View Full Version : The Budget Speech
I almost titled it "Budget Speech or Campaign Speech", but thought better of it. The 2012 campaign is off and running on both sides now, so I'll leave it at that. :spam:
There are some giving the President a thumbs up for his general framework. It's a start, as is Paul Ryan's proposal. I'm still of the opinion that our politicians are all trying to not be the one to give us the bad news. Even if we completely paid off the national debt today we'd still be in trouble because the government spends too much money. It isn't sustainable, but most of our chosen ones are too scared of ending their careers to do anything about it. My overall impression of the speech: I wish the President would have gone a little farther into specific budget issues and spent less effort on campaign issues.
I wasn't impressed.
All the rhetoric sounded good enough, although the lack of a plan to compliment the rhetoric, plus the almost diametrical opposition to the budget his office put forth just 2 months ago, reminds me more of a campaigner than a chief executive.
I was going to buy a boat this weekend, about $200k worth of boat, cash. From a local dealer, made at a local boatbuilder, by local American workers. Rigged largely with US-made gear.
But I don't *really* need this boat, I've got several others, and this one is an indulgence, meant for a special application.
But you know what? I can press one of my other boats into the task, and in the face of these proposed tax increases on "the rich", I'm not going to spend my money, I'm going to keep my powder dry until I see how things shake out.
So, I wonder how many American jobs that just impacted, just from people like me deciding to not start spending money again on evil rich guy luxuries?
flowerseverywhere
4-14-11, 12:45pm
I watched the speech and some of the commentary afterward and at least people are talking about some things that need to be brought up and dealt with. I personally don't think that $250,000, which seems to be talked about as a level where people are "rich" is a lot of money for people living in NYC or DC for example. In my area you would be ultra-rich. But we have to figure something out. I feel for the young workers who not only will have little or no social security and medicare, but will have to foot the bill for those that do.
http://usdebtclock.org/#
the clock is ticking
I was going to buy a boat this weekend, about $200k worth of boat, cash. From a local dealer, made at a local boatbuilder, by local American workers. Rigged largely with US-made gear.
But I don't *really* need this boat, I've got several others, and this one is an indulgence, meant for a special application.
But you know what? I can press one of my other boats into the task, and in the face of these proposed tax increases on "the rich", I'm not going to spend my money, I'm going to keep my powder dry until I see how things shake out.
So, I wonder how many American jobs that just impacted, just from people like me deciding to not start spending money again on evil rich guy luxuries?
That's a no brainer. We've already seen what happens to entire industries when luxury taxes are imposed on them. In the early 90's, the boatbuilding industry lost 25,000 jobs and government revenues on the sale of boats decreased as a result of the luxury taxes imposed.
The same thing happend with luxury car sales until all of the ridiculous "punish the wealthy" luxury taxes were abolished.
If we only learned from our past mistakes.
As I understand it, Obama is proposing taking the tax rate back to a max of 37 or 38% from the current 35%. The dumb Bush tax cuts would be taken back. I do feel everyone should pay to get us out of the deficit problem not just the wealthy. Those making below $250,000 should also pay.
We can not get out of the deficit with cuts alone. It is just to big.
I was personally glad to she Pres. Obama take a stand for once with regard to not continuing the Bush Tax cuts, but a little late. I think his approach seemed to be a more realistic one than the "no taxes period" from the right-wing. I was also glad to hear someone mention cutting defense but I'll believe it when I see it. Obama missed a great opportunity when he failed to endorse the bi-partisan commissions deficit reduction report last year, it clearly said that it would take both spending cuts and increased taxes to even begin to deal with our budget deficits.
I think it was clearly an attempt to emphasize the differences in the upcoming 2012 election but my only concern is that these days it is almost like Nero fiddling while Rome burned - we seem to talk something to death and never really accomplish much. I think Obama lost much support from seniors because of the mis-information campaign last year concerning Medicare and with the Ryan proposal to basically do away with Medicare as we know it that will not be the case in 2012. I am very disappointed that it seems our environment, climate change, and workers rights seem to have all disappeared from the agenda. In my mind we seem desperate on both sides of the aisle and not many really believe anything our politicians say anymore - not a good sign of things to come.
Personally, I expect a nasty mean-spirited election cycle. I do think that the last 10 years has changed this country in a very negative way in terms of personal liberty and the image of the US as a World Leader.
We have wealth and a big stick but our karma is very bad.
Peace
Donald Trump is tied for the lead among Republican candidates. That is scary. I can not believe people would actually vote for the wind bag with big hair? That sure does not say much for the American voter.
Gardenarian
4-14-11, 7:01pm
I was pleased that the President wants to make some major cuts in defense spending. I loved this line:
"But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt."
Yes!
loosechickens
4-15-11, 1:49am
If a rise of several percentage points in taxes would make you feel pinched, bae, you probably can't really afford that boat. ;-)
What in the world did rich people do for most of the past fifty years or so when they paid more than double the tax rates they pay now, and have only been paying this low rate now for a few years, if it's throwing them into such tizzies? They got used to the "good life and much lower taxes" quite easily, huh?
Hint.......they still had yachts, third, fourth and fifth homes, servants, lots of jewelry, show and/or race horses, and luxury cars. Those expensive toys didn't just start getting bought when the Bush administration lowered their tax rate, and they won't stop being bought (unless folks are just determined to make a point and cut off their noses to spite their faces), at the prospect of the highest income tax rates, which are less than half of what they've been over most of the last fifty years, rise a couple percentage points. Somehow, I don't think maximum tax rates of 38-39% rather than 35-36% are going to crimp their style too much.
Heck, even at MY modest income, a rise of several percentage points in my tax rate wouldn't cause much in the way of waves in my financial life, and if it will help us provide better government for our citizens, I'd be happy to have them raise mine, too. I don't think it would make much of a change in what I buy, that's for sure.
Again, LC, you fail to look at the actual effective net tax rates paid during the periods in question, so your comparison is misleading or dishonest.
Since this has been pointed out multiple times to you over the years, I'm not sure why you persist.
loosechickens
4-15-11, 2:48am
bae, please explain the actual effective tax rates, say, in the 1970's and the actual effective tax rates now. You keep saying this, but it might help if you explain it.
my understanding is that you add up your income that is taxable, arrived at after all your deductions, and then you pay a lesser rate on the first $250,000 of that income, and are expected to pay 35% on the amount above that figure. And if President Obama is effective on getting that maximum tax rate raised to, say, 38%, you would pay that rate on the amount of taxable income you had over and above the first $250,000.
Incidentally, studies have shown that fully 50% of the people who would be affected by the rise from 35% to 38% have incomes over one million dollars per year. I forget where I read that, but it was an official figure from some reliable source, and stuck in my mind, especially since the Republicans only hold up the two income, salaried folks in a few expensive cities who barely make $250,000 in taxable income, rather than the half of folks affected whose income is more than a million dollars a year. Does make a bit of a difference, doesn't it?
It's kind of the way the opponents of the inheritance tax always hold up examples of "small family businesses", or "family farms", although most of the folks who have to PAY the inheritance tax are no such thing, and less than 2% of estates are even subject to the tax, but I digress.......
Now, I fully understand that there are lots of tax loopholes, preferential treatment of some types of income, tax exemptions, etc., but, do your usual simplification and explain to me how the above is completely wrong, please.
That income used to be taxed at a much higher rate than it is taxed now, and the elimination of the Bush tax cut in rates for folks such as yourself, which would have the effect of raising the tax rate several percentage points, back to where they were for the halycon years of the nineties, somehow, now, seems so onerous that you would deny yourself the small toy of a $200,000 boat. My heart goes out to you, truly, but...........
If I'm so wrong, and so ill informed (not existing in that rarified tax bracket), please explain. We are interested. And interested as well in how paying a few percent more in taxes would affect you so badly that you'd deny yourself the treat of an additional boat.
LC - when we had a 91% top marginal tax bracket in 1963, was the tax code otherwise identical to today's tax code? Or, was it perhaps considerably different, full of those fabled tax shelters that we've "simplified" out of the system, resulting in someone with a gross income in the 91% range not actually ending up paying that rate? You are simply not comparing apples-to-apples when you compare 91% marginal rates to today's rates, unless you view the rates in the context of the whole tax code.
You could look up all that sort of thing if you were really interested. (A hint, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...)
As to why I'm not buying a boat: simple uncertainty. The marginal increase on income is of no consequence to me, I have no income as such. But there's the quite possible chance that as the dust settles, dividends and capital gains will be raised, likely doubled or more. And that would double the amount of taxes I pay overnight. And since the "treat" of the boat was to provide the use of it for several nonprofit research and environmental causes, well, they can do without for a few years, until there is certainty again. Or heck, perhaps the government can buy them a boat, with my money, once they take it from me.
Donald Trump is tied for the lead among Republican candidates. That is scary. I can not believe people would actually vote for the wind bag with big hair? That sure does not say much for the American voter.
In a left handed way it speaks volumes...mostly about who the other candidates are.
As to why I'm not buying a boat: simple uncertainty.
While I'm not in the market for any "luxury" items at this time, that same uncertainty is the EXACT reason we have not opened up 3 or 4 new positions in our company. We could really use the extra help and can afford the expansion: for now. Uncertainty is bad. Surprises are worse. This environment is full of potential surprises.
Is there ever certainty? Seems like all the certainty of the buoyant 90s was a sham in the end.
Is there ever certainty? Seems like all the certainty of the buoyant 90s was a sham in the end.
There is relative certainty. For me to hire new employees or bae to buy his new boat the situation is, I think, similar. It is not exactly a matter of increasing costs or taxes that stalls the action. If I could be reasonably sure how much costs were going to increase I would be able to plan accordingly and would probably pull the trigger. As it is there is no coherent plan and so no way to predict how far expenses will rise. If you're saying that things can always change no matter what the conditions then you are, of course, correct. In my working life, through the 80's, 90's and 00's there were deviations, but they tended to be either relatively small or were part of longer term trending either of which is manageable. Right now the only certainty, IMO, is that costs/taxes will rise. It is the uncertainty of whether they will rise by 10% or 100% that keeps the horse in the stall. If the gap was narrower, 10% to 20% or 80% to 100%, then how to proceed would become clear. With the current Congress it's a coin flip.
flowerseverywhere
4-15-11, 11:21am
As to why I'm not buying a boat: simple uncertainty. The marginal increase on income is of no consequence to me, I have no income as such. But there's the quite possible chance that as the dust settles, dividends and capital gains will be raised, likely doubled or more. And that would double the amount of taxes I pay overnight. And since the "treat" of the boat was to provide the use of it for several nonprofit research and environmental causes, well, they can do without for a few years, until there is certainty again. Or heck, perhaps the government can buy them a boat, with my money, once they take it from me.
that's really too bad. In my heart I believe the large majority of wealthy people who have money to spare put it to good use- our country is full of generous kind citizens who care. Of course, we don't hear much about them. It is the Paris Hiltons that make the headlines. And I truly believe if they took your money in taxes after they took their cut the boat would be bought from whomever made the best campaign contributions.
I can't even imagine the Donald Trump issue.
The rich will still be rich after they pay additioal taxes. So why all the fuss? I'm far far from rich but I'd be willing to pay more and it wouldn't effect me much at all. Everyone needs to help but the rich always protest the loudest!
That's probably because the rich are always the target.
It's interesting to me that people aren't more concerned about the level of our national debt. If I'm not mistaken, the total annual income for everyone in the United States is approximately $12T. So, if we took every cent of earnings from every person we still couldn't pay off our national debt of over $14T.
While looking at a 3 or 4 or 5% increase of taxes from the top 10% or so of earners might make a difference in the size of our annual deficits, I don't see it doing anything about the long term debt. Especially if our government doesn't seem interested in curbing the rate of spend.
If we don't have the will to take a hard look at the social welfare state and its increasing entitlement spending, I'm not sure that we won't eventually implode.
For a demographic such as this, where sustainable and practible living seems to be the one unifying theme, I don't understand why this is not more apparent. If taxing the rich more would solve our problem in the long term, I'd probably be in favor of it, but the real problem is with spending, not with taxing too little.
he real problem is with spending, not with taxing too little
I totally agree with this part. I do wish though that they would start with the defense budget. I think a just society would always care for children and the elderly so I have a hard time with those pots of money. However, I do question Medicare payments in many instances such as paying hospital and maternity expenses for undocumented workers. That is rampant where I live. The only way though that any of this is ever going to get worked out is to meet in the middle and just get moving. It is so frustrating to see all the continual bickering. Aren't there some creative and helpful to society solutions other than "taxing the rich"? Incentives - maybe much higher deductions for charitable giving? I think I read somewhere that proportionately people of lower income give more than higher income folks.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." ~ Dwight Eisenhower, 1953
Peace
Exactly, Zigzag. Cut the military budget 90% over the next two years, and then we'll have something to work with.
Also, this article suggests some other fruitful areas to prune.... (read soon, I think the link expires in a day or so)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?print=true
Hey...hey, remember when teachers, fire and police, public employees, Planned Parenthood, old people, sick people, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, took billions in tax breaks, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves enormous bonuses, bought themselves a pocketful of politicians, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.
Hey...hey, remember when teachers, fire and police, public employees, Planned Parenthood, old people, sick people, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, took billions in tax breaks, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves enormous bonuses, bought themselves a pocketful of politicians, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.
Is that a copy and paste from the official talking points memo? I've seen it verbatim a dozen or more times in the past few days.
Is that a copy and paste from the official talking points memo? I've seen it verbatim a dozen or more times in the past few days.
Hmm, putting it into Google yields quite a few hits for the exact text. Synchronicity?
Hmm, putting it into Google yields quite a few hits for the exact text. Synchronicity?
Probably simply a timely, and numerous, coincidence.
beats whining about not buying another boat...especially when I really really really wanted to buy it for someone else.....really.
NO, it's not my original text, although not verbatim, but the message, and the truth, is still the same.
I don't know if you all realize how embarrassing you sound complaining about not buying yet another boat, or not hiring someone, even though business dictates it, because you don't know what the future will bring. Well duh! No one knows what the future will bring. NO ONE! And actually Gregg, isn't this the reason you keep giving for these tax breaks for the wealthy? Because they take SUCH risks, not knowing what the future brings? Well, truth is, business people, successful business people, know pretty well how the winds blow before they invest. If you aren't hiring anyone, even though business is booming, then you probably shouldn't be hiring someone. You want a tax break? Then take a risk. Hire someone. Otherwise, forget it. Cause you just made the argument for NOT giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
Oh and FYI, your not allowed the sanctimonious chest beat unless you actually DO give the boat. Sometimes, it really isn't the thought that counts.
beats whining about not buying another boat...especially when I really really really wanted to buy it for someone else.....really.
You are really a delightful poster!
NO, it's not my original text, although not verbatim, but the message, and the truth, is still the same.
I stand corrected. You did throw in a double 'hey'.
I don't know if you all realize how embarrassing you sound complaining about not buying yet another boat, or not hiring someone, even though business dictates it, because you don't know what the future will bring. Well duh! No one knows what the future will bring. NO ONE! And actually Gregg, isn't this the reason you keep giving for these tax breaks for the wealthy? Because they take SUCH risks, not knowing what the future brings? Well, truth is, business people, successful business people, know pretty well how the winds blow before they invest. If you aren't hiring anyone, even though business is booming, then you probably shouldn't be hiring someone. You want a tax break? Then take a risk. Hire someone. Otherwise, forget it. Cause you just made the argument for NOT giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
Oh and FYI, your not allowed the sanctimonious chest beat unless you actually DO give the boat. Sometimes, it really isn't the thought that counts.
Now that's the Peggy I remember from the old place. I miss the mean spirited rants against anyone who prefers reason over emotion. Welcome back!!!
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-11, 11:38am
Never mind the future, the CURRENT tax code is SO COMPLEX (and no it's not the progressiveness that makes it complex - it's the hundreds of deductions, the treatment of different incomes, having TWO sets of tax codes in reality with the AMT etc.) that it is not at all predictable unless you consult a tax accountant before making any financial moves or unless you ARE a tax accountant.
The problem is the professional middle class is too ignorant of what the tax code really is (and perhaps too naive about it being fair) to know enough to do so and thus they can get horribly singed if they come into any money and I'm not even talking big money (I'm learning, but it is a case of too late wise). I literally spent a few days this week IN TEARS over unexpected twists and turns in the tax code. I try to tell myself "money isn't everything", but potentially charging me more than the rate of the top income bracket would just be WRONG (I don't have that kind of money). I feel as if I was a 14 year old getting raped trying to tell myself "virginity isn't everything" while it's happening, yea but I'm still getting raped. I know I need professional help, and I'm going to get it: filing an extension, calling a TAX ACCOUNTANT! I hope they can help me.
Anyway as for general unpredictability it would seem to me there are a lot more factors than just taxes at play, although taxes MAY have much more of an effect on an individual. The whole economic system is unstable, relying on resources that are fast running out etc.., I guess it just depends on how immediate one sees this problem as being. But with gas prices doing what they are for instance, that has to effect a lot of businesses (sure there may be ways to mitigate this through taking the other side of the trade or something, heck their are probably ways to mitigate tax increases this way, aren't their markets for that or something? :) Ok I don't know, it's a bit over my head). The FED also creates boatloads of uncertainty though I think this mostly effects individuals wondering if their long term savings will keep up with inflation etc.. And yes the national debt is a source of uncertainty, more than just taxes I think. I mean maybe not for some people, but generally for most people in this country I think having to default on the debt or something would be bad news!
Maxamillion
4-16-11, 12:36pm
Hey...hey, remember when teachers, fire and police, public employees, Planned Parenthood, old people, sick people, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, took billions in tax breaks, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves enormous bonuses, bought themselves a pocketful of politicians, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.
I need a like button.
Considering I'm having to stretch every penny to pay for food, rent, meds and gasoline and still haven't been able to afford car repairs to keep my car from quitting on me at times, I find it really difficult to feel sorry for the wealthy.
I need a like button.
Considering I'm having to stretch every penny to pay for food, rent, meds and gasoline and still haven't been able to afford car repairs to keep my car from quitting on me at times, I find it really difficult to feel sorry for the wealthy.
Empathy is not a requirement for anyone seeking equal treatment under the law.
Maxamillion
4-16-11, 1:42pm
Empathy is not a requirement for anyone seeking equal treatment under the law.
Not sure what you mean, considering the tax breaks that rich people get. I think about how General Electric didn't pay taxes for 2010. How is that equal treatment?
Not sure what you mean, considering the tax breaks that rich people get. I think about how General Electric didn't pay taxes for 2010. How is that equal treatment?
Many people enjoy the idea of having different rules for different people/groups/entities. Government, following the peoples lead, create rules which benefit some and punish others. Think of Candidate Obama's pledge to bankrupt energy producers using coal.
Along the same lines, GE received preferential tax treatment as a result of GE Capital's previous losses. I believe that if that division were removed from GE's portfolio, their effective tax rate would have been approximately 21%.
Right now, many folks enjoy the popular opinion that a small group of people need to pay even more than they already do, seemingly thinking that it is fairer for those who pay nothing to receive even more benefit from those who pay the most. Our administration seems to agree. How is being treated differently equal treatment?
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-11, 3:32pm
The tax code is already an obscenity so who the @#$@ cares if they change it to take a little more from the rich instead. Cry me a @#$@ river, unless the whole tax code is radically simplified RATES DON'T EVEN MATTER, they aren't what anyone is ACTUALLY paying (everyone is either paying much less or much more than the official brackets). Much more than the bracket? Yes from my calculations this seems possible, by like I said an accountant is needed. The tax code is actually TOO COMPLEX for a reasonably intelligent person without a tax background to EVEN COMPREHEND!
The tax code is already an obscenity so who the @#$@ cares if they change it to take a little more from the rich instead. Cry me a @#$@ river, unless the whole tax code is radically simplified rates don't even matter, they aren't what anyone is actually paying (everyone is either paying much less or much more than the official brackets).
Would you prefer that we take this approcach in all aspects of governance? Should we group citizens by region, by sex, by age, by ethnicity or some other criteria and then apply different rules for them?
Of course, we do that sort of thing all the time under the guise of affirmative action and preferential hiring and using public funds to award contracts only to unionized companies, etc. I contend that just because government can use force to do something, doesn't make it right or moral. And, unfortunately, often people who are not affected by this sort of unequal treatment see nothing wrong with it as long as the tables aren't turned, but that seems kind of selfish to me.
We are the wealthy who made too much money for our very smart white kids to ever get a dime for college from the gubmint. We paid for their college from money we earned. We are the wealthy who own our own business, will have to lay off ten people in June because Pres. Obama's policies have killed the economy. We are the people who will have to participate in this sham of "health-care reform", watch our taxes go to bailout Obama's buddies at GE who didn't pay any tax, I can't believe as recently as this week he was still whining about the mess he inherited and then whining about not being able to be a private citizen. Geez...I can't wait till that whiny little candy a$$ leaves office. And yes, if Trump or Wanda the Good witch or whoever is running against him, I will vote for them. I could go on and on, OOOH I'm so dependent and scared, big gubmint please come bail me out...
I love the tête-à-tête between the left and right. It is so revealing and is a source of great joy for me. If we all agreed on stuff it would be a very dull world. ;)
In just the last few decades (I always go back to Ronnie Raygun) it has become quite apparent that the backlash from the "social revolution" is almost complete. Vietnam guilt, tax cuts, nanny government, greed is good, I want it all and I want it now, and last but certainly not least - religion in politics have pretty much seen their better days.
A child of the 60's coming to maturity in the 80's simply has never seen anything different. It is considered normal for everyone to have everything they desire and our government has helped that to happen.
I don't think we really want to go back to the 50's and 60's in term of social issues but I do think that we could probably stand a taste of fiscal conservatism since from all indications our present lifestyle is not sustainable and we are totally destroying our environment.
SS and Medicare are what gave working people in this country a sense of independence because they knew that Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa, Widows, young children would not have to become dependent on the "kindness of others".
Now that we are in a fiscal crisis or so the experts say - we only need to take a hard look at where our dollars go before we decide what we what to shed. A question of priorities. :)
Peace
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/www.thirdway.org/taxreceipthttp://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/Beststash/home/image001.jpg
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/www.thirdway.org/taxreceipt
The IRS and the accompanying tax code would be entirely eliminated if the Fair Tax were instituted. In a nutshell, the FT totally eliminates ALL federal taxes at ALL levels and replaces them with a 23% sales tax on New purchases and Services. And it provides a monthly Pre-bate check to every person with a social security number to cover taxes paid up to the federal poverty guidelines. Visit www.fairtax.org to begin to learn about it and to join up as a supporter.
And don't even dare to argue that the Fair Tax is a bad idea until you learn about it. Read The Fair Tax, by Neal Bortz. The book is a quick read; check your library.
loosechickens
4-16-11, 9:13pm
However, if one IS wanting to learn about the Fair Tax, it's probably best to seek out objective opinions, sites that show pros AND cons, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax as opposed to getting your information from the guys "selling" it. JMHO
Gosh, Catwoman...., you said the following:
"We are the wealthy who made too much money for our very smart white kids to ever get a dime for college from the gubmint. We paid for their college from money we earned. We are the wealthy who own our own business, will have to lay off ten people in June because Pres. Obama's policies have killed the economy. We are the people who will have to participate in this sham of "health-care reform", watch our taxes go to bailout Obama's buddies at GE who didn't pay any tax, I can't believe as recently as this week he was still whining about the mess he inherited and then whining about not being able to be a private citizen. Geez...I can't wait till that whiny little candy a$$ leaves office. And yes, if Trump or Wanda the Good witch or whoever is running against him, I will vote for them. I could go on and on, OOOH I'm so dependent and scared, big gubmint please come bail me out..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, look in the mirror to see "whining", rather than at the President, please. THIS President killed the economy????? Be thankful that your income is large enough for you not to NEED help from the government in order to see your children have any kind of a chance in life or an education. And honestly, veiled comments about race are kind of unattractive as well. Especially when we whites, with better than average incomes whine as though we are put upon and discriminated against because we are "too rich" to get help.
My gosh, would you rather be poor? Don't you think that most people who need that help would far rather be in YOUR position?
sorry, feeling a bit out of sorts today, and people whining about how they are too rich to get help from the government and implying that if you're white, somehow you're some unfairly treated minority, just gets to me. (As my comments probably get to you, but......there you are).
Fair enough Chickens but, it is what it is....
I just need to add - it is a reality Chickens... there were all kinds of scholarships for minority students with gradepoints and accomplishments much less than my kids...and we didn't pay for college because we were rich... We paid for it because we PURPOSED to and sacrifice and worked our butts off. No one is building anything, investing in anything, letting go of any capital, therefore...Economy is dead directly due to Obama's policiies. It is quite fair for me to gripe about this, it is real, it is happening now...and it can all be laid at the feet of Barack Obama and his great social agenda...He does not understand the U.S. economy,his advisors are poorly chosen and ill-informed...
Maxamillion
4-16-11, 10:21pm
Economy is dead directly due to Obama's policiies. It is quite fair for me to gripe about this, it is real, it is happening now...and it can all be laid at the feet of Barack Obama and his great social agenda...
The economy was dead before Obama got into office.
flowerseverywhere
4-16-11, 10:58pm
I am finding this discussion so interesting. We have posters who have really suffered in this economy. People who only want to do whatever they can to live the American dream. Provide a house, food, clothing, and education for their children. those that have lost their jobs or watched as their standard of living declines.
Then we have the people who have done well. Those who have won the life lottery. Who have managed to figure out how to thrive despite the ups and downs that are thrown to them. Most likely educated and in a stable relationship or who managed to accumulate enough in the good times to have a stable life.
And those who have dropped off the radar who live an alternate lifestyle but find every opportunity to criticize those who get up every morning and go to work every day trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
But here is the bottom line. All levels of government need to realize taxpayers are not a bottomless well. Get a grip. Don't make everything so complicated. Simplify the tax code. Make the IRS leaner and meaner. Go after the tax cheats. Close the loopholes. Take a stand and make sure that your policies are not those that will make you win the next election but those that will make
America a country we are all proud of.
I just need to add - it is a reality Chickens... there were all kinds of scholarships for minority students with gradepoints and accomplishments much less than my kids...and we didn't pay for college because we were rich... We paid for it because we PURPOSED to and sacrifice and worked our butts off......
I believe it depends on lots of things for scholarships - I know several kids that are getting scholarships and they are white AND their parents have oodles of money. My niece is getting a crew (rowing) scholarship and she could go anywhere in the country she is so good. My nephew has decided to go to a Finland school where the country pays for schooling. He just has to pass an entrance exam to get in. Their parents are wealthy with I think the running count on houses is now at five, although I could be wrong.
Another kid I know is getting a scholarship because she is going to work for a year in a SA country and so the school is paying for her tuition. There are many ways to get scholarships, you just have to search for it.
But my parents paid for both me and my sister.
DH & I paid taxes this year. We made too much in the interest from our CDs to offset the take out taxes of my income. We do not make a ton of money, like some on the boards here, but I had no problem with it. When you are financially secure, you plan for these types of things.
@ Flowers - very well put!
loosechickens
4-17-11, 12:47pm
thanks, ljevtich, for your examples.....our very white and from a family well above the median in income, niece, had a choice of SEVERAL golf scholarships for college, as she was a champion in high school.
it's so easy to see all "those people" (code for minorities) getting stuff that "our" kids don't get, without noticing just how many of "our" kids get free rides. Our own son went to the U.S. Naval Academy, so got a free ride, despite being both white AND male, hardly a disadvantaged group.
I'm quite sure that many of the minority students who got scholarships would have preferred to come from a family that owned a business large enough to HAVE ten employees they could lay off, and a teacher in the family (as we've seen in the news lately, those TEACHERS are just money sinks with all THEIR benefits,and large salaries (just kidding here, dana, before you get upset)......
any of us can always look at some other group we think is getting a better deal than we are. but some ARE a bit more equal than others, and few in the privileged groups would be willing to take everything else that goes along with being a minority in order to get some perceived extras in scholarships, etc.
ApatheticNoMore
4-17-11, 1:20pm
My answer to those who can't get scholarships would be: go to a state school (because I really never knew so many scholarships existed). Guess that really is my answer to everything: GO TO A STATE SCHOOL (and if you can a community college for the first 2 years).
With funding of state schools and CCs being what it is these days at least in this state that is unfortunate :(. And *that* is troubling. Because I tend to see CCs and state schools as *THE* alternative for those who don't want to take out 6 figures in loans (smart kids!) and don't have rich parents. If I went back to school, yep most likely (I don't believe in debt except in some cases for housing). Heck if I had kids, well I'd probably try to save so that they had more options but if that failed to accumulate enough, I'd advise them to go to a state school rather than go in debt.
Here is an interesting article from the AP. It confirms what many have been saying and that is the very wealthy do not even pay the 35% tax rate. The rate they pay has dropped substantialy since 1992 while the middle class rate has dropped a little. One of the reason for the drop in taxes paid by the wealthy is the 15% rate on capital gains and qualified dividends. I am not wealthy but the 15% rate on dividends helps me get my effective Fed tax rate down to 8%.
"The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992."
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes
The fundamental flaw in your argument, LC, is that the assumption is made that poof: our business just appeared, or - we were born with silver spoons -or we make more so therefore we should pay more taxes so other people's kids can get free rides on our nickel - that all goes back to Obama's "spread around the wealth" discussion with Joe the Plumber.
After we finished paying off OUR college loans, my DH and I went a long time with nothing, then whenever we got profits, we paid off debt or paid for our children's college with that. Take DH #2, for example, he could have done a lot of things but he wanted to become a physician. Minority kids did not have to score as well on the MCAT for admission to med school, there were many programs available ONLY to minorities (the JAMP program for example) - admission to certain med schools automotic. All three of my kids did go to state school and took as many of their hours as they could online or through our very good local junior college. It is just very expensive...
but LC, have to hand it to ya, in your response you almost did show the two sides to the coin ---I don't regret a dime of what we paid for our kids educations, very darn good Aggie children we have ---Its just that I feel I am smack in the middle of the segment of society that Obama really hates and wants to stick it to. and by the way, nobody ever wants to lay off 10 people, it sucks. They have families and bills.
loosechickens
4-17-11, 6:40pm
Dana, I certainly don't think that your business just created itself, or that you were able to obtain a teaching job without YOU getting to go to college, even with loans, but do you really think that every minority student who gets a scholarship, or every family that does NOT have the money for college doesn't work hard?
You know, this country is FULL of people who get up every morning, work their butts off, sometimes at several jobs, make good decisions, and still never become "successes" financially. Sometimes they develop medical problems, sometimes bad luck hits them, sometimes, they come from backgrounds where a lack of education themselves limits how well they can do, not to mention no access to capital, etc.
I'm sorry, I just don't agree with the life philosophy that says things like thinking if you make more, you shouldn't have to "pay more taxes so other people's kids can get free rides on our nickel". You're free to hold that, of course, but it's probably one reason why we find ourselves so often disagreeing on things. Although i'm sure that you'll find common ground with Alan, bae, and others here.
And, you know, some kids just come from families where education for them is not valued, parents do not deny themselves to provide for their kids, fathers disappear, and their loss in the "lottery of life when choosing parents" puts them behind the eightball no matter how badly THEY want to succeed. I'd like to think that kids stuck in those kinds of families have other options and opportunities they can call on to help them succeed. Such as government loans and grants. If nothing else, that will help break the cycle that keeps most people in this country firmly in the social class they started in.
And, I'm happy to pay taxes so that other people's kids can succeed, too. Not just my own. I see society as a whole, and our young people as a resource. ALL our young people, and I don't feel that paying taxes keeps me from providing for my own children, but it does help create a society where there is opportunity for all, even those who lost in the parent picking process.
You are to be commended for working hard and making decisions to invest in education for your kids. they are lucky that they ended up with parents like you instead of the parents that many get.
Certainly the people in that middle segment of society are NOT people that President Obama hates.....far from it. Unless your "middle" involves a taxable income after all deductions of over a quarter million dollars per year, which are the only people that he is attempting to get back to the tax rates they were paying a decade ago. That's not the "middle"....THAT's the top few percent.
Of course you don't want to have to lay off ten people. But when you have to, which family would YOU prefer to be a kid in? The one with no job, or the one who is, even after this terrible recession, is still in a position to be "too wealthy" to get government help for school?
I believe, (as I know that you do not) that this President is doing everything he can to institute things that will be in the long term very good for our country. Since you believe him to be an idiot, you don't agree. So be it.
I commend you for taking your kids education seriously, preparing for it, and for your kids' foresight in choosing you for parents. Some kids just didn't choose all that good when they "decided" which parents to be born to, or even if they did "choose" wisely, their families ran into some roadblocks that prevented them from being able to pay for their kids' education.
Personally, I'd like to see help in getting an education for every kid who is willing to work hard. I'd like to see a world where only that kid's efforts and abilities would make that decision, not whether or not they were lucky in the parent lottery, or anything else.
We're not all that far apart in this, except, if YOU feel it was a burden to get your kids through school, just imagine how difficult it appears to uneducated parents, immigrant parents struggling in a new country, minorities who do suffer discrimination in many myriad ways that you, being a member of privileged class of people with an education and an above average income , don't even see, feel (or remember when they were in the same position).
I'm happy to have my tax dollars go to those kids. I consider my taxes to be my investment in a society that I want to be civil, care for its citizens, and that values education. I'm not so fond of my taxes going to make war, or enrich corporations, but I don't have the opportunity to choose what it's spent on and neither do you.
By the way, what do you think that Obama has done that makes you believe that he "hates" people like you?
Please don't paint every statement with the - all and every - words. No, I do not believe that every minority student who gets a scholarship doesn't deserve. We have created a monster with this bend over backwards mentality. I don't mind paying taxes either, a fair tax...It kills business, businesses are moving out of the U.S. right and left because Obama's mantra is tax, tax, tax and let me give your tax money to people on the dole to buy their votes. Innovation will die, there will be less and less start ups if Obama's brand of tax and spend economy is not stopped. Well...we could go on and on I'm sure like the gingham dog and the calico cat, chickens, but cheers. I'm off to have a ****tail on the patio and I'll raise my glass to a worthy sparring partner!
OK- they starred the first part of my word but it was not meant to ugly, let's just say I'm going to have refreshing drink on the patio!
loosechickens
4-17-11, 7:06pm
"Obama's mantra is tax, tax, tax and let me give your tax money to people on the dole to buy their votes." (catwoman)
catwoman.....that statement is patently false, but what's the point in discussing it? Enjoy your ****tail, and I'll get offline and read my book and drink iced tea, and we'll both probably be happier, hahahahaha.....
you're right...it really is the gingham dog and the calico cat, so.... ;-)
I love helping out other peoples' kids on my nickel. I just spent the entire weekend doing that.
I just don't want the government doing the helping for me, with nickels they take from me by force.
loosechickens
4-17-11, 7:24pm
of course, bae, to you libertarian types, pretty much anything you pay to the government, you consider has been taken by force.
yep that terrible "government", seen as this faceless entity, as opposed to a collective "us".
I'm not a "type", LC.
And yes, I rather think I can do a better job spending the surplus product of my labor than the government. Whether it is a faceless entity, or a happy kumbaya drum circle collective "us".
How do you want to spend my money? I spent a few thousand this weekend, and 3 days of labor, and managed to get about a dozen kids major scholarships for college as a result. I've spent another few thousand, and a few hundred hours of time so far this year getting those kids to the point where they could earn those scholarships with their own efforts this weekend. Kids not my own. Kids that couldn't afford college on their own. Kids whose families can't even afford decent food in some cases.
And frankly, looking at the government's ongoing neglect of children in this sort of situation, I'd rate the government "terrible", hands-down.
... Unless your "middle" involves a taxable income after all deductions of over a quarter million dollars per year, which are the only people that he is attempting to get back to the tax rates they were paying a decade ago. That's not the "middle"....THAT's the top few percent. ...
this is what so many people don't seem to understand. I'm glad you highlighted that idea.
I'm sorry, I just don't agree with the life philosophy that says things like thinking if you make more, you shouldn't have to "pay more taxes so other people's kids can get free rides on our nickel". You're free to hold that, of course, but it's probably one reason why we find ourselves so often disagreeing on things. Although i'm sure that you'll find common ground with Alan, bae, and others here.
Loosie, as long as you're speaking for me again, tell me again what I believe regarding "I shouldn't have to pay more taxes so other people's kids can get free rides on my nickel".
But better yet, let me tell you what I think so that you'll get it straight from the horses mouth rather than simply from whatever vision you have of me or others.
I'm one of those people who didn't come from money. My parents were lower working class although they considered themselves fairly successful given their upbringing and limited exposure outside their class. Their idea of educating their children stopped at high school. Further education was deemed un-necessary and not something their children need aspire to. In other words, not only did I not "win life's lottery", I also didn't "choose my parents wisely".
Based on that, I'm sure you'd conclude that the only way I could ever improve on my meager upbringing is through government grants and gifts, and yet, you'd be wrong. Granted, I did attend college under the GI Bill, but that certainly wasn't a gift. Ask any Vietnam era veteran whether their veterans benefits were a gift or meager compensation for putting their life on the line and you probably won't make that mistake again.
In my experience, anyone with initiative and drive can make a very successful life for themselves and their families. It doesn't take government leveling the playing field, although that does make it a bit easier. It doesn't take misguided, yet well meaning people telling you that you cannot succeed, based on your humble beginnings, without their generous support. As a matter of fact, while that mindset may grant the believer a sense of superiority and generosity, it damages the recepient's self worth in ways that may never be overcome.
So, just so you know, my belief is that it is in society's best interest to provide support for young people with the drive and ambition necessary to prepare themselves for the adult world, given that they work hard and earn that support. If the government wants to be in that business I don't believe that it should be based on sex or race or national origin, but rather on need. If government schools use those criteria, I'm against it. I know some people with a liberal mindset may think that makes me a racist or sexist, but that just goes to show that they don't really know what racism/sexism is. As a conservative, I believe very much in helping children. Not a black child or a female child or a male child or an immigrant child, but just a child. I don't advocate government making those distinctions for me.
I guess that's the major reason I disagree with you as often as I do. The constant expressions reflecting the soft bigotry of low expectations and seeming belief that more government sponsored social engineering is the answer to everything rather than a means of control which every citizen should avoid. Or maybe I'm wrong in speaking for you just as you are wrong in speaking for me. At any rate, now you actually know what I think, at least on this issue.
gimmethesimplelife
4-17-11, 9:34pm
this is what so many people don't seem to understand. I'm glad you highlighted that idea.+ 1
The people with the taxable incomes of 250K plus are the ones who own the companies, who hire the people, who provide the jobs...kill that, kill the economy. Its really pretty simple, but understanding it interferes with social engineering...
gimmethesimplelife
4-17-11, 9:55pm
What I don't understand about this debate is that now America has such an uneven distribution of wealth.....I don't have the statistics but surely all here must know this is true. A. Is this the society we want to have with the attendant problem such an even distribution of wealth engenders? and B. given that those at the very top have gotten such a good deal for so long with the declining rate of taxes, is it too much to think they could pony up a little bit more, at least temporarily, to get the budget deficits down, as they have been one of the reasons the deficits are running so high (but not the only reason, I know this - I reference the Bush tax cuts - which were continued by Obama, I grant you'all this). Honestly at my modest level I could pay another 10 - 15% and not even feel it (and would be willing to).....So I don't understand. Rob
Zigzagman
4-17-11, 10:42pm
The people with the taxable incomes of 250K plus are the ones who own the companies, who hire the people, who provide the jobs...kill that, kill the economy.
Trickle-Down Economics": high-income people shouldn't pay higher taxes because they make critical investment decisions which, in turn, creates jobs.
It has never worked and we only need to look back the last 10 years to see that. We don't have a Spending Problem -- We have a 'Welfare for the Wealthy" Problem . A strong economy is what creates jobs and tax cuts have absolutely no effect.
Because we have dug ourselves such a hole in the last 10 years however, I think it will now require higher taxes as well as spending cuts. That should include major defense cuts (which have grown 81% in the last decade) as well as the end of corporate welfare. We also need to really address our healthcare problem in a grown-up matter or none of it will matter. I doubt that will happen but you gotta "keep hope alive"!
Peace
I am a part owner of many companies. The people who run my companies make millions of dollars. The CEO of AT&T made 20 million dollars last year. I own stock in AT&T so Randall Stephenson works for me.
A voucher system for medicare could have me moving back to one of the other countries where I have citizenship.
Let's do the math on what a reasonable private insurer will consider a viable individual premium amount: Current cost of medication (vital to keeping me mobile instead of in chronic pain and eventually disabled) - $20k/year. Current cost of blood tests related to said medication and to track how well-managed my disease is: approx. $5k/year. Current cost of visits to specialists: $500/year. So looking at this from a business perspective, I would guess that my premiums would be on the order of $30k/year (if insurable at all) on the individual market.
I don't take my medication for fun or because I can't be bothered to change my diet or am too lazy to exercise a little - I take it because it keeps me reasonably pain free and able to work. I don't see how Ryan's Medicare changes handle the basic problem: the rising cost of healthcare. People like me are clearly part of the problem, OTOH, this medication means I get to pay taxes because I can actually work. (And if it matters, I have no interest in being kept alive artificially or other heroic measures in my last few months of life).
Now that I have my standard rant out of the way, I will add this:
I do think that we have to make a choice here: do we want the current level of services (perhaps tweaked a little to reduce excessive over-reaching by government) or do we want our extraordinarily low rate of taxes? We've had it both ways for far too long. Plus: Why did Ryan leave military spending off the table? Why is an increase in 2% of taxes on those with significant incomes seen as almost immoral but an increase in costs on those with fixed incomes and little choice in spending the money seen as "simply necessary"? Not everyone can drag themselves out of poverty, not everyone has the opportunity to earn large incomes in life - and even if they do, medical costs can eat through those savings very fast.
We have dug ourselves a very deep hole and we will all need to pitch in to climb out. That means higher taxes and a revamp of certain social programs (why is social security paid out to everyone regardless of post-retirement income/savings? why is it based on your earned income), and a whole lot more.
My answer to those who can't get scholarships would be: go to a state school (because I really never knew so many scholarships existed). Guess that really is my answer to everything: GO TO A STATE SCHOOL (and if you can a community college for the first 2 years).
I've posted this before but I'll mention it again: DH did a four year degree at a private college for about $20k in tuition 6 years ago by doing 14 CLEP exams in lieu of credit classes. He also transferred in 6 classes from a technical college taken for his associate's many years ago. If you get creative and are willing to self-study there are many options available to reduce the cost of college.
In my experience, anyone with initiative and drive can make a very successful life for themselves and their families.
In my experience, not true.
Sh*t happens to good people who are smart, resourceful and have worked very hard to get what they have. Good people get very sick and lose their savings, their houses, and their jobs, and once COBRA runs out are generally too sick to start their own company and too sick to work for anyone else.
Some people have great business ideas that just never take off - it's the wrong idea for the wrong time/place/people or they just don't have the start-up capital available to spend on marketing (and in today's climate, no-one will loan money unless you can demonstrate you don't need it).
Some people have a successful business and then find themselves in a messy divorce where the ex gets half the business (or half the profits). Short trip to struggling business.
Some people start a business at just the wrong time (right before a recession - like I did), make one or two bad decisions (yep, done that), take a wrong turn somewhere on life's path, choose a career where most of the jobs are off-shored 10 years later . . . (god, I hope I've not done that!)
In short, not everyone possesses sufficient information to always make the best decision, because no-one knows the future. Throw in a handful of bad luck: poor health, injury, divorce, depression, having to be a caregiver, and suddenly it doesn't look so easy to just "work hard and success will follow". Yes, some of that is down to poor choices that one has complete control over, but sometimes it's not.
I think that it's way too simplistic to assume that if you're not successful that it must be down to poor choices that you actually had control over. I'm not sure if that's what you're actually intending to say, but that seems to be the logical corollary of your argument that if you just have the initiative and drive that you can be a success. There's more to success than that, IMHO.
loosechickens
4-18-11, 12:03am
bae, alan and company......if I've oversimplified, or lumped you together in a stereotypical fashion, I'm sorry.
I think what I was trying to say, is that when you guys (most of the conservative wing here) talk about taxes, it seems to me to most of the time be framed as "confiscatory", "forced", etc., with the idea that the government is this entity that is trying to take your hard earned (or sometimes not) money away from you by force.
The more or less "liberal" wing here on these boards seems to have more of a concept of government, not as some evil or confiscatory entity, but "us", the collective society made up of us citizens who contribute to our government in the same sense as we contribute in our local communities, to make life better, our society work well, assist in taking care of those who need help, etc.
Probably none of us is overjoyed at seeing our tax money get handed out to the guys on Wall Street who created much of our financial collapse, or the large corporations getting fat profits in no-bid government war contracts, etc.
It just seems (to me), that we divide pretty much down a line that on one side sees government as taking something away from them, and they don't like it, and the other sees quite legitimate need for our contributions in the form of taxes, and is willing to pay taxes, and even see their taxes raised if necessary, to have our country run well, see all our citizens have access to health care, etc.
I don't think of my taxes as something the government "confiscates", or "takes by force". I see them as the contribution that I make willingly to do my part for my country, my society and my community. Maybe this is where the gulf is.
But.....it does seem as though we speak over a great and deep divide, misunderstand each other, see less than sterling motivations in the other side, etc. and I truly don't know what can be done about that. Because the worldviews are so opposite, the places from which we view the problems are so different, and even our definitions of what the problems ARE differ.
It's definitely above MY pay grade to try to figure out.
loosechickens
4-18-11, 12:12am
SoSimple....one thing I've noticed in many people who have worked hard, used their initiative and efforts throughout their lives, and achieved success, all seem to think that they "did it all myself".
Few realize all the drunk drivers that didn't hit them, the diseases that they didn't come down with, the child born with major defects that would require huge outlays of time and money through life, that they didn't have born to them, the wars they didn't have to fight in, the minorities that they were lucky enough not to be born in, ......in general, all the things that COULD have happened to them, but didn't, so they never had to experience having busted their butts for many years, did everything right, made good decisions, and just didn't end up with the results they wanted.
So....those folks tend to believe that because they did it, there isn't any reason why others couldn't do it, too. And they also never realize all the good luck they had, the help along the way, the invisible advantages they might have had, and think their success came completely from their own efforts.
When that is the case, it follows that they'd have little understanding of just how differently even their lives might have turned out, had things gone just a bit differently for them. And would have less patience than many for those whose lives did go very differently. JMHO
loosechickens
4-18-11, 12:25am
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000. Which hardly makes them middle class.......
In 2006, the "real" (adjusted for inflation) median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
Shall I overly concern myself as to whether that one or two top percentage of U.S. households has their maximum Federal income tax rate (for the income OVER $250,000), raised from 35 or 36% to 38 or 39%. Not hardly.
bah, humbug.....I'm going to bed.
From the article posted, the top 10% pay more than half the taxes already. While 45% pay no federal income tax at all. Some actually not only dont pay, but get money back. Seams its pretty easy politics to get votes from people with no skin in the game to vote for more taxes.
And I always find it interesting that loose is all for paying more, but tells how she does everything she can to pay less. If she really felt like the government knows best what to do with her money. Why doesn't she send it in?
Actually I don't have a problem with raising taxes, first lets stop spending so much, then raise taxes across the board. Lets have that 45% pay 2%. I'll bet that would raise more money than doubling the taxes on the so called rich.
The only problem I see is those currently in charge have no problem spending a lot more than they have coming in now. Whats to stop them from just wasting more?
flowerseverywhere
4-18-11, 8:10am
I'm not a "type", LC.
And yes, I rather think I can do a better job spending the surplus product of my labor than the government. Whether it is a faceless entity, or a happy kumbaya drum circle collective "us".
How do you want to spend my money? I spent a few thousand this weekend, and 3 days of labor, and managed to get about a dozen kids major scholarships for college as a result. I've spent another few thousand, and a few hundred hours of time so far this year getting those kids to the point where they could earn those scholarships with their own efforts this weekend. Kids not my own. Kids that couldn't afford college on their own. Kids whose families can't even afford decent food in some cases.
And frankly, looking at the government's ongoing neglect of children in this sort of situation, I'd rate the government "terrible", hands-down.
Bae, I am going to post an idea in "making a difference", you might be able to give me some advice. What you are doing is admirable, helping kids taking a giant step out of generational poverty, which is what our idea will do as well.
"A voucher system for medicare could have me moving back to one of the other countries where I have citizenship."
Can someone explain how this this voucher thing is even is suppose to work? Even with vouchers who would voluntarily provide health insurance to the elderly?
I would expect you'd end up with a lot of folks holding vouchers with no way to use them.
I find it... fascinating that so much effort is put into what I will just call a rant (for true lack of a better term) directed against this country's wealthy citizens for the simple reason that they don't end up paying the full percentage of taxes that the tax tables would indicate are due from someone at their income level. A a couple really basic questions come to mind:
1. On this tax day, is there anyone here the knowingly passed on a deduction to which they were 'entitled' according to the tax code?
2. Has anyone here written to their representatives and outlined a plan of any sort to reform the tax code?
My guess is that the vast majority here took every legal deduction allowed in order to reduce their final tax burden. I know I did so I certainly won't hold it against anyone else, regardless of their income, who did the same thing. Glass houses and all that. I'm also guessing there are very few posters here that have put forth the time and effort to research the intricacies of the million pages or so that make up the US Federal Tax Code in order to develop a thesis that was then presented to a member of Congress (or similar). "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
In my experience, not true.
Sh*t happens to good people who are smart, resourceful and have worked very hard to get what they have. Good people get very sick and lose their savings, their houses, and their jobs, and once COBRA runs out are generally too sick to start their own company and too sick to work for anyone else.
Some people have great business ideas that just never take off - it's the wrong idea for the wrong time/place/people or they just don't have the start-up capital available to spend on marketing (and in today's climate, no-one will loan money unless you can demonstrate you don't need it).
Some people have a successful business and then find themselves in a messy divorce where the ex gets half the business (or half the profits). Short trip to struggling business.
Some people start a business at just the wrong time (right before a recession - like I did), make one or two bad decisions (yep, done that), take a wrong turn somewhere on life's path, choose a career where most of the jobs are off-shored 10 years later . . . (god, I hope I've not done that!)
In short, not everyone possesses sufficient information to always make the best decision, because no-one knows the future. Throw in a handful of bad luck: poor health, injury, divorce, depression, having to be a caregiver, and suddenly it doesn't look so easy to just "work hard and success will follow". Yes, some of that is down to poor choices that one has complete control over, but sometimes it's not.
I think that it's way too simplistic to assume that if you're not successful that it must be down to poor choices that you actually had control over. I'm not sure if that's what you're actually intending to say, but that seems to be the logical corollary of your argument that if you just have the initiative and drive that you can be a success. There's more to success than that, IMHO.
Of course there are people who fall through the cracks, but that doesn't mean that's the rule.
I believe we have the ability to learn from our mistakes. If your first attempt fails, evaluate the causes and then try again. You might be surprised at just how many people have gone through the hard times only to come out the other side in a much better place. I would contend that it's not the social programs that make the improvement, they're designed to keep you in the same place.
While there's no guarantee that initiative and drive will have an immediate effect, or perhaps any affect all, it remains the key to sustained improvement.
I find it... fascinating that so much effort is put into what I will just call a rant (for true lack of a better term) directed against this country's wealthy citizens for the simple reason that they don't end up paying the full percentage of taxes that the tax tables would indicate are due from someone at their income level. A a couple really basic questions come to mind:
1. On this tax day, is there anyone here the knowingly passed on a deduction to which they were 'entitled' according to the tax code?
2. Has anyone here written to their representatives and outlined a plan of any sort to reform the tax code?
My guess is that the vast majority here took every legal deduction allowed in order to reduce their final tax burden. I know I did so I certainly won't hold it against anyone else, regardless of their income, who did the same thing. Glass houses and all that. I'm also guessing there are very few posters here that have put forth the time and effort to research the intricacies of the million pages or so that make up the US Federal Tax Code in order to develop a thesis that was then presented to a member of Congress (or similar). "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
It's interesting to me that so many people seem to feel that if we only took more from the rich, our fiscal situation would be put back on the right path. Those top few percent of earners that some like to talk about don't earn enough money to address our annual deficits even if we took all of their earnings from them, much less have any effect on the National debt.
It seems to me that if it's impossible to seize enough money from our economy to pay the bills, then the only other course is to stop spending. And that means that there is nothing too small to be considered insignificant. So what if foreign aid is only 1% of the budget, or if pick your favorite social program or discretionary expenditure is only a few hundred million?
When we start tackling the real problem and make some progress with our expenditures, then let's talk about taxing more. Otherwise we're just spinning our wheels.
And actually Gregg, isn't this the reason you keep giving for these tax breaks for the wealthy? Because they take SUCH risks, not knowing what the future brings? Well, truth is, business people, successful business people, know pretty well how the winds blow before they invest. If you aren't hiring anyone, even though business is booming, then you probably shouldn't be hiring someone. You want a tax break? Then take a risk. Hire someone. Otherwise, forget it. Cause you just made the argument for NOT giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
No peggy, it's not. I don't believe I've ever stumped for tax "breaks" for any individual, even for me, only for a fair implementation of taxation overall. I have said that when someone takes a risk and reaps a reward it is not fair for the government to confiscate most or all of that reward. Fairness aside, if that is the outcome that removes most of the incentive for innovation. Everyone would suffer from the loss of it, not just the wealthy.
I have also said that our corporate tax structure is a mess and significantly contributes to stagnation rather than expansion. I am personally less concerned with multi-national corporations than I am with small business. That is partly because I own what the IRS considers a small business and partly because I think that area can be the true strength of the American economy going forward in a decentralized world. You are correct that successful business people will invest WHEN they know which way the wind is blowing. That is not happening right now. I think you do take it just a little too far though because it is not a crystal ball predicting exact outcomes that anyone is looking for. A sense of DIRECTION, rather than the exact course, is what is needed.
Regardless of how we got here it is the responsibility of the current administration to provide that direction. There are indicators that people are sitting on their hands waiting everywhere you look, if you want to take the time to look. Take examples like hedge funds sitting on record amounts of cash. Warehoused supplies of copper and copper products at an all time high. Interest rates at historic lows. If you stand back and look at the laundry list of statistics like those it would be crazy to conclude anything except that our economy must be BOOMING. But it's not. Funds aren't investing cash, developers aren't installing copper, industry isn't borrowing cheap money to expand because no one knows what direction the administration (and by extension, the economy) is going. Uncertainty from lack of direction is causing stagnation, that is certain.
This maybe a first but I agree with DMC. We can not balance the budget with increasing the taxes on the wealthy. Everyone will have to pay more in taxes. I also agree that we must cut spending first starting with defense spending. Health care costs will also have to be brought under control.
A little off subject but on PBS they have been having a series on health care in China. What was interesting was China first tried the market based health care system. They fond that costs skyrocketed and could not be controlled. They are now changing to a government based health insurance system.
At several public demonstrations in the last few years (public option and tax cuts) I always see signs that say "Take our country back". I always wondered take it back from who or what?
After reading this thread I think I understand. Could it be "Take our country back" from the greedy bastards that have destroyed the American dream with never-ending tax cuts, deregulation of almost every industry, wars without reason, union busting, nanny government, anti-choice, wall street and investment bank bailouts?
Peace
loosechickens
4-18-11, 2:34pm
"Can someone explain how this this voucher thing is even is suppose to work? Even with vouchers who would voluntarily provide health insurance to the elderly?
I would expect you'd end up with a lot of folks holding vouchers with no way to use them. " (creaker)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How quickly we forget that one main reason for the institution of Medicare was the large number of older citizens who could not get health insurance at any cost, or who could not afford the costs, because the for-profit insurance companies didn't want to touch them, because they were approaching or at the period in life when they could be expected to NEED it.
You would get a voucher from the government to "subsidize" the cost of your insurance, but the premiums for such insurance would be set by the private, for profit insurance companies that in the past had no interest in insuring that demographic. And at the premiums they would demand, that voucher amount would be only a fraction of the cost, leaving seniors paying thousands out of their own pockets, and huge numbers of seniors with no insurance at all, because they wouldn't be able to afford the premiums, even with the help of the "voucher".
Medicare has a lower administration rate than any of the for profit insurances. It really is an efficient system. Yet, somehow, we are to believe that we can turn over the health insurance for seniors to profit making companies and they can provide the service AND make a profit and still save money? Yep, it will probably save the government money, but seniors will be paying huge amounts more and many will have no care.
What kind of a country do we want? Virtually every other developed democratic nation has some form of a national health insurance plan that covers all their citizens. Some are government run, single payer systems, like Medicare, some have a combination of government and private coverages, but all manage to see that all their citizens get care. Why is the United States so different? What is wrong with us that this seems to be such an impossible problem for us to solve? Why can other countries afford something that we seem unable to afford?
It is a national shame already that more than fifty million people too young for Medicare don't have access to health insurance, which limits their access to health care. At least, at this point in time, we don't dump our elderly out into that pond to sink or swim. But if some have their way, that will happen.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. There were good reasons for the beginning of Social Security, and there were good reasons for why Medicare was established. We forget the poverty and misery, even deaths, that both these programs have alleviated. And why they were necessary.
Don't you think it's disingenuous to say the government wants to take all or most' of your profits? That's just false. A few percentage points isn't going to destroy anyone's business. If there are burgers to be sold, there will always be someone to build the McDonalds. And they will add a few pennies to each burger and 'they will still come'.
Business 101, and I don't think I really need to tell you this is, if people don't have money to buy your widgets, then your business will falter. How do people find themselves without money? Well, they lose their job, or suddenly have medical issues that suck up the money, or their rent/food/utilities go up. And since everyone else is also experiencing these problems, they don't have the money to buy the first guys widgets (or whatever he's selling) All these things have happened in the last 10 years, and you certainly can't lay it all at Obama's feet. The economy doesn't start and stop with each president.
Now, to be perfectly honest, if your business is in such dire straights, then you need to look at the economy, and your own business model. I don't know what your widgets are but maybe they aren't really 'necessary' widgets, therefore shoved to the end of the 'buy' list. If folks don't really need your widgets, your business suffers in a downturn. EVERY downturn. Again, not Obama's fault. That's the nature of business, and 'want' goods verses 'need' goods. Move your product from one category to the other and business will boom, (unless you price yourself out of the market, but that's another topic)
But then, didn't you say business was booming? Even in this tough economy your business is doing well. Perhaps you are moving to that other category through efforts of your own. Why are you hesitating to hire another person if business really dictates it? Maybe you aren't ready for the growth in your business, and the uncertainty is mainly yours. Again, not Obama's fault. I'm not really buying the whole 'if my taxes go up 3% I'm ruined. RUINED I tell you!' We're only talking about a few percentage points here.
OK, how about this. We ALL pay a bit more. Everyone of us. AND we look hard at cutting spending. This deficit won't go away by only one means. No more farm subsidies. No more subsidies for oil companies. Cut defense spending. And yes, even SS, but only for those seniors who can afford it. I know I've said it before but it bears repeating. The Poor House wasn't just a state of mind. It was an actual place populated largely by old folks. I'd love to have a way to cut medicare, but I just don't see that now. A hip replacement is still a hip replacement and I doubt old people are lining up for this simply to get room service;) Vouchers won't work, nor will health care accounts.
So how about we all solve this together and quit letting the politicians divide us.
If only military spending cuts could fund healthcare we might have a simple solution that would quiet the debate. Unfortunately since our government sees fit to overspend on EVERY line item the solutions will be neither simple or painless.
From the article posted, the top 10% pay more than half the taxes already. While 45% pay no federal income tax at all. Some actually not only dont pay, but get money back. Seams its pretty easy politics to get votes from people with no skin in the game to vote for more taxes.....Actually I don't have a problem with raising taxes, first lets stop spending so much, then raise taxes across the board. Lets have that 45% pay 2%. I'll bet that would raise more money than doubling the taxes on the so called rich.
I think that's spot on. Here's a little parable that seems to go around in the email world every few years. Some will agree, some won't, but if anyone wants to be critical then please try to describe the inaccuracies without the use of wholly subjective, emotional terms. My son, fresh out of one of the most liberal university systems in the country, can't quite seem to get there without raising his voice, pounding on the table and telling me about fairness and similar contexts. He has yet to explain what in this parable is not a reasonable representation of our current system.
"Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (presumably “the richest”) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day
and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw
them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to
reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just
$80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'? They realized that
$20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas
where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
Credited: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Well, while our politicians rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, S&P is threatening to downgrade our AAA credit rating, which might well be A Very Bad Thing...
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it affirmed its ‘AAA’ long-term and ‘A-1+’ short-term sovereign credit ratings on the U.S. Standard & Poor’s also said that it revised its outlook on the long-term rating of the U.S. sovereign to negative from stable. ...
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/text-of-sps-downgrade-of-us-ratings-outlook-2011-04-18
OK, that was absurd. The bad-word censor on this site needs some tuning. m.a.r.k.e.t.w.a.t.c.h contains a naughty 4-letter word infixed, so I can't put the URL in above without censorship. Grrr
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/3qnf9rb
This is all fine and well gregg, if only the tenth man was truly only drinking as much (little) as the 1st four. Truth is, the tenth man is drinking 50 times as much but not paying 50 times as much. Not even close. And of course I'm not talking actual amounts but percentages, which is how it is done. That 10th guy is not only drinking 50 times more beer, but he is getting the peanuts, the pretzels and the pretty girl at the end of the night. And he probably owns the bar so he is really getting the first 9 guys money anyway.
This analogy might work for folks who don't like thinking much, but for anyone with a few grey cells to rub together, it doesn't fly. Sorry. It is a cute story. >8)
Let's go back to the bar and really analyze how much beer each man gets and how much each pays for it. Not to mention the benefits the owner of the bar, the last guy, gets from the fire protection, police protection, neighborhood associations and a thirsty young crowd the local state university offers. And this continues when he passes his bar on to his son, without inheritances taxes, who didn't actually have to break a sweat to own a successful bar in a college town. so he gets his 50 glasses of beer without paying anything. Sweet! What a deal!
Cheers!
The 10th man was probably drinking good whiskey...let's hope so - since he made the most, contributed the most, supported the most -he should be able to do that!
Peggy, it is a cute story and not meant to be much more, but in breaking it down you kind of made my point. The 10th guy and the 1st guy DO get equivalent amounts of things like fire protection. They drive on the same roads, both are protected by the same military (service is not mandatory for either man), both can visit the same national parks, both have access to public schools for their children, both have the same ceiling on social security payments, both can travel from state to state freely, both receive the same payment for a hip replacement from Medicare (paid to their respective doctors, of course), both enjoy freedom of speech, religion, both have the same right to pursue happiness, etc.... Should I keep going?
At this point the common response from the left is to point out that things are not equal between our two contestants. Guy 10 has better schools to send his kids to and his fire department will respond to his house faster and he has a better doctor and so on. There are lots of people who will cry that it isn't fair, Guy 10 has all the advantages, Guy 1 doesn't have a chance. Guy 1 will never be able to match the contribution of Guy 10, but gosh darn it this is America so he should still have all the same benefits of living here. Y'all just need a catchy (kitchy?) slogan. How about something like, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That has a kind of warm, fuzzy, lets all just take care of each other ring to it.
Y'all just need a catchy (kitchy?) slogan. How about something like, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That has a kind of warm, fuzzy, lets all just take care of each other ring to it.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=223&d=1299877856
It does sound familiar doesn't it!
Peggy, it is a cute story and not meant to be much more, but in breaking it down you kind of made my point. The 10th guy and the 1st guy DO get equivalent amounts of things like fire protection. They drive on the same roads, both are protected by the same military (service is not mandatory for either man), both can visit the same national parks, both have access to public schools for their children, both have the same ceiling on social security payments, both can travel from state to state freely, both receive the same payment for a hip replacement from Medicare (paid to their respective doctors, of course), both enjoy freedom of speech, religion, both have the same right to pursue happiness, etc.... Should I keep going?
At this point the common response from the left is to point out that things are not equal between our two contestants. Guy 10 has better schools to send his kids to and his fire department will respond to his house faster and he has a better doctor and so on. There are lots of people who will cry that it isn't fair, Guy 10 has all the advantages, Guy 1 doesn't have a chance. Guy 1 will never be able to match the contribution of Guy 10, but gosh darn it this is America so he should still have all the same benefits of living here. Y'all just need a catchy (kitchy?) slogan. How about something like, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That has a kind of warm, fuzzy, lets all just take care of each other ring to it.
It is a cute story gregg, but you posted it to illustrate why you think poor guy ten should only pay as much as guy 4, hoping we wouldn't notice guy ten is drinking 50 times more beer than 4.
Yes they do all enjoy the same protections and benefits of this great country as far as services go, And shouldn't they? (and I don't think that makes me a communist, does it?) But they don't get the same schools, or even the same level of education in the primary and secondary school, I'm not talking university here. Nor do they get the same level of health care, far from it. But then, none of us get the same level of health care our esteemed republican congress persons get, which is, oh by the way, government run health care.(who knew!)
Thing is, number 10 is sucking down 90% of the beer, but is maybe paying only 40 or 50% of the tab. And the percentage from his income he pays is way less than the percentage the 4th guy pays, when you count in all the bar food, tips and such that each pays.
Well, anyway, believe what you want. I think this discussion was over when you trotted out the 'ol 'you are a communist' bit. I think we should stop now before you dust off Hitler and try to make me a Nazi sympathiser.
pssst, Peggy, if you have to make up your facts and speculate on the rest, you've already lost the argument.
Never Again
4-19-11, 9:56pm
I'm confused now....isn't the basis of the story that each of the ten drinks one beer per outing? How is the tenth man drinking "50 times more beer"?
pssst, Peggy, if you have to make up your facts and speculate on the rest, you've already lost the argument.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_8bdYFKk3OW4/Ta5jNeSeD7I/AAAAAAAACqo/Iu0-9NDl44Q/s640/discussion.jpg
But they don't get the same schools, or even the same level of education in the primary and secondary school, I'm not talking university here. Nor do they get the same level of health care, far from it...
Thing is, number 10 is sucking down 90% of the beer, but is maybe paying only 40 or 50% of the tab. And the percentage from his income he pays is way less than the percentage the 4th guy pays, when you count in all the bar food, tips and such that each pays...
Well, anyway, believe what you want. I think this discussion was over when you trotted out the 'ol 'you are a communist' bit. I think we should stop now before you dust off Hitler and try to make me a Nazi sympathiser.
First things first peggy, I didn't call you a communist, but my comment was snarky and for that I do apologize. Its just that I don't have to be Nostradamus to know that trying to make things more 'equal' was going to be part of the reply to the story. It isn't enough that the first four men in the story don't contribute at all, but still have the benefits. That will never be enough for some folks as long as there is someone who has more.* I am curious exactly what part of that Marx quote is in opposition to how you, individually and in the broader sense, feel about how we should be doing things? That question is not snarky, it is sincere. From my perspective it actually seems to be a pretty good fit to what you are saying, but I obviously have my own bias. Can you shed a little light on the difference(s) for me?
* I totally support efforts to raise the bar in pretty much every category for every citizen. I wish every kid in this country could go to a top notch school and that anyone who was sick could get tier one health care. What I can't support is a Robin Hood approach to providing those benefits.
First things first peggy, I didn't call you a communist, but my comment was snarky and for that I do apologize. Its just that I don't have to be Nostradamus to know that trying to make things more 'equal' was going to be part of the reply to the story. It isn't enough that the first four men in the story don't contribute at all, but still have the benefits. That will never be enough for some folks as long as there is someone who has more. I am curious exactly what part of that Marx quote is in opposition to how you, individually and in the broader sense, feel about how we should be doing things? That question is not snarky, it is sincere. From my perspective it actually seems to be a pretty good fit, but I obviously have my own bias. Can you shed a little light on the difference(s) for me?
Gregg, you are under the assumption I want freeloaders in the society. That I love the idea of people just sitting back and letting their families go hungry or without shelter. Nothing could be further from the truth. It really angers me when i see young, healthy 'bums' just standing around doing nothing, or worse impregnating really ignorant young girls who think it would be sooo cool to have a baby.
But, as a compassionate, thinking adult, I know there will always be a certain percentage of our society that, for whatever reason, cannot, or will not, take care of themselves or their families. They simply won't, no matter what the economy is doing. They won't. Does it anger me? Of course it does. But that won't change the REALITY of the situation. Maybe it's a part of growing up, I don't know. But I DO KNOW, no matter what I do, no matter what you do, and no matter what the republicans do, it won't change. It just won't. This is not something that can be changed by force of will. It is just a reality of life, every life in every country throughout history. My question to you is, why is it that liberals understand this and conservatives don't? And why is it that conservatives don't understand that a rising tide carries all boats? Liberals don't demand good educational opportunities and good health care for all simply because we like spending our money on other people. Again you seem to miss the point that we ALL pay taxes. Taxes are not just for conservatives you know, or the wealthy, or just you. We all pay them, and we all grumble about paying them. That's also human nature.
We demand these things because this is our country, and these are our neighbors, and we are completely unwilling to live in a country where it's every man for himself, and if you are poor, tough. You can beg for food by the street. We are also hoping that some of that percentage, hopefully the young who are born into this miserable reality, will see a better way and escape this merry-go-round and become productive citizens, improving us all.
But they will never escape with crushing health care costs, or zero educational opportunities, and will only be joined by those who slip down due to these and other reasons.
I never said your patrons should be equal. Obviously they aren't. And they never will be. Forget the first four, they are an example of above. Lets just concentrate on the rest. Your story is a metaphor for society (for those who don't quite understand this story) of poor, middle class and wealthy. Otherwise it is a pointless story. First of all, lets dispel this myth that the first four are paying no taxes. Every thing they buy, even food in many states, every gallon of gas, every phone and utility bill, and on their home, if they own one, they pay taxes. And the percentage of their wages (which they pay taxes on) they pay in taxes is greater, much much greater that the middle class or certainly the wealthy. The tax on that gallon of gas is the same whether you have $1 or $1,000,000. But 10 cents from $1 will certainly hurt more than 10 cents from a million dollars, won't it. Now, the tenth guy is drinking 100 times more than the middle ones, but he isn't paying 100 times more bar bill. So, yea, maybe I am saying everyone should pay according to their ability. It's the price of admission. It's the price we all pay to keep the first four from literally sleeping on our doorstep and hitting us up for alms every time we step out the door. It's the price we pay to live in the most desirable country in the world. And we, us, (remember, we are the government and the government is us) collectively decided this is the kind of country we wanted. Our country has evolved over the years, and that has been only through our efforts to make this what it is.
We can't go back to the 1700's, no matter how much the libertarians think it would be fun to rely only on their wits and their guns, they don't really want that kind of country. It's a childish fantasy of 'Frontier House' or something, I don't know. There are examples of that kind of country out there, every man for himself, and it isn't pretty. These people don't really want that. Do you want that? I'm pretty certain the folks at those tea party rallies, with their SS cards and their medicare cards tucked firmly in their back pockets don't want that.
Now to the matter at hand. The deficit. It won't just go away. We can't cut spending enough to make it go away, unless of course our complete way of life goes away too. We have to also raise taxes. And with a combination of these two things, maybe, just maybe we can do something. We need to raise everyone's taxes. It's time to be adults. We need to fix this. We can, but everyone has to pull their weight. And if the stronger ones need to pull a little harder, well so be it. They are stronger, they can take it, and WE ALL benefit from the effort.
I'm sure this is way more than you wanted, sorry. I just don't understand the disconnect between what we have/how we got here, and what the republicans are trying to destroy. It speaks of a complete and total lack of history, or adult thinking, or whatever. I just don't get it.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_8bdYFKk3OW4/Ta5jNeSeD7I/AAAAAAAACqo/Iu0-9NDl44Q/s640/discussion.jpg
Well, thank you bae for explaining the republican/libertarian mindset that seems stuck in reverse, but we kind of knew this already. But I'm sure you spent quite a bit of effort designing this little chart, so thanks for you computer graphic.
I'm confused now....isn't the basis of the story that each of the ten drinks one beer per outing? How is the tenth man drinking "50 times more beer"?
This story is a metaphor for society with the poor, the middle class and the wealthy.
Now, the tenth guy is drinking 100 times more than the middle ones, but he isn't paying 100 times more bar bill. So, yea, maybe I am saying everyone should pay according to their ability. It's the price of admission. It's the price we all pay to keep the first four from literally sleeping on our doorstep and hitting us up for alms every time we step out the door. It's the price we pay to live in the most desirable country in the world. And we, us, (remember, we are the government and the government is us) collectively decided this is the kind of country we wanted.
I think it is worth mentioning that the story is only meant to represent how the Federal Income Tax is collected, not every aspect of society. Other than that, our discussion here is also kind of a metaphor for society. It seems like we are talking at each other or around each other both hell bent on making a point, but we're not really talking TO one another. A couple hours with a cold lemonade out on the front porch would get us further along than months worth of banter here, I'm sure of that. To bad Congress can't/won't take that approach.
Over the years I've been kind of on-again, off-again regarding a flat tax of some kind. The part of your post quoted above made me start thinking about it again. If a dime comes out of every dollar earned without limit (or whatever percentage works) then it becomes difficult to argue that it isn't fair overall. The high wage earners would pay more and conversely the lower your earnings the lower your tax bill would be. In a way it does create a scenario of "each according to his ability". In most cases in our society the higher earners are also higher level consumers so they already pay more in sales tax, real estate tax, etc. so we have part of the puzzle solved. On the extreme low end I would never argue that someone below the poverty line or someone severely disadvantaged in some other way doesn't deserve a break. They do and we should give them one. Draw a line in the sand. Once you make more than $XXX we start taking the flat tax out and take it out of EVERY dollar anyone makes above that level. That isn't perfect, but it does address a huge number of problems in a very fair manner.
As far as the partisan angle, the one difference between your garden variety libs & cons is a matter of point of view. IMO, its often a glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty analogy. If a social program of some kind were passed, aimed at helping a group of 1000 little old ladies, and it helped 900 of them most of the libs I know would bemoan how tragic it was that 100 slipped through the cracks and want to re-do the whole thing to make sure that didn't happen again. It is a very humane and compassionate view of the world. The conservatives, like me, would be fist bumping each other thrilled that we were able to help out 900 {voters ;)}. It is, I believe, a very common sense oriented view of the same world. It's not that we don't want to help the last 100 or are satisfied even though someone is left behind, it is just a belief that there are no perfect scores. That metaphorical last 10% will always exist no matter what we do so lets help the majority and try to figure out another kind of safety net for the rest. What you see as a lack of compassion I see as pragmatism. Is there middle ground?
There is gregg, and I think you have it here. I really don't think you want to starve old people and kick puppies. Most of the time when i say 'you' I really mean the collective you. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. You, personally seem like a decent person who is just as confounded as the rest of us.
You know there was a time when the politicians not only talked over a glass of lemonade, they actually lived together in boarding homes and such. And even though they still argued, they knew each other and somehow hammered it all out. This new climate of demonizing the other side, making it personal, is very troubling. It's gotten to where these folks aren't just political opposites, they are actual enemies, and the voters will actually punish any one who even talks to the other side with civility. This cannot be good for the republic. I fear we are all being duped into this polarity just for some political game. But I also fear this won't change, but get worse unless we the people start punishing the politicians who WON'T talk to the other side, or be willing to negotiate.
I have also been thinking about the flat tax. I really don't know enough about it to give an opinion now, but I will look at that link that Loose gave somewhere back in this thread. On it's face though, it seems worthy of some study. We really do need to simplify the tax code. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening as this is the true power of our esteemed men and women in congress and i"m pretty certain they won't let go of this power easily, which means never.
I think a good start is term limits for everyone. This is something I think we can't just leave up to the states as this is a collective good that can only benefit the whole country.
And we really need to get out from under this deficit. Cut spending, defense and SS included, and raise taxes. It's gonna hurt but we gotta do it.
I do believe we actually agree on more than we disagree. I know everyone here loves this country and if we only remember that each of us just wants our country to be the best it can be, well then we can work it out.
Enough of this "can't we all get along" stuff coming from the left and right. I am angry and I have pretty much had enough of this so-called center/right America. It is not reality.
Over the last 10 years, take a look at wages for working class, redistribution of wealth, torture accepted in our society, unions are evil, tax cuts for the rich, anti-environmentalism, de-regulation of almost all industry, out-of-control military machine, Guantanamo, war-mongering, gay-bashing, anti-choice and on and on......
Lets face it Conservatism really only has two values, Greed and selfishness. Too bad we had to financially and politically wreck our nation to learn that.
Conservatives talk of the Right to Life and the sanctity of life but maintain that a privatized health care system that rations care by ability to pay is what America needs. The richest nation on earth and we have the highest poverty rate and the lowest life expectancy of any advanced nation. Our health care system ranks 37th behind a host of other nations who have single payer health care systems.
God Bless America and ignore all of it's actions?
Civility is meant to be a means, not an end. I am very afraid that the Democratic leadership sees it the other way around. When you allow civility to be the ends, you become a doormat. You give up everything you want in order to say, "See how civil I am!’”
Who in their right mind wants to be civil when someone says little children need go hungry, sick, and naked because we can’t afford to feed, clothe, or heal them? We can, however, afford tax breaks for the rich. Who wants to be civil when social security and unions are under attack?
Franklin Roosevelt took joy in being the enemy of big business. He was not civil about it and why do I have to civil about destroying the air I breathe and the water I drink? What virtue is there to being civil about that?
I want a bucker and a snorter. I want someone two shades meaner than the devil himself. I want a skillet chunker. I want a hurricane with two eyes and junk yard dog. I want someone to fight for me. The American people will tell pollsters that they want civil because that sounds adult and nice. But, that’s not what they really want. They want someone who can go into a smoke filled backroom and come out with more than smoke in his eyes.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/angry-junichi.jpg
Peace
Ziggy you really should give Juanita Jean (http://juanitajean.com/2011/04/18/yeah-paul-enough-of-this-civil-crap/)credit for her words.
Ziggy you really should give Juanita Jean (http://juanitajean.com/2011/04/18/yeah-paul-enough-of-this-civil-crap/)credit for her words.
OK - I will!!
The civility text came from Juanita Jean - the coolest Beauty Shop in Richmond Texas.
The truth hurts doesn't it, Alan? Do you really believe that crap?
Peace
I like the way she can turn a phrase. Even when she's wrong, like all the gun control stuff you've posted lately. Phrases like:
"All you people from foreign states, listen up. If Texas has ever done you wrong. If we have beat your college football team, sent you a bad President of the United States, raised oil prices, made fun of your wimpy little state, or hacked you off in some way, now is the time to get even."
or
"He never met a polluter he didn't like. It'll put hair on your chest and make your girls prettier."
Right on ziggy. I don't care who said, it is right on. I hear Texas is burning I hope yours is the only place saved. Just kidding. Maybe whats his name Perry can shot the fire out.
The truth hurts doesn't it, Alan? Do you really believe that crap?
Peace
And what crap is that? The crap about Republicans/Conservatives advocating "little children need go hungry, sick, and nakkid because we can’t afford to feed, clothe, or heal them?"
No, I don't believe that crap. Do you?
Right on ziggy. I don't care who said, it is right on. I hear Texas is burning I hope yours is the only place saved. Just kidding. Maybe whats his name Perry can shot the fire out.
Thanks Free! The "SOMA" is some powerful mojo but it is not hard to tell who the bad guys are - just something that deserves a mental note for future reference.
It is becoming pretty scary around here - the winds and drought are taking toll on everyone in terms of mental and economic impact.
Are we ever going to get any rain?
Peace
And what crap is that? The crap about Republicans/Conservatives advocating "little children need go hungry, sick, and nakkid because we can’t afford to feed, clothe, or heal them?"
No, I don't believe that crap. Do you?
Yep, I do!! >8)
Peace
Obama's only hope of getting re-elected is to run on fearmongering. The exact thing he accused GWB of. He is telling Grandma she'll be eating catfood and parents of autistic kids that they will be left out in the cold. Wow - and he's had four years to accomplish something to run on. Guess he didn't make the most of his first term. Oh yeah, and of course, our border with Mexico is safer than ever! Ziggy - there's not enough smoke to make you believe that one...We are now regularly encountering illegals crossing our ranch, fortunately, they are guys going somewhere to work, not the bad dudes with the AK47s. But the Border Patrol and local Texas law enforcement officers are confirming that they were told from :laff:higher up (Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano) not to arrest but to merely turn back. wow! how effective. Obama is a clown.
smiley face inserted wierdly inadvertently
ApatheticNoMore
4-20-11, 9:41pm
I hear Texas is burning I hope yours is the only place saved. Just kidding. Maybe whats his name Perry can shot the fire out.
ha, wonder if they believe in climate change in Texas NOW?
Yes and of course I do know what it is like to have serious fires burning all over the place around you. It's kind of like the apocalypse really.
No, they don't believe in climate change in Texas now. The crazed sex-poodle AlGore made em laugh till their sides were split, then the Texans went about their business, working, earning, paying taxes, target practice, re-loading and firing again...
ApatheticNoMore
4-20-11, 11:21pm
Yea, what are you gonna believe an ad hominem against Al Gore or you own lying eyes and noses that see the whole state ablaze in front of you, and the theory that could make it and all the other crazy weather patterns the world has been having make sense?
The total focus on the popular messenger Al Gore is frankly kinda weird. You do realize climate change/global warming theory predates Al Gore by decades right? I first heard of it in the late 80s.
Al Gore made himself the spokesman for Climate Change - there was $$$ in it for him...there was going to be $$$ in it for lots of dems. The scientific data was trumped up to make it a matter of urgency - Since the truth about that came out, we're not hearing so much about it. There have been weather patterns, earthquakes, tornadoes and wildfires since time immemorial. We just now have instant communication to see it live and in person.
There have also been lots of theories around forever, even if climate change has been around awhile, doesn't validate doctored scientific data being used to create new forms of taxation. I'm all for a greener world and being responsible with all resources. Gore and others like him tried to build an industry around - fearmongering again- climate change.
loosechickens
4-21-11, 2:50pm
Just so you know, Catwoman....you're swimming against the tide of approximately 99% of climate scientists in the world, which is pretty much all of them except the ones employed by the big polluters, or the ones who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Global warming is a fact, it is proceeding at a faster rate than even the most pessimistic computer models have predicted, man's contribution to it is most likely the main cause, but keep on with the equivalent of the "flat earth society" thinking, if you like. Both you and I will probably be dead before the worst effects will be felt, and I, at least, am leaving no grandchildren.
Just so you know, Catwoman....you're swimming against the tide of approximately 99% of climate scientists in the world, which is pretty much all of them except the ones employed by the big polluters, or the ones who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Global warming is a fact, it is proceeding at a faster rate than even the most pessimistic computer models have predicted, man's contribution to it is most likely the main cause, but keep on with the equivalent of the "flat earth society" thinking, if you like. Both you and I will probably be dead before the worst effects will be felt, and I, at least, am leaving no grandchildren.
And as recently as 2005 many of those same climate scientists were predicting that by 2010 as many as 50,000,000 people would be displaced by rising ocean levels brought on by global warming.
If those who disagreed with that prediction in 2005 were "flat earthers' then, what would you call them now?
The total focus on the popular messenger Al Gore is frankly kinda weird.
Yeah, but it's kinda fun.
Did you know that Greenpeace has named Apple Computer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/21/apple-least-green-tech-company)as the "least green" tech company?
You know who's on Apple's Board of Directors? Yep, Al Gore.
And as recently as 2005 many of those same climate scientists were predicting that by 2010 as many as 50,000,000 people would be displaced by rising ocean levels brought on by global warming.
If those who disagreed with that prediction in 2005 were "flat earthers' then, what would you call them now?
Conservatives!! :laff:
Peace
Thanks Ziggy! I knew you'd see the light eventually.
Whew, glad we got that out of the way.
Ya know, as with all the stats that the proponents of Cap N Trade came up with, statistics are just crap that people (experts) make up and manipulate to further their cause. I will never buy it, not when it was going to be the new green industry and Algore and his ilk had great plans to get their hands on $$$ they didn't have to do anything to make. Sorry, I know this is one place where Global warming is some king of religious mission for some folks, but I'll gladly swim upstream with my opinion.
I'm certainly a proponent of taking care of the Earth and its resources. For a good read on this - Read "The Wump World" by Bill Peet. My favorite book to read to my class for Earth Day.
Ya know, as with all the stats that the proponents of Cap N Trade came up with, statistics are just crap that people (experts) make up and manipulate to further their cause. I will never buy it, not when it was going to be the new green industry and Algore and his ilk had great plans to get their hands on $$$ they didn't have to do anything to make. Sorry, I know this is one place where Global warming is some king of religious mission for some folks, but I'll gladly swim upstream with my opinion.
I'm certainly a proponent of taking care of the Earth and its resources. For a good read on this - Read "The Wump World" by Bill Peet. My favorite book to read to my class for Earth Day.
Catwomen, You Rock!! Glad to see that you are teaching the youngsters about our environment. I think as the climate changes we will all finally embrace the fact that we cannot continue our present path with our "Western Lifestyle". The planet will simply not support 8-9 billion people with our lifestyle we do not have enough natural resources.
We need to really focus in the near term and decide how to deal with this. Famines, starvation, retched poverty even in the progressive world is sure to come.
Sustainability, Sustainability, Sustainability has got to be the chant, otherwise we will push our responsibility off on our children which I don't think anyone in their right mind would want. They deserve better and we had better begin to plan on how to deal with the inevitable or suffer the consequences.
Peace
flowerseverywhere
4-22-11, 10:25pm
Both you and I will probably be dead before the worst effects will be felt, and I, at least, am leaving no grandchildren.
I feel very sad for you, whether it was childless by choice or mother nature stepping in. My grandchildren light up my soul and bring me great joy and have taught me the meaning of love at this stage of my life.
loosechickens
4-23-11, 12:27am
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Both you and I will probably be dead before the worst effects will be felt, and I, at least, am leaving no grandchildren.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel very sad for you, whether it was childless by choice or mother nature stepping in. My grandchildren light up my soul and bring me great joy and have taught me the meaning of love at this stage of my life. (Flowerseverywhere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be, because I don't have to have biological grandchildren to have children in my life that light up my soul......we have lots of friends with grandchildren, the children of many friends that we have known since they were babies are starting to have children, and we often volunteer in areas that help children. My sweetie has been active in Big Brothers Big Sisters, and as a docent in an environmental center developing programs for young children.....we feel no lack because our two children have not had children.
We always felt it was their own decision, and had we had grandchildren, I'm sure we would have loved them bunches, but neither of my kids had kids, and both are in their fifties now, so I think I can reasonably say that the window of opportunity has closed.
I'm happy that you enjoy yours so much. Sometimes, as I contemplate the world we are leaving to children and grandchildren, I'm almost glad not to have any of my own. It's hard enough worrying about the futures of all the rest of them.
flowerseverywhere
4-23-11, 8:28am
Don't be, because I don't have to have biological grandchildren to have children in my life that light up my soul......we have lots of friends with grandchildren, the children of many friends that we have known since they were babies are starting to have children, and we often volunteer in areas that help children. My sweetie has been active in Big Brothers Big Sisters, and as a docent in an environmental center developing programs for young children.....we feel no lack because our two children have not had children.
We always felt it was their own decision, and had we had grandchildren, I'm sure we would have loved them bunches, but neither of my kids had kids, and both are in their fifties now, so I think I can reasonably say that the window of opportunity has closed.
I'm happy that you enjoy yours so much. Sometimes, as I contemplate the world we are leaving to children and grandchildren, I'm almost glad not to have any of my own. It's hard enough worrying about the futures of all the rest of them.
thanks for that perspective. I learn new things here every day. I am glad that you have been able to find joy and I guess if my kids had done the same I would have too. It is just hard to imagine, although I have some good friends and family members who have chosen for various reasons to be childless. Sometimes it is hard to understand people who are different, hence all the assumptions I and many others make.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.