Representation without Taxation

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

[Deputy Nutz]

I find those numbers quite interesting where did you find them?

[LL2]

I got the tidbit below in a email below. I usually do not read forwarded enails, but I thought the example below was funny....yet true. I just might try the experiement when I see an Obama supporter.

"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, bu t the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. "

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. When people have it happen to them they don't like the idea as much anymore.

[packinpatland]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

[Cheesehead Craig]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/30/latest-income-tax-data/

As of 2006 42.4% of households were not paying. According to that article in 1990 it was about 30%. Just curious as to where your info is coming from.

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/30/latest-income-tax-data/

As of 2006 42.4% of households were not paying. According to that article in 1990 it was about 30%. Just curious as to where your info is coming from.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/

[packinpatland]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

I'm serious too. At the lower ends, through "tax credits" etc., individuals do NOT pay taxes. This is what we have been trying to say for weeks in this forum.

It's the essence of "redistribution."

The wealthy always pay more than their "fair" share. It's all numbers. You could make an argument that some hedge fund managers are paid in dividends (at 15%) instead of Ordinary Income.....but that type of issue is NEVER brought up. It's always just simply "it ain't fair" those poeple are rich.

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=14864

[Deputy Nutz]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm serious too. At the lower ends, through "tax credits" etc., individuals do NOT pay taxes. This is what we have been trying to say for weeks in this forum.

It's the essence of "redistribution".

So you think the working poor are not pulling their weight.

Have you ever talked to ANYBODY who is getting-by working low wage jobs?

I don't doubt that they pay little or no federal income taxes, although you neglect that they pay a huge percentage of their income on social security tax compared to people who have investment income.

Our economy is built on exploitation of people. Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living for one person, and can't possibly support a family. Often with no benefits.

Income is not being redistributed to the working poor. They are being allowed to keep enough money to survive so they can continue to serve you. And if they get seriously injured or ill, they are permanently indebted and fucked for this lifetime.

[mraynrand]

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

*SIGH*

People earning the lowest incomes pay no taxes. Under the Bush tax cuts - that were for EVERY INCOME LEVEL, anywhere from 3-10 million people were taken off the tax rolls. The bottom tax bracket went from 15% to 10% tax rate on income. The richest income earners got a tax cut, but because the economy expanded and income increased for almost everyone, high income earners increased their income, and they ended up paying MORE taxes than before AT THE LOWER TAX RATE. This tax cut policy worked under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush. Obama is going to reverse the tax cuts for the top income earners and give the money directly - in the form of a check - to those who don't pay any federal income tax.

Answer this question: If you pay zero tax on your income, is it in your interest to increase taxes or decrease them? If you will be getting a check due to increased taxes and getting more public services due to increased taxes, will you support the candidate promising to increase taxes, or the one proposing to decrease taxes?

Answer this question: Do higher taxes on businesses promote business expansion or discourage expansion? If taxes on businesses in the U.S. are higher than overseas, where would you choose to place your company if all other things are relatively equal - in a country with higher taxes or lower taxes? What happens to U.S. jobs when companies go overseas?

[HowardRoark]

I'm serious too. At the lower ends, through "tax credits" etc., individuals do NOT pay taxes. This is what we have been trying to say for weeks in this forum.

It's the essence of "redistribution".

So you think the working poor are not pulling their weight.

Have you ever talked to ANYBODY who is getting-by working low wage jobs?

I don't doubt that they pay little or no federal income taxes, although you neglect that they pay a huge percentage of their income on social security tax compared to people who have investment income.

Our economy is built on exploitation of people. Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living for one person, and can't possibly support a family. Often with no benefits.

Income is not being redistributed to the working poor. They are being allowed to keep enough money to survive so they can continue to serve you. And if they get seriously injured or ill, they are permanently indebted and fucked for this lifetime.

different debate

[mraynrand]

Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living for one person, and can't possibly support a family. Often with no benefits

How many? How old are they? How long have they been in those jobs? Will they be in those jobs forever? Why are they in those jobs? What will happen to those jobs when the taxes on their employers go up?

