Would it be okay if DUers quit dreaming up new taxes?

[jmowreader]

In the last week or so, we had one DUer want to tax commercial air travel out of existence and today we had someone want to tax people who'd paid off their homes. (If THAT little winner ever came to pass, you know the mortgage companies would be Right There with Tax Avoidance Mortgages--you sell us ten percent of your equity or so, you give us thirty bucks a month for the rest of your life, and for less than a cup of coffee a day you'll never pay the Paid-Off House Tax. People would line up around the block for that one.)

The problem isn't that we don't have enough taxes, it's that it's too fucking easy to evade paying the taxes we've already got assuming you're a corporation or you belong to a church that likes contributions with commas in them but never seems to do anything WITH these contributions but add on to the already massive building they prey in.

We can do better than "we need a new tax on (fill in the blank)."

[Greyhound]

1. Yes, we need massive, dramatic, politically unspeakable, cuts in the so-called

defense budget. 50% to start, with immediate cessation of the whole laundry list of unworkable, unnecessary, impractical, and unneeded, corporate giveaway programs, like the Osprey and Star Wars, to name just two.

[GoneOffShore]

2. I thought you said

"like the Oprah and Star Wars, to name just two." and thought you were talking about TV shows.

But then I think that Oprah is unnecessary, but that's just me.

[Greyhound]

26. LOL!

I wish Oprah would hang out with Ted Turner and they could start the, "who can give away the most money in the best way", contest. It could be a TV show and it would, of course, attract other publicity seeking billionaires and it would actually help lots of people, while making them richer.

:rofl: as if :rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Yep, and we need fair taxes. The graduated income tax was proposed by Adam Smith, but the right

wingers always seem to miss that part of his writing on economics.

[Trajan]

11. Aint that the truth ....

Adam Smith is very clear where he stands: Everyone should contribute according to their ability to pay .... with the poor paying less, and the rich paying more (percentage wise) ...

[jmowreader]

12. Before you cancel the Osprey, think a minute...

The Osprey, for all its faults, fills a very crucial need--that of retiring the CH-46. If I was a Marine commander and I had the choice of putting my Marines in the -46 or in the Osprey, I would pick the Osprey in a heartbeat. Even though it's a piece of crap, they've gotten it to the point where it takes some work to get it to fall out of the sky. The CH-46 is just a death trap, and it's wore the fuck out.

If you get rid of the Osprey, what are you going to use to replace the -46?

I agree about Star Wars. Also trash "Future Combat Systems" and "IT-21." Naval Tactical Data System should be good enough for anyone.

[Greyhound]

19. I've thought, and heard, and read about this disaster for 25 years.

It is the very definition of a boondoggle and is a perfect example of how the MiliCorps have bilked trillions of dollars out of the American taxpayer.

The per unit cost alone (~$80 - $100M determined by mission profile) ensures that this can never be deployed in sufficient numbers to replace the venerable Sea Knight. There are numerous alternative solutions to filling the role of the CH 46 that already exist and cost a tiny fraction of what this inadequate farce does.

Your argument would seem to be that we've spent so much already that we can't afford to stop now. Is that right?

ETA: Correction; according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey">Wikipedia, the average price per unit is currently $110,000,000. That's right, one hundred ten million dollars for a flying truck built by Yugo (spare parts not included).

[jmowreader]

28. No, my argument is this...

you need to get an aircraft that can replace the CH-46 picked out before you cancel the MV-22. Otherwise, considering we're talking the Marines, they'll come up with these big wings like Icarus had (although made from high-tech polymers instead of wax) and make them flap their way into battle.

I wonder what it is that keeps the Marines from just using the CH-47. It can't be because of some weird issue with flying the thing at sea--they use the Chinook to fly oil workers out to the offshore platforms located south of Louisiana. They've been doing that for years and they're fine.

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly--the Osprey is the worst kind of a boondoggle. (This is just me, but if I was designing a totally new kind of airplane, like the Osprey is, I don't think I would have started with something that big. A bird that, if it was fixed-wing, would weigh 10,000 max takeoff weight (read: tilt-rotor Pilatus PC-12) would find a LOT of uses in the military and it would give them a lot of practical experience at this technology.)

[greenvpi]

21. Because killing brown people is a "crucial need"

Seriously, take your message of hate somewhere else.

[jmowreader]

29. Message of hate?

You're saying I hate my brothers-in-arms, Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, bless their hearts, because I want them OUT of a helicopter they haven't even made any of since 1971? These things are older than their crews.

What I want is for the Osprey to be scrapped, the CH-46 to be scrapped and new aircraft, made in a plant in the United States by a company headquartered in the United States (and NOT fucking EADS, dammit!!!) to be supplied to these guys. If we need Marines, and we do, we have the obligation to make sure their own equipment won't kill them because either (1) pieces fall off it at regular intervals because it's older than the guy in the left seat or (2) pieces fall off it because the equipment was junk when they bought it.

[Trajan]

3. I am in total agreement ....

BUT: I want to restore the taxation removed by the last greedy bastards in the WH since 2000 ....

Restore taxes to before Gore ... There is no reason why the rich and 'investor class' cannot help pay their way, according to their ability .....

[Greyhound]

10. Why you freaking little commie...

Imagine.

:evilgrin::hi::evilgrin:

:kick:

[Trajan]

13. Hey bud .....

I have never considered myself a 'commie' ..... But I know this: Some see commies everywhere, and some don't see them at all ...

Hell .. Even 'Communists' don't see a whole lot of them in today's world ....

The Chinese are capitalist slaves now, rented by their masters to work for the world's multinational producing plastic trinkets and whatnots ....

The North Korean people are certainly tired of seeing the Cadre live it up while they starve ...

The Cubans, above all, may have it the best .... Yet they cannot obtain (for whatever reason) some basics, even though they seems to have decent health care, a roof over their heads and food on the table ....

Exactly WHO is a 'Commie' these days ?

Ah .. much has changed since my drunken Dad colored presumed 'Dominoes' in Southeast Asia in red wax pencil .....

Sheeesh ....

Public Education ? .... Job Training ? (Same thing) .... Mass Transit ? ... Public control of Utilities and energy ? ..... HELL yeah ....

Is that stuff Communist ? .... not at all ... Though some will insist it is ...

[Warren Stupidity]

4. it's that it's too fucking easy to evade paying the taxes: no that isn't the problem

The problem is that we tax the heck out of ourselves and spend it all on corrupt bullshit. Other nations buy themselves universal healthcare, universal education through university level, subsidized usable mass transit systems, are developing alternative energy infrastructures, and we went out and bought ourselves a huge corrupt stupid military industrial complex with an extra helping of endless bad war and 180 foreign military bases, and a huge corrupt prison industrial complex with an associated adjunct corrupt war on drugs not sold by big pharma, while busily outsourcing our entire economy under the banner of free market fundamentalism which is actually just the charade that accompanied the corporate establishment's complete take over of the federal government.

We have been had big time. Never mind though, duncing with the stars battles american idle desperate housewhore survivors tonight! That ought to be great!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

5. I think that

I am going to have to tax you for this post...

Let's see.. that will be on cloud tax

[jojo54]

7. Agreed 100%.

But we need to make it totally fair. I favor the 10% across the board, but with no loopholes whatsoever, no way around the rules. Unfortunately, that would mean an entire overhaul of our tax structure and that may not be feasible.

[Two Americas]

31. that isn't fair

A person's first $30,000 a year in income is not the same as another person's 100th $30,000 a year in income.

It is the benefits of the public infrastructure that support and allow people's ability to build businesses and amass fortunes. They need to give back more at a higher rate in order to rebuild the infrastructure for the next generation of business people. Otherwise, it all collapses and opportunity is denied to future generations. That is exactly what is happening.

[The Straight Story]

8. We just need to have our officials spend what we have more wisely

:)

[Trajan]

9. So you believe that the reduction of tax burden on the rich ....

by the current administration should remain as it is ?

I am somewhat flabbergasted by this ..... So it's ok they did that ? .. The rich should not pay taxes ?

[The Straight Story]

14. No

Just saying, we don't need to talk about raising this or that tax all the time (as the op mentioned, on home owners) - we have revenue that is being wasted. We need to fix the waste FIRST then look at who and what to raise taxes on.

[Trajan]

20. Again ..... Is it not wise to look at EXACTLY what was eliminated ...

By the current rogue regime in Washington ? ...

This is not that difficult for me to understand, but I am me, and you are not ...

1) The Bush cabal caters to the rich ...
2) All taxes that they have reduced have especially benefited their 'constituency' ...
3) Those lost revenues have created a huge deficit, ALONG WITH THE SPENDING ON THE WAR, and other white collar perks offered.

We needn't 'look at who and what to raise taxes on', if we know that it was the rich and well-to-do who prospered from the tax burden eliminated (or nearly so) by the current WH.

When I hear 'reduce spending', I see my RW friends frothing at the mouth about 'paying for lazy people on welfare who won't get a job' .....

Reduce spending on what ? ..... The war ? .... sure: But then what about public schooling ? ... do you want to reduce the spending on public schooling ? ....

Food stamps ?

You are not specific about what to reduce .... As far as I know, most 'public service' spending has already been cut to the bone or completely eliminated .... What more is there to trim from nonexistent public service spending ? .... none that I know of: Norquist and his friends have starved government on EVERY level of the necessary funding for most public services .... You would have to redirect revenues to THOSE programs to resurrect them ....

My biggest problem is public schooling, which is being strangled to death .... Even community colleges have raised tuitions to the point that they are unaccessible to most families ... and yet the rich pay near to nothing ...

