Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53
  1. #1
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    4,385

    $7,169,220,871,288.39 & $1,800,000,000

    Just so all of you people out there who think that tax cuts are a good idea right now, I thought that I would post the national debt figures and the amount the national debt will increase should you read this post rougly the same time tomorrow.

    Welcome to supply side economics folks. It failed with Reagan. George Bush, Sr. was completely against it. Having a politician able to spend money without any regard for the consequences is simply a bad idea.

  2. #2
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Tax revenues went up under Reagan. The problem was that Congress spent even more.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...arts_C/c2.html
    Brian

  3. #3
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    5,177
    Just what makes you think the government can spend our money better than us? A nation of citizens with more money (lower taxes) spends more, is more prosperous, and earns more income to be taxed.

  4. #4
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    678
    Since most dem's are so worried about the national debt might I suggest that you donate all of your tax refunds to paying off this debt . Since you seem to love throwing your money away . In other words put your money where your mouth is or shut up .

    For the life of me I will never understand some people . Wake up can you not see that congress is doing every thing possible to get the current tax cuts repealed . Do you rembember the loophole ? If congress spends to much money the tax cuts are ended . Do you think this might have something to do with spending ?
    Surely not congress wouldn't do that to the Americian people

  5. #5
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    7,743
    The point is they're spending it without us even earning it yet. At what I consider an alarming rate.

    While I agree the deficit is atrocious, it is the spending that needs curtailed, and right now. Some will say "We're at war". Well then if we're going to pay for this war we need to do without something else. I don't see our Republican controlled congress and white house making any steps in this direction. I do not envision a democratic white house with John Kerry reducing spending. Those BIG numbers that title this thread are going to get bigger.

    I'm all for reduced taxes. But I don't take a cut in pay and move into a penthouse. Cut the spending too. Ten percent across the board for non-military expenditures would do wonders for our deficit, and most likely our economy too.
    Tyan S5397 2x X5450 16GB - SuperMicro H8DCI 2x 275 8GB - Iwill DK8X 2x Opteron 250 2GB


    Take a Kid FISHING!

  6. #6
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Originally posted by smoked trout on 04-12-2004 at 08:22 PM
    The point is they're spending it without us even earning it yet. At what I consider an alarming rate.

    While I agree the deficit is atrocious, it is the spending that needs curtailed, and right now. Some will say "We're at war". Well then if we're going to pay for this war we need to do without something else. I don't see our Republican controlled congress and white house making any steps in this direction. I do not envision a democratic white house with John Kerry reducing spending. Those BIG numbers that title this thread are going to get bigger.

    I'm all for reduced taxes. But I don't take a cut in pay and move into a penthouse. Cut the spending too. Ten percent across the board for non-military expenditures would do wonders for our deficit, and most likely our economy too.
    I am all for cutting spending. Lower taxation does not automatically lead to lower federal revenue though. It stimulates economic activity which in turn increases the taxes collected. Somewhere in there is a number that will yield the maximum tax revenue with the minimum rate of taxation. Zero taxation would obviously yield no tax revenue while 100 percent taxation would also yield no tax revenue since it would kill all economic activity. Don't fall for the old line of tax cuts have to be paid for, to a certain extent they will pay for themselves.
    Brian

  7. #7
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    364

  8. #8
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    greensboro, nc
    Age
    46
    Posts
    467
    From the above pinko article:
    Since 1993, the income tax burden on the 400 highest-income Americans has been cut 40 percent when measured the way that President Bush prefers, which is by counting how many pennies out of each dollar go to income taxes. In 1993 the top 400 paid 30 cents out of each dollar in federal income taxes. By the end of the Clinton administration in 2000 they were down to 22 cents. Under Bush, their burden is less than 18 cents. Everyone else felt their tax bite rise to 15 cents on the dollar from an average of 13 cents.
    So what, the wealthy still pay a larger percentage of their hard earned income. What are you whining about? It all comes down to the liberal commoner being jealous of the wealthy. When John Kerry raises taxes, if he becomes president, do you really think John Kerry and Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy won't look for loopholes? Do you really think they will pay their fair share? Yeah if I had 6 mansions worth $33 million, I wouldn't mind paying a little more tax.

    Uh i just looked at the democracy now link and 5 of the seven headlines were anti us and the other two were Pro Aristede. If you guys hate America so much, just move to the communist paradise of Cuba, really, its everything you want. High taxes (100%), everyone gets paid the same ($0) free healthcare, and a guaranteed job.
    Last edited by NoMoreGF; 04-13-2004 at 12:04 AM.
    amd 2500+@2200ish mhz
    ati 9800 pro
    msi kt6 delta lsr
    1024 mb of PC3200 ram
    2X80 gb wd800jb non raid
    Audigy platinum ex
    at least a six pack o beer
    a64 coming soon

  9. #9
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    GamingDirk, the link you posted is incorrect for my state (Washington). The major source of tax revenue here is property taxes and sales taxes. The poor due pay for a disproportionate amount of sales taxes, except food has no tax and therefore the sales taxes they are paying is for more things. The poor also pay no property taxes since they do not own property. The link also slants data in that it does not take into account the high (and progressive) taxes paid to the federal government. It also does not account for taxes paid by businesses rather than individuals, most of which are not paid for by the "poor" since most of them do not own businesses.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    7,743
    Originally posted by bk94si on 04-12-2004 at 09:32 PM
    I am all for cutting spending. Lower taxation does not automatically lead to lower federal revenue though. It stimulates economic activity which in turn increases the taxes collected. Somewhere in there is a number that will yield the maximum tax revenue with the minimum rate of taxation. Zero taxation would obviously yield no tax revenue while 100 percent taxation would also yield no tax revenue since it would kill all economic activity. Don't fall for the old line of tax cuts have to be paid for, to a certain extent they will pay for themselves.
    $7,169,220,871,288.39 ... Will they pay for that much?

    bk, I understand the theory. But there is nothing in that theory that says spend at will, we'll make it all back. In fact, that theory is more plausible if spending is kept in check. So lets get out the budget axe before its too late, or we're all going to see our taxes go up.
    Tyan S5397 2x X5450 16GB - SuperMicro H8DCI 2x 275 8GB - Iwill DK8X 2x Opteron 250 2GB


    Take a Kid FISHING!

  11. #11
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    364
    Originally posted by bk94si on 04-12-2004 at 09:08 PM
    GamingDirk, the link you posted is incorrect for my state (Washington). The major source of tax revenue here is property taxes and sales taxes.
    Which is, indeed, exactly what it says...

    The poor due pay for a disproportionate amount of sales taxes, except food has no tax and therefore the sales taxes they are paying is for more things.
    Yeah, like there aren't any other necessities of life, like a tooth bush, clothing, or a car to get yourself to work.

    The poor also pay no property taxes since they do not own property.
    Ok, so they pay rent, which is even worse (for them).

    The link also slants data in that it does not take into account the high (and progressive) taxes paid to the federal government.
    This is true; this study is only of state and local taxes.

    It also does not account for taxes paid by businesses rather than individuals, most of which are not paid for by the "poor" since most of them do not own businesses.
    Nor should it. This study was about personal income taxes. Business taxes are a whole other issue.


    http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryb...es/000085.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/view/

    Note: This isn't just about the poor; the middle class are also getting screwed by tax laws that heavily favor the wealthy.
    Last edited by GamingDirk; 04-13-2004 at 02:27 AM.

  12. #12
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,074
    Tough $hit. That's what I say. I don't even have to read this nonsense. The rates are the same, or higher for higher incomes. Explain to me WHY people of higher incomes should pay more.

    Socialism and Communism are abject failures. Time to stop living in a utopian dream world where people will work hard for the collective good. What a freakin' joke. I work hard for MY money. I sure as heck ain't workin' hard for my money to go to socialists like you.

  13. #13
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789
    I get so sick of the deficit discussion. Democrats make a big issue of it when Republicans are in office, but what did Clinton do for it? He imposed that useless 4 cent gas tax and the deficit still grew.

    But I have the solution!!!!! Just have everyone pay their share if it is that big a deal. There are what, 300 million people in the USA?

    So 7.17 Trillion divided by 300 million is 23,900.

    So every person is required to pony up 24 grand and it's taken care of.

    But how many people can't afford that? So maybe the wealthy folk should help the weak folk out and pay for a bit more than their share...... sigh, but then we are back to income tax.

    Oh well.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978
    It's funny, fundamentally these same tax arguments are universal.

    Maybe there should be a special, voluntary tax for rich ‘lefties’ with guilt complexes - I'm thinking the Michael Moore’s and Hollywood’s Gucci socialists of this world. It would clear their angst ridden conscious and help pay the US national debt as well.

    Do you think they'd go for that?

  15. #15
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978
    Originally posted by wardog25 on 04-13-2004 at 02:08 PM
    I get so sick of the deficit discussion. Democrats make a big issue of it when Republicans are in office, but what did Clinton do for it? He imposed that useless 4 cent gas tax and the deficit still grew.

    But I have the solution!!!!! Just have everyone pay their share if it is that big a deal. There are what, 300 million people in the USA?

    So 7.17 Trillion divided by 300 million is 23,900.

    So every person is required to pony up 24 grand and it's taken care of.

    But how many people can't afford that? So maybe the wealthy folk should help the weak folk out and pay for a bit more than their share...... sigh, but then we are back to income tax.

    Oh well.
    You've got 'till next Tuesday to pay up. Capiche?

    If you don't we're coming over to repossess America.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •