Global warming hoax fools millions

jem · Sep 17, 2010

I am afraid that it will be 200 trillion within a decade or so, unless we get everyone out of our Congress peoples pocket.

We have to got to a flat tax with, stop the bailouts and stop the subsidies.

We are gettting screwed because everyone is buying our politicians on the left and the right.

do you know that the goal of many of small to medium size technology companies is to get a government contract. I meet a lot of owners of small tech companies in San Diego, they are always talking about govt contracts.

Its like going public to the founders. Our tech companies are focusing on things they sell to the government or service for the govt.

Even the bigger tech companies come hunting for the smaller tech companies when ther are govt contracts to be secured.

200 trillion --- not far fetched at all just look of the slope of the deficit chart... its going vertical.

bigdavediode · Sep 17, 2010

Quote from jem:

I am afraid that it will be 200 trillion within a decade or so, unless we get everyone out of our Congress peoples pocket.

We have to got to a flat tax with, stop the bailouts and stop the subsidies.

[/B]

Ah, so by 2020 the debt will be a fifth of a quadrillion dollars unless we implement a flat tax.

Any thoughts as to why the CBO projects reduced deficits over the next few years? And thoughts as to why studies of flat taxes show that they will typically increase the deficit and make things worse?

hermit · Sep 17, 2010

Quote from bigdavediode:

Ah, so by 2020 the debt will be a fifth of a quadrillion dollars unless we implement a flat tax.

Any thoughts as to why the CBO projects reduced deficits over the next few years? And thoughts as to why studies of flat taxes show that they will typically increase the deficit and make things worse?

Don't tell me you are doing a Colbert here! :eek:

res judicata · Sep 17, 2010

Quote from bigdavediode:

Ah, so by 2020 the debt will be a fifth of a quadrillion dollars unless we implement a flat tax.

Any thoughts as to why the CBO projects reduced deficits over the next few years? And thoughts as to why studies of flat taxes show that they will typically increase the deficit and make things worse?

How pathetically partisan are you.

How could any of studies be responsive to my statement (jem on different computer) when I did not even state the level of a flat tax.

you think it good to allow politicians to play around with the tax code on behalf of the people lobbying them?

bigdavediode · Sep 17, 2010

Quote from res judicata:

How pathetically partisan are you.

How could any of studies be responsive to my statement (jem on different computer) when I did not even state the level of a flat tax.

Thus the word "typically" -- flat taxes typically make things worse, not better. Or are you wanting the debt to be above the full one quadrillion dollars in forty years? Remember, you state that the debt will be 1/5th of a quadrillion dollars in only ten years and with compounding it will easily exceed one quadrillion dollars in forty years.

you think it good to allow politicians to play around with the tax code on behalf of the people lobbying them?

I think it's adorable that you believe that a flat tax solves human nature.

Lucrum · Sep 17, 2010

Quote from bigdavediode:

... flat taxes typically make things worse, not better.

Hows that? And don't tell me revenues will decline. That would only be true if the RATE of the flat tax was too low, which it need not be.

I think it's adorable that you believe that a flat tax solves human nature.

More...

I think it's deplorable anyone could actually oppose a flat tax. What exactly are you/they afraid of?

bigdavediode · Sep 17, 2010

Quote from Lucrum:

Hows that? And don't tell me revenues will decline. That would only be true if the RATE of the flat tax was too low, which it need not be.

I think it's deplorable anyone could actually oppose a flat tax. What exactly are you/they afraid of?

I'm afraid of Republicans experimenting with stuff that has never been tested anywhere else in the world. Every few years Republicans come up with some great new idea which has only ever worked in theory. You come up with a few example countries which have successfully tried this despite the studies that say that to keep a flat tax revenue neutral requires a rate of GREATER THAN 23% on all income, no deductions, for everybody. No thanks.

Lucrum · Sep 17, 2010

Quote from bigdavediode:

I'm afraid of Republicans experimenting with stuff that has never been tested anywhere else in the world. Every few years Republicans come up with some great new idea which has only ever worked in theory. You come up with a few example countries which have successfully tried this despite the studies that say that to keep a flat tax revenue neutral requires a rate of GREATER THAN 23% on all income, no deductions, for everybody. No thanks.

Sounds like in part you're opposed simply because it's a Republican thing. (Sounds like something I'd do if it was a liberal idea.)

That said, I still don't get why a revenue neutral simplified tax is so scary, regardless of who's idea it is. If on average the tax payers are still paying the same taxes, without all the complicated forms, hours of preparation, tax laws, tax software, tax accountants, deductions etc. etc. etc. then whats the problem? I can only think of two types of people who would not be interested in a tax system overhaul. Politicians who try to control our behavior with tax codes. And tax accountant/attorneys who would have to find something productive to do.

If Joe Tax Payer pays say $15,000 federal tax under the current chaotic cumbersome ridiculously complicated system. And would still pay more or less $15,000 under a simplified system with out all the headaches. What was your problem again? The republican's thought of it?

bigdavediode · Sep 18, 2010

Quote from Lucrum:

Sounds like in part you're opposed simply because it's a Republican thing. (Sounds like something I'd do if it was a liberal idea.)

No, it doesn't sound like in part that I'm opposed to it because it's a Republican idea. I'm opposed to it because it's an untenable idea and it's yet another of the great Republican theories of how-things-ought-to-be.

If Joe Tax Payer pays say $15,000 federal tax under the current chaotic cumbersome ridiculously complicated system. And would still pay more or less $15,000 under a simplified system with out all the headaches. What was your problem again? The republican's thought of it?

What you just described is impossible. How can a flat tax lower the amount paid (because there's no capital gains anymore) and still bring in the same amount of revenue? Answer: it can't.

jem · Sep 18, 2010

big dave - do you really have the studies you are talking abuout. could you provide a link so I could examine their assumptions.

I just did research.

There are former eastern block countries like lithuania with a flat tax and their flat tax raised revenues.