Journeyman

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2004/NEW01015.html
It's also useful to consider context, as in humanity's context on the planet. That is to say: If the environment is fucked, we are fucked.

Unless you like drinking arsenic out of the faucet.

Kadath

The IRS took in roughly $1 trillion in individual tax returns(versus corporate) in 2003. That means you need to cut $500 billion out of the budget to support a 20% flat tax. $493.5 billion to go, assuming you cut all the programs you listed to zero.

I agree that there are private schools that cater only to handicapped kids. I worked at one around here, Woods Services, when I was in high school. There might be 100 on this page. That's not enough capacity, nor is there one available to every child with special needs.

__________________
it's quiet in here

kutulu

All of those add together to equal 9.2B dollars. Considering the fact that the 2005 federal budget is somewhere around 2.4T dollars, those programs combine to draw 0.38% of the budget.

If that's your opinion of the EPA then you seriously need to read about how things were and where they were going before we started environmental regulations. It's not there to prevent plants and animals, it's meant to protect US.

jb2000

They wouldn't have the money if it weren't for the historic and current sacrifices made on a daily basis by the average American. The idea that every dollar collected is somehow all because of you and therefore any taken in taxes is 'robbed' from you is ludicrous. Not one buck could be earned if not for the society and country as a whole being there, and so it is only appropriate to owe a fair share to maintaining and building that very society and nation that made your success even possible.

Taxing the rich isn't a result of the poor wanting revenge. It is because they are the best source for the taxes to sustain the very fabric of the society that makes wealth possible. Why do you think so many multi-gazillionaires have eagerly signed on to fight for the RE-INSTATEMENT of the estate tax, a tax that only has much effect at all on very large estates of the wealthiest Americans? (Check out Responsible Wealth - responsiblewealth.org, an organization spoken for by Bill Gates, Sr. for more).

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

Hwed

If punching a clock 40 hours a week for overinflated union wages is your idea of sacrifice, it must be a nice life you lead.

Sacrifice is putting your life savings on the line, plus taking on a massive pile of debt, to start a new business and putting in 80 hour weeks with no guarantee of return, in the hope that you will succeed and build a better life for yourself.

And how is this sacrifice that drives the lion's share of the US economy repaid? By people who just want to take someone else's hard-earned money that they don't deserve, either because they don't understand economics, they're lazy, or they presume themselves to be educated after swallowing the white-tower crackpot theories of a bunch of academics cowering on college campuses where they don't have to compete or see their flimsy left-wing theories fall apart at the first touch of reality.

Look:

Lower tax rate = more money spent on new business opportunities that would otherwise not draw investment = increased economic growth = high tax revenues! That's the way the real world works. It's that simple.

kutulu

Sorry, it's not that simple.

sailor

No, its not. Again, you want to talk about economics? The first thing they teach you is that it isnt that simple and that there is a hell of a lot more to it than you think.

Hwed, Im not against cutting taxes--Im just against cutting them when we cant afford to. Certainly you can agree on that--its no different than racking up charges on your credit card that you cant really pay for. Find a way to replace that money that the taxes are bringing in and we can cut them all we want. What I am preaching is fiscal responsibility, not total communism.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

phyzix525

I am not saying to get rid of those programs. mearly useing them as a compairison to the EPa's budget. Also I cannot follow your math. If 1 trillion was collected, I have to ask what was the total amount of income from all people in the US, that way you know what total % they are paying in the first place, only then can you figure out how much you would be cutting.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

shakran

OH! Well hell I figured he was talking about drilling Mr. Sadat


Finally, a correct statement. You're right. A lot of people are pushing hydrogen, but it's bullshit. But we need to be LOOKING for an alternative.




Um. The vouchers are for K-12 schools, not colleges. Let's get our story straight eh?


Yes, and taking care of them costs NO money at all and will save the government a fortune. What exactly is your point here?


