I'm willing to give up ALL in exchange for lower and flatter rates where everyone has skin in the game. . It would've been better if it wasn't given in the 1st place because that naturally distorts the market. But so be it... phase it out .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

It's EASY to TALK about tax reform, but NOBODY is going to give up THEIR personal deduction or exemption, or subsidy. Let's just take the home mortgage deduction... Steve and I had a discussion about that before... He believes the deduction allows him to KEEP some of his money.. Because I don't get it, I believe it's a handout. He's NOT gonna give it up. If you get it, you're not either...

But, I'm willing to listen to which ones you ARE willing to give up... Go ahead, list 'em...

excon

---

So are you finally admitting that Dems screwed up by giving people breaks to buy houses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So are you finally admitting that Dems screwed up by giving people breaks to buy houses?

---

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know where you got the idea that I was a Democrat... Republicans had a hand in tinkering with the tax code so that THEIR friends could get some of the goodies...

I believe the tax code should be written to raise revenue, NOT to make social policy. I'm FOR a flat tax, bent on BOTH ends so that the rich pay MORE than everybody else, and the poor pay LESS than everybody else.

We could write it on one page. In the REAL world, it AIN'T going to happen.

excon

A bent flat tax. Oh the irony.

Hello again, Steve:

You may not like the word picture I painted, but if you think we're EVER going to pass a FLAT tax where the poor pay the same as the rich, you been drinking the Romney koolaid..

Maybe you don't understand WHY poor people should pay little taxes, if any... That's cause you don't think they're really POOR, do you?? I mean, they all got cell phones, don't they? The moochers...

excon

No, just pointing out the irony of a flat tax that isn't flat.

So ex wants a progressive tax, this is because ex is progessive, he wants to tax the rich more, and tax the poor less and he calls this a flat tax. Have you also joined the flat Earth Society, ex, you know the one flat but curved at the ends and meeting itself coming back

So is your question is for confirmation that Conservatives are dumb? Well then my answer is that being "dumb" has nothing to do with being a conservative or a liberal. People from both sides will put their foot in their mouths and say dumb things. Such as Romney's remarks or even Obama's remarks in different scenarios. Both are at fault and tend to have the insert foot in mouth delema. It happens to everyone. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm willing to give up ALL in exchange for lower and flatter rates where everyone has skin in the game. . It would've been better if it wasn't given in the 1st place because that naturally distorts the market. But so be it...phase it out .

---

Tom you just don't get it a flat rate tax is unfair to the poor, you have to do something to level the playing field which means wages regulated above the poverty line, employment for all, proper health care for all. This is why these things are proposed so that the playing field is level, it's not to take your money away but to make sure there is a minimum standard for all so they don't have to go begging to you. Don't you realise you all have a common interest, that your country was founded on slavery and has never lost the ideas behind it

You guys are big on trading equal treatment for yourself defined view of 'fairness' .You've gone from 'level playing field ' to redistributionist 'spread the wealth.'

Tom you know capitalism can't exist on a level playing field and a flat tax isn't a level playing field. We have debated fairness before and as I recall fairness for you is more for you and less for someoneelse. Fairness Tom is when we all have an equal share of the pie

How very Marxist of you. I say we grow the pie and most, except the very needy ,who we provide for, get what they add to the pie .

There in lies your error, the vast number of people have no ability to add to the pie, they are at the mercy of the few who control the resources. This is why there must be intervention to curb the excesses and inclination of those with the resources to exploit. It isn't just the very poor who should be provided for. You think my ideas are Marxist, but I abhor communism, state ownership of the resources is no better than capitalist ownership

Tom is for the plutocrats. Anything else is just WRONG, no matter what you call it.

Quote:

---

the vast number of people have no ability to add to the pie

---

that's correct .that is why you need capitalists ;acting in their greedy self interest to grow the pie for all of us. You think the government is capable of it?? (snort... bwa haa haa haa! )

Tom wants a flat tax, it goes with his flat Earth view. He wants everyone to pay the same rate of tax and he calls me a Marxist, one size fits all Tom, in Tom's world view everyone can have the same health care, just so long as they can pay for it

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”John Adams

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”James Madison

Tom I have said it before you are stuck in the eighteenth century, these men lived in a different society, but more than that they were wealthy slave owners. They were exploiters of the worst kind but you uphold them as some sort of paragons of virtue because they rebelled and were successful

What would these men have thought of your chinese threat? They would have laughed at you

Quote:

---

, but more than that they were wealthy slave owners. They were exploiters of the worst kind but you uphold them as some sort of paragons of virtue because they rebelled and were successful

---

Read up on the history. John Adams was an opposed to slavery ,and although a lawyer ,he was not wealthy . Alexander Hamilton was an abolitionist . So were many other founders like John Jay who also co-wrote the Federalist papers.

You think the world you progressives has constructed is better ? How so... Western society is imploding in it's debt paying bread and circus. You say I'm stuck in the 18th century ;but your government appease the masses resembles Rome from Augusta to it's fall. When Romans abandoned self responsibility and self reliance, and began to vote themselves benefits, to use government to rob Peter and pay Paul, to put their hands into other people's pockets, to envy and covet the productive and their wealth, their fate was sealed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that's correct .that is why you need capitalists ;acting in their greedy self interest to grow the pie for all of us. You think the government is capable of it ??????? (snort ....bwa haa haa haa !! )

---

Capitalist grow the pie for themselves. If you get a piece, you pay THEM for it. If NOT... keep it moving, nothing to see here.

Everything was great as long as the founding fathers ran things and those god given rights they enjoyed, by their own rules, applied only to them. So was the case with Rome,they fell when their loonies start thinking they were gods entitled to everything, but the money wasn't long enough.

Ruling the world is damn expensive. Trickle down economics didn't work then either.