Jump to content





Photo
* - - - - 3 votes

Heritage foundation reporting amnesty would cost $6.3T to deficit


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
64 replies to this topic

#13 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,155
  • Reputation: 2,343
HUDDLER

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:18 AM

How much are we talking?  What exactly are the tax increases?  What exactly are the spending increases?

 

Short answer is yes, I would be willing to pay more in taxes.



#14 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    Blazing Trails Thru the NFC South

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,261
  • Reputation: 4,530
HUDDLER

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:36 AM

Any of you posting in this thread willing to have your taxes increased to pay for this? (serious question).

 

I thought not.

 

Easy to sit back and take a philanthropic stance when you have no skin in the game.

 

I am all for amnesty....if we raise everyone's taxes 5% to help pay for it.  Then let's see how many of you bleeding heart liberals change your tune.

 

Moonbeam Brown asked the voters of California to raise their own taxes last election, and these idiots passed it. So yeah, you get enough people on the benefits and you get the vote needed. 

For instance the sales tax rate in Los Angeles is 9%.



#15 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,274
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:48 AM

California has a majority of moochers.  Of course it passed.

 

People will always vote themselves freebies.

 

 



#16 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 25,721
  • Reputation: 6,844
Moderators

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:52 AM

California has a majority of moochers.  Of course it passed.

 

People will always vote themselves freebies.

 

Those that live in glass houses...of course you never vote for the politician that promises to give you the most.



#17 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,274
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:57 AM

Those that live in glass houses...of course you never vote for the politician that promises to give you the most.

 

If I were to vote for who gives me more...it would be liberal wanks.  I'm not rich.  I'm content.



#18 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 25,721
  • Reputation: 6,844
Moderators

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:57 AM

If I were to vote for who gives me more...it would be liberal wanks.  I'm not rich.  I'm content.

 

liar



#19 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,975
  • Reputation: 9,705
SUPPORTER

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:58 AM

I asked a serious question....then put what I think the avg response will be.

 

I am very interested in knowing whether those that continuously support every liberal/socialist agenda is really willing to have their taxes increased to pay for it.  It is easy to sit on the sidelines and support things that you don't have to pay for.

 

That is the equivalent to me pleding $1M to charity (making myself feel good about how generous and caring I am).....but at the same time expecting my neighbor to be the one to actually make the financial contribution.

 

If you raised the capital gains tax to be more in line with the income tax and reigned in profit transferring so we could actually collect taxes from extremely profitable companies that are paying zero taxes because they are reporting all of their profits in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands , than you wouldn't have to raise my taxes.

 

And I don't view that as punishing the rich.  I don't think creating a way to close loopholes that allow major companies to avoid paying any taxes at all is punishment.  I don't think preventing a guy making million dollars a year off of interest pay a significantly lower tax than everyone else is punishment.  I think that would just make sense.



#20 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,274
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:59 AM

No lie.



#21 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:08 PM

No real ax to grind on this but I would expect the average life expectancy over the next 50 years to rise quite a bit.

 

On a different note California is probably a good microcosm on illegal costs on an economy.

 

Delhommey, how is it Texas has such a massive number of illegals but such a robust economy?

 

Both California and Texas have diverse economies, but California bet more heavily on housing where as Texas doubled down on oil and energy wealth. If oil prices were slumping and housing prices high, you'd be seeing more articles asking why Texas can't be more like California.

 

Cali's decline is based more off of the housing slump and Texas' ascent with strong oil prices than anything having to do with illegals. That being said, Texas is a lot more welcoming to Mexicans (legal and illegal) than California and is light years ahead regarding assimilation.



#22 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:13 PM

If you raised the capital gains tax to be more in line with the income tax and reigned in profit transferring so we could actually collect taxes from extremely profitable companies that are paying zero taxes because they are reporting all of their profits in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands , than you wouldn't have to raise my taxes.

 

And I don't view that as punishing the rich.  I don't think creating a way to close loopholes that allow major companies to avoid paying any taxes at all is punishment.  I don't think preventing a guy making million dollars a year off of interest pay a significantly lower tax than everyone else is punishment.  I think that would just make sense.

 

That's the thing: No one's asking to soak the rich in the US. They're just asking that the rich play by the same rules as everyone else.



#23 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,274
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:28 PM

943339_10152036153224657_1694335441_n.jp



#24 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:35 PM

943339_10152036153224657_1694335441_n.jp

 

 

 

50% eh? I thought most of us had moved past that bad info.