11-06-2005, 11:48 PM | #101 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
I'm not against lower taxes across the board if you want to do some spending cuts that we can all agree on. What I am not a fan of is spending cuts that target the poor and tax cuts that target the rich. |
|
11-06-2005, 11:52 PM | #102 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 07:04 AM | #103 | ||
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Quote:
I do not believe that anyone that is not physically or mentally inable are poor because they "are screwed over from the start". This victim mentality is fostering a lot of the long-term welfare problems that drive me crazy.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
||
11-07-2005, 09:22 AM | #104 |
Team Chaplain
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Just outside Des Moines, IA
|
I believe the issue of federal government welfare/entitlement/social spending programs is clouded by too many red herrings and distractions. The charge of "cutting programs to children" is in itself spun to affect the debate; but the answer "what's mine is mine" is a response that spins us even farther from the issues. "Welfare queens," class warfare, tax cuts for the rich/poor--these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the real issue at hand, though they make for entertaining bunny trails.
Someone earlier tried to drive back to what I consider the primary issue with the comment "we as a civilized society should care for poor/disadvantaged." This was a shot back to the center of the issue, though it didn't seem to stick. Regardless of freeloaders and abuses, the "left" is correct that caring for the poor and the orphan and the widow are moral obligations for the U.S.A. (it may not be for other countries, but this country has been too heavily influenced by it's Christian heritage to suggest otherwise--it's a part of our collective social conscience). The response the "right" needs to return is not to argue "what's mine is mine" or "the freeloaders will suckle the system"--for that does not change the fact that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor, feed the hungry, etc. The "right" (I put "right" in quotes, because such terms are really irrelevant. Libertarians, conservatives, and even the "long-haired hippie love children" could all take this approach) does, however, need to present a legitimate question. Who, exactly, has this responsibility? Who is morally obliged to do this care? That's the real question. To this I would answer simply: individual Americans and their collective compassionate organizations do. If our Constitution provided this role for the federal govt (and to take "general welfare clause" to mean it does is a position clearly refuted by the writings of the framers), then the federal government would have that responsibility. Since it does not, I contend, thrusting such a responsibility upon the government is an abdication of our own moral obligations. The people of this country have far too long thrust our responsibilities on others. We have thrust our responsibility to teach our children upon state schools; we have thrust our responsibility to train our children in the faith upon Sunday schools; we have thrust our responsibility to teach our children sexuality upon teachers (WTF?); we have thrust our resposibility to provide for retirement upon social security programs; and we have thrust our responsibility to care for the poor all the way up to the federal level. That's not the government's job. That's my job, the job of my church, the job of my community, the job of my collective compassion organizations (Red Cross/Salvation Army, etc). And the penalty, the cost for people not fulfilling their responsibities? It's being confronted with children dying. It's poverty. It's crime. It's social decay. These are the fruits of our irresponsibility; but instead of allowing Americans to face their own foolishness, we have invented a system of taxation and government spending so we don't have to face our own sin. When my neighbor's child cries because Daddy lost his job and baby goes to bed hungry, I should not have the luxury of saying, "Oh, the government will take care of him." I should be emptying my pantry and getting my butt over there with a loaf of bread.
__________________
Winner of 6 FOFC Scribe Awards, including 3 Gold Scribes Founder of the ZFL, 2004 Golden Scribe Dynasty of the Year Now bringing The Des Moines Dragons back to life, and the joke's on YOU, NFL! I came to the Crossroad. I took it. And that has made all the difference. |
11-07-2005, 09:42 AM | #105 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
good post rev
I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it. For myself I think the question is not "should we care for the poor/unfortunate" but "how should we care for the poor/unfortunate." I don't think it's a philosophical question - I think 99.99% of us agree that there are no circumstances under which a child should go hungry in this country, for example - but rather it's a technical question, that most of us only understand what is apparent to our immediate reality (my taxes go up, etc.) |
11-07-2005, 09:44 AM | #106 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
This is a fascinating thread. I see many viewpoints here and I don't believe that they are necessarily contradictory.
|
11-07-2005, 09:47 AM | #107 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 10:26 AM | #108 |
Team Chaplain
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Just outside Des Moines, IA
|
[quote=st.cronin]good post rev
I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it. QUOTE] Extreme? I prefer the term "radical." Or even, "maverick." That's me! I'd like to see the boat rocked, and if that means suggesting we capsize it...then let her roll! In philosophy, I'm an extreme, original intent Constitutionalist. I don't necessarily jive with the political party of that name, but it means sometimes I come off sounding Republican, sometimes Libertarian, but all held together by a common thread: the federal government needs to get back inside its Constitutional cage and give the people back their rights and responsibilities. One day, I dream about starting a third political party and calling it the "Bill of Rights" party, in reference to the Constitution, the check on the federal governement that the original Bill of Rights created, and regaining individual rights. Anybody with me?
__________________
Winner of 6 FOFC Scribe Awards, including 3 Gold Scribes Founder of the ZFL, 2004 Golden Scribe Dynasty of the Year Now bringing The Des Moines Dragons back to life, and the joke's on YOU, NFL! I came to the Crossroad. I took it. And that has made all the difference. Last edited by revrew : 11-07-2005 at 10:32 AM. |
11-07-2005, 10:34 AM | #109 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Where do I sign-up? ...
Only partially joking as I'm basing it on this one specific issue where I happen to agree with you...
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 10:47 AM | #110 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
It's got nothing to do with being anti-patriotism. My question is, what is a "fair" tax for the rich to the poor. The rich are in a tax bracket of 35% (after tax cuts), while each bracket reduces greatly. Is it fair that the rich have to pay a higher poriton of the income compare to the lower brackets? Just some questions I have. |
|
11-07-2005, 11:11 AM | #111 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?
Why are businesses and the rich of the nation being pampered? I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%. THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it. |
11-07-2005, 11:19 AM | #112 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
You do realize that a flat tax would be VASTLY better for the rich than for the poor, don't you? |
|
11-07-2005, 11:20 AM | #113 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
Be much more fairer.....And wealth will create jobs. Last edited by Galaxy : 11-07-2005 at 11:21 AM. |
|
11-07-2005, 11:21 AM | #114 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
Agree with this, though I think it's more the government's fault to allow these loopholes. |
|
11-07-2005, 11:30 AM | #115 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Quote:
Its not worse or better, its called Fair and unbiased. |
|
11-07-2005, 11:33 AM | #116 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 11:46 AM | #117 | |
Head Cheerleader
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Caught somewhere between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace...
|
Quote:
As unfair as it is, it's because they can afford it. They can afford to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in ways which protect them from paying taxes on that money. On the other side of the coin however, without those people investing all that money - what would happen to the stock market and to our economy? I think the best thing is a flat federal SALES tax...you pay taxes based on what you spend. Someone at the lower end of the scale will pay significantly less taxes on their purchases than the high end of the scale just because the price tag is higher at the higher end. |
|
11-07-2005, 11:53 AM | #118 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
I don't know about a sales tax. A few advantages is that it is based on what you spend, would hit up those illegal aleins, as regular foreign vistors, ect. A combination of a flat tax and sales tax might be something I would consider. |
|
11-07-2005, 11:57 AM | #119 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 12:04 PM | #120 | |
Head Cheerleader
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Caught somewhere between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace...
|
Quote:
I would support the flat income/sales tax also, but I'd support just the sales tax more, and this is the #1 reason why - people in America don't save their money...on the whole, we are a nation of spenders...people see their income go up b/c of no income tax and they are going to go right to the malls, targets, walmarts, internet, etc - and spend that money. The percentage of people putting that extra income in savings will be small...it will boost the economy, and the gov't will have all the tax money they want (well, not really, they will always want more, but you know what I mean) |
|
11-07-2005, 12:06 PM | #121 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Portland, OR
|
Revrew is one of those board members who I always pause to read.
|
11-07-2005, 12:07 PM | #122 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
Last edited by Raiders Army : 11-07-2005 at 12:08 PM. |
|
11-07-2005, 12:15 PM | #123 | |
The boy who cried Trout
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: TX
|
Quote:
Because you never know when a kid is going to come flying out. |
|
11-07-2005, 12:16 PM | #124 | |
The boy who cried Trout
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: TX
|
[quote=revrew]
Quote:
It needs to be some sort of animal party. I'm partial to Bull Moose, but you could be Grizzly Bear or somesuch. |
|
11-07-2005, 12:56 PM | #125 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-07-2005, 01:00 PM | #126 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 01:03 PM | #127 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 02:55 PM | #128 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
Have you read in-depth about Africa? Last edited by Galaxy : 11-07-2005 at 02:56 PM. |
|
11-07-2005, 02:56 PM | #129 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
A flat tax would eliminate those loopholes and tax breaks, at least not what I think it means. |
|
11-07-2005, 02:58 PM | #130 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
The rich pay less? Say a rich guy makes $200,000, and another guy makes $40,000, and you tax it at 10%. The rich guy pays $20,000 and the other guy pays $4,000. The rich are still paying more, but the system is much fairer to all. I though our country believed in equality. |
|
11-07-2005, 03:17 PM | #131 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2005, 03:21 PM | #132 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
If that wasn't what you were talking about in terms of building wealth to create jobs, what were you talking about? EDIT: And in a revenue nuetral environment, if Gates pays less, the lower and/or middle classes pay more. Last edited by MrBigglesworth : 11-07-2005 at 03:22 PM. |
|
11-07-2005, 03:31 PM | #133 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Also an important point is that a progressive tax system is able to deal with recessions much easier. A flat tax makes it much harder to get out of an economic downturn. The reasons are that during a recovery, the people that make the most money are those on the top and business. That ends up spreading to those lower down the chain because those businesses will start hiring more people and whatnot. In a progressive system, the rich will pay more and the poor pay less, making the recession less harmful on the poor, but when the rich start making their money in the beginning of recovery, the government will gain more revenues than without a progressive system.
Anyway, I'm not for a flat tax or national sales tax (unless the sales tax replaces the payroll tax). I'm fine with an progressive income tax.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
11-07-2005, 03:35 PM | #134 | |
H.S. Freshman Team
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NOVA USA
|
Quote:
I make a sheer buttload of money, more than the range quoted here, and EVEN I concede that I must pay a higher percentage in taxes than the guy making 40K, because my food, gas, and lodging costs the same as his. With a spouse and three kids, at the end of the day, he's wiped out, and he's taking the bus to work. I'm buying a second car and thinking about taking a month off to drive it. Is that fair? And I make so much more money because why exactly? Let me tell you, it was mostly dumb luck, it wasn't because I worked harder or because I deserved it more. That's what the progressive tax system is, it's FAIR considering circumstances. And never forget, we provide a wonderful system in the US for making money hand over fist if you catch the right breaks and make the right contacts. Without a progressive tax system in place, that system is absolutely FREE!! for those who can get in. And that system is made up of us. With a progressive tax system such as we've had over the last few decades, it still didn't cost all that much, either. I mean, using Bill Gates as your example -- he still became a billionaire. |
|
11-07-2005, 03:36 PM | #135 | |
The boy who cried Trout
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: TX
|
Quote:
NOTHING?!??! Man, tough crowd! |
|
11-07-2005, 03:43 PM | #136 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Then you sir are a damned fool.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis Last edited by JonInMiddleGA : 11-07-2005 at 03:44 PM. |
|
11-07-2005, 03:44 PM | #137 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
But if the guy has a wife and three kids, is that his personal choice to support them? Should people have children and be married if they are not making that much money? As for progressive tax system, I can see what your saying (and the rest), but I think I'm not sure if it's fair. I just don't think a guy that makes more should have to pay a higher portion of his salary. Just my two cents. Last edited by Galaxy : 11-07-2005 at 03:46 PM. |
|
11-07-2005, 03:49 PM | #138 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Early, TX
|
Quote:
I've never understood the higher taxes for higher income brackets thing. What's the point of gaining wealth in a capitalistic society if you have to give more of it away because someone else makes less than you (for whatever reasons)? By the way, I know almost nothing about tax law or economics, so feel free to explain it to me in the most basic way you can, I won't be offended.
