Time for undertaxed liberals to put up...

[EvilMonkey]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207871299...=googlenews_wsj

 

The Tax Me More Act

April 11, 2008; Page A16

We recently suggested that if Bill and Hillary Clinton are eager to pay more taxes, they should write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury to compensate for the lower tax rates they so frequently decry. And lo, here comes legislation to make it easier for the former first lady and other pseudo-populists to do just that.

 

California Republican John Campbell yesterday introduced in the House his "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act," which would amend the tax code to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government above their normal tax liability. The bill would place a new line on IRS tax forms to make this easy.

 

Mr. Campbell says he has heard the "cries" of those wealthy Americans – Mrs. Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand – who reject the lower tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 and complain that they and their fellow rich don't pay enough. "It's a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation," he says. His bill would give liberals a chance to salve their consciences without having to raise taxes on millions of Americans who already feel overtaxed as it is.

 

Still, don't expect many to take Mr. Campbell up on his offer. The Treasury already accepts voluntary donations to decrease the nation's debt; last year it received all of $2.6 million. Apparently even most liberals would rather keep their money, or bequeath their estates to charity rather than to the IRS.

[santo=dorf]

They'll probably double dip and not allow the "donation" to be used as a tax writeoff.

 

I like this idea.

[NorthSideSox72]

To me, the really interesting part of that article is that people donated $2.6M towards paying off the nation's debt. I didn't even know you could do that.

 

[lostfan]

Well, since we're calling people out for hypocrisy, is someone going to make it easier for people who proudly squawk about how the war is good for the country while they're trashing/talking down people who think/thought it was a terrible idea to join the military if they don't already (and so many don't)? Then not only could they put their money where their mouth is, they'd be doing something to support the troops besides sending care packages, making posts on the internet, or showing up at anti-war rallies.

 

Just saying. Exact same principle.

[hitlesswonder]

Just saying. Exact same principle.

 

I have no idea what you are just saying. If you are complaining that people supporting the war in Iraq aren't serving as soliders when they could be, it's not the exact same principle. You are inventing a caricature of a conservative hypocrite and I know of no real person that fits that description. On the other hand, tons of liberals want to raise taxes but won't pony up if it's their money. Just like they don't give to charity. To quote George Will:

 

In 2000, brows were furrowed because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money, he was being charitable, as liberals conveniently, understand that word.

[lostfan]

You are inventing a caricature of a conservative hypocrite and I know of no real person that fits that description.

I'm not inventing a thing. There isn't anyone like that on this board but they are EVERYWHERE. I shouldn't even have to try to back up a statement like that, it stands on its own.

 

And I'm not talking about people supporting this war and not serving in and of itself, I'm talking generally tough guys who talk about war and don't have a clue what it's actually all about and have no interest in any real contribution either. e.g., someone that says "we should just go ahead and invade Iran" or 2 years ago would've said "we should invade Syria."

Edited April 12, 2008 by lostfan

[hitlesswonder]

I'm not inventing a thing. There isn't anyone like that on this board but they are EVERYWHERE. I shouldn't even have to try to back up a statement like that, it stands on its own.

 

We'll just have to disagree -- just saying stuff doesn't prove anything to me. I'd agree someone shouldn't call for a war that they would be unwilling to fight in, but I have not met anyone that has done that. And I have no reason to believe that conservatives would be more prone to do that than liberals.

 

Will's assertion that liberals are hypocrites who love to give away other people's money is backed up by actual data.

Edited April 12, 2008 by hitlesswonder

[lostfan]

I love speaking in sweeping generalizations.

 

edit: yeah I think my sarcasm here might be a little bit borderline for the etiquitte

Edited April 12, 2008 by lostfan

[lostfan]

However, if I really wanted to try to prove my point, I would point to the ratio of Republican congressman and/or Bush adminstration officials who authorized the Iraq war who have served/have children that are serving and also have tangible service records to those that never came anywhere close to it, but I wasn't really trying to go there.

