Comments
41 - 60 of 70 Comments Last updated Mar 22, 2013

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Mar 19, 2013
 
2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
You should check out David Stockman's book, "The Triumph of Politics." He wrote his account of what happened to spending while serving as Reagan's budget director. No, I'm not implying anything. I'm telling you. Stockman will say it a lot better than I can.
Pat Buchanan, senior advisor under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, say just the opposite. Also, if Reagan was the irresponsible radical spender as you claim, do you honestly think that conservatives and libertarians would revere him so much? Or, were they all blinded by his exceptional speaking ability? This argument is not really worth debate IMO.
Rand Paul was the topic. What exactly is your problem with him specifically? Also, for the sake of trying to figure out your political leanings, what would you classify yourself as? Definately not conservative or libertarian. Progressive I assume?

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Mar 19, 2013
 
Btw, I will read that book. I read everything I can. Thanks for suggesting it. I highly recommend Theodore and Woodrow by Andrew Napolitano. It's eye opening.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Mar 20, 2013
 
If The Shoe Fits wrote:
<quoted text>If I had seen this post only by itself, not knowing who you were describing, I would've thought you were talking about Obama. You have very accurately depicted the current president, other than the not being in it for the money part.
You are 180 degrees off on Obama. He has almost no principals at all except to cater to large corporations. He gives lip service to the middle class and the poor. He is essentially in the current camp of the Republicans as far as meaningful policy goes. The rest is window dressing.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> Pat Buchanan, senior advisor under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, say just the opposite. Also, if Reagan was the irresponsible radical spender as you claim, do you honestly think that conservatives and libertarians would revere him so much? Or, were they all blinded by his exceptional speaking ability? This argument is not really worth debate IMO.
Rand Paul was the topic. What exactly is your problem with him specifically? Also, for the sake of trying to figure out your political leanings, what would you classify yourself as? Definately not conservative or libertarian. Progressive I assume?
I am a political independent. I certainly have conservative leanings which should not be confused with what most people call "conservative" today. I believe in limited government, and what government we have should be done well, not deliberately sabotaged by right-wingers (see the U.S. Postal Service). I also believe in progressive taxation and there are plenty of filthy rich people who agree with that. It is the only way to keep a vibrant economy, something that right wingers have forgotten. In short, I believe in policies that WORK for the good of the country.

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a political independent. I certainly have conservative leanings which should not be confused with what most people call "conservative" today. I believe in limited government, and what government we have should be done well, not deliberately sabotaged by right-wingers (see the U.S. Postal Service). I also believe in progressive taxation and there are plenty of filthy rich people who agree with that. It is the only way to keep a vibrant economy, something that right wingers have forgotten. In short, I believe in policies that WORK for the good of the country.
You lost me when you said you had conservative leanings and then went on to call for a progressive tax system. By a "progressive tax" you mean the wealthy pay a higher percent, then that is neither fair or conservative. If we are talking fair, then we should be talking a flat tax.
Example: Joe owns a shoe factory. He made 2 million last year. At a tax rate of 10% Joe will pay $200,000 in taxes. Tom is a factory worker. He made $30,000 last year. At the same 10 percent tax rate, he will owe Uncle Sam $3000. Finally there is a single mom named Susie. She struggles at a minimum wage job and made $15,000 last year. Again at the flat tax rate of 10 percent she will pay $1500.
There are no tax loopholes, no complicated tax code, only one paying in accordance to what they earned.
So the rich dude pays 200 grand. The struggling mom only pays 1500. That is truly everyone paying their fair share. When you ask the top wage earners to pay at a higher rate, you are asking them to subsidize someone else which is immoral. Coercion should not be part of a tax policy for benevolence sake. That has never been conservatism.
If The Shoe Fits

New Concord, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Mar 20, 2013
 
2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
You are 180 degrees off on Obama. He has almost no principals at all except to cater to large corporations. He gives lip service to the middle class and the poor. He is essentially in the current camp of the Republicans as far as meaningful policy goes. The rest is window dressing.
I beg your pardon, I'm only about a half a bubble off plumb. That doesn't constitute being 180 degrees off. LOL

