Does the US need to raise Federal income taxes?

[clemson357]

The Federal Government spends 2.7 Trillion annually. That is over 7 Billion per day, or about three times the average American's annual salary every single second.

Keep in mind that your roads, your local public schools, your police and fire protection, your DMVs, courthouses, etc. are largely paid for by local taxes, and thus not part of the federal budget.

My question is, do we need to raise the federal income tax?

 

[KelJu]

There are way too many variables to the question to only have two options. The poll option answer isn't important. Your explanation to back your answer is the only thing of importance.

 

[maniclion]

Hell no they take a large enough chunk out of my paycheck as is...

 

[Arnold]

your poll/question is a joke, do you really think that more money is the answer, or better spending/budgeting of the money they have?

 

[clemson357]

your poll/question is a joke, do you really think that more money is the answer, or better spending/budgeting of the money they have?

You are a joke if you can't figure out by the tone of the question that I think exactly the opposite.

 

[Arnold]

You are a joke if you can't figure out by the tone of the question that I think exactly the opposite.

I guess I am missing the sarcasm in your post and poll.

 

[danzik17]

No. I don't trust the government enough to handle a potato gun properly, let alone a military with that much money.

They've done such a poor job of budgeting our tax dollars that taxing us more isn't the solution - we really do need to start from scratch where our government is concerned and this time actually follow the Constitution and the advice of the founders.

 

[fufu]

yes they should definitely be raised. anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

In fact, the government should take all our money and buy what we need for us.

 

[danzik17]

Oh and if you missed it, the NY Times was talking about how the government was considering taking over the obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Combined they have over 8 trillion dollars in outstanding debt. That means that in one day, public debt would nearly double from 9 trillion to 17 trillion.

If they do that, we will have hyperinflation without a doubt. Interest on that debt alone would take nearly 33% of the federal discretionary budget. We are spending ourselves to the end of this country quite literally.

 

[min0 lee]

I was going to post it but didn't think there would be any interest

Oh and if you missed it,

US Government Weighs Fannie, Freddie Takeover


Alarmed by the growing financial stress at the nationâ??????s two largest mortgage finance companies, senior Bush administration officials are considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of the companies and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen, people briefed about the plan said on Thursday.......more

 

[danzik17]

Oh it's 5 trillion, not 8 - my mistake, remembered incorrectly. Either way, we just can't afford this.

Let the Depression happen imo, we are just pushing back the inevitable and it will be that much worse when the day comes.

 

[bigss75]

Phil Gramm was right we are a nation of whiners, he have an unemployment of 5-6 percent economic growth last quater and the majority of this pain we are feeling isn't from all from gas prices that could have been avoided by drilling domestically which is at its lowest percentage ever but by people lacking a little common sense. If I'm a cashier at Walmart I can't afford a no down payment 500k arm mortgage, a new iphone, and a suburban. People need to be responsible for their own finances.

The major problem in America is the fact that talking about money is dirtier then talking about sex. I know personally if I asked my dad about sex he would probably tell me anything but if I asked him how much he made he would probably hit me.

 

[Hoglander]

Phil Gramm was right we are a nation of whiners, he have an unemployment of 5-6 percent economic growth last quater and the majority of this pain we are feeling isn't from all from gas prices that could have been avoided by drilling domestically which is at its lowest percentage ever but by people lacking a little common sense. If I'm a cashier at Walmart I can't afford a no down payment 500k arm mortgage, a new iphone, and a suburban. People need to be responsible for their own finances.

The major problem in America is the fact that talking about money is dirtier then talking about sex. I know personally if I asked my dad about sex he would probably tell me anything but if I asked him how much he made he would probably hit me.

The guy that works at Walmart wants the Government to take from the owners at Walmart in his favor but historically has not voted or stood up for himself. Walmart wants to take from the guy that works at Walmart AND the Government.

I wonder what will happen this time?

 

[brogers]

The two things that bother me most about the Federal Government: Taxes/Spending and the lack of term limits.

I think if we had term limits (say, 1-2 for a Senate seat, and 3-4 for a Rep.) and threw out all the bums like Robert Byrd who maintain their seats by throwing pork to their constituents, we'd have a lot easier time lowering taxes and decreasing spending.

 

[tallcall]

The two things that bother me most about the Federal Government: Taxes/Spending and the lack of term limits.

I think if we had term limits (say, 1-2 for a Senate seat, and 3-4 for a Rep.) and threw out all the bums like Robert Byrd who maintain their seats by throwing pork to their constituents, we'd have a lot easier time lowering taxes and decreasing spending.

Running more elections (almost double the ammount we currently run) will probably end up costing more taxpayer money (that'll be the arguement, then the reason to add more taxes and throw more of it into that toilette called Iraq).

I say give the president a 6 year term and then elect a new person (no re-elections to suck up his time so he can spend it on running the country) and something similiar for the Senate and House. I agree with dumping all those who vote on issues just to please their constituents, but then we should also ban all party affiliations and try to mandate that all representitives be independent (now that would be interesting).

 

[brogers]

Running more elections (almost double the ammount we currently run) will probably end up costing more taxpayer money (that'll be the arguement, then the reason to add more taxes and throw more of it into that toilette called Iraq).

I say give the president a 6 year term and then elect a new person (no re-elections to suck up his time so he can spend it on running the country) and something similiar for the Senate and House. I agree with dumping all those who vote on issues just to please their constituents, but then we should also ban all party affiliations and try to mandate that all representitives be independent (now that would be interesting).

Nothing I said has anything to do with running more elections. I have no idea why you quoted my post.

 

[bio-chem]

The two things that bother me most about the Federal Government: Taxes/Spending and the lack of term limits.

I think if we had term limits (say, 1-2 for a Senate seat, and 3-4 for a Rep.) and threw out all the bums like Robert Byrd who maintain their seats by throwing pork to their constituents, we'd have a lot easier time lowering taxes and decreasing spending.

we have term liimits. they are called elections. and i dont want any person having any say in what congressman i elect other than those living in my district. i hate Senator Kennedy. i have yet to see something that i would consider a positive in this individual. but the people of the commonwealth of mass have every right to elect that jack ass as much as they want if that is their desire.

 

[Big Smoothy]

The Federal Government spends 2.7 Trillion annually. That is over 7 Billion per day, or about three times the average American's annual salary every single second.

Keep in mind that your roads, your local public schools, your police and fire protection, your DMVs, courthouses, etc. are largely paid for by local taxes, and thus not part of the federal budget.

My question is, do we need to raise the federal income tax?

IMO, no there is NO need to raise income taxes.

There is also no need for a $9 trillion dollar Nation Debt.

There is no need for a high "defense" budget for the Military-industrial complex.

There is no need to send so much taxpayer money overseas to foreign countries for US government's elitists foreign policy interests.

And more.

But the sad question is: is anybody listening to you, or I? Nope.

 

[maniclion]

I agree that all of these elected officials spend way too much time doing things in office that will raise enough money to keep them their and less time doing what they should be doing for the people who elected them.

 

[brogers]

We already have term limits on the President, bio-chem. The founders created the electoral college, and the Senate (originally selected by the state gov't, not popularly elected) because they understood the problem we still suffer from today: a lot of people are stupid.

Anyway, the House/Senate would have to pass legislation creating term limits anyway, so I fail to see your concern over the "people's will" if the representatives pass it, it is the people's will.
​

 

[bio-chem]

We already have term limits on the President, bio-chem. The founders created the electoral college, and the Senate (originally selected by the state gov't, not popularly elected) because they understood the problem we still suffer from today: a lot of people are stupid.

Anyway, the House/Senate would have to pass legislation creating term limits anyway, so I fail to see your concern over the "people's will" if the representatives pass it, it is the people's will.
​

did you even read under what context I posted under? did you read the post i quoted? your post to me doesn't address any of that.

 

[brogers]

did you even read under what context I posted under? did you read the post i quoted? your post to me doesn't address any of that.

Actually it does. Let's see, you quote me and say "you don't want anyone affecting who you can elect with term limits" I reply we already have term limits and other restrictions on "popular power" like the electoral college and the original selection of Senators.

Additionally I added that the legislation would have to be passed anyway, so in effect the people would be deciding to impose term limits.

The "states should be able to do whatever they want" thing kind of died in the 1860's, last I checked.

 

[bio-chem]

Actually it does. Let's see, you quote me and say "you don't want anyone affecting who you can elect with term limits" I reply we already have term limits and other restrictions on "popular power" like the electoral college and the original selection of Senators.

Additionally I added that the legislation would have to be passed anyway, so in effect the people would be deciding to impose term limits.

The "states should be able to do whatever they want" thing kind of died in the 1860's, last I checked.

my post was that elections of themselves impose "term limits" on senators and congressmen. and i don't want someone outside of my district effecting my congressman. my post was not about state rights or restrictions on popular power such as the electoral college. stop using my posts to further some ridiculous agenda you have. if term limits were passed it would very likely have little to do with the desire of the people. more likely it would have to do with one party attempting to unseat powerful members of the rival party.

didn't you hear. state rights are making a vogue comeback?

 

[NeilPearson]

I don't think they need more tax money... I also think it should be illegal for them to propose a budget that is not balanced. I can't take a "spend more than I make" attitude with my personal fincances, why should the government be able to.

 

[squanto]

I don't think they need more tax money... I also think it should be illegal for them to propose a budget that is not balanced. I can't take a "spend more than I make" attitude with my personal fincances, why should the government be able to.

So you have never taken out a loan to buy a house or car? And you have never owned a credit card?

 

[NeilPearson]

So you have never taken out a loan to buy a house or car? And you have never owned a credit card?

Not when I knew I didn't have enough income to pay down the loan instead of having it grow larger.

 

[tallcall]

Nothing I said has anything to do with running more elections. I have no idea why you quoted my post.

I'm just saying that an incumbent running for re-election will probably not be advertising as much as a guy who is relatively unheard of. We have to pay for these elections campaigns either way, right? So let's do ourselves a favor and try to limit the terms but extend the length of those terms to try to reduce federal spending on election campaigns.

I'm not a fan of a lot of those fools, but I can't see spending that kind of money to get rid of them - that'd be fiscally irresponsible in a time of economic turmoil and war (save them pennies to help pay for necessities like running water, decent roads, and gas - utilities that we can't really live without anymore).

 

[maniclion]

So you have never taken out a loan to buy a house or car? And you have never owned a credit card?

I have and I have had to prove that I would be able to afford the monthly payments along with all of my other obligations, plus I had to prove that I wouldn't have any lenders from other institutions coming up with a sudden extreme amount that I may owe due to miscalculations in their systems. In fact it's such a pain in the ass to get a mortgage or home equity loan lately I advise anyone thinking about it to get your credit score right now and go through it yourself looking for any discrepancies or it's going to slow your loan process down to a crawl....I had a student loan that I had consolidated 4 years ago and they never closed the other ones so it looked like I owed double the money plus they looked way over due because I hadn't made payments on them even though in the consolidation I had paid up for several month's ahead.... Let me tell you guys it's a nightmare to try to get a loan these days....

 

[NeilPearson]

I have and I have had to prove that I would be able to afford the monthly payments along with all of my other obligations, plus I had to prove that I wouldn't have any lenders from other institutions coming up with a sudden extreme amount that I may owe due to miscalculations in their systems. In fact it's such a pain in the ass to get a mortgage or home equity loan lately I advise anyone thinking about it to get your credit score right now and go through it yourself looking for any discrepancies or it's going to slow your loan process down to a crawl....I had a student loan that I had consolidated 4 years ago and they never closed the other ones so it looked like I owed double the money plus they looked way over due because I hadn't made payments on them even though in the consolidation I had paid up for several month's ahead.... Let me tell you guys it's a nightmare to try to get a loan these days....

I think if the government is going to borrow money, they better be accountable for it and have to show how they plan on paying off their loan.

Dammit, I should just move to Australia

 

[GFR]

Phil Gramm was right we are a nation of whiners, he have an unemployment of 5-6 percent

Welcome to 2010 with 10-15% unemployment.


As for the poll question, the fact is we need a revolution in America and if things keep going down hill we might just have one.