Taxes for thought, who says we need to pay more in taxes?

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Has it occurred to you that when revenues are less than spending, we get a little thing called a deficit. That means the taxpayers are not paying enough.

i prefer to look at it as OUR politicians are spending too much. I feel that we give them plenty of money, they just aren't using it wisely.

Call the White House and tell them!

the best thing i can do is vote against anyone who promises to raise my taxes.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

the best thing i can do is vote against anyone who promises to raise my taxes.

Actually the best thing you can do is vote against anyone who promises to raise spending. In the long run taxes are a function of spending, not the other way around.

[TrophyHusband 0]

sadly, you are right. spending should be a function of how much money is coming in, but i know that's just a fantasy. the decision will be easy this time around, the person who has said she will raise taxes has also said she will spend more money. i believe her words were "american can't afford all of my ideas", or something to that effect.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I used to run a business that financed cars. I'd spend $2000 for the car, sell it for $4000 and finance it with $500 down. In my books I went in debt by $1500 to sell that car. The tax code says I just made $2000 profit! Taxable profit at the time of sale.

Out of curiosity, did you charge interest? The sale of a car and a car loan should be treated as separate transactions by the government, and in company books. The purchaser of the car had to pay sales tax on a $4000 car, not a $500 car.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[masterrig 1]

Quote

You know as well as I do that Congress spends money. Call your congressperson and ask them about pork and earmarks.

Wanna know who's really spending the money?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/wm1660_table1.pdf

Edited to Add:
Despite pledges to rein in pork, the Democratic Congress has included a combined 11,351 pork projects in the House and Senate appropriations bills.[1] If this legislation passes, thousands of government grants will be distributed based on politics, lobbying, and/or campaign donations, rather than on merit. Members of Congress should listen to the demands of frustrated voters and eliminate these projects.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1660.cfm

What effect do you think the 'line item veto' would do to stop the 'riders' on more important bills? Isn't it the 'riders' that get through and cost tax-payers billions on frivilous spending like studying some termite? Also, doing away with the 'lobby system'? Isn't this another term for 'buying off congressmen and senators? Just some thoughts.


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What effect do you think the 'line item veto' would do to stop the 'riders' on more important bills? Isn't it the 'riders' that get through and cost tax-payers billions on frivilous spending like studying some termite? Also, doing away with the 'lobby system'? Isn't this another term for 'buying off congressmen and senators? Just some thoughts.

I think line item veto would allow the president to eliminate riders. Unfortunately, it would also allow the president the power to gut legislation to the extent that it does not resemble what Congress intended to be signed into law, riders notwithstanding. If it only allowed elimination of pork, I think there would be a lot less opposition, but line item veto takes too much power from Congress and hands it over to the president.

I agree that there needs to be some reform in how some spending legislation s passed, but I don't believe the line item veto is the answer.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

the person who has said she will raise taxes has also said she will spend more money. i believe her words were "american can't afford all of my ideas", or something to that effect.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just another one of those made-up quotes from a right wing source?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

What effect do you think the 'line item veto' would do to stop the 'riders' on more important bills? Isn't it the 'riders' that get through and cost tax-payers billions on frivilous spending like studying some termite? Also, doing away with the 'lobby system'? Isn't this another term for 'buying off congressmen and senators? Just some thoughts.

I think line item veto would allow the president to eliminate riders. Unfortunately, it would also allow the president the power to gut legislation to the extent that it does not resemble what Congress intended to be signed into law, riders notwithstanding. If it only allowed elimination of pork, I think there would be a lot less opposition, but line item veto takes too much power from Congress and hands it over to the president.

I agree that there needs to be some reform in how some spending legislation s passed, but I don't believe the line item veto is the answer.

I see what you are saying.


Chuck

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

I used to run a business that financed cars. I'd spend $2000 for the car, sell it for $4000 and finance it with $500 down. In my books I went in debt by $1500 to sell that car. The tax code says I just made $2000 profit! Taxable profit at the time of sale.

