1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by printdust, Jul 13, 2011.

Page 85 of 214
  1. Justin_Rice

    Justin_Rice Well-Known Member

    How 'bout your thoughts on the tax rates in the 1990s?

    Were the successful not being rewarded then? Did that lack of reward cost us jobs or economic growth?
     
    Justin_Rice, Jul 28, 2011
    #1009
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You might want to pull out the history books. We have had taxation in this country, going back to right after the Revolutionary War. But we didn't have a Federal Income tax (In fact, in 1894, the Supreme Court ruled an income tax was unconstitutional, and it was kind of a no brainer since the first three rights that might have gone into our Constitution were the rights to life, liberty and PROPERTY) until the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913, amending the constitution to make it possible. And it was pretty controversial during its time. It passed generally for two reasons. They wanted to do away with high tariffs at the time and needed a way to come up with some revenue to make up the shortfall, and they swore to the states that ratified it that it would never affect most people. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax when they passed the first act in 1913, most of those people paid 1 or 2 percent, and the top marginal rate was only 7 percent, and that was for anyone who earned more than $500,000 (who knows how many millions that translates to in 2011 dollars).

    The obscene thing is that we amended the constitution to introduce an income tax and not only has that tax become more onerous over time, it can't even keep up with the trillions of dollars of spending (basically special interest favors) it enabled.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 28, 2011
    #1010
  3. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    Well, who doesn't want to be a warlord?
     
    CarltonBanks, Jul 28, 2011
    #1011
  4. Justin_Rice

    Justin_Rice Well-Known Member

    We also didn't have a massivly large standing army and navy until after World War II, when everyone else demobilized (except for us and the Soviet Union, of course).

    Can we go back to those days, too?
     
    Justin_Rice, Jul 28, 2011
    #1012
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    A bit simplistic. If you can sit down with a pencil and show me how our $3 to $4 trillion dollar budget this year was necessary to pay for a standing army and navy, I'll have the conversation.

    I'm not suggesting we go back to zero taxes and a government with a $500 million budget.

    There is a pretty big gap, though, between that and a $4 trillion government, though.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 28, 2011
    #1013
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    We modernized when? After the introduction of a Federal Income Tax? After WWII?

    We may have continued to modernize, but I'd say Eli Whitney, Robert Fulton, Henry Ford, John Roebling, Daniel Burnham, Cyrus McCormick, George Pullman and hundreds -- thousands -- more put America on a path of modernization -- of innovation -- long before we had a Federal Income Tax.
     
    YankeeFan, Jul 28, 2011
    #1014
  7. printdust

    printdust New Member

    Obama, Blago, Fishwrapper....I've got three....
     
    printdust, Jul 28, 2011
    #1015
  8. J Staley

    J Staley Member

    Not the point. Just thought it was interesting to see how another country viewed the story.

    I don't know that this applies to you, but your comment makes me wonder.

    Anyway, some Republicans seem to view having money the way people in the middle ages viewed having health.

    In the middle ages you were healthy, then obviously you were living right and God was rewarding you. If you were sick, it was a penance.

    Now, according to some, if you have money then you must be morally superior to those that don't. You must work harder, because everybody knows all that separates anybody from wealth is hard work. God obviously favors you and if he wanted others to have your money, then he would have blessed them so.

    These Republicans lay this self-serving bias on thick. They could never fathom that any outside force -- luck, their parents, the government of the country in which they live -- could have possibly contributed to their success.
     
    J Staley, Jul 28, 2011
    #1016
  9. Justin_Rice

    Justin_Rice Well-Known Member

    Still waiting for one our resident right-wingers to explain to me how we survived the 90s with their oppresive tax rates.

    Print, YF and Ragu have all posted since I asked this question ...
     
    Justin_Rice, Jul 28, 2011
    #1017
  10. printdust

    printdust New Member

    The Pinkertons are in the corporate world, they're in government. It's liars who say they are out for the average Joe and it's people who break the backs of the average Joe. One got his by wealth, the other by wealth and by vote. Somehow, I still believe there are ways to limit the latter.
     
    printdust, Jul 28, 2011
    #1018
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Sheesh, I leave the room and things go from me being nominated for higher office to an argument over welfare cadillacs, the robber barons and a history of the income tax!
     
    doctorquant, Jul 28, 2011
    #1019
  12. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    The budget for the working life of the F-35 joint strike fighter now in development by Lockheed - just one DoD program out of thousands - is $1 trillion all by itself. Not counting cost overruns.
     
    Azrael, Jul 28, 2011
    #1020
Page 85 of 214
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page