Taxes and the War

[WaterMan]

When do we start paying more taxes because of the war to keep Saddam's fighter jets from bombing us with yellow mustard gas?

 

I need to start saving up my money for that.

[Perchoutofwater]

The Dow has had 31 record closings since the first of the year. The Dow is usually a good indicator of how the economy is going to be for the next 6 to 9 months. So the tax cuts appear to be working. If the economy continues to grow, then we will have more tax revenues, even if we keep the tax rates as they are now.

[dmarc117]

michael vick?

[dmarc117]

we could tax dog fighting

[Perchoutofwater]

michael vick?

 

Yes, it appears the government is going to get a chance to get more money from Mr. Vick. It is a shame they will only be getting fines, and not actual tax revenue on the illegal activities he is accused of.

[yo mama]

When do we start paying more taxes because of the war to keep Saddam's fighter jets from bombing us with yellow mustard gas?

 

I need to start saving up my money for that.

Well, for starters, you can forget the idea of estate tax repeal. That ain't gonna happen now. And while Perch is correct that tax revenues are up (at record highs, in fact) spending is way out of control. It's like getting a 15% raise, but then turning around and increasing your budget by 30%. Yes, your income got better. But on a net basis, your still worse off then before the raise.

Edited July 20, 2007 by yo mama

[Perchoutofwater]

Michael Vick's Records

 

Became the first quarterback to ever throw for more than 250 yards and rush for over 100 yards in the same game at the Broncos (10/31/04).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#..._and_milestones

 

Is that really what you want to hang your hat on? One game, where he threw for a modest 250 yards? The guy is an over glorified RB. All the records from your link except the one you have here are for rushing. He would make a decent RB, but as a QB the guy is horrible. I wouldn't be surprised if LT doesn't have a better QB rating than Vick.

[Perchoutofwater]

Well, for starters, you can forget the idea of estate tax repeal. That ain't gonna happen now. And while Perch is correct that tax revenues are up (at record highs, in fact) spending is way out of control. It's like getting a 15% raise, but then turning around and increasing your budget by 30%. Yes, your income got better. But on a net basis, your still worse off then before the raise.

 

True, but once we pull out, we will be in better shape if we do not raise taxes, because if we do, it will more than likely cause an economic down turn. We need to cut spending to all non-essential government programs, before we start raising taxes. If after than, and after we pull out (which it appears we will do in the next couple of years) then if we still need to raise taxes, the go for it. Do we really want to be fighting a war and and the economy at the same time if we don't absolutely have to?

[cre8tiff]

True, but once we pull out, we will be in better shape if we do not raise taxes, because if we do, it will more than likely cause an economic down turn. We need to cut spending to all non-essential government programs, before we start raising taxes. If after than, and after we pull out (which it appears we will do in the next couple of years) then if we still need to raise taxes, the go for it. Do we really want to be fighting a war and and the economy at the same time if we don't absolutely have to?

 

Soooo I'm thinking sometime around 2021 or so...

[H8tank]

spending is way out of control

 

Thank you Nanny Peloti!!!

[cdrudge]

 

Soooo I'm thinking sometime around 2021 or so...

Your awfully optimistic.

[yo mama]

True, but once we pull out, we will be in better shape if we do not raise taxes, because if we do, it will more than likely cause an economic down turn. We need to cut spending to all non-essential government programs, before we start raising taxes. If after than, and after we pull out (which it appears we will do in the next couple of years) then if we still need to raise taxes, the go for it. Do we really want to be fighting a war and and the economy at the same time if we don't absolutely have to?

We're fighting a (very expensive) war on credit. The solution to that problem isn't cutting "welfare." Would you really be willing to metaphorically take food out of another American's mouth, just to extend the war in Iraq without additional tax consequence to yourself? Besides, the cost of personal entitlement programs pale in comparison to the cost of the war itself, and you know that.

 

Moreover, your thinking is way to short term, if not borderline greed. I'm less concerned with a short term economic downturn that would (accurately) reflect our nation's recent economic recklessness than I am with the long term effects of racking up massive debt, which is held increasingly by China. Mortgaging our country's future to the Chinese so that we can fight in Iraq (which is only tangentially related to the true war on terror), just so you and I don't have to pay more taxes (which we can both easily afford to pay) is a retarded game plan. Frankly, I'd love to see the country threatened with tax increases specifically designed to pay for the war. That reality might help us better set our national priorities.

[McBoog]

What is amazing to me is that despite the war, the economy and tax revenues have cut the deficit in half over the last few years.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

We're fighting a (very expensive) war on credit. The solution to that problem isn't cutting "welfare." Would you really be willing to metaphorically take food out of another American's mouth, just to extend the war in Iraq without additional tax consequence to yourself? Besides, the cost of personal entitlement programs pale in comparison to the cost of the war itself, and you know that.

 

Moreover, your thinking is way to short term, if not borderline greed. I'm less concerned with a short term economic downturn that would (accurately) reflect our nation's recent economic recklessness than I am with the long term effects of racking up massive debt, which is held increasingly by China. Mortgaging our country's future to the Chinese so that we can fight in Iraq (which is only tangentially related to the true war on terror), just so you and I don't have to pay more taxes (which we can both easily afford to pay) is a retarded game plan. Frankly, I'd love to see the country threatened with tax increases specifically designed to pay for the war. That reality might help us better set our national priorities.

 

I know I've already said this, but I'll say it again. I don't mind increasing taxes to pay for the war, but for every percentage point we increase taxes we should decrease federal spending by the same percentage in non-essential areas, with the only essential areas being the military and border control. Then once we pay off the dept we can start increasing spending, but for each percentage point we increase spending, we need to cut taxes by the same percentage. And by the way, I'm not borderline greedy, I'm very greedy. That is one of the reasons I'm able to employ as many people as I do. If I wasn't greedy, I'd probably just retire and live on a beach in South-South Texas?

Edited July 20, 2007 by Perchoutofwater

[Perchoutofwater]

What is amazing to me is that despite the war, the economy and tax revenues have cut the deficit in half over the last few years.

 

 

Lowering the deficit is great, but we shouldn't be excited about that. We should not have a deficit, and need to be paying more than just interest payments on the debt.

[H8tank]

Would you really be willing to metaphorically take food out of another American's mouth

 

ABSOSUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS !!!ENLUTELY!!!!!

 

unwed mother with 6 kids? Grind them into chili for retards to eat.

[detlef]

with the only essential areas being the military and border control.

Wow, that sounds more like the Middle Ages than it does like 2007. In this, the greatest country on earth, the only essential things are war and keeping people out?

[Ursa Majoris]

We need to cut spending to all non-essential government programs, before we start raising taxes.

100% agree with this. We'll start with the war in Iraq - there's an unnecessary government program if ever there was one.

[yo mama]

Wow, that sounds more like the Middle Ages than it does like 2007. In this, the greatest country on earth, the only essential things are war and keeping people out?

Your forgot preserving the low 15% capital gains rate.

Edited July 20, 2007 by yo mama

[McBoog]

Lowering the deficit is great, but we shouldn't be excited about that. We should not have a deficit, and need to be paying more than just interest payments on the debt.

 

 

If you have cut the deficit in half, you have paid off the actual debt. Paying ONLY the interest would mean that the debt remains the same, it does not grow or shrink.

 

 

Or did I miss something (and at my age this is possible )

[detlef]

 

If you have cut the deficit in half, you have paid off the actual debt. Paying ONLY the interest would mean that the debt remains the same, it does not grow or shrink.

 

 

Or did I miss something (and at my age this is possible )

Cutting the deficit in half can often mean nothing more than cutting the rate at which we our overspending which means we're still racking up debt, just doing so slower.

 

Example.

 

2 years ago, you made $100K but spent $150K, so your deficit was $50K

Last year, you made $100K but spent $125K, so your deficit was only $25K for that year.

If you are spinning this, you'll claim that you cut your deficit spending in half which might be interpreted, though wrongly, that you have actually made progress against what you already owed.

 

I'm not sure, but my guess is that is what is happening right now. I can't imagine actually making headway into the current debt in the midst of a war.

[McBoog]

It is the DEFICIT. Not DEFICIT SPENDING. Why is this so hard to accept? Does EVERYTHING have to be gloomy? Is good news too scary because it goes against certain political motivations?

 

I am not a Bush fan, but it is amazing how with a booming economy and the ACTUAL deficit being reduced, there is little talk about it. I know why and so do you.

 

So let's just be honest and accept the fact that this is an amazing feat WHILE we are funding a stoopid war.

[yo mama]

 

If you have cut the deficit in half, you have paid off the actual debt. Paying ONLY the interest would mean that the debt remains the same, it does not grow or shrink.

 

 

Or did I miss something (and at my age this is possible )

Yes, you're missing something. Detlef's explanation is correct. All we've done is slowed the rate at which were overspending. But we're still overspending, and we haven't made any progress paying down the actual principal balance of the debt. And each year we overspend, which further adds to the principal on the debt, we increase the amount of interest we have to pay the following year. It's a compounding problem (pun intended) that anyone can understand, but that the powers don't want to explain in plain English.

 

We basically need some combination of reduced spending and increased revenues to reverse this BS. And Iraq is costing us roughly $177 million PER DAY. And most of that is borrowed money. That's part of the cost of being "for the war." The real question that needs to be asked is this: when will economic reality supplant pro-war ideology? Personally, I can think of better ways to spend $177 a day to protect this country from external threats. Hell, if we're just going to put it all on the ol' credit card anyways, maybe we can build a decent school or two while were at it. You know, assuming we're all okay with deficit spending in the first place.

Edited July 20, 2007 by yo mama

[detlef]

It is the DEFICIT. Not DEFICIT SPENDING. Why is this so hard to accept? Does EVERYTHING have to be gloomy? Is good news too scary because it goes against certain political motivations?

 

I am not a Bush fan, but it is amazing how with a booming economy and the ACTUAL deficit being reduced, there is little talk about it. I know why and so do you.

 

So let's just be honest and accept the fact that this is an amazing feat WHILE we are funding a stoopid war.

Dude, check yourself.

The nation's budget deficit will drop to $205 billion

 

That means the amount that we are overspending will drop to $205 million from a higher number the year before. I mean, it is step in the right direction, but we are not, in fact, making any headway into our debt. This isn't me hating on Bush. This is me explaining to you what is often a misconception in reading that phrase.

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the debt is not shrinking.

Edited July 20, 2007 by detlef

[yo mama]

It is the DEFICIT. Not DEFICIT SPENDING. Why is this so hard to accept? Does EVERYTHING have to be gloomy? Is good news too scary because it goes against certain political motivations?

 

I am not a Bush fan, but it is amazing how with a booming economy and the ACTUAL deficit being reduced, there is little talk about it. I know why and so do you.

 

So let's just be honest and accept the fact that this is an amazing feat WHILE we are funding a stoopid war.

Reread the article. What they are saying is that the deficit FOR THIS YEAR will "only" be $205 billion, which is half what it was at the worst of our deficit spending. So, we still overspent, just not as bad. Yes, it's a step in the right direction. But even once we get the ANNUAL deficit down to $0, we still have to go back and start working on the nearly $9 TRILLION dollars of accrued debt that we've piled up. If that doesn't make you gloomy, then I'd like some of what you're on, please.