 

The ratio of Dems who voted in favor of the resolution is probably similar, but you're talking about observable data and invoked "conservatives," so...

[EvilMonkey]

However, if I really wanted to try to prove my point, I would point to the ratio of Republican congressman and/or Bush adminstration officials who authorized the Iraq war who have served/have children that are serving and also have tangible service records to those that never came anywhere close to it, but I wasn't really trying to go there.

 

The ratio of Dems who voted in favor of the resolution is probably similar, but you're talking about observable data and invoked "conservatives," so...

So are you saying that unless you served in the services you can't vote for or authorize military action? Because that is what is sure sounds like. Stick to the topic in the post, please. If you feel that as a nation we are undertaxed, then by all means, please give more. Don't wait for everyone else to get screwed, pay up now. The liberal dems that complain about tax cuts for the wealthy and stuff sure seem to take every advantage of tax breaks, etc, that the evil republicans do. If you want to start calling people chicken hawks, start a different thread.

[lostfan]

So are you saying that unless you served in the services you can't vote for or authorize military action?

No.

 

I'm saying that sweeping generalizations are silly and believing a negative concept like hypocrisy is exclusive to one party/set of political beliefs is even siller. Judging by your reaction I think I pretty much got my point across too.

 

I could find fallacy in the "gee, I'm rich, I wish I paid more taxes" argument too if you really wanted but I don't have time atm.

Edited April 13, 2008 by lostfan

[Texsox]

Alpha, as a liberal, I do not want to pay taxes any more than you do. What I don't want is a debtor government heading to bankruptcy on foreign debt. I want to make certain we have great National Parks, a strong defense, I want to see laws enforced that protect consumers from faulty products, from dishonest con men, etc.

 

So your sweeping generalization is an insult to most liberals and a gross mis characterization. Most of us believe in actually paying for the government, not cutting taxes, and shifting the burden to some unnamed individuals down the road.

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha, as a liberal, I do not want to pay taxes any more than you do. What I don't want is a debtor government heading to bankruptcy on foreign debt. I want to make certain we have great National Parks, a strong defense, I want to see laws enforced that protect consumers from faulty products, from dishonest con men, etc.

 

So your sweeping generalization is an insult to most liberals and a gross mis characterization. Most of us believe in actually paying for the government, not cutting taxes, and shifting the burden to some unnamed individuals down the road.

Your first line summed it up. You don't want to pay any more than I do. But you do want to pay more, and you explained your reasons. I , however, do not want to pay more, and would like the government to stop spending like drunken frat boys at a strip club to put us in the situation you described. True conservatives (not those in power now) would have given us the tax cuts, and then stopped spending as well. We all know that there are billions in waste, hundreds of programs or departments that are not needed, yet we still get taxed to pay for them. And my post was only a sweeping generalization to those that think we are not taxed enough. If you also feel that we are not paying enougjh, by all means please pay some more. I would rather they stop spending what we do give them until it matches what they take in. And there are several very rich liberals who are on record as saying such. Maybe they could pick up the slack and help ease their guilt?

Edited April 13, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[NorthSideSox72]

We'll just have to disagree -- just saying stuff doesn't prove anything to me. I'd agree someone shouldn't call for a war that they would be unwilling to fight in, but I have not met anyone that has done that. And I have no reason to believe that conservatives would be more prone to do that than liberals.

 

Will's assertion that liberals are hypocrites who love to give away other people's money is backed up by actual data.

LOL. Are you seriously trying to say that the sweeping generalizations about Liberals are accurate ("backed up by data"), but that sweeping generalizations about conservatives and the war are not?

 

Exhibit A: Dick Cheney. Huge war proponent and engineer. Draft dodger.

 

But here is an even better idea - how about NEITHER generalization is accurate?

 

[Reddy]

i will gladly pay more taxes because that's what our country needs right now.

 

though i won't cuz i dont make enough money. but those who do should. it's just simple logic - if you make more you should pay more. why it isn't currently like that is beyond me.

[EvilMonkey]

i will gladly pay more taxes because that's what our country needs right now.

 

though i won't cuz i dont make enough money. but those who do should. it's just simple logic - if you make more you should pay more. why it isn't currently like that is beyond me.

it is like that. If I make $50,000 and pay 28%, that would be more than your $24,000 paying 28%. Or are you in favor of the 60% top bracket?

[southsider2k5]

i will gladly pay more taxes because that's what our country needs right now.

 

though i won't cuz i dont make enough money. but those who do should. it's just simple logic - if you make more you should pay more. why it isn't currently like that is beyond me.

 

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but it IS that way, and has been for a really, really, long time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

 

For 2008, the Federal tax brackets for a single (unmarried) person are:[1]

 

10%: from $0 to $8,025

15%: from $8,026 to $32,550

25%: from $32,551 to $78,850

28%: from $78,851 to $164,550

33%: from $164,551 to $357,700

35%: $357,701 and above

[lostfan]

Your first line summed it up. You don't want to pay any more than I do. But you do want to pay more, and you explained your reasons. I , however, do not want to pay more, and would like the government to stop spending like drunken frat boys at a strip club to put us in the situation you described. True conservatives (not those in power now) would have given us the tax cuts, and then stopped spending as well. We all know that there are billions in waste, hundreds of programs or departments that are not needed, yet we still get taxed to pay for them. And my post was only a sweeping generalization to those that think we are not taxed enough. If you also feel that we are not paying enougjh, by all means please pay some more. I would rather they stop spending what we do give them until it matches what they take in. And there are several very rich liberals who are on record as saying such. Maybe they could pick up the slack and help ease their guilt?

Alpha, we have common ground here after all.

[Texsox]

Alpha, we have common ground here after all.

I'd have liked to hear something like, we're going to have to invade Iraq. He has WMD and he's terrible to his people. We want to be safe, and we will win this war. Now there will be a cost. abour $600 per person, so we're going to skip those tax cuts to pay for it. Hell, depending on how things go, we may have to raise taxes to pay for this war.

[kapkomet]

And I agree as well. That's why 95% of the ass-monkeys that call themselves conservatives can kiss my ass.

[Texsox]

And I agree as well. That's why 95% of the ass-monkeys that call themselves conservatives can kiss my ass.

 

That's why 95% of the ass-monkeys that call themselves politicians can kiss my ass.

 

Same with the Dems, want a new program? Then tell the public how we're going to pay for it, and let's track it. But don't give me this crap of cutting taxes while increasing debt. I expect to be living long enough to have to pay this back. Give me checks from the surplus, don't borrow to give me money.

[bmags]

So Warren Buffet doesn't give to charity then? Should I take that notion seriously? Because Al Gore hasn't given enough, all liberals don't give to charity?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

So Warren Buffet doesn't give to charity then? Should I take that notion seriously? Because Al Gore hasn't given enough, all liberals don't give to charity?

 

Warren Buffet has set it up to give something like 90-95% of his wealth to the Gates Foundation. I don't recall the time table or the exact numbers, but it was something like $40-50 BILLION.

[EvilMonkey]

So Warren Buffet doesn't give to charity then? Should I take that notion seriously? Because Al Gore hasn't given enough, all liberals don't give to charity?

SS is correct I believe in what Buffet has planned for wehn he croaks. However he is one of the more vocal critics of us not being taxed enough. Yet he spends a small fortune on accountants to get every tax break he can, just like the rest of us. If he feels so undertaxed, he can certainly afford to pay more to ease his conscience.

[Texsox]

SS is correct I believe in what Buffet has planned for wehn he croaks. However he is one of the more vocal critics of us not being taxed enough. Yet he spends a small fortune on accountants to get every tax break he can, just like the rest of us. If he feels so undertaxed, he can certainly afford to pay more to ease his conscience.

 

He has spoken out about tax policies, not about the ethics of aggressively following those policies.

He is only one taxpayer, certainly you can see the reasoning why he should speak out about policy?