Democrats = EVEN MORE GOVERNMENT...SCARY!

Lambeau · #1 11-04-2006, 12:18 PM

This article isn't from a republican but a Libertarian...

The following article was taken directly from the
Neal Boortz website on 1 Nov 2006. Neal claims
to be a Libertarian.
--------------------------------------------

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU. TODAY'S INSTALLMENT.

Again.. do I think that the Republicans have earned our continued
permission to control both the House and the Senate in
Washington? Not only no, but hell no. The best that can be said
of the Republicans now is that they're not Democrats, though they
seem to be trying to erase any differences as fast as they can.
Republicans in control for two more years --- spending and
increasing the size of government --- is an acceptable outcome
next week only because the alternative is so much worse.

This week I'm detailing some of the plans that the Democrats have
for you and your bank accounts if and when they get the control
that they think is their birthright.

Today I want to share with you another delicious little morsel the
Democrats have waiting for you if they ever gain the political
power they so ardently desire. It's called "imputed income." If
you are a homeowner, pay attention. This concerns your wallet
and your bank account.

Let me start this off with a few points that I don't think you
will dispute. Democrats are the party of big government.
Democrats are the party of the social welfare state. Democrats
want to make more and more Americans dependent on government
because they know that the higher the degree of dependency the
weaker the people and the stronger the government. It goes
without saying that the stronger and more powerful government
becomes, the stronger and more powerful the politicians who
control that government become. This isn't rocket surgery here.

Money in the hands of the people who earned it contributes to
their personal independence. Independent people don't need
politicians. Money taken from those who earn it and then used to
build the government social welfare state robs people of their
independence. Democrats love this scenario. They want you to be
dependent on government. To do that they need to take your money
and use it to grow the federal welfare state. This is why
Democrats just love the idea of tax increases.

To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about
raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share"
resonates well with their voter base. Playing to wealth envy will
always earn votes ... but nothing earns votes quite like
dependence on government. Creating that dependence, though, is an
expensive proposition. To cover the tab the Democrats have to
drain every penny from your pocket that they can -- right up to
the point that you decide it's time to revolt.

Democrats will tell you that they only want to raise taxes on the
so-called "rich." Nancy Pelosi will probably come up with some
figure in the $200,000 or $250,000 range to describe "rich" when
she and her Democrat pals start to work on their tax increase
plans. But here's a warning. If you happen to fall below that
"rich" category, you're in their crosshairs as well. They have
various schemes in the works to put you smack in the middle of the
"rich" category, and thus set you up for some pretty substantial
tax increases.

One such scheme targets homeowners. It's called "imputed income,”
and it’s a brilliant and devious idea on how to tax your home
ownership.

Here's how it works.

Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years. For 20
years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time. Your
monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month. Remember,
it's a 20-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much,
much less. There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left
at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the
bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest.

The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying
so little, attracts the interest of Democrats. They know that
there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot
more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are
a lot higher. Not only that, but there are other people renting
homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you
are every month. It's obvious that you're enjoying some great
economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for
so long and your payments are so low. Well, where there's an
economic benefit, there must be a tax!

Enter the concept of imputed income!

Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats
before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure
out how much your home would rent for every month. To do this
they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any
information that they can develop on current sale and rental
prices up and down your street.

Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will ---
determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month. That
would add up to $39,000 a year. But the IRS discovers that you're
only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent. Well, there's
that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term
home ownership. The economic benefit of your home ownership is
the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live
there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying. Do the math. You're
getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits!

The Democrat plan is simple. Just take that $32,400 and add it to
your taxable income on your next tax return. Then you get the
privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the
economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership.
The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so
to speak. Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000
they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do
the same. After all .. it's only fair, right!

Just remember this. Democrats actually believe that the best use
for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by
government for what they love to call the "common good." They
will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid
your participation in a full-scale tax revolt. A good Democrat
knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for
you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so
much better if you will just succumb to the power of government
and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for
yourself.

