Republican Governor learns his tax cuts for the rich didn't work

a reply to: Indigo5
Taxes were never meant to provide "safety nets" for anyone, business or individual.

Taxes were designed to fund a basic Federal Govt.

But again, you and other Progressives keep pushing for taxes to be this grand social adjuster, and once the money runs out, the "I told you so's" will flow.

The only reason there is a "need" for safety nets, is because Progressives created that need.

The Govt was never created to take care of people. Taxes were never created to take from one and give to another.
How on God's green earth you think that taxes in this form is not theft is beyond any common sense.

And further more, increasing taxes on a person that earns more is punitive and basically punishment. That person earning more does not consume more public based resources. In fact, the individual that consumes the most of public resources doesn't pay into it.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Answer
So, punitive taxes, still on a Progressive sliding scale.

Punitive taxes... not exactly.

If a person makes $20,000,000 a year as a CEO, does it make sense to leave enough "loopholes" in the system that this non-job creator pays less taxes than a small business owner making $200,000 a year?

It's about taxing people at a rate that makes sense to boost the economy. "Fat cats" keep getting fatter while the economy suffers and the middle class disappears. The actual job-producing fat cats outsource as much of their business as they can to maximize profits. I'm not saying they have bad intentions but the current market environment makes it so they basically have no choice but to outsource.

You say that punitive taxes are not the answer but I would counter that our current system is destroying the economy by encouraging corporate execs to give themselves raises and multi-million dollar bonuses while simultaneously laying off employees. History shows that wealth inequality is a very bad thing if a nation wants to... ya know, survive.

originally posted by: Indigo5


Here is a clue...Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are literally the two richest people on Planet Earth...and they both agree the US economic system is rigged to their advantage at the expense of the middle class and poor.

Do you think they are wrong?

And what is stopping them from paying more taxes??? There is no law stopping them from paying more in taxes.

In fact, your example shows exactly what kind of people they are. Low lifes. They, as an individual and one that runs a company pays people to find the loopholes (that are available to anyone and any company) that has them paying as little as they do.

Then, they grand stand about making statements that only a moron would shake their head in agreement with. Crap like they should be paying more in taxes, yet they do everything not to pay taxes.

Both, like you, are the shining example of a Progressive.

a reply to: Answer

Yes, exactly punitive.

As someone earns more, you want them taxed higher. Not because they consume more of what they are paying into, but because you have deemed it "fair".

So yes, you want people punished for earning more.

a reply to: Answer

And our current tax structure is punitive, it Progressive and on a sliding scale.

We have exactly what you want. And it is failing.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5
Taxes were never meant to provide "safety nets" for anyone, business or individual.

Taxes were designed to fund a basic Federal Govt.

But again, you and other Progressives keep pushing for taxes to be this grand social adjuster, and once the money runs out, the "I told you so's" will flow.

The only reason there is a "need" for safety nets, is because Progressives created that need.

The Govt was never created to take care of people. Taxes were never created to take from one and give to another.
How on God's green earth you think that taxes in this form is not theft is beyond any common sense.

And further more, increasing taxes on a person that earns more is punitive and basically punishment. That person earning more does not consume more public based resources. In fact, the individual that consumes the most of public resources doesn't pay into it.

That's all well and good but we're talking about what's happening now, not the original intention of the income tax system.

I'm sure the original framers of the income tax system could have never envisioned the current state of corporate America.

If "Progressive" means a desire to return to a system that encourages a strong middle class, I'll wear that label proudly. We need to get away from the hard-right belief that any increased taxation of the wealthy is a form of Socialism. That's an idea that's put forward by the wealthy themselves in an effort to play the victim.

The system I'm advocating is similar to what we had up until the 60's... when the middle-class was strong and the American Dream was attainable.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Answer

Yes, exactly punitive.

As someone earns more, you want them taxed higher. Not because they consume more of what they are paying into, but because you have deemed it "fair".

So yes, you want people punished for earning more.

I didn't say it's fair. I'm saying it's necessary to restore the U.S. economy.

Allow me to extend an olive branch... I would love to have a system that didn't require ridiculous levels of taxation but this is the boat we're in. If we could eliminate the majority of social programs, reduce the size of the federal government, and do what's needed to greatly reduce taxes, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, it's not that easy.

I'm not advocating a tax increase because of some noble idea of fairness. I'm simply looking at the situation and considering a rational fix.

a reply to: macman

Hey Mac -- Good day to you. Not much point in a discussion where you completely ignore a question and respond with...no offense..but a-typical, tired ideological rhetoric about as novel as a bumper sticker.

I took safety nets out of the equation...yet that is all you ramble on about..

Have a good one and see you on a different OP..

originally posted by: macman


Both, like you, are the shining example of a Progressive.

Honestly Mac...You need to stop being an idiot. If insults is all you have then you don't have much.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: macman

Hey Mac -- Good day to you. Not much point in a discussion where you completely ignore a question and respond with...no offense..but a-typical, tired ideological rhetoric about as novel as a bumper sticker.

I took safety nets out of the equation...yet that is all you ramble on about..

