Leave the rest of us alone.
As much as I might hate it, taxes probably DO need to go up....on EVERYONE. Spending will probably need to be cut by double the amount we increase taxes. The fact is we’ve already spent too much, and it has to be paid for. After the debt is paid down, taxes should be cut down to nearly nothing.
I’ll give him a libertarian stance on marriage, but raising taxes? What’s the point of all this investment in the conservative movement if raising taxes is a-ok. All these governors are here showing that they accomplished big problems and balanced budgets without new taxes. Tax reform, absolutely. Blanket tax increases...won’t solve anything.
Ken Vogel thinks he is breaking new ground?? I mentioned this on an FR thread several months ago.
The Koch brothers are libertarians who believe in gay marriage...they aren’t fully conservatives like we are here on FR.
I am trying to help the gays by opposing gay marriage....why should those poor gays have to go through what I went through in marriage, lack of sex and the pain of divorce!
Dear Mr. Koch - “gay marriage”? Thanks for all the support - but please don’t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out.
its no use mr. koch - the libs will never like you...
Time and again, a wealthy individual says we ought to raise taxes. They might even say that spending should be cut. However, they have an understanding of economics that is only slightly more sophisticated than the typical US high school student. These people think that a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes will somehow ease the budgetary shortfalls in governments. However, the real world doesn’t work that way. First of all, taxes are inherently destructive—if you tax something, you destroy that something at least partly. If you tax earnings, you will reduce the motivation people have to contribute their labor. This is in inverse proportion to income. A dollar of earnings to someone who earns just enough to be in the top tax bracket is more valuable to that person than a dollar of earnings is to Koch or Buffett. You could tax them a bunch but not have much effect and so they perceive income and taxes much differently than people with lower earnings.
Second, if you put more money into taxes, you give money to people whose job it is to spend money. There has never been an incentive or reward for any politician who cuts spending. It does not and will not happen unless the system is changed to reward cuts, punish spending, or both. This is a fatal flaw in the approach of those who harken to John M. Keynes’ Depression-era advice. Politicians spend when times are bad and spend when times are good—they spend—that is what they get rewarded for.
Third, if you take tax money out of the US economy and send it to govt, govt must use a portion of that money to pay interest on past spending—for the interest payments that do not stay in the US, that is an instant loss of value that cannot be applied to spur economic activity more generally. A portion of that interest is paid to non-US entities essentially fueling economic competition against US companies and citizens. Higher tax rates also motivate businesses and those who pay the higher taxes to seek more favorable economic environments. Fourth, taxes sent to gov’t that do not pay for interest often fuel govt programs that are impossible to cut or reduce in size given politicians’ incentives. Once a dollar is sent to gov’t, it is often like buying a subscription. Every year, another dollar must be sent plus whatever increase that politicians deem needed to keep the ultimate recipients happy. Dollars spent by private sector organizations and individuals are often one-time “project” spending—dollars spent by gov’t are repeated “subscription” spending.
These are just some of the reasons higher taxes are a threat to the economy and will not improve govt’s economic state. I would appreciate any economist’s or other individual’s comments on my post that can improve my thinking on this issue.
Homosexual “marriage” is not about the marriage of homosexuals, it’s about forcing homosexuality on those that want no part of it.
Let david pay more taxes if he wishes to or he can STFU. Take his money and spend it... leave his suggestions in the septic tank.
LLS
Mr. Koch is right about needing to raise taxes. The 47% of the people who pay no federal income tax which includes people, who get the Earned Income T Credit, need to start paying. The Earned Income Tax Credit pays people with incomes up to $49,078 a year instead of them contributing to maintaining the government. The EITC needs to be done away with.
While it is true that these are tax increases, I don’t think any libertarian (or conservative) should object.
Koch = Soros
Seems to be getting this way
Why would Romney have any better idea on how much military we need than Koch does?
Would somebody lay out, in a few succinct paragraphs, who they are and who or what they are "running" in the Republican Party?
On the one hand, I hear the Koches are allied with the Tea Party (who are generally not Romney-ites). Then I hear the are hugely backing Romney (who is generally not a Teeper.)
Then I hear they are far-right Conservatives. And/or Libertarians. But they are pro-gay marriage, and I don't see how that's either Conservative or Libertarian.
It's not Conservative, because the deconstruction of marriage is directly antagonistic to the conservation of families, nations and civilizations, or even the rule of legitimate law based on Natural Law. (Which is supposed to be the foundation our American political philosophy, via the Dec. of Independence.)
And it's not Libertarian, because the LGBT agitators are a tiny minority elite organized to demand government perks & affirmative action, and to coerce public respect for their sexual proclivities, when in fact they are entitled neither to coerced perks nor coerced respect.
So ---who are these Koch brothers and what are they really trying to achieve?
My rough impression is that they are in some ways analogous to Soros: hyper-rich political/social manipulators, paying out big money through a variety of front groups.
The very kind of people I have NEVER had any sympathetic twitches for: the Secular White LeftRight. The kind of powerfreaks who would crush me with a casual boot-heel in a New York minute.
Am I right? Or will somebody 'splain it all to me?