Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Do you know anyone who ever said "I'm not going into work for the rest of the year. I have no incentive to do so."

You miss the point. When you reach a certain income level there is little use in working hard to reach the next one because the government takes more from you and at the end of the day you're not taking home appriciably more money to justify the work you've put in.

You're not willing to work for an extra million a year because you'll only take home $650K? That's ****ing assinine. :bang:

Quote:You're not willing to work for an extra million a year because you'll only take home $650K? That's ****ing assinine

Since when are millionairs the only one's paying the top marginal rate. You have any clue how hard it is to earn a million dollars?

You pay the top rate now if your income is at, or exceeds something like $280+K. $280K is a lot of money, but it's a far cry from a million.

Let's say I'm a small business owner and earn 290K per year at the proposed top marginal rate of 39.9. My take home, JUST after income tax is around 175K. That doesn't include FICA, OASDI/Dis or State withholdings. Plus what I pay into 401K, medical benefits etc. After all those my take home is much less. Then lets say I work my butt off to try and earn 50K more in the next year. Now, after income tax I'm taking home around $204K. THEN I have to take the rest of the stuff out that I mentioned above. I'm sorry, but the kind of work it takes to get there, resulting in the actual amount I take home really doesn't seem worth it to me.

And the biggest part of this is IT'S MY MONEY! I earned it. And the government telling me the more I earn the more they take isn't fair to me. That's why I'm all for a flat tax.

I know you disagree, I'm sure you look at your pay stub and are just fine and dandy with what the government takes out. Perhaps you even feel under taxed which, if that's the case, I'm sure you send off an additional amount to the government to make up for it. But for me, I think I'm a better judge as to where my money should go than the government, especially since the government has proven they can't manage my money very well.

But redistribution of wealth is wrong, and that's what Hillary was proposing, and has advocated for years.

Ninerfan,

For the first time I can agree with you on something. Our tax code is unfair and the loopholes that peolpe get around, it's a corporate lawyers dream. I read a book one time and it equated our tax code to a building that had no design. I guess there was this famous builder who thought as long as he kept building his home he would never die. Well the moral to this story is that the home ended up having stairs to nowhere. Rooms without windows. The whole houseplan didn't make any sense. Well, that's where our tax code is. I would propose a standard sales tax. This wouldn't be regressive tax on the poor because you pay as you buy. We could even give tax rebates up to a certain income level if it was regressive. No loopholes. You pay as you go. It makes sense to me. if you want a luxury item. Uncle Sam would smile. What does everyone think?
I know there are people a lot smarter than me who have put some thought into this, but our tax system to me is archaic. You shouldn't have to pay someone to do your taxes. IMHO

I like this tax plan myself :D

<a href='http://www.fairtax.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.fairtax.org/</a>

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:You're not willing to work for an extra million a year because you'll only take home $650K? That's ****ing assinine

Since when are millionairs the only one's paying the top marginal rate. You have any clue how hard it is to earn a million dollars?

You pay the top rate now if your income is at, or exceeds something like $280+K. $280K is a lot of money, but it's a far cry from a million.

Let's say I'm a small business owner and earn 290K per year at the proposed top marginal rate of 39.9. My take home, JUST after income tax is around 175K. That doesn't include FICA, OASDI/Dis or State withholdings. Plus what I pay into 401K, medical benefits etc. After all those my take home is much less. Then lets say I work my butt off to try and earn 50K more in the next year. Now, after income tax I'm taking home around $204K. THEN I have to take the rest of the stuff out that I mentioned above. I'm sorry, but the kind of work it takes to get there, resulting in the actual amount I take home really doesn't seem worth it to me.

And the biggest part of this is IT'S MY MONEY! I earned it. And the government telling me the more I earn the more they take isn't fair to me. That's why I'm all for a flat tax.

I know you disagree, I'm sure you look at your pay stub and are just fine and dandy with what the government takes out. Perhaps you even feel under taxed which, if that's the case, I'm sure you send off an additional amount to the government to make up for it. But for me, I think I'm a better judge as to where my money should go than the government, especially since the government has proven they can't manage my money very well.

But redistribution of wealth is wrong, and that's what Hillary was proposing, and has advocated for years.

FICA stops at 89K (the SSN portion of 6.4% - MCare is indefinite at 1.2%).

401(k) contributions are pre-tax, though you can only contribute up to 13K/year. But doing so affords you a bonus that someone grossing 25K has absolutely no chance to take advantage of. Take your other theoretical savings - if you want more, don't put it into savings. I know, it's not the smartest thing to do, but again, someone grossing 25K doesn't have these options available to them to benefit them later in life, at least not to the same degree. Not to mention life insurance is now available to protect your family in the case that you die before your time. The Roth IRA is at least $3K per person that grows tax free. Again, all of these are things that are available to you at a more significant income level than those making 25K year (particularly with a family).

After that, what you're telling me is that you're not willing to work hard for gross 50K, net 29K, yet you scream about welfare recipients being too lazy to get a job and relying on the government to give them what amounts to probably about a 10-15K salary, max (I can't say I know this for sure, but it sure as hell isn't 209K/year). If you don't want to work for it, then don't ***** if the government doesn't just give it to you for free. :rolleyes:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:The top marginal rate is now 35 percent.

No, it isn't. The top rate right now is 37.6%. It will not reach 35% until 2006.

I stand corrected.

Quote:

Quote:You make it sound impossible to balance budgets.

It's not impossible.

It's not impossible, government is just unwilling to do what it takes to make it happen.

I'll say it again: President Clinton did it.

Quote:

Quote:President Clinton did it. And he did it by making tough decisions. He showed fiscal discipline. And he raised taxes on people who could afford to pay.

First of all, Clinton didn't do it. His hand was forced by a Republican congress who ran on the issue as part of the Contract With America.

This doesn't pass the laugh test.

Are you saying that when President Clinton was president, it was the Republicans who balanced the budget?

And are you also saying that, with Washington now firmly under one-party rule, these sudden massive deficits are nobody's fault?

You aren't serious, are you?

Quote:The tax cut did not cause the deficit.&nbsp;

And President Clinton's tax hike didn't help eliminate the deficit.

Sure. Makes perfect sense.

Quote:For the love of god can you get your head out of the democratic bung hole for one minute and try and be objective?&nbsp; You really think Democrats don't engage in pork barrel spending? Sheets Byrd is the KING of it.&nbsp; Ted Kennedy isn't far behind.&nbsp; BOTH parties engage in it and BOTH parties are wrong for doing so.&nbsp; Congress as a WHOLE does this.&nbsp;

Sure. They used to. No more. Only Republicans get pork barrel projects now. They own Washington. It's their town.

Quote:I'll say it again: President Clinton did it.

I'll say it again, no he didn't.

Quote:This doesn't pass the laugh test.

Given that fictional documentaries and books about assinating a president are how you lefties get your jollies it doesn't surprise me. Fortunently it passes the FACT test, one you routinely fail.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

Quote:Are you saying that when President Clinton was president, it was the Republicans who balanced the budget?

If by balanced it you mean signed, sure I give him credit for putting his name on the bill, but it was the republican congress who campaigned on it, brought it to the floor, passed it and then sent it to him to sign.

In 1995, two years after the '93 tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for years to come.

During the budget fight of 1995 Clinton had to submit not one, not two, but FIVE budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan.

So I'll repeat one more time, since I know you'll ignore the FACTS shown above, Clinton did not balance the budget, he was forced into it.

Quote:And are you also saying that, with Washington now firmly under one-party rule, these sudden massive deficits are nobody's fault?

No, I'm saying the tax cuts didn't cause them, spending did. The simple math I posted last time illustrated that. And, if you'd bothered to pay attention, I stated that spending under Bush pisses me off because it's out of control. And he's doing it right along with Democrat approval.

Quote:And President Clinton's tax hike didn't help eliminate the deficit.

No it didn't, because as shown above, two years after it deficits were still projected. Only after the balanced budget, tech boom and economic boom did the deficit go away because there were more tax payers on the books.

Quote:Sure. Makes perfect sense.

To someone who knows the facts, yes, it does.

Quote:Sure. They used to. No more. Only Republicans get pork barrel projects now. They own Washington. It's their town.

I cannot believe you are this blind. And willfully so.

So just so everyone understands, all that is required of me to produce is ONE democrat who got pork through to refute your above statement. Well here you go. Sen. Daniel Inouye's(D-Hawaii) pork projects included: $4,500,000 for the construction of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory facility at Hilo; $2,500,000 for marijuana eradication; and $742,000 for the Native Hawaiian culture and arts program.

And let's not forget Sheet Byrd. He secured $194 million for his state and $5.5 million obtained for a new dormitory at the National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia, a building that will undoubtedly bare his name.

Pork spending is out of control for BOTH PARTIES. Get that through your head. Neither party is perfect, the sooner you come to the realization that your precious democrat's sh!* stinks just like everyone elses the sooner you can join the rest of us in the real world.

So, now that I've blown your above assertion out of the water are you man enough to admit you're wrong? Nevermind, I know the answer. :rolleyes:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

Gee. Whatever happened to that balanced budget amendment?

Republicans run Washington. Where are these balanced budgets they promised in '94? Why aren't they proposing a balanced budget amendmen tnow?

Let's cut through the crap.

Republicans run Washington. These are their budget deficits.

It's easy.

So I guess the answer is no, you're not man enough to admit you're wrong. And make no mistake about it, I PROVED you were wrong.

But then proof never matters in the world of the left, unless it's 100% proof someone wishes you harm, and by then it's too late.

By the way, I loved you in Holy Grail. Was it fun playing the Black Knight? I see now why you were perfect for it. :rolleyes:

As a casual observer to this thread, I'm not so sure you've proved anything. Schad's original point about the budget still remains, i.e. if the Republican Congress was responsible for the balanced buget, how did the same republican congress lead us to the largest budget deficit in history?

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen an answer to that question yet.

You need to go back a few more posts.

My statement: You really think Democrats don't engage in pork barrel spending? Sheets Byrd is the KING of it. Ted Kennedy isn't far behind. BOTH parties engage in it and BOTH parties are wrong for doing so. Congress as a WHOLE does this.

Schachen's Response: Sure. They used to. No more. Only Republicans get pork barrel projects now. They own Washington. It's their town.

My Response: Sen. Daniel Inouye's(D-Hawaii) pork projects included: $4,500,000 for the construction of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory facility at Hilo; $2,500,000 for marijuana eradication; and $742,000 for the Native Hawaiian culture and arts program.

And let's not forget Sheet Byrd. He secured $194 million for his state and $5.5 million obtained for a new dormitory at the National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia, a building that will undoubtedly bare his name.

That's what I was talking about when I said I PROVED him wrong, a fact he is unwilling to admit because he's a sheep of the democratic party.

Quote:if the Republican Congress was responsible for the balanced buget, how did the same republican congress lead us to the largest budget deficit in history?

Those are two seperate things. We're dealing with now vs. 1997. In 1997 they did the right thing, forcing Clinton to sign a balanced budget.

Today they are out of control, largely with Bush's help, with their spending. BOTH parties are out of control with their pork barrel spending, the afore mentioned fact Schachen refuses to conceid to.

All of this I stated in previous posts.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. I agree that the pork is coming from both sides; however, you have to admit that since the Republicans are the majority they are able to get more pork passed. I think that was the point Schad was trying to make, that the Republican majority makes it more difficult for Democrats to include their pork barrel projects in bills that are passed.

In my personal opinion, the budget problem is a microcosm of the problems that exist when the President and Congress are part of the same party. I'm sure in 1997, they made it very difficult for Clinton to get funding for lots of projects, which helped balance the budget. But now that everyone is on the same side, so to speak, they are much less concerned with a balanced budget. I would be willing to bet, based on the same argument, that the deficit would be much smaller if there was a Democratic majority in Congress.

Quote:however, you have to admit that since the Republicans are the majority they are able to get more pork passed.

Naturally, but ANY congressman can attach a pork amendment. From what I've read they all do it in lumps, attach a bunch of pork to a bill that will be easily passed. And I tend to doubt the Democrats are hurting for getting their pork passed. Sheets Byrd certainly hasn't been stopped.

Quote:I think that was the point Schad was trying to make, that the Republican majority makes it more difficult for Democrats to include their pork barrel projects in bills that are passed.

No, his point really was to say democrats don't do it.

Congress is the biggest boys club there is on earth. None of them, with the exception of some real reformers who are overshadowed, have no problem passing pork, giving themselves pay raises and other benefits. It really is an I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine atmosphere as far as that goes. Both sides are equally as guilty.

Quote:In my personal opinion, the budget problem is a microcosm of the problems that exist when the President and Congress are part of the same party. I'm sure in 1997, they made it very difficult for Clinton to get funding for lots of projects, which helped balance the budget. But now that everyone is on the same side, so to speak, they are much less concerned with a balanced budget. I would be willing to bet, based on the same argument, that the deficit would be much smaller if there was a Democratic majority in Congress.

Blazer that's my biggest problem with all of this. In the 90's the Republican party stood for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. Today, they spend like there's no tommorow. Bush has really disappointed me with the spending proposals he's sent to congress, and that they have in turn passed. If they would have stuck to fiscal responsibility things wouldn't be as bad as they are. I still think we'd be running a deficit because war is expensive, but I don't think it would be what it is right now.

I think all this comes back to wanting to take issues away from democrats. Spending a bunch of money so democrats can't come back and accuse republicans of starving children and such like they did in the 90's.

Spending needs to be reigned it. And the reality of it is, neither party is willing to do it.