Income tax

Johnnyorganic said:

And there you have it.

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

It tickles me how Progressives get all gunched up over percentages of income and ignore the hard numbers. The affluent pay most of the income taxes. A staggering amount of taxes. It's irrefutable.

Yet Progressives seem to think the affluent don't pay enough. And to further the class warfare confusion, Progressives happily ignore tax cheats like like Timothy Geithner and John Kerry.

There is one percentage Progessives consistently and conveniently ignore: The bottom 47% of filers pay no income tax.

It's fine to lecture the rest of us on fairness, but at least defend a tax system that is actually fair.

And a tax structure where nearly half of the population is in the cart rather than out front pulling is fundamentally unfair.

Click to expand...

1) Please stop using statistics that occur on a year to year basis. Just because it was 47% last year, it doesn't hold true for the last decade and forthcoming decade. And the only reason that occurred is because there were tax rebates and the Bush tax cuts were in effect despites 100s of billions of debt we were in. Seriously, stop making it sound like this occurs on a year to year basis. It doesn't.
2) The affluent pay most of the taxes? You're right, but on a percentage base they actually pay less than 20%: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html So you're sitting there and pouting about fairness? They pay a considerable amount more, but not their true share of the pie.
3) Consider all of the tax revenue of the United States: employee income taxes, employer income taxes, corporate taxes, and more when you're talking about government revenue.

BudMcLovin said:

But those guys paying most of the taxes are the “evil rich people”. Remember the liberals in this country think they “made their money off the backs of the poor and under privileged. They made their money by cheating the system or they inherited it so they don’t deserve it any way.” They don’t want equal opportunity they want equal results.

Liberals and progressives think there are only so many pieces of the pie and they’re going to get theirs even if they have to destroy free society to do it. They don’t realize that successful individuals make new pies.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy”. LINK

Click to expand...

I love how you sit there and "think" and "think" about how other people "think." How old are you? And why do conservatives always bring up quotations regarding tyranny and dictatorship amongst other things when there is absolutely no such thing occurring?

mrmadcow said:

why invest your money if the government will only take it away? as you said

GREAT IDEA!!! now that will get the wealthy to "pony up with their cash and start up new enterprises providing jobs" instead of "hording their money and actually cut more jobs and sent their factories overseas"

as to the orignal question,if I could earmark where my money went, yes, I would pay most of what they want.but just send the money to the clowns in washington to use as they see fit?
ROTFLMAO

Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that investing is a bad idea because the government will come take your money away? Despite the fact there you will have to pay income taxes, there are a healthy amount of individuals in this world that pay those income taxes, find deductions, and make themselves very rich.

Johnnyorganic said:

Taxing income is a horrible way to raise revenue. It encourages cheating and discourages productivity. It is counterproductive.

1. In reality, the percentage of those who actually pay taxes will not be much different. Affluent people purchase more expensive stuff, hence they will pay more in taxes. Thanks to the prebate, nobody would not pay taxes on necessities. As you like to point out, the poor use a much higher percentage of their incomes to buy necessities. Meaning the Fair Tax does not hurt the poor at all.

2. Government will be forced to do what it should have been doing all along. Live within its means. Most of the states have balanced budget clauses written into their Constitutions, why not the Federal Government? The Fair Tax takes the power to determine the amount of taxes paid away from the government and gives it to the citizens. The people.

As in: A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Click to expand...

Taxes do not by any means promote cheating and counter-productivity. The fact that income taxes ARE paid and that we continue to have the largest GDP and one of the largest GDPs per capita should be figured into all that. This has been occurring for decades now, and we have not lost a sliver of productivity or seen a huge spike in tax evasion.

From an economical standpoint, a budgeted balance for the federal government doesn't make much sense. 1) A budget is an estimation, and considering the size of our 300mln+ nation, having the ability to go under isn't as bad as you make it out to be. The money is actually spent in some way or form that usually goes back directly into our economy. You need to learn about money theory outside of going back to the gold standard. 2) Government supply/demand shocks are a very good way to boost an economy that is in recession or growing very slowly (think of the 2009 stimulus). 3) How does a fairtax put the power of taxes back into the people's hands? The current tax thresholds are a result of the people that have been voted into power that did the tax bidding for this country. Your disagreement with that is just a disagreement.

