King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul Premium Member join:2004-11-17 Murfreesboro, TN |
King P
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 10:22 am
WowDo my eyes deceive me, or is Congress actually trying to do something good for the American people? It's almost too good to be true... | |
|
| ctggzg Premium Member join:2005-02-11 USA |
ctggzg
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 10:57 am
Re: WowDo you think all tax cuts are good for the American people? The brainless zombies loved Bush's "cuts" even though they or their children are still going to pay for them in other ways. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 11:09 am
Re: Wowsaid by ctggzg:Do you think all tax cuts are good for the American people? I certainly think that. Every tax cut is always good, no matter what. The more money we have to spend for ourselves, the better the economy is. Reagan proved this in the 1980s and we are still running on those same principles to this very day. Even the government makes out like a bandit under this system in that it collects more money under lower tax rates than it does under higher tax rates. As for keeping spending under wraps, that's a whole different animal. Personally, I hope for massive gridlock under this congress. | |
|
| | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26
2 recommendations |
Titus
Member
2007-Jan-5 11:55 am
Re: Wowsaid by pnh102:said by ctggzg:Do you think all tax cuts are good for the American people? I certainly think that. Every tax cut is always good, no matter what. The more money we have to spend for ourselves, the better the economy is. Reagan proved this in the 1980s and we are still running on those same principles to this very day. Even the government makes out like a bandit under this system in that it collects more money under lower tax rates than it does under higher tax rates. As for keeping spending under wraps, that's a whole different animal. Personally, I hope for massive gridlock under this congress. Whew. Can you explain to me how the government "collects more money with lower tax rates" -- What are their other sources of revenue? Because I'm telling you, the sh*t doesn't trickle down and Ronnie proved that as well. Even he raised taxes in the final years of his term to try and turn his ridiculous deficit spending into something not so butt-ugly. I do, however, agree with the 'bandit' part As for supply side econ under Reagan and in the present, anyone that has studied economics knows that supply side is no better an economic device than any other; unless you print money that money has to come from somewhere at some point if you're going to spend more than you bring in. Reagan cut taxes but raised social security while running up huge deficits with his supply side crap that made the military industrials richer (as well as the top 10%). If the 'trickle down' theory of supply side works so well, and is what we've been running on since Bush, why is most of our production now overseas? Why have wages been stagnant so long? Why is job growth so tepid? Why so many bubbles to sustain a produce-nothing economy? Why not raise the minimum wage (it's trickling, right? Where's the trickle?)? All capitalist systems benefit the ruling class. Period. You'll probably feel an urge to bash Clinton. Go ahead, But remember that Clinton balanced the budget while the stock market hit 10k (before it burst) and raised the minimum wage and also signed that crawling abortion of legislation named NAFTA. No system is to the peoples benefit, really, other than to keep the game in play. Some are better and some are worse. Supply side is easily one of the worst, right up there with trade policies like NAFTA. As for tax cuts, sure they can be good. But only when done sensibly. When is the last time your government did anything sensible? Here in VA not long ago, a governor ran on cutting taxes, the car tax specifically. Guess what? The car tax was a huge source of state revenue, and without that revenue services had to be cut to squeeze out a budget. The battle becomes which services to cut, and that ends up a political battle rather than one based on common sense. So this gets cut and that gets cut, and pretty soon sh*t doesn't look so good anymore. Weeds are growing all over on the low end of the scale, and people are being denied more emergency services on the danger end of the scale. Poor people aren't getting help to attend community colleges and people's lives are ruined because teaching hospitals don't have the funding to provide operations to those without insurance -- another person lost in the tax cut game. And it is a game. The right hates entitlements (love how words become pejorative with spin and ignorance) and the left hates good business sense. Somewhere there's a sensible middle, but I fear it's lost in the hands of corporate controlled consumerism and brainwashed ideologues. rant off | |
|
| | | | ColorBASIC8-bit Fun Premium Member join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA 1 edit |
Re: WowThe gov't collects more taxes because reduced taxes typically lead to more people working (economic growth). So while each individual pays less taxes, you have more individuals paying them.
That is what happened during the 1980's. Unfortunately Congress being the drunken sailors they are, spent all of that increase in revenue and then some. The last Congress did the same. The tax cuts resulted in significant economic growth and thus increased tax revenue, but the pseudo-Republicans spent it all on bridges to no where, farm aid to super corps like ADM, the war and the huge mistake of a prescription drug program. Bush II never saw a spending bill he didn't love erasing any hope of balancing the budget.
The greed of gov't is never satisfied and if revenue doubled tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. They would simply spend it all on more stupid crap. | |
|
| | | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 |
Titus
Member
2007-Jan-5 1:40 pm
Re: Wowsaid by ColorBASIC:The gov't collects more taxes because reduced taxes typically lead to more people working (economic growth). So while each individual pays less taxes, you have more individuals paying them. Bush II never saw a spending bill he didn't love erasing any hope of balancing the budget. The greed of gov't is never satisfied and if revenue doubled tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. They would simply spend it all on more stupid crap. Logically true to a fault, but rarely -- if ever -- realized in this day and age, and that was my point. Also, reduced taxes leads to a reduction in services which serves to mitigate net job growth from any economic growth since most of this so called 'growth' is vapor money in the form of finance capital in our economy while real jobs go elsewhere when capital investment occurs in earnest. And again, many people don't acknowledge (or accept) that social security taxes went up while general tax rates went down in the 80s. Reagan's deficits were obscene (though Bush 2's are triple x rated) and would have been worse if not for robbing the till of SS. Hell, when he needed currency for really underhanded sh*t he simply traded guns and then forgot about it. Our elected musketeers are the bidders for their corporate masters, so it's no wonder they spend money on roads to nowhere. Our departed leader of the House earmarked money for just such a road on a vast parcel of property HE owned in nowhere, increasing its value by untold amounts. As for the revenue from tax cuts, it's usually spent before collection | |
|
| | | | | | rgillis70 Premium Member join:2002-12-30 Washington, DC |
Re: Wowsaid by Titus:As for the revenue from tax cuts, it's usually spent before collection That may be, but that is an issue with SPENDING not with TAXES. It is a fact that tax cuts lead to increased revenue. That was what you asked. Look at the figures for collection, not the spending figures, and you will see it always works this way. Spending is ridiculous no mater who is in office. By the way - for reference, the country had record growth quarter after quarter during Reagan years...and it did so under Clinton as well. But lower taxes do lead to increased revenue. Just got to teach people not to spend it, and 2x more than it, every second of the day. | |
|
| | | | | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 |
Titus
Member
2007-Jan-5 3:05 pm
Re: WowI recall some inflationary issues during those great years of growth as well. I also remember something in Econ class about 'chasing dollars' ... | |
|
| | | | | | | | rgillis70 Premium Member join:2002-12-30 Washington, DC |
Re: WowI agree inflation played a role. As did the artificial growth caused by the "dot-com" during Clinton's growth. But I was just looking at numbers...as the statement was - lower taxes do not lead to higher revenue - they do...however, there are always outside influences that can play havoc on a system, like a war, inflation, unexpected market crash, artificially high energy pricing, speculation...etc. If - and this is the IF that is so huge it will never happen - if the government could hold spending to the inflationary rate for just a year or 2 while revenue increased, we would see surplus. But that I doubt will happen as everyone has a special "project" they'd like to get done. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to Titus
said by Titus:Whew. Can you explain to me how the government "collects more money with lower tax rates" -- What are their other sources of revenue? Go look at the amount of money the government collected in taxes from 1981 to today. You can even look at what happened when JFK pushed for lower taxes in the early 1960s. Look at all the years in which there were tax cuts and see how it impacted revenue. The principle that lower taxes brings in more revenue to the government is an irrefutable fact. Now, even with enhanced revenues, whether by Reaganomics or some other means, it does not change the fact that no government can spend more money than it has. Had the Republican party not expanded entitlements, farm subsidies and education spending from 2001 to 2006, we could have enjoyed balanced budgets during that time. | |
|
| | | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 |
Titus
Member
2007-Jan-5 3:03 pm
Re: WowThat's only part of the picture; there's this little budget item called "Iraq." Education spending and Entitlements? You mean No child left behind and enriching drug companies? Please don't insult us all! It would appear to me that the current admin is taking Ronnie Raygun's nonsense to new heights: From the White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained "The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." (emphasis added) | |
|
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 3:23 pm
Re: Wowsaid by Titus:That's only part of the picture; there's this little budget item called "Iraq." The war spending is a small part of the budget. The Federal government spends about $2.5 trillion a year. So far, the entire Iraq war has cost $300 billion since 2003. Out of almost $7.5 trillion dollars, $300 billion is not a lot of money. said by Titus:Education spending and Entitlements? You mean No child left behind and enriching drug companies? Please don't insult us all! How is it an insult to state the fact that this country is spending more on entitlements than at any other time in history. said by Titus: It would appear to me that the current admin is taking Ronnie Raygun's nonsense to new heights: And again, you are not separating spending from taxation. Reagan's model of lowering taxes to increase revenues worked in the 1980s, and it works now. This undisputed, irrefutable fact does not in anyway absolve the Reagan administration and the then Democratic Congress, as well as the Bush administration and the then Republican Congress, from keeping spending under control. Clinton was able to achieve a balanced budget in part due to a Republican congress. I am hoping that the same gridlock created in that relationship can also happen in this Congress, since Republicans, when left to their own devices, cannot keep spending under control. | |
|
| | | roc5955 Premium Member join:2005-11-26 Rosendale, NY |
to pnh102
this is unbelievable! even when Democrats cut taxes, they still try to tell us that Reagan's trickle down was correct. I have news for them. There's only one thing that trickles down, and it's surely NOT money.
I don't know of any rich conservatives who are willing to let go of one cent of their tax cuts.
Tax the rich to feed the poor, I say! | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 1:50 pm
Re: Wowsaid by roc5955:Tax the rich to feed the poor, I say! Heh... no one in the USA is starving to death. "Poor" people here are more likely to die of obesity-related illnesses than anything else. What a country! | |
|
| | | | | roc5955 Premium Member join:2005-11-26 Rosendale, NY |
roc5955
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 1:54 pm
Re: Wowsaid by pnh102:said by roc5955:Tax the rich to feed the poor, I say! Heh... no one in the USA is starving to death. "Poor" people here are more likely to die of obesity-related illnesses than anything else. What a country! What about the Katrina victims? What about the victims of any catastrophe, surely not all of them are able to get back on their feet and just rebuild. | |
|
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 2:01 pm
Re: Wowsaid by roc5955:What about the Katrina victims? What about them? They had a local government that was incapable of handling a massive, predicted disaster. What did they do? The re-elected the same bumbling nincompoop mayor who fled his own city during the hurricane. People who blame the Federal government for any part of that seem to conveniently forget that FEMA always provides a bad response no matter what the disaster is. said by roc5955:What about the victims of any catastrophe, surely not all of them are able to get back on their feet and just rebuild. These people get massive relief from the generous people in this country, who contribute more to charity than anyone else. The Red Cross and other disaster-related charities made out like a bandit after both 9/11 and Katrina, all while helping people without government involvement. | |
|
| | | | | | | roc5955 Premium Member join:2005-11-26 Rosendale, NY |
roc5955
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 2:07 pm
Re: WowHey let's not go there. It's no point for me to have a battle of wits with a knuckle-dragging half witted freak.
There are people in NOLA who didn't vote for the damn mayor. Why should they suffer? FEMA does good for people in Florida, because they EXPECT hurricanes. Not so much for NOLA.
People whose just got burnt out of their apartment get massive relief!?!?! From who? The Red Cross?? I think not. Why shouldn't the government help the poor. They help the rich, don't they?
Why don't we take corporations off welfare? Enough of these government handouts to move jobs overseas. NAFTA and GATT were all about government welfare to the rich. Gimme a break! | |
|
| | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 2:10 pm
Re: Wowsaid by roc5955:Hey let's not go there. It's no point for me to have a battle of wits with a knuckle-dragging half witted freak. Cause you already lost To a knuckle-dragging half witted freak no less! Pity. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | roc5955 Premium Member join:2005-11-26 Rosendale, NY 1 edit |
roc5955
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 2:11 pm
Re: WowSure, if you say so... Whatever. All I know is that Focks News reported the worst disaster this country's EVER experienced. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD 1 edit |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 2:21 pm
Re: Wow MS Paint ROOLZ |
said by roc5955:Sure, if you say so... Whatever. All I know is that Focks News reported the worst disaster this country's EVER experienced. Uh... that isn't what he said. You forgot to photoshop that image before you uploaded it. Here... I took a crack at it | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to roc5955
said by roc5955:Hey let's not go there. It's no point for me to have a battle of wits with a knuckle-dragging half witted freak. Obviously, anyone who uses a blatant ad hom like that realizes he has already lost the debate. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Omega Premium Member join:2002-07-30 Golden, CO |
to roc5955
said by roc5955:Hey let's not go there. It's no point for me to have a battle of wits with a knuckle-dragging half witted freak. Words of defeat right there. | |
|
| | | | | | | | ColorBASIC8-bit Fun Premium Member join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA |
to roc5955
said by roc5955:Why don't we take corporations off welfare? Just how much does the gov't spend on corporate welfare? I'm unaware that such a gov't program "corporate welfare" exists. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 4:28 pm
Re: Wowsaid by ColorBASIC:said by roc5955:Why don't we take corporations off welfare? Just how much does the gov't spend on corporate welfare? I'm unaware that such a gov't program "corporate welfare" exists. He means tax breaks. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 4:58 pm
Re: Wowsaid by vpoko:He means tax breaks. All business taxes get passed on down to consumers in the form of higher prices in the end. We already pay an atrociously high amount of income taxes. Do we need to pay even more in higher prices as a result of higher business taxes as well? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ColorBASIC8-bit Fun Premium Member join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA 3 edits
1 recommendation |
to vpoko
said by vpoko:said by ColorBASIC:said by roc5955:Why don't we take corporations off welfare? Just how much does the gov't spend on corporate welfare? I'm unaware that such a gov't program "corporate welfare" exists. He means tax breaks. Under that logic I suppose the mortgage interest deduction is "homeowner welfare". Meanwhile, corporations don't pay any taxes. Consumers do. Taxes are overhead and a cost of business. When corporations pay more in taxes, they simply raise prices and have less money to invest in growth which costs jobs. Or worse, they simply fire everyone and move their operations outside the jurisdiction of that taxing authority. Taxing corporations makes absolutely no sense except to those who don't understand economics. Now before everyone freaks out that the gov't should be raping corporations for every dollar...think about how many businesses would conduct their business in the US if there were no corporate taxes. Think about how many jobs that would create and how those jobs would create other jobs (trickle down). Corporations don't put the money in a mattress...they use it to expand (buying equipment and hiring people) and pay dividends etc. The dividends are taxed. The employees are taxed. The officers of the corporation are taxed. The dollars lost from taxing the corporation are made back hundreds of times over from the massive growth in other taxable entities. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Annoyed to roc5955
Anon
2007-Jan-5 3:46 pm
to roc5955
said by roc5955:Hey let's not go there. It's no point for me to have a battle of wits with a knuckle-dragging half witted freak. As opposed to attempting a battle of wits unarmed... There are people in NOLA who didn't vote for the damn mayor. Why should they suffer? FEMA does good for people in Florida, because they EXPECT hurricanes. Not so much for NOLA. FEMA was never designed as a direct support link for the masses. By law it is designed to support state and local authorities, its up to those authorities to request and coordinate that support. Please give us a break and stop spouting the DNC rhetoric. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to roc5955
And exactly how much of the money dedicated to Katrina recovery gets lost in FWA (the dreaded Fraud, Waste, and Abuse) that is the raison d'etre for the Government Accountability Office? If a mere HALF the FWA could be knocked down, then we could actually have a shot at real recovery for real victims. (That's right, I said merely *half* the FWA, because I understand that the components of government are all too human, and FWA simply *cannot* be erased completely in a government run entirely by humans.)
