Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
this is depressing to read that most of you who make a lot of $ aren’t willing to pay higher taxes yet us poor folks are willing to – this is what is wrong with the US
“I’m actually all for the US maintaining its military superiority. ”
Yeah, cuz the military is much more efficient than the rest of the guvment. Somehow. Let’s look at the recent track record.
WWII: Kicked serious ass in 4 years.
Korea: Maybe kicked some ass. War still on
Vietnam: FAIL in 14 years
Gulf War I: Kick ass
Afghanistan: FAIL after 10 years
Iraq: FAIL after 9 years.
This is a better track record than the rest of the government? I don’t think so.
“The more money you give to the government, the more ways they find to waste it. Giving money to the government is not an efficient way have money work efficiently.”
I believed that statement in the 1980s, and it still mostly holds true for local and state governments.
However, the last few decades have shown that there is close to no relationship between what the federal government takes in and what it spends.
Explain to me this logic: if you allow me to pay fewer taxes, I will donate more money to charity – but then I want a charitable deduction. Shouldn’t it be if you’re already getting a lower tax bill you should pay higher taxes at the end of the year if you don’t donate? Isn’t that a double benefit to the taxpayer?
this is depressing to read that most of you who make a lot of $ aren’t willing to pay higher taxes yet us poor folks are willing to – this is what is wrong with the US
“I’m actually all for the US maintaining its military superiority. ”
Yeah, cuz the military is much more efficient than the rest of the guvment. Somehow. Let’s look at the recent track record.
WWII: Kicked serious ass in 4 years.
Korea: Maybe kicked some ass. War still on
Vietnam: FAIL in 14 years
Gulf War I: Kick ass
Afghanistan: FAIL after 10 years
Iraq: FAIL after 9 years.
This is a better track record than the rest of the government? I don’t think so.
so if i’m following this correctly:
because the gov’t spends money inefficiently
we should give them less money
easy for those who have money to say
jessi, you seem to have an acute form of this Obamanomics where if you don’t do something you should be fined either directly or through taxes.
I now sing my usual chorus: I have far superior coverage w/ Medicare than I did when I was paying $1,200. per month for private health insurance.
“The more money you give to the government, the more ways they find to waste it. Giving money to the government is not an efficient way have money work efficiently.”
I believed that statement in the 1980s, and it still mostly holds true for local and state governments.
However, the last few decades have shown that there is close to no relationship between what the federal government takes in and what it spends.
No one over 55 should have to pay taxes, we’ve paid enough already.
Actually food stamps and Medicare are pretty efficient. See how many complaints you get from their recipients!
Explain to me this logic: if you allow me to pay fewer taxes, I will donate more money to charity – but then I want a charitable deduction. Shouldn’t it be if you’re already getting a lower tax bill you should pay higher taxes at the end of the year if you don’t donate? Isn’t that a double benefit to the taxpayer?