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text>...
So the rich dude pays 200 grand. The struggling mom only pays 1500. That is truly everyone paying their fair share. When you ask the top wage earners to pay at a higher rate, you are asking them to subsidize someone else which is immoral. Coercion should not be part of a tax policy for benevolence sake. That has never been conservatism.
I've never looked at it like the top wage earners pay a higher rate, just that lower wage earners pay a lower rate. While top wage earners may pay higher income tax rates, they are also more likely to derive income from more favorable capital gains tax rates from investing. Lower wage earners don't really have the opportunity to take advantage of that or carry over losses from previous years to offset gains, for them lost income is just that, lost.

Your desire for fairness in the income tax ignores the higher income percentages that poorer people pay in other taxes. Single Mom Susie, is going to pay a much higher percentage of her check on groceries, so any sales taxes she pays on those will be a higher percent of her income than Joe Shoe Factory owner. The gas she puts in her car will likely make a substantially higher portion of her budget, and so she will probably pay a much higher percentage of her income on gasoline taxes than Joe Shoe Factory Owner.

But perhaps the scariest thing about a flat tax plan is that by raising taxes on the poor, you will probably get more of them to the polls to vote for politicians that will promise them stuff like cheap or free healthcare, housing and food subsidies, education, etc, and we certainly wouldn't want that.

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

AKT, why do we need to worry with what rate any of us pay as long as its the same percentage? If Joe has the smarts, the work ethic, or the fortitude to stick with his dream of being a business owner and succeeds, and then from his success enjoys the fruits of his labors (as long as its ethical and honest) then why do the ones that haven't made it there yet want to make him pay more? Why have we as a country insisted that we take as much incentive as possible away from those who are successful? At least with the flat tax everybody knows that they will be taxed at an equal level.

Your example that Susie may pay more in "other taxes" is just not valid. She pays the same prices for gas and groceries as Joe. Will it be harder on her income to fill her tank with gas? Sure. Does that mean we punish Joe because Susie is struggling with gas money? Of course not. What about Joe's hidden taxes and expenses from running his shoe factory? Regulations, city and state taxes, high insurance, environmental impact studies on the land his company had to go on, and it goes on and on and on. Who do we tax to cover Joe for providing the people of Joes town with jobs?

The government should never be in the business of insuring that everyone is equal in regards to money. The government should only give those that are willing the opportunity to succeed.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Mar 20, 2013
 
Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> You lost me when you said you had conservative leanings and then went on to call for a progressive tax system. By a "progressive tax" you mean the wealthy pay a higher percent, then that is neither fair or conservative. If we are talking fair, then we should be talking a flat tax.
Example: Joe owns a shoe factory. He made 2 million last year. At a tax rate of 10% Joe will pay $200,000 in taxes. Tom is a factory worker. He made $30,000 last year. At the same 10 percent tax rate, he will owe Uncle Sam $3000. Finally there is a single mom named Susie. She struggles at a minimum wage job and made $15,000 last year. Again at the flat tax rate of 10 percent she will pay $1500.
There are no tax loopholes, no complicated tax code, only one paying in accordance to what they earned.
So the rich dude pays 200 grand. The struggling mom only pays 1500. That is truly everyone paying their fair share. When you ask the top wage earners to pay at a higher rate, you are asking them to subsidize someone else which is immoral. Coercion should not be part of a tax policy for benevolence sake. That has never been conservatism.
Again, conservatism in the true sense of the word does not mean "supports Republican policies." It means doing things that are tried and true and are shown to benefit the country. You will never be able to list a single modern capitalistic country that has prospered over the long term without progressive taxation. The reason for that is simple. Flat or regressive taxation sends all of the wealth to the top and the income will follow along after it. The economy will then stagnate because lots of the population has no money to spare and the ones who do are afraid to spend it because of the tight economy. That is exactly where the country stands today. Those who argue otherwise are either being dishonest or they have not yet reached an understanding of what drives the economy.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Mar 20, 2013
 
Booker Tee wrote:
AKT, why do we need to worry with what rate any of us pay as long as its the same percentage? If Joe has the smarts, the work ethic, or the fortitude to stick with his dream of being a business owner and succeeds, and then from his success enjoys the fruits of his labors (as long as its ethical and honest) then why do the ones that haven't made it there yet want to make him pay more? Why have we as a country insisted that we take as much incentive as possible away from those who are successful? At least with the flat tax everybody knows that they will be taxed at an equal level.
Again, I turn your proposition around and ask if Joe is successful and "enjoys the fruits of his labors", why would he want a struggling single mother pay more than she already does?
Booker Tee wrote:
Your example that Susie may pay more in "other taxes" is just not valid. She pays the same prices for gas and groceries as Joe. Will it be harder on her income to fill her tank with gas? Sure. Does that mean we punish Joe because Susie is struggling with gas money?
You say the flat tax is fair because everyone pays the same percentage. But if fuel and sales tax burdens a low income person at a higher percentage and allowances in the income tax are made for that, how is that "punishing Joe"? How is it "punishing Joe" to recognize that a certain base level of income is needed for basic needs, and to tax that base level at a lower percentage? Because of the progressive nature of the current tax system, Joe and Susie actually owe the same amount of taxes for the first $15000 they make.
Booker Tee wrote:
What about Joe's hidden taxes and expenses from running his shoe factory? Regulations, city and state taxes, high insurance, environmental impact studies on the land his company had to go on, and it goes on and on and on. Who do we tax to cover Joe for providing the people of Joes town with jobs?
I believe that all falls under the cost of doing business. But actually Joe will "tax" his customers for those expenses, and possibly his employee's with decreased or stagnate benefits.
Booker Tee wrote:
The government should never be in the business of insuring that everyone is equal in regards to money. The government should only give those that are willing the opportunity to succeed.
I don't see how increasing taxes on poor people advances that goal. If anything it makes it harder for low income people to pay for childcare, job seeking expenses, skill training, etc.

I certainly don't mean to imply that the current system is optimal or shouldn't be replaced entirely. For instance, why should taxpayers subsidize the mortgage interest expenses of homeowners, while people who rent get nothing? I'm just not convinced that a flax tax is the way to do it.
LiberTEA

Paducah, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, conservatism in the true sense of the word does not mean "supports Republican policies." It means doing things that are tried and true and are shown to benefit the country. You will never be able to list a single modern capitalistic country that has prospered over the long term without progressive taxation. The reason for that is simple. Flat or regressive taxation sends all of the wealth to the top and the income will follow along after it. The economy will then stagnate because lots of the population has no money to spare and the ones who do are afraid to spend it because of the tight economy. That is exactly where the country stands today. Those who argue otherwise are either being dishonest or they have not yet reached an understanding of what drives the economy.
I have never read such nonsense in my life. England rose to greatness without progressive taxation. England grew great because wealth did accumulate in the hands of an elite. Those wealthy people invested their money to build the country's industry and infrastructure. England declined when the government started penalizing success by taxation and spending the money on social welfare schemes.

This country did the same thing in the 50 years after the Civil War. Big business owned by wealthy people built the industries and the railroads, not the government. Show me anything built during that time that the government paid for. Franklin D. Roosevelt put an end to American prosperity with high taxes and the socialist New Deal.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never read such nonsense in my life. England rose to greatness without progressive taxation. England grew great because wealth did accumulate in the hands of an elite. Those wealthy people invested their money to build the country's industry and infrastructure. England declined when the government started penalizing success by taxation and spending the money on social welfare schemes.
This country did the same thing in the 50 years after the Civil War. Big business owned by wealthy people built the industries and the railroads, not the government. Show me anything built during that time that the government paid for. Franklin D. Roosevelt put an end to American prosperity with high taxes and the socialist New Deal.
And what percentage of the U.S. public was well off prior to the 1940's? Sure, the railroads made a ton of money, but for who? Not the masses, just the owners. The U.S. has never had a middle class of any size until after WWII ended. It grew rapidly during the entire tenure of a high level of progressive taxation, then started waning after the Reagan administration policies took effect. With the exception of the blip during Clinton's term, the middle class has been shrinking ever since and shows no sign of stopping. We are headed for Feudalism.
If The Shoe Fits

New Concord, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Mar 20, 2013
 
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." "An old error is always more popular than a new truth."

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

(Again, I turn your proposition around and ask if Joe is successful and "enjoys the fruits of his labors", why would he want a struggling single mother pay more than she already does?)

You're asking a philosophical question rather than an economic one. The 10% tax rate was just an example anyway. The point is it's not Joe's concern. Joe is simply making a living for his family. what you're implying if I understand you correctly is a form of wealth redistribution.

I do understand the concern for Susie. I do care for a struggling single mother, an unemployed factory worker, or a 22 yr old fresh out of college living on chicken soup. However opportunity and the freedom to pursue happiness is all our government was intended to do in this aspect. Anything more and you have the mess we are in now. Central planning is a dud. Free enterprise isn't so free when the government tries to interfere too much.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Booker Tee wrote:
(Again, I turn your proposition around and ask if Joe is successful and "enjoys the fruits of his labors", why would he want a struggling single mother pay more than she already does?)
You're asking a philosophical question rather than an economic one. The 10% tax rate was just an example anyway. The point is it's not Joe's concern. Joe is simply making a living for his family. what you're implying if I understand you correctly is a form of wealth redistribution.
I do understand the concern for Susie. I do care for a struggling single mother, an unemployed factory worker, or a 22 yr old fresh out of college living on chicken soup. However opportunity and the freedom to pursue happiness is all our government was intended to do in this aspect. Anything more and you have the mess we are in now. Central planning is a dud. Free enterprise isn't so free when the government tries to interfere too much.
When you tax the income of the public and then spend the tax revenue, that is income redistribution. So fighting wars results in income redistribution. Building roads is income redistribution. Fire departments run on income redistribution. Etc, etc, etc. Central planning is what made the U.S. a great country to start with.

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
When you tax the income of the public and then spend the tax revenue, that is income redistribution. So fighting wars results in income redistribution. Building roads is income redistribution. Fire departments run on income redistribution. Etc, etc, etc. Central planning is what made the U.S. a great country to start with.
really? Do you think Im referring to taxing the public for roads as income redistribution? I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say. Of course I'm referring to excessively taxing the wealthy to redistribute to the lower income through goverment programs.
Also, central planning didnt make this country great, freedom made this country great. Please don't refer to yourself as a conservative ever again.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> really? Do you think Im referring to taxing the public for roads as income redistribution? I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say. Of course I'm referring to excessively taxing the wealthy to redistribute to the lower income through goverment programs.
Also, central planning didnt make this country great, freedom made this country great. Please don't refer to yourself as a conservative ever again.
I didn't refer to myself as conservative. I said I have some conservative leanings. I also have some libertarian leanings. I also have some liberal leanings. I like smart policy that enables as much personal choice as possible, but balanced with the need to build infrastructure and social systems that make the general public stronger.

People like to blather about how "free" we are (or were). But that's mostly BS if you are arguing that we are freer than most other countries of means. What made the U.S. great is a land of abundant resources combined with motivated immigrants and their descendents, combined with a strong central government to foster the development of the country.
LiberTEA

Paducah, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
And what percentage of the U.S. public was well off prior to the 1940's? Sure, the railroads made a ton of money, but for who? Not the masses, just the owners. The U.S. has never had a middle class of any size until after WWII ended. It grew rapidly during the entire tenure of a high level of progressive taxation, then started waning after the Reagan administration policies took effect. With the exception of the blip during Clinton's term, the middle class has been shrinking ever since and shows no sign of stopping. We are headed for Feudalism.
The middle class was bigger in the 1890s than it is today. Just read the advertisements in the old Hopkinsville Kentuckian or any other small town newspaper from back then. Every town had a thriving downtown buisness district, with a lot of small family owned businesses. Upward mobility was possible. My great grandfather started as a store clerk when he was 14, worked hard, saved, and owned his own store when he died. Doing that today is impossible because "progressive" taxation taxes away the portion of a person's income that he saved and gives it to the lazy people who don't want to work, if not directly as welfare then indirectly by providing far more "free" education than they need.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Mar 20, 2013
 
LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
The middle class was bigger in the 1890s than it is today. Just read the advertisements in the old Hopkinsville Kentuckian or any other small town newspaper from back then. Every town had a thriving downtown buisness district, with a lot of small family owned businesses. Upward mobility was possible. My great grandfather started as a store clerk when he was 14, worked hard, saved, and owned his own store when he died. Doing that today is impossible because "progressive" taxation taxes away the portion of a person's income that he saved and gives it to the lazy people who don't want to work, if not directly as welfare then indirectly by providing far more "free" education than they need.
You have no stats to back that up.
libertarian Lizzie

Owensboro, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Anonymous Keyboard Tapper wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never looked at it like the top wage earners pay a higher rate, just that lower wage earners pay a lower rate. While top wage earners may pay higher income tax rates, they are also more likely to derive income from more favorable capital gains tax rates from investing. Lower wage earners don't really have the opportunity to take advantage of that or carry over losses from previous years to offset gains, for them lost income is just that, lost.
Your desire for fairness in the income tax ignores the higher income percentages that poorer people pay in other taxes. Single Mom Susie, is going to pay a much higher percentage of her check on groceries, so any sales taxes she pays on those will be a higher percent of her income than Joe Shoe Factory owner. The gas she puts in her car will likely make a substantially higher portion of her budget, and so she will probably pay a much higher percentage of her income on gasoline taxes than Joe Shoe Factory Owner.
But perhaps the scariest thing about a flat tax plan is that by raising taxes on the poor, you will probably get more of them to the polls to vote for politicians that will promise them stuff like cheap or free healthcare, housing and food subsidies, education, etc, and we certainly wouldn't want that.
You are mixing apples and pears here. Income taxes are federal, sales taxes are state or locally imposed and in Kentucky neither the factory owner nor the single mom pays income taxes on their groceries.
You also are mistaken about the lower wage earners not "having the opportunity" to invest their income. Why not? I started out making $.80/hr back in the '70s as a waitress in high school. A percentage of every paycheck I got was saved and invested. That habit continued---even when I was a single Mom---trying to make it while a deadbeat ex paid no child support. It's a matter of discipline and budgeting to live within your means. It's a matter of believing the old saw, "The borrower is slave to the lender" and not falling into the debt trap and making a slave of yourself because you must have the latest gadget or newest vehicle.
I just had a long conversation with a young couple who recently graduated from college with their Masters degrees---without any debt. They worked hard, got scholarships and worked their way through school. They actually have a savings account. They don't have the latest gadgets and they drive an old beater of a vehicle but that will change shortly because they both have good jobs and are saving up to buy a better vehicle. They've done this because they've both worked since they were 14 years old and were taught to save a portion of their earnings. It wasn't easy for them but they don't have the huge burden of paying off college loans for the next 10 years. Instead they can put the money they would be paying the bankers into savings for a home.
It's not that lower income earners have no opportunity, it's that they choose not to take advantage of those opportunities because they choose to go into debt for something they want rather than living within their means. They make decisions to spend rather than save and invest.
The leadership of this nation has the same problem. We've allowed them to get by with spending more and more and more of our money and now we are all slaves to the lender. Our "leadership" acts like nothing more than a bunch of undisciplined teens with Dad's credit card and until we cut them off and throw them out, nothing will change. We've got to start teaching people to fish rather than giving them fish---our children included.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Lynn Grove Discussions

Search the Lynn Grove Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
murray state should be ashamed of themselves! 3 min Anonymous Keyboard Tapper 62
Natasha Hutson 3 min duh 2
Z's Grill 5 min GoodStuff 6
KY 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 14 min Syl 146,229
The Truth about Israel 20 min MSU Grad 208
Flash of News (Aug '13) 20 min Kathy 3,298
disaster after disaster 39 min Retired English Teacher 38
•••
•••
•••
•••

Lynn Grove Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Lynn Grove People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Lynn Grove News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Lynn Grove
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••