Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll  
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7140 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2683 times:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...10-support-buffett-rule/?hpt=hp_t2

So according to this poll 7 out of 10 people are in favor of the Buffet rule. This makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people don't see a purely political, insignificant tax code change if it hit them on head. Or makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people do not understand finance.

Anyway I think it would be interesting to get the view points of not only US anet members but members all over the world.

My opinion on the rule is obvious. I just see it as a pure political move. People have done the math and the amount of money the government would see an increase from tax revenue from the Buffet rule would be minuscule at best. The affects of it on the other hand would not be know. Sure it sounds good but is it really a good idea? My fear is Americans might become obsessed with the pure numbers. How it is unfair a millionaire is only paying 15% of their income compared to their 25 or 30%. Never mind the fact in how they made that income or that they are signing checks for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to the government.

Comments, thoughts?


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
160 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2661 times:

There is already a "millionaires tax" - it's called the Alternative Minimum tax.

It was designed to hit the top 100-200 or so, can't remember. But now it's hitting millions of people it was never supposed to hit.

Aside from the fact that those pushing the Buffett rule are taking advantage of the ignorance of most people about how the tax code works for their own political gains. That's corrupt and offensive.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13549 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
those pushing the Buffett rule are taking advantage of the ignorance of most people about how the tax code works for their own political gains. That's corrupt and offensive.

  

Well-said.

The "Buffett Rule" was projected to have raised only $4.7B a year, or about 1/2 of 1 percent of President Obama's current annual budget deficit. This was purely political, as that number was not going to make any meaningful dent in the out-of-control spending of the President and Congress.

"The rich" already pay far more than their fair share of taxes, particularly when you consider that nearly half of all Americans effectively pay zero in taxes to begin with. Also, history has shown that when you target taxes at "the rich" they change their spending and investing habits to avoid those excessive taxes, ultimately bringing in less tax revenue overall.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinego3team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

As I understand it, that tax rate is for investments. What happens if they do raise the tax, and the people that do make large investments decide that the tax rate is too much?


Yay Pudding!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
So according to this poll 7 out of 10 people are in favor of the Buffet rule.

Of course they are because they are not paying it. Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes is happy with the other 50% paying for their share. What a joke



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2539 times:

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
People have done the math and the amount of money the government would see an increase from tax revenue from the Buffet rule would be minuscule at best.The affects of it on the other hand would not be know.

That financial impact would be miniscule at best has never stopped the GOP from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.

Quoting go3team (Reply 3):
What happens if they do raise the tax, and the people that do make large investments decide that the tax rate is too much?

They'll still be better off investing it than not investing it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

More election year, feel good politics that accomplishes nothing.
Our government is out of control and needs to CONTROL SPENDING! ! ! !

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
So according to this poll 7 out of 10 people are in favor of the Buffet rule.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
It was designed to hit the top 100-200 or so, can't remember. But now it's hitting millions of people it was never supposed to hit.

Won't be 7 out of 10 people when the government starts stepping on their toes. They'll realize that they'll be considered top wage earners even though they earn less than $60,000.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 2):
The "Buffett Rule" was projected to have raised only $4.7B a year,

That only covers the amount of money we give to Pakistan.   

I am now considered a rich fat cat for simply having a non-US bank account. Thanks to the new FATCA law that was slipped in to Obama's jobs bill. This new law claims to go after rich fat cats with large bank accounts in Switzerland and The Cayman Islands. So now, anyone with a non-US bank account that has more than $10,000 in or transferred throughout the year is now considered a rich fat cat.
Now the IRS can after US citizens private banking transactions in other countries.
Since when is having $10,000 a year considered rich?!??!  Wow!
Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
That financial impact would be miniscule at best has never stopped the GOP from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.

Well we certainly know the consequences of pissing money away in to foreign countries that hate us, routinely vote against us at the U.N., funds warlords, terrorist that have no interest in having any diplomacy or peace with us.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.

Most should of never been started in the first place. Most federal programs need to be eliminated before any taxes are raised.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 7):
Most federal programs

Yeah, lets get rid of defense, social security and Medicaid. It would end the deficit.  

More dumb rhetoric about cutting programs is just as stupid as only pushing tax raises or cuts.


There needs to be a blanced solution.

We currently have a Progressive Tax Structure in the USA. All of us are part of it. To not make the next logical step and have a higher tax bracket for those in the higher income is not logical. Especially since they have more Disposable income. IE income that is not needed for basic survival. Also once out of the 100 K range, they no longer have to pay Social Security. that is an extra 6% right there.

The other reason we need this, is that we need to pay off the deficit.
That's a 15 trillion dollar debt hanging out there. We need more taxes, and we need to soundly reduce revenue.

The buffet rule makes sense since it hits the highest incomes, and if someone looses their income/job, then their income goes down and they don't pay as many taxes.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

This line, and it's wording, is why I view such acts with disdain - "The bill is intended to prevent the wealthy from paying a lower actual tax rate than most middle class workers."

Specifically the "prevent the wealthy", not "high income earners", just "wealthy"...

Taxing income is fine, but taxing wealth? No, that's over the line for me.

Why does Buffet pay less than his secretary? Does he actually earn less or is he paid in other ways? If its just because he's earning less, then there is actually no issue here despite the fact that he's a very wealthy man. If he's being paid in other ways then that needs to reassessed as income.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
Yeah, lets get rid of defense, social security and Medi....

  
Slow down my friend.  

Don't fall for the hook-line about cutting government spending would end essential services. People who want to cut spending want to cut the wasteful spending.
Why did we spend $800,000.00 to teach tribal men in central Africa how to was their scrotum sack after having sex? Yes our tax dollars supported a program to do just that.
Why are we giving money to North Korea? Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? Iran?
We're giving money to nations that don't even like us and never will!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 9):
Why does Buffet pay less than his secretary? Does he actually earn less or is he paid in other ways?

People like Buffett who own companies pay taxes on income twice: once on the corporate income level, and once when income is distributed to owners. This has been termed double taxation.

When Buffett files his personal tax return, only the income distribution tax portion is included in his personal income form. And because the income distribution tax is lower than regular income taxes, you have this appearance that Mr. Buffett actually pays a lower effective income tax on his earnings than his secretary, who of course earns much less.

If you eliminated this unfair double taxation, it would appear to make him pay an even lower effective tax rate compared to his secretary.

But this is just an illusion because of how the tax code is structured because it does not include all of Mr. Buffett's income nor all of his taxes paid.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
Slow down my friend.

I was only talking about wild calls for cutting "most federal programs"

There is plenty of bloat. I still believe a 5-10% across the board federal funding reduction would help prioritize funding within most federal programs as a start. There is far too much bloat, especally as the recent GSA issues highlight.

But to just highlight spending cuts is still missing the point. We need to pay off a massive debt.
Revenues need to increase to service and pay down that debt. At this point, we just need revenue and spending cuts to even break even.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
But to just highlight spending cuts is still missing the point. We need to pay off a massive debt.
Revenues need to increase to service and pay down that debt. At this point, we just need revenue and spending cuts to even break even.

Make cuts like crazy and have a 10% flat-tax across the board with NO deductions.
Yes I know a few people are going to be unhappy about that but so be it. The benefits would outweigh the negatives. We'd be able to downsized the IRS by 95% and doing your taxes would be as simple as mailing a post card.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2482 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 4):
Of course they are because they are not paying it. Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes is happy with the other 50% paying for their share. What a joke

And that is why there are some thing that are not left to will of voters (cough..gay marriage.. cough)



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):

My opinion on the rule is obvious. I just see it as a pure political move.

Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget.



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
There is already a "millionaires tax" - it's called the Alternative Minimum tax.


We've been hit by the AMT for the last 4 years and I can assure you, we are not even close to millionaires.

Quoting moo (Reply 9):
Specifically the "prevent the wealthy", not "high income earners", just "wealthy"...


I think you've hit on it. In this country, we tax income, not wealth (at least, not directly). The big government types would love to be able to get at people's wealth. It would allow for...bigger government.

You know, it's been said and said and written about and blogged about, but we don't really have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Until we (Left, Right and everyone else) stops spending, we will not get out of this.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
That financial impact would be miniscule at best has never stopped the GOP from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.


Because, cutting spending is, at this point, more important than raising revenue. Cutting a billion has more impact that raising a billion.

It goes back to the adage of something expanding to fill a void. If we raise revenue (and I don't accept the premise that an increase in the cap. gains tax will automatically do that due to investor behaviour), spending will just increase to absorb the gain.

Control spending first and then, look to revenue increases, if necessary.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 4):
Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes

And that is why half the workers in the country never ever have to file federal income tax.

uh-huh.

Instead of cut, cut, cut which will INCREASE the deficit, the Democrats are actually talking about adding income and cuts.

Let's put this in real world terms: A person recieves $100 a month and spends every penny on food and rent and has credit cards. That person decides to slash their income by half and buy a car. What the Democrats want to do is, at the very least, buy a scooter and increase income up to $125. Bad, but not as bad as increase spending with no further income.

And, let the Bush cuts expire.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2452 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):

Because, cutting spending is, at this point, more important than raising revenue. Cutting a billion has more impact that raising a billion.

They're equally important.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Control spending first and then, look to revenue increases, if necessary.

You can't do one without the other. Nobody likes decreased government services, and nobody likes tax increases, even though both are necessary. Do only one of them, and you're likely not going to have the political will to get the necessary revenue increases at a later date. And then you're left with a solution that hits at one group disproportionately (the poor if it's spending cuts, the rich if it's revenue increases), which shouldn't be an acceptable solution.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Nobody likes decreased government services
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Because, cutting spending is, at this point, more important than raising revenue. Cutting a billion has more impact that raising a billion.



*** F O R E I G N - A I D ***

Hello?!?!
We piss away $82,733,000,000.00 annually in foreign aid.
There is a good place to start cuts right there!
The last place to make cuts is in domestic services. We need to cut the billions we piss away each year.
A nation that has a debt of $15,000,000,000,000.00 is in NO position to hand out money to other countries. Especially countries that hate us.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...eign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html

[Edited 2012-04-17 08:52:00]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You can't do one without the other. Nobody likes decreased government services, and nobody likes tax increases, even though both are necessary. Do only one of them, and you're likely not going to have the political will to get the necessary revenue increases at a later date. And then you're left with a solution that hits at one group disproportionately (the poor if it's spending cuts, the rich if it's revenue increases), which shouldn't be an acceptable solution.

I disagree here - if you increase revenue, you don't need to decrease spending, and equally if you decrease spending you don't need to increase revenue. There is no correlative link between the two - the link is in the minds of those doing the spending, they want to increase both at the same time.

And that is where we arrive at the current problem - spending that is out of control, backed by the perception that the only solution is to increase revenue...

Something that might be relevant in this thread, excuse me if it isn't, is the current situation in the UK with regard to public pensions - the pension plans held by government workers who pay into a government owned pension fund.

My wife is a doctor, everyone thinks that that is a glamorous, well payed job - it isn't.

However, one of the things it has going for it is that the final salary pension fund that NHS doctors are part of is revenue generating.

Its in the black.

It generates profits. Of £10.5Billion a year. A year.

Thats profits after the fund has generated enough increase in value that year to support the estimated pay outs in the future for those paying in now. This fund is seriously paid up.

The Government "borrows" that £10.5Billion excess profit a year from the fund and uses it for general spending. They gain that money, because they ain't ever going to pay it back (legally they don't have to, because the fund doesn't technically need it).

And yet the Government are trying to force NHS doctors to pay more in, take less out, and retire later. Because they want *more* money each year from this fund, more money for general spending.

Ridiculous! What sort of thinking makes that sound acceptable to anyone?


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2432 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
I was only talking about wild calls for cutting "most federal programs"

Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture and allowing citizens to opt out of the Ponzi schemes that are Social Security and Medicare would be a start. Cancelling the JSF and stopping all future military projects like it would be another. So yes we could make massive military cuts if we controlled the waste and stopped the pork barrel spending done in districts and states becasue of items added to budgets by congress.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
Revenues need to increase to service and pay down that debt.

By an improved economy not by taking more from it's citizens.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 14):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 4):Of course they are because they are not paying it. Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes is happy with the other 50% paying for their share. What a joke

And that is why there are some thing that are not left to will of voters (cough..gay marriage.. cough)

Agree. Nothing should be passed by the people with a 50% winner. Any public vote or refurendum should be passed with a 2/3rds amjority.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget

Yes cutting the deficit is so political.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Instead of cut, cut, cut which will INCREASE the deficit,

Care to elaborate?

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You can't do one without the other

Why not. It is spending explosion that put us into this mess. Not lack of revenue



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7140 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
Especially since they have more Disposable income. IE income that is not needed for basic survival

Basic survival? So lets just tax them 70%?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
We currently have a Progressive Tax Structure in the USA. All of us are part of it. To not make the next logical step and have a higher tax bracket for those in the higher income is not logical

But the people with high wealth already pay most of the taxes to begin with. This is about investment income money that has already been taxed at the worlds highest corporate tax rate.

Quoting moo (Reply 9):
Why does Buffet pay less than his secretary? Does he actually earn less or is he paid in other ways?

He does not "pay" less. He pays much much more in actual money, millions of dollars. But because the vast majority of his income is from investments he pays a lower rate.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget.

At least the Ryan Budget is a budget, not saying it is great or it will get paseed but it is an actual budget. Not some change that will create zero change of the system.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Instead of cut, cut, cut which will INCREASE the deficit, the Democrats are actually talking about adding income and cuts.

This adds such a small amount of income it is not even worth talking about. Obama is going to run this saying he wants it to be "fair" to the average American.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2419 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):

*** F O R E I G N - A I D ***

Hello?!?!
We piss away $82,733,000,000.00 annually in foreign aid.

In another thread, you criticize Obama for not "leading:" in the Colombia when it came to Cuba, How do you think that the US gets its ability to "persuade" governments and people? By handing out money.

So, you want the US to be a leader, but you want to cut the money which makes it a leader.

The leader is the one that has the money.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 21):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget

Yes cutting the deficit is so political.

I am glad you finally accept it.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
Or makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people do not understand finance.

True!!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
More election year, feel good politics that accomplishes nothing.
Our government is out of control and needs to CONTROL SPENDING! ! ! !

Amen brother---it's just window dressing crap and another equivalent of bread & circuses.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):
People like Buffett who own companies pay taxes on income twice: once on the corporate income level, and once when income is distributed to owners. This has been termed double taxation.

When Buffett files his personal tax return, only the income distribution tax portion is included in his personal income form. And because the income distribution tax is lower than regular income taxes, you have this appearance that Mr. Buffett actually pays a lower effective income tax on his earnings than his secretary, who of course earns much less.

If you eliminated this unfair double taxation, it would appear to make him pay an even lower effective tax rate compared to his secretary.

But this is just an illusion because of how the tax code is structured because it does not include all of Mr. Buffett's income nor all of his taxes paid.

Now, you just naile dthe crux of the issue essentially, and yet NO WHERE on TV or in the news is this being conveyed. Fundamental tax policy that many Americans--unless they invest actively--are ignorant about. And the thronging masses MOST likely to be duped by this scam are the ones who fall for the class envy card being played because they're exactly the ones who don't invest (but should, frankly!)

Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget.

You besmirch Paul Ryan's Roadmap at your own ignorance, respectully.

The US Senate hasn't passed a budget in about 1,100 days. No one has a clue. The POTUS is calling for MORE spending, punitive tax policy (as if it isn't already a disproportional shaper of class economics and social policy), and NO ONE in DC has offered a SINGLE budget proposal that balances the budget, reduces spending and cuts the size and scope of the governemnt leviathan. No one.

Ryan is the only guy in DC with his head screwed on straight, the only grown-up in the room who is having these mature, calm discussions about the very solvency of our nation and future as a viable republic.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
This makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people don't see a purely political, insignificant tax code change

Like the Bush tax cuts for millionares and billionares? Like corporate welfare?

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
This adds such a small amount of income it is not even worth talking about.

So doing nothing is better than doing something?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 21):
Care to elaborate?

Many economists have already weighed in on the Paul Ryan budget and all have said it will balloon the deficit.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 26, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 23):
How do you think that the US gets its ability to "persuade" governments and people? By handing out money.

Wrong.
If that were true, then it would work but it doesn't.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 23):
The leader is the one that has the money.

So by your definition, we have no leader because we are $15 TRILLION in debt.  
As we can see, that visit to Colombia accomplished nothing but a few stupid Secret Service getting in trouble for not paying for their short-time babysitter.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 27, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2443 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
Wrong.
If that were true, then it would work but it doesn't.

It has been true for decades. How can you say it doesn't work?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
So by your definition, we have no leader because we are $15 TRILLION in debt.

No silly buns, As far as % goes, contrast that the the debt that Latin America has in debt, and let me know who is richest

Besides, the countries receiving $$ don't care where you get the money you give them. They only care that you give it to them.

The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
As we can see, that visit to Colombia accomplished nothing but a few stupid Secret Service getting in trouble for not paying for their short-time babysitter.

I bet he would have gotten a lot more if he had his wallet open!

[Edited 2012-04-17 10:02:03]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
He does not "pay" less. He pays much much more in actual money, millions of dollars. But because the vast majority of his income is from investments he pays a lower rate.

So the figures given in the media are really just his income as an employee of the company? If thats correct, then I see no issue.

As for the investments - I would *love* to see what tax rates Buffet has paid in the past, because his money didn't just come into being magically, so its entirely possible that he has paid his fair share in the past on that money...


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slider (Reply 24):
-unless they invest actively--are ignorant about.

Careful. you are calling GOP voters ignorant...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 29):
Careful. you are calling GOP voters ignorant...

Would that be a step up or something?


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 31, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
They only care that you give it to them.

Well duh!  
Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?

Nice try but can you explain to us why we give;
$1,000,000,000.00 to Iran
$223,000,000.00 to Russia
$158,000,000.00 to Kazakhstan
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya

Our generous foreign aid may have been a good idea shortly after WW2 when we were 50% of the world's economy but that is not the case today. Congress doesn't even vote on which counties get aid. It's just a simple yes or no vote on all foreign aid.
And since you're so pro-foreign aid, can you explain to us why it was worth it for us to spend $800,000.00 of our tax dollars to teach tribal men in central Africa how to wash their scrotum sack after sex? Yes that is our tax dollars at work and the IRS rigorously goes after people for not paying or errors in their filings so Uncle Sam can spend our money on crap like this.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
And since you're so pro-foreign aid, can you explain to us why it was worth it for us to spend $800,000.00 of our tax dollars to teach tribal men in central Africa how to wash their scrotum sack after sex?

I'd love to see a citation on that...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda

I'm currently in the process of building a hospital in Uganda, and I have to say that thats a country that needs all the foreign aid it can get - yes, theres corruption, but a lot of the money does make its way out into the villages and its sorely needed.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 33, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
They're equally important


No, they aren't. If you don't curb spending, then any increase in revenue is wasted. You must curb spending. In your household budget, the first thing you have to do is curb spending if you want to get your debt under control. If you don't figure out your spending, any increase in income will be sucked into the black hole of growing debt.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You can't do one without the other.


Sure we can. They are not dependant on each other.

Look, Buffett says he should pay the same rate as his secretary. I agree. His secretary should pay his rate. Buffett should give her stock, in lieu of salary. That way she will be charged the same rate as Buffett when she sells the stock or receives dividends.

As for foreign aid: we should use it as a diplomatic tool. Quite simply, you want our money, you need to play ball. Elect morons as leaders, no money. Allow moron dictators to remain, no money. Of course, this would be tempered by the security needs and diplomatic needs of the US. In other words, unless we (The People) have all the information (classified and not) we really can't make an informed decision.

Can we make cuts in foreign aid? Yes, but those cuts should be, rightly, left to the Executive and The Department of State. We don't like what they're doing, we make it known at the next election.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 34, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
I'd love to see a citation on that...

Here you go. It was part of Obama's 'stimulus package'.

http://cnsnews.com/node/75198

http://dailybail.com/home/obama-stim...s-to-african-hiv-genital-wash.html

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
I'm currently in the process of building a hospital in Uganda, and I have to say that thats a country that needs all the foreign aid it can get - yes, theres corruption, but a lot of the money does make its way out into the villages and its sorely needed.

Hey that's wonderful. I'm sure there is a sad story behind every nation we give money to. I'm glad to hear that some of the money going to Uganda gets trickled down to the right people. Are there any debt free countries chipping in on the effort? How about China? How much are they chipping in? They have zero debt and the world's largest military.
I'm just curious, that's all.

[Edited 2012-04-17 10:47:07]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
I disagree here - if you increase revenue, you don't need to decrease spending, and equally if you decrease spending you don't need to increase revenue.

In theory, you're correct. But the country is in such a hole that doing only one will impose too much of a hardship on a particular group. So you need to have both.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 21):
It is spending explosion that put us into this mess. Not lack of revenue

That's a pretty disingenuous way of looking at it. Broadly, the problem is that we're spending more money than we're taking in. That doesn't mean it's there aren't problems with how much you're taking in. The Bush era was one of tax cuts while spending a lot of money on wars, not cutting domestic services, etc. That's as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem. And while it's not the sole factor in the mess the US is in, it's certainly a contributor.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
You must curb spending. In your household budget, the first thing you have to do is curb spending if you want to get your debt under control.

And you look for a higher paying job (or you take more than one job) in order to bring more money in.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
And since you're so pro-foreign aid, can you explain to us why it was worth it for us to spend $800,000.00 of our tax dollars to teach tribal men in central Africa how to wash their scrotum sack after s

Maybe ask Sarah Palin about fruit fly research


http://www.salon.com/2008/10/27/sarah_palin_fruit_flies/

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
Nice try but can you explain to us why we give;
$1,000,000,000.00 to Iran
$223,000,000.00 to Russia
$158,000,000.00 to Kazakhstan
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya

Note how did you not answer my question...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 37, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 36):
Maybe ask Sarah Palin about fruit fly research

Both parties are guilty of waste so no point in playing Micky Mouse games about 'the other party' is doing it too non-sense. Sounds like you're holding Obama to the same lofty standards as Sarah Palin.  
Notice how you didn't answered my question either. I had asked first.
What was the question that you wanted answered again?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 38, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 37):
Notice how you didn't answered my question either. I had asked first.

Ugh really?

No.. i asked first (reply 27)

Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 39, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2339 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
And you look for a higher paying job (or you take more than one job) in order to bring more money in.


You look for the higher paying job (assuming there is one to be had) or cut into your leisure time (get the 2nd or 3rd job) if you can't cut anymore. But you cut as much as you can before you go hunting for additional revenue.

You're not telling me we've cut as much as we can? All the waste is gone? The duplication of services? The inane subsidies? The complexity of the bureaucracy? All of it is gone?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7124 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
But to just highlight spending cuts is still missing the point. We need to pay off a massive debt.
Revenues need to increase to service and pay down that debt. At this point, we just need revenue and spending cuts to even break even.

Good luck trying to get any party to tie tax or revenue increases to paying down debt, earmarks do not apply in paying off debt.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):
Make cuts like crazy and have a 10% flat-tax across the board with NO deductions.

A bit too simplistic, the tax code is so large that it has spawned its own industry. Someone once said to me, the Cancer Society is one of it not the largest charity and research entity, what would happen if a cure was found?

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You can't do one without the other. Nobody likes decreased government services, and nobody likes tax increases, even though both are necessary. Do only one of them, and you're likely not going to have the political will to get the necessary revenue increases at a later date.

Bigger issue was than when things were good all folks had on their minds was to spend the money since it was easy and cheap, so the circle started where folks expected something for nothing, and now that things are tight one cannot simply take away. In the current environment, a lot of folks want increased revenues to continue to allow the same or increased level of spending.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
A nation that has a debt of $15,000,000,000,000.00 is in NO position to hand out money to other countries.

No one receiving US foreign aid will say that, my nation included, now if you don't give us we will call you cheap and broke, but pay us and we will call you rich, a generous step uncle, and whatever else  


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 41, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2337 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
$1,000,000,000.00 to Iran
$223,000,000.00 to Russia
$158,000,000.00 to Kazakhstan
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya

You wanna total that up and tell me what percent of the budget it is?


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
Good luck trying to get any party to tie tax or revenue increases to paying down debt, earmarks do not apply in paying off debt.

That's the biggest problem with our elected officials. They can't stand to pay down debt, when they would rather spend more to bring in more support for their reelections.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 43, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 38):
The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?

Never said stop all foreign aid but I'm not a fan of giving money to Israel & Palestine either. There needs to be a review and audit of every dollar our government sends outside it's borders.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
A bit too simplistic, the tax code is so large that it has spawned its own industry.

It's time to cut that industry out.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
No one receiving US foreign aid will say that, my nation included, now if you don't give us we will call you cheap and broke, but pay us and we will call you rich, a generous step uncle, and whatever else  

Oh wow, Uncle Sam is shaking in his boots now!   

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41):
You wanna total that up and tell me what percent of the budget it is?

No need to when we are in $15TRILLION in debt. It's just basic common sense. If you are broke and have to borrow money, would you spend that money on charity and give money to the bully down the street in the hopes that he may someday like you and be your friend?
Take another look at this link and just look at all of that money. If the President is going to scare seniors and the Republicans want to scare people on public assistance, then we better take a closer look at the amount of money we're pissing away abroad. Heck I see US government waste here in Thailand of all places.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13549 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):$1,000,000,000.00 to Iran
$223,000,000.00 to Russia
$158,000,000.00 to Kazakhstan
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya
You wanna total that up and tell me what percent of the budget it is?

Does it matter? It's just as inappropriate as someone on food stamps trying to use a few bucks to buy some beer; it may not break the bank, but considering their overall status they have absolutely no business whatsoever in doing it.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 45, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 39):
You're not telling me we've cut as much as we can? All the waste is gone? The duplication of services? The inane subsidies? The complexity of the bureaucracy? All of it is gone?

Of course not. But you're making it seem like discussions on how to cut spending (or raise revenue for that matter) are as simple for the government as they are for a family of four. But they're not - those decisions can't be made overnight, or even over the course of a week or a month. They take a long time, you have to go through a whole lot of procedures, there are contracts that might present a problem, you have to get the approval of a bunch of different people, etc.

It would be one thing if we knew, for a certainty, that revenue would be raised if spending cuts did not achieve their desired targets. But that's not the case - even if the spending cuts didn't meet their targets, you can't seriously think that the GOP wouldn't try to stonewall any sort of revenue increases. That's why they have to happen simultaneously - you can't trust either side to compromise if it turns out that their original plan didn't go quite as well as they thought (and, let's face it, the likelihood of that is very high).

-Mir

[Edited 2012-04-17 12:23:18]


7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 44):
Does it matter? It's just as inappropriate as someone on food stamps trying to use a few bucks to buy some beer; it may not break the bank, but considering their overall status they have absolutely no business whatsoever in doing it.

Agreed.. But you have to look for the best "bang for buck",... Are you really going to police beer purchases while leaving gaping holes elsewhere?

Its all about the Paretto Principle: 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

There is plenty of low hanging fruit in terms of efficiencies that can make a huge impact on the bottom line.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):

It will surprise you but China are *massive* in central Africa, building government facilities, roads, rail, schools, clinics, electrification and water sources etc etc etc all for free. China are doing a huge job of trying to win over these nations in alignment, and investing significantly in things that can't be siphoned off by corrupt officials (they bring in the top tier of the workforce and the machines, but then employ a huge local workforce to do the bulk of the work).

China are there on the ground.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 48, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 47):

Great.
I still think our foreign aid needs to be audited.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 48):

Quoting moo (Reply 47):

Great.
I still think our foreign aid needs to be audited.

What I find funny in this comment is that if we lose our footing to China or Russia or Iran, then it'll be Obama's fault because he was supposed to have the US on those nations' good side...but then, no one will have the nerve to recognize that they themselves wanted all foreing aid to be reduced/eliminated.

"Cut foreing aid, just don't let China be more influent in other countries"

"Cut down excessive spending, but leave the budget for the armed forces intact/raise their budget"

"$15 trillion in debt...don't raise taxes, they won't do good"

"A budget still hasn't passed. Compromise: do it my way or no way"



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineN537FX From Switzerland, joined Oct 2009, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2230 times:

The main problem with the Buffet rule is the theme of fair share. What is fair share? It is an abstract term and every one has their own definition or number to it. Is fair share when a millionaire pays 40, 50 or 60% of his/her income in tax? Can someone just put a single number to fair share?

The sad reality is such that rich people are the ones who create jobs. A small example is the wealthy homeowner. Without them, loads of gardeners, cleaners, landscapers, interior designers, caretakers would be out of work. Whether we like it or not, the rich are the ones with the capital to take a risk, to hire new people and buy land so that a business can grow. If I had some spare capital to start a small business I probably wouldn't want to with the Buffet rule in place because my earnings would just be taxed. Why should I bother creating a business that would make me a profit, a profit that I could then use to buy a home to employ all those people mentioned above, if the profits will just be taxed?


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 51, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 49):
"Cut foreing aid, just don't let China be more influent in other countries"

or, "let's be smart about our foreign aid and demand some return for it, whether that return be diplomatic or economic."

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 49):
"Cut down excessive spending, but leave the budget for the armed forces intact/raise their budget"

or, "let's streamline our military procurement/aquisition/research and development processes so that they don't waste so much time and money. Let's look and see whether our current deployments make sense. Let's look at our force structure and make sure we're not building/maintaining a military that is ready to fight the previous war."

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 49):
"$15 trillion in debt...don't raise taxes, they won't do good"

or, "holy shit...we are $15T in debt! We need to look very hard at our spending and figure out what inefficiencies we can cut out, what waste we can mitigate and what programs/departments have outlived their usefulness. We need to review tax policy and try to remember why a tax policy exists: to raise revenue for the valid operations of government, not to guarentee economic justice."

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 49):
"A budget still hasn't passed. Compromise: do it my way or no way"

or, "how about we just get The Senate to talk about a budget. Whether or not we'll compromise can come after a budget comes to the floor."

[Edited 2012-04-17 15:31:15]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 52, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

Quoting N537FX (Reply 50):
The main problem with the Buffet rule is the theme of fair share. What is fair share? It is an abstract term and every one has their own definition or number to it. Is fair share when a millionaire pays 40, 50 or 60% of his/her income in tax? Can someone just put a single number to fair share?

30% is the number that keeps being talked about. I don't think it should go much higher than that.

Quoting N537FX (Reply 50):
Why should I bother creating a business that would make me a profit, a profit that I could then use to buy a home to employ all those people mentioned above, if the profits will just be taxed?

Because you'll still get to keep a good portion of those profits, which will most likely make it worth your while.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7124 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 47):
It will surprise you but China are *massive* in central Africa, building government facilities, roads, rail, schools, clinics, electrification and water sources etc etc etc all for free.

Difference with the US is that China is finding work for its citizens, other than military and police personnel the US simply sends / spends money with the locals who in a number of cases are corrupt and the masses see litte to no benefit.
China sent workers here to build a sports stadium donated to the country and a number of others are here building roads and the new BahaMar project on Cable Beach. The same has occured in a number of other Caribbean nations, perhaps the US needs to go back to the Peace Corp heyday of sending American's overseas, woudl certainely take a bite out of the employment numbers and would see aid funds being spent on US citizens versus foreigners, which some have a issue with, however small that minority may be.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 54, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

Quoting N537FX (Reply 50):
The sad reality is such that rich people are the ones who create jobs.

Why, then, is our unemployment rate over 8%?

Quoting N537FX (Reply 50):
I probably wouldn't want to with the Buffet rule in place because my earnings would just be
taxed.

That's when you do the patriotic thing and put all that extra money off-shore. That way, you only pay 15% instead of 30% like those unpatriotic working class people.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 55, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2094 times:

Quoting N537FX (Reply 50):
What is fair share? It is an abstract term and every one has their own definition or number to it. Is fair share when a millionaire pays 40, 50 or 60% of his/her income in tax? Can someone just put a single number to fair share?

As I stated in reply #6, it is just election year, feel good politics and Obama needs to find something new to campaign on. It's not like he can run on his own record or anything. He is in his 4th year on the job and he is still blaming Bush.

Quoting N537FX (Reply 50):
The sad reality is such that rich people are the ones who create jobs.

Gene Simmons once said; "You may not like rich people, but when was the last time a poor person gave you a job?"

Quoting par13del (Reply 53):
Difference with the US is that China is finding work for its citizens, other than military and police personnel the US simply sends / spends money with the locals who in a number of cases are corrupt and the masses see litte to no benefit.

  
Excellent point. I didn't even think about that but you're right.

Quoting par13del (Reply 53):
police personnel the US simply sends

That reminds me of another example of BLATANT waste of US tax dollars abroad. Just last month, there was a drug bust here in Bangkok. There were 50 US D.E.A. agents that went in and raided an apartment and arrested two Nigerian men and found a whopping 8 pounds of marijuana.  
Those D.E.A. agents are earning somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100,000.00 per year plus living expenses. I happen to know some of these guys and they are living in the most luxurious condominiums here in Bangkok that local Thais can only dream about living in. Thailand has their own police and are capable of enforcing their own laws but the way they see it is; if the US is stupid enough to waste their money to enforce local drug laws, go ahead and let them. It makes their job easier and these high-paid farangs are going to get ripped off left & right because their employer (US taxpayer) is going to pick up the tab.
These Nigerian drug pushers were send back to Nigeria. Wanna take a guess who paid for their flight back home? It certainly wasn't the Thai government and it certainly wasn't the Nigerian government that covered their airfare.
Hard to believe but the US taxpayer paid for two drug dealers that were in a country illegally to have a free flight back home.
What is next? Are we going to start issuing parking tickets in Manila? Are we going to start issuing J-walking tickets in Mumbai? Are we going to start issuing speeding tickets in Kenya? That is the direction we are headed. Yes there are lots of bad people in the world but we can't solve all the world's problems and get involved in every country's domestic affairs.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 54):
Why, then, is our unemployment rate over 8%?

It's all Bush's fault....
The economic uncertainty due to Obama's handling of Bush's mess has added to the confusion. For starters, Obamacare. It's still in limbo and being reviewed by the US Supreme Court and those with capital are going to be hesitant to invest when they have no idea what kind of new taxes, fees, regulations and other stipulations due to this single 2700 health-care law that may be ruled un-constitutional.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 54):
That's when you do the patriotic thing and put all that extra money off-shore. That way, you only pay 15% instead of 30% like those unpatriotic working class people.

Oh come on!
Since when is having a bank account in another country considered "unpatriotic"?
Re-read my post in reply #6. The new FATCA laws that was slipped in to Obama's jobs bill considers ANYONE with a non-US bank account a 'rich fat cat'. It forces all non-US banks to submit all account information of all US Passport holders. The IRS wants to be able to tax accounts that have as little as $10,000 throughout the entire year in their bank account. Now I'm considered a 'rich fat cat' by my own government even though I am far from rich. This hurts everyone working abroad because many countries will just tell the US IRS to f--- off and just not accept and close all accounts with Americans.
Not everyone with a non-US bank account is 'rich'. Many English teachers over here earn as little as $600 a month. If they have to wire that money to their US bank account and then make widthdrawls at a foreign ATM, much of that small check would be eaten up in fees.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2090 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N537FX (Reply 50):
The sad reality is such that rich people are the ones who create jobs. A small example is the wealthy homeowner. Without them, loads of gardeners, cleaners, landscapers, interior designers, caretakers would be out of work.

Sure, and so would alot of mega mansion builders, mega yacht builders, sports car builders, high end luxury car makers. All in all you're talking about a very small percentage of the workforce which derives it's income from products and services that are, at the end of the day, luxury goods. Does Bill Gates NEED a 65,000 square foot house? Private aircraft? Three ferraris and the megayacht registered in Liberia? No. Those are all Wants. Good for him that he can afford those wants, but he doesn't actually NEED any of those things. He'd get by perfectly well with a four bedroom house, two cars, and a comfortable enough income to send his kids to college. That's where his needs end. Everything else is a want. Let's not confuse needs and wants.

As for Income vs Wealth Tax, when the Income tax was devised in 1913, an Income tax was the only reasonable option because at that time wealth was not mobile the way it is today. It was locked up in land, houses, factories, farms, tangible things that would have to be sold to pay the tax. Ultimately, the purpose of any kind of taxation is not to cripple the taxpayer to the point that he can no longer contribute, which is exactly what would have happened in 1913 if a Net Worth tax had been enshrined in the constitution. In today's environment, when billions of dollars can be transferred from one account to another, one state or one country to another with a phone call and the stroke of a few keys on the computer, a net worth tax would be much more workable, and a much fairer means of taxation, but we're stuck with an income tax.

Finally, as for cutting domestic spending, from my understanding, the way Ryan, or Romney, would achieve that 3.5 trillion dollar savings they propose is to transfer Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare to the states. That may be all fine and good until you realize that half the states don't have the money to support those programs, then what? Let the poor starve? Let them die in the streets because they can't afford medical care? Let seniors die in the streets because they can't afford medical care and have no family willing or able to support them?

I'd be all for transfering social spending obligations to the states if this were the 1930s and we actually had wealthy individuals in any given community who actually gave a sh*t about anything or anyone other than themselves. Since it seems clear we don't, we have to enforce the social contract that comes with their money through the collection of taxes. If they won't do it on their own, the government has to do it for them. Personally, I'd much rather have them do it on their own, but the sad fact is that they wont.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 49):
"$15 trillion in debt...don't raise taxes, they won't do good"

Obama’s huge deficit is due not to declining revenues, but to runaway spending. The Bush tax cuts did not cause tax revenues to fall, but to rise. Since the final round of Bush tax cuts was enacted in 2003, federal revenues have actually increased by about 29 % from $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion. The problem is that spending has increased more than twice as fast to 67 % from $2.2 trillion to $3.6 trillion. Spending is the problem and cutting spending is the solution.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 51):
or, "let's streamline our military procurement/aquisition/research and development processes so that they don't waste so much time and money. Let's look and see whether our current deployments make sense. Let's look at our force structure and make sure we're not building/maintaining a military that is ready to fight the previous war."

Why do we still have troops stationed in Europe? Many troops could be deployed back home where the money soent to maintain them and their salaries would be spent in our economy.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 55):
Since when is having a bank account in another country considered "unpatriotic"?

That money is not able to be invested in the United States. It is being invested in the country where it is sitting: Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Barbados, etc.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Since the final round of Bush tax cuts was enacted in 2003, federal revenues have actually increased by about 29 % from $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion.

How many people had to pay property tax on houses that are now underwater? How many people had to pick up a second or third job? What is behind those revenue "increases"?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 59, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
That money is not able to be invested in the United States. It is being invested in the country where it is sitting: Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Barbados, etc.

So?
Some of us live in another country and need to have a local bank. This new law which claims to go after the 'rich fat cats' with overseas bank accounts is targeting anyone with a foreign bank that makes over $10,000 per year. Since when is $10,000 considered rich? Expats living abroad need to have a local bank to make deposits, cash checks and have their employers make a direct deposit. This has nothing to do with "investments". This is targeting anyone with a non-US savings or checking account. To do daily banking transactions with a US bank in another country has tons of fees.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Why do we still have troops stationed in Europe?

We also have troops in Australia. Anyone know why are we there?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 60, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
The Bush tax cuts did not cause tax revenues to fall, but to rise. Since the final round of Bush tax cuts was enacted in 2003, federal revenues have actually increased by about 29 % from $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion.

Inflation distorts those numbers. Revenue as a percentage of GDP was about 21% prior to the Bush tax cuts. The highest it ever got after that was about 18%.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 61, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Why do we still have troops stationed in Europe? Many troops could be deployed back home where the money soent to maintain them and their salaries would be spent in our economy.

I don't know? Forward deployment? Show the flag? Treaty commitments? Because we can?

That's why I said we need to do a review of our deployments, our force structure, our military/diplomatic/political commitments, et al. and see if there are efficiencies to be gained. I'm all for slashing the defense budget (along with all the other budgets or whole departments) as long as we do it smartly and get the most bang for our buck.


Quoting seb146 (Reply 54):
Why, then, is our unemployment rate over 8%?

One word: uncertainty.

Expanded: The Triumvirate (Obama/Pelosi/Reid) were rolling out regulations and laws and edicts like it was going out of style. They attacked (and are still attacking) those very job producers in the media and in the Well. The rich, the wealthy, the job prodeucers or whatever you want to call them are sitting on the sidelines, when the are able, and waiting to see what the hell is going to happen. Add that the PPACA is sitting in front of the USSC and you have a whole butt load of uncertainty. Hell, I'm sitting on my money where I can.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):Since the final round of Bush tax cuts was enacted in 2003, federal revenues have actually increased by about 29 % from $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion.
How many people had to pay property tax on houses that are now underwater? How many people had to pick up a second or third job? What is behind those revenue "increases"?

Do you have a point here? What do property taxes have to due with Federal revenue? What does getting a 2nd or 3rd job have to due with tax cuts and the Federal revenue.

Quoting Mir (Reply 60):
Inflation distorts those numbers.

But it does not distort this one.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
The problem is that spending has increased more than twice as fast to 67 % from $2.2 trillion to $3.6 trillion

Spending is the problem. Some $500 billion in tax cuts are coming due to expire on Jan 1, 2013. Any bets on whether congress will deal with this before the election.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 63, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1955 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 61):
They attacked (and are still attacking) those very job producers in the media and in the Well.

How? Be telling everyone what happend? Shipping all those jobs overseas, getting tax breaks and corporate welfare under Bush? Like that? All those job creators got huge tax breaks and put thousands of Americans out of work by shipping jobs overseas. Why not tell it like it is? The "job creators" did not create jobs in this country. AND were given huge subsidies and tax breaks for doing it.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 62):
What does getting a 2nd or 3rd job have to due with tax cuts and the Federal revenue.

Federal income tax is taken out of all pay checks. Tax breaks are not given to those working at two or three low-wage jobs.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 62):
Spending is the problem.

Right. Like no-bid contracts and giving huge subsidies to multinational corporations who hire overseas and policing the world.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 64, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 29):
Careful. you are calling GOP voters ignorant...

Ignorance is universal.

it's why we have an uninformed, apathetic, emotionally-driven electorate that votes one way or the other. Never questioning why these two sides exist in the first place as a de facto oligarchy. the ruling class of Dems and Repubs have made a mess of everything.

Tax policy is bastardized by both sides and their own special interests prohibit them from truly reforming things---which would be a flat tax, no deductions. But it'll never politically happen in the current system.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 65, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 63):
All those job creators got huge tax breaks and put thousands of Americans out of work by shipping jobs overseas.

Getting away from topic, but....
Do you know who drove those jobs overseas? How about you and me? Our demand for inexpensive products drove them overseas in order to compete with overseas firms. Oh, and let's not forget about regulation. Those regulations pumped out by the government have nothing to do with the movement overseas, do they? Oh, wait, what about tax policy? Think that has something to do with it?

The movement overseas is a complex issue, but let's make no bones about it; government intervention in the market has probably driven more firms overseas than 'corporate greed'.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 64):
flat tax, no deductions

This would be the downfall of society.

Not everyone or their earnings is equal.
The reason for a progressive tax rate is simple. People that make more money can afford to pay more in taxes due to more disposable income. Even after paying a higher tax rate on the higher portion of their earnings they still make MORE money than the folks that are in the lower tax bracket.

People that are poor cannot pay at the same x rate as it eats into their cost of living funds. It also causes a problem for enforcement,since those that are barely getting buy have the least incentive to actually pay taxes, as they aren't losing much, and the cost of enforcement of taxes would be mind blowing.

Incentives exists in the tax code to help spur economic activity. Are all of them necessary or needed, probably not, but quite a few deliver some good economic incentive for investment.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 63):
Federal income tax is taken out of all pay checks. Tax breaks are not given to those working at two or three low-wage jobs.

Almost 50% of wage earners pay no income tax so this is BS. The point was that revenues have risen since the Bush tax cuts and the middle class and poor benefited from them.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 66):
but quite a few deliver some good economic incentive for investment.

They all need to be eliminated. we cannot have the feds picking winners and losers. A flat tax is the only fair and equitable tax for all citizens.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 66):
Not everyone or their earnings is equal.

So. Why should one citizen get penalised for making more money? they will already be paying a far higher overall dollar figure.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 66):
People that make more money can afford to pay more in taxes due to more disposable income.

But does that mean they have less rights than their fellow citizens?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 66):
and the cost of enforcement of taxes would be mind blowing.

So what do you think it costs now? Terrible argument

Quoting casinterest (Reply 66):
Incentives exists in the tax code to help spur economic activity.

Being taxed less is a much bigger incentive than any write off.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 63):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 62):Spending is the problem.
Right. Like no-bid contracts and giving huge subsidies to multinational corporations who hire overseas and policing the world.

What does this have to do with Federal spending? Nothing and as pointed out already revenues have risen since the Bush tax cuts. It is spending that has gone out of control. Stick to Federal taxes and spending.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 68, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
So. Why should one citizen get penalised for making more money? they will already be paying a far higher overall dollar figure.

Yet they will be paying a lower percentage of their disposable income. That's not a penalty, that's an advantage.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1897 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
So. Why should one citizen get penalised for making more money? they will already be paying a far higher overall dollar figure.

When you consider the tax to income ratio, they really aren't paying more. Under a flat tax scenario the wealthy person would be paying much less of their income than the low income person would be paying. In other words, once the taxes have been deducted, the wealthy individual still has much more of their income proportionally speaking.

Or, to put it in simpler terns: If I make say 30,000 a year and you make say 300,000 a year and we implement a flat tax of 10 percent, the 3000 dollars i have to pay will have a big effect on me, but, the 30,000 you have to pay will have much less of an effect on you because you make so much more. So, how does that come out as being fair to me as the lower earning individual? Sure, it's very fair for you because you have much more money to play with. In the end the tax system has to be fair for both of us. We both have to take the same hit, which, theoretically is why we have a progressive system, because in theory the well off individual will take a much bigger hit, because they can afford to take a bigger hit.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13549 posts, RR: 62
Reply 70, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 55):
Since when is having a bank account in another country considered "unpatriotic"?

That money is not able to be invested in the United States. It is being invested in the country where it is sitting: Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Barbados, etc.

So when I vacation in Switzerland, the Caymans or Barbados am I being "unpatriotic" by spending money there? Come on...   

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 69):
If I make say 30,000 a year and you make say 300,000 a year and we implement a flat tax of 10 percent, the 3000 dollars i have to pay will have a big effect on me, but, the 30,000 you have to pay will have much less of an effect on you because you make so much more. So, how does that come out as being fair to me as the lower earning individual?

Tell me this; how is it UNFAIR to you? Has someone somehow unfairly taken more money from you than they should have? Has the person making $300K annually vs. your $30K annually somehow unfairly denied you the ability to make more?

Are you suggesting that since you're only left with $27K after taxes, the person earning $300K should pay enough tax that they are only left with $27K as well, equaling your after-tax income?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 71, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1872 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 70):
Tell me this; how is it UNFAIR to you?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the minimum amount of money you need to live is $20,000 (including rent/mortage, food, clothing, transportation, telephone/internet). You can't not pay that. So after taxes, someone making $30k per year would end up with $7k, or 23% of their income.

Now let's look at the person making $300k per year. The minimum amount of money they need to live is also $20,000. So if they pay that plus taxes, they will be left with $250,000, or 83% of their income. And therein lies the inequality and inherent regressive nature of a flat tax - the wealthy end up with a greater percentage of their income in their pocket after they've paid their taxes and taken care of their basic needs than the poor.

Granted, it's very unlikely that someone making $300k would have the same lifestyle as someone making $30k - they'd probably be spending more. But that's their choice, not a requirement. And living expenses tend not to increase at the same rate as salaries.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 70):
Are you suggesting that since you're only left with $27K after taxes, the person earning $300K should pay enough tax that they are only left with $27K as well, equaling your after-tax income?

Of course not - that would be ridiculous. I'm not even suggesting that someone making $300k should be left with only 23% of their income after taxes and living expenses (if you figure they'd spend 1/3 of their income ($100k) on living expenses, that would be $131,000 in taxes, or 43%, which I think is too high). But the difference shouldn't be so wide.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13549 posts, RR: 62
Reply 72, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 71):
the wealthy end up with a greater percentage of their income in their pocket after they've paid their taxes and taken care of their basic needs than the poor

I understand.

But again, how is that unfair to the "poor" person, then? Yes, I understand that "inherent regressive nature" argument, but I still don't understand how it's somehow shortchanging the person who makes less money.

Quoting Mir (Reply 71):
the difference shouldn't be so wide

Kind of a slippery slope there, isn't it? If you start arbitrarily determining what delta there should be in the percentage of after-tax discretionary income between the haves and have-lesses, where do you stop?

When it comes to income - and taxation on that income - isn't there a point where the basic saying, "Hey, life's not fair," comes into play? Some people will always have more than others, and there's nothing inherently "wrong" or "unfair" with that.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 73, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1857 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 72):
Yes, I understand that "inherent regressive nature" argument, but I still don't understand how it's somehow shortchanging the person who makes less money.

What, leaving them with a lower percentage of their income isn't shortchanging them? Why is it okay to do that, but taxing the wealthy at a higher percentage is somehow a violation of their rights?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13549 posts, RR: 62
Reply 74, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 1842 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 73):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 72):
Yes, I understand that "inherent regressive nature" argument, but I still don't understand how it's somehow shortchanging the person who makes less money.

What, leaving them with a lower percentage of their income isn't shortchanging them? Why is it okay to do that, but taxing the wealthy at a higher percentage is somehow a violation of their rights?

They're coming away with the same percentage of income; it's the buying power of what's left of their income after taxes that's lower, but that's just how it goes when one person earns substantially more (or less) than others. Again, where do you draw the line, though? Using your logic, a $9 movie ticket also hits the have-lesses disproportionately harder than the haves. Should movie theaters begin charging progressive ticket prices based on the moviegoer's ability to pay? How about food? Should Safeway, Kroger, or any other supermarket charge progressive food prices based on the purchaser's ability to pay?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 75, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 71):
You can't not pay that. So after taxes, someone making $30k per year would end up with $7k, or 23% of their income.

I had proposed a 10% flat tax.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 72):
Yes, I understand that "inherent regressive nature" argument,

The "hurting the poor" argument is weak when you compare that with the obvious advantage of eliminating 95% of the IRS.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11576 posts, RR: 15
Reply 76, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
Almost 50% of wage earners pay no income tax

I have a job. Every week, my pay check has federal and state income tax deductions. How do I pay no income tax when I can see I am paying income tax?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
The point was that revenues have risen since the Bush tax cuts and the middle class and poor benefited from them.

Like the millions that were put out of work by corporations moving overseas? Revenues for low and middle class families has either gone down or stayed the same while costs have gone up.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
What does this have to do with Federal spending?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
It is spending that has gone out of control

I point out spending and how federal spending is out of control but none of that has to do with spending??



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13549 posts, RR: 62
Reply 77, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 1828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 75):
The "hurting the poor" argument is weak

You said it all right here. Full-stop.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 78, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 1825 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
They're coming away with the same percentage of income; it's the buying power of what's left of their income after taxes that's lower, but that's just how it goes when one person earns substantially more (or less) than others.

I don't disagree. There is going to be some inequality in the system - that in itself is not inherently bad. Doesn't mean we should accept the level of inequality that a flat tax would bring. That's the sort of thing that lets the rich get richer and keeps the poor poor. And putting aside the moral discussion of that situation, the more practical fact is that that's not sustainable in the long run.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
Using your logic, a $9 movie ticket also hits the have-lesses disproportionately harder than the haves.

It does. But movie theaters are not necessary expenses. I don't have to go to a movie theater. I do have to pay taxes, and I do have to pay basic living expenses.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
Should movie theaters begin charging progressive ticket prices based on the moviegoer's ability to pay? How about food? Should Safeway, Kroger, or any other supermarket charge progressive food prices based on the purchaser's ability to pay?

They can certainly do that if they want to - they're private companies. And, of course, as private companies, they operate in a completely different realm from the government, with different objectives. A private company's objective when it comes to pricing is to make money. The government's objective when it comes to taxation is to collect enough money to fund the expenses it had been charged with funding, and to do so in an equitable manner (which a private company does not have to do, save for various laws that say you can't price things differently based on race, religion, etc.). And a flat tax just isn't equitable.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 75):
I had proposed a 10% flat tax.

Which I used in my example.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 79, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 77):
You said it all right here. Full-stop.

Thanks.
When I was making minimum wage or just above it, I still remember being taxed a lot and it was more than the 10% that I proposed. Taxes were still taken out and I had to file to get a small return. My income didn't go up that much before I stopped getting tax returns.
Would have been much better it they just took out 10% and that would be the end of it. No need to deal with filings, audits and other unnecessary headaches.

Quoting Mir (Reply 78):
Which I used in my example.

You came up with a figure that made a person ending up with 23% of their income. Under President Superfly, everyone would end up with 90% of their income because everyone pays the same 10% rate. There would be no more headaches of dealing with the IRS. April 15th would just be another day. There would be no changes to your taxes because you bought a house, started a business, gave birth to a newborn baby, got married or divorced.
Best of all, IRS agents and their attorneys will be looking for a new line of work!   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Here's the mistake the President is making, calling it the Buffet rule. What he should have done was back a plan that returned income and captial gains tax rates to what they were under Reagan. You see it's easy for the GOP and various talking heads to go gunning for Warren Buffet. It's a lot harder for them to go after Ronald Reagan since he has achieved almost Jesus like status amongst Republicans.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 81, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 80):
Here's the mistake the President is making, calling it the Buffet rule.

  
Agreed because the first thing I think is all you can eat honey baked ham, prime rib, salad, roasted chicken, dumplings, mashed potatoes with gravy, coleslaw and salmon fillets.
Who can say no to that?
I wouldn't be surprised if some of those 7 & 10 actually think that.

[Edited 2012-04-19 01:28:21]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13549 posts, RR: 62
Reply 82, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1785 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 78):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):They're coming away with the same percentage of income; it's the buying power of what's left of their income after taxes that's lower, but that's just how it goes when one person earns substantially more (or less) than others.
I don't disagree. There is going to be some inequality in the system - that in itself is not inherently bad. Doesn't mean we should accept the level of inequality that a flat tax would bring.

It also doesn't mean that combating that "level of inequality" should be done by levying higher, more confiscatory rates against those who earn more either.

Quoting Mir (Reply 78):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):Using your logic, a $9 movie ticket also hits the have-lesses disproportionately harder than the haves.
It does. But movie theaters are not necessary expenses. I don't have to go to a movie theater.

Irrelevant, but ultimately does prove that in the mind of those who believe in progressive taxation that, well, ANYTHING a have-not buys should be higher-priced for a "have" in the name of perceived 'fairness'.

Quoting Mir (Reply 78):
a flat tax just isn't equitable

And I'd argue just the opposite. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 83, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

The changes in the amount a poor person pays is so small compared to the advantage of reducing the size of the IRS. There are 106,000 IRS employees. Cutting this department down in size would be a HUGE advantage.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
They all need to be eliminated. we cannot have the feds picking winners and losers. A flat tax is the only fair and equitable tax for all citizens.

That is just nuts.
Get rid of the Mortgage deduction , and thier is NO incentive for home ownership.
Get rid of the Child deduction, and their is more incentive for welfare.
Get rid of Medical Deductions, and hteir is no incentive for businesses ot offer medical
Get rid of ...... and hte economy would collapse.
Get rid of investment writeoffs, and there is no incentive to take a chance on a business.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
So. Why should one citizen get penalised for making more money? they will already be paying a far higher overall dollar figure.

They don't. Every citizen get's taxed the same amount on the same income. It is just that when folks make more money, they go into higher tax brackets as they have more cash to fund governemnt operations. It helps make sure that the infrastructure and Governemnt are geared to meat more of the needs of the whole population, instead of only funding it enough to meet the needs of the avcerage income, not just the median income.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
But does that mean they have less rights than their fellow citizens?

Rights has nothing to do with tax rate. you have jumped the shark here.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
So what do you think it costs now? Terrible argument

Do you have a clue about how much it costs to enforce the tax codes, and send people to audit and collect?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
Being taxed less is a much bigger incentive than any write off.

What is the incentive, if the infrastructure of this country crumbles? That money goes to real people doing real jobs that make this country great. The GOP plan of tax cuts ignores the real issues affecting infrastructure in this country. We can not tax cut our way out of the deficit.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 79):
When I was making minimum wage or just above it, I still remember being taxed a lot and it was more than the 10% that I proposed. Taxes were still taken out and I had to file to get a small return. My income didn't go up that much before I stopped getting tax returns.

But were you still living at home with your parents? In that case you were already under their deduction, so your 10% argument is a bit baseless here. You didn't qualify for the standard dedcution. Plus your tax rate would have been higher, since the current tax code has the lowest rates in the las 50 years, and the last tax cut by bush is responsible for one of the biggest deficits in years.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 83):
The changes in the amount a poor person pays is so small compared to the advantage of reducing the size of the IRS. There are 106,000 IRS employees. Cutting this department down in size would be a HUGE advantage.

106,000 people responsible for 2.5 Trillion in Revenue and 2.5 Trillion in distribution . Let's see, each employee is responsible for

~23.5 Million in revenue and 23.5 Million in distribution. That is hardly inefficient, especially since we have 50 states to collect from, so that leaves around 2000 folks per states to collect federal income taxes.

Sp please explain how you would cut down the size of the IRS, in such a way that it would offset the problems of enforcing a flat tax.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 85, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
But were you still living at home with your parents?

Nope.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
In that case you were already under their deduction,

Nope.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
Sp please explain how you would cut down the size of the IRS, in such a way that it would offset the problems of enforcing a flat tax.

With a 10% flat tax that comes out of your income, there would be no need for such a large department to deal with all of the loopholes, deductions, exemptions and all other red tape that is involved in collecting taxes. Within the IRS, you have various departments just to administer all of the red tape involved with tax regulations.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 86, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 82):
It also doesn't mean that combating that "level of inequality" should be done by levying higher, more confiscatory rates against those who earn more either.

I'm not so concerned with combating that inequality as I am with having a tax structure that encourages it.

There's a reason that you don't see many countries having flat income taxes. When the government is taking significantly more of one group's disposable income than another group's, that's not a fair tax system.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 82):
ultimately does prove that in the mind of those who believe in progressive taxation that, well, ANYTHING a have-not buys should be higher-priced for a "have" in the name of perceived 'fairness'.

Where did I say I wanted that?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 79):
Under President Superfly, everyone would end up with 90% of their income because everyone pays the same 10% rate.

Which isn't all that relevant because people then have to pay for their living expenses. That's where the 23% vs. 83% thing comes from (and it's not the 23% that I mind, it's the gap between the two numbers).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 87, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 86):
Which isn't all that relevant because people then have to pay for their living expenses.

They have to pay for living expenses already. Your living expense argument isn't relevant because people earning less pay the exact same price as the rich for goods & services. I have yet to find a retail store that charges rich people more than poor people. I have yet to find an airline that gives discounts to low-income people.
The living expenses argument didn't make any sense.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinehomsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 79):
You came up with a figure that made a person ending up with 23% of their income. Under President Superfly, everyone would end up with 90% of their income because everyone pays the same 10% rate.

That might be one of the best twists of logic I've ever seen.

You falsely equate the 23% of their income that Mir calculates to the 90% of their income in your equation, conveniently ignoring the fact that Mir's calculations included not only taxes (yes, they both wind up with 90% of their income after taxes), but also living expenses (the 90% figure only applies if people don't have living expenses).

Your statement above is simply disingenuous.

Now, I want to make a comment (jumping into the thread a bit late) about this BS idea that it's the wealthy that create jobs, and that we're all dependent on them and that we should coddle them for being so kind and generous to the rest of us as to give us jobs.

Yes, low-wage menial jobs like housekeeper and gardener are going to be created by the wealthy because they can afford that luxury. But what about the rest of the jobs? What about the jobs that pay real money?

Who created, for example, a Southwest Airlines pilot's job? A wealthy investor? No. Try the hundreds of passengers that board his plane every day, many of whom are not wealthy. Get rid of those passengers, and do you think those wealthy "job creators" at the top are going to let that pilot keep his job?

For that matter, Southwest CEO Gary Kelly is in basically the same position. No passengers, no job.

A guy that works building 737s at Boeing, who creates his job? Southwest (and a bunch of other airlines). But again, who keeps Southwest in business? Passengers.

Who keeps Lockheed in business? Taxpayers.

Who keeps Ford in business? Car buyers throughout the country.

The list goes on and on.

I've actually been thinking of starting an economic debate thread (hoping it could stay civil) on here, because some points were brought up in other threads that I wanted to address, but didn't because it would have taken them too far off topic. This is one of those points that really sets me off because to say that it's the wealthy who create jobs, or as someone quoted above "when is the last time a poor person gave you a job," shows an inability to look beyond an immediate cause and get to the heart of something. It's as if people just hand out jobs out of the kindness of their hearts. Yet, ironically, the group that wants us to believe that is the same group that keeps preaching about how they know more about economics and therefore can do the best for the economy.

They should know better (and I'm sure some of them do). In capitalist economic theory, no money is spent out of the kindness of anyone's heart. Jobs and investment are done with one purpose and one purpose only: to take in more money than they spent. In order for them to make money, they have to have a customer base or demand for the products or services they are offering. That customer base comprises of a cross section of people from all economic backgrounds. Everybody who buys something is, essentially, a job creator. Yet we're supposed to ignore how economics works and assume that the demand side of the equation is somehow irrelevant. These folks love to tout supply-side economics, ignoring the fact that supply-side economics is one of the key ideas promoted by Karl Marx.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 85):
uoting casinterest (Reply 84):
But were you still living at home with your parents?

Nope.

then you apparently didn't know how to fill out a W-4 or file your taxes correctly.
Your standard excemption would have given just about all of it back.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 85):

With a 10% flat tax that comes out of your income, there would be no need for such a large department to deal with all of the loopholes, deductions, exemptions and all other red tape that is involved in collecting taxes. Within the IRS, you have various departments just to administer all of the red tape involved with tax regulations.

The flat tax won't work, because a 10% income tax would open a black market where folks would do stuff on the side for a biut more free cash.

The IRS would still need to do publications, and enformcement on the folks that would evade the system.
Especially since your fairy tale 10% is far too high. I make 6 figures, and my effective tax rate is nowhere close to 10%. You are apparently one of those Mitt Romney 1% who have no clue what taxes really are or mean to those folks just barely getting by.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 90, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
Get rid of the Mortgage deduction , and thier is NO incentive for home ownership.

Other than owning your own home...? I don't need a taxable deduction to see the benefits of owning my own home here in the UK, I can't imagine its any different in the US...

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
Get rid of the Child deduction, and their is more incentive for welfare.

Harder to qualify for welfare...

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
Get rid of Medical Deductions, and hteir is no incentive for businesses ot offer medical

Why should businesses offer medical at all? Thats a sign of a broken system rather than a system that works.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
Get rid of investment writeoffs, and there is no incentive to take a chance on a business.

Other than the potential for profits from those investments?

You make it sound like the citizenship needs babysitting to do the most basic of things with their money, and that deductions is what drives your entire economy...?!


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 91, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 87):
Your living expense argument isn't relevant because people earning less pay the exact same price as the rich for goods & services.

On the contrary - that's exactly why it's relevant.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 90):
Other than owning your own home...? I don't need a taxable deduction to see the benefits of owning my own home here in the UK, I can't imagine its any different in the US...

The benefits of owning a home vs renting can be debated, especially when infrastucture expenses are made .

The tax benefits of a mortgage make it more efficient to handle the hight cost.

Quoting moo (Reply 90):
Harder to qualify for welfare...

More crime. More prisons, more police. More cost

Quoting moo (Reply 90):
Why should businesses offer medical at all? Thats a sign of a broken system rather than a system that works.

It is an incentive to get the best qualified and most productive workers.

Quoting moo (Reply 90):
Other than the potential for profits from those investments?