Also, a substantial raison d'etre for the Katrina (or any other hurricane/flood) disaster is building on floodplains. In areas such as the MRD (Mississippi River Delta), building on the floodplain should plain and simply be *barred*. Yes; this will cause massive displacement (however, didn't the disaster *itself* cause that?) and result in the outright death of towns, parishes, and even whole counties; however, if you are serious about the greater good (of the displaced residents, and the taxpayers paying for the reconstruction) why would you even THINK about repeating the same mistakes that led to the original disaster? | |
|
| | | | | | | roc5955 Premium Member join:2005-11-26 Rosendale, NY |
roc5955
Premium Member
2007-Jan-6 1:15 pm
Re: WowAnd most of that waste in Katrina went to Halliburton, KBR, and other holdings of Bushco, Inc. Why aren't there any hearings into this?
One of the reasons for the flooding was the lack of proper management. In the delta, many of the wetlands help to take up the extra water of a flood. Many of these are gone, due to our constant meddling in the river's flow, and dredging. The river upstream wants to go one way, and they build concrete barriers to make it go the way they want. Barrier islands around the delta offset a lot of the force of water that hits NOLA.
New Orleans is a city in the wrong place physically, but EXACTLY the right place strategically. That's why it's there. As the gateway to the Mississippi, it has become a very large city over its history. Yes smart development is necessary, but you cannot severely limit growth, or it would affect the economy of the country enormously.
As far as protecting the people who live there. That's the job of government. If the people have a hardship, the government should step in. ANYWHERE. Not just places that have contributors to the majority party. We have to care for everyone. Especially the kids, and the old folks. Unless you want to just abandon them as well.
It seems plain to see that the people who say that government can do no good, and should be cut to the bone, should not run for office, because this administration has proven that they do an awful lousy job of governing. Could that be why they believe that government can do no good? Is the real reason that THEM running government can do no good. Leave it to the people who can do good for the people. But that's just my NSHO | |
|
| | | | | |
to pnh102
In Texas, there is no state income tax. Last year, the legislature voted to lower property taxes. In place of the taxes, Texas has decided to add surcharges to traffic violations. A $90 traffic ticket now becomes a $200 (or more) penalty. The money received for these "surcharges" do not funnel entirely back into the Department of Transportation. Some of the revenue goes into the judiciary which goes towards raising the salaries of judges and state legislators.
Because no one wants to pay high taxes, they ignore the fact that without tax revenue services have to be cut. The real issue is the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, but politicians won't tell us that because that puts the onus on them.
They will find a way to get this money back one way or another. | |
|
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 2:13 pm
Re: Wowsaid by soothsayer15:They will find a way to get this money back one way or another. Again, revenue generation and spending are 2 separate beasts. The Texas legislature, in your example, is spending more than it is collecting in taxes. The onus has to be on them to cut spending while keeping taxes low. The funny part is within a year of the property tax cuts coming into effect, the state will probably realize more money from sales tax revenue, which will provide them with even more justification to fund new spending. | |
|
| | | | |
to roc5955
said by roc5955:I don't know of any rich conservatives who are willing to let go of one cent of their tax cuts. That completely ridiculous. Rich people love to spend their money. Have you not noticed the giant houses, the ridiculously expensive cars, clothes, jewelry, etc. on rich people? | |
|
| | | | | ••••••••
|
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:Reagan proved this in the 1980s and we are still running on those same principles to this very day. You have that right. Reagan ran the biggest deficits until Bush. Don't tax you , don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree. | |
|
| | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
to ctggzg
said by ctggzg:Do you think all tax cuts are good for the American people? The brainless zombies loved Bush's "cuts" even though they or their children are still going to pay for them in other ways. Who's talking about all tax cuts? We're talking about one specific tax cut (the tax that existed to pay for a war that ended over a century ago), and a ban on instituting another kind of tax that doesn't currently exist. If you want to equate that with repealing the income tax or something equally different, I guess that's your call... | |
|
| | |
to ctggzg
I'm pretty sure the Spanish-American war has been paid for by now, troll. Are you going to start spouting off "No blood for LAND!" or "McKinley is teh idiot munkey LOL" or "impeach McKinley for WAR CRIMES!" | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to ctggzg
said by ctggzg:Do you think all tax cuts are good for the American people? No, but I do think the Spanish/American War has been paid off a LONG time ago. | |
|
| ColorBASIC8-bit Fun Premium Member join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA |
to King P
I'll believe it when I see it. | |
|
| |
to King P
2 good 2 B tru.
