|
O.T. CUT UP THE REPUBLICANS CREDIT CARDS
Looks like we actually had some responsible presidents on both sides, until
around about 1982 and then again around 2000. The blue chart that allows for inflation tells quite a story. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html Dixon |
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:13:13 +0000, dixon wrote:
Looks like we actually had some responsible presidents on both sides, until around about 1982 and then again around 2000. The blue chart that allows for inflation tells quite a story. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html It is the Republican "free lunch". I would expect Reagan's call for a balanced budget amendment to be dusted off soon. More smoke as the debt grows. |
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:13:13 GMT, "dixon"
wrote: Looks like we actually had some responsible presidents on both sides, until around about 1982 and then again around 2000. The blue chart that allows for inflation tells quite a story. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html Dixon Sure hope b'asskisser sees that page. Maybe he'll learn something. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:16:15 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:13:13 +0000, dixon wrote: Looks like we actually had some responsible presidents on both sides, until around about 1982 and then again around 2000. The blue chart that allows for inflation tells quite a story. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html It is the Republican "free lunch". I would expect Reagan's call for a balanced budget amendment to be dusted off soon. More smoke as the debt grows. Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:16:15 -0500, thunder wrote: On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:13:13 +0000, dixon wrote: Looks like we actually had some responsible presidents on both sides, until around about 1982 and then again around 2000. The blue chart that allows for inflation tells quite a story. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html It is the Republican "free lunch". I would expect Reagan's call for a balanced budget amendment to be dusted off soon. More smoke as the debt grows. Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Try printing the graph out, then hold it upside down. Reagan and Bush will then look the way the righties fantasy them. Dixon |
Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined
during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly? John H Bush the Second absolutley outperformed Bill Clinton in the national debt category. Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as it increased in *eight* under Clinton. Had we continued to run the surplus that prevailed when Clinton left office, the debt would have decreased. Instead we decided that wise fiscal policy involved reducing the government income via tax breaks to billionaires while increasing government outgo by rubber stamping every spending bill passed by the Republican controlled house and senate. By the way, did you know the US government has been writing bad checks since October 14? That's the day we exceeded our debt ceiling, but the administration wanted to keep that fact hidden from the public until after the election: *********** The Republican-controlled Congress put off dealing with the debt ceiling before adjourning last month, preferring not to force members to vote on the politically sensitive issue of adding to the national debt before the elections. The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's operations. ********* Excerpted from: http://www.boston.com/business/artic...ation_pressure s_congress_to_raise_debt_ceiling/ |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly? John H Bush the Second absolutley outperformed Bill Clinton in the national debt category. Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as it increased in *eight* under Clinton. Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush than it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a recession, and increased military and homeland security spending. |
The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending. As well as failure to monitor cash flow and adjust the master game plan to reflect changing conditions in the economy. When Greenspan suggested a tax cut, back during the Clinton years, it was because we were running a surplus. |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a recession, and increased military and homeland security spending. As well as failure to monitor cash flow and adjust the master game plan to reflect changing conditions in the economy. When Greenspan suggested a tax cut, back during the Clinton years, it was because we were running a surplus. If you're going to use Greenspan's remarks to validate your argument, then you also need to include Greenspan's remarks in February of this year: "I am in favor, as I've indicated in the past, of continuing the tax cuts that are in dispute at this particular stage" He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he promotes tightened spending. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly? John H Bush the Second absolutley outperformed Bill Clinton in the national debt category. Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as it increased in *eight* under Clinton. Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush than it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a recession, and increased military and homeland security spending. So, you are admitting that the current state of the economy IS Bush's fault. I'm glad you finally realize that. |
JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:13:13 GMT, "dixon" wrote: Looks like we actually had some responsible presidents on both sides, until around about 1982 and then again around 2000. The blue chart that allows for inflation tells quite a story. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html Dixon Sure hope b'asskisser sees that page. Maybe he'll learn something. John H Unlike you, I fully understood, and didn't need a graphic representation. Did YOU learn anything from it? |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:
He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he promotes tightened spending. Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term? Or, do you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax overhaul" he's been talking about? |
"I am in favor, as I've indicated in the past, of continuing the tax cuts
that are in dispute at this particular stage" He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he promotes tightened spending. Fine, Greenspan and I agree that the budget is being mismananged. Cut taxes as much as you want- no problem- but for every dollar cut in income there has to be an equal reduction in spending or else....or else we'll get exactly what we've got right now, a situation clearly out of control. |
