Taxes Are Going Up and You Should Be Worried

[Tigeress]

Must be nearing time to pay for the IRAQ War.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Nov 2007 at 08:19:28 PM GMT is:
 $9,136,727,904,131.06, which is nearly double what it was prior to the IRAQ war.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.49 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

What I find ironic is how little difference there is between the "Borrow and Spenders" and the "Tax and Spenders."

It's almost like the WWF in terms of each playing off the other in a symbotic relationship.

TIGERESS

from --> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312979,00.html

Taxes Are Going Up and You Should Be Worried
Monday, November 26, 2007
By Neil Cavuto, FOX News

Taxes are going up.

Not because virtually every major Democratic presidential candidate wants them to go up, but because every major Republican opposition figure is heading out.

Today Trent Lott announcing he will step down. Only months after New Mexico's Pete Domenici said he would leave.

Different men, different states, different viewpoints, except when it comes to taxes. Both have a history of cutting them, and cutting them a lot. They have led the charge against bigger government, and now they are leaving government.

Here's why you should worry. And I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat or an independent.

But open your wallet, because they're coming to get you. What's more, they assume you want them to come and get you. And tap you. And tax you.

They assume you want bigger government, and will pay more for that government.

They assume you'll buy the idea that at first, only the rich will pay for that extra government. And they assume that you'll not look at simple history to say all end up paying for bigger government.

Republicans who assumed their party meant it when it said it was serious about cutting spending when it wasn't.

And Democrats who assumed their party meant it when it promised it would limit tax hikes to the rich and it didn't.

The pendulum has swung, my friends.

And it's your neck, all our necks, on the line.

Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to cavuto@foxnews.com

[KgB]

It amazes me that people did not see that coming.

[bsdaddict]

re the assumptions:  show 'em they're wrong, vote Ron Paul!

[Gunslinger]

what's even more amazing is ignoring the fact that every major tax cut in the last 20 or so years has resulted in increase of tax revenues.  W/O the GWOT and the increases in spending I think the treasury would be sitting pretty right now.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
what's even more amazing is ignoring the fact that every major tax cut in the last 20 or so years has resulted in increase of tax revenues.  W/O the GWOT and the increases in spending I think the treasury would be sitting pretty right now.

Well, probably so but politicians (left and right) are professional spenders of the tax payer's money. That's what they do.

What makes me go grrr is the typical sacrificing of the military when the Dems are in power and the re-build up of the military at the expense of programs mean to help the country domestically when the Repubs regain control.

It’s like a fiscal see-saw.

Why can’t we just have a balanced spending plan and stop the hard swinging?

We need a strong Military and programs which help We The People domestically; not one or the other without over spending too much because no one wants to be the one to raise taxes.  Borrowing 5 trillion dollars is a future tax increase which includes interest payments in addition to that as well.

Wish I had 5 trillion bucks to loan the US and charge interest on it.
Lets see. typical credit card rates.... only getting the minumum payment for 10 years... mmmmm WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

TIGERESS

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Well, probably so but politicans (left and right) are professional spenders of the tax payer's money. That's what they do.

TIGERESS

True that!

[john9001]

the people should have a referendum veto on all spending bills.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Tigeress

 

Why can’t we just have a balanced spending plan and stop the hard swinging?



TIGERESS

Because....if it were balanced and done correctly....someone or many someones....would lose power and not be able to make people of opposing views afaid of one another.

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by Tigeress

By Neil Cavuto, FOX News FAIR AND BALANCED

With that aside, that's a big number.  Time to start returning those $2,000 toilet seats and those $9,000 hammers.

[bj229r]

Sometime in 2002 or so, when we were actually IN a recession, Bush was pushing his tax-cut plan (5 years later, one MUST conclude it was a net positive) and the Dems started the mantra of 'how are you going to PAY for it?', which was soon the standard line in the media also....@!@$@#$@#@#$@#$@#$@#$# WTF do you mean PAY FOR IT?!! Like it's already THEIR @#$@#$$@# money and if less per earned dollar is confiscated from those of us who contribute to the tax base, SOMEhow a ledger should show a precise equal in spending cuts (i.e. starving women, children, and old people) If any of those stupid @$@#$$s had gone to business school instead of law school or journalism school, they would understand a cause-and-effect relationship between confiscation of the publics wealth and their economic behavior. When Reagan's first term started, tax revenues were some 450 billion for the year---by 1988 their were DOUBLE that. Similar numbers are being borne out due to the tax cuts of 2003. Of course, both sides of the aisle are spending it faster than it comes in, and the Iraq war is a drop in the bucket.

[Shamus]

Where did you get that graph?, I dunno but I do doubt that revenues fell from 2000 to 2003.

shamus

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Shamus
Where did you get that graph?, I dunno but I do doubt that revenues fell from 2000 to 2003.

shamus

Oops fergot to stick link in there http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html

Well, we were statistically IN a recession by inauguration day, (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) and 9/11 surely didnt help

[eagl]

Originally posted by Shamus
Where did you get that graph?, I dunno but I do doubt that revenues fell from 2000 to 2003.

shamus

A lot of money simply vanished between 2000 and 2003, and that was reflected in dramatically reduced tax revenue.  I only had around $20k in the stock market when the dot com bubble burst, and after that and 9/11, I could claim somewhere around $8k in losses (spread over several years worth of tax returns of course).  If a small fish could claim 40% losses and not pay taxes on those losses, what do you think the big fish were claiming?  When a business or investor loses money, the govt loses tax revenue.

Tax cuts are about the only way to get investors and businesses to switch from defensive financial management tactics which result in very little tax revenue, to more forward thinking financial moves which ALWAYS result in the govt getting a cut of the action.  There is no question why that works.  If you tax the hell out of the rich (somewhere around 80% of taxes are paid by the top 10% of earners), then ensuring that the rich have plenty of incentive to go out and make more money through business activities is a great way to boost tax revenue.

The major downside of course is when open border trade policies are combined with lots of money pumped into businesses...  The investors don't have the incentive to keep the money in the country so even though the govt gets their cut of the profits, a good chunk of the working capital ends up in the pockets of non-US workers.  That's not so good.  It would make sense to reduce incentives to outsource business activities outside the US at the same time as encouraging investing and business activity...  That way both the little guys and the big fish get their scratch.  And the govt still gets to keep their cut.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by bj229r
Oops fergot to stick link in there http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html

Well, we were statistically IN a recession by inauguration day, (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) and 9/11 surely didnt help

Dang, I didn't know that, you are right about the spending though, it seems that no matter what the receipts we can easily chart the spending.

shamus

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by RedTop
Because....if it were balanced and done correctly....someone or many someones....would lose power and not be able to make people of opposing views afaid of one another.

That is a sad note... and I believe it RedTop.

TIGERESS