If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com>, MrPepper11 wrote:
> Los Angeles Times > March 10, 2005 > > Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates Once again we see the result of the monies we pay for things we want being taken for other things so that more taxes can raised under the guise of being for what we want. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Rick wrote:
> Yep. Bush is doing exactly what Reagan did -- advertising federal > income tax cuts while increasing and making new taxes everywhere > else. I bet the American people fall for it -- again. If income taxes really disappeared, this would be good thing. I would rather control my consumption to avoid taxation than limit my income. The problem is income taxes aren't going to go anywhere. What's worse about it is that an ever greater percentage of people don't pay significant federal income taxes as it is. (roughly the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the federal income taxes) Thusly they will vote to keep the income tax and for increases in it to pay for stuff they benefit from. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Rick wrote: > > >>Yep. Bush is doing exactly what Reagan did -- advertising federal >>income tax cuts while increasing and making new taxes everywhere >>else. I bet the American people fall for it -- again. > > > If income taxes really disappeared, this would be good thing. I would > rather control my consumption to avoid taxation than limit my income. > > The problem is income taxes aren't going to go anywhere. What's worse > about it is that an ever greater percentage of people don't pay > significant federal income taxes as it is. (roughly the top 50% of wage > earners pay 96% of the federal income taxes) Thusly they will vote to > keep the income tax and for increases in it to pay for stuff they > benefit from. > > > Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation. Rush Limbaugh has a permanent spot on his web site with this data but he also ignores that little detail. -- To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Rick wrote: > "MrPepper11" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Los Angeles Times > > March 10, 2005 > > > > Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates > > Legislation backed by the Bush administration would let states charge > > drivers fees to fund new highways or to reduce rush-hour traffic. > > By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer > > > > WASHINGTON - With traffic congestion growing worse - and state and > > federal budgets as red as the brake lights from cars backed up on a Los > > Angeles freeway - Congress is moving toward relaxing a decades-old > > restriction on tolls on interstate highways. > > > > The legislation, backed by the Bush administration, would give states > > greater authority to impose tolls to reduce gridlock. > > Yep. Bush is doing exactly what Reagan did -- advertising federal > income tax cuts while increasing and making new taxes everywhere > else. I bet the American people fall for it -- again. it's privatization... next: they'll put a toll booth on your driveway, payable to the republican national committee... damn tax-and-spend liberal democrats!!! oops |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Rod Speed wrote:
> Magnulus > wrote in message > .. . > >> Why not jus tax fuel > > Because it makes a lot more sense to be taxing those who use those > interstates. You're wrong. > >> I think it would be more transparent than >> putting a tax on driving on certain roads. > > You're wrong. You're wrong. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article > , George Grapman wrote:
> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable > wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation. Rush > Limbaugh has a permanent spot on his web site with this data but he also > ignores that little detail. Even if so, I don't see how that invalidates the theme of it. Or how I used it. Sure there maybe a few people that have little or no taxable wages and make a ton in capitial gains or some such that they pay taxes on, but I would guess they are too few to bust the basic theme. In fact, such people would reinforce my point that it is dangerous where only some people are carrying the tax burden. It allows that large segment of the population to take at will from those that are paying. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
>I would
>rather control my consumption to avoid taxation than limit my income. Me too |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote:
> In article > , George Grapman wrote: > > >> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable >>wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation. Rush >>Limbaugh has a permanent spot on his web site with this data but he also >>ignores that little detail. > > > Even if so, I don't see how that invalidates the theme of it. Or how I > used it. Sure there maybe a few people that have little or no taxable > wages and make a ton in capitial gains or some such that they pay taxes on, > but I would guess they are too few to bust the basic theme. In fact, > such people would reinforce my point that it is dangerous where only > some people are carrying the tax burden. It allows that large segment of > the population to take at will from those that are paying. > > > > You assume that money of those paying were never on the receiving end. Those who were self-made often availed themselves of an array of government programs from education to transportation.Those who inherited money use everything from police and fire protection to the FDIC. -- To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Rick wrote: > > >>Yep. Bush is doing exactly what Reagan did -- advertising federal >>income tax cuts while increasing and making new taxes everywhere >>else. I bet the American people fall for it -- again. > > > If income taxes really disappeared, this would be good thing. I would > rather control my consumption to avoid taxation than limit my income. same here. doesnt seem like a major issue. and big spenders will always be so. > > The problem is income taxes aren't going to go anywhere. What's worse > about it is that an ever greater percentage of people don't pay > significant federal income taxes as it is. (roughly the top 50% of wage > earners pay 96% of the federal income taxes) Thusly they will vote to > keep the income tax and for increases in it to pay for stuff they > benefit from. the way i understand it is that it would start out with a consumption tax replacing the income tax. then, of course, theyd gradually add a "small" income tax, then make it bigger, etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|