Should taxes be raised at the end of this year?

[Observer]

Aw, poor thing.

 

If you're really in the market for sympathy you would dispense with the snark. Alas, you're all about the snark.

I have never been in the market for sympathy.

[SpaceCadet]

And what's proposed is not socialist. You see SC everyone pays taxes. If you own acar, you pay taxes on it. When you shop, you pay taxes. So then you cannot accurately say that the working class does not pay taxes. They are disproportionately affected by any amount of tax they pay, far more than the very wealthy who pay huge sums of money to make certain they don't have to pay their fair share. And we pay for their retirements, yet I don't see anyone like you mentioning this.

Do not fall for the beat up the poor cowardly campaign ran by the richest of the rich. Because all they want is everyones money, including yours.

We pay for the retirement of the rich?  In what way?

You wouldn't regard people retiring and being supported in that retirement entirely by the state, having put no funds of their own toward that retirement, as socialistic?

[Observer]

you don't mean any of this observer.  under your "flat-tax" structure,  we wouldn't be able to pay for all of the things that you salivate over on a regular basis;  such as the strongest military in the world or imperial actions overseas.

it wouldn't just put us "safety-net" liberals in our place.  it would affect your jingoistic ass as well.

peace

What it would do is force the government to restrict its spending to items on which it is Constitutionally authorized to spend money.

If Leftists people didn't want the government to take care of you from the cradle to the grave and if certain memberos of the political right did their Constitutional duty rather than try to give away the treasurty in exchange for votes, we wouldn't be in this mess.

The Constitution limited the power of Government for a reason.

[Observer]

Oh, and Dagon... you can take your "jingoistic ass" comment and shove it.

[dagon]

The middle class covers a very broad range of incomes.

yes, it does and that very big range has been squeezed disproportionately.  i'm a big fan of living within ones means but it's very difficult to do that these days even if one is considered "upper middle class".  the motive for wild profit has gotten out of hand.

have you seen the projections for sending a child to a 4 year college these days?

peace

[IM2]

We pay for the retirement of the rich?  In what way?

You wouldn't regard people retiring and being supported in that retirement entirely by the state, having put no funds of their own toward that retirement, as socialistic?

To your first question, corporate welfare, to name one way. The second way I will again say is through the loopholes they use to get out of paying taxes. Seems like you do not wish to recognize this exists, but it does, and no discussion of taxes should be without mentioning this issue.

No matter what amount of money you make SC, you pay social security. And it is social security you get back when you retire. So then who are you supporting who has not paid anything towards their own retirement SC?

Finally would you rather pay for the retirement of an american who you claim did not pay in? Or would you rather continue paying for the retirements of Iraqis and others who you know did not ever produce anything in this nation?

I would rather my tax money go to help other americans in any way they could.

[SpaceCadet]

To your first question, corporate welfare, to name one way. The second way I will again say is through the loopholes they use to get out of paying taxes. Seems like you do not wish to recognize this exists, but it does, and no discussion of taxes should be without mentioning this issue.

I do recognize those and I'm in favor of closing any and all loopholes.  But, come on, those fat cats at the top would be able to fund their own retirement whether they paid more in taxes or not.  So, "paying for their retirement" is a rather obtuse way of putting it.  There are many more sensical-sounding reasons for closing loopholes.

"Corporate welfare" doesn't get much traction with me.  Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.  So you can make corporations pay all the taxes you want, and they just get passed through to the customers in the form of higher prices.  Besides, a corporation is just a legal entity and even if corporations are able to make more money by not paying taxes, my 401(k) that has stock in those corporations will do better.  Then I'll eventually pay taxes on that money, as will all investors and shareholders in the corporation.

No matter what amount of money you make SC, you pay social security. And it is social security you get back when you retire. So then who are you supporting who has not paid anything towards their own retirement SC?

Right.  So try and follow me here.  Lower wage earners do not pay any federal income tax.  The only other major federal taxes there are to be paid are social security and Medicare (For the sake of this discussion regarding retirement benefits, I'm going to ignore things like federal excise taxes on fuel and that sort of thing).  Many people who think the way you do say that cutting federal income taxes benefit the wealthy.  I know you would never favor doing this to begin with, but bear with me.  Since lower wage earners don't pay federal income tax, the only way they could get a federal tax break is to also not pay social security or Medicare taxes.  Now, they would not be paying any federal taxes, but they would be getting the benefits of a national defense, whatever other infrastructure the federal government provides, AND retirement benefits including medical coverage in their old age.  That is what I mean by supporting people who would have not paid anything into the system.  Of course, this hasn't quite happened yet, it's still hypothetical.  But that is what a lot of people who think in a similar way to which you do are pushing for.

These same lower wage earners do pay things like federal gasoline taxes, the ones who own cars and drive, but that is for the upkeep of the highways.  Almost every other tax that they pay are local taxes.  Sales taxes on cars, and things like that, are local taxes.

So, I will ask again.  Should people who are going to retire on social security and Medicare be required to pay into the system during their working lives?  I'm not sayng that they don't now.  They do.  But if they're not going to pay any federal income tax, and we want to make their tax burden even lighter, there's no way to do that at the federal level except to also exempt them from paying into their own retirement.

