+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: How Tax Loopholes Weaken Society

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickT View Post
    I assume you're joking. Liberals are the ones with no interest in paying their bills.
    Nope, see for example the discussion on the thread over why right wingers backed off proposals for a negative income tax. Conservatism prefers the current inefficiency to the changes required

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    Nope, see for example the discussion on the thread over why right wingers backed off proposals for a negative income tax. Conservatism prefers the current inefficiency to the changes required
    Spell out the required changes, in detail.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Amused View Post
    Spell out the required changes, in detail.
    An integration of tax and benefits into a single program. It's an improvement over the current system, however because it's progressive and has a mandatory minimum income as a feature, it typically doesn't sit well with conservatives.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    An integration of tax and benefits into a single program. It's an improvement over the current system, however because it's progressive and has a mandatory minimum income as a feature, it typically doesn't sit well with conservatives.
    Remember I asked for details - that minimum income is?
    Last edited by Not Amused; Feb 16 2012 at 06:27 AM.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Amused View Post
    Remember I asked for details - that minimum income is?
    It'd depend on the time, country and a lot of other variables. Where it's been implemented it was based on the poverty line and compensation revolved around that number.

    The numeric specifics really isn't where the contention is, it's with the concept.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    It'd depend on the time, country and a lot of other variables. Where it's been implemented it was based on the poverty line and compensation revolved around that number.
    Pick a place, or make one up. Detail the conditions, and the desired result from NIT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    The numeric specifics really isn't where the contention is, it's with the concept.
    Really? Why do people opposed to welfare donate to charity? Could it be they have more trust in charity to get that person back on their feet?

    They have seen how ineffective government employees are at doing the same thing?

    They have seen government rules that would rather pay unemployment for two years, rather tha support training for the jobs that exist?

    How, government has been managing the poor for 40 years, and the number have increased every year.

    Are we against the concept, or the total ineffectiveness? (except for insuring job security for government employees)

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Amused View Post
    Pick a place, or make one up. Detail the conditions, and the desired result from NIT.
    I won't do the former, I'm not an economist, I don't have training in econometrics so it couldn't possibly add to the conversation.

    The desired result I've already stated, combining our tax and benefits programs; in short ending all taxes and entitlement program other than the NIT, a single entity to replace the hoards of various tax collecting and benefit paying organization (ie IRS, medicare, medicaid, social security etc)


    rant
    Part of the reason government exists is to provide for the general welfare, this plan is a radical simplification and a massive reduction in the size of government. Your rant was sadly lacking any real rebuttal, just an emotional splurge about governmental inefficiencies. Congratulations on stating the obvious.

    I'm disappointed that instead of attacking the NIT you decided to go on an emotional tirade.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    I won't do the former, I'm not an economist, I don't have training in econometrics so it couldn't possibly add to the conversation.

    The desired result I've already stated, combining our tax and benefits programs; in short ending all taxes and entitlement program other than the NIT, a single entity to replace the hoards of various tax collecting and benefit paying organization (ie IRS, medicare, medicaid, social security etc)



    Part of the reason government exists is to provide for the general welfare, this plan is a radical simplification and a massive reduction in the size of government. Your rant was sadly lacking any real rebuttal, just an emotional splurge about governmental inefficiencies. Congratulations on stating the obvious.

    I'm disappointed that instead of attacking the NIT you decided to go on an emotional tirade.
    Emotional rant? Why do you think NIT doesn't exist? Government inefficiency!!!!!!

    You attach conservatives as the enemy, and ignore the real problem.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Amused View Post
    Emotional rant? Why do you think NIT doesn't exist?
    Because the people who would have to vote on it (congress) have no interest in passing it. They'd lose significant amounts of power to buy favors via the tax code.

    You attach conservatives as the enemy, and ignore the real problem.
    I didn't say anyone was the enemy, stop with the idiotic characterization that completely miss the point of the conversation. It was stated that conservatives in particular dislike the NIT because of certain features, none of which you've addressed, instead you elected to spew rhetorical bile. At the same time, the benefits of it are in line with core right wing tenants, particularly smaller government.

    If you bother responding again, try to put together something coherent.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Because the people who would have to vote on it (congress) have no interest in passing it. They'd lose significant amounts of power to buy favors via the tax code.
    The tax code is small part of what influences congress.

    NIT, as you describe it, would substantially improve the efficiency of government by eliminating duplicate, and competing programs. What is keeping the talking heads on the media from talking about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    I didn't say anyone was the enemy, stop with the idiotic characterization that completely miss the point of the conversation. It was stated that conservatives in particular dislike the NIT because of certain features, none of which you've addressed, instead you elected to spew rhetorical bile. At the same time, the benefits of it are in line with core right wing tenants, particularly smaller government.

    If you bother responding again, try to put together something coherent.
    Still attacking I see.

    What specific features do conservatives dislike about NIT?

    Does NIT penalize someone for getting a job? Or, earning over a arbitrary amount?

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Let's close the loopholes, shut down ...
    By Phoebe Bump in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Feb 03 2012, 11:40 AM
  2. Banana Republicans want to weaken your vote
    By CarlB in forum Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: Dec 22 2011, 06:43 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: Nov 26 2011, 12:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks