Taxation Without Representation

There has been another form of taxation without representation in this country for years and everyone has just gone along with it. How many of you travel and have to pay the hotel, car rental and additional sales tax in restaurants so those local governments can have the money. The selling point to the local citizens, "You don't have to pay it, only the people that are traveling to our locality will pay the taxes."

Doofe, this country is spending too much. You miss the point, but that is typical, Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I got the point, and you know it. But then, allowing for that would get in the way of you throwing around another insult. The point is, in the here and now, even assuming you're correct, that is only half the problem. That is the point.

because you are fine with whatever government does. I'm not.

Sorry COG. It's not all about you and what you want. There are over 350 million people in this country - they all deserve a say too. You don't like it, that's just too bad. :wah wah wah:

So you can quit lying about my position, thank you.

That's rich. Don Rickles here can't stand the way people talk about him.

He was creative at one point? When? Originally Posted by LovingKayla

There has been another form of taxation without representation in this country for years and everyone has just gone along with it. How many of you travel and have to pay the hotel, car rental and additional sales tax in restaurants so those local governments can have the money. The selling point to the local citizens, "You don't have to pay it, only the people that are traveling to our locality will pay the taxes." Originally Posted by ReddyGreen

Damn good point.

. As for the defense budget; the defense budget for 2012 is only 3.2 percent of GDP. Under Reagan it was 6.2 percent. The last Bush budget it was 5 percent. It is decreasing while we are still at war! did. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD, you are like a little kid that wants a horse. All you take into account is what the horse costs to buy. You do not take into account any related cost to owning a horse. Buying more land , food and any interest cost you have incured!
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2143
If the national economy produces more hamburgers and computer software next year, these economic developments in no way imply that more money should then be spent for defense. If the threats remain the same and the costs of acquiring defense goods and services remain the same, then the defense budget can remain fixed in amount and still serve its proper purpose. Notice, however, that if the GDP continues to grow, this adequate, fixed-amount, military budget will constitute a smaller fraction of GDP...

...It is long past time for the media and the American people to stop being taken in by shopworn rhetorical trickery such as that attending the ritual discussion of defense spending relative to GDP. Its only real purpose is to minimize the magnitude of a defense budget that has swollen to absurdly gigantic proportions. Why can’t the Department of Defense today defend the country for a smaller annual amount than it needed to defend the country during the Cold War, when we faced an enemy with large, modern armed forces and thousands of accurate, nuclear-armed ICBMs?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons.

Do you understand that the military does not count servicing the debt they run up as an expendeture!


http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...red-against-g/

But Winslow Wheeler, director of the Strauss Military Project at the Center for Defense Information, argued GDP is an unreliable measure of the amount that the U.S. spends on defense.

After all, GDP is constantly changing, he said. Even if the defense budget is on the rise, it could become a smaller percent of the nation’s overall economic output if GDP increases at a faster pace.

Forbes "is engaging in that sliding slippery scale," said Wheeler, whose group was founded by retired military officers to analyze defense issues. "He’s trying to make the defense budget look small. It’s not."

Wheeler also noted that the base budget that Forbes cites only accounts for Department of Defense spending and doesn’t include other military-related costs, such as money spent every year by the Department of Energy to maintain the country’s nuclear stockpile.

Even when adjusted for inflation, the total dollars dedicated to national defense is now at its highest level since World War II, Wheeler said.

Figures from the Department of Defense comptroller’s office show that, when measured in 2005 dollars, the total spending on national defense peaked at just more than $900 billion in 1945 before falling off. It didn’t approach the $700 billion mark until the 2011 fiscal year.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies report also notes that the U.S., by far, spends more money on defense than any other country in the world.

The U.S. accounted for 46.5 percent of global military spending in 2009, according to the CSIS report. China only accounted for 6.6 percent with France in third at 4.2 percent.

There has been another form of taxation without representation in this country for years and everyone has just gone along with it. How many of you travel and have to pay the hotel, car rental and additional sales tax in restaurants so those local governments can have the money. The selling point to the local citizens, "You don't have to pay it, only the people that are traveling to our locality will pay the taxes." Originally Posted by ReddyGreen

Those are regressive taxes that Republican never want to talk about. It does not play up to their narrative that 50% of the population pays no taxes and has no skin in the game!

I can see you are trying to offer intelligent debate, WTF, and I appreciate that. However, the main thing is that CONGRESS MUST QUIT SPENDING! It is impossible to raise taxes enough to get us out of the mess we're in.

. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

At this point, it has to be a combination of both.

The problem that the GOP wants to say are skyrocketing costs of Medicare but if you try and control it, they scream 'Death Panels".

The Dems say Defense spending is out of hand. But if you try and curb it , people then use trickery and bring up GDP.

So nothing is done about spending. Nobody wants to cut their pet projects.

Just listen to JD, the big Tea Party guy who wants to cut spending (he says) but he does not want to cut Defense spending.

How can you have a rational discussion with a person like that?

And there is a 4th choice. Scrap the income tax, and replace it with the FairTax. This would dramatically broaden the tax base, and increase revenue. The claim is that the FairTax would be revenue neutral, but that is if everything remains static, which it won't. There will be many more taxpayers, GDP will skyrocket, and the labor market will boom. Congress will still need to QUIT SPENDING, but we'd have a much better shot at turning our economy around than by increasing income taxes. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

While I do not agree with you complete accessment of this so callled FairTax, I do agree that the tax code is a major problem in this country. Something needs to be done.

Maybe we will wind up like the former USSR and slowly have states break off into their own countries.

The reason the locals let these types of taxes get passed is because they feel like they will not feel the affect. Even if you have to get a rental because of a wreck, insurance usually picks up the tab.
Of course, we never know how much out of town business is lost because of these taxes. I doubt much, becauase it seems that just about every major municipality has decided to do the same.

The reason the locals let these types of taxes get passed is because they feel like they will not feel the affect. Even if you have to get a rental because of a wreck, insurance usually picks up the tab.
Of course, we never know how much out of town business is lost because of these taxes. I doubt much, becauase it seems that just about every major municipality has decided to do the same. Originally Posted by Jackie S

And just WTF does that say about this country?

Let's not tax the local citizen who live here, lets tax the stupid business traveler that come here to pay for all the shit the locals want. The mentality of this country seems to be, "We want others to pay for the shit we want."

Liberal or Conserative, it matters not, both sides waxnt others to pay for their pet projects.

As that great 20th century philosopher Pogo said:

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

As that great 20th century philosopher Pogo said:

"We have met the enemy, and he is us" Originally Posted by Jackie S

LOL, true oh so true.

The motel taxes are a red herring and a minor issue. They are a consumption tax. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't go there. You have a choice. Our descendants have no choice about whether they will have to pay excess taxes just for what we want today.

WTF, I think the FairTax is the best solution, but something needs to change, and almost anything would be better than our current system. I'd be willing to try a number of alternatives. This system is irreparably broken.