rumbleph1$h Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 H.O.T. Tax If liberals want to pay higher taxes, here?s a way they can. b> President George W. Bush?s bipartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform should propose a measure to assist a neglected segment of society: the avowedly under-taxed. The H.O.T. Tax, or Higher-rate Optional Tax, would give those who think their levies are too low the ability to pay the steeper tax bills they say they deserve. This is the truly compassionate thing to do. The H.O.T. Tax would offer relief to powerful Democrats and wealthy liberals who cannot stand it when Republicans cut their taxes. Look how lowering taxes has raised the blood pressure of these Americans: ?I don?t need a tax cut,? Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N. J.) announced last October 8 on the Senate floor. ?It will not do me any more good. I can?t buy more. I can?t eat any more. I can?t do more, and I want it distributed among the ordinary people who work every day.? ?If you think it?s good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them [the GOP],? Pres. Bill Clinton told the Democratic Convention last July 26. ?If not, John Kerry?s your man.? ?I am a traitor to my class,? actor Paul Newman said last July 8. ?I think that tax cuts for wealthy thugs like me are borderline criminal. I live very high off the hog.? ?Because of Bush?s tax cuts, I saved a million and a half in taxes last year. Does anyone think that?s fair?? Ben Affleck asked at a July 2004 John Kerry fundraiser. ?Why should wealthy people such as myself receive a tax cut?? Barbra Streisand wondered on her website. ?I will be the first to admit that I don?t need it. What we all need is a healthy government that can provide the services (such as education, health care, national and homeland security) that we all depend on.? ?I don?t need a tax cut or tax relief,? billionaire music impresario David Geffen explained in the March 15, 2001 Washington Post. ?It is a privilege to be an American citizen. It is appropriate to pay a greater share of taxes.? ?I want no tax cuts, and want to pay MY FULL SHARE of taxes to support the public good,? Oregonian Harry Demarest stated on the website of United for a Fair Economy, an anti-tax-cut group co-founded by Chuck Collins, heir to the Oscar Meyer wiener fortune. The H.O.T. Tax would ease these statists? pain. The IRS simply would add a small box to the 1040 tax form beside these words: ?If you believe you should be taxed at a rate above that assigned to your income bracket, please indicate here the higher rate you prefer. Kindly calculate your tax liability, and send it in.? With that easy step, congressional liberals and residents of Malibu and Martha?s Vineyard no longer would have to keep the tax cuts conservatives keep throwing their way. Instead, they could send 50, 75, or even 99 percent of their incomes to Washington, so the GOP, Congress, and President Bush can spend it even better than they can. While this reform would increase taxpayer choice, it might generate little revenue. Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Virginia taxpayers already may pay above and beyond their usual top rates, though few do this. When Massachusetts cut its top tax rate to 5.3 percent in 2001, it let guilty liberals pay the old 5.85 percent rate if they wished. According to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, as of June 15, only 930 taxpayers opted to do so on their 2004 returns generating an extra $246,505. In 2002, 2,215 taxpayers paid the higher rate, yielding $341,829. Among 3,218,572 returns filed in 2003, only 1,488 (or 0.046 percent) paid the voluntary higher rate, adding $209,216 to state coffers. Pro-tax U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) spurned the higher rate that year. ?No, I won?t? pay some $800 extra, Frank told Boston radio host Howie Carr in April 2003. ?I don?t trust the legislative leadership and Gov. [Mitt] Romney to make the right decisions, so I?ll donate the money myself, probably to some health clinics in New Bedford that are going to get hit hard in the new budget.? How inspiring to see a confirmed progressive like Barney Frank choose private charity over public assistance. ?Americans recognize, as Congressman Frank also figured out, that government doesn?t spend its money wisely as is and already takes too much of what we earn,? National Taxpayers Union president John Berthoud observes. Sen. John Kerry (D. Mass.) sailed into hot water last year when tax returns revealed that he also paid the Bay State?s lower tax rate. Kerry thus enjoyed state tax cuts akin to the federal tax reductions he excoriated on the campaign trail. Then again, perhaps he intended to pay Massachusetts? higher rate, but his calculator slid off his yacht. This idea certainly has national political value. ?It gives a real, live vote,? says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. ?Without releasing any personal information, the government could report each year that only 1 percent of Americans paid the extra amount, which gives us a hard count on who thinks he is undertaxed.? Beneficent supply-siders should introduce the H.O.T. Tax in Congress even before the tax-reform commission?s September 30 reporting deadline. American liberals should be given the earliest opportunity to stop resisting tax relief and send the Treasury as much of their own money as their bleeding hearts desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoRandomDragon Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 This is obviously a joke because here's the punch line: and President Bush can spend it even better than they can. Now that's funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted June 18, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 18, 2005 This is obviously a joke because here's the punch line:Now that's funny! 