WDRacing wrote:Here's why I disagree with anyone that argues about his taxes and the entire "secondary" income discussion. Substitute Brian (that's me) for Romney. I worked my a** off for all the money I have, so does my wife. You'd have me paying the same rate of income tax on my retirement income as I did when I was busting my hump, dodging bullets and saving lives around the world. The same goes for my wife. We're working and saving at the same time we're raising 3 kids. Your ideals would take from me and my children Howie. They take so much that I'll be forced to change my standard of living in my golden years so that others can benefit from all my hard work. Well those "less fortunate" can all burn in the same fire for all I care.

Not true unless your income is over $250k and then there is no increase in tax on the first $250k of income

WDRacing wrote:When someone takes something from someone else, in my book we call that stealing. The Gov calls it taxes. Rules are rules, so I pay my taxes. Why would I ever support someone that wants to take more from me?

I pay mine too.

Anyone that wants to destroy medicare which is one government program that works is immediately on my s#it list

WDRacing wrote:If Obama was the man he said he was almost 4 years ago, he'd do something to recognize that we're floundering. Perhaps use Clinton as a model to emulate. Clinton recognized how much spending was going into the Military and reduced it's size by quite a percentage. We could easily do the same right now. Simply shut off the war in Afghanistan. All those funds currently spent, or should I say wasted, on that POS country and that unwinnable war could be spent rebuilding the infrastructure of America. That would benefit everyone in the country in one felt swoop. You'd create jobs, jobs create taxable revenue, the aging infrastructure would get a much needed revamp and you'd be saving American lives. He has the power to do all of that without Congress. So there aren't any excuses to be made about roadblocks and BS. He has the power, he just chooses not to use it.

President Clinton was vilified by the right for a blowjob between consenting adults but he was an excellent president.

Obama had no idea how obstructionist the right would become in an attempt to do nothing for the country they are supposed to represent but to spend 4 years attempting to make Obama look bad to deny him a second term.
I don't think it is going to work

WDRacing wrote:But as it stands, his plan simply increases taxes. Call me a mean spirited bastard, but I don't care about the needy, the old or anyone aside from my family. Which brings us full circle to my initial point, I'll never support someone who intends to increase the amount of theft, I mean taxes, that I'm going to pay.

Both Romney and Ryan are two lying sacks of s#it and the last thing this country needs is more tax cuts for the top 1%
And we certainly don't need the government telling woman what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
And their balls to tell news media what questions they can only ask of them is going to send them off to join Sarah Palin after November. Remember how she performed

Telcoman

Medicare doesn't work my friend, it's already bankrupt.

When my wife retires from the USAF next year, there's a really good chance that our combined income will put us over 250k. So yeah, he's stealing my money.

250k doesn't make us rich. It allows us to live well after 25 years of busting a**. Did I mention my 3 kids? It would be nice if I could keep my money and use it for them...not some low life that needs welfare.

Am I the enemy now Howie?

The idea that the left arbitrarily picked 250k as the mark that makes me rich is pathetic.

What pathetic libbies like Howie fail to realize, having no real business experience, is that allot of the incomes coming in around his magic number are BUSINESS incomes, sole proprietorships, self employed people, or even small business with 5 to 10 employees. Your tax hike on the "evil rich" is gonna cost jobs in the long run.

I love how the left demonizes Romney for wanting to lower everyones taxes by only referring to the ultra rich as receiving the tax breaks.

telcoman wrote:

WDRacing wrote:Several of my best friends are life long Liberals, I grew up in north of Boston after all. Friggin surrounded my entire life

So what happened to you?

He grew up and learned to look beyond the narrow vision of living in parochial state.

Z

WDRacing wrote:My point isn't to take anything away from you. It's to highlight that you haven't walked Gods green earth long enough to pass judgement on what others might think, or make blanket statements concerning everyone with views that oppose your own. If you had said you did 4 years in the Peace Corps or something, I would retract my statement and stfu.

Let me be perfectly clear: I said what I said because you were under the impression that I hadn't even finished college yet. I did finish college, and I started my career, and then I went back to school to start a different career. I've been married to the same woman for eighteen months, but we've been together for more than five years. We've gone through the hurdles of the United States immigration laws, and we've dealt with two different careers in two different states. I have worked my job full time and gone to school at night. This summer, I worked two jobs and went to school at night. And I saw my wife occasionally. Here's an alternative measure we can relate to because it's a car forum: from the time I bought my car in December 2008 (more than six months after I graduated, and nearly a year before I started law school), I have logged on average more than 37,000 miles each year. My life experience probably isn't what you expect, but it isn't insignificant.

You know the problem with trying to cast aspersions on people for their life experience, or lack thereof? On the internet, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That's why it's best not to try. When I tell you that your understanding of taxes is lacking, it's not because I think you haven't paid your taxes every year, it's because the arguments you make, in this thread, demonstrate that you don't. I don't mean that as insult, and I'm more than happy to explain the misconceptions. That's mostly what I do nowadays.

WDRacing wrote:I grew up in north of Boston after all.

I'm from Chelmsford, and let me tell you - if you get people talking, there are some folks who sound like they're right out of the Bible belt. I've seen it, because I brought it out of them.

I graduated from Chelmsford High in 93....that's just crazy.

I dig your new sig...gave me a lol.

You're exactly 10 years ahead of me. We probably know quite a few of the same people.

stebo0728 wrote:What pathetic libbies like Howie fail to realize, having no real business experience, is that allot of the incomes coming in around his magic number are BUSINESS incomes, sole proprietorships, self employed people, or even small business with 5 to 10 employees. Your tax hike on the "evil rich" is gonna cost jobs in the long run.

And the ever-growing debt is really not something to worry about, right?

I'm reminded of this quote from The West Wing:

Rob Lowe, as Sam Seaborn wrote:Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share," I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid 27 times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of 26 other people. And I'm happy to, 'cause that's the only way it's gonna work. And it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads. But I don't get 27 votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house 27 times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet 27 times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for 22 percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying.

I think Howie gets a little overzealous in his comments, but I think, Stebo, you drag it out a bit too much with this "evil rich" schtick. I'm in favor of a progressive tax scheme because that's simply the least painful way to pay for government, but I don't treat the wealthy as "evil," and most people who are in favor of a progressive tax scheme don't, either.

WDRacing wrote:I love how the left demonizes Romney for wanting to lower everyones taxes by only referring to the ultra rich as receiving the tax breaks.

Romney is not being demonized to lower everyone's taxes. He is being demonized because the wealthy 1% have done well while the other 98% have not done well since the Bush tax cuts.
Romney is covering up his extensive tax avoidance. It may be legal but what he has been doing needs to change
If our government needs more money the tax increase should be starting at the top.
Putting religious doctrine into government is a no no
Contraception for those that oppose it don't use it
Abortion, for those opposed don't get one
Blood transfusions, for those opposed don't get one but if a minor child dies because of you , you may end up in jail
But don't try to force your beliefs on others.

WDRacing wrote:Medicare doesn't work my friend, it's already bankrupt.

When my wife retires from the USAF next year, there's a really good chance that our combined income will put us over 250k. So yeah, he's stealing my money..

Medicare does work and I love it It is not bankrupt.
The lies Romney is spreading about the $716 billion savings Obama is using is being used to reduce overpayments to insurance companies. Romney wants to cut benefits from recipients and give out vouchers


No tax increases on the first $250k so if your adjusted gross income was $260k any additional 3% tax would be on $10k dollars. Not a big deal for someone with a quarter million income

WDRacing wrote: 250k doesn't make us rich. It allows us to live well after 25 years of busting a**. Did I mention my 3 kids? It would be nice if I could keep my money and use it for them...not some low life that needs welfare.

Remember Ryan benefited from Social Security when his father died. The welfare you refer to generally comes from the states

WDRacing wrote: Am I the enemy now Howie?

No you are not the enemy. You just don't have all your facts straight

WDRacing wrote: The idea that the left arbitrarily picked 250k as the mark that makes me rich is pathetic.

That $250k figure is negotiable but the right has been refusing to compromise on everything for the past four years.


Telcoman

The middle class has been shrinking since Nixon was in office Howie. Try reading something besides the Huff Post there old timer.

Medicare may work for you, but it won't be around for me or my kids at the rate we're going.

I'm all for the separation of church and state. So we agree on 2 things in one day, thank God I'm sitting down.

If our Gov needs more $$, it needs to figure out how to budget better, not increase taxes. That's the fundamental difference in our beliefs, aside from you being a certifiable old loon

If you can't afford it, don't buy it. I've used that motto my whole life...ok that's a lie, I've only adopted that during the last 10 years or so. But you can safely apply it to anything and be successful. We can't afford to be at war AND have welfare AND have Medicare AND turn our heads to the utter fraud waste and abuse that runs unchecked in every aspect of the federal government. We're broke, yet we're spending like children in a candy store with a pocket full of money. Where's all the money going? I sure as hell aint seeing any of it. Your precious medicare and social entitlements. Well excuse me if I don't give a crap about the old, sick or poor.

Right now Obama has the check book, not Bush. When Bush had his stimulus, I got a check in the mail. So far Obama has only bailed out Wall Street. Explain that one.

10 Billion a week in interest alone Howie...in a months time we could pay for every person over the age of 18 to go to college for free. We could fund your precious medicare forever with what we're paying out in borrowed money. In 8 years we'll owe more then we take in in total revenue.

WDRacing wrote:Medicare may work for you, but it won't be around for me or my kids at the rate we're going.

That's mostly due to the projected rise in the cost of medicine, and not to some flaw in Medicare itself.

IBCoupe wrote:

WDRacing wrote:Medicare may work for you, but it won't be around for me or my kids at the rate we're going.

That's mostly due to the projected rise in the cost of medicine, and not to some flaw in Medicare itself.

I disagree. Cost of medicine may indeed play into it, but we're quickly approaching a 1:1 ratio for payer:payee. That is not sustainable. Baby boomers have alot to do with that, but then, any sound plan should be able to sustain the fluctuations in population

WDRacing wrote:The middle class has been shrinking since Nixon was in office Howie. Try reading something besides the Huff Post there old timer.

Medicare may work for you, but it won't be around for me or my kids at the rate we're going.

Only need to increase the FICA tax above the present $110,100 limit on wages
[/quote]

WDRacing wrote: I'm all for the separation of church and state. So we agree on 2 things in one day, thank God I'm sitting down.

WDRacing wrote: If our Gov needs more $$, it needs to figure out how to budget better, not increase taxes. That's the fundamental difference in our beliefs, aside from you being a certifiable old loon

You may have missed this if you only get your information from Fox

Documents Show Details on Romney Family Trusts


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/po ... l?src=recg

“Bain private equity funds in which the Romney family’s trusts are invested appear to have used an aggressive tax approach, which some tax lawyers believe is not legal, to save Bain partners more than $200 million in income taxes and more than $20 million in Medicare taxes.
Annual reports for four Bain Capital funds indicate that the funds converted $1.05 billion in accumulated fees that otherwise would have been ordinary income for Bain partners into capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate.”
“In a blog post Thursday, Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of Colorado, said that there was some disagreement among lawyers, but that he believed: “If challenged in court, Bain would lose. The Bain partners, in my opinion, misreported their income if they reported these converted fees as capital gain instead of ordinary income.”
“In an article that appeared in the journal Tax Notes in 2009, Gregg D. Polsky, a tax law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, called the tax strategy “extremely aggressive” and said it was “subject to serious challenge by the I.R.S.”
“Blocker corporations, typically set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands, can help investors avoid a levy known as the unrelated business income tax, which was created to prevent nonprofit groups from undertaking profit-making ventures that compete with taxpaying companies.
The documents also showed that some of the funds owned equity swaps, which have been used to avoid taxes that would otherwise be owed on dividends paid by American companies to foreign-based investors, like funds based in the Caymans. “

WDRacing wrote: 10 Billion a week in interest alone Howie...in a months time we could pay for every person over the age of 18 to go to college for free. We could fund your precious medicare forever with what we're paying out in borrowed money. In 8 years we'll owe more then we take in in total revenue.

Well that is what two unpaid for wars does to our economy when a president chases unfounded WMD and fails to read the PDB that warned of a possible attack using airplanes.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:
Well that is what two unpaid for wars does to our economy when a president chases unfounded WMD and fails to read the PDB that warned of a possible attack using airplanes.

Telcoman

So you're willing to admit that we can't afford to be at war AND that stopping the war would be a boon to the economy AND staying at war will only continue to deplete our already underwater budget.

It doesn't matter who starts something, when you go along with it, you're just as complicit as the person that initiates the action. It's like being the driver in a bank robbery. Obama is guilty.

America is going to take a nice refreshing breath as soon as that Communist is removed from office.

