Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:30 am
by Leisher
But the consumers won't be taxed, those evil energy companies will. So the poor won't pay any more than they are now, silly!
It truly disturbs me that the voter base for the Dems still haven't figured out that as costs increase to corporations (whether they be government induced or otherwise), those corporations increase the prices of their goods, meaning we pay for those cost increases, not the corporations' bottom lines.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:46 am
by TPRJones
I'm sorry, Leisher, but I don't understand what you are saying. Does it involve free health care and puppies for everyone?!
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:46 am
by Malcolm
The next logical step is a gov't-imposed freezing of prices.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:58 am
by Mommy Dearest
GORDON wrote:Mommy Dearest wrote:GORDON wrote:This is an arbitrary tax on energy production based on "carbon production."
A rich person might pay .05% of their income on energy needs.
A poor person might pay 10% of their income on energy needs.
Increase each of those numbers by any percentage, and who does this increase hurt more?
"People who make less than $200k will not pay a dime of extra taxes." I knew at the time he said it he was a lying sack of shit, I said so in these forums, and I have scorn for those who were stupid enough to believe him.
no a 10% increase in tax may not hurt the poor person so much. I think 0 times 10% still equals ?
It will equate to an increase on their energy bills, which they still pay.
I don't know why you seem to be a fan of this.
I am not a fan of any of the govt ways, but, there does need to be a tax on something. I feel an income tax increase across the board would be the best thing, but then people would know how much tax they pay instead of having it hidden in their utilities bills or whatever. This would be honest. Oh scratch that I said tax, govt and honest in the same post.
Edited By Mommy Dearest on 1253203167
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:03 pm
by TPRJones
I'm afraid I can't agree there. Income taxes are pretty well hidden for most people these days, too, if they are just a working schlub filing a 1040EZ.
If you want honest taxation, dump income taxes completely and go to a 25% national sales tax. Exempt unprepared food, clothing below a very minimal dollar threshold, and basic housing expenses. Everything else gets taxed, and by law the taxes must be shown in bold on the receipt, preferably underlined and with a little note saying "This is how much Uncle Sam just took from you. Remember to vote!"
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:08 pm
by thibodeaux
Screw taxes, just sell votes: one dollar, one vote.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:21 pm
by Mommy Dearest
TPRJones wrote:I'm afraid I can't agree there. Income taxes are pretty well hidden for most people these days, too, if they are just a working schlub filing a 1040EZ.
If you want honest taxation, dump income taxes completely and go to a 25% national sales tax. Exempt unprepared food, clothing below a very minimal dollar threshold, and basic housing expenses. Everything else gets taxed, and by law the taxes must be shown in bold on the receipt, preferably underlined and with a little note saying "This is how much Uncle Sam just took from you. Remember to vote!"
Well that will certainly exempt a lot of people from taxes. Remember the luxury tax? Lots of people out there will not spend their money if it will be taxed at that time. Would blow this economy totally out of the water. And the working schlub has a pretty hefty standard deduction and personal exemption these days even if they just file an ez.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:26 pm
by GORDON
I don't think I personally know anyone who is getting screwed more by taxes than MD. Multiple properties, multiple concerns, multiple energy bills that will increase with cap & trade, too much income to qualify for most corporate welfares, and not rich enough for the taxes to not hurt. Yet she is the only one saying we need more taxes.
Time to start the process to get her committed.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:39 pm
by Malcolm
I almost want to see a flat tax imposed on a small scale somewhere. Just for amusement if nothing else.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:03 pm
by Mommy Dearest
GORDON wrote:I don't think I personally know anyone who is getting screwed more by taxes than MD. Multiple properties, multiple concerns, multiple energy bills that will increase with cap & trade, too much income to qualify for most corporate welfares, and not rich enough for the taxes to not hurt. Yet she is the only one saying we need more taxes.
Time to start the process to get her committed.
Not the federal taxes that are killing me but the locals. Real Estate in counties townships and cities where I have no vote yet I own property, etc. Taxation without representation. Tea Party.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:05 pm
by Mommy Dearest
Mommy Dearest wrote:GORDON wrote:I don't think I personally know anyone who is getting screwed more by taxes than MD. Multiple properties, multiple concerns, multiple energy bills that will increase with cap & trade, too much income to qualify for most corporate welfares, and not rich enough for the taxes to not hurt. Yet she is the only one saying we need more taxes.
Time to start the process to get her committed.
Not the federal taxes that are killing me but the locals. Real Estate in counties townships and cities where I have no vote yet I own property, etc. Taxation without representation. Tea Party.
And PS. I say once again that we have to pay for what we believe in. Want to have a war? Who is going to pay for it?
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:16 pm
by thibodeaux
Fine. But do I have to pay for the stuff I DON'T believe in, too? Because I imagine we're paying enough to have a war; we're just not paying enough to have a war AND give money to "community organizers."
edit - are thib's post invisible to anyone else unless they quote, or something?
Edited By GORDON on 1253244948
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:02 pm
by TPRJones
0% of my federal tax dollars is spent on things I believe in.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:36 pm
by GORDON
thibodeaux wrote:Fine. But do I have to pay for the stuff I DON'T believe in, too? Because I imagine we're paying enough to have a war; we're just not paying enough to have a war AND give money to "community organizers."
edit - are thib's post invisible to anyone else unless they quote, or something?
test
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:09 am
by TPRJones
I see him fine.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:13 am
by GORDON
His posts are blank to me unless I edit or quote his posts.
Maybe relogging.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:14 am
by GORDON
Oh, i accidentally had him on "Ignore."
Double dumbass on me.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:31 am
by Mommy Dearest
Well unfortunately or fortunately depending on which side you take as a society we do often support agendas that we personally do not agree with. I was probably not raised right when I was taught that my vote counts and to make myself heard to my local reps.
And another little bit of history, I know that many here think the federal govt should stay out of it and we should have more local govt for roads and schools and whatnot.
Back in 1999 Bush was thinking this way when he cut taxes quite dramatically. Everyone thought that was great and wow look at me now. However in doing this he forced the States and Cities to take a larger burden to support the infrastructure. However the Local Govt was hesitant to raise taxes to support these things because then they were the bad guys.
Hence most of our local, or I should say what I personally know is that Ohio and Ohio Cities are in dier(sic?) straits because they did not raise taxes and things are just going to hell here. Drop in property values has drasticaly hurt the counties and the Schools.
So did Bush have the right idea? Absolutely. Do people really understand what it means when the feds cut taxes and thus money to the states? I don't think so.
And as a final thought. When I say people I am not usually referring to the participants on this board. I do not think that most here are of average inteligence but far superior. The bigger problem is how to relate to those of average inteligence and help them to understand this quagmire.
That is all.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:00 pm
by TPRJones
All because most people are idiots doesn't mean I should have to pay for roads in Utah when I live in Texas. Freedom includes the freedom to fail, and we seem to be trying to protect everyone from failure by gradually removing everyone's freedoms. That's quite contrary to the ideals this country was based on, and if there were anywhere that still believed in individual freedoms I would try to move there.
There's only two ways that I can see people thinking about federal taxation versus local and state taxation. One - and the honest way to think about it - is that raising tax dollars on the federal level allows one to steal from the rich states to pay for the poor states. The other - and I'm afraid this is probably the more common way of thinking - is the belief that the sum is somehow greater than the parts, and there's more money overall to be taxed by the federal government in total than there is cumulatively in the individual states. I'm afraid too many people are unable to think rationally, and somehow believe in this bottomless well of tax dollars at the federal level when compared to the local and state levels. I just don't understand that mindset. It makes no sense to me.
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:56 pm
by GORDON
Obama tells senate to put cap and trade up for vote in the lame duck session, so it doesn't hurt democrats in mid-term elections.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaig....trategy
Sigh.