Reply With QuoteAfter articles like that I'm starting to hate poor people
The rate California is going they will be the first actual state to be bailed out due to a mass exodus of people and influx of immigration.Originally Posted by C.Puffs
California has high taxes and they're obviously doing something right.
I am glad I finally know the truth about taxes...
After articles like that I'm starting to hate poor people
I am not saying that I do not pay my share of taxes. I am saying I would rather pay less than more. If the dear Oleader increases my taxes I will be still getting the same amount of government services. It is like he desides that starting on Monday you have to pay 50% more for bread. Would not you ask WTF?
Only politicians like poor people, because they can buy their votes with taxpayers money
Nice to know Jesus was a politician.
^^ This
And they´re also interested in keeping them poor.
Can we get back to modern times?
Yes can we? Calling the poor political cattle, looks furiously like the 18th century to me (and I am being polite).
To stick with your bread analogy, it's like the shop selling you bread has been making a loss on every loaf and unless you pay more they'll be going out of business very shortly.
OK, so how much do you think that a higher tax rate is going to generate?
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/08/...-much-revenue/
These guys don't seem to think it would raise very much.
I haven't seen figures of how much higher tax rates (not just a "Buffet Rule") would generate, but something tells me that if taxing the "super rich" at a higher rate is only going to net us another $50 billion per year, we've got a bigger problem. That problem starts with "s" and ends with "pending."
Edit:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...e-fund-deficit
These guys claim that repealing the Bush tax cuts on the top brackets would generate $800 billion (over what time period, they don't say. I HIGHLY doubt that's per year). What was our deficit again, the last time we bothered to pass a budget?
Certainly not Krugman either.....as Krugman would have us believe we can borrow our way out of debt.
Krugman is compromised and telling us what we want to hear and what the special interests want us to believe.
There are few people I think have much credibility in this field:
Eric Janszen: itulip.com
Jim Rogers: jimrogers.com
Also for some real data I use:
nowandfutures.com
shadowstats.com <----but no longer much free content
Either you pay (lots) more and maintain the current spending, or cut spending but don't cut taxes. Either way Joethesixpack is getting less for his money.
Something to keep in mind with the perpetual tax conversation is trying to compare apples with apples.
Just fiddling the tax rates to match the past would be clearly unequal.....as at the local/state level we've seen a lot of yo-yo-ing of taxes.......especially with many unavoidable taxes masked as fees today that simply didn't exist yesterday.
And it's worth mentioning again that while incredibly high marginal income tax rates did exist....how many were actually captured by them?
As I understand it, it was possible then to manage one's tax affairs to legally avoid much of the impact.
Just look at Maryland's attempt at implementing a millionaire's tax on it's residents a few years ago......they nearly all "legally disappeared" overnight.
It's like trying to hit a Ferrari with a bulldozer.
It's real simple....eliminate the tax code and replace it with something that is fair and retard simple that can fit on a double sided piece of A4 (8.5x11) paper.
States and local government can do whatever the hell that want on top of it to compete with each other to try to attract or repel business and jobs.
But what would the poor politicians do? Who would they pander to? What about all those poor lawyers that write the tax codes...what would they do?
Posting Permissions
