For the record - Obama and Taxing

[Kennigit]

baaaaaaa

 

[galdre]

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?

It's a long list . . . but regarding income taxes I'd like to see a simple, graduated income tax based on all compensation and income (excluding healthcare benefits paid by employers, although I would include it if we had UHC). On the spending side I would get rid of all corp subsidies (tariffs would work to protect domestic industries and keep jobs here in the US) and drastically cut the military. That would be a good start.

As I said earlier I wouldn't have a problem with higher taxes overall. I'd rather have a higher income tax and have UHC instead of paying the ridiculous amount I currently do for private health insurance.

 

[Zack]

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.

Wait, what else is taxation supposed to do besides generate revenue?

 

[Cutlass]

Cut the slander.

You first.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, what else is taxation supposed to do besides generate revenue?

For liberals "Punish the rich" comes to mind

Just kidding, but seriously, of course taxes are supposed to generate revenue, as much as is needed to do whatever you want the government to do. For me, that's not all that much and so I would have the government tax far less than they could theoretically get away with.

Cutlass' argument takes as a given that the government should continue to tax as long as it can continue to gain more revenue for doing so. That's not the whole picture.

 

[Zack]

For liberals "Punish the rich" comes to mind

Just kidding, but seriously, of course taxes are supposed to generate revenue, as much as is needed to do whatever you want the government to do. For me, that's not all that much and so I would have the government tax far less than they could theoretically get away with.

Cutlass' argument takes as a given that the government should continue to tax as long as it can continue to gain more revenue for doing so. That's not the whole picture.

You did not answer my question at all. You said generating revenue is not the only purpose of taxation... well, what are the other purposes?

 

[Cutlass]

For liberals "Punish the rich" comes to mind

Just kidding, but seriously, of course taxes are supposed to generate revenue, as much as is needed to do whatever you want the government to do. For me, that's not all that much and so I would have the government tax far less than they could theoretically get away with.

Cutlass' argument takes as a given that the government should continue to tax as long as it can continue to gain more revenue for doing so. That's not the whole picture.

You're lying through your teeth again. My argument is that the government should do what is best for the people and the country, and then pay for it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You did not answer my question at all. You said generating revenue is not the only purpose of taxation... well, what are the other purposes?

I think you either misread me or I mistyped... in any case, I was not denying that the only purpose for taxation should be to raise revenue (Although those who support protective tariffs or sin taxes, which I don't, would make that argument), I was suggesting that raising as much revenue as possible should not be the goal.

@Cutlass

You're lying through your teeth again. My argument is that the government should do what is best for the people and the country, and then pay for it.

I think that, at minimum, they should pay first, or better yet, limit themselves...

 

[Cutlass]

I think that, at minimum, they should pay first, or better yet, limit themselves...

That's what we did before conservatives and people who call themselves libertarians became dominant in American politics.

 

[Patroklos]

Would that have been under FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson or Carter?

 

[El_Machinae]

That's basically a subsidy for charities!

 

[Verbose]

Why I am being left with the impression that when US conservatices complain about taxation, what they really seem to be aiming for is a kind of indivudual voluntary option on society altogether. It's fine to have one, as long as it won't cost anything, in which case there should be all kinds of graded opt-ins for how much society each individual thinks reasonanble...

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's what we did before conservatives and people who call themselves libertarians became dominant in American politics.

"Conservatives" may have done it, and so have "Liberals", but Libertarians have never been dominant in US politics. To my knowledge the last one to even run on the Republican ticket was Barry Goldwater, and the last to win was perhaps Calvin Coolidge.

Calvin balanced the budget. Today's conservatives can't because they want perpetual war. And liberals have no real desire to balance the budget, as you yourself have admitted. In other words you want to collect and then throw the costs at my generation.

Both sides are going to destroy the economy

 

[Ailedhoo]

For liberals "Punish the rich" comes to mind

Capitalism came from Liberal views boy. Your generalisation ignore political definition.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I was using US terminology

 

[Ailedhoo]

I was using US terminology

I used terminology of academic out look on the definitions. You are not using a proper terminology.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Deal with it

 

[Ailedhoo]

Deal with it

Is that responce? How sad can you get?

 

[Ajidica]

In a modern economy there is no real need to have a 'balenced' national budget, especially during a recession. The world economies are run on a modified Keynesian policy, and there is a reason for that. The 'free market' you advocate for simply doesn't work, either on a national level or local level. You will struggle to find a single developing or developed country that did not experiance economic growth as a result of explicit government involvement.

 

[GhostWriter16]

In a modern economy there is no real need to have a 'balenced' national budget, especially during a recession. The world economies are run on a modified Keynesian policy, and there is a reason for that. The 'free market' you advocate for simply doesn't work, either on a national level or local level. You will struggle to find a single developing or developed country that did not experiance economic growth as a result of explicit government involvement.

Yeah, I'm well aware that's the Keynesian theory. I think its blatantly wrong and the fact that we're paying nearly a trillion dollars in interest payments (Read: For no direct benefit) should prove this.