• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

mgk920 said:
Also, unlike many others in here, I will *never* blame inanimate objects for the damage done when someone misuses them. Period.

Mike
Click to expand...

I don't blame the object, I blame the human. That doesn't stop me from understanding that if the object wasn't readily available, the human might not have had the opportunity to fulfill their sick fantasy.

The inanimate object argument is the weakest of all anti-gun control arguments there are. "You don't blame the car when it hits someone...." You are right, but cars have a purpose that is beyond killing things. Guns are made for the sole purpose of shooting things. You can argue that some are to kill animals that are overpopulated. Some are to shoot at a range.

The inanimate object though is created to shoot at thing. The biggest difference between a gun and a spoon is that there is a primarily positive use for a spoon. No such use exists for a gun except for the pleasure it brings the shooter.

I would even argue that a hatchet (which can be used quite easily to kill) has a primarily positive use which is to cut wood. A knife? Cut food. Please tell me what the purpose or use of a gun is outside of shooting something? And then explain to me that if it is for "sport" or "enjoyment", why you shouldn't be regulated like many other things that people do for "sport" or "enjoyment".... like walk around downtown naked and have sex in public 8-!

My issue is that weak arguments like this continue to stop the reasonable regulations that need to be put in place. Many republicans understand this needs to happen. Unfortunately there is the Hannity/Limbaugh/Tea Party crowd that is either too partisan, or too uneducated to understand the need.
 
I sometimes wish I was still naive on the mental health issue. Prior to 1995, my niece was a very intelligent but quite strange teenager. Looking back one sees signs of things not being right, but in the huge scale of humanness there isn't really much difference between a little weird and mental illness. On the day that McVeigh was sentenced to death things changed. She began beating her head against the wall and acting out violently. Some time later she was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and a couple of other things. Ever since then she acts exactly like every one of these people that snap and do harm to others. She has be passed from one institution to another since 1995. My mother and I are her co-guardians. Thankfully she has not been turned out into society like many others, but only because of constant vigilance by us. This country needs to spend real money on solving this. When there is no profit to be made, the mentally ill get very poor care. If you are a doctor or a drug maker, there isn't much incentive to work for people that have no income and rely on medicaid.

Do we need 30 round magazines, no. Will banning them do anything but make us feel like we are doing something? also no. Giving a teacher a weapon will not make them a Navy Seal. Having trained armed professionals in the schools makes some sense. If we care about safety we need to just spend the money. Kicking around the pro-gun V anti-gun agenda does nothing to solve the problem.
 
giff57 said:
I sometimes wish I was still naive on the mental health issue. Prior to 1995, my niece was a very intelligent but quite strange teenager. Looking back one sees signs of things not being right, but in the huge scale of humanness there isn't really much difference between a little weird and mental illness. On the day that McVeigh was sentenced to death things changed. She began beating her head against the wall and acting out violently. Some time later she was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and a couple of other things. Ever since then she acts exactly like every one of these people that snap and do harm to others. She has be passed from one institution to another since 1995. My mother and I are her co-guardians. Thankfully she has not been turned out into society like many others, but only because of constant vigilance by us. This country needs to spend real money on solving this. When there is no profit to be made, the mentally ill get very poor care. If you are a doctor or a drug maker, there isn't much incentive to work for people that have no income and rely on medicaid.

Do we need 30 round magazines, no. Will banning them do anything but make us feel like we are doing something? also no. Giving a teacher a weapon will not make them a Navy Seal. Having trained armed professionals in the schools makes some sense. If we care about safety we need to just spend the money. Kicking around the pro-gun V anti-gun agenda does nothing to solve the problem.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I also think that in terms of mental health, we need to better understand what might be causing people with metal issues to act that way. In addition to a nursing degree, my wife has a degree in bio-psychology, and she said that there are several foods and medications these days that include chemicals that have been scientifically proven to cause nervous and brain disorders but the EPA says that they are safe in small doses for 'most' people. Many of these chemicals can also damage our DNA, so even if our kids are not exposed to some things, they might still have issues as if they were.