USAA.
Senator Ted Stevens.
Wants to re-incarnate the USF/Spanish Am War tax.
Um, just vote no. | |
|
Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 10:25 am
Federal Excise Tax, Surcharge, Recovery Fee.. they are all.... the same.
Congress eliminates the Federal Excise Tax, so companies will just add a "recovery fee" or "surcharge fee".. this time pocketing it all. Doesn't help the consumer, only makes the corporations richer. | |
|
| bmn? ? ?
join:2001-03-15 hiatus |
Re: Federal Excise Tax, Surcharge, Recovery Fee.. they are all..Yeah, but that would be totally different... See, a tax you can't do shit about paying. With a bogus fee like that, which is simply replacing a repealed tax, you can report them to the FTC or local regulators. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to Robert
said by Robert:.. the same. Congress eliminates the Federal Excise Tax, so companies will just add a "recovery fee" or "surcharge fee".. this time pocketing it all. Doesn't help the consumer, only makes the corporations richer. Actually some already tried that and got BLASTED. So won't dare try it again. | |
|
tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 10:26 am
Dems? Taxes? Cut? What?I must say, the Dems just took Congress, and it's looking good already. I hope these bills get the votes to pass though - unfortunately there are quite a few big government liberals and conservatives still in Congress to make sure this doesn't pass. | |
|
| •••••• |
NOCManMadMacHatter Premium Member join:2004-09-30 Colorado Springs, CO |
NOCMan
Premium Member
2007-Jan-5 10:36 am
It will never stick foreverThey can introduce the ban now, but eventually the tax base for B&M store bought items will dwindle as online orders ramp up. Eventually they will have to change the tax laws then to protect the budget. | |
|
| intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
Re: It will never stick foreverthey will provide an exclusion for businesses with physical presence in a state. The states just wouldnt go for a carte blanche on all internet taxes. fortunately I live in a backwoods state where most online places dont have a physical presence, so it will work out well for me. | |
|
viperpa33sWhy Me? Premium Member join:2002-12-20 Bradenton, FL |
ShowdownYour going to have a showdown between the Fed and state governments. States are complaining that states rights are being eroded. I don't know how this is going to pass cause I always thought that Democrats were against any kind of tax ban for the internet.
I wish it would also include sales tax but know that is just a dream. | |
|
|
| aztecnologyO Rly? Premium Member join:2003-02-12 Murrieta, CA |
Re: don't forget this...... Yeah!!! $60 bucks in my pocket... | |
|
| | |
Re: don't forget this......The Max is $80 but you can get MORE if you are able to prove it by showing telephone bills and filing a special form with the IRS. I forget the number of the form but it is possible.
And the refund DOES include VoIP and cell phones as well! | |
|
81399672 (banned) join:2006-05-17 Los Angeles, CA |
81399672 (banned)
Member
2007-Jan-5 1:13 pm
tax cuts for poor are badThis tax cuts are designed to help the poor and that's bad. It will make us rich(republicans) look bad in the next election | |
|
| jsouthJsouth join:2000-12-12 Wichita, KS |
jsouth
Member
2007-Jan-5 1:28 pm
Re: tax cuts for poor are badHow is this a tax cut for the poor? This affects a lot of people. Also a Republican had a hand in this. So it wasn't just the Democrats that did this. | |
|
|
Need Alternatives to everything.We need alternative to the slow expensive internet.
Television is a bore with the same shows/infomercials on every channel unless you buy a pay channel. There is no variety.
DishTV = same as cable. Same price too. Same shows.
If we had affordable internet2 connection then maybe we would be in control. | |
|
| •••
|
|
|