I've used the "C" word before, but it IS a bit strong. Obama did surround himself with strong communist influences. But if he actually does subscribe to communism, he at least has tempered it quite a bit while in office. However, I believe his state of thinking to be even worse. He wants to devalue America, both economically, and socially, in the global arena. His mother HATED America, and its supposed imperialism. He has structured a platform of ideas that both look appealing to liberals, and devalue America. What he doesn't realize, I'm sure his pontificating mother never realized either, is that SOMEONE is going to hold the position of dominant nation. So with that in mind, ask yourself "of all the major players in the game, who would I prefer to occupy the dominant position?" If you have any common sense, America is that player. Would you prefer Russia? China? Saudi Arabia? What other nation in history has invaded another nation just to turn it back over to a different faction of its own people? What other nation has taxed its citizens to reconstruct its enemies after war? America deserves so much more credit and potential than its getting now. Im reminded of the quote "with great power comes great responsibility" If America is lacking in its responsibility, THAT is what we fix, we dont systemmatically hand over our great power piece at a time, we revive our great responsibility.

You know, I hate to re-jump-in like this, but I just can't help myself.

How the hell do you balance a checkbook?

If your "goes outs" is more than your "goes ins" then there are 2 things that need to be done:

1 work overtime or get another job (read: increase revenue or readjust the tax code)

2 cut spending (read: CUT YOUR DAMN SPENDING!)

If a 1940's housewife could handle finances, why can't some Ignorant Arsehats that actually WENT to some sort of schooling and had to take at least College Algebra to get a degree, figure it the fcsk out?

And, just so everybody is clear: I'm fairly liberal on just about everything (you know, the whole "good of the many" thing) and I WANT my taxes raised. I'd be fine paying more. I like roads, and public waterworks, and policemen, and SHXT MY TAXES PAYS FOR.

So, every single one of you get off your damned high-horses and take a REAL HARD look at this train getting ready to derail.

As a last aside: Obama or Romney, either way, they're both the devil. Unless a robot takes office, nothing is getting fixed.

telcoman wrote:He is being demonized because the wealthy 1% have done well while the other 98% have not done well since the Bush tax cuts.

The 1% employ more people. But I'm sure you're ok with them laying people off, right?

The 1% would do just fine no matter WHAT the POTUS does. Know why? Because they're not bothered by such petty nonsense. They'll simply find another way to succeed. The middle class should take a lesson, but there's too much good stuff on TV.

telcoman wrote:It may be legal but what he has been doing needs to change

Why? What SPECIFICALLY should he do differently? Without that, you're ranting blindly (again). More class envy.

telcoman wrote:If our government needs more money

...they should look how much of it has been given to underperforming union workers, the Muslim Brotherhood, building GM factories IN BRAZIL, and people sitting at home watching cable TV while they collect 2 straight years of unemployment - BY CHOICE.

Why should *I* fund those things? I don't BELIEVE in any of them, so who's forcing beliefs on WHO? Why should those things come out of my pocket?

I'll assume you're ok with those things, since you're advocating for them. Stop forcing your beliefs on me.

telcoman wrote:Contraception for those that oppose it don't use it
Abortion, for those opposed don't get one

What if my faith opposes PAYING for it?* Why must you force your love of infanticide on me? Pay for it yourself.

*hypothetical, of course. I'm not a hard-liner like ^ Mr. Roseanne Barr here.

telcoman wrote:You just don't have all your facts straight

Since when have you ever concerned yourself with facts?

telcoman wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/po ... l?src=recg

Then maybe Eric Cantor (BO's mentally-deficient lap dog) should do his job for once.

Where's your rant against the Justice Department for failing to prosecute a "known tax evader"? Hmmm?

Know what's so beautiful about this election? It's wack-job vs wack-job. I'm considering voting for BO just so he can be stymied by a sensible Congress for another 4 years. Compromise comes from BOTH sides, and by definition, one can't blame one side or the other for failing to do so.

All his campaign blather about "reaching across the aisle" hasn't worked, and during his campaign, he laid out SPECIFIC measures by which we were to judge his performance. Cliff's Notes: He failed to accomplish them. Those were HIS words, not ours. As such, I'm kinda unclear why he'd even run for a 2nd term.

Hopefully in my lifetime, we'll see a 3rd-party candidate - one with some common sense.

Marenta wrote:You know, I hate to re-jump-in like this, but I just can't help myself.

