Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

We’ll know better next time

March 20, 2013

Dear Mr. Speaker of The House, You may have caved on the tax increases to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but you held firm on the sequester. And guess what? The sky didn’t fall....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(64)

JerryfromRI

Mar-22-13 12:39 PM

No worries Tex, I took it as in good humor you intended. Let's hope for some warm weather this weekend, I've got yard work to do.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-22-13 11:41 AM

JerryfromRI,

It was late and I was just poking at you some. I assume the RI means Rhode Island. There were most of your posts that I didn't agree with and this was a way to make a global comment to hit them all. Hope you have a good weekend.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Mar-22-13 8:56 AM

Buff, I believe we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that we cannot operate based upon the lowest denominator. Would you run your business based upon the least productive employee? No, you would train them better and if that didn't work, you would replace them and move on. Unfortunately that is where it comes down, we must raise everyone up rather than bringing the rest down--both in education, training and opportunity. This does not mean, however, that there will be improved outcome for all--that will never happen. I realize this is a bit harsh, but that is life. Every time we make exceptions for this group or that group, we inflict more burden on someone else and that is not "fair" either.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-22-13 7:34 AM

Hey Tex, I don't drink. (Just so ya know)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-22-13 12:12 AM

"His neighbor falls on hard time and accepts food stamps to feed his family. All of a sudden Erik's neighbor, who has been paying higher taxes then Erik on the same income, is now labeled a taker." ---JerryfromRambunctiouslyIntoxicated

+++

Jerry, most people think that he is entitled to the food stamps since he has paid into it. The problem is when people continue to "milk" the system and don't really look for jobs of any kind. Likewise, if the person that made the house payments and took the mortgage deduction lost his job, they would also be entitled to participate in SNAP.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-21-13 9:14 PM

Hi nobud.. you can substitute a 9$ an hour worker and the question I posed remains.. under a flat tax structure, the only % that could be applied is the one that allows the lowest paid worker the chance to exist.. this would not be enough to fund even the most basic government functions.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Mar-21-13 8:34 PM

Jerry, the whole idea of a flat tax is to do away with incentives for this or that. You make it, you pay it. As for congress creating the scenario you suggest, they would be going against the flat tax and I would hope we would elect individuals who would obey the law for a change and stop trying to buy votes by offering carrots for some action.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Mar-21-13 8:32 PM

Buff, why is it every time there is discussion on taxes we always have to base everything on the minimum wage worker? And, to be more precise, please explain why if we have a flat tax that it is more oppressive to that minimum wage worker than the one making more? What about the 9 dollar an hour worker? I guess it doesn't affect them as much because they don't make the minimum. If it is fair for one group it is fair for all, that is the beauty of the flat tax. Just think of all those IRS agents that could be furloughed and all the offices that could be closed--talk about saving tax money!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-21-13 7:04 PM

Let's say the flat tax becomes reality, everyone pays 15% regardless of income type and all deductions are eliminated.

BOOM, flat tax!

Ok, then let's say some future Congress decides it must advocate for some change. Let's for the sake of debate say that Congress wants to strengthen the 2nd amendment and offers a 2% tax deduction off the 15%, if that 2% is used for firearms purchases.

Is that 2% a subsidy?

I say yes.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-21-13 6:44 PM

Hi nobud, hi Cheyenne.. while I admit to not being expert, and admitting further that I'm not well versed in the topic, it seems like one flaw in the flat tax idea would be that the only rate you could ascribe would be the rate the lowest wage earner could afford. For example, a person making minimum wage could not afford an especially high rate of taxation.. but, according to your idea, that would therefore be the only fair rate to apply to all. It seems like this would not come anywhere near providing the necessary funding for even the most basic inherently governmental function.. no?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-21-13 6:35 PM

@eriklatranyi

You say a tax deduction is not a subsidy, I say it is. Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

But a difference of opinion is not a lie Erik.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-21-13 5:23 PM

But, in order to continue their LIE that deductions are a subsidy, they need to portray the mortgage interest deduction as a subsidy.

