TexasCHLforum.com

warhorse10_9 wrote:I just wish a balance approach was taken by Washington. You cant fix everything by just cutting spending which is what many Republicans want. Taxes need to be raised too, mainly end the Bush tax cuts. Until both sides can actually compromise, the problem will remain. The problem is both side's fault, not one or the other.

The Bush Tax Cuts "cost" the nation about 300 Billion dollars a year...whereas the Obama spending spree contributes a REAL INCREASE IN SPENDING of 1.4 Trillion dollars a year.

Really? You really think that we need to eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts (which all economists agree created jobs) and surgically reduce spending? I must be a compete simpleton.

warhorse10_9 wrote:I just wish a balance approach was taken by Washington. You cant fix everything by just cutting spending which is what many Republicans want. Taxes need to be raised too, mainly end the Bush tax cuts. Until both sides can actually compromise, the problem will remain. The problem is both side's fault, not one or the other.

Ok. I'll keep an open mind. Show me the tax increases. Let's quit talking about "taxes on millionaires and billionaires" and put pen to paper, outlining exact how much revenue will be raised.

I've seen some data that suggests that taking 100% of the income of the subject groups don't close the "revenue gap". Now what? After you have taken 100% , what's next?

Don't get me wrong. I think that the current tax structure is corrupt and allows many who should be paying their fair share not to do so. But the vilification of successful people is not the same thing. The biggest problem is that suddenly those who make $250,000 a year get on to the tax revenue radar. Many of our small businesses fall into that category for tax purposes. At the end of the day, these people are not rich but they are the engine that drives our economy. Taxing them to oblivion will take the rest of us with them.

Real revenue comes from jobs. Jobs come from a robust economy. A robust economy comes from an environment without crushing regulations that encourages investment. A robust economy does not come from massive government spending.

We are very frugal and have a modest income. I track every penny that we spend. Currently, the largest budget line in my tracking is taxes to the Federal government - by triple over the next largest budget category. That doesn't begin to count the other insidious tax structures in my phone bill, the gasoline that I buy and many others. I want to pay my fair share of the necessary taxes. I do not want to pay and I don't want anyone else to pay oppressive taxes whose goal has nothing to do with maintaining the country but is aimed at social engineering. Our founding fathers put nothing like that in the Constitution. So let's get off this "revenue" kick and get back to the reality of fixing the problem. Stop SPENDING!

chasfm11 wrote:I want to pay my fair share of the necessary taxes. I do not want to pay and I don't want anyone else to pay oppressive taxes whose goal has nothing to do with maintaining the country but is aimed at social engineering. Our founding fathers put nothing like that in the Constitution. So let's get off this "revenue" kick and get back to the reality of fixing the problem. Stop SPENDING!

Cut handouts. Cut pork. Cut fiscal treason.

"Never give in. Never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty. Never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." - Sir Winston Churchill, 1941

chasfm11 wrote:

warhorse10_9 wrote:I just wish a balance approach was taken by Washington. You cant fix everything by just cutting spending which is what many Republicans want. Taxes need to be raised too, mainly end the Bush tax cuts. Until both sides can actually compromise, the problem will remain. The problem is both side's fault, not one or the other.

Ok. I'll keep an open mind. Show me the tax increases. Let's quit talking about "taxes on millionaires and billionaires" and put pen to paper, outlining exact how much revenue will be raised.

I've seen some data that suggests that taking 100% of the income of the subject groups don't close the "revenue gap". Now what? After you have taken 100% , what's next?

Don't get me wrong. I think that the current tax structure is corrupt and allows many who should be paying their fair share not to do so. But the vilification of successful people is not the same thing. The biggest problem is that suddenly those who make $250,000 a year get on to the tax revenue radar. Many of our small businesses fall into that category for tax purposes. At the end of the day, these people are not rich but they are the engine that drives our economy. Taxing them to oblivion will take the rest of us with them.

Real revenue comes from jobs. Jobs come from a robust economy. A robust economy comes from an environment without crushing regulations that encourages investment. A robust economy does not come from massive government spending.

We are very frugal and have a modest income. I track every penny that we spend. Currently, the largest budget line in my tracking is taxes to the Federal government - by triple over the next largest budget category. That doesn't begin to count the other insidious tax structures in my phone bill, the gasoline that I buy and many others. I want to pay my fair share of the necessary taxes. I do not want to pay and I don't want anyone else to pay oppressive taxes whose goal has nothing to do with maintaining the country but is aimed at social engineering. Our founding fathers put nothing like that in the Constitution. So let's get off this "revenue" kick and get back to the reality of fixing the problem. Stop SPENDING!

Had to sign on (Mostly a lurker) to say for this post.

Mr. Shasta and I are small business owners - set up as an S-corp, with 14 employees. We paid an obscene amount of taxes last year, between our personal income taxes (corporate profits are added to personal income) and employer portion of payroll taxes, unemployment tax, etc. Enough in tax to pay THREE other people full time. We personally - or even our employees - get little to nothing in return for these dollars.

Let me tell you, with 2 kids in college, we're not rich by any stretch of the imagination. My husband grew up poor to the extreme (no telephone in his house until the late '70s) with a widowed, disabled Mom and worked 2 jobs to put himself through professional school in his 30s. No grants, no scholarships, no nada. I'm not saying this for people to say "poor him" but rather to say that it CAN be done by able bodied people who want it badly enough.

So, we own our business, we have 12 other families counting on us. We have to keep 2 pay cycles' worth of $$ in the bank in case our A/R gets behind, we do the responsible thing. We pay a generous amount (12-15%) into SEP-IRA accounts-- this is for ALL pf our employees, not ourselves. Still, our business is going to be down about 30% this year. To be honest, I am not sure there will BE a next year, particularly if we see that our taxes are going to go up.

To be honest, both of US could make more $ working for others, but keep doing what we're doing because #1 we are BETTER than the average product being put out, and #2 we like to be able to determine our own destiny. Let me tell you something about being a "rich business owner" We tried to take 2 days off to go to New Orleans for our anniversary. We each got about 6 phone calls that HAD to be taken care of on the drive. We each continued to get e-mails that HAD to be addressed. There is no waiting until Monday to return phone calls or answer e-mails. I have answered business calls from ICU when my Mom was ill, and I have answered e-mails as I ran back and forth to the bathroom with food poisoning. Still, I love it, and it will ONLY be the tax situation that makes us stop. We are thisclose to closing shop. Financially, it makes very little sense anymore.

We simply have to stop spending. The money tree has been picked dry. Stop pointing fingers, take the bitter medicine, and get this country back on track.

Shasta wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

warhorse10_9 wrote:I just wish a balance approach was taken by Washington. You cant fix everything by just cutting spending which is what many Republicans want. Taxes need to be raised too, mainly end the Bush tax cuts. Until both sides can actually compromise, the problem will remain. The problem is both side's fault, not one or the other.

Ok. I'll keep an open mind. Show me the tax increases. Let's quit talking about "taxes on millionaires and billionaires" and put pen to paper, outlining exact how much revenue will be raised.

I've seen some data that suggests that taking 100% of the income of the subject groups don't close the "revenue gap". Now what? After you have taken 100% , what's next?

Don't get me wrong. I think that the current tax structure is corrupt and allows many who should be paying their fair share not to do so. But the vilification of successful people is not the same thing. The biggest problem is that suddenly those who make $250,000 a year get on to the tax revenue radar. Many of our small businesses fall into that category for tax purposes. At the end of the day, these people are not rich but they are the engine that drives our economy. Taxing them to oblivion will take the rest of us with them.

Real revenue comes from jobs. Jobs come from a robust economy. A robust economy comes from an environment without crushing regulations that encourages investment. A robust economy does not come from massive government spending.

We are very frugal and have a modest income. I track every penny that we spend. Currently, the largest budget line in my tracking is taxes to the Federal government - by triple over the next largest budget category. That doesn't begin to count the other insidious tax structures in my phone bill, the gasoline that I buy and many others. I want to pay my fair share of the necessary taxes. I do not want to pay and I don't want anyone else to pay oppressive taxes whose goal has nothing to do with maintaining the country but is aimed at social engineering. Our founding fathers put nothing like that in the Constitution. So let's get off this "revenue" kick and get back to the reality of fixing the problem. Stop SPENDING!

Had to sign on (Mostly a lurker) to say for this post.

Mr. Shasta and I are small business owners - set up as an S-corp, with 14 employees. We paid an obscene amount of taxes last year, between our personal income taxes (corporate profits are added to personal income) and employer portion of payroll taxes, unemployment tax, etc. Enough in tax to pay THREE other people full time. We personally - or even our employees - get little to nothing in return for these dollars.

Let me tell you, with 2 kids in college, we're not rich by any stretch of the imagination. My husband grew up poor to the extreme (no telephone in his house until the late '70s) with a widowed, disabled Mom and worked 2 jobs to put himself through professional school in his 30s. No grants, no scholarships, no nada. I'm not saying this for people to say "poor him" but rather to say that it CAN be done by able bodied people who want it badly enough.

So, we own our business, we have 12 other families counting on us. We have to keep 2 pay cycles' worth of $$ in the bank in case our A/R gets behind, we do the responsible thing. We pay a generous amount (12-15%) into SEP-IRA accounts-- this is for ALL pf our employees, not ourselves. Still, our business is going to be down about 30% this year. To be honest, I am not sure there will BE a next year, particularly if we see that our taxes are going to go up.

To be honest, both of US could make more $ working for others, but keep doing what we're doing because #1 we are BETTER than the average product being put out, and #2 we like to be able to determine our own destiny. Let me tell you something about being a "rich business owner" We tried to take 2 days off to go to New Orleans for our anniversary. We each got about 6 phone calls that HAD to be taken care of on the drive. We each continued to get e-mails that HAD to be addressed. There is no waiting until Monday to return phone calls or answer e-mails. I have answered business calls from ICU when my Mom was ill, and I have answered e-mails as I ran back and forth to the bathroom with food poisoning. Still, I love it, and it will ONLY be the tax situation that makes us stop. We are thisclose to closing shop. Financially, it makes very little sense anymore.

We simply have to stop spending. The money tree has been picked dry. Stop pointing fingers, take the bitter medicine, and get this country back on track.

Sorry..... but being a member of the wealthy class you just need pony up and to give your fair share. It's only right. (tongue pressed tightly against cheek) My dad was a professional with a small business. We took TWO vacations all the time I was growing up.

As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain) once said "Socialism is GREAT - UNTIL you run out of other people's money".

I see I set off a firestorm. Someone said I was blaming Bush, I wasn't. Obama decided to extend Bushes tax cuts so he now has responsibility for there continued existence.

My main point is everyone is saying cut spending and all will be better, but last I checked though government spending can also be economically stimulating. I am not saying don't cut spending. I am saying that just cutting spending won't solve anything. As I said, until both sides compromise (ie. tax increase and spending cuts) the problem will not be truly solved.

Though I like everyone else hates paying taxes, I do see them as necessary and am myself willing to pay more.

I will make one more point. Increasingly basic scientific research is being done by universities (and therefore funded by the government). This nations previous investments into basic research is one of the things that helped make us a superpower. If you want to cut spending that is one of the first places Washington has been looking. This will ultimately impact the nation in a very negative way. Spending has to be cut in appropriate places when it is cut.

warhorse10_9 wrote:I see I set off a firestorm. Someone said I was blaming Bush, I wasn't. Obama decided to extend Bushes tax cuts so he now has responsibility for there continued existence.

My main point is everyone is saying cut spending and all will be better, but last I checked though government spending can also be economically stimulating. I am not saying don't cut spending. I am saying that just cutting spending won't solve anything. As I said, until both sides compromise (ie. tax increase and spending cuts) the problem will not be truly solved.

Though I like everyone else hates paying taxes, I do see them as necessary and am myself willing to pay more.

I will make one more point. Increasingly basic scientific research is being done by universities (and therefore funded by the government). This nations previous investments into basic research is one of the things that helped make us a superpower. If you want to cut spending that is one of the first places Washington has been looking. This will ultimately impact the nation in a very negative way. Spending has to be cut in appropriate places when it is cut.

You do know you (and Warren Buffett, although he's all talk) are free to send the U.S. Treasury a check. You don't need a statutory increase in tax rates in order to pay more to the government.

You seem to approve of the Keynesian model, but in case you want to reconsider...here's an entertaining (at least to me) take on Keynes versus Hayek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Canadian lessons to learn, Balance the budget in less than 6 yrs and run surpluses thereafter.

Cuts to raise taxes ratio was 7 to 1.
Full story here:

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-canada-l ... 11581.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

government spending does absolutely NOTHING to stimulate the economy...NOTHING! The money has to come from the producers' pockets to begin with, before it's transitioned to the moochers pockets... it is NOT the government's money. Re-distrubution of wealth as mandated by any government is nothing but theft.

Get a job...and if you can't find a job, do what millions of us have done (great post Shasta)... get off your hind end and take some personal responsibility and create your own job!

God help this country!


surv

Beiruty wrote:Canadian lessons to learn, Balance the budget in less than 6 yrs and run surpluses thereafter.

Cuts to raise taxes ratio was 7 to 1.
Full story here:

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-canada-l ... 11581.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama has little interest in balancing the budget. His main criteria for an acceptable debt deal was to increase the debt limit past the November 2012 election. He got that and signed the deal.

Obama promised to veto anything that contained a balanced budget. Obamacare was to "cost" less than $1 trillion over first ten years, so it is immediately not compatible with a balanced budget...it actually also creates another half trillion greater shortfall in medicare, since they are shifting that much from medicare to support the patient protection affordability act (Obamacare) and then say "it costs less than $1 trillion."

mr surveyor wrote:government spending does absolutely NOTHING to stimulate the economy...NOTHING! The money has to come from the producers' pockets to begin with, before it's transitioned to the moochers pockets... it is NOT the government's money. Re-distrubution of wealth as mandated by any government is nothing but theft.

Get a job...and if you can't find a job, do what millions of us have done (great post Shasta)... get off your hind end and take some personal responsibility and create your own job!

God help this country!


surv

I agree - it normally amounts to "Legal Plunder" (a la Frederic Bastiat - The Law)

and When you do work for yourself you pay more taxes.

Let Dems know that Canadian Liberal party is like the Dem party, a leftist party. In Canada , the Liberals championed the Balanced Budget plan.

One can milk the cow, but not suck its blood bone dry!

Beiruty wrote:and When you do work for yourself you pay more taxes.

and you just made the point of millions of self employeed small business folks that provide real jobs, for real people!

warhorse10_9 wrote:I see I set off a firestorm. Someone said I was blaming Bush, I wasn't. Obama decided to extend Bushes tax cuts so he now has responsibility for there continued existence.

My main point is everyone is saying cut spending and all will be better, but last I checked though government spending can also be economically stimulating. I am not saying don't cut spending. I am saying that just cutting spending won't solve anything.

The US now borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends. You can't solve that with tax increases. You CAN solve it by cutting spending. Yes, it will be painful, but it is necessary. There are a number of unconstitutional things that the government does that could be entirely eliminated. The Department of Education, for example, as well as the EPA. The US government owns about 1/3rd of all land in the US; almost 85% of Nevada and near 98% of Alaska. The land should never have been bought in the first place and could be transferred to the states to manage. The Department of Commerce could easily go or at least shrink significantly. The Department of Labor could go almost entirely. The Department of Agriculture is completely unnecessary. Federal salaries could be cut across the board; 5% for those under $50,000, 10% for those under $100,000 and 15% for all those over $100,000.

Any reasonable family, given similar circumstances, would quickly realize that getting a second job isn't going to solve the problem. You must reduce expenses to close the gap. My wife and I have just such a plan in place should things go south for us. I can tell you which things I can do without and which things I can reduce in cost in order to balance the budget.

The bleating for fairness is a red herring. Congress has proven they have no intention of balancing the budget. Why should we give them one more red cent?