Can A Conservative Tax Plan Benefit All Social Classes? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-23-2004, 09:03 AM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


Exactly, it sure does, and THAT is why I am eternally against candidates who mandate raising taxes as a way to solve problems or reduce the deficiet. Bullshit. The more they take the more they'll find a way to spend it, they're not paying off jack shit, just spending more. It's like your average person who gets a $500 bonus at work, are they going to pay off a bill or go on a skii trip or buy a plasma TV? It's the American way. But I waste enough of my own money, I don't need them to do it for me!
So basically you're for tax cuts so that everyone can run up their debt? Our poor grandchildren.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 09:51 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So basically you're for tax cuts so that everyone can run up their debt? Our poor grandchildren.
No, I'm not saying that should happen, I'm saying that WILL happen, because that's how the people and the government are. Grandchildren? Sorry I'm having too much trouble raising my own children, now. And don't call me stupid or selfish, fuck that, I'm suffering enough NOW.

As a Bible verse goes, (perhaps NBC could find the exact passage) "Don't worry too much about tommorrow, for today holds enough worry of its own."

It's pointless to throw away today thinking about someone 100 years from now anyway, hey, I had to deal with it, they'll deal with it when the time comes or die trying like the rest of us. Besides, I firmly believe NO FUCKING TAX INCREASE will EVER go to reduce the deficiet, because the government will find a way to waste it. I'm sure you'll find a way to call me stupid for this, well, I think anyone who doesn't see this is pretty darn lame. I've seen it all my life (be 35 in couple weeks)

I do see your point and your philosophy, but it does not work, never has, never will with our current system of gov't (both parties) so I'm not falling for it.
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 09:53 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
Bullshit. The more they take the more they'll find a way to spend it, they're not paying off jack shit, just spending more.
for your consideration,

alberta, a conservative powerhouse in canadian provincial politics, has, on the strength of rising energy prices, paid off its deficit as of this spring i believe.

or,

federal canada. where budget surpluses are, by law, required to pay down the deficit. canada being the only g7 to run surpluses in recent memory, our deficit is being comparatively attacked.

it is possible. it comes down to political will and the expectations and willingness to pay of constituents.

but there are examples of developed nations attacking deficits.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 10:02 AM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


No, I'm not saying that should happen, I'm saying that WILL happen, because that's how the people and the government are. Grandchildren? Sorry I'm having too much trouble raising my own children, now. And don't call me stupid or selfish, fuck that, I'm suffering enough NOW.

As a Bible verse goes, (perhaps NBC could find the exact passage) "Don't worry too much about tommorrow, for today holds enough worry of its own."

It's pointless to throw away today thinking about someone 100 years from now anyway, hey, I had to deal with it, they'll deal with it when the time comes or die trying like the rest of us. Besides, I firmly believe NO FUCKING TAX INCREASE will EVER go to reduce the deficiet, because the government will find a way to waste it. I'm sure you'll find a way to call me stupid for this, well, I think anyone who doesn't see this is pretty darn lame. I've seen it all my life (be 35 in couple weeks)

I do see your point and your philosophy, but it does not work, never has, never will with our current system of gov't (both parties) so I'm not falling for it.
Calm down no one's calling you stupid or selfish.

Believe me I understand where your cynicism comes from, but you don't have to throw away today to think about tomorrow. They can go hand in hand. Call me optimistic. But countries are paying off deficits. I understand where your hesitant to think tax increases will go towards paying these off, but with cooperation and work they can. Tax cuts on the other hand never can.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 10:12 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
As a Bible verse goes, (perhaps NBC could find the exact passage) "Don't worry too much about tommorrow, for today holds enough worry of its own."
Matthew 6:33-34

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 10:34 AM   #21
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 07:46 AM
I understand the theory behind supply-side economics. I even think it can work, but only to continue a thriving economy. Bush is using it to revive an economy and that is exactly the wrong thing to do in my opinion.

In a strong economy it makes sense to cut taxes on business and the wealthy. In a strong economy, finanical security and confidence spurs investment, growth and hiring. But in a bad economy, business does the opposite. Prudence and uncertainty force businesses into a shell. They keep the tax cut money, spend little and ride out the recession, meanwhile, because of the tax cuts, the debt explodes before our eyes.

A tax cut for the wealthy, in a bad economy, at a time of war, is a sign of shocking ineptitude on the part of the Bush administration. 30 years from now we're going to look back at this administration and wonder how we let it happen.
__________________
LPU2 is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 12:05 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Matthew 6:33-34

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
Thanks!
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 12:26 PM   #23
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 10:46 AM
I like the lilies of the field one, too. I think it's right around the same place.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 01:59 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
I like the lilies of the field one, too. I think it's right around the same place.
Matthew 6:27-29

"Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 02:08 PM   #25
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,152
Local Time: 09:46 AM
Quote:
The secret is this...if a rich person gets more money they save it (it's how they got rich), if a poor person gets more money they spend it on necessities. Middle class people either invest (in the hopes of become rich) or start spending on luxury items.
This is not fact and filled with generalities... just as "trickle down" is filled with generalities and theory.


Working in retail in extremely poor neighborhoods and knowing people who own businesses in such neighborhoods... poor people rarely spend "their" money on necessities. This is coming from living in both the midwest and the south. The rich also do not "save" in the conventional sense. Stocks, bonds (such as tax free municipal bonds which actually contribute to the local government cash that they need in order to maintain local government) are investments that that help businesses, companies, and government. The rich spend money on that crap. Those tax free bonds are probably how Theresa Heinz Kerry was able to pay so little in taxes.

Again... things aren't as simple and cut and dried. This can be a potentially interesting debate. I'm not completely "knowledgeable" about tax issues and how it relates to the economy but I know that there are exaggerations on both sides of the issues in terms of tax cuts and tax hikes.

"Trickle down" is theoretical...

IMO the question is which is more beneficial to, as Bush would say, "Grow our economy." One thing was certian during the Clinton years, the stronger the economy (more new businesses and industry and growth) the more able the governement is to cutting the debt and deficits and such.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 02:27 PM   #26
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,152
Local Time: 09:46 AM
Re: Re: Can A Conservative Tax Plan Benefit All Social Classes?

Quote:
Originally posted by popshopper


Ah the trickle down myth. Reagan, Thatcher, Bush what do they all have in common. They cut the upper band of tax, in the belief that it would cause the rich folks (who incidentally give those politicians lots of money) to go out and spend more money, employ more people, and drive the economy. Result of this fantastical bit of nonsense...huge deficits and high unemployement.

The secret is this...if a rich person gets more money they save it (it's how they got rich), if a poor person gets more money they spend it on necessities. Middle class people either invest (in the hopes of become rich) or start spending on luxury items.

Economic growth is dicated by demand. A 'rich' person doesn't hire more people because he's feeling flush, he hires people because he's needs to fulfil customers orders.

Cutting the upper tax band is at best a very poor way of driving demand. Cutting the lower bands by a smaller amount works better, because the extra money goes straight back into the economy.

The other fallacy is that rich people drive the stock market. Wrong, pension funds and middle class investors make up the vast majority of shareholders.
IMO no one truly knows what kind of tax cut (middle class, upper class- defintely not the poorer classes b/c they actually get money/ benefits from the government more than what they give in taxes) actually benefits the US economy as a whole. So many variables can effect the way a specific tax cut may work as well as how governement responds. During the Reagan years, the tax cuts were beneficial IMO (the years where I'm assuming you believe trickle down is "proven" to be a myth), however one has to consider the government spending of the time (which was tons). That is why, Bush and company are making a point to cut spending down for the next couple of years. Do I think that will happen. LOL... I don't have an answer to that.

However, I can't really disagree with this point that you made...

Quote:
Economic growth is dicated by demand. A 'rich' person doesn't hire more people because he's feeling flush, he hires people because he's needs to fulfil customers orders.
However, that is not always a set case. Just ask General Motors.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 02:29 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,152
Local Time: 09:46 AM
Again it is not cut and dried in terms of who is actually more likely to save... the middle class or the upper class. I would love to know if there is actual information concerning this area. Again, it probably depends on the environment and other factors.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 02:39 PM   #28
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,152
Local Time: 09:46 AM
Also what is rich? A family of four that makes a little over $200,000 a year before taxes? IMO, that family probably earns their money through hard work (you have to in order to get that wage outside of celebrity). People would say that is rich. Hell, in my mind that is rich. However, that wage in a huge urban area with a high cost of living, payment of loans, and savings for the future such as children's education/ needs, and then your own necessities and recreational junk. That high amount of money comes down a bit. And people scream, that tax cuts for people like that is unfair. Hmmmm....

I agree with U2Kitten, in the sense that I want to see the needs of the poor/ lower income met but I get a sick taste in my mouth just as much from the idea of government taking money that many people work for just b/c they make more money above the mean income.

How about making it a tax option for the wealthy who want tax increases to put in more than what they actually give.

I'm actually interested in seeing what Bush has to offer in this front considering he is harping about tax reform.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 03:26 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 10:46 AM
A lot of interesting responses so far. Just when I thought taxation wasn't much of a key political issue, it seems everyone has an opinion on it. From what I've seen in my lifetime, I've seen conservative tax plans work sometimes, and other times, not so well. Nowadays, it could be that 9/11 closed down and hurt a lot of businesses, or not enough economic wisdom, or maybe a combination of both, who knows for sure.

I can't really say that I favor either or, but I'm not sure either side will be promoting universal health care anytime soon, unless something funny happens. Yes, some people work their arses off to get where they're at, and some just make a killing because of celebrity status or whatever. I don't think it's fair to say that celebrities should get higher taxes than CEOs though.

The point about taxation starting the Revolutionary War was a reminder that I needed. Maybe taxation is an important issue, after all, we wouldn't really have this country if we didn't win a war over taxation. (no offense England)
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 03:39 PM   #30
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,152
Local Time: 09:46 AM
I don't think celebrities deserve higher taxes than CEOs either. However, IMO, the time put in to get that high level wage in their field (relative to their careers) is seemingly so much lower. I mean a successful doctor (of course depending on the field) IMO puts in more time/ work than a successful basketball player. Yet the successful basketball player will see much more money. I mean NBA basketball players don't work for a few months. Practices last 2-3 hrs a day and they have games that last 2-3 hrs... then they make millions. I knew someone who graduated w/ an accounting degree from U of Chicago, got a job right off in NY with home and moving paid for as well as a salary just edging close to $100,000 a year (to start). However, he had to work 60+ hrs a week. That is my perspective about some aspects of celebrity, while writing the above. People might say, the basketballplayer practiced a lot to get there... but the accountant had to study/ sacrifice time to get to his level as well. Sorry... too much Ron Artest news today.
__________________

__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com