The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 11:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

If you had to choose, which policy goal would you prioritize?
Lowering taxes 13%  13%  [ 2 ]
Balancing the budget 88%  88%  [ 14 ]
Total votes : 16
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:54 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Stathol wrote:
Here is the simple truth:

The United States of America does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem.


Just wanted to quote this again so it doesn't get missed.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
How so, Kaffis? Aren't lower taxes and balanced budgets both "ends" for conservatives?

Lower taxes aren't an end. It's a means to...A healthy economy where the market gets to keep the bulk of the money earned in (pseudo-)rational actors rather than trusting a centralized economic overlord to **** things up and waste it.


Hm, fair enough, though to clarify, the abridged quote of your post, above, is what I meant by "lower taxes" - i.e. that the government takes a smaller chunk of money out of the hands of private actors/markets.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Talya wrote:
..."less than 15% of GDP" tells us NOTHING, since GDP is not an indicator that should have any bearing on government spending or the budget.


Sure it does - it tells us what percentage of the economy is being allocated to government revenue, which is very relevant to determining the likely impact on growth. And that, in turn, has a huge bearing on identifying what is and is not a sustainable level of government spending.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Stathol wrote:
Here is the simple truth:

The United States of America does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem.

The problem is that spending exceeds revenue to an unsustainable degree. Saying that's not a "revenue problem" makes no more sense than saying it's not a "spending problem". Pick your poison, I guess, but they both sound like simplistic spin to me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:00 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I would support an increase of my tax rate if we balanced the budget permanently with a robust amendment and cut the size and scope of government. Ultimately I believe the second makes the first unnecessary, but theoretically yeah. If a flat tax rated my effective tax rate, I'd be down with that too. I don't want my (or anyone else's) taxes raised so congress can play business as usual. Does that answer your question?

Furthermore, our current tax code is more about social engineering (raising taxes to curtail certain activities or lowering them to attempt to promote others) than it is about revenue.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:11 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Taskiss wrote:

As far as what is and isn't possible, I suggest we stay tuned. I'm thinking we'll see some things considered impossible before it's over.


Like :quote: Fiscal conversatives :quote: voting for the largest increase in the debt ceiling?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:14 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Rorinthas wrote:
Furthermore, our current tax code is more about social engineering (raising taxes to curtail certain activities or lowering them to attempt to promote others) than it is about revenue.


:thumbs:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:56 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
There's actually kind of a sweet spot for taxes and revenue generation. At some point higher taxes produce less revenue. I'd go look it up, but I need to stop surfing the Internet and go study for a test... Maybe I'll remember later.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:08 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
RD lets take a look at two extremes and see if its a spending or revenue problem:


What would be the impact and what standard of living would the average American expect if:


it were 0% of GDP?
it were 100% of GDP?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
It's a fine poll question.

I answered "balance the budget". I would gladly pay more in taxes if it balanced the budget. No, I would not be happy to have it balanced on only revenue increases, but if it got the job balanced, I'd contribute more.

Here's the problem. I believe I would contribute more, the budget would not get balanced or it would only be balanced a short time, and then I'd just end up paying more for nothing.

So... F that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:38 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Xequecal wrote:
My point was not that spending isn't too high. Of course spending is far too high. My point was that taxes are not too high. Taxes are lower now than when Eisenhower was President, and he's the President widely considered to have the best fiscal policy of the 20th century. So the assertion that "taxes are way too high as it is, we have to fix the spending problem with cuts only" is just ridiculous.
Please stop regurgitating this lie.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
If you're going to call that a lie, you're going to need to do better than that, as CNN ran that assertion in multiple articles.

Oh and if you think CNN is too biased, here's one from Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 43,00.html

Quote:
Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:25 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Overall may Xeq, but why will no one address the concept that "fair share" means some people pay 50% of their revenue and some pay 0%. Full disclosure: working part time for minium wage right now i'm probably closer to the 0 than the 50. I'd support an increase in my tax rate to fix the disparity if it meant we took a serious look at how the government collects and spends money.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:31 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Wwen wrote:
There's actually kind of a sweet spot for taxes and revenue generation. At some point higher taxes produce less revenue. I'd go look it up, but I need to stop surfing the Internet and go study for a test... Maybe I'll remember later.
Government revenues as a factor of GDP have been relatively flat since the 1940s.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:15 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
RangerDave wrote:
Stathol wrote:
Here is the simple truth:

The United States of America does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem.

The problem is that spending exceeds revenue to an unsustainable degree. Saying that's not a "revenue problem" makes no more sense than saying it's not a "spending problem". Pick your poison, I guess, but they both sound like simplistic spin to me.


It does make sense in the context that the Federal Government is spending money on stuff it has no business spending money on. So the money brought in by taxes is more than enough to cover the Federal Goverments obligations. The rest of the stuff are things that should be cut since we obviously cant afford them.

Just like a normal household- when everyone in the household is working, you can afford to go out to eat, cable TV, new clothing, vacations, etc. Then one person is unemployed- ok, now you prioritize your spending, and cut what isn't vital. To somehow suggest that the Federal Goverment is above, beyond or immune to these economic realities is folly.

We are to the point where we need to do this, yet the can keeps getting kicked down the road. The United States must face this debt crisis- either today, tomorrow or very soon. The can is too full of BS to keep going down the road. It's too heavy to kick anymore. So do we want to deal with it on our terms, or Chinas?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:52 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
I voted for "slip the guy a couple of roofies and leave him on the roof of Caesar's Palace."

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:47 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
Khross wrote:
Wwen wrote:
There's actually kind of a sweet spot for taxes and revenue generation. At some point higher taxes produce less revenue. I'd go look it up, but I need to stop surfing the Internet and go study for a test... Maybe I'll remember later.
Government revenues as a factor of GDP have been relatively flat since the 1940s.

Does that mean it doesn't matter what the tax rate is?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:20 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
RangerDave wrote:
Stathol wrote:
Here is the simple truth:

The United States of America does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem.

The problem is that spending exceeds revenue to an unsustainable degree. Saying that's not a "revenue problem" makes no more sense than saying it's not a "spending problem". Pick your poison, I guess, but they both sound like simplistic spin to me.


Not too simplistic.

You collected over $11000 in tax revenue per citizen over 18 in 2010.
You spent over $18000 in tax revenue per citizen over 18 in 2010 (and that's accepting official figures which tend to ignore large portions of spending.)
The median income for citizens over 18 in the USA is $25,149 in 2010.

The US Government is spending over 70% of what its citizens are making. Ultimately, this is the tax rate. Any amount of tax lower than that is just being deferred, not eliminated. Nevertheless, you're currently collecting federal taxes amounting to 44% of personal income.

Can the USA afford to spend 70% of its citizen's income? Can the citizens afford this?

Cutting spending is the only option.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:24 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Talya wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
Stathol wrote:
Here is the simple truth:

The United States of America does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem.

The problem is that spending exceeds revenue to an unsustainable degree. Saying that's not a "revenue problem" makes no more sense than saying it's not a "spending problem". Pick your poison, I guess, but they both sound like simplistic spin to me.


Not too simplistic.

You collected over $11000 in tax revenue per citizen over 18 in 2010.
You spent over $18000 in tax revenue per citizen over 18 in 2010 (and that's accepting official figures which tend to ignore large portions of spending.)
The median income for citizens over 18 in the USA is $25,149 in 2010.

The US Government is spending over 70% of what its citizens are making. Ultimately, this is the tax rate. Any amount of tax lower than that is just being deferred, not eliminated. Nevertheless, you're currently collecting federal taxes amounting to 44% of personal income.

Can the USA afford to spend 70% of its citizen's income? Can the citizens afford this?

Cutting spending is the only option.


Not only is it deferred... it's deferred at compounding interest.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:17 am 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
And the Chinese just cut our credit rating which means any further money we borrow from them will be at higher interest.

Bring our troops home and cut foreign aid to anyone that doesn't like us.

Since we'll have a lot of troops handy, ask permission of the Mexican Government to take out their troublesome cartels. Allow ride-alongs from Mexican troops and let them help, put them in the front lines so they can be big damned heroes.

Once the cartels are gone, come home. Tell what's the Mexican Government to whistle whenever they want us back to help.

Leave the troops on the border to deal with immigration issues until we can finish discharging the ones who have been in past their enlistment dates and thanking them for their service.

Tell the UN they're evicted, find somewhere else to hate America.

Withdraw from "alliances" that have us footing the bills for everything.

Tell the corporations that if they want the tax breaks they're enjoying, they have to employ citizens of the United States, in the United States to keep receiving them.

Expand Leavenworth and all Federal prisons. Keep those only guilty of being illegal aliens there if they want them kept anywhere. Stop expecting the States to house prisoners only guilty of breaking federal laws.

Legalize marijuana. Tax it. We'll make money off the drug war instead of losing it hand over fist. Those that want to toke will always find a way.

Go to a flat tax and eliminate all loopholes that do not directly benefit the country in ways that lawyers don't have to explain.

yadda yadda yadda, stop wasting money making politicians richer.

Pay off our freaking national debt with the money we save before spending it three times over elsewhere.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Micheal wrote:
And the Chinese just cut our credit rating

A private Chinese rating firm cut the US rating. They'll still buy treasuries anyway.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:37 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
It's a Chinese ratings agency. How "private" do you honestly believe they are?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:45 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
U.S. Borrowing is now at more than 100% of GDP

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:17 am 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Thanks Barack. Guess the other 3 increases didn't let you spend us entirely to death so you made sure that we are *****ed squarely in the ***.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:07 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Hannibal wrote:
*****ed squarely in the ***.


You know, there's a glade feature that puts those ***s in for us if we don't want to see the nasty evil words.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 238 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group