Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (19096)	4/6/2008 8:18:59 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

How do you suppose we pay for everything? I don't like taxes anymore than you do, but what if we had a candidate who ran on the ticket of: "I won't raise your taxes but I will move to reduce spending by 10%, across the board, no exemptions, including social security and medicare, because we CAN'T KEEP BORROWING FROM OUR ENEMIES". What would his chances be of election? Please, everyone who absolutely opposes letting the Bush tax cuts expire, explain how we will pay for our government programs and our wars? Just keep borrowing and shove it on the next generation? Back in the 1950s the highest marginal tax rate was 70%....ridiculous. So now it is half that and many think that is too high. Corporate rates have been slashed and there are incentives for them to avoid taxes by offshoring work (thereby costing jobs in the U.S. and escalating hte problems I point out above.). Nobody wants to pay taxes. The politicians won't eliminate the Department of Education, or thousands of goofy programs...and the republicans are just as guilty as the democrats...maybe MORE so because they promised back in 2000 that when they had complete charge of things they would start cutting. Instead earmarks doubled and spending went through the roof. What is the answer? Head in the sand? I hope there is a better answer than that...

To: JDN who wrote (19096)	4/7/2008 11:13:09 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

"Well BOTH Democratic Candidates have said they would vote to roll back the Bush Tax Cuts and Obama went even further to say, "we need to more equitable redistribute the wealth of the nation and that he felt one way would be to RAISE capital gains taxes at least to 28% and possibly 60%." Few very quick points: 1) That isn't what you posted. We were talking about Obama (not 'some other unnamed individual...) and you posted: "When a candidate comes RIGHT OUT and says I am going to SQUEEZE you tax wise till it hurts you KNOW he means it." I asked you 'Who said THAT?' (And, apparently, no one you remember has... else you probably would have posted it by now. <g>) 2) I have challenged that '60%' thing when it was posted before... asking for evidence. None was ever provided so, until and unless I see otherwise, I'm gonna assume that it isn't true (was never said). 3) Re: the Bush specific tax changes. You are correct that, to my knowledge, both of the remaining Dem candidates have said they will not extend them. (Except for a few parts --- believe Obama has said he wants lower taxes for folks 'below $50,000'... while Clinton has her own tweak-ey plan, and they both want to keep a few things)... but remember: those Bush tax changes were always going to sunset ANYWAY --- that's the way the law was written when they were passed. Bush never made a move on tax reform or simplification (despite his campaign pledges to), and resorted on a wide variety of one-off revenue tricks (like the 1 year only slot for repatriation of corporate foreign profits... designed mainly to goose-up that year's particularly bad deficit figure, etc.) And the Rep candidate - McCain - who voted against the Bush tax changes when they were passed (saying he wanted a more comprehensive reform as well as loophole cuts along with lower rates, lower deficits, etc.), is now (perhaps for purposes of the election) practically swearing fealty to them. :-) But, I suspect (& HOPE!) that if elected he will revert to his earlier (and more economically productive stance) and go for a much more comprehensive tax over-haul and simplification and deficit reduction package... instead of merely sticking with the flaccid and unimaginative and over-complicated and unproductive Bush era mishmash. I suspect that --- faced with the economic realities after election --- any of the three will not care over-much about preserving the 'sanctity' of those squirrelly Bush II tax code complications. Hopefully who ever is elected (& the Congress) will be forced down the path of TRUE tax simplification and reform... lower rates and loophole elimination... and spending restraint. Hope springs eternal!