Why Bush was so bad at the end of his term...

[Binderpower]

Hey suns, why don't you take a lesson from Britain,

More Proof that Taxing the Rich Is a Fool's Errand

Why don't you look other stuff out there?

Breaking Tax and U. S. Budget News [Compiled by NDAC]

[Suns_PSD]

Originally Posted by PsRumors

He's a politician.....what do you expect?

Cost of War in the U.S.

$1.3 Trillion over 10+ years

Cost of Bush Tax Cuts that "should" expire

$1.03 Trillion over 10+ years

Bush prescription plan cost

$60 billion per year

So $293 billion per year if you believe the numbers

Based upon the historical numbers here Bush would have had a $3.4 trillion deficit if he is given "credit" for the '02 through '09 budget, of course Obama signed significant spending bills (bailout) in '09.

Of the $3.4 trillion deficit, $2.3 trillion is war, RX drugs and tax cuts, the remaining deficit can be attributed to the bailouts he & Obama signed, or pretty darn close.

This is a bad legacy to leave......

Now, going back to here, in '10 the spending deficit was $1.15 trillion dollars If you take out the $293 billion from the "wars, unfunded tax cuts and RX drugs" where is the other $857 billion? How about '11, where is the other $834 billion?

If we take out the Bush "wars, unfunded tax cuts and RX drugs" we still have nearly a TRILLION DOLLAR deficit yearly to deal with.

Now, if one prescribes to the notion that by 2015 receipts will catch back up and we will be running a "normal" half billion dollar a year deficit again we still have to deal with $19 trillion dollars of debt (est for 2015).

At some point we will have to have a budget that isn't just revenue neutral but actually revenue positive or we will continue to accrue massive amounts of debt.

So when do we deal with this mess?

Another great post.

[Suns_PSD]

Originally Posted by Binderpower

Hey suns, why don't you take a lesson from Britain,

More Proof that Taxing the Rich Is a Fool's Errand

Why don't you look other stuff out there?

Breaking Tax and U. S. Budget News [Compiled by NDAC]

Binder, tax policy is more complicated than that,

There is no doubt that taxing people way too much actually reduces taxable money for several reasons. More hiding of money, stronger underground economy, less people working, etc...

There is also no doubt that cutting taxes to very low levels does not increase tax revenue past a certain point.

The key is to find a middle ground. Using Britain as your standard when they already have a tax rate 2x ours, is just ignorant.

[Binderpower]

Originally Posted by Suns_PSD

Binder, tax policy is more complicated than that,

There is no doubt that taxing people way too much actually reduces taxable money for several reasons. More hiding of money, stronger underground economy, less people working, etc...

There is also no doubt that cutting taxes to very low levels does not increase tax revenue past a certain point.

The key is to find a middle ground. Using Britain as your standard when they already have a tax rate 2x ours, is just ignorant.

no it is not ignorant, cause that is the direction we will be heading if we don't spearhead this problem quick!

Anytime I post anything, you and several others jump and get all defensive right away and call me every name in the book. Fine, I can accept that. But instead of pounce, why not do what you just stated and find middle ground or common ground. Gov't spends more than it is taken in, and if you raise someones taxes, what do you think will be effect. This is a 'cause and effect' scenario. A) work less, B) make less, C) find additional tax shelters, D) move out of the country. Make if fair, that is all we want! Don't just look at percentages, look at what the people are really paying in.

It just not right for one man to pay 1 million in taxes and another to receive $1,000. It all goes back to incentives. there is no incentive to work harder and make more nowadays. Cause the more you make, the more they take! Some of you have to get that thru your skulls.

[Suns_PSD]

Nothing you say makes sense.

What is really funny is that you believe that a working guy like you, who frankly doesn't make much (according to you, although I suspect you were actually bragging) is going to be served in any way by current Republican policy direction.

People that make WAY more money than you ever will, will in fact get tax cuts all while programs that provide healthcare, police protection, and many other Federal services will get cut dramatically, all while still increasing the deficit even further.

Frankly, myself, Blow_by (long time reader, but no longer a poster), Gandy, CSIPSD, and maybe a couple of others are the only ones that would actually benefit from the taxation objectives of the Republican party. Guys like you will suffer greatly. There will be less services available to your family, less shovel ready jobs in your community, less infrastructure development, less people that can afford to buy your products, etc...and all of that will wash down to you, the $10/ hour guy. That's not a jab, it's just facts. And the cuts that have been suggested, no one on the Republican side has said how they will pay for any of it. So it's certainly not good for our deficit.

It is completely fair if one person pays 1000x more in tax revenue than another, if they in fact make 1000x more money. So when I'm sitting over hear doing anything I can to ONLY pay a 35% (just an example) total tax rate this year it's pretty offensive to me that Mitt only pays 12% (the one year he released, I can only imagine it's much lower or he wouldn't be hiding the rest of them to the great detriment of his campaign.

[Binderpower]

Originally Posted by Suns_PSD

Nothing you say makes sense.

What is really funny is that you believe that a working guy like you, who frankly doesn't make much (according to you, although I suspect you were actually bragging) is going to be served in any way by current Republican policy direction.

People that make WAY more money than you ever will, will in fact get tax cuts all while programs that provide healthcare, police protection, and many other Federal services will get cut dramatically, all while still increasing the deficit even further.

Frankly, myself, Blow_by (long time reader, but no longer a poster), Gandy, CSIPSD, and maybe a couple of others are the only ones that would actually benefit from the taxation objectives of the Republican party. Guys like you will suffer greatly. There will be less services available to your family, less shovel ready jobs in your community, less infrastructure development, less people that can afford to buy your products, etc...and all of that will wash down to you, the $10/ hour guy. That's not a jab, it's just facts. And the cuts that have been suggested, no one on the Republican side has said how they will pay for any of it. So it's certainly not good for our deficit.

It is completely fair if one person pays 1000x more in tax revenue than another, if they in fact make 1000x more money. So when I'm sitting over hear doing anything I can to ONLY pay a 35% (just an example) total tax rate this year it's pretty offensive to me that Mitt only pays 12% (the one year he released, I can only imagine it's much lower or he wouldn't be hiding the rest of them to the great detriment of his campaign.

Yes it does make sense. The more you make the more they take. This is not rocket science. It isn't so much the paying, it is the spending! We have to stop spending more than we take in on a daily basis, monthly basis and a yearly basis. That is how you get ahead. Not the other way around, cause sooner or later, you file bankruptcy and then everyone is screwed!

[Suns_PSD]

What the hell does that (which by the way everyone agrees on!) have to do with how the rich have access to tax shelters and therefore some don't pay a fair share of their income in Federal taxes? Nothing that's what.

Republicans are talking about giving tax breaks to the wealthy in the 6 & 7 figure range, while giving you no tax break and to have many of your public services go away or just to be weaker.

What part of the FACT that Obama lowered taxes on guys like you don't you understand? Which part of the FACT that Republicans have blocked extension of these cuts continuing in the future, to the direct detriment of your own well being?

I don't know why I bother explaining things to you. My totally selfish side WANTS Romney to win for the tax free inheritance taxes that I would eventually receive if Mitt was elected.

[Campspringsjohn]

In defense of the republicans, (and I hate to do this) is they want to continue the Bush tax cuts which benefit everybody across the board. Also, something that has not been mentioned in this thread, unless I missed it, is that obamacare is going to raise everybody's taxes.

Most of the "services" provided by the federal government should be left to the individual states and communities. Not run by the feds. Our federal government was meant to be the least powerful of all the governments in the country. (think libertarian or constitutionalists)

And why should we pay an inheritance tax?? Who's stupid idea was that? How likely is it that congress will give that up??

[Binderpower]

Originally Posted by Campspringsjohn

In defense of the republicans, (and I hate to do this) is they want to continue the Bush tax cuts which benefit everybody across the board. Also, something that has not been mentioned in this thread, unless I missed it, is that obamacare is going to raise everybody's taxes.

Most of the "services" provided by the federal government should be left to the individual states and communities. Not run by the feds. Our federal government was meant to be the least powerful of all the governments in the country. (think libertarian or constitutionalists)

And why should we pay an inheritance tax?? Who's stupid idea was that? How likely is it that congress will give that up??

With this, I will gladly, shake your hand. Why can't we first find common ground to work off of???

[Bama]

As much fun as it is to watch y'all throw rocks at each other. Lol. The whole country needs to come to a common ground. Or we are doomed. I am all for the flat tax. No madder how much you make. Everyone pays the same percentage. I am sick of seeing people pay in 1200 a yr in taxes and get back 6000.00. Because of earned credit. Don't get me wrong I use every shelter I can come up
With. But I still pay about 15% in fed. With the flat tax. No one gets payed for being lazy and no one get penalized for working there butt off to better thereselfves.