"basskisser" wrote in message om... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly? John H Bush the Second absolutley outperformed Bill Clinton in the national debt category. Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as it increased in *eight* under Clinton. Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush than it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a recession, and increased military and homeland security spending. So, you are admitting that the current state of the economy IS Bush's fault. I'm glad you finally realize that. Yes, Bush can take credit for 3 straight years of solid GDP growth, and 15 straight months of net jobs growth. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote: He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he promotes tightened spending. Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term? Yes. A 1% bump in discretionary spending is tantamount to a cut if GDP is growing at better than 3%. Or, do you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax overhaul" he's been talking about? There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes (like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated. |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:14:32 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
Yes, Bush can take credit for 3 straight years of solid GDP growth, and 15 straight months of net jobs growth. But he can't take blame for......................anything. bb |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:17:11 +0000, NOYB wrote:
There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes (like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated. Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Actually, it's my understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax. |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:02:40 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:17:11 +0000, NOYB wrote: There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes (like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated. Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Actually, it's my understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax. YAY!!!! Later, Tom |
thunder wrote:
Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Yep, another variation on a common theme. Bear in mind though, gov't debt drives up inflation which has the same effect as a tax increase. ... Actually, it's my understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: YAY!!!! ??? A national sales tax would be a disaster. The ad valorum tax structure is one of the things that are killing the European economy (although it's not bad for *us* because it makes the U.S. more competitive). A flat rate income tax sounds great until you look at it in any detail, when you realize that it would have to be be around 28% in order to not have a tremendous shortfall. Also, the morality sucks... it is effectively a penalty on the less wealthy. DSK |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:45:19 -0500, DSK wrote:
thunder wrote: Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Yep, another variation on a common theme. Bear in mind though, gov't debt drives up inflation which has the same effect as a tax increase. ... Actually, it's my understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: YAY!!!! ??? A national sales tax would be a disaster. The ad valorum tax structure is one of the things that are killing the European economy (although it's not bad for *us* because it makes the U.S. more competitive). A flat rate income tax sounds great until you look at it in any detail, when you realize that it would have to be be around 28% in order to not have a tremendous shortfall. Also, the morality sucks... it is effectively a penalty on the less wealthy. Yeah, but think of the possibilities!! You can have a tax on a tax on a tax like we have here in Connecticut - effectively triple taxes!!!! YAY!!!! Later, Tom |
A flat rate income tax sounds great until you look at it in any detail,
when you realize that it would have to be be around 28% in order to not have a tremendous shortfall. Also, the morality sucks... it is effectively a penalty on the less wealthy. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Yeah, but think of the possibilities!! You can have a tax on a tax on a tax like we have here in Connecticut - effectively triple taxes!!!! YAY!!!! You're a strange dude. Personally, I like Dave Barry's tax proposal... give all IRS agents inexpensive small caliber handguns, and send them out in the streets to "collect taxes" directly from the citizens pockets. DSK |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:02:32 -0500, DSK wrote:
A flat rate income tax sounds great until you look at it in any detail, when you realize that it would have to be be around 28% in order to not have a tremendous shortfall. Also, the morality sucks... it is effectively a penalty on the less wealthy. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Yeah, but think of the possibilities!! You can have a tax on a tax on a tax like we have here in Connecticut - effectively triple taxes!!!! YAY!!!! You're a strange dude. Thank you for noticing. As long as any government looks at taxes as "revenue", it ceases to be government and becomes a corporation. The system we have now is just as regressive - people just don't know it. I was serious about that tax on a tax on a tax thing. We have it here in Connecticut on several high volume items. We also have an interesting little known aspect to the sales tax. If you purchase an item, as a gift for example, and it goes beyond thirty days before that item is returned unused, you can't reclaim the sales tax even if you have a receipt for the item. It's considered a "use" tax. I'd rather have a straight flat tax system of some sort to prevent this kind of nonsense. Personally, I like Dave Barry's tax proposal... give all IRS agents inexpensive small caliber handguns, and send them out in the streets to "collect taxes" directly from the citizens pockets. Hey - it worked for the Sheriff of Nottingham - until that ******* Robin Hood screwed everything up. Later, Tom |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:12:56 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I'd rather have a straight flat tax system of some sort to prevent this kind of nonsense. I'm all for a simplified tax system, but I wonder how long even a flat tax system would stay simple. A loophole here, and a loophole there, and we once again have a mess. However, I would agree a flat tax would be preferable to a sales tax (at least I think that's your preference). |
national sales tax.
National sales tax. Pretty sad. If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30% usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax. Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30 percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now. Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption (spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about 1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8% of its income in taxes. A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a whalloping 3% of its income in taxes. Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money coming in and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income. No wonder the right wing likes this idea. The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and sharecropping. Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract from it. You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to pay even less. :-) |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:35:10 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:12:56 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: I'd rather have a straight flat tax system of some sort to prevent this kind of nonsense. I'm all for a simplified tax system, but I wonder how long even a flat tax system would stay simple. A loophole here, and a loophole there, and we once again have a mess. However, I would agree a flat tax would be preferable to a sales tax (at least I think that's your preference). I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay, right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even though I'm retired. What I object to is the whole issue of using the term "revenue" rather than what it is - taxes. Puts the entire concept into a whole new light. What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege. What I object to is the State DMV staffing a local office on a Saturday, for three months in a row, with people who can't speak, or have an extremely low grasp of, English thus justifying closing the office because of lack of business. (That is not a joke) I object to "fees" that aren't designated to the subject for which they are issued - hunting and fishing licenses being a good example. I object to hiring tax accountants and lawyers to keep the government from raping me at the end of the year just because I worked hard to obtain what I have and I want to keep it. I object to long winded rants about stuff. :) I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot. Later, Tom |
|
Gould,
What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax used in most of Europe? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... national sales tax. National sales tax. Pretty sad. If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30% usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax. Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30 percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now. Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption (spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about 1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8% of its income in taxes. A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a whalloping 3% of its income in taxes. Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money coming in and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income. No wonder the right wing likes this idea. The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and sharecropping. Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract from it. You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to pay even less. :-) |
Gould,
What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax used in most of Europe? Not much. I prefer a flat tax, with no tax extracted from the first $30,000 or so of income. For some, that would mean no tax paid on the money earned during the first week of the year, and for others that would exempt all income. The desperately poor should be absolutely untaxed- and maybe they will have enough left over to save and invest and start getting slightly ahead. For the rest of us, after the same $30,000 exemption everybody else gets, tax income at a rate sufficient to balance the budget every year. Maybe 15, 20, or 25%. Those spendthift legislators would be more reluctant to pee away so much money if it meant they had to immediately tell their constituents that taxes were going up 2,3, or 4 percent to pay for the latest government program. We would tax *all* income under the flat tax plan, with a streamlined formula for measuring "net profit" (the source of most chicanery in the current tax system). |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:15:56 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
Items such as food, clothing, medicine, and other essentials could be tax exempt or taxed at a significantly smaller level (say the current 6%). "Luxury" items, such as mega-yachts, private aircraft, exotic vacations, etc could be taxed at a higher rate, which could then be used to offset the tax rate for other consumer goods. And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-( |
I think that is a program many could live with, it is definitely better than
the crap we have today. The problem with a flat tax paid to the IRS, is the large number of people who avoid taxes by operating in an underground economy. I would love to see either a sales tax or VAT system, that would not tax basic necessities, i.e. food, medical, rent cost for reasonable housing. This way, the poor are not unfairly taxed on basic necessities, but the tax on non necessities would be paid by all. Since the public is supporting a change in our tax system, hopefully, we will see a major overhaul of our current system soon. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Gould, What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax used in most of Europe? Not much. I prefer a flat tax, with no tax extracted from the first $30,000 or so of income. For some, that would mean no tax paid on the money earned during the first week of the year, and for others that would exempt all income. The desperately poor should be absolutely untaxed- and maybe they will have enough left over to save and invest and start getting slightly ahead. For the rest of us, after the same $30,000 exemption everybody else gets, tax income at a rate sufficient to balance the budget every year. Maybe 15, 20, or 25%. Those spendthift legislators would be more reluctant to pee away so much money if it meant they had to immediately tell their constituents that taxes were going up 2,3, or 4 percent to pay for the latest government program. We would tax *all* income under the flat tax plan, with a streamlined formula for measuring "net profit" (the source of most chicanery in the current tax system). |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... national sales tax. National sales tax. Pretty sad. If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30% usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax. Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30 percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now. Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption (spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about 1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8% of its income in taxes. A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a whalloping 3% of its income in taxes. Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money coming in and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income. No wonder the right wing likes this idea. The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and sharecropping. Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract from it. You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to pay even less. :-) And you get a tax credit for the first $20k if income. This rebates the tax to the lower earner. I favor a flat income tax. With the same $20k exemption. You realize Kerry and Therese only paid at a 12% rate last year? I bet most of us middle income people paid at a much higher rate than that. And the Poor paid no income tax, and even got a rebait (rebate) of taxes they did not pay. |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:35:10 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:12:56 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: I'd rather have a straight flat tax system of some sort to prevent this kind of nonsense. I'm all for a simplified tax system, but I wonder how long even a flat tax system would stay simple. A loophole here, and a loophole there, and we once again have a mess. However, I would agree a flat tax would be preferable to a sales tax (at least I think that's your preference). I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay, right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even though I'm retired. What I object to is the whole issue of using the term "revenue" rather than what it is - taxes. Puts the entire concept into a whole new light. What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege. What I object to is the State DMV staffing a local office on a Saturday, for three months in a row, with people who can't speak, or have an extremely low grasp of, English thus justifying closing the office because of lack of business. (That is not a joke) I object to "fees" that aren't designated to the subject for which they are issued - hunting and fishing licenses being a good example. I object to hiring tax accountants and lawyers to keep the government from raping me at the end of the year just because I worked hard to obtain what I have and I want to keep it. I object to long winded rants about stuff. :) I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot. Later, Tom Can you say "Amen"? Amen, brother! Eisboch |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay, right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even though I'm retired. Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would result in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending... probably both. Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? What I object to is the whole issue of using the term "revenue" rather than what it is - taxes. Puts the entire concept into a whole new light. What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege. You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing. What I object to is the State DMV staffing a local office on a Saturday, for three months in a row, with people who can't speak, or have an extremely low grasp of, English thus justifying closing the office because of lack of business. (That is not a joke) I object to "fees" that aren't designated to the subject for which they are issued - hunting and fishing licenses being a good example. I object to hiring tax accountants and lawyers to keep the government from raping me at the end of the year just because I worked hard to obtain what I have and I want to keep it. I object to long winded rants about stuff. :) I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot. I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect & intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing. Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said! Regards Doug King |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay, right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even though I'm retired. Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would result in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending... probably both. Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, How so? and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so? |
Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, JimH wrote: How so? Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing, housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that. and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so? Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but loses money. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, JimH wrote: How so? Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing, housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that. Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same purpose. I can also buy more when I have more money so the percent of my income going for food, clothing and housing could actually be greater than those with lesser incomes. Finally, no one has talked about taxing food or housing. and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so? Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but loses money. DSK That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney. A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't services than the wealthy. Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care subsidies....the list goes on and on. And in many cases, those same folks pay absolutely no taxes. The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of the city. Cities are also dumping more and more money per pupil on education in the poorer sections of the city in an attempt to improve education (money will not solve this problem). The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class. |
JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same purpose. So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100? If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10? Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country. The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so? Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney. Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your mind is extremely closed? A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't services than the wealthy. Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful thinking. ... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care subsidies....the list goes on and on. If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them? Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More than the military? More than the service on the federal debt? ... And in many cases, those same folks pay absolutely no taxes. When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes. The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of the city. And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from stealing *your* stuff. For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people? Hey, usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr! Therefor they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of wealthier taxpayers! The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class. Yeah, right. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same purpose. So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100? If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10? Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country. I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to explain it to you. The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so? Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney. Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your mind is extremely closed? A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't services than the wealthy. Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful thinking. ... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care subsidies....the list goes on and on. If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them? They are not benefits? What are they then? Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More than the military? More than the service on the federal debt? The rich benefit more from those services than the poor? How about some links to back up your claim. ... And in many cases, those same folks pay absolutely no taxes. When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes. Thanks for making my case. The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of the city. And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from stealing *your* stuff. Police protection is a benefit. What would you call it? For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people? Hey, usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr! Therefor they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of wealthier taxpayers! And that is the fault of the wealthy? The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class. Yeah, right. Yep. |
"DSK" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same purpose. So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100? If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10? Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country. The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so? Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney. Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your mind is extremely closed? A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't services than the wealthy. Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful thinking. ... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care subsidies....the list goes on and on. If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them? We were originally discussing who "benefits" more from gov't services....not which gov't services are considered a benefit. Stick to the topic please. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com