tax cuts or tax hikes

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Treasury revenues have been at record highs

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Look at the chart. Note what happened to revenues after 2000. The Heritage Foundation sees one problem in this chart. I see two.
(it's a lib thing)

I'll say it again, the Bush tax cuts had a sunset for a reason.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Treasury revenues have been at record highs

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Look at the chart. Note what happened to revenues after 2000. The Heritage Foundation sees one problem in this chart. I see two.
(it's a lib thing)

I'll say it again, the Bush tax cuts had a sunset for a reason.

Of course. That is the short term effect
But as the economy got going revenues went up.

Again
Revenue is not the problem
Spending is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Now, from YOUR link
Move just one tab over

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Treasury revenues have been at record highs

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Look at the chart. Note what happened to revenues after 2000. The Heritage Foundation sees one problem in this chart. I see two.
(it's a lib thing)

I'll say it again, the Bush tax cuts had a sunset for a reason.

Of course. That is the short term effect
But as the economy got going revenues went up.

Again
Revenue is not the problem
Spending is

Interpreting data correctly is not your strong point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Treasury revenues have been at record highs

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Look at the chart. Note what happened to revenues after 2000. The Heritage Foundation sees one problem in this chart. I see two.
(it's a lib thing)

I'll say it again, the Bush tax cuts had a sunset for a reason.

Of course. That is the short term effect
But as the economy got going revenues went up.

Again
Revenue is not the problem
Spending is

Interpreting data correctly is not your strong point.

Nice try

From the link

Quote

Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession, but spending has reached a record high.

Context is everything

Your spin is seen for what it is

Now go be nasty to someone who might care about what you think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Treasury revenues have been at record highs

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Look at the chart. Note what happened to revenues after 2000. The Heritage Foundation sees one problem in this chart. I see two.
(it's a lib thing)

I'll say it again, the Bush tax cuts had a sunset for a reason.

Of course. That is the short term effect
But as the economy got going revenues went up.

Again
Revenue is not the problem
Spending is

Interpreting data correctly is not your strong point.

Nice try

From the link

Quote

Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession, but spending has reached a record high.

Context is everything

Your spin is seen for what it is

Now go be nasty to someone who might care about what you think

Well, there are data, which do NOT show revenue increases associated with tax cuts, and there are opinions.

If revenues had continued to increase at the rate they did during the Clinton years, instead of being sabotaged by Bush&Co's tax cuts, the problem would be miniscule.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Treasury revenues have been at record highs

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Look at the chart. Note what happened to revenues after 2000. The Heritage Foundation sees one problem in this chart. I see two.
(it's a lib thing)

I'll say it again, the Bush tax cuts had a sunset for a reason.

Of course. That is the short term effect
But as the economy got going revenues went up.

Again
Revenue is not the problem
Spending is

Interpreting data correctly is not your strong point.

Nice try

From the link

Quote

Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession, but spending has reached a record high.

Context is everything

Your spin is seen for what it is

Now go be nasty to someone who might care about what you think

Well, there are data, which do NOT show revenue increases associated with tax cuts, and there are opinions.

If revenues had continued to increase at the rate they did during the Clinton years, instead of being sabotaged by Bush&Co's tax cuts, the problem would be miniscule.

Again
Your spin is seen for what it is
The revenue increases were not due to Clinton policy now were they
They were a continuation of work done before him
Bush's spending is part of the sabotage you post about, as well as the government messing around in and eventyally helping to destroy the housing market which is a major contributor to why we are in the mess today

Please stop trying to change history sir

Not your strong point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And it appears that your solution is to pull more money for your favored government programs

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/entitlements

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And a growing government does not make things better for the people
It only makes things better for the gov and those who work for/in it

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

And it appears that your solution is to pull more money for your favored government programs

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/entitlements

My solution is to return taxes to their 1999 levels, eliminate loopholes, increase the number of audits of small businesses (the biggest cheats according to the IRS) cut military spending by 50% and means-test medicare and social security.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And it appears that your solution is to pull more money for your favored government programs

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/entitlements

My solution is to return taxes to their 1999 levels, eliminate loopholes, increase the number of audits of small businesses (the biggest cheats according to the IRS) cut military spending by 50% and means-test medicare and social security.

A good portion of this I can agree with.

I think major simplification to the tax code would be bette than increasing audits

The military spending cuts I do not agree with
Although some what of a smaller cut is needed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

My solution is to return taxes to their 1999 levels,

Agree

Quote

eliminate loopholes

Agree, only if your corrupt asshats in Chicago are included or will they goon there way around this?

Quote

increase the number of audits of small businesses (the biggest cheats according to the IRS)

You have such a hard on for small business! Did you have one once and fail or something? The biggest cheats? From what I have read GE, and a few others sounds like they cheated there way around the system pretty good.

