Anybody else willing to admit the tax base needs to increase some?

[CRONUS]

I have come to this conclusion slowly but I realize that essential infrastructure is crumbling and we cannot support rebuilding without some additional revenue.

I would say that we need to change tax systems but that total revenue needs increasing.

Many programs also need to face cuts but lets face reality folks.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

First of all, we need to bring back the AMT for corporations and raise the tax percentage for the top income earners back to the 39.6 level that it was at pre-W. We also need to penalize the hell out of companies that move their assets offshore through various means.

[CRONUS]

First of all, we need to bring back the AMT for corporations and raise the tax percentage for the top income earners back to the 39.6 level that it was at pre-W. We also need to penalize the hell out of companies that move their assets offshore through various means.

What do you define as top earners, and why do you feel the need to penalize only the successful?

[SBK]

What do you define as top earners, and why do you feel the need to penalize only the successful?

Because he's a liberal. :)

I kid, I kid.

[Rausch]

I have come to this conclusion slowly but I realize that essential infrastructure is crumbling and we cannot support rebuilding without some additional revenue.

I would say that we need to change tax systems but that total revenue needs increasing.

Many programs also need to face cuts but lets face reality folks.


How much more can we tax before we realize that spending is the problem?

This whole nation, gubment included, needs to realize it's not how much you make but how you spend it.

[Psyko Tek]

we need to keep good paying jobs here and in the hands of tax payers
sure you can make it cheaper in china but if I ain't making a living wage, and niether are the guys in china
who's gonna buy it?

[Rausch]

sure you can make it cheaper in china but if I ain't making a living wage, and niether are the guys in china
who's gonna buy it?

Everyone.

Dirt cheap.

That's why their economy is booming...

[Brock]

What do you define as top earners, and why do you feel the need to penalize only the successful?


Ha ha ha. Yeah, that's what I thought.

[patteeu]

I don't know whether we need more revenues or not, but I agree that the tax base should be increased. Anyone who is not currently paying taxes because their income is too low should have to start paying their fair share. Beyond that, spending should be cut first and if we still need more revenue to support essential spending like the war, we can consider a tax rate change (the direction of that change depending on whether we are on the inclining side or declining side of the Laffer curve). I happen to think that if the American people are asked to sacrifice for the war effort and if the federal government is seen making significant cuts in spending, our economy could support slightly higher rates on a temporary basis. I think the position of the optimal revenue point on the Laffer Curve is dependent to a large extent on psychology and with the war going on, people would tolerate higher tax rates before they would start forgoing labor in favor of leisure.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/Laffer2.gif

[CRONUS]

Ha ha ha. Yeah, that's what I thought.Brock and I agree on something? Wow.

[memyselfI]

As long as we are funding a fiasco then I don't think too many people are going to be gung ho about either of your propositions.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

What do you define as top earners, and why do you feel the need to penalize only the successful?

The top income bracket, who was taxed at the 33% rate during Reagan and Bush, kicked up to 39.6% as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993.

Regarding the corporations, they had to pay the AMT as part of a Regan Tax plan (gasp that taxing bastard liberal) enacted in 1986. Bush repealed the AMT, and did so retroactively meaning that all the corporations that paid the AMT got 15 years worth of back taxes, all at the expense of the national debt.

Personally, I have no problem with raising the income tax on the middle class either, but most people are unaware that the fast majority of Americans pay more in Payroll Taxes than they do in income taxes. Payroll taxes were also hiked under Reagan (hypocrisy :cuss: ).

Why penalize the successful you ask?? First of all, it's not penal, it's not starving them out, it's collecting the most from those who have benefitted the most. It makes perfect sense. Capitalism is an unfair system, many people have built in advantages. Those are often manifested in income. Why not have those who benefit the most from the unfair system give back to the others who are cogs in the machine or ground to dust between its gears?

[CHIEF4EVER]

The top income bracket, who was taxed at the 33% rate during Reagan and Bush, kicked up to 39.6% as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993.

Regarding the corporations, they had to pay the AMT as part of a Regan Tax plan (gasp that taxing bastard liberal) enacted in 1986. Bush repealed the AMT, and did so retroactively meaning that all the corporations that paid the AMT got 15 years worth of back taxes, all at the expense of the national debt.

Personally, I have no problem with raising the income tax on the middle class either, but most people are unaware that the fast majority of Americans pay more in Payroll Taxes than they do in income taxes. Payroll taxes were also hiked under Reagan (hypocrisy :cuss: ).

Why penalize the successful you ask?? First of all, it's not penal, it's not starving them out, it's collecting the most from those who have benefitted the most. It makes perfect sense. Capitalism is an unfair system, many people have built in advantages. Those are often manifested in income. Why not have those who benefit the most from the unfair system give back to the others who are cogs in the machine or ground to dust between its gears?

And why exactly is Capitalism unfair? Because you didn't take advantage of the opportunities to succeed that everyone else has? So those who succeed because of their intellect, talents, etc should have to pay for those with no initiative or will to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Please explain.

[SBK]

And why exactly is Capitalism unfair? Because you didn't take advantage of the opportunities to succeed that everyone else has? So those who succeed because of their intellect, talents, etc should have to pay for those with no initiative or will to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Please explain.

Capitalism is unfair because in order to make it one must strive for greatness. It isn't handed to you, and that's unfair.

[CRONUS]

...

Why penalize the successful you ask?? First of all, it's not penal, it's not starving them out, it's collecting the most from those who have benefitted the most. It makes perfect sense. Capitalism is an unfair system, many people have built in advantages. Those are often manifested in income. Why not have those who benefit the most from the unfair system give back to the others who are cogs in the machine or ground to dust between its gears?

So in essence you prefer communism?

[banyon]

Let's just lower the tax rate on the wealthy to 1%. I'm sure that'll fill up the tax coffers somehow.

[BucEyedPea]

Let's just lower the tax rate on the wealthy to 1%. I'm sure that'll fill up the tax coffers somehow.

A better question would be: How much money can be extracted from high income brackets. I haven't done the math...but I'd wager it wouldn't be much.

Even if the govt took all the money away from the highest brackets it wouldn't fund the govt for very long. I heard only 30 days. Unfortunately any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, where most of the money comes from. There's just not enough very wealthy people to tax. There's more in the middle categories. Makes sense to me.

[banyon]

A better question would be: How much money can be extracted from high income brackets. I haven't done the math...but I'd wager it wouldn't be much.

Even if the govt took all the money away from the highest brackets it wouldn't fund the govt for very long. I heard only 30 days. Unfortunately any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, where most of the money comes from. There's just not enough very wealthy people to tax. There's more in the middle categories. Makes sense to me.

You heard wrong then.

[CRONUS]

I don't know whether we need more revenues or not, but I agree that the tax base should be increased. Anyone who is not currently paying taxes because their income is too low should have to start paying their fair share. Beyond that, spending should be cut first and if we still need more revenue to support essential spending like the war, we can consider a tax rate change (the direction of that change depending on whether we are on the inclining side or declining side of the Laffer curve). I happen to think that if the American people are asked to sacrifice for the war effort and if the federal government is seen making significant cuts in spending, our economy could support slightly higher rates on a temporary basis. I think the position of the optimal revenue point on the Laffer Curve is dependent to a large extent on psychology and with the war going on, people would tolerate higher tax rates before they would start forgoing labor in favor of leisure.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/Laffer2.gif

The problem with this theory is that we are not adequately raising the middle and lower tax income bases to offset spending. For it to really work we need taxes on consumption rather than earnings. I would be happy to see that happen.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And why exactly is Capitalism unfair? Because you didn't take advantage of the opportunities to succeed that everyone else has? So those who succeed because of their intellect, talents, etc should have to pay for those with no initiative or will to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Please explain.

Do you really think that someone who went to Exeter plays the same game as a kid from the inner city of Detroit?

Do you really think that the George Bushes of the world are the smartest and most able among us?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So in essence you prefer communism?

I prefer a government that is minarchic as far as regulating the personal preferences of individuals (drugs, sexual preference, etc) and economically socialistic (close to the Scandanavian countries not the corrupted communism of Russia). Of course, everyone in this country thinks of the world socialist as a pejorative, so commence with your flame war.

[BucEyedPea]

You heard wrong then.
If that's a fact, which you seem to believe, prove it?

[ck_IN]

<i>it's collecting the most from those who have benefitted the most. It makes perfect sense. Capitalism is an unfair system, many people have built in advantages. Those are often manifested in income. Why not have those who benefit the most from the unfair system give back to the others who are cogs in the machine or ground to dust between its gears?</i>

Mr. Marx, meet Mr. Jenkins.

Jim I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you calling for a tax hike? If so then we're not asking the right questions.

How much money does government need to fund essential services? Are the services being funded essential? Does the federal government need to fund them? Is the money being gathered in a status blind manner?

Currently the guvment is involved in all manner of things that aren't even close to essential. The 10th Ammendment is violated daily by both parties to enable their own re election. The federal budget should be gone over line by line with a copy of the 10th sitting beside it and the two should be reconciled. Many services could be done cheaper and more citizen responsive at a state or local level.

The current tax system is anything but status blind. In fact it centers on status. Taxes are a means to fund government. If you want to social engineer then pass legislation. A status blind tax would be a national sales tax. It would also have the side benefits of almost wiping out the IRS, and preventing pols from tinkering with tax code for their buddies or their own re election.

[CRONUS]

...

Jim I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you calling for a tax hike? If so then we're not asking the right questions.

How much money does government need to fund essential services? Are the services being funded essential? Does the federal government need to fund them? Is the money being gathered in a status blind manner?

Currently the guvment is involved in all manner of things that aren't even close to essential. The 10th Ammendment is violated daily by both parties to enable their own re election. The federal budget should be gone over line by line with a copy of the 10th sitting beside it and the two should be reconciled. Many services could be done cheaper and more citizen responsive at a state or local level.

The current tax system is anything but status blind. In fact it centers on status. Taxes are a means to fund government. If you want to social engineer then pass legislation. A status blind tax would be a national sales tax. It would also have the side benefits of almost wiping out the IRS, and preventing pols from tinkering with tax code for their buddies or their own re election.

First being realistic, there are some sacred cows that will not be cut even if they clearly could be and should be, that is just the way things are and have been for quite some time. Once you get beyond the sacred cows there is not sufficient excess revenue to cover the essentials and to rebuild our infrastructure. I am unwilling to accept that we must forever live with a deficit spending situation. As such I am saying that assuming the sacred cows will remain funded and that we are able to cut the non sacred cows that are not sacrosanct we still have a need for greater total revenue to rebuild our infrastructure.

[patteeu]

First being realistic, there are some sacred cows that will not be cut even if they clearly could be and should be, that is just the way things are and have been for quite some time. Once you get beyond the sacred cows there is not sufficient excess revenue to cover the essentials and to rebuild our infrastructure. I am unwilling to accept that we must forever live with a deficit spending situation. As such I am saying that assuming the sacred cows will remain funded and that we are able to cut the non sacred cows that are not sacrosanct we still have a need for greater total revenue to rebuild our infrastructure.

You'd better stick with the right wing approach of growing the economy then, instead of the left wing zero sum tax hike approach because you aren't going to get there through tax increases alone.

[banyon]

If that's a fact, which you seem to believe, prove it?

Okay. The upper 1% receive a 16% of our GDP. (doubled from 8%

This from the socialists at the Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7055911).

In 2005 our GDP was approx. $12.4 Trillion.

So, the wealthiest's share would then be $1.98 Trillion.

The FY 2005 US Budget was $2.4 trillion.

Therefore, just using the wealthiest 1% (and certainly not the much larger percentage that make up the highest effective tax rate of 36%), simple subtraction shows us that they can almost cover an entire year of Federal outlays. If they borrowed a little extra like most Americans have to, then they could cover the whole damn thing.

Course if you heard what you heard at the European School of Economic Kookery, then they probably believe that math was created by socialists and so they don't believe in it.

[Cochise]

Nothing wrong with the world that some more government won't fix... :rolleyes:

[Simplex3]

Do you really think that someone who went to Exeter plays the same game as a kid from the inner city of Detroit?

Do you really think that the George Bushes of the world are the smartest and most able among us?
So rather than raise yourself up you find it easier to form a mob with other people who haven't acheived in an effort to tear down those you've deemed unworthy of the wealth they have.

Must be nice to be an adult 2 year old.

[BucEyedPea]

Okay. The upper 1% receive a 16% of our GDP. (doubled from 8%

This from the socialists at the Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7055911).

In 2005 our GDP was approx. $12.4 Trillion.

So, the wealthiest's share would then be $1.98 Trillion.

The FY 2005 US Budget was $2.4 trillion.

Therefore, just using the wealthiest 1% (and certainly not the much larger percentage that make up the highest effective tax rate of 36%), simple subtraction shows us that they can almost cover an entire year of Federal outlays. If they borrowed a little extra like most Americans have to, then they could cover the whole damn thing.

Course if you heard what you heard at the European School of Economic Kookery, then they probably believe that math was created by socialists and so they don't believe in it.

Kookery? Yet, you provide the "GDP" as a frame of reference for how much money the top 1% have to tax or take to see how long the govt would run on it. LOL! What does that have to do with what I said? I'll answer for you: nothing.

It's just an illusory frame of reference to assess the performance of government officials.

Even at that, your so called mainstream (Keyenesian) economists use that term for insight into the economy. That's the total value of final goods and services produced during a particular time interval. I wasn't referring to that. Additionally, this statistic is constructed on the idea that consumption drives an economy—not the production of wealth.

Lastly, I actually didn't hear it where you think I did either. I heard it elsewhere, in passing from someone...and I did not post it as fact...just as something I heard.

[banyon]

Nothing wrong with the world that some more government won't fix... :rolleyes:

Like government sticking their nose into every social issue under the sun?

Conservatives are for more government in your life too, just in what are classically considered "moral" issues as opposed to economic ones.

[banyon]

Kookery? Yet, you provide the "GDP" as a frame of reference for how much money the top 1% have to tax or take to see how long the govt would run on it. LOL! What does that have to do with what I said? I'll answer for you: nothing.

You said this:

Even if the govt took all the money away from the highest brackets it wouldn't fund the govt for very long. I heard only 30 days.

It's just patently wrong and pretty easy to demonstrate it. You asked me to anyway, so I did.

I'm not sure how else you would have me disprove such a statement. Perhaps with Tarot Cards?

[Simplex3]

Like government sticking their nose into every social issue under the sun?

Conservatives are for more government in your life too, just in what are classically considered "moral" issues as opposed to economic ones.
I've said it a thousand times, but it bears repeating here:

I'm not going to hold my breath and wait for the Dems to get out of my wallet or the Rupubs to get out of my bedroom.

They both want to control my life because they are unhappy with their own. I just wish they'd figure out what makes them so friggin' miserable and fix it so they could let the rest of us live in peace. PS, the only difference between either group of clowns and an Islamic Sharia govt. is where they stand on women's clothing.

[Mr. Kotter]

Like government sticking their nose into every social issue under the sun?

Conservatives are for more government in your life too, just in what are classically considered "moral" issues as opposed to economic ones.

You are conveniently blurring the line between religious conservatives, and libertarian conservatives. Those of us who are the latter, don't have much appreciation for the former.

[BucEyedPea]

You said this:
It's just patently wrong and pretty easy to demonstrate it. You asked me to anyway, so I did.

I'm not sure how else you would have me disprove such a statement. Perhaps with Tarot Cards?
Well maybe that's what it would take, 'cause I've been tryin' to find it.

Anyhow, I was lookin' at taking all their money away to see how long it would fund the govt, which obviously needs continuous funds...so at some point I think it would not be sustainable.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So rather than raise yourself up you find it easier to form a mob with other people who haven't acheived in an effort to tear down those you've deemed unworthy of the wealth they have.

Must be nice to be an adult 2 year old.

I don't expect you to be able to grasp the concept of social problems, as they are often complex. However, if you are really able to sit down and believe that people don't have built-in advantages within this system, then you border on the non-sentient. Yes, some people can make it out of the depths and dregs without help, but that does not mean that all those who are just as worth as those who ultimately succeed can. You take a modicum of success among a group as an indicator of an entire group's ability (or what ability they should have, in your eyes) to pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstaps. That's exceedingly simple and overly convenient, but then again, it does fit your user name.

[banyon]

Well maybe that's what it would take, 'cause I've been tryin' to find it.

Anyhow, I was lookin' at taking all their money away to see how long it would fund the govt, which obviously needs continuous funds...so at some point I think it would not be sustainable.

Right. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by referencing such a ridiculous extreme.

Should I, in turn, suggest that we take all of the people in the upper tax bracket and tax them at a 0% rate and see how long our stability lasts?

[banyon]

You are conveniently blurring the line between religious conservatives, and libertarian conservatives. Those of us who are the latter, don't have much appreciation for the former.

What line did I blur? I was talking about conservatives. You're the one that brought up libertarians (who are not necessarily conservative or liberal). In any event your "Heroes of Libertarian Conservatism" aren't in office and never have been.

[Mr. Kotter]

You raise taxes on everyone, by the same per centage; AND, simultaneously, eliminate the loopholes in the current system (other than perhaps charity and the mortgage deduction for your primary residence....)

Then, I'd say a 5-10% across the board....hike. I'd be fine with that!

:D

As for the capitalism/socialism discussion.....too many in lower income groups have no vision and no ambition, and are content with their pathetic lives (at least content enough to not give up their nightly bong hits and 4 or 5 "40s" and hangin' wit da Boys and da Hos....to actually attend votech classes, or to become a dependable employee tagged for reasonable advancement.) No government program is gonna change that substantially.

On the other hand, a democratic government does have obligations to it's citizens: to ensure an even playing field, and to ensure opportunities are reasonably available to all people. They need not come handed to us on a silver platter, but socio-economic deprivation and the cycle of poverty....can and should be ameliorated by the government. I mean ameliorate, as in priming-the-pump....assistance; I don't mean subsidizing a way of life or complicity which enables the lazy to stay lazy.

The whole discussion about poverty and opportunity in this country is neither as simple as many conservative try to make it (it's talent and hard work that lead to success!), nor as complicated as many liberals try to make it.

You give people reasonable opportunties to succeed (and, yes, that means helping those who start out disadvantaged--but not unlimited access to the government tit either.) Then people either make choices that move them toward success, or failure.

Those who enjoy success based on the opportunities given them in our nation, and their own hard work and ingenuity.....should enjoy the fruits of their labor. But they should also happily give back, in a reasonable way....to the nation which facilitated that success, IMO.

People who rely on the government for their pathetic existence should be ashamed. But so should rich folks who refuse to pay their real "fair" share.

JMHO :shrug:

[banyon]

You raise taxes on everyone, by the same per centage; AND, simultaneously, eliminate the loopholes in the current system (other than perhaps charity and the mortgage deduction for your primary residence....)

Then, I'd say a 5-10% across the board....hike. I'd be fine with that!

:D

As for the capitalism/socialism discussion.....too many in lower income groups have no vision and no ambition, and are content with their pathetic lives (at least content enough to not give up their nightly bong hits and 4 or 5 "40s" and hangin' wit da Boys and da Hos....to actually attend votech classes, or to become a dependable employee tagged for reasonable advancement.) No government program is gonna change that for many folks.

On the other hand, a democratic government does have obligations to it's citizens: to ensure an even playing field, and to ensure opportunities are reasonably available to all people. They need not come handed to us on a silver platter, but socio-economic deprivation and the cycle of poverty....can and should be ameliorated by the government. I mean ameliorate, as in priming-the-pump....assistance; I don't mean subsidizing a way of life or complicity which enables the lazy to stay lazy.

The whole discussion about poverty and opportunity in this country is neither as simple as many conservative try to make it (it's talent and hard work that lead to success!), nor as complicated as many liberals try to make it.

You give people reasonable opportunties to succeed (and, yes, that means helping those who start out disadvantaged--but not unlimited access to the government tit either.) Then people either make choices that move them toward success, or failure.

Those who enjoy success based on the opportunities given them in our nation, and their own hard work and ingenuity.....should enjoy the fruits of their labor. But they should also happily give back, in a reasonable way....to the nation which facilitated that success, IMO.

People who rely on the government for their pathetic existence should be ashamed. But so should rich folks who refuse to pay their real "fair" share.

JMHO :shrug:
You...almost...sound like a... Democrat...in this post.
http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/04-jawdrop.gif

[Mr. Kotter]

What line did I blur? I was talking about conservatives. You're the one that brought up libertarians (who are not necessarily conservative or liberal). In any event your "Heroes of Libertarian Conservatism" aren't in office and never have been.
Just because you refuse to recognize that we (libertarian conservatives) exist, doesn't mean we don't.

:)

You...almost...sound like a... Democrat...in this post.
http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/04-jawdrop.gif

Maybe it's because, at the moment at least....I still am. :p

[banyon]

Just because you refuse to recognize that we (libertarian conservatives) exist, doesn't mean we don't.

:)



Maybe it's because, at the moment at least....I still am. :p

They're about as visible these days as whatever the dude in your avatar's packing under the trench coat.

[Simplex3]

I don't expect you to be able to grasp the concept of social problems, as they are often complex. However, if you are really able to sit down and believe that people don't have built-in advantages within this system, then you border on the non-sentient. Yes, some people can make it out of the depths and dregs without help, but that does not mean that all those who are just as worth as those who ultimately succeed can. You take a modicum of success among a group as an indicator of an entire group's ability (or what ability they should have, in your eyes) to pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstaps. That's exceedingly simple and overly convenient, but then again, it does fit your user name.
I ate rice for three straight days because I had no money to buy other food. I never did go to college, though if I could have afforded it I wouldn't have gone. I was renting the small bedroom in a s**tty old trailer in Manhattan KS with no AC and no hot water in the winter because it was all I could afford. Now my wife stays at home with my kids in the 4 bedroom home off of the income I make a mere 15 years later. Why? Because I busted my ass in the FREE public library, then as I got better and better jobs I reinvested that money in myself to get even better jobs. I didn't buy a new car, I didn't (and still don't) wear designer clothes, I don't own a bunch of jewelry, I don't spend money on cigarettes and beer, I didn't have a TV for years.

When I was making bad decisions in my life I didn't get very far. When I started making good decisions I did get somewhere.

I've been there done that all by myself. Nobody handed me jack crap that every person in this country doesn't have access to. Your claim that I'm an idiot only strengthens my case.

It's also convenient how you neglect to tell us all what the criteria is for someone who doesn't deserve what they have.

Something many liberals fail to realize is that a vast majority of people have a certain standard of living they consider the bare minimum. These people will put out exactly the amount of effort required to acheive that goal. This means that if you give them a social safety net that meets their criteria they will do no work. No amount of opportunity will be taken to exceed that goal.

Take lottery winners. You give $50M to someone who has been poor all of their lives and they will be right back where they were, poor as f**k in a few years. You give that same $50M to someone who is already rich and they'll invest it into a company and likely have more than $50M in the same time frame.

The rich get richer because they continue to do the things and make the decisions that made them rich. The poor follow the opposite path. I've walked both paths, so don't try and bulls**t me with some sob story. See, I believe that every person has greatness in them. You choose to believe that others simply can't help themselves and must be pittied and looked down on. To each their own.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I ate rice for three straight days because I had no money to buy other food. I never did go to college, though if I could have afforded it I wouldn't have gone. I was renting the small bedroom in a s**tty old trailer in Manhattan KS with no AC and no hot water in the winter because it was all I could afford. Now my wife stays at home with my kids in the 4 bedroom home off of the income I make a mere 15 years later. Why? Because I busted my ass in the FREE public library, then as I got better and better jobs I reinvested that money in myself to get even better jobs. I didn't buy a new car, I didn't (and still don't) wear designer clothes, I don't own a bunch of jewelry, I don't spend money on cigarettes and beer, I didn't have a TV for years.

When I was making bad decisions in my life I didn't get very far. When I started making good decisions I did get somewhere.

I've been there done that all by myself. Nobody handed me jack crap that every person in this country doesn't have access to. Your claim that I'm an idiot only strengthens my case.

It's also convenient how you neglect to tell us all what the criteria is for someone who doesn't deserve what they have.

Something many liberals fail to realize is that a vast majority of people have a certain standard of living they consider the bare minimum. These people will put out exactly the amount of effort required to acheive that goal. This means that if you give them a social safety net that meets their criteria they will do no work. No amount of opportunity will be taken to exceed that goal.

Take lottery winners. You give $50M to someone who has been poor all of their lives and they will be right back where they were, poor as f**k in a few years. You give that same $50M to someone who is already rich and they'll invest it into a company and likely have more than $50M in the same time frame.

The rich get richer because they continue to do the things and make the decisions that made them rich. The poor follow the opposite path. I've walked both paths, so don't try and bulls**t me with some sob story. See, I believe that every person has greatness in them. You choose to believe that others simply can't help themselves and must be pittied and looked down on. To each their own.


First of all. You made the best of a disadvantaged situation. Good for you. But you are not everyone.

What is a good decision? Is it screwing over your stockholders/clients by investing heavily in junk bonds then taking a golden parachute before they fall flat on their face? That's both a good and a bad decision. Good for you financially, ethically, not so much. You are once again oversimplifying a complex tome.

Explain to me how everyone can be great in a system, that by a nature of its own existence, requires that there must be poverty and unemployment in order for it to function. That is a complete non-sequitur.

The rich get richer because they have capital which begets capital (especially with incentives of investment within a capitalist society). Some of that is based on decisions, but those decisions also necessitate that someone must be pushed down in order for someone else to rise up. Not everyone gets rich in a capitalist system, it's not the utopia that you frame it. It's even more complicated when every media outlet bombards you with images of what is desirable and necessary in our society---material, a certain body type, cars, etc.

Furthermore, just because you succeed, doesn't mean that everyone can succeed.

Explain to me how a system can be fair if 1/4 of all black men in America have been in jail at some point unless there is something nefarious about them genetically and/or existentially.

If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it can help to answer these questions that your oversimplification just doesn't do.

[CRONUS]

Explain to me how everyone can be great in a system, that by a nature of its own existence, requires that there must be poverty and unemployment in order for it to function. That is a complete non-sequitur.

Whether the systems is socialist, communist, capitalist or any other there by simple definition will always be poverty and unemployment. That is just a fact, like the fact life is not fair. The capitalist system has inherent advantages to motivated individuals to improve ones lot in life. The socialist system is set for a society of people that are by definition satisfied with no need to be motivated and just get by. The communist system is perfect for people who like to have their lives directed for them. Each system has its flaws and unique attributes. The capitalist system in the US has been shown to provide the greatest opportunity for those willing to work hard and take risks.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Whether the systems is socialist, communist, capitalist or any other there by simple definition will always be poverty and unemployment. That is just a fact, like the fact life is not fair. The capitalist system has inherent advantages to motivated individuals to improve ones lot in life. The socialist system is set for a society of people that are by definition satisfied with no need to be motivated and just get by. The communist system is perfect for people who like to have their lives directed for them. Each system has its flaws and unique attributes. The capitalist system in the US has been shown to provide the greatest opportunity for those willing to work hard and take risks.

DAMMIT JIM!!!!! You stole my thunder. I was about to make the very same point. Great point. FTR, I grew up poor. Nobody paid for my education, nobody 'pitied' me and gave me something for nothing, I never received gubment welfare money or the like. The problem with people who think like Hamas is that they generally think someone is out to screw them when something doesn't go their way. In our system, which is the best in the world in my opinion, EVERYONE has a crack at success if they are willing to put forth the effort to succeed. There is always a way....one simply has to be determined to find it.

[stevieray]

some know that the pursuit is guaranteed, while others think it's the happiness.

[Simplex3]

First of all. You made the best of a disadvantaged situation. Good for you. But you are not everyone.
Why am I any different than everyone? I have no more potential than anyone else. I simply put that potential to use. Some people have done far more with their potential than I have. Some have done far less. I chose 5 years ago to stop working as hard so I could spend more time with my kids.

What is a good decision? Is it screwing over your stockholders/clients by investing heavily in junk bonds then taking a golden parachute before they fall flat on their face? That's both a good and a bad decision. Good for you financially, ethically, not so much. You are once again oversimplifying a complex tome.
The bad decision was buying stock/being a client of someone who had secured their own future instead of yours. Is there risk involved? Absolutely. As long as there are people there will be thieves. The system of govt does not affect that.

Explain to me how everyone can be great in a system, that by a nature of its own existence, requires that there must be poverty and unemployment in order for it to function. That is a complete non-sequitur.
Every has the opportunity to be great. Not everyone will make it. As someone else mentioned, there is no system of govt. known to man, when opperated on the scale of a country, doesn't have an under-class. This is one of the very few where people in that class have the ability to move out through means other than marriage.

The rich get richer because they have capital which begets capital (especially with incentives of investment within a capitalist society). Some of that is based on decisions, but those decisions also necessitate that someone must be pushed down in order for someone else to rise up. Not everyone gets rich in a capitalist system, it's not the utopia that you frame it. It's even more complicated when every media outlet bombards you with images of what is desirable and necessary in our society---material, a certain body type, cars, etc.
If it's entirely the existence of money then how do you explain the fact that most poor people who win millions in a lottery wind up poor again in just a few years? They had capital, why didn't it beget more capital?

How do you explain the fact that more than 50% of millionaires in the US are first generation? Where did they get the capital that begat their millions?

As for your assertion that someone must be pushed down for someone else to rise up, I simply don't buy it. I've never stepped on anyone. Did I take an opportunity, neccessarily meaning it no longer existed for someone else? Absolutely. However I also made opportunities for myself when I didn't see any available.

This isn't to say that there aren't people who gain by stealing. There are. Of course in our country you have the option of not dealing with them. Unless that entity that's doing the stealing is the govt who is in the unique position to legally use force and take my life to get their way.

Furthermore, just because you succeed, doesn't mean that everyone can succeed.
Not everyone will succeed, but everyone has the opportunity to. I think you should visit a country with a caste system for a few years and then decide how unfair you think America is.

Explain to me how a system can be fair if 1/4 of all black men in America have been in jail at some point unless there is something nefarious about them genetically and/or existentially.
It's environment and upbringing, plain and simple. Culturally they're taught, by people just like you, that they're stuck and cannot succeed because somebody else stole it from them. Then they're told, by people just like you, that the rich didn't work for what they have and they don't deserve it. Then people, just like you, are suprised when they decide that it's Ok to steal something that was stolen by someone who didn't deserve it anyway.

If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it can help to answer these questions that your oversimplification just doesn't do.
No, I pointed that out in a previous post. Everyone has decided a point on the hierarchy where they are content to live and will only work hard enough to get there. Oh, sure, they'll bitch that they want more, and they do WANT more, they just don't want it so bad that they'll work for it.

Have some people made so many bad decisions that they're painted into a corner? Absolutely. Are their options now very, very limited? Hell yes. At what point was that anyone's fault but their own, however? If you got pregnant in HS, dropped out, married some idiot with no real income, who later left you, then had a several more kids with fathers who left and never married you, then yes you are stuck. You have made so many horrible, horrible decisions that you have disadvantaged yourself to a point where getting out is NEAR impossible. It does happen, but it's the culmination of many, many bad decisions.

Take that same inner city girl. Instead of getting drunk and knocked up at that party in the 9th grade, she goes home and studies. She gets all As. She works he butt off in the library above and beyond her school work and gets a good score on the SAT. She will get into a college. If she works her butt off in college and gets a B average, then gets her first job and works her butt off, don't you think she'll get a promotion?

Even the greedy, hated rich are good for something. They have money. They want more. Show them a way to get more and then shave some off the side for helping them. Everything has it's use in it's pure form. It isn't until we artificially set rules and boundries that things become useless.

[banyon]

For my part in this thread, I was not making a point about the extremes, only that the data, like median income decline for the first time since the Depression and a doubling of share of GDP by the top 1%, bears out that less and less people are "making it" and that the disparities have widened to an extent where we need to start swining the pendulum back the other direction.

[Simplex3]

For my part in this thread, I was not making a point about the extremes, only that the data, like median income decline for the first time since the Depression and a doubling of share of GDP by the top 1%, bears out that less and less people are "making it" and that the disparities have widened to an extent where we need to start swining the pendulum back the other direction.
People need to realize that their choice to save $1 by shopping at Wal-Mart over their local store has a direct effect on this. People's shortsightedness is why a guy who used to earn middle-income at Brandsmart is now doing the same job for half the pay at Best Buy. That's now one less person with expendable income to purchase the goods and services that you sell. The few middle-income earners that Best Buy has up in Minneapolis, MN are sure thrilled about it, though.

It's all choices. Again, only the govt. can force you to do something. Which is exactly why I hate giving the govt control over anything.

[banyon]

People need to realize that their choice to save $1 by shopping at Wal-Mart over their local store has a direct effect on this. People's shortsightedness is why a guy who used to earn middle-income at Brandsmart is now doing the same job for half the pay at Best Buy. That's now one less person with expendable income to purchase the goods and services that you sell. The few middle-income earners that Best Buy has up in Minneapolis, MN are sure thrilled about it, though.

It's all choices. Again, only the govt. can force you to do something. Which is exactly why I hate giving the govt control over anything.

The bolded part could not be more important or true today.

Very difficult message to get across to people though.

[patteeu]

That kind of overpaying to preserve relatively high dollar American jobs will backfire in the long run. We, as a country, need to prosper by selling to the world, not by buying American.

[Simplex3]

That kind of overpaying to preserve relatively high dollar American jobs will backfire in the long run. We, as a country, need to prosper by selling to the world, not by buying American.
The only problem standing between here and selling to the world is govt., both ours and theirs. However some people want yet more govt.

Until govt. gets out of the way and stops artificially restraining things all we can do is artificially support other things.

[BucEyedPea]

If it's entirely the existence of money then how do you explain the fact that most poor people who win millions in a lottery wind up poor again in just a few years? They had capital, why didn't it beget more capital?

Very good point. I'm glad you brought this up. There are just as many riches-to-rags story, maybe even more (just speculating here), as there are rags-to-riches-stories. Fact is it is much harder to keep it than just achieving it. Mises talks about the children of wealthy industrialists not really making it on their own; that even a few generations later the family fortune is actually depleted. Now not all offspring go this way...such as a man like Trump but you rarely hear about these stories because they are not worth celebrating or news worthy.

I actually saw this in my ex's family, including my ex himself along with other family who born with a silver spoons in their mouths but who plundered their inheritances and went no where in life except down the ladder to a lower-middle-class or middle-class life. One or two were outright bums. One tried to prove he could live on a dollar a day. Another could never hold a jog. Same was true of my Dad who regretted many of his earlier decisions. His dadowned a pasta factory which provided enough wherewithal for him to have a college education when many couldn't as well as many other things. However, my Dad made bad decisions and wound up working-class ( for the govt no less) and often expressed his regret. He was a partier and ladies man ( or so I heard).

What is interesting, is that Marx himself exemplifies these traits. Here was a man who was the child of a lawyer, educated middle-class who held a middle-class job working at a university who could afford to feed his family and live comfortably but spent his family money socialising and running up huge debts. Yet I believe ( I'd have to check specifics) that even three of his own children died of malnutrition and lack of proper care. He was really just a bum, even if intellectual, who lived off the money of others, in particular Engels who was the son of a wealthy industrialist. It's not surprising to me, how modern govt's today ( all of them pretty socialistic to greater or lesser degree) have run up huge debt themselves by following this man's principals.

Yet, I also do feel that the gap between wealthy and poor is increasing. But I say it is due to socialism, not a market economy. All socialisms produce a class of wealthy apparatchiks who feed off the system while it creates more poverty for all.

This brings me to education...education today just teaches kids how to be employees or to work for the state. It does not teach them about wealth creation or how to handle money effectively. It's a disservice.

[SBK]

This brings me to education...education today just teaches kids how to be employees or to work for the state. It does not teach them about wealth creation or how to handle money effectively. It's a disservice.

Kids today are being trained for the industrial age, which has ended, and not being trained for the information age, which we are now in.

This is a huge problem.

[Brock]

Brock and I agree on something? Wow.

I'm not agreeing with you, I'm laughing at your not-so-surprising hypocritical stance.

[banyon]

The only problem standing between here and selling to the world is govt., both ours and theirs. However some people want yet more govt.

Until govt. gets out of the way and stops artificially restraining things all we can do is artificially support other things.

This is where we part ways, and why I'm a progressive and not a liberal.

Yes, big government is usually a problem, but so is any concentration of power into the hands of the few. This includes the giant multi-national corporations that are basically writing their own rules to govern the masses. Power corrupts, whether that's in the hands of an officially recognized government, or an oligopoly of industrialists. There have to be checks and balances on both sets of entities.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm not agreeing with you, I'm laughing at your not-so-surprising hypocritical stance.

Yeah, but he's like most Americans:

"Yeah. We need to raise taxes. Just on everyone who makes more than I do.....Me? What do you mean? Me, no I shouldn't pay anymore. I don't make enough. Besides I've worked hard and deserve what I earn....there are plenty of other people who SHOULD pay more though. Just not me."

[Brock]

Yeah, but he's like most Americans:

"Yeah. We need to raise taxes. Just on everyone who makes more than I do.....Me? What do you mean? Me, no I shouldn't pay anymore. I don't make enough. Besides I've worked hard and deserve what I earn....there are plenty of other people who SHOULD pay more though. Just not me."

Actually, he's saying people who make LESS than he does need to pay more. But the principle is the same.

