Conservative economics

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why doesn't America try and reform its inefficient agricultural and manufacturing sectors...?

Hah.

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

Why do I have the feeling you don't live in the United States?...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

A flat tax is better than varied sales taxes (if you have to have them at all), but it is no substitute for income tax.

 

The 'deficit calculation' as proposed by Popick takes no account of the need for increased government spending in recessions/slumps, and possibly in times of war, as you feel the need to invade other countries every couple of years.

 

Why doesn't America try and reform its inefficient agricultural and manufacturing sectors, and try and be competitive with other countries, which will help with your trade deficit and increase tax receipts?

1) True. I've said that before

 

2) False. It's a rule. You can always write a loophole to cover recessionary pressures. As per the military issue, the point? I think an incentive to be like, peaceful, for awhile, and rebuild might not be so bad.

 

3) America's advantages don't lie in agricultural and manufacturing really anymore. Again, David Ricardo. America's best advantage is innovation. We should focus on innovating new industries as we've done for quite some time. Other countries can simply produce with cheaper labor and the older tech, and its better for them to do so. America's worst decision would be to try to prop up industries its passed by.

Edited August 16, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Slayer 0]

In Canada, the national sales tax on top of the provincial sales tax was labeled as one of the worst ideas ever.

 

I would suggest studying their system before determining if this is a good idea

 

I am personally against such an idea, myself

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Here's my thing. When someone talks about taxing the rich, someone else complains that they pay too much already, shouldn't have to pay more, etc. For every Paris Hilton that do as little as possible unless it's to serve their ego, there's a guy out there talking about the rich people who really work for it.

 

So here's my idea. Rather than raise taxes on everybody who's rich, let's go after people like her. The rich people who don't work and make income through investments and interest. These people often pay less because they have really accountants providing them loopholes anyway.

 

Instead of this income tax routine, let's go for a national sales tax. That'll encourage saving.

[Guest Paul H.]

National sales-tax wouldn't work in Large-Economies like the US.Plus,it would make a lot of basic neccesities more expensive for the poor & the retail sector is propped up by the middle class-lower classes.Rich people would contribute the least in a sales-tax situation....just in theory that will piss off many people.

 

Also,the only way it would work is without loopholes and I doubt they would tax all services and goods(Imagine paying 10-15% extra for having an account or for gas!)

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The rich people who don't work and make income through investments and interest. These people often pay less because they have really accountants providing them loopholes anyway.

 

Instead of this income tax routine, let's go for a national sales tax. That'll encourage saving.

Anyone who is making money off of investments DESERVES THEIR RETURN. Those investments fuel the economy.

[Guest SideFXs]

Also,the only way it would work is without loopholes and I doubt they would tax all services and goods(Imagine paying 10-15% extra for having an account or for gas!)

Imagine your paycheck, when there is just the 15% sales tax! Imagine your gross pay, is your actual deposit!

 

Today, 3% of all transactions are cash, in the U.S.

 

All other transactions leave a paper trail. Also, significant cash withdrawals from banks, would be red-flagged. O.K.?

 

There would be a release of revenue into the U.S. markets, the likes, that have never been seen!

 

The only draw back I see, from a national sales tax, would be our Federal Government growing exponentially, once they received their first surplus. Then the liberals might believe there is a God.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Also,the only way it would work is without loopholes and I doubt they would tax all services and goods(Imagine paying 10-15% extra for having an account or for gas!)

Imagine your paycheck, when there is just the 15% sales tax! Imagine your gross pay, is your actual deposit!

 

Today, 3% of all transactions are cash, in the U.S.

 

All other transactions leave a paper trail. Also, significant cash withdrawals from banks, would be red-flagged. O.K.?

 

There would be a release of revenue into the U.S. markets, the likes, that have never been seen!

 

The only draw back I see, from a national sales tax, would be our Federal Government growing exponentially, once they received their first surplus. Then the liberals might believe there is a God.

Who's currently growing the federal government again? Don't look like the "Liberals" to me (unless you want to call Bush what he is, a neo-liberal).

[Guest MikeSC]

1) Paying an IDENTICAL amount isn't regressive.