And BTW, you think 40 million per YEAR is excessive for an agency that's tasked with making sure that EVERYTHING we buy in this country is safe? Exactly how lean do you think an office can run?


BTW again, could you start making ONE post for all your points? This thread would still be on page 2 if you wouldn't make 5 posts back to back

phyzix525

Again I should have made my point more clear when I posted the budgets on those few programs. I am not for cutting any of those programs except maybe the EPA. They have gotten too big and have overstepped their bounds when protecting the animals have been a higher priority then man. (again to clarify I do realize that EPA protects us too, and that is all great, but when you cannot use an airport cause some damn bird made its home there well forget it. or farmers not useing their feilds cause they may kill the gophers or whatever. thats crazy.)

As for my reference to colleges, was only in compairison to private and public paid teachers, this happened to be the only place that I knew at the time of writing without doing any reasearch on it.

As for alternative fuels, I am all for it, we need SOMETHING, but what, I do not know, spending billions on something that most don't think will ever work is a waste. i.e. hydrogen

But lets get back to original point, which is the Kerry tax cut will not work and the proposed bush tax cuts will, its not as simple as the rich being able to get out of kerry's plan, but its part of it. Those of you that are against tax cut durring a time of defecit should have the decency to say that Kerry is also wrong for trying to cut taxes.

Everyone says that the Bush administration is always contorting facts for there agendas, but it did not take long for Kerry to make it sound like Bush wanted to RAISE taxes and he was the president to LOWER taxes when Bush commented on a question about a national sales tax.

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

Wax_off

I think I can speak about taxing the rich in a way few other here can. I am one of those 1% top earners. Whatever tax cut I got from Bush DIDN'T MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO MY FINANCES. $10-15k more in the bank, great. Who gives a shit, I still have more money than I can reasonably spend. And I didn't spend the extra money, I saved it. I'm fairly certain that tax cuts for less wealthy Americans, people for whom a few hundered dollars is a big deal, would be felt in their pocket books, they would spend the extra money, contribute more to the economy.

Now it is true that I have become more philanthropic in the past few years, but it's not because of the extra Bush tax cuts, it's because I've become more aware of the vast and increasing gulf between the haves and have nots in this country. And not taxing people like me doesn't help. The reason you tax the rich is because we're the ones who can AFFORD IT.

Regarding a national sales tax, it would be unfair, as are all sales taxes. The poor spend a larger percent of their income on taxable goods, so they carry a heavier burden, a greater percentage of their income is taken by the govt.

[edit] To add to my own rant, rich people all know that not taxing them doesn't help. The only people who defend tax cuts for the rich are either 1. greedy and want more money or 2. too dumb/blinded to see the reality.

Kadath

I know that the top marginal rate is about 40%. So if you're instituting a flat tax of 20%, you're cutting taxes on those folks by 50%. If those folks account for 80% of tax income, you lose 40% of tax income just on them. Yeah, it's just rough estimation, but it serves to show just how unrealistic a 20% flat tax is.

__________________
it's quiet in here

filtherton

Bitter jealousy? How about well placed disdain for those who, for whatever reason, dysfunctionally cling to the idea that, no matter how much money they already have, they deserve more. How do you feel about a voluntary obese man shoving food in his mouth while others starve in his full view? Is that economic justice? Does that sound like a system that serves the best interests of all of its adeherents?

I haven't given up on anything. I don't care if i get rich. I know that aside from financial security, having a lot of money will probably mean exactly jack shit as far as my levels of happiness and satisfaction go. I haven't given up hope, i just haven't bought so far into that bullshit capitalist myth that money and the hording of capital are somehow worthwhile goals. I don't respect people who take more than they need while others starve. I don't respect anyone who, with millions in the bank, complains about their financial problems. If i ever become that misguided, out-of-touch upper class self-pity-partier than i would hope that some sort of diety would strike me down for forgetting that money should serve humanity, not the other way around.

I think the idea that somehow anyone who has a problem with the financial gluttony that is the u.s. is just jealous is stupid. It's a rationalization designed to allow people who otherwise may feel guilty about being so obscenely wealthy to sleep at night.

Your attitude of entitlement is just as off base as your assertion that supply side economics are anything more than a cruel joke.

hannukah harry

fyi, at least out here in michigan (one of the best paying states for teachers), teachers at private schools never really make more than ~$35,000/yr (according to my friend who wanted to teach) while a public school teacher starts at about $25k-30k (depending on the county, etc) and with a masters degree at as high as $35k.

most people? there are many people who think hydrogen will work. in time. it needs the reasearch and money invested to get it working. and then there are other sources (mentioned earlier by someone else) that could use some inveseting in getting them working. now is the time for the govt. to be spending the money on it, before we get into a real gas crunch so that they're ready and viable sources when that time comes, or even better manage to replace gas from being the most depended on source of energy.

maybe i missed something, but i don't remember hearing kerry say anything about tax cuts. i remember him saying that he would roll back the tax cuts on the rich (which isn't a new tax) and doesn't affect the middle class. it's possible i've missed something, if so i'd like to be informed. thanks.


if you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living? and can you hook me up? (PM me if you don't want to post in the open forum)

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

pan6467

I find it deeply saddening that a country ONCE great is in such turmoil and fosters such hatred.

First, let me explain where I came from. I'll make this short and get to the point as fast as I can.

I was born out of wedlock. My mother's father was a lifelong employee of Westinghouse. My mom met my "dad" a year after I was born and married him. He adopted me and gave me his last name (and has always treated me as his own (though at times I'm sure it was hard).

My mom instead of going on welfare worked her ass off as an operator for Ohio Bell. My dad was a part time meter reader for the electric company. When they married they didn't have a pot to piss in. My mom's mom loaned my parents the money for their first apartment and eventually a house ($15,000, in 1970 that was a nice sum).

My dad worked hard, met people who believed in him and gave him a chance and eventually became a surveyor and civil engineer in 1976 (this was before you had to get a bachelor's degree). He worked hard and became one of the top waste management/ excavating engineers in the country, he was a part owner of one of Ohio's and the country's first environment friendly toxic waste construction firms. Eventually buying his own company and devoting full time in golf course excavation.

My mother became an RN while taking care of my sister and I, on student loans at first to get her LPN then worked hard got a good rep and the hospital paid for her RN.

I grew up never wanting but being taught to help others.

Now fast forward to today.

Today the oppurtunities my parents had are NOT there in any form. Companies don't take chances on people, especially those with no college. Had that been the thinking in the early '70's dad would never have gotten his chance to move forward in society.

Find me a hospital today that will pay for an LPN to get her RN degree. It won't happen. In fact most hospitals have cut payroll by hiring Cert. Nurses' Aides for on average $7 an hour and although they cry for nurses refuse to pay those nurses much more than the nurses aides. (Speaking of which where is all the money healthcare is charging going, it's sure as hell not going to the nurses? And the malpractice excuse is bullshit, because insurance companies get rich both ways, not having to pay for the healthcare (reimbursed and then some in lawsuits) AND raising malpractice premiums sky high so that DR. have to charge outrageous prices and unless you are insured you can't really get good healthcare. Anyone still wanna tell me how great our country is?)

Truth be told, we are being fed bullshit about how public schools are rotten and taxes are too high and the rich are the only ones holding up our government.

Facts are these:

1) Schools are hurting because we have outsourced all our decent paying manufacturing jobs either overseas or to "independant" companies that hire temps for $6-7/ hr with no benefits and 10 cent raises after a year. So the tax base from the factories and middle class that we relied on in our great years is eroded and not coming back.

2) Wages for people who have to work through college are decreasing and tuitions are increasing faster than the raises (again maybe 25 cents after a year if you are lucky). More and more people, by the way HAVE to work to pay for college because their parents can't afford it. So we complain more about public education because they don't have the money, and yet we refuse to vote ways to get them more money and states have to cut more because the Feds cut their help. So fewer kids can get into college to get better jobs.

