BUSH tax cuts cost 2x health care reform

[blueblood]

I don't disagree with you. I'm only stating that most capitalists aren't really capitalists as the word is understood. I don't think that's a particularly controversial assertion.

But there's still another aspect to your argument I don't get. You disagree with corporate taxes; I understand. But you also called taxation "evil"...shortly before you embrace this "evil" by stating that you'd like to see a negative tax rate for Business.

I'm just wondering about your use of the word "evil," and what embracing it might say to us.

I call high taxation evil. The NDP upping corporate tax up from 15% in 2012 to 22% is evil. 44% tax on people making over 100K is evil. I disagree with HIGH corporate taxes and HIGH taxes in general. I agree with tax cuts.

Anybody in their right mind would like to see a negative tax rate, that's just common sense. Had you said you could get a negative tax rate, but the tradeoff is that we're imposing a 30% export tariff on oil, well then I would obviously be against it. You framed the context as the person getting free money. Anybody with half a brain wants free money.

[Michael Hardner]

I call high taxation evil. The NDP upping corporate tax up from 15% in 2012 to 22% is evil. 44% tax on people making over 100K is evil. I disagree with HIGH corporate taxes and HIGH taxes in general. I agree with tax cuts.

But you reveal your lack of understanding of English when you use the word "high".

How "high" is high ? Better yet, how low is low ? What tax rate would be fair ? You can't answer that, because I can come back with a lower rate that renders your rate "high".

It's hard to discuss this with you because you're using absolute terms as relative terms. Do you see ?

[blueblood]

Socialism isn't the relative movement of the tax rate, nor is Communism. Do you understand that ?

If you do, then favouring moving the tax rate from 1.1% to 1% isn't socialism.

But upping that tax rate moves it closer and closer that way. Upping the tax rate takes money from me and the government decides what to do with it. Is that not socialism?

[Michael Hardner]

But upping that tax rate moves it closer and closer that way. Upping the tax rate takes money from me and the government decides what to do with it. Is that not socialism?

Then anything above a 0% tax rate is socialism.

Again, what would you consider a "low" rate ?

[blueblood]

But you reveal your lack of understanding of English when you use the word "high".

How "high" is high ? Better yet, how low is low ? What tax rate would be fair ? You can't answer that, because I can come back with a lower rate that renders your rate "high".

It's hard to discuss this with you because you're using absolute terms as relative terms. Do you see ?

Now your moving the goalposts, the Americans pay X tax. With Obama's spending, they will be paying X + Y, because the US doesn't offer very many services and is one of the more efficient governments. People will see that as a tax hike and say they have high taxes. High taxes is subjective, advocating a tax hike is advocating for higher taxes.

Why would you come back at the lower rate, you are the one justifying a tax hike, not me.

Personally I'd prefer a flat tax that everybody pays the same, with a rate that is median to the high income tax bracket and the low income tax bracket. Corporate taxes also flat at the small business tax rate. Let the slashing of services and waste begin.

[bloodyminded]

I call high taxation evil. The NDP upping corporate tax up from 15% in 2012 to 22% is evil. 44% tax on people making over 100K is evil. I disagree with HIGH corporate taxes and HIGH taxes in general.

Really? You said: "Anyone advocating a 2% tax hike (from 6% to 8%) is wanting me to keep less and less of my money, that person is on the fast track to communism, not to mention is evil."

So Harper, Reagan...in fact, everybody for a long time is a communist--and evil.

At any rate, "evil" insists upon a moral premise. So how can someone opposed to taxes (or "high taxes"--which to you means either 40% or 22% or 6%..this remains unclear) because they are "evil" say he would happily commit "evil" by taking taxes from others?

[blueblood]

Then anything above a 0% tax rate is socialism.

Again, what would you consider a "low" rate ?

I don't think you quite get capitalism, the government has to exist and it has a cost of operating, and that cost must be paid. However, there is a line between paying for operating costs, and an adventure into socialism land, that line is also subjective, and its up to the voters of a country to pick a government that has a particular definition of where that line is (or in the NDP's case what line?). There is an argument in here that states that capitalism and socialism are not black and white, but shades of grey. If capitalism is white and socialism is black, mine has a very whitish look to it, and if my line is crossed, I call that socialism.

[blueblood]

Really? You said: "Anyone advocating a 2% tax hike (from 6% to 8%) is wanting me to keep less and less of my money, that person is on the fast track to communism, not to mention is evil."

So Harper, Reagan...in fact, everybody for a long time is a communist--and evil.

At any rate, "evil" insists upon a moral premise. So how can someone opposed to taxes (or "high taxes"--which to you means either 40% or 22% or 6%..this remains unclear) because they are "evil" say he would happily commit "evil" by taking taxes from others?

I didn't agree with Haper's tax hike, and thought it was "evil". Reagan for the umpteenth time DROPPED taxes. That 6 to 8% is an example from MH. If that was a tax rate (I wish I had a 6% tax rate), I would be angry if it got bumped up 2% points considering I would have to rebudget the business.

For the umpteenth time, I am opposed to tax hikes, the government during the early 2000's dropped taxes and collected revenues from an expanding economy. What a wonderful concept!

[Michael Hardner]

Now your moving the goalposts, the Americans pay X tax. With Obama's spending, they will be paying X + Y, because the US doesn't offer very many services and is one of the more efficient governments. People will see that as a tax hike and say they have high taxes. High taxes is subjective, advocating a tax hike is advocating for higher taxes.

Why would you come back at the lower rate, you are the one justifying a tax hike, not me.

Personally I'd prefer a flat tax that everybody pays the same, with a rate that is median to the high income tax bracket and the low income tax bracket. Corporate taxes also flat at the small business tax rate. Let the slashing of services and waste begin.

Moving the goalposts ? My point is that you have said there are no goalposts.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think you quite get capitalism, the government has to exist and it has a cost of operating, and that cost must be paid. However, there is a line between paying for operating costs, and an adventure into socialism land, that line is also subjective, and its up to the voters of a country to pick a government that has a particular definition of where that line is (or in the NDP's case what line?). There is an argument in here that states that capitalism and socialism are not black and white, but shades of grey. If capitalism is white and socialism is black, mine has a very whitish look to it, and if my line is crossed, I call that socialism.

You're basically saying that any taxation is socialism, and therefore that tax rates must always go down. The word "Socialism" is not subjective, and you need to stop using it because it's very confusing.

[bloodyminded]

I didn't agree with Haper's tax hike, and thought it was "evil". Reagan for the umpteenth time DROPPED taxes. That 6 to 8% is an example from MH. If that was a tax rate (I wish I had a 6% tax rate), I would be angry if it got bumped up 2% points considering I would have to rebudget the business.

For the umpteenth time, I am opposed to tax hikes, the government during the early 2000's dropped taxes and collected revenues from an expanding economy. What a wonderful concept!

At the risk of repeating Michael Hardner's comments, I perceive some odd contradictions. With all due respect. You seem to be saying that the tax RATE doesn't matter, only whether the rate rises or falls.

Yes, Reagan cut taxes; but taxes have been lower SINCE Reagan in many cases, and even if they go UP:, they can still be LOWER than Reagan's tax rates.

Tax rates cannot always fall, forever, or else there will be no tax revenues. At all.

[punked]

Do you really believe that American's like taxes? Why oh why do so many more immigrants book it to the US instead of Canada? If you think Americans are going to want to pay similar taxes as we have up here your living in candy land on the corner of gumdrop lane.

Last time I checked, there was no massive hundreds of billions of dollars of health care reform bill being voted on at this stage in the game during Clinton's tenure. His wife tried to stir up health care reform, but it got slammed down rather quickly.

The NDP plans to hike up the corporate rate up to 22%. That in itself will put the kibosh on many small business's including mine that chose to go this route. Why would I go from my business paying 15% corporate tax with just about everything I spend on going to business expenses to vote for a party that will charge my business 22%? What logical business owner would vote for that nonsense? The sooner the fact that the NDP realize its not 1968 and that government interference hinders businesses not encourages them the better.

The NDP's policy is to cut small bisuness tax from 5% to 1%. Read party policy before you spout it off like you know it.

[blueblood]

The NDP's policy is to cut small bisuness tax from 5% to 1%. Read party policy before you spout it off like you know it.

Show me in the platform

[blueblood]

At the risk of repeating Michael Hardner's comments, I perceive some odd contradictions. With all due respect. You seem to be saying that the tax RATE doesn't matter, only whether the rate rises or falls.

Yes, Reagan cut taxes; but taxes have been lower SINCE Reagan in many cases, and even if they go UP:, they can still be LOWER than Reagan's tax rates.

Tax rates cannot always fall, forever, or else there will be no tax revenues. At all.

Ideally, you want a low flat tax rate. As the economy grows and the tax pool grows, taxes should be cut. Spending should be low. What Obama is doing is throwing money around, which is going to have to in effect raise taxes. That's not good.

Over time in the long haul, tax bases get larger and larger. The problem is gov't spending. Spending levels should remain flat and only increased due to inflation. But as a country grows, the taxes should be getting lower and lower. That is a good thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Ideally, you want a low flat tax rate. As the economy grows and the tax pool grows, taxes should be cut. Spending should be low. What Obama is doing is throwing money around, which is going to have to in effect raise taxes. That's not good.

Over time in the long haul, tax bases get larger and larger. The problem is gov't spending. Spending levels should remain flat and only increased due to inflation. But as a country grows, the taxes should be getting lower and lower. That is a good thing.

Your posts don't make any sense. You can't use a term like "low" without explaining what "low" means to you. You already indicated that any tax is too much - please clarify.

[blueblood]

Your posts don't make any sense. You can't use a term like "low" without explaining what "low" means to you. You already indicated that any tax is too much - please clarify.

I've indicated high taxes are too much, and that's already been clarified.

Here's an idea, you tell me why corporate taxes should be at 22% at the federal level, and why top bracket income tax should be 44%

[Michael Hardner]

I've indicated high taxes are too much, and that's already been clarified.

Here's an idea, you tell me why corporate taxes should be at 22% at the federal level, and why top bracket income tax should be 44%

I never said they should be at 22%. I'm asking you what "high" means. You don't seem to want to answer, which is understandable, given the logical bind you've already put yourself in.

[punked]

Show me in the platform

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tax-plan-must-wait/article1253523/

The motion was differed to council at the convention and passed by Federal council making it party policy. Although lying about, or being ignorant and making claims based on nothing is always fun too.

[punked]

Ideally, you want a low flat tax rate. As the economy grows and the tax pool grows, taxes should be cut. Spending should be low. What Obama is doing is throwing money around, which is going to have to in effect raise taxes. That's not good.

Over time in the long haul, tax bases get larger and larger. The problem is gov't spending. Spending levels should remain flat and only increased due to inflation. But as a country grows, the taxes should be getting lower and lower. That is a good thing.

Blue blood wants Tariffs like the founding fathers had he hates free trade. He wants the country to regress no electricity no running water just like the founding fathers.

[blueblood]

Blue blood wants Tariffs like the founding fathers had he hates free trade. He wants the country to regress no electricity no running water just like the founding fathers.

Nice to know your reading comprehension is up to par, please point out where I want tariffs...

Last time I checked the NDP wanted to open up NAFTA, who's against free trade again???

being as I want less tariffs and less taxes...

And you want the US to turn into the USSR, da comrade?

Edited December 15, 2009 by blueblood

[blueblood]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tax-plan-must-wait/article1253523/

The motion was differed to council at the convention and passed by Federal council making it party policy. Although lying about, or being ignorant and making claims based on nothing is always fun too.

If it's party policy, why is it not in the platform?

Upping the federal rate from 15% to 22% is one way to put the kibosh on prosperity. The party platform did not say anything about small business's.

As far as i'm concerned, that guy could be blowing smoke out of his ass.

[blueblood]

I never said they should be at 22%. I'm asking you what "high" means. You don't seem to want to answer, which is understandable, given the logical bind you've already put yourself in.

Your the one justifying a tax hike, explain why?

Current taxes are high. If I was an American, the cost to service Obama's fantasy would undoubtly result in high taxes. Does that answer your question?

[punked]

If it's party policy, why is it not in the platform?

Upping the federal rate from 15% to 22% is one way to put the kibosh on prosperity. The party platform did not say anything about small business's.

As far as i'm concerned, that guy could be blowing smoke out of his ass.

Because the NDP has a platform which it comes out with or during an election and a policy book which is what makes up party policy. It is in the policy book, and will be in the next platform when there is an election please keep up with Canadian politics please.

Edited December 15, 2009 by punked

[Michael Hardner]

Your the one justifying a tax hike, explain why?

Current taxes are high. If I was an American, the cost to service Obama's fantasy would undoubtly result in high taxes. Does that answer your question?

I'm not justifying a tax hike. I don't know what the ideal tax rate is.

You're the one saying taxes are high. I ask you AGAIN -> what is a high rate of tax, what is a low rate of tax ?

You seem to me to be playing games. If you have an idea what a high rate of tax is, why not say so ?

[punked]

Nice to know your reading comprehension is up to par, please point out where I want tariffs...

Last time I checked the NDP wanted to open up NAFTA, who's against free trade again???

being as I want less tariffs and less taxes...

And you want the US to turn into the USSR, da comrade?

You kept yelling about the founding fathers. Well that is what the founding fathers did instead of taxes they had tariffs. That is what they intended because is what they did right? You have to open a history book, or any book really to learn something. You can't just keep making facts up because people keep calling you on them.

I ntthe US to proceed like it did under FDR, Truman, and Ike. That was the time all of the wealth the US has today was generated and the top tax bracket was 95%. I know you hate the three men who helped the US win WW2 but I think they were pretty smart guys. Comrade.

PS red baiting is so 1950 no one cares anymore.

Edited December 15, 2009 by punked