Would you support higher taxes if...
- Thread starter zade
- Start date
C
Chester Copperpot
Guest
no.. you cant trust em.. no no no no.. NO .. FUCKING NO WAY!
disorderlyvision
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,314
Ummmmm......NO!
Ok fine, if they actually did that first.
Kludge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 21,719
lol.
Goldhunter27
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 292
Is that you in your avatar?
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
Still no.
Even "cutting spending" is vague and pointless. What is being cut? If we're not cutting something like the constant nation-building and international policing overseas, whatever was cut is moot. If we're still carrying on with the Social Security Ponzi Scheme, it's just pushing things along a little longer until that blows up in our faces. If taxes are still being used to fly people around so they can "make statements" about "world issues" and other such claptrap, then no lesson has been learned. If oppressive agencies are still being funded (and they would be, in spades, if taxes were increased... that would mean the IRS was even more bloated), then every penny still offends me.
I notice you didn't say who would pay the higher taxes. This is where "democracy" gets ugly. Obama is "promising" precisely what you're proposing, remember? Well, that is, he's promising a spending freeze (next year) and he'll tell us all he's "just going to raise taxes on the really rich." When it comes down to it, he's going to say that this or that program is now costing us less money, or is gone altogether, even if it's the blue-footed sparrow observatory in Billings, Montana. It'll be fine, too, because the only people paying more taxes will be the rich! (Of course, there will be some "adjustments" to the middle class, too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to fund much of anything.)
I've always wondered why people decide to raise taxes on the rich over and over again. First off, the rich usually have a nice team of lawyers to get them as many loopholes, deductions, and credits as possible. Second, if the rich were overly taxed, they are the one segment that could afford to move away pretty easily. It'd be kind of funny if all the "rich" just packed up and moved away.
Sadly, Obama's definition of "rich" is misguided and insulting to most small business owners and anyone who lives in an area with a really high cost of living.
Even "cutting spending" is vague and pointless. What is being cut? If we're not cutting something like the constant nation-building and international policing overseas, whatever was cut is moot. If we're still carrying on with the Social Security Ponzi Scheme, it's just pushing things along a little longer until that blows up in our faces. If taxes are still being used to fly people around so they can "make statements" about "world issues" and other such claptrap, then no lesson has been learned. If oppressive agencies are still being funded (and they would be, in spades, if taxes were increased... that would mean the IRS was even more bloated), then every penny still offends me.
I notice you didn't say who would pay the higher taxes. This is where "democracy" gets ugly. Obama is "promising" precisely what you're proposing, remember? Well, that is, he's promising a spending freeze (next year) and he'll tell us all he's "just going to raise taxes on the really rich." When it comes down to it, he's going to say that this or that program is now costing us less money, or is gone altogether, even if it's the blue-footed sparrow observatory in Billings, Montana. It'll be fine, too, because the only people paying more taxes will be the rich! (Of course, there will be some "adjustments" to the middle class, too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to fund much of anything.)
I've always wondered why people decide to raise taxes on the rich over and over again. First off, the rich usually have a nice team of lawyers to get them as many loopholes, deductions, and credits as possible. Second, if the rich were overly taxed, they are the one segment that could afford to move away pretty easily. It'd be kind of funny if all the "rich" just packed up and moved away.
Sadly, Obama's definition of "rich" is misguided and insulting to most small business owners and anyone who lives in an area with a really high cost of living.
Let me clarify. Not Obama's 200 million dollar cut or whatever. I mean actually dismantling the empire and welfare state, accompanied by a short spike in taxes, lets say the amount of increase being determined by progressively (the wealthiest people's taxes increase with a higher proportion), during this transitional period in order to quickly pay off the debt and then taxes would return to lower amounts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
