,550 nukes each. Which, by the way is a SHITLOAD.
That's what's so funny about arms control. Sure, it's a step in the right direction--and I consider it amazing that Obama swung this deal, especially since it is particularly unfavorable to the Russians. BUT--we still maintain the capacity to easily annihilate all of humanity. So, to paraphrase, it's one small step for man, one small step form mankind.
Why is it unfavourable to the Russians ?
forget nominal numbers of reduction - both sides want rid of the bulk of the archaic weapons from the cold war - Russia just has more obsolete crap lying around.
Shit that is expensive to maintain and secure for no purpose.
The political significance is huge though and is way beyond "Cold War" politics.
charger — Apr 08, 2010I think under the new deal we get to keep 1,550 nukes each. Which, by the way is a SHITLOAD.
That's what's so funny about arms control. Sure, it's a step in the right direction--and I consider it amazing that Obama swung this deal, especially since it is particularly unfavorable to the Russians. BUT--we still maintain the capacity to easily annihilate all of humanity. So, to paraphrase, it's one small step for man, one small step form mankind.
we are still keeping enough to cover every square inch of the earth. good enough for me
fingers — Apr 07, 2010[quote author=chase link=1270609705/0#10 date=1270665325]1st, i don't think i'm a republican. - a rose is a rose by any other name - some famous dude :-X
2nd, ron paul isn't my hero. i like SOME of his ideas. - which ones ?
3rd, VAT as a supplement to current taxation will kill us - foolish taxation policy kills you
4th, i can get behind the FAIRTAX proposal; sadly it will never pass. their is no perfect way to tax people, which is what it would take to change our tax code -
Fairness is obviously subjective- but clearly a mix of taxes is going to be more fair - tax rules need to be kept as simple and impossible to avoid as possible - so people don't waste shit loads of time on avoiding them and get on with doing what they do for a living - but the rich should be paying proportionally more than the poor in any society that is skewed where 1% owns/consumes 10% of GDP
The problem with politics is this
the vast majority of the population are middle class/ middle income - the numbers represent the biggest tax take and vote for government.
Elections are fought around the arguments of the middle class.
But the country as a whole is not in a normal distribution.
It is heavily lob sided.
a large number of poverty level poor on one side and a small number of uber wealthy oligarchs on the other.
Whatever happens taxation increases will will be the same for the middle lot in the 90%.
Just swings on how it is distributed between the rich and poor.
poor have raw numbers and little organisation,
the rich have serious organisation - things like having a media outlet.
If you are neither rich nor poor - VAT is a better tax raise than income tax.
At least the rich pay that when they spend - rich people don't pay significant levels of income tax - they organise their affairs so they don't - they end up with far more spending money than their income.
Even a street level crook selling crack will have to pay VAT when he buys his 3D TV with the proceeds.
It is in the mix
you don't know about the fairtax proposal do you? it's interesting
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
please take the time to check out the site. it calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment. what it would do for businesses here in america would be amazing. getting it off the ground and running would be the hard part.
Hookbender — Apr 08, 2010I fucking can't believe it. I was listening to some fox radio today and I thought of you Chase. Seriously. I would have bet any amount of money on you saying something about this. Your predictable now, congrats.
Fox radio is just shiting on news right now, about this subject for one thing. I swear people must not no a goddamn thing about whats going on now because the callers were eating the shit up. Although, John Gibson got his ass handed to him by one caller wanting evidence of some bullshit he was trying to sell. Couldn't provide it and was noticibly pissed. He's such a ignorant cunt fuck.
I hate to inform you of this Chase, but your a conservative, with or without the republican lable....doesn't matter at all. I wouldn't say that to your face though, you might shoot me.
Next gripe will be the arms deal with Russia, right?
congratulations to you as well, your post contains no substance. once again you feel necessary to bring up fox news, it's getting old. i don't watch it with any regularity. you care to talk about the core issue here? spend more = tax more
charger — Apr 07, 2010A rich person buys a nice flatscreen TV for $2500, pays whatever, 30% more, out the door it's $3250. He buys a car for $45k, 58.5k out the door. Taxes = $14.250. He makes $500k a year, so he's just paid 2.8% of his income in taxes.
The middle class person buys a less-nice flatscreen for $1500, pays $1950 out the door. He buys a more modest car for $17k, $22.1k out the door. Taxes = $5550. The middle class dude makes $85k a year. He's paid 6.5% in taxes.