Have a good one and see you on a different OP..

Not accusing mac of anything but that's a big part of the problem. Too many conservatives attack any idea about higher taxes for the wealthy or a desire for income equality as "socialism, giveaways, and trying to drag everybody down to the same level."


Polarized viewpoints don't do anybody any good because no room is left for rational discussion.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman


Both, like you, are the shining example of a Progressive.

Honestly Mac...You need to stop being an idiot. If insults is all you have then you don't have much.

Trust me, you shouldn't be insulted by that label.

Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.

a reply to: Answer

Wasn't offended by his choice of label, but the fact that it was necessary for him to dismiss any rational discussion with a label (any label).

I avoid the whole "right winger like you" line of retort...it is a way of fleeing discussion of substance.

originally posted by: Answer
That's all well and good but we're talking about what's happening now, not the original intention of the income tax system.

I'm sure the original framers of the income tax system could have never envisioned the current state of corporate America.

Interestingly, income tax was originally intended to only target the wealthy.

It wasn't until much later that it was expanded to cover most Americans.

a reply to: Greven

it's funny.
In the mid-to-late 19th century US, the federal government acquired most of it's revenue through taxing alcohol, a trend that prevented prohibition from occurring earlier.

The US wasn't alone in that though.

According to Brown, by the 1850s, vodka sales made up nearly half the Russian government’s tax revenues. Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin banned vodka. After his death, however, Stalin used vodka sales to help pay for the socialist industrialization of the Soviet Union. By the 1970s, receipts from alcohol again constituted a third of government revenues. One study found that alcohol consumption more than doubled between 1955 and 1979, to 15.2 liters per person.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: Greven

it's funny.
In the mid-to-late 19th century US, the federal government acquired most of it's revenue through taxing alcohol, a trend that prevented prohibition from occurring earlier.

The US wasn't alone in that though.

According to Brown, by the 1850s, vodka sales made up nearly half the Russian government’s tax revenues. Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin banned vodka. After his death, however, Stalin used vodka sales to help pay for the socialist industrialization of the Soviet Union. By the 1970s, receipts from alcohol again constituted a third of government revenues. One study found that alcohol consumption more than doubled between 1955 and 1979, to 15.2 liters per person.

Then let's legalize marijuana, tax it, and abolish the income tax. Win-win.

a reply to: Answer

but there were negative repercussions as the article said.

Russia is full of alcoholics... like it's really really bad over there...

"We had a choice between the slavery of western capitalism or the slavery of the bottle. We made our choice"-Stalin.

originally posted by: Answer


That's all well and good but we're talking about what's happening now, not the original intention of the income tax system.

So....throw out the actual lawful original intent and allow the current bastardized system to illegally function.

originally posted by: Answer
I'm sure the original framers of the income tax system could have never envisioned the current state of corporate America.

It allowed people to be free.

originally posted by: Answer
If "Progressive" means a desire to return to a system that encourages a strong middle class, I'll wear that label proudly.

Nope.
The Progressive ideals are that of control. Controlling people via taxes is a HUGE part in this.

originally posted by: Answer
We need to get away from the hard-right belief that any increased taxation of the wealthy is a form of Socialism. That's an idea that's put forward by the wealthy themselves in an effort to play the victim.

No it is not.
It is simple control of the people.
Taxation is not for wealth redistribution.

originally posted by: Answer
The system I'm advocating is similar to what we had up until the 60's... when the middle-class was strong and the American Dream was attainable.

Want a "fair for all" system where WE ALL pay into it?
Flat tax. Very simple.

originally posted by: Answer


I didn't say it's fair. I'm saying it's necessary to restore the U.S. economy.

No it isn't.
Taxation does not lead to Country based prosperity.
Taking from some is not the answer.

originally posted by: Answer
Allow me to extend an olive branch... I would love to have a system that didn't require ridiculous levels of taxation but this is the boat we're in. If we could eliminate the majority of social programs, reduce the size of the federal government, and do what's needed to greatly reduce taxes, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, it's not that easy.

It is easy. Just need people in Govt that actually abide by the Constitution.
It is just as easy to do as raise taxes on people.

originally posted by: Answer
I'm not advocating a tax increase because of some noble idea of fairness. I'm simply looking at the situation and considering a rational fix.

Raising taxes doesn't fix anything.

a reply to: Indigo5

You posed a loaded question.

Taxation is not for equalizing wealth. That is theft. Any which way your Progressive mind flips to redefine it, it is still theft. Plain and simple.

Defense budgets are bloated. There was never an intent to have a standing military.
Paying people, to not work or offsetting their life is done so via theft from someone else.

The core issue, as you cling to, is that too many people are dependent on the Govt stealing from someone else to offset their life choices. Those safety nets, that you champion, are funded via theft.

And funny thing, is you completely move from actually addressing my statement about Gates and Buffet and go directly to butt-hurt mode.

Will you address the statement??? I don't think I will hold my breath, as Progressives typically will avoid truths like this.

a reply to: Answer

Now that I agree with.

Don't like the, yet again, adding of taxation on people, but this would at least work to remove the immoral taxation of income.