Since you are a very verbal supporter of no taxes and no deficits, i would like to know how you get there?
The tax cuts for the rich has been a failure as it do not create jobs. Link . Rich people tend to save up that money.. so it is actually an ANTI Stimulus that the republicans want.
The downside of course is that it will increase the deficit by 700 billion dollars.
Since you are a very verbal supporter of no taxes and no deficits, i would like to know how you get there?
The tax cuts for the rich has been a failure as it do not create jobs. Link . Rich people tend to save up that money.. so it is actually an ANTI Stimulus that the republicans want.
The downside of course is that it will increase the deficit by 700 billion dollars.
government expenditures should equal government revenues...not a penny more. this would happen with a currency thats backed by dog shit or gold rather than nothing
when you say that tax cuts cost the government money...you are saying that government has already spent the projected tax revenue on bullshit vote buying projects so they will run a larger deficit if they collect less money from their subjects
government also, when debating tax policy, is debating how much of YOUR EARNINGS, you are ALLOWED to keep. when the government ALLOWS higher earners to keep more of what they earn, isnt it their money?
please dont link me to Countdown and let me know why i should continue working if you feel everything i earn must need to be spread around to those who dont want to work as hard
government expenditures should equal government revenues...not a penny more. this would happen with a currency thats backed by dog shit or gold rather than nothing
when you say that tax cuts cost the government money...you are saying that government has already spent the projected tax revenue on bullshit vote buying projects so they will run a larger deficit if they collect less money from their subjects
government also, when debating tax policy, is debating how much of YOUR EARNINGS, you are ALLOWED to keep. when the government ALLOWS higher earners to keep more of what they earn, isnt it their money?
please dont link me to Countdown and let me know why i should continue working if you feel everything i earn must need to be spread around to those who dont want to work as hard
and when john kerry, obviously a resident of MA, bought a new yacht this summer, he docked it in RI to save a few million in taxes (which is against MA law). it was only when the local media caught wind (pun intended) of this did he 'volunteer' to pay the taxes if if he wasnt required to do so, which her was.
and when john kerry, obviously a resident of MA, bought a new yacht this summer, he docked it in RI to save a few million in taxes (which is against MA law). it was only when the local media caught wind (pun intended) of this did he 'volunteer' to pay the taxes if if he wasnt required to do so, which her was.
why dont we raise taxes on registered democrats and lower taxes on everyone else?
They want wealth distribution so it should only be fair that they pay for it.
I dont mind being taxed to a point but dont raise my taxes so you can spread my money around to others.....you want it, you pay for it and leave my taxes alone or reduce them
why dont we raise taxes on registered democrats and lower taxes on everyone else?
They want wealth distribution so it should only be fair that they pay for it.
I dont mind being taxed to a point but dont raise my taxes so you can spread my money around to others.....you want it, you pay for it and leave my taxes alone or reduce them
Income tax is probably the worst way for a government to raise money. The most inefficient, ineffective, intrusive tax system that you can have. Certainly, the best thing to do would be to abolish the income tax. Repeal the 16th amendment.
Remember, we had to amend the constitution to allow the federal government to levy an income tax the shows you there is something inherently unconstitutional about the income tax..We would of never broke away from being a colony of the British in the 1st place –
#1 it is very intrusive – think about all the information you have to disclose to the federal government to pay the tax.you have absolutely no privacy. What about the hassle of it? – what about the record keeping?…Just about everyone pays an accountant to do their taxes? Why?Because it so complicated no one can understand it.
There is an entire industry of accountants – all they do is prepare and file tax returns. What a complete waste of our resources. What about IRA’s, ROTH IRA’s, pensions, etc.. why do they exists? So you can avoid some income taxes.
So all these complicated measures exist, just so you can avoid pay a tax that we shouldn’t have in the 1st place.
Abolish the income tax. Replace it with a national sales tax.
Income tax is probably the worst way for a government to raise money. The most inefficient, ineffective, intrusive tax system that you can have. Certainly, the best thing to do would be to abolish the income tax. Repeal the 16th amendment.
Remember, we had to amend the constitution to allow the federal government to levy an income tax the shows you there is something inherently unconstitutional about the income tax..We would of never broke away from being a colony of the British in the 1st place –
#1 it is very intrusive – think about all the information you have to disclose to the federal government to pay the tax.you have absolutely no privacy. What about the hassle of it? – what about the record keeping?…Just about everyone pays an accountant to do their taxes? Why?Because it so complicated no one can understand it.
There is an entire industry of accountants – all they do is prepare and file tax returns. What a complete waste of our resources. What about IRA’s, ROTH IRA’s, pensions, etc.. why do they exists? So you can avoid some income taxes.
So all these complicated measures exist, just so you can avoid pay a tax that we shouldn’t have in the 1st place.
Abolish the income tax. Replace it with a national sales tax.
"government also, when debating tax policy, is debating how much
of YOUR EARNINGS, you are ALLOWED to keep. when the government ALLOWS
higher earners to keep more of what they earn, isnt it their money?"
Glad to see other people get it. When discussing taxes, at its most basic level, the government is determining to what extent the fruits of your labor go to the collective (government) as opposed to being kept by the individual.
It's NOT the government's money. The only way the government "loses" money based on tax cuts is if you start with the assumption that every penny you earn is the government, and that the amount you take home and actually get to keep is only because the government has been kind enough to let you do so.
"government also, when debating tax policy, is debating how much
of YOUR EARNINGS, you are ALLOWED to keep. when the government ALLOWS
higher earners to keep more of what they earn, isnt it their money?"
Glad to see other people get it. When discussing taxes, at its most basic level, the government is determining to what extent the fruits of your labor go to the collective (government) as opposed to being kept by the individual.
It's NOT the government's money. The only way the government "loses" money based on tax cuts is if you start with the assumption that every penny you earn is the government, and that the amount you take home and actually get to keep is only because the government has been kind enough to let you do so.
why dont we raise taxes on registered democrats and lower taxes on everyone else?
They want wealth distribution so it should only be fair that they pay for it.
I dont mind being taxed to a point but dont raise my taxes so you can spread my money around to others.....you want it, you pay for it and leave my taxes alone or reduce them
Ah ...
Can we agree that people have never payed less taxes in modern history as they do now?
Can we agree that the government do need some income to be able to sustain itself and provide basic services?
Can we agree that the deficit problem can only be solved by digging into medicare, medicaid and social security and the millitary(if there is no income)
Can we agree that taxcuts for the rich (Studies show that) actually work as an anti stimulus because rich people tend to save up money.
Can we agree that everyone need to contribute with an extraordinary effort if the financial crisis need to be solved in USA?
If yes... What do you suggest then.
Cutting into the big social programs?
Cutting some spending on the budget, giving taxcuts to the rich and not solving any part of the problem?
Cutting taxes, doing nothing else and blame the dems in 12 that they didnt create jobs?
why dont we raise taxes on registered democrats and lower taxes on everyone else?
They want wealth distribution so it should only be fair that they pay for it.
I dont mind being taxed to a point but dont raise my taxes so you can spread my money around to others.....you want it, you pay for it and leave my taxes alone or reduce them
Ah ...
Can we agree that people have never payed less taxes in modern history as they do now?
Can we agree that the government do need some income to be able to sustain itself and provide basic services?
Can we agree that the deficit problem can only be solved by digging into medicare, medicaid and social security and the millitary(if there is no income)
Can we agree that taxcuts for the rich (Studies show that) actually work as an anti stimulus because rich people tend to save up money.
Can we agree that everyone need to contribute with an extraordinary effort if the financial crisis need to be solved in USA?
If yes... What do you suggest then.
Cutting into the big social programs?
Cutting some spending on the budget, giving taxcuts to the rich and not solving any part of the problem?
Cutting taxes, doing nothing else and blame the dems in 12 that they didnt create jobs?
So are you saying there should be zero taxes , if yes how do you plan on paying for roads, defense, national security and the like.
there are certain things that the US federal government is responsible for...post roads (highways); national defense and security (much of what is spent is too much anyway). we are supposed to be non interventionist and not nation building
fed government has no responsibility in healthcare, home loans, retirement savings, etc
im not sure if you're speaking generic governments or the US in particular
So are you saying there should be zero taxes , if yes how do you plan on paying for roads, defense, national security and the like.
there are certain things that the US federal government is responsible for...post roads (highways); national defense and security (much of what is spent is too much anyway). we are supposed to be non interventionist and not nation building
fed government has no responsibility in healthcare, home loans, retirement savings, etc
im not sure if you're speaking generic governments or the US in particular
"government also, when debating tax policy, is debating how much
of YOUR EARNINGS, you are ALLOWED to keep. when the government ALLOWS
higher earners to keep more of what they earn, isnt it their money?"
Glad to see other people get it. When discussing taxes, at its most basic level, the government is determining to what extent the fruits of your labor go to the collective (government) as opposed to being kept by the individual.
It's NOT the government's money. The only way the government "loses" money based on tax cuts is if you start with the assumption that every penny you earn is the government, and that the amount you take home and actually get to keep is only because the government has been kind enough to let you do so.
Sickening if you ask me.
herein lies truth. the more people this concept is explained to, the more people have the HDMI cable unplugged from the back of their heads and they are "born"...like Neo being hatched out of the pod in the Matrix
"government also, when debating tax policy, is debating how much
of YOUR EARNINGS, you are ALLOWED to keep. when the government ALLOWS
higher earners to keep more of what they earn, isnt it their money?"
Glad to see other people get it. When discussing taxes, at its most basic level, the government is determining to what extent the fruits of your labor go to the collective (government) as opposed to being kept by the individual.
It's NOT the government's money. The only way the government "loses" money based on tax cuts is if you start with the assumption that every penny you earn is the government, and that the amount you take home and actually get to keep is only because the government has been kind enough to let you do so.
Sickening if you ask me.
herein lies truth. the more people this concept is explained to, the more people have the HDMI cable unplugged from the back of their heads and they are "born"...like Neo being hatched out of the pod in the Matrix
Call me crazy, KOAJ, but I could have sworn that this country was founded with a focus on the individual and the rights of the individual vis a vis his government. I think that the starting presumption and starting point HAS to be that all money earned via the fruits of one's labors, or the investment of those fruits, belongs to the individual, and that it is the government that must come up with a solid justification for seizing a portion of those fruits. Starting with the opposite assumption -- i.e., the individual must justify why the government should not be entitled to all/more of their money that they have earned -- flies in the face of the whole respect for individualism that our country is built upon.
At its most basic level, taxation is a form of working for the government. I paid about 35% of my take-home income last year in payroll taxes. If you average that out, it basically means that from January 1 to April 15 (wow, coincidence?), I am a government employee and all the fruits of my efforts and labor belong to the government. I don't really start earning for myself until after that point. I try not to think about it that way because it makes me sick and disgusted when I do.
Call me crazy, KOAJ, but I could have sworn that this country was founded with a focus on the individual and the rights of the individual vis a vis his government. I think that the starting presumption and starting point HAS to be that all money earned via the fruits of one's labors, or the investment of those fruits, belongs to the individual, and that it is the government that must come up with a solid justification for seizing a portion of those fruits. Starting with the opposite assumption -- i.e., the individual must justify why the government should not be entitled to all/more of their money that they have earned -- flies in the face of the whole respect for individualism that our country is built upon.
At its most basic level, taxation is a form of working for the government. I paid about 35% of my take-home income last year in payroll taxes. If you average that out, it basically means that from January 1 to April 15 (wow, coincidence?), I am a government employee and all the fruits of my efforts and labor belong to the government. I don't really start earning for myself until after that point. I try not to think about it that way because it makes me sick and disgusted when I do.
there are certain things that the US federal government is responsible for...post roads (highways); national defense and security (much of what is spent is too much anyway). we are supposed to be non interventionist and not nation building
fed government has no responsibility in healthcare, home loans, retirement savings, etc
im not sure if you're speaking generic governments or the US in particular
there are certain things that the US federal government is responsible for...post roads (highways); national defense and security (much of what is spent is too much anyway). we are supposed to be non interventionist and not nation building
fed government has no responsibility in healthcare, home loans, retirement savings, etc
im not sure if you're speaking generic governments or the US in particular
Call me crazy, KOAJ, but I could have sworn that this country was founded with a focus on the individual and the rights of the individual vis a vis his government. I think that the starting presumption and starting point HAS to be that all money earned via the fruits of one's labors, or the investment of those fruits, belongs to the individual, and that it is the government that must come up with a solid justification for seizing a portion of those fruits. Starting with the opposite assumption -- i.e., the individual must justify why the government should not be entitled to all/more of their money that they have earned -- flies in the face of the whole respect for individualism that our country is built upon.