For the rich people, and the conservatives who serve them, it's a win-win. For the poor and middle class, it's a lose-lose. I'd support a flat tax before a consumption tax.
it's a lose-lose for the poor and middle class because they would start having to pay SOMETHING. 47% of the nation pays 0 in federal income taxes. can you imagine the revenue boost this would bring in (the fairtax proposal)? you can't argue the point that rich people are going to spend more, hence paying more in taxes. we both know it isn't perfect, but it greatly simplifies our tax code, levels the playing field, encourages foreign investment in business here in america, encourages americans to keep jobs/manufacturing here in the US, etc. and so forth.
please check out the website along with the refutes section. they take every criticism apart and explain how it would be overcome
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
fingers — Apr 07, 2010[quote author=chase link=1270609705/0#10 date=1270665325]1st, i don't think i'm a republican. - a rose is a rose by any other name - some famous dude :-X
2nd, ron paul isn't my hero. i like SOME of his ideas. - which ones ?
3rd, VAT as a supplement to current taxation will kill us - foolish taxation policy kills you
4th, i can get behind the FAIRTAX proposal; sadly it will never pass. their is no perfect way to tax people, which is what it would take to change our tax code -
Fairness is obviously subjective- but clearly a mix of taxes is going to be more fair - tax rules need to be kept as simple and impossible to avoid as possible - so people don't waste shit loads of time on avoiding them and get on with doing what they do for a living - but the rich should be paying proportionally more than the poor in any society that is skewed where 1% owns/consumes 10% of GDP
Whatever happens taxation increases will will be the same for the middle lot in the 90%.
47% of americans pay NO INCOME TAX. the middle class is a rapidly deteriorating phenomenon in america sadly. i agree completely with you i think. i'm all for throwing out all taxes other than a consumption tax. the fairtax movement i've mentioned several times here in this thread is the leading proponent
chase — Apr 09, 2010[quote author=charger link=1270609705/0#12 date=1270679240]A rich person buys a nice flatscreen TV for $2500, pays whatever, 30% more, out the door it's $3250. He buys a car for $45k, 58.5k out the door. Taxes = $14.250. He makes $500k a year, so he's just paid 2.8% of his income in taxes.
The middle class person buys a less-nice flatscreen for $1500, pays $1950 out the door. He buys a more modest car for $17k, $22.1k out the door. Taxes = $5550. The middle class dude makes $85k a year. He's paid 6.5% in taxes.
For the rich people, and the conservatives who serve them, it's a win-win. For the poor and middle class, it's a lose-lose. I'd support a flat tax before a consumption tax.
it's a lose-lose for the poor and middle class because they would start having to pay SOMETHING. 47% of the nation pays 0 in federal income taxes. can you imagine the revenue boost this would bring in (the fairtax proposal)? you can't argue the point that rich people are going to spend more, hence paying more in taxes. we both know it isn't perfect, but it greatly simplifies our tax code, levels the playing field, encourages foreign investment in business here in america, encourages americans to keep jobs/manufacturing here in the US, etc. and so forth.
please check out the website along with the refutes section. they take every criticism apart and explain how it would be overcome
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Sorry man, if you make 85,000 a year, you do pay taxes. You didn't read my post. That's how a middle class person gets fucked, compared to a rich one. Do the calculations on your FairTax site, and do them as if you make 35k, 100k, 500k... and see who benefits.
We obviously have some fundamentally different views. The tax burden is already overwhelmingly on the rich. The bottom half of society pays nothing yet recieves the benefits. The tip top of all earners pay a massive percentage of the taxes.
A consumption tax would drastically redistribute the tax burden. To me that would be a good thing, I'm guessing you like the richest paying the most.
Getting back on point, the problem now is we will be saddled with both taxes, which will suffocate us.
What, you think that Congress is actually going to pass a VAT right now?
As for the current tax system, while it's not perfect, I do believe that as you make more money, you should pay a larger percentage. To me, 35% for earnings over $373k is more than fair. Especially since, ever since we've got an accountant doing our taxes, I see how much shit you can get removed from your income total, and I know how little of that 35% the rich really pay. I've moved up tax brackets in my lifetime, and always considered myself fortunate to do so. And while I am not thrilled to pay for stupid shit like overpriced military equipment, kickbacks for contractors, or invasions of Iraq, I've always considered it part of my duty as an American to pay for things America wants and needs, even if the idiots in Congress don't have the same priorities I do.
