Ttlpkg

[WODIN]

What would it take for you to say "To hell with the Republican Party" and join some other group? I'm curious because of this.

When I was a kid being a republican was pretty much all about keeping govt out of your business, reducing taxes and letting people be. In other words the party had a very libertarian slant. Now I really cant tell one party from the other these days? Yet to me it seems that you stick to being a republican like its part of who you are. Part of your fundamental make up as a person.

 

[BileStew]

What would it take for you to say "To hell with the Republican Party" and join some other group? I'm curious because of this.

When I was a kid being a republican was pretty much all about keeping govt out of your business, reducing taxes and letting people be. In other words the party had a very libertarian slant. Now I really cant tell one party from the other these days? Yet to me it seems that you stick to being a republican like its part of who you are. Part of your fundamental make up as a person.

Trying to get him to join the Whig Party?

 

[WODIN]

BULLY!!!! LOL!!!

Nah just curious. You might say I'm fascinated by how fervent people become when talking politics.

 

[BileStew]

Oh shit. I know the situation...I'm a GOP'er but don't get involved in politics anymore. Bad enough my family is involved in them.

My father flips out when watching the news whenever a Dem comes on. My ex gf was a avid Democrat and her brother was a state senator. I would start arguments on purpose just to see her fly off the handle.

Damn....I miss those times.

 

[FreeballinDC]

with WODIN, it would be the Bull Moose party

Teddy R. RAWKS!

 

[WODIN]

Teddy was an overly self involved wind bag.

 

[Longhorn85]

What would it take for you to say "To hell with the Republican Party" and join some other group? I'm curious because of this.

When I was a kid being a republican was pretty much all about keeping govt out of your business, reducing taxes and letting people be. In other words the party had a very libertarian slant. Now I really cant tell one party from the other these days? Yet to me it seems that you stick to being a republican like its part of who you are. Part of your fundamental make up as a person.

I was raised in a family that voted democratic without fail, just like most black american families. I voted for Carter in my first Pres election and considered myself a democrat. As I became more learned in college I realized that just about everything in my upbringing: religious values, individual responsibility, strong military, pro-lfe, pro-business, etc. were more consistent with the GOP. I don't like what liberal policies have done for blacks in america.

I also don't see why it's such a shocker for a black to be a republican. Each individual should think for himself and make up his own mind. Right now the democrats take the black vote for granted, and that is never a good thing.

I am a conservative person, not a liberal one.

 

[FreeballinDC]

hello kettle?

this is pot,

you're black!

 

[WODIN]

For some reason, I've never associated party affiliation with race. Personal blindness maybe? I don't know. My brain just doesn't work that way so I'm not shocked that you are a republican.

I wasn't asking what made you a such an avid republican. It seems to me that you're traveling a well troden road of defining yourself by what you see your self as being in relationship to what you are not.

I wondered if there was anything that would make you just say fuck it! I'm going libertarian, or fuck it. It's now green paryt time. See where I'm coming from?

Not why you are a strong republican but what event or shift would make you change parties.

For instance The Pro-business aspects of the GOP. Lets say that public pressure becomes too much and the party changes its view and backs pro-environmental tree huggers. I know, this isn't going to happen. Just throwing out hypotheticals.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Wodin,

93% of blacks voted Democrat last election (2000). The Democrats do take it for granted.

As far as pro-business, any pro business party in power would crush trial lawyers in about a day. Republicans' faulure to do this, coupled with the fact that the trail lawyers are the #1 Democrat contributors, is telling about their real stances.

 

[Longhorn85]

I wondered if there was anything that would make you just say fuck it! I'm going libertarian, or fuck it. It's now green paryt time. See where I'm coming from?

I said "fuck it!" when I finally came out of the closet and admitted I was a republican back in the mid-eighties. (my parents were shocked)

 

[FreeballinDC]

I said "fuck it!" when I finally came out of the closet and admitted I was a republican back in the mid-eighties. (my parents were shocked)

ahhh, another coming out story. now you know how I felt.

 

[Longhorn85]

ahhh, another coming out story. now you know how I felt.

It was so liberating. I can display a Bush '04 bumper sticker on my car with absolute impunity.

 

[FreeballinDC]

Let me ask you this, is there any policy(ies) that the Bush administration is advocating that you disagree with?

What changes would you recommend, if any?

 

[WODIN]

This should have been in the Jeffersons or something. It really is funny.

Mom, dad...I'm a Republican.

Damn 93%! That's huge!!!!

 

[Longhorn85]

Let me ask you this, is there any policy(ies) that the Bush administration is advocating that you disagree with?

What changes would you recommend, if any?

More tax cuts.

Privatize Social Security.

School vouchers.

Double the size of the Army. (self-serving )

 

[p0ink]

aren't we getting a 4% raise or something? that's the rumor around the bay.

 

[BO-DEN]

Re: Re: Ttlpkg

I sometimes find myself looking for men that look like OJ simpson so we can have a political debate between the sheets!!

eww dude!

uncalled for
































J/k

just fucken with ya. your probably to well "learned" for my joke but i know it makes me laugh


BO-DEN

 

[atlantabiolab]

ttlpkg would have to truly understand that he is libertarian more than he is Republican in ideology. Then he would have to get passed the guilt trip Republicans place on libertarian minded individuals and vote his conscious and not vote for the "lesser of two evils".

He has to become a true lover of freedom and not pay it lip service as the GOP does.

 

[WODIN]

never did answer my question.

 

[Longhorn85]

I wondered if there was anything that would make you just say fuck it! I'm going libertarian, or fuck it. It's now green paryt time. See where I'm coming from?

I thought I answered your question. Let me try again. I'm not a libertarian. I of course don't agree with everything every republican does, far from it. I do feel the country would be better off if run by the GOP. It would lead to lower taxes, stronger defense, eventual overturn of Roe v Wade, etc.

Atlanta, I am surprised that libertarians don't see this. Voting libertarian won't do a thing to affect this nation, other than spoiling a republican's chance of winning an election. I don't intend to place a guilt trip on libertarians, everyone should vote how they want to. I do encourage them to vote GOP though, just as I encourage democrats and indys to vote GOP.

I don't see myself voting ever for the Green party because it is anti-business and excessively liberal.

 

[Longhorn85]

Re: Re: Re: Ttlpkg

just fucken with ya. your probably to well "learned" for my joke but i know it makes me laugh


BO-DEN

I hope I didn't use that phrase to describe myself! I'm still learning. FYI the reason for the OJ avatars is that I was always told I look like him. I caught hell during the trials. He was also my favorite football player back in the day.

 

[WODIN]

What if the GOP went pro roe-v-wade?

Would that make you go indy? See I'm just really trying to discover your political threshhold in terms of party loyalty is all.

 

[FreeballinDC]

When Jesse Jackson turns Republican, then he'll make the switch.

 

[Longhorn85]

What if the GOP went pro roe-v-wade?

Would that make you go indy? See I'm just really trying to discover your political threshhold in terms of party loyalty is all.

Many in the republican party are pro-choice. Big tent, baby. The democrats, on the other hand, don't tolerate pro-lifers.

I favor pro-life republicans but I'd rather have Arnold than Gray Davis, for example. I am realistic enough to know that I can't always have it all. Hell, having Arnold in as governor could possible deliver Cali in the general election, which will help keep Bush in office, which will lead to the appointment of more conservative judges. See?

 

[WODIN]

So I can safely conclude that there is really no platform change in the GOP that would make you change or leave the party?

 

[Longhorn85]

So I can safely conclude that there is really no platform change in the GOP that would make you change or leave the party?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you want me to say: "If the GOP called for a restoration of slavery I would leave the GOP?"

Look. The republican party, just like the NRA or the NOW or the AARP is nothing more than a group of like minded citizens banding together forming a political voice. I and others who think like me influence the republican party by our votes, our participation and our money. I feel that I can influence the direction of the party. Anyone paying attention can see that it is dynamic and changing. Three of the most powerful members of the party are black (Colin Powell, Condelezza Rice, Clarence Thomas).

You may safely conclude that in the here and now, I consider myself a republican because I feel it is the party that most closely reflects/supports what I believe.

 

[WODIN]

Just curious is all, not trying to make any point. Honestly.

 

[Longhorn85]

Just curious is all, not trying to make any point. Honestly.

Good, cuz I feel rather dull today.

 

[Lumberg]

Re: Re: Ttlpkg

I was raised in a family that voted democratic without fail, just like most black american families. I voted for Carter in my first Pres election and considered myself a democrat. As I became more learned in college I realized that just about everything in my upbringing: religious values, individual responsibility, strong military, pro-lfe, pro-business, etc. were more consistent with the GOP. I don't like what liberal policies have done for blacks in america.

I also don't see why it's such a shocker for a black to be a republican. Each individual should think for himself and make up his own mind. Right now the democrats take the black vote for granted, and that is never a good thing.

I am a conservative person, not a liberal one.

I have always known that blacks tend to be Dems because I come from a politically savvy household. However it doesn't surprise me when a black person in a Republican. It might have kind of surprised me the first or second time I thought about it but it makes perfect sense.

It seems like a lot of people that are very self-motivated and make their own good fortune through self-improvement and effort are or become Republicans. And there are plenty of black people like that.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I do feel the country would be better off if run by the GOP. It would lead to lower taxes, stronger defense, eventual overturn of Roe v Wade, etc.

Really? Under Reagan and both Bushes (as well as Clinton) the budget has gone up every year - faster than inflation - as has the number of employees with government jobs or jobs derived from government sponsored contracts.

It;s all tax money, and the Republicans continue to spend more. Income tax is down. Other taxes are up. If the budget is up, the total net taxes are up. Time to wake up.

Republicans and Democrats are the same. They are statists.

Atlanta, I am surprised that libertarians don't see this. Voting libertarian won't do a thing to affect this nation, other than spoiling a republican's chance of winning an election. I don't intend to place a guilt trip on libertarians, everyone should vote how they want to.

The other republican trick: hold up a democrat and say "anything but this". Kinda like what the Saudi royalty does: blame Israel and America while continuing to urinate on their people.

Likewise how the GOP urinates on its loyal but middle class followers. Only the wealthy get preferential treatment here. Only in a true free market would this stop.

 

[Longhorn85]

Really? Under Reagan and both Bushes (as well as Clinton) the budget has gone up every year -

Matt, nothing you said contradicts with what I listed: lower taxes, stronger defense, more conservative judges. Want less spending? Cut taxes and the govt will have less to spend in the first place. The only way to get that is to vote republican.

Getting Congress to reduce spending is going to be difficult, but the only chance I see of it ever happening is by having a significant majority of the GOP in both houses.

 

[Dial_tone]

Clarence Thomas is black?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Matt, nothing you said contradicts with what I listed: lower taxes, stronger defense, more conservative judges.

If spending is going up, taxes are going up. What is the issue?

GW has increased spending just like Reagan, GHWBush and Clinton.

Spending has gone up every year for the last 20, under administrations of both parties.

How can you still claim that the GOP believes in lower taxes when a mountain of empirical evidence (the last 25 federal budgets, as admins and Congresshas shifted both directions) disproves that?

Your last post was the equivalent of looking at the daytime sky and saying "What sun?"

 

[Longhorn85]

If spending is going up, taxes are going up.

How can you still claim that the GOP believes in lower taxes

Your last post was the equivalent of looking at the daytime sky and saying "What sun?"

Increased revenues do not necessarily mean increased taxes. In fact, lowering taxes usually results in increased revenues.

I can claim that because Bush cut taxes, plain and simple. The democratic candidates have already promised to raise them right back.

And I say voting libertarian is equivalent to looking at the daytime sky and saying "I'll go indoors because I don't like this"

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Increased revenues do not necessarily mean increased taxes. In fact, lowering taxes usually results in increased revenues.

The government only derives revenue from taxation, of numerous kinds. If spending is up, taxes are up.

How can lowering taxes result in incrased revenues for the federal government?

 

[Testosterone boy]

What the GOP has done for the past 23 years is spending more with the "national credit card" while making smaller payments through "lowering taxes."

We all have to pay the piper. The GOP simply pushes it further down the road, out of sight, and feeds it billions.



I'm a registered Republican but I am not blind to reality.

 

[atlantabiolab]

The government only derives revenue from taxation, of numerous kinds. If spending is up, taxes are up.

How can lowering taxes result in incrased revenues for the federal government?

Lowering income taxes can have the effect of increasing federal revenues, due to increased productivity and increased spending. The Laffer Curve postulates the idea that there is an optimal level of taxation which optimizes federal revenues, and anything above this level produces a disincentive to work and spend, thus federal revenues decline, even with increasing tax burden.

 

[Lift Chief]

More tax cuts.

Privatize Social Security.

School vouchers.

Double the size of the Army. (self-serving )

The one thing this country needs is a larger standing militiary.

You know, with the looming threat of total war on the horizon.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I thought I answered your question. Let me try again. I'm not a libertarian. I of course don't agree with everything every republican does, far from it. I do feel the country would be better off if run by the GOP. It would lead to lower taxes, stronger defense, eventual overturn of Roe v Wade, etc.

As Matt has pointed out, you have no leg to stand on in terms of defending your assertion of the benefits of Republicanism. You desire something that you are not receiving, you want the Republicans to do what they say, they don't, but you still keep hoping.

Atlanta, I am surprised that libertarians don't see this. Voting libertarian won't do a thing to affect this nation, other than spoiling a republican's chance of winning an election.

The idea of "spoiling" presupposes the idea that a Republican "should" be in office, as if it is their "right" and a vote for the "other" is taking away what is "rightfully" theirs. Do you see how nonsensical your statement is?

I don't intend to place a guilt trip on libertarians, everyone should vote how they want to. I do encourage them to vote GOP though, just as I encourage democrats and indys to vote GOP.

How do you encourage this? By claiming to others that your party will do what it never does? That it is best to beg for any scraps of "good" legislation, rather than desiring candidates who actually know what is Constitutional?

I don't see myself voting ever for the Green party because it is anti-business and excessively liberal.

Don't worry, the Republicans will compromise their principles eventually and become more like other socialist parties. You won't have to be against the opposing parties, the Republicans will consume all other parties and become the "Schizophrenic Party".

 

[Dial_tone]

I'm of the general opinion that whatever cuts Republicans make in federal spending will be offset by increases in military spending. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if Reagan's Star Wars program made a comeback. ttlpkg does need a raise though.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Lowering income taxes can have the effect of increasing federal revenues, due to increased productivity and increased spending. The Laffer Curve postulates the idea that there is an optimal level of taxation which optimizes federal revenues, and anything above this level produces a disincentive to work and spend, thus federal revenues decline, even with increasing tax burden.

Thanks ttlpkg.

Change "income taxes" to "all taxes" and this no longer holds true.

And of course this all assumes that federal revenue should be maximized - that sort of thinking is a sickness to a freedom lover. Eliminate income tax entirely and productivity will skyrocket. Eliminate as many taxes as possible and it will go still higher.

 

[WODIN]

laffer curve! ha! What a fucking joke.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I'm of the general opinion that whatever cuts Republicans make in federal spending will be offset by increases in military spending. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if Reagan's Star Wars program made a comeback. ttlpkg does need a raise though.

Military spending often has the effect of increasing teh standard of living.

Internet?
Cell phone?
Satellite anything?

All military-derived, and it's the tip of the iceberg.

.

 

[Dial_tone]

Yep, DARPA has been good to the computer using world.

 

[Lumberg]

Increased revenues do not necessarily mean increased taxes. In fact, lowering taxes usually results in increased revenues.

Reaganomics, anyone?

Glad someone else <cough WODIN cough> called bs on the Laffer curve.

The highest tax rate in the US is what, around 40-45%?

True the laffer curve exists, but the peak is FAAAR to the right of (ie higher than) 45%.

Experiments have shown that the point at which the disincentive of high taxes starts to supecede greed is around 70%. Ain't no way in hell tax rates are going to reach 70% in the U.S.A. so we can leave the whole "lower taxes increase revenue" argument where it belongs, which is in the closets of the Reagan era.

<this is where hardcore Republicans argue that we just didn't give it enough of a chance>

 

[Longhorn85]

Reaganomics, anyone?

Tax Rates and Tax Revenues

High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.

from:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

 

[Longhorn85]

As Matt has pointed out, you have no leg to stand on in terms of defending your assertion of the benefits of Republicanism. You desire something that you are not receiving, you want the Republicans to do what they say, they don't, but you still keep hoping.

I hoped for a tax cut. Bush cut taxes. If re-elected he will cut taxes again.

I hoped for the appointment of a more conservative judiciary. Conservative judges continue to fill the federal benches, and eventually will overtake the Supreme Court.

I am pro-life. Partial birth abortion has been restricted.


You can't deny that these are significant events that would not happen under a democratic administration.

Has it been perfect? Of course not. Am I pleased? Hell yes.

 

[Lumberg]

Tax Rates and Tax Revenues

High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.

from:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

This has nothing to do with the Laffer curve.

In fact, surprisingly, the text also states:

The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases.

There is the shifting tax burden among economic categories and there is overall increase in revenue. Apples and oranges.

 

[Mr. dB]

Glad someone else <cough WODIN cough> called bs on the Laffer curve.

Even David Stockman eventually admitted it was BS.

The highest tax rate in the US is what, around 40-45%?

35-39%, no?

 

[Testosterone boy]

Tax Rates and Tax Revenues

High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.

from:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

The rich are paying a higher percaentage of the taxes because they are much, much richer and the poor are poorer.

Basic math ltlpkg.

 

[Longhorn85]

The rich are paying a higher percaentage of the taxes because they are much, much richer and the poor are poorer.

Basic math ltlpkg.

That is obvious and undisputed Testicle boy. What is your point?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Ain't no way in hell tax rates are going to reach 70% in the U.S.A.

They already did.


Today, top rate is making its way down from 39% under Clinton toward 33%, where Bush & co. cut it to. The issue is also deductions - higher incomes don't have any, (even mortgage interest deductions stop) but that is a finer point.

You don't have to earn that much to lsoe your deductions: the sliding scale starts at like $130K and keeps sliding until you reach like $600,000, where they all stop. Mortgage interest over $1.1M is not deducitble.

Also at issue: the total taxes one pays may reach up over 50% or higher. Property taxes, state income tax, taxes you pay to etc.

The effective tax rates many Americans pay is well into the 40% realm or higher.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I hoped for a tax cut. Bush cut taxes. If re-elected he will cut taxes again.

Cutting income tax and "reducing taxes" are two different things.

As long as the budget is higher, the burden on the individual is greater. You don't see it in your income tax, so it has gone somewhwere else.

Bush did not reduce taxes. he moved taxes.

 

[Longhorn85]

This has nothing to do with the Laffer curve.

In fact, surprisingly, the text also states:

The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases.

There is the shifting tax burden among economic categories and there is overall increase in revenue. Apples and oranges.

Do you agree with this statement from my above post?

"High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion."

If so, then you must acknowledge that conversely, lower tax rates encourage work effort, saving and investment, and reduce tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Therefore lowering taxes leads to increased revenues.

 

[Longhorn85]

Cutting income tax and "reducing taxes" are two different things.

As long as the budget is higher, the burden on the individual is greater. You don't see it in your income tax, so it has gone somewhwere else.

Bush did not reduce taxes. he moved taxes.

Come on now, he cut taxes. If re-elected he will further reduce taxes, as you say. One thing is certain, if the democrats are elected, they will raise both.

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Thanks ttlpkg.

Change "income taxes" to "all taxes" and this no longer holds true.

And of course this all assumes that federal revenue should be maximized - that sort of thinking is a sickness to a freedom lover. Eliminate income tax entirely and productivity will skyrocket. Eliminate as many taxes as possible and it will go still higher.

I must admit, I never paid much attention nor cared one way or the other about taxes until I moved out of the States.

Now that I live in a country with no taxes, I see the benefits and the difference that it makes.

There are many good economic books out there that discuss the issue - the main problem is that once you have started a taxation system, it is hard to just get rid of it entirely - it becomes a self feeding loop.

Another large problem is the human nature involved in spending other people's money - which is exactly what government is doing with taxes. It has been shown that when humans are in that situation, they will spend far more and look for more to do so.
Which is exemplified by the continually increasing number of government agencies and departments.

 

[WODIN]

Tax avoidance is as american as apple pie regardless of the tax rates!

 

[Longhorn85]

Another large problem is the human nature involved in spending other people's money - which is exactly what government is doing with taxes.

Walter Williams talks about this a lot. He calls it "forcefully taking the money out of the pockets of Americans and giving it to other Americans."

 

[Dial_tone]

I'm halfway thru reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and everybody receiving government assistance should be forced to read this book, at gunpoint if need be.

 

[Lumberg]

Do you agree with this statement from my above post?

"High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion."

If so, then you must acknowledge that conversely, lower tax rates encourage work effort, saving and investment, and reduce tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Therefore lowering taxes leads to increased revenues.

Nope. You are making too big of a jump.

First of all I don't necessarily agree that higher tax rates discourage work effort. Cos more money is more money, regardless fo how much the gov't gets. And everybody wants more money.

But let's just say for argument's sake that high High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion.

What you are not taking into account is the difference in magnitudes. Lowering tax rates lowers tax avoidance, etc. a little bit. Not nearly enough to make up for the difference in the tax rate. EXCEPT when the marginal tax rate is 70% or higher. The whole debate centers on the position of the peak of the Laffer curve. And no way, no how, are we to the right of that peak, nor have we ever been in the US.

Do you even know what the Laffer curve looks like?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I'm halfway thru reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and everybody receiving government assistance should be forced to read this book, at gunpoint if need be.

Read

"captialism, the Unknown Ideal" after that.

A collections of artciels by Rand and Alan Greenspan.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

And no way, no how, are we to the right of that peak, nor have we ever been in the US.

Yes we have. Top tax rate actually went over 90% in the 1940s and 1950s. it stayed in the 70%s for a long time after that.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Do you agree with this statement from my above post?

"High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion."

If so, then you must acknowledge that conversely, lower tax rates encourage work effort, saving and investment, and reduce tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Therefore lowering taxes leads to increased revenues.

No silly.

The only difference is the presence or absence of taxation.

Your statement is the logical equivalent of saying,

"If I steal $10 from you, it doesn;t set you back as far as if I steal $5,000 from you, so we should accept small thefts because they are better than big ones".

Nice outlook.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Walter Williams talks about this a lot. He calls it "forcefully taking the money out of the pockets of Americans and giving it to other Americans."

If I out a gun to you r head and say "give me 1/3 of your income", I go to prison.

If the government does it, it;s OK. And worse, you cheer them when they take less!

Theft is theft. I don't want them to have it. Other people are stealing what I have produced, in the name of "public interest."

What the hell is that?

 

[argent]

BULLY!!!! LOL!!!

Nah just curious. You might say I'm fascinated by how fervent people become when talking politics.

I am also intrigued by this. There are people who won't socialize w/ someone who is of the other party.

 

[Longhorn85]

I am also intrigued by this. There are people who won't socialize w/ someone who is of the other party.

On the contrary. I seek out those who disagree with me, especially at parties.

 

[BO-DEN]

If I out a gun to you r head and say "give me 1/3 of your income", I go to prison.

If the government does it, it;s OK. And worse, you cheer them when they take less!

Theft is theft. I don't want them to have it. Other people are stealing what I have produced, in the name of "public interest."

What the hell is that?

word

 

[Lumberg]

Yes we have. Top tax rate actually went over 90% in the 1940s and 1950s. it stayed in the 70%s for a long time after that.

I'm talking about Federal income taxes only.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I'm talking about Federal income taxes only.

OK, me too.

 

[BO-DEN]

I'm talking about Federal income taxes only.

i ounce read an artical about some farmer that acually proved in court that federal income tax was illegaly implemented by KNOX

it said that the idea of federal income tax started as an idea to pay for world war 1 or 2 i forget wich. it said that it was supposed to be temperary and that it needed 36 states to vote for it. they said that the votes were forged and it was passed.

it said that no one is obligated to pay Federal Income Tax.



anyone know anything about this?
id like to know more.

BO-DEN

 

[Testosterone boy]

That is obvious and undisputed Testicle boy. What is your point?

So you applaud one person getting richer while ten people grow poorer?


Okie dokie

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

So you applaud one person getting richer while ten people grow poorer?

Okie dokie

Yes, if one person can improve the standard of living of all ten.

In a capitaist economy, the only people growing rich are those who people CHOOSE to give money to in exchange for a service or product.

In a free market, no one is forced to give money to anyone. Only when the government intervenes is money forcibly redistributed, like now.

We don't have a market. Only the government can use force. Only the government can screw people out of money. I can't MAKE you buy my product.

The idea that everyone should benefit from every person's efforts is socialism.

Okie dokie.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Yes, if one person can improve the standard of living of all ten.

In a capitaist economy, the only people growing rich are those who people CHOOSE to give money to in exchange for a service or product.

In a free market, no one is forced to give money to anyone. Only when the government intervenes is money forcibly redistributed, like now.

We don't have a market. Only the government can use force. Only the government can screw people out of money. I can't MAKE you buy my product.

The idea that everyone should benefit from every person's efforts is socialism.

Okie dokie.

You would take a first aid course then lecture an emergency room doctor on medicine. Okie dokie.




Reading others opinions are no substitute for living junior.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

You would take a first aid course then lecture an emergency room doctor on medicine. Okie dokie.

Reading others opinions are no substitute for living junior.

Good comeback. I present known economic theory and you come back with that. Four decades on this earth and that is the level of discourse you want to carry on.

But hey, you're older.

 

[sinjinsmythe33]

'Big government' isn't just the size of the budget or the number of federal programs. It's the degree to which the federal government interjects itself into your life, regardless of how much you pay in taxes. Federal and state regulations rarely even the playing field for anyone. I am finally beginning to realize that it stifles productivity. Fortunately, I had the buckeyes on the money line tonite so I am back to feeling a bit gummy.

 

[JuicePimp]

Let me ask you this, is there any policy(ies) that the Bush administration is advocating that you disagree with?

What changes would you recommend, if any?

F'ing Ephedra ban!!! Man I would give my vote away if there was some one to take it.

Unfortunately, I dont think there is anyone else that could do better right now. Honestly, sometimes it seems like we could run the country the same regardless of who is president. The supreme court makes all the real decisions anyways.

 

[Longhorn85]

So you applaud one person getting richer while ten people grow poorer?


Okie dokie

I want as many people as possible in American to be rich. It benefits all of us.

 

[WalkingBeast]

What would it take for you to say "To hell with the Republican Party" and join some other group? I'm curious because of this.

When I was a kid being a republican was pretty much all about keeping govt out of your business, reducing taxes and letting people be. In other words the party had a very libertarian slant. Now I really cant tell one party from the other these days? Yet to me it seems that you stick to being a republican like its part of who you are. Part of your fundamental make up as a person.

What would it take? Twenty bucks. I dont give a FUCK about politics.

 

[Mr. dB]

If I out a gun to you r head and say "give me 1/3 of your income", I go to prison.

If the government does it, it;s OK. And worse, you cheer them when they take less!

Theft is theft. I don't want them to have it. Other people are stealing what I have produced, in the name of "public interest."

What the hell is that?

Okay, if taxation is theft, then how do YOU propose that we fund the government and public services?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Okay, if taxation is theft, then how do YOU propose that we fund the government and public services?

Forcible taxation is theft. Consumption based tax is not. I can choose not to pay it by not spending.

BTW, if you eliminate every government activity that is a foray into the free market, you're not left with much.

What do we *really* need government to do? Guarantee individual rights...doesn;t really require much.

 

[Longhorn85]

What do we *really* need government to do? Guarantee individual rights...doesn;t really require much.

Provide for the national defense.

 

[Mr. dB]

Forcible taxation is theft. Consumption based tax is not. I can choose not to pay it by not spending.

BTW, if you eliminate every government activity that is a foray into the free market, you're not left with much.

What do we *really* need government to do? Guarantee individual rights...doesn;t really require much.

Okay, if we did away with all income taxes and replaced them with Value Added Tax on purchased goods, what do you think the % would have to be?

I predict that such a tax would probably place a disproportionately large burden on low and middle income citizens.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Okay, if we did away with all income taxes and replaced them with Value Added Tax on purchased goods, what do you think the % would have to be?

I predict that such a tax would probably place a disproportionately large burden on low and middle income citizens.

The wealthy would simply purchase their goods overseas......much like they do now.



I would like to see a country experiment with Matts idea but I don't know about the US being the guinea pig.

