Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue  
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1213 times:

Here he comes! Charlie Rangel is going to make his promises come true. Take from the rich, and give to the poor. Those of you individuals that make more than 150,000 (and couples earning 200,000), stand by as Charlie prepares to take money from your pocket and give it to less fortunate citizens.

Quote:
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Corporations would see their top tax rate cut to 30.5% from 35% under a tax plan unveiled Wednesday by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to fellow committee members.

The plan would also require companies to defer deductions for certain expenses of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies until the money is repatriated to the U.S.

Middle and upper-middle income families would benefit under the plan by a repeal of the alternative minimum tax starting Jan. 1, 2008.

Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.

The surtax will also make possible an expansion of the earned income tax credit, an increase in the standard deduction, and an increase in the value of the child tax credit for those earning too little to owe federal income taxes.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne...0242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&

You gotta give him credit - he's at least being up front about his intentions to pass what has to be one of the largest - if not the largest - single tax increases in history, and use it part to engage in the favored democratic tactic of using the tax code to redistribute income.

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1205 times:

How Chavez-esque.

Dear Hillary has said some comments along the same lines.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

FAIR TAX.

Get on board.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1186 times:

You all have to remember that IIRC, when you own a small business, the money that comes in (before expenses) is considered your income. Hence, if a person owns a business, and the business brings in $500K a year, before any expenses are taken out, this is your 'income'. You may only take out an average of $100K pay from your business, but you will still be taxed at the higher bracket.

Reminds me when Bill Clinton raised taxes on the 'rich'. And then the 'rich' got redefined to cover many more middle class people.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):
when you own a small business, the money that comes in (before expenses) is considered your income.

Are you sure? My schedule C shows income - expenses = profit which is what I pay taxes on. Ditto with the schedule F.


User currently offlineIFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1167 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):
You all have to remember that IIRC, when you own a small business, the money that comes in (before expenses) is considered your income. Hence, if a person owns a business, and the business brings in $500K a year, before any expenses are taken out, this is your 'income'. You may only take out an average of $100K pay from your business, but you will still be taxed at the higher bracket.

It depends on whether you are incorporated or not. For non corps, this is accurate. And it's a bullshit way of doing things, by the way.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 1):
How Chavez-esque.

 checkmark 

And it'll never fly because those who would need to rubber stamp this would ultimately be out of pocket themselves. And we can't have that now, can we?


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1150 times:

In your whining about the increase in taxes on that very top income bracket, you are missing the fact that the plan would repeal the alternative minimum tax, which would be a great benefit to middle and upper-middle income families. Since the AMT was not indexed to inflation, ever more families have been forced to pay the AMT (which eliminates many deductions) each year. If you're really concerned about the government not screwing over the average (or somewhat-above-average) Joe, you should be quite happy with this move. And I'm not sure why you are calling this a tax increase, as there is no indication that the government would wind up collecting more money with this bill. It's as much a tax decrease as an increase. Corporations and the middle/upper middle income brackets wind up somewhat ahead, while the upper income brackets wind up somewhat worse off.


Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1146 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6):
while the upper income brackets wind up somewhat worse off.

You have to remember that this is an 'income tax', and a lot of the really rich have no real income that would be taxed. IIRC, there was a story about Ross Perot many years ago that indicated that he only paid 6% tax on his 'income'.

Why?

One reason was that he derived a great percentage of his 'income' from tax-free municipal bonds.

There are plenty of ways that the really rich can use to avoid paying all sorts of taxes.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1136 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6):
In your whining about the increase in taxes on that very top income bracket, you are missing the fact that the plan would repeal the alternative minimum tax, which would be a great benefit to middle and upper-middle income families. Since the AMT was not indexed to inflation, ever more families have been forced to pay the AMT (which eliminates many deductions) each year.

I happen to think the AMT isn't all that bad, as long as it is indexed properly.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6):
If you're really concerned about the government not screwing over the average (or somewhat-above-average) Joe, you should be quite happy with this move.

What I'm concered about is that this is nothing more than using the tax code to redistribute wealth. Charlie and his buddies don't think it is fair that there is a wide disparity in wealth in theis country, so he's going to use the tax code to make our society more "fair."

