Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
Which is best, and why?
|
None of the tax plans presented here are accurate anyways....so it's pointless to choose between them.
Obviously I don't want to pay more in taxes, but it's like this......every dollar we spend today that we don't have is a dollar that my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay in taxes....so you're not really "cutting taxes"....you're just raising taxes on my kids, and they'll have to pay back every dollar with interest.
We need to bring in enough revenue to cover our nut....period. The baby boomers will be retiring soon and we'll be looking at the mother of all tax increases or the mother of all federal deficits, or both, when that time comes.
The longer we wait to do something about it, the more drastic a measure we'll have to take.
You think the government spends too much? Me too, so let's start by not spending 12 billion a month in Iraq.
Spending and the size of government increased by an astronomical amount when the republicans had control of both houses and the white house, so it's not like we can trust them to balance the books.
I'm sick of hearing about tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts....it's an easy way to get elected, but it's a shitty plan for our long term future.
If tax cuts are so great for the economy then why is the economy in the shitter right now after 7 years of super low taxes. Why is the stock market below where it was during the Clinton administration even with super low cap gains and dividend taxes?
You ask which plan is best? I'd say that putting tax rates back where they were during the Clinton administration, when the budget was in surplus and the economy was strong is a good start.
