|
tbombz
|
 |
« Reply #200 on: November 12, 2012, 08:02:00 PM » |
|
Already taking money from people anyway so the question is mute. I agree taxes are theft and should not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
 |
« Reply #201 on: November 12, 2012, 08:03:05 PM » |
|
Already taking money from people anyway so the question is mute. I agree taxes are theft and should not exist.
ok take more money from ppl you ignoramous  |
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #202 on: November 12, 2012, 08:03:07 PM » |
|
Once they exist you may as well use them pragmatically to optimize revenue and GDP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grape Ape
|
|
« Reply #203 on: November 12, 2012, 08:05:22 PM » |
|
Already taking money from people anyway so the question is mute. I agree taxes are theft and should not exist.
Mute? lol. Moot, maybe. |
Y
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #204 on: November 12, 2012, 08:07:59 PM » |
|
Mute as in silence as in falling upon dead ears as in irrelevant hahah
|
|
|
|
|
avxo
Getbig IV
Gender: 
Posts: 3431
I'm about to froth at the mouth!
|
|
« Reply #205 on: November 12, 2012, 08:09:28 PM » |
|
Mute as in silence as in falling upon dead ears as in irrelevant hahah
The word you want is " moot" not " mute". |
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #206 on: November 12, 2012, 08:11:31 PM » |
|
Yea and that one was supposed to be deaf ears not dead ears haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #207 on: November 12, 2012, 08:11:57 PM » |
|
Once they exist you may as well use them pragmatically to optimize revenue and GDP
dont you think it would be morally and more practical to use spending cuts to do so? Also I could be wrong but I dont remember an approach to calculating GDP that uses individual income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #208 on: November 12, 2012, 08:22:10 PM » |
|
I think its pragmatic to raise taxes because people want to keep their social security Medicar and big old defense budget and those things are ratemelt underfunded. As formthe GDP comment, I meant having taxes levied on markets and at rates that create the least burden on the economy
|
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #209 on: November 12, 2012, 08:25:18 PM » |
|
I think its pragmatic to raise taxes because people want to keep their social security Medicar and big old defense budget and those things are ratemelt underfunded. As formthe GDP comment, I meant having taxes levied on markets and at rates that create the least burden on the economy
hahah if you think thats all that could be easily cut from govt spending you need to go read some of the pork threads on this forum wtf are you talking about dizzle? |
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #210 on: November 12, 2012, 08:27:12 PM » |
|
if there's over a trillion dollars of pork in the budget that can be cut then sure we wouldn't need to raise taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #211 on: November 12, 2012, 08:30:12 PM » |
|
if there's over a trillion dollars of pork in the budget that can be cut then sure we wouldn't need to raise taxes
you think the tax hikes are going to generate a trillion dollars in revenue? ALSO NOOOOOOO as ive already shown spending cuts have a bigger impact on the bottom line the tax hikes. You would need much less than a trillion dollars in spending cuts to have the same effect on the bottom line with a trillion in tax hikes. what part of that dont you get, spending cuts are more effective at cutting the deficit than tax hikes. would you like me to go over it again? |
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #212 on: November 12, 2012, 08:33:47 PM » |
|
All I was talking about was that we have about a trillion dollar per year deficit. If there's that much in pork that we can cut, cool, let's do that instead of raising taxes. But I think we probably can't cut that much, and we should try to make up the rest of the differince with taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #213 on: November 12, 2012, 08:35:33 PM » |
|
All I was talking about was that we have about a trillion dollar per year deficit. If there's that much in pork that we can cut, cool, let's do that instead of raising taxes. But I think we probably can't cut that much, and we should try to make up the rest of the differince with taxes
and you still dont seem to understand, if we have a trillion dollar deficit and want to negate it we will have to bring in a lot more than 1 trillion in new taxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #214 on: November 12, 2012, 08:41:12 PM » |
|
I didn't say anything that should have led you to believe that I thought differently. All I'm saying is that of we can't do it all with cuts then we need to do the rest with taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #215 on: November 12, 2012, 08:46:34 PM » |
|
I didn't say anything that should have led you to believe that I thought differently. All I'm saying is that of we can't do it all with cuts then we need to do the rest with taxes.
I can agree with raising taxes after we have got our fiscal house in order and dont have trillions in waste in the govt. only then will i agree with taking the hard earned money away from fellow citizens. |
|
|
|
|
|
Straw Man
|
|
« Reply #216 on: November 12, 2012, 08:48:15 PM » |
|
I can agree with raising taxes after we have got our fiscal house in order and dont have trillions in waste in the govt.
only then will i agree with taking the hard earned money away from fellow citizens.
well you had your chance to express your opinion last week and your side lost the good news for you is that your hard earned money is most likely completely safe from any tax increase |
|
|
|
|
|
tonymctones
|
|
« Reply #217 on: November 12, 2012, 08:50:26 PM » |
|
well you had your chance to express your opinion last week and your side lost
the good news for you is that your hard earned money is most likely completely safe from any tax increase
hahahah so that makes it ok for you to take a completely idiotic stance in trying to reduce the deficit? you agree that spending cuts work much better at reducing the deficit yet you still want tax hikes for the "rich" before spending cuts are enacted. why is that straw? |
|
|
|
|
|
tbombz
|
|
« Reply #218 on: November 12, 2012, 08:52:22 PM » |
|
Glad we can come to an understanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