At its most basic level, taxation is a form of working for the government. I paid about 35% of my take-home income last year in payroll taxes. If you average that out, it basically means that from January 1 to April 15 (wow, coincidence?), I am a government employee and all the fruits of my efforts and labor belong to the government. I don't really start earning for myself until after that point. I try not to think about it that way because it makes me sick and disgusted when I do.
That is interesting. I pay 41% of my income (well not really because we have a lot of deductions) but then i get free access to education, social services, health care and the lot.
Call me crazy, KOAJ, but I could have sworn that this country was founded with a focus on the individual and the rights of the individual vis a vis his government. I think that the starting presumption and starting point HAS to be that all money earned via the fruits of one's labors, or the investment of those fruits, belongs to the individual, and that it is the government that must come up with a solid justification for seizing a portion of those fruits. Starting with the opposite assumption -- i.e., the individual must justify why the government should not be entitled to all/more of their money that they have earned -- flies in the face of the whole respect for individualism that our country is built upon.
At its most basic level, taxation is a form of working for the government. I paid about 35% of my take-home income last year in payroll taxes. If you average that out, it basically means that from January 1 to April 15 (wow, coincidence?), I am a government employee and all the fruits of my efforts and labor belong to the government. I don't really start earning for myself until after that point. I try not to think about it that way because it makes me sick and disgusted when I do.
That is interesting. I pay 41% of my income (well not really because we have a lot of deductions) but then i get free access to education, social services, health care and the lot.
dj/mik - the christie overage was for $2200 total over a period of years. not excusing it, but its very very very small potatoes. TPM doesnt give the dollar amouint because its laughable
dj/mik - the christie overage was for $2200 total over a period of years. not excusing it, but its very very very small potatoes. TPM doesnt give the dollar amouint because its laughable
Call me crazy, KOAJ, but I could have sworn that this country was founded with a focus on the individual and the rights of the individual vis a vis his government. I think that the starting presumption and starting point HAS to be that all money earned via the fruits of one's labors, or the investment of those fruits, belongs to the individual, and that it is the government that must come up with a solid justification for seizing a portion of those fruits. Starting with the opposite assumption -- i.e., the individual must justify why the government should not be entitled to all/more of their money that they have earned -- flies in the face of the whole respect for individualism that our country is built upon.
At its most basic level, taxation is a form of working for the government. I paid about 35% of my take-home income last year in payroll taxes. If you average that out, it basically means that from January 1 to April 15 (wow, coincidence?), I am a government employee and all the fruits of my efforts and labor belong to the government. I don't really start earning for myself until after that point. I try not to think about it that way because it makes me sick and disgusted when I do.
is koaj the third conservative on this site? or maybe he was the first.
Call me crazy, KOAJ, but I could have sworn that this country was founded with a focus on the individual and the rights of the individual vis a vis his government. I think that the starting presumption and starting point HAS to be that all money earned via the fruits of one's labors, or the investment of those fruits, belongs to the individual, and that it is the government that must come up with a solid justification for seizing a portion of those fruits. Starting with the opposite assumption -- i.e., the individual must justify why the government should not be entitled to all/more of their money that they have earned -- flies in the face of the whole respect for individualism that our country is built upon.
At its most basic level, taxation is a form of working for the government. I paid about 35% of my take-home income last year in payroll taxes. If you average that out, it basically means that from January 1 to April 15 (wow, coincidence?), I am a government employee and all the fruits of my efforts and labor belong to the government. I don't really start earning for myself until after that point. I try not to think about it that way because it makes me sick and disgusted when I do.
is koaj the third conservative on this site? or maybe he was the first.
That is interesting. I pay 41% of my income (well not really because we have a lot of deductions) but then i get free access to education, social services, health care and the lot.
35 goes to the feds, then kapono lives in cali which has an approx 10% state income tax, insane gasoline tax, property tax isnt too bad out there
its more like 50-55%
in NJ, its north of 50-55% for anyone who makes halfway decent money and owns a home
i guess you could say things are free...but they suck and run massive deficits or are nothing more than ponzi schemes
That is interesting. I pay 41% of my income (well not really because we have a lot of deductions) but then i get free access to education, social services, health care and the lot.
35 goes to the feds, then kapono lives in cali which has an approx 10% state income tax, insane gasoline tax, property tax isnt too bad out there
its more like 50-55%
in NJ, its north of 50-55% for anyone who makes halfway decent money and owns a home
i guess you could say things are free...but they suck and run massive deficits or are nothing more than ponzi schemes
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.