Finally would you rather pay for the retirement of an american who you claim did not pay in? Or would you rather continue paying for the retirements of Iraqis and others who you know did not ever produce anything in this nation?

I'd rather let the Iraqis take care of themselves and I'd like for the American to have a job so that he can pay into social security and Medicare, and perhaps even pay a little bit of federal income tax in order to contribute in some small way to the general welfare.

[Velleity]

"Corporate welfare" doesn't get much traction with me.  Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. 

This is untrue unless demand is absolutely inelastic.

[Velleity]

I have never been in the market for sympathy.

Of course you're not. That was the point.

You're in the market to be an obnoxious twit so no one should feel sorry for you.

[SpaceCadet]

This is untrue unless demand is absolutely inelastic.

Ok, that's true, but it'll be the case to whatever extent that the particular product is deemed to be "necessary".

[Velleity]

Ok, that's true, but it'll be the case to whatever extent that the particular product is deemed to be "necessary".

If the price increases it is likely to draw competition. Profit is always driven down to zero.

Of course that's perfect competition but if you're going to be conservative you're going to have to say that markets work, always and everywhere. That's another difference between the Keynesians and the monetarists/Austrians.

[johnhp]

More taxes is more taxes, however you wish to phrase it politically.

If you think it is wrong to follow the law, then you should hold responsible the architects of this law.  The Republicans in congress.

[IM2]

SpaceCadet,

I do recognize those and I'm in favor of closing any and all loopholes.  But, come on, those fat cats at the top would be able to fund their own retirement whether they paid more in taxes or not.  So, "paying for their retirement" is a rather obtuse way of putting it.  There are many more sensical-sounding reasons for closing loopholes.

"Corporate welfare" doesn't get much traction with me.  Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.  So you can make corporations pay all the taxes you want, and they just get passed through to the customers in the form of higher prices.  Besides, a corporation is just a legal entity and even if corporations are able to make more money by not paying taxes, my 401(k) that has stock in those corporations will do better.  Then I'll eventually pay taxes on that money, as will all investors and shareholders in the corporation.

If you do not think the money corporations are given by the govnerment does not include the salaries and retirement benefits of the executives, then you are naive. As long as everyone  else is being obtuse about  taxes and how they think they are paying for someone else, I am going to be obtuse about how the very rich take advantage of the system to the tune of billiions. At least we agree on the fact that there should be no loopholes for anyone.

Right.  So try and follow me here.  Lower wage earners do not pay any federal income tax.  The only other major federal taxes there are to be paid are social security and Medicare (For the sake of this discussion regarding retirement benefits, I'm going to ignore things like federal excise taxes on fuel and that sort of thing).  Many people who think the way you do say that cutting federal income taxes benefit the wealthy.  I know you would never favor doing this to begin with, but bear with me.  Since lower wage earners don't pay federal income tax, the only way they could get a federal tax break is to also not pay social security or Medicare taxes.  Now, they would not be paying any federal taxes, but they would be getting the benefits of a national defense, whatever other infrastructure the federal government provides, AND retirement benefits including medical coverage in their old age.  That is what I mean by supporting people who would have not paid anything into the system.  Of course, this hasn't quite happened yet, it's still hypothetical.  But that is what a lot of people who think in a similar way to which you do are pushing for.

I don't think that cutting the federal income taxes benefits the wealthy, I say that the current Bush tax cuts were weighted heavily to benefit the very wealthy and they were. If there would have been a middle class tax cut then I would not be saying that.  We lose more money from the very rich using loopholes to cheat the sytem than we do because somone earning $10,000 per year doesn't have to pay income tax.  I understand what you are saying here, and what most people are wanting is a middle class tax cut. There is already a tax break given to those who earn low wages, that is they don't pay income taxes. But the middle class gets the shaft.

Again, I would rather my money go to an American who is not working than an Iraqi, Pakistani, Englishman, German, etc.

These same lower wage earners do pay things like federal gasoline taxes, the ones who own cars and drive, but that is for the upkeep of the highways.  Almost every other tax that they pay are local taxes.  Sales taxes on cars, and things like that, are local taxes.

Just like everyone else. And these taxes hurt them proportionatley more than they do those who are very rich.

So, I will ask again.  Should people who are going to retire on social security and Medicare be required to pay into the system during their working lives?  I'm not sayng that they don't now.  They do.  But if they're not going to pay any federal income tax, and we want to make their tax burden even lighter, there's no way to do that at the federal level except to also exempt them from paying into their own retirement.

What you have missed and keep missing is that low wage earners already get a tax break. You do not have to limit or eliminate anything from them for them to get it. People like me are for a middle class tax cut, so instead of repeating what dumbasses like observer and the like say about me, use the minnd you have which is very sharp, and read what I actually say. It is not socialist to want the middle class to get a break.

I'd rather let the Iraqis take care of themselves and I'd like for the American to have a job so that he can pay into social security and Medicare, and perhaps even pay a little bit of federal income tax in order to contribute in some small way to the general welfare.

You don't have to be paying taxes to contribute to the general welfare SpaceCadet. My and your little tax money we pay does not pay for anyone elses lifestyles except for the fat cat defense contractors. Maybe you need to understand that first before you go right.