[ck_IN]

Why is the answer always 'raise taxes'? How about cutting spending?

I don't remember the name of the organization offhand but there's a group that highlights the worst examples of pork spending in each budget. Huge amounts could be saved by simply cutting the pork.

[Mr. Kotter]

Why is the answer always 'raise taxes'? How about cutting spending?

I don't remember the name of the organization offhand but there's a group that highlights the worst examples of pork spending in each budget. Huge amounts could be saved by simply cutting the pork.
Philosophically, most of us would agree with you. But the devil is always in the details: what cuts? where do you cut? who's revenue gets cut?

It's the inability to make such decisions, along with a lack of courage to make those cuts, that's put us in this dilemma. Most politicians consider it political suicide....and, frankly, they are right. Many voters would turn out anyone who agressively slashed such programs.

We have only ourselves to blame for this crappy situation?

[ck_IN]

<i>It's the inability to make such decisions, along with a lack of courage to make those cuts, that's put us in this dilemma. Most politicians consider it political suicide....and, frankly, they are right. Many voters would turn out anyone who agressively slashed such programs.</i>

Unfortunately that is true. So to keep supporting things the feds have NO business being involved in in the first place our taxes keep going up. What passes for leadership from either party is really quite pathetic.

However this is where I think a national sales tax would help. Currently the cost of govt is hidden since we pay for it with withholding. If every purchase had a bite in it then people might start asking why we're paying for such and such. The cost of govt would be front and center and people might be more judicious in their use of it.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's the inability to make such decisions, along with a lack of courage to make those cuts, that's put us in this dilemma. Most politicians consider it political suicide....and, frankly, they are right. Many voters would turn out anyone who agressively slashed such programs.

Unfortunately that is true. So to keep supporting things the feds have NO business being involved in in the first place our taxes keep going up. What passes for leadership from either party is really quite pathetic.

However this is where I think a national sales tax would help. Currently the cost of govt is hidden since we pay for it with withholding. If every purchase had a bite in it then people might start asking why we're paying for such and such. The cost of govt would be front and center and people might be more judicious in their use of it.

I haven't researched the national sales tax thoroughly, but intuitively it sounds like a good idea. I'd also like to examine this idea of the so-called "Fair Tax" that I've heard some talking heads babbling about.....I know there is a website; I just haven't looked at it closely.

[Chief Faithful]

I am so against raising taxes that I have become a single issue voter. I will automatically vote against anyone that thinks the solution to any problem is to raise taxes. :mad:

[SBK]

I haven't researched the national sales tax thoroughly, but intuitively it sounds like a good idea. I'd also like to examine this idea of the so-called "Fair Tax" that I've heard some talking heads babbling about.....I know there is a website; I just haven't looked at it closely.

Go get the book, it's easier than the website.

www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org)

[CRONUS]

I'm not agreeing with you, I'm laughing at your not-so-surprising hypocritical stance.
Huh? I think I should pay more taxes. I think everyone should pay more taxes not just the rich. By the way I am not quite in the top tax bracket.

[banyon]

I am so against raising taxes that I have become a single issue voter. I will automatically vote against anyone that thinks the solution to any problem is to raise taxes. :mad:

Houston, I believe we have myopia.

[ck_IN]

From SBK's link:

<i>What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a rebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar revenue neutrality, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – collected by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. So it is also cost neutral – the final cost for goods and services changes little under the FairTax. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

* Abolishes the IRS
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
</i>

On the surface this sounds exactly what I've been proposing for several years now. My chief concern would be the rebate portion. I see opportunity for political mischief with that but you'd have to have something similar. As long as <b>non politicians</b> set the rebate income level it would be fine.

I especially like bullets 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8. If every purchase includes a portion to pay for govt, then the cost of govt will go down. I've no doubt.

[patteeu]

From SBK's link:

<i>What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a rebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar revenue neutrality, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – collected by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. So it is also cost neutral – the final cost for goods and services changes little under the FairTax. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

* Abolishes the IRS
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
</i>

On the surface this sounds exactly what I've been proposing for several years now. My chief concern would be the rebate portion. I see opportunity for political mischief with that but you'd have to have something similar. As long as <b>non politicians</b> set the rebate income level it would be fine.

I especially like bullets 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8. If every purchase includes a portion to pay for govt, then the cost of govt will go down. I've no doubt.


I don't like the rebate part and I don't think it's at all necessary except to give the proposal even a longshot chance at political viability.

Don't underestimate the importance of bullet 5. Taxes could be stripped from exports to make them more competive in foreign markets and taxes can be applied to imported products to make American products more competitive at home. Neither of these things can be done under the current income and payroll taxes. Adoption of the Fair Tax (or some other version of a sales or value added tax) would have a dramatic, positive impact on American competitiveness in the global market, overnight.

[SBK]

I don't like the rebate part and I don't think it's at all necessary except to give the proposal even a longshot chance at political viability.

Don't underestimate the importance of bullet 5. Taxes could be stripped from exports to make them more competive in foreign markets and taxes can be applied to imported products to make American products more competitive at home. Neither of these things can be done under the current income and payroll taxes. Adoption of the Fair Tax (or some other version of a sales or value added tax) would have a dramatic, positive impact on American competitiveness in the global market, overnight.

They give a few examples of this in the book. Cars, if I remember right. Something like how we tax American car companies for their overseas sales, which is why Daimler Chrysler is a German company.

Without corporate tax, and all the employee taxes the US would become a tax haven. It would be THE place to have your business in all of the world.

[Simplex3]

This is where we part ways, and why I'm a progressive and not a liberal.

Yes, big government is usually a problem, but so is any concentration of power into the hands of the few. This includes the giant multi-national corporations that are basically writing their own rules to govern the masses. Power corrupts, whether that's in the hands of an officially recognized government, or an oligopoly of industrialists. There have to be checks and balances on both sets of entities.
I happen to believe they're in bed together. While massive corporations bitch about laws like the tax code and Sarbanes/Oxley Act, those laws in fact help them. Complience with the litany of laws and code and everything else is, in many instances, impossible because of laws which contradict eachother and are mutually exclusive of eachother. Large businesses contribute large amounts of money to campaigns so that they will be immune to any infractions. The small business simply can't afford to comply with all the laws and doesn't own a congressman.

[BucEyedPea]

I happen to believe they're in bed together.
:thumb: That's exactly the problem>

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Why am I any different than everyone? I have no more potential than anyone else. I simply put that potential to use. Some people have done far more with their potential than I have. Some have done far less. I chose 5 years ago to stop working as hard so I could spend more time with my kids.

People are not created equal, not everyone has the same chance at success. There are genetic differences as well as social difference that create an unfair playing field. You can't change genetics, you can alter the social playing field.



Every has the opportunity to be great. Not everyone will make it. As someone else mentioned, there is no system of govt. known to man, when opperated on the scale of a country, doesn't have an under-class. This is one of the very few where people in that class have the ability to move out through means other than marriage.



I hate to break this to you, but look at the Scandinavian countries. For an example, here are snippets from Norway's economy:

A 3.2% Unemployment rate
No National Debt

And yet, this is a mixed/socialist country

Per Wiki

successive Norwegian governments have sought to broaden and extend public benefits to its citizens, in the form of sickness and disability benefits, minimum guaranteed pensions, heavily subsidized or free universal health care, unemployment insurance, etc. Public policy still favors the provision of such benefits, but there is increasing debate on making them more equitable and needs-based.




If it's entirely the existence of money then how do you explain the fact that most poor people who win millions in a lottery wind up poor again in just a few years? They had capital, why didn't it beget more capital?



Show me a stat that proves that. This is heresay.



How do you explain the fact that more than 50% of millionaires in the US are first generation? Where did they get the capital that begat their millions?


The housing boom. House worth nearly quadruples the amount of millionaires in this country as opposed to those w/ liquid assets over 1 million dollars. They don't have that much capital. It's tied up, and they have several mortgages. You've heard too many Bush speeches.



As for your assertion that someone must be pushed down for someone else to rise up, I simply don't buy it. I've never stepped on anyone. Did I take an opportunity, neccessarily meaning it no longer existed for someone else? Absolutely. However I also made opportunities for myself when I didn't see any available.



Then you don't understand the nature of how capitalism works.
Out of sight out of mind. Every time you buy shit like Nikes you are supporting a system that exploits workers and pays them near slave wages so that you can have comfortable footwear for a reasonable price.


Not everyone will succeed, but everyone has the opportunity to. I think you should visit a country with a caste system for a few years and then decide how unfair you think America is.


We just have de-facto caste systems. The fact is that upward mobility within classes in this country happens for only a very, very small percentage of the population. Are the rest lazy? I doubt it. Success in this country is every bit as much dependent upon luck as it is upon work ethic.


It's environment and upbringing, plain and simple. Culturally they're taught, by people just like you, that they're stuck and cannot succeed because somebody else stole it from them. Then they're told, by people just like you, that the rich didn't work for what they have and they don't deserve it. Then people, just like you, are suprised when they decide that it's Ok to steal something that was stolen by someone who didn't deserve it anyway.


I never said it was empirically impossible for minorities in this country to succeed, I said the deck was stacked against them. There is a difference there. You can't always think in binaries. I'd also like to know why our society glorifies the rich in this country to such an extent, as though net worth somehow equates to personal worth.


No, I pointed that out in a previous post. Everyone has decided a point on the hierarchy where they are content to live and will only work hard enough to get there. Oh, sure, they'll bitch that they want more, and they do WANT more, they just don't want it so bad that they'll work for it.


So slaves, the interned Japanese, Indians on Reservations, and the Chinese who built the transnational railroad just didn't give a shit and were happy with their position in life??




Take that same inner city girl. Instead of getting drunk and knocked up at that party in the 9th grade, she goes home and studies. She gets all As. She works he butt off in the library above and beyond her school work and gets a good score on the SAT. She will get into a college. If she works her butt off in college and gets a B average, then gets her first job and works her butt off, don't you think she'll get a promotion?


How is she going to learn to value studying when the school system she is in is a complete joke and the teachers who are supposed to help her learn don't know their elbow from their asshole. Very very few people are autodidacts.

[Simplex3]

So slaves, the interned Japanese, Indians on Reservations, and the Chinese who built the transnational railroad just didn't give a shit and were happy with their position in life??
Your argument falls apart on this statement alone. Every one of these was a govt mandated and/or supported issue. Yet your solution is more of the thing that brought us these dispicible acts.

[Chief Faithful]

Houston, I believe we have myopia.

Give a drug addict their drugs and they will get high. Give the government more money and they will spend it.

Both sides of the house need to be better stewards with the money they have before I'm willing to trust them with more.

[skye22f]

Give a drug addict their drugs and they will get high. Give the government more money and they will spend it.

Both sides of the house need to be better stewards with the money they have before I'm willing to trust them with more.

But the problem here is that even if the government doesn't have the money they'll still spend it anyways and make our hole even deeper than it already is. How hard is this to understand?

Even if taxes are raised, spending is going to have to be cut across the board. There's so many ridiculous things that the federal government does that it has no business doing and you know this. Spending is not going to be cut, in fact it's going to keep going up regardless of which clowns take power. Therefore, taxes must be raised.

This Republican congress + the administration has led to one of the fastest government expansions in history. I can't believe more people aren't fed up with this.

A 3rd party is needed, if I had my way the Libertarians would step up but that's not gonna happen.

[Simplex3]

A 3rd party is needed, if I had my way the Libertarians would step up but that's not gonna happen.
I vote Libertarian first, ANY other third party second, and generally the non-incumbant third.

[BucEyedPea]

Give a drug addict their drugs and they will get high. Give the government more money and they will spend it.

Both sides of the house need to be better stewards with the money they have before I'm willing to trust them with more.

Exactly. It's fact that a tax increase is followed by more spending.
Govt needs a starvation diet.

[skye22f]

Exactly. It's fact that a tax increase is followed by more spending.
Govt needs a starvation diet.

Jesus, wake up.

It's also a fact that a tax cut is followed by more spending, have you been asleep for the last 5 years? Or in the 1980s?

The government spends more money every single year regardless of which party is in control and it's completely unrelated to tax increases or tax cuts.

[BIG_DADDY]

Jesus, wake up.

It's also a fact that a tax cut is followed by more spending, have you been asleep for the last 5 years? Or in the 1980s?

The government spends more money every single year regardless of which party is in control and it's completely unrelated to tax increases or tax cuts.

Which leads us to the answer which is lower spending substantially. If the money is there, they will spend it.

[skye22f]

Which leads us to the answer which is lower spending substantially. If the money is there, they will spend it.

Jesus, are you ****ing retarded? Did one of your dogs type this?

One more time, for posterity.

IF THE MONEY IS NOT THERE, THEY WILL STILL SPEND IT. HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE IN THE TILL IS TOTALLY UNRELATED TO HOW MUCH MONEY THEY SPEND. THEY'LL JUST PUT IT ON CREDIT AND DIG THE HOLE A LITTLE DEEPER.

Of course the answer is lower spending. Guess what? That's never happened.

[BucEyedPea]

Jesus, wake up.

It's also a fact that a tax cut is followed by more spending, have you been asleep for the last 5 years? Or in the 1980s?

The government spends more money every single year regardless of which party is in control and it's completely unrelated to tax increases or tax cuts.

Okay Rip Van Winkle! But I suggest you do the same.

I hold my position on this, your point does not negate mine. It's just complementary and additional. They do spend regardless but increased taxes rarely goes to pay of debt...and still leads to increased spending. Been going on since the welfare/warfare state.That's the cause. Yes, they also inflate our currency as a hidden tax and borrow too. K?

Can I nap now?

[skye22f]

Okay Rip Van Winkle! But I suggest you do the same.

I hold my position on this, your point does not negate mine. It's just complementary and additional. They do spend regardless but increased taxes rarely goes to pay of debt...and still leads to increased spending. Been going on since the welfare/warfare state.That's the cause. K?

Can I nap now?

Can you give me some kind of reference or source to show a positive correlation between higher taxes and higher spending?

I honestly do not think that higher taxes cause higher spending, I think that regardless of tax revenues they will keep spending more every year.

Our biggest budget increases recently came directly AFTER a big tax cut. Does this mean that tax cuts cause higher spending?

[Simplex3]

Can you give me some kind of reference or source to show a positive correlation between higher taxes and higher spending?

I honestly do not think that higher taxes cause higher spending, I think that regardless of tax revenues they will keep spending more every year.

Our biggest budget increases recently came directly AFTER a big tax cut. Does this mean that tax cuts cause higher spending?
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you saying we should pay more in taxes?

If so, why? The political class has proven they will piss away every nickle we send them and more. Until they learn some modicum of fiscal responsibility there is no point in sending them more money. It's just that much less money I personally have when it all comes crashing down which it will do either way unless we control spending.

[Simplex3]

Of course the answer is lower spending. Guess what? That's never happened.
If they won't lower spending then we might as well give up now. When the baby boomers all start collecting their Socialist Insecurity checks it will be physically impossible for the remaining workforce to cover all the checks Congress will be writing. It will be game, set, match on the US.

[BucEyedPea]

Can you give me some kind of reference or source to show a positive correlation between higher taxes and higher spending?

I honestly do not think that higher taxes cause higher spending, I think that regardless of tax revenues they will keep spending more every year.

Our biggest budget increases recently came directly AFTER a big tax cut. Does this mean that tax cuts cause higher spending?

I didn't say a tax increase was the cause.

The cause is lack of fiscal discipline and responsibility, which is the mind set today, including with many of the people. Such lack falls under ethics. Economics is also a branch of ethics. I just said it follows.

I'm sure I can prove it, but am I going to spend an hour getting numbers for a quick comment on a BB to do it...at least not now. Nope! Just take a look at how spending just keeps increasing despite anyone's tax cuts ( including under RR). Even RR's tax cut was wiped out a year later and replaced with the biggest tax increase in history at the time. The next biggest increase topping that one was supposed to be Bush Sr, then Clinton topped them and now Bush Jr. Don't forget that all other taxes went up when RR gave his tax cut. (Reference Mises Institut...just read that about RR a few days ago.)

And it may be that recently there was the biggest increase after a tax cut...if'n you wanna believe the fairy tale that it was a "big" one. Lol!

[patteeu]

Can you give me some kind of reference or source to show a positive correlation between higher taxes and higher spending?

I honestly do not think that higher taxes cause higher spending, I think that regardless of tax revenues they will keep spending more every year.

Our biggest budget increases recently came directly AFTER a big tax cut. Does this mean that tax cuts cause higher spending?

When was the last time spending went down (or even stayed flat)? If it hasn't been cut (or held steady) then it's pretty obvious that it's gone up regardless of whether taxes have been cut or raised.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/issues/charts/Budget/Budget1_l.gif

[ck_IN]

<i>I don't like the rebate part and I don't think it's at all necessary except to give the proposal even a longshot chance at political viability.</i>

And that's the reason you'd have to have it. The Dems would play the class warfare card to the hilt if you didn't have some kind of poverty rebate attached.

I'm not underestimating bullet 5. I'm just more excited about the others. Wiping out the IRS would save the country billions. Allowing greater transparency would cut out alot of the current earmarking. So would ending withholding and moving to a pay as you go system. The size and scope of govt would be slashed which can only be a good thing.

[BucEyedPea]

Of course the answer is lower spending. Guess what? That's never happened.


I wouldn't say never. What was the spending like before the welfare state, progressive, activist, foreign interventionist style govt like?
These things seem to need an income tax, when one should never have been implemented. One of the reasons the Framer's frowned up this idea was so govt would not pervade our lives if they had access to too much money. It wasn't just a balance-the-checkbook issue with them.

[BucEyedPea]

<i>I don't like the rebate part and I don't think it's at all necessary except to give the proposal even a longshot chance at political viability.</i>

And that's the reason you'd have to have it. The Dems would play the class warfare card to the hilt if you didn't have some kind of poverty rebate attached.

I'm not underestimating bullet 5. I'm just more excited about the others. Wiping out the IRS would save the country billions. Allowing greater transparency would cut out alot of the current earmarking. So would ending withholding and moving to a pay as you go system. The size and scope of govt would be slashed which can only be a good thing.


Yeah. I agree about what the Dems would do. It does make it politically viable.
My hope with this, people will see just how much their govt costs them, and any increases. Hopefully, it will lead to much more change over time, and or an outright revolution on the order of our first one, minus the blood. :D :thumb:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Your argument falls apart on this statement alone. Every one of these was a govt mandated and/or supported issue. Yet your solution is more of the thing that brought us these dispicible acts.

The free market is not corrective and it is in no way, fair. Government helps to provide a check on the inequites of the system. The point I was making (that you missed) is that the idea of a "fair" system is preposterous. We know that was wrong in the past, and we also admitted so. We have shown an ability to learn and grow. Additional government intervention on behalf of those who need it is far more beneficial then leaving things to the free market, which will only result in exacerbating the current socioeconomic inequities in this society.

[CRONUS]

Then you don't understand the nature of how capitalism works. Out of sight out of mind. Every time you buy shit like Nikes you are supporting a system that exploits workers and pays them near slave wages so that you can have comfortable footwear for a reasonable price.

Like those Scandinavians you idolize are not all dressing in Nikes, Levis and Dockers.:rolleyes:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Like those Scandinavians you idolize are not all dressing in Nikes, Levis and Dockers.:rolleyes:

Nice try.

Simplex made the assertion that his capitalist successes don't have any unintended consequences or externalities. That is patently false. If you've ever done one ounce of research, you'd know that. (Of course, you could just be lying to yourself to justify your own apathy).

Did I say that they are wholly absolved from blame for their role in a global capitalist system that exploits workers in those situations? No. I did, however, say that they operated a system that was intrinsically more fair to their citizens than ours.

Stop trying to put words into my mouth and spend more time actually analyzing the content of posts instead of making knee-jerk reactions because they don't fit into your comfortable little paradigm of belief.

[CRONUS]

...
How is she going to learn to value studying when the school system she is in is a complete joke and the teachers who are supposed to help her learn don't know their elbow from their asshole. Very very few people are autodidacts.

First of all your assumption that very few people are self motivated is utter bull shit. 2nd I see no reason we owe anything to those who are not self motivated, they want to scrape by, then let them. If that means a tough life, they made their choice, let them suffer for it.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

First of all your assumption that very few people are self motivated is utter bull shit. 2nd I see no reason we owe anything to those who are not self motivated, they want to scrape by, then let them. If that means a tough life, they made their choice, let them suffer for it.

au‧to‧di‧dact  /ˌɔtoʊˈdaɪdækt, -daɪˈdækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[aw-toh-dahy-dakt, -dahy-dakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who has learned a subject without the benefit of a teacher or formal education; a self-taught person.

[BIG_DADDY]

Jesus, are you ****ing retarded? Did one of your dogs type this?

One more time, for posterity.

IF THE MONEY IS NOT THERE, THEY WILL STILL SPEND IT. HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE IN THE TILL IS TOTALLY UNRELATED TO HOW MUCH MONEY THEY SPEND. THEY'LL JUST PUT IT ON CREDIT AND DIG THE HOLE A LITTLE DEEPER.

Of course the answer is lower spending. Guess what? That's never happened.

That's the entire point. Increasing taxes isn't the answer. Deficit spending will eventually have to be addressed. If you keep raising taxes however you're potentially prolonging the problem. Calm down dude you look like you have some real issues. Go get laid or at least wack off if you can't do that. It's the weekend after all.

[stevieray]

Americans don't know what it means to be poor...in fact I wonder if most at poverty level are the illegals.

[BIG_DADDY]

Americans don't know what it means to be poor...in fact I wonder if most at poverty level are the illegals.

The potential is out there to do whatever you want. Have a friend who is an ex-felon get busted for having 3 guns. He just got out 2 1/2 months ago after serving 3 years and paying 100k to attorneys. He is a high school drop out but owns a million dollar house, harley, new boat and truck. He does auto repair out of his house. Before he went in he did custom installs for security systems and the like. He opened up his new business doing that and has already picked up a couple jobs. He also assists plumbers on some jobs and built a deck around his house since being out. He makes me feel like a slacker. He is all self taught. If he wants to learn something he just finds someone that does it and gets paid to assist and opens up his own business. I get tired of this entitlement mentality so many people have in America.

[BucEyedPea]

There's no such thing as a perfect system anywhere.
There are only systems that are better or worse than others.
I prefer a system that allows individuals to better themselves and improve conditions is the best.

[CRONUS]

The potential is out there to do whatever you want. Have a friend who is an ex-felon get busted for having 3 guns. He just got out 2 1/2 months ago after serving 3 years and paying 100k to attorneys. He is a high school drop out but owns a million dollar house, harley, new boat and truck. He does auto repair out of his house. Before he went in he did custom installs for security systems and the like. He opened up his new business doing that and has already picked up a couple jobs. He also assists plumbers on some jobs and built a deck around his house since being out. He makes me feel like a slacker. He is all self taught. If he wants to learn something he just finds someone that does it and gets paid to assist and opens up his own business. I get tired of this entitlement mentality so many people have in America.

I applaud him but do wonder what type of folks let an ex-felon do security system installations in their home?

[CRONUS]

That's the entire point. Increasing taxes isn't the answer. Deficit spending will eventually have to be addressed. If you keep raising taxes however you're potentially prolonging the problem. Calm down dude you look like you have some real issues. Go get laid or at least wack off if you can't do that. It's the weekend after all.

Troy I think Skye is a female. LOL

[CRONUS]

au‧to‧di‧dact /ˌɔtoʊ'daɪdækt, -daɪ'dækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[aw-toh-dahy-dakt, -dahy-dakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who has learned a subject without the benefit of a teacher or formal education; a self-taught person.

All you need to be self-taught is self motivation thus my statement. But thanks anyway for not thinking it through.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

All you need to be self-taught is self motivation thus my statement. But thanks anyway for not thinking it through.

No it's not. Your statement was that I assumed that very few people lacked the motivation necessary to succeed. I said very few people were autodidacts, the implifications of which means that not only must they be motivated, they must also be able to teach themselves, and very few people in this world are able to do both without some help.

You are jumping from a to c and now you are attempting to revise your own misreading.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[skye22f]

How do you own a million dollar house and all that stuff if you do auto repair out of your garage and act as an assistant plumber?!?!?!?

[CRONUS]

No it's not. Your statement was that I assumed that very few people lacked the motivation necessary to succeed. I said very few people were autodidacts, the implifications of which means that not only must they be motivated, they must also be able to teach themselves, and very few people in this world are able to do both without some help.

You are jumping from a to c and now you are attempting to revise your own misreading.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Really, so you know my intent better than I do. Bull shit. Pretty much anyone who is self motivated sufficiently can teach themselves or find a source to learn from. You are truly a victim of the liberal school systems' crippling influence.

[CRONUS]

How do you own a million dollar house and all that stuff if you do auto repair out of your garage and act as an assistant plumber?!?!?!?

In CA it is actually pretty easy, you bought your home in the 60s kept it and now voila it is worth a million.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

In CA it is actually pretty easy, you bought your home in the 60s kept it and now voila it is worth a million.

And that is how 3/4 of US "millionaires" are created, Simplex.

[CRONUS]

And that is how 3/4 of US "millionaires" are created, Simplex.

Does not make them any less a millionaire.

[CHIEF4EVER]

In CA it is actually pretty easy, you bought your home in the 60s kept it and now voila it is worth a million.

Gotta agree with ya there Jim. My sister lives in Ventura and the ground their house sits on is a friggin gold mine.

[patteeu]

Troy I think Skye is a female. LOL

No, skye is a male.

[CRONUS]

No, skye is a male.Thanks

[Simplex3]

And that is how 3/4 of US "millionaires" are created, Simplex.
A) They're still a millionaire.
B) They made a wise decision to purchase and keep a piece of property that has appreciated.
C) They obviously continued to work to make the payments and pay the taxes.

Or did you think you were proving your point instead of mine?

[skye22f]

A) They're still a millionaire.
B) They made a wise decision to purchase and keep a piece of property that has appreciated.
C) They obviously continued to work to make the payments and pay the taxes.

Or did you think you were proving your point instead of mine?

I don't think this is a big point for either side given the bubbly housing market right now.

In some places it's kinda like winning the lottery and the people just were in the right place at the right time. Good for them, this is really great.

Other people, though, are paper millionaires leveraged to the hilt, moving up from house to house as their old one appreciated, tapping their home equity like an ATM and using exotic loan products to finance living in places that they really can't afford, betting on further appreciation to help bail em out. Those guys are all going to be broke within 5 years and they're going to be looking for a happy fun government bailout. That will get ugly.

Even in central Virginia everything is priced ridiculously and, of course, it's unsustainable and coming down already (the worst is on the horizon.) Many people don't realize why this is so- when you can rent a place for $1300 / month or buy it for $400,000, renting is by far a much more efficient place to put your capital (I'm not kidding, I talked to a lady trying to get me to do this last week- rent for $1300, sale for $400k and she kept a straight face. Well, considering my carrying costs of a 30 year fixed would be something like $2300 a month and I'd be accumulating principle at the rate of 400 / month, I'd rather just rent for $1300 and invest $1700 /month at a much higher ROR than the negative one this house is gonna be giving me. Dumbass.)

Either way, I digress but this is really not an awesome point in favor of either side here.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Does not make them any less a millionaire.

Semantically, yes, but you (and simplex) seem to think that a society that turns out millionaires is indicative of its economic prowess.

IF someone owns a 1 million dollar house and they are 1.2 million in debt from the loans that they have taken out both to pay for it, and against its equity you would still call them a millionaire. In reality, they are in debt up to their ass. Nothing like completely ignoring the reality of the situation to fit your distorted political views though, huh?

Furthermore, this little tangental deflection attempt (which addresses none of the other points of my refutation) is ineffective. Unlike you two, I actually seem to be able to think of more than one thing at once...but nice attempt, nonetheless. Patteeu-esque.

[Baby Lee]

The potential is out there to do whatever you want. Have a friend who is an ex-felon get busted for having 3 guns. He just got out 2 1/2 months ago after serving 3 years and paying 100k to attorneys. He is a high school drop out but owns a million dollar house, harley, new boat and truck. He does auto repair out of his house. Before he went in he did custom installs for security systems and the like. He opened up his new business doing that and has already picked up a couple jobs. He also assists plumbers on some jobs and built a deck around his house since being out. He makes me feel like a slacker. He is all self taught. If he wants to learn something he just finds someone that does it and gets paid to assist and opens up his own business. I get tired of this entitlement mentality so many people have in America.
Does he get his W-2s from a waste management company, perchance?

[Simplex3]

Semantically, yes, but you (and simplex) seem to think that a society that turns out millionaires is indicative of its economic prowess.
No, I was merely pointing out that most millionaires are first generation.

IF someone owns a 1 million dollar house and they are 1.2 million in debt from the loans that they have taken out both to pay for it, and against its equity you would still call them a millionaire. In reality, they are in debt up to their ass. Nothing like completely ignoring the reality of the situation to fit your distorted political views though, huh?
If they are LIVING IN a $1M house that they owe $1.2M on then they are, in fact, NOT millionaires. In order to be a millionaire you must have $1M is ASSETS. Something you owe money on is, by definition, not an asset for you, but rather for the person that owns it (the mortgage holder).

[CRONUS]

Semantically, yes, but you (and simplex) seem to think that a society that turns out millionaires is indicative of its economic prowess.

IF someone owns a 1 million dollar house and they are 1.2 million in debt from the loans that they have taken out both to pay for it, and against its equity you would still call them a millionaire. In reality, they are in debt up to their ass. Nothing like completely ignoring the reality of the situation to fit your distorted political views though, huh?

Furthermore, this little tangental deflection attempt (which addresses none of the other points of my refutation) is ineffective. Unlike you two, I actually seem to be able to think of more than one thing at once...but nice attempt, nonetheless. Patteeu-esque.


You have it wrong, the millionaires are the ones who have a million in equity without corresponding debt.:rolleyes:

[morphius]

I'd much rather see the government actually work on cleaning up costs before I would let them raise taxes.

[CRONUS]

I'd much rather see the government actually work on cleaning up costs before I would let them raise taxes.

I would too, but living my 51 years I now know that is not happening so I am trying to be realisttic. We need our infrastructure rebuilt and we need to lower the amount we are going into debt each day.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You have it wrong, the millionaires are the ones who have a million in equity without corresponding debt.:rolleyes:

:shrug:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

No, I was merely pointing out that most millionaires are first generation.


Most of them are also retirees and most of their worth is tied up in their house.

If I buy a condo in New York in the 1950's and then sit on my ass for the next 50 years, suddenly I'm a millionaire. That doesn't mean the economy is good, it just means that the real estate market has boomed. The two don't always correlate.

Inflation also devalues the term "millionaire" but that's slightly off topic.

[CRONUS]

Most of them are also retirees and most of their worth is tied up in their house.

If I buy a condo in New York in the 1950's and then sit on my ass for the next 50 years, suddenly I'm a millionaire. That doesn't mean the economy is good, it just means that the real estate market has boomed. The two don't always correlate.

Inflation also devalues the term "millionaire" but that's slightly off topic.I agree that being a Millionaire is not what it used to be, but if you are, even today, you are pretty much set.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I agree that being a Millionaire is not what it used to be, but if you are even today, you are pretty much set.

I agree with that, but there is also an ever increasing gap between the haves and the have nots. The same thing happened in the 1980's.

Supply side economics works great for the upper-echelon of wealth holders and pisses on everyone else.

[CRONUS]

I agree with that, but there is also an ever increasing gap between the haves and the have nots. The same thing happened in the 1980's.

Supply side economics works great for the upper-echelon of wealth holders and pisses on everyone else.

I agree it does not work across the board like many Repbublicans would like to believe but it also does not just work for the rich, that is a fallacy. I would say it works for the top 50%.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I agree it does not work across the board like many Repbublicans would like to believe but it also does not just work for the rich, that is a fallacy. I would say it works for the top 50%.


Not quite.

During Reagan-Bush I (12 years) 60 % of families had no gains in income and the bottom 20% saw their incomes decline 4%. The top 20% had their incomes increase dramatically, though.

[CRONUS]

Not quite.

During Reagan-Bush I (12 years) 60 % of families had no gains in income and the bottom 20% saw their incomes decline 4%. The top 20% had their incomes increase dramatically, though.I was hardly in the top 20% but I went from 13K at the start of the Reagan years to 70K by the time he had left office. I really don't think I was all that atypical.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I was hardly in the top 20% but I went from 13K at the start of the Reagan years to 70K by the time he had left office. I really don't think I was all that atypical.

You're also an engineer right? In California? I know there was a huge Aerospace industry in Cali in the 80's in large part due to the Reagan defense buildup. That could be a considerable cause for that, depending on your specific occupation :shrug:

[CRONUS]

You're also an engineer right? In California? I know there was a huge Aerospace industry in Cali in the 80's in large part due to the Reagan defense buildup. That could be a considerable cause for that, depending on your specific occupation :shrug:

Actually I was in Wichita Ks in the Reagan years.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Actually I was in Wichita Ks in the Reagan years.

What were you doing??

[CRONUS]

What were you doing??Working as a Systems and Flight Test engineer for Boeing.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

That might explain it :D

[patteeu]

Most of them are also retirees and most of their worth is tied up in their house.

If I buy a condo in New York in the 1950's and then sit on my ass for the next 50 years, suddenly I'm a millionaire. That doesn't mean the economy is good, it just means that the real estate market has boomed. The two don't always correlate.

Inflation also devalues the term "millionaire" but that's slightly off topic.

How many TVs does today's average poor person own? Does he have clean, running water? Does he have heat in the winter? Food in his belly? Treatment at the hospital emergency room if he needs it?

There may be some millionaires in our country who aren't really rich in the way many of us think of rich, but there's a whole lot of poor who aren't really poor by historical American or contemporary global standards. And I'm going to vote for the next candidate who says he/she is going to raise their taxes until they're paying their fair share. :p

['Hamas' Jenkins]

How many TVs does today's average poor person own? Does he have clean, running water? Does he have heat in the winter? Food in his belly? Treatment at the hospital emergency room if he needs it?

There may be some millionaires in our country who aren't really rich in the way many of us think of rich, but there's a whole lot of poor who aren't really poor by historical American or contemporary global standards. And I'm going to vote for the next candidate who says he/she is going to raise their taxes until they're paying their fair share. :p

Or we could just put taxes on the highest income earners back to their Clinton levels, and nationalize our healthcare system :)

[patteeu]

I agree with that, but there is also an ever increasing gap between the haves and the have nots. The same thing happened in the 1980's.

Supply side economics works great for the upper-echelon of wealth holders and pisses on everyone else.


I agree it does not work across the board like many Repbublicans would like to believe but it also does not just work for the rich, that is a fallacy. I would say it works for the top 50%.


I'm sorry gentlemen. It's not supply-side economics that are causing this, it's globalization. And globalization is inevitable. If we try to keep our lower classes at a higher standard of living than the global marketplace will allow, our whole country will eventually suffer. What we need to do is move further in the supply side direction by dramatically lowering taxes on business and by shifting to a consumption tax of some kind (e.g. the FAIR tax) so that we can reap the global competitiveness advantages it would afford us. By making the US more competitive in areas other than labor costs, we can maintain decently high standards of living for our working class (as opposed to letting them fall all the way down to 3rd world levels).

The Reagan and Bush tax policies haven't been optimal, but their problems weren't the supply-side components of those policies.

[CRONUS]

I'm sorry gentlemen. It's not supply-side economics that are causing this, it's globalization. And globalization is inevitable. If we try to keep our lower classes at a higher standard of living than the global marketplace will allow, our whole country will eventually suffer. What we need to do is move further in the supply side direction by dramatically lowering taxes on business and by shifting to a consumption tax of some kind (e.g. the FAIR tax) so that we can reap the global competitiveness advantages it would afford us. By making the US more competitive in areas other than labor costs, we can maintain decently high standards of living for our working class (as opposed to letting them fall all the way down to 3rd world levels).
....I pretty much agree wwith you on this.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Or we could just put taxes on the highest income earners back to their Clinton levels, and nationalize our healthcare system :)

How about not. How about the government stop stealing money from me and giving it to people who didn't do jack shit to earn it? How about doing away with the notion of rewarding the lazy? How about people taking care of themselves through their own hard work and quit relying on the gubment to be their sugar daddies?

Any of those ideas resonate? :)

[banyon]

How about not. How about the government stop stealing money from me and giving it to people who didn't do jack shit to earn it? How about doing away with the notion of rewarding the lazy? How about people taking care of themselves through their own hard work and quit relying on the gubment to be their sugar daddies?

Any of those ideas resonate? :)

You mean like the lazy weapons contractors and energy companies?

[CRONUS]

You mean like the lazy weapons contractors and energy companies?

It is not just that either. Our government has built in requirements for funds that are socially unacceptable to lower. I am not pleased with that, but being realistic it is true.

I still want Hamas to define who top earners are? What income level does he want to get this burden applied to?

[Simplex3]

It is not just that either. Our government has built in requirements for funds that are socially unacceptable to lower. I am not pleased with that, but being realistic it is true.

I still want Hamas to define who top earners are? What income level does he want to get this burden applied to?
$1/yr more than he makes.

BTW all you "raise taxes" types, it's still not illegal to overpay. Rather than forcing everyone to suffer how about you pony up the extra? You know, since you're all so willing?

Also, when the politicians who are all bitching about tax evasion and offshor