quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

Turns out "some things" are a huge hit to the middle class, not to mention the self-employed. These are significant increases... wouldn't you agree?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

Turns out "some things" are a huge hit to the middle class, not to mention the self-employed. These are significant increases... wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't.

The U.S. is vastly under taxed. Evidence is in all the shit we want but refuse to pay for.

Where tax increases are unfair is....on those who pay nothing (yeah I know...poor pay sales tax, car taxes, gas taxes....so do the wealthy).

When the 50 some odd % who pay nothing (federally), are paying 20% of the base as they were prior to Reagan....then I'll agree we're taxing equitably.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Aw, you don't like it when your ignoring context is questioned?
The roling eyes were to point out that you are arguing with yourself.
No one but you ignored context.
Perhaps you should actually read what I post and post in response to that instead of non issues that you think you can successfully defend.

Actually, you completely missed the context. I was not the one that put the hypothetical out. That was joether. You took my response without taking the assumptions given by the post I was responding to. You were unable to follow my response because you weren't looking at it in the context it was answered. But, hey. That's fine, a guy's got to know his limitations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Aw, you don't like it when your ignoring context is questioned?
The roling eyes were to point out that you are arguing with yourself.
No one but you ignored context.
Perhaps you should actually read what I post and post in response to that instead of non issues that you think you can successfully defend.

Actually, you completely missed the context. I was not the one that put the hypothetical out. That was joether. You took my response without taking the assumptions given by the post I was responding to. You were unable to follow my response because you weren't looking at it in the context it was answered. But, hey. That's fine, a guy's got to know his limitations.

Obviously one of us believes that moronic drivel.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

Turns out "some things" are a huge hit to the middle class, not to mention the self-employed. These are significant increases... wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't.

The U.S. is vastly under taxed. Evidence is in all the shit we want but refuse to pay for.

Where tax increases are unfair is....on those who pay nothing (yeah I know...poor pay sales tax, car taxes, gas taxes....so do the wealthy).

When the 50 some odd % who pay nothing (federally), are paying 20% of the base as they were prior to Reagan....then I'll agree we're taxing equitably.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but do you mean that there would be no tax equity until everyone pays at least 20 % of their income or 20% of their adjusted gross income?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

Turns out "some things" are a huge hit to the middle class, not to mention the self-employed. These are significant increases... wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't.

The U.S. is vastly under taxed. Evidence is in all the shit we want but refuse to pay for.

Where tax increases are unfair is....on those who pay nothing (yeah I know...poor pay sales tax, car taxes, gas taxes....so do the wealthy).

When the 50 some odd % who pay nothing (federally), are paying 20% of the base as they were prior to Reagan....then I'll agree we're taxing equitably.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but do you mean that there would be no tax equity until everyone pays at least 20 % of their income or 20% of their adjusted gross income?

No.

What I said is what I meant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There are a number of alternative currencies in the US. The best known one is probably Ithaca Hours. Online there is the virtual currency bitcoin which shows promise as a bank independent means of exchange.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

Central planning presupposes that the government knows best... yes, its bad unless you prefer to be told what to eat, how to eat it and how many times you should chew before swallowing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

Central planning presupposes that the government knows best... yes, its bad unless you prefer to be told what to eat, how to eat it and how many times you should chew before swallowing.

None. You should chew NO times before swallowing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

That answers the question, thank you. You are speaking of raising taxes, specific to the USA, but the contect of your thread does not take into account "when the USA catches a cold, the world sneezes". Which is fair and your right to do. But whatever the government officials do, choose to do, that irritates you, as a USA citizen, is not limited in effect to you and the USA. Policies change elsewhere depending on what changes USA government enacts, bot in terms of state and fed.

It's like half-wit Hollywood execs looking at a TV show that's a hit in London and trying to make that show "translate" to USA audiences under the aegis of some dipshit wannabe frat boy writer/director who's never been farther away from LA than Aspen, for the skiing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

I cannot argue that, but at the same time, I think that when you look at certain problems that only can be combatted via a tax-funded initiative, such as rampant onslaughts of type 2 diabetes, which affect a large portion of the bulk of the work force, one has to look at socialized medicine in a new way and accept that 5 years ago arguments could have been different and valid, but now, thanks to the fact that nobody has been very honest in capitalist culture at all about "what-makes-money=diabetes which in turn augments deficit unless loss of productivity and subsequent loss to tax-bases" is taken into account. and it's not.

I mean hey, I am a creative guy, and an artistic guy, with published credits on my resume, and I'd be the first person to say "Let's stop talking about this-tax or that-tax and just look first at how much money would be saved by TEMPORARILY nixing any art grants or subsidies for people that basicaly wanna piss in a jar containing a crucifix".

I doubt I need to explain that.

You might think that would be a drop in the bucket (pun intended) but it's not. It's actually HUGE amount of money when you cut out the $$ given to paper-pushers who are paid a TOO HIGH salary to argue the case of 'art' that's nothing more than collected garbage (literally) packed and repackaged in the most offensive form (which takes no artistic talent at all) and then having $$$ thrown at it because someone is terrified that a politico beholden ti the "Glee-Tastic" voting blocks will get - -

WAIT FOR IT, WAIT FOR THE PUN - -

"pissed off".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DsBound

I fully understand the ripple... But I also know our country is 17 trillion in the hole, we havent had a budget since 07/08 and our dollar is worth squat.
IMHO the most efficient economies are those where theres less government intervention.

Our current leaderships (both parties) are cramming services down our throats, that a vast majority does not want, nor want to pay for.