NoDrama said:

IMO The USA doesn't really need much for national defense. Kind of like Switzerland in a way. We have a shit load of firearm owners and most know how to use them. Besides who is stupid enough to attack one of the great nuclear powers on earth? I mean honestly how many people think that another country would be able to come here and take us over by force? We don't use our military for defense operations and haven't used them that way for generations, our troops and mercenaries are the attackers of others. IMO we could reduce military spending by 75% and have no worries of invasion. Do we really need 900 bases in other countries? Last year the official military budget was 1.03 trillion, total income taxes received was 1.08 trillion. Almost all tax money is being spent on war. No wonder we have such a huge deficit.

Click to expand...

You're so fucking right. Let all the hillbillies that have guns and AKs go out and start shooting all the bad guys that come here. Grow the fuck up. If there was an attack on our nation from a foreign power, it would not come in the form of them bringing people here, putting them on the ground, and shooting away at us. They would bring aircrafts, tanks, and other shit as big and close to indestructible as those items. While I am a supporter of gun rights, whenever I hear that, "we need to defense ourselves from the government" as an argument pro-gun, I always shake my head in disbelief. Do you seriously think if our government, or any other, were to attack us, it'd be the shit you see in GTA?

Who is stupid enough to attack the greatest nuclear powers on Earth? Just about Goddamn anybody. 9/11 should be proof that Islamic extremists are willing to. Timothy McVeigh and other right-wing extremists are capable as well. And while we weren't a nuclear power back then, Japan attacked us as well. And take into consideration that there are many countries out there with nuclear capabilities: China, India, Pakistan, Israel, U.K., France, North Korea, Russia, and I think a handful of others.

And you make it sound like national defense is similar to that of a hockey goalie, where instead of trying to put the puck in the other team's net, you just try to keep it out of yours. That is not how it works. We just don't swat something away and forget about it. We have an arsenal that is our military force and they're around the world because when Europe was shattered and torn in every imaginable way, they, along with most of the free world, looked for us for help.

And a lot of the money "spent" doesn't go to waste. If you, or anybody else on this board, understood the flow of money, then you would realize it goes back into our economy. Whether it be contracts given out to technology companies that create gizmos and crap for them to the salaries given to people on our bases in the U.S. (not the case if you're overseas), a majority of the money gets put back in here.

The Mastermind said:

You're so fucking right. Let all the hillbillies that have guns and AKs go out and start shooting all the bad guys that come here. Grow the fuck up. If there was an attack on our nation from a foreign power, it would not come in the form of them bringing people here, putting them on the ground, and shooting away at us. They would bring aircrafts, tanks, and other shit as big and close to indestructible as those items. While I am a supporter of gun rights, whenever I hear that, "we need to defense ourselves from the government" as an argument pro-gun, I always shake my head in disbelief. Do you seriously think if our government, or any other, were to attack us, it'd be the shit you see in GTA?

Who is stupid enough to attack the greatest nuclear powers on Earth? Just about Goddamn anybody. 9/11 should be proof that Islamic extremists are willing to. Timothy McVeigh and other right-wing extremists are capable as well. And while we weren't a nuclear power back then, Japan attacked us as well. And take into consideration that there are many countries out there with nuclear capabilities: China, India, Pakistan, Israel, U.K., France, North Korea, Russia, and I think a handful of others.

And you make it sound like national defense is similar to that of a hockey goalie, where instead of trying to put the puck in the other team's net, you just try to keep it out of yours. That is not how it works. We just don't swat something away and forget about it. We have an arsenal that is our military force and they're around the world because when Europe was shattered and torn in every imaginable way, they, along with most of the free world, looked for us for help.

And a lot of the money "spent" doesn't go to waste. If you, or anybody else on this board, understood the flow of money, then you would realize it goes back into our economy. Whether it be contracts given out to technology companies that create gizmos and crap for them to the salaries given to people on our bases in the U.S. (not the case if you're overseas), a majority of the money gets put back in here.

Click to expand...

Obviously the ramblings of a person who has never seen a day of war.

The money goes back into the economy eh? How about the $2.3 trillion that just happens to be missing from the Pentagon? Hey anybody seen my wallet that has $2.3 trillion in it? Which economy did that go into?

So you think Timothy Mcveigh could have taken over the whole US of A huh? To tell you the truth I wasn't one bit worried that his armies were going to roll down my street.


LOL you think that just because you have a jet in the sky and a tank on the ground that is all you need to win? Ask Russia how that worked for them in Afghanistan. You need men on the ground to win a war, period!

Hey everybody, to get the economy going again all we have to do is buy more bullets and kill more people, WAR WAR WAR!!!

Can you lose a Hockey Game if no one is able to get the puck into your net?

BTW what is GTA?

The Mastermind said:

1) Please stop using statistics that occur on a year to year basis. Just because it was 47% last year, it doesn't hold true for the last decade and forthcoming decade. And the only reason that occurred is because there were tax rebates and the Bush tax cuts were in effect despites 100s of billions of debt we were in. Seriously, stop making it sound like this occurs on a year to year basis. It doesn't.
2) The affluent pay most of the taxes? You're right, but on a percentage base they actually pay less than 20%: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html So you're sitting there and pouting about fairness? They pay a considerable amount more, but not their true share of the pie.
3) Consider all of the tax revenue of the United States: employee income taxes, employer income taxes, corporate taxes, and more when you're talking about government revenue.

Click to expand...

1) It is true the 47% applies to 2009. But the trend of more and more people paying no income taxes does not apply to just one year. It just grows incrementally each year. Educate yourself: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

And if the National Taxpayers Union does not meet your standards, maybe the snooty New Yorker will suit you. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/04/who-pays-federal-income-tax.html

2) There it is! It all goes back to talking about taxes as a percentages of income. Class warfare. If anyone is pouting, it is whiny Progressives constantly sniveling about taxes as a percentage of income.

3)Consider the title of the thread before lecturing fellow members about what to consider when discussing federal revenue.

The Mastermind said:

Taxes do not by any means promote cheating and counter-productivity. The fact that income taxes ARE paid and that we continue to have the largest GDP and one of the largest GDPs per capita should be figured into all that. This has been occurring for decades now, and we have not lost a sliver of productivity or seen a huge spike in tax evasion.

Click to expand...

Taxing income absolutely encourages cheating. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/tax-quorum/

It also encourages people to be less productive. Punish the productive for producing and expect no less. Atlas Shrugged, Baby!

The Mastermind said:

From an economical standpoint, a budgeted balance for the federal government doesn't make much sense. 1) A budget is an estimation, and considering the size of our 300mln+ nation, having the ability to go under isn't as bad as you make it out to be. The money is actually spent in some way or form that usually goes back directly into our economy. You need to learn about money theory outside of going back to the gold standard. 2) Government supply/demand shocks are a very good way to boost an economy that is in recession or growing very slowly (think of the 2009 stimulus). 3) How does a fairtax put the power of taxes back into the people's hands? The current tax thresholds are a result of the people that have been voted into power that did the tax bidding for this country. Your disagreement with that is just a disagreement.

Click to expand...

1) Who said anything about the gold standard? I simply want the government to do what I must do, live within its means.

2) The porkulus was a monumental failure. The best thing that could have happened would have been no porkulus, no TARP, no bailouts, no Government Motors - no nothing. Let the failures fail and let the innovators succeed.

3) Easy. By determining how much they spend, they determine how much federal taxes they pay. It's a simple concept.

But you must free your mastermind from the fantasy that the current miasma of indecipherable tax laws were put in place by benevolent public servants doing the work of the people. This year they refused to even write a budget.

LOL!

NoDrama said:

Obviously the ramblings of a person who has never seen a day of war.

The money goes back into the economy eh? How about the $2.3 trillion that just happens to be missing from the Pentagon? Hey anybody seen my wallet that has $2.3 trillion in it? Which economy did that go into?

So you think Timothy Mcveigh could have taken over the whole US of A huh? To tell you the truth I wasn't one bit worried that his armies were going to roll down my street.


LOL you think that just because you have a jet in the sky and a tank on the ground that is all you need to win? Ask Russia how that worked for them in Afghanistan. You need men on the ground to win a war, period!

Hey everybody, to get the economy going again all we have to do is buy more bullets and kill more people, WAR WAR WAR!!!

Can you lose a Hockey Game if no one is able to get the puck into your net?

BTW what is GTA?

Click to expand...

I haven't seen a day of war. Hopefully I don't as well. Shit seems scary. I leave it up to the people who'd like to join. There are millions from our country, and they do a good job at it.

The money does go back into economy. That is how money flows. 2.3 Trillion missing? After I Googled it, you seem to be correct. Occurred about a decade ago, and after doing some more there seem to be some flags that rise when it comes to the balance sheets of the Pentagon. Whether or not the money should be given is one thing, but whether or not there is accountability and better auditing techniques is much better.

And I don't believe McVeigh himself could have done it. That was not his attempt. Similar to the 9/11 attacks it was a message of war against an ideology. The extremists, American born conservatives, Muslim jihadits, or crazy green-lovers that burn down things that they deem to be environmentally unfriendly, are not of a nation or a commonwealth. They don't possess large amounts of jet-fighters or Sherman tanks or whatever the hell is being used out there. There tactics are usually very guerrilla like. I've watched numerous PBS documentaries on both wars (and I know you'll rebut it doesn't make up for experience, but read it out), and they're not as organized as you think. My point wasn't so much relying on minute militias, but rather having the resources such as people and equipment that are trained to fight a foreign threat on our soil. And I don't foresee a war on our soil anytime soon in the future.

Afghanistan received a lot of help from the non-USSR nations when that was going down. A lot of the remaining weapons are actually being used against our military right now, if you could believe it.

GTA = Grand Theft Auto

1) It is true the 47% applies to 2009. But the trend of more and more people paying no income taxes does not apply to just one year. It just grows incrementally each year. Educate yourself: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

And if the National Taxpayers Union does not meet your standards, maybe the snooty New Yorker will suit you. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...ncome-tax.html

2) There it is! It all goes back to talking about taxes as a percentages of income. Class warfare. If anyone is pouting, it is whiny Progressives constantly sniveling about taxes as a percentage of income.

3)Consider the title of the thread before lecturing fellow members about what to consider when discussing federal revenue

Click to expand...

'

I acknowledged that it changes every year. In fact, that is why I brought it up. The term was being tossed around as soon as it came up. The percentage of taxes is calculated after the fact, when all factors and variables are accounted for. It will always and ultimately end up there. And are you trying to say class warfare is something only progressives ignite? As for the title of the thread, why should it be taken into consideration when this thread has moved in so many multiple directions?

And when you say taxing absolutely encourages cheating, you're saying that everyone will do it regardless. Not the case. As for your blog link, a lot of focuses on off-shore havens and those other means that the wealthy might take advantage of. Once again, the wealthy represent a small number of tax payers, and they also seem to hiking up the least as well. I understand the inefficiencies of the system, but their "prescriptions" are available there for you to read as well.

1) Who said anything about the gold standard? I simply want the government to do what I must do, live within its means.

2) The porkulus was a monumental failure. The best thing that could have happened would have been no porkulus, no TARP, no bailouts, no Government Motors - no nothing. Let the failures fail and let the innovators succeed.

3) Easy. By determining how much they spend, they determine how much federal taxes they pay. It's a simple concept.

But you must free your mastermind from the fantasy that the current miasma of indecipherable tax laws were put in place by benevolent public servants doing the work of the people. This year they refused to even write a budget.

LOL!

Click to expand...

My reference to the gold standard goes hand in hand with the expectation and demand many libertarians and economical conservatives have regarding currency, and that their thoughts on money usually go back to "end the fed!" and "bring back the gold standard!"

The government is not a human being and while it is an organization, it is not a business. Of the arguments I laid out about that, you applied a human expectancy to the government. While it may make sense in your mind, it truly doesn't to me.

And you do understand when they said we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression that they actually meant it? The GD was an event marked by 25% unemployment, and with the interconnectivity that is our national and our world, you think that letting large corporations fail would end in a result where the market would balance itself out and unemployment would hit natural numbers? Grow up. The ebb of the downfall of everything that wasn't bailed out would have been monstrous. I know Austrian school of thought usually doesn't deal with numbers and percentages, but those economists that do have echoed it would have been fucking horrific.

And as for the fairtax, are you trying to argue that people at the moment don't know how much tax they're paying? Because a with-holding issue on your paycheck stub is usually HR related more than anything.

The Mastermind said:

I acknowledged that it changes every year. In fact, that is why I brought it up. The term was being tossed around as soon as it came up. The percentage of taxes is calculated after the fact, when all factors and variables are accounted for. It will always and ultimately end up there. And are you trying to say class warfare is something only progressives ignite? As for the title of the thread, why should it be taken into consideration when this thread has moved in so many multiple directions?

Click to expand...

No. You were implying that the 47% stands alone. Which I clearly disproved.

The Mastermind said:

And when you say taxing absolutely encourages cheating, you're saying that everyone will do it regardless. Not the case. As for your blog link, a lot of focuses on off-shore havens and those other means that the wealthy might take advantage of. Once again, the wealthy represent a small number of tax payers, and they also seem to hiking up the least as well. I understand the inefficiencies of the system, but their "prescriptions" are available there for you to read as well.

Click to expand...

I suppose you've never heard of earning wages "under the table?" LOL!

The Mastermind said:

My reference to the gold standard goes hand in hand with the expectation and demand many libertarians and economical conservatives have regarding currency, and that their thoughts on money usually go back to "end the fed!" and "bring back the gold standard!"

Click to expand...

You can save your stereotypes for the next thread. Or whatever.

The Mastermind said:

The government is not a human being and while it is an organization, it is not a business. Of the arguments I laid out about that, you applied a human expectancy to the government. While it may make sense in your mind, it truly doesn't to me.

Click to expand...

Just because it makes no sense to you, makes it no less true.

Living within one's means is a very simple concept.

The Mastermind said:

And you do understand when they said we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression that they actually meant it? The GD was an event marked by 25% unemployment, and with the interconnectivity that is our national and our world, you think that letting large corporations fail would end in a result where the market would balance itself out and unemployment would hit natural numbers? Grow up. The ebb of the downfall of everything that wasn't bailed out would have been monstrous. I know Austrian school of thought usually doesn't deal with numbers and percentages, but those economists that do have echoed it would have been fucking horrific.

Click to expand...

Why don't you grow up?

Nothing is too big to fail.

The Mastermind said:

And as for the fairtax, are you trying to argue that people at the moment don't know how much tax they're paying? Because a with-holding issue on your paycheck stub is usually HR related more than anything.

Click to expand...

Most people do not understand what they are paying, only what they are getting back.

You don't understand that. That's cool.

I do.

Johnnyorganic said:

No. You were implying that the 47% stands alone. Which I clearly disproved.

Click to expand...

My original quote was this: "1) Please stop using statistics that occur on a year to year basis." I was saying that number changes. Stop giving yourself a W for every rely.

I suppose you've never heard of earning wages "under the table?" LOL!

Click to expand...

UTL workers are usually contractors and very low-wage earners. And they would usually pay close to nothing when it came to taxes.

You can save your stereotypes for the next thread. Or whatever.

Click to expand...

I bet you there is a very large positive correlation between the two.

Just because it makes no sense to you, makes it no less true.

Living within one's means is a very simple concept.

Click to expand...

And it is your duty to help make sense to me instead of typing out the same exact phrase over again. Living within one's means is something I believe could be applied to a human being. My argument, as laid out before, is that an organization such as a government entity that may find it in its interest when necessary to overspend is not always bad. And as I have pointed out that government aided shocks can be very beneficial. Highly notable economists also agree.

Why don't you grow up?

Nothing is too big to fail.

Click to expand...

Out of EVERYTHING I noted in there, the only thing that struck you was my reference to your intellectual immaturity? And yes, some things are too big to fail if the cons heavily outweigh the pros and an entire nation will be directly impacted. And don't think for a second you would be shielded from this if it were to occur.

Most people do not understand what they are paying, only what they are getting back.

You don't understand that. That's cool.

I do.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. "Most" people do not understand what they are paying (in other words, they see X amount on the paycheck/direct deposit), but they receive no indication of what was taken out (total tax with-holdings being Y). If you take a look at any paycheck stub, there will be lines and lines of information regarding how much is being taken out. If there are any 401(k) contributions or something towards the union or the pension fund, it will be there. The same goes for Federal, State, Local (for example if you live in NYC), possibly county, social security, and medicare. You also have the ability to have a predetermined amount taken out and can go towards any difference you may owe when tax day comes around, otherwise it would be returned.

Is that what you were trying to argue? Because all your responses are one liners, similar to comebacks and "oh, you just dont understand it. pfft!"

The Mastermind said:

Highly notable economists also agree.

Click to expand...

I loved this one, kinda proves to me that you don't think for yourself, you just parrot what Harvard, Government, Or Federal Reserve economists say. But they always lie to the American public, they have to or their would be severe nationwide panic.

Is the Federal Reserve part of the Government?

The Mastermind said:

My original quote was this: "1) Please stop using statistics that occur on a year to year basis." I was saying that number changes. Stop giving yourself a W for every rely.

Click to expand...

And I acknowledged the fact that the 47% represented one year, which was your objection. But I further responded, in answer to your objection, that it was part of a trend. Win.

The Mastermind said:

UTL workers are usually contractors and very low-wage earners. And they would usually pay close to nothing when it came to taxes.

Click to expand...

UTL workers are only one part of the problem and are no more worthy of excuse than affluent tax cheats like Timothy Geithner. Tax evasion occurs at every income level.

The Mastermind said:

I bet you there is a very large positive correlation between the two.

Click to expand...

Just like there is a correlation between over-generalization and flawed conclusions.

The Mastermind said:

And it is your duty to help make sense to me instead of typing out the same exact phrase over again. Living within one's means is something I believe could be applied to a human being. My argument, as laid out before, is that an organization such as a government entity that may find it in its interest when necessary to overspend is not always bad. And as I have pointed out that government aided shocks can be very beneficial. Highly notable economists also agree.

