Deficit up 17%

#553
#553
luthervol said:
When the discussion DOESN'T begin with taxing the wealthy it's a dead giveaway that the poster has absolutely no real interest in eliminating national debt.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming the wealthy pay no tax? Or did you mean to say they dont pay enough?

I've seen no one advocate a zero tax on the wealthy.
 
#554
#554
rjd970 said:
Not disagreeing, but there is an argument that high income people are using more or are more dependent on public infrastructure as well....ie, if you own a company that is shipping stuff you are obviously using roads more than a low income person would, etc.

I suspect at the aggregate low income is using more resources, but I don't think its as big of a difference as one would think.
Click to expand...
Plus the wealthier you are the more you are benefiting from the protections provided. If you have a 10 million dollar house with 5 million dollars worth of art and jewelry you will have to pay more to protect (insure) those things than someone living in a $20,000 trailer or $500 per month apartment. That extrapolates to military, infrastructure, fire, police, FDA, education, etc. The wealthy has benefited more from the structure of society and stand to lose more should that structure fracture or crumble.
 
#555
#555
luthervol said:
It will require addressing both. If you want to start with spending (by one millisecond) then start with spending. We obviously have to have an adequate revenue source.
Click to expand...
How do you define "adequate"?
 
#556
#556
rjd970 said:
Not disagreeing, but there is an argument that high income people are using more or are more dependent on public infrastructure as well....ie, if you own a company that is shipping stuff you are obviously using roads more than a low income person would, etc.

I suspect at the aggregate low income is using more resources, but I don't think its as big of a difference as one would think.
Click to expand...

We use the roads and the fuel taxes we pay cover our "fair share". If you are shipping you are paying so that is a false statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and Obsessed
#558
#558
luthervol said:
Plus the wealthier you are the more you are benefiting from the protections provided. If you have a 10 million dollar house with 5 million dollars worth of art and jewelry you will have to pay more to protect (insure) those things than someone living in a $20,000 trailer or $500 per month apartment. That extrapolates to military, infrastructure, fire, police, FDA, education, etc. The wealthy has benefited more from the structure of society and stand to lose more should that structure fracture or crumble.
Click to expand...

Luther this is complete bullshizz.
 
#559
#559
luthervol said:
I would be okay with not increasing tax revenue as long as taxes were paid in an equitable manner.
Click to expand...
You dont want equitable. Equitable by definition would be all adults pay a flat amount based on that year's budget. Equitable = equal.
You want inequity in the tax liability levied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#560
#560
McDad said:
You havent thought this through. Just threw out something which sounded good. No real numbers.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take a lot of thought to know that once you've concluded that you are going in the wrong direction that you need to slow to a stop, turn around, and then head back in the right direction.
It's actually rather conceptually simple.
 
#561
#561
McDad said:
You dont want equitable. Equitable by definition would be all adults pay a flat amount based on that year's budget. Equitable = equal.
You want inequity in the tax liability levied.
Click to expand...

Wish I could give this more than 1 like
 
#563
#563
rjd970 said:
Not disagreeing, but there is an argument that high income people are using more or are more dependent on public infrastructure as well....ie, if you own a company that is shipping stuff you are obviously using roads more than a low income person would, etc.

I suspect at the aggregate low income is using more resources, but I don't think its as big of a difference as one would think.
Click to expand...
A beautiful example. The hypothetical person would pay exponentially more in gas tax. Therefore, paying for their increased use of infrastructure. I love your example, too, because whether i roll up in a ferrari or a fiesta, i pay the same amount of tax per gallon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#564
#564
hog88 said:
Luther this is complete bullshizz.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It's sort of the way things work. The more you benefit, the more you pay. The more you stand to lose, the more protection against loss will cost. Rather simple.
 
#565
#565
luthervol said:
It doesn't take a lot of thought to know that once you've concluded that you are going in the wrong direction that you need to slow to a stop, turn around, and then head back in the right direction.
It's actually rather conceptually simple.
Click to expand...
A simple concept from a simple mind does nothing to put a plan, a real plan together using real numbers derived from historical data. Until then, it is just more of your bloviating.
 
#566
#566
McDad said:
You dont want equitable. Equitable by definition would be all adults pay a flat amount based on that year's budget. Equitable = equal.
You want inequity in the tax liability levied.
Click to expand...
I do want equitable, everyone sharing an equal burden. Rather simple.
 
#567
#567
luthervol said:
Enough to cover expenditures.
Click to expand...
You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Expenditures must be controlled by the revenue. Not the other way around.

Your household budget works like that. Hog's business budget works like that. Government can only work like that.
 
#569
#569
luthervol said:
Not at all. It's sort of the way things work. The more you benefit, the more you pay. The more you stand to lose, the more protection against loss will cost. Rather simple.
Click to expand...

The military (the only federal entity in your list applicable to the discussion) does not protect the wealthy any more than they protect the poor. To the rest, sure they pay more, I'd bet the majority of wealthy people pay for private security. In my case I give to the volunteer fire department to make sure they will come if I need them.
 
#570
#570
McDad said:
A simple concept from a simple mind does nothing to put a plan, a real plan together using real numbers derived from historical data. Until then, it is just more of your bloviating.
Click to expand...
You get upset when someone doesn't play by the rules you want to establish? A take the ball and go home kind of guy.
I gave you real numbers (percentages). You may not have liked them, but they were real.
10% reduction in military, 5% reduction to everything else. real
10% reduction in rate of increase in deficit spending. real
No deficit spending after 10 years. real
2% reduction in debt in next year. real

You seem to have a desperate desire to pick something apart. Feel free, go at it.
 
#571
#571
McDad said:
You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Expenditures must be controlled by the revenue. Not the other way around.

Your household budget works like that. Hog's business budget works like that. Government can only work like that.
Click to expand...
I'm not digging a deeper hole, you just aren't getting the answers for which you are obviously fishing.
There's been plenty of times in my household when he decided to incur an additional expense (car, vacation, finishing the basement) and we increased our revenue accordingly. Simple concept.
 
#572
#572
luthervol said:
You get upset when someone doesn't play by the rules you want to establish? A take the ball and go home kind of guy.
I gave you real numbers (percentages). You may not have liked them, but they were real.
10% reduction in military, 5% reduction to everything else. real
10% reduction in rate of increase in deficit spending. real
No deficit spending after 10 years. real
2% reduction in debt in next year. real

You seem to have a desperate desire to pick something apart. Feel free, go at it.
Click to expand...
You gave me percentages. Very easy to spitball. Im for all the reduction you can fathom. Ive asked for the real number (in dollars) your percentages represent. You still have nothing. Change of tax code is part of your plan. I asked if that was factored because i saw no increase in revenue based on your idea. When asked directly, you said "sure, i guess". I suspect you dont really want to know how long your "plan" will take to pay off 22T.

Stick to teaching kids. You're out of your depth here.
 
#573
#573
McDad said:
First I've heard of you wanting a head tax. Congratulations. I happen to agree 100%
Click to expand...
lol.....you seem to have misinterpreted. I said equitable sharing of the burden. That may be the exact opposite of a head tax. If it brings you comfort, I could accept a small head tax as a small portion of the tax structure.
 
#574
#574
luthervol said:
I'm not digging a deeper hole, you just aren't getting the answers for which you are obviously fishing.
There's been plenty of times in my household when he decided to incur an additional expense (car, vacation, finishing the basement) and we increased our revenue accordingly. Simple concept.
Click to expand...
Sure, Luther.
 
#575
#575
hog88 said:
The military (the only federal entity in your list applicable to the discussion) does not protect the wealthy any more than they protect the poor. To the rest, sure they pay more, I'd bet the majority of wealthy people pay for private security. In my case I give to the volunteer fire department to make sure they will come if I need them.
Click to expand...
Sure they do. They protect your life and your property.....and your earning potential.
You should give more to the volunteer fire department than do people with less to risk.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top