Do you think you/your family should pay more taxes?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"] People should give back to the community that made them. Those rich **** had teachers teach them, nannies raise them, etc. They use infrastructure created from the public paying taxes and yet they don't want to pay a dime in taxes? How is that right? Also it not a matter of me wanting anything, but needing a break to get to a better place in life. Who better to proved that opprotunity then someone who has already made it happen?

jimkabrhel

Do you answer questions or only ask them? I believe you were asked if you earned your money.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Which rich people have you helped make?Laihendi

Do you answer questions or only ask them? I believe you were asked if you earned your money.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] He said he would pay more tax. He didn't say he would donate and he made a case as to why he would not. Why be an ass about it?Ace6301

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Do you answer questions or only ask them? I believe you were asked if you earned your money.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I didn't see you jump on worlock nor thegerg over his statements. Selective reading or responding? Look....he doesn't want to pay more taxes. Which is understandable.....but saying he would when has the ability to do so now is nothing but BS. And he can use all the excuses he wants....but in the end....his statement was nothing. And everyone knows it.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Worlock? There's no one in this topic with that name. Gerg is just being pedantic which shouldn't surprise anyone. You're being an ass about this. Not only are you being an ass about this but you're ignoring his arguments which show why he doesn't donate to the treasury. Ace6301

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]I don't think you people have ever worked with economies of scale in your life.:roll:LJS9502_basic

Again, I've already answered this. If you read the damned thread.

But, what the fvck:

If I send my money into the teasury and say "Here, put this on my taxes" it doesn't go through the same processing as an actual tax return. This extra processing costs money. Since it costs money, that means I'm not only giving them extra taxes, but also paying for this extra processing.

I do not wish to pay for the extra processing. If I could donate my taxes directly on my tax form I would, but doing this would result in me getting a check back. If I did not cash the check, I would have that balance on my next tax filing, and we're back at square one.

If they pass a law raising taxes on my tax bracket, I wouldn't be paying for the extra processing because it would be processed along with my other taxes which have to be processed anyway.

It's not the extra taxes I don't want to pay for, it's the extra processing involved in handling that money.

This isn't exactly rocket science, people. I mean, seriously, just stop and think for a damned minute.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There was two people jumping on him for two days. All I said was to shut about it. He doesn't want to pay more in taxes...that's fine...but don't try to convince others he would. Period. And frankly ITT YOU are being the ass.LJS9502_basic

TC = 13 year old who has never paid taxes.

Or been outside.

TC = 13 year old who has never paid taxes.

Or been outside.

MakeMeaSammitch

I think I pay more than enough. I don't think anybody should pay more based on their income. For one thing, this is the federal government we're talking about, and I think we all know that they won't spend the money responsibly; two, when you create separate tax brackets, you engage in class warfare.

To use a phrase from several years ago: I'll keep my money; you keep the change.

Laihendiis a well known anti tax advocate on this forum. Also the rich have been known to use every tax loophole in the book to try and avoid paying any taxes.

Nope, my neighbors both dropped out of high school and never got their GED's yet they're rolling in the government's cash meanwhile my mother worked her ass off to become a medical doctor(in some banana republic nation) and all uncle sam wants to do is butt fvck her dry so fvck that.

I mean, seriously, just stop and think for a damned minute.br0kenrabbit

more taxes, less spending: economy fixed

more taxes, less spending: economy fixedSirWander

Covering ~$220 trillion in unfunded liabilities is going to take a lot of extra taxes.Zeviander

you missed the part where we have to cut superfluous spending

you see the major problem we have now is that there is/was too much spending (thanks to the Iraq war and other such ventures like the war on terror) and the tax rates are too low to compensate for it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I didn't think that was a serious question, but everything I have ever had has either been earned or freely given, excepting my education I guess (public school). The difference between what is freely given and what is coercively redistributed is the difference between charity and theft. Laihendi

Still don't get the concept of free ridership.

LMAO

Don't worry, I'll be here to remind you every time you post.

You can add roads, clean drinking water, fresh air, electricity, a safe food supply...the list goes on and on.

I think I pay way more than my fair share. I pay taxes on every dollar I make. I dont get any loopholes and I have a fairly high percentage taken.

Who the hell would say yes?

more taxes, less spending: economy fixed

SirWander

actually it would cripple the economy,as their would be little money to invest in it.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]Covering ~$220 trillion in unfunded liabilities is going to take a lot of extra taxes.SirWander

you missed the part where we have to cut superfluous spending

you see the major problem we have now is that there is/was too much spending (thanks to the Iraq war and other such ventures like the war on terror) and the tax rates are too low to compensate for it.

:lol: I did not steal the money used to fund those schools, and yet I (and my parents) are still forced into funding them regardless of whether any of us make use of them. Please try again.Laihendi

more taxes, less spending: economy fixed

SirWander

If being back in recession is your idea of a fixed economy....

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

more taxes, less spending: economy fixed

Barbariser

If being back in recession is your idea of a fixed economy....

Depends entirely on:

1. Who is paying the more taxes?

2. What are these new taxes used for?

3. What spending is cut?

If being back in recession is your idea of a fixed economy....

Barbariser

Yes because the last recession was caused by raising taxes and cutting down on spending

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

If being back in recession is your idea of a fixed economy....

SirWander

Yes because the last recession was caused by raising taxes and cutting down on spending

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

If being back in recession is your idea of a fixed economy....

mattbbpl

Yes because the last recession was caused by raising taxes and cutting down on spending

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="SirWander"]

Yes because the last recession was caused by raising taxes and cutting down on spending

DroidPhysX

you missed the part where we have to cut superfluous spending you see the major problem we have now is that there is/was too much spending (thanks to the Iraq war and other such ventures like the war on terror) and the tax rates are too low to compensate for it.SirWander

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

If being back in recession is your idea of a fixed economy....

mattbbpl

Yes because the last recession was caused by raising taxes and cutting down on spending

Neither is necessarily true.

Again, it all depends upon who is paying the extra taxes, how that tax money is spent, and what spending is cut.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

If being back in recession is your idea of a fixed economy....

SirWander

Yes because the last recession was caused by raising taxes and cutting down on spending

Your sarcasm might have been remotely witty if it wasn't basically constructed out of logical fallacies. Not all recessions have the same cause, and the fact that the last one wasn't caused by austerity doesn't mean that austerity isn't contractionary and really fvcking terrible for an economy experiencing a very slow recovery.

Depends entirely on:

1. Who is paying the more taxes?

2. What are these new taxes used for?

3. What spending is cut?

SUD123456

Any combination of tax increases and spending cuts that would be enough to erode away a fiscal shortfall of 1 point something trillion dollars (which is the only thing that it would "fix") would easily destroy the small levels of economic growth that the U.S. is currently enjoying.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="SirWander"]

Yes because the last recession was caused by raising taxes and cutting down on spending

SUD123456

Neither is necessarily true.

Again, it all depends upon who is paying the extra taxes, how that tax money is spent, and what spending is cut.

I'll leave this here

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/?mobile=nc

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/report-26-us-companies-negative-average-federal-income/story?id=16111671#.UOCKFeTAeSo

thanks Barbariser for listing examples of recessions that were caused by the increase of taxes and lowering of superfluous spending (hypotheticals don't count though)

I'll leave this here

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/?mobile=nc

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/report-26-us-companies-negative-average-federal-income/story?id=16111671#.UOCKFeTAeSo

thanks Barbaraiser for listing examples of recessions that were caused by the increase of taxes and lowering of superfluous spending (hypotheticals don't count though)

SirWander

The links are irrelevant to the point that tax increases and spending cuts do nothing to fix economies. If your argument is that it is unfair for large corporations to have zero effective taxes than you won't get any disagreement from me.

Rofl at you criticizing me for that when you've provided no examples of recessions fixed by tax increases and spending cuts (btw, if you want examples of austerity measures causing recessions in recovering economies you've got a whole lot of cases in recent years from the E.U. alone). Especially when it's well known in economic theory that taxes are contractionary and government spending is expansionary, therefore having more of the former and less of the latter is contractionary.

when Clinton was in office did his administration not increase taxes? didn't we have a motherfvcking surplus when Bush took office?

when Clinton was in office did his administration not increase taxes? didn't we have a motherfvcking surplus when Bush took office?

SirWander

I don't know about tax increases, but Clinton was massively lucky and presided over the internet boom and the recovery of the post-Soviet states - when you have massive increases in trade opportunities and a huge new technological market opening up for you at the same time that large amounts of technologically sophisticated college grads enter the workforce, it's not difficult to have plummeting unemployment, soaring growth rates and combination of low stresses on your social welfare system and high amounts of tax revenue and hence a surplus.

You cannot compare a situation of immense prosperity like that to an economy that is recovering from the Great Recession. In economics there is something called the fiscal multiplier, which describes how much 1 unit of government spending or tax cuts expands the economy. When the economy is in recession, government spending and tax cuts have a higher fiscal multiplier (tax cuts being less effective than government spending). When it is booming, the fiscal multiplier is low, and there is a crowding out effect which basically means that government spending actively weakens business growth.

That's why tax increases and/or spending cuts have tended to cause double-dip recessions in recovering economies, like the U.S. during the Great Depression, numerous European countries in recent times, and as predicted by the CBO's estimates of the Fiscal Cliff, but that same combination can be harmless or even beneficial in a boom period, like the entire Western World in the postwar period. The U.S. now is in its recovery phase, so any combination of spending cuts and/or tax increases that can bring about a budget surplus will actually dump the U.S. into a double-dip recession, which is why the Fiscal Cliff is considered to be such a bad thing.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

TC = 13 year old who has never paid taxes.

Or been outside.

Aljosa23

In small amounts, yes. But in terms of balancing the budget (1.2 or so trillion dollars every year), that will definitely impede the economy.

mattbbpl

Any combination of tax increases and spending cuts that would be enough to erode away a fiscal shortfall of 1 point something trillion dollars (which is the only thing that it would "fix") would easily destroy the small levels of economic growth that the U.S. is currently enjoying.

Barbariser

You do not need to accomplish the entire goal in one move. The US deficit as a % of GDP fell 3.1% in the past 3 years from 10.1% to 7.0%. You do not need a plan that moves it from 7% to 0% in one year.

The entire fiscal cliff thing is a completely artificial construct created by politics.

You both wrote that increasing taxes and decreasing spending automatically worsens the situation.

I wrote that this is categorically not true as it depends on who pays the taxes, what those taxes are spent on, and what spending is cut.

You now both want to argue a completely false dilemna of having to do things in such large doses as to not be practical in the short term. But that is a completely artificial construct and therefore a strawman argument.

It is entirely possible to close tax loopholes, raise taxes on some classes/types, reprioritize current/short term spending and cut long term spending all in moderate doses. It has been done before. Example: Canada 1995 -2000 moving from deficit spending of 4.8% of GDP to a balanced budget/surplus. The US simply lacks the political will to do so.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] :lol: I did not steal the money used to fund those schools, and yet I (and my parents) are still forced into funding them regardless of whether any of us make use of them. Please try again.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So you committed theft to benefit yourself and yet you cry about other people doing the same. Hypocrite much?SUD123456

Still don't get the concept of free ridership.

LMAO

Don't worry, I'll be here to remind you every time you post.

You can add roads, clean drinking water, fresh air, electricity, a safe food supply...the list goes on and on.