There has sure been a lot of whining about taxes in the last few years. Lawmakers don't want to raise taxes, citizens don't want to pay taxes, and a few fringe groups want to do away with taxes altogether. Perhaps these misguided people have forgotten some things:
1. If you want roads, schools, and bridges... you have to pay for them
2. If you want armed forces to protect your country...you have to pay for them.
3. If want police, courts of law, and a justice system...you have to pay for them.
...and the list goes on. If people would spend a little more effort focusing on reducing wasteful government spending habits, rather than whining about there taxes, perhaps less tax revenue would be needed. 😏
In my opinion, if we are really serious about reducing the size of government, then identifying and eliminating "wasteful" govt spending is like spitting in the wind since very little of the budget is discretionary spending.
Instead if smaller government is the goal, then as a country, we would have to make significant reductions to our entitlement programs. Unless people want to dramatically down-size SS, Medicaid (and to an extent Medicare as well), and government subsidized health insurance, the govt is going to have to keep raising tax revenue to pay for them.
While everyone loves to whine about paying their taxes, the enormity of the entitlement programs shows that America likes really wants a large government. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but we can't then pitch a fit when we have to pay for it.
Thread 128664
Originally posted by zeeblebot
the legislature could meet one month a year for business that comes up during the year, and one year in 10 for business that can wait 10 years, which is likely most of it.
we don't need to be improving government most every month of the year.
and why do the citizens need to pay for legislative caucuses?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28918
Originally posted by zeeblebotPrivate companies are Ferraris? Like GM? AIG? Enron? Country-Wide?
where are the productivity improvements in government?
why are our local/state/federal govts still Model T's while our private companies are GTs, minivans, and Ferraris?
Originally posted by bill718Of course if you want something you have to pay for it. If I want a sandwich I have to pay for it too. The question is should the sandwich shop be a vehicle for income redistribution? Its never been that way. All people pay the same price at the sandwich shop.
There has sure been a lot of whining about taxes in the last few years. Lawmakers don't want to raise taxes, citizens don't want to pay taxes, and a few fringe groups want to do away with taxes altogether. Perhaps these misguided people have forgotten some things:
1. If you want roads, schools, and bridges... you have to pay for them
2. If you want arm ...[text shortened]... ng habits, rather than whining about there taxes, perhaps less tax revenue would be needed. 😏
I think people are sick of having fewer deductions, higher tax rates and getting worse service. There is a point where you pay enough and more and more people feel we have reached that point are tired of paying for more and more programs.
Originally posted by bill7181. If you want roads, schools, and bridges... you have to pay for them
There has sure been a lot of whining about taxes in the last few years. Lawmakers don't want to raise taxes, citizens don't want to pay taxes, and a few fringe groups want to do away with taxes altogether. Perhaps these misguided people have forgotten some things:
1. If you want roads, schools, and bridges... you have to pay for them
2. If you want arm ...[text shortened]... ng habits, rather than whining about there taxes, perhaps less tax revenue would be needed. 😏
2. If you want armed forces to protect your country...you have to pay for them.
3. If want police, courts of law, and a justice system...you have to pay for them.
We do pay for these things w/our taxes. I don't here anybody "whining" about this.
The "whining" as you say is about NEW taxes for wasteful things such as the proposed "cap and trade" and Obamacare.
Originally posted by quackquackPerhaps sandwich shops should be vehicles for income redistribution. David Tepper should have to pay $1,000,000 for a sandwich.
Of course if you want something you have to pay for it. If I want a sandwich I have to pay for it too. The question is should the sandwich shop be a vehicle for income redistribution? Its never been that way. All people pay the same price at the sandwich shop.
I think people are sick of having fewer deductions, higher tax rates and getting worse s ...[text shortened]... and more people feel we have reached that point are tired of paying for more and more programs.
Originally posted by bill718Do the bulk of our taxes go to fund schools, bridges, and roads? No. However, a large percentage goes towards defense. The other big three expenditures go towards Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. Since nothing can be done about the interest on the debt, other than lowering the debt, that leaves cutting Social Security and/or Medicaid/medicare and/or defense.
There has sure been a lot of whining about taxes in the last few years. Lawmakers don't want to raise taxes, citizens don't want to pay taxes, and a few fringe groups want to do away with taxes altogether. Perhaps these misguided people have forgotten some things:
1. If you want roads, schools, and bridges... you have to pay for them
2. If you want arm ...[text shortened]... ng habits, rather than whining about there taxes, perhaps less tax revenue would be needed. 😏
Of course, its hard to lower defense expenditures when you are waging war half way around the globe as well as conducting a never ending war on terrorism. I used to hear a lot of people on the left complain about our troops over seas when "W" was in office, but now they seem to be all for it with Obama in power. Having said that, those on the left only seem to whine about spending on defense historically. All other expenditures are off the table. Those on the right, however, continue to complain about the entitlements. "W" tried to reform Social Security but was tarred and feathered. Then Obama came along and increased our entitlement obligations which instigated even more complaining.
As for myself, I would pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and erradicate social security altogether. I feel as though free health care for the elderly should be enough to help those in retirement. Those who are healthy should be able to fend for themselves. Am I wrong?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28918
Originally posted by whodeyRun on that platform - please (see how few Republican votes you get.)
Do the bulk of our taxes go to fund schools, bridges, and roads? No. However, a large percentage goes towards defense. The other big three expenditures go towards Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. Since nothing can be done about the interest on the debt, other than lowering the debt, that leaves cutting Social Security and/or M ...[text shortened]... se in retirement. Those who are healthy should be able to fend for themselves. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by TerrierJackI've said many times over again that what needs to be done is raise taxes and lower entitlements. Just like the credit crisis indicates, Americans enjoy living beyond their means. However, no one has the heart to tell them as much. Both Barak and "W" continued the spending game with lower taxes, only, Barak will now slowly begin to raise our taxes. Lucky for him, the taxes will not take their full effect until after the 2012 election, then what does he care? The bad part is that he has expanded entitlements so the increased money flowing in will probably have little effect in terms of debt reduction. In fact, I fully expect Obamacare to get out of control past the 10 year of implemtation mark and so do the Dems. Then they can move in once again and demand "change you can believe in" by proposing a single payer system.
Run on that platform - please (see how few Republican votes you get.)