I honestly don't have a problem with a family of four who makes $55k paying no taxes. Why should I? That's barely making it, the way I look at it. Sure, there are places in the country where that might go far, but where I am from, that's a really low wage. The FairTax plan you showed lists the first $7000 as tax-free. There's no way in hell that I will ever agree that someone making less than $1000 a month should be paying 23% in taxes. $1000 a month - $12,000 a year -- is like a third-world wage. At that rate, you will pay everything you make for rent, goods, and services, and probably still go into debt.
chase — Apr 09, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1270609705/0#15 date=1270687666]I fucking can't believe it. I was listening to some fox radio today and I thought of you Chase. Seriously. I would have bet any amount of money on you saying something about this. Your predictable now, congrats.
Fox radio is just shiting on news right now, about this subject for one thing. I swear people must not no a goddamn thing about whats going on now because the callers were eating the shit up. Although, John Gibson got his ass handed to him by one caller wanting evidence of some bullshit he was trying to sell. Couldn't provide it and was noticibly pissed. He's such a ignorant cunt fuck.
I hate to inform you of this Chase, but your a conservative, with or without the republican lable....doesn't matter at all. I wouldn't say that to your face though, you might shoot me.
Next gripe will be the arms deal with Russia, right?
congratulations to you as well, your post contains no substance. once again you feel necessary to bring up fox news, it's getting old. i don't watch it with any regularity. you care to talk about the core issue here? spend more = tax more
No, not with you. I've heard everything your arguments entail from Fox news, subject by subject as they come up. That's the point. Your listening to some form of conservative crap because they all spew the same stuff as you.
I will say this, Obama is a very smart man, talks real well. But he can't leave office soon enough. It's the whole agenda of Obama's together that's killing us. Not just healthcare or whatever. The combination. I like the attempt of healthcare and a few other things he's done.....but I'm officially off the Obama train at this time.
What has he done that he didn't say he would do before you voted for him?
Take over GM and the others. Spend more money in one year than Bush did in 8. The republicans and democrats are more divided now than at any time I can remember. This is speculation or a guess on my part, but taxes for everyone are going up soon including people who make less than 250k a year. Mostly because of his excessive spending, not necessarily because of healthcare. Just to name a few thngs.
Hookbender — Apr 10, 2010Spend more money in one year than Bush did in 8.
You had a redneck relapse ?
If that were true the budget deficit would be 7 trillion.
The current deficits are set by the financial disaster of 2008 and the subsequent deep recession.
If GWB were still in charge at this point the numbers would be similar as he set most of the policies that Obama is still following.
The Health Care bill is Obama and that addition is down to him directly, it belongs to him beyond his presidency - including if it is deemed a positive on the deficit during a future presidency.
The debt/deficit is the legacy of the inertia of economics.
reaction follows action by several years.
It is like playing a guitar with huge year long latency on a delay.
When you take over the solo - the notes of your predecessor still dominate and are still cascading, it is a year before your first note is heard and the previous cascade is still looping strongly - how do you change the tune without it collapsing into a disaster - you play the cycles and as something drops out you introduce your own notes and make the tune your own.
Unfortunately the average punter voting expects a tune change to happen quicker than that.
That is where the biggest danger lies - politicians who demand quick fixes due to short term popularity and/or ideology.
Ignorant talk show host types.
What I care about is the sudden growth of government. The money we keep spending, government bailing out business, etc. The government shoud be cutting back, just like Americans have too durring this economic downturn. Instead, they are growing, spending money they don't have in huge chunks as if they have money to spend. The government is assuming a role in soceity, in the private sector. I'm kinda sick of it.
But overall, our government is simply corrupt. Completely fucked from top to bottom regardless of the party in charge.
For many years I didn't vote at all. Partially because of corrupt politicians. Voting responsibly requires a little knowledge and research. After putting in the time to actually vote knowing a little about the situation and the person your considering voting for, I find that you get pretty much the same shit from all candidates. A bunch of shit he can't do, a few really good ideas that never happen, and a lot of waisted interest.
Fucking politics is crazy shit. Insanity in action. ;D
But--you admit you like healthcare, and supported it. What, besides that, has Obama done to grow the government that any other president wouldn't have done? You think ANY American president would have let 2/3 of the American auto industry die?
charger — Apr 12, 2010But--you admit you like healthcare, and supported it. What, besides that, has Obama done to grow the government that any other president wouldn't have done? You think ANY American president would have let 2/3 of the American auto industry die?
I'm not gonna play the guessing game about what I think another President would have done or not done. That's kinda pointless.