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6):
And I'm not sure why you are calling this a tax increase, as there is no indication that the government would wind up collecting more money with this bill. It's as much a tax decrease as an increase.

It is a tax increase for some, isn't it?


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5649 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
I happen to think the AMT isn't all that bad, as long as it is indexed properly.

I think the AMT sucks, whether it's indexed correctly or not.

The AMT allows the government to steal, again. If you make money and play by all the rules, hang around some tax loop holes and shelters and basically due everything you can to lower your tax burden, legally, the goverment comes along and says...whoa there cowboy, you're not paying enough tax. Please pay this new AMT.

As for Rangel, do you expect anything less. I'm just suprised he's so up front about it. It probably means that he has bigger and better plans. This is just the camel poking its nose under the tent flap.

[Edited 2007-10-25 13:39:03]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5771 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1111 times:

My god, how can anyone here not think that the GOV needs to be more realistic on its taxes? Yes they need to adjust the rates and likely UP in order to actually pay for things that we all use and need. For one thing the war in Iraq is currently on "off book" expense.

Look, I'm not for willy-nilly tax increases or allowing the gov to just take money but really..... how long do we have to run a deficit before we get real? I know and understand as true the mantra that lower taxes spurs the economy increasing net income form taxes, but seriously....... We have been overspending for YEARS, in fact the only time we didn't was during the end of Clinton's presidency but dear god don't let Republican's think you are saying he helped in that, NO, each "side" claims now to be responsible for it and now all they can do it argue about who is really causing us to over spend.

I don't care who spends, what I want is for people to be real and pay their expenses, not live in some fantasy world that "in 5, 10 20 years we'll be balanced, I promise". We need to real about our spending, and bring in money to match that and work on decreasing the burden to the vast majority of tax payers (no I am NOT advocating excessive taxes on wealthy people). I could deal with a flat tax if it were based on a person entire net worth and income (say 5% or maybe less), then you see some very fair taxation.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1104 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
I happen to think the AMT isn't all that bad, as long as it is indexed properly.

 checkmark 

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 7):
there was a story about Ross Perot many years ago that indicated that he only paid 6% tax on his 'income'.

Thats about what we pay in federal income tax. Of course its nice to have about a third tax free.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Tugger (Reply 10):
not live in some fantasy world that "in 5, 10 20 years we'll be balanced, I promise".

Well that hasn't happen in the past six years and it won't has long as were in Iraq, paying for a war by credit.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1101 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 6):
In your whining about the increase in taxes on that very top income bracket,

DUde....where do you think all the money to start businesses comes from? The pockets of the people hit hardest here. If their capital available for investment is reduced the economy will slow down. Happens every time we raise taxes. Look it up.
Whining? Stop with the hyperbole and stop imagining this is aimed at the rich and shameless on their yachts....it's aimed at the guy with a couple hundred thousand income who wants to invest in a small business to create residual and long term income so he can maybe retire one day. This guy is employing 70% of our nation.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 7):
You have to remember that this is an 'income tax', and a lot of the really rich have no real income that would be taxed. IIRC,

The superrich on their yachts and G-550s will always have some way to duck taxes and keep their real outlay for taxes minimized. It's the guy who needs a large percentage of his actual income to live and invest that is going to be hurt worst.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
What I'm concered about is that this is nothing more than using the tax code to redistribute wealth.

Which always fails to have the desired effect in the long run. Money always ends up in the same hands.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
and his buddies don't think it is fair that there is a wide disparity in wealth in theis country

Their definition of fair means that some folks who didn't take the risk or have the ingenuity will be sharing in the rewards, and that the money that would have been available to start new businesses or expand existing ones will be sent to people who won't use it to boost the economy in meaningful ways.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
so he's going to use the tax code to make our society more "fair."

because he's smarter and fairer than the rest of us.....

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 9):
As for Rangel, do you expect anything less.

Actually, no.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 9):
I'm just suprised he's so up front about it.

Again....not really. He's always been very open about his politics and his near socialist economic ideals. At least he's fairly honest, if not engenuous all the time.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1092 times:

We're in quite the jam, as a nation.

We currently siphon off a great deal of our annual federal budget to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. We have an impending national infrastructure crisis (power plants, power grid, roads, highways, dams, water management, waste management, natural disaster assistance, etc...). And we are fighting three wars at once. ...Oh... and we have $9trillion in debt, and we're still spending into the red.

So how do we fix it? The two biggest answers is: raise taxes, or cut spending.

First lets talk about cutting spending. If we wanted to make significant reductions, we would logically look towards Social Security and Medicare. However, the problem is that politicians are unwilling to tackle these two programs. It is the political third rail. You and I can talk about reform all day long, but the sad truth is, the politicians will not do a damn thing about in for at least another 10yrs. So we can forget about looking for cuts in this area.

Infrastructure: If we want to continue to have a healthy economy, continued prosperity and growth, and a safe populous... then investing in our national infrastructure is extremely important. Neglect this, and we can expect tax revenues to eventually decline, due to the fact the economy is suffering from our neglecting the internal workings of America! So we can forget about getting substantial cuts here.

The Three Wars: Well, our military is already severely strained. Make any cuts here, and it will literally equate to lives lost. In fact, we really could use some more money. Even if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, the financial strain of this war will stick with the military for years to follow. Most of the nation agrees our presence in Afghanistan is important and vital. And the third war, GWOT, is fought both abroad and at home. Neglecting this war will only lead to more attacks at home. So we can forget about getting huge cuts in this area.

....So many of us economic conservatives would love to see the government reign in their spending. But the reality of the situation, shows us that it is highly unlikely we'll see any cuts.

-------------------

So if Washington is not willing to cut spending, and we're still spending into the red... the solution would be to increase federal revenues. One of the easiest ways of doing this is raising taxes. But even this will not solve our problem. Th strain tax increases would place on the citizens may not be outweighed by the collective benefits. Raising the cap on the social security tax will not cover the looming disaster. Hell, even eliminating the cap altogether does not come close to solving our problem. Creating hostile tax environments for corporations is not a wise way of attracting new business... or even keeping the businesses you already have. Increasing the tax on the income of Americans is tricky. I agree that the alternative minimum tax ought to be eliminated... but by taxing the rich, we must ask ourselves, at what point do we cross the line of "fair" when taking from these people? They already pay a substantial amount. They already consist of a large portion of our tax dollars, when do we cross the line of "too much"?

----------------

Big problems, we must deal with. Personally, I think we need to cut spending... which ought to start with real reforms in both SS and MC. We ought to start withdrawing from Iraq, as soon as Iraqi forces have reached 50% combat readiness, and we ought to stick part of the war bill to Iraq, and make them repay much of what we have loaned them. I think we need to pull our forces out of Korea and Germany (what's left), and realign those forces back to the US. And I also think it's not totally unfair to ask the American public to pay a little bit more into the system. Families of soldiers sacrifice a lot each day, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the country to sacrifice as well.

And lastly, we really need to scrap the tax code and consider a new approach. Hence my fair tax reference!

-UH60


User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5771 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

So I ask everyone here: What is a good way to pay for all the things that we as a society need? Several here state "redistribution of wealth" but we need to pay for police, fire, military, airspace control, and all the rest. I know the argument of "how much" will always exist, but how do you parse the needed costs out across the population?

Everyone can complain but the courageous ones give an answer - if nothing else at least the congressman gave his answer (And what's most surprising is that there isn't an enormous castigation occurring, that tells me it isn't all that bad. I mean we are talking about Rangel here, the man could polarize a neutron!)

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

Quote:
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Corporations would see their top tax rate cut to 30.5% from 35% under a tax plan unveiled Wednesday by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to fellow committee members.

I wonder if any of you realize how significant this is?

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was working with Rep Rangel to reduce this tax burden on American corporations... unfortunately Secretary Paulson was pushing for a new rate of 25%, but we got 30.4% instead. Oh well, we'll take what we can get!!

This cut is probably one of the smartest pro-business, pro-strong economy, decisions we're making here. Of the money saved by a reduction of corporate taxes, 70% of that will go to the American workforce. We're at a crossroad in the economy. We're not in a recession, but we're certainly not in a boom. The dollar has slipped, and continues to slip with any negative news that impacts the US.

We need to excite currency traders into buying the dollar, and one good way of doing that is lessening the tax burden on US corporations!

I truly would have liked to see a tax cut of nearly 30% (reducing the rate down to 25%), instead of what we got: a 13% cut (reducing the rate down to 30.5%.) Damn.

-UH60


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1080 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):

Frankly, lately governments have been spending a lot of money on their workers. If you go back even a few years, we stopped hearing about low-paid public servants. From first hand knowledge, I know that some highway officers here in California can easily make over $100K in base pay, not including O/T or other ancilliary benefits.

At the same time, from being in the construction industry, there are layers upon layers of unnecessary bureaucracy added to many government agencies. And don't even get me going on government construction projects. It could easily cost 2X to 3X more to do a project for a government entity as compared to a private company.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):
And what's most surprising is that there isn't an enormous castigation occurring, that tells me it isn't all that bad. I mean we are talking about Rangel here, the man could polarize a neutron!

Rangel has been nothing but consistent, he is not saying anything shocking or out of character.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1076 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
which ought to start with real reforms in both SS and MC.

Perhaps Social Security payments based on income? For instance; if you have $100,000 a year in retirement perhaps your SS check should be smaller? Similar to the Government Pension Offset..It was embarrassing to have a President in office, collecting a Social Security Check, and who then got legislation passed to punished government employees.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 17):
Perhaps Social Security payments based on income? For instance; if you have $100,000 a year in retirement perhaps your SS check should be smaller?

This is contrary to the core idea of what the entire program is based around: A monetary benefit reward program, for citizens who paid into the program for 40+ years. By collecting social security tax from the rich, but refusing to credit them the benefits of the program they paid into, destroys the founding principle of the entire program!

You basically turn it into a welfare program, where the wealthy are forced to pay taxes into, but are denied the benefits of the program. But at the same time, it would be rather silly to force wealthy people to pay more, by eliminating the cap, and then rewarding them with larger checks. Many wealthy people already have successful, independent, retirement accounts.

And lastly, simply upping the cap, or even eliminating it, will not save the program. Indeed, even eliminating it will only reduce the burden by less than 30%!

No, an entire revamp of the program is needed.

-UH60


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1072 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 9):
The AMT allows the government to steal, again. If you make money and play by all the rules, hang around some tax loop holes and shelters and basically due everything you can to lower your tax burden, legally, the goverment comes along and says...whoa there cowboy, you're not paying enough tax. Please pay this new AMT.

You forget that the original reason for the AMT in 1969 was to target a small number of very high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax. What's so bad about that?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 10):
Look, I'm not for willy-nilly tax increases or allowing the gov to just take money but really..... how long do we have to run a deficit before we get real? I

If Charlie Rangel wants to ask me to pay more tax in order to help retire the national debt, I'm all for it. But that isn't his goal.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 17):
Perhaps Social Security payments based on income? For instance; if you have $100,000 a year in retirement perhaps your SS check should be smaller?

 thumbsup 


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
Charlie and his buddies don't think it is fair that there is a wide disparity in wealth in theis country,

Is it fair? Is it truly good for our nation that the top 1% of those who make money seem to control almost everything, while the bottom 99% are left out of the equation. Is it truly good to have a ultra-rich nobility, and most of the rest are like surfs of old. Revolutions have started with such disparities in the past, Halls. It isn't good for this nation, in any way, that we have such a large gap between the haves and the have-nots. You certainly cannot just go and soak the rich on taxes, but in the long run, the nation will suffer with such a wide disparity.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
We currently siphon off a great deal of our annual federal budget to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. We have an impending national infrastructure crisis (power plants, power grid, roads, highways, dams, water management, waste management, natural disaster assistance, etc...). And we are fighting three wars at once. ...Oh... and we have $9trillion in debt, and we're still spending into the red.

Yes. The Democrats are "Tax and Spend" party, and the GOP has become the "Taxcut and Spend" party. Eventually, all these things will cause an economic disaster in this nation.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Hence my fair tax reference

What IS fair? Who decides that?


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 18):
Quoting AirCop (Reply 17):Perhaps Social Security payments based on income? For instance; if you have $100,000 a year in retirement perhaps your SS check should be smaller?
This is contrary to the core idea of what the entire program is based around: A monetary benefit reward program, for citizens who paid into the program for 40+ years. By collecting social security tax from the rich, but refusing to credit them the benefits of the program they paid into, destroys the founding principle of the entire program!

Congress perverted the original intent of the program a long time ago by creating SSDI and other non-old age pension disbursements.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):Charlie and his buddies don't think it is fair that there is a wide disparity in wealth in this country,
Is it fair? Is it truly good for our nation that the top 1% of those who make money seem to control almost everything, while the bottom 99% are left out of the equation.

 rotfl  You aren't really asking this, are you? The same person who asked UH60 "what is fair.who decides that?"  rotfl 

The top 1% don't control "almost everything."

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
Revolutions have started with such disparities in the past, Halls. It isn't good for this nation, in any way, that we have such a large gap between the haves and the have-nots.

So empowering the government to take money from those that have it and giving to those that don't is the solution? Revolutions have started with such abusive government practices.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
You certainly cannot just go and soak the rich on taxes, but in the long run, the nation will suffer with such a wide disparity.

So what is your solution?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):Hence my fair tax reference
What IS fair? Who decides that?

Yes, who DOES decide what is fair?


User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13743 posts, RR: 61
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Hence my fair tax reference

What IS fair? Who decides that?

I think the Fair Tax he refers to is the proposal to establish a national sales tax while repealing all income taxes entirely.

The idea (I've read parts of the book on the subject) is that each person will have more take-home money to spend since there will be no federal tax deducted, and the price of goods and services will remain neutral since supposedly 20-25% of the cost of each good or service is comprised of taxes - taxes that would disappear under the new system.

So while you'd be paying 22% more in a national sales tax, the real cost of goods would - again, supposedly - drop by around 20-25%, meaning no net increase in the price of goods and services, while each person gets to take home everything they make.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
It isn't good for this nation, in any way, that we have such a large gap between the haves and the have-nots

Merits more of a discussion, since we could also argue whether it would be fair for a society when our bosses control so much of what we do. You could even argue that it is not fair that a teacher can have so much control over a classroom, etc. Guess what? It doesn't matter what we do, life is NOT fair. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

I personally have known several individuals who have left our office, literally saying that they rather work for themselves to make more money and have more time. Know what? Never happens. Sure they make more money, but they pay for their comforts in many other ways. Everyone of us can wish that we make more money, but few realize the efforts typically required to achieve this. It is not easy, and we also know several people that have wanted to simplify their lives by giving up their business to work for others.

And relatively speaking, this country has a lot more haves than have-nots. Just compare standards of living.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
The Democrats are "Tax and Spend" party, and the GOP has become the "Taxcut and Spend" party

Excellent description!


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1042 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
but in the long run, the nation will suffer with such a wide disparity.

You know, I keep looking up, waiting to see what you're telling me - that the sky is falling - but I'm sorry, I can't see it yet!

Seriously, how do you think we should close this phantom "gap"?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
Yes. The Democrats are "Tax and Spend" party, and the GOP has become the "Taxcut and Spend" party. Eventually, all these things will cause an economic disaster in this nation.

Unfortunately their incompetence and irresponsibility, does not stop at their tax programs.  Yeah sure

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
So empowering the government to take money from those that have it and giving to those that don't is the solution? Revolutions have started with such abusive government practices.

Hey, Halls, sorry to point this out... but you championed this very idea when you agreed with Aircop. See:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):
Quoting AirCop (Reply 17):
Perhaps Social Security payments based on income? For instance; if you have $100,000 a year in retirement perhaps your SS check should be smaller?

 thumbsup 

Sorry. Had to point it out.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
Congress perverted the original intent of the program a long time ago by creating SSDI and other non-old age pension disbursements.

Agreed. Hence my desire to see the entire program reformed.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):

What IS fair? Who decides that?



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
Yes, who DOES decide what is fair?

lol... I wasn't talking about making taxes "fair"! I was talking about "The Fair Tax"! I refuse to believe that two intelligent individuals, such as yourselves, do not know what the Fair Tax is!!!! We're talking about a tax revolution!

-UH60


25 AirCop : They already changed it against the middle class members who worked in government. See the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Pro
26 Halls120 : No apology necessary. I knew I was taking an somewhat inconsistent position, but if the government isn't going to return SS to its original purpose,
27 UH60FtRucker : If you have a government pension, and your deceased spouse was receiving a Social Security check, then what you are entitled to, under the spousal So
28 AirCop : My point exactly! With only 28% of working americans having a pension plan, I can see the need for social security increasing 30-40 years down the ro
29 Post contains links Falcon84 : It isn't a make-believe gap, my friend: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/bu...518da6ceb1b&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin The top 1%, if you read it, have no
30 AirCop : The only people the WEP really effect are teachers and public safety employees. Say you are a teacher for 40 years and during that time you work a pa
31 Halls120 : So just how much income ought to be re-distributed to close this gap? How much do you think we should be allowed to keep? How much should we be force
32 Falcon84 : Honestly, I do not know. But I do know that a society where only a select few are winning, and the rest are losing, cannot go on calmly forever. Hist
33 EA CO AS : You make it sound as if those top 300,000 earners are somehow unfairly taking money from the other 150 million. They're not. Like it or not, Bill Gat
34 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : Unfortunately, this will not solve the budget crunch. Even if we eliminate the cap, it wouldn't come close. As Halls pointed out, there is a small pe
35 Halls120 : While I disagree with your assertion that we live in a society were only a few are winning and the rest losing, just what past societies are you refe
36 UH60FtRucker : That scenario does not seem accurate to me, but I am not an expert so I will stipulate that it's wrong. Like I said: the whole program is fucked up.
37 Falcon84 : The Bolshivek Revolution comes to mind; the fall of the Weimar Republic; the fall of Batista's Cuba. All had some roots in the fact that you had a fe
38 DL021 : Starting with programs not necessary to the basic functions of government. it's the only real fair thing to do.....people pay based on what they purc
39 Halls120 : That you apparently consider the state of our democracy and economy to be anything close to the three scenarios you have described above is both sad
40 Falcon84 : Not saying we're there, my friend. But we almost had a revolution in the early 30's, and economic disparity was part of the problem. My point is that
41 AirCop : What exactly are the programs you are talking about? Remember anything earned over $102,000 in 2008, no social security would be deducted, so it you
42 Halls120 : We did? In the classical sense? I disagree - completely. The government wasn't in danger of being overthrown, was it? Now - if you want to consider w
43 Halls120 : LOL, that won't happen anytime soon. Last time they screwed around with the 20 year military retirement, recruitment suffered and retention tanked. O
44 Falcon84 : Did I say that? I said earmark it to train/retrain American workers, to make them more competitive, more self-sufficient, more economically secure. W
45 Halls120 : Should we fund the training of workers? Sure. Make them more competitive? Absolutely. But what do you mean by "more economically secure?' That sounds
46 RJdxer : I say let it pass. Jack that tax rate up. Suck that money out of the economic engine. When things slow down, inflation cranks up, and there are no job
47 EA CO AS : The problem is with those - and regrettably, there are many of them out there - who have absolutely no interest in being more competitive and more se
48 Falcon84 : Training/retraining them to get better, higher-paying jobs will make them more economically secure. That's it.
49 Tugger : Somewhat wrong, the ultra rich may not directly "control" things individually but they do as a group, whether you like it or not. They own controllin
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Would You Injure Yourself To Fly The Rescue Copter posted Sun Oct 2 2005 01:12:32 by Birdwatching
Boston: Anyone Going To The Belgian Beer Fest? posted Sat Oct 20 2007 17:09:14 by LHMARK
Feeling Better When Going To The Airport? posted Wed Oct 10 2007 05:34:52 by Wolverine
Jena 6 Part III: The DA Speaks To The NYT posted Wed Sep 26 2007 16:31:35 by D L X
Ode To The Spell Checker posted Mon Sep 24 2007 22:40:41 by ManuCH
MLB: Down To The Last Two Weeks posted Sun Sep 16 2007 03:56:17 by Falcon84
Zombies: The New Threat To The US posted Sat Sep 15 2007 04:04:42 by ShyFlyer
Anyone Here Listen To The Music Of Thomas Newman? posted Tue Sep 4 2007 21:04:25 by Thom@s
So I Had A Brain Fart Thanks To The VCR... posted Wed Aug 22 2007 22:46:58 by Kieron747
Countdown To The Rugby World Cup posted Tue Aug 21 2007 04:19:48 by WunalaYann