586084304[/snapback] lol, that is awesome. This seems kind of childish. I can't imagine you would be allowed to check off that box without being declared insane first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 i think thats a damn good idea at face but if you think about it more its not a fantastic idea. on the other hand if they want to pay more taxes then let them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Only in America do half the voters cry about something that is far less than what most citizens of most industrialized nations pay. What's funny about it all, is they end up supporting those in office that do the same crying and do even LESS about it to fix it. I wonder, Mr. rumbleph1sh, do you suggest we get rid of all entitlement? SS? How about the greatest piece of entitlement legislation every created...The Veterans Act? (Even though it's been extremely watered down since it was created.) Maybe we could have done away with the moon shot and the interstate freeway system...After all, those cost the taxpayer. Even though the payoff's from those programs more than paid for themselves over time. Heck, we could go back to dirt roads, get rid of the CDC...who needs it? While we're at it.....downsize that military spending by at least 2/3's. That should take care of our national debt in about 5 years.... I'm sure I'll hear the usual.....get rid of welfare. Too bad, it only makes up a very small portion of the Feds yearly spending......so that certainly isn't the answer... So what goes? Or do we raise taxes to pay for the usual Republican spending patterns? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ There's cheap then there's cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 This is obviously a joke because here's the punch line:Now that's funny! 586084304[/snapback] LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyClaw Veteran Posted June 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 21, 2005 Only in America do half the voters cry about something that is far less than what most citizens of most industrialized nations pay. What's funny about it all, is they end up supporting those in office that do the same crying and do even LESS about it to fix it. I wonder, Mr. rumbleph1sh, do you suggest we get rid of all entitlement? SS? How about the greatest piece of entitlement legislation every created...The Veterans Act? (Even though it's been extremely watered down since it was created.) Maybe we could have done away with the moon shot and the interstate freeway system...After all, those cost the taxpayer. Even though the payoff's from those programs more than paid for themselves over time. Heck, we could go back to dirt roads, get rid of the CDC...who needs it? While we're at it.....downsize that military spending by at least 2/3's. That should take care of our national debt in about 5 years.... I'm sure I'll hear the usual.....get rid of welfare. Too bad, it only makes up a very small portion of the Feds yearly spending......so that certainly isn't the answer... So what goes? Or do we raise taxes to pay for the usual Republican spending patterns? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ There's cheap then there's cheap. 586088935[/snapback] awesome post, you are very right. i know everyone hates to pay taxes, but for our country to survive economically, you have to pay them. the government cant just grow money or make it whenever htey need it. we cant keep buming off people, taxes are the only answer. perhaps the current system is a bit flawed but higher taxes are unfortunatly needed for survival, unless you guys have a better idea, which i havent seen. trickle down economics doesnt work, we all know that. so what do you do to get the economy going? how do we pay for our luxuries? how do we pay off our debt to other countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Only in America do half the voters cry about something that is far less than what most citizens of most industrialized nations pay. What's funny about it all, is they end up supporting those in office that do the same crying and do even LESS about it to fix it. I wonder, Mr. rumbleph1sh, do you suggest we get rid of all entitlement? SS? How about the greatest piece of entitlement legislation every created...The Veterans Act? (Even though it's been extremely watered down since it was created.) Maybe we could have done away with the moon shot and the interstate freeway system...After all, those cost the taxpayer. Even though the payoff's from those programs more than paid for themselves over time. Heck, we could go back to dirt roads, get rid of the CDC...who needs it? While we're at it.....downsize that military spending by at least 2/3's. That should take care of our national debt in about 5 years.... I'm sure I'll hear the usual.....get rid of welfare. Too bad, it only makes up a very small portion of the Feds yearly spending......so that certainly isn't the answer... So what goes? Or do we raise taxes to pay for the usual Republican spending patterns? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ There's cheap then there's cheap. 586088935[/snapback] Well surprise surprise Mr. 3beanlimit, I WOULD favor cutting or eliminating almost all government programs. ;) Isn't the federal government's primary (or sole) responsiblities defending and protecting US Citizens and protecting Constitutional rights? I believe we DO need to cut military spending, but there's a lot more we need to do as well. Government spending is out of hand and I see no solution emerging from Republicans or Democrats. We do such bizarre things like spending billions on campaigns to discourage smoking, and then spend billions more to subsidize tobacco farmers. Does nobody see this as a problem? Big government is a disease. awesome post, you are very right. i know everyone hates to pay taxes, but for our country to survive economically, you have to pay them. the government cant just grow money or make it whenever htey need it. we cant keep buming off people, taxes are the only answer. perhaps the current system is a bit flawed but higher taxes are unfortunatly needed for survival, unless you guys have a better idea, which i havent seen. trickle down economics doesnt work, we all know that. so what do you do to get the economy going? how do we pay for our luxuries? how do we pay off our debt to other countries? 