What must be done to Unite the Country

#1,177
#1,177
LouderVol said:
That's a self fulfilling prophecy there. Or at least some circular logic.

We would never apply that type of logic to anything else.

I have never bough anything from Amazon. But I have benefited in some form from the services offered by Amazon. By your logic I should be paying Amazon.
Click to expand...
By your logic no one should be paying Amazon, but we should still be benefiting from them.
 
#1,178
#1,178
Serene said:
Well, for one thing, if quantitative easing was just printing money, why would it increase the debt? You're just proving my point.
Click to expand...
When the debt is completely ignored and nothing is ever paid on the principal of the debt it’s just printing money until the next reset.
 
#1,179
#1,179
ajvol01 said:
When the debt is completely ignored and nothing is ever paid on the principal of the debt it’s just printing money until the next reset.
Click to expand...
If the government can still gain more debt, then someone is willing to lend them money. The problem occurs when no one will lend the government money because they're afraid they won't get paid back. That's certainly a risk you take when you increase the debt to unmanageable levels.
 
#1,180
#1,180
Serene said:
Right, and I've already pointed out that it's trivial to just decrease taxes across the board if you're fine with the government not making enough money to function and not having public education, a military, etc. There are plenty of people here arguing that no one should have to pay taxes at all. We don't need to do an analysis of a proposed tax policy if the policy is just "let's all pay less taxes, we'll figure out spending."

The reason it's on a per return basis is because the IRS compiles the data based on a total number of returns. You have to dig deeper to see how many of those returns at each income level include 1 or 2 taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Are you really trying to tell us that a reduction in revenue would eliminate public education and the military?

Why in the hell can't the .gov live within it's means like people have to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, AM64, mr.checkerboards and 2 others
#1,181
#1,181
Serene said:
If the government can still gain more debt, then someone is willing to lend them money. The problem occurs when no one will lend the government money because they're afraid they won't get paid back. That's certainly a risk you take when you increase the debt to unmanageable levels.
Click to expand...

You know who the biggest government creditor is?

We are at or a least a cat's hair away from the debt being unmanageable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and AM64
#1,182
#1,182
Serene said:
If the government can still gain more debt, then someone is willing to lend them money. The problem occurs when no one will lend the government money because they're afraid they won't get paid back. That's certainly a risk you take when you increase the debt to unmanageable levels.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that we don’t pay on our debt?

Would you agree that the debt is currently unmanageable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, AM64 and Rickyvol77
#1,183
#1,183
hog88 said:
Are you really trying to tell us that a reduction in revenue would eliminate public education and the military?

Why in the hell can't the .gov live within it's means like people have to?
Click to expand...
No, I don't have a problem with decreasing revenue if we decrease spending. This is not a reply to the people who want to decrease the size of the government, it's a reply to the people who insist than any taxes at all are theft and slavery.
 
#1,184
#1,184
Serene said:
No, I don't have a problem with decreasing revenue if we decrease spending. This is not a reply to the people who want to decrease the size of the government, it's a reply to the people who insist than any taxes at all are theft and slavery.
Click to expand...

Taxes are theft. But we do need some level of government to promote stability and resolve disputes and it will need money to function. The problem we face is our federal government is bloated way beyond it's purpose and causes more problems than it solves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, mr.checkerboards, Rickyvol77 and 2 others
#1,186
#1,186
hog88 said:
Are you really trying to tell us that a reduction in revenue would eliminate public education and the military?

Why in the hell can't the .gov live within it's means like people have to?
Click to expand...
Because they have a bottomless well of money from which to draw. They just pull out their guns, and we all write the checks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, AM64 and hog88
#1,187
#1,187
Rasputin_Vol said:
Did Tesla teach some of the courses?
Click to expand...

Missed him, but the guys who taught soldering were like Nazis. They were all taught by the NASA guys across the way, and none of your solder joints better have too much solder or worse be a cold solder joint. Several times over the years when something isn't working right I'll go over a circuit board, find bad solder joints, and fix them. My garage door opener lights were intermittent - the wires to the light sockets were never soldered to the circuit board - so much for automated soldering. Shame we gave up craftmanship for automation so we could have the 26th generation of iPhone a couple of years after introduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, mr.checkerboards, ajvol01 and 1 other person
#1,188
#1,188
Rasputin_Vol said:
One more thing to add to the hopper...

The cancel culture on both sides are getting out of hand. I think we need to let go of this practice of firing people (or getting people fired) over statements that they make.
Click to expand...

In just a generation or two the free speech klan that wanted all actions and words protected has become the cancel culture klan working hard to prohibit free speech ... at least by non leftists.
 
#1,191
#1,191
Serene said:
I mean, that's what you're arguing for. You want to increase taxes on the bottom 90%. Wouldn't that make you happy?
Click to expand...
I want to keep the status quo with medical and spread the tax burden to everyone making 30k plus.

My point was when you guys get single payer through, medical taxes are going to hit these guys way worse than a 10% income tax will.

I'm sorry you don't understand, when you look at your idea with blinders on, you can't be open to other opinions......like what you have been preaching.
 
#1,192
#1,192
Serene said:
Yeah, all those retirees who don't pay taxes on their Social Security income are spending it all on weed and tats, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Some of them yes. Live in a small town and see what people look like and buy in front of you that are "young" families. It's pathetic. Get off your high horse and understand your utopia just doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,193
#1,193
Serene said:
That's obviously subjective. When you're paying so much in taxes that you can't afford to live a comfortable life (commensurate to your level of income), that's obviously too much. It's much harder to live a decently comfortable life when your pay is low versus when your pay is high. Most people would rather have 75% of $10,000,000 rather than 95% of $40,000.
Click to expand...
Except the taxes on 40k at 10% above 30k are 1k. Therefore it is more like 97.5% of 40k. And it makes no difference what you would "like" to have. It's what you need to put into the till for the benefits that you receive.
 
#1,194
#1,194
PointGuard said:
Don't know - -didn't see those evaluation findings you referenced. I'll take your word for it. So he should amend his statement to "corporations and to individuals earning more than $200,000" (IIRC when he first proposed this long ago during the campaigning (IIRC = no link) the $400,000 was a guestimate of the floor) I'm thinking $200,000 would be acceptable to most posters on this forum as "taxable income" after adjustments
Click to expand...
You would be wrong, it should be 30k
 
#1,196
#1,196
Serene said:
What's your proposal to pay for roads, the military, etc. without the government committing robbery?
Click to expand...
Toll roads.

The military is tricky. Simply because a direct payment would limit them to directly the US. Which would be nice. But would clash with how it's used. I have no idea how to do direct payments so they can invade the next 'Stan.

One idea I have proposed in the past, different than direct service related payments, would be direct payment of taxes. As in I dont write a check to the IRS. I write it to the Military. I still pay the same amount. But if the military is the only thing that matters they get all my taxes. If i want to spread it around i do. If i dont care it goes to the general fund to be wasted as Congress sees fit. If I care about global warming the check goes to the EPA or DOE. Then each piece does what it can with the money it gets. Let's the federal government serve the peoples wishes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and Rickyvol77
#1,198
#1,198
payn_c17970320210115120100.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and MemphisVol77
#1,199
#1,199
Serene said:
What's your proposal to pay for roads, the military, etc. without the government committing robbery?
Click to expand...
Toll roads everywhere. Let the countries that we protect pay for our services. W keep the shipping lanes open so the oil flows to China? The can pay us for that or get hijacked.
 
#1,200
#1,200
82_VOL_83 said:
Except the taxes on 40k at 10% above 30k are 1k. Therefore it is more like 97.5% of 40k. And it makes no difference what you would "like" to have. It's what you need to put into the till for the benefits that you receive.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize that you were also talking about starting taxes after $30000 for the individual--most of your posts indicate that you want everyone to pay the same tax rate on all income. That changes the proposal to be much more reasonable for low income earners and would probably earn a lot more support to pass, but I don't think it really helps your position. You're complaining about 51% of the population not paying income taxes, but that portion would be likely be around the same or even higher if the personal deduction was $30,000 compared to the current $12,400. A person who was making $15 an hour, which is apparently absurdly high for a minimum wage, would only pay $120 per year in federal income taxes (and that's only if they don't reduce their taxable income at all by investing in a 401k, etc.). At the moment, that same person would pay $2059 per year, unless they get tax credits for having kids. So why not just lower some of the tax breaks we give to people with children?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top