For the record - Obama and Taxing

[JollyRoger]

No it wont. Obama will simply spend the extra money. He will NOT apply it to the debt.

Aren't you the one pining for more money to be spent on Obama's already record border enforcement?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just for clarity:

I get taxed at 25% of my income. It has been that way ever since I got married.
Therefore...I have no sympathy whatever for unpleasant people who scream the sky
is falling because they are being taxed.

However.....this does NOT mean I support Obama. Because taxing the rich will NOT solve anything. If it would, I would support a 95% tax rate on them. The truth is that it accomplishes NOTHING.

Obama is lying to the sheep, and I dont like it. Because he will keep lying to them.

The one issue I actually cared about was defeated in the election. So unless seccession
becomes a reality, the country is screwed. The country is now a basket case for the indigent. After say 50 years or so, the entire country will look like California.

Anyone who is able, will leave, or secede to some location that DOES control who can enter it.

What I find sad is that in a given year you only start working for yourself in April (Nevermind state sales taxes which likely drive this back further) and that you are nonetheless OK with it...

And I thought you cared about immigration as well?

Progressive taxation is the only logical system; the rich should be paying a higher rate than people making less money.

I'd be ok with higher taxation across the board if we actually got something for it like UHC and good public transpo

Yeah, I don't agree with this, but I can understand it. But then, if you know the money will go to perpetual war, police statism, and draconian sentences for pot users, why do you still support higher taxes?

Liberals and Libertarians should be at least temporary allies right now

Would you not say it would be better for the rich to keep their money than for it to be spent on the stuff they spend it on?

Wait, what the hell are we supposed to be talking about?

Taxes? Texas? RON PAUL?

http://www.runtogold.com/images/ron-paul-do-not-steal.jpg

Now there is a true hero with the obvious facts right in front of him

Taxing the rich more will certainly improve the situation. Maybe not enough, but it is definitely an improvement. So there's no legitimate objection to it.

Of course not, property rights are no objection, all that matters is what enriches the state the most.

You're starting to sound like a fascist

I'm always curious exactly where conservatives are threatening to go when they threaten to leave the country. They do realize that other first-world countries, particularly English-speaking ones, are far more liberal than Obama, right?

Some libertarians have suggested Chile and Paraguay, but I have no clue whatsoever why

So you're saying he will act responsibly. What's the problem?

You're proving all the stereotypes true, and are proving why we should simply not give the Federal government any more money.

Acting responsibly would be slashing our ridiculously bloated military budget.

Now this I can agree with Zack wholeheartedly on

Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:

Aren't you the one pining for more money to be spent on Obama's already record border enforcement?

Yeah, Obama's fine on immigration. Although I was somewhat annoyed with the blatant politiking of doing the Dream Act right BEFORE the election, I have bigger things to worry about. We need to relax our immigration laws significantly, while relaxing our welfare state and warfare state simutaneously.

 

[Ajidica]

What I find sad is that in a given year you only start working for yourself in April (Nevermind state sales taxes which likely drive this back further) and that you are nonetheless OK with it...

Says the teenager who so far has had a relatively cushly life funded by taxes.

You're starting to sound like a fascist:crazyeye

Cutlass is endorsing radical Third Wayism focusing on intense nationalism? Where?

Some libertarians have suggested Chile and Paraguay, but I have no clue whatsoever why

Chile would be nice, where a democratic socialist was overthrown by a far-right dicator whose economic policies only "worked" because he kept the copper mines nationalized and was able to profit from them when world copper prices finaly rose.

You're proving all the stereotypes true, and are proving why we should simply not give the Federal government any more money.

Why not? They have proven themselves more capable of defending liberty than states are.

 

[Harv]

However.....this does NOT mean I support Obama. Because taxing the rich will NOT solve anything. If it would, I would support a 95% tax rate on them. The truth is that it accomplishes NOTHING.

Taxing the rich does solve problems - such as how to win an election when you have no record to run on.

Here is some reasoning behind why increasing taxes on "the rich" accomplishes nothing: They have more control over their income and their expenses. They can vary how much they earn and therefore how much tax they pay by how much they work or how much they invest. So if they are less inclined to work or invest due to the tax and business environment, then this will have a direct impact on how easily "jobs" are found.

Obama is lying to the sheep, and I dont like it. Because he will keep lying to them.

So here is an argument: Since "the rich" have control over their income and their expenses, they do not really pay taxes no matter what the rate is. They just pass the burden on to - you guessed it: The middle class. It is the middle class who pays these taxes, not "the rich."

However the sheeple who voted for him do not get it.

Going further into the argument above, I would favor a flat tax as the least of evils. Everybody pays it. Everybody gets to see the direct impact of tax policy. Everybody votes.

So unless seccession becomes a reality, the country is screwed. The country is now a basket case for the indigent. After say 50 years or so, the entire country will look like California.

2016 is only four years away, not 50. I really hope I am wrong, but I have to agree with you.

Do you think the current economic depression (This is what I call it.) we are in will grind on another four years because "that man in the White House" got re-elected?

Are we better off going over the Fiscal Cliff than striking a bargain?

Anyone who is able, will leave, or secede to some location that DOES control who can enter it.

If you were in a position to vote with your feet, how would you vote?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm always curious exactly where conservatives are threatening to go when they threaten to leave the country. They do realize that other first-world countries, particularly English-speaking ones, are far more liberal than Obama, right?

Not to mention having a far higher tax rate.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Do you think the current economic depression (This is what I call it.) we are in will grind on another four years because "that man in the White House" got re-elected?

We're not even in a recession, much less a depression. But hey, if that's 'what you wanna call it', by all means don't let a dictionary stop you.

Are we better off going over the Fiscal Cliff than striking a bargain?

And conservatives say liberals are destroying America?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Will we have 4 years of this incessant whinging? Gawd, these crybabies really make me wish Romney had won.

If you just had the message in the campaign: "Vote for Romney or we'll nag the balls of you even more than we did the last 4 years" I think he might have had a shot.

 

[Cutlass]

Of course not, property rights are no objection, all that matters is what enriches the state the most.

You're starting to sound like a fascist

No, I don't sound anything like you.

 

[Ajidica]

No, I don't sound anything like you.

Dommy is many things, but he certiantly is not a fascist (in either their original or later forms). Reactionary with misplaced individualism streak, sure. Fascist, not quite.

 

[Cutlass]

Dommy is many things, but he certiantly is not a fascist (in either their original or later forms). Reactionary with misplaced individualism streak, sure. Fascist, not quite.

Dommy believes that all people should act as they are told all of the time. If it's less nationalistic than classical fascism, it still fits that model more than it does any other form. Sort of a religious fascism rather than a nationalistic fascism. The important part is that it has zero tolerance for liberty.

 

[Chiteng]

Taxing the rich does solve problems - such as how to win an election when you have no record to run on.

Here is some reasoning behind why increasing taxes on "the rich" accomplishes nothing: They have more control over their income and their expenses. They can vary how much they earn and therefore how much tax they pay by how much they work or how much they invest. So if they are less inclined to work or invest due to the tax and business environment, then this will have a direct impact on how easily "jobs" are found.



So here is an argument: Since "the rich" have control over their income and their expenses, they do not really pay taxes no matter what the rate is. They just pass the burden on to - you guessed it: The middle class. It is the middle class who pays these taxes, not "the rich."

However the sheeple who voted for him do not get it.

Going further into the argument above, I would favor a flat tax as the least of evils. Everybody pays it. Everybody gets to see the direct impact of tax policy. Everybody votes.



2016 is only four years away, not 50. I really hope I am wrong, but I have to agree with you.

Do you think the current economic depression (This is what I call it.) we are in will grind on another four years because "that man in the White House" got re-elected?

Are we better off going over the Fiscal Cliff than striking a bargain?



If you were in a position to vote with your feet, how would you vote?

A flat tax means nothing to the rich. They can afford it easily.
It does however harm the poor, who have much less disposable income.

I am not the type to vote w my feet. I am the type to agitate.

 

[warpus]

Anyone who is able, will leave, or secede to some location that DOES control who can enter it.

Oh yeah? And if it's a place that's so hard to get into, how the hell are you and your friends going to get in?

 

[LamaGT]

Cheer up, here in Italy the personal income tax alone takes away more than 40% of what you earn starting from 50.000 €

Then you have the social security taxes and the insane property taxes that our dear friend Monti raised to huge levels.

 

[JollyRoger]

So everyone who is agitated who can leave is going to leave, except for the thread starter?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Dommy believes that all people should act as they are told all of the time. If it's less nationalistic than classical fascism, it still fits that model more than it does any other form. Sort of a religious fascism rather than a nationalistic fascism. The important part is that it has zero tolerance for liberty.

Cut the slander.

For the record I don't seriously think you were a fascist. I do think you are a little too obsessed with what will give the state the most revenue, however, as if that is the only valid taxation goal.

Cheer up, here in Italy the personal income tax alone takes away more than 40% of what you earn starting from 50.000 €

Then you have the social security taxes and the insane property taxes that our dear friend Monti raised to huge levels.

That's crazy

 

[galdre]

Yeah, I don't agree with this, but I can understand it. But then, if you know the money will go to perpetual war, police statism, and draconian sentences for pot users, why do you still support higher taxes?

Liberals and Libertarians should be at least temporary allies right now

Would you not say it would be better for the rich to keep their money than for it to be spent on the stuff they spend it on?

I certainly have serious problems with how are money is spent, but unfortunately with the screwed-up priorities of those running our govt if they have less money they will cut programs that help people to make sure they have enough to keep waging perpetual war, give corp subsidies, etc

They are separate problems. We need to fix how and from whom we collect tax revenue and we need to spend it on the right things. Honestly I don't see either happening, at least not any time soon.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I certainly have serious problems with how are money is spent, but unfortunately with the screwed-up priorities of those running our govt if they have less money they will cut programs that help people to make sure they have enough to keep waging perpetual war, give corp subsidies, etc

They are separate problems. We need to fix how and from whom we collect tax revenue and we need to spend it on the right things. Honestly I don't see either happening, at least not any time soon.

The moment I realized that I would rather the money go to the poor than to perpetual war is the day I stopped being a conservative

It is indeed screwed up. Corporate subsidies are double as much as individual welfare, and the military budget is more than both combined.

On the second paragraph, for curiosity, what changes would you suggest?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But you don't really rather the money go to the poor. That isn't a libertarian principle.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But you don't really rather the money go to the poor. That isn't a libertarian principle.

Nope, I'd really rather the government cut the tax rate and let people make their own choices.

I was merely presenting a binary choice, namely spending money on the poor vs spending money on warmongering, and stated I preferred the former.

 

[JollyRoger]

Nope, I'd really rather the government cut the tax rate and let people make their own choices.

As the law stands now, you can get a tax cut by giving to charity.