Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Old 04-16-10, 05:14 PM
  #101  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Interesting. Seemed like a very nice place.
It does seem nice except for the cainings, and possibly the DVD packaging.
orangecrush is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 05:28 PM
  #102  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
The higher earner does pay more. You want the higher earner to pay more than more.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 06:29 PM
  #103  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,006
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Interesting. Seemed like a very nice place.
Have you seen their drug laws? They make the US look like Amsterdam.
Rockmjd23 is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 08:30 PM
  #104  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
What i am saying is that "rich" people as describe by Obama are not necessarily rich, and cannot afford an extra $20k in taxes. Where as you certainly would not miss it, it doesn't mean that someone else in that tax bracket wouldn't.

And my bigger point is that because the govt feels you wouldn't miss it, that they are entitled to it. This deficit didn't happen because the people weren't taxed enough.
Do you agree we need to fund the military, build roads, provide education, etc? How does this get paid for? You either make everyone pay equally (in which case the middle class pays way more) or you make the rich pay more and the middle class pay less. I don't understand why the latter is more objectionable than the former - especially if the majority of Americans fall into that middle class. The rich will still be rich - way richer than the majority. I don't say this with envy or jealousy, I say this as observable fact.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 08:34 PM
  #105  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
My point is it wasn't her money to take, regardless if she thought she was being 'fair' or if she thought my boy wouldn't miss it.
Your elected representation decides what is fair and what is not. It's not as if Obama is dictating the tax code. This mother took it upon herself to become your representation. Legislators are elected.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 08:36 PM
  #106  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by orangecrush View Post
It does seem nice except for the cainings, and possibly the DVD packaging.
Originally Posted by Rockmjd23 View Post
Have you seen their drug laws? They make the US look like Amsterdam.
OK, scratch Singapore.

Amsterdam it is.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 08:39 PM
  #107  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Do you agree we need to fund the military, build roads, provide education, etc? How does this get paid for? You either make everyone pay equally (in which case the middle class pays way more) or you make the rich pay more and the middle class pay less. I don't understand why the latter is more objectionable than the former - especially if the majority of Americans fall into that middle class. The rich will still be rich - way richer than the majority. I don't say this with envy or jealousy, I say this as observable fact.
Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
This deficit didn't happen because the people weren't taxed enough.
If you want something but can't afford it (try to imagine), then you don't buy it. You don't go to your neighbors and tell them you need more money.

I don't have an issue with the rich being taxed at a higher percentage, but i do have an issue with continuing to go to a particular group for more and more money because the govt over spent.
cpgator is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 08:41 PM
  #108  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Posts: 8,790
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

You're tossing red herrings down [or something, I know there's a word for that type of argument]. "You think taxes are too high, you must hate the military and children and driving on interstates"

Military? Of course. We could argue where and how that military should be used, but I think everyone here can agree the federal government *should* fund the military to some extent.
Roads? Hm....I think the federal interstate system does make transportation of people and goods much more economical and efficient.
Education? Hm again...Let's go take a look at that Constitution.

The argument of "the rich pay more because they have more", combined with "the federal government will provide everything for you", are two incredibly dangerous statements. Define rich. Ten million? One? Half? 100k? 50k? Are we talking income, wealth, assets? As "what gov't [taxpayers] provide" increases, the definition of 'rich' or the percentage taken from them, or both, must necessarily increase.
tonyc3742 is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 08:42 PM
  #109  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Your elected representation decides what is fair and what is not. It's not as if Obama is dictating the tax code. This mother took it upon herself to become your representation. Legislators are elected.
And back to why i don't vote democrat. I don't agree with what they think is fair.

And it is Obama. He is the one who has stated he will raise taxes to pay for all his programs.
cpgator is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 09:01 PM
  #110  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
OK, scratch Singapore.

Amsterdam it is.
lol I've heard Amsterdam is cracking down on the drug use. You'll have to go to California if charities start building roads. They probably won't be in the union if it comes to that.
orangecrush is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 10:05 PM
  #111  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Do you agree we need to fund the military, build roads, provide education, etc?
Why don't you state the 1000's of things in the budget that are far less important?

I am going to guess it is because you have little idea what your tax dollars are REALLY being spent on, you choose to just focus on the items you believe your money is going to fund.

I for one would like to abolish all the money corn farmers are handed for 100 different bullshit reasons. There are a 1000 things like corn subsidy that could be slashed and the country would actually be better off for multiple reasons.

Leave the military and interstate highways alone, education on the other hand really isn't a federal issue, it is a state issue and that is where it should have stayed.

Have you ever actually read the federal budget?
4KRG is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 10:12 PM
  #112  
DVD Talk Legend
 
kenbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 20,968
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

In honor of Tax Day why don't we do this... when you fill out your Federal Taxes, you get to vote how your tax money will be spent.

Congress gets one-half of your money and they spend it proportionally along their own budgetary lines. THEN, you get to decide how the other half gets spent. You get one vote just for paying taxes (if you pay no taxes, you get no say in how my taxes are spent) and you get an additional vote for every thousand bucks you paid after the first thousand. If you paid $3000 to Washington last year, you get three votes - you can split them between Welfare, Medicaid and Unemployment Benefits (effectively tagging $500 to go to each), or you can lump them together and give $1500 to Defense or something equally meaningful.
kenbuzz is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 10:42 PM
  #113  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
If you want something but can't afford it (try to imagine), then you don't buy it. You don't go to your neighbors and tell them you need more money.

I don't have an issue with the rich being taxed at a higher percentage, but i do have an issue with continuing to go to a particular group for more and more money because the govt over spent.
We just don't agree that stimulating the economy during severe recession and finally doing something about healthcare is necessary spending. And healthcare reform is far from a partisan issue - the current legislation is pretty close to what the Repubs offered in 1994. Nixon tried to get something done.

Once we agree that it is necessary spending (and I doubt we will) then we can agree that it must be paid for.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 04-16-10, 11:09 PM
  #114  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,743
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by kenbuzz View Post
In honor of Tax Day why don't we do this... when you fill out your Federal Taxes, you get to vote how your tax money will be spent.
I've always advocated that we be allowed to do that. Even if the government manipulated the results and just told us they were following our wishes, we'd feel better about it.

Maybe with the 50% version they could actually do what we specify. Yeah, right...
X is offline  
Old 06-04-10, 10:41 AM
  #115  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt



http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/...ational_d.html

http://media.npr.org/assets/blogs/pl...0/05/gifts.xls
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 10-07-10, 10:53 AM
  #116  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,047
Re: US government accepting voluntary payments to reduce debt

Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
If Gates believes that his taxes should be higher, then yes, I believe he should put his money where his mouth is. There's an easy way to do so, particularly if he so charitable - don't claim any of those contributions as deductions - pure philanthropy, and he could easily inform his accountants to not include those - they work for him. Maybe he does so already. If so, kudos to him.
Resurrecting the thread....just read thsi: Arthur Laffer agrees with me.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...html#printMode

The Bill Gates Income Tax

If Washington's most famous billionaires are really worried about their state's finances, they'd write personal checks to the government and leave everyone else alone.

By ARTHUR LAFFER

Framed on a wall in my office is a personal letter to me from Bill Gates the elder. "I am a fan of progressive taxation," he wrote. "I would say our country has prospered from using such a system—even at 70% rates to say nothing of 90%."

It's one thing to believe in bad policy. It's quite another to push it on others. But Mr. Gates Sr.—an accomplished lawyer, now retired—and his illustrious son are now trying to have their way with the people of the state of Washington.

Mr. Gates Sr. has personally contributed $500,000 to promote a statewide proposition on Washington's November ballot that would impose a brand new 5% tax on individuals earning over $200,000 per year and couples earning over $400,000 per year. An additional 4% surcharge would be levied on individuals and couples earning more than $500,000 and $1 million, respectively.

Along with creating a new income tax on high-income earners, Initiative 1098 would also reduce property, business and occupation taxes. But raising the income tax is the real issue. Doing so would put the state's economy at risk.

To imagine what such a large soak-the-rich income tax would do to Washington, we need only examine how states with the highest income-tax rates perform relative to their zero-income tax counterparts. Comparing the nine states with the highest tax rates on earned income to the nine states with no income tax shows how high tax rates weaken economic performance.

In the past decade, the nine states with the highest personal income tax rates have seen gross state product increase by 59.8%, personal income grow by 51%, and population increase by 6.1%. The nine states with no personal income tax have seen gross state product increase by 86.3%, personal income grow by 64.1%, and population increase by 15.5%.

It's striking how the high-tax states have underperformed relative to those with no income tax. Especially noteworthy is how well Washington has performed compared to states with no income tax.

If Washington passes Initiative 1098, it will go from being one of the fastest-growing states in the country to one of the slowest-growing. And passage of I-1098 will only be the beginning. Just look at Ohio, Michigan and California to see that once a state adopts an income tax, there is no end to the number of reasons that such a tax could be extended, expanded and increased.

Over the past 50 years, 11 states have introduced state income taxes exactly as Messrs. Gates and their allies are proposing—and the consequences have been devastating.
[artlaffer]

The 11 states where income taxes were adopted over the past 50 years are: Connecticut (1991), New Jersey (1976), Ohio (1971), Rhode Island (1971), Pennsylvania (1971), Maine (1969), Illinois (1969), Nebraska (1967), Michigan (1967), Indiana (1963) and West Virginia (1961).

Each and every state that introduced an income tax saw its share of total U.S. output decline. Some of the states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, have become fiscal basket cases. As the nearby chart shows, even West Virginia, which was poor to begin with, got relatively poorer after adopting a state income tax.

Washington's I-1098 proposes a state income tax with a maximum rate higher than any of those initially adopted by the other 11 states. In one fell swoop, Washington would move from being one of the lowest-tax states in the nation to being one of the top nine highest. It's economic suicide.

The states that have high income tax rates or have adopted a state income tax over the past 50 years haven't even gotten the money they hoped for. They haven't avoided budget crises, nor have they provided better lives for the poor. The ongoing financial travails of California, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan and New York are cases in point.

Over the past decade, the nine states with the highest tax rates have experienced tax revenue growth of 74%—a full 22% less than the states with no income tax. Washington state has done better than the average of the nine no-tax states. Why on earth would it want to introduce a state income tax when it means less money for state coffers?

What's true for those states with the highest tax rates is doubly true for the 11 states that have instituted state income taxes over the past half-century. They too have lost huge sums of tax revenue.

A final thought for those who want to punish the rich for their success: As the nearby chart shows, those states with the highest tax rates, and those states that have introduced state income taxes, have seen standards of living (personal income per capita) substantially underperform compared to their no-tax counterparts.

If Mr. Gates Sr. and his son feel so strongly about taxing the rich, they should simply give the state a chunk of their own money and be done with it. Leave the rest of Washington's taxpayers alone.
Red Dog is offline  

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.