__________________
Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross |
|
11-07-2005, 03:54 PM | #139 |
Team Chaplain
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Just outside Des Moines, IA
|
judicial clerk - tx, a kind compliment
Regarding private military -- The Constitution, I believe, spells out that one of the primary purposes of the federal government is national defense. Thus, a private military would be both impractical and entirely unneccessary. Regarding the Utopia and african economics -- Before FDR's New Deal, American citizens, churches, and charitable organizations were the primary social benevolents in this country. We have since given more and more of that responsibility to government agencies, thus accelerating a pace of abdicating personal responsibility and hiding the consequences from our eyes. I'm suggesting that we stop that slide and take steps to reverse it, not that we suddenly throw our culture into cold-turkey welfare shock. And...regarding those that would suffer their own families for the benefit of others...I know many. I'm surrounded by them in my church. Regarding FLAT TAX - Why all this incredible misunderstanding and nonsense? There's no need to tax a poor person at 20% and call that flat or fair. Here's how a logical flat tax works: Some minimum standard of living is set, a threshhold for which all Americans are allowed at no tax whatsoever. Then, every dollar made above that amount is taxed at a flat rate without any sense of tax bracket, which merely penalizes people for making more. For example, if the minimum allowance was set at $30,000 per joint return, a couple making $25,000 would owe nothing. A couple making $40,000 would only pay a flat rate on the 10Gs above the allowance. A millionaire couple would pay the same rate on every dollar above the 30G allowance. Simple. I would support such a system wholeheartedly, but want to see no tax shelters, no tax breaks, no deductions of any kind (except, possibly, a greater allowance threshold for # of people in a family, much as our "standard deductions" work now). The IRS could be virtually eliminated, and everyone could do their own taxes in a matter of minutes. Of course, H&R Block would be put out of business, and so would a few tax software companies, but I think the regained man-hours and political-hours would more than make up for it in the long run.
__________________
Winner of 6 FOFC Scribe Awards, including 3 Gold Scribes Founder of the ZFL, 2004 Golden Scribe Dynasty of the Year Now bringing The Des Moines Dragons back to life, and the joke's on YOU, NFL! I came to the Crossroad. I took it. And that has made all the difference. |
11-07-2005, 03:55 PM | #140 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
It has to do with the marginal value of the next dollar. If you make 25,000/year, then another 1,000 dollars in taxes means a lot. If you make 25,000,000/year, then 1,000,000 has less relative value than 1,000 to the first person.
There is also the theory that it discourages the accumulation of wealth, which is considered unhealthy for a variety of reasons in a democratic society. This is why we have tax breaks for charitable donations and investments - it's rewarding redistribution of wealth. I'm not an economist, either, but I've read one or two books. I admit I don't really understand economics. |
11-07-2005, 04:04 PM | #141 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Your first argument is in part why progressive taxation is not detrimental to the economy. As you continue to make more and more wealth, you still accumulate a substantial portion yourself. At some point, the incentive to gain more income decreases to a sufficient point that it is no longer worth your effort. However, based on modern American history, that rate is very high for most individuals. In the U.S., the top marginal tax bracket has been 90% at some times. At that rate, the marginal value of increasing your wealth is low. However, making another $100,000 at a 35% tax rate still nets you a crap load of cash. Now, as to why it is "fair" or "good" to have progressive taxation, let me expand upon my previous post. The rich get the most out of the American governmental system. The government gives the means to our population to accumulate wealth. The poor and middle class have less to lose by choosing an alternate political system. The wealthy, on the other hand, derive significant benefits that they should pay for. For example, at a basic level, the very concept of money creates an efficiency surplus. If we used a strict barter system, our economy would look very different. We would have to constantly arrange trades for all of our goods and stores would have to need what we were offering. By using money, our system efficiency is GREATLY increased. This surplus value added to the economy is made possible only by government. Similarly, a government that facilitates private industry competition creates signficant surplus to the people. There are many such surpluses created by our form of government. These do not exist in the state of nature and are not the only way we can do things. To me, progressive taxation is the way for the rich to pay for the benefits they derive from the unique American system. They have no natural rights to their money, because their wealth is made possible ONLY by acts of the government. Anyway, I was light on the economics, so hopefully that at least makes some sense to you (even if you disagree with it).
