How should they Pretend?

[The Man]

So does that mean you are fine with paying a much higher percentage of your income than someone making millions of dollars a year?

I didnt say that...I want to see govt spending reduced first and foremost.

And also what you say actually applies to many...as many actually pay a negative tax...so the rich pay much more percentage wise.
Also deductions for kids only go so far....you can be assured that rich guy is paying more than you tim.

 

[The Man]

Govt spending is 20 grand per citizen Tim.
Thats about 50 grand per household.
What the average earnings per household tim?
Do you not understand why we are crushed?
Tim imagine no taxes for year {just for demonstration}
You get all your paycheck and more{the social insurance, tax the employer has to pay for having you}
You just got a 40 percent raise !!
Gas is cheap.
Products are cheap..no taxes.
Costs are lower..as they are not paying taxes
Everything will be cheaper...do you follow...it will be about half price...as govt spending is 40 percent of the GDP
We wont be able to keep up with the demand and will actually have a shortage of workers.
Good.
Good can be bad.
We now tax to stunt the growth...... slowing trading.
Over taxing equals over stunting...its really that simple.
You only raise taxes while the economy is on the boom...never the bust

 

[The Man]

See tim the tax cuts credits on the lowers classes should have been cut when the economy picked up fast and heavy for bush....because now we cant apply them again to pick the economy back up !!!!!

 

[Tim]

It will not cure the massive govt waste problem...that you yourself have already stated we have....nor will it increase revenues to compensate for the excessive spending.
Hell I might even agree with you....but not until the govt shows major reform on spending..will I agree to upping revenues.

Please point out where I said it would.

Please work on your reading comprehension before responding.

How much clearer can I make it? I want the tax code fixed AND reduced government waste and fraud.

 

[The Man]

Please point out where I said it would.

Please work on your reading comprehension before responding.

How much clearer can I make it? I want the tax code fixed AND reduced government waste and fraud.

Then why do you propose it if it wont cure it !!
You want the tax code fixed how?
We already have more revenue than while under Clinton...if you should be screaming anything it should be a cut for the middle class..to bring it more on par with upper and lower class.

I agree we have a tax code problem...first being to complicated..and a damn tax for everything....thus why we have such large revenues.
If I bought something from you...then you bought something from me {retail}...we just paid the govt twice...you can not piss without wanting to make a dime from it.
You cant even die peacefully.
Property taxes
Tariff
Business fees
it just goes on and on.

If all this was eliminated and we went strictly to a straight tax...it would have to be outrageous...to supply the 20 grand of spending per citizen....over 6 trillion dollars in 2011 !! {Fed state and local}
See tim state and local spending has went up as well...its fucking us just as bad.
Did I mention spending has went up 40 times since 1960 !!!!
40 times !!!!
Its not an error
Forty times !!!
And you agree to a tax hike ???? !!!!!! ???? !!!!!!
You should be ashamed .........go cut your nuts out tim :tooth
While I may be against abortion in general...I am for political cleansing.

 

[Tim]

Then why do you propose it if it wont cure it !!
You want the tax code fixed how?

If you would read my previous posts and actually understand them, then you wouldn't need to keep asking me these questions.

 

[Stone]

Then the rest of your post is meaningless.
Spending almost doubled after Clinton.
Revenues are now more than they were during clinton.
Spending got us in this problem...not tax cuts.

Who really cares what you 'think', TM?
I posted the stats on outlays and revenue compared to GDP and they don't support your conclusions.

 

[Stone]

All you have to do is look at your graph...and that explains you problem....its excessive spending.
We have increased spending 40 times since 1960.

If you want to start condoning that be my guest..you can go cut your nuts out with the rest of the morons

You're BSing the forum.....I also posted spending and revenue compared to GDP.......and Bush did not achieve your claims in an economic environment that was considerably more favorable than today's.

 

[The Man]

Who really cares what you 'think', TM?
I posted the stats on outlays and revenue compared to GDP and they don't support your conclusions.

And how will this end income inequality other than the amount shifted by tax...it wont.
The top .1 percents having the wealth...unless your propose to really tax em hard..is that your proposition?

 

[Stone]

..............................
Spending almost doubled after Clinton.
Revenues are now more than they were during clinton.
.................

Not in relation to the GDP......or can't you read a graph?

 

[The Man]

You're BSing the forum.....I also posted spending and revenue compared to GDP.......and Bush did not achieve your claims in an economic environment that was considerably more favorable than today's.

I have the graphs several places ... actual revenues are higher now than while under Clinton.
Also Obama did not end the bush tax policy when he went into office...and revenues are high..higher than ever.
Go look back several posts

 

[Stone]

And how will this end income inequality other than the amount shifted by tax...it wont.
The top .1 percents having the wealth...unless your propose to really tax em hard..is that your proposition?

It's an issue of progressive taxation, not income inequality.

The top .1 percents having the wealth.....

Having the wealth......and.....what?

......unless your propose to really tax em hard..is that your proposition?

Your inability to comprehend the written word is not my responsibility.

 

[The Man]

Not in relation to the GDP......or can't you read a graph?

GDP is related to the health of an economy...the higher the revenues percentage of GDP the greater the burden on the consumer...thus a bad thing not a good thing stone.

 

[The Man]

It's an issue of progressive taxation, not income inequality.


Having the wealth......and.....what?



Your inability to comprehend the written word is not my responsibility.

It's an issue of progressive taxation, not income inequality.

Then why did you mention income inequality in your prior post if not a concern?

Having the wealth......and.....what?

its your argument not mine.

Your inability to comprehend the written word is not my responsibility.

Then how are you going to spread the wealth?

 

[Stone]

I have the graphs several places ... actual revenues are higher now than while under Clinton.
Also Obama did not end the bush tax policy when he went into office...and revenues are high..higher than ever.
Go look back several posts

actual revenues are higher now than while under Clinton.

So is inflation.....But the relationship to GDP reflects the economic strengths of the economy, not your google argument.

Also Obama did not end the bush tax policy when he went into office...and revenues are high..higher than ever.

Not in relation to GDP.

You're pissing into the wind, TM....

 

[Stone]

Then why did you mention income inequality in your prior post if not a concern?


its your argument not mine.


Then how are you going to spread the wealth?

You've become irrational, TM.
Sincerely......you do not understand the discussion.

Your form of neo conservative corporate socialism is just as dysfunctional in a complex economic model as left wing socialism.

 

[The Man]

So is inflation.....But the relationship to GDP reflects the economic strengths of the economy, not your google argument.



Not in relation to GDP.

You're pissing into the wind, TM....

Revenue rate has exceeded the inflation rate.
A higher GDP reflects a healthy economy.
A higher revenue gain percentage wise is not good for the economy.
And to further much govt spending is actually included in the GDP...if we subtract that we actually are lowering the GDP {bad}

 

[Stone]

Please point out where I said it would.

Please work on your reading comprehension before responding.

How much clearer can I make it? I want the tax code fixed AND reduced government waste and fraud.

( ^^ posted to TM )



We aren't much different on this.
I don't have a tax plan to consider other than any increases in taxation should be spread over enough time to allow business models to adjust and not drive investment monies out of the US.
I think there should be no further expansion or creation of entitlements till the nation is once again economically safe.

 

[The Man]

You've become irrational, TM.
Sincerely......you do not understand the discussion.

Your form of neo conservative corporate socialism is just as dysfunctional in a complex economic model as left wing socialism.

I understand it fully...Govt spending has increased 40 times since 1960..Since I do not support such then label me a neo conservative socialist or whatever else comes to mind.
Truth still remains..govt spending needs addressed....then the tax code... in that order.

 

[Stone]

Revenue rate has exceeded the inflation rate.
A higher GDP reflects a healthy economy.
A higher revenue gain percentage wise is not good for the economy.
And to further much govt spending is actually included in the GDP...if we subtract that we actually are lowering the GDP {bad}

A higher GDP reflects a healthy economy.

Indeed. That's why revenues and outlays are graphed as a percentage of the GDP.

And to further much govt spending is actually included in the GDP...if we subtract that we actually are lowering the GDP {bad}

I need a translator...