real change

[Chadman]

Wayne, you don't think that corporations spending money to elect politicians has any ramifications to the taxpayer? Are you serious? None of our taxpayer dollars go to pay for anything from corporations in the private sector? Are you serious? Sorry, I guess I consider money going to pay the salaries and benefits of teachers, police, fire and rescue, etc., to be pretty important comparatively in my big picture.

You don't think that millions/billions of dollars leaving corporations into the electoral process and out of our economy has any effect on our economy? What jobs are created by political donations to a candidate? What products are made? What services offered to the public? Perhaps if these companies didn't spend so much to get people elected the price of their product could come down, benefiting all who purchase it, and the economy in general with more money to spend in other areas? Company bottom line improves without the political expenditures, benefiting the worker, the purchasers of the companies products, the tax collections of the country?

How can you suggest only one side of this equation? I can tangibly see many of the services that our government provides that benefit me, my family, my community, my state and my country. Those services provide a safe and secure environment for the companies we're talking about to do business in the country. To say that the government and its workers do nothing for the citizens of this country is ludicrous, and without it, the corporations you are so enamored with would not be able to do much of what they can now.

 

[ssd]

I'm coming late to this discussion....
look back into the economic history of this country and you will see that the US was most prosperous when gov't regulation and taxes were the lowest. As more and more entitlements were created, more and more taxes, etc were needed to fund those entitlement programs. To say that corporations would be nowhere without the gov't is true but I personally believe that the US corporations and the US taxpayers would be much FURTHER ahead with less gov't intrusion. Look at the states in this union that are creating jobs....they are predominantly low tax states. It is simple economics.

As for public unions contributing to a political party v private corporations....are you trying to tell me, Chadman, that NO private corporations contribute to the Democratic party? Are you serious? For all the hell the banksters on Wall Street are getting, take a good hard look at who they tend to support - talk about having cash to contribute. Yet, I doubt you will be able to find a single union that donated ANY money out of their general fund to a Republican candidate. Furthermore, tax dollars pay a public workers' salary and therefore, those tax dollars are paying that person's dues and those dues are contributing to a political party. Private corporations make contributions from profit that they have created - it is theirs to do as they wish - one could argue that those tax dollars that went to pay that public employee should not be allowed to re-enter the political domain.
As for the gov't being needed? The FED govt should provide basic services and provide for the common defense. The rest should be left up to the individual states and if you do not like how one state operates, move to one that you do. I doubt anyone here can give proof of a gov't program that cost what they said it would and worked as well as they said it would. It just does not happen. We would have more freedoms in this country with less gov't and less taxes.

 

[Duff Miver]

I'm coming late to this discussion....
look back into the economic history of this country and you will see that the US was most prosperous when gov't regulation and taxes were the lowest.

So when when was the US most prosperous? How about 1950-1980?

And the top tax rates then?

And your point is....?


Sorry to confuse you with facts.

 

[Trench]

Do some research on diff between private sector and gov --and who funds each.
No one forces you to contribute to any corp yet--as taxpayer we are forced to fund unions/dem party with our tax dollars--

Congratulations Dogs. That has to, without a doubt, be the most idiotic statement you've made yet (and that's no small achievement).

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

O says
OBAMA: Don't 'denigrate' or 'vilify' public workers

Walker says Pssst Gumby

WALKER SLAPS BACK: Hopes Obama 'Simply Misunderstands'...

+++++++++++++++++++++++
trenchmouth--weren't you just bashing oil companies for tax breaks --then did your run and hide routine --when confronted with facts

You sure are a glunton for punishment--

Most Read
Last 24 Hours
End the Privileged Class
- Mark McKinnon, The Daily Beast

In 28 states, state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired. A sizable portion of those dues is then donated by the public unions almost exclusively to Democratic candidates. Michael Barone sums it up: ?public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.?

 

[The Sponge]

+++++++++++++++++++++++
trenchmouth--weren't you just bashing oil companies for tax breaks --then did your run and hide routine --when confronted with facts

You sure are a glunton for punishment--


]

When u say stuff like this with your body of work on this site :facepalm: it almost is like watching Charlie Sheen do an interview. It is either a cry for help or u are having a good laugh about describing urself but acting like it is someone else.

