Talk Elections

Hey, you know what, I haven't posted any of my weird left wing opinions on here in a while, but I have a question for wingnuts that is driving me crazy.  As tax time is coming around, I am looking at my taxes and thinking about how the TEA baggers keep telling me that the liberals are raising my taxes.  I don't see it.  My taxes are about the same as always.  I see a few areas where righties think I should be able to save, oh say, a few dollars or two...maybe they think that a couple bucks will excite me and get my vote.  I see a few places, such as capital gains, that are lower than in generations past, but I don't have much in that department so who cares.

What I do hear is that they are "Going" to tax me, but than again the righties told me I was going to be killed by a terrorist too.  I am still here and I have never seen a explosion that was not on TV.

Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me from a bunch of foolish TEA baggers who don't pay taxes anyway because they obviously don't work since they have all that time to ride aound on the TEA bag express.

So my question is... which taxes of mine have gone up, I really want to know.

I have seen a marked rise in my property taxes recently due to cuts in state aid. And, of course, the MA sales tax jumped from 5% to 6.25% (and to 7% on meals).

The problem with the tea partiers is that they'd probably focus on the taxes that aren't hurting me—income and capital gains—which would actually make the problems with aid cuts worse.

     While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

Well I think 90% is a bit much, but I don't disagree with your overall point.

Well, they havent gone into effect yet, except the pesky cigarette tax under SCHIP.  They start in 2011.  Here's Obama's 2009 budget, prepared by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

so none of the taxes of the vast majority of the tea partiers are gonna be raised thanks for making his point.

So the teabaggers are upset with Obama and the Democrats for tax hikes that were put into law by Bush and the Republicans?

Incorrect: The effects of these tax raises will effect the vast majority of working tea partiers.  Many small businesses may gross $250,000 under the owners name, and taxes are based upon gross earnings, not profit.  Say a small business makes $300,000 a year.  $50,000 of that is profit and the rest goes to operating costs (labor, materials, rent, utilities, etc.).  The owner of the business will have to cut employees and cut costs just to keep his business alive. 

90%?  So we don't fix sh**t when it breaks?  We cut pay and benifits to active duty and vets?  Nothing new again, ever.  I can agree the military needs to cut a lot of sh**t out, but 90% is insane.
Components                                       Funding           Change, 2009 to 2010  
Operations and maintenance              $283.3 billion    4.20%
Military Personnel                               $154.2 billion      5.00%
Procurement                                       $140.1 billion   −1.8%
R&D, Testing & Evaluation                   $79.1 billion     1.30%
Military Construction                           $23.9 billion     19.00%
Family Housing                                    $3.1 billion     −20.2%
Total Spending                                    $685.1 billion    3.00%

Good luck digging $600 billion out of there.

1939 called, wants to know when you're coming back?
Then 1941 called, and asked me to slap you.

That's a really stupid non sequitur of a response, sorry.

     Terminating all overseas operations & associated costs would be a good start to that.

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

Cutting 90% of the military budget sounds like a great place to start. I don't see what the problem is, unless you are an interventionist warmonger.

End the wars. $150 billion a year saved.

Then some easy money would be to go after some of the really expensive pork items.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

BZZZZZ WRONG

If we cut it by 90% we'd be spending less than the PRC, the UK and France.  I agree with your basic point, we shouldn't spend so much on defense.  But your 90% number is totally unrealistic.  Even Barney Frank only wants a 25% cut.

Seriously?  'New taxes' proposed are only a little under a trillion over ten years?

That's nothing.

The most hilarious thing about the Right and their teabags is that there is simply nothing happening to get excited about. 

Tea buggers would be for taxes if Obama/dems wanted to increase tax cuts.   

And why is their spending so low?  Because we are their major ally, and they depend on us to protect them.  Being the sole (Western) Super Power places a large burden of responsibility on our shoulders to protect others.  This is why I've been such a strong proponent for a "real" EU.  Abolish the old country borders and incorporate the European nations into a single country of unified states.  That way, the EU could build up their own standing army and protect their region of the world, taking some of the military burden off of us, and in turn, trim back our defense spending.  Of course, hitting Congressmen who keep legacy defense projects on the books because it funds their states, especially when the equipment being built is one or two generations obsolete, has to come to an end as well.  That would save you billions right there.

Witty comeback.  He provided substance (and correct information).  Got any of your own?

Fascists

     Your point? I strongly doubt anything bad would happen if there were countries that spent more on their military than us. After all, you don't see people regularly invading China because they aren't the biggest spender there is.


     As it happens, superpower is not necessarily a permanent feature of any country, & one I would strongly advocate working to do away with if it meant other countries would take it upon themselves to supply their own defense.

As liberal as I am, I find myself agreeing with the libertarians here.  As a liberal, I oppose the use of tax dollars to fund government spending for the purpose of the government spending money on government.  In other words, our defense spending seems to benefit the government.  Where I split with libertarians is that I WANT govenment to tax me for purposes of the people and business.  A single payer healthcare system would benefit all of us.  A war oversees benefits only those involved in the defense industry.  They tell me that I NEED protection, however the largest military in the world ought to be protecting me by its pure existance with no need to invade any country.  I don't need to be taxed to keep me safe from terrorism past good security at home.  I stand a better chance getting killed by a car getting my mail than by a terrorist.  National healthcare would be the biggest shot in the arm for business who would no longer need to budget for healthcare.  In time the cost of healthcare unchecked will surpass the value of the average employee.  Where will we be then.

And for those of you who don't trust the government to provide your healthcare, just remember that they can suposedly protect you with the most advanced military in the world, but for some reason can't give you am MRI or a CAT scan!!!!!!!!!!!!  Makes no sense.

Oh yeah, one more thing.  The TEA baggers are nothing more than an example of the media wanting to go find a group of people holding signs and get us all excited.  During the Bush days they made it look as if every liberal in America was camping out at Crawford.  Now they find TEA baggers.  I realised my side was being chumped at the time, now it is the rights turn to figure it out.

Yes, the IRS, kind of disagrees with his post about what is taxable income for a business......  rent, labor, materials, etc are all deductable. 

"strongly doubt" will do wonders for Poland when there are T-90s in Warsaw.  Yeah, the US probably won't be invaded right away if we cut our military by 90%, but the world would be a totally different place and there would be invasions.  I agree, it's not the US's job to play "world police" and I agree, we should cut our military budget by many many billions, but 90% is, as I said, insane.If I insinuated the biggest military spender is the only country that can't be invaded I apologize.  I don't think I said that though.  The PRC spends a LOT on their military (they are a clear number 2)...but not to keep from being invaded (externally).

     The 90% figure was more an example of something to bring us into a range comparable to that of other big-spending nations than a serious suggestion, though I also think Barney Frank's 25% is somewhat on the small side from the perspective of someone who does not want the United States to be capable of invading other nations. After all, we avoid other governmental ills by denying the government the power to perpetrate them; why shouldn't imperialism be treated the same way?


     You didn't say it, though it was the impression I got since being outspent by a few other countries in that department isn't something that I see as a significant concern & I did not see the need to bring it up.

No, they'd be for much more tax cuts and would claim that Obama/dems were socialist for proposing such puny tax cuts :)