It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for nearly 80 percent of federal revenue
posted by semperfortis
Why do you liberals want to raise taxes and put Small Business, (Payroll Taxes) out of business?
Why do libs want to place a heavier tax burden on income earners? You say all that you want to do is tax the rich, Why would you want to raise taxes when it is a proven fact it destroys the economy, raises unemployment and hobbles investors? So, could you enlighten us... Thanks Semper
We want to pay as we go. We have no right to put today's expenses off to successive generations.
National debt was 117.5, 121.7 and 110.3 percent of GDP in 1945, 1946 and 1947. This was right after World War Two when the US spent a fortune to rebuild Europe and Japan after we defeated both in the war while eliminating Hitler.
Today the national debt as a percentage of GDP is estimated to be 66.1%, nearly half what it was when we were rebuilding Europe and Japan much like we are attempting to do today in Iraq.
taxes PER SE ought not to be the decisive factor in profitability or survivability.
It is not a “proven fact” that taxes destroy ANY economy, nor increase unemployment nor hobble investors.
National debt was 117.5, 121.7 and 110.3 percent of GDP in 1945, 1946 and 1947. This was right after World War Two when the US spent a fortune to rebuild Europe and Japan after we defeated both in the war while eliminating Hitler. Today the national debt as a percentage of GDP is estimated to be 66.1%, nearly half what it was when we were rebuilding Europe and Japan much like we are attempting to do today in Iraq. investment.suite101.com...
For the only time in American history, our national survival was at stake.
It was NOT the war that gave us that debt ratio, it was the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. Very clearly indicated in the link I do believe.
The Marshall Plan. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in July 1947. During that period some USD 13 billion in economic and technical assistance were given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. The United States benefitted from the Marshall plan, as aid-receiving countries were required to open their markets to US companies.
Japan too, had been badly damaged by the war. However, the American people and Congress were far less sympathetic towards the Japanese . . Thus no grand reconstruction plan was ever created, and the Japanese economic recovery before 1950 was slow. The Korean War played a role in the early economic growth in Japan. It began in 1950 and Japan became the main staging ground for the United Nations war effort, and a crucial supplier of material. Japan’s recovery is also used as a counter-example, since it experienced rapid growth without any aid whatsoever. Its recovery is attributed to traditional economic stimuli, such as increases in investment, fueled by a high savings rate . . “ en.wikipedia.org...
In the core of liberalism there nestles the ugly, hidden truth of coercion.
You must force a man to give you the tithe in order that you may help someone else who may or may not be worthy of aid.
If it comes down to it, liberalism is an ideology of coercion and constraint whereas conservatism allows personal growth. Therein lies the difference- that liberalism sets the bar of progression at the slowest citizens pace, while conservatism allows the flourishing of genii, entrepreneurs and hard workers.
I have to say, I don’t hate liberals by any means. But I despise the policies of liberalism, because they seek to infringe my natural rights. They breech the concepts of personal freedom, liberty of thought and action and most of all they impinge upon my right to the pursuit of happiness.
I stand for a limited government, with non-interference as a principle. Why? Because I don’t think it is the duty of some to support the lives of others.
Its strange that you admit that your liberal thoughts are a product of self-interest. Most liberals will claim to be acting for the greater good, and in the interests of "fairness."
I still believe that a more libertarian approach is more ethical and moral.
2 Socratic questions, if you wouldn’t mind:
1. Do tell me sir, why must I subsidize the livelihood of another man?
2. What gives anyone else the right to forcibly steal money from me to distribute it amongst others?
While I admit that government spending is out of control and there is certainly no end to costs associated with freedom, nevertheless, it has to be paid for. I'll also remind you that a Conservative president is largely responsible for our current national debt. Make no mistake, I am arguing from a position of opportunity, not of want. I am very blessed.
P.S. . The answer is Fair Tax!
Damn it! That's the kind of post that makes me want to run screaming away from my recent left-leaning ways.
*Kosmic puts fingers in ears and refuses to listen to any more anti-Fair Tax propaganda*