Slashdot Mirror

Read All About It!

More!

Extra! Extra!

"it's easy to spend other people's money" = Republicanism in a nutshell

What planet are you from?

On EARTH the tax & spend people call themselves "liberal", "progressive" or "socialist", but in reality are Marxist. Bloomberg describes how the Democrats want to reverse tax cuts and add $1 Trillion on tax hikes IF they win this midterm and in 2020. For sure they will use some of the tax money put more people on welfare so they'll become dependent on gov handouts.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

https://www.atr.org/democrats-...

https://www.watchdog.org/natio...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/...

http://illinoisreview.typepad....

Here's the truth:
https://www.investors.com/poli...

Your "facts" are wrong and so is your opinion.

For example, adjusted for inflation, the average Pell grant was $2,420 in 1996 and $3,740 in 2016. The max was $3,790 in 1996 and $5,820 in 2016. So Pell grants per student have significantly increased over the last 20 years, hardly "hacked and slashed".

Also, teachers don't "have" to spend their money for school supplies, although some do anyway. Most teachers send home a list to parents of what they want them to donate, which is also ridiculous, but what do you expect when you have a Democratic Party run government institution? Lots of wasteful spending on non-essentials, like diversity administrators.

As for Kansas, well, here's total direct revenue for the last 10 years for Kansas. The only portion with a big decline after the Kansas tax cuts in 2011-12 were capital gains-related revenue, a result of the change in the federal capital gains rate, caused by President Obama’s forced expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts. The Kansas tax cuts themselves are estimated to have only affected at most 1.5% of Kansas total revenue, hardly a drop in the bucket and certainly nothing to panic about.

Everything you posted is technically true. But it really doesn't help when some people participating in the debate continually portray any possibility of admitting there is an already existing natural monopoly in need of regulation as being anathema to a free market system...

I honestly think that an almost totally anarchic market is actually what a lot of people have in mind when they claim they want to pursue a "free market solution."

They're just pointing out that the 99% benefit from the work of the top 1%, much the way Federal income taxes work in the United States, where the top 1% of income earners together pay more than the bottom 95% together do.

Her statements say otherwise. She's all-in on over $1 trillion in new taxes that will also hit the middle class. Heck, who do you think will get hit with her support of a carbon tax - just "the rich"?

Many of these tax increases will hit middle class families. The vast majority of the middle class has investments and retirement accounts which will be hit with her taxes. And she promising to raise taxes on businesses - and small businesses would be included which are overwhelmingly middle class owned.

Here, have some transparency

They are a symptom of the underlying problem; government doesn't know how to make tax law.

Do you suppose they might be making a fuss about the loopholes so that people get upset enough that they will be allowed to close them? Remember, Grover Norquist opposes closing tax loopholes unless the base rate of taxes is lowered to compensate for the increased revenue and he owns the balls of the entire Republican party.

The Tea Party movement has made many Republicans promise to never raise taxes.

Just a quick bit of history, the pledge has been around since 1986, and even George H. W. Bush was a signator. Remember "Read My Lips"? Even if you were a kid like I was at the time, you should. It was in campaign ads everywhere in 1992 -- since HW broke the pledge.

That's not to say the Tea Party (2007-present) doesn't have a similar bent -- they most certainly do. (for full "bias" disclosure, I'm a libertarian)

rugged individualists

How did we get from a huge dot com with a battalion of tax lawyers to "rugged individualists" that might not like having their "estate" wiped out to fund more vote buying programs?

makes me smile

They've trained a lot of hate into you.

I'm sick to death of seeing knuckle dragging Neanderthals (who have voted the way their television told them to) have as much say as myself (if I don't understand what the vote is on, I'll make sure I read up on it).

There are a bunch of flaws with this sort of thinking:
  * If your sources are not providing useful unbiased expertise on the subject, then your vote is no smarter than the "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals". For instance, if the main issue is tax policy, you'll get wildly different answers depending on whether you check with the Tax Policy Center, Americans for Tax Reform, FairTax.org, or the Cato Institute.
  * If it's an issue like "Should we approve this school tax levy?", checking the sources won't help you make several value judgements (Should there be a well-funded public education system? Does the improvement in home values that comes from having a good school district outweigh the cost of the higher tax? What effects, if any, will the tax change have on local businesses?)
  * For candidates rather than ballot issues, you may find yourself in the position of "I agree with Smith because of ABC, but disagree with him about DEF, while I like Jones' position on GHI but dislike JKL." Again, you're making value judgments which have nothing to do with level of education or research.

Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both. You can't agree?

The Republicans have signed a pledge that they will never vote to raise taxes on anybody for any reason whatsoever. If they violate that pledge, the head of the organization who created it can and will ensure they lose their seat by cutting off their campaign funding. So they really can't agree to raise taxes.

...

So in short, no they really can't, not without betraying everything they claim to stand for.

You know, the definition of a statesman (or stateswoman) is someone who does the right thing for thire country, even if they have to bend (or compromise) their personal ideals to get the job done. There were plenty of opportunities for greatness all around on this thing, and every time someone had the opportunity, they blew it.

Their failure to get it done will not inspire me to vote for them but it will provide me with justification to "give someone else the opportunity to fail." Perhaps by working to ensure a Republican minority for some time, if at all possible.

Also, the Republicans have finally ratcheted things up to the point where their opposition, the Democrats, have no incentive to cooperate with them on anything. (Supporting the agenda of millionaires in a time when few are being manufactured and quite a few are disappearing is suicidal.) So, we finally see what America looks like when everyone stands on their "principles."

As a citizen, I do not like it...Nor do I like those voters who cling to a particular ideology (Tea Party members or Occupy Wall Street people) as some sort of statement of personal identity. It's egotistical, stubborn and in every single in depth conversation I've had with members of either "movement," always...*always* been about the person in question and never the country. Rather than admiring those people who "stick to their principles," I find them traitorous, self indulgent and, worst of all from my standpoint - because it harms our civil society - obstructionist.
 

The Republicans have signed a pledge that they will never vote to raise taxes on anybody for any reason whatsoever. If they violate that pledge, the head of the organization who created it can and will ensure they lose their seat by cutting off their campaign funding.

In other words, they have been blatantly bribed. They have signed a pledge admitting that they have been bribed.

The Republicans have signed a pledge that they will never vote to raise taxes on anybody for any reason whatsoever. If they violate that pledge, the head of the organization who created it can and will ensure they lose their seat by cutting off their campaign funding. So they really can't agree to raise taxes.

...

So in short, no they really can't, not without betraying everything they claim to stand for.

So true. They can't! Everything they believe in (i.e. staying in office and getting paid to do crap) rests on their ability to do whatever they are told by their respective party and contributing organizations!

If they did stuff we think politicians are supposed to do, like use their rational judgement to find solutions to the nations problems, they might not get re-elected! And then what? We might end up with people that don't know what they are doing!

Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both. You can't agree?

The Republicans have signed a pledge that they will never vote to raise taxes on anybody for any reason whatsoever. If they violate that pledge, the head of the organization who created it can and will ensure they lose their seat by cutting off their campaign funding. So they really can't agree to raise taxes.

When it comes to spending cuts, the big-ticket items are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military. Any serious cuts need to affect one of those 4 items. The Democrats have been elected for decades with pledges to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid at all costs - it's their party's signature program for the last 75 years or so, so they really can't cut any of those. The Republicans have been elected for decades with pledges to protect military manufacturing jobs in their district, so they really can't cut any of those.

So in short, no they really can't, not without betraying everything they claim to stand for.

North Korea (do they have internet?)

Most of them are lucky to have electricity, let alone internet.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/korea-by-night.jpg

Your "taxophobic minority" is another person's "reasonable concern."

