This is tax policy brilliance

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Do you always use the exeptions and most extreme examples?

Nope, and they are neither exceptions nor extreme.

To take a few examples that are closer to me -

I would much rather be "punished" the way I am than "rewarded" like my out-of-work cousin is. I would much rather be "punished" the way Irwin Jacobs was than "rewarded" the way my neighbor across the street is who just lost his job.

Then vote for a (Fiscally at least) conservative president.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Then vote for a (Fiscally at least) conservative president.

But how will he know to vote for him without a D or an R next to his name.

I mean, the individual's platform is obviously pointless.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>Then vote for a (Fiscally at least) conservative president.

??? Irwin Jacobs paid a LOT more in taxes than my neighbor did. I pay a LOT more in taxes than my cousin. Doesn't seem to have resulted in misery for me or rewards for my cousin. Indeed, the opposite is true.

I am willing to support the US through my taxes because it's given me opportunities I would not otherwise have. Indeed, those taxes (through funding of the highway system, ATC, the FCC, Internet development) have enabled me to both do what I do and live how I like. I am also willing to support your special interests through my taxes even though I may not agree with them, and I'd expect you will do the same.

That being said, I am all for making efficient use of that money, and I agree we are spending too much right now. We have to increase taxation and decrease spending until we can reduce the deficit.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Then vote for a (Fiscally at least) conservative president.

??? Irwin Jacobs paid a LOT more in taxes than my neighbor did. I pay a LOT more in taxes than my cousin. Doesn't seem to have resulted in misery for me or rewards for my cousin. Indeed, the opposite is true.

I am willing to support the US through my taxes because it's given me opportunities I would not otherwise have. Indeed, those taxes (through funding of the highway system, ATC, the FCC, Internet development) have enabled me to both do what I do and live how I like. I am also willing to support your special interests through my taxes even though I may not agree with them, and I'd expect you will do the same.

That being said, I am all for making efficient use of that money, and I agree we are spending too much right now. We have to increase taxation and decrease spending until we can reduce the deficit.

I agree - but the tax increases should be temporary. I'll be in favor for them if you can get that passed.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,118]

>I agree - but the tax increases should be temporary.

How about we adjust them quarterly and make them dependent primarily upon government spending? Require transparent public reporting of expenses and breakdown into tax requirements. That way if someone supports a war or a bailout, he knows that within a few months he's going to get hit with the bill for it.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>I agree - but the tax increases should be temporary.

How about we adjust them quarterly and make them dependent primarily upon government spending? Require transparent public reporting of expenses and breakdown into tax requirements. That way if someone supports a war or a bailout, he knows that within a few months he's going to get hit with the bill for it.

I'd be ok with transparency . . . Do you think our POTUS will be transparent as he promised?

I would not do this quarterly, too expensive. Bi-Annually maybe.

I think that the FED should have to be as transparent as they make churches and non profit orginizations be.

After all - they are non profit themselves, right?

Well they are SUPPOSED to be . . . but corruption keeps that from happening - that is a whole different topic though.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,118]

>I'd be ok with transparency . . . Do you think our POTUS will be
>transparent as he promised?

I very much doubt it.

>I think that the FED should have to be as transparent as they
>make churches and non profit orginizations be.

Well, they can't be; there are a bunch of expenses we can't break down. But it should be at least as transparent as it is now, and should be updated whenever a tax change happens.

>After all - they are non profit themselves, right?

?? No. The government has made a profit some years; that goes towards paying down the deficit. They take in far less than they spend most years. A system like the floating-tax system could change that; it's close to (but not the same as) a balanced budget amendment.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I agree - but the tax increases should be temporary.

How about we adjust them quarterly and make them dependent primarily upon government spending? Require transparent public reporting of expenses and breakdown into tax requirements. That way if someone supports a war or a bailout, he knows that within a few months he's going to get hit with the bill for it.

How about we turn it around and adjust the spending quarterly, instead.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Then vote for a (Fiscally at least) conservative president.

What difference will that make? Once the new POTUS gets briefed from the lobbyists and shown the video of the JFK assassination from new angle, it will be business as usual once again.

The health care legislation is a perfect example. Obama had some great ideas on cost savings, such as bargaining for bulk purchasing on drugs. But he met with pharmaceutical and insurance industry leaders and all of a sudden, the teeth were ripped out of the reform before it even got an official proposal. It's like he sat down with them and said, "Ok, I'm the President and I campaigned on this stuff. You HAVE to let me pass something. What will you allow without crushing me and my party?"

The plutocrats run the show. And since they have more "free speech" than the rest of us, that's not likely to change any time soon, regardless of party affiliation.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

>I agree - but the tax increases should be temporary.

How about we adjust them quarterly and make them dependent primarily upon government spending? Require transparent public reporting of expenses and breakdown into tax requirements. That way if someone supports a war or a bailout, he knows that within a few months he's going to get hit with the bill for it.

How about we turn it around and adjust the spending quarterly, instead.

Presumably you'd adjust both together. Especially if people started getting upset over the recent tax hike for... oh, I don't know... a high-speed rail project.

One problem with the idea is the prevalence of single-issue voters and the fickle nature of politics. I imagine you'd start seeing all kinds of funding shortfalls during the quarter or two leading up to elections in an attempt to prove the incumbents were "tough on waste and easy on your pocket book" so they could get re-elected.

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

How about we turn it around and adjust the spending quarterly, instead

Quote

I imagine you'd start seeing all kinds of funding shortfalls during the quarter or two leading up to elections in an attempt to prove the incumbents were "tough on waste and easy on your pocket book" so they could get re-elected

The cost of quarterly analysis and cost adjustments to large programs would be pretty impressive. There'd be less and less left to do actual work.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[champu 1]

Quote

The cost of quarterly analysis and cost adjustments to large programs would be pretty impressive. There'd be less and less left to do actual work.

Wendy P.

Very true, that would be another major problem. Congress has enough trouble doing their job on time as it is.

[billvon 3,118]

>How about we turn it around and adjust the spending quarterly, instead.

Provided that didn't make the whole process incredibly expensive and awkward - OK.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We have to increase taxation and decrease spending until we can reduce the deficit.

Altho absolutley true, not spoken like a true Libertarian.