DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Five things we learned from Tuesday's GOP debate

**HoqCBYMl** · 10-21-2011, 08:48 PM

Unless I'm making a false assumption, YOUR work is a FAR CRY from the "work" that the parents of these billionaires have done.

Irrelevant. Believe me, if I could do what they do, I would.

The economy grows or shrinks whether the government likes it or not. I never expect anything the government does to have a positive influence towards that.

While I agree that the govt. is not in control of what the economy does...I do believe it has some influence.

I simply factor in, if you have to have a tax, one that gets people thinking hard about what they're spending their money towards on a regular basis is not necessarily a bad thing. A tax that gets people to buy LESS...will have a negative affect on the economy. Less buying=worse economy.

By "growing the economy" I presume you're referring to our current recession, which has more than a little to do with the growing pains of a globalized market. I think the government is wasting its energy in just about any efforts it makes to affect that. Seems to be the only ones who benefit are the abhorrid wealthy through cronyism. Then no one should be blaming Obama for the economy.

The only thing our government can realistically do to influence our own state of wealth effectively is by levelling the playing field for internal/external participants. If the government creates an environment where our own job producers can realistically compete with foreign competitors we provide the opportunity this country needs to move in a positive direction. After that the rest is on us to step up to the plate, and I do love a challenge as it brings out the best in us. I think we should UNlevel the playing field. Among the things American is best at...we have the largest economy and the largest military. It seems like we do not hesitate to leverage our military might against our enemies, but we don't do the same with our economic might.

Hey...we have the biggest market for a lot of stuff...if you wanna tap that market, pay the man with the funny hat and gold teeth.

For the moment we operate at the mentality that we must remain at a "revenue neutral" status which is a fair assessment. You can't cut revenues without eliminating unnecessary forms of spending or debt goes up, that's not a hard concept. Personally if I were to influence tax codes the increments would not be so drastic, as I think that has a better chance of getting us where we need to be in the long run. But if we're going to change it in any fashion towards any specific direction it doesn't hurt to do it in a way that discourages irresponsible spending habits in my mind. We come to this dilemma where our approach to resolving our situation has to be resolved holistically yet we cannot just change it all at once. America wants immediate satisfaction when the proposed solution would probably make the situation even worse if we force it too quickly. My suggestion is to parse it out in steps with a final strategic intention in mind, and evaluate the success or failure of the individual steps not solely on what ails us today but factor in whether they might be necessary side effects for getting us to our long term solution. I don't get why taxes have to be so damn complicated. They are so complicated because of all the ways there are to get out of paying them...deductions for this and that. Let's minimize those. Tax breaks are really just a form of social engineering anyway...the govt. thinks it benefits society for you be a stable family w/ children...tax break. They think it's good for you buy a house...tax break. Education, good...tax break. Drinking, bad...pay tax. Smoking, bad...pay tax. Giving to church, good...tax break. Watching TV, bad...pay tax.

Take away all of those...maybe lower the rates...and let people decide themselves what's good for them. Why do I have to give the govt. an extra $5K over my neighbor next door because I rent, and he bought? Maybe my job is mobile or temporary and I don't wanna be tied to real estate. So, then because he has that one big deduction...he now gets to deduct all the little things...charitable contributions...wear and tear on his vehicle for work...dry cleaning...etc. etc, but I don't get to cuz they're all supposedly included in the "standard deduction"...screw it, how about if we both just pay based on what we make...and let us spend it how we choose.

Santorum said this is "bad for families" because people won't have children if they don't get the tax break? Really Rick? Do we really want the next generation to be raised by people who had kids in order to get a tax break? I can't believe no one called him out on that...so stupid. I mean, okay, you might wish your kid is born Dec 31 instead of Jan 1...but other than that...tax breaks have no effect on someone's decision to have kids...unless they are galactically stupid.

10-21-2011, 08:48 PM	#38
HoqCBYMl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 408 Senior Member	Unless I'm making a false assumption, YOUR work is a FAR CRY from the "work" that the parents of these billionaires have done. Irrelevant. Believe me, if I could do what they do, I would. The economy grows or shrinks whether the government likes it or not. I never expect anything the government does to have a positive influence towards that. While I agree that the govt. is not in control of what the economy does...I do believe it has some influence. I simply factor in, if you have to have a tax, one that gets people thinking hard about what they're spending their money towards on a regular basis is not necessarily a bad thing. A tax that gets people to buy LESS...will have a negative affect on the economy. Less buying=worse economy. By "growing the economy" I presume you're referring to our current recession, which has more than a little to do with the growing pains of a globalized market. I think the government is wasting its energy in just about any efforts it makes to affect that. Seems to be the only ones who benefit are the abhorrid wealthy through cronyism. Then no one should be blaming Obama for the economy. The only thing our government can realistically do to influence our own state of wealth effectively is by levelling the playing field for internal/external participants. If the government creates an environment where our own job producers can realistically compete with foreign competitors we provide the opportunity this country needs to move in a positive direction. After that the rest is on us to step up to the plate, and I do love a challenge as it brings out the best in us. I think we should UNlevel the playing field. Among the things American is best at...we have the largest economy and the largest military. It seems like we do not hesitate to leverage our military might against our enemies, but we don't do the same with our economic might. Hey...we have the biggest market for a lot of stuff...if you wanna tap that market, pay the man with the funny hat and gold teeth. For the moment we operate at the mentality that we must remain at a "revenue neutral" status which is a fair assessment. You can't cut revenues without eliminating unnecessary forms of spending or debt goes up, that's not a hard concept. Personally if I were to influence tax codes the increments would not be so drastic, as I think that has a better chance of getting us where we need to be in the long run. But if we're going to change it in any fashion towards any specific direction it doesn't hurt to do it in a way that discourages irresponsible spending habits in my mind. We come to this dilemma where our approach to resolving our situation has to be resolved holistically yet we cannot just change it all at once. America wants immediate satisfaction when the proposed solution would probably make the situation even worse if we force it too quickly. My suggestion is to parse it out in steps with a final strategic intention in mind, and evaluate the success or failure of the individual steps not solely on what ails us today but factor in whether they might be necessary side effects for getting us to our long term solution. I don't get why taxes have to be so damn complicated. They are so complicated because of all the ways there are to get out of paying them...deductions for this and that. Let's minimize those. Tax breaks are really just a form of social engineering anyway...the govt. thinks it benefits society for you be a stable family w/ children...tax break. They think it's good for you buy a house...tax break. Education, good...tax break. Drinking, bad...pay tax. Smoking, bad...pay tax. Giving to church, good...tax break. Watching TV, bad...pay tax. Take away all of those...maybe lower the rates...and let people decide themselves what's good for them. Why do I have to give the govt. an extra $5K over my neighbor next door because I rent, and he bought? Maybe my job is mobile or temporary and I don't wanna be tied to real estate. So, then because he has that one big deduction...he now gets to deduct all the little things...charitable contributions...wear and tear on his vehicle for work...dry cleaning...etc. etc, but I don't get to cuz they're all supposedly included in the "standard deduction"...screw it, how about if we both just pay based on what we make...and let us spend it how we choose. Santorum said this is "bad for families" because people won't have children if they don't get the tax break? Really Rick? Do we really want the next generation to be raised by people who had kids in order to get a tax break? I can't believe no one called him out on that...so stupid. I mean, okay, you might wish your kid is born Dec 31 instead of Jan 1...but other than that...tax breaks have no effect on someone's decision to have kids...unless they are galactically stupid.
	Quote