You may not be aware of this, but there are substantial members of the caucus that likes to present themselves as "reasonably concerned" about taxes that are actually signing pledges from people like Grover Norquist and similar ilk stating that they will flat-out oppose any new tax or tax increase. No consideration of policy, no assessment of fiscal impact. No tweaking the code by increases here, decreases there. Pure monotonic ratchet down.

Sound "reasonably concerned"? Or does "taxophobic" maybe start to sound more accurate?

designed to divide and conquer. For example, "shall we raise taxes on beer?" The majority of people, not being beer drinkers, thinks this is just swell. "Shall we increase the cigarette tax?" Different majority, same result.

Alcohol and tobacco as examples of singling out powerless minorities? Dude, you can't be serious. Taxes on those things pre-date income tax by decades, probably are among the earliest taxes in the USA, and the rationale behind them has far more to do with "sin tax" anti-incentives and public costs associated with their trade, use, and abuse than it does with rarity of use amongst population -- particularly alcohol, since depending on who you ask, 40-50% of the population drinks beer, and 60+% drinks something (yes, I suppose that technically makes beer drinkers a slight minority, but a minority that's as big as a plurality in many presidential elections is not the kind that isn't going to have any clout when the issue comes up for review).

I'm even a full supporter of the idea that anyone who votes in favor of a tax has to be subject to that tax even if they don't participate in the actions being taxed.

Sure! And while we're at it, let's extend the operative principle here to *all* areas of the law! Proposing or voting for a new statutory punishment? Well, get ready to pay the fine and do the time yourself, buddy!

I ,____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the State of _________ and to the American People that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

What if record keeping was good enough (nevermind the privacy issues etc) that your taxes, no matter how complex, could be computed for you without any effort of your own?

Would you be happy or ...perhaps just a nice sheep in the flock getting fleeced on a yearly basis?

**start vignette**

You (looking like a sheep): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "This won't hurt a bit, we need just a little bit more to fund Senator [enter favorite name here]'s pet project."

You (looking less like a sheep not much coat left): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "Oh it turns out that prescription drug for the older sheep is going cost a bit more." Buzzing sound heard in the background.

You (looking a bit naked): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "Remember that Social Security thing? Well it turns out you sheep haven't been getting it on enough and the older sheep just keep getting older and older. So just a bit more if you don't mind."

**end start vignette**

Losing the ability to see how much the government is taking of your hard earned money is NOT a good thing, because if they could they would take more and more... they would.

Everytime I have to read the instructions for any section, I get so mad. I often scratch my head and re-read things multiple times because it is far too complicated. To see all the rules that they make up to give each little interest group their piece of the pie is amazing. Can you imagine trying to do your taxes by hand? omg, shoot me.

Getting mad at tax time is important!

I could go on for a while... but I'll spare people who have read this far more diarrhea of the mouth.

I think you get the picture.

hmm? what is it going to be? You want to be a sheep?

"Baa. Baa."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
http://www.atr.org/

If your looking for studious regard for facts, fair.org is not such a great place to start. They were the source of Super Bowl Battering hoax as well as the Rule of Thumb for Wife Beating hoax.

If the tax tables were uniform then the "rich" would still pay more money.

Still pay more money? [laugh] "Only the little people pay taxes."

Hmm...so if the top 1% of income-earners pay more than a third of all income tax revenue, the top 5% pay over half, and the top 10% pay nearly two-thirds, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "only the little people pay taxes?"

(Source: http://www.atr.org/talkingpoints/012202tp-2.htm)

From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.

Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.

Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and
judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With
the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.

Sincerely,

Margaret Flint

This might be a bit outdated, but the numbers can only go the other way: the American Tax Reform site states that in 1999 75% of the cost of cigarettes are collected as taxes. While the taxes are generally considered to be sin taxes, the money is tagged to go back to medical purposes.

Aren't you glad The Internet is in Al Gore's hands?