Click to expand...

My duty is what I say it is, not what you dictate. If I am reduced to repeating myself, it is only because the message is not being received on the other end.

Simply because you may have pointed something out does not mean you have proved anything.

Four out of five dentists agree.

The Mastermind said:

Out of EVERYTHING I noted in there, the only thing that struck you was my reference to your intellectual immaturity? And yes, some things are too big to fail if the cons heavily outweigh the pros and an entire nation will be directly impacted. And don't think for a second you would be shielded from this if it were to occur.

Click to expand...

Nothing is too big to fail. The Soviet Union demonstrated that. If we continue down a path of deficit spending and unimaginable National Debt, we will prove it too.

The Mastermind said:

So let me get this straight. "Most" people do not understand what they are paying (in other words, they see X amount on the paycheck/direct deposit), but they receive no indication of what was taken out (total tax with-holdings being Y). If you take a look at any paycheck stub, there will be lines and lines of information regarding how much is being taken out. If there are any 401(k) contributions or something towards the union or the pension fund, it will be there. The same goes for Federal, State, Local (for example if you live in NYC), possibly county, social security, and medicare. You also have the ability to have a predetermined amount taken out and can go towards any difference you may owe when tax day comes around, otherwise it would be returned.

Click to expand...

People don't examine their paycheck stubs the way you seem to think they do. They are only concerned with net income. And at the end of the year they do not complain about how high their taxes were thanks to withholding. Instead, they talk about how much they got back as a refund.

The Mastermind said:

Is that what you were trying to argue? Because all your responses are one liners, similar to comebacks and "oh, you just dont understand it. pfft!"

Click to expand...

Categorically untrue. Sometimes I dash off flippant one-liners and sometimes I write paragraphs. It's all related to the caliber of the statement to which I am responding.

But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Its funny how someone who never served their country nor has participated in any war has so much knowledge on how to win one. Also funny how anyone with a Firearm is a hillbilly. You need to grow up.

The Mastermind said:

My argument, as laid out before, is that an organization such as a government entity that may find it in its interest when necessary to overspend is not always bad. And as I have pointed out that government aided shocks can be very beneficial. Highly notable economists also agree.

Click to expand...

It is never necessary to be wasteful, which is what overspending is. An excuse to throw money at your buddies for political gain. Why not be efficient? We were very wasteful in WW 2 and won. How much quicker would the war have ended had we been efficient?

"a government entity that may find it in its interest" that's been the problem all along. It's not in the peoples interests. It is however, in the interest of the special interest groups the government cozies up to at that time. Leave things that have been enumerated at the local level where they belong. One size does not fit all.

The Mastermind said:

1)Are you trying to say that investing is a bad idea because the government will come take your money away? Despite the fact there you will have to pay income taxes, there are a healthy amount of individuals in this world that pay those income taxes, find deductions, and make themselves very rich.

Click to expand...

you are oversimplifing what I said. MM was complaining "that the wealthy didn't pony up with their cuts and start up new enterprises providing jobs but moreover they horded the money and actually cut more jobs and sent their factories overseas." I stated that many fear what our government may do taxwise and are sitting on their money. considering our current situation,would you sink everything you have into the stockmarket now? or would you "hoard" some of you money for a rainy day? the clouds on the horizon look pretty dark to me.
yes,there are a healthy amount of individuals in this world that pay those income taxes, find deductions, and make themselves very rich.and in doing so,they create alot of jobs for everyone else.MM was bitching(again) that they are not doing enough in his opinion.I attempted to give a reason for that & attempted to show why his solution would only make things worse.

The Mastermind said:

... Living within one's means is something I believe could be applied to a human being. My argument, as laid out before, is that an organization such as a government entity that may find it in its interest when necessary to overspend is not always bad. And as I have pointed out that government aided shocks can be very beneficial. Highly notable economists also agree.

Click to expand...

I agree that overspending is not always a bad thing for government (or a person),however doing so for years and years on end will be destructive for a person and to do so for decade after decade will be destructive for a government.ask the USSR.

NoDrama said:

Its funny how someone who never served their country nor has participated in any war has so much knowledge on how to win one. Also funny how anyone with a Firearm is a hillbilly. You need to grow up.

Click to expand...

Once again, I'll bet you if a study was done that most firearm holders would be the stereotypical definition of a hillbilly. Btw, I support gun rights and concealed weapon rights. The concealed weapon part should actually be done similar to how a driver's license is obtained, but that is for a different thread.