There are benefits, but if there are losses, there is a setback to having to pay taxes on money you lost, such as bankruptcy.

Quoting moo (Reply 90):
You make it sound like the citizenship needs babysitting to do the most basic of things with their money, and that deductions is what drives your entire economy...?!

Dedecutions don't drive the economy, but they off incentives to help spur certain sectors.

The child deduction credit is a good incentive to have kids and keep the US growing and producing future laborers.
The Mortgage credit is an incentive to spur house buying to keep builders employed, and to spur competition with rental properties that otherwise might neglect upgrades in the face of profits.

Educational credits for going to school, and taking a chance to be retrained into more effective jobs is an incentive when more skilled labor is needed.


Flat taxes do not do things fairly. They unequally distribute the tax burden onto those with lower disposable income.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 93, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1717 times:

Quoting homsaR (Reply 88):
Now, I want to make a comment (jumping into the thread a bit late) about this BS idea that it's the wealthy that create jobs, and that we're all dependent on them and that we should coddle them for being so kind and generous to the rest of us as to give us jobs.

I don't agree with that either.

Quoting homsaR (Reply 88):
Who created, for example, a Southwest Airlines pilot's job?

Who started Southwest Airlines in the first place? It wasn't some country-bumkin in a trailer park. I takes a lot of money to get and airline off the ground.

Quoting homsaR (Reply 88):
I've actually been thinking of starting an economic debate thread (hoping it could stay civil)

Good luck with that when you make statements like;

Quoting homsaR (Reply 88):
That might be one of the best twists of logic I've ever seen.

and

Quoting homsaR (Reply 88):
Your statement above is simply disingenuous.

 
Quoting casinterest (Reply 89):
then you apparently didn't know how to fill out a W-4 or file your taxes correctly.
Your standard excemption would have given just about all of it back.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 89):
a 10% income tax would open a black market where folks would do stuff on the side for a biut more free cash.

People are doing that already. There is no such thing as a foolproof tax code.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 89):
You are apparently one of those Mitt Romney 1%

As of this year you are correct and I outlined that repeatedly in reply #6, #55 and #59.
Even though I'm not earning 6 figures yet , a new law aimed at going after 'rich fat cat' 1%ers now includes me and people that earn as low as $10,000 per year.
Keep the insults coming if you feel it helps your argument.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 94, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1717 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 92):
Flat taxes do not do things fairly. They unequally distribute the tax burden onto those with lower disposable income.


So, go to a consumption tax after setting a 'standard of living' floor.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
Get rid of the Mortgage deduction , and thier is NO incentive for home ownership.
Get rid of the Child deduction, and their is more incentive for welfare.
Get rid of Medical Deductions, and hteir is no incentive for businesses ot offer medical
Get rid of ...... and hte economy would collapse.
Get rid of investment writeoffs, and there is no incentive to take a chance on a business


I'll disagree that the tax deductibility is the incentive for any of these activities. The deduction may be a bonus, but the activity would exist, regardless. And, I fail to see how a medical expense deduction induces an organization to offer medical insurance.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 66):
The reason for a progressive tax rate is simple. People that make more money can afford to pay more in taxes due to more disposable income.


I read a biography, maybe an auto-biography, of Ben Franklin (I looked, in order to properly cite it, but have probably given it to the local library) and it speaks to the progressive tax system and its need.

Basically, Franklin argues that the rich have more to protect and are in need of greater services. Larger households, more land, more wealth, etc. required more government resources to protect.

Now, haven't we turned that around? Who uses more federal government services? The rich or the poor? And, when you try to answer that question, think about who should be providing services and whether your tax dollars are correctly distributed between the federal government, the state government and your local government.

Yes, we do need to pay taxes to the federal government. It has a function and the jobs that make up that function are enumerated in the US Constitution. I'll argue that quite a few of the services that the federal government has taken on, should be the responsibility of the state or local government...or no government at all.

Just a little food for thought.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 95, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):


So, go to a consumption tax after setting a 'standard of living' floor.

And Romney is going to do that?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 93):
s of this year you are correct and I outlined that repeatedly in reply #6, #55 and #59.
Even though I'm not earning 6 figures yet , a new law aimed at going after 'rich fat cat' 1%ers now includes me and people that earn as low as $10,000 per year.
Keep the insults coming if you feel it helps your argument.

The new law goes against higher earners by using a higher progressive tax rate.
It is nothing different than what existed during reagon.
Please explain how the new law woild affect 10,000 dollar folks.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
So, go to a consumption tax after setting a 'standard of living' floor

The consumption tax is a bit harder to manage,because then you are trying to balance income vs spending vs timeframe

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
deduction may be a bonus, but the activity would exist, regardless. And, I fail to see how a medical expense deduction induces an organization to offer medical insurance.

The bonus is still an incentive. It may not be the only reason, but it is an incentive.

The medical expense incentive is to get employers on board with offering medical insurance, because providing medical insurance may not be in their interest , but it is in the interest of the US government and insurance companies to have more people covered, and to also give an incentive to offer it to more of a percentage of businesses that might find it otherwise unfeasable.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
Who uses more federal government services? The rich or the poor? And, when you try to answer that question, think about who should be providing services and whether your tax dollars are correctly distributed between the federal government, the state government and your local government.

Let's go down this road a bit then. I would argue the rich need it more,but you don't think so based on your below statements.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 94):
I'll argue that quite a few of the services that the federal government has taken on, should be the responsibility of the state or local government...or no government at all.

I disagree,I think many of the federal programs that exist help coordinate resources amongs all the states. Especially small ones that might need the resources . most of these programs though are small potatoes. the GOP facination wiht these small projects still ignores the fact that the Federal Government still outspends what it takes in, which shouldn't happen.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 97, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 95):
And Romney is going to do that?

Didn't know we were talking about Mr. Romney. But, I don't know, maybe he would go for it. I was just thinking a loud (or a print).

Set the 'standard of living' floor (I don't know what that number is) and then tax whatever is purchased at some percentage (and, I don't know what that number is, either). That way, as the people spend money, they are taxed. You don't want to get taxed (or can't afford to get taxed), don't spend the money.

Of course, we would need to eliminate the income tax via an amendment. Or, maybe not...the text doesn't say Congress has to collect the tax, just grants them the power to. But, I'd certainly feel better if the Sixteenth Amendment were repealed.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 98, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 97):
Didn't know we were talking about Mr. Romney. But, I don't know, maybe he would go for it. I was just thinking a loud (or a print).

Just highlight the choices coming up in Nov. Love to criticize Obama's plan - and you guys counter with a hypothetical plan - which will not be a choice come November,



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 99, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 96):
Please explain how the new law woild affect 10,000 dollar folks.

Every bank in the world that has any US passport holder's account that has any banking activity totaling more than $10,000 in a single year will be required to report their account to the United States IRS. A few Western European countries may comply with the new law but many other countries don't have enough fluently English speaking staff to take on this new American bureaucratic law. Many banks will just simply close all accounts with US citizens. As a result, Americans living abroad will have to hide their money under their bed or pay hefty fees every time they make a deposit or withdrawal. International banking transactions are high. Most non-US companies will not do a direct-deposit in to a foreign/US bank account.
This is yet another law aimed at going after the 'rich fat cats' but has ended up hurting those that earn a small to modest income in another country. I don't like the law one bit but I could understand the logic if they set the bar at $100,000+ per year since that is roughly near the tax exempt cutoff for expats working abroad.


http://www.fawco.org/index.php?optio...tid=182:us-taxation&Itemid=604


http://articles.businessinsider.com/...ions-information-sharing-agreement

I'll elaborate more tomorrow. It's getting late.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 96):
Let's go down this road a bit then. I would argue the rich need it more,but you don't think so based on your below statements.


Read carefully...I say federal government. We all benefit (rich and poor and everyone else, alike) from the essential functions of government. I argue that a lot of the services that our benevolent federal government has taken on, should rightly be handled at a state or local level...or not at all by the government. What I didn't write is that our tax burden should be shifted. Less to the feds and more to the states.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 96):
the GOP facination wiht these small projects still ignores the fact that the Federal Government still outspends what it takes in, which shouldn't happen.


And, as I've stated earlier, you must get a handle on spending before you look at revenue increases. Without first controlling spending, any revenue increase will just go into the hole.

Let's ask ourselves this question and answer it with brutal honesty:

If the economy suddenly rebounds and unemployment drops to 5% or 6% and revenues shoot up, what is going to happen to that money? Do you seriously think it will be used to pay down debt or will it be absorbed into current and future spending? I'm afraid that without comprehensive cuts in spending, any revenue increase will be spent on pet projects and/or services. And, please, don't get me wrong, this is a Left and Right problem, but, it is primarily a Left problem.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 101, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 99):
This is yet another law aimed at going after the 'rich fat cats' but has ended up hurting those that earn a small to modest income in another country. I don't like the law one bit but I could understand the logic if they set the bar at $100,000+ per year since that is roughly near the tax exempt cutoff for expats working abroad.

So you are advocating a progressive structure for tax reporting and exemption here  


I see your point on this tax, but it highlights the reason why flat taxes are a disadvantage.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1662 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 100):
And, as I've stated earlier, you must get a handle on spending before you look at revenue increases. Without first controlling spending, any revenue increase will just go into the hole.

We don't have just a spending problem, we have a revenue and debt problem as well. We can't keep putting off the other problems to soley focus on a spending problem.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 103, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 102):
We don't have just a spending problem, we have a revenue and debt problem as well. We can't keep putting off the other problems to soley focus on a spending problem.

totally disagree.

When you look at the deficit and rampant out of control spending, we could curb the debt and deficits by eliminating govt waste alone.

The problem isn't insufficient revenue--it's that the sources of that revenue are out of kilter.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 104, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 102):
We don't have just a spending problem, we have a revenue and debt problem as well. We can't keep putting off the other problems to soley focus on a spending problem.

Do you recognize that implementing the Buffet Rule will increase revenue by only $4 billion a year? When federal expenditures are a thousand times that amount? The other day, it was reported that people (obviously wealthy ones) are giving up their US Citizenship and/or their Green Cards at 4 times the rate of the previous record. I know a few of them personally. "Tax the Rich" is a mantra for Obama to motivate the bitter, the hateful the jealous and the resentful that make up his power base. It won't do anything to actually increase revenues.

The US tax structure is now more weighted towards taxing the wealthiest 10% and virtually nothing on the bottom 50% than any other country in the civilized world, even taking into account the higher than average stratification our US society.



While that is politically wonderful (get the 50% who don't pay anything to vote for you and you are in power forever - that has been the focus of the Obama-era Democratic Party), it is of no use to the country.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2719 posts, RR: 8
Reply 105, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1587 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 100):
Read carefully...I say federal government.

The left always refuses this argument about putting control of things back to the states that belongs to them. They want their one size fits all vision over everyone. It is impossible for them to stick to the enumerated powers. They continue to use the old you do not want to pay taxes line. No we do not want to pay Federal taxes for spending the Feds should not be doing. Let us pay it in our states and counties instead of being laundered by congress and the President.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 102):
We don't have just a spending problem, we have a revenue and debt problem as well.

Wrong we only have a spending problem.It is spending that is up and it is spending on items not in the Constitution that is driving the debt. Stop trying to tie the two together.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 89):
The flat tax won't work, because a 10% income tax would open a black market where folks would do stuff on the side for a biut more free cash.

that is already done at a very large rate.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 96):
I disagree,I think many of the federal programs that exist help coordinate resources amongs all the states.

No it adds a middle man who takes his cut and then puts demands on in order to get the money back to your state where it came from in the first place.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 106, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 24):
Ryan is the only guy in DC with his head screwed on straight, the only grown-up in the room who is having these mature, calm discussions about the very solvency of our nation and future as a viable republic.


When you read the section on defense spending it's obvious that Paul Ryan really is not serious either. He talks about how the US is engaged in combat against a determined foe and how important it is to maintain defense spending. And what foe are we fighting? A bunch of guys running around the mountains of Afghanistan with AK-47's and RPG's. Is the security of the United States going to threatened if we say kill the F-35B or the LCS? Highly doubtful IMHO.

Do you think Paul Ryan would come out for cancelling the LCS even though it's of questionable capabilities, over budget, behind schedule etc? Probably not since one of the versions is made in his home state.

Paul Ryan's proposal is bascially business as usual at the DOD. Sure he talks about waste there and the DOD not getting a blank check but he fails miserably with the real issue. What the real issue is how the money is being spent and not the quatnity.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 103):
totally disagree.

When you look at the deficit and rampant out of control spending, we could curb the debt and deficits by eliminating govt waste alone.

The problem isn't insufficient revenue--it's that the sources of that revenue are out of kilter.

Look at what happens anytime our Congressional leaders get near anything worth cutting.
The only way to do anything is slowly and incrementally, and it needs to be done on both sides.

When the economy recovers, I expect most of the budget defecit to get handled, but the debt still needs to be serviced, and even with cuts in spending, we still need revenue to cover it.

on a 15 trillion dollar debt, across 150 million taxpayers, that is still a 100, 000 dollar debt for each taxpayer.
Even if we amortized that over 30 years at 4 % , that is $477 PER MONTH for each taxpayer.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104):
The US tax structure is now more weighted towards taxing the wealthiest 10% and virtually nothing on the bottom 50% than any other country in the civilized world, even taking into account the higher than average stratification our US society.

The US tax structure has ALWAYS been weighted this way. The only reason it is so out kilter now, is that the middle class has been decimated in this era of outsourcing. The only place the income has grown has been with the rich.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104):
While that is politically wonderful (get the 50% who don't pay anything to vote for you and you are in power forever - that has been the focus of the Obama-era Democratic Party), it is of no use to the country.

the 50% are still part of the system, and thanks to this great country we are in, the 50% are not always the same folks.

The Democrats recognize with sound logic, that you have to tax the folks that are making all the money while shutting down factories and sending jobs overseas.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 105):
No it adds a middle man who takes his cut and then puts demands on in order to get the money back to your state where it came from in the first place.

If the middle man adds value, whether in time, efficiency or resources, then it does not come as a waster.
Many of the functions of the Federal Government exist to balance out certain imbalances either in Manufacturing, Agriculture, Education, Defense, Infrastucture that exists in states due to demographic differences.

The Federal government is not the enemy. It is the glue that holds this country together. Can it be managed better, yes, but both parties are responsible for this.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 108, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 107):

The US tax structure has ALWAYS been weighted this way. The only reason it is so out kilter now, is that the middle class has been decimated in this era of outsourcing. The only place the income has grown has been with the rich.

No it hasn't. It got a hell of a lot worse when the Bush tax cuts went into effect a decade ago, which, in spite of all the propaganda, dropped everyone's rate much more than it did the wealthiest 10%.

And yes, income has grown among the wealthy. Maybe, just maybe, you might consider that that might be more connected to the fact that it is much more difficult today to be a successful rags-to-riches entrepreneur in these times of huge bureaucratic obsticles. The CEO/Founder of Home Depot said that he could never do today what he did a few decades ago. Shouldn't that opinion worry you?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 109, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
The CEO/Founder of Home Depot said that he could never do today what he did a few decades ago. Shouldn't that opinion worry you?

In that time frame you have 8 years of GWB .. just wanted to point that out.,..

[Edited 2012-04-20 14:35:58]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
The CEO/Founder of Home Depot said that he could never do today what he did a few decades ago. Shouldn't that opinion worry you?

The CEO of Home Depot has to compete against big boxes that didn't exist xyz years ago, It is a different market,

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
a successful rags-to-riches entrepreneur in these times of huge bureaucratic obsticles.

Yes it absolutley crushed facebook, groupon pinterest, Zaxby's HHGregg, jetblue, and a host of other companies.

Beauracracy has existed since God spoke to Adam, and will continue forever. However a Flat tax is not the answer. A simplified tax code maybe, but not a flat tax.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 111, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 109):
In that time frame you have 8 years of GWB .. just wanted to point that out.,..

No question, GWB did not improve things, but he was never a fiscal conservative. He ran as a "compassionate conservative", aka a progressive Republican, in the same vein as a Teddy Roosevelt or Richard Nixon.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 110):
The CEO of Home Depot has to compete against big boxes that didn't exist xyz years ago, It is a different market,

He specifically cited bureaucratic and regulatory obstacles, not competition  
Quoting casinterest (Reply 110):
Beauracracy has existed since God spoke to Adam, and will continue forever. However a Flat tax is not the answer. A simplified tax code maybe, but not a flat tax.

I have worked in a number of countries around the world, and the US has become by far the most bureaucratic that I have ever seen. Even India, at the height of the "Licence Raj" of 20 years ago, barely holds a candle.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 112, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
He specifically cited bureaucratic and regulatory obstacles, not competition

Yeah, well CEO's are not known for thier complete honesty in evaluating conditions.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):

I have worked in a number of countries around the world, and the US has become by far the most bureaucratic that I have ever seen. Even India, at the height of the "Licence Raj" of 20 years ago, barely holds a candle.

Has become? It has always been beaurocratic. The higher up in my organization I get, the more bs and politics I get exposed to, but it is due to the lines in the sand drawn by "well meaning" folks wanting to do "what's right", and then it costs everything in efficiency.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 113, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108):
The CEO/Founder of Home Depot said that he could never do today what he did a few decades ago.

No, because it's a total lie being put forward by someone with a political axe to grind.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
I have worked in a number of countries around the world, and the US has become by far the most bureaucratic that I have ever seen.

And most of that bureaucracy was created by PRIVATE corporations lobbying the government for new rules/regulations. It's the same reason our tax code is so complex. Various private interests lobbied (bought off) our politicians to get millions of loopholes and deductions causing the code to become the mess that it is.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 114, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 112):
Yeah, well CEO's are not known for thier complete honesty in evaluating conditions.

You are thinking about politicians. A CEO who cannot evaluate the market effectively and manage his company accordingly does not keep his job for very long.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 113):
And most of that bureaucracy was created by PRIVATE corporations lobbying the government for new rules/regulations. It's the same reason our tax code is so complex. Various private interests lobbied (bought off) our politicians to get millions of loopholes and deductions causing the code to become the mess that it is.

Fair point - in which case my response is that the government's job is to say NO. The tax code works for everyone, and must be kept as simple as possible.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 115, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
I have worked in a number of countries around the world, and the US has become by far the most bureaucratic that I have ever seen. Even India, at the height of the "Licence Raj" of 20 years ago, barely holds a candle.

Can you share some concrete examples?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
No question, GWB did not improve things, but he was never a fiscal conservative. He ran as a "compassionate conservative", aka a progressive Republican, in the same vein as a Teddy Roosevelt or Richard Nixon.

So were you complaining back then? was this guy?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 116, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104):
"Tax the Rich" is a mantra for Obama to motivate the bitter, the hateful the jealous and the resentful that make up his power base. It won't do anything to actually increase revenues.

  
That's the damn truth and I was surprised to find out that I was caught in his net of 'rich fat cats' for simply having a non-US bank account.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 113):
And most of that bureaucracy was created by PRIVATE corporations lobbying the government for new rules/regulations. It's the same reason our tax code is so complex. Various private interests lobbied (bought off) our politicians to get millions of loopholes and deductions causing the code to become the mess that it is.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 114):
Fair point - in which case my response is that the government's job is to say NO. The tax code works for everyone, and must be kept as simple as possible.

Private insurance companies and lawyers are one of the worse offenders. However there are all sorts of lobbyist from so-called non-profit organizations that lobby for new laws that serve their interest. At the state level, the prison lobby which is a government organization are out of control and have seen their incomes increase 4-fold within the last 15 years.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 112):
Yeah, well CEO's are not known for thier complete honesty in evaluating conditions.

Yea and politicians are soooo honest and efficient with our tax dollars.  
They can't even pass a balanced budget and many were bouncing personal checks left & right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
I have worked in a number of countries around the world, and the US has become by far the most bureaucratic that I have ever seen. Even India, at the height of the "Licence Raj" of 20 years ago, barely holds a candle.

  
I was surprised to see that Thailand's government is less bureaucratic than the US government. Dealing with the Thai government is far more pleasant than my own US government. I've had to deal with the US Embassy one time to renew my Passport. What a headache that was and they're the only Embassy here in Bangkok that makes people wait outside in the baking hot sun or torrential rain before entering. They treat you like a criminal and is indicative of how they see their own people. Even the Laos Embassy and Pakistan Embassy provides cover for visitors before entering. Also doing my Thai taxes was a piece of cake. Although not a flat tax, they have 3 levels of taxation. Filing my taxes took 2 minutes to complete.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 117, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 116):
Although not a flat tax, they have 3 levels of taxation. Filing my taxes took 2 minutes to complete.

Is that the reason why Thailand is the beacon of progress, technology and riches that it is today?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 117):
Is that the reason why Thailand is the beacon of progress, technology and riches that it is today?

Cheap shot. Surely you aren't saying that our 150,000 federal regulations plus a similar number of state and local regs are the reason for our success?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 117):
Is that the reason why Thailand is the beacon of progress, technology and riches that it is today?

They're certainly on the right track to success. Compare that to the track the US is on....

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 118):
Cheap shot. Surely you aren't saying that our 150,000 federal regulations plus a similar number of state and local regs are the reason for our success?

I can't wait to hear the answer to that one.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 119):
They're certainly on the right track to success. Compare that to the track the US is on....

Success? Hmm ok.. tell me when Thailand has a standard of living on par with the US.

I wish them the best, i truly do.. they are wonderful people

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 118):
Cheap shot. Surely you aren't saying that our 150,000 federal regulations plus a similar number of state and local regs are the reason for our success?

I am. Prove me wrong.

The US has been successful for many many years with thousands upon thousands of regulations.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 121, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 120):
Hmm ok.. tell me when Thailand has a standard of living on par with the US.

Of course not, it's still a developing nation. Same for Brasil, Argentina, Malaysia, South Korea and other developing nations. However that may change within our lifetime IF the US continues on the path it's on.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 120):
I am. Prove me wrong.

Burden of proof is on you pal.
Please explain why our 150,000+ regulations is a reason for our success, especially considering the fact that many of these regulations where not there when our nation grew to become a super-power.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 122, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 121):
especially considering the fact that many of these regulations where not there when our nation grew to become a super-power.

Tell me which ones and we can start a talking..

Quoting Superfly (Reply 121):
Of course not, it's still a developing nation. Same for Brasil, Argentina, Malaysia, South Korea and other developing nations. However that may change within our lifetime IF the US continues on the path it's on.

Are you saying that the, Argentina, Malaysia, South Korea and other developing nations will not be developing any more within our life time if the US continues on the path its on?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 121):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 120):
I am. Prove me wrong.

Burden of proof is on you pal.

No, the burden of proof is on you that Thailand is on the "right track" due to allegedly having less regulations. How many regulations does Thailand have compared to the US. Start there.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 123, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1379 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 122):

Dude, you're the one boasting about how great our regulations are and justifying why the government needs to go after more people to get more money.
Dreadnought made a comparison of other nations that are less bureaucratic and I simply agreed.
You have yet to explain to us why our regulations are better than developing nations.
Again, the burden of proof is on YOU. Don't try to change the subject.
It is a fact that nations with less regulations are growing.
Please explain WHY we need so many regulations.
Please explain WHY we need to keep spending money at the current rate.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 124, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 123):
Dreadnought made a comparison of other nations that are less bureaucratic and I simply agreed.

A crappy comparison at that...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 123):
You have yet to explain to us why our regulations are better than developing nations.
Again, the burden of proof is on YOU. Don't try to change the subject.

You brought it up first..

Quoting Superfly (Reply 123):
Please explain WHY we need to keep spending money at the current rate.

See- you are changing topic

Quoting Superfly (Reply 123):
Please explain WHY we need so many regulations

Because the US is a nation of laws. laws get codified as regulations. You want a place with no laws?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 125, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1377 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 124):
A crappy comparison at that...

You have zero authority to make that assessment.
If you would at least prove him wrong and/or cite examples as to why his comparison is "crappy", then perhaps I could take your comments more seriously.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 124):
You brought it up first..

Wrong. Dreadnought brought it up first with his India comparison. I simply agreed with him now you want to jump down my throat.   

Quoting mt99 (Reply 124):
See- you are changing topic

Umm no, I'm talking about taxation which is what the Buffet rule is all about.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 124):
Because the US is a nation of laws. laws get codified as regulations. You want a place with no laws?

No one is advocating anarchy and you know it.

[Edited 2012-04-21 15:59:53]

[Edited 2012-04-21 16:06:11]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 126, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 125):
If you would at least prove him wrong and/or cite examples as to why his comparison is "crappy", then perhaps I could take your comments more seriously.

Overblown baseless claims like the one below sways your opinion?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):

I have worked in a number of countries around the world, and the US has become by far the most bureaucratic that I have ever seen. Even India, at the height of the "Licence Raj" of 20 years ago, barely holds a candle.

Why is that a crappy comparison:

1 - No concrete examples listed
3- No concrete examples listed
4- No concrete examples listed

Quoting Superfly (Reply 125):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 124):
See- you are changing topic

Umm no, I'm talking about taxation which is what the Buffet rule is all about.

In the context of "regulations", what does the Buffet Rule have to do with overspending?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 125):

No one is advocating anarchy and you know it.

So if 150,000 regulation is oppressive, pray tell.. with how many regulations would you be happy? After all its a simple matter of the number of regualtions, not what they say.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

This relates to post 106. It would appear that once again the GOP really is not that serious about the deficit. Mitt seems to think that all you need in regards to defense is to just throw more money at it. In reality the real issue is how the money is spent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...t-defense-spending-deter-iran.html


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 128, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 120):
I am. Prove me wrong.

LOL that's utterly pathetic. It's beyond any doubt that the closer to a market economy you have, with fewer economic regulations, the better your economic performance.

Like I said: BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 120):
The US has been successful for many many years with thousands upon thousands of regulations.

Hahahahaha!!!!

Yeah, wealth comes from writing regulation on paper and making people jump through bureaucratic hoops!!!

No wonder you vote for people who espouse left-leaning beliefs.

[Edited 2012-04-22 09:19:08]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 129, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1283 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 128):

Like I said: BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

Show me.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 128):
LOL that's utterly pathetic. It's beyond any doubt that the closer to a market economy you have, with fewer economic regulations, the better your economic performance.

I beg to differ. I can have 1 regulation, that is extremely oppressive, compared to 100,000 that in concert are less oppressive than a single one.

The pure "number" of regulations is not representative,

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 128):
Yeah, wealth comes from writing regulation on paper and making people jump through bureaucratic hoops!!!

"Wealth" comes from organization, rule of law and strong institutions. All those things need to be written down somewhere.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 130, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1276 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 129):
Show me.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The freer, the less regulations. The very definition of regulations implies a restriction on freedom.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 129):
I beg to differ. I can have 1 regulation, that is extremely oppressive, compared to 100,000 that in concert are less oppressive than a single one.

The pure "number" of regulations is not representative,

Sure, it's substance that matters.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 129):
Wealth" comes from organization, rule of law and strong institutions. All those things need to be written down somewhere.

Rule of law is certainly helpful, but it itself does not create wealth.

Wealth is knowledge, and nothing you can write down will create knowledge. Only hope is spreading knowledge through literature, but that's not in the realm of laws and regulations either.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 131, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1272 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
Sure, it's substance that matters.

Thats my point. Please help me explain to Dreadnaught and Superfly

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):

Wealth is knowledge, and nothing you can write down will create knowledge. Only hope is spreading knowledge through literature, but that's not in the realm of laws and regulations either.

But you need regulations to protect this knowledge! Patents ect

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 129):
Show me.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The freer, the less regulations. The very definition of regulations implies a restriction on freedom.

Look Superfly. look Dreadnaught - both your dream beacons of wealth (India ans Thailand) are rated way below the US.

Based on this, PPVA, i must disagree. India and Thailand - according to Superfly and Dreadnaught have less regulations, yet they are rated lower than the US with its 150,000 +!!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 132, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1270 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 131):
India and Thailand - according to Superfly and Dreadnaught have less regulations, yet they are rated lower than the US with its 150,000 +!!

Sometimes, it maybe easier in those countries because you may be able to "grease the wheels" by slipping some money under the table. Not to mention, if you want to, say, build an oil refinery in Brazil, there is a lot more political will to make it happen than you will find in the US. Especially in economically depressed areas where the benefit of a multi billion dollar refinery will carry much more weight than what any other special interest group that wants to get in the way has to say. That's not to say there is a lower level of regulations, but in effect, having friends in high places gets the ball moving.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 133, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 132):
Sometimes, it maybe easier in those countries because you may be able to "grease the wheels" by slipping some money under the table.

Just so I've got this straight: you're not actually advocating for corruption, right?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 134, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1211 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 126):
Overblown baseless claims like the one below sways your opinion?
Quoting mt99 (Reply 126):
1 - No concrete examples listed
3- No concrete examples listed
4- No concrete examples listed

Ummm, the entire world is well aware of the growth in India. You need examples for this?
India as well as many other developing nations are growing by leaps & bounds. Many western businesses are moving to these countries due to over-regulation in their home countries (US, EU).

Quoting mt99 (Reply 126):
In the context of "regulations", what does the Buffet Rule have to do with overspending?

The Buffet Rule is to generate more tax revenue. Due to over-regulation, we're losing jobs (and tax revenue) because many companies are moving to developing nations. The Obama administration doesn't seem to know how to control spending so he is looking for other sources of tax revenue.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 126):
So if 150,000 regulation is oppressive, pray tell.. with how many regulations would you be happy?

You're expecting us to go over every single law and government waste with a fine tooth comb just to prove a point to you? Heck if we did, I'd doubt you'd bother to read it all. I've already stated a few examples of government waste earlier in this thread.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 128):
LOL that's utterly pathetic. It's beyond any doubt that the closer to a market economy you have, with fewer economic regulations, the better your economic performance.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 133):
Just so I've got this straight: you're not actually advocating for corruption, right?

I doubt PPVRA is advocating corruption in Brazil but our President is.
Obama took $2,000,000,000.00 of OUR tax dollars to GIVE to a Brazilian company named Petrobras, a company tied in with George Soros who is a major contributor to Obama. They'll drill for oil off the coast of Brazil and Obama says he will be happy for America to buy oil from Brazil. Yet Obama doesn't want to drill for oil here because he claims it's not safe. Yet it's safe for Brazil to drill for oil? Obama gives our tax money to help Brasil drill for oil only for them to sell it back to us at a higher price. He is putting another country on a list of nations we're dependent on oil.
So Mir who is the one that is corrupt?

[Edited 2012-04-22 21:26:18]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 135, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

[/quote]

Quoting Superfly (Reply 134):
Ummm, the entire world is well aware of the growth in India. You need examples for this?
India as well as many other developing nations are growing by leaps & bounds. Many western businesses are moving to these countries due to over-regulation in their home countries (US, EU).

No, that was not the claim i am looking for proof. This is:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
and the US has become by far the most bureaucratic that I have ever seen. Even India, at the height of the "Licence Raj" of 20 years ago, barely holds a candle.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 134):
Due to over-regulation, we're losing jobs (and tax revenue) because many companies are moving to developing nations.

You still have to prove this,

Quoting Superfly (Reply 134):


Quoting mt99 (Reply 126):
So if 150,000 regulation is oppressive, pray tell.. with how many regulations would you be happy?

You're expecting us to go over every single law and government waste with a fine tooth comb just to prove a point to you? Heck if we did, I'd doubt you'd bother to read it all. I've already stated a few examples of government waste earlier in this thread.

Yes i do . You must be incredibly knowledgeable to laim that they are not needed. So go ahead.. we are all waiting.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 134):
Obama took $2,000,000,000.00 of OUR tax dollars to GIVE to a Brazilian company named Petrobras

Sigh...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 136, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 135):
No, that was not the claim i am looking for proof. This is:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 135):
You still have to prove this,

Didn't realize I was given a homework assignment.   

Quoting mt99 (Reply 135):
Yes i do .

That is insane. Obamacare alone is 2700 pages. The other 150,000 rules & regulations are also hundreds of pages and you expect us to dig through every law to prove a point to you?
Takes someone with a hole lot more credibility and importance to make me do that kind of work.
Jobs moving over seas isn't enough proof for you?
Sounds like your mind is already made up and that's fine.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 135):
Sigh...




Keep on sighing.


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 137, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

Having problems problems on my end.

Here is the article

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166

online wsj article SB1000



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 138, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1143 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The freer, the less regulations. The very definition of regulations implies a restriction on freedom.

The funny thing about this link is that it clearly proves most conservatives on this thread wrong. The U.S. is rated as one of the freest economies in the world. Even more so, the U.S. freedom score hasn't markedly changed over the past 15 years...despite the supposed thousands of regulations that Obama supposedly created.

Even more funny, the ranking is produced by the Heritage Foundation an uber-conservative group that hates Obama.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 139, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1139 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 114):
You are thinking about politicians. A CEO who cannot evaluate the market effectively and manage his company accordingly does not keep his job for very long.

Most CEO's don't last as long as a senator or President. Especially in the big companies.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 116):
Yea and politicians are soooo honest and efficient with our tax dollars.
They can't even pass a balanced budget and many were bouncing personal checks left & right.

Not disagreeing here.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 134):
The Buffet Rule is to generate more tax revenue. Due to over-regulation, we're losing jobs (and tax revenue) because many companies are moving to developing nations. The Obama administration doesn't seem to know how to control spending so he is looking for other sources of tax revenue.

We need more revenue. Tax Rates are the lowest they have been in 50 years, and the Government needs to close the gap.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 140, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 133):
Just so I've got this straight: you're not actually advocating for corruption, right?

Of course not. Just saying how certain things get done in these places, unfortunately.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 141, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1123 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 140):
Just saying how certain things get done in these places, unfortunately.

So, basically, the way things get done in those places make things easier for some businesses (those that are well-connected or can afford to act like they're well-connected) but make things harder for everyone else. Naturally, those who can take advantage of such scenarios will view the country as business-friendly, but overall I don't really see how anyone could call it a truly business-friendly environment - that's something you get with fairly and equally-applied regulations.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 142, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 132):
Especially in economically depressed areas where the benefit of a multi billion dollar refinery will carry much more weight than what any other special interest group that wants to get in the way has to say. That's not to say there is a lower level of regulations, but in effect, having friends in high places gets the ball moving.
Quoting Mir (Reply 141):
Naturally, those who can take advantage of such scenarios will view the country as business-friendly, b

If you asked Wal Mart. would they say Mexico is more business friendly than than the US?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...e-shows-the-risk-of-ignoring-risk/



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 143, posted (2 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 1048 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 138):
The funny thing about this link is that it clearly proves most conservatives on this thread wrong. The U.S. is rated as one of the freest economies in the world. Even more so, the U.S. freedom score hasn't markedly changed over the past 15 years


The trend is falling fast.




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (2 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 1034 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 136):
Keep on sighing.

Did you even read the article? or do you just sigh because you realize you fell for another online Glen Beck lie?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 145, posted (2 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 1017 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 143):
The trend is falling fast.

From 81 to 76....and I might note the score of 76 is the same score given in 2000. And most of that fall is purely debt related and not driven by regulation.

If conservatives want to scream about government spending too much, I can certainly grant them that. But all this screaming about regulations is just noise designed to distract.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 146, posted (2 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 1013 times:

Rather than a Buffet tax, I'd much rather see taxes reduced on people making 100k-1m per year. If capital gains is 15% or 20%, so should be the tax on work income. It would provide enough money for a massive government and healthcare for all. (note: it would still require slashing today's government by A LOT, which would increase the cash-in-pocket of workers and entrepreneurs by a lot.)

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 147, posted (2 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flighty (Reply 146):
it would still require slashing today's government by A LOT, which would increase the cash-in-pocket of workers and entrepreneurs by a lot.)

I doubt the whole lower tax=cheaper prices link.

Look what happened when congress failed to extent the FAA so those taxes could not be collected for a few months. What did the airlines do? They kept charging the same amount, but pocketed the extra money.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39834 posts, RR: 74
Reply 148, posted (2 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 998 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 144):
Did you even read the article? or do you just sigh because you realize you fell for another online Glen Beck lie?

Yep and I have no idea nor care what Glen Beck has to say.
I trust the Wall Street Journal as a reliable source. Read the link in the following post.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 139):
We need more revenue.

Not really but if they need it so bad, you have almost 50% that pay 0 taxes. Perhaps General Electric should pay their fair-share of taxes too. They made a whopping $14,000,000,000.00 in profits and paid no taxes. They also laid off thousands of Americans and opened plants in China.
Once the US Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional, perhaps the government won't need as much revenue.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 149, posted (2 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 989 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 148):
I trust the Wall Street Journal as a reliable source. Read the link in the following post.
[/quote]
you do realize that this link of yours is from the opinion section. Looks like another person fell for the lies and misinformation of conservative radio.


Quoting Superfly (Reply 148):
Not really but if they need it so bad, you have almost 50% that pay 0 taxes.
But show me how you would fix all the below. Not all of your 50% are low income.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...eral-income-state-and-local-income

"
The Tax Policy Center’s estimate means that some 76 million households won’t pay federal income tax in 2011. But they still owe other taxes. About two-thirds pay payroll taxes, and most pay state and local income and sales taxes as well as excise taxes on gas, tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol. Of the one third who don’t pay payroll taxes, more than half are elderly who no longer work, and just under half are families with incomes under $20,000. Only about 1 percent of the population pays neither income nor payroll taxes and earns more than $20,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center.

•For 50 percent of those that don’t pay federal income taxes, standard deductions and personal exemptions are enough to counteract their taxable earnings. A couple with two children earning less than $26,400, for example, will pay no federal income tax in 2011 because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 cuts their taxable income to nil.
•22 percent are senior citizens who get a more generous standard deduction, can exclude some or all of their Social Security income and may have tax-exempt interest from mutual funds and municipal bonds. For those who itemize, charitable contributions and medical expense deductions also subtract from their tax liability.
•15 percent are working families, many of them low-income, who qualify for one or all of the Earned Income tax credit, the Child tax credit, the Child and Dependent Care tax credit. The earned-income credit is fully refundable, and the Child credit is partially refundable this year, meaning some households may get refunds from the government even if they owe no income taxes.
•The remaining 13 percent are a mix of mostly higher-income individuals with enough itemized deductions for items like mortgage interest, health payments, or charitable contributions, education tax credits, or tax exempt interest to zero out their income taxes.
"

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/...ate-and-local-income#ixzz1sz3C4JWz

[Edited 2012-04-24 11:27:43]

[Edited 2012-04-24 11:30:32]


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.