Election results....
-
STiSchucky wrote:
but you're right, those jimmy carter years were strong. nothing beats stagflation... well besides a baseball bat to the nutsAnd ALL of the rising deficit/spending took place after he took office, right? He was elected because of those problems, however in his 4 years in office, he was unable to reverse them, and admittedly things got worse. Bush came into office with surpluses and turned it into the fastest growing deficit in history. Ask any economist, deficits matter.
-
99slowGSX wrote:
prove it....we had surplusses in the years clinton was in office.
Anyone who would have been in office during those years would have had a surplus..the Dot Com boom was the reason the 90's were such great economic years, not Clinton. The economy was already slipping down before Clinton was even out of office and continued on that trend until just recently when it's started climbing again.Also let me say this...taxes are the main source of revenue for the Government (duh everyone knows that) so obviously they will always exist. Doesn't matter what party is in power, they will tax you no matter WHAT your economic position is. It's unfair to say Democrats tax the rich more or Republicans tax the middle class more as BOTH parties will raise taxes in certain areas and affect everyone. Income tax is mainly what people focus on but you have to realize that the death tax, state sales taxes, federal sales taxes, luxury taxes, etc etc. are also revenue sources as well. Sure one party may lower income taxes, but in return they're going to raise a different one in order to make up for that money loss because come on people, politicians love their money and no matter what the SAY, they're going to try get as much of it as possible with the least amount of people realizing it.
-
99slowGSX wrote:
or republican know one thing.....make the rich richer and teh middle class non existant. The middle class is shrinking everyday...The so called "rich" are the ones that create jobs...also, taxing somebody more when they are "rich" doesn't seem right. It's like punishing them simply because they've been successful in life. Middle class shrinking? Unemployment is at its lowest compared to past years. The economy is definately on the up also. You have to remember what our economy has been through the last while...granted war helps the stock market a lot of the time, there was 9/11 which really took a toll on the market.
You guys all really should watch fox news...you know...UNBIASED news.
-
torbs wrote:
The so called "rich" are the ones that create jobs...also, taxing somebody more when they are "rich" doesn't seem right. It's like punishing them simply because they've been successful in life. Middle class shrinking? Unemployment is at its lowest compared to past years. The economy is definately on the up also. You have to remember what our economy has been through the last while...granted war helps the stock market a lot of the time, there was 9/11 which really took a toll on the market.You guys all really should watch fox news...you know...UNBIASED news.
what does unemployment and middle class have anything to do with it? You really need to get a clue before you chime in. The middle class IS shrinking. Just because you have a job doesnt mean you are middle class. Bush gives tax breaks to people that already have more than enough money. I think it is Warren Buffet that even said that rich people are not taxed enough.
-
torbs wrote:
The so called "rich" are the ones that create jobs...also, taxing somebody more when they are "rich" doesn't seem right. It's like punishing them simply because they've been successful in life. Middle class shrinking? Unemployment is at its lowest compared to past years. The economy is definately on the up also. You have to remember what our economy has been through the last while...granted war helps the stock market a lot of the time, there was 9/11 which really took a toll on the market.You guys all really should watch fox news...you know...UNBIASED news.
While I agree that overly taxing the rich is wrong, I still think that a 35% tax on someone earning $300,000+ a year is fine, hell, 40% is fine as it's pretty easy to live off $180,000. The thing I DON'T like is when the taxation doesn't discriminate between people and small business owners. Business owners should be cut many breaks, being as they are the ones creating most of the new jobs.
Also cracking down on tax fraud is another thing that should be done as several billion dollars in tax revenue are lost each year due to tax evasion/fraud. Bringing in that extra money they should be getting would require less hikes on those who actually DO pay their taxes.
-
-
Because a flat tax would murder the poor, progressive taxes are pretty much a necessity. An easier way to tax the rich without raising their income taxes is to raise luxury taxes on items like yachts, lambo's, ferrari's, etc. Obviously that'd be a PITA to classify certain cars/boats/etc. as luxury vs non luxury (what makes a Lund boat not as luxurious as a $400,000 yacht etc etc.) but at least it's not a direct tax....if you want the item you will be willing to pay the tax while at the same time are not going to be forced to pay it and purchase the unnecessary item.
The main problem with the whole system is the bureaucratic bullshit that has to be waded through before anything gets accomplished. There are TONS of ways to fix taxes, raising government revenue, while helping the poor and not overly taxing the rich, it's just that paper and real life are 2 different things. On top of that, implementing certain projects and ideas would be extremely costly, mainly due to the bureaucracy's again and all the red tape you have to go through to get something accomplished (categorizing what is and isn't taxed, how much, who it would affect, etc etc). If all that could be gotten around it'd work...but even if you COULD get around that, they'll add on some pork barrel shit to it in the house and get it killed. That's the way a republic works for you.
-
Lets say that I make 5 million dollars a year. I worked hard and busted ass to earn every penny of that 5 million. Why should I have to give more of my money to the government than the guy who makes 30k a year? I worked hard for it, but why should they take more from me just because I make more?
-
MisterCMK wrote:
Lets say that I make 5 million dollars a year. I worked hard and busted ass to earn every penny of that 5 million. Why should I have to give more of my money to the government than the guy who makes 30k a year? I worked hard for it, but why should they take more from me just because I make more?It's all about the name in our country, to stay united we should help out our neighbors, not to make everyone equal but to assist those that need it but too many take advantage of it and others try to work the system to benefit themselves that don't need it that's where the confusion and seperation is at, some people are selfish, but sometimes that's what it takes to make it nowadays to support a family or keep a business running to support others, some people go off the deep end and try to go as near as a monopoly as they can get without trouble, some of them do it for pure wealth greed and power that's what's happened in America and too late to stop it so what do we do now?
-
MisterCMK wrote:
Lets say that I make 5 million dollars a year. I worked hard and busted ass to earn every penny of that 5 million. Why should I have to give more of my money to the government than the guy who makes 30k a year? I worked hard for it, but why should they take more from me just because I make more?
Because you can afford to live off 3 million dollars whereas that guy making $30,000 who is probably barely making ends meet is now being forced to live off $22,500 now. The extra income tax revenue from the Mutli Millionaire helps that 30,000 guy pay his bills. -
Why is that? Any proof to back up your claim? I refer again to my post: Lets say that I make 5 million dollars a year. I worked hard and busted ass to earn every penny of that 5 million. Why should I have to give more of my money to the government than the guy who makes 30k a year? I worked hard for it, but why should they take more from me just because I make more?
-
StangerBanger96 wrote:
Because you can afford to live off 3 million dollars whereas that guy making $30,000 who is probably barely making ends meet is now being forced to live off $22,500 now. The extra income tax revenue from the Mutli Millionaire helps that 30,000 guy pay his bills.What incentive does that give me to work harder and earn more money if its just going to be taken away from me because some other guy doesn't make as much?
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that somebody should have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes just because they worked harder or had a better job.
-
Bookem wrote:
It's all about the name in our country, to stay united we should help out our neighbors, not to make everyone equal but to assist those that need it but too many take advantage of it and others try to work the system to benefit themselves that don't need it that's where the confusion and seperation is at, some people are selfish, but sometimes that's what it takes to make it nowadays to support a family or keep a business running to support others, some people go off the deep end and try to go as near as a monopoly as they can get without trouble, some of them do it for pure wealth greed and power that's what's happened in America and too late to stop it so what do we do now?Holy run-on sentence batman. What are you trying to say? Your post makes no sense.
-
MisterCMK wrote:
What incentive does that give me to work harder and earn more money if its just going to be taken away from me because some other guy doesn't make as much?I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that somebody should have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes just because they worked harder or had a better job.
Because by the time you're earning that much money in a year, you're probably not doing much. It's probably either investments or the fact that you're a CEO/President of a large corporation that you're earning that much money. And the government can't care what amount of work you put into your job otherwise they'd have to analyze EVERY person's tax situation based on how much they earned and how hard they worked for it. They can only do what's economical and that is to tax those who can afford to be taxed a little more than those who can't afford. I'm not for a LARGE disparity between the upper brackets and lower brackets but I AM for the unquestionable fact that the rich HAVE to be taxed a little more than the poor in order for the system to work. I'm not advocating a 50% tax on certain people and none on others, rather i'm more for a 40% tax cap on the rich and then have the percentages drop as income drops. I also think smaller brackets and revising the way the tax system works would be beneficial, as someone in the 35% bracket is actually paying more than 35% due to the fact that they pay 35%, then each bracket lower as well....I forgot exactly how it works since it's been a year since i've studied this stuff but they are paying more than what their bracket shows...
-
I also would have to say that if I was earning THAT much money I wouldn't have that big of a problem with the govn't taking a little more from me, I could still afford my lambo/ferrari/yacht/house/girls/etc.
-
torbs wrote:
You guys all really should watch fox news...you know...UNBIASED news.LOL, thats like saying Limbaugh is middle of the road. Fox is as right wing biased as CNN is left wing biased. It's easy to say that one channel or another is unbiased when they agree with your views most times. I think CNN is more balanced than Fox, but then again, they see things the way I see them a lot of the time.
Oh, and how about the 10+ FALSE reports they had that said or troops found WMD's during the beginning of the war in Iraq? This was based on incorrect information, yet their reporters weren't pressured to resign, unlike Dan Rather who reported news based on information that he obtained, later realized he had wrong info and publicly stated it yet still came under pressure from the whitehouse and was forced to resign.
-
Not to debate with you Chuck, just asking, what would the definition of a wmd be? During my time in Iraq I saw some stuff capable of quite a bit of damage, nothing that would be able to be launched from Iraq and land in the U.S. but for it to be a wmd, does it only have to harm us what about other countries?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login