Parker said:

It is never necessary to be wasteful, which is what overspending is. An excuse to throw money at your buddies for political gain. Why not be efficient? We were very wasteful in WW 2 and won. How much quicker would the war have ended had we been efficient?

"a government entity that may find it in its interest" that's been the problem all along. It's not in the peoples interests. It is however, in the interest of the special interest groups the government cozies up to at that time. Leave things that have been enumerated at the local level where they belong. One size does not fit all.

Click to expand...

If the legislation is laden with pork-barrel projects and ear-marks, that is a different problem in itself. I've stated before that my ideal income tax would be highest from the states and considerably lower with the feds. But I still support the income tax over anything else. As for wasteful spending, it is not wasteful spending. You make it sound like this money is given, and then it is literally burned. That is not the case when it comes to a government overspending accordingly to its budget. At all. The money is routed towards projects and departments, which in return complete those projects and pays out salaries, which enter back into our economy. And it is necessary to spend more than you have, given certain economical and national problems. And as for WW2, I'm not even sure how this plays in. If memory serves me correctly, the war lasted us about 5-6 years at most, no? And how exactly were we wasteful? The entire country, similar to WW1, was sacrificing itself. The men and few women at work would work more hours, take lower pay, all in the name of our country. And labor did so with the expectation from the government (that said it would) that they would be rewarded and honored with more appropriate laws. Instead Taft-Hartley was passed in '47, and that was the end of that.

mrmadcow said:

I agree that overspending is not always a bad thing for government (or a person),however doing so for years and years on end will be destructive for a person and to do so for decade after decade will be destructive for a government.ask the USSR.

Click to expand...

The USSR was a joint economical and political machine that in no way resembles America or many of the industrialized countries. At all. And the only reason our current spending is so high is because it is being used as a remedy to actually help our recovering economy. And economists, those that do the mathematical calculations that you Austrian school lovers neglect, have shown it has done more good than the harm you make it out to be. And guess what? We've been in debt since the 70s. From the greatly-hailed Reagan, to H.W., Clinton (whose last 4 years or so resulted in a surplus), through W., and now Obama. And we haven't fallen off the grid. And I don't expect it to occur either.

The Mastermind said:

Once again, I'll bet you if a study was done that most firearm holders would be the stereotypical definition of a hillbilly. Btw, I support gun rights and concealed weapon rights. The concealed weapon part should actually be done similar to how a driver's license is obtained, but that is for a different thread.

Click to expand...

So in other words you have no evidence, no facts to present, just a hunch feeling? And i will take that bet, 25% of the population cannot possibly live in the Appalachian mountains.

Meh. Checked back on this thread and saw that it has quickly devolved to poo flingin'. Shame.

The Mastermind said:

If the legislation is laden with pork-barrel projects and ear-marks, that is a different problem in itself.

Click to expand...

Each project or ear mark should stand on their own merit and should not be labeled as bad. Like many people, you don't understand how earmarks work and that they represent a very small part of the budget. Each state has money stolen from their constituents that goes into the corrupt system. Those Congress people are trying to get their voters money back. If Congress has $10 budgeted for highway improvement and West Virginia gets a $1 earmark for highway improvement in their state, the Federal budget for highways is now $9.

The Mastermind said:

I've stated before that my ideal income tax would be highest from the states and considerably lower with the feds. But I still support the income tax over anything else.

Click to expand...

Since when is it okay to steal someones money? I do not respect a thief. User taxes are the way to go imo. Why should I finance something I will not use?

The Mastermind said:

As for wasteful spending, it is not wasteful spending. You make it sound like this money is given, and then it is literally burned.

Click to expand...

that is your false interpretation because you have a very weak point. Please show me all the efficient government programs going on today and weigh them against the inefficient ones. It's not even close. If Congress was a business it would have been foreclosed on years ago. FAIL.

The Mastermind said:

That is not the case when it comes to a government overspending accordingly to its budget. At all. The money is routed towards projects and departments, which in return complete those projects and pays out salaries, which enter back into our economy. And it is necessary to spend more than you have, given certain economical and national problems.

Click to expand...

You want the same government that cannot manage their budget to continue to run things??? Why? What incentive does the government have to stay within their budget when they know there is a good chance they can get more money? I have yet to see a government project that spent MY money wisely and efficiently.

The Mastermind said:

And as for WW2, I'm not even sure how this plays in. If memory serves me correctly, the war lasted us about 5-6 years at most, no? And how exactly were we wasteful? The entire country, similar to WW1, was sacrificing itself. The men and few women at work would work more hours, take lower pay, all in the name of our country. And labor did so with the expectation from the government (that said it would) that they would be rewarded and honored with more appropriate laws. Instead Taft-Hartley was passed in '47, and that was the end of that.

Click to expand...

This is the type of post I see from people who are so "full of America" they don't get it. Flags waving, bands playing. A good effort? Sure. Efficient? not a chance. We didn't have competition. It is obvious the effort made by the ones staying home was below average, compared to what we would see in the free market. How could it not be? Our best segment of the work force, by far, was overseas fighting.

We have seen time and time again the wasteful ways of our government. You seem to think because a war is on things will dramatically change. Why do you think the government can run things efficiently when history has told us otherwise? YOU may be the type of person who will work hard and not take advantage of the system, but you need to understand something. This is not about you, it is about what we falsely envision others would do in order to make things work. It is about human nature and what people are KNOWN to do.

For arguments sake lets say the best people for the job are hired by government. Those people have proven they cannot stop the mismanagement and inefficiency very well. Now the government expands and it stands to reason the not so best who are now being hired, are going to be less efficient, are not going to know how to work the complicated, regulation filled system. So now the inefficiency and corruption is magnified.

Here's government working for you
"Government in the mid 30's Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate."

I hear similar things from people like you a lot. Smart people, who paint a picture that sounds good. But when you apply it and look through history those very same intelligent sounding practices fail time and time again. Your ways will always get support though. When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can be sure you'll have Pauls backing 100 percent of the time.

^^^ Good points and good post Parker.

The Mastermind said:

Once again, I'll bet you if a study was done that most firearm holders would be the stereotypical definition of a hillbilly.

Click to expand...

sorry but you are wrong. studies have been done.

In 1986, Texas A & M University released a nationwide survey conducted by professors William Pride and O. C. Ferrell which found that higher-income whites with some college education are those most likely to own handguns,

Click to expand...

and another at http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2844.html shows that 40% of homes in America own firearms but I guess you consider anyone not as enlightened as you to be a hillbilly

The Mastermind said:

.....And guess what? We've been in debt since the 70s. From the greatly-hailed Reagan, to H.W., Clinton (whose last 4 years or so resulted in a surplus), through W., and now Obama. And we haven't fallen off the grid. And I don't expect it to occur either.

Click to expand...

again you twist my words,being in debt by itself is not a bad thing but longterm living above your income is. my parents bought a house in 1970 with a loan,paid it off in the mid 90s,took out another home loan to improve it and just paid off that loan.they also keep a carloan active at all times,when 1 car is paid off,they keep it & buys another.they currently own outright 2 cars and also share w/ the bank a 2009 chrysler town & country. always in dept? yes but living above their means? hardly
and if Clintons last 4 yrs truely had a surplus,why has the national debt gone up every year?
if I start the year off w/ $50 in my pocket a house worth $95k and owe the banks $50,000 and then end the year w/$400 in my pocket,a house still worth $95k but owe the banks $75,000, did I have a surplus that year?(assuming no other assets)
when explaining how this is a surplus, please use small words & type slowly so this dumb hillbilly can understand.

mrmadcow said:

again you twist my words,being in debt by itself is not a bad thing but longterm living above your income is. my parents bought a house in 1970 with a loan,paid it off in the mid 90s,took out another home loan to improve it and just paid off that loan.they also keep a carloan active at all times,when 1 car is paid off,they keep it & buys another.they currently own outright 2 cars and also share w/ the bank a 2009 chrysler town & country. always in dept? yes but living above their means? hardly
and if Clintons last 4 yrs truely had a surplus,why has the national debt gone up every year?
if I start the year off w/ $50 in my pocket a house worth $95k and owe the banks $50,000 and then end the year w/$400 in my pocket,a house still worth $95k but owe the banks $75,000, did I have a surplus that year?(assuming no other assets)
when explaining how this is a surplus, please use small words & type slowly so this dumb hillbilly can understand.

Click to expand...

Stop it you're making sense. I'll go one step further.

On the budget and balancing things, face value that's a good thing. Take in 10 from taxes, budget is 10, everything looks ok. Next year comes. Take in 20 from taxes, the budget is 20, everything looks ok. But to me, everything isn't okay. Because the budget is balanced or a surplus doesn't mean it's a good thing. It costs me more money in the 2nd year to balance the budget.

Go one step further why do I continue having my money stolen from me, for services I have not used, through income taxes and other immoral taxes? I don't care if the surplus is huge. All that means is you overtaxed me more, than you already overtaxed me the year before.