Page 55 of 106 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765105 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 1060

Thread: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

  1. #541
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    because labor is pretty cheap, especially lately. what is the tax rate on corporations in tx?
    So businesses react to lower state taxes? thanks, wonder if Boo is reading this. There are no income taxes in TX and the only corporate tax rate here is a franchise tax

    http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf

  2. #542
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Each State makes its own regulations on alcohol crossing State lines.
    Agree, but if your not selling across state lines, then no need to know each states regulations. I did not get from the post the San Diego Tailgate guy was selling in all states. Yet he said he had to know all the states regs. At least that is my understanding, could be wrong.

  3. #543
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Obama has proposed the cuts, Republicans have proposed revisions in the programs or so Obama claims but you miss the point and failed to answer the question, why is SS still on budget and not in a trust fund?
    It is in a trust fund. The social security trust fund currently has around $2 trillion in it. The thing about how it isn't really separate is just Republican rhetoric. They claim that because the trust fund holds it's assets in bonds, it isn't really separate. That isn't true.

    Regardless, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, that want to avoid cuts in social security and to treat it as separate from the rest of the budget. So, that's awesome. You figured that one out. Excellent work. You give me hope for the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    It is 10 years of the wars and we have spent 1.4 trillion during those 10 years on the war or 140 billion per year. Our current debt is 14.6 trillion dollars so deducting the cost of the wars, we still have a debt of 13.2 trillion dollars. Where is your outrage over wasted federal spending on social programs that have yet to solve a problem?
    Well, you're meandering off the point of how to count deficit reduction, so I gather you get what I'm talking about now. Good work.

    As for military spending, when you count the total we spend on our military, excluding social security from the budget as you prefer, and include ALL military spending, not just DoD (NSA, CIA, a portion of the Dept of Energy, Veteran's Affairs, etc) you find that the military is over 50% of the total federal budget. So, definitely no serious plan for cutting spending can skip over the military. We need to tackle both domestic and military spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Where has the money gone that was paid in FICA to fund medicare? You do realize that Medicare is mostly for retired individuals who contributed to that program only to have their money spent on other programs thanks to LBJ.
    Not really sure how that relates to what we're discussing. I'm using that as an example of how keeping the budget for something lower than planned, but higher than it is today, is still a real cut- because some things just get more expensive on their own over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I am not for diverting any money from any taxpayer for it is theirs first. Why shouldn't they keep it? How much of my money should I send to you or does me sending it to the govt. so they can send it to you make it right? I hope this isn't what you are learning in school.
    Ok, well, this one is getting a bit complex. The stuff about "keeping your own money" is just a slogan, it doesn't translate into any actual policy position. Any change to any tax policy means moving money from one group to another. If you cut all taxes across the board you would be transferring money from those who will ultimately be responsible for the debt to those who pay taxes where those who bear responsiblity for the debt is all Americans in equal proportion where those who pay taxes is slanted towards the rich. So even an across the board tax cut is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. There is no such thing as a wealth transfer neutral tax policy. The Republicans consistently push for tax policies that result in the rich having more money and the Democrats consistently push for tax policies that result in the poor and middle class having more money. That's what the dividing line is, not this slogan about keeping ones own money. That makes a good bumper sticker, but nothing more than that.

    That's what Reaganomics is- an argument for why we should tweak things in ways that direct more of the money to the rich, so they invest more and supposedly it will trickle down. That isn't an argument for "letting people keep their own money", it is explicitly an argument for directing more money to the rich. That's the policy goal Republicans have been openly pushing for about 4 decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The budget proposals for 2012 have already been submitted and include the cuts in spending on the Iraq War, he is claiming those cuts again thus no additional cuts and still the budget has a projected deficit of over 1.2 trillion dollars
    Oh, no, that's not true. That $1.1 trillion is the difference between his proposal and the current budget projections.

  4. #544
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    The industries that use their electricity.
    Ahhh, so they are giving away their electricity to the evil industries, but charging poor people for it ??? Gotcha............