Quote

cut military spending by 50%

Agree, close Germany, Italy, and a bunch of other overseas bases. Bring those people home. If you agree to cut planned parenthood, NPR, welfare by 50%, HUD. The UN! Fuck them! All it is is a platform for "Mr. I hateAmerica" to come to our soil and bad mouth us but then demand we give them money. Let the UN go somewhere else and see how they like it. These are serious times and its time to cut spending. The pain will suck but not as much as the economy willbe if we default. Then we will truly know what SUCK will feel like if that happens. I got plenty of other thing to cut. Like I said the cuts will hurt.

What was the tax rate in 1999? I dont remember compared to now.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Rookie120 0]

Nevermind, It looks like 31%. Google is my friend!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

We need to cut some serious spending, and remove some serious tax evasion loopholes. Whether its Republicans proposing only spending cuts, or Democrats proposing only tax increases, both sides look dishonest. It took excessive spending and insufficient tax income from both parties to get us to this point, and it's going to take major concessions on both fronts to right the ship.

Blues,
Dave

+1

Serious cuts are needed and the first priority.

The only tax increases should come as a result of simplifying the tax code dramatically. Eliminating subsidies and write offs and making the existing rates 'real' rates, not just the mythical rate that everyone can weasel out of. And they should target everyone, not just some out of favor group. And, EVERYONE should have to pay something as well.

the simpler the code, the easier it is for people and companies to forecast what their real liability is. that takes out some of the fear of the unknown. makes it easier to spend

...
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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

increase the number of audits of small businesses (the biggest cheats according to the IRS)

You have such a hard on for small business! Did you have one once and fail or something? The biggest cheats? From what I have read GE, and a few others sounds like they cheated there way around the system pretty good.

Just the facts according to the IRS. I pay my taxes, I don't see why small business owners shouldn't pay theirs. I don't have the numbers available but I think the IRS estimates something like $305 Billion in lost revenue in 2011 due to cheating, with small businesses and the self employed being the worst offenders. That adds up to around $2,000 stolen from every honest taxpayer. Do you really not object to having $2,000 stolen from you?


EDITED TO ADD:
Not everyone has an equal opportunity to cheat on his or her taxes. Employees who have income withheld have fewer options for tax evasion than people who are self-employed or have complex business or financial dealings. Likewise, large corporations with foreign subsidiaries and sophisticated accounting departments have more opportunities to cheat. In all, it is wealthier Americans who are most likely to cheat on their taxes.

In estimating the tax gap, the IRS found that the largest share of tax evasion—over 50 percent—was by individuals with business income. A more detailed breakdown of losses in 2008 by the scholar John Slemrod and IRS analyst Andrew Johns found that the single biggest source of lost revenue was from proprietors of businesses who don’t report the full amount of their income. Other big cheaters include professionals whose income comes through S corporations, partnerships, and real estate.

The study by Slemrod and Johns found that misreporting “generally increases with income, although it peaks among taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $500,000 to $1,000,000, and is lower than the peak ratio for individuals with income above $1,000,000.”

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Nevermind, It looks like 31%. Google is my friend!

However, well all know that tax rates are meaningless. Effective tax rates are a different story.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You can eliminate all of that, + all foreign aid, + all funding for the arts and humanities and NPR and the National Labs

+1

and then, now that we show we are serious on the little stuff - also go after the big 4 (medicare/caid, SS, military)

...
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

[mirage62 0]

Quote

My solution is to return taxes to their 1999 levels, eliminate loopholes

That in effect would be a higher tax increase than just going back to the 1999 levels.

Quote

increase the number of audits of small businesses (the biggest cheats according to the IRS)

Ok with me but will that raise a lot of money? As far as "biggest" do you mean that as in dollars or numbers. I would think tightening up GE would bring in a lot more dollars

Quote

cut military spending by 50%

Never happen and you know it

Quote

means-test medicare and social security.

I believe this will happen BUT where do you draw the line John? People that have $XXX in retirement funds don't get all there S.S.? Who the hell do you trust with THAT decision. If (I don't know) you had paid in your entire life to S.S. and had a 401K that you matched....and the total was $XXX then the gov should cut the amount of S.S. you get by X% to fund people who DIDN'T save outside of S.S.

How long for everyone stops paying into a 401K (for example) when they realize the gov is going to take part of it to fund the people that didn't bother?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Nevermind, It looks like 31%. Google is my friend!

However, well all know that tax rates are meaningless. Effective tax rates are a different story.

+1

It's remarkable how so many of our GOP supporters here approve of the super wealthy paying tax at a lower rate than the middle class, yet would deny help to indigent, old and sick Americans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

You can eliminate all of that, + all foreign aid, + all funding for the arts and humanities and NPR and the National Labs

+1

and then, now that we show we are serious on the little stuff - also go after the big 4 (medicare/caid, SS, military)

But the Tea Party talking heads are targeting this small stuff like it's relevant, knowing full well that their ignorant followers are clueless about the real pachyderms in the room.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can eliminate all of that, + all foreign aid, + all funding for the arts and humanities and NPR and the National Labs

+1

and then, now that we show we are serious on the little stuff - also go after the big 4 (medicare/caid, SS, military)

But the Tea Party talking heads are targeting this small stuff like it's relevant, knowing full well that their ignorant followers are clueless about the real pachyderms in the room.