B-Line · #2 11-04-2006, 05:28 PM

In California we have something called Prop 13. Now don't quote me on this because I can not be specific about the details but, it's a very messed up law.

Yes, it does protect the homeowner, but at the cost of the neighborhood, the schools, the roads, and it keeps dilapated houses in very nice areas AND, it has been one of the big reasons for the obsurd prices for housing in California.

Let me explain. Prop 13 pretty much says, when you buy your house, your taxes on that house are pretty much fixed for the entire time you own the house as your primary residence.
- So lets say you bought a house in 1980. The taxes that you pay on the house today are pretty much the same, (marginal increase) as it was in 1980.
So if you bought a house for $250,000 at 1.25% tax. your paying about $3K a year in taxes. Now your neighborhood as increased in value, significantly, and the houses next to you sell for $1mil.
-- That means your neighbor, who owns the same or very similiar house, is paying $13K/yr. in tax for the same value of home.

-- As such, many people refuse to leave their homes even when they can not afford to maintain them properly. We have $5mil homes in Hollywood parked next to falling down shacks. Because of this tax Prop, it's not affordable for people to move because the taxes on their "new apt" would be three times the taxes on "their old house".

- Now yes, many people will argue, that no one should be forced from their home because they can't afford the taxes in the area. But I say, that the rest of the community should not have to be forced to subsidize the "old home buyers" cost of living in the neighborhood.

- The cost to maintain the streets has gone up, school costs have gone up, all public works cost more. And it's the granny, living in the 5000 sqft. home who does not even have a gardner and the house has not been painted since 1980, that is keeping the area in a "run down" condition.

I would rather pay more in real estate taxes and have my area be beautiful with good streets, sidewalks, and houses that don't look like they are going to fall off the hill and into my backyard.

B

-- I know we were talking about income taxes.. sorry to change the topic.. But just wanted to give another view of housing taxes.

Eric5273 · #3 11-05-2006, 01:32 AM

I'm a liberal, or leftist if you want to call me that. And I'm certainly much more liberal than 90% of the Democrats in Congress -- most of them are far too moderate or conservative for my liking.

And my opinion of what this guy said is that he has no idea what he is talking about. Liberals do not want to spend more, or tax more. They simply want to spend on different things, and change the tax structure. I don't think the end result will be more spending or more money being raised from taxes.

The result will be spending money on things like infrastructure, education and health care instead of on war, destruction, and military aid for half of the countries on the planet. The resulting tax structure will be to tax wealth instead of taxing income and spending.

But that is what true liberals would be in favor of. With this current group of rather moderate Democrats, who knows...

Lambeau · #4 11-05-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I'm a liberal, or leftist if you want to call me that. And I'm certainly much more liberal than 90% of the Democrats in Congress -- most of them are far too moderate or conservative for my liking.

And my opinion of what this guy said is that he has no idea what he is talking about. Liberals do not want to spend more, or tax more. They simply want to spend on different things, and change the tax structure. I don't think the end result will be more spending or more money being raised from taxes.

The result will be spending money on things like infrastructure, education and health care instead of on war, destruction, and military aid for half of the countries on the planet. The resulting tax structure will be to tax wealth instead of taxing income and spending.

But that is what true liberals would be in favor of. With this current group of rather moderate Democrats, who knows...

You liberals keep pushing your "tax the wealthy" crap but those who you want to tax are the small business owners who provide employment to so many people. Think that wouldn't effect the employees of those business owners???
I thought you weren't going to post in any more political threads???

Eric5273 · #5 11-05-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lambeau

You liberals keep pushing your "tax the wealthy" crap but those who you want to tax are the small business owners who provide employment to so many people. Think that wouldn't effect the employees of those business owners???

I am a small business owner, and I barely pay any taxes at all. I paid as much taxes last year as you probably did last week. The current tax structure is such that business owners can get away with paying barely anything at all.