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  5. #545
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    hasn't stopped Fortune 500 companies from moving to TX, wonder why?
    Why would it? Illegals are cheap labor. And the federal tax dollars make good welfare payments for the business. Sorry you like this.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #546
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    teamosil;1059817158]It is in a trust fund. The social security trust fund currently has around $2 trillion in it. The thing about how it isn't really separate is just Republican rhetoric. They claim that because the trust fund holds it's assets in bonds, it isn't really separate. That isn't true.
    Have you seen the two trillion? The trust fund consists of IOU's not cash. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

    Regardless, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, that want to avoid cuts in social security and to treat it as separate from the rest of the budget. So, that's awesome. You figured that one out. Excellent work. You give me hope for the future.
    '

    If you are putting your hopes for the future on Obama you are in the minority. Democrats want to keep SS on budget to hide the shortfall in the SS trust fund and you buy the rhetoric.

    Well, you're meandering off the point of how to count deficit reduction, so I gather you get what I'm talking about now. Good work.
    Wrong, if you spend 3.7 trillion this year and 3.8 trillion next year, is that a cut? It is using baseline budgeting because according to the baseline you would be spending 3.9 trillion instead of 3.8 trillion thus you have a 1 trillion dollar cut. Now if you have a 3.7 trillion dollar budget and go back to the 3.1 trillion 2008 budget you would have a 600 billion cut, that is a real cut, not accounting gimmick

    As for military spending, when you count the total we spend on our military, excluding social security from the budget as you prefer, and include ALL military spending, not just DoD (NSA, CIA, a portion of the Dept of Energy, Veteran's Affairs, etc) you find that the military is over 50% of the total federal budget. So, definitely no serious plan for cutting spending can skip over the military. We need to tackle both domestic and military spending.
    It is the role of the Federal Govt. to defend this nation thus defense is a requirement regardless of the amount. Promote domestic welfare was changed by politicians to provide for domestic welfare once they realized they could buy votes and stay in office for a career


    Not really sure how that relates to what we're discussing. I'm using that as an example of how keeping the budget for something lower than planned, but higher than it is today, is still a real cut- because some things just get more expensive on their own over time.
    Keeping the budget lower than planned isnt a cut as I explained above.



    Ok, well, this one is getting a bit complex. The stuff about "keeping your own money" is just a slogan, it doesn't translate into any actual policy position. Any change to any tax policy means moving money from one group to another. If you cut all taxes across the board you would be transferring money from those who will ultimately be responsible for the debt to those who pay taxes where those who bear responsiblity for the debt is all Americans in equal proportion where those who pay taxes is slanted towards the rich. So even an across the board tax cut is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. There is no such thing as a wealth transfer neutral tax policy. The Republicans consistently push for tax policies that result in the rich having more money and the Democrats consistently push for tax policies that result in the poor and middle class having more money. That's what the dividing line is, not this slogan about keeping ones own money. That makes a good bumper sticker, but nothing more than that.
    No, not complex at all, it is the taxpayer's money and it is state and local responsibility for social programs, not the Federal bureaucracy. Reagan and Bush cut taxes for ALL taxpayers and the percentage of taxes for the rich went up as did total revenue. How do you explain it? Ask your liberal friends to give you an answer. Bush tax cuts went into effect fully in 2003, here is the FIT revenue afterwards

    Receipt 2008 2007 2006 2005 Fiscal 2004 Fiscal 2003

    Individual Income tax 1,145.7 1,163.7 1,043.9 927.2 808.9 793.7

    That's what Reaganomics is- an argument for why we should tweak things in ways that direct more of the money to the rich, so they invest more and supposedly it will trickle down. That isn't an argument for "letting people keep their own money", it is explicitly an argument for directing more money to the rich. That's the policy goal Republicans have been openly pushing for about 4 decades.
    You really have been brainwashed, why do you think the govt. needs the money more than the individual taxpayers? Reagan directed more money to all taxpayers and the rich ended up paying more
    Last edited by Conservative; 09-22-11 at 04:58 PM.

  7. #547
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    By the way another diversion from the thread topic, you do that a lot. Don't blame you as the Obama agenda is indefensible.
    Again, I responded to your comment, and it is about taxes. Don't start something you don't want to discuss.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #548
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Why would it? Illegals are cheap labor. And the federal tax dollars make good welfare payments for the business. Sorry you like this.
    Then how do you explain that California has the highest population of illegals of any state ??

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  9. #549
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Why would it? Illegals are cheap labor. And the federal tax dollars make good welfare payments for the business. Sorry you like this.
    Really? prove that those federal tax dollars went to payments for business? They went for the mandated increase in unemployment insurance and medicaid among other mandated govt. expenses.

  10. #550
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, I responded to your comment, and it is about taxes. Don't start something you don't want to discuss.
    I could have sworn that thread topic was,
    Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •