1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tax cuts

Discussion in 'The OT' started by lee635, May 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "Remember, a dollar returned to the taxpayer and subsequently spent will multiply itself as it circulates through the economy. Additional taxes will be collected from that dollar, and jobs will be created as consumer demand is increased. Your basic economics."

    While this is true, it is also true the gubbamint spending does the same. Furthermore without such spending we would simply be a third world country without a suitable infrastructure for either productive commerce or a good personal standard of living. True conservatives should be concerned with a level of spending that continues to add to the national debt. Rising debt cheats us out of capital that could be used for productive government projects. It als has an adverse effect on private capital investment.

    Everyone is for spending cuts and lower taxes. Yet very few want cuts in gubbamint services.

    Steveox says "It's my money. I should decide how it is spent" and I somewhat agree. My tax outlays last year were bigger than many of your incomes. My tax rebate was probably bigger than most of you paid in taxes. Yet my voice is no louder or stronger than yours because I pay more.

    The reality is that if people were truly given a direct voice on how their tax money is spent, social programs and other domestic spending would have significantly higher budgets and funds while military spending, especially during peacetime, would be curtailed. Most people want better schools rather than better bombs. Most people want an end to "pork-barrelling" unless its for their own local bacon. This is where the "Contract with America" grossly failed. Some of those Congressmen, including my own, abandoned the concept once they got into office and had the power of a Congressional vote to trade, wheel, and deal for selfish pet projects. I am happy to say we got rid of him two years later. If only more voters would do the same.

    Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see what would happen if people were really given a complete "check-off" option as to what percentage of their taxes would actually go to different facets of public spending.

    Don't be fooled, people. The so-called conservatives in Congress have no motivation to cut spending. Their appropriation votes are power. Cutting their appropriations means cutting their power to make compromises and self-serving backroom deals.

    As I said before, the only difference between tax-and-spend policies and borrow-and-spend policies is that borrow-and-spend tactics cost taxpayers far more. Clinton, for all hasi character faults, at least understood that and did something about it. Yet if you look at the so-called "conservative" administrations, deficit spending acutally rose at a much faster rate than when so-called "liberals" were in the White House. One could lay part of the blame on the Democrats during the Reagan years, but you can't blame them now for rasing the debt ceiling in a GOP-controlled Congress.

    The terrible economic performance during the LBJ administration showed you can't have both "guns and butter". If we are serious about this current war on terrorism and in "freeing" Iraq, then we need to pay the piper. If you really support our troops you will see that every General calling for more and better trained military is right. That also means paying for it. That means higher taxes. Even those "flaming liberals" at the Wall Street Journal (sarcasm here, boys) agree.
     
  2. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    Ditto what Rich said... ;)
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Once again, RichW for President. :D
     
  4. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Naw, I would rather be the Court Jester. :)
     
  5. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I think that position is taken in the current administration. Actually, I think its a revolving position. :D
     
  6. markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    OK, but you have to wear a funny hat, and it would be good if you can juggle. ;) :D
     
  7. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Like This right?
     
  8. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    All juggling has been outsourced.
     
  9. FritzM

    FritzM Legend

    120
    0
    Feb 2, 2004
    Some of us here remember Reagan's supply side economics, that putting more $$ in the hands of the citizenry would create more jobs. Well, another case of unintended results. Remember what we spent our tax break on? VCRs and Toyotas, neither of which were manufactured anywhere around here. And microwave ovens. I wonder if that GE was made here, or was a rebadged Panasonic.
     
  10. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Bush Should cut the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon the federal gas tax is 18.6 per gallon.And Raise fees by 30% when you enter US.National Parks.Like Raise the admisson fees in the grand canyon,Yellowstone,Yosemite,Rocky Mountain,Hot Springs, Great Smoky Mountains,Glacier Bay,Canyonlands and Petrified Forest national park.Over 1,000,000 vistors enter these parks.And the federal goverment can make huge revinues by just raising the admission into these national parks.Right now people are complaining about auto polution smog into these parks so why not just cut the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon and raise the admisson fees when you enter those national parks.
     
  11. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Wait until I return from my trip next month.
     
  12. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Are you going to yellowstone or yosemite?
     
  13. Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    Steve, that would but us more into debt. We need to cut spending, not shuffle around the taxes to things you don't use.
     
  14. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Ok how youre gonna pay for roads and bridges?My idea is to re appeal back bill clintons and george herbert bushs gas tax hikes and get the money elsewhere to pay for new roads and bridges.
     
  15. Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    My point is that if you cut the gas tax (which supposedly goes to infrastructure) and tax something else (like raising National Park fees) you just shuffle around who gets taxed and you don't lessen the tax burden.
     
  16. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    While I agree that the national park and national forest fees ought to be raised, there is no way that any reasonable increase could make up for the cut in the gas tax you propose. Out here in the west where about 80% of the land is own by the gubbamint, we should be collecting far more money for grazing fees, mineral rights, etc. But special interests have prevented laws to collect a fair market value for use of our national lands. I have a home at the edge of the Siuslaw National Forest. I won my own land, but within the forest boundaries are people who lease land for "homesteads" for a pittance. These are luxury vacation homes were built under a loophole allowing mining homesteads on national lands. This is "yuppie" welfare. Charging people a fair market value on land rents would bring in an additional $80 Million a year just on these homesteads. And then there are the sweeheart deals with mining and oil leases which rob the taxpayer of a yet more market-based income.
     
  17. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Yes. :D
     
  18. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    I guess that means both.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page