A Question For The Liberals Here

Many of the Liberals on this site continually insist that we need to raise taxes instead of making cuts. They rush to the defense of NPR and the like saying that we have an interest in funding it. They say we should "punish the rich" for making too much money. They claim that we must fund social security, medicare and a plethora of other entitlement programs. Thus my question, a simple one that I hope to receive answers to.

How much extra money, in addition to your taxes, do you liberals and socialists give to the government each year to "help" pay for those programs you believe we so desperately need?

Great question but you already know the answer to that. None!

All people, no matter how you label them, whether liberals, conservatives etc like to play with other people's money. When it comes to their pocket, they clamp down like there's no tomorrow.

signature: Money is no more than a medium of exchange. Only when it has a value acknowledged by more than one person can it be so used. The more general the acknowledgment the more useful it is. Once no one acknowledged it the Germans learned their paper money had no value or use. The discovery which shattered their society was that the traditional repository of purchasing power had disappeared and that there was no means left of measuring the worth of anything. For many life became an obsessional search for Sachverte things of real constant value: For most degree of necessity became the sole criterion of value the basis of everything from barter to behavior. Mans values became animal values.

i think that your signature answers your questions about the motivations and hearts of men when they find themselves to be the stewards of large sums of cash.

The problem with Socialism/Social Justice/Whatever that most can't seem to wrap their heads around is that in some states (w/ state taxes included) the rich are being taxed numbers that are creeping ever closer to 50%. If we keep this crap up for too much longer we are going to see an exodus of the rich to other nations... this would not be a good thing.

Less is more. In the 50's our nation was better off than almost every nation academically. Then government really got involved and started shoveling money in and made problems where there where none before. WE THE PEOPLE have been dumb enough to allow the government to create issues so that we can give them more money. Its not even a smart plan we were just to stupid to see what was happening.

Thanks for your replies. I truly expect the answer to be none, but I would like to here from the liberals themselves if they give more or not, and if not why not?

My sig does reflect my view on money. I believe it reflects the actual truth of money, especially fiat currencies.

Originally posted by Hoping4Wisdom
The problem with Socialism/Social Justice/Whatever that most can't seem to wrap their heads around is that in some states (w/ state taxes included) the rich are being taxed numbers that are creeping ever closer to 50%. If we keep this crap up for too much longer we are going to see an exodus of the rich to other nations... this would not be a good thing.

Less is more. In the 50's our nation was better off than almost every nation academically. Then government really got involved and started shoveling money in and made problems where there where none before. WE THE PEOPLE have been dumb enough to allow the government to create issues so that we can give them more money. Its not even a smart plan we were just to stupid to see what was happening.

Thanks for the reply. I think Reagan said it best...

If I could paraphrase a well-known statement by Will Rogers that he never met a man he didn't like - I'm afraid we have some people around here who never met a tax they didn't like.

and.....

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

I believe, though I cannot find the quote atm, that he also said something like...

Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them.

An increasing number of people voluntarily give away a substantial part of their income, even when they aren't big earners. Not everyone thinks that money is the number one priority in life. I guess you think money is important and that's your choice. Just remember that not everyone thinks like you..
Link to article

Originally posted by Thoriumisbest
An increasing number of people voluntarily give away a substantial part of their income, even when they aren't big earners. Not everyone thinks that money is the number one priority in life. I guess you think money is important and that's your choice. Just remember that not everyone thinks like you..
Link to article

it might not be the number one thing in life, but its the ONLY thing that will pay for those programs........

You plan on funding them with unicorn farts and rainbow sprinkles?

Originally posted by Thoriumisbest
An increasing number of people voluntarily give away a substantial part of their income, even when they aren't big earners. Not everyone thinks that money is the number one priority in life. I guess you think money is important and that's your choice. Just remember that not everyone thinks like you..
Link to article

While that is great, do YOU give extra money? What then is YOUR priority? As for my priority, I believe I know better than some 'crat how to spend my money for best effect. Like helping my mother who is not yet old enough for SS but cannot get a full time job since, prior to her divorce from my father, she was a stay at home mother. While my father does pay her alimony, it is not enough for her to live on. I have already told my other siblings that they will need to step up to the plate when I leave the workforce in a few months.

However, you link does not even answer the question. Those people give to charity. My question is "how much extra do you give the government"? I also give to my church and charity.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


No no no thank you for the reply to my reply.

Originally posted by Hoping4Wisdom
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

No no no thank you for the reply to my reply.

So you believe we "need" those entitlement programs, but you will not help fund them? Is that your statement? Or do I misunderstand?

Saint Reagan Raised Net taxes during his presidency, myths notwithstanding.


The problem is the Tax code, There should be a Flat tax that each person, including corporations, should pay. no exceptions. The Tax return should be the size of a postcard; your gross income,return, interest, capital gains, etc, etc, and then the flat tax rate.

a 21% across the board Flat tax rate on each person including corporations would eliminate Deficit and Debt within a Generation. Of course this will never happen as reason the Wealthy support politicians is to write tax code as as soon as their candidate is elected favoring their industry, business, or environment.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Me personally? No i think those programs are a colossal waste of tax payer dollars. If we spent all of them social program monies and them monies from them D.O.D. guys then we could quite easily feed and cloth every human on the planet. I think all of you are &^*&*ing stupid (sorry I love people just the same). Left, right it doesn't matter we need to get rid of the coin not rub one of the sides off. When you look at the world in these terms you'll come to see that the poor are def. meant to be kept poor. NWO? They're already here why make it public? The world is already run by a handful of people. Republicans, democrats, socialist and communist, your all retards we need to start marching to the beat of a different drum.


EDIT: Yes I said retards... cuse it fits; however, I say it with love.

Until the last few years I had always considered myself to be a liberal/democrat. But with everything that has come about recently, I have no political party, and honestly I have no idea which way I should lean. There doesn't seem to be a lesser of two evils any more.
That being said, I have one stance when it comes to taxes. That EVERYONE be responsible for paying taxes. I fall in the lower income limits, so I really struggle with understanding exactly how hard it is for the higher income issues. BUT, corporations like GE have been sliding out of paying, and that leaves everyone else in the country to foot the bill. Could you imagine the difference our current tax %'s would make if these massive corporations couldn't weasel their way out???? There should be absolutely NO way for an entity or person to find enough deductions to get out of paying their taxes all together once the income limit hits a certain amount. Those of us in my tax bracket need every dime we make just to feed our families and keep the power on. How is it fair for the "well-to-do" to have the opportunity to avoid paying?????

reply to post by Hoping4Wisdom
My mistake then I thought you were one of the liberals.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Many of the Liberals on this site continually insist that we need to raise taxes instead of making cuts. They rush to the defense of NPR and the like saying that we have an interest in funding it. They say we should "punish the rich" for making too much money. They claim that we must fund social security, medicare and a plethora of other entitlement programs. Thus my question, a simple one that I hope to receive answers to.

How much extra money, in addition to your taxes, do you liberals and socialists give to the government each year to "help" pay for those programs you believe we so desperately need?

Could you please clariry what a 'liberal' is?

reply to post by Garfee

In this context, a "liberal" is one who believes that we "need" NPR, PBS, and the plethora of entitlement programs that currently pervade our society.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Garfee

 

In this context, a "liberal" is one who believes that we "need" NPR, PBS, and the plethora of entitlement programs that currently pervade our society.

I think NPR is chalked full of pseudo-intellectual douches but are you saying we should suppress them? Its a toss up for me whether I hate FOX or NPR more. Neither practices objective journalism (or anything marginally close to objective journalism) at all as far as I can tell. why people would inundate themselves with such crap is beyond me.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
How much extra money, in addition to your taxes, do you liberals and socialists give to the government each year to "help" pay for those programs you believe we so desperately need?

I am neither a liberal or a socialist, but I pay my taxes. ALL of them! That's one of the purposes of taxes - to support these programs.

The 'poor' rich people (corporations) use tax shelters, loopholes and even get tax benefits from the government. If the rich corporations actually paid their taxes, we wouldn't have this problem.

I'm sure you know that GE paid NO Federal Taxes last year... for the second year in a row. PLUS, they received a $3.2 billion tax benefit! Those POOR people/corporations!

In addition, wealthy individuals pay a far less fraction of their income than the middle class does.

Warren Buffet on Taxes

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”
...
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again.

By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue.

And yes, I'm quoting Ben Stein, famous CONSERVATIVE.

People ask how I can be a conservative and still want higher taxes. It makes my head spin, and I guess it shows how old I am. But I thought that conservatives were supposed to like balanced budgets. I thought it was the conservative position to not leave heavy indebtedness to our grandchildren. I thought it was the conservative view that there should be some balance between income and outflow. When did this change?

Oh, now, now, now I recall. It changed when we figured that we could cut taxes and generate so much revenue that we would balance the budget. But isn’t that what doctors call magical thinking? Haven’t the facts proved that this theory, though charming and beguiling, was wrong?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Thanks for the reply. You were actually one of the people I hoped would reply. Your posts are generally well thought out, and I respect that even though we disagree on most issues.
However, you artfully dodged the question. I think we can assume that most of these tax dodging corporations do not support the entitlement programs I have mentioned. I ask again, how much extra do you pay to the government to support the programs you believe in?