FCC's power to tax - dslreports.com

Author	All Replies
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	FCC's power to tax If they want to do something, how about cutting taxes on the other side instead of just punishing cable...or better yet, kill the USF all together and give that $6 billion back to the friggin taxpayers. Gov't by and large is the enemy of the people and this kind of crap proves it. Used to be the government mainly robbed from the rich and kept it. Now they're resorted to just robbing everyone. [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 13:31:37]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 13:21:00 ·
Mike Premium,Mod join:2000-09-17 Pittsburgh, PA clubs: ·Verizon FIOS ·Verizon Online DSL Host: Site Tools W.O.W. FairPoint World of Warcraft Alltel Axcess	That's not a very good thing when el presidente is on a spending spree.... when the federal taxes are cut, the state / local / earth taxes are raised in balance since all the funds are cut. -- root sounds cooler than administrator anyhow What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 13:51:14 ·
Apophis Jaffa Kree Premium join:2001-12-27 Holmen, WI clubs:	said by Mike : That's not a very good thing when el presidente is on a spending spree.... when the federal taxes are cut, the state / local / earth taxes are raised in balance since all the funds are cut. Not true is wisconsin. They key isn't to raise taxes, its to cut spending... *Whatever happened to limited government???* -- Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools. [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 14:09:35]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 14:08:11 ·
aztecnology O Rly? Premium join:2003-02-12 Murrieta, CA ·Verizon FIOS	said by Apophis : They key isn't to raise taxes, its to cut spending... This is a universal truth, like "what goes up, must come down"... -- .:\|:. Starband 360 ~ W2KAS ~ DLINK DI-714P+ ~ XPro ~ XPro
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 14:34:22 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	reply to Mike The President doesn't spend money, Congress does. Over history, Reagan, Kennedy, whenever Federal taxes were cut, revenue to the Treasury increased. As for the states, California being a prime example, they don't have a revenue problem...they have a spending problem. In California increases in revenue far exceeded the increases in combinded population and inflation...yet we've gone from a $12 billion surplus to $40 billion in deficit in just 3 years. IOW, stop the spending whether its on crackpot programs like the USF or whatever pork of the week Congress decides to dish out. And don't get my wrong, Republicans are guilty of this crap too...one look at the Farm bill will shows that. We need an amendment that ties increases in spending with inflation and population growth (fat chance of getting it though...it's like asking a drug user to turn in his needles). But only then with these greedy, easily bribed politicians be reigned in. [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 14:37:58]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 14:36:21 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	reply to aztecnology said by aztecnology : said by Apophis : They key isn't to raise taxes, its to cut spending... This is a universal truth, like "what goes up, must come down"... Except for taxes and the size of government. They just go up.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 14:38:29 ·
jhudson2 Copyright Martyr join:2000-11-07 San Marcos, CA	reply to oliphant5 So if we cut taxes to zero how much will revenue to the Treasury increase? [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 18:10:26]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 18:09:59 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	said by jhudson2 : So if we cut taxes to zero how much will revenue to the Treasury increase? [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 18:10:26] Depends on what the tariff levels are. You act as if there has always been an income tax. Income tax in the United States is a 20th Century invention as is the nanny state. Other taxes like the Spanish American War tax (still being collected in amounts in the billions) are also inventions of recent history. It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem. [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 18:26:50]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 18:23:24 ·
jhudson2 Copyright Martyr join:2000-11-07 San Marcos, CA	Again: if taxes (or tariffs if you prefer) are zero how much will revenue to the Treasury increase?
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 18:51:41 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	said by jhudson2 : Again: if taxes (or tariffs if you prefer) are zero how much will revenue to the Treasury increase? Now who proposed that tariffs be lowered to zero? The taxes we're talking about are very late 19th Century or 20th Century inventions. Are you claiming that before the Spanish American war tax that the Treasury was empty? There is a big difference between license fees or other value added tax, taxes on corporate earnings etc (pre-1890) and having all those in addition to taking half of the population's income. Again...spending problem...not revenue problem. No nation in the history of the world has ever taxed itself into prosperity. And despite your convoluted logic the fact remains that in recent history tax cuts resulted in dramatic increases in Federal revenue. [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 19:19:58]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 18:59:34 ·
jhudson2 Copyright Martyr join:2000-11-07 San Marcos, CA	said by oliphant: Now who proposed that tariffs be lowered to zero? I did. You didn't differentiate between taxes. You said "whenever Federal taxes were cut, revenue to the Treasury increased". A tariff is a tax. You also said that lower taxes means more revenue. You said "whenever Federal taxes were cut, revenue to the Treasury increased". Using your own logic, therefore, it follows that reducing taxes to zero MUST mean an increase in revenue. But that is obviously not true, so your overly broad, non-specific premise is simply wrong. The "problem" is BOTH spending and revenue. Arguing it is ONLY spending is as simplistic as arguing it is ONLY revenue. -- When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 20:26:24 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	That's your assumption not mine. I made no claim that the relationship between taxation and revenue is linear. There are clearly points however that overtaxation stifles growth and we are currently at that point. Otherwise why not have a 100% tax...although I wouldn't want to give Sacramento any ideas. It's not my logic and not my claim. It's fact. Under Kennedy when he lowered taxes revenue to the treasury increased. Under Reagan when taxes were cut, revenue to the treasury increased. That's no wild assumption and I make no claim that the relationship is linear. And in this instance, it is only spending. You're in California. When combined population growth and inflation increase by 21%, revenue increases 28% both over the last 3 years but during that time, Sacramento increased spending nearly 40%...you're going to blame lack of revenue, even partially, for the deficit!?! And if you try for one second to claim that California's problem in any way shape or form is revenue...then you are the type of typical shallow liberal that put California where it is today...a financial mess. [text was edited by author 2003-06-09 23:13:27]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 22:44:32 ·
jhudson2 Copyright Martyr join:2000-11-07 San Marcos, CA	said by oliphant5 : I made no claim that the relationship between taxation and revenue is linear. Yes you did. You said: "whenever Federal taxes were cut, revenue to the Treasury increased" Cut taxes, increase revenue. That's about as linear as you can get. Not what you meant to say? Gee, it only took you three posts to address my objection. So there are "clearly points however that overtaxation stifles growth and we are currently at that point"? Since we can't have zero taxation (by your own admission) how much should we cut before it becomes damaging? -- When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-09 23:33:56 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	1 + 1 doesn't equal 5. I said whenever Federal taxes WERE cut, revenue to the Treasury increasED. That's a fact that can't be disputed. How much should be cut is a matter of opinion that I can see from your attitude would be a complete waste of time...but I'll just say we should start with the USF and go from there.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-10 11:59:34 ·
jhudson2 Copyright Martyr join:2000-11-07 San Marcos, CA	Facts can never be disputed; the conclusions drawn from them are the issue. Now that you recognize that cutting taxes is not always beneficial you probably should adjust your conclusions to take this into account. -- When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-10 14:50:52 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	I did...cutting taxes is ALWAYS beneficial...it's just a matter of to whom it is beneficial. Money in the treasury isn't the measure of success. No nation in history has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Taxation is slavery for that portion of the year you work only for the whim of the government.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-06-10 15:25:02 ·


Thursday, 26-Nov 16:47:40	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole page compression OFF