If your "goes outs" is more than your "goes ins" then there are 2 things that need to be done:

1 work overtime or get another job (read: increase revenue or readjust the tax code)

2 cut spending (read: CUT YOUR DAMN SPENDING!)

If a 1940's housewife could handle finances, why can't some Ignorant Arsehats that actually WENT to some sort of schooling and had to take at least College Algebra to get a degree, figure it the fcsk out?

And, just so everybody is clear: I'm fairly liberal on just about everything (you know, the whole "good of the many" thing) and I WANT my taxes raised. I'd be fine paying more. I like roads, and public waterworks, and policemen, and SHXT MY TAXES PAYS FOR.

So, every single one of you get off your damned high-horses and take a REAL HARD look at this train getting ready to derail.

Since the Gov can't work over time, we're left with cutting spending. I agree with concept entirely.

You being Liberal is also perfectly ok. Just keep your Liberalism to yourself. If you want to pay more taxes, go ahead. Paying more taxes probably doesn't effect you personally, but how can presume that it's the same for others? Get out of my pocket.

It's not my responsibility to care for "the good of many" when the Gov controlling the spending does so in a manner that is wrought with abuse and waste. Taking more from me, before you fix the manner in which you spend is...well ignorant. No offense is meant by that, but you really have to have a honest look at things before you ask others to give more. We could give "the many" a lot more benefits simply by eliminating waste. We could pay for better educations, better health care and generally elevate our entire society if we'd get rid of the corruption and waste. THAT is THE reason the train is derailing.

Before you examine the horse I ride, and presume to think that I have more to give, clean up your fiscal house. Think of the budget like a plumbing system. If the main line has a very large hole in it and you're losing water pressure, don't open any more faucets until you fix the damn leak. Right now, we have every faucet in the house flowing wide open and your Liberalism is adding more faucets, not fixing leaks.

Fix the leaks first, then give everyone the water they need.

Before I catch any flack, I'm not saying Romney is the plumber we need. But Obama has proven that he's a hairstylist at best. He had his chance to fix the leaks, but all he did was throw down a half used roll of paper towels on his way upstairs to crank open all the sinks and both showers.

Look, Brian, I'm not saying that you have more to give or that it's even possible for you.. but, if you can't afford another 1% in taxes, perhaps you need to fix your fiscal house? You only have 10 fingers and having 13 pies to put them in isn't the safest way to go about things. Plus, the Gov't CAN increase revenue OR they can fix the tax code, neither of which are going to happen, so it's a moot point.

I'm not forcing any liberal agenda on anybody, but if you don't like paying taxes, then don't use my water, my cops, my firemen, my teachers or anything else I help pay for unless you're willing to dole out your "fair share." And, don't assume that I mean "fair share" as being an exorbitant amount of taxes. If the tax code (right now it's jacked, we all know that, but it's what we have so it's what I'm going to use) says you pay 9.3% federal taxes every year, then that's your "fair share," savvy?

And, I in no way said the Government is great at managing money, they suck at it.. especially since the people that vote on the fiscal policies only see as far as their pocketbook.

Again, I reiterate, the only way to fix this sinking ship is if a robot takes over. It's pretty apparent that a human is too flawed to see the obvious way through, no matter which side of the aisle they stay on.

My fiscal house IS in order. I save monthly and my accounts grow in accordance. Just because I CAN afford to give more, doesn't mean I should be forced to. That train of thought has me saving less so that some welfare mom can continue to pump out kids and collect a check. How about no. It's my money, if anyone deserves access to it, it's my OWN children.

Here's something for you to think about. I donate to charity and I volunteer with UMCOR. The money and service I give does a far bit better to help those in need then it would if I were to give the gov an additional X%. Savvy?

If the Gov sucks at managing money, giving them more IS NOT the answer. They spend like drunks and you'd have us keep paying their bar tab. The more we give, the more they spend. Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all full here.

BTW, they aren't your public services Maranta. Since I do pay my taxes, they are ours. I'm not against the idea of taxes, I'm against paying more then I already am until the system of waste is fixed. It's fairly arrogant of you to even use the term yours. I've fought and bled for this country, as every generation of my family has since we got off the boat. Until the system is fixed, I'll continue to rail against it.

I refuse to think that reform will never happen. That's defeatist speak and I'll have none of it.

WDRacing wrote:That train of thought has me saving less so that some welfare mom can continue to pump out kids and collect a check. How about no. It's my money, if anyone deserves access to it, it's my OWN children.

If the Gov sucks at managing money, giving them more IS NOT the answer.

^ This.

Like I said earlier, our "leadership" pisses away money on programs that get them votes. I'm not interested in supporting that.

Consider this the beginning of the backlash - the revolution, perhaps. There's no reason in hell that our government should NOT be accountable to us for what they spend and how they spend it.

We've been beaten down, spoiled, and misled for so long, we think it's not our RIGHT to demand accountability. That's dead-wrong.

NOTHING should be sacred. Welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, the military, unemployment, the tax code, public services - ALL should be placed under a microscope. I'm a real big opponent of intervening in other countries' business, and even more opposed to rebuilding their infrastructure, especially when ours needs attention.

When there's shenanigans like this (http://news.investors.com/article/62135 ... out-it.htm) going on, who can blame the American public for being distrustful of the lies from Washington?

Unions are a bad thing across the board and are bankrupting cities in CA right now.

Look, if my "crazy" is that I am a middle-of-the-road kinda person, then so be it. I offered 2 (count, two) solutions to increasing the revenue: actually increase the revenue or readjust the tax code. I would prefer the tax code be addressed. Would you still give to charity if it weren't a tax write-off?

AND, I am not claiming that the Government doesn't need to clean house, because they do.

If compromise isn't something you've learned in your life, along the way, then you're going to be disappointed with quite a few arrangements in life.

And, thank you for serving. Just like you, I served this country honorably but, I don't feel a sense of entitlement to anything this country has to offer. I am just glad that I was given a chance to be a part of this nation's great war-fighting team, just like my parents, and their parents, and theirs before them.

Plus, the military does have some fishy accounting, I'm not denying that. But, the first place they cut is personnel, and that's no bueno. My job was a Nuclear Engineer in the Navy, and we were so undermanned it was ridiculous. There are currently (as current as I could find) 2,291,332 people serving either active, reserve, or guard. That's less than 1% of the population protecting a country of over 300 million with 2 long borders and oceans on either side. Since the F35 STILL hasn't been delivered, I think that we should look into that. The Navy is flying the 18s only, and the AF has like 11 quadrillion fighters, but whatever. We've paid so much money to the F35 (1.5 trillion) yet, the accounting is based on inflation and unprovable data?

So, yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Government needs to get it's house in order. But, if I can see and agree with you on that, you won't at least agree with me that the tax code needs to be reworked (you don't have to see with me on this one)?

Marenta wrote:Look, if my "crazy" is that I am a middle-of-the-road kinda person, then so be it. I offered 2 (count, two) solutions to increasing the revenue: actually increase the revenue or readjust the tax code. I would prefer the tax code be addressed. Would you still give to charity if it weren't a tax write-off?

Wow, do you know me? Apparently not, because if you did you wouldn't make such ignorant and arrogant statements. I have never claimed a single charity donation on a tax return in my entire life. I find the insinuation that I give simply because I can claim it on my taxes very insulting. My family qualifies for reduced lunch prices at my children's school, yet I pay the same price as those that don't. Why? Because I'm not going to perpetuate a problem that I rail against. If I can save money every month, I don't need to add to the burden of our debt problem. I save money because I live within my means. Not because we have a large income. I buy used, I use coupons and I drink cheap beer. But in doing so, I bank money every month for my retirement. You seem to completely misunderstand my character, which is fine, we don't know each other other then some random online forum banter. I'm guilty of the same. I'm not pro rich, and I'm not a registered Republican. I'm a concerned citizen just like you, accept I'm far more conservative and I don't care nearly as much for "the many" as you do. If I can rise up on my own, then so can "they". I didn't receive and entitlements to get where I am, so I'm not very supportive of the idea that others deserve any either. I don't want to hear any BS about how they haven't had the opportunities that I've had either. When my family got off the boat, it was during a time when there were signs in most store fronts that read, "no dogs no Irish allowed". Yet my family worked hard and prospered because of it. Poor is a choice and a state of mind.

Your 2 solutions? That's laughable. You suggested tax reform without including what that tax reform might include. If I go by your statements in this thread, reform means raising taxes. That's not reform Maranta, that's just a tax increase. Had you said something of substance like removing allowable deductions across the board, like owning a house, or having kids I would be able to agree or disagree with you. But you just say reform followed by the need to increase taxes.

Marenta wrote: If compromise isn't something you've learned in your life, along the way, then you're going to be disappointed with quite a few arrangements in life.

So, yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Government needs to get it's house in order. But, if I can see and agree with you on that, you won't at least agree with me that the tax code needs to be reworked (you don't have to see with me on this one)?

Again, how am I supposed to compromise with something that is as clear as mud?

I don't understand what you're presuming here? Because I don't want my taxes increased that I'm unfamiliar with compromise? Because I don't want to pay more taxes that I'm unwilling to compromise? That gives me a nice giggle inside. In your entrance post, you said cut spending if you're broke. Well we're broke. What am I supposed to compromise on? You said increase revenue without saying how and you said reform taxes by increasing them. Perhaps you're not comprehending what I'm saying here. Until the spending is reduced and the Gov can show they can be responsible, I'm not going to agree with giving them more of my money. That's not an unwillingness to compromise, it's common sense. It's very basic economic theory. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you're credit cards are maxed out, you don't go get more credit cards.

Giving the Gov more money is just enabling. Enabling is a bad thing in all walks of life.

If you think tax reform is the answer, what type of reform do you have in mind? I can't agree or disagree with something unless I understand it. If reform means raise taxes without billions in spending cuts to entitlement programs, then it's not compromise you're seeking it's just a tax increase.

Let me throw a proverbial bone onto the table. I'd be for removing all kinds of deductions that don't have to do with small business. That's leaves tons of deductions that can be eliminated, like the charity donations I already mentioned. If I don't claim them, I fail to see a reason why anyone should need to. Isn't the idea behind charity the act of giving anyway? I don't understand how that can be a tax right off in the first place. We can reform without increasing the tax rate. It's deductions that allow the "super rich" to loop hole their way into paying less. At least that's the how I understand it. I'm not a tax guy, nor very smaht with math in general.

Now here comes the compromise part. If we remove tax deductions, like charity donations and home ownership and having kids etc, then we make cuts to entitlement programs. That way we increase revenue AND reduce spending. IMHO, that's compromise as I understand it.

Now we're getting somewhere.

I don't like loopholes. I claim my family because I have to, not because I think it gives me a larger chunk to take off my money. I have never claimed a charity donation on my taxes, either.

If you like the tax system as it sits, then fantastic for you. I'm a bootstrap kinda gal, I did it the same way, I had no hand-outs either. But, it doesn't mean that I agree with punishing everybody for the sins of a few.

26 USC 170, founded in 1956 and retroactive to 1955, allows for tax deductions made to non-profit charity organizations. Until it was enacted, charities had a hard time raising money. With this put through, it gave the rich an incentive to donate money. People like you and me don't make those large donations, especially not enough to put us into the itemized deductions category.

And, never once did I say that spending didn't have to be addressed, because I made very clear that I believe it should be. However, I would like my spending cuts to also have a side dish of tax reform. Is it too much to ask my Government to fix both their "goes ins" and "goes outs"?

Here's the thing about charitable deductions. By having them as a right off, it's no different then a gov expense because it removes revenue we would have otherwise gained. Since they are large numbers, it would be a large source of revenue.

When I refer to reforming the way you claim your family as a deduction, I mean doing away with earned income credit.

Is there any good data to prove that charitable deductions increase charitable contributions? If I'm going to give to charity, its not because I expect a tax break. The tax break is nice mind you, but its not the REASON I give. I've given to church in years past, and not even claimed it, didn't see the point. Its like these silly ASPCA commercial, where they want you to give, but they're gonna send half your money back in the form of some stupid shirt, or bag, or DVD. F*ck that, if I feel strongly enough to give to a cause, keep my damn money, dont send it back in the form of gimmies. For one, I dont need a shirt to show I gave, I dont care who knows I gave, Im not giving to make a name for myself, Im giving because I see a need. Similarly, will people stop giving to charity if they can't write it off their taxes? I just dont like to believe that.

Here's the info (since they started collecting it in the 1960s) for the charitible contributions:

Here's a CBO posting about trending:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42536

And, here's the full study:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... utions.pdf

I'm just now reading the entire study, but if you jump to the figures, it will explain the gap between the income levels and the amount of contributions. I would LIKE to think that people are just naturally charitable and would donate regardless of the write-off, but the skeptic in me says that's not realistic.