Bernie Sanders .... Tax rate 90%

[StLucieBengal]

(06-01-2015, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well actually last year we (military) were furloughed twice and there are plans for 25% reduction in staff. We have seen numerous other benefits cut as well.

I know.   I just find it hilarious when someone says "cut the military" 

15% cut is the same as when the gov is "shutdown" we wouldnt  know the difference.   Except when obama blocks ww2 vets from seeing their memorial.  Or assigns Cops to block the mt rushmore view

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2015, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well actually last year we (military) were furloughed twice and there are plans for 25% reduction in staff. We have seen numerous other benefits cut as well.

The public sees conflicting information on that because the dollars going to DoD has been on the rise during this period. While spending for current expenditures is going down, the interest on DoD related debt is finally getting around to having to be paid. This makes sense given the 10 year T Note is such a common fiscal instrument for us.

Our fiscal situation is just ******.

[Devils Advocate]

I think it's silly anybody would be for more income taxes. I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think income taxes are it.

To me the logical solution is to budget our money and cut wasteful spending. This is achievable without cutting into entitlements and military spending although the first thing that needs to go is the DHS followed by the Federal Reserve and the IRS.


Yes I've seen the video of Ronald Reagan being told to cut it short many times. I wish more people had.

[*bfine32*]

(06-01-2015, 10:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I know.   I just find it hilarious when someone says "cut the military" 

15% cut is the same as when the gov is "shutdown" we wouldnt  know the difference.   Except when obama blocks ww2 vets from seeing their memorial.  Or assigns Cops to block the mt rushmore view

I'm am not denying that we should tighten out belts; but I recommend folks that just suggests "cut the Military" read about Task Force Smith. 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-01-2015, 11:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm am not denying that we should tighten out belts; but I recommend folks that just suggests "cut the Military" read about Task Force Smith. 

All I am saying is that tightening our belts across the board would be a substantial savings .  Without sacrificing defense.   

I think we are on a similar page here.... Maybe we would probably cut the pie differently

[Benton]

(06-01-2015, 04:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote:   Especially when your big example is post war America?

For the record, 90% is excessive on any level.

Also for the record, we're in current war America. Let's do something besides lower taxes to pay for a war.

[Benton]

(06-01-2015, 11:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm am not denying that we should tighten out belts; but I recommend folks that just suggests "cut the Military" read about Task Force Smith. 

Isnt the gist of that undertrained and underequipped soldiers asked to stop the spearhead of the NK army? 

Because... if so... that's not really been the problem since 1980ish. We could get by with less training We could get by with fewer bases (although consumer  companies like BP and war service providers like Brown & Root and Supreme would be really disappointed in loosing hundreds of billions of annual profit footed by taxpayers).

Or maybe you're referring to equipment? Because I'm in favor of improvements there, although spending billions for weapons we aren't using during down time is not something I support.

[Belsnickel]

A lot of people don't realize that we will have to increase tax revenues in order to balance our budget. There is no way around it. Cutting enough of the budget that we can cut to balance it would cause our economy to drop swiftly into another recession.

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 07:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A lot of people don't realize that we will have to increase tax revenues in order to balance our budget. There is no way around it. Cutting enough of the budget that we can cut to balance it would cause our economy to drop swiftly into another recession.

image free hosting

[BmorePat87]

(06-02-2015, 12:49 AM)Benton Wrote: Isnt the gist of that undertrained and underequipped soldiers asked to stop the spearhead of the NK army? 

Because... if so... that's not really been the problem since 1980ish. We could get by with less training We could get by with fewer bases (although consumer  companies like BP and war service providers like Brown & Root and Supreme would be really disappointed in loosing hundreds of billions of annual profit footed by taxpayers).

Or maybe you're referring to equipment? Because I'm in favor of improvements there, although spending billions for weapons we aren't using during down time is not something I support.

It makes no sense and it's an awful argument. If we don't spend $700 billion a year on the military then we'll have a repeat of the first battle in Korea.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 07:51 AM)GMDino Wrote:

image free hosting

So should we start with your taxes?  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 08:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: And yet when we had it it did not.

Funny that.

Edit:  Most (the vast majority of the people who would be affected by said tax rate do not "work" full time.  Their money does.

We also had two recessions and the growth was between 3 and 4 percent.  Which is good except when you consider we were the only game in town.  Nobody had any workers or infrastructure, and all of those countries needed to rebuild.  

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 09:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So should we start with your taxes?  

I'm already paying a higher rate because I work and ear my money and I am not making it off "investments".

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 10:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm already paying a higher rate because I work and ear my money and I am not making it off "investments".

So someone else.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 09:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So should we start with your taxes?  

This is why I focus on saying raising tax revenues. Taxes are the revenue for our government, period. There has been a continuing trend of less reliance on corporate income taxes and excise taxes as the burden is shifted to individual income taxes. Before, excise taxes shouldered the primary burden, now they make up a pittance of the total revenue.

I don't know what all will need to be done because it is a delicate balance of maintaining a good economy while raising the revenues to handle our debt problem. These solutions are complex and need to be figured out by people that have more of a grasp of our fiscal situation and the economy than I. Unfortunately, our policy makers know even less about it than I do it seems because they are more concerned with political games than actual governance.

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 10:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So someone else.  

If they are currently paying less than someone who works full time because they have rigged the system to help themselves...yes.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 11:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: If they are currently paying less than someone who works full time because they have rigged the system to help themselves...yes.

Rigged the system? Not working full time?  Do you really think there are these millions of people who have spent their lives sitting around doing nothing but collecting dividends?  

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 11:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Rigged the system? Not working full time?  Do you really think there are these millions of people who have spent their lives sitting around doing nothing but collecting dividends?  

Millions?  No.

Lots?  Yes.

Again, you have honest hard working people trying to make it who pay a higher tax rate than the kids who inherited daddy's money and invested it.

If there is one of those it is wrong.

The system, the tax laws, they are written by people who already have made it.  We are LOWERING tax rates while trying to pay for two wars going on at the same time.  You think that the politicians just dreamed that up on their own?

Trickle down theory has destroyed the middle class...and empowered the upper class.  Period.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 11:14 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I focus on saying raising tax revenues. Taxes are the revenue for our government, period. There has been a continuing trend of less reliance on corporate income taxes and excise taxes as the burden is shifted to individual income taxes. Before, excise taxes shouldered the primary burden, now they make up a pittance of the total revenue.

I don't know what all will need to be done because it is a delicate balance of maintaining a good economy while raising the revenues to handle our debt problem. These solutions are complex and need to be figured out by people that have more of a grasp of our fiscal situation and the economy than I. Unfortunately, our policy makers know even less about it than I do it seems because they are more concerned with political games than actual governance.

I think if whatever President and Congress came out with a plan and said "we need to raise this much money, and we are going to use it to do this, and if successful, we will re-examine the tax rate and lower it if possible" instead of, "You people suck and are stealing from hungry children and we are going to take your money and do with it as we please", you may actually get a movement.  But a guy paying a couple hundred thousand in taxes being told he isn't paying his fair share is thinking "F U."

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 11:27 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think if whatever President and Congress came out with a plan and said "we need to raise this much money, and we are going to use it to do this, and if successful, we will re-examine the tax rate and lower it if possible" instead of, "You people suck and are stealing from hungry children and we are going to take your money and do with it as we please", you may actually get a movement.  But a guy paying a couple hundred thousand in taxes being told he isn't paying his fair share is thinking "F U."

Not dollars...rates.