But, yes....I think the 2 auto industries should have died. It's not the first time Chrysler has been bailed out. Fuck them. And GM...if the option is government ownership or die, I'd let them die too. That would open the door for someone else to start a company and run it like Ford, for example, the correct way.
But the auto is just one aspect of the whole picture. Then add the bank bailouts, AIG, healthcare, more government employees, etc. The list of spending goes on and on.
What happened to change? What happened to going through the budget line by line? What happened to closing the prison I won't attempt to spell? What about earmarks? What about all the divide between the parties now? The questions are never ending. What the fuck happened to the man I voted for?
Yeah, I get Washington. I get the repubs are fighting him. But this was a known factor going in. It seems he made a half hearted attempt and then said fuck it, I'll do what I want. It seems that way, maybe it wasn't, maybe it was.???
Obama sold healthcare reform and Americans bought it. The problem is Americans were so overwelmed by a candidate that could actually speak intelligently they forgot to ask how the reform was gonna take place. Who can blame them after Bush. Then as they became aware of what was goung on, they didn't like it and Obama did it anyway. Is that right??? Seems that way.
Probably, to be fair, I wouldn't like any Presidents action durring this time. That leads me to think I don't need to sweat the details so much. ;D Vote and forget about it. ;D
AIG was a central and necessary part of the financial system bail out.
and the bail out was started by Bush.
My only positive view of Bush comes from 2008 - he did the right thing.
The rest of it - maybe.
But letting a whole swathe of huge businesses go bust would have lead to a negative feedback spiral of confidence in the midst of a huge negative feedback spiral of confidence.
Government cuts in expenditure would not be able to keep up with that even with the most ruthless man in charge, would have led to economic and political collapse - Mad Max style.
People can't comprehend the nature of the potential disaster,
Hollywood needs to make a movie :)
Obviously all the bailed out areas need to be weaned from the tit.
But the economic system nearly collapsed and I am lenient in retrospect now about decisions made in that period, as people don't know how close to disaster it was - missed a bullet.
Like a fire that has been put out - you examine the debris and rebuild, and the bail outs will likely turn a profit in the end
But ultimately the government needs to cut spending and tax more to balance things up.
That is the toughest part of the politics, taking the medicine.
A lot easier for a politician to kick the problem into the future, give tax cuts, make no spending cuts - in fact increase them and borrow the difference.
And that's another fundamental problem I have with all this....we are doing the same thing to fix the problem that caused the problem. Borrow and spend like hell. Prop up failing business to fail after things are "better". Then say fuck um. I would rather do it on the front end and correct the problems as we rebuild, minus the huge debt that continues to grow, I guess, without concern. There is no reason to continue to bail out Chrysler. America has spoken, they are not worthy or wanted and they can't run their business. They are not nearly as important as our dear government thinks they are. We can easily survive without them. Yeah, that one pisses me off. ;D
Our country should learn that we must be finacially sound enough to deal with miscues and really serious disaster. But, we won't. Just as we won't learn to vote on the basis of knowledge rather than what fox news says.
One must understand that I'm far from an expert on these issues also. ;D ;D These are just my opinion.
What industry was worth saving? You do realize that the auto industry has plants all over the Midwest and the South, and millions of Americans are employed by them?
I have a funny feeling that if unemployment was 15%, and in the 20s in some of those new auto areas in the South and in the Midwest, because Obama had let the auto industry fail, you would be singing a different tune.
It looks like will hit 15% unemployment regardless. It doesn't matter about the what if's Charger. There's not point discussing something that didn't or isn't gonna happen. It's the whole agenda I'm unpleased with. The fucking huge chunks of spending that just continues like crazy. Here's a example....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_insurance
Oh hell, it's just 18 billion dollars. 18 damn billion. We don't have 18 billion dollars. What part of that does he not understand?
this shit is really pretty damn scary. I think we have a disaster coming that will make this economy right now look like Christmas. This simply can't continue. Obama has to go. I really think I made a huge mistake voting for him. And considering the choice, that's a brutal statement.
If you took all the money Obama has spent since he's been in office and divided it equally between all unemployed Americans.....wonder what the result would be? Maybe those Americans opening new businesses? Maybe those Americans never having to work again, maybe? ;D It's way out of hand.
I don't see how any person could vote for him a second term. No way.
a whole lot of this
http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp-pr2010-59.pdfbut they need to go after a LOT more people...
chase — Apr 09, 201047% of americans pay NO INCOME TAX. the middle class is a rapidly deteriorating phenomenon in america sadly. i agree completely with you i think. i'm all for throwing out all taxes other than a consumption tax. the fairtax movement i've mentioned several times here in this thread is the leading proponent
But they still pay payroll and Social Security taxes, not to mention state and local taxes. That "47%" bullshit is thrown out there like it means something, when in fact it really doesn't even remotely show the whole picture of who pays what and how much it affects how they can survive...
The middle class is rapidly deteriorating because our tax system
isn't progressive enough. This is historical fact: the era when the middle class was the strongest, and class mobility the easiest in the USA, was the era when taxes were absurdly high for the absurdly wealthy, and the government was spending its ass off on infrastructure programs (aka the 1950s and 1960s).
And the
fact is, under Obama, the middle class tax burden is the second-lowest in 50 years. The Tea Partiers could not possibly be more bigoted and ignorant - even if it isn't actual racism, the prejudice against ANYTHING Obama or a Democrat does is MASSIVE, even if it's what they want, like lowering taxes.
It's all become really tiresome, to be honest, because people are so fucking willfully blind they can't even discuss shit or accept reality anymore. Not to mention the retarded news media hammering these adversarial "the battle lines are drawn" stories and focusing on bullshit instead of exposing the lies and hateful rhetoric of both extremes.
Heads in the sand...because Obama's a Muslim Socialist Marxist Commie, apparently (though he really hasn't shown signs of any of those).
Ostrich motherfuckers.
Tripper
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
that's pretty progressive to me....
Tripper — Apr 17, 2010[quote author=chase link=1270609705/0#24 date=1270776193]47% of americans pay NO INCOME TAX. the middle class is a rapidly deteriorating phenomenon in america sadly. i agree completely with you i think. i'm all for throwing out all taxes other than a consumption tax. the fairtax movement i've mentioned several times here in this thread is the leading proponent
But they still pay payroll and Social Security taxes, not to mention state and local taxes. That "47%" bullshit is thrown out there like it means something, when in fact it really doesn't even remotely show the whole picture of who pays what and how much it affects how they can survive...
The middle class is rapidly deteriorating because our tax system
isn't progressive enough. This is historical fact: the era when the middle class was the strongest, and class mobility the easiest in the USA, was the era when taxes were absurdly high for the absurdly wealthy, and the government was spending its ass off on infrastructure programs (aka the 1950s and 1960s).
And the
fact is, under Obama, the middle class tax burden is the second-lowest in 50 years. The Tea Partiers could not possibly be more bigoted and ignorant - even if it isn't actual racism, the prejudice against ANYTHING Obama or a Democrat does is MASSIVE, even if it's what they want, like lowering taxes.
It's all become really tiresome, to be honest, because people are so fucking willfully blind they can't even discuss shit or accept reality anymore. Not to mention the retarded news media hammering these adversarial "the battle lines are drawn" stories and focusing on bullshit instead of exposing the lies and hateful rhetoric of both extremes.
Heads in the sand...because Obama's a Muslim Socialist Marxist Commie, apparently (though he really hasn't shown signs of any of those).
Ostrich motherfuckers.
Tripper
do you understand why we were able to spend so much money in the 50's and 60's on infrastructure? inflation made our debt manageable. spending massive amounts of money as we are doing now isn't the answer that worked 50 years ago. the market isn't willing to support our debt as it was back then. check the bond auctions for proof, they are miserable.
if you want to have a side war about a political party you dont like, go ahead and do so. if you would like to focus on the fact that our economy is circling the bowl, than that would be great. raising taxes, starting government programs, and spending massive amounts of $ is not what needs to happen
Many people I know of, including myself, have done a lot of things using only barter because few seem to have any money right now. Whatever the government intended, they may end up with less money coming in through taxes as people use other means to transact business (which obviously aren't scrutinized and taxed).
CraigBert — Apr 17, 2010Many people I know of, including myself, have done a lot of things using only barter because few seem to have any money right now. Whatever the government intended, they may end up with less money coming in through taxes as people use other means to transact business (which obviously aren't scrutinized and taxed).
I'm not seeing this. The difference between the commonplace 5% unemployment and 10% unemployment is one more person in 20. How that equates to a whole world of barter is beyond me.
Really, this whole argument is stupid. Obama, and many other agents of our government, along with the rest of the world's governments, averted a massive economic catastrophe that would have completely blown your mind. Argue all you want about how bad it is now, you have no idea how much worse it could have been.