Mass Psychosis

[Red Arrow]

Come on, Red, do you think 3% would be too much an increase??  Stick your neck out a little here...  nathan and I have both stepped up and made a definitive statement.

I will live with whatever is forced upon me regarding taxes.  Being single, no dependents, no mortgage interest deduction, getting only the standard deduction and not living paycheck to paycheck I think I am paying my fair share.  Give me the opportunity to buy something I might like such as a (real) trolley system for downtown Tulsa and I might be interested.  Bixby is over 9% total sales tax now. I reluctantly voted for the last increase since they listed some items I wanted.  I forget at the moment what they were.  I also voted for the last bond issue or whatever it was for Bixby.  Giving a blank check to the Feds or the State for business as usual is not for me.  I realize we cannot vote for every line item.  As long as there are things that are part of an agenda such as subsidies for corn based Ethanol for fuel, I will resist a tax increase.  I do not want to starve children or require someone to lose everything because of cancer (my dad died from cancer).  You and I will never agree on everything to cut and I don't expect to agree on everything.  At this point, I want more examination of expenditures before I agree to a tax increase.  Since I believe I am paying a fair share, I will not get into a bidding war of whether an increase should be 3%, 5% or whatever.  I asked Nathan what percent he favored since he stated he was definitely in favor of an increase in taxes.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We are in similar boat, except for spouse, so we both are getting slammed pretty good.

This 3% number I am talking about is not for the future, new or pending items.  It would be to pay the bill that we have already run up.  (And 3% may not be enough at this point...)

Accompanying cuts in spending - defense department is good place to start, with items like the no bid Halliburton type contracts immediately come to mind.

I am never "in favor" of an increase, but I am willing to put up with it to help out my kids and grandkids and lighten the abomination they are being saddled with.  Since it was OUR generation that has trashed their world (in SO many ways!)  Well, if you are paying single, you probably are paying a percent or two more right now, so you are off the hook.  guido on the other hand benefits from the 14% FICA savings too much, so he should have to pay.

Parents; greatest generation
Us; worst generation


Subsidies for any area of agriculture are wrong.  Subsidies for big oil is extremely wrong - there is 8 billion plus right there that would help.

Subsidies for education are an investment, not a subsidy.  An investment with a very short payback.

[Red Arrow]

We are in similar boat, except for spouse, so we both are getting slammed pretty good.
This 3% number I am talking about is not for the future, new or pending items.  It would be to pay the bill that we have already run up.  (And 3% may not be enough at this point...)
Accompanying cuts in spending - defense department is good place to start, with items like the no bid Halliburton type contracts immediately come to mind.
I am never "in favor" of an increase, but I am willing to put up with it to help out my kids and grandkids and lighten the abomination they are being saddled with.  Since it was OUR generation that has trashed their world (in SO many ways!)  Well, if you are paying single, you probably are paying a percent or two more right now, so you are off the hook.  guido on the other hand benefits from the 14% FICA savings too much, so he should have to pay.
Parents; greatest generation
Us; worst generation
Subsidies for any area of agriculture are wrong.  Subsidies for big oil is extremely wrong - there is 8 billion plus right there that would help.
Subsidies for education are an investment, not a subsidy.  An investment with a very short payback.

Defense spending has many social programing issues built in.  If we choose to do it that way fine but expect to pay $600 for a toilet seat or hammer.  Disclaimer, I work in the defense industry. I agree there are areas to save but disagree that defense needs to be gutted.  That is not in our best interest.

Subsidies for oil appear to depend on size.  Some of the most despicable subsidies appear not to apply for big oil but only for little oil. You know, your OK neighbor with a couple of marginal producing wells.

Our parents were the greatest generation because they beat the Axis powers.  Our generation has made some mistakes but I doubt we are the worst.  Good intentions gone bad just need correcting.  Nathan and I will probably disagree on what needs to be corrected but hey, thats a democratic republic. (Notice I did NOT say democracy, which we are not.)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not saying to gut.  Saying to right size.  And reinstate the draft.  Without much in the way of deferments or exemptions from service.  Couple of major benefits; first, everyone gets the opportunity to do their civic duty.  Second, pay for draftees is considerably less. 

I mentioned somewhere here that I had support from military projects.  And while there is a sizable cost due to paperwork and the whole idea of mil specs, the idea of a $600 hammer is truly crazy.  The hammer costs $50 (triple retail) and $550 goes to CIA covert ops.  Of course we buy several hundred thousand of those "$600" hammers.  And don't forget the toilet seats!

[Conan71]

No more than taking from the poor. I'm getting frustrated that every time it comes time for the rich to hold up their end of the bargain, they change the effing law. Were it not for the deal in the 80s to use Social Security money to shore up the general fund, they wouldn't have been able to have their tax cuts then. But now that it's time for them to kick in to repay the money they borrowed from the trust fund, they claim we've got to gut Social Security. What's up with that?

I don't think that expecting someone to hold up their end of a bargain is "taking."

Who do you think writes the tax code?

[Conan71]

We are in similar boat, except for spouse, so we both are getting slammed pretty good.

This 3% number I am talking about is not for the future, new or pending items.  It would be to pay the bill that we have already run up.  (And 3% may not be enough at this point...)

Accompanying cuts in spending - defense department is good place to start, with items like the no bid Halliburton type contracts immediately come to mind.

I am never "in favor" of an increase, but I am willing to put up with it to help out my kids and grandkids and lighten the abomination they are being saddled with.  Since it was OUR generation that has trashed their world (in SO many ways!)  Well, if you are paying single, you probably are paying a percent or two more right now, so you are off the hook.  guido on the other hand benefits from the 14% FICA savings too much, so he should have to pay.

Parents; greatest generation
Us; worst generation


Subsidies for any area of agriculture are wrong.  Subsidies for big oil is extremely wrong - there is 8 billion plus right there that would help.

Subsidies for education are an investment, not a subsidy.  An investment with a very short payback.

If everyone took a 3% increase, I think it would represent sound fiscal policy and I wouldn't personally object.  I've actually objected to the last couple of tax cuts on the state level and look where that's put us.  Hell, even a 1% increase is something.

Having one child a year away from graduating from college, and the other graduating from HS in a couple of weeks, doubling my taxes right now would be pretty brutal.  As well, I'm trying to accelerate my retirement savings so I don't have to work to 67 unless I want to.  I'm hoping I'll be in a position in 10 years to assume a more relaxed pace, but doubling my taxes would pretty much wipe out the additional savings I'm trying to do right now.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, 3% seems pretty nominal to me, even if it is really aggravating.

It is also the number that would have occurred and been imposed on the richest of the rich who so famously, through their trained lap dogs, the RWRE shot down the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.  That's all it is - 3%.  That's what took us from surplus and a paid off Federal deficit, to a $15 trillion dollar boondoggle that has been foisted on our kids and grandkids.

[guido911]

If everyone took a 3% increase, I think it would represent sound fiscal policy and I wouldn't personally object.

I assume by "everyone" you mean the 53% that actually pay federal income tax; correct? Because a 3% increase on those 47% owing no federal income tax equals what again?

Yes I know, my position is a result of my Koch brother and Murdochian indoctrination with a little RWRE thrown in for good measure.

[guido911]

Not saying to gut.  Saying to right size.  And reinstate the draft.  Without much in the way of deferments or exemptions from service.  Couple of major benefits; first, everyone gets the opportunity to do their civic duty.  Second, pay for draftees is considerably less. 

I mentioned somewhere here that I had support from military projects.  And while there is a sizable cost due to paperwork and the whole idea of mil specs, the idea of a $600 hammer is truly crazy.  The hammer costs $50 (triple retail) and $550 goes to CIA covert ops.  Of course we buy several hundred thousand of those "$600" hammers.  And don't forget the toilet seats!

Were you actually IN the military or did you do work FOR the military.

[Conan71]

I assume by "everyone" you mean the 53% that actually pay federal income tax; correct? Because a 3% increase on those 47% owing no federal income tax equals what again?

Yes I know, my position is a result of my Koch brother and Murdochian indoctrination with a little RWRE thrown in for good measure.

Yep, the 53% who pay taxes, and cut 3% from the EITC or whatever other gimmicks are used to pay people for unproductive lifestyles.  Not welfare, not SSI benefits (that comes under budget cuts), but the people who are getting more back from the IRS than they are paying in each year.

Everyone shares the burden.  However, this comes with the simple caveat: no tax increase until a corresponding blind across the board federal budget cut, no more sacred cows everyone has a skin in the game.  Everyone, including the government can figure out how to cover 3% less to spend.

[Cats Cats Cats]

It doesn't matter if they "don't pay" taxes now.  If you raise their taxes 3% they should get 3% less back.

[Conan71]

It doesn't matter if they "don't pay" taxes now.  If you raise their taxes 3% they should get 3% less back.

Exactly what I was trying to say but may have mangled it.  Sheen gets it.

How's tricks with the goddesses these days?

[nathanm]

I assume by "everyone" you mean the 53% that actually pay federal income tax; correct? Because a 3% increase on those 47% owing no federal income tax equals what again?

Keep ignoring that they pay payroll taxes and sales taxes, among others.

[Conan71]

Keep ignoring that they pay payroll taxes and sales taxes, among others.

No more than we ignore all the payroll taxes large corporations pay as well as property taxes, local taxes, and all the jobs they provide which wind up paying into the system.

[guido911]

Keep ignoring that they pay payroll taxes and sales taxes, among others.

What is your deal with "payroll taxes" and "sales taxes"? Everyone who has a job or buys something pays those. But not all of us pay federal income tax, which in my world, is far far more than my payroll tax. Do you really believe those who owe nothing in federal income taxes are contributing fairly to those that do pay them?