Most changes are for the worst in my experience.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Provide for the national defense.

OK, cool. One thing.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Okay, if we did away with all income taxes and replaced them with Value Added Tax on purchased goods, what do you think the % would have to be?

I predict that such a tax would probably place a disproportionately large burden on low and middle income citizens.

Well, since the people would have control over the role of government, the % could be pretty damn small.

Your prediction is probably correct. But they could minimize the impact by minimizing consumption.

 

[Mr. dB]

Well, since the people would have control over the role of government, the % could be pretty damn small.

Your prediction is probably correct. But they could minimize the impact by minimizing consumption.

I think this would have more of a negative impact on the average American than the present system.

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

I currently live in a country with no income tax right now (well, technically it is "low tax"). It is an island, so they have a duty charge on things coming into the island. Since there is hardly anything at all actually grown/produced here on the island, that means nearly everything has a duty.
There is no duty on books, but the retailers still mark them up (very likely because they can't get the same deals from the distributers the way US retail outfits can, so they either have to buy less or they have to buy from a retail outfit in the first place and then mark up to make a profit).
Most things have a duty of 22%, but electronics have a duty of 33%.
The wages are very high here, but the cost of living is high as well.
A waitress here can make a lot of money, and the teachers start at about $50K.
Many of the elderly here that didn't get a good education have the hardest time to keep up with the costs and they work multiple jobs. Usually as cleaning positions.

In addition to national defense (which is still here, even though we are technically currently under protection from Britain), there is also maintenance of roads, parks, and the adherence to the court structure (and then law enforcement that comes with that).
Essentially government is supposed to be filling gaps where it would be bad for the public were a for profit organization to do it - it could lead to corruption - which is very amusing to think that government is somehow immune to that (sure as hell isn't here).

If you want to read up on various countries that have low tax scenarios, then http://www.lowtax.com is a good resource for that.

I know that in terms of size and population density, Bermuda is in the top 3 of wealth per capita in the world. I know it used to be the very top, but it is possible that some of the smaller Arab countries have passed it.

 

[Longhorn85]

I know that in terms of size and population density, Bermuda is in the top 3 of wealth per capita in the world. I know it used to be the very top, but it is possible that some of the smaller Arab countries have passed it.

It is hard to accept a relative comparison between Bermuda or most of the countries on your list of low taxers. They share few of the responsibilities that the US has taken on globally, and have no significant defense budget.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Nope. You are making too big of a jump.

First of all I don't necessarily agree that higher tax rates discourage work effort. Cos more money is more money, regardless fo how much the gov't gets. And everybody wants more money.

Then you have never talked to or worked as a hourly worker. I can tell you personally that no one wants to work more when greater amounts of your earnings are confiscated. After you work 40/hrs, the incentive to work longer hours gets stifled when you see that you have worked harder for Uncle Sam.

But let's just say for argument's sake that high High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion.

There is no argument, this is basic human nature and logic. What do you have to save, if the majority of your earnings go to taxes and necessities? Without disposable income there is no such thing as savings. When a man sees his earnings taken, does not man seek ways to prevent this from happening? Do you think that people enjoy giving up their efforts? If not, then what logic argues that he will not seek ways to protect what is his?

What you are not taking into account is the difference in magnitudes. Lowering tax rates lowers tax avoidance, etc. a little bit. Not nearly enough to make up for the difference in the tax rate. EXCEPT when the marginal tax rate is 70% or higher. The whole debate centers on the position of the peak of the Laffer curve. And no way, no how, are we to the right of that peak, nor have we ever been in the US.

Bringing up the Laffer Curve was not to argue its merits, although its idea is perfectly logical and not disputable. It is an idea more than an applied mathematical equation. No one has disproven the idea, since it would argue against common knowledge of human nature.

Your argument though falters on one major flaw, your belief that government has a true CLAIM to our efforts, that government has a RIGHT to maximal revenues. Our government was designed to function minimally, to exist for few and enumerated functions, no the positivistic design that it has been remolded into.

Those who argue against repealing the income tax for the fact that government could not generate all of the revenue that it currently maintains are missing the point: government should never have grown to such proportions, it should never have been given the power to confiscate such amounts of money. This is the blood that feeds the beast, not wanting to bleed it will only maintain its power. Without such revenue it cannot intervene in human affairs as it currently does, it cannot pay its minions to meddle in the affairs of other nations, industries and individuals.

 

[Longhorn85]

Those who argue against repealing the income tax for the fact that government could not generate all of the revenue that it currently maintains are missing the point: government should never have grown to such proportions, it should never have been given the power to confiscate such amounts of money.

Mainstream journalists and politicians don't understand this principle, which is why you always hear convoluted questions such as: "how are we going to pay for these tax cuts?"

 

[Lumberg]

Then you have never talked to or worked as a hourly worker. I can tell you personally that no one wants to work more when greater amounts of your earnings are confiscated. After you work 40/hrs, the incentive to work longer hours gets stifled when you see that you have worked harder for Uncle Sam.

Honestly ABL, WTF are you talking about? Of course I have talked to hourly workers. And for the most part, when the subject of overtime comes up, there are two types of people: people who work every minute they can get because they love the extra money, and the people for whom the time spent outside of work is more valuable, and go without the OT. Of course some people do more OT at certain times of the year (likefor some young people, in the winter) when they have less leisure activities to do.

The concept of "Well I would work overtime but that just means the gov't would just take out more so I don't do it" has never come up.

Money is money and 99 times out of 100 earning more $$ per paycheck is going to result in the same marginal tax rate.

Even when you get bumped up a tax bracket from working lots of OT, it's not like ALL your income is taxed at the new, higher rate. Only the income above a certain point is taxed at that higher rate.

Unortunately that is simply the way things work so if you want more money you're going to have to pay more taxes and that's that. Whether it's from the same job, another job, or a home business.

And dont' tell me if someone is running a cash business out of her home, without paying taxes on the income, if the government lowers tax rates that all of a sudden she is going to start reporting the income, if you lower tax rates to some magical point.

To be perfectly honest, most of the hourly workers with which I have discussed this topic were either incapable of or not interested in analyzing the issue at hand. (the rational consumer fallacy)

And I would just like to add that I have expressed no opinion whatsoever about the gov't "right" to take our money. I simply seized upon the idea of the Laffer curve, about which I happen to know a lot. And a lot of Finance/economics people think of pretty much all organizations as corporations, whose purpose it is to maximize profits. That's just a certain paradigm of thought that is convenient to use. Again I have to comment on whether it is correct.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Honestly ABL, WTF are you talking about? Of course I have talked to hourly workers. And for the most part, when the subject of overtime comes up, there are two types of people: people who work every minute they can get because they love the extra money, and the people for whom the time spent outside of work is more valuable, and go without the OT. Of course some people do more OT at certain times of the year (likefor some young people, in the winter) when they have less leisure activities to do.

The concept of "Well I would work overtime but that just means the gov't would just take out more so I don't do it" has never come up.

Money is money and 99 times out of 100 earning more $$ per paycheck is going to result in the same marginal tax rate.

Even when you get bumped up a tax bracket from working lots of OT, it's not like ALL your income is taxed at the new, higher rate. Only the income above a certain point is taxed at that higher rate.

Unortunately that is simply the way things work so if you want more money you're going to have to pay more taxes and that's that. Whether it's from the same job, another job, or a home business.

Then our experiences differ, as I have experienced this as well as discussed this problem with many individuals. The benefit does not outweigh the effort in many cases and creates disincentive.

And dont' tell me if someone is running a cash business out of her home, without paying taxes on the income, if the government lowers tax rates that all of a sudden she is going to start reporting the income, if you lower tax rates to some magical point.

No one argued that those who are currently evading taxation will begin to claim their earnings, for individuals tend to maintain the path which benefits them most. The argument is that reducing the burden reduces the desire and thus the initiation of new evaders of taxation. This is a logical idea of human nature, men act in ways which promote their self-interest, thus prohibitive laws are ignored by many because the benefit to self is greater than the idea of penalty, as witnessed in Prohibition, where criminality increased in many areas: murder, theft, bribery, extortion, etc., from one idea: outlaw alcohol. Remove the restriction and all of these crimes decrease. Increase the burden and more men will contemplate thoughts of the above.

To be perfectly honest, most of the hourly workers with which I have discussed this topic were either incapable of or not interested in analyzing the issue at hand. (the rational consumer fallacy)

While they are not always able to discuss the finer points of economics and regulation, the rational consumer is not a fallacy. Market socialism, such as Keynesianism, favor the "whole" as opposed to the "individual" and thus remove the basis of all economics from the equation: human action, the individual mind. The individual is a better controller of the market than the "masses" or "centralized agencies", each individual determines his/her wants/needs better than any organization or agency, and the pooled effect of these individual subjective decisions culminates in the "market". Communist countries proved that centralized, "scientific" organization of the market is a failure, it cannot determine the billions and trillions of decisions that occur at every moment in the market to determine price, wages, production, resource allocation, etc.

 

[Mr. dB]

But they could minimize the impact by minimizing consumption.

In other words, by lowering their standard of living.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

In other words, by lowering their standard of living.

Nope.

The "average American" household earns about $43K annually. they would enjoy significant savings in taxes under such a policy.

The poorest Americans have little spending power now, so there would be no change. They would have a choice to spend on what they really needed, and a disincentive to spend wastefully.

The richest Americans would enjoy massive tax savings, freeing up enormous amounts of capital to deploy elsewhere, such as hiring people and creating more welath. Without onerous restrictions on hiring people, free capital could more easily find a ready laboe force (poorer people) thereby rasing their standard of living.

Your argument assumes that each step happens in a vacuum.