 

[ssd]

Thanks for posting a chart that you think helps your point of view, Muff.

Maybe read this link:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

for a better perspective on it.
It also mentions that while lower tax rates are important, as much or more so is how the govt spends and allocates the money.
As for your chart - 1950-1980 - ALL taxpayers paid lower taxes during that time period, not just top marginal earners as your posted chart would like one to think.

I still have a hard time believing why anyone would want anyone who makes money to have to pay more to the govt? You would think everyone would want to hold on to as much as they can because they personally worked for it and earned it. If A person makes $100k and B person makes $50k, does A person derive more rights in this country than B person does? If not, then why should A person be required to pay more?

Flat tax is the way to go. Eliminate all the deductions and everyone pays the same rate across the board. Add a VAT tax on purchases if you want some type of a luxury tax. Would also eliminate the need for the IRS or a vast portion of it

 

[StevieD]

Thanks for posting a chart that you think helps your point of view, Muff.

Maybe read this link:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

for a better perspective on it.
It also mentions that while lower tax rates are important, as much or more so is how the govt spends and allocates the money.
As for your chart - 1950-1980 - ALL taxpayers paid lower taxes during that time period, not just top marginal earners as your posted chart would like one to think.

I still have a hard time believing why anyone would want anyone who makes money to have to pay more to the govt? You would think everyone would want to hold on to as much as they can because they personally worked for it and earned it. If A person makes $100k and B person makes $50k, does A person derive more rights in this country than B person does? If not, then why should A person be required to pay more?

Flat tax is the way to go. Eliminate all the deductions and everyone pays the same rate across the board. Add a VAT tax on purchases if you want some type of a luxury tax. Would also eliminate the need for the IRS or a vast portion of it

Not sure who is asking the person who makes 100 k to pay more but those who make millions should pay a higher percentage.

 

[Duff Miver]

As for your chart - 1950-1980 - ALL taxpayers paid lower taxes during that time period, not just top marginal earners as your posted chart would like one to think.

Huh? All taxpayers paid lower taxes 1950-1980? I just showed you the chart which proves that higher income folks paid marginal tax rates 2 or three times higher than now.

Did you hold the chart upside down, or what?

You claim was "look back into the economic history of this country and you will see that the US was most prosperous when gov't regulation and taxes were the lowest."

Try to pay attention now, and I'll show you that you are mistaken.

The greatest period of increasing prosperity was 1950-1980. Got that?

Present prosperity growth is nearly non-existent. Still following along?

Federal taxes, expressed a a % of GDP (which is the only way which makes sense) are today lower than they have been in 60 years.

If you ad up the three simple facts above...1,2,3, it's obvious that low Fed taxes do not increase prosperity.

 

[ssd]

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits? In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Some would argue that GDP does not equate to prosperity. They would have you look at the stock market.

And yes, you showed a chart of TOP MARGINAL rates - yet during that time ALL tax rates were cut, not just the ones for top earners.

Sponge - why does the millionaire owe more in taxes? What greater benefit does he derive from living here than the guy who makes 30k? What is your reason for making him pay more?

 

[The Sponge]

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits? In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Some would argue that GDP does not equate to prosperity. They would have you look at the stock market.

And yes, you showed a chart of TOP MARGINAL rates - yet during that time ALL tax rates were cut, not just the ones for top earners.

Sponge - why does the millionaire owe more in taxes? What greater benefit does he derive from living here than the guy who makes 30k? What is your reason for making him pay more?

Not sure when i ever said that. Doubt i ever said that in my life. I believe everyone should pay the same percentage with no loopholes.

 

[Trench]

+++++++++++++++++++++++
trenchmouth--weren't you just bashing oil companies for tax breaks --then did your run and hide routine --when confronted with facts

You sure are a glunton for punishment--

You live in your own reality, don'tcha Dogs?

I haven't even offered my opinion on tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies. But as long as you brought it up, I'm against corporate welfare, with two exceptions: when it creates jobs and when it levels the playing field to allow new technologies to develop and gain a foothold in the marketplace.

Slow down on the Budweiser, Dogs. It's tough enough to make any sense out of your posts when you're sober.