• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

Erod said:
Hence, the tea party. I don't care what "party" or group does it, we must stop electing the kind of people we have, or at least start championing those who stand for integrity in regards to our money.

But it's just too easy to buy people's votes with promises of welfare programs. Therein lies the problem. It's those type of character flawed politicians that are so carelessly wasteful with tax revenue.
Click to expand...

It's the system itself. Nothing gets done without people getting money for their constituents. This is why spending won't be cut.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Sure, this is true. The reality is that they won't even come close to cutting that much spending though. Keeping this reality in mind, we have a revenue problem. ;)
Click to expand...

Stop killing jobs and that would go a long way towards solving the revenue problem.
 
UtahBill said:
or both....
During my Navy years I observed some funds being wasted, and the excuse was, if we don't spend all of this year's budget, they will reduce next years budget....sounds really stupid to me.....
Click to expand...

This is also true. That's how every government budget works.
 
apdst said:
You know that there's a difference between taxable income and profit. Right?

Not every business expense is deductable. So, just because a company is reporting $250,000, doesn't mean that they have $250,000 just sitting in the bank.

I wish it were that simple.
Click to expand...

profit = revenue - expenses. right?
 
apdst said:
That's why the welfare class shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...


Any other classes that should not be allowed to vote? Or maybe just have 3/5ths of a vote?
 
UtahBill said:
or both....
During my Navy years I observed some funds being wasted, and the excuse was, if we don't spend all of this year's budget, they will reduce next years budget....sounds really stupid to me.....
Click to expand...

I've witnessed that in business, too.

I have no doubt we could reduce military spending by a measureable amount and not change it negatively at all. Everything should be scrutinized in this manner.
 
apdst said:
You know that there's a difference between taxable income and profit. Right?

Not every business expense is deductable. So, just because a company is reporting $250,000, doesn't mean that they have $250,000 just sitting in the bank.

I wish it were that simple.
Click to expand...

Maybe they shouldn't file personally then. I'm not even sure why a business owner would. Can you explain it to me?
 
winston53660 said:
Any other classes that should not be allowed to vote? Or maybe just have 3/5ths of a vote?
Click to expand...

No, but when you vote 98 percent in lock step purely on the basis of race and handouts, it certainly brings into question the theory that all votes are equal.
 
apdst said:
Stop killing jobs and that would go a long way towards solving the revenue problem.
Click to expand...

The lack of demand is what limits growth. If you don't need to produce more widgets, you won't hire more people.
 
Erod said:
No, but when you vote 98 percent in lock step purely on the basis of race and handouts, it certainly brings into question the theory that all votes are equal.
Click to expand...


Right wing Christians seem to have the same habit of voting in unison.
 
apdst said:
That's why the welfare class shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Nice class warfare.

How about the wealthy not being allowed to vote because they have enough influence by buying the politician's ear?

Yep, that sounds stupid too. :roll:
 
liblady said:
profit = revenue - expenses. right?
Click to expand...

Sure it does. However, profit and taxable income aren't always the same figure.

An example of what I'm talking about: I pay around $4,000 a month in equipment notes. None of that, except the interest, is deductable. That $4,000 a month, minus a few hundred in interest, is taxed and it's money that I no longer have in my account.

Again, the taxable amount and the bank balance aren't the same thing.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The lack of demand is what limits growth. If you don't need to produce more widgets, you won't hire more people.
Click to expand...

If you don't have more people working to buy your widgets, there's no need to hire more people to make more widgets.

You need confident investors and entreprenuers to jumpstart an economy. Threatening them with tax increases doesn't inspire that confidence.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The lack of demand is what limits growth. If you don't need to produce more widgets, you won't hire more people.
Click to expand...

And, if the government would stop jacking with the widget industry, there would be more demand for widgets, hence boost business for widget producers.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It's a lesser of two evils. A government shutdown would be worse.
Click to expand...

And here is where we disagree.

You want a short term fix that history tells us will just perpetuate the issue we have and most likely have little to no longer term affect as we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion.

I would rather force the governments hand, even if it means a difficult time in the short term, until they have no choice BUT to deal with the hard issues of cuts.

I'd rather give my kid no dinner for a few days until he finally realizes that if he wants to eat he's going to have to eat his vegetables instead of bribing him with increasingly larger sweets every few meals which will end up being worse for him in the long run.

The Government will never stop wasting and abusing our money until they are forced to, and part of that is not giving them anymore. The bull**** guilt game of "its going to cause debt" doesn't work because logic and history dictates if we give them more money...they're STILL going to cause debt because they ALWAYS spend everything they get, if not MORE than what we get. So it comes down to give them more of our money and watch them run a bad deficit or give them less of our money and watch them run a bad deficit. Frankly, I'll take the latter.
 
apdst said:
And, if the government would stop jacking with the widget industry, there would be more demand for widgets, hence boost business for widget producers.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Government regulation has nothing to do with people wanting or needing widgets.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Sure, this is true. The reality is that they won't even come close to cutting that much spending though. Keeping this reality in mind, we have a revenue problem. ;)
Click to expand...

So because the govt. won't stop spending you want to give them more if indeed raising taxes will do that? Again, that is illogical.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Nice class warfare.

How about the wealthy not being allowed to vote because they have enough influence by buying the politician's ear?

Yep, that sounds stupid too. :roll:
Click to expand...

Where does personal responsibility lie in your world? If politicians sell their votes why aren't you holding those politicians accountable for that vote? You solve that problem by reducing the power of the Federal Govt. by cutting its size thus its influence. No one is going to spend money on a politician who doesn't have much authority.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
That makes no sense. Government regulation has nothing to do with people wanting or needing widgets.
Click to expand...

The entire argument from the left is illogical. For some reason the govt. has to fund tax cuts which allow people to keep more of what they earn but not fund unemployment payments that have just been expanded 13 months. You don't see a problem with that argument? People keeping more of what they earn = govt. expense? Expanding taxpayer payments to the unemployed good.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Maybe they shouldn't file personally then. I'm not even sure why a business owner would. Can you explain it to me?
Click to expand...

One reason to file under an s-corp is to avoid paying self employment taxes, as you would have to do with a c-corp. However, with an s-corp, every dollar that leaves the business, that isn't a direct business expense, has to have payroll taxes taken out of it.

One of my businesses is an s-corp, but the rest are c-corps. Too much accounting in involved in an s-corp. I try to become uninvolved with payroll taxes, as much as I can. You can drag your feet a little with incomes taxes, but the IRS doesn't **** around with payroll taxes. Fall behind one quarter and you'll find yourself on their radar. Once they have you in their sights, it's damn hard to get them off your back. Especially, now, since they've put ten-thousand new headhunters in the field to track down late taxes. Those bastards will empty out your bank account and don't give a rat's ass if you have to make payroll, or pay equipment notes, or pay rent. They have no compunction, whatsoever, with runnning you out of business, just so they can collect taxes.

That's just my opinion. Everyone has different views on the subject. A friend of mine swears up-n-down that an s-corp is the only way to fly.
 
Zyphlin said:
And here is where we disagree.

You want a short term fix that history tells us will just perpetuate the issue we have and most likely have little to no longer term affect as we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion.

I would rather force the governments hand, even if it means a difficult time in the short term, until they have no choice BUT to deal with the hard issues of cuts.

I'd rather give my kid no dinner for a few days until he finally realizes that if he wants to eat he's going to have to eat his vegetables instead of bribing him with increasingly larger sweets every few meals which will end up being worse for him in the long run.

The Government will never stop wasting and abusing our money until they are forced to, and part of that is not giving them anymore. The bull**** guilt game of "its going to cause debt" doesn't work because logic and history dictates if we give them more money...they're STILL going to cause debt because they ALWAYS spend everything they get, if not MORE than what we get. So it comes down to give them more of our money and watch them run a bad deficit or give them less of our money and watch them run a bad deficit. Frankly, I'll take the latter.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I think in the long run, you will lose out. Once you get done repairing the front end of your car because a giant pothole destroyed your wheel assembly and you get done paying the deductable because your car got stolen, I think you'll find that a small increase in taxes will be the better deal. This is of course assuming that you make $250,000+. Road repairs, police coverage, and housing criminals aren't free. Eucation isn't either. Cuts to education also have serious long term effects.

This is where the bigger problem is. What are we going to cut? The right says domestic individual welfare. The left says the military and corporate welfare. Meanwhile, 2% of the population is controlling the issue of revenue. Seriously, we need to cut spending and increase revenue. You can't just do one of these things to reduce the deficit. We haven't ALWAYS run a deficit. As long as people get the new community center or whatever in their hometown, they won't hold the politicians accountable. This explains the poor approval rating of Congress yet having an astronomical recitivism rate.
 
Conservative said:
So because the govt. won't stop spending you want to give them more if indeed raising taxes will do that? Again, that is illogical.
Click to expand...

No, spending needs to be cut too. Where to cut is the problem.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
That makes no sense. Government regulation has nothing to do with people wanting or needing widgets.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense.

How many oilfield jobs has the government killed this year and how many prospective oilfield jobs has the government killed in the future with the drilling moratoiums? All that equates to tax revenue that won't be paid into the government. Does the old saying, "shooting yourself in the foot", ring a bell, right about now? Noticed the gas prices, lately? How are higher fuel prices good for the economy and therefore, by default, revenue generation?

How many layoffs has the tobacco industry experienced? There's a prime example of the government's regulations effecting the demand for a product. A know a guy that owns a cigar shop. He told me that roll-your-own cigarette tobacco went from $5 a bag, to $20 a bag. Demand is obviously going to go down; effecting the people that grow the tobacco, the people who produce the packages, the people who wholesale the tobacco and the people who retail the tobacco.

It boils down to this: don't kill jobs, then bitch because there's not enough tax revenue. Anyone that can't see a reduction in tax revenue, because of job killing governmental regulations, is far too stupid to hold public office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom