« previous   misc   next »

TAXES: Do We Pay Enough?


By RayAmerica   Follow   Wed, 4 May 2011, 12:41am PDT   5,521 views   91 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Here's a partial list of what is often referred to as "hidden taxes," none of which were in existence 100 years ago. While looking at this list, can you honestly say we are not paying too much in taxes?

Federal income tax
State tax
property tax
gasoline tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Tangible Taxes
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

« First     « Previous     Comments 12-51 of 91     Next »     Last »

RayAmerica   Sat, 7 May 2011, 4:05am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

iwog says

Does it really matter? I’ve just demonstrated you’re complaining about taxes when you don’t have a solution. It’s your thread!
You don’t even have a fictional solution do you.

Your "solution" is NOT to cut spending because, as you say, it won't provide a "surplus." In true liberal form, your only solution is to raise taxes, without addressing cuts in spending. You fail to understand how ALL governments operate, i.e. that they will ALWAYS spend (eventually) what they take in. Raising taxes is not the answer because government growth will not remain stagnant. With more tax revenue collected, it will simply grow commensurate to that revenue. The beast must be starved and the only way to do that is to cut its revenues in order to force them to live within their means.

iwog   Sat, 7 May 2011, 5:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

RayAmerica says

Your “solution” is NOT to cut spending because, as you say, it won’t provide a “surplus.” In true liberal form, your only solution is to raise taxes, without addressing cuts in spending.

Yeah, except that's total bullshit since I already detailed what I'd do and it includes spending cuts.

Stop making up my positions and actually answer a question for once in your corrupt life. Do you have a solution or not?

RayAmerica   Sat, 7 May 2011, 5:46am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

iwog says

Do you have a solution or not?

I've stated my solution numerous times on this site.

iwog   Sat, 7 May 2011, 6:37am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 15

RayAmerica says

iwog says

Do you have a solution or not?

I’ve stated my solution numerous times on this site.

Really? Then it should be mind-numbingly easy to post a link to your explanation.

That is unless you're afraid I might actually analyze your "solution" to see if it's a fantasy or not.

RayAmerica   Sat, 7 May 2011, 6:57am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 16

iwog says

Really? Then it should be mind-numbingly easy to post a link to your explanation.
That is unless you’re afraid I might actually analyze your “solution” to see if it’s a fantasy or not.

marcus says

Seriously Ray, enlighten us with what should have been done. Please keep in mind that states and municipalities, and the fed were and are all basically broke, so any policy that decreases economic activity (and hence tax revenues) has to be very well explained.

RayAmerica says

I believe you have, or at least others have, asked me this question in a variety of ways before. As I have stated before, I strongly believe we need to cleanse the economy of a lot of wrongheaded policies that have led us, over several decades (if not longer) to this mess that we find ourselves in.
If I were King: End the colonialism that has become U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. End our “Israel or nothing” approach to the region. Close down the vast majority of armed forces bases throughout the world and bring home the troops. End both involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drastically cut military spending, including a dramatic reduction in the size of our Navy. Drastically cut government programs across the board. Eliminate entirely the Department of Education. End virtually all welfare for able bodied recipients. If they are going to be on the public dole, they’ll have to perform some type of public service to earn it, even if that means cleaning parks, streets, etc. Do whatever is necessary to balance the budget and begin to reduce the debt. Immediately end ALL earmarks connected to legislation. Drastically reduce foreign aid. Bring government salaries more in line with the private sector. Enforce all illegal immigration laws, particularly when it comes to employers. Illegal immigrants that are taking jobs from American citizens must stop. Work to end the “anchor baby” laws that currently exist. Secure the border, in particular the southern border with Mexico. By becoming less dependent on foreign loans in which to operate our government, we will be able to effectively negotiate trade policies that are fair and balanced. Develop an energy policy with long term goals, especially alternative fuels, along with a vast expansion of nuclear energy plants. Reinstate the Glass Stegal Act. End all bailouts with taxpayers’ money to banks, Wall Street, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. Allow the housing market to cleanse itself via natural market forces without government support or intervention. Cut taxes (along with capital gains, estate taxes, etc.) commensurate with the cuts in the size of government spending AFTER the budget is balanced and the national debt is vastly reduced.That’s just off the top of my head …

http://patrick.net/?p=534025

RayAmerica   Sat, 7 May 2011, 7:15am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

To the above post, Iwog would counter with "just raise taxes." LOL

iwog   Sun, 8 May 2011, 1:12am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

No, I've already answered the above post. If you get everything you want, you still run a $1 trillion rapidly expanding deficit. Your "solution" is a joke and demonstrates the fact that you have no understanding of the problem.

elliemae   Sun, 8 May 2011, 1:39am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 19

Rayray asks if we pay enough taxes. I do. He obviously doesn't.

RayAmerica   Sun, 8 May 2011, 2:24am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

iwog says

No, I’ve already answered the above post. If you get everything you want, you still run a $1 trillion rapidly expanding deficit. Your “solution” is a joke and demonstrates the fact that you have no understanding of the problem.

I got it. Your solution is to keep spending at the levels we are currently at, and raise taxes in order to encourage more government expansion. Of course, in the past, you've also recommended printing fiat money on a massive scale (QE 1, 2, 3, 4, into infinity), so much so, that it would reach YOUR desired HYPERINFLATION. The fact that such a scenario would wipe out all pensions, savings accounts, retired people on fixed incomes, etc. is "collateral damage," right? And then you have the audacity to call my solution a "joke?"

iwog   Sun, 8 May 2011, 2:37am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 21

RayAmerica says

I got it. Your solution is to keep spending at the levels we are currently at, and raise taxes in order to encourage more government expansion. Of course, in the past, you’ve also recommended printing fiat money on a massive scale (QE 1, 2, 3, 4, into infinity), so much so, that it would reach YOUR desired HYPERINFLATION. The fact that such a scenario would wipe out all pensions, savings accounts, retired people on fixed incomes, etc. is “collateral damage,” right? And they you have the audacity to call my solution a “joke?”

Please stop calling it a solution without quotes. You don't offer a solution, in fact I proved WITH LINKS TO EVERY RELEVANT BUDGETARY ITEM that your "solution" is nothing of the sort. It's an unqualified failure that cannot work and doesn't address the problem at all, yet it's pretty much a match for what all the other Teabaggers are advocating.

My solution is a comprehensive one and actually balances the budget. I want to return our tax rates back to what they were in 1993 and that includes the estate tax. (nothing so radical as 1980, 1970, 1960, or 1950 or as you call it "The American Dark Ages") I want to reform medical care in our country to resemble Canada, where they spend half as much and live two years longer than we do. Finally I want to monetize some of our debt and devalue the dollar in such a way that it redistributes wealth to those who will spend it and create demand and jobs.

Unlike anything you've ever proposed, this would actually work. Furthermore the almost instantaneous improvement to our balance sheet and strong growth in our industry would strengthen the dollar at the same time that controlled devaluation would be weakening it. China has been pursuing this exact same policy and for some strange reason that you could never understand they are NOT turning into Weimar Germany.

THAT is a solution. You don't even comprehend the problem.

RayAmerica   Sun, 8 May 2011, 3:09am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

iwog says

Finally I want to monetize some of our debt and devalue the dollar in such a way that it redistributes wealth to those who will spend it and create demand and jobs.

Utter, complete nonsense. It will do nothing of the sort. QE1 & QE2 has had no such effect as you claim, but, according to your illogical position, let's do more of the same. LOL

bdrasin   Sun, 8 May 2011, 3:13am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

Do we pay enough taxes? Obviously not, in comparison to what we spend, which is the only relevant yardstick. Otherwise we wouldn't have a budget deficit. Duh.

RayAmerica   Sun, 8 May 2011, 3:20am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 24

In two years, Obama has increased the national debt by 50%. The reckless, big spender Bush needed 8 years to accomplish that amazing feat. Iwog's "solution" is to give more money to these reckless big spenders by dramatically increasing taxes. He also advocates the insane policy of monetizing the debt by massive printing of U.S. Dollars. How does that affect you? By creating the "silent tax" of inflation. Everyone that has any investment or savings that is denominated in U.S. Dollars will suffer accordingly. People like Iwog WANT hyperinflation because Iwog is heavily in debt with his real estate investment properties (by his own admission). What he wants is an inflated U.S. Dollar so that he can pay off his fixed real estate loans with cheap, hyper inflated currency. A diminished dollar rewards those that are heavily in debt (Iwog), and punishes those that have savings, investments, pensions, etc. denominated in U.S. Dollars.

iwog   Sun, 8 May 2011, 10:55am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

Ray, stop running and provide a plan to balance the budget.

Your earlier attempt was a silly joke and barely even scratched the surface. Do you have an actual idea or was I correct when I said you don't even understand the problem let alone offer any solutions?

iwog   Sun, 8 May 2011, 10:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

RayAmerica says

Utter, complete nonsense. It will do nothing of the sort. QE1 & QE2 has had no such effect as you claim, but, according to your illogical position, let’s do more of the same. LOL

It did exactly what I claimed. It monetized the debt. Oh sure the debt does technically still exist on the fed's books, but the effect is still the same.

Why would you claim something isn't true when it very clearly is true? QE2 printed $600 billion that was NOT BORROWED from elsewhere, and distributed it via entitlements to people who spend it. Doesn't it bother you that you have so poor a grasp on the economy that you can't even see this simple truth?

HousingWatcher   Sun, 8 May 2011, 10:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 27

Ray, you still have not listed the spending you would cut in order to close the budget deficit. Even with your porposed spending cuts liek defense and earmarks, you would still have over $1 trillion in deficits. But don't worry, you can use this tool to balance the budget. Once you balance the budget, post a link to your proposal so we can all see it:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

DeficitHawk   Sun, 8 May 2011, 12:25pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

HW, thanks for the link.

I know nobody asked me, but here is my solution ;-)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=821vj419

RayAmerica   Sun, 8 May 2011, 12:39pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

iwog says

Why would you claim something isn’t true when it very clearly is true? QE2 printed $600 billion that was NOT BORROWED from elsewhere, and distributed it via entitlements to people who spend it.

This comes from the wannabe "economist" Iwog the Duck. The very same Duck that thought it would be a great idea to print up tons of paper money and distribute it to every American "in order to get the economy moving again." And how much did he propose to simply give away? First it was $25,000. Then he amended it to $50,000. Why don't we just all use Monopoly money and save all the paper and ink?

DeficitHawk   Sun, 8 May 2011, 12:46pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 30

Monopoly money uses paper and ink too...

marcus   Sun, 8 May 2011, 2:13pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

HousingWatcher says

Once you balance the budget, post a link to your proposal so we can all see it:

That's some scary browser based software there. Ray would do it if he could only figure out how to work it.

iwog   Sun, 8 May 2011, 2:53pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

RayAmerica says

This comes from the wannabe “economist” Iwog the Duck. The very same Duck that thought it would be a great idea to print up tons of paper money and distribute it to every American “in order to get the economy moving again.” And how much did he propose to simply give away? First it was $25,000. Then he amended it to $50,000. Why don’t we just all use Monopoly money and save all the paper and ink?

This is always what it comes down to with you Ray. No facts, no examples, no solutions, no radical plan to balance the budget, no rebuttal, nothing but a personal attack.

It's time to admit you don't know how to fix the economic problems of the United States and start listening to people who do. I wouldn't really care, however your votes and the votes of people like you are destroying the country.

The Republican budget contained $80 billion in cuts in a $1.5 trillion deficit, and their reckless tax cuts signed by Obama reduced revenue by more than that. Neither party can fix this, but at least the Democrats are eventually going to do the right thing and sacrifice the dollar. Given a long enough leash, the Republicans are going to strip you of your Social Security, end your Medicare, and dump you in the street if it would put another dollar in a billionaire's pocket.

American in Japan   Sun, 8 May 2011, 11:25pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 33

@Ray

>"If I were King: End the colonialism that has become U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. End our “Israel or nothing” approach to the region. Close down the vast majority of armed forces bases throughout the world and bring home the troops. End both involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drastically cut military spending, including a dramatic reduction in the size of our Navy."

You do realize that if someone like McCain or Palin were president, this would have about as much chance of happening as $%$%&$...

zzyzzx   Mon, 9 May 2011, 12:46am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

I think besides out of control spending, the other big problem is that about half the people out there don't pay income taxes. Everybody should pay something.

FortWayne   Mon, 9 May 2011, 1:07am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

iwog says

Finally I want to monetize some of our debt and devalue the dollar in such a way that it redistributes wealth to those who will spend it and create demand and jobs.

I hear Zimbabwe wasn't that fun to live in when their currency got devalued.

If our currency devalues, we will not be the financial powerhouse of the world. That would be a disaster.

iwog   Mon, 9 May 2011, 1:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 36

ChrisLA says

I hear Zimbabwe wasn’t that fun to live in when their currency got devalued.

If our currency devalues, we will not be the financial powerhouse of the world. That would be a disaster.

We aren't Zimbabwe.

In case you haven't noticed, even trillions of dollars in printing hasn't moved the value of the dollar much and interest rates are some of the lowest in the world. In fact in the last few days the dollar has rebounded (again) after failing to even surpass previous lows.

The United States devaluation has nothing on Japan, yet Japan didn't turn into Zimbabwe either. Doesn't it bother you that real world examples totally contradict your narrative?

RayAmerica   Mon, 9 May 2011, 2:08am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 37

American in Japan says

You do realize that if someone like McCain or Palin were president, this would have about as much chance of happening as $%$%&$…

Of course. That's precisely why the American people have to wake up to the fact that there is a power structure in place that is in complete control of our foreign policies. I just finished an excellent, short book by Chalmers Johnson; "Dismantling of Empire: America's Last Best Hope." I highly recommend this book. BTW, Johnson definitely leans to the left. What we really have in this country is an Oligarchy in which both parties have morphed into one, elite ruling class. Have you noticed Obama (Mr. Hope & Change) has not only kept intact Bush's foreign policies, but has actually expanded them?

RayAmerica   Mon, 9 May 2011, 2:10am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

iwog says

Neither party can fix this, but at least the Democrats are eventually going to do the right thing and sacrifice the dollar.

Neither party has the political will to fix this. On that you are correct. Your glee over the sacrifice of the dollar is astounding (but not for you).

iwog   Mon, 9 May 2011, 2:21am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 39

RayAmerica says

Neither party has the political will to fix this. On that you are correct. Your glee over the sacrifice of the dollar is astounding (but not for you).

There isn't any other way out Ray. Isn't it about time that you stopped acting like a child and started looking at THE ENTIRE PROBLEM instead of small parts of it?

You're stuck in this incredibly pointless logic loop:

Ray: We're screwed because the dollar is going to crash.
Iwog: That's the only way out.
Ray: We'll be Zimbabwe and you suck.
Iwog: What would you do?
Ray: I'd cut spending by an amount that can't possibly balance the budget.
Iwog: That would do nothing.
Ray: So what would you do?
Iwog: I'd do X, Y, and Z and print money.
Ray: We're screwed because the dollar is going to crash.

RayAmerica   Mon, 9 May 2011, 2:41am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 40

iwog says

Ray: I’d cut spending by an amount that can’t possibly balance the budget.
Iwog: That would do nothing.

Iwog fails to understand (this is really getting old) that EXCESSIVE spending got us into this mess, and yet, he thinks making massive cuts in spending will "do nothing."

I've consistently said this is a long term process that will take years to correct. Iwog just wants to trash the dollar by printing money. His approach is so incredibly simplistic, I'm having a hard time believing he's serious. Iwog .... are you one of the dreaded "trolls?"

For a mature look into why we can't simply "inflate our way out of our debt crisis," check this out:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-we-cant-inflate-our-way-out-of-debt.html

FortWayne   Mon, 9 May 2011, 2:59am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 41

iwog says

We aren’t Zimbabwe.

In case you haven’t noticed, even trillions of dollars in printing hasn’t moved the value of the dollar much and interest rates are some of the lowest in the world. In fact in the last few days the dollar has rebounded (again) after failing to even surpass previous lows.

What trillions of dollars? We are in debt, we aren't actually printing them and dropping them in helicopters. Our nations prosperity is pegged to the dollar, if it goes away we may and will lose our status as a reserve currency and at that point we might as well be zimbabwe.

I like to use Zimbabwe because they are a very clear reason to not inflate, but there are many other times and many other countries where government has tried to devaluate currencies and it always turned out in disaster. Free market is the best market control for currency valuation.

FortWayne   Mon, 9 May 2011, 3:02am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 42

thunderlips11 says

This graph is an indication that Clinton inherited a great Economy. I can't give Clinton credit for good economy (since it is inherited) as much as I can't give Obama blame for economic collapse.

RayAmerica   Mon, 9 May 2011, 3:19am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 43

Clinton's "surplus" must be taken in context of how it happened. Much of the long term debt was re-financed into short term, riskier loans that had lower interest rates. The Cold War ended, allowing massive cuts in military spending. Clinton also shifted much of the welfare obligations onto the states. The economy, fueled by massive personal & corporate debt, grew for the short term which increased tax revenues. Having said all that, Clinton does deserve credit for at least attempting to reduce government spending, unlike the following two presidents (Bush & Obama). Clinton did have the GOP congress to deal with after his first mid-term election. Bush has zero excuse due to the fact that he had a GOP congress for six years.

iwog   Mon, 9 May 2011, 3:29am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 44

ChrisLA says

Free market is the best market control for currency valuation.

Right, just like the free market was the best market to control real estate.

Again......reality NEVER conforms to your right-wing religious dogma.

iwog   Mon, 9 May 2011, 3:31am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 45

ChrisLA says

What trillions of dollars? We are in debt, we aren’t actually printing them and dropping them in helicopters.

Yes we are. QE is the act of printing money, buying up government debt, and allowing the government to spend the newly printed money into the economy.

bubblesitter   Mon, 9 May 2011, 3:33am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 46

iwog says

ChrisLA says

What trillions of dollars? We are in debt, we aren’t actually printing them and dropping them in helicopters.

Yes we are. QE is the act of printing money, buying up government debt, and allowing the government to spend the newly printed money into the economy.

..with the expectation of making money in the end, which may not be sweet if it does not turn out that way.

iwog   Mon, 9 May 2011, 3:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 47

RayAmerica says

Iwog fails to understand (this is really getting old) that EXCESSIVE spending got us into this mess, and yet, he thinks making massive cuts in spending will “do nothing.”

You mean the "massive cuts" in spending that you proposed? $500 billion? That's 13% of the budget Ray. That doesn't even cover a 5-year increase in entitlement spending.

Of course it does nothing.

HousingWatcher   Mon, 9 May 2011, 5:39am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 48

If de-valuing our currency is so bad Chris, then why has it worked so well for China?

bob2356   Mon, 9 May 2011, 5:39am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 49

iwog says

In case you haven’t noticed, even trillions of dollars in printing hasn’t moved the value of the dollar much

Really? Then why can I buy dollars so cheaply? As much as a 30% discount from 3 years ago in a lot of currencies other than the Euro (which no one believes is going to survive the disaster that is looming).

bob2356   Mon, 9 May 2011, 5:52am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 50

RayAmerica says

allowing massive cuts in military spending

What massive cuts was that? Military spending dropped less than 5% from the peak in 1990 to the trough in 1998. So what does this matter anyway? The federal budget continued to grow every single year.

RayAmerica says

The economy, fueled by massive personal & corporate debt, grew for the short term which increased tax revenues.

The economy grew in the 90's because of the revolution in computers and the crash of oil prices. Massive personal and corporate date fueled growth was the 2000's. Please get your history correct at least once and a while.

RayAmerica   Mon, 9 May 2011, 6:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 51

Hi Bob ... Churchill once said: "It is futile to argue with a man that is irrational." Have you noticed I usually don't bother answering your posts? The aforementioned quote should give you a hint as to why that is.

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »

RayAmerica is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net