And no, I don't want to tax small business owners. I don't think there should be any taxes on income or any payroll taxes. I also don't think there should be any taxes on spending (i.e. sales tax) and that includes taxes like the gasoline tax or extra taxing of cigarettes and things like that. And I don't think profits should be taxed either (i.e. capital gains tax)

What should be taxed is wealth. Period. That's all. Nothing else. Just like you pay property tax on your home, you should pay a tax on whatever else you own. Business should be the same. They pay tax on their wealth or assets.

The wealthy would never stand for that though. Because the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 80%. Most middle class people don't even have any net wealth. Yes, they own homes, but they have mortgages. And their cars are leased or financed. And very few have any significant savings either.

B-Line · #6 11-05-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I am a small business owner, and I barely pay any taxes at all. I paid as much taxes last year as you probably did last week. The current tax structure is such that business owners can get away with paying barely anything at all.

I call BULLSHIT... Eric, I am a small business owner myself and you should be careful how you phrase things.. To say you pay almost no taxes at all is not an accurate assessment...
You DEFER taxes... You don't "SKIP" paying taxes, you or anybody else for that matter, will never get "OUT OF" paying taxes.. And just because you didn't pay a lot of taxes "this year" does not mean that you won't pay those taxes eventually.
- Unless of course you have a massive cash business and are cheating on your taxes. And that will catch up with you eventually.

And, I also agree that a flat tax is the way to go. It makes sense. Especailly because something like 20% of all taxes collected go just into running the I.R.S.. Yes, that's right, 20% off all moneys paid to taxes go to running the I.R.S.. which is actually one of the most heavily staffed areas of gov't.

B

motordavid · #7 11-05-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

...And no, I don't want to tax small business owners. I don't think there should be any taxes on income or any payroll taxes. I also don't think there should be any taxes on spending (i.e. sales tax) and that includes taxes like the gasoline tax or extra taxing of cigarettes and things like that. And I don't think profits should be taxed either (i.e. capital gains tax)

What should be taxed is wealth. Period. That's all. Nothing else. Just like you pay property tax on your home, you should pay a tax on whatever else you own. Business should be the same. They pay tax on their wealth or assets.

The wealthy would never stand for that though. Because the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 80%. Most middle class people don't even have any net wealth. Yes, they own homes, but they have mortgages. And their cars are leased or financed. And very few have any significant savings either.

Eric, interesting. If one could be king and make it so, by fiat, tomorrow, how would you propose to
tax the "wealthy"? 2%, 10%, or... of one's "wealth"?
Would that cover houses, cars, real estate, coin collections in basement safes, etc., etc.?

Curious what the "rate" would be and what chattel would be considered in the wealthy "wealth" pot
of possesions.

Otoh, even if your idea were to be the law of the land on Monday, how would that jibe with all the
freaking taxes the "wealthy" or, us simply "well off" have already paid over the decades, to get to
our "well off/wealthy" position.

A few of us here have paid taxes of every kind imaginable for 3+ decades;
"now", we get to be taxed again on our accumulated "wealth"?

My CEO&I got our lil'nest egg/"slight wealth", from working hard and a lotta luck while doing so. Should
I send an additional tithe to the local, county, state and Fed gov'ts because I don't live in a single-wide
nor, have debt or bills up the wazoo?
I'm just trying to understand how your thesis and position would work.
BR,mD

Eric5273 · #8 11-05-2006, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

-- I know we were talking about income taxes.. sorry to change the topic.. But just wanted to give another view of housing taxes.

In my opinion, both income tax and sales tax should be abolished.

blondboinsd · #9 11-05-2006, 03:27 PM

OMG so lets tax nobody and we have the debt we're currently in, the problem with you reds is that you spend money like its going out of freaking style, give me a break, borrow borrow borrow!

Master_Debator · #10 11-05-2006, 05:29 PM

---------------------Warning!!!!Propaganda---------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lambeau

This article isn't from a republican but a Libertarian...

The following article was taken directly from the
Neal Boortz website on 1 Nov 2006. Neal claims
to be a Libertarian.
--------------------------------------------

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU. TODAY'S INSTALLMENT.

Again.. do I think that the Republicans have earned our continued
permission to control both the House and the Senate in
Washington? Not only no, but hell no. The best that can be said
of the Republicans now is that they're not Democrats, though they
seem to be trying to erase any differences as fast as they can.
Republicans in control for two more years --- spending and
increasing the size of government --- is an acceptable outcome
next week only because the alternative is so much worse.

This week I'm detailing some of the plans that the Democrats have
for you and your bank accounts if and when they get the control
that they think is their birthright.

Today I want to share with you another delicious little morsel the
Democrats have waiting for you if they ever gain the political
power they so ardently desire. It's called "imputed income." If
you are a homeowner, pay attention. This concerns your wallet
and your bank account.

Let me start this off with a few points that I don't think you
will dispute. Democrats are the party of big government.
Democrats are the party of the social welfare state. Democrats
want to make more and more Americans dependent on government
because they know that the higher the degree of dependency the
weaker the people and the stronger the government. It goes
without saying that the stronger and more powerful government
becomes, the stronger and more powerful the politicians who
control that government become. This isn't rocket surgery here.

Money in the hands of the people who earned it contributes to
their personal independence. Independent people don't need
politicians. Money taken from those who earn it and then used to
build the government social welfare state robs people of their
independence. Democrats love this scenario. They want you to be
dependent on government. To do that they need to take your money
and use it to grow the federal welfare state. This is why
Democrats just love the idea of tax increases.

To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about
raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share"
resonates well with their voter base. Playing to wealth envy will
always earn votes ... but nothing earns votes quite like
dependence on government. Creating that dependence, though, is an
expensive proposition. To cover the tab the Democrats have to
drain every penny from your pocket that they can -- right up to
the point that you decide it's time to revolt.

Democrats will tell you that they only want to raise taxes on the
so-called "rich." Nancy Pelosi will probably come up with some
figure in the $200,000 or $250,000 range to describe "rich" when
she and her Democrat pals start to work on their tax increase
plans. But here's a warning. If you happen to fall below that
"rich" category, you're in their crosshairs as well. They have
various schemes in the works to put you smack in the middle of the
"rich" category, and thus set you up for some pretty substantial
tax increases.

One such scheme targets homeowners. It's called "imputed income,”
and it’s a brilliant and devious idea on how to tax your home
ownership.

Here's how it works.

Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years. For 20
years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time. Your
monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month. Remember,
it's a 20-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much,
much less. There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left
at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the
bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest.

The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying
so little, attracts the interest of Democrats. They know that
there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot
more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are
a lot higher. Not only that, but there are other people renting
homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you
are every month. It's obvious that you're enjoying some great
economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for
so long and your payments are so low. Well, where there's an
economic benefit, there must be a tax!

Enter the concept of imputed income!

Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats
before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure
out how much your home would rent for every month. To do this
they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any
information that they can develop on current sale and rental
prices up and down your street.

Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will ---
determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month. That
would add up to $39,000 a year. But the IRS discovers that you're
only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent. Well, there's
that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term
home ownership. The economic benefit of your home ownership is
the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live
there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying. Do the math. You're
getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits!

The Democrat plan is simple. Just take that $32,400 and add it to
your taxable income on your next tax return. Then you get the
privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the
economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership.
The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so
to speak. Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000
they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do
the same. After all .. it's only fair, right!

Just remember this. Democrats actually believe that the best use
for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by
government for what they love to call the "common good." They
will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid
your participation in a full-scale tax revolt. A good Democrat
knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for
you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so
much better if you will just succumb to the power of government
and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for
yourself.

---------------------Warning!!!!Propaganda---------------------