What a tangled web they weave.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-21-13 5:21 PM

That's right guys.

You see, Jerry and other liberals claim the oil industry receives "subsidies". But all the oil industry gets is what ever other industry gets out there.

So, they rail against the oil industry and hope to eliminate the deductions only for them. The other manufacturers get to keep those deductions.

Then, when there are no jobs, liberals like Jerry complain about companies not hiring enough.

What is truly sad is that at the higher levels, oil companies are highly unionized. You would think liberals would stand with union workers.

Instead, they portray the industry as evil and in need of punishment.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Mar-21-13 3:24 PM

I know what you mean Nobud. I'm realizing there are some who believe we are working for the government rather than the government working for us and should be grateful for whatever "allowance" we are permitted to keep.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Mar-21-13 1:50 PM

Cheyenne, give it up. You can't reason with someone who simply does not want to see the facts for what they are. They would rather bend the info to suit their narrative. And, they can't see why so many people want a flat tax with no deductions that EVERYONE pays into, no matter how much or how little you make. That, is the only true and fair tax. The problem is that it is not fair enough for them with respect to preferred groups.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Mar-21-13 12:15 PM

Jerry, I believe the point Erik and SF are trying to make is that they do not view using the available deduction as "taking" from the government, but rather "giving less".

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-21-13 12:05 PM

@cheyenne

No Sir. Not for a second. I fully support the mortgage interest deduction program. Home ownership is a wonderful thing - and people who own their own homes tend not to go on strike.

But at least I can identified it has a social program.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Mar-21-13 12:02 PM

Jerry, do you really believe there are people out there who are able to take the mortgage interest deduction but choose not to because the government deserves their money more than they do?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-21-13 11:26 AM

Erik and his neighbor both have the same job and make the same salary. At the end of the year, they owe the same amount of Federal income tax.

Erik takes advantage of the mortgage interest tax deduction, a government program designed to encourage home ownership, his neighbor does not. So, Erik pays less tax than his neighbor.

Erik says he only gives to the government, he never takes.

His neighbor falls on hard time and accepts food stamps to feed his family. All of a sudden Erik's neighbor, who has been paying higher taxes then Erik on the same income, is now labeled a taker.

Many conservative rally against programs such as food stamps while at the same time pocketing huge tax breaks for themselves. It is the great hypocrisy of our time. I don't fall for it and neither should you.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-21-13 10:51 AM

SteelerFan:

Jerry and his liberal friends see all money as theirs. That is why they think they can take your savings in the middle of the night.

That is also why they see a family keeping the money it earned as a handout.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Mar-21-13 10:22 AM

Jerry: 'When you take the mortgage tax deduction you are taking a handout from the government, plain and simple.'

And where did the government get the money to 'hand out' Jerry? Check your wallet.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Mar-21-13 6:25 AM

"Let's see; obama's priorities, bracketology, Tiger golfing, Beyonce ogling, making sure a 31 year old student*****can party without fear of pregnancy, cut out Easter egg hunts for children, Hmm what have I missed?" - Bobbie2

*

So far?? I'm guessing maturity, in-general.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-21-13 6:21 AM

@eriklatranyi

You are what is wrong with American today. You stand on your soap box and cry about the welfare state all the while not even having a basic understanding how government programs work.

When you take the mortgage tax deduction you are taking a handout from the government, plain and simple.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-21-13 6:17 AM

Jerry:

Next you're going to tell me that because I pay at the 39% rate, I am getting a break because it should be 42%.

Your logic is flawed.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Mar-21-13 6:07 AM

Erik earns $xxx and his federal tax burdedn is $xxx.

Erik has entered into a private contract, the type of contract the government wishes to encourage so it offers a tax deduction to do so.

Erik takes the deduction and pays less taxes by amount $xxx

What if Erik paid his full amount of taxes due and then the government sent Erik a check for the amount of the tax deduction instead. It's still the same thing right?

How can Erik claim that he only pays in and gets nothing back?

HOW?

It is the very pinnacle of hypocrisy.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 64 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web