Then there is the whole environmental thing. Something might be safe today but might not be safe tomorrow. Just look at how they did x-rays years back.
 
mgk920 said:
Also, unlike many others in here, I will *never* blame inanimate objects for the damage done when someone misuses them. Period.

Mike
Click to expand...

I agree with Hink that this is a very weak argument. And I don't see how advocating for more stringent gun control laws blames the gun. Guns don't apply for permits, people do.

Besides, the above can be said of explosives or cars or heavy machinery, including semi-trucks. And yet all of these require special training and licenses that are more onerous and require more time and education than guns. In fact, acquiring the materials necessary to create a bomb, for example, is highly regulated and very challenging to do in the wake of 9/11. Which is a good thing! Why such a contrast with guns and their acquisition?

The thing about guns in the schools. IMHO:

1) “Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” (from a well known 2004 American Journal of Epidemiology article)

If this is the case, why would having a gun in a school be safer? This is a high stress job for the adults who work there and having a gun about, regardless of the precautions, seems like tempting fate. How would it be secured? Is it conceal/carry? Could a child conceivably take a gun from a teacher? Could a teacher take it off campus? If its locked, how easy would it be to access in the event of an attack? What if the person(s) authorized to handle to firearm is also distraught, mentally ill or otherwise unstable (or becomes so)? If its hard to tell if a mentally ill person in the public at large is a threat, would it be any easier to detect among teachers?
 
wahday said:
1) “Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” (from a well known 2004 American Journal of Epidemiology article)

If this is the case, why would having a gun in a school be safer? ?
Click to expand...

This isn't about the safety of children. This is about th' fraydum of scared white men to have their inane cowboy fantasy, and to force their weird view of the world on the majority.

Enough is enough with the gun fetishists. Time to take back our country.
 
ColoGI said:
This isn't about the safety of children. This is about th' fraydum of scared white men to have their inane cowboy fantasy, and to force their weird view of the world on the majority.

Enough is enough with the gun fetishists. Time to take back our country.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. The number of households that have guns in them has dropped but the number of guns in society has increased, which means that fewer people are owning more guns. We've gone from households commonly having a hunting shotgun or rifle in the 1940s to many fewer households having arsenals of hunting guns, pistols, and semi-automatic rifles.

Nancy Lanza, the mother of Adam Lanza, legally owned three guns which she claimed she needed for protection. Her son took two of those guns and used them to kill her in her sleep, 26 children and adults in the school, and then himself. Some protection.
 
Giving teachers a gun - oh my. I can see a future headline read 'Teacher waves gun & threatens students in class to get them to behave'

2nd Amendment, that's cool. BUT do we really need assualt weapons available to the public? NOPE. They are called assault weapons for a reason. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be available for public purchase unless they are rendered unusable. That way people can show them off, but that's it.

A friend of mine asked a good question a couple of days ago -
Which is more dangerous, a joint or a gun? Which is illegal, a joint or a gun? Makes alot of sense don't it.
 
Planit said:
Giving teachers a gun - oh my. I can see a future headline read 'Teacher waves gun & threatens students in class to get them to behave'
Click to expand...

If that is the case, they should not be a teacher in the first place. Most of the regulations (proposed and otherwise) that I have seen require anyone (teachers included) to have advanced training, which in many cases is also mental exams.

Planit said:
2nd Amendment, that's cool. BUT do we really need assualt weapons available to the public? NOPE. They are called assault weapons for a reason. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be available for public purchase unless they are rendered unusable. That way people can show them off, but that's it.
Click to expand...

Do we really need cars that will go 120 per hour in the the US... nope. But we do. Do we really need 54 inch tvs with 400 channels in the us... nope but we do. I know, neither of these have been used in mass killings, but what fraction of a percentage of weapons (any) are used in a crime? The several people who I know who have them don't 'show' them off. They tend to hide them and shoot them when no one is around or with close friends. Otherwise, they stay in gun safes.

Planit said:
A friend of mine asked a good question a couple of days ago -
Which is more dangerous, a joint or a gun? Which is illegal, a joint or a gun? Makes alot of sense don't it.
Click to expand...

Hey, I think that pot should be legal.



I also wonder what would happen if guns are made illegal. I foresee organized crime having a field day with this one.
 
michaelskis said:
If that is the case, they should not be a teacher in the first place. Most of the regulations (proposed and otherwise) that I have seen require anyone (teachers included) to have advanced training, which in many cases is also mental exams.


I also wonder what would happen if guns are made illegal. I foresee organized crime having a field day with this one.
Click to expand...

I went to a Catholic high school and many of my teachers were Christian Brothers. I really don't think they got much testing for mental health. Among them were child molesters, alcoholics, and many had serious anger issues (Brothers did hit students, and my brother told me he saw one of the brothers put a student in a headlock and held a lit cigarette inches from the student's face. I had a Christian Brother scream obscenities in my face while we were in church because he didn't like the way I was singing in chorus (sorry, I was 14 and my voice was subject to unintended and not always acoustical variations). So, I would have to say that teachers are not tested for mental stability. Nor are they any less prone to commit assaults, murders or other crimes than any of the rest of us.

Besides, I do not think more guns and more people with guns is any solution to improving safety of children in school. Any gun that is kept out of a school is 100 percent guaranteed not to harm a child there.

I don't think anyone seriously considers making guns illegal. What is and should be proposed is keeping them out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but the Newtown shooter's mom knew her son had problems, and yet she did not secure her weapons. She allowed a person who she believed to be mentally ill to have access to an assault weapon and semi-automatic handguns, and, if news reports are correct, at a time when she was considering having him involuntarily commited for mental health evaluation.

We already have a huge black market in illegal firearms, both stolen and smuggled. My dad was a lawyer and one of his clients turned over a gun to my dad that was smuggled into this country and the man bought off of a shrimp boat in Morgan City. Multiply that gun by thousands and you have a serious problem in this country. Lots of gang members and assorted thugs have guns either stolen from or sold by police from their evidence lockers.
 
otterpop said:
We already have a huge black market in illegal firearms, both stolen and smuggled. .
Click to expand...

Much of those are sold in gun shows through the gun show loophole. It amazes me that people are against closing the gun show loophole, that allows nearly 40% of our guns to be sold without background checks or licensing requirements. As far as I know nothing has really changed with regards to gun shows in the last 20 years when I was a youngster. When I was 14 my friend (who was the same age) and I went to a gun show and bought a sawed off shotgun and a .38. No questions asked. That kind of shit needs to not happen.
 
The idea put forth by the NRA that owning assault weapons is good for the country does just as much damage to our youth as violent movies and video games. It is all just part of the gun culture that grows within society.

I can accept that our society has become desensitized to violence due to a number of things, including those put forth by the NRA. But that does not mean that a society which glorifies the acceptance of assault weapons is not at fault.
 
I just found out one of our local high schools was cancelled today because some kid had made threats about shooting up the school today. So I guess quite a few other kids then tried to take guns to school to try to protect themselves. First thing in the morning I guess parents and teachers were freaking out, kids were showing up with guns in their backpacks, and they cancelled class. Wow.
 
Why do gun nuts think that supporting limitations on the ability to own weapons somehow makes you anti-2nd Amendment.

They do realize there are also restriction on our 1st Amendment rights don't they?
 
btrage said:
Why do gun nuts think that supporting limitations on the ability to own weapons somehow makes you anti-2nd Amendment.

They do realize there are also restriction on our 1st Amendment rights don't they?
Click to expand...

And since 9-11, considerable limitations on the 4th Amendment, as well.
 
This whole fiscal cliff thing is pretty fascinating. The GOP is completely unraveling and lost whatever leverage it had after Boehner's "Plan B" boondoggle. Obama could totally bring the hammer down at this point if he wanted to.
 
imaplanner said:
Andrew Sulllivan has a good take on the modern GOP and he doesn't mince words.
Click to expand...


Charlie Pierce is even more brutal to the fading GoOPers and the gun cult fetishizer enabler NRA. One has to think that POTUS gave the GOP enough rope for our entertainment.

Let us hope we had our tipping point and sane society can make these creepy gun fetishists go away. Maybe they can all Go Galt to Tejas after it secedes.
 
btrage said:
Why do gun nuts think that supporting limitations on the ability to own weapons somehow makes you anti-2nd Amendment.

They do realize there are also restriction on our 1st Amendment rights don't they?
Click to expand...

otterpop said:
And since 9-11, considerable limitations on the 4th Amendment, as well.
Click to expand...

QFT. My question is, how do the gun fetishers (thanks, Colo GI for that apt description) expect to protect themselves from the US government's drones and smart bombs with their mini-arsenals if they really do engage in armed rebellion? Talk about living in a sick fantasy world. These fools would literally be using bows and arrows against cannons if that contest ever came to pass -- and that's NOT even taking into account the fact that they wouldn't have much, if any support, among the general population. How much support did any of the militia groups pre-9/11 get from anybody who wasn't already in the tin-hat brigades? How much support did the anti-abortion bombers and snipers get from the general public? How much support did the violent anti-war/anti-establishment protesters (bombers, bank robbers, etc) get from the general public?
 
hilldweller said:
This whole fiscal cliff thing is pretty fascinating. The GOP is completely unraveling and lost whatever leverage it had after Boehner's "Plan B" boondoggle. Obama could totally bring the hammer down at this point if he wanted to.
Click to expand...

All I know is that it would raise taxes on those making over a million dollars. Was there cuts included too? What about including changing the systems for capital gains and investment income?

The whole system is a problem and I don't see just raising taxes doing much good.
 
michaelskis said:
[Were] there cuts included too? What about including changing the systems for capital gains and investment income?
Click to expand...

Surely you weren't paying attention. The GoOPers weren't satisfied with cuts to the [STRIKEOUT]takers[/STRIKEOUT] [STRIKEOUT]47%[/STRIKEOUT] poor so they pouted and whined and stomped their widdle feet. IMHO they are close to ungovernable and irrelevant, especially in light of Friday's press conference with the head of their iconic organization. I mean, really, who is going to write off the gun purchases in every school in Murrica as advertising (but not school supplies) so we can be fully militarized like in their wet dream? If it weren't so weak and pathetic, it would be funny.
 
The pro-gun crowd seems to be enamored of making analogies between guns and cars lately. "Cars kill thousands of people every year. Why don't we get rid of cars, too?"

I thought the car analogies were flawed at first, but after considering it a bit more, I think it makes perfect sense.

* I have to be licensed to drive a car. To get that license, I need to show that I can safely drive a car on pubic roads, and that I am familiar with basic motor vehicle and traffic laws.
* Cars are subject to strict government rules regarding emissions, safety, and fuel consumption, among many other attributes.
* Cars are heavily taxed, and may be subject to import duties.
* Cars that are very large and/or powerful are subject to gas guzzler and/or luxury taxes.
* Gasoline is also heavily taxed and regulated.
* Cars must be individually registered with the state government.
* Cars must pass strict annual safety inspections in New York, and many other states as well.
* Cars and drivers require liability insurance. My insurance rate would be much higher if I drove a sports car.
* If I drive too fast and/or carelessly, or under the influence of alcohol and drugs, I'll be penalized with points on my driver's license, fines, higher insurance rates. If I get too many points, my license may be suspended or revoked, and I may face jail time.
* If my driving skills deteriorate from age, a physical disability, or mental illness, my driving privileges will be curtailed or revoked.
 
Dan said:
The pro-gun crowd
Click to expand...

That's outdated terminology. Now we call them gun-nuts :p

Also, to be honest, there is no constitutional right to own or operate a car.

michaelskis said:
All I know is that it would raise taxes on those making over a million dollars. Was there cuts included too? What about including changing the systems for capital gains and investment income?
Click to expand...

This is a good chart showing the offers. Plan B is the last one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-cliff-offers-and-counteroffers-in-one-chart/
 
Dan said:
The pro-gun crowd seems to be enamored of making analogies between guns and cars lately. "Cars kill thousands of people every year. Why don't we get rid of cars, too?"

I thought the car analogies were flawed at first, but after considering it a bit more, I think it makes perfect sense.

* I have to be licensed to drive a car. To get that license, I need to show that I can safely drive a car on pubic roads, and that I am familiar with basic motor vehicle and traffic laws.
* Cars are subject to strict government rules regarding emissions, safety, and fuel consumption, among many other attributes.
* Cars are heavily taxed, and may be subject to import duties.
* Cars that are very large and/or powerful are subject to gas guzzler and/or luxury taxes.
* Gasoline is also heavily taxed and regulated.
* Cars must be individually registered with the state government.
* Cars must pass strict annual safety inspections in New York, and many other states as well.
* Cars and drivers require liability insurance. My insurance rate would be much higher if I drove a sports car.
* If I drive too fast and/or carelessly, or under the influence of alcohol and drugs, I'll be penalized with points on my driver's license, fines, higher insurance rates. If I get too many points, my license may be suspended or revoked, and I may face jail time.
* If my driving skills deteriorate from age, a physical disability, or mental illness, my driving privileges will be curtailed or revoked.
Click to expand...

Don't forget: the lobbyists for the creepy little gun fetishizers mandated that the government funds to the total of


"none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."​


and then


"Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health."​


Pretty much the exact opposite of cars, the other ultimate symbol of Murrican muscle, freedom, paynus compensation, and exceptionalism.
 
Today, a friend said that one of the GOP put out the idea to just let the D's pass what ever they want, and that the R's would vote present just so something would pass, but letting the people know they are in objection, but lost the political game at the tax payers expense.

Regardless what happens I still think that they are all idiots in Washington. None of them are doing what is best for the county, they are doing what is best for their special interest group.
 
michaelskis said:
Today, a friend said that one of the GOP put out the idea to just let the D's pass what ever they want, and that the R's would vote present just so something would pass, but letting the people know they are in objection, but lost the political game at the tax payers expense.

Regardless what happens I still think that they are all idiots in Washington. None of them are doing what is best for the county, they are doing what is best for their special interest group.
Click to expand...

That's an old talking point, I think the Rs are way past that now. Nevertheless, I saw this today:
Democrats and Republicans are wings on the same bird of prey. -–Eugene V. Debs
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ColoGI said:
That's an old talking point, I think the Rs are way past that now. Nevertheless, I saw this today:
Click to expand...

I don't tune into any of the news networks so many of you are more upto date on the current proposals than I am.

I will say it again, R or D, the are all idiots.
 
I find this an interesting article....

Benevolent Billionaires Should Buy Out Bushmaster
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/benevolent-billionaires-should-buy-out-bushmaster.html


Business moguls who favor stricter gun-control laws -- among them Bloomberg LP founder and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, financier George Soros and entertainment honcho David Geffen -- are in the unique position of being able to put their money where their mouths are, and with a single bold move can change the raging gun debate in a way that intransigent politicians cannot.

These well-intentioned billionaires (and others) should buy Freedom Group Inc., the world's largest gun manufacturer, from Cerberus Capital Management LP, which has put it up for sale, and literally liquidate it.
Click to expand...


Put your money where your mouth is. There is no truer opportunity.... pretty interesting.
 
Here's what I think will happen:

We will go over the fiscal cliff. Everyone's taxes will go up automatically. There will be weeping & gnashing of teeth.

Then Congress will take action about a week later to "cut taxes." This will be a tax cut on folks making under $250K. Basically, I think the current Congress will use the cliff as a spin tool--raising taxes automatically just so they can take credit for "lowering taxes" a couple of weeks later. They are banking on the American people failing to remember that it was their bad leadership that resulted in the tax increase that necessitated the cut. They all then get to campaign for their next election with the "I cut taxes" feather in their caps. :not:

Yes, I am just that cynical about the process.

Personally, I'm OK with going over the fiscal cliff. The bill that created this possibility was technically bi-partisan and it does address financial issues on both the revenue & expenditure side of the budget. It corrects the misguided Bush-era tax cuts. The payroll tax holiday will be over. It cuts defense, long a sacred cow. Yes, it will have a tremendous impact on the economy and may result in negative GDP growth next year. Yes, it might increase unemployment by a point. Yes, doctors will be pissed about Medicare payouts. Yes, it will be painful. But it is, fundamentally, a bipartisan bill.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
We will go over the fiscal cliff. Everyone's taxes will go up automatically. There will be weeping & gnashing of teeth.
Click to expand...

I'm cynical. They are - Congress - creating this Kabuki theater that the corporate media are dutifully repeating. Their paymasters want to steal the big pot of money sitting out there. Something will be arranged in a post-"cliff" deal that will allow the rich to steal SS and Medicare.

Democrats and Republicans are wings on the same bird of prey. -–Eugene V. Debs
 
I see an agreement going something like $500k and up.

- Doc Fix
- Put off sequestration.
- 1.2 Trillion in cuts.

Kick that can down the road...
 
So the fiscal cliff is basically the sequester cuts. But the cuts are needed to get out debt under control. But the cuts will also put us into back into a recession. so..... um.....
 
Don't forget the truly breathtaking federal tax increases that will be taking effect on 01-Jan due to the Unaffordable Care Act and that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Fiscal Cliff™.

:-{

2013 will be a very bad year, economically, for the USA.

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
Don't forget the truly breathtaking federal tax increases that will be taking effect on 01-Jan due to the Unaffordable Care Act and that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Fiscal Cliff™.
Click to expand...

I agree - we should do nothing to get our health care costs under control, in order that we stay uncompetitive and continue to have the highest health care costs in the world yet have some of the poorest outcomes in the developed world.
 
Wow, I just got off the phone with my accountant.... and my taxes are going up. And I don't make anywhere close to the $400,000 mark. (as in too many digits.)

Apparently, there was some SSI tax break that is expiring. On top of that there are some changes to the federal tax code that will hurt more because I am a sole proprietor LLC. :-@:-@:-@
 
michaelskis said:
Wow, I just got off the phone with my accountant.... and my taxes are going up. And I don't make anywhere close to the $400,000 mark. (as in too many digits.)

Apparently, there was some SSI tax break that is expiring. On top of that there are some changes to the federal tax code that will hurt more because I am a sole proprietor LLC. :-@:-@:-@
Click to expand...

Sometimes you confuse me. You seem to have a grip on what you believe, but then you don't seem to have an understanding of the facts? The payroll tax holiday was not renewed as part of the agreement. If you will recall that was a 2% reduction in the payroll tax for 2011 and 2012.

Federal social insurance taxes are imposed on employers and employees,ordinarily consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($110,100 in 2012) for Social Security and a tax of 1.45% of all wages for Medicare. For the years 2011 and 2012, the employee's contribution has been temporarily reduced to 4.2%, while the employer's portion remained at 6.2%.
Click to expand...

Hence an increase in your taxes.
 
Hink said:
Sometimes you confuse me. You seem to have a grip on what you believe, but then you don't seem to have an understanding of the facts? The payroll tax holiday was not renewed as part of the agreement. If you will recall that was a 2% reduction in the payroll tax for 2011 and 2012.
Click to expand...

Hey, I just spoke with my accountant so I know what to expect. She ran through a list of things and high lighted these two along with the statement, "As of right now, your 2013 taxes will be higher than your 2012 taxes."

Based on your response, her comment is still correct.
 
I don't think payroll tax holidays are ever a good idea when those programs are facing long term solvency issues. Granted, it's an easy way to get more money in people's pockets and it disperses that money more evenly than a stimulus check.
 
Hink said:
Sometimes you confuse me. You seem to have a grip on what you believe, but then you don't seem to have an understanding of the facts? The payroll tax holiday was not renewed as part of the agreement. If you will recall that was a 2% reduction in the payroll tax for 2011 and 2012.



Hence an increase in your taxes.
Click to expand...

michaelskis said:
Hey, I just spoke with my accountant so I know what to expect. She ran through a list of things and high lighted these two along with the statement, "As of right now, your 2013 taxes will be higher than your 2012 taxes."

Based on your response, her comment is still correct.
Click to expand...

But you have the remainder of your fiscal year to look for tax credits or modify your business practices to reduce your tax liability if this 2% increase will result in a substantial burden. There are many reasons for your tax liability to go up from more revenue, decpreciation schedules of assets or not incurring as many tax deductible expenses.

I was talking with a business owner a month ago and stated that Congress is always creating and ending programs that help and hurt small businesses. Last year he took advantage of a veteran owned business tax credit that saved him and his company huge money. Of course this guy does not sleep and reads the federal register for sport. He finds tax programs his accountant was did not know about.
 
Blide said:
I don't think payroll tax holidays are ever a good idea when those programs are facing long term solvency issues. Granted, it's an easy way to get more money in people's pockets and it disperses that money more evenly than a stimulus check.
Click to expand...

I think the payroll tax is better then most of our other taxing policy. At least that money goes directly to something.

I would like to see my taxes be directed - 4% to defense, 10% to Education, etc.

My issue with raising taxes (this is the fiscal conservative in me) is that we do not have a clear picture of where my taxes are going. When our government is unable or unwilling to pass budgets, you can't even use that as a guideline.

I would be much more comfortable paying 20-35% if they told me where that money was going from the start.
 
The SSI thing is a great example of how messed up our political system is. Reducing the payroll tax was first proposed by the GOP and opposed by democrats. Then Obama pushed for it and the GOP opposed it. As part of this fiscal cliff deal the GOP demanded it be raised.

In any case, I think it has always been a bad idea becuause it was underfunding an already underfunded social security program.
 
Blide said:
I don't think payroll tax holidays are ever a good idea when those programs are facing long term solvency issues. Granted, it's an easy way to get more money in people's pockets and it disperses that money more evenly than a stimulus check.
Click to expand...

If we had a decent system is this country, what would be more equitable across the board would be a tax system where you rewarded the goods (work) and taxed the bads (pollution, waste, "sin", etc.). A carbon tax would be good, a tax on a shrinking labor pool would be bad.

But that's a dream, because the corporations that run the country need to pollute and depress wages while replacing labor with automation. Until this is fixed, our system will remain the same.
 
Mud Princess said:
They are a little out of date, but you could try this or this.
Click to expand...

Ooooo! I like! Now unfortunately this is dynamically based on the budget items. I would love to see the law state it the other way. Defense gets X%.

Like we do at home. I spend 10% on retirement. If I make more money, then more money goes into retirement. If I make less money, then less goes in.

I still don't understand why the government is so unable to budget like everyone else on earth...
 
Hink said:
I still don't understand why the government is so unable to budget like everyone else on earth...
Click to expand...

So, if you had the power to spend more than you had with no personal fallout, you'd still budget the same? My X% for retirement would include me being paid the same wage even if I got fired and the best medical insurance money could buy until I was dead.
 
Hink said:
I still don't understand why the government is so unable to budget like everyone else on earth...
Click to expand...

Dusting off my old public finance knowledge from Public Admin classes-Colio is correct. Governments aren't families and they aren't businesses. Governments provide services. What services get provided and to what extent is determined by the political process-you, me a couple million/billion other people..
 
Back
Top