It's Halftime in Amercia...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
medicaid-full.PNG
Members don't see this ad.
 
Because I'm an honest taxpayer I get screwed by Obama's tax code. It's unfair and fundamentally dishonest. Look at the graph above. Obama needs to follow the Bowles-Simpson plan and broaden the base while eliminating deductions.

I have no issues paying my fair share but what does that mean exactly? I pay 35% while others use tax loopholes and pay 20%? Again, look at the graph above. Simplify the brackets and eliminate all deductions.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Based on your expected income where do you fit on the graph above? Now, once Obama fixes the tax system and makes you pay your fair share where do you fit on the graph? You will be NEGATIVE if Obama wins re-election. Again, more socialistic policies designed to redistribute money from the upper middle class to those who have less.
 
All of the above trends will keep on truckin as long as the world allows us to print money. When we can't anymore these trendlines will break and the world will look quite a bit different.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
BLADEMDA said:
Based on your expected income where do you fit on the graph above?
Click to expand...

I agree that social security is breaking. But you keep speaking of it as if it was intended to be an investment plan where returns were proportional to contributions.

It wasn't, and it's not. It's a progressive tax designed to keep old people and orphans out of homeless shelters. Agree or disagree, that has always been the intent. Its implementation has many flaws, but not getting out what you put in isn't one of them.


dr doze said:
All of the above trends will keep on truckin as long as the world allows us to print money. When we can't anymore these trendlines will break and the world will look quite a bit different.
Click to expand...

That is the truth. The only question is when, and how abrupt the change will be.
 
pgg said:
I agree that social security is breaking. But you keep speaking of it as if it was intended to be an investment plan where returns were proportional to contributions.

It wasn't, and it's not. It's a progressive tax designed to keep old people and orphans out of homeless shelters. Agree or disagree, that has always been the intent. Its implementation has many flaws, but not getting out what you put in isn't one of them.




That is the truth. The only question is when, and how abrupt the change will be.
Click to expand...

Yes. I know the system we have in place is "progressive" and Obama is going to make it even more so. The proposals to increases SS taxation on wages up to $150K or more and the "new" Medicare tax on the rich earning more than $200/250K are prime examples.

However, calling these progressive taxation systems which beat the he## out of the upper middle class "fair share" is only in the mind of Obama and his liberal base. There is nothing fair about heavy, unequal taxtion with loopholes for the rich or connected.
 
MR. GREGORY: Let me, let me ask you about the role of government. You’ve said about taxation, in a way that doesn’t minces (sic) words, the following: “Taxation is immoral,” you told the Libertarian Party News. Would you scrap the tax code altogether?
REP. PAUL: That would be a pretty good idea, a pretty good start. I, I can qualify it if I’m allowed. Taxation is theft when you take money from one group to give it to, to another, when you, when you transfer the wealth. Now, taxation could be accomplished with user fees and, you know, highway fees and gasoline taxes and import taxes. But the income tax is based on the assumption that the government owns you, owns all of your income and provides the conditions on which they allow you to keep a certain percentage. That, to me, is immoral, and the founders didn’t like it. That’s why the Constitution had to be amended in 1913
 
Our current tax code is absolutely ridiculous. It massively soaks the middle class and small businesses and it greatly favors those that can hire an army of tax lawyers.

The Republicans should be pushing to abolish the current tax code and to shut down the IRS. The system we have now is inherently flawed and cannot be redeemed.

But instead, the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. They must now defend absolutely laughable tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

The new "Buffett Rule" would only affect 0.3 percent of all taxpayers. Obama hopes to pin the economic frustrations of the bottom 90 percent on them and on the Republicans.

Sadly, this is how politics is played in America. Instead of working for the good of the country, Obama has his eyes on the next election.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Ony McCain paid a higher effective tax rate than me the past few years. I never heard the liberal media mention one word about Kerry's rate when he ran for President.
Click to expand...

How about I average the above graph and send the IRS a check for that % of my income with no deductions. Do you think they would accept it?;)
 
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett," Obama said.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, described the Buffett rule and other tax proposals as "class warfare." Ryan said on Fox News Sunday that such an approach "will attack job creators, divide people and it doesn't grow the economy."
Obama said it's not "class warfare" to ask "a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or teacher." He also said the nation's $14.5 trillion-plus debt is too big to be reduced by budget cuts only.
"This is not class warfare," Obama said. "It's math."
 
BLADEMDA said:
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett," Obama said.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, described the Buffett rule and other tax proposals as "class warfare." Ryan said on Fox News Sunday that such an approach "will attack job creators, divide people and it doesn't grow the economy."
Obama said it's not "class warfare" to ask "a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or teacher." He also said the nation's $14.5 trillion-plus debt is too big to be reduced by budget cuts only.
"This is not class warfare," Obama said. "It's math."
Click to expand...

Romney will need to campaign on overhauling the tax code. Simplify the code and create just a few brackets. Obama makes his points well and I would rather defend my own version of an immoral tax code than the current version.
 

It is very dangerous doctrine to consider the (supreme court) judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
– Thomas Jefferson

ObamaCare will be decided next month by the Supreme Court. I bet it stands except for the individual mandate portion.
 
The graphs above clearly show that spending cuts and tax increases are both needed to save our nation from fiscal ruin. The answer to is to revamp the tax cose (simplified, limited to no deductions, fewer brackets) and cut the budget slowly over time.

20% of GDP is our budget MAX and the number we must return to, or better yet, 18%.
 
So the answer is what? As you have stated increasing taxes and cutting spending but none of the republican candidates are willing to do so, president Obama has stated a willingness to do both, while not enough in my opinion it is a better step then the mindless cry of further tax cuts wth no reductions in spending, states rights and the strange idea that the budget can be balanced on the 12% of the budget.
 
pacucare said:
So the answer is what? As you have stated increasing taxes and cutting spending but none of the republican candidates are willing to do so, president Obama has stated a willingness to do both, while not enough in my opinion it is a better step then the mindless cry of further tax cuts wth no reductions in spending, states rights and the strange idea that the budget can be balanced on the 12% of the budget.
Click to expand...

The answer is "Romney." He is not an ideologue and will work to solve the problem. After he gets the GOP nomination Romney will return the "Moderate" center where he is most comfortable. Then, I expect his new tax code for the USA to be revealed which will raise revenue. Remember, it's not about tax increases or tax cuts but revenue to the govt. This can be accomplished with lower marginal rates and eliminating deductions: Bowles-Simpson is just such a plan.

Reduction in spending must also occur SLOWLY so as not to cause social unrest or disruptions in the "social promise."

Romney is the answer and not 4 more years of Obama.
 
The Bowles-Simpson plan is still the best one on the table but the Gang of Six wasn't bad either. The Democractic offer was just smoke and mirrors to raise taxes on the upper middle class. It doesn't raise enough revenue and punishes the upper middle class the most. It also doesn't reform the broken tax code.
 
Sorry I do not see Mitt Romneys plan changing anything, a key provision is to keep the Busch tax cuts which were SUPPOSED to be temporary and place a
structural deficet. Look it is not a secret that you are an anyone but Obama voter but at least stop cutting and pasting nonstop and present a REAL answer not one based on what Romney may doin an idèal world.
 
ROMNEY: I'd be prepared to be a leader. You can't get the country to go in the right direction and get Washington to work if you don't have a president that's a leader. And three years ago, we selected a person who had never had any leadership experience, never worked in the private sector, never had the opportunity to actually bring people together, and he hasn't been able to do so.
He said he'd bring us hope and change. Instead, he's divided the nation and tried to blame other people.
The real course for America is to have someone who is a leader, who can identify people in both parties who care more about the country than they care about getting reelected.
There are Democrats like that. There are Republicans like that. I was the governor of a state that had a few Democrats. People in this room know how many we had in Massachusetts.


Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/11/complete-transcript-of-hanover-economic-debate/#ixzz1mD2TodMb
 
pacucare said:
Sorry I do not see Mitt Romneys plan changing anything, a key provision is to keep the Busch tax cuts which were SUPPOSED to be temporary and place a
structural deficet. Look it is not a secret that you are an anyone but Obama voter but at least stop cutting and pasting nonstop and present a REAL answer not one based on what Romney may doin an idèal world.
Click to expand...


Wrrong. The campaign trail is one thing but governing is another. Romney will embace a Tax code revision plan and cut spending. He has 2 good plans to work from and I have posted both of them.

And Yes, I'll vote for anyone but Obama.

I don't consider graphs explaining our problems and possible solutions "cut and paste."
They are valuable illustrations of the situation we find ourselves.
 
SImilar story I was surprised to hear on NPR.
http://www.mises.ca/posts/blog/how-china-transformed-its-economy/


BLADEMDA said:
A Lesson in Obama Economics

December 20th, 2009 by Saul Anuzis
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, 
we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. 


All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. 
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 
The second test average was a D! 
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, 
blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Click to expand...
 
GoodmanBrown said:
Narc, I know that you find Keynesian economics silly because it doesn't always work incredibly well in the real world.
Click to expand...

When it's government spending on a preferred war (WW2), it's called "stimulus." When it's government spending on unfavorable wars (The Bush Wars), it's called "waste."
 
Last edited:
GoodmanBrown said:
Social security and Medicare have been running for decades in the black when you take them as independent "businesses."
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than an accounting labelling gimmick. The government takes in so much total money (regardless how it is broken up), and spends so much money. The result has been 15 trillion dollars of red ink.
 
Last edited:
dr doze said:
The tragedy is that these programs were put in place with the best intentions by thoughtful people.
Click to expand...

Big government spending types is they equate good intentions with good policy. It simply isn't true.
 
Last edited:
pacucare said:
As you have stated increasing taxes and cutting spending but none of the republican candidates are willing to do so, president Obama has stated a willingness to do both.
Click to expand...

He is the Babe Ruth of government spending. He'll say things like we'll slash 100 billion dollars off of the budget in, um, 15 years from now, and then literally just asked to spend 500 BILLION DOLLARS MORE just a few months ago.
 
Last edited:
vector2 said:
he's as loony as Ron "Gold Troll" Paul.
Click to expand...

Yeah, old looney Ron Paul, the guy in 2003 that clearly stated all of this government and FED intervention was leading us to a severe housing crisis.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

lane
In other news, it’s anesthesia’s fault
Replies
35
Views
3K
ChiDO
ChiDO
O
Tell me it’s going to be okay...
2 3
Replies
112
Views
12K
vector2
V
S
It's not burnout
Replies
30
Views
3K
drmwvr
drmwvr
Noyac
It’s time this country wakes up.
Replies
13
Views
2K
dhb
dhb
DrOwnage
Anyone else think its bogus our start up units are reimbursed based on the surgery itself?
Replies
16
Views
1K
GassYous
GassYous
Top