I see a direct correlation ....... I cannot understand anyone who does not see a need to directly reverse this ..... I think spending should ALWAYS be carefully watched, and so that point is moot ..... When do we NOT wish to carefully evaluate spending ?

I am usually in complete agreement with you, but when it comes to how the rich have used this government to create their own tax free heaven, I cannot in any way agree that ANY of those tax cuts should not be reversed immediately, and that waiting for a whole lot of analysis of revenues and spending should NOT be a requirement prior to the restoration of a fair tax burden on the wealthy ....

I don't buy it ....

[The Straight Story]

23. The war and pork projects

And funding corporations and bail outs, etc and so on.

Free up the money poorly spent, re-direct it to the social programs we need, and then see how much else we need and then raise taxes on the wealthy/corporations to make up the difference.

Just reversing the tax won't do much but give a lot of law makers more money to spend - and we have seen what they have done with it these 8 years (including dems) - fund the war and corporate welfare. We still don't have anything close to good health care here, and yet we can spend roughly a trillion on war and death.

I will be glad to give them more money, when they stop using it like idiots.

The problem isn't the income, it is the spending on stupid things.

Take more money from the wealthy and what will they do with it? Find more ways to fund the war and help out the rich.

We won't stop being screwed until we get the right people in office.

[varelse]

15. I don't think we need *new* taxes.

I do think we need to restore some of the "old" taxes, though. I'd like to see the progressive income tax restored, for example, and I'd like to see the capital gains tax law changed so that it does take more from the top .5%.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. I want the Republican President's tax rates

of Eisenhower's era:

Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.

In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.

Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).

Every year, millions of cases of cancer, emphysema, neurological disorders, and other conditions caused by corporate pollution are paid for in whole or in part by government funded programs from Medicare to Medicaid to government subsidies of hospitals, universities, and research institutions funded by tax dollars through the NIH and NIMH.

Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0201-23.htm

[varelse]

27. I wish this were an OP

I'd recommend it if it were ;)

[tammywammy]

16. All us homeowners are so super rich

We deserve to have to pay more taxes.

[WillowTree]

17. Not only to tax people who have paid-off their mortgages.

Read that post again. This Bozo wants to tax anyone who has bought a home based on the incredibile premise that if you have been able to save up for a downpayment and can make mortgage payments and pay property taxes, it follows that you are already "wealthy" and not paying your fair share. And then this punishment for buying a home would increase once you've paid off your mortgage because you then have all this "extra" money lying around every month.

Talk about a disincentive to home ownership!

[jmowreader]

30. I just got back from there..

you're right, he is fucked in the head.

I'll share with you a little anecdote. When I was still selling lumber, I got approached by a customer who wanted to know why his walls were all cracking. He gave this weird description, which I couldn't really figure out so I got permission from management to go look at this guy's walls. What had happened was the framing sub used sub-standard lumber (no pun intended) that was warped and twisted to build the interior walls. The drywall sub attempted to use drywall to pull the framing back into shape. If there's anything you CAN'T do with drywall, it's to use it as a structural element like these guys were doing. The poor bastard's house was tearing itself apart because it was built half-ass.

"What can I do?"
'Lawyer up.'

I found the guy a lawyer who'd work cheap considering the customer's finances, and we got him out of the house into something that wasn't on the verge of exploding. THe guy was a sergeant in the army, and they don't make enough to really do much of anything.

This is the kind of people that poster wants to tax on the theory owning a really big loan means you're rich?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

18. The taxing power is very important to regulate behavior

We can't allow a laissez-faire capitalist system to run rampant without any regulation. And taxation is an important regulator. I agree with the OP about the types of taxes they bring up. I think a tax on hard-working people who have paid off their home makes no sense. In America, we shouldn't be penalizing those people who get out of debt and pay off their mortgages. My lower middle-class parents managed to pay off their home in California while making a lot of sacrifices over many years in other areas. They didn't like the idea of being in debt to a mortgage company at all, even if it meant driving old cars and buying their clothes at the thrift store. I don't like the idea of taxing airline travel either. I'm not sure what additional taxes might make sense, but I think we should consider all options. I think perhaps that extra taxation of American companies that relocate abroad and import their goods might make sense and might help regulate their behavior of shifting good jobs off shore. I think perhaps a heavy tax on giant gas guzzling cars like the largest SUVs and Hummers might help regulate better buying behavior. Tax breaks for electric cars such as allowing the deduction from income for the monthly payments (if any viable electric cars are ever built) would also make sense and use the taxing power to regulate better behavior for the benefit of society.

[bighart]

24. I see all of the ear marks as a huge problem.

We have congress members spitting out money for BS projects that are only designed to score them brownie points with the folks at home so they can keep their jobs. Bridges to nowhere, tax money to an aquarium that has net profits of several million dollars a year, and the list goes on and on.

[MissB]

25. The idiot today was banned.

It was pretty obvious they were here to stir up trouble.