Jump to content

Tax Talk


 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not sure how I feel about it. I get the sense that it's only going to benefit the older generations while they retire (Silent Generation & Boomers) and leave the younger generations with even more debt that they will have to deal with 15 - 20 years down the road. No one likes taxes, but at the same time we can't just keep borrowing money and going into even more debt while paying less in taxes. In my opinion we need to cut spending before we start talking about cutting taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, itsme said:

Again, I'll point out the problem with averages.  If you are at least middle class whose major income is from wages and who lives in a high tax state, you will have a SHARP TAX INCREASE from day one..  Of course, that also means that you live in a blue state and deserve to be punished.  I do not give my consent to be raped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eagleb1 said:

Again, I'll point out the problem with averages.  If you are at least middle class whose major income is from wages and who lives in a high tax state, you will have a SHARP TAX INCREASE from day one..  Of course, that also means that you live in a blue state and deserve to be punished.  I do not give my consent to be raped.

 

The real problem is, Eagle you agree to be consensually raped by your own state legislature, because you have the right to vote them out and get some fiscally responsible legislators. I am tired of being raped to subsidize your state and the few other super high tax states. Why should the needs of the few states outweigh the needs of the many states ? Remember we are the 50 Untied States of America, and it's territories, not just the five big populous states !!! Taxation and Representation equally !!! I have figured my taxes on last years income and deductions and according to the new tax laws, I gain almost 3000.00 in tax savings from the new plans and could be even more if they allow you keep you state income tax deduction (which would in fact benefit you greatly in your high tax state).

I am really sorry you live in such a high tax state, but that does not represent the majority, and again only the a very small minority in reality. That is the real difference between us, you feel that the population centers should control congress, and it's decisions, and I believe that all fifty states, should be treated equal, and represented equal, just as our founding fathers wrote. Federal adjusted gross income of $83,000.00. I believe that would be the middle class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Thestarider said:

 

The real problem is, Eagle you agree to be consensually raped by your own state legislature, because you have the right to vote them out and get some fiscally responsible legislators. I am tired of being raped to subsidize your state and the few other super high tax states. Why should the needs of the few states outweigh the needs of the many states ? Remember we are the 50 Untied States of America, and it's territories, not just the five big populous states !!! Taxation and Representation equally !!! I have figured my taxes on last years income and deductions and according to the new tax laws, I gain almost 3000.00 in tax savings from the new plans and could be even more if they allow you keep you state income tax deduction (which would in fact benefit you greatly in your high tax state).

I am really sorry you live in such a high tax state, but that does not represent the majority, and again only the a very small minority in reality. That is the real difference between us, you feel that the population centers should control congress, and it's decisions, and I believe that all fifty states, should be treated equal, and represented equal, just as our founding fathers wrote. Federal adjusted gross income of $83,000.00. I believe that would be the middle class.

Where do you get the idea that you are subsidizing our progressive states?  In fact, the ones I'm familiar with pay more in taxes than they receive in Federal benefits.  Maybe you're thinking of red states like Alabama.

Yes we pay more in local taxes because we demand better services and know we have to pay for it.  I guess that's why the blue states in question have more  educated voters and better health care among other benefits. 

You know why the population centers expect fair representation?  Because they are part of the majority and resent the unfair voting benefits that go to the small states.  I grew up in Brooklyn that has five times the population of Wyoming yet has no senators.  The Electoral College that gives power to the minority is a remnant of the compromises that the slave states negotiated to agree to the constitution.

The first rule of democracy is one man one vote.  We violate that rule in every national election and look what it got us this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So says Wikipedia Eagle:

The United States were basically divided into two classes- the large (more populous) states and the small (less populous) states. The large states included Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The small states included Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and even New York Also, one may consider Georgia and the two Carolinas as small states, but these states hoped to increase their population and become large by importing slaves and attracting "immigrants" from other states.

The large states wanted to have proportional representation in Congress. They wished that the more populous states have more representatives than the less populous states. However, fearing that they would be overwhelmed by large numbers of representatives from other states, the small state delegates suggested that all states receive equal representation like under the Articles.

James Madison of Virginia proposed a plan, which was presented by Edmund Randolph, supported by the large states, the Virginia Plan. It entailed:

  • A very powerful Congress of two houses based on proportional representation
  • One house elected by the people, and the second house elected by the first one
  • An executive chosen by Congress
  • Congressional power to cancel any state law
  • Based on population


Meanwhile, New Jersey politician William Paterson proposed a plan on behalf of the small states. It involved:

  • A Congress equivalent in structure to the Articles Congress
  • A Congress more powerful than the Articles Congress, but not as powerful as the Virginia Plan Congress
  • An executive chosen by Congress
  • Congressional law being supreme over state law

Thirdly, Alexander Hamilton of New York proposed a plan extremely similar to the British government. The British plan included:

  • A legislature of two houses
  • One house chosen by the people for limited terms
  • Another house chosen by a special body for life terms
  • An executive chosen by a special body for a life term
  • Congressional power to cancel any state law.
  • Based on population

Hamilton's plan was rejected very quickly- it reminded the delegates too much of the tyranny and unhappiness under the King of the State of Great Britain.

Connecticut Delegate Roger Sherman suggested that the small and large states compromise. He felt that the large states would never accept equal representation, while the small ones would never accept just proportional representation. His compromise, known as the Great Compromise, suggested the following:

  • A Congress with two houses
  • One house based on proportional representation
  • Another house based on equal representation
  • A very smart man !!!! a real negotiator, a person who believed that every citizen has the right to equal representation in the new congress!!!

Though Sherman's compromise was initially rejected, the delegates were forced to accept it eventually. Otherwise, the Convention would have clearly broken down on the issue of representation.

You know Eagle, I have debated without throwing out innuendos, and insults, but you continue to try insult my intelligence, and that only shows your arrogance towards those who disagree with you. 

Second your services payed for by your tax dollars, are in no way better, than the services provided by my tax dollars, they are in fact, the very same actually.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...