 

2) The wealthy person WILL spend considerably more than you.

-=Mike

[BUTT 0]

Then the liberals might believe there is a God.

Where does this whole "liberals don't believe in God" thing come from. Just because we don't always follw the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on everything doesn't mean we're all religion-hating atheists, despite what Ann Coulter would have you believe.

[Guest TJH]

1) Paying an IDENTICAL amount isn't regressive.

 

2) The wealthy person WILL spend considerably more than you.

-=Mike

1. Yes it is, as the less wealthy will pay proportionately more of their income on any given good.

 

2. Not as a proportion of their income, which is what is relevent in taxation, and why we have progressive rates of income tax.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Anyone who is making money off of investments DESERVES THEIR RETURN.  Those investments fuel the economy.

Sorry, I don't feel like rewarding a bunch of heirs who don't work. I'm not saying they shouldn't invest, I'm saying that as they enhance their lives with their second plasma TV, they should get taxed appropriately for it. This means they either keep a larger sum of money and live a more modest life, or they pay more tax. And this way there's no loophole.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Anyone who is making money off of investments DESERVES THEIR RETURN.  Those investments fuel the economy.

Sorry, I don't feel like rewarding a bunch of heirs who don't work. I'm not saying they shouldn't invest, I'm saying that as they enhance their lives with their second plasma TV, they should get taxed appropriately for it. This means they either keep a larger sum of money and live a more modest life, or they pay more tax. And this way there's no loophole.

What you described Jobber is purchasing... not investment Jobber. Part of the reward for busting your ass is to provide for your future family. It is a return SOMEONE earned at some point. We have no right to diminish that return.

[Guest MikeSC]

Anyone who is making money off of investments DESERVES THEIR RETURN.  Those investments fuel the economy.

Sorry, I don't feel like rewarding a bunch of heirs who don't work. I'm not saying they shouldn't invest, I'm saying that as they enhance their lives with their second plasma TV, they should get taxed appropriately for it. This means they either keep a larger sum of money and live a more modest life, or they pay more tax. And this way there's no loophole.

It alll boils down to --- do you want the government to decide how much money you "Need"?

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Today, 3% of all transactions are cash, in the U.S.

 

How is this being measured? By amount in dollars, or number of actual times money changes hands? If that's the case, I'd beg to differ. Imagine how many times a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of pop or a beer is purchased with cash per day.

 

If we're talking dollar amounts, then yeah.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What you described Jobber is purchasing... not investment Jobber.

Exactly. I think you misinterpreted my first post. I wasn't suggesting we tax anyone's investments, I suggested a consumption tax.

 

  Part of the reward for busting your ass is to provide for your future family.  It is a return SOMEONE earned at some point.  We have no right to diminish that return.

I feel we do. Aside from recent reality TV work when everyone figured out she has a nice body, have you ever looked at the news articles about Paris and her ilk to find out what they do for a living? They don't actually list anything about their occupation, because they don't DO anything. While they do have their part in the economy (you mentioned investments that are vital to the economy), there's no reason why you can't tax that kind of wealth more.

 

And since normally people aren't typically buying yachts or a Rolls-Royce, it scales down properly. And because of the nature of such a tax, you won't have our current situation where one class of people are paying less taxes than they're supposed to because they know the loophole. As the Glorious Leader himself said, "you know how the rich is. They got accountants. That means you pay."

[Guest MikeSC]

Have you missed how much the Hilton sisters SPEND? They consume A TON --- and, thus, are TAXED heavily, since they buy everything under the sun.

-=Mike

[Guest SideFXs]

Who's currently growing the federal government again? Don't look like the "Liberals" to me (unless you want to call Bush what he is, a neo-liberal).

Oh well thanks for reminding me of the newest liberal hypocracy.

[NoCalMike 0]

Have you missed how much the Hilton sisters SPEND? They consume A TON --- and, thus, are TAXED heavily, since they buy everything under the sun.

-=Mike

well considering it is their father's income they are spending, and he probably doesn't pay taxes because he can afford an accountant to get out of paying taxes all together for the times when Bush isn't kicking him back a higher percentage. Hell Bush said it himself, Rich people don't pay taxes.

 

Just Sayin'........

[Guest MikeSC]

Have you missed how much the Hilton sisters SPEND? They consume A TON --- and, thus, are TAXED heavily, since they buy everything under the sun.

              -=Mike

well considering it is their father's income they are spending, and he probably doesn't pay taxes because he can afford an accountant to get out of paying taxes all together for the times when Bush isn't kicking him back a higher percentage. Hell Bush said it himself, Rich people don't pay taxes.

 

Just Sayin'........

Yes, the ONLY people who pay taxes is...well, you.

 

You're so respectable.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Have you missed how much the Hilton sisters SPEND? They consume A TON --- and, thus, are TAXED heavily, since they buy everything under the sun.

              -=Mike

well considering it is their father's income they are spending, and he probably doesn't pay taxes because he can afford an accountant to get out of paying taxes all together for the times when Bush isn't kicking him back a higher percentage. Hell Bush said it himself, Rich people don't pay taxes.

 

Just Sayin'........

Yes, the ONLY people who pay taxes is...well, you.

 

You're so respectable.

-=Mike

Thanks.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I am pretty liberal when it comes to taxes. I hate paying them, but do know they are a necessary evil as somethings like roads, bridges, school, defense, and pork products that examine the fruit fly's effect on a 80* heat are just some of the projects that tax money is needed for. Some of my taxes I am happy are going towards programs I agree with. That is the one cool thing of living in California is that the people get to vote on new taxes, which technically should go the things they were supposed to go to. Of course it sucks when you find out all the money went to pay higher salaries and not improving the environment as it should. But at least we can say what we want to pay. And if it means I pay 1.25 more in taxes to save wet land, then I have no problems. If my money goes towards schools then this is ok too. Or one final example, if my tax money goes to fix the Highway 80 hell in Fairlfield, where a 10 minute normal drive takes over an hour at 10pm on Sun night, then I really do hope my taxes are going towards that. So in the cases where my taxes are going to help make society better, then I am not a tax complainer. I will pay, grumble due to less money, but I won't bitch about it, like many do.

 

But at the same time, I think many of our tax dollars are being put to uses that to me are not helping our country. For example, we spend over billions fighting a never ending drug war in Colombia. Which is a never ending struggle, and since Colombia is very poor, when the US destroys their crops(which is ok to get rid of the drugs) many poor farmers who need the drug to make a living, end up helping the dealers, becuase they pay them money to use their fields which they can then feed their family. So many drug lords have taken over these fields, and find ways to get Coke across the borders, even after a major bust or Tony Montana has been gunned down. But yet we are still spending many tax dollars on this, and really have not made any significant succeess. As you take down an Escobar, three more pop up. And also since the Colombian Government is fairly corrupt, you don't have a true idea of what money has disappeared. This example is why I don't support the war on drugs the way it is being fought. I see big busts now and then, which is good, but for every one confisicated, 10 times that cross the borders. So our taxes are fighting a drug war that we have no idea how to win, without maybe using nukes or naplam.

 

So here I think we need to take all this money we spend in Colombia and tell then that you are all incompentant and we are cutting your aid and soldiers, and use this to help fund more troops on all our borders that are succeptable to attack.

This will not stop the flow of drugs, that will never happen, IMO, but with more quarding the borders, then the flow will be slowed down, which I think would provide better percentages of drugs getting into the US. And we can bring more troops to guard the borders, which are open to someone who can sneak in quietly and not just on Mexico, but in secluded coasts of Cali, Wash, and Ore. That way we are not wasting troops fighting a war which never seems to getting better, but actually protecting the US from an attack. Also, the extra soldiers, who many I am not sure, but many could be used in Iraq to offer relief of those who have been there for over a year and more, if we have spare soldiers to send.

 

I would also think that this would save money that is not helping as much, and be put towards helping the men in Iraq, or anything else that can help us defend us against terrorism. Being that we have spent 87 billion in Iraq, that was not in the budget by the way, we are looking at stayin for many years, then maybe it is time to start cutting programs which are not trully helping the US, well the DEA office, but that is one group. With the extra money not spent on the "Joke Drug War", we can use it to hire more border protection or anything else that may help us. Time to look at where our money is spent and if it really is making a difference. And I am not saying legalize drugs, but I feel that with the amount of money being spent, shouldn't we be hearing about cartel after cartel being wiped out? I know when I was not doing my auditor job right, I got canned pretty quick. And it is hard when you never hear about the triumphs, but when there is still coke flowing into the US, that to me shows our policy needs help and change.

 

And before I am labored a die hard liberal, which I am sometimes, I do like the idea of the flat tax, which is based on a set percentage of what you made. That way you get taxed, but you still keep a good part of your money. I also like that this would kill many of Fox News anaysts that say they pay too much taxes, well I hope Hannity at least. For the flat tax means more money to buy new clothes, or money for college, etc. Hopefully more agree to this.

 

But I do agree that the richest 2% should not be getting a huge tax cut. I am sorry, I am not feeling sorry for someone who makes $500,000, has a house and car paid off, along with Jr's college fund filled to the brim, having to pay more than the rest. Now if this ends up taking 1/4 of it, then that is why we need the flat tax. But if this only means they get 300,000 left over, I am not crying any tears for a second. Being that I am unemployed, and waiting to begin subbing, so I will tease about the Tax whiners a little. I and understand that many work hard for their money, and should be able to keep a good portion, not the ridiclous high % that some do, but there still be a fair flat tax so that you don't get reamed but you still pay your fair share, And yes you may rip on my unemployment as well... I just got my new cardboard box cut out for my sleep time). But after looking over a chart of who standed to make more and what each type of worker could afford. This caught my eye. Some families could afford groceries and all the way down to the 2% wealth, they could afford a new lexus. So once again I am having a hard time seeing the plight of the wealthy not being able to buy that Lexus to go along with the other 20 cars they never drive. I keed of course, but in this day an age, it is the middle class that could use more tax relief, IMO, as they are the ones who spend their money, saving a little if lucky, but many families could use a break to help with the mortgage or credit car bill. So I feel that tax breaks have to be carefull, and I hoped are anaylsis will show who will benefit the most and who will just look at it as another chunk a change that might get lost in a pocket. So tax breaks are good, but they way they were used I just feel that it might not have been thought through yet. And they do begin to look silly if the economy still begins to slowly turn the corner. And I will wait to see what happens down the road (fortunately this will not effect my choice for Pres on war or the other) to see if we have turned the corner.

 

Bush made tax cuts, he said it would stimulate the economy as those who had the extra money back would us it to grow the economy and such. Well right now the job growth was 27,000, way below the predicted 200000. So my judgement on these tax cuts are out. Hopefully those people use what they saved to stimulate the economy. But many well off people I think will put it in a bank, and never will see the light of day. So I am not counting on them to help get this turned around the corner. But if one wants to by me a hot tub, well then that would be ok. All kidding aside. This is a important time for Bush. Right now he has lost one debate point job lost, worse since Hoover as I have read. And if the economy continues to slag and job creation is lower, then Bush can expect a 2000, where he won by just barely. But imagine the voters in Ohio and other swing states who don't see the job growth oppotomism that Bush is talking about, then all of the sudden Kerry could steel those votes. I know The Mike SC, Power Play, and KKK still believe that this will be a Bush walkover, which it could, but I do feel this will be like 2000... and if this year Florida has problem picking who they want to vote for again, they officially can take California's dunce caps we are wearing becuase we elected Ahnold (who is doing a good job, by the way). So that is how I view taxes and such and why I really don't base who I vote on just one issue. I go by at least two economy is one, and the ability to Snow Board as well as wear a real silly Nasa suite... which I am ordering on EBay as we speak.

 

Well that is my view of this whole thing in regards to economics. Always a fun thing, until you are wrong of course. But since the election is only a few months away, Bush needs the economy to recover quicker than has. saying 20,000+ new jobs, while being 200,000 under what you were predicting is not going to help Bush, so expect another Terror Alert: Color Puse (joke). And yes Bush did inherant a mess in the economy which happen to burst. And yes 9-11 happened as well. But the fact we went from about a 3 trillion surplus in 2001 down to about 4 Trillion in the hole, give or take, does not bode well for us Egg heads who are still wandering where the money really got spent on, no wait, I know, it went to that damn Sasquatch. So Bush might be wise not to tote his economic record, because I do feel that this might be hard for him to explain, and focus on other things, like why he sold the Rangers in Texas. So this will be a close election... just make sure all of Florida takes a mandatory ballot class... so that Pat Buchanan doesn't end up with Leiberman and Gore Votes.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And before I am labored a die hard liberal

 

Class-Envy-Card-Playing Commie.

 

How's that?

 

I know The Mike SC, Power Play, and KKK still believe that this will be a Bush walkover, which it could, but I do feel this will be like 2000

 

Huh? When did I say this? As much as I like to associated with fine posters like Mike and PP, I don't think we would agree on this one, if in fact these two think the way you say they do (I'm not sure if they do or not)...

[Guest TJH]

Just for my personal interest, and I suppose to aid the discussion, could someone put up the US Personal Income Tax rates, as well as the Company Tax rate?

 

Thanks.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Current Tax Bracket:

 

http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/index.htm

[Guest Crazy Dan]

And before I am labored a die hard liberal

 

Class-Envy-Card-Playing Commie.

 

How's that?

 

I know The Mike SC, Power Play, and KKK still believe that this will be a Bush walkover, which it could, but I do feel this will be like 2000

 

Huh? When did I say this? As much as I like to associated with fine posters like Mike and PP, I don't think we would agree on this one, if in fact these two think the way you say they do (I'm not sure if they do or not)...

Class-Envy-Card-Playing Commie.

 

I like the sound of that... it is so hard to say, that it is bound to be forgotten.

 

And sorry for lumping you into that crowd. I was just using you as example, but if I was wrong, then my bad. I was just throwing out names of some of the more conservative posters on the board, but I was not implying you actually said something like that. Plus it was 2am in the morning, and your name was the first that came to mind.

 

But you are right, I should not have lumped all three in like that. I should just have mentioned that some Republican voters on this board believe that this is going to be a cake walk for Bush. Is that a better way to say that? Once again if I was wrong, I appologize. And yes you can still call me a Class-Envy-Card-Playing-Commie, if you like.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't see a cakewalk. I see a win, but not a cakewalk.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I like the sound of that... it is so hard to say, that it is bound to be forgotten.

 

That's what some people thought about a certain LOL2004 phrase that's been used once or twice in this folder.

 

I've always contended (at least I'm 99.9% sure I have) that this election isn't going to be a runaway for Bush. I want it to be, but Kerry has a very good chance of winning, too. If you can find a post in which I've said otherwise, then I'll admit to my web of lies.

 

If you want to lump me in with the rest of my Conservative Brigade brethern, then call us racists or Jew-haters.

 

And I'm flattered to know that I'm on your mind at 2 a.m.

 

Call me whatever you want -- most people just call me an asshole -- but remember that I am the son of a mill worker, so you'll be an unpatriotic terrorist if you disagree with what I say.

 

One more thing: sorten your posts for Christ's sake -- you type more in one post than I do in a week...

[Special K 0]

Consumption tax would be freakin' great if we could considcerably downsize gov't

 

And actually go after the white collar criminals. I want small gov't. I tseeems like the USA is so scares that only a small modicum like the idea.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Have you missed how much the Hilton sisters SPEND? They consume A TON --- and, thus, are TAXED heavily, since they buy everything under the sun.

-=Mike

Exactly. Don't you see how it works?

 

* Instead of filing income tax, you are taxed on how much you spend.

 

* Since you have a seriously large amount of money, you spend more.

 

* Thus, you pay a properly larger amount of tax, without loopholes and accounting tricks to get you out of paying less.

 

Unless of course you mean the Hiltons spend so much that they'd be taxed even more than they ought to be. Possibly so, but the reason I like the idea is that the mess that you make is your own.