I didn't think you and I were talking about the tea party. just cutting spending everywhere - the big stuff AND the little stuff. that's a culture change we need in government

As for the tea party - A group of outraged fiscal conservatives was a great idea. Too bad the social fringe hijacked a good idea and changed it to just the same old version that mirrors the other social fringe. Social activism (of both stripes) = spending without regard. In a nation of (supposedly) individualism, social acts should be private, not mandated. "morally praiseworthy" activities must be voluntary. "morally obligatory" attitude is the only thing law should address. and that list is a hell of lot shorter and doesn't really cost a lot of money at all compared to what's in play today.

...
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 3,120]

>this answer is so easy...

Cool! What's the answer?

>It depends on how big you want your government to be.

Looks like the answer isn't so easy for you.

The answer is actually quite simple. If all you do is cut a few programs and cut taxes the budget problem will get worse, not better.

>I for one would like them to stay the f__k . . . .

And this is why we will never balance the budget. Everytime someone tries, a politician hijacks the effort for their personal agendas. "Yes, we should cut spending to fund abortions! ABORTIONS! Evil! Liberal anti-life partial birth abortions killing blah blah blah . . ."

And the next six months is spent debating that point. And in the end someone finally realizes that federal funding does NOT go to abortions. And so they move on to cut funding for Sesame Street. And nothing changes.

Want to make a difference? Cuts across the board. Including veteran's care, military, roads - everything, no matter whose sacred cow it is. Then raise taxes to cover the difference. Once we pay off the debt, reduce taxes again.

Don't want to make a difference? Then get on a soapbox and go on and on about abortion, or nanny government, or solar subsidies, or PBS funding.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

My solution is to return taxes to their 1999 levels, eliminate loopholes

That in effect would be a higher tax increase than just going back to the 1999 levels.

Quote

increase the number of audits of small businesses (the biggest cheats according to the IRS)

Ok with me but will that raise a lot of money? As far as "biggest" do you mean that as in dollars or numbers. I would think tightening up GE would bring in a lot more dollars

Quote

cut military spending by 50%

Never happen and you know it

Quote

means-test medicare and social security.

I believe this will happen BUT where do you draw the line John? People that have $XXX in retirement funds don't get all there S.S.? Who the hell do you trust with THAT decision. If (I don't know) you had paid in your entire life to S.S. and had a 401K that you matched....and the total was $XXX then the gov should cut the amount of S.S. you get by X% to fund people who DIDN'T save outside of S.S.

How long for everyone stops paying into a 401K (for example) when they realize the gov is going to take part of it to fund the people that didn't bother?

I'll pay into mine because I want to continue skydiving and flying my Mooney and vacationing in Hawaii WHEN I get old. SocSec won't (and shouldn't) be paying for those things. It should keep old people like you from being hungry and homeless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'll pay into mine because I want to continue skydiving and flying my Mooney and vacationing in Hawaii WHEN I get old. SocSec won't (and shouldn't) be paying for those things. It should keep old people like you from being hungry and homeless.

yeah, but I think the bigger worry (warranted or not) is people will see you going to hawaii and saying "That's not FAIR" and they'll want to take your 401K to pay for old people (like mirage62) to eat and have a place to crash.

It's only fair, now you both can eat and have a place to sleep. You shouldn't have been so selfish to actually invest your own money for your own retirement. What were you thinking?

...
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

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Which programs will you cut that WILL balance the budget.

I'll start with something I care about! EAS!!!!!!!! Farm subsidies. Subsidies for Ehthanol. I could keep going.

Insignificant fraction of the problem. You can eliminate all of that, + all foreign aid, + all funding for the arts and humanities and NPR and the National Labs other favorite targets of Tea Party morons, and still we'll have a huge deficit.

What most liberals don't understand is you have to start somewere. just because making a couple cuts doens't "fix" the problem doesn't mean you scrap the idea. Start making cuts and keep making cuts until the issue is fixed. Raing taxes does not fix the overspending in gov. Anyone that is getting a gov check is going to feel it. Maybe if people had planned fot their future instead of relying on gov they wouldn't be as affected by the cuts that have to happen. maybe if the fed gov had stayed out of the lives of the people more they would not have ever become dependant on the gov.
All special tax breaks should end because companies that favor a political should not be getting tax breaks because of it. GE should be paying their share of tax and all companies like them. If all companies payed 20-25% flat tax on all profits we would have everybody paying into the system and they would be less likely to promote candidates for political office. This would make elections more about the people and what they want.