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
11-07-2005, 04:04 PM | #142 | |||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-07-2005, 04:14 PM | #143 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Revrew and others,
There is one area of the flat tax that I always find lacking. One of the basic questions in tax law is defining income. The flat tax defenders don't seem to realize how many "loopholes" exist just by virtue of the definition of income. Do you count capital gains? If you do, it is really a form of double taxation since the money was already earned once. If you don't, you really protect the rich who just invest their money over and over again. If you treat capital gains differently, how do you do it? What if companies switch to providing income in-kind? That is, what if they pay your rent, loan you a car, and offer free health care? Are those income? If not, that is an enormous loophole? If yes, then you need to craft a very clear series of definitions about what in-kind services are income. You would never count the cost of water you drink at work, but would you count the company paying for meals on business trips? What if they use a reimbursement system for payment of such expenses? Do you offer any special circumstances exceptions? What if you have $40,000 in health care expenses one year and you only earn $40,000? What if you are a small business owner and you record a major loss? These are only a few basic questions. There are many, many more. The flat tax defenders often end up crafting so many exceptions that the simplicity of their system ends up lost. Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system. The rest of it still needs to be fleshed out and that is the source of most of the confusion regarding taxes.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
11-07-2005, 04:15 PM | #144 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
... |
|
11-07-2005, 04:16 PM | #145 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Early, TX
|
Quote:
It's not that I disagree with your reasoning, it's just that I also see the other side of the issue just as well (personal responsibilty, etc.). This is one of many issues I'm torn both ways on. As much as it might annoy some people on this board (who are offended by people even mentioning religion), my measuring stick on most political issues is the basic question as to what I think Jesus would do. Even going by that, this issue (and others) is in a grey area for me.
__________________
Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross |
|
11-07-2005, 04:20 PM | #146 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
While I think your history is only partly right on this (a lot of welfare was provided on a local government level before), I think our economy has grown such that such a system is no longer possible. Nowadays, a hobo can't really live off the land. Everything is private. The ability to just "get by" is not the same as it was 150 years ago. A homeless person is highly unlikely to even get a job at McDonald's. Any given poor child in an urban public school system stands a low chance of ever becoming even middle class. Class mobility in America has largely been obliterated by growing wealth differential. Now, I'm not opposed to greatly limiting certain types of welfare (I would be perfectly happy to eliminate social security, for instance). However, health care for the poor, welfare for children, school lunch programs, etc. seem absolutely essential in a society that has grown too much for local governments and churches to care for those most in need.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
11-07-2005, 04:21 PM | #147 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
FTR, I'm not a "flat-taxer", at least not in the sense of Boortz,et al who have been blipping the radar lately. But with that caveat in mind ...
Quote:
I pretty strongly believe that ending progressive taxation is the primary goal of many (maybe most?) flat tax proponents. Less complex might (or might not) be a happy by-product of it, but its not at all a significant component of my support for the basic idea. ("support" as in an affirmative response to a general question like "Would you support changing to a 'flat' tax system")
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
11-07-2005, 04:25 PM | #148 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
I guess I'm not willing to sacrifice many to teach a lesson to others. I know that is a horrible simplification of what you are saying and I've never doubted that your heart is in the right place. However, I still feel that any system which starts eliminating safety nets always leaves some (usually those least able to help themselves: children, mentally ill, physically handicapped, etc.) out in the cold in order to teach the cheaters to be responsible. I'd rather just have some cheating/gaming of the system than leaving some to die. I believe if everyone felt as you do that no one would be left in such a state. However, I don't believe such a world exists and I have little hope it ever would.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
11-07-2005, 04:27 PM | #149 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
I agree. I just felt that some posts here were emphasizing the simplicity aspect and I really don't think a flat tax is any simpler than a progressive one. You just rip out the tax tables out of your tax forms - the rest of it remains the same (or some variation of rules depending on your particular views).
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
11-07-2005, 04:34 PM | #150 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
|
what i don't get is this:
who says "the children" have to suffer as a result of weakening Big Government (i'm anti-Big Government, for the record)? shouldn't it be we cut programs we all deem to be excessive? i for one think our defense budget is quite unnecessary. i also happen to think our defense budget should be used for just that - defense, not proactively starting wars (but that's for another thread). i also happen to think we could stand to lessen the funding for our space program. i think space exploration should be a global responsibility, rather than nation by nation (again, we'll save that for another thread). so right there are two sectors from which we can lessen funding for without touching education and afterschool programs. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|