Out of curiosity, did you charge interest? The sale of a car and a car loan should be treated as separate transactions by the government, and in company books. The purchaser of the car had to pay sales tax on a $4000 car, not a $500 car.

True, the sale of the car is taxable income now, the interested is taxable as it comes in. The only way around paying the tax is to set up a related finance company and sell the paper to the RFC at a discount. The seller takes a loss on the paper to use as a write-off against income and the RFC is a cash accounting customer and doesn't have to worry about paying tax on money until it's received. Everyone who set up an RFC that I knew was audited. There's a boatload of rules and the IRS knows that it's a way around accrual acounting methods.

I never wanted to do this because it was a logistical nightmare. I also don't have a problem paying tax, but only on money I've received.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

the person who has said she will raise taxes has also said she will spend more money. i believe her words were "american can't afford all of my ideas", or something to that effect.

Do you have a cite for that, or is it just another one of those made-up quotes from a right wing source?

the second result on google was this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711060001

nice "right wing source" huh?

here's the original article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/11/clinton_vows_to_check_executive_power/

i don't know where the boston globe falls in the pantheon of political ideology, maybe you can tell me. are they a "right wing source"?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[airdvr 200]

Here's another right wing source quote.

While opposing tax cuts, Clinton has supported hundreds of bills boosting federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. During her first two years in office, Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 169 bills increasing spending by a total of $124 billion, while failing to sponsor or co-sponsor a single bill to reduce spending.
In 2003 and 2004 Clinton grew even more generous with the taxpayers' dollars. She sponsored or co-sponsored 211 bills to increase spending and just three bills to reduce it, yielding a total net cost of $378 billion. This made Clinton the second most "expensive" senator during that time.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

If HillBill is elected hang onto your wallets.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

sadly, you are right. spending should be a function of how much money is coming in, but i know that's just a fantasy. the decision will be easy this time around, the person who has said she will raise taxes has also said she will spend more money. i believe her words were "american can't afford all of my ideas", or something to that effect.

How is i bad to have more ideas than America can pay for. She readily admits that she could not implement them all. I don't think a candidate that brainstorms is a bad thing. Have you ever had $1000 and had more than one idea how to spend that money? I realize that it's unfashionable in the current Whitehouse, but considering as many options as possible to solve problems should not be viewed as a bad thing, IMO.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Here's another right wing source quote.

While opposing tax cuts, Clinton has supported hundreds of bills boosting federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Isn't that better than supporting tax cuts while increasing spending like the current Whitehouse administration?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TrophyHusband 0]

its not so much that ideas are bad, i just believe that she will impliment as many of her ideas as she can with the money available, and then ask for us to give her more.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

its not so much that ideas are bad, i just believe that she will impliment as many of her ideas as she can with the money available, and then ask for us to give her more.

Which I believe is preferable to implementing as many of her ideas as possible, regardless of how much money is available, which is the current status quo. At least Hillary, and I'm not endorsing Hillary, is being honest about having more ideas than she can afford to implement, and that fiscal responsibility is important enough that she shouldn't implement ideas without income (as opposed to credit) with which to finance them.

"Tax and spend" is better than "borrow and spend."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,648]

Too bad you don't read your own sources:

"In an October 28 editorial, the Globe stated that Clinton's remarks during the interview have been "so badly twisted by her opponents that we feel it necessary to reprint the interview transcript that contains the remark." The Globe noted that the "Republican National Committee sent out an e-mail alert claiming the remark showed how expensive a Clinton presidency would be for the taxpayers" and that, during the October 21 Republican presidential debate, Rudy Giuliani "played the remark for laughs, quoting her and adding the zinger: 'No kidding Hillary, America can't afford you!' " The Globe added, "All in good fun, perhaps, until you learn that Clinton was saying she opposes big government spending, not the other way around."

I guess you forget that under the Clinton administration the deficit declined.

The President you can't afford is G.W. Bush. Government spending increased 33% during Bush's first 4 years in office, including a 25.3% increase in non-defense discretionary spending. The last presidency to have a higher spending increase was Nixon's.

Maybe you've noticed that Nixon and Bush are both GOP.

Inconvenient little facts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

More inconvenient facts from ABC News:

Report: Wasteful Government Spending at All-Time High

June 27, 2007 1:56 PM

Justin Rood Reports:

The U.S. government has committed to spend a record-high $1.1 trillion with companies holding government contracts "plagued by waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement," according to a new report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The report blames the rise in bad spending on a sharp increase in noncompetitive contracting and a general increase in the use of private companies to perform government functions.

More than $200 billion in taxpayer money was spent on projects for which only one or a handful of companies submitted bids, the committee found.

That figure has more than tripled since 2000, according to the report, and now comprises more than half of all government spending outside of entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

"The numbers -- there's not an iota of justification for more than half of all contracts being no- or limited-bid contracts," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan Washington, D.C.-based group which scrutinizes federal spending.

Ashdown said he doubted senior government officials were letting so many troubled no-bid contracts to "cronies" but were doing it out of laziness.

"They knew that, until a few months ago, Congress wasn't minding the store," he told the Blotter on ABCNews.com, referring to the Democrats' takeover of the House and Senate last November. "They could do whatever they wanted."

According to the report, the committee based its findings on a federal database of government spending, and more than 700 reports by government auditing and investigations offices.

In a fact sheet released in response to the report, the Bush administration said it was "committed to strengthened use of competition and effective contract management and oversight."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TrophyHusband 0]

you inferred that it was a made up quote from a right wing source and asked for a cite. i gave you a source for the quote. i don't really give a shit what their analysis of the quote is, i can analize it and determine what i think she means just as well as they can.

thanks for the info on gwb and nixon though, now i won't be voting for either of them in the next election.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

you inferred that it was a made up quote from a right wing source and asked for a cite. i gave you a source for the quote. .

Forgot that you wrote "[Clinton] has also said she will spend more money", did you?

P.S. you inferred, I implied.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TrophyHusband 0]

let me ask you something, what the fuck does this have to do with this thread OR how i think hillary will spend my money? we get it. you hate the current administration. now maybe its time get over it and look to the future instead of using every fucking thread to bash this administration. your rhetoric is getting very stale.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

how i think hillary will spend my money?

It stops being your money when you pay your taxes. At that point it belongs to your government, to be spent as they deem appropriate.

Incidentally, if you are worried about Hillary voting for too much spending, wouldn't it be desirable to have her in a branch of government that does not legislate the budget? If she doesn't get elected president, she'll still be a Senator, with the power to vote to raise your taxes or increase your government's spending.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

let me ask you something, what the fuck does this have to do with this thread OR how i think hillary will spend my money? we get it. you hate the current administration. now maybe its time get over it and look to the future instead of using every fucking thread to bash this administration. your rhetoric is getting very stale.

Did I bring up Hillary? No, it was someone else*.

If you bring it up, the forum rules don't forbid me from responding.

If you want deliberately to misinterpret what she said, don't grumble when someone calls you on it.

If you want to support the biggest spending administration in world history, and at the same time grumble about government spending, don't be surprised if someone points out your inconsistency.

* WELL - that someone else was YOU! How about that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

how i think hillary will spend my money?

It stops being your money when you pay your taxes. At that point it belongs to your government, to be spent as they deem appropriate.

Whose government?
Our government.
Whose money?
Our money.

"My money" is a perfectly reasonable subset of "our money."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Whose government?
Our government.
Whose money?
Our money.

"My money" is a perfectly reasonable subset of "our money."

Since we have significantly more say in who makes up our government that how our government spends their money, I don't think we can reasonably consider it our money simply because it belongs to our government. It is no longer our money, we paid it as the price of living in a civilized, governed society.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Having each taxpayer in the US pay another $1800 a year would balance the budget.

For a year. Then the spending increases because there is a source of more money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.