Reading through some posts here recently I noticed how a certain resident liberal explained how the rich should have their taxes increased.  While this is nothing new from the left, it's just ridiculous to even think about giving the government more money when they have proved time and time again it's nothing but a total waste machine for taxpayer dollars.

At the same time they say the "rich" should be taxed higher, it is also proclaimed that the "poor" in this country should not have to pay any taxes, and should have full access to the wasteful social programs from the government.  Now it's hard to nail down an exact figure of what liberals consider "poor", but certain ones here are trying to convince others that someone making $30,000 is somehow poor.  It's total nonsense.

If the democrats want to start increasing taxes (which we know they will), then it's time for everyone to start paying their share no matter what their personal circumstances are.  If you take a look at the poor in this country, they have luxuries others can only dream about.  Cell phones, video game systems, computers, etc. are common among these "poor" household, so tell me again how the "poor" cannot afford a minimal tax increase to help pay for the services they use like the rest of us.



Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Aug 15, 2007
Can't... stop... laughing...


I can see your laughter! Your cynicism is based on hearsay. Mine is based upon experience.
on Aug 15, 2007
After living through most of the 40 straight years of Democrat control of congress, that was my biggest disappointment with the Republican one. I actually thought things would be different. Live and learn.


Well, in the past 40 years, the majority of president had been republican (or so was my impression). Reagant did pretty well reducing the governement's spending with a Democrat congress, didn't he?

And Clinton managed to have a pretty balanced budget too.

So.. would you say that the reason Reagant managed to have a balanced bugdet DESPISE the Democrat control of the House..

And Clinton had a balanced one BECAUSE of the Republican's control of the house?

I hate to say it, but it seems pretty fallacious thinking.
on Aug 15, 2007
Now, are we still taxing corporate income? Or will that tax go away, too, and we could possibly some prices dropping?


No. Corporations are not individual entities. Taxes should be as minimal as possible, period.

Truthfully, I'd rather there be no exemptions on sales tax, but if there MUST be an exemption, we need to be careful how broadly we apply it.
on Aug 15, 2007
Reagant did pretty well reducing the governement's spending with a Democrat congress, didn't he?


That is the falacy most fall into. The Budget is a Legislative thing. The president has veto power, but that is limited in its use (it has been tried to shut down the government).

The Reagan years slowed the growth, as did the last 6 Clinton ones. Due to the power of the veto, and the fact that the house (where spending originates) was controlled by a different party. Technically that dynamic should work now, but as we say with the elder, only when the president really uses the veto power. Sadly veto and bush do not fit in the same sentence - regardless of the first names.

That aside, my disappointment was when the republicans had both. And nothing really changed. They did have a chance after 2000, but did not take advantage of it.
on Aug 15, 2007
Would you put the sales tax on everything, or just some things? Ie, not taxing food or clothes?

That would make it fair, I think. If you're rich enough to buy something you don't need, you start paying tax. If you're just skating by and need food and clothes to live, you wouldn't be paying tax...

Also, what about rent? Or real estate in general? Sales tax, or not?




i have been thinking about this since i discussed this with gene. tax everything because as i stated above you are paying income tax out of your pay now. so you are doing with out that money anyways. until you get the tax return and then you just go out and have a big party anyways.
on Aug 15, 2007
Also, what about rent? Or real estate in general? Sales tax, or not?


people don't pay sales tax on rent now. there are other taxes added but not sales tax. real estate has sales tax so yes .
on Aug 15, 2007
(Citizen)JythierAugust 15, 2007 13:49:22Reply #45
Reduced spending will balance the budget. Like, not spending trillions on a war in Iraq. So what, you want to raise taxes to pay for the war?

In every past war we have increased taxes to pay for the war. That was true in the civil War, WWI WWII, KOREA and Vietnam. Bush has put the total cost of the Iraq war on the National debt!
on Aug 15, 2007
"people don't pay sales tax on rent now. there are other taxes added but not sales tax. real estate has sales tax so yes"

Commercial real estate rented in Florida is subject to sales and use tax.

Also, you can claim exemption from withholding.

"In every past war we have increased taxes to pay for the war. That was true in the civil War, WWI WWII, KOREA and Vietnam. Bush has put the total cost of the Iraq war on the National debt!"

I thought the cost of war was taken from bridges? And, now that we're raising taxes for bridges AND the war AND a hundred other things, what percentage are we going to pay? 50? 60? 100?
on Aug 15, 2007
i have been thinking about this since i discussed this with gene. tax everything because as i stated above you are paying income tax out of your pay now. so you are doing with out that money anyways. until you get the tax return and then you just go out and have a big party anyways.


I disagree on rent. That's a targetted tax that disproportionately affects the poor. Rich people don't need to rent.

And if I'm already paying $1200/month for a place, we don't need to jack that up to $1320/month.

One possibility I wouldn't rule out is taxing it beyond a certain value. Tax rents, say, in excess of $1000/month. That would give landlords incentive to keep rents below that mark, basically initiating a self motivated sort of rent control.

This is interesting conversation, though. Let's keep it going.
on Aug 15, 2007
I agree with you, Gideon, no rent tax. I was just seeing where you would go with it.

But I wouldn't tax rents above a certain level, either. It wouldn't control rent, it would just go up even higher to account for any tax. So you would find a lot of people stuck in $1000/mo apartments that can't move up to the next level without a lot of pay increases. Well, I suppose they could buy at that point.
on Aug 15, 2007
Even better, if we want to tax something that specifically doesn't target the poor, we could tax unearned income, and leave wages and such alone.
on Aug 15, 2007
That would give landlords incentive to keep rents below that mark, basically initiating a self motivated sort of rent control.


Not really - the tax would be passed on to the consumer. Landlords are not really competing on price (to a limited degree yes), but on Location, Location, Location.
on Aug 15, 2007

I think I should not have to pay any taxes at all, cause I don't want to. Colgene could pay my taxes for us instead.

Since I have no representation in Congress, I go back to the heyday of revolution citing. NO TAXATION without REPRESENTATION!

on Aug 15, 2007
we could tax unearned income, and leave wages and such alone.


2 things on that.

First, it is. You pay tax on interest and dividends and Capital Gains.

And it does not affect the poor directly, but it sure harpoons investment such that those who can, divert the money into tax shelters instead of investing back into the economy to make it grow. So in the end, the poor get it in the end, since with no investment, there are no new jobs and it is not the ones with experience who lose out. That is what happened in the 70s.
on Aug 15, 2007
I know it is, but we were wiping out all taxes except sales tax. Dr. Guy, keep up here!

Anyway, good point with the tax shelters. Don't want the economy to go soft. I'm so glad I'm not the president...
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6