[Harlan Huckleby]

oh, so now I have to start reading these threads before commenting? forget it, buddy.

[mraynrand]

I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney..

I notified the IRS.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living for one person, and can't possibly support a family. Often with no benefits

How many? How old are they? How long have they been in those jobs? Will they be in those jobs forever? Why are they in those jobs? What will happen to those jobs when the taxes on their employers go up?

These questions are best answered by life experience, or at least talking to people, rather than theories about taxes and invisible hands and shrugging atlases.

[mraynrand]

Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living

http://wirelessdigest.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/littlehousegarth_1.jpg

Long hours! Bare subsistence! No benefits! No retirement! No vacation days! Low wages! No health care!

[mraynrand]

Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living for one person, and can't possibly support a family. Often with no benefits

How many? How old are they? How long have they been in those jobs? Will they be in those jobs forever? Why are they in those jobs? What will happen to those jobs when the taxes on their employers go up?

These questions are best answered by life experience, or at least talking to people, rather than theories about taxes and invisible hands and shrugging atlases.

Well, then answer them. You seem to be in the know.

[HowardRoark]

I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney..

I notified the IRS.

Wait until Scott Campbell reads this.

[mraynrand]

I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney..

I notified the IRS.

Wait until Scott Campbell reads this.

Is SC and IRS agent? Is he not paying taxes?

Anyway, I don't think it worked. The IRS called back and told me they have no record of a Mr. Nutz - but they wanted to talk to me.

[packinpatland]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.


Certainly seems unfair to me. You drive on roads? Your children get educated? You sleep at night, knowing our country is protected?
Why would you boast about not paying taxes?..........seems unpatriotic.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living

http://wirelessdigest.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/littlehousegarth_1.jpg

Long hours! Bare subsistence! No benefits! No retirement! No vacation days! Low wages! No health care!


That's right. Open your eyes.

[Cheesehead Craig]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/30/latest-income-tax-data/

As of 2006 42.4% of households were not paying. According to that article in 1990 it was about 30%. Just curious as to where your info is coming from.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/
Thanks for the link Howard!

[Deputy Nutz]

I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney..

I notified the IRS.

Just when you and I were getting back together, now this. FIRE UP THE BLENDER!!!!

[Deputy Nutz]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.


Certainly seems unfair to me. You drive on roads? Your children get educated? You sleep at night, knowing our country is protected?
Why would you boast about not paying taxes?..........seems unpatriotic.

Have you ever thought about how much you actually pay in taxes that don't come in the form of income tax? It is mind boggling and it will make you sick to your stomach. I pay property tax on two, count them two properties, that should more than take care of my children's educational needs, forget to mention if I send them to private school and then I get blasted with tuition for private school and I certainly can't turn off the tap to what the locals are charging me for public education even if I think it is below standard education for the money supposedly spent. Property tax also goes to fund my local police, fire, and sewer.

Do you want to get into sales tax and other cool things like energy tax, and gas tax?

Find anything you can do this day and age that doesn't require you to have or currently paying monies into the government, whether it is local, county, state, or federal.

When my government has 700 billion dollars to give away to the corrupt banking and investment sector then no, I don't feel unpatriotic, and I sleep just fine.

Besides the income tax is unconstitutional anyways.

what about tariffs. In every other country American goods are charged a tariff before they are even allowed to unload, but hell any damn country can bring their goods into our country and pay zero tariff. That begs a lot of questions. Free trade my ass, just as long as it is coming into the United States of America.

[Freak Out]

The only way to fix it is to bring it down and start over. Dust off the Guillotines and lets get to work.

[mraynrand]

The only way to fix it is to bring it down and start over. Dust off the Guillotines and lets get to work.
Do you think you may have the wrong country? Freedom! Equality! Fraternity! then, later, Napoleon!