586095262[/snapback] We can lower taxes be deflating the government. Every single service the government provides could be done more efficiently and cheaper by private business. What has happened to nearly every government provided service around the world- everything from transportation to healthcare to energy? They've all failed miserably compared to privatized services. We need to stop the squandering of tax-payers hard earned money. Look back in time. Before the early 1900s, there were no income taxes, and we became the greatest and strongest economy in the World. You can see this same trend over and over in US history. When taxes are low, the economy booms and living standards increase (usually INCREASING federal revenue). Wealthier tax payers historically spend more when taxes are low - taking the burden off of the lower and middle classes. Periods of high tax rates have marked some of the worst economic times this country has ever seen (and lowest federal revenues). Look at internet commerce. What would it be like if it wasn't tax-free? It's not abstract theory, when taxes are high, our economy goes down the ****ter."Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive...[it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American... it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled." -Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Sen. John Kerry (D. Mass.) sailed into hot water last year when tax returns revealed that he also paid the Bay State’s lower tax rate. Kerry thus enjoyed state tax cuts akin to the federal tax reductions he excoriated on the campaign trail. Then again, perhaps he intended to pay Massachusetts’ higher rate, but his calculator slid off his yacht. Best editorial line ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Douglas Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Well surprise surprise Mr. 3beanlimit, I WOULD favor cutting or eliminating almost all government programs. ;) Isn't the federal government's primary (or sole) responsiblities defending and protecting US Citizens and protecting Constitutional rights? I believe we DO need to cut military spending, but there's a lot more we need to do as well. Government spending is out of hand and I see no solution emerging from Republicans or Democrats. We do such bizarre things like spending billions on campaigns to discourage smoking, and then spend billions more to subsidize tobacco farmers. Does nobody see this as a problem? Big government is a disease. Finally, something me and rumbleph1sh can both agree on :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Only in America do half the voters cry about something that is far less than what most citizens of most industrialized nations pay. What's funny about it all, is they end up supporting those in office that do the same crying and do even LESS about it to fix it. I wonder, Mr. rumbleph1sh, do you suggest we get rid of all entitlement? SS? How about the greatest piece of entitlement legislation every created...The Veterans Act? (Even though it's been extremely watered down since it was created.) Maybe we could have done away with the moon shot and the interstate freeway system...After all, those cost the taxpayer. Even though the payoff's from those programs more than paid for themselves over time. Heck, we could go back to dirt roads, get rid of the CDC...who needs it? While we're at it.....downsize that military spending by at least 2/3's. That should take care of our national debt in about 5 years.... I'm sure I'll hear the usual.....get rid of welfare. Too bad, it only makes up a very small portion of the Feds yearly spending......so that certainly isn't the answer... So what goes? Or do we raise taxes to pay for the usual Republican spending patterns? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ There's cheap then there's cheap. 586088935[/snapback] A common misconception. Although we may have lower federal taxes, we pay taxes to our states and local government. In addition to other assorted taxes, really the American doesn't get off as lightly as everyone tries to make it. Probably half your income gets taxed away after you add in all three levels. The problem with the American tax system is the loop holes that allow the insanely rich get away with paying significantly less in proportion or none at all. In fact, I would prefer that local and state governments get to spend a portion the taxes of their citizens as opposed to giving it all the federal government. And to get rid of another apparent misconception that I didn't even know existed, welfare takes up an enormous chunk of our budget. You really need to brush up on these things. Social spending accounts for nearly 60% of the federal budget and historically it has always been the democrats who go on spending sprees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 We can lower taxes be deflating the government. Every single service the government provides could be done more efficiently and cheaper by private business. What has happened to nearly every government provided service around the world- everything from transportation to healthcare to energy? They've all failed miserably compared to privatized services. We need to stop the squandering of tax-payers hard earned money. Look back in time. Before the early 1900s, there were no income taxes, and we became the greatest and strongest economy in the World. You can see this same trend over and over in US history. When taxes are low, the economy booms and living standards increase (usually INCREASING federal revenue). Wealthier tax payers historically spend more when taxes are low - taking the burden off of the lower and middle classes. Periods of high tax rates have marked some of the worst economic times this country has ever seen (and lowest federal revenues). Look at internet commerce. What would it be like if it wasn't tax-free? It's not abstract theory, when taxes are high, our economy goes down the ****ter."Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive...[it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American... it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled." -Ronald Reagan 586095471[/snapback] Absolutely not. In critical industries, private business fails all too often. Transportation can never be changed to private industry. Transportation is so vital, it has to be something that is taxed and provided for. Back then, the government had the guts to do what it should have. Start going for the working class, promoting unions in the face of monopoly and big business. During the World Wars some of the richest people were taxed at 99%! The government would never be able to do that today! Look at what private industry has done to telecom. Regional monopolies everywhere with excessively high prices that just keep climbing higher, while in Japan, a semi-monopoly granted by the government grants affordable telecom both wireless and cable to everyone. Private industry has failed insurance. Private industry has failed medicare. While I agree that most things should be left in the hands of private industry, some things are so important they just can't be. We are right now proving that supply-side economics doesn't work. The laffer curve is still just a theory, and I don't see it going anywhere. It is true that the tax system is un-American and utterly unjust. It pains me to say that the democrats have been unable to fix it, and Bush is just making it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 And to get rid of another apparent misconception that I didn't even know existed, welfare takes up an enormous chunk of our budget.? You really need to brush up on these things.? Social spending accounts for nearly 60% of the federal budget and historically it has always been the democrats who go on spending sprees.586095651[/snapback] Most of the money for social spending, however, is raised separately from the taxes that fund everything else. If you go only by income taxes, about 50% of it (a little more or a little less, depending on what year and whose numbers you're looking at) goes to military expenses. (Also, the 'Republican spending patterns' thing that he was talking about probably refers to the fact that, mysteriously enough, the American economy tends to shrink while the government debt/deficit/whatever tends to increase when Republicans are in office.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Most of the money for social spending, however, is raised separately from the taxes that fund everything else. If you go only by income taxes, about 50% of it (a little more or a little less, depending on what year and whose numbers you're looking at) goes to military expenses. 586095680[/snapback] Exactly my point. We pay an assortment of taxes. Just looking at the federal tax rate is misleading. Although the government has different ways of raising cash, it is ultimately still the citizen who foots the bill. Social Security spending alone is greater than that of all of defense combined. This doesn't include any of our other social spending programs like medicare and medicaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 21, 2005 Well surprise surprise Mr. 3beanlimit, I WOULD favor cutting or eliminating almost all government programs. ;) Isn't the federal government's primary (or sole) responsiblities defending and protecting US Citizens and protecting Constitutional rights? I believe we DO need to cut military spending, but there's a lot more we need to do as well. Government spending is out of hand and I see no solution emerging from Republicans or Democrats. We do such bizarre things like spending billions on campaigns to discourage smoking, and then spend billions more to subsidize tobacco farmers. Does nobody see this as a problem? Big government is a disease. We can lower taxes be deflating the government. Every single service the government provides could be done more efficiently and cheaper by private business. What has happened to nearly every government provided service around the world- everything from transportation to healthcare to energy? They've all failed miserably compared to privatized services. We need to stop the squandering of tax-payers hard earned money. 586095471[/snapback] haha we actually agree here. the government can be reduced, streamlined, and improved. some of the policies are economically detrimental, e.g. certain subsidies. porkbarrel economics is more destructive than people think. but while we can streamline the government, there are probably some services that could not survive privatization for a variety of reasons (e.g. economic conditions creating market failures or inefficient allocations, etc.). a more moderate approach could be more advantageous, at least in the short-run. the last point is important. "squandering" is the right word. sometimes taxes are necessary, but i still believe most people would be less ambivalent about taxes if 1) they knew where the money was going, 2) they had a say in how the money was used, and 3) the effects are palpable. when tax money is wasted with inefficient processes or useless programs, the populace gets angered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 "Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive...[it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American... it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled."-Ronald Reagan 586095471[/snapback] Yeah that worked real good, didn't it? After about breaking this country, Reagan also "raised" taxes to compensate. :ninja: As much bellyaching as their is about this subject...and some misleading propaganda by one poster above...the simple fact is...it takes taxes to keep this country alive and viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldo Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 Only in America do half the voters cry about something that is far less than what most citizens of most industrialized nations pay. What's funny about it all, is they end up supporting those in office that do the same crying and do even LESS about it to fix it. I wonder, Mr. rumbleph1sh, do you suggest we get rid of all entitlement? SS? How about the greatest piece of entitlement legislation every created...The Veterans Act? (Even though it's been extremely watered down since it was created.) Maybe we could have done away with the moon shot and the interstate freeway system...After all, those cost the taxpayer. Even though the payoff's from those programs more than paid for themselves over time. Heck, we could go back to dirt roads, get rid of the CDC...who needs it? While we're at it.....downsize that military spending by at least 2/3's. That should take care of our national debt in about 5 years.... I'm sure I'll hear the usual.....get rid of welfare. Too bad, it only makes up a very small portion of the Feds yearly spending......so that certainly isn't the answer... So what goes? Or do we raise taxes to pay for the usual Republican spending patterns? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ There's cheap then there's cheap. 586088935[/snapback] Uh, the average American pays a higher % of tax than the average Brit does -- and we have a 100% free at the point of use healthcare system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts