What is Digg?105 Comments
- Roadmaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34All Hail Ron Paul! You always know where he stands on an issue. We sure need more like him in congress.
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32@bigdavediode: That's why you SPEND LESS MONEY. Foreign concept, I know. I know people who make $40k a year who have extra money to save and people who make over $100k who are deep in debt. It's all about spending. Governments are no different.
- OBDriftwood, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36It is interesting to note that whenever the media discusses tax cuts it is always phrased in terms of what it will cost the government. The overriding mindset is that all of the money we earn belongs to the government and they are gracious enough to let us keep some of the fruits of our labor. That this mindset permeates the mainstream media is yet another example of the liberal bias that exists in the MSM.
- unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27You really think that a lack of governmental services results in anarchy? When the US was founded, there was no income tax, there were few governmental services and it wasn't anarchy.
People are not animals that need to be taxed and hemmed in by laws lest they go crazy and destroy society...well, not all people anyways. Canadians are kinda nuts. - mrmontrose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14It is complete on point to say that taxes, cost us money. What he is saying is correct and many of men have vowed to cut taxes and lower spending, that is until the lobbyists come knocking on the door.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24MaddDog, you don't get it. The point is that tax cuts dont cost the _people_ anything. After the Bush tax cuts, the government is collecting more taxes than ever before. Lowering taxes does not lower tax revenue.
- mikekeen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they decide..."
I'm gonna hold onto that one. Very well put. - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Dave - if these services are so important to you and others, why can't they be paid for on a voluntary basis, to private businesses that would actually be held accountable, unlike the government? In fact, they would cost less than they do now, since there'd be no beaurocratic overhead, and due to fierce competition in the marketplace. Services would get better, and no more stealing from everyone involuntarily. Shift your mindset, dude. It's called freedom... this country used to stand for it.
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@Jagdhund: I'm in complete agreement. I vote for Fiscal Republicans and Libertarians.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14That surplus we had under Clinton was due to the Republican congress. Fiscal Republicans. Newt Gingrich Republicans. The GOP needs to go back to it's roots. Smaller gov't, less taxes, less spending. It works.
- h3smith, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You fail to realize what occurs when someone reinvests their money back into the stock market. The money goes into the market and is put to use to create jobs, create new opportunities, and various other functions. Bill Gates is a highly beneficial individual because he creates wealth for everyone else. His $50 billion isn't sitting in mason jars. It is in the makeup of every company in the country. His billions are helping people get jobs, it is helping companies build capital, it is helping you and I.
But, if we tax them higher, raise the death taxes, ect, all we are doing is taking money from the private and functional economy and giving it to the wasteful government.
What would you rather have, money in the private economy, or money for some bureocrat to waste on some pork project? - HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Taking in more tax revenue won't make the government suddenly begin to spend under its budget. It's just like people. As it makes more money, it spends more money. People don't generally get out of debt after receiving a pay raise, they spend more and continue to be in debt. What we need isn't to increase taxes, but to cut spending.
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Seems to me like if you asked your boss to pay you less, you'd better be prepared to spend less. If you spend over what you make, it's your own fault. Period.
- Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ahh, classic (read: original) conservative thought, how I miss thee.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Hobo:
>@bigdavediode: That's why you SPEND LESS MONEY. Foreign concept, I know. I know people who make $40k a year who have extra money to save and people who make over $100k who are deep in debt. It's all about spending. Governments are no different.
Well, here's a novel concept, rather than screwing our kids with debt, you guys suggest budgetary cuts first then we'll talk about reducing taxes. Not the other way around (the ass-backwards way.)
Which services do you want to give up first? My choice, since red states are net takers of tax dollars and blue states send all their money south, would be to immediately stop subsidizing these red states that refuse to tax their own people.
That should instantly lower the taxes in the blue states. - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Deregulated electricity?? The electric companies hold government-approved monopolies, just like the cable and gas companies. Do a little reasearch, buddy. It's called competition.
Also, I stand by my statement that if there's such demand for a super-reliable fire department, it'll happen through the free market. Heck, today there's already all-volunteer fire departments, just take that to the next level.
You may say I have too much faith in the free market (which there isn't much left of today thanks to coporations - a creation of the gov't), but I say you hold too much faith in the government, run by people who are out for power & easy money, instead of profit (the free market) which actually involves making your customers happy. - bshniper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@killinger
Lowering taxes doesn't increase tax revenue by magic. Decreasing tax rates has the following effects that increases tax revenues:
1. More companies are willing to report taxable incomes, as it will not bankrupt them to do so. Thus, the risk of reporting revenues honestly becomes less than the risk by reporting dishonestly and risking audit and back-taxes.
2. Foreign investment increases. This is probably the biggest positive effect.
3. Domestic investment in foreign markets decreases, and local wealthy entrepreneurs are more likely to invest in our economy than to invest elsewhere. This happens when those entrepreneurs see that they have a better return on investment (ROI) in America.
4. Tax-payers are more willing to risk investment in the stock market, rather than saving money (and losing it to inflation).
5. Tax-payers have more money to invest.
But what happens when Americans are already investing as much money as they want in our economy, and when they reach a point where lowering taxes won't increase the amount they invest in our economy? At that point, lowering taxes will decrease tax revenue.
So, it doesn't work by magic. Only when Americans are truly "over-taxed" does it make sense to lower taxes in order to raise revenue.
Raising taxes, if it scares off investment, might also conversely lower revenue. - mddleNameIsEarl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The way it should work is that tax cuts cost neither you nor the government per se, but rather the programs that we have to make hard choices about keeping. What pisses me off about the current Republicans is that no real painful choices are being made. At the end of the day, claiming you "reduced taxes" is meaningless if you still spent the money.
- unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ascendant
Tax revenue has gone up, unfortunately so has governmental spending. This administration might counter act any 1 intelligent move with 3 stupid ones, but the tax cuts were the right thing to do.
What we need now is government cuts. Cut pork barrell projects, cut useless social programs. Basically, we need a team of developers to examine the government and optimize the code. - chijim70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The federal government such as defense etc. is payed by corporate taxes.
Federal income tax goes directly (to the penny) to the Federal Reserve Bank which is a privately held Bank that prints and LOANS us money at an interest rate they set. Your federal income tax taken by the IRS goes directly to pay for the interest and fees for printing and loaning us that money. In other words, it goes into big bankers already stuffed pockets.
So that is where a 3rd or so of Americans income goes every year when they pay this illegal and unconstitutional tax..
This began in 1913 and has recently in numerous cases where somebody actually had the money to fight it (like in 2003) been deemed by the Supreme court as an unconstitutional tax that you are actually under no obligation to pay by law.
THERE IS NO LAW SAYING YOU MUST PAY A TAX ON YOUR EARNED INCOME!
The fact is that the Federal government should be printing our money backed by our gold in fort Knox (which is now in the hands of the banks as collateral on our national loan/debt) and should (and was before 1913) be overseen by congress.
So for completely the wrong misinformed reasons this article is right. They are just telling you that you may keep some of what they are illegally taking in the first place and it does not effect them one bit.
The litmus test all should give to anyone going into office now is to ask if they are going to abolish the federal reserve bank system along with the IRS. Forget parties. Parties are nothing. He who has the cash runs things and neither us as Americans nor even our own government own or run this country monetarily... a bunch of bankers do regardless of what party is in office! - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"As for holding faith in the government, both government and corporations are constructs of individuals, and both are incompetent and corrupt in their own ways."
You're missing a major point here. In the case of government, you're giving these corrupt people practically unchecked power to do what they want, so corruption follows. In the free market, people can choose to not give that corrupt business their money. In the case of the government, well, they've got lots of guns.
"Since banning corporations would be impossible and you say that they are a problem to the free market, your philosophy is clearly utopian and unimplementable."
At this point, I'm done with you. Get some principles. I'm all for incrementalism, but why set such unimpressive goals? - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Democracy is great and all, until the result of the vote involves force. When you're voting yes or no for a local service that will cost everyone money, everyone that voted no for that service, or didn't vote at all, is now forced at gunpoint to pay for it, no matter if they're going to use it or not. How in the world is theft "fair?"
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ditto, my friend. Neocons are hurting this kind of rational thought considerably. Bring back the old GOP.
- randyzaia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"We have little crime, and almost no murders."
This has everything to do with culture and nothing to do with tax policy. - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@killinger777
Liberal Quicksand? Sounds like a nice unbiased site to pull information from. The picture of Monica Lewinski really helps get the whole "budget" point across too. Way to stay on topic. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Killinger and Ascendant
Minor point of reference here... both Bushes had wars to fight while Clinton Gutted the military and the CIA/NSA.
Whether or not the wars were justified is beside the point, they are fact. And wars are expensive. - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"So that surplus we had under Clinton- how big is it now thanks to the Bush tax cuts?"
Of course! Bush cut the budget so hard it went back in time - bobbybobington, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ron Paul is my hero :)
- randyzaia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5All I will say is I am super psyched that I got to pool my resources with you to fund the bridge to nowhere.
- yasth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Powerline and end stage power delivery is a regulated government monopoly (because it is silly and wasteful to run 5 different end stage power distribution grids, everyone would have a forest of power poles in their front yards) Power generation is in much of the US a free (or semi free) market. The problems is that the ability to source power distribution over long distances is not practical in many cases, so you end up with a few local power plants that simply must supply x% of the local power needs because of the capacity problems of long range distribution grids. This and the fact that there is not a lot of slack capacity, coupled with restrictions on new power plant construction mean that the free market power generating utilities have wide price setting ability coupled with strong barriers to entry that prevent arbitrage. What this has meant in practice is that the local power delivery companies generally haven't had much luck in cutting prices by buying on the open market. Indeed in a number of cases it has resulted in markedly increased costs. This has caused some states to delay deregulation of the power generating market.
The free market generally is efficient but where high barriers to entry meet restricted choice, the benefits are markedly reduced.
There isn't much of a market for hyper efficent fire departments but there is a market for fire prevention and suppresion, it is built into the buildings or retrofitted in, generally being sold as saving on insurance premiums. One must always think about what the actual good or service provided is. It isn't firemen that fire departments provide, it is minimization of potential fire damage.Of course fire has strong negative externality in that a burning building catches its neighbors on fire (and also disrupts traffic etc.) so certain restrictions are built into the building code (i.e. must have a fire supression system in buildings used to store certain chemicals etc.). - Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"That this mindset permeates the mainstream media is yet another example of the liberal bias that exists in the MSM."
I think it's more ignorance.
And the stuff about lowering tax rates will increase tax revenue is true - up to a point, then it goes down. According to this guy's theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
I think we all should have a look. The Wikipedia article was an eye opener for me, too. Therea are folks who think, or at least hammer home the right side of the curve - keep lowering taxes and government revenue will keep going up! Like it's a linear relationship. - bleonard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4obviously the gov't will cost us money. its an infrastructure. it has employees, expenses, and resources just like a business. it needs income to operate. we don't barter raccoon pelts for beads and corn anymore. this is a retarded topic. if you want a government its going to cost you.
Tax cuts + irresponsible spending / unbalanced budgets * (government (in)capacity) = less funding for government sponsored program x
trim out the x's we all don't want and tax cut away! too bad there isn't one single area the entire nation could agree upon as being a wasteful cost. - chijim70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As you requested
Here is one
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/irstax.htm
And here is another (scroll down a bit, the article is titled "1040 Checkmate?" and explains all the dirty details with links etc.:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/ - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@stevetures
Cops don't "protect" you, and the Supreme Court has said this. All cops do is file reports and investigate crimes, 99.9% of the time, after the fact. A cop actually preventing a robbery of a convience store or the like is an extreme rarity.
Also, the vast majority of Fire Fighters in the US are strictly Volunteer. Just though you might like to know that. - chijim70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Schools, roads, public works, etc. are paid for by indirect taxes which are incurred from purchasing or utilizing local services. Like the tax on gas goes to paving roads. The tax on cigarettes and liquor pays for a variety of things from parks to schools. Public works like fire and police departments etc. are paid for by state and property taxes. Not absolutely on the button I'm sure with what tax goes to what, but you get the general idea which I am sure of.
So NO, your Federal income tax does nothing for your country in any way shape or form. It goes to a bankers wallet as interest on a loan and for him printing your money which your government should be printing itself as part of its duties per the constitution! - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Articles of Confederation formed the government for which the American Revolution was fought. The only way it failed was in not giving the politicians of the time all the power they wanted, so they overthrew it and formed a strong, central government with the power to tax and the power to interpret the limits on its own power. The anti-federalists, who were mostly revolutionaries, predicted that the government under the Constitution would grow into a tyrannical empire. Sure enough.
- chijim70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Again... NOBODY, including the Federal government, profits from your Federal income taxes but bankers that run the Federal Reserve banks.
Get it? - louisdrame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are aware that the treasury receipts have grown and the amount we are borrowing is going down?
Yes, everything costs money.
But, more capital in the hands of people who make the economy tick means more economy ticking.
Its really simple.
And, what is the percentage of debt vs GDP today compared to historical ratios?
You'd be surprised how low it is. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@steve
Read what I wrote again:
"All cops do is ... investigate crimes,"
Jeez, dude. - dmadzak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This financial times article (http://digg.com/politics/Why_I_don_t_want_to_send_my_tax_dollars_to_the_government) sums up nicely why I want as little of my taxes going to gov't as possible. Look at all the money involved. The 2.6 billion dollars wasn't spent as philanthropy. Its a down payment on lots of favors and even more money flowing back to those donors.
- traviskicks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ron Paul is the best congressmen in Congress. Period.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Jag:
>That surplus we had under Clinton was due to the Republican congress.
If that was true, since we have a Republican congress now, where's the surplus? - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Spamming will not only get you blocked, it'll get you reported to abuse@digg.com.
(Note to others - that actually works. There's nothing quite as satisfying as "Invalid User Provided.) - Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Very true. I was really hoping that this administration would have been doing that very thing. Of course, merely by their very political principle, you can't entrust the Democrats with that task.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about foreign aid to prop up dictators like Saddam Hussein? How about the cost of bombing countries that never threatened us back to the Stone Ages? How about all those "earmarks" like building bridges to nowhere in Alaska?
Do you really think we need things like that to maintain our "civilization?" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4We tried libertarianism.
It was called the Articles of the Confederation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
Go read it! It is uncanny how much the AoC is in line with contemporary libertarian though. That piece-of-crap constitution failed miserably. - dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's stick some real numbers from 2005 into your rant.
2005 federal budget:
* Social Programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid): 41.75%
* Defense: 19.17%
* Interest on Debt: 7.73%
* Other: 31.35%
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7627&sequence=0
While most people talk about the gov't pork, that probably makes up less than a quarter of the "other" category. There are also probably some social programs not in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are in the "other" category. In all, the federal gov't probably spends more than 50% of its budget on social programs. The dollar amount for 2005 that was spent on social programs is around $1.236 trillion, or $4,120 in one year for every man woman and child in the U.S. - leesw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HOW ABOUT THIS? How about the government quit wasting money and give what it doesn't waste back to the ones who earned it--US!
Just because the government can't manage their budget, doesn't mean I have to pay for it. When my spending is out of wack I don't make them pay me. Cut spending and taxes. Keep what we need like police, military, fire departments, roads, etc. But quit the wasteful spending! Stop making more programs! - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Ascendant
"So that surplus we had under Clinton- how big is it now thanks to the Bush tax cuts?"
There was never a real surplus. It was an accounting trick.
"How much smaller is the national debt that I'll have to pay off thanks to those tax cuts?"
Increasing revenue doesn't lower the national debt if you increase spending at the same time.
"How much less interest do I have to pay on that national debt thanks to those tax cuts?"
The increased revenue that resulted from the tax cuts means that the interest is less than it would have been if the tax cuts hadn't happened and the revenue hadn't increased.
The point of the article is that SPENDING is the problem, not tax cuts, whether they increase revenue or not. And it doesn't matter whether the spending is done by Democrats or Republicans, it still has to be paid by future generations, unless our economy collapses before then. - distrbnce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People seem to forget they work for us...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is