No IRS? Really? How?

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,742
5,127
1
Norquist hasn't been in the news for 5 years. Why do we need to raise taxes anyway? Is that the key to economic growth?

Taxes are needed in an amount sufficient to meet the spending authorized by Congress. If you want a 'balanced budget' and no current year deficits we need more tax revenues. Take your pick, taxes or deficits.Choose wisely.....
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,214
1,940
1
They're all better than Hillary & Bernie

As tax reformers? Tell me a specific reform they want to make and the roadmap through Congress to get it done.
All I hear is generalities from all of them on both sides.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1
Taxes are needed in an amount sufficient to meet the spending authorized by Congress. If you want a 'balanced budget' and no current year deficits we need more tax revenues. Take your pick, taxes or deficits.Choose wisely.....

Why are taxes and deficits your only choices? Why not reduced spending?

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman


Read more: Beatles - Taxman Lyrics | MetroLyrics
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1
As tax reformers? Tell me a specific reform they want to make and the roadmap through Congress to get it done.
All I hear is generalities from all of them on both sides.

I agree that both sides tend to speak in generalities. That's because somebody will get pi$$ed off if they learn that their special break will be cut and they don't want to take the heat. But I have heard some specifics, like eliminate all deductions except home mortgage and charitable contributions.

A big one is the ability of multinational companies to send foreign profits back to the USA for a minimal tax so the money would be spent in this country. That makes so much sense for most libs to tolerate. Let's say a multinational headquartered in the U.S. has a company in Ireland. That company sells to Irish customers and pays taxes on those profits to the Irish government. Why in the world should that company pay additional U.S. taxes because they want to bring that money to the U.S.?
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,214
1,940
1
I agree that both sides tend to speak in generalities. That's because somebody will get pi$$ed off if they learn that their special break will be cut and they don't want to take the heat. But I have heard some specifics, like eliminate all deductions except home mortgage and charitable contributions.

A big one is the ability of multinational companies to send foreign profits back to the USA for a minimal tax so the money would be spent in this country. That makes so much sense for most libs to tolerate. Let's say a multinational headquartered in the U.S. has a company in Ireland. That company sells to Irish customers and pays taxes on those profits to the Irish government. Why in the world should that company pay additional U.S. taxes because they want to bring that money to the U.S.?

Because the debt is so high. You will say cut spending. Again, where are specifics from the Republicans? Even just for the nomination, they won't talk in specifics except maybe abolishing the Dept of Education. Cruz did mention eliminating the Department of Commerce (twice). That is not going to happen.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1
Because the debt is so high. You will say cut spending. Again, where are specifics from the Republicans? Even just for the nomination, they won't talk in specifics except maybe abolishing the Dept of Education. Cruz did mention eliminating the Department of Commerce (twice). That is not going to happen.

Every year the GAO identifies $billions of waste including duplicate and redundant departments. We need a leader willing to take that head on.

I'm OK with eliminating some departments. Tell me, why must public schools answer to their local school boards, state education departments, and the federal government? Why can't the states manage their own situations?
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,214
1,940
1
Every year the GAO identifies $billions of waste including duplicate and redundant departments. We need a leader willing to take that head on.

Saint Ronnie did not take waste seriously in the Pentagon per David Stockman.
 
Last edited:

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1
Like Ronnie did not take waste in the Pentagon per David Stockman?

Did I say that? Why is it that whenever we discuss issues your response is that Bush sucked or Regan sucked?

And why do we need a federal department of education?
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,214
1,940
1
Did I say that? Why is it that whenever we discuss issues your response is that Bush sucked or Regan sucked?

And why do we need a federal department of education?

In this case because your rhetoric (and that of your party) does not match results. And this came from a Republican ... David Stockman. You really should stop hoping it will ever change. You're welcome.

We need a Department of Education to promote everything we can reasonably do to improve academic achievement and provide workers with skills employers need.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,742
5,127
1
Why are taxes and deficits your only choices? Why not reduced spending?

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman


Read more: Beatles - Taxman Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Because the spending is determined first and then the level of revenue needed to cover that is calculated. It's not that revenue comes first - it's a dependent variable. Congress sets the spending - then they come up with taxes to cover what they spend (in theory of course).

George wrote a very nice sone - Taxman. He also wrote Drive My Car.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1
Because the spending is determined first and then the level of revenue needed to cover that is calculated. It's not that revenue comes first - it's a dependent variable. Congress sets the spending - then they come up with taxes to cover what they spend (in theory of course).

George wrote a very nice sone - Taxman. He also wrote Drive My Car.

In what world does that happen? Tell me the last time (or any time) that the government budgeted their expenses and then adjusted the tax rates to assure they have enough revenue to cover those expenses?

That doesn't even happen in business. What company says here's what we're going to spend, now lets set prices to make sure we get enough revenues to cover it?

Wow!
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1
In this case because your rhetoric (and that of your party) does not match results. And this came from a Republican ... David Stockman. You really should stop hoping it will ever change. You're welcome.

We need a Department of Education to promote everything we can reasonably do to improve academic achievement and provide workers with skills employers need.

Democrats do what's necessary to balance the budget? You must live in the same world as 2lion70.

So you're saying that the local school boards are incompetent and the state education departments are incompetent. For that reason we need the federal government to straighten them out? Is that waht you're saying?
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,742
5,127
1
Democrats do what's necessary to balance the budget? You must live in the same world as 2lion70.

So you're saying that the local school boards are incompetent and the state education departments are incompetent. For that reason we need the federal government to straighten them out? Is that waht you're saying?
Yes.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1

There you have it in a nutshell. You think that the federal government knows better how to educate your children. You think they know more than:
  • Parents
  • School Boards
  • School teachers
  • School administrators
  • State education departments
If that's the case you might as well get rid of the local school boards and eliminate things like the PTA. Greatly reduce state and local school taxes and implement a national tax to fund schools. Have the federal government dictate school policy and hire federal employees at each school to make sure that the federal approach is carried out. We could have schools just like Nazi Germany. Wouldn't that be great?
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,214
1,940
1
Democrats do what's necessary to balance the budget? You must live in the same world as 2lion70.

So you're saying that the local school boards are incompetent and the state education departments are incompetent. For that reason we need the federal government to straighten them out? Is that waht you're saying?

You're changing the subject. Can't you admit it is a myth that Republicans can cut spending? If Marco Rubio became President, do you really think spending would go down. Of course now they have cut spending because they have a real enemy in the White House. If they take back the White House, their economists will, "we can't cut spending because it will cause a real slowdown in the economy." They will also say "defense spending creates jobs and contributes to a multiplier effect".

Maybe Dems cut spending to balance the budget, but they don't make things worse like Republicans. Tax cutting was an experiment. It failed. If high taxes were truly the problem in spurring robust economic growth, then the tax cuts would have worked. But they didn't. At least not in also maintaining low deficits.

We can talk more about the Department of Education later. But I have looked briefly at the Department of Education and not everything there is waste. We can talk about the local schools in the context of funds available for the schools. If the economy was growing faster, school boards would not have to make cuts. I certainly don't want to see schools cut vocational programs. Now you will blame the teachers and the unions. My wife works a 65-75 hour during the school year. And she doesn't make a lot of money. And her benefits are not all that great. The fact is, some counties have seen huge enrollment increases. And I have seen in the job listings, many more open positions for specialists for children of special needs.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,742
5,127
1
If the Dept of Ed went away it wouldn't impact the IRS. Some folks have a real problem staying on message. we need Obi wan - 'stay on target - stay on target'.
The Irs is not going to go away any time soon. It does a very important function and would do the same even if the tax code was changed in a big way.
Claims by candidates that they will abolish the IRS are just a lot of very poorly thought out plans - not to mention lies.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,651
34,967
1
You're changing the subject. Can't you admit it is a myth that Republicans can cut spending? If Marco Rubio became President, do you really think spending would go down. Of course now they have cut spending because they have a real enemy in the White House. If they take back the White House, their economists will, "we can't cut spending because it will cause a real slowdown in the economy." They will also say "defense spending creates jobs and contributes to a multiplier effect".

Maybe Dems cut spending to balance the budget, but they don't make things worse like Republicans. Tax cutting was an experiment. It failed. If high taxes were truly the problem in spurring robust economic growth, then the tax cuts would have worked. But they didn't. At least not in also maintaining low deficits.

We can talk more about the Department of Education later. But I have looked briefly at the Department of Education and not everything there is waste. We can talk about the local schools in the context of funds available for the schools. If the economy was growing faster, school boards would not have to make cuts. I certainly don't want to see schools cut vocational programs. Now you will blame the teachers and the unions. My wife works a 65-75 hour during the school year. And she doesn't make a lot of money. And her benefits are not all that great. The fact is, some counties have seen huge enrollment increases. And I have seen in the job listings, many more open positions for specialists for children of special needs.

Baloney!

I never said that republicans were good at cutting spending. That's you putting words in my mouth. Both parties are addicted to spending, bringing home the bacon for their constituents. Your claim that democrats are good at cutting the budget is a joke.

I'm also not an advocate of big tax cuts on individuals. More words you put into my mouth. I am in favor of tax simplification. The current system is out of control and most individuals don't even understand it. That said, the rich are paying the highest taxes in over 3 decades and the poor/middle class are paying the lowest taxes in over 3 decades. This garbage about the rich not paying enough is baloney. Finally, high taxes and regulations on job creators definitely discourages hiring.

I said nothing about teachers. I've gone out of my way to say that I support teachers making a good wage. Once again you continue to put words into my mouth. I've said that teacher benefits are too lucrative in many areas and that I believe in merit pay.

This is they kind of crap (deflection) I get when I question the value of the federal department of education.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,214
1,940
1
Baloney!

I never said that republicans were good at cutting spending. That's you putting words in my mouth. Both parties are addicted to spending, bringing home the bacon for their constituents. Your claim that democrats are good at cutting the budget is a joke.

I'm also not an advocate of big tax cuts on individuals. More words you put into my mouth. I am in favor of tax simplification. The current system is out of control and most individuals don't even understand it. That said, the rich are paying the highest taxes in over 3 decades and the poor/middle class are paying the lowest taxes in over 3 decades. This garbage about the rich not paying enough is baloney. Finally, high taxes and regulations on job creators definitely discourages hiring.

I said nothing about teachers. I've gone out of my way to say that I support teachers making a good wage. Once again you continue to put words into my mouth. I've said that teacher benefits are too lucrative in many areas and that I believe in merit pay.

This is they kind of crap (deflection) I get when I question the value of the federal department of education.

So you can admit that that it is a myth that Republicans don't cut spending ... especially when they are in total power. ??? If Saint Ronny can't, who can? And while you may not be an advocate of "big tax cuts for individuals", you still vote for people who advocate for and indeed cut taxes. Is that not correct?

About teachers, I was trying to make the point that local school budgets are severely impacted by local economic conditions. I don't believe I accused you of anything or put words in your mouth.