Discussion:
Even the French have realized
(too old to reply)
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 13:49:46 UTC
Permalink
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed

http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 13:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 13:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
Yup - that's the same one that's not getting renewed
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 14:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
Yup - that's the same one that's not getting renewed
As long as we're aware it was always meant to be temporary.

As far as it failing to meet its revenue goals, I find it interesting that instead of doing something about tax avoidance, which was clearly the problem, instead they're just throwing up their hands and trying for something vaguely claimed to be "business-friendly". Even the deep-linked article mentions that the mass emigration didn't happen, so the top earners are still living in France.

But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 14:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
Yup - that's the same one that's not getting renewed
As long as we're aware it was always meant to be temporary.
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Post by a***@gmail.com
As far as it failing to meet its revenue goals, I find it interesting that instead of doing something about tax avoidance, which was clearly the problem, instead they're just throwing up their hands and trying for something vaguely claimed to be "business-friendly". Even the deep-linked article mentions that the mass emigration didn't happen, so the top earners are still living in France.
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-01-05 14:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
Yup - that's the same one that's not getting renewed
As long as we're aware it was always meant to be temporary.
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Post by a***@gmail.com
As far as it failing to meet its revenue goals, I find it
interesting that instead of doing something about tax avoidance,
which was clearly the problem, instead they're just throwing up
their hands and trying for something vaguely claimed to be "business-
friendly". Even the deep-linked article mentions that the mass
emigration didn't happen, so the top earners are still living in
France.
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to
evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
As far as "mass emigration", I know that there was constant worry and griping about
the numbers of young French professionals relocating to the UK. It may not have been
"mass", but the complaint was that it was many of the best and brightest. (Makes sense,
since they are the ones hit hardest by the tax.)
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 14:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
Yup - that's the same one that's not getting renewed
As long as we're aware it was always meant to be temporary.
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
As far as it failing to meet its revenue goals, I find it interesting that instead of doing something about tax avoidance, which was clearly the problem, instead they're just throwing up their hands and trying for something vaguely claimed to be "business-friendly". Even the deep-linked article mentions that the mass emigration didn't happen, so the top earners are still living in France.
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
If you're benefitting from government services, I'd prefer you to pay your taxes. If not, GTFO, and renounce your citizenship. It's not like it's not just as easy for the French government to actually enforce these tax laws.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Actually, a radical idea would be for the government to just shut down for a while, and spend a *lot* less.

Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks were *crying* for the government to re-open.

Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-01-05 15:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
Just wow.

I'm willing to entertain the opinion that Governments (plural) are under funded, if you're willing to entertain the idea that government (lower case) should be decentralized, no more Soviet Central Planning.

I'm predisposed to believing that indeed government (lower case) is vastly overfunded, though.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 16:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
Just wow.
I know, right? That people would actually argue such a thing without even considering the *possibility* that they might be wrong?
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
I'm willing to entertain the opinion that Governments (plural) are under funded, if you're willing to entertain the idea that government (lower case) should be decentralized, no more Soviet Central Planning.
Oh, I'm more than willing to entertain that idea. Problem is, where has it ever been successfully implemented?
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
I'm predisposed to believing that indeed government (lower case) is vastly overfunded, though.
At what point will government stop being overfunded, though? Effective corporate tax rates are at or near record lows, and individual income tax rates are at their lowest points in 60 years. If government were to be run as a business, when do you as a shareholder ever admit that revenue isn't keeping up with demand and do something about it?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-01-05 16:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
Just wow.
I know, right? That people would actually argue such a thing without even considering the *possibility* that they might be wrong?
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
I'm willing to entertain the opinion that Governments (plural) are
under funded, if you're willing to entertain the idea that government
(lower case) should be decentralized, no more Soviet Central
Planning.
Oh, I'm more than willing to entertain that idea. Problem is, where
has it ever been successfully implemented?
The United States of America. Lower tax burden and less federal government,
and a wildly more successful economy than the rest of the world, especially
considering its population growth and demographic mix.
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 16:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
Just wow.
I know, right? That people would actually argue such a thing without even considering the *possibility* that they might be wrong?
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
I'm willing to entertain the opinion that Governments (plural) are
under funded, if you're willing to entertain the idea that government
(lower case) should be decentralized, no more Soviet Central
Planning.
Oh, I'm more than willing to entertain that idea. Problem is, where
has it ever been successfully implemented?
The United States of America. Lower tax burden and less federal government,
and a wildly more successful economy than the rest of the world, especially
considering its population growth and demographic mix.
If you think the United States of America is decentralized, I have a bridge in New York and some swampland in Florida to sell you. For a dollar. For both.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-01-05 17:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
Just wow.
I know, right? That people would actually argue such a thing without even considering the *possibility* that they might be wrong?
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
I'm willing to entertain the opinion that Governments (plural) are
under funded, if you're willing to entertain the idea that government
(lower case) should be decentralized, no more Soviet Central
Planning.
Oh, I'm more than willing to entertain that idea. Problem is, where
has it ever been successfully implemented?
The United States of America. Lower tax burden and less federal government,
and a wildly more successful economy than the rest of the world, especially
considering its population growth and demographic mix.
If you think the United States of America is decentralized, I have a
bridge in New York and some swampland in Florida to sell you. For a
dollar. For both.
That's a pretty ridiculous pooh-poohing. The U.S. spends only 60% of
the amount spent by the rest of the developed world. And only 50% of
that is spent by the federal portion of government. That means that
the U.S. federal government spends only one-third of the amount spent
by the majority of other OECD countries. Its econonmy is much more
decentralized, and is more dynamic as a result.
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second
time you make it. -- unknown
Futbol Phan
2015-01-05 19:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
Just wow.
I know, right? That people would actually argue such a thing without even considering the *possibility* that they might be wrong?
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
I'm willing to entertain the opinion that Governments (plural) are
under funded, if you're willing to entertain the idea that government
(lower case) should be decentralized, no more Soviet Central
Planning.
Oh, I'm more than willing to entertain that idea. Problem is, where
has it ever been successfully implemented?
The United States of America. Lower tax burden and less federal government,
and a wildly more successful economy than the rest of the world, especially
considering its population growth and demographic mix.
As our infrastructure -- roads, bridges, etc. -- falls apart because there is no money to pay for it.

When more bridges collapse and highways become unusable perhaps people will come to realize that it costs money to maintain the great system we have built.
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-01-05 15:09:47 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:36:55 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
And here's the elitist predisposition that thinks that money is the Government's to use as it sees fit and we should clap like seals when the Government deigns to throw a few of OUR OWN alms our way.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 16:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:36:55 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
And here's the elitist predisposition that thinks that money is the Government's to use as it sees fit and we should clap like seals when the Government deigns to throw a few of OUR OWN alms our way.
And here's the ridiculous logic that thinks that governments should run for free and that taxes are somehow a burden rather than a societal obligation. Newsflash: Once you pay taxes, the money is no longer YOURS.
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-01-05 16:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:36:55 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
And here's the elitist predisposition that thinks that money is the Government's to use as it sees fit and we should clap like seals when the Government deigns to throw a few of OUR OWN alms our way.
And here's the ridiculous logic that thinks that governments should run for free and that taxes are somehow a burden rather than a societal obligation. Newsflash: Once you pay taxes, the money is no longer YOURS.
You're making my point--Warren Buffett aside, no one is volunteering to pay taxes. And the public has practically no say-so in defining the society any longer, so the 'societal obligation' is a chimera.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 17:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:36:55 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
And here's the elitist predisposition that thinks that money is the Government's to use as it sees fit and we should clap like seals when the Government deigns to throw a few of OUR OWN alms our way.
And here's the ridiculous logic that thinks that governments should run for free and that taxes are somehow a burden rather than a societal obligation. Newsflash: Once you pay taxes, the money is no longer YOURS.
You're making my point--Warren Buffett aside, no one is volunteering to pay taxes.
Nobody *likes* to pay taxes, but it has to be done. And you're wrong:

http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/millionaires-support-raising-taxes/
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
And the public has practically no say-so in defining the society any longer, so the 'societal obligation' is a chimera.
The public has been systematically disenfranchised, primarily by the very people who beat the "lower taxes and cut spending" drum. But the societal obligation still exists, whether you like it or not. You can't have a society without it.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 17:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:36:55 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
And here's the elitist predisposition that thinks that money is the Government's to use as it sees fit and we should clap like seals when the Government deigns to throw a few of OUR OWN alms our way.
And here's the ridiculous logic that thinks that governments should run for free and that taxes are somehow a burden rather than a societal obligation. Newsflash: Once you pay taxes, the money is no longer YOURS.
You're making my point--Warren Buffett aside, no one is volunteering to pay taxes.
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/millionaires-support-raising-taxes/
You missed Damon's point - they're not actually voluntarily paying extra taxes.

Some may make lip service about it - and why not? After all, they'll certainly get various loopholes codified and they're already able to shelter much of it - but voluntarily pay? Pshaw.....that'd mean they'd have to walk the talk

Ain't nothing stopping Warren Buffet from paying his secretary's tax rate other than his pen.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 20:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:36:55 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
And here's the elitist predisposition that thinks that money is the Government's to use as it sees fit and we should clap like seals when the Government deigns to throw a few of OUR OWN alms our way.
And here's the ridiculous logic that thinks that governments should run for free and that taxes are somehow a burden rather than a societal obligation. Newsflash: Once you pay taxes, the money is no longer YOURS.
You're making my point--Warren Buffett aside, no one is volunteering to pay taxes.
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/millionaires-support-raising-taxes/
You missed Damon's point - they're not actually voluntarily paying extra taxes.
I didn't miss it. Voluntary taxes are about as useful as non-government charity. It fills in some of the gaps but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. So bringing it up as some sort of answer to the problem of under-taxation is ridiculous at worst, and utterly moot at best.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Some may make lip service about it - and why not?
I love how one group can be passionate about something, but another group is only "making lip service". C'mon.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
After all, they'll certainly get various loopholes codified and they're already able to shelter much of it - but voluntarily pay? Pshaw.....that'd mean they'd have to walk the talk
Know how I know you didn't really read the article?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Ain't nothing stopping Warren Buffet from paying his secretary's tax rate other than his pen.
See my previous comments.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 20:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:36:55 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
There are few things in life as permanent as a temporary gov't program
Heh. The Bush tax cuts say hi.
And here's the elitist predisposition that thinks that money is the Government's to use as it sees fit and we should clap like seals when the Government deigns to throw a few of OUR OWN alms our way.
And here's the ridiculous logic that thinks that governments should run for free and that taxes are somehow a burden rather than a societal obligation. Newsflash: Once you pay taxes, the money is no longer YOURS.
You're making my point--Warren Buffett aside, no one is volunteering to pay taxes.
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/taxes/millionaires-support-raising-taxes/
You missed Damon's point - they're not actually voluntarily paying extra taxes.
I didn't miss it. Voluntary taxes are about as useful as non-government charity. It fills in some of the gaps but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. So bringing it up as some sort of answer to the problem of under-taxation is ridiculous at worst, and utterly moot at best.
And the symbolism is quite powerful
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Some may make lip service about it - and why not?
I love how one group can be passionate about something, but another group is only "making lip service". C'mon.
Well, without actually doing what they advocate for others, they're only paying lip service.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
After all, they'll certainly get various loopholes codified and they're already able to shelter much of it - but voluntarily pay? Pshaw.....that'd mean they'd have to walk the talk
Know how I know you didn't really read the article?
I did - I saw nothing in there about the rich actually voluntarily paying more - saying a survey that said some support it - along with some reasons why they might "say" that - like guilt, etc.

Furthermore, you should feel very cautious when the uberrich advocate for higher taxes - they can afford to hire tax specialists which minimize the impact to themselves - which means that you and I end up paying for their altruistic impulses.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Ain't nothing stopping Warren Buffet from paying his secretary's tax rate other than his pen.
See my previous comments.
Well - has he? If it bothers Uncle Warren that much, step it up - write the check - publicize it, make it a movement.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-01-05 18:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
The public has been systematically disenfranchised,
The free-loading trash who refuse to work and collect based on the
production of their bastards is doing very well. It's the tax-payer
public that is being systematically disenfranchised.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But the societal obligation still exists, whether you like it or not. You can't have a society without it.
It surely does. And it works tolerably well when a competent,
responsible individual sits where the buck stops. Those who fail to
recognize that are most likely the ones mentioned in my above
response.

Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-01-05 15:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks =
were *crying* for the government to re-open.=20
A funny thing happened in November as a result. The shutdown won.

Hugh
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 15:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
If you're benefitting from government services, I'd prefer you to pay your taxes. If not, GTFO, and renounce your citizenship. It's not like it's not just as easy for the French government to actually enforce these tax laws.
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Actually, a radical idea would be for the government to just shut down for a while, and spend a *lot* less.
Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks were *crying* for the government to re-open.
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
considering that the majority of gov't expenditures are now transfer payments, no.

Standards, legal framework, infrastructure, etc, yes.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 16:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
If you're benefitting from government services, I'd prefer you to pay your taxes. If not, GTFO, and renounce your citizenship. It's not like it's not just as easy for the French government to actually enforce these tax laws.
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Actually, a radical idea would be for the government to just shut down for a while, and spend a *lot* less.
Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks were *crying* for the government to re-open.
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
considering that the majority of gov't expenditures are now transfer payments, no.
Well. Not only is that factually incorrect, it also includes spending that has *zero* effect on the deficit.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Standards, legal framework, infrastructure, etc, yes.
And yet standards have been relaxed, legal framework has not kept up with the times, and our infrastructure is crumbling around our ears.

But hey, the Army's getting more Abrams tanks they don't want!
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-01-05 16:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
I agree. Everyone should pay taxes. The only thing worse than taxation without representation is...representation without taxation.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 17:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
I agree. Everyone should pay taxes. The only thing worse than taxation without representation is...representation without taxation.
And once again we have to go through the BS where you guys pretend that that 50% paying no federal *income* tax is paying no federal taxes, when in fact they still *are*. And I also will point out that these people aren't paying income tax thanks in part to low taxation folk like *you*, and in no small part because they don't make enough *money*.

If you're going to be in this argument, and especially if you're going to use snark, you have to use real facts, too.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-01-05 17:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
I agree. Everyone should pay taxes. The only thing worse than taxation without representation is...representation without taxation.
And once again we have to go through the BS where you guys pretend
that that 50% paying no federal *income* tax is paying no federal
taxes, when in fact they still *are*.
What taxes might those be? Do you mean "payroll taxes"? That's BS. It
is paying for your retirement and medical program. Direct benefits accrued
and not means-tested. That isn't a tax.

That is, if they work at all. For the lazy do-nothings that don't work,
they don't even pay that. Not to mention the cheaters who pull in a
government check then work for cash, of which there are many.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And I also will point out that these people aren't paying income tax
thanks in part to low taxation folk like *you*, and in no small part
because they don't make enough *money*.
And why would that be? Could it be that they are raised by single mothers
and no-account fathers who pay no attention to the development of their
children?

My children make enough money to pay taxes. Of course they weren't
abandoned so that I could draw welfare, either.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you're going to be in this argument, and especially if you're going
to use snark, you have to use real facts, too.
Facts? If we're constrained by that, you'll have nothing left. Your
supposed "facts" above are not.
--
I have a cop friend who thinks he ought be able to give a new ticket;
"too dumb for conditions".
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 20:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
I agree. Everyone should pay taxes. The only thing worse than taxation without representation is...representation without taxation.
And once again we have to go through the BS where you guys pretend
that that 50% paying no federal *income* tax is paying no federal
taxes, when in fact they still *are*.
What taxes might those be? Do you mean "payroll taxes"? That's BS. It
is paying for your retirement and medical program. Direct benefits accrued
and not means-tested. That isn't a tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That is, if they work at all. For the lazy do-nothings that don't work,
they don't even pay that. Not to mention the cheaters who pull in a
government check then work for cash, of which there are many.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
And I also will point out that these people aren't paying income tax
thanks in part to low taxation folk like *you*, and in no small part
because they don't make enough *money*.
And why would that be? Could it be that they are raised by single mothers
and no-account fathers who pay no attention to the development of their
children?
My children make enough money to pay taxes. Of course they weren't
abandoned so that I could draw welfare, either.
The welfare queen myth again? Good Lord.

These people don't make enough money because their jobs don't pay enough. It's really just that simple.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you're going to be in this argument, and especially if you're going
to use snark, you have to use real facts, too.
Facts? If we're constrained by that, you'll have nothing left. Your
supposed "facts" above are not.
Whatever you say, dude.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-01-06 00:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
I agree. Everyone should pay taxes. The only thing worse than taxation without representation is...representation without taxation.
And once again we have to go through the BS where you guys pretend
that that 50% paying no federal *income* tax is paying no federal
taxes, when in fact they still *are*.
What taxes might those be? Do you mean "payroll taxes"? That's BS. It
is paying for your retirement and medical program. Direct benefits accrued
and not means-tested. That isn't a tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax
The Affordable Care Act isn't affordable, and the Federal Insurance
Contributions Tax isn't a tax. Your liberal doublespeak will do you
no good.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That is, if they work at all. For the lazy do-nothings that don't work,
they don't even pay that. Not to mention the cheaters who pull in a
government check then work for cash, of which there are many.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
And I also will point out that these people aren't paying income tax
thanks in part to low taxation folk like *you*, and in no small part
because they don't make enough *money*.
And why would that be? Could it be that they are raised by single mothers
and no-account fathers who pay no attention to the development of their
children?
My children make enough money to pay taxes. Of course they weren't
abandoned so that I could draw welfare, either.
The welfare queen myth again? Good Lord.
It isn't a myth when it comes to their children. Children of single mothers are
70% more likely to live in poverty.
Post by a***@gmail.com
These people don't make enough money because their jobs don't pay
enough. It's really just that simple.
When you are part of a large pool of people with few differentiated
skills, you aren't going to get paid much.

If they had better skills, they could get a job that paid more. But
single parent families don't provide kids with the breadth of intellect
and character to allow them to develop those skills. If you just tread
water in our awful liberal-run public school system, without adding
to it substantially, you are going to graduate and find out you don't
know a thing that you need to know to make your way in the world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you're going to be in this argument, and especially if you're going
to use snark, you have to use real facts, too.
Facts? If we're constrained by that, you'll have nothing left. Your
supposed "facts" above are not.
Whatever you say, dude.
Bring more than doublespeak and baseless assertions to the table, and maybe
you'll have something.
--
Life isn't fair, but it's good. -- Regina Brett
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-06 14:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
I agree. Everyone should pay taxes. The only thing worse than taxation without representation is...representation without taxation.
And once again we have to go through the BS where you guys pretend
that that 50% paying no federal *income* tax is paying no federal
taxes, when in fact they still *are*.
What taxes might those be? Do you mean "payroll taxes"? That's BS. It
is paying for your retirement and medical program. Direct benefits accrued
and not means-tested. That isn't a tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax
The Affordable Care Act isn't affordable, and the Federal Insurance
Contributions Tax isn't a tax. Your liberal doublespeak will do you
no good.
LOL. It's doublespeak now?

tax
taks/Submit
noun
1.
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That is, if they work at all. For the lazy do-nothings that don't work,
they don't even pay that. Not to mention the cheaters who pull in a
government check then work for cash, of which there are many.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
And I also will point out that these people aren't paying income tax
thanks in part to low taxation folk like *you*, and in no small part
because they don't make enough *money*.
And why would that be? Could it be that they are raised by single mothers
and no-account fathers who pay no attention to the development of their
children?
My children make enough money to pay taxes. Of course they weren't
abandoned so that I could draw welfare, either.
The welfare queen myth again? Good Lord.
It isn't a myth when it comes to their children.
No. It's a MYTH.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Children of single mothers are
70% more likely to live in poverty.
Which has nothing to do with welfare. There are a lot of structural and social problems that contribute to that fact, but that ain't one of them.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
These people don't make enough money because their jobs don't pay
enough. It's really just that simple.
When you are part of a large pool of people with few differentiated
skills, you aren't going to get paid much.
And thanks to conservatives and anti-union folk, they can't even earn a living wage without being propped up by welfare or other government aid. Again: "Fuck you, I got mine" is not any kind of way to run a society.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
If they had better skills, they could get a job that paid more.
There are not enough jobs to ever make that close to true.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
But
single parent families don't provide kids with the breadth of intellect
and character to allow them to develop those skills. If you just tread
water in our awful liberal-run public school system, without adding
to it substantially, you are going to graduate and find out you don't
know a thing that you need to know to make your way in the world.
I'm not even going to touch that Gish-gallop. There's not one actual fact in there.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you're going to be in this argument, and especially if you're going
to use snark, you have to use real facts, too.
Facts? If we're constrained by that, you'll have nothing left. Your
supposed "facts" above are not.
Whatever you say, dude.
Bring more than doublespeak and baseless assertions to the table, and maybe
you'll have something.
I did. You promptly ignored it, and launched into...doublespeak and baseless assertions.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-01-06 15:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
I agree. Everyone should pay taxes. The only thing worse than taxation without representation is...representation without taxation.
And once again we have to go through the BS where you guys pretend
that that 50% paying no federal *income* tax is paying no federal
taxes, when in fact they still *are*.
What taxes might those be? Do you mean "payroll taxes"? That's BS. It
is paying for your retirement and medical program. Direct benefits accrued
and not means-tested. That isn't a tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax
The Affordable Care Act isn't affordable, and the Federal Insurance
Contributions Tax isn't a tax. Your liberal doublespeak will do you
no good.
LOL. It's doublespeak now?
tax
taks/Submit
noun
1.
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government
on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some
goods, services, and transactions.
Now you show that you don't know what doublespeak means. Or, I suppose,
that you are just being disingenous.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That is, if they work at all. For the lazy do-nothings that don't work,
they don't even pay that. Not to mention the cheaters who pull in a
government check then work for cash, of which there are many.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
And I also will point out that these people aren't paying income tax
thanks in part to low taxation folk like *you*, and in no small part
because they don't make enough *money*.
And why would that be? Could it be that they are raised by single mothers
and no-account fathers who pay no attention to the development of their
children?
My children make enough money to pay taxes. Of course they weren't
abandoned so that I could draw welfare, either.
The welfare queen myth again? Good Lord.
It isn't a myth when it comes to their children.
No. It's a MYTH.
No, it is not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Children of single mothers are 70% more likely to live in poverty.
Which has nothing to do with welfare. There are a lot of structural
and social problems that contribute to that fact, but that ain't one
of them.
It has everything to do with welfare. It reduces the stigma and difficulties
of single motherhood, and therefore increases it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
These people don't make enough money because their jobs don't pay
enough. It's really just that simple.
When you are part of a large pool of people with few differentiated
skills, you aren't going to get paid much.
And thanks to conservatives and anti-union folk, they can't even earn
a living wage without being propped up by welfare or other government
aid. Again: "Fuck you, I got mine" is not any kind of way to run a
society.
People will work if they have an incentive. If they can get paid
for nothing, a lot will choose to do nothing.

You seem to think that they should be given a lot of money for
not much.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
If they had better skills, they could get a job that paid more.
There are not enough jobs to ever make that close to true.
Sure there are. There are millions of jobs going wanting for
lack of people to do them. If those positions were filled, productivity
would grow, and more jobs would be created. Growth cures a lot of
things.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
But
single parent families don't provide kids with the breadth of intellect
and character to allow them to develop those skills. If you just tread
water in our awful liberal-run public school system, without adding
to it substantially, you are going to graduate and find out you don't
know a thing that you need to know to make your way in the world.
I'm not even going to touch that Gish-gallop. There's not one actual
fact in there.
No? Why do you suppose children of single-parent families do so
poorly? It has been pretty conclusively shown that families with
a present father, who congregate at a dinner table, have better
outcomes.

I suppose you would argue for the proven-ineffective Head Start,
for simple reasons of dogma. At least if you are like most liberals,
people who are unwilling to abandon giveaways even when they are
proven to do no good.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you're going to be in this argument, and especially if you're going
to use snark, you have to use real facts, too.
Facts? If we're constrained by that, you'll have nothing left. Your
supposed "facts" above are not.
Whatever you say, dude.
Bring more than doublespeak and baseless assertions to the table, and maybe
you'll have something.
I did. You promptly ignored it, and launched into...doublespeak and
baseless assertions.
You don't even know what doublespeak is.
--
The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on my
life. ... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90%
how I react to it. And so it is for you... we are in charge of our
attitudes. -- Charles Swindoll
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-01-06 15:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Children of single mothers are
70% more likely to live in poverty.
Which has nothing to do with welfare. There are a lot of structural and social problems that contribute to that fact, but that ain't one of them.
How much money of mine do you want to ficks *that*, Jesse?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by a***@gmail.com
These people don't make enough money because their jobs don't pay
enough. It's really just that simple.
When you are part of a large pool of people with few differentiated
skills, you aren't going to get paid much.
And thanks to conservatives and anti-union folk, they can't even earn a living wage without being propped up by welfare or other government aid. Again: "Fuck you, I got mine" is not any kind of way to run a society.
Tenet of both Conservatism *and* Libertarianism. 'Merica.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
If they had better skills, they could get a job that paid more.
There are not enough jobs to ever make that close to true.
CoughcoughAmnestyOpenBorderscough
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
But
single parent families don't provide kids with the breadth of intellect
and character to allow them to develop those skills. If you just tread
water in our awful liberal-run public school system, without adding
to it substantially, you are going to graduate and find out you don't
know a thing that you need to know to make your way in the world.
I'm not even going to touch that Gish-gallop. There's not one actual fact in there.
Perhaps you should explore it. Southwest flies to STL, Ferguson is three miles east. Don't rent a car.
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-01-06 15:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
If they had better skills, they could get a job that paid more. But
single parent families don't provide kids with the breadth of intellect
and character to allow them to develop those skills. If you just tread
water in our awful liberal-run public school system, without adding
to it substantially, you are going to graduate and find out you don't
know a thing that you need to know to make your way in the world.
Never heard it put this succinctly. Thanks.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 17:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
If you're benefitting from government services, I'd prefer you to pay your taxes. If not, GTFO, and renounce your citizenship. It's not like it's not just as easy for the French government to actually enforce these tax laws.
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
Not a strawman - this thread is about income taxes - those who pay and those who don't.

And frankly I don't mind some not paying fed income taxes - as I've mentioned a few hundred times, I'm pretty okay with progressive income taxes
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Actually, a radical idea would be for the government to just shut down for a while, and spend a *lot* less.
Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks were *crying* for the government to re-open.
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
considering that the majority of gov't expenditures are now transfer payments, no.
Well. Not only is that factually incorrect, it also includes spending that has *zero* effect on the deficit.
Talk about strawmen - when did we bring up deficits?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Standards, legal framework, infrastructure, etc, yes.
And yet standards have been relaxed, legal framework has not kept up with the times, and our infrastructure is crumbling around our ears.
But hey, the Army's getting more Abrams tanks they don't want!
You'd have a point here if I was advocating for increasing the defense budget - which I'm not and haven't. The DOD goes under the knife too - absolutely it does.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 18:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
If you're benefitting from government services, I'd prefer you to pay your taxes. If not, GTFO, and renounce your citizenship. It's not like it's not just as easy for the French government to actually enforce these tax laws.
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
Not a strawman - this thread is about income taxes - those who pay and those who don't.
Totally a strawman, and, in fact, totally irrelevant to the discussion. You should know that, since you created the thread about HIGH EARNERS.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And frankly I don't mind some not paying fed income taxes - as I've mentioned a few hundred times, I'm pretty okay with progressive income taxes
So in other words, totally not an argument. You just wanted to derail the objection.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Actually, a radical idea would be for the government to just shut down for a while, and spend a *lot* less.
Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks were *crying* for the government to re-open.
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
considering that the majority of gov't expenditures are now transfer payments, no.
Well. Not only is that factually incorrect, it also includes spending that has *zero* effect on the deficit.
Talk about strawmen - when did we bring up deficits?
What other valid reason is there be for the government to spend less? What other valid reason would you have for discussing spending that isn't even funded by income taxes?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Standards, legal framework, infrastructure, etc, yes.
And yet standards have been relaxed, legal framework has not kept up with the times, and our infrastructure is crumbling around our ears.
But hey, the Army's getting more Abrams tanks they don't want!
You'd have a point here if I was advocating for increasing the defense budget - which I'm not and haven't. The DOD goes under the knife too - absolutely it does.
Who said anything about increasing the defense budget? You want to cut government spending, there's your big fat 10,000-lb hog. Military spending is nearly 40% of the federal budget, and scattered throughout more than just the Defense budget. Start cutting the pork *there*, *then* get back to me. Otherwise you're just nickel-and-diming the poor.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 19:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
If you're benefitting from government services, I'd prefer you to pay your taxes. If not, GTFO, and renounce your citizenship. It's not like it's not just as easy for the French government to actually enforce these tax laws.
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
Not a strawman - this thread is about income taxes - those who pay and those who don't.
Totally a strawman, and, in fact, totally irrelevant to the discussion. You should know that, since you created the thread about HIGH EARNERS.
You're the one who brought up "benefitting from gov't services" ... it was a valid response vis a vis income taxes.
Post by a***@gmail.com
So in other words, totally not an argument. You just wanted to derail the objection.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Actually, a radical idea would be for the government to just shut down for a while, and spend a *lot* less.
Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks were *crying* for the government to re-open.
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
considering that the majority of gov't expenditures are now transfer payments, no.
Well. Not only is that factually incorrect, it also includes spending that has *zero* effect on the deficit.
Talk about strawmen - when did we bring up deficits?
What other valid reason is there be for the government to spend less? What other valid reason would you have for discussing spending that isn't even funded by income taxes?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Standards, legal framework, infrastructure, etc, yes.
And yet standards have been relaxed, legal framework has not kept up with the times, and our infrastructure is crumbling around our ears.
But hey, the Army's getting more Abrams tanks they don't want!
You'd have a point here if I was advocating for increasing the defense budget - which I'm not and haven't. The DOD goes under the knife too - absolutely it does.
Who said anything about increasing the defense budget? You want to cut government spending, there's your big fat 10,000-lb hog. Military spending is nearly 40% of the federal budget, and scattered throughout more than just the Defense budget. Start cutting the pork *there*, *then* get back to me. Otherwise you're just nickel-and-diming the poor.
Was there some part of "the DOD goes under the knife too" you didn't see?

I'm willing to cut ALL budgets - you seem to only want to cut your pet dislikes - is that a valid assumption on my part?
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 20:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
When it's easy to evade, why not? OTOH, if you make it harder to evade, then you'll get movers. Which would you prefer?
If you're benefitting from government services, I'd prefer you to pay your taxes. If not, GTFO, and renounce your citizenship. It's not like it's not just as easy for the French government to actually enforce these tax laws.
Why do you hate the 50% nontaxpayers?
Why do you love strawmen? If you want those people to pay taxes (income taxes, I should add, since they're still paying FICA and other taxes), you should, oh, I don't know, *raise* the *tax* *rates*.
Not a strawman - this thread is about income taxes - those who pay and those who don't.
Totally a strawman, and, in fact, totally irrelevant to the discussion. You should know that, since you created the thread about HIGH EARNERS.
You're the one who brought up "benefitting from gov't services" ... it was a valid response vis a vis income taxes.
Nope. Because I provided a solution to that problem.

You did not.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
So in other words, totally not an argument. You just wanted to derail the objection.
It was a stupid objection, and I answered it right away anway. Nice try.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
But hey, LOL taxes amirite? The gubmint should just provide services for free!
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Actually, a radical idea would be for the government to just shut down for a while, and spend a *lot* less.
Funny thing is, when it happened here in the US, everyone except the kooks were *crying* for the government to re-open.
Here's a more radical idea: Maybe, just maybe, the "spend a bit less" people should *consider* the idea that governments are actually _under_funded?
considering that the majority of gov't expenditures are now transfer payments, no.
Well. Not only is that factually incorrect, it also includes spending that has *zero* effect on the deficit.
Talk about strawmen - when did we bring up deficits?
What other valid reason is there be for the government to spend less? What other valid reason would you have for discussing spending that isn't even funded by income taxes?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Standards, legal framework, infrastructure, etc, yes.
And yet standards have been relaxed, legal framework has not kept up with the times, and our infrastructure is crumbling around our ears.
But hey, the Army's getting more Abrams tanks they don't want!
You'd have a point here if I was advocating for increasing the defense budget - which I'm not and haven't. The DOD goes under the knife too - absolutely it does.
Who said anything about increasing the defense budget? You want to cut government spending, there's your big fat 10,000-lb hog. Military spending is nearly 40% of the federal budget, and scattered throughout more than just the Defense budget. Start cutting the pork *there*, *then* get back to me. Otherwise you're just nickel-and-diming the poor.
Was there some part of "the DOD goes under the knife too" you didn't see?
The part where you only brought it up *after* I did?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm willing to cut ALL budgets - you seem to only want to cut your pet dislikes - is that a valid assumption on my part?
No.

All budgets do not have the same amount of fat in them. All budgets have not been subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. All budgets have not been undergoing the same level of cuts. All budgets are not capable of *sustaining* cuts. In fact, *some* budgets are in dire need of additional spending.

The various *Defense* budgets, OTOH, have *HUGE* amounts of fat in them. The Abrams tanks was just one example; can you say "F-35"? However, even _they_ have places that have been cut unmercifully: Personnel spending and the VA--even *with* the most recent spending bill.

So no, it's not about "pet dislikes". It's about the reckless spending on *some* things, and reckless cutting on _others_.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 20:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Was there some part of "the DOD goes under the knife too" you didn't see?
The part where you only brought it up *after* I did?
As if I was somehow advocating NOT cutting or even increasing - talk about a strawman.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm willing to cut ALL budgets - you seem to only want to cut your pet dislikes - is that a valid assumption on my part?
No.
All budgets do not have the same amount of fat in them. All budgets have not been subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. All budgets have not been undergoing the same level of cuts. All budgets are not capable of *sustaining* cuts. In fact, *some* budgets are in dire need of additional spending.
The various *Defense* budgets, OTOH, have *HUGE* amounts of fat in them. The Abrams tanks was just one example; can you say "F-35"? However, even _they_ have places that have been cut unmercifully: Personnel spending and the VA--even *with* the most recent spending bill.
So no, it's not about "pet dislikes". It's about the reckless spending on *some* things, and reckless cutting on _others_.
Yeah, well pretty much every constintuency would think that THEIR pet budgets have been pared to the bone - and that the fat lies elsewhere.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-05 21:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Was there some part of "the DOD goes under the knife too" you didn't see?
The part where you only brought it up *after* I did?
As if I was somehow advocating NOT cutting or even increasing - talk about a strawman.
OK, dude. Whatever. We both know you weren't thinking about Defense when you brought up transfers.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm willing to cut ALL budgets - you seem to only want to cut your pet dislikes - is that a valid assumption on my part?
No.
All budgets do not have the same amount of fat in them. All budgets have not been subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. All budgets have not been undergoing the same level of cuts. All budgets are not capable of *sustaining* cuts. In fact, *some* budgets are in dire need of additional spending.
The various *Defense* budgets, OTOH, have *HUGE* amounts of fat in them. The Abrams tanks was just one example; can you say "F-35"? However, even _they_ have places that have been cut unmercifully: Personnel spending and the VA--even *with* the most recent spending bill.
So no, it's not about "pet dislikes". It's about the reckless spending on *some* things, and reckless cutting on _others_.
Yeah, well pretty much every constintuency would think that THEIR pet budgets have been pared to the bone - and that the fat lies elsewhere.
Except you have department after department telling you there is NOTHING LEFT TO CUT. Except you have article after article pointing out how shitty our infrastructure is. Except you have charity after charity flat-out stating that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for them to replace similar-minded government programs. Well, except for the Pentagon, which keeps telling Congress it already has enough, budget year after budget year.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 21:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Was there some part of "the DOD goes under the knife too" you didn't see?
The part where you only brought it up *after* I did?
As if I was somehow advocating NOT cutting or even increasing - talk about a strawman.
OK, dude. Whatever. We both know you weren't thinking about Defense when you brought up transfers.
Actually, Dre, considering that I've long advocated the DOD go under the knife too - you'd be flat out wrong.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm willing to cut ALL budgets - you seem to only want to cut your pet dislikes - is that a valid assumption on my part?
No.
All budgets do not have the same amount of fat in them. All budgets have not been subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. All budgets have not been undergoing the same level of cuts. All budgets are not capable of *sustaining* cuts. In fact, *some* budgets are in dire need of additional spending.
The various *Defense* budgets, OTOH, have *HUGE* amounts of fat in them. The Abrams tanks was just one example; can you say "F-35"? However, even _they_ have places that have been cut unmercifully: Personnel spending and the VA--even *with* the most recent spending bill.
So no, it's not about "pet dislikes". It's about the reckless spending on *some* things, and reckless cutting on _others_.
Yeah, well pretty much every constintuency would think that THEIR pet budgets have been pared to the bone - and that the fat lies elsewhere.
Except you have department after department telling you there is NOTHING LEFT TO CUT. Except you have article after article pointing out how shitty our infrastructure is. Except you have charity after charity flat-out stating that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for them to replace similar-minded government programs. Well, except for the Pentagon, which keeps telling Congress it already has enough, budget year after budget year.
There isn't a single budget out there that cannot be cut by some extent. And for the most part, the DOD whinges not b/c of the money, but b/c where it's spent - they want to spend it on programs X, Y and Z - however, congresscritters insist of A, B and C.
a***@gmail.com
2015-01-06 14:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Was there some part of "the DOD goes under the knife too" you didn't see?
The part where you only brought it up *after* I did?
As if I was somehow advocating NOT cutting or even increasing - talk about a strawman.
OK, dude. Whatever. We both know you weren't thinking about Defense when you brought up transfers.
Actually, Dre, considering that I've long advocated the DOD go under the knife too - you'd be flat out wrong.
And the point remains: You mentioned *transfers of wealth*. You mentioned it as a Big Effin' Problem. That's not a DoD issue. You can tell me all you want that you want to cut Defense, and I *might* actually _believe_ it, but that's not the first place you want to cut--you want to cut the parts that can least *stand* to be cut, affect the most vulnerable people in our country, and in some cases don't affect the deficit in the first damn place.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm willing to cut ALL budgets - you seem to only want to cut your pet dislikes - is that a valid assumption on my part?
No.
All budgets do not have the same amount of fat in them. All budgets have not been subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. All budgets have not been undergoing the same level of cuts. All budgets are not capable of *sustaining* cuts. In fact, *some* budgets are in dire need of additional spending.
The various *Defense* budgets, OTOH, have *HUGE* amounts of fat in them. The Abrams tanks was just one example; can you say "F-35"? However, even _they_ have places that have been cut unmercifully: Personnel spending and the VA--even *with* the most recent spending bill.
So no, it's not about "pet dislikes". It's about the reckless spending on *some* things, and reckless cutting on _others_.
Yeah, well pretty much every constintuency would think that THEIR pet budgets have been pared to the bone - and that the fat lies elsewhere.
Except you have department after department telling you there is NOTHING LEFT TO CUT. Except you have article after article pointing out how shitty our infrastructure is. Except you have charity after charity flat-out stating that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for them to replace similar-minded government programs. Well, except for the Pentagon, which keeps telling Congress it already has enough, budget year after budget year.
There isn't a single budget out there that cannot be cut by some extent.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And for the most part, the DOD whinges not b/c of the money, but b/c where it's spent - they want to spend it on programs X, Y and Z - however, congresscritters insist of A, B and C.
From 2012:

"In February, the Pentagon released a budget that began the process to cut at least $487 billion in defense spending over the next 10 years."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want/nRC7w/
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-06 15:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Was there some part of "the DOD goes under the knife too" you didn't see?
The part where you only brought it up *after* I did?
As if I was somehow advocating NOT cutting or even increasing - talk about a strawman.
OK, dude. Whatever. We both know you weren't thinking about Defense when you brought up transfers.
Actually, Dre, considering that I've long advocated the DOD go under the knife too - you'd be flat out wrong.
And the point remains: You mentioned *transfers of wealth*. You mentioned it as a Big Effin' Problem.
That's correct - It IS a big Effin Problem - so is the size of the DOD budget.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm willing to cut ALL budgets - you seem to only want to cut your pet dislikes - is that a valid assumption on my part?
No.
All budgets do not have the same amount of fat in them. All budgets have not been subjected to the same amount of scrutiny. All budgets have not been undergoing the same level of cuts. All budgets are not capable of *sustaining* cuts. In fact, *some* budgets are in dire need of additional spending.
The various *Defense* budgets, OTOH, have *HUGE* amounts of fat in them. The Abrams tanks was just one example; can you say "F-35"? However, even _they_ have places that have been cut unmercifully: Personnel spending and the VA--even *with* the most recent spending bill.
So no, it's not about "pet dislikes". It's about the reckless spending on *some* things, and reckless cutting on _others_.
Yeah, well pretty much every constintuency would think that THEIR pet budgets have been pared to the bone - and that the fat lies elsewhere.
Except you have department after department telling you there is NOTHING LEFT TO CUT. Except you have article after article pointing out how shitty our infrastructure is. Except you have charity after charity flat-out stating that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for them to replace similar-minded government programs. Well, except for the Pentagon, which keeps telling Congress it already has enough, budget year after budget year.
There isn't a single budget out there that cannot be cut by some extent.
Isn't it pretty to think so?
dude....can the personalized snark
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And for the most part, the DOD whinges not b/c of the money, but b/c where it's spent - they want to spend it on programs X, Y and Z - however, congresscritters insist of A, B and C.
"In February, the Pentagon released a budget that began the process to cut at least $487 billion in defense spending over the next 10 years."
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want/nRC7w/
Exactly - congress is pushing....

J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-01-05 15:19:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 06:36:54 -0800 (PST), "The Cheesehusker, Trade
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Or maybe they should just spend a bit less? I know that's a radical idea
Cheesehusker for President.

We did much worse the last 2 elections.

Hugh
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-01-05 14:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
btw - welcome back!
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-01-05 15:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
That jacking tax rates is not such a great idea - the 75% tax on high earners will not be renewed
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-ended-75-super-tax-2015-1
That's one way to spin it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/france-tax-rich-rate_n_1922089.html
btw - welcome back!
Ditteaux!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...