I'm fine with the government taxing everyone but me

a reply to: neo96

All income tax should be abolished.

It was when the colonies declared Independence and seceded from the Crown.

Except during war time and then only ten percent. The rest of the time a limited constitutional government is to pay for its operations by collecting tariffs on imported goods

.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: toysforadults

We should really not be talking about tax cuts till that little $20,000,000,000,000 debt gets paid off. But most adults are pestilent children that want what they want and want it now. And we elect leaders that cater to the conservs and libs but in this case they are both the same.

We need to pay the piper. And a little pain now will keep our children's America strong and in a leadership position in the world. But that is out of the question. Let's go shopping.

Then, elect a Democrat:

Economist Mike Kimel has noted that the former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.

Wikipedia

And somehow people think Trump will improve the economy ...

a reply to: dfnj2015

So greed is BS.

Aren't you yourself saying it's pure greed? So, basically, you are talking BS.

Gotcha.

Greed doesn't force you to do anything. Just like no drug addict was forced to take their first hit. I have zero sympathy for anyone who thinks they cannot control their greed. Generally speaking, they're the same kinds of people who look at those who have more and think they should be able to take whatever they like away.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: neo96

All income tax should be abolished.

It was when the colonies declared Independence and seceded from the Crown.

Except during war time and then only ten percent. The rest of the time a limited constitutional government is to pay for its operations by collecting tariffs on imported goods

.

Such taxes and tariffs as are specifically laid to pay for specific things, yes. There was never supposed to be some general income tax to pay for "things" like we now have.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: dfnj2015

Lowering taxes will force the government to figure out how to make cuts.

Cut their funding more. Lower taxes on everybody.

How has that worked out in the past? Why is our deficit where its at now.

We do need to have a discussion on what we want the government to do.

An ever expanding government is not a viable solution to me. Some things government does well, some it does not. We need to get Govt out of the things it doesn't do well.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: toysforadults

We should really not be talking about tax cuts till that little $20,000,000,000,000 debt gets paid off.

The debt is irrelevant. What does matter is the deficit and the debt as a percentage of GDP. There's always more to the math than meets the propaganda receiving eye.

Bingo!

A roaring economy does wonders for society and our country. If we could sustain a 4.0 GDP and we kept our budget fiscally sound (no new major programs just cause we have the money), we would cure multiple problems all at the same time. Wages would go up, unemployment would drop, Tax revenues would increase, people on assistance would shrink, our deficit would reduce, ect. If both Party's committed to policies to doing everything possible to grow GDP, we would be in a much better place.

The question is why we don't demand that from our elected officials?

Instead we get sidetracked with meaningless things.

a reply to: pavil

Both parties and people who are on both sides talk a good game, but there is a lot of disagreement on how that should be done.

I'm sure you are aware. For example, one side thinks government needs to actively somehow grow the economy. But government is not economy nor does it produce, so you are paying an entity with money taken from the productive segments to try to tell the productive segments how to do what they do.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pavil

Both parties and people who are on both sides talk a good game, but there is a lot of disagreement on how that should be done.


I'm sure you are aware. For example, one side thinks government needs to actively somehow grow the economy. But government is not economy nor does it produce, so you are paying an entity with money taken from the productive segments to try to tell the productive segments how to do what they do.

Yes. Government doesn't do many things as well as the private sector can do. They also do certain things in a better or at least more efficient way than the private sector.

It would be hard to get government to get out of those areas it isn't very good at, we should try.

Trimming the things Government does should be a given, as our deficit will only really get tackled by a Combo of economic growth and fiscal restraint. That doesn't necessarily mean less spending, just better and different priorities. Ones that pay off economically in the long run. Investing in infrastructure for example. It pays off in better GDP longterm.

a reply to: pavil

Oh, I think for at least the short-term fiscal restraint ought to be a big part of it.

I think we've grown a bureaucracy for many things that Congress used to do and should do again. And we've grown so many bureaucracies that they've gotten redundant and there is significant overlap. I'm not the direct expert, my husband is in this household, but he constantly says that in his job he deals with nearly 10 regulatory alphabets ... just for the US ... and that they have to often complete tests and paperwork for each one even though there are plenty of times when the same requirement is present for multiple agencies. That's work and money lost satisfying the same requirement for the same thing more than once, and then if something happens, and one of those results ends up wildly out of spec ... you have to go in and spend more time and money figuring out what happened and why (usually some form of human error) ...

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm sure there are redundant parts of the government that could be streamlined. A bipartisan panel once again should be tasked with finding these areas.

Other areas it just needs to get out of or drastically reduce what it does. Education on the Federal Level hasn't proven to be any better than what preceded it. I'd give it back to the States and save some money on the Federal side.

a reply to: pavil

The states?!

Oh ... no ...

What if state A doesn't do it like state B, and what if Joe Schmo has to move to state B from state A and prefers the way state A does it? That just isn't fair to Joe Schmo. That's why the Federal government has to step in and make sure it's one way for everyone, everywhere. Of course, pay no attention to those who don't want it done the way the federal government would do it because they don't count if *you* think you want it done that way. :eyeroll:

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: neo96

All income tax should be abolished.

It was when the colonies declared Independence and seceded from the Crown.

Except during war time and then only ten percent. The rest of the time a limited constitutional government is to pay for its operations by collecting tariffs on imported goods

.

Such taxes and tariffs as are specifically laid to pay for specific things, yes. There was never supposed to be some general income tax to pay for "things" like we now have.

This is referred to a as Permanent, Progressive income tax. Progressive means the rate increases over time, due to inflation because we are off the gold standard.

a reply to: toysforadults

Oh just STOP with the LIES man! For goodness sake!

Democrat is not the same as socialist! Hillary has not got a socialist bone in her body, nor did Obama, or Bill Clinton! These people are NOT socialist in the SLIGHTEST! Look at the business focus they had! Hillary shilling for the MIC, Obama too, and Mr Clinton, all shilling it up like mad without the slightest blush or nod to its inappropriateness!

Where the hell did you receive your political education, exactly? I only ask, because if you paid for it, you got SCREWED, absolutely screwed, from every conceivable direction and angle.