Does anyone know what Jefferson originally had in place of 'pursuit of happiness'

[ThunderDan]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard those stats are extremely biased. It should say did not pay any income tax to the federal government.

All wage earners pay payroll yax of 7.65% on there first $102,000 of income in 2008 after that it drops to 1.45%.

It also doesn't take into effect different segments of the business world. I have a client who usually makes $1,000,000 per year. Last year he lost $250,000 so would be classified as paying no taxes to the federal government. In fact, we completed a NOL Carryback and he received over a $60,000 refund. He still lives in his $3,000,000 house.

Then there is the gas tax that everyone with a car pays.

On top of that there is sales tax and property taxes that the state and municipalities collect.

I'm not sure what your point is but in the early 80s before the Reagan tax cut we had a 50% tax bracket and 83% of Americans were paying tax. Higher taxation led to more jobs and income to report on tax returns? :oops:

See how easy it is to manipulate statistics to say what you want.

[mraynrand]

Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living

http://wirelessdigest.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/littlehousegarth_1.jpg

Long hours! Bare subsistence! No benefits! No retirement! No vacation days! Low wages! No health care!


That's right. Open your eyes.

They are wide open and your comments are very revealing.

[mraynrand]

"There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better for worse as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried."

"But that which a man is, does always by necessity acquire, and what the man acquires, is permanent and living property, which does not wait the beck of rulers, or mobs, or revolutions, or fire, or storm, or bankruptcies, but perpetually renews itself wherever the man is put"

"A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your sick or the return of your absent friend, or some other quite external event raises your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it. It can never be so. Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles."

- From Self Reliance

[Cheesehead Craig]

The only way to fix it is to bring it down and start over. Dust off the Guillotines and lets get to work.
Do you think you may have the wrong country? Freedom! Equality! Fraternity! then, later, Napoleon!

Does anyone know what Jefferson originally had in place of 'pursuit of happiness'
In his case, I think that was about chasing around the slave women.

[wist43]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

My father doesn't pay taxes, yet "makes" over $40,000/yr - tax free.

My father is a disgusting, lazy, piece of shit who has been on the government dole for over 40 years. He has drawn a disability check from the Navy for almost 50 years.

His "disability" is supposedly from asthma... but he doesn't have asthma. What he did, is he is allergic to cats - very allergic - he put cat hair in a jar and walked around sniffing it all day.

He got himself so sick that he was able to fool the Navy Doctor, who gave him a medical discharge and 10% disability - that has since been raised to 100%.

Beyond that, he was in a car accident in which he was severely injured. He was drunk and two women died; however, since the accident technically wasn't his fault - another car crossed the center line - and they didn't routinely test blood alcohol levels back in the 60's, he was able to get onto Social Security disability - despite the fact that he can walk (although with a limp) and otherwise function normally.

After a few years, Social Security reviewed his status and informed him that he would be cut off. My fathers response was similar to what he did to get disability from the Navy - he pickled himself in a liquor bottle to the point where he ended up on the hospital, and Social Security upped his "benefits" b/c of his "disability" due to alcohol abuse.

Beyond that, he rents out small trailers on his property - property he scammed from an old man with alzheimers - and doesn't declare the income.

He's drawn many, many thousands of dollars out of everyone elses pockets, and hasn't paid a dime himself, yet he "makes" over $40,000/year.

He is a professional victim, and a professional free loader... perfectly capable of working, but has found a way to get others to pay his way. Needless to say, he loves the democratic party :)

Has always said, "if people are dumb enough to give me money for nothing, I'm smart enough to take it". Brags all time about how he doesn't have to pay taxes. Says that people who work for a living are fools.

Makes me ill just thinking about it...

Needless to say, I don't talk to my father anymore... too busy working to pay his way, and the way of every other free loader out there.

[packinpatland]

I'd rather pay my share and his, than live like that.

[mraynrand]

I'd rather pay my share and his, than live like that.

You've taken your first steps into a larger world. :D

[Fosco33]

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.

How?

Most employers pay FICA off the top and then you have to pay state/local wage tax.

Do you mean you don't have to pay more in taxes (i.e., you paid enough along the way)?

I just don't see how people don't pay taxes....

[gex]

I'm serious too. At the lower ends, through "tax credits" etc., individuals do NOT pay taxes. This is what we have been trying to say for weeks in this forum.

It's the essence of "redistribution".

So you think the working poor are not pulling their weight.

Have you ever talked to ANYBODY who is getting-by working low wage jobs?

I don't doubt that they pay little or no federal income taxes, although you neglect that they pay a huge percentage of their income on social security tax compared to people who have investment income.

Our economy is built on exploitation of people. Just look around you. So many people are working at jobs that require long hours to provide a bare subsistance living for one person, and can't possibly support a family. Often with no benefits.

Income is not being redistributed to the working poor. They are being allowed to keep enough money to survive so they can continue to serve you. And if they get seriously injured or ill, they are permanently indebted and fucked for this lifetime.

QFT

[sheepshead]

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.

How?

Most employers pay FICA off the top and then you have to pay state/local wage tax.

Do you mean you don't have to pay more in taxes (i.e., you paid enough along the way)?

I just don't see how people don't pay taxes....

Barrys talking about federal income tax. Most people with a mortgage, kids, medical bills, retirement contributions, flexible spending accounts, charitable contributions, pay little or no federal income tax when its all said and done. This is dem rhetoric we hear ever four years.

Total election year hooey.

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard those stats are extremely biased. It should say did not pay any income tax to the federal government.

All wage earners pay payroll yax of 7.65% on there first $102,000 of income in 2008 after that it drops to 1.45%.

It also doesn't take into effect different segments of the business world. I have a client who usually makes $1,000,000 per year. Last year he lost $250,000 so would be classified as paying no taxes to the federal government. In fact, we completed a NOL Carryback and he received over a $60,000 refund. He still lives in his $3,000,000 house.

Then there is the gas tax that everyone with a car pays.

On top of that there is sales tax and property taxes that the state and municipalities collect.

I'm not sure what your point is but in the early 80s before the Reagan tax cut we had a 50% tax bracket and 83% of Americans were paying tax. Higher taxation led to more jobs and income to report on tax returns? :oops:

See how easy it is to manipulate statistics to say what you want.

I guess because I mentioned the IRS I thought it was apparent that I was talking about Income Taxes. I am not trying to be a smart ass by saying that, just trying to clear it up; also for Fosco33. The Payroll taxes are there for everyone, and every employer up to $102,000. That will change after The Autobigropher is elected. But to a certain extent aren’t these really NOT even taxes? Theoretically, they are a “forced” savings plan because all of us sheep have been dumbed down to the point we can’t even figure out how to save for retirement….(buy a house, educate our kids, buy healthcare, etc, etc). So, just to be clear, I was referring to Income taxes.

I am not a CPA, but Capital losses can only be written off against Capital gains. I think you can write off $3,000 against ordinary income. As far as your client, I take you at your word. I would be interested in hearing more about how to do that though.

You actually re-make the point that a few others have made here today about all the other taxes we pay every time we turn around, or die for that matter. Kind of makes me ill when I add it all up, ends up being around 50 cents on every dollar earned.

[Deputy Nutz]

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.

How?

Most employers pay FICA off the top and then you have to pay state/local wage tax.

Do you mean you don't have to pay more in taxes (i.e., you paid enough along the way)?

I just don't see how people don't pay taxes....

Barrys talking about federal income tax. Most people with a mortgage, kids, medical bills, retirement contributions, flexible spending accounts, charitable contributions, pay little or no federal income tax when its all said and done. This is dem rhetoric we hear ever four years.

Total election year hooey.

Well lets all give Sheepshead a big round of applause, he figured it out. He is smarter than packinpatland.

Enjoy the compliment because I only hand those out to really special people.

[LL2]

This funny, either you have to have no job, or you're too wealthy to pay taxes. When was the last time that you did your taxes? Maybe you should pay more attention, because I certainly haven't paid taxes for the last 4 years and last year my wife was actually working as an attorney.

I would get a better accountant if I was you.

How?

Most employers pay FICA off the top and then you have to pay state/local wage tax.

Do you mean you don't have to pay more in taxes (i.e., you paid enough along the way)?

I just don't see how people don't pay taxes....

Barrys talking about federal income tax. Most people with a mortgage, kids, medical bills, retirement contributions, flexible spending accounts, charitable contributions, pay little or no federal income tax when its all said and done. This is dem rhetoric we hear ever four years.

Total election year hooey.

Well lets all give Sheepshead a big round of applause, he figured it out. He is smarter than packinpatland.

Enjoy the compliment because I only hand those out to really special people.


:bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

[sheepshead]

DN you really need to get a life man, honest to God. (what's Packinpatland have to do with anything?)

[Deputy Nutz]

DN you really need to get a life man, honest to God. (what's Packinpatland have to do with anything?)

She is the one who questioned how I didn't pay taxes.


By the way my life is just fine, loving every minute of it.

[HowardRoark]

Does anyone know what Jefferson originally had in place of 'pursuit of happiness'

I'm not sure, but I DO think that Obama (and a few people here) should rent the movie The Pursuit of Happyness.

[mraynrand]

Does anyone know what Jefferson originally had in place of 'pursuit of happiness'

I'm not sure, but I DO think that Obama (and a few people here) should rent the movie The Pursuit of Happyness.

The answer is: Property; "Life, Liberty and Property"

[texaspackerbacker]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard, I ask you, seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES--as long as it does NOT lead to you and others on your income level having to pay more tax?

Permit me to anticipate your answer. No, I'm NOT gonna accuse you of whining about the unfairness of it. I predict your answer will be that eliminating tax on more on the lower end (or even the negative income tax concept which Obama is pushing--which we really already have--called Earned Income Credit) actually DOES necessarily result in higher taxes for you and others on the high end.

If THAT is your position, your thinking is just like that of Obama and his kind--those who whine and rant about how you have to "pay for" tax cuts. While under Obama's redistribution scheme, it might well end up being that way--higher taxes on you and other upper income types, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!

I would be all for the low end portion of Obama's scheme--to INCLUDE the paying out of money to lower end people who already don't pay taxes. THAT could easily be done WITHOUT the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

[HowardRoark]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard, I ask you, seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES--as long as it does NOT lead to you and others on your income level having to pay more tax?

Permit me to anticipate your answer. No, I'm NOT gonna accuse you of whining about the unfairness of it. I predict your answer will be that eliminating tax on more on the lower end (or even the negative income tax concept which Obama is pushing--which we really already have--called Earned Income Credit) actually DOES necessarily result in higher taxes for you and others on the high end.

If THAT is your position, your thinking is just like that of Obama and his kind--those who whine and rant about how you have to "pay for" tax cuts. While under Obama's redistribution scheme, it might well end up being that way--higher taxes on you and other upper income types, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!

I would be all for the low end portion of Obama's scheme--to INCLUDE the paying out of money to lower end people who already don't pay taxes. THAT could easily be done WITHOUT the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Why?

1. Just to be informative.

2. Sick of hearing from The Autobiographer and his Obamaheads talking about how we need a “fairer” tax system.

3. In any given election, soon, the majority of potential voters will have no direct stake in the federal government spending responsibility. Kind of like my kids at home concerning the family budget.

[texaspackerbacker]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

Howard, I ask you, seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES--as long as it does NOT lead to you and others on your income level having to pay more tax?

Permit me to anticipate your answer. No, I'm NOT gonna accuse you of whining about the unfairness of it. I predict your answer will be that eliminating tax on more on the lower end (or even the negative income tax concept which Obama is pushing--which we really already have--called Earned Income Credit) actually DOES necessarily result in higher taxes for you and others on the high end.

If THAT is your position, your thinking is just like that of Obama and his kind--those who whine and rant about how you have to "pay for" tax cuts. While under Obama's redistribution scheme, it might well end up being that way--higher taxes on you and other upper income types, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!

I would be all for the low end portion of Obama's scheme--to INCLUDE the paying out of money to lower end people who already don't pay taxes. THAT could easily be done WITHOUT the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Why?

1. Just to be informative.

2. Sick of hearing from The Autobiographer and his Obamaheads talking about how we need a “fairer” tax system.

3. In any given election, soon, the majority of potential voters will have no direct stake in the federal government spending responsibility. Kind of like my kids at home concerning the family budget.

When I asked "Why?", I meant ECONOMICALLY why do you think it wouldn't work. It never even crossed my mind that your argument would be that non-taxpayers would abuse their vote.

I suppose you would need a Constitutional prohibition (or at very least, strict limitation) of direct government payouts to people. Those with documented need for welfare would get barely adequate non-cash benefits--like the old commodities handouts instead of food stamps and something similar with regard to housing.

It would still be the same representative government we have now, and presumably, the mix of voters would be the same as now, so IMO, the abuses you are apparently speaking of would be unlikely.

And as for government spending virtually anything else--defense, infrastructure, non-cash social programs, you name it, let it happen. That money injected would multiply, stimulate consumption, production, jobs, and more and more income--the good old Multiplier.

And no, this would NOT be socialism--not by any of the several definitions of socialism, as after the original injection of money from the government, everything would be private enterprise, just like now.

Those with the worst tax burden now should have the least complaint about a system like this, as they would have the most to gain. Liberals might argue that it is regressive, since the rich would save more money. The only way, however, that it would actually be regressive is if inflation got out of hand, and I doubt that would happen.

This is, of course, pie-in-the-sky idealism that will never happen. I'm just saying, economically speaking, it would work.

And BTW, to answer your original rhetorical question, if taxation without representation is tyranny, then the converse--representation without taxation, logically, would be the opposite of tyranny: freedom.

[mraynrand]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

[HowardRoark]

http://img.tfd.com/wiki/c/ca/Inflation-1923.jpg

[mraynrand]

The New Prosperity:


http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/printing_money.jpg

[texaspackerbacker]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

Accepting your figures of 80% over 50 years or so, that comes to about 1.6% per year--not too shabby if you ask me.

"........ falling on everyone ........" There ya go! The FAIRNESS you guys crave!

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

[Fosco33]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

Accepting your figures of 80% over 50 years or so, that comes to about 1.6% per year--not too shabby if you ask me.

"........ falling on everyone ........" There ya go! The FAIRNESS you guys crave!

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

So, you're saying go from gold standard to 'US backed standard' to really no standard. If you're serious, I'm wondering why? Do we not have enough corruption already? Do we want the gov't to essentially 'set prices' for all goods/services (as they set the monetary rate)?

Do we not also consider wage 'inflation' in the above debate as well? Or is this debate wage adjusted inflation? Sorry, not enough time to research more...

[mraynrand]

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

Your plan might be more simple, but it seems like it would achieve the same result. Instead of the government confiscating monies to use, they would print monies that would cause inflation, and devalue the money that people keep. If they print too much, inflation rises too fast relative to growth; if they print less, presumably there would be massive growth, just like if they cut spending and taxes across the board. At the level the govt. is spending now, using your scheme, those who spend the largest % of income on essentials would be hit the hardest, just like they would be hit the hardest with a 'fair' or consumption tax, that did not have a pay back up to a certain amount.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say 'this is the fairness you talk about' What is your definition of 'fair?' I personally don't think there is much fairness or possibility of fairness - life is inherently unfair and not government nor anything else can change that.

[texaspackerbacker]

In fact, when I read your thread title, it brought to mind an old idea I had--an economic model where there would be NO TAXES WHATSOEVER--no income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no tariffs, NO TAXES AT ALL. What would the government do for revenue? Just create it--print whatever money elected representatives of the people deemed necessary to spend.

You think it wouldn't work? Why? It would merely be the ultimate extension of deficit spending. There wouldn't even be a need or reason to keep track of government "debt", as the government would not "borrow" money. It would merely create it. I challenge anybody to spell out any way that wouldn't work. Inflation? Possibly some--we have some now--but not extreme. We would still have production, commerce, velocity of money, and of course, multiplied benefit of all money injected.

Thomas Sowell: " One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be.

By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. "

Accepting your figures of 80% over 50 years or so, that comes to about 1.6% per year--not too shabby if you ask me.

"........ falling on everyone ........" There ya go! The FAIRNESS you guys crave!

The thing is, if put into practice, my no-tax hypothesis should NOT be particularly inflationary at all. Why would it be?

Inflation occurs when the money supply increase faster than the economy grows. You guys surely wouldn't argue that point. And WITHOUT taxes, you would have MORE growth than now. Assuming that practically every dollar injected would result in growth--MULTIPLIED growth, there should be minimal or no inflation.

So, you're saying go from gold standard to 'US backed standard' to really no standard. If you're serious, I'm wondering why? Do we not have enough corruption already? Do we want the gov't to essentially 'set prices' for all goods/services (as they set the monetary rate)?

Do we not also consider wage 'inflation' in the above debate as well? Or is this debate wage adjusted inflation? Sorry, not enough time to research more...

I'm serious in the sense that I think the idea has merit and would work. I'm not serious in the sense that I have no expectation that anything remotely like this would ever even be tried.

Why do you think the government would "set prices"? The market would do that, same as now. It would NOT be a matter of intentionally causing inflation or even controlling it downward by either increasing or decreasing the money supply arbitrarily--at least not to any greater amount than the very limited way monetary policy is used now. It would merely be the result of carrying out the business of the government. I say again, unless government spending/increasing of the money supply occurred at a greater rate than the growth of the economy, there would be no significant inflation.

Aynrand, inflation should NOT "rise too fast relative to growth" because the spending that would tend to cause inflation would also stimulate growth.

Liberals might argue, as you say, "those who spend the largest % of income on essentials would be hit the hardest, just like they would be hit the hardest with a 'fair' or consumption tax". It's equally credible, however, to argue that the "haves"--those with savings and low-return investments would be hit the hardest.

The fact is, though, neither of those groups should be hit hard because there should NOT be any significant inflation.

[HowardRoark]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-obama-point-2221207-left-one


By 2012, it will be more than half on the dole, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the Nanny State. That is the death of the American idea – which, after all, began as an economic argument: "No taxation without representation" is a great rallying cry. "No representation without taxation" has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable, and you've got to give some of it back?

[Partial]

I've paid 27% of my income in taxes (combined) this year. That is absolutely insane.

[Cleft Crusty]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-obama-point-2221207-left-one


By 2012, it will be more than half on the dole, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the Nanny State. That is the death of the American idea – which, after all, began as an economic argument: "No taxation without representation" is a great rallying cry. "No representation without taxation" has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable, and you've got to give some of it back?

When do I get my monies? Clefty is very sick and in need of lots of healthcare.

[bobblehead]

If Taxation without Representation is tyranny, what is Representation without Taxation?

According to IRS data, in the early 1980’s, 17% of the public did not pay any taxes to the Federal Government. By 1990 that number was up to 21%. 1993, it was 24%......01 it was 27%....04 it was 33%.

Under Obama’s plan it will hit 44%. By 2014, it will hit the 50% level.

How is it again that you cook a frog?

What/who makes up the ones that are not paying taxes?

The "Ones" that we have been waiting for.

I am seriously trying to understand this. If you're not paying taxes, then you must not be employed. Or you're wealthy enough to afford loopholes.
Which is it?

seriously...you have been spouting off about palins wardrobe and you don't know this most basic political/tax reality??? Honestly you should have remained silent and let us think you're a fool...instead you spoke up and removed all doubt.

[mraynrand]

I am in favor of a Golden Standard.

[bobblehead]

tex, I'll ask you again to follow your logic to an end. If printing money isn't inflationary then why not print 1 million for everyone in america??

If tax rates can always be cut and result in a net gain then why not cut them to zero?

I've answered both questions 100 times and you still don't listen, I want to hear your answers.

[texaspackerbacker]

tex, I'll ask you again to follow your logic to an end. If printing money isn't inflationary then why not print 1 million for everyone in america??

If tax rates can always be cut and result in a net gain then why not cut them to zero?

I've answered both questions 100 times and you still don't listen, I want to hear your answers.

I'll take the second one first. I am on record advocating (although I know it will never happen) exactly that: no taxes whatsoever. I challenge anyone to prove or even state reasonably why that would not work.

As for the first question, I never stated "no inflation". I just stated there would be no excessive or unreasonable inflation. Obviously, to the extent that you stretch the concept way out of proportion, you do get excessive inflation.

A no tax scenario--starting out with a base money supply--sets the base value of the money--forget the "million dollars per person" thing unless you want to define the price for a loaf of bread as a thousand dollars or whatever. Then, let government spending happen as needed for defense, security, block grants to state and local governments, and whatever other spending a legislature representing the people decides. The money injected would result in growth multiplied as described by Keynes. There theoretically should be no inflation at all, maybe even deflation, as economic growth--growth in GDP--outstrips the growth in the money supply--keeping in mind that the P in GDP is Product i.e. production--increased dollars, but those more dollars competing for even more greatly increased goods and services. At worst, there would be a small and manageable amount of inflation--a very small price to pay for the absence of taxation.

The fairness crowd should like this concept, as whatever inflation does occur affects people equally across the income level spectrum--as opposed to the progressive taxation we have now--and if Obama gets his way, will have in a worse way.

I'd really like to hear some specifics about why you or others think this wouldn't work, Bobblehead. Apologies if you have already done that and I missed it. If that's the case, please repost it.

[bobblehead]

But tex..how are we going to pay for all the wonderful programs that "compassionate conservatives" and "shit sucking liberals" espouse. Currently gov't spends over 20% of GDP per year. Do you really think your plan can come up with that kind of spending power without causing massive inflation and unmanageable debt??

[mraynrand]

But tex..how are we going to pay for all the wonderful programs that "compassionate conservatives" and "shit sucking liberals" espouse. Currently gov't spends over 20% of GDP per year. Do you really think your plan can come up with that kind of spending power without causing massive inflation and unmanageable debt??

At least Tex seems to acknowledge that at some threshold his wonderful multiplier would see diminishing returns from inflationary pressures. Just exactly where is that threshold, I wonder?

[bobblehead]

But tex..how are we going to pay for all the wonderful programs that "compassionate conservatives" and "shit sucking liberals" espouse. Currently gov't spends over 20% of GDP per year. Do you really think your plan can come up with that kind of spending power without causing massive inflation and unmanageable debt??

At least Tex seems to acknowledge that at some threshold his wonderful multiplier would see diminishing returns from inflationary pressures. Just exactly where is that threshold, I wonder?

19% taxation begins to do more damage than good...several economic experts have said so and several studies have backed it up. Problem is that the 19% number assumes infrastructure spending and other beneficial spending, not transfer of wealth payments.