3) during the past 20 years the rich have increased their wealth exponentially while the middle class has shrunk and the rate of poverty and personal debt has increased exponentially. While some may say, "well watch what you spend your money on." that is cold and usually not based on fact but on selfishness and greed.

Facts are, most schools require kids to have computers, with both parents working the need is there to have 2 cars, unless you work different shifts and even then it would be tough (bus services are just as expensive and being cut in almost every major city, walking to work is just as dangerous as crimes such as muggings and robbery increase (although these usually get ignored because they aren't considered "serious crimes"). As gas and food prices go up wages are stagnant at best.

3) The people complaining the rich pay too much are those who again, usually speak thinking they will get richer by saving a little more out of their paycheck when in reality the ones who are getting noticeable savings are people who are in no way shape or form worried about money. (Not to mention have accountants find loopholes for them.)



So, I just don't understand this idea that the top 5% are crying to have lower taxes when in reality they own the wealth.

Trickle down economics does not work it only promotes greed and hatred between classes.

The solution lies in biting the bullet, finding ways to get factories to come back (it's the only way to lower taxes and keep a country growing).

Rebuild a wage system that pays a man a living wage so that both parents don't have to work.

Have a government that supports and gives incentives to companies that give on the job training of marketable skills.

The very things that the GOP preaches but then knocks and spews hate towards because they can rile up people (who don't want to face the fact their children are the ones who will get lower paying jobs with their plans) by telling them they pay too much in taxes.

It's going to take vision, bipartisanship and people not looking at today but to what the future truly holds for this country and their children and grandchildren, not just themselves.

If "trickle down" and tax breaks for the rich work so well, why are wages stagnant and decreasing? Why are "home equity" loans such a big business? Why are used car lots like JB Byrider making more profit than a lot of "new" car lots? Why are companies that sell cheap but disposable goods like Wal-Mart doing so well while companies that sell quality products that last longer than a year going broke? Why is the Fed artificially keeping inflation down by keeping the prime rate low? (Most people don't get prime rate, most are lucky if they can get single digit loans.)

But the biggest question is: why do we allow this bullshit of sending millions of the factory jobs (and now customer service and support), we need to move forward, overseas.... if the rich are using these tax breaks to invest in companies to build these new factories (as the GOP talking heads try to preach) why are we building them overseas for cheaper labor?

Aw well I'm sure there are those who swing right that can explain why for the first time in our country's history the children face a worse future economically than their parents, while almost every other country in the world is showing a better future for theirs. But IMHO (and just MY OPINION) their reasoning is founded on sheer bullshit and greed being fed to them by people who don't give a rat's ass about the poor and middle classes. Hell, the truth is, the less the middle class and poor have the more the rich get.

As an end note: my father who is in the top 1% takes his tax cuts and uses them for vacations in the Carribean and Jamaica..... How the Hell does that help our economy here?)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

shakran

And those people don't understand their science. It takes more energy to extract pure hydrogen from its molecular bonds than you can get out of the hydrogen once you have it. There is NO way to use hydrogen as an energy SOURCE. It's an energy STORAGE medium. That's fine if you want a battery, but if you're trying to cut pollution, this isn't the way to go because you have to expend an energy source (coal/oil/gas/nuclear) in order to get the hydrogen in the first place.

hannukah harry

gotcha. i saw something at the detroit auto show like 4 or 5 years ago, and it there was an exhibit that mentioned fuel cells for cars. between new info since then, my memory, and how much attention i actually paid to it, i could easily have misunderstood it... as it is, i've always thought of hydrogen only in terms of powering cars, so that would make it more of a storage medium rather than a source, i've never really differentiated between the two of them. my bad.

/rather off-topic

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

smooth

try listing renewables, since that's the context: water, solar, and wind.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

shakran

water doesn't count because there's no way to get sufficient quantities of energy from water without heating up the water. Heat up the water, you kill the fish, and you're screwing up the environment anyway.

Solar: Do you have any idea how big a solar farm would have to be just to power hydrogen cars in ONE state?

Wind: See solar. The problem with solar and wind is that you have to have a large collection apparatus (windmills / solar farms) to get even modest amounts of energy. You need a HELL of a lot of energy to crack molecules to get the hydrogen out.

hannukah harry

i realize we're getting really off topic, but i'm curious... what about electric cars? wouldn't using wind/water/solar power to generate electricity to power electric (hybrid until full electric is more realistic than whats available now) cars, as well as houses and such?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

scout

There never was a surplus, merely a "projected" surplus that in essence implied that someday far into the future our huge national debt would be paid off. Now instead of paying off the national debt we are sinking further into debt. So you are partially correct. This increase in the deficit is due to several things, the recession that started on the Democratic watch, the complete economic breakdown of what little economy we had left when the attacks of 9/11 occurred, paying for this war on terror, and all the good paying jobs being shipped overseas thanks to NAFTA to name a few. NAFTA happened on the Democratic watch I might add.

Why is it everyone seems to think that just because someone makes more money they should pay a bigger percentage of taxes????? WTF is up with that, the only truly fair tax system is everyone pay the exact same percentage with absolutely no loopholes. How is it fair that the man or woman living across the street has to pay a higher percentage of taxes than you just because they make more? If everyone paid the same percentage without the loopholes they would already have a higher tax burden than you simply because they made more. Under the current tax system you probably pay more taxes than the couple across the street because there is more for them to write off. What's fair about that? Where did this Democratic thing of robbing the rich to give more welfare to the poor go so wrong? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping out my fellow man that wakes up in a tight spot one day but geeeeeez there has to be a limit. It wasn't all that long ago I was working two jobs, raising a family and going to school and people on welfare was living better than me and that's no shit. Now that I've put forth the effort and worked my ass off, and the Good Lord knows I ain't rich by any stretch of the imagination, but just because I make more than the average worker you want me to pay a higher percentage of taxes? WTF is fair about that? Just because you feel it's your civic duty to pay more taxes doesn't necessarily mean I feel it's my civic duty. If you feel you owe more to society then by all means donate more of your check. When you get paid every week set down and write a check to Uncle Sam with a note telling him you don't feel you didn't pay enough in taxes this week so you are going to donate a little more. Don't tax me and force me to take on a burden I have little interest in supporting.

/end of rant, stepping off the soapbox.

Journeyman

As Wax-Off said, because that someone can afford it.

I'd like to venture that with more income and more sitting wealth, that someone also has a greater vested interest in seeing our nation, society, and economy prosper, as well as an indirect investment in national security. The guy with little more than a shirt on his back is usually the one that signs up to fight foreign enemies, to protect a lot of people with shirts on their backs and thousand dollar suits in their closets.

And to say that the only fair system is a single, unavoidable percentage for all income earners is just silly. For someone who makes $25,000 a year, $2,500 is worth more in terms of that someone's quality of life than $25,000 is to someone's quality of life when they earn $250,000 a year. It's also silly to assume that there's going to be absolutely no loopholes.

smooth

First of all, I think it would be more accurate to claim NAFTA was a bipartisan fucking of the middle class than to state it happened on the democratic watch.

Secondly, do you agree with me that person's tax obligation should be commensurate with his or her earnings/assets?

That is, you are arguing that rich people shouldn't pay more taxes as a percentage than the average joe. If it's true that rich jon earns and owns 60% of the US economy pie, and average joe only earns/owns 30% of the pie, shouldn't rich jon pay 60% of the expenses to run this nation and average joe pay 30%?

That is what I envision as fair. Why should rich jon only pay 45% of the nation's burden (while getting to play with 60% of its assets) while joe has to pay 45% when he only gets to play with 30% of the pie?

There are all kinds of arguments swirling around this thread regarding justifications for or against the upper class citizens paying more or less than the average citizens; but it seems that taxes should be understood in relative terms as a percentage of one's earnings and assets than just thinking 30% is 30% is 30%.


When I was working at a flooring company while attending school, we had our carpet marked up between 25-40%. We salespeople were able to play with the numbers but our rock-bottom was about 20-25% of cost. Now our $3.99 bottle of rug cleaner was marked up more along the lines of 200%. Do you think that was unfair? Or do you see how silly it would be to use a flat markup rate of 40% across the board regardless of taking into consideration other factors, such as, the low cost of the product? That is, we would have lost money on our rug cleaner in the long run if we sold it at a mere $2.10 (~40% markup)--only making something like $0.60 on each unit sold. On the other hand, if we had sold our carpet for 200% markup, we wouldn't end up selling very much of that either.

I don't know if that anecdote will help you understand why I think flat tax arguments fail to take into account important contextual factors when they claim to be fair to everyone.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

gibingus

it's been great lurking on this one but i just can't help myself anymore.

truly, personal income tax affects the consumer index, but the "trickle down" theory is more applicable to business tax rates. the consumer index is pretty tricky, too... as we have seen in both the reagan and second bush tenures, the payday eventually comes home. sustainable growth, renewable markets and expanding revenue potentials are the course.

but i suggest to you all that the domestic piece of this pales against the foreign debt problem. the far east is buying up our debt like crazy at the same time we're pushing our jobs and production of real goods off shore. there is a potential paper crisis facing the u.s. economy in a few years if we don't stop the bleeding now. we need to get the budget back on track and start paying down the debt and upping the trade balance. now that, my friends, is the kind of foreign policy i want to hear about. and all you small businessmen out there should know you don't want to be running your business on credit.

a few quick shout outs...

shakran and harry, it doesn't have to be cold turkey. the hybrids on the market are working fine, and if every car in the u.s. got 34 mpg, there would be no need for foreign oil (www.nrdc.org). we could keep working it down from there. in terms of the big traditional lines, the enviornment is non-partisan. it's more of new biz vs. traditional biz than liberal vs. conservative anymore (can anyone say big biz stifles competition through political muscle?).... but ironic how liberals are commonly defending the "conservation" of resources.

phyz.... dude. i mean... dude. kutulu gave you the digits man. dude...

pan, your story is awesome... both sides of the aisle should fight to claim a share of that kind of success story. that's the way the deal is supposed to work.

wax off, i know two way cool apolitical 501(c)3's if you're in need of shelter. but i'm sure you're already doing the thing you want to do, and more power to you. again, that's the way the deal is supposed to work.

__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

matthew330

"phyz.... dude. i mean... dude. kutulu gave you the digits man. dude..."

I call bullshit - you used the same word 3 times in..well...sort of one sentence (there's a whole thread on that).

Nice post gingibus, but the second paragraph confused me a little bit..... Paper crisis??? What can Kadath and I do to help?

scout

Yes it is correct that while it was a bipartisan fucking of the middle class, it still happened under a Democratic president.

Yes I am arguing that the rich shouldn't pay a higher percentage of their earned income to support the expenses of this fine nation. They should pay the same percentage as the "average joe" but without the loopholes. The way it is now even though someone in theory supposedly pays more they in fact pay less because there are loopholes built into the system by our fine Congressmen and women because they themselves are in that tax bracket and they don't wanna pay anymore than they have to. That's why the middle class burdens most of the tax, they don't have all the write-offs that the upper class have. Regardless, our tax system is broke and it's in dire need of an overhaul, I think we both agree on that.

rukkyg

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8302.pdf

gibingus

the united states is on a course where we will no longer manufacture any goods of tangible value to the global market at the same time as our rising debt is being bought up by China and Japan. The danger in defecit management of our national economy while we are not focusing on increasing tax revenue from original product is that we will not have enough actual money ("paper") on shore to service our debt and we will face a default situation.

that's scary shit. quit whining about personal income tax breaks and start pressuring your government to run itself like a business that wants to stay in business or get ready to start paying for mexican-made levis with Euros. this is why real fiscal conservatives are mega pissed at bush. and strangely, the only candidates who made this issue part of their platforms were dean and kucinich. piss on the liberals if you want, but they are more fiscally conservative in the real sense of the word than either of the nominees.

__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

98MustGT

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that everyday, 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until 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 meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 costs $80.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant 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 paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7."

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? 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 he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."

Journeyman

Yeah, I've seen that. Now imagine that the restaurant is owned and staffed by all them guys, and the tenth man does nothing more than own it, reap the profits, and pay the other 9 guys minimum wage.

It simplifies things too much.

PDiddy

A higher sales tax would be a ridiculous idea.

We should not be increasing the tax on work while cutting taxes on wealth. Tax the dead; jack up the estate tax on estates over 10 million.

pan6467

Interesting little story but not truly how it goes, old sport.

OK, you have someone who works and makes let's saythe median $37,000 a year. Now on that $37,000 let's say he pays 20% by the time fed, FICA, state city are taken out.

That leaves the man $29,600, now he pays sells tax on everything he buys and property taxes. So let's say that adds up to another $2,600.

That leaves him with $27,000 for the year. That's $2250 a month. Now he has a mortgage that is say cheap $600 a month.

Now he has $1650/month. Now he has 2 cars and the payments w/ insurance equal say $750 a month.

He now has $900. Which now goes to electric, health insurance, kids clothing, gas for the car, CC payments and groceries. How can that man save anything?

Now you look at a man that makes a million, if you tax him a flat rate of 40% in all taxes (state, city and Fed), he has $600,000 left.

You look at his mortgage, car payments and CC payments and multiply them by 10 over the other guy (26,000+ (6000*12=72,000)=98,000)

He still has $502,000. No matter how you slice it he is going to have way more money to save.

Now, who's child is going to be able to get into college because the parents can afford it? Who's child may get into college but will have to work hard and his education is determined by loans and grants? Which get cut when the rich get their taxes cut.

So who stays in the higher bracket and who has a very slim chance of having a better life than his parents?

As for leaving the country, the rich don't have to there is such a gap in who owns what here they don't need to move to a country that will tax them more. (OUR "rich" pay a hell of a lot less than any other industrialized country out there, especially in Europe.)

You want to fix it so the rich don't have to pay exuberant taxes then keep jobs here rebuild factories, rebuild a middle class, start taxing imports they way every other fucking country taxes our exports and put more money into schools so that people can make more money and have more oppurtunities. Tax companies that ship jobs overseas.

Because what we are looking at right now is this, no true manufacturing base to tax, payrolls that are bare minimum and a government going broke while every other country out there is buying up our debt as fast as they can. The tax base has to come from somewhere. You cut education and everything else to bare bone you increase poverty and crime because there is no advancement. You increase class warfare and eventually you will have a revolution or we will be a Mexico or worse. Is that truly how you want this country to be?

We once led in everything that was good and a country any man could advance in, since Reagan, we lead in infant death, illiteracy, crime and just about every negative category out there and we are in the bottom 50% in the positive among industrialized countries. What happened and why did we give up being the greatest? I take that back for the top 1% we still are the greatest, because they pay less taxes, get better tax breaks and can get away with anything.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rukkyg

That is not how it happens. What happens is the 4 poor guys beat up the rich guy and steal all his money. Then each of them pays 13. It's called a revolution.

pan6467

Lol.... AMEN BROTHER

Why do you think Bill Gates built a fortress of a house? He knows what's coming because of these "conservative" talking heads trying to rile the middle class and get everyone to believe they pay too many taxes.

Can't believe anyone would rather see poverty and uneducated, uninsured kids instead of good schools and the next generation able to maintain a great country. Aw well.... same people who once sang this song with Floyd and had good intentions are now the ones who found the money and decided greed was truly better than change and making things better for all. God Bless Roger, the rest of Floyd sold out but not him.

Money (Waters) 6:32

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mikado

I find this topic very interesting. One of the only political topics I've chosen to comment on. I wanted to ask a question to some of you though. I'm currently in that top 1%, so I suppose I could be listed with the "rich". Can anyone explain to me why I should pay more taxes than anyone else? Because I can afford it? Sorry, but I don't feel the same sense of duty that some of you hold to "share the wealth". I'm by no means a heartless bastard, I consistently give to our church and support local charities. I find ways to help the under priviledged, and I don't think taking more of my income via higher taxation is acceptable.

Kadath

Mikado:
It's not about "sharing the wealth." Your money doesn't just go into the pockets of those less wealthy than yourself. You pay for more of the roads, the schools, etc. You shoulder more of the burden because you can afford it; it's your patriotic duty. I assume, you being in the top 1%, that you're not in the armed forces or a teacher or some other sort of public servant -- if you care about this country and want it to succeed, that's your contribution. You giving to charities may help your upper-class guilt, but it doesn't keep the trains running on time.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Mikado

Upper-class guilt? That's hardly the case. You're right, I'm not in the armed forces and I'm not a teacher. I made the choice not to and instead focused on business and started my own company. I've been blessed over the years with great clients and colleagues. But I still don't see why I should front more money than anyone else, just because I can afford it. My patriotic duty? That's a bunch of bull. So if I start paying more taxes than you, does that make me more patriotic? I don't think so. I don't consider that patriotism.

FoolThemAll

I don't have much sympathy for the "they can afford it" argument. Pragmatic as it may be, and that's the part I do value and consider, it doesn't sound the least bit just to me.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Kadath

Patriotism -- devotion to one's country. One might even say it is putting one's country before one's self. It is the progressive tax system that allows the government to pay for all the programs that make this nation the greatest on Earth. Those who complain about high tax rates should not pretend it is about justice; it's about greed. Instead of looking at how much MORE the rich pay than the poor, look how much LESS they pay today than the used to. Under Eisenhower the top marginal rate was 88%. EIGHTY-EIGHT. Today's rich have it even easier that the rich in those days.

__________________
it's quiet in here

hannukah harry

i agree that it isn't just, but it's necessary. i know others have tried, but let me try to explain it too...

you've got three people. person A makes $300,000/year. person B makes $50,000, and person c makes $20,000.

lets take two taxing scenario's. first, a flat tax of 25%, second a sliding scale.

with a flat tax, person A would pay $75,000 in taxes, B would pay $12,500, and C would pay $5,000. this would "fair" to everyone cause they'd all be paying the same percent. but it would be unfair to the lower incomes because while B could still afford to support their family (with a spouses second income), C would be falling to borderline poverty level for a single person (not 100% what the official poverty levels are, but you can't really live on $15,000/year with a family and probably some of that money will go back to them anyways through govt. programs). we could also discuss why it is that the person making $300,000/yr is able to do that while the person making $20,000/yr isn't (and how it is or isnt' "just."). but that's a whole differnt topic.
total govt. take would be $92,500 from the three people.

with a sliding scale, lets say A is taxed 35%, B is taxed 25%, and C is taxed 10%. now A is paying $105,000 in taxes, B is still paying $12,500, and C is now paying $2000. total govt. take is $119,500. this way, the govt is taking in more (and giving back less since C has $3000 more to use to live on). The extra $30,000 is unlikely to break person A. they still have $195,000 to live, play, and bank off of. and B is in the same situation as before.

i don't know if anyone coudl ever convince someone one is better than the other, but i think the sliding (what's it really called?) scale would be better. you aren't taking as much from the people who are barely getting by and need it, whereas you are taking more from those who have extra and would not be using it anyways. it might not be "fair" but in reality, it seems to be the way to go to make this country work.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer