Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's Your Issue With Paying Tax?  
User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 619 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

After reading much about US citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying US tax abroad, and with all this argument over the proposed Buffet Rule... one has to ask? What's your problem with paying tax?

The money earned by tax is not only used for defense, health care, social security, education, but also is used for items that we (the citizenry as a whole) take for granted such as food stamps, highways and transportation, public defenders to defend you, the FAA, police, fire and ambulance services, and all other elements that give us the modern infrastructure that allow us to go by with our day to day activities.

I think that paying tax is a form of paying it forward for the future generation. If you make money in this country, or have benefited from what this country provides to allow you to make money (super fast internet to get what you need done, roads to get you to where you need to go, bank networks to get access to your money) then you should pay tax.

When I think about these multimillionaires and billionaires who do anything to avoid paying tax, it makes me sick that they are the ones who should be paying taxes but are avoiding it. Are people love for money deeper than paying back society and assisting the future generation?

What are your thoughts?

106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Are people love for money deeper than paying back society and assisting the future generation?

There are people who couldn't care less about the future of the country if it would save them a few dollars, yes.

I don't really know what people in the US are complaining about. We've got a pretty good tax rate when compared to other developed countries. Yes, the tax code could be simpler (I pay income tax to four entities - that's a paperwork headache and a half that I could do without), but we've got services that need to be paid for and a debt that needs to be paid down, so it is what it is.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

I think the simple answer to many questions along the line of "Why do people do x,y or z in the US" is that some people just suck. They would suck wherever they lived, but the relatively high level of freedom in America allows those people to suck to the greatest possible degree.

Fortunately there is a solid nucleus of good people who are keeping this train on the rails, who don't make the news or go viral on the internet.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Personally I do not think that question stands alone, its mirror image is always there, whats the issue with government spending.
If governments could only spend what they receive in taxes no one would have a problem with paying taxes, because the people would actually have some control and be able to see how their money is spent.
Anyone really know what their national government budget is, how it is spent and where the waste goes, the entire world today is deep in debt yet every school teaches its young to live within their means and only take on debt as a last resort.

A key being touted to solve the worlds current crisis is for more taxes, as in the people paying more, one can debate whether it is the rich needing to pay more or everyone else, but the solution is for more tax income. The poor have never avoided taxes or their consequences, so in the long run, the increased tax revenue will come from increased government spending on the non-rich, the circle continues. One day someone will look at spending from governments, to business to the man in the street, somehow we tend to loose what we learned in school.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Oh, boy, here we go.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Are people love for money deeper than paying back society and assisting the future generation?
Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
There are people who couldn't care less about the future of the country if it would save them a few dollars, yes.
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 2):
I think the simple answer to many questions along the line of "Why do people do x,y or z in the US" is that some people just suck.

First of all, the initial post mentions people giving up their US citizenship. The people who are doing that for tax purposes are those who A) have dual citizenship, and B) live in another country. They are already paying taxes in the country where they live. What ticks people off is the fact that the US insists that you continue to pay US taxes even though you don't live in the US. The extra-territorial reach of the US tax system is unique among industrialized countries - the only other country I know that does the same was Qaddafi-era Libya, and I have no idea if they still do it.

Taxes should be limited territorially, and should be independent of citizenship. If you live in the US, whatever citizenship you have, you pay US taxes. If you live in France, whatever citizenship you have, you pay French taxes.

Secondly, an important factor is the subjective feeling of whether your taxes are being properly spent. Taxes in Germany or Switzerland are, on average, higher than in the US, but they are much more organized - you get less of a feeling that much of your money is going to buy votes and political favors, which is definitely the case in the US right now. Just the other day my wife got a phone call from the local HHS office. They were asking if anyone in the household would be interested in receiving government benefits, and ran down a list of all the things that would make one eligible. There were a lot. But that is the kind of thing that really irritates a taxpayer like me. The government is actively seeking out people to give money away, presumably to get people hooked, and when elections come around, they hope that people will vote for the party that will keep the gravy train rolling, instead of the party that says that we need to get entitlements under control.

Imagine this: What would federal spending be like if you eliminated from the entitlement roles everyone who really does not need the money - they have other sources of income, or are able-bodied and could get a job but government entitlements pay better. How much would be saved? $100 billion? A trillion?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2060 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Same reason many parents don't enjoy paying for ungrateful, lying, belligerent children who think they know best. It's not that they hate it prima facie, its that given a set of circumstances it is not something they want to do.

People like to be able to see what happens with their taxes, they like to see shiny new roads and infrastructure, they like to see low crime and low poverty, they like to have convenient and simple government services such as car registration, they like to not have to spend insane amounts of money and time to sort out their tax every year.

When government turns around and starts lying and treating its citizens like serfs is it not unreasonable for the citizenry to feel some resent towards government? When they cannot see their taxes going to good with with teen pregnancy, poverty, crime sky high, they can't see any of the trillions spent on wars except for the graves and news stories about their countrymen who've come home in body bags. When government is impossible to deal with how than they be expected to gleefully hand over their hard earned money?

And despite the shambles government is in, people know that the government is up to its eyeballs in debt with nothing to show for it, further enslaving their descendants in government servitude.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
After reading much about US citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying US tax abroad,

You've answered your own question. If they're living overseas how can they enjoy:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
health care, social security, education food stamps, highways and transportation, public defenders to defend you, the FAA, police, fire and ambulance services

If you should pay tax to enjoy these services, then if you are not enjoying these services, you should not pay taxes.


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11472 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2738 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I don't really know what people in the US are complaining about

There is a small and vocal per centage that believes the only reason we pay taxes is to give to so-called "welfare queens" who, apparently all purchase brand new Escalades and all own 52" flat screen TVs and all play the biggest X-Box/PS3/Wii and all the games. While there are a few like that, there are many, many more who use food stamps and Medicade just to survive.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
What would federal spending be like if you eliminated from the entitlement roles everyone who really does not need the money - they have other sources of income, or are able-bodied and could get a job but government entitlements pay better. How much would be saved? $100 billion? A trillion?

Probably about $2 million. Until they start to get sick again because they can not afford doctor visits and medications because they have been denied for private insurance because of "pre-existing conditions."

Where in the Bible did Jesus ask Lazarus for his private medical insurance? The right claims to be the party of Jesus, so I have to ask. Also, how much profit did Jesus make when He fed the masses and preached the beattitudes?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What's your problem with paying tax?

I like money and I like to make sure that as much of my money stays exactly that: mine.

Sure taxes are used for some necessary and useful things to me like defense, police, infrastructure (within reason) and maintaining a legal system. But a lot is thrown away on welfare, flying empty planes around, subsidizing video game companies. As far as I'm concerned that's pure waste. None of that spending helps me and I could just as easily squander it on my own, by say, buying WNBA tickets, investing in an airline, or flushing cash down the toilet.

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
The poor have never avoided taxes

...they never had to.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
What ticks people off is the fact that the US insists that you continue to pay US taxes even though you don't live in the US. The extra-territorial reach of the US tax system is unique among industrialized countries - the only other country I know that does the same was Qaddafi-era Libya, and I have no idea if they still do it.

Taxes should be limited territorially, and should be independent of citizenship. If you live in the US, whatever citizenship you have, you pay US taxes.

   And then you get into the bullying of foreign banks.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
What ticks people off is the fact that the US insists that you continue to pay US taxes even though you don't live in the US.

And that's fair - the US expat tax policy is idiotic, and needs to be changed.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
If you live in the US, whatever citizenship you have, you pay US taxes. If you live in France, whatever citizenship you have, you pay French taxes.

I'd agree, with the exception that if you're living in France as a US citizen but making money in the US, that money (and only that money) should be taxed at US rates.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
What would federal spending be like if you eliminated from the entitlement roles everyone who really does not need the money - they have other sources of income, or are able-bodied and could get a job but government entitlements pay better. How much would be saved? $100 billion? A trillion?

Probably about $2 million.

Actually, if we started denying Medicare and Social Security to those who were clearly able to cover themselves in their old age, we could save quite a bit. But I'm pretty sure that would never fly politically.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13478 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't have an issue with paying taxes. I have an issue with the perception of others that somehow, I don't pay enough. Particularly when they're not paying as much as I already am.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Why was I not surprised to see the age bracket of the OP?

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What's your problem with paying tax?
Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
avoid paying US tax abroad

Well lookie here, seems like you just answered your own question, doesn't it?

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I think that paying tax is a form of paying it forward for the future generation

I think it is a way to subsidize public employees who couldn't get a private sector job if it bit them in the behind. Coming from a country that is now in shambles because decades of government largesse instituted the mentality that the government should provide for everything and people who take risks in the private sector are suckers who should be fleeced out of everything they have, I should know.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

Here is a problem -- Almost 50% of Americans don't end up paying any Federal Income Tax - up from 12% in 1970s.


So before continuing to chase after the 50% that do pay, and demonizing those that have done well for themselves, how about creating a system where everyone must pay something.

Imo - as a small business owner my tax burden and complexity is getting beyond ridiculous - with multiple levels of local, state and federal taxes. Its simply too easy for every entity involved to raise their rates a few percentage, and before you know it, your taxes have been bumped up 25%, to the point where its almost not worth doing more business, or hiring any added help.
Matter of fact the help I've needed in recent times is not to run the business and generate income, its to help manage and document the complex myriad levels of regulations to keep my nose clean.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
Probably about $2 million. Until they start to get sick again because they can not afford doctor visits and medications because they have been denied for private insurance because of "pre-existing conditions."
Quote:
As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...ves-in-household-getting-benefits/

I personally know a lawyer who made a crapload of money, drove nothing but Cadillacs and lived an a very upscale neighborhood in north Dallas. His house was filled with artwork he collected over the years. But when he got cancer and spent his last 6 months in the hospital, Medicaid ended up paying 100% of his bill, because he never bought insurance.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
Where in the Bible did Jesus ask Lazarus for his private medical insurance? The right claims to be the party of Jesus, so I have to ask. Also, how much profit did Jesus make when He fed the masses and preached the beattitudes?

Where did Jesus demand from Lazarus' neighbors that they should pay for Lazarus' care, and be subject to imprisonment if they did not? Christ taught that you should help of your own free will. Being forced to do so (and taxes are forced) has no meaning in terms of a virtuous act.

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
I'd agree, with the exception that if you're living in France as a US citizen but making money in the US, that money (and only that money) should be taxed at US rates.

Agree absolutely. Tax territoriality means taxing revenue where it occurs.

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
Actually, if we started denying Medicare and Social Security to those who were clearly able to cover themselves in their old age, we could save quite a bit. But I'm pretty sure that would never fly politically.

It's not that they should get nothing, but it should basically be enough to keep you off the streets, and little more. I agree that the social security payroll tax limit at $105K or whatever it is should be lifted, even eliminated, but the rate reduced.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39668 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Are people love for money deeper than paying back society and assisting the future generation?


Future generations? That money is already gone. The US is now over $16TRILLION in debt and our current President is spending 8 times what they bring in from taxes. Also 50% do NOT pay taxes!
You talk a lot about "greed" when a lot of the anti-rich sentiment is motivated by ENVY.
Envy is just as bad, if not worse than greed.
Also much of our tax dollars is being wasted abroad which is why many people have a negative opinion of the United States.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
B) live in another country. They are already paying taxes in the country where they live.


  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Taxes should be limited territorially, and should be independent of citizenship. If you live in the US, whatever citizenship you have, you pay US taxes. If you live in France, whatever citizenship you have, you pay French taxes.


  

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 5):
You've answered your own question. If they're living overseas how can they enjoy:


  

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
There is a small and vocal per centage that believes the only reason we pay taxes is to give to so-called "welfare queens" who, apparently all purchase brand new Escalades and all own 52" flat screen TVs and...


You have an incredible imagination but the person you speak of only has a 5 year cap on welfare. Getting knocked up by multiple man and collecting child support from multiple men has replaced welfare.
President Clinton passed welfare reform which ended lifelong welfare.
The welfare queens of today would be companies like General Electric which paid NO taxes and their CEO is Obama's jobs czar who exported thousands of jobs from the US to China and even got tax returns despite record profits. Same for Pepco Holdings, PG&E, Atmos Energy just to name a few.
There are a whole lot more companies that can be classified as "welfare queens".

Then of course there is all the government waste - most of which goes out as foreign aid to countries that don't even like us or even need the money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
And then you get into the bullying of foreign banks.


...and that really burns me up! Many countries already have bank privacy laws that forbids releasing private banking information.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Here is a problem -- Almost 50% of Americans don't end up paying any Federal Income Tax - up from 12% in 1970s.



If we just simply had a 10% flat-tax for everyone, this problem would be solved.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Where did Jesus demand from Lazarus' neighbors that they should pay for Lazarus' care, and be subject to imprisonment if they did not?


  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

I resent paying tax.

Not only does the government take nearly 40% of my salary in various taxes, I also have to pay around 30% tax on most things I buy. Then the local council wants 10% of what I earn for their various taxes.

When I see all the people on the train everyday going to work, and think of the millions of people in the UK I wonder why any govenment needs that amount of tax? It's not like we see it being wisely spent.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8373 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

The issue is not paying tax. The issue is that people who earn a lot tend to be very analytical about their own earning vs. spending. "We" run a tight ship.

The government on the other hand... is a dysfunctional, corrupt lost cause. Philanthropy is one thing; outright destruction of human achievement is another thing. Our government primarily exists now to enrich government contractors and employees. The quarry is our children and today's working affluent. As somebody in the business world, I have some limited perspective on how, and why, this occurs. It does not make me want to essentially lose all my money so my (rich) neighbor can profit even more off the government's sclerotic hobbling. I honestly hope for a revolution. We *could* become more socialist than Sweden and still have money left over, *if* we shed this whale of corruption.

If not, I could easily see myself leaving. I am young enough. My family has not been in the USA forever and will not necessarily remain here forever.


User currently offlinevegetables2001 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I think that paying tax is a form of paying it forward for the future generation

This quote is so utterly ironic, in the EU and US the present tax payers are doing anything else BUT paying ANYTHING forward to the future generations. The entitlement culture that is so endemic in western citizens at present as going to burden future generations to a frightening extent.

It's equally ironic that the politicians on the left like Obama who wished people paid higher taxes are the ones most guilty of placing the burden on future generations.

I personally have no problems in paying tax at all for: foreign aid for 3rd world countries, people made redundant, the sick, the good education of the young, some form of armed service, pubic transport, public sanitation, etc.. etc.. etc..

What I have a problem with is paying taxes for:

Healthcare for people with chronic healthy lifestyles.
Funding generations and generations of welfare junkies.
Prestige obsolete military projects like Trident replacements
Funding pointless foreign wars fought so our idiot politicians can bum up whichever idiot is the POTUS ATM.
Funding foreign regimes that can afford nuclear weapons and space programs.
Bailing out failed banks.
Funding prestige sporting events.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 6):
Where in the Bible did Jesus ask Lazarus for his private medical insurance?

However if Lazarus was a breast cancer patient in the US (survival rate 85%) he'd have a much greater survival rate than the UK(74%)



A306,319,333 ATR72 BAC113/5, B703/704,717,721,732/3/4/5/7/8,741/1/4,757,763,773/E, DC8-6,9-3/5,10-30, DC106
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

Quoting vegetables2001 (Reply 16):
Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I think that paying tax is a form of paying it forward for the future generation

This quote is so utterly ironic, in the EU and US the present tax payers are doing anything else BUT paying ANYTHING forward to the future generations.

Ain't that the truth. How can Liberals get away with saying that they are investing in the future? Investing is what happens when you pay money now in order to get a benefit later. We are getting the benefits now (entitlements, government-funded businesses that are otherwise unsustainable etc), and telling our children and grandchildren to pay the bill. That's the complete opposite of investment.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
Why was I not surprised to see the age bracket of the OP?

LOL, I didn't notice that. Just goes to show what young people are learning these days.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

I wouldn't have as much of a problem if the government didn't throw so much of my money away. It's ridiculous, I'd feel better burning the money than having it being wasted on some of the stuff the government spends money on


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinevegetables2001 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

This is pretty much the whole crux of the economic/politic divide: Should the state spend the money or should the individual? Debates over issues just fluff in the long run, this is by far the most important debate and I think the next few years will decide the future of the western world economically.

As I have never seen politicians or the state run anything well I'm afraid I have to go down on the individual side.

It just show what a bunch of political pygmies we have at the moment that they distract the population with issues such as gay marriage - makes me want to weep,



A306,319,333 ATR72 BAC113/5, B703/704,717,721,732/3/4/5/7/8,741/1/4,757,763,773/E, DC8-6,9-3/5,10-30, DC106
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Quoting vegetables2001 (Reply 19):
As I have never seen politicians or the state run anything well I'm afraid I have to go down on the individual side.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Here is a problem -- Almost 50% of Americans don't end up paying any Federal Income Tax - up from 12% in 1970s.


So before continuing to chase after the 50% that do pay, and demonizing those that have done well for themselves, how about creating a system where everyone must pay something.

Or how about we work on decreasing the income inequality so that the poor get richer and can start falling into higher tax brackets? That'll be far more productive long-term than just taxing the lower ends of the income scale more because it makes people feel better.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What's your problem with paying tax?

Because it's taken by force. I loathe violence, it is the tool of brutes, not of the civilized.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I think that paying tax is a form of paying it forward for the future generation.

Right now, most governments are putting future generations at risk with the massive amounts of debt they are pilling up.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
If you make money in this country, or have benefited from what this country provides to allow you to make money (super fast internet to get what you need done, roads to get you to where you need to go, bank networks to get access to your money) then you should pay tax.

Government gets in the way of these things, it does not help their development.

[Edited 2012-05-27 16:34:53]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
I loathe violence, it is the tool of brutes, not of the civilized.

Getting things without paying for them is hardly civilized either.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 23):
Getting things without paying for them is hardly civilized either.

I am not the one who has a problem with that statement. . . unless it's a gift, then I have no problem with it.

[Edited 2012-05-27 16:45:36]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 21):
Or how about we work on decreasing the income inequality so that the poor get richer and can start falling into higher tax brackets? That'll be far more productive long-term than just taxing the lower ends of the income scale more because it makes people feel better.

Sure let people go out get educated, work hard, invent things, and strike it rich. I'm all for that.

However the government mandated Robin Hood like income redistribution is absolutely wrong imo. Its as if we wish to punish people for being smart, accomplished, and having done well at the end of the day.

If anything, the ones that need the kick in the rear are those millions that feel they are entitled to a government mandated cruch, and the government will always be there to catch them regardless of what they give back.

As we know, life is tough - either you swim, or you sink. But don't get mad at those that learned how to swim....

Yes its philosophical debate at the end of the day, but for me, the more government leaves the country alone, and the less social engineering it tries to practice, the better.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 21):
Or how about we work on decreasing the income inequality so that the poor get richer and can start falling into higher tax brackets?

I put it to you that that is the best argument for government to butt out.

Here is a map of the GINI index, which is an indicator of the inequality among values of levels of income.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/GINIretouchedcolors.png/800px-GINIretouchedcolors.png

I suggest to you that the countries with the most regulations on industry are those that have the worst GINI scores. I'm not talking about the stringency of those regulations or the taxation levels - I'm talking about complexity. In many countries, like in Scandinavia, taxes might be high and regulations are very strict, but they are relatively simple - enough so that the average entrepreneur can understand them within the space of a few pages. In the US, virtually every industry is governed by so many regulations that you need lawyers to understand the critical ones (and hope the others don't bite you in the ass). I think the complexity of regulations is just as much, and perhaps much more of a cause of income inequality.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
If you make money in this country, or have benefited from what this country provides to allow you to make money (super fast internet to get what you need done, roads to get you to where you need to go, bank networks to get access to your money) then you should pay tax.

Government gets in the way of these things, it does not help their development.

That's a bit harsh. Roads would not be built without governments, for example. But generally speaking they do tend to get in the way more often than not.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 23):
Getting things without paying for them is hardly civilized either.

So I take it that we should end all income redistribution-style entitlements? I'm surprised you think so.

http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/579420_363298987063407_224983817561592_940985_99920878_n.jpg



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
Actually, if we started denying Medicare and Social Security to those who were clearly able to cover themselves in their old age, we could save quite a bit. But I'm pretty sure that would never fly politically.

While that sounds great in theory then the taxes that an individual paid into Medicare and Social security should be refunded to an individual who is denied a government service because of too many means. You paid in to something and you should get the benefits and if you don't want them then that should be your choice and the government shouldn't cut you off because you happen to be rich.

Quoting Mir (Reply 21):
Or how about we work on decreasing the income inequality so that the poor get richer and can start falling into higher tax brackets? That'll be far more productive long-term than just taxing the lower ends of the income scale more because it makes people feel better.

That's the problem is that these people do not earn enough to get into the federal tax brackets, however these same people will pay state and local taxes regardless about how much they pay federally. So they aren't paying 0% across the board. Which begs the question why do most US posters here complain about the feds only, I here very little about how a state might be stuffing up more than the feds do.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 24):
I am not the one who has a problem with that statement. . .

Really? Because without taxes, government services could not effectively be paid for.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 25):
However the government mandated Robin Hood like income redistribution is absolutely wrong imo. Its as if we wish to punish people for being smart, accomplished, and having done well at the end of the day.

What punishment? For all the talk about raising taxes on the wealthy, it hasn't passed yet. Those taxes are still lower than they were in 2000. And despite that, income inequality has increased since 2000. So while I agree that the wealthy are shouldering more of the tax burden, it has nothing to do with some new way of "punishing" them for being wealthy. Rather, it's merely a result of the way that the economy has progressed over the last decade or so.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
I suggest to you that the countries with the most regulations on industry are those that have the worst GINI scores. I'm not talking about the stringency of those regulations or the taxation levels - I'm talking about complexity.

I'd say that loopholes in the regulations inserted by certain well-connected businesses do tend to increase inequality, yes. But it is worth noting that the traditionally "big government" nations of Europe still manage to have less inequality (and, if I'm not mistaken, they have a more equally distributed tax burden).

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 28):
While that sounds great in theory then the taxes that an individual paid into Medicare and Social security should be refunded to an individual who is denied a government service because of too many means. You paid in to something and you should get the benefits and if you don't want them then that should be your choice and the government shouldn't cut you off because you happen to be rich.

While that sounds great in theory, you've got a whole generation of people paying into Medicare and Social Security who are unlikely to see the benefits of those programs. Why should they be the only ones not to get their money back?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 8
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 28):
So they aren't paying 0% across the board. Which begs the question why do most US posters here complain about the feds only, I here very little about how a state might be stuffing up more than the feds do.

I guess you have not been paying much attention to the states, a fair number of them have balanced budget amendments, additionally, when their tax revenue goes down unlike the Federal government they have to cut services.

Do states have waste, yes they do, but when they run deficits spending gets cut and services decrease and in some cases suffer, unlike the Feds when they run deficits they simply borrow and tax more, something which the states have much difficulty doing, so in an non-factual way, the people have more control over the state than they have over the feds.
This principle also control city budgets within the states, they are mostly responsible for the day to day government services like police, fire, sanitation etc. and also have the power to tax residents.

I guess we need governments to go into business, after all, most governments who are now complaining about lower revenue get all their existing funds from taxes, so maybe they should start investing in hotels, industry and actually doing some revenue generation of their own to assist their tax payors. The feds did run a freight train company profitably for a few years, so there is some hope.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
I'd say that loopholes in the regulations inserted by certain well-connected businesses do tend to increase inequality, yes. But it is worth noting that the traditionally "big government" nations of Europe still manage to have less inequality (and, if I'm not mistaken, they have a more equally distributed tax burden).

Loopholes exist for a reason and they are put there by lobbyists for the people and corporations that use them. The reason that the US tax system isn't simpler is because many stakeholders have an interest in it being complicated because some do benefit from it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
While that sounds great in theory, you've got a whole generation of people paying into Medicare and Social Security who are unlikely to see the benefits of those programs. Why should they be the only ones not to get their money back?

Who isn't or won't get access to it??



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
I'd say that loopholes in the regulations inserted by certain well-connected businesses do tend to increase inequality, yes.

Yes, and it is the job of government officials (elected or not) to say no. If a law applies to one industry or company, it should apply for all.

I remember reading through one of Congress's bills a couple of years ago (it could have been the Porkulus Bill, but I can't remember), and one section described a new regulation that would apply to all businesses, except for those incorporated on June 18th 1956 in Delaware (I made up the date, but that's exactly how it was written). A little study discovered that on that date and place one of the major companies in the industry was incorporated. A clear case of corruption.

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
But it is worth noting that the traditionally "big government" nations of Europe still manage to have less inequality (and, if I'm not mistaken, they have a more equally distributed tax burden).

You will also note that those countries with better GINI indexes are those that have less progressive tax systems than the US. We have taken the progressive tax scale to absurd lengths. Go to Germany or France - you start paying very significant taxes as soon as you make more than around $10K.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5385 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Generally my issues are:
1.) Not everyone pays tax.

2.) Those that pay the most think it is "not fair". Those that don't pay any think it is OK.

3.) When the government has excess taxes recipients they don;t use it to pay down.

4.) Both major parties play games with the money, each spending on their pet constituent groups with no concern for the nation and it economic future (beyond blaming problems on their opponents).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 33):
4.) Both major parties play games with the money, each spending on their pet constituent groups with no concern for the nation and it economic future (beyond blaming problems on their opponents).

        
Couldn't have said it any better. Few people point out that both sides are playing this game



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 34):
Couldn't have said it any better. Few people point out that both sides are playing this game


Which is how the Tea Party got started and why they managed to boot out some long-standing GOP stalwarts known to play such games, such as Dick Luger. It's got to stop.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32):
You will also note that those countries with better GINI indexes are those that have less progressive tax systems than the US. We have taken the progressive tax scale to absurd lengths. Go to Germany or France - you start paying very significant taxes as soon as you make more than around $10K.

You likely do in the US as well but it will go to your municipality or your state, its not going to the feds.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32):
Yes, and it is the job of government officials (elected or not) to say no. If a law applies to one industry or company, it should apply for all.

If a congressman says no, then the company wanting the loophole puts up a candidate that will keep it in place and with citizens united can put up unlimited sums of money to pretty much ensure that that person likely will get tossed from office.

There are billionaires out there like Sheldon Adelson who may put up up to $100 million to defeat Obama (I'm sure you love this) but by them doing this they will own Mitt Romney. If he doesn't co-operate with what they want then their money will go elsewhere in 2016.

This is the biggest problem with US politics and both sides are guilty of it and unless this is fixed nothing will change.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 30):
I guess you have not been paying much attention to the states, a fair number of them have balanced budget amendments, additionally, when their tax revenue goes down unlike the Federal government they have to cut services.

I know this but just because you have a BBA doesn't make you efficient but it is a good starting point, sometimes a deficit makes sense. The biggest problem in the US is the current deficit is too high relative to the growth rate (10% of GDP as opposed to about 2-3% growth)

The biggest issue with the US government is that they ran them when the economy is good and now everyone is seeing this as an issue when ideally they are more necessary to stimulate the economy and even Mitt Romney is saying this. You have go from the current situation and now take $1.5 trillion (the approx. annual deficit) out of the US economy quickly you kill the growth and then the government will have to cut more to match the upcoming revenue downfall.

If the US behaved like its northern neighbours who ran surpluses for about 10 years prior to the GFC a few years in the red is not going to create a fiscal panic.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2352 times:

I do not have a problem paying taxes if the government was using out taxpayer dollars effectively. There is SO much waste that is my problem.. Also even though only 1% of the budget goes to foreign aid I have a problem with this too. There is no accountability for any of the money we provide... In the latest incident of the doctor imprisoned in Pakastan for helping us with Bin Laden he was sentenced to 33+ yrs. Well our congress want to "punish" Pakastan one million for every yr the doctor is imprisoned...Are you kidding me?...We give this country BILLIONS...33 million is laughable. I wouldnt blame anyone for not cooperating with us in the future. I know this is off topic. But again our country WASTES taxpayer money that is the reason I hate paying taxes.

[Edited 2012-05-27 20:00:07]


NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36):
There are billionaires out there like Sheldon Adelson who may put up up to $100 million to defeat Obama

What is the total value of all the free airtime and media exposure Obama gets from a complicit media?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5385 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 39):
What is the total value of all the free airtime and media exposure Obama gets from a complicit media?

There is no "complicit media". There is only "free media". Unless you feel there should be a "fairness doctrine" imposed? You do realize that the President, the office of the President, gets more news reported about it just because it is what it is don't you? And it's not like all the news reported about President Obama is favorable. It's not.

The simple fact is the media is BIG business, huge business, with well paid executive staff and owners that cover the entire political spectrum. The only thing the media wants to do is sell ad time and sell its story. Which ever party puts up intriguing and exciting candidates, they will write about them.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 39):
What is the total value of all the free airtime and media exposure Obama gets from a complicit media?

How much? You tell us. You must know, right? Why else would you make a statement like this if you do not. So .. please.. tell us..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2279 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 39):
What is the total value of all the free airtime and media exposure Obama gets from a complicit media?

I could say the same about the berating the same man receives on AM radio??

I'm sure you have a real problem with that  



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21457 posts, RR: 60
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2286 times:

Simple. Study the givernment pension system in the state of California and you will see why we resent it here. The state is now looking to create a new tax bracket to pay 13%, and what do we get in return? Reduced DMV hours, building permit reviews that take months up to 2 years, real estate transfer taxes of 5-10 percent, no new freeways in years, higher fees and fines for everything, doubled parking meter rates. All so a boatload of middle management state workers can take early retirement w pensions at 150-200% of base pay, for life, because the rules they paid politicians to write allow it. Oh, and now we get a regerimandered state and a new primary system that all but ensures the incumbent wins in November. And on the federal level, there may never be a competitive Senate race again because of this new system. The exact House of Lords type system the constitution was written to avoid.

As for the buffet rule, it's hypocritical of the government to encourage investment in tax free government bonds then to turn around and chastise the wealthy for doing so. These evil rich are helping to pay for the administration's largesse...

As for buffet himself, he underpays himself as head of Berkshire in order to avoid taxes. He should be investigated and jailed for this, not held up as a hero. he should either take a salary commensurate with his position, or $1. Otherwise he has no high ground to stand on.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6572 posts, RR: 24
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Here is a problem -- Almost 50% of Americans don't end up paying any Federal Income Tax - up from 12% in 1970s.

Here's the real problem. The average CEO in the 1970's made about 40x what the average worker did. Today, the average CEO makes about 300x what the average worker does. As long as we have such massive wage inequality, our tax system will be grossly inequal as well.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 28):
While that sounds great in theory then the taxes that an individual paid into Medicare and Social security should be refunded to an individual who is denied a government service because of too many means.

No. Social Security is insurance. It should only pay out if needed. Your car insurance only pays out if there is an accident. If you have no accidents, they pay you nothing even though you may have given them thousands.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32):
Yes, and it is the job of government officials (elected or not) to say no. If a law applies to one industry or company, it should apply for all.

Sorry, but in a capitalist world, those with the money make the rules. It was true in the time of our Founding Fathers and even more so now.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
I suggest to you that the countries with the most regulations on industry are those that have the worst GINI scores.

I give you credit, you are desperate to create an explanation for why all the socialist, left-leaning countries have the least income inequality. Let me suggest to you something else, those countries with the worst inequality typically have corrupt, inept governments that provide little in meaningful services (education, healthcare) and whose government is largely controlled by a small group of super wealthy people.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 43):
As for buffet himself, he underpays himself as head of Berkshire in order to avoid taxes. He should be investigated and jailed for this, not held up as a hero.

You going to jail all the other CEO's who do (or have done this) in the past...including guys like Mitt Romney!!


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 44):
Sorry, but in a capitalist world, those with the money make the rules. It was true in the time of our Founding Fathers and even more so now.

You suggest that non-capitalist societies do not suffer from the same problem. As I have worked extensively in communist countries such as Vietnam, and Belarus, and many more that are more socialist than communist, I can assure you that just the opposite is the case. Corruption can exist no matter what the economic system is in place.

The problem is much more a function of how much power you allow government officials to have. The more power they have, the more incentives there will be to engage in corruption.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 44):
I give you credit, you are desperate to create an explanation for why all the socialist, left-leaning countries have the least income inequality.

And I notice that you refuse to discuss the fact that such countries have a much less progressive tax system than the US, or the specifics of their regulatory environment.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/25/35372059.pdf

Quote:
But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population." As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.

Even after accounting for the fact that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. have one of the highest shares of market income among OECD nations, our tax system is second only to Ireland in terms of its progressivity for households.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 44):
Let me suggest to you something else, those countries with the worst inequality typically have corrupt, inept governments that provide little in meaningful services (education, healthcare) and whose government is largely controlled by a small group of super wealthy people.

Precisely. So why are so many people wanting to give them more power, more authority, and more money? It seems to me the solution would be to starve the beast.

[Edited 2012-05-28 17:23:33]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8373 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 43):
All so a boatload of middle management state workers can take early retirement w pensions at 150-200% of base pay, for life, because the rules they paid politicians to write allow it.

That kind of thing makes me, well, not homicidal, but almost. It's absolute enslavement. It is a civil rights issue. My kids should not be indebted to these slobs whose cronies legislated a huge benefit for them, payable by my child. Get your affluent family's damn hands off my child's money. The idea that these giant self righteous asses are defeating my team on the basis of mathematics and actuarial science makes me ill. I refuse to lose that game. So, I don't live in California.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 44):
Here's the real problem. The average CEO in the 1970's made about 40x what the average worker did. Today, the average CEO makes about 300x what the average worker does. As long as we have such massive wage inequality, our tax system will be grossly inequal as well.

Thats not a problem. Its simply supply vs demand in a free market.

Each job in the free market has a value. There are millions upon millions that can make subways sandwiches, be the telephone customer service agent, or restaurant waiter, but there are very few that can be the brain surgeon, entrepreneur, music star, professional athlete, or Fortune 500 CEO.

In otherwords, society is a pyramid, and there are very few slots at the top, but those that reach it are handsomely rewarded by society. Imo kudos to them.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
So why are so many people wanting to give them more power, more authority, and more money? It seems to me the solution would be to starve the beast.

Do Scandinavian governments have less power, less authority and less money? Yet you held them up earlier as examples of how to do it better.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 48):
Do Scandinavian governments have less power, less authority and less money? Yet you held them up earlier as examples of how to do it better.

Because for some reason - take your pick - smaller country, older more established culture, better natural organization, whatever, Scandenavians seems to be less corrupt, in terms of politicians buying/selling favors and votes.

That is to say that high taxes and strong centralized government seems to work in some countries, but I don't think it will ever work satisfactorily in the US. The alternative which Democrats refuse to look at is allowing States to take on such strong powers, such as healthcare, old-age pensions, unemployment benefits etc, getting it out of the federal level. Let the states decide what they want to do (and each state is about as big as a European country). Federal spending would be cut by well over 50%. State taxes of course would have to go up, but then competition comes into play, where the best-run states will attract the best people and industries.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
The alternative which Democrats refuse to look at is allowing States to take on such strong powers, such as healthcare, old-age pensions, unemployment benefits etc, getting it out of the federal level. Let the states decide what they want to do (and each state is about as big as a European country). Federal spending would be cut by well over 50%. State taxes of course would have to go up, but then competition comes into play, where the best-run states will attract the best people and industries.

Entitlements cost 2.5T per year, tax revenue is 2.4T per year. That does not include the cost of running the government or infrastructure, defence or discretionary spending which is about an additional 1.5T.
So there is absolutely no way that the US can balance a budget even if the Senate actually made one (they have not in three years)
Even if they increased all taxes across the board 50% that would not cover the short fall.
Since we are borrowing money from ourselves at near 0% there is not much cost for borrowing money, once interest rates start to climb we will be even in deeper defecation.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 44):
Here's the real problem. The average CEO in the 1970's made about 40x what the average worker did. Today, the average CEO makes about 300x what the average worker does. As long as we have such massive wage inequality, our tax system will be grossly inequal as well.

Well I suppose if you keep adding more government rules and regulations to the point that there are fewer and fewer small business that are able to comply then you end up with the results you attest.
Quite frankly I suspect the average Cuban, a prime example recent socialism, earning nation average of $3 per week would be absolutely happy with earning near a hundred times that a burger joint and would not mind paying taxes on it either. I suspect it depends on your perspective.

Okie


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
The alternative which Democrats refuse to look at is allowing States to take on such strong powers, such as healthcare, old-age pensions, unemployment benefits etc, getting it out of the federal level. Let the states decide what they want to do (and each state is about as big as a European country). Federal spending would be cut by well over 50%. State taxes of course would have to go up, but then competition comes into play, where the best-run states will attract the best people and industries.

A couple of major problems with that. For one, going by what's come out of various state legislatures recently (and further back than that), I don't have a whole lot of confidence in many of them to do any better than the federal government. Secondly, what do you do with the states that aren't well-run? You'll get the same scenario Europe is in now with a few countries threatening to drag down everyone else due to an interconnected economy and common currency (both of which are in the Constitution and would thus be very difficult to change - harder than kicking Greece out of the Eurozone).

If we're going to be a country, we might as well be a country. And that means figuring out what factors are making the government corrupt, and fixing them. And I'd start by getting something in the Constitution preventing corporations, trade groups, unions, etc. from making campaign donations (or at least capping such donations at a certain amount).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 50):
Since we are borrowing money from ourselves at near 0% there is not much cost for borrowing money, once interest rates start to climb we will be even in deeper defecation.

That's another problem that's being ignored. Ever since Obama came into office and the treasury started having trouble selling T-Bills, the Fed has been buying them AND, most importantly, it has virtually all been short-term paper, because they could get interest rates at something like 0.5%. More than half our nearly 16 trillion dollar debt is in very short term paper (1 year or less). That means that if (when) inflation starts tipping upwards and interest rates start climbing, the impact is going to be quickly felt, and the portion of the federal budget (ahem) that goes to pay interest can double or triple within a year or two.

Quoting Mir (Reply 51):
A couple of major problems with that. For one, going by what's come out of various state legislatures recently (and further back than that), I don't have a whole lot of confidence in many of them to do any better than the federal government.

That's fine. You have 50 states. Just like if you don't like how your town is run, you can move to another town, you can move to another state (and so can businesses). When the federal government has all the power, it's like dealing with a monopoly. How would you feel if the only PCs available came from Apple, and their cheapest models cost $10,000, and other companies like Dell are simply not allowed to compete?

Quoting Mir (Reply 51):
Secondly, what do you do with the states that aren't well-run? You'll get the same scenario Europe is in now with a few countries threatening to drag down everyone else due to an interconnected economy and common currency (both of which are in the Constitution and would thus be very difficult to change - harder than kicking Greece out of the Eurozone).

Many states already have balanced budget amendments (unlike Greece). Sure, it's a risk, but I think it's better than the current situation.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2095 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52):
Many states already have balanced budget amendments (unlike Greece).

That's not very comforting - sometimes you need to deficit spend. Especially if you're suddenly going to start taking on a whole lot more financial obligations from the federal government that will need to be funded through bad times and good. The trick is not letting it get out of hand.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 53):
That's not very comforting - sometimes you need to deficit spend. Especially if you're suddenly going to start taking on a whole lot more financial obligations from the federal government that will need to be funded through bad times and good. The trick is not letting it get out of hand.

In terms of checks and balances, these are federal programs that the country may want to continue, the states have the feds backing as well as overseeing their activities, leagally and by the constitution.
I think the bigger problem is that the checks and balances for the Feds are either non-existent or they have been nuetralized, so to some degree there is no control on the federal level. Every decade or so some politician comes along - to me Reagan is the best example - talking about the growth of government, the need to take control of the bloated and inefficient fed, and at the end of the day, same old same old.
How about campaign finance reform, that was a buzz word a decade ago and where is it now, same old same old.
How much worse could it get if the states are more involved with federal oversight? The biggest change I see is a larger FBI and SEC agents / investigators who are already armed with federal laws.
RICO would become the new saviour  


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8373 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2042 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 53):
That's not very comforting - sometimes you need to deficit spend. Especially if you're suddenly going to start taking on a whole lot more financial obligations from the federal government that will need to be funded through bad times and good. The trick is not letting it get out of hand.

That's kind of like saying, I avoid car accidents by, first, stopping time. Then to escape danger, I levitate high above the crash and sprite on a pink cloud to safety. It sounds wonderful, but is it realistic?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 54):
How much worse could it get if the states are more involved with federal oversight?

If the federal oversight is good, then that would be an option. But I hear a lot more about getting the federal government out of things entirely.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 55):
is it realistic?

Not in our current government situation, no. Doesn't mean that handcuffing the governments is a solution either. And yes, I do believe that the current government situation can be changed.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 56):
But I hear a lot more about getting the federal government out of things entirely.

Only where money is concerned, their investigators are pretty good at identifying waste, corruption, the state of failed projects, overbudgets, faulty projections, budget oversight, etc. etc.etc. as long as it is "investigatory".

Quoting Mir (Reply 56):
And yes, I do believe that the current government situation can be changed.

What would life be without hope 
Question is who is going to lead the charge and how are they going to do it.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6572 posts, RR: 24
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
And I notice that you refuse to discuss the fact that such countries have a much less progressive tax system than the US, or the specifics of their regulatory environment.

And their less progressive tax structure is directly a result of their more equal incomes. The problem is that in the U.S., we have a massive population of dirt poor whose incomes are so marginal that trying to tax them would be fruitless. Europe doesn't have nearly the same rate of poverty (except for some of the Eastern European countries), so it's much more practical to tax them.

I also might note that the primary way that most of the poor/middle class get out of taxes is through deductions driven by having children. If you're single and make 20k/year, you'll still likely pay a grand in Federal withholding, plus SS/Medicare. If you have children and make as much as 30k/year, you could pay nothing in Federal withholding. I'll note that conservatives have long supported tax credits for having children.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52):
Just like if you don't like how your town is run, you can move to another town, you can move to another state (and so can businesses).

Sure, you can. But for long-term wealth accumulation, constantly moving around is not a good idea nor very practical.

And what happens when a state (or many states) collapse, sending millions of refugees into neighboring states and dragging those well-run states down with them. Unless the states can shut-down their borders (which they don't have the rights to do), you'll have an ugly situation.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
The alternative which Democrats refuse to look at is allowing States to take on such strong powers, such as healthcare, old-age pensions, unemployment benefits etc, getting it out of the federal level.

Because the states will be even more inefficient than the Federal government doing the same job. The Feds are inefficient, but the states are even worse. Instead of one administrator of Social Security, you'll have 50 administrators. Most of the states have struggled to manage their own pension systems and now you want to add social security too? The state DMV's are a hilarious bad joke and the state education systems are nothing to brag about either. I'm not sure why you have so much confidence in the states.

Let's take an example from the business world. My company (which was once independent) is now a subsidiary of a much larger company. The larger company has about 15 subsidiaries that it has acquired over time. Now, each subsidiary company used to have it's own benefits structure (from when it was independent). However, over time the company has required that each subsidiary migrate employees to a common benefit structure used by all. They did this because it was much more cost effective to have a single benefits structure and it allowed them to eliminate HR/benefits people at many of the subsidiary companies.

Quoting okie (Reply 50):
Quite frankly I suspect the average Cuban, a prime example recent socialism, earning nation average of $3 per week would be absolutely happy with earning near a hundred times that a burger joint and would not mind paying taxes on it either.

Not when he realizes how much more it costs to live in the United States.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52):
When the federal government has all the power, it's like dealing with a monopoly.

True, but maybe some things are best as a monopoly. You don't have five power companies competing for your business. You don't have five different departments of defense either.

Competition can be a great thing, but it isn't necessarily practical for everything.


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11472 posts, RR: 15
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security

Ages? Are those who receive SS able to care for themselves?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand

So that is not a true 15% and 16%.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Christ taught that you should help of your own free will. Being forced to do so (and taxes are forced) has no meaning in terms of a virtuous act.

So, screw everyone. And that will get you into heaven.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
I suggest to you that the countries with the most regulations on industry are those that have the worst GINI scores.

And the ones with the best health care, best education, and weathy populace. Such horror!!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5385 posts, RR: 8
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Here is a problem -- Almost 50% of Americans don't end up paying any Federal Income Tax - up from 12% in 1970s.

So before continuing to chase after the 50% that do pay, and demonizing those that have done well for themselves, how about creating a system where everyone must pay something.

Yes, sadly we have Republican's to thank for that. During the tax revisions of Reagan's time the lowest ~50% of income earners were removed from the taxes roles. And I firmly believe they shouldn't have. It certainly does have its logic to it and the Democrats absolutely supported it as well but it was a mistake.

The logic was (and it still holds true today) that it cost as much if not more to collect/audit/pursue taxes from this group as was collected. Even today, with "the lowest 50% of income earners" removed, "the lowest 50%" of tax payers pays just over 2% of the taxes, around $32billion (http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/income_rank/index.php). So imagine how much tax the "removed 50%" would pay and contribute? How much do you think it would cost to oversee those taxpayers.

Now with that said, I STILL think that EVERYONE needs to pay taxes so that they stay connected to the tax policy and procedures involved. I do believe that people become disenfranchised by not helping and contributing SOMETHING to the national budgets (yes, I know they still pay taxes in other areas).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
I suggest to you that the countries with the most regulations on industry are those that have the worst GINI scores.

A wealth disparity between the overall population and those with power and control and influence. That is the real death knell of a country and society. Look back in history, when did nations and societies fail? When a select few became so wealthy and disconnected with the rest of society and they used their wealth to distract and direct the rest of society to their own benefit and enrichment.

In my opinion taxes should not be "punitive", however all tax policy should have the singular goal to get and keep the greatest amount of earned income (and yes I consider investment returns to be "earned") in the hands of the greatest number of people. It is a simple idea and very powerful if implemented. Of course a lot of people would scream something about "wealth redistribution" but it is not. That has already occurred and things need to get back to a healthy balance for the nation. And I will say again, that can only occur when the greatest amount of wealth in in the control of the greatest number of the people of the nation.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-05-29 22:08:19]

[Edited 2012-05-29 22:11:13]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1812 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 58):
Europe doesn't have nearly the same rate of poverty

Wrong.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 58):
so it's much more practical to tax them

Not true. It is just that there are so many people that are living on the government dole that "taxing" them is easy - if I say I will give you $100 in subsidies but then retain $20 for withholding taxes, I can call that collecting taxes on lower income people any day I want, but in reality what is happening is I am giving you $80. It is like the fallacy that public sector employees pay taxes.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 61):
It is like the fallacy that public sector employees pay taxes.

WHAT!?!

I think this may be a deliberately misleading statement based around the fact that some money paid that is taken in taxes will (in laymans terms) go straight back to the pot from which it came. You make it sound like they don't have to pay tax on their salaries and get to keep the full whack!

Maybe what you should have said is not that they don't pay taxes but that they effectively earn an artificially lower wage than that which is described in their contracts to account for money not having to leave the gov't account.

Using your argument I could also say that I don't pay taxes even though I don't work in the private sector, my company pays my income tax for me and I simply receive an amount reduced by the amount of tax I would have to pay.

Not a particularly clever or insightful thing to say that Pyrex.

Fred


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8373 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 62):
I think this may be a deliberately misleading statement based around the fact that some money paid that is taken in taxes will (in laymans terms) go straight back to the pot from which it came. You make it sound like they don't have to pay tax on their salaries and get to keep the full whack!

What he said is right. Government gets money from 2 sources: (1) printing money (2) collecting taxes from the private sector.

Collecting income from within your own organization (i.e., taxing government employees) is a nonevent in terms of accounting. I can give myself $12 billion today. It is a nonevent. Or, a null event. If the government pays me $500, and then taxes me $500 five seconds later, no event occurred that we could study.

About half my friends work for the government. Imagine they together earn $2 million in pay each year. The point is simply that somebody must pay the govt's budget. Payment from within its own account is irrelevant and null.

The actual funding (government's costs minus employee tax inflows) must come externally.. it must come from me, or from printing money and depreciating everybody's dollars (and raising all prices). It worries me that my government friends seem to outnumber me.

[Edited 2012-05-30 06:41:56]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 63):
What he said is right. Government gets money from 2 sources: (1) printing money (2) collecting taxes from the private sector.

Collecting income from within your own organization (i.e., taxing government employees) is a nonevent in terms of accounting. I can give myself $12 billion today. It is a nonevent. Or, a null event. If the government pays me $500, and then taxes me $500 five seconds later, no event occurred that we could study.

About half my friends work for the government. Imagine they together earn $2 million in pay each year. The point is simply that somebody must pay the government's budget. Payment from within its own account is irrelevant and null.

The actual funding (government's costs minus employee tax inflows) must come externally.. it must come from me, or from printing money and depreciating everybody's dollars (and raising all prices).

You are of course correct. This is why in accounting, all inter-company transactions are eliminated. And this basic concept is something that socialists have never been able to comprehend. Government does not generate value, except in rare cases (eg it can build a highway network which otherwise would never be built). Generally, a person on a government salary is no different than someone living on welfare, in terms of macroeconomics.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flighty (Reply 63):

I agree with that but what I was having a go at was the way in which it was phrased, like somehow public sector workers were corrupt.

Fred


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 65):
I agree with that but what I was having a go at was the way in which it was phrased, like somehow public sector workers were corrupt.

No, they are not corrupt. But they (understandably) look out for their own financial best interests, especially since they have been allowed to unionize. Even FDR, who was a hardly a conservative, made it very plain that it would be disastrous to allow government workers to unionize, because they would be a natural obstruction to the requirement of government to be as small and efficient as possible.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
because they would be a natural obstruction to the requirement of government to be as small and efficient as possible.

Although this has diverged off topic here, there is a very bisic assumption that government should be as small as possible, it should be the right size to maximise its benefits. You could get rid of so many goverment things that are not required to run a country:-
Fire service
Military
Any state healthcare whatsoever
No public roads
No environment agency
No social security
No FBI
No TSA
No FAA ATC

The list is very long, The governement chooses which it keeps and which it gets rid of to maximise whatever it is that it deems important be tghat money or health or happyness... Smaller is not always better.

Fred


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6572 posts, RR: 24
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
Government does not generate value, except in rare cases (eg it can build a highway network which otherwise would never be built).

So air traffic control has no value?
Clean air has no value?
Safe medications have no value?
Protecting our country has no value?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 69, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 67):
You could get rid of so many goverment things that are not required to run a country:-
Fire service
Military
Any state healthcare whatsoever
No public roads
No environment agency
No social security
No FBI
No TSA
No FAA ATC

I'm not saying it provides no benefit. The issue is that in macroeconomic terms, if the government can run the FAA ATC function for $1 billion employing 1000 people (those are POMA numbers), it would be better for the economy than if it did the same job for $2 billion and 2000 people.

Government is a requirement. Just like the G&A line on a company's Profit and Loss sheet, there are some ancillary functions that simply have to get done, like accounting, janitorial services etc.. In a company, the workers who actually do the work (build the cars, install plumbing at customers' homes etc.) are in Cost of Goods Sold. Those are the costs related to actually generating value for the company. Those workers add value. The accountants don't - but you still need some of them.

That's what government is - it is a country's G&A line. The private sector represents the revenue and COGS.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
After reading much about US citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying US tax abroad

As has been stated they are trying to avoid double taxation.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
and with all this argument over the proposed Buffet Rule

Buffet is a hypocrite.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What's your problem with paying tax?

Do not have a problem with all taxes.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
The money earned by tax is not only used for defense

One of the few powers our federal government actually has the ability to tax for under our Constitution. Not that our politicians pay any attention to that.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
health care, social security, education

All should be banned at the Federal level.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
but also is used for items that we (the citizenry as a whole) take for granted such as food stamps,

For a limited role at the state level.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
public defenders to defend you, the FAA, police, fire and ambulance services, and all other elements that give us the modern infrastructure that allow us to go by with our day to day activities.

Also at the state level. But we have the feds taking money from us and the prostituting it back tot the States and local governments.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I think that paying tax is a form of paying it forward for the future generation.

This is really funny. How about I take care of my own future generations.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
(super fast internet to get what you need done, roads to get you to where you need to go, bank networks to get access to your money) then you should pay tax.

More items that are done at the local level.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
When I think about these multimillionaires and billionaires who do anything to avoid paying tax, it makes me sick that they are the ones who should be paying taxes but are avoiding it.

What makes me sick is people who want to leech of successful people and politicians who spend other peoples money to buy votes.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Are people love for money deeper than paying back society and assisting the future generation?

No they hate the waste and wealth redistribution that is going on in the name of the youth and the future.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 58):
and the state education systems are nothing to brag about either.

Possible a perfect example of the way forward, are there any federal schools in the US? No question the eductaion system has not been up to par, but since they are all state and local what have the feds done to improve the process, I believe they typically use the carrot and stick approach with their money, but so far, no one has pushed for Federal Schools to replace state and local schools. No different than police, ambulance, fire services, sanitation etc. if the states can effectively provide these day to day services maintaining other services are doable with the proper controls and oversight.

Quoting tugger (Reply 60):
Now with that said, I STILL think that EVERYONE needs to pay taxes so that they stay connected to the tax policy and procedures involved.

I think everyone does, does it make a difference whether it is state or local taxes? I believe every state either has income tax which is avoidable or sales tax which virtually no one can avoid, there may be some items which are exempt but most basic needs for day to day living are taxed.


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11472 posts, RR: 15
Reply 72, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 60):
I STILL think that EVERYONE needs to pay taxes so that they stay connected to the tax policy and procedures involved. I do believe that people become disenfranchised by not helping and contributing SOMETHING to the national budgets

I would point out that, under Clinton, taxes were lowered on the poor and raised on the wealthy and we all did so much better. Of course, we didn't have all these wars to pay for.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 73, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 72):
I would point out that, under Clinton, taxes were lowered on the poor and raised on the wealthy and we all did so much better. Of course, we didn't have all these wars to pay for.

And under Bush, he eliminated nearly the bottom 50% from the tax roles, while only marginally cutting taxes for the wealthy. Considering how you have complained about the Bush Tax Cuts, clearly you believe that taxes should go up on everyone (as I do). But in the end, the politicians are going to chicken out (on both sides). The bottom 50% are going to continue to get a free ride, and the rest of us are going to be stuck with the entire bill.

Taxmageddon is coming in 7 months. That's when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, a whole new wave of taxes arrive for Obamacare, and a bunch of other different new taxes come into play (How come they all come in right after the election... hmmmm, must be a coincidence). All economists agree that taxmageddon will push us into another full blown recession, with the economy as fragile as it is now.

Circling back to the thread's subject, I think you will find that most people (wealthy, upper-middle class) who actually pay the vast bulk of the taxes in this country will not mind a tax increase if, and only if, taxes on the bottom 50% are increased back to the pre-Bush tax cut days. If the Clinton/Gingrich tax rates are returned in their entirety, you won't have that many complaints. It's not so much that the bottom 50% actually pays a substantial part of the budget - they won't - but the people who do pay want to know that EVERYONE is at least pulling some of the weight.

But if the Dems continue to push for continuing the Bush tax cuts for some but shafting the wealthy/upper-middle class, this country will continue to be frostily divided politically.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1770 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 33):
Generally my issues are:
1.) Not everyone pays tax.

  

In my neck of the woods only 50% or so of the workforce pays taxes and they only get you mostly poor public services. Most of the people that actually pay have to pay again for private services and infrastructure:

- All decent highways charge tolls.
- Most have private health insurance.
- Have to pay for private schools.
- Some sort of private protection for your building, closed community or whatever because police is not that efficient.

So in effect, we tax payers are charged twice.

Is there any country in the world where public services charge more for those who can't demonstrate that they paid their share and likewise exempt payers from certain fees such as passports, drivers license, permits, etc?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 75, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 73):
I think you will find that most people (wealthy, upper-middle class) who actually pay the vast bulk of the taxes in this country will not mind a tax increase if, and only if, taxes on the bottom 50% are increased back to the pre-Bush tax cut days.

I'd think the Tea Party would have a fit. I know Norquist would.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 76, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):
I'd think the Tea Party would have a fit. I know Norquist would.

Some will. But I am a Tea Party member and I would not. One of the things that tee's us off is the fact that you have nearly half the country not paying any income tax at a federal level. That is not fair. Everyone must pay something - doesn't have to be much, but something. At least then you might have a lot of people thinking a little bit about what it will cost them in the long run before pulling the lever for (D). Of course that's why the Dems like it the way it is...

Remember the old saw "No taxation without representation"? I would suggest that the opposite should be true as well - "No representation without taxation." If you don't pay any income tax, you should not be allowed to vote.

And don't give me that "Oh they pay SS and Medicare and Sales taxes etc". Those are either local/state taxes or funds which in principle you are supposed to receive specific benefits in return. But those do not pay for bailouts, F-35s, Green Energy giveaways, federal education grants, etc.

[Edited 2012-05-30 12:09:08]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 77, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1653 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
Everyone must pay something - doesn't have to be much, but something.

How much would you want? And then how much would it cost in order to appropriately enforce that? And are you going to be spending more on enforcing the regulation than the regulation would actually take in? And if you are, and it's not really worth enforcing the regulation, why have it on the books in the first place?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
Remember the old saw "No taxation without representation"? I would suggest that the opposite should be true as well - "No representation without taxation." If you don't pay any income tax, you should not be allowed to vote.

That would take changing the Constitution, and I don't think that'll ever happen. Nor am I convinced that it should - the era of poll taxes was a shameful one in the nation's history.

Also, taxation without representation happens all the time - just ask anyone who's a foreign citizen with a green card, or anyone who has a felony conviction but has served their sentence (in certain states). Or ask a resident of the District of Columbia. Change thosel, and I'll be more amenable to making things run the other way in all circumstances as well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6572 posts, RR: 24
Reply 78, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
At least then you might have a lot of people thinking a little bit about what it will cost them in the long run before pulling the lever for (D).

Or they'll want even more from the government. If you raise taxes on the poor/middle class, they'll likely demand more benefits...not less.

The problem with raising taxes on the poor/middle class is that you're going to double whammy them. You're going to make them pay more in taxes, but at the same time gut the programs (health, education, social security) that they rely on the most. You almost guarantee yourself a long-term recession/depression.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 79, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 77):
How much would you want? And then how much would it cost in order to appropriately enforce that?

The Clinton era lowest rate was 15%, and started at a lower income level. You have claimed that you liked the Clinton tax rates, so how can you complain about it?

As far as cost, the incremental cost should be zero. Everyone must file, even if you don't actually pay anything, so processing costs should be the same. You can get further savings if you simplify the code and get everyone filing a very simple, 1040-EZ type of tax form.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 78):
The problem with raising taxes on the poor/middle class is that you're going to double whammy them. You're going to make them pay more in taxes, but at the same time gut the programs (health, education, social security) that they rely on the most.

If those programs were pointed to only the people who really need them, you won't have that problem.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 80, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 79):
The Clinton era lowest rate was 15%, and started at a lower income level.

There are still going to be people who don't make enough to get into that lowest bracket. You said you wanted to tax everyone, so my question still stands.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 81, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 80):
There are still going to be people who don't make enough to get into that lowest bracket. You said you wanted to tax everyone, so my question still stands.

According to the IRS website, if you made more than $400 last year, you have to file. 15% on that (of course you have the standard deduction that would take care of it for a ways.)

Nobody should be under the illusion that government is free. It won't cure all the stupidity out there, but it should help.

http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/579420_363298987063407_224983817561592_940985_99920878_n.jpg



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 82, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 81):
According to the IRS website, if you made more than $400 last year, you have to file. 15% on that (of course you have the standard deduction that would take care of it for a ways.)

If the problem is that only 50% of the population is paying taxes, I find it hard to believe that those people are making less than $400 a year. I know wages are depressed, but they're not depressed that much.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 83, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 82):
If the problem is that only 50% of the population is paying taxes, I find it hard to believe that those people are making less than $400 a year. I know wages are depressed, but they're not depressed that much.

Where did anyone say that they make $400 a year? That's simply the threshold that the government says you have to file.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21424 posts, RR: 56
Reply 84, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
Where did anyone say that they make $400 a year? That's simply the threshold that the government says you have to file.

You said that anyone making over $400 has to file, and then 15% of that should get paid in tax. That would seem to imply that currently, if someone isn't paying tax, they're making less than $400 (or perhaps a little more).

You did mention the standard deduction, but taking that into account would mean that you're willing to accept that some people will end up not paying anything in taxes.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11472 posts, RR: 15
Reply 85, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 82):
50% of the population is paying taxes

I wonder if that figure includes children (who pay no taxes) those on Social Security (who pay no taxes) and homeless (who pay no taxes).



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 86, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 62):
Maybe what you should have said is not that they don't pay taxes but that they effectively earn an artificially lower wage than that which is described in their contracts to account for money not having to leave the gov't account.

Precisely the opposite - to be able to pay a worker a net salary of $100 it costs the government exactly $100, while it would cost any private employer a lot more than that, due to taxes. This, combined with the knowledge that they always have essentially a limitless budget gives the government an unfair advantage in the labor market.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 65):
I agree with that but what I was having a go at was the way in which it was phrased, like somehow public sector workers were corrupt.

That was not how it was phrased.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 86):
Precisely the opposite - to be able to pay a worker a net salary of $100 it costs the government exactly $100, while it would cost any private employer a lot more than that, due to taxes.



So what would be the solution to this (if indeed it needs one)? Would you have the government outsource education and pay a company who then run schools and employ teachers who then pay tax? that doesn't work either does it? there is just a longer loop before the tax comes straight back.

If the private sector worker gets $100 and they get $40 taken in tax then the government will (on average) provide $40 worth of sevices. A worker in the same job for the Government gets $100 but then gives $40 straight back but by your rekoning that makes the government only $60 down instead of $100 like the private company but in reality they still have to provide that same worker with the same $40 of services provided to the privfate sector worker so are indeed not up at all.

Make sense?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 86):
combined with the knowledge that they always have essentially a limitless budget



If governments had limitless budgets then why all the trouble in Greece? why don't they pay off all the debts from the limitless pot and be done with it?

The government who controlled their own currency could print extra money and pay whatever they want with their money and as a result devalue their currency on world markets and causing inflation (look at what happened to Zimbabwe under Mugabe) . Limitless budget is simply a ridiculous statement.

Fred


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 88, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 87):
they get $40 taken in tax then the government will (on average) provide $40 worth of sevices

You have to be kidding...

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 87):
So what would be the solution to this

All taxes collected from employees in the public sector should go, dollar for dollar, to reduce taxes paid by employees in the real economy.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 87):
If governments had limitless budgets then why all the trouble in Greece? why don't they pay off all the debts from the limitless pot and be done with it?

Well, they still think and act like money grows on trees, so yes, the argument is still valid.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 89, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 84):
You said that anyone making over $400 has to file, and then 15% of that should get paid in tax. That would seem to imply that currently, if someone isn't paying tax, they're making less than $400 (or perhaps a little more).

No, the $400 limit is when you have to start filing. You don't actually start paying any tax at all until you hit about $9K. If you make less then $40-50K then you have a very strong possibility that you will get a higher refund than any taxes you might pay - that's a closet income redistribution program built straight into the tax system. Only once you are past $50K or thereabouts do you end up really paying any taxes.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 88):
You have to be kidding...



Pick whatever number you like, the government do have to provide services and they cost.


Quoting Pyrex (Reply 88):
All taxes collected from employees in the public sector should go, dollar for dollar, to reduce taxes paid by employees in the real economy.



The government decide that they are going to provide services that come to $40 per year per person (for arguments sake, pick $0.12 if you like).

Teacher in a state funded school earns needs these $40 spending on them just as the teacher from the privately funded school needs that spending. There are $80 that need spending there on them so the state funded teacher needs to pay their $40 too.

If you are suggesting that the Privately funded teacher should only get $60 and then not have to pay taxes then get the extra $40 in services then that is all well and good in the world of maths but what you have then is a whole tax code rebate system that has to be doubled in size. Not only taxes have to be calculated for private sector but also equivalent amount of earnings to be paid for the public sector workers, this would add totally unneeded bureaucracy meaning that maybe your private sector worker now has to pay $42 in tax. Not really what you had in mind there is it?

Fred


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11472 posts, RR: 15
Reply 91, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1484 times:

I know many of you hate me being partisan about this but I really have to point something out:

GWB lowered taxes on everyone AND handed out money AND engaged in four wars (Iraq, Afganistan, drugs, terror) and spent us into a deep, deep hole. The same people who were crying and screaming about how we need to spend ourselves silly are now saying we need to pay off the deficit. How are we supposed to raise revenue without raising taxes?

Example:

A private citizen needs income. They have cut expenses by selling their car, moving into a smaller, less expensive apartment, ditched cable/sattelite, one phone (no cell/mobile), no movies. All they have is an apartment and over-the-air TV and bus pass. Instead of citizen X either looking for a second or third job, the best thing for him/her to do, according to right-wing extremists, is to cut spending by getting rid of the transportation to and from work and, maybe sometime down the road, getting rid of the home phone, buying a brand new car and moving into a house. That would solve all this person's income problems.

Also, let's not forget that there were still thousands of millionares living in luxury making scads of money when the top tax rate was 87%.

[Edited 2012-05-31 08:27:25]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 92, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 91):
GWB lowered taxes on everyone AND handed out money AND engaged in four wars (Iraq, Afganistan, drugs, terror) and spent us into a deep, deep hole.

Let's not exaggerate. The cost of the wars were a pittance compared to entitlement spending.

Quote:
"About 65 percent of federal expenditures over the last ten years have gone towards entitlements. By comparison, about 15 percent has gone towards national defense, excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has cost three percent, and only about one percent has gone towards the war in Afghanistan (including the cost of ongoing military operations and all reconstruction and stabilization assistance combined), according to my analysis of figures from OMB."
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/post...5/22/obama_s_legacy_on_afghanistan

Quoting seb146 (Reply 91):
The same people who were crying and screaming about how we need to spend ourselves silly are now saying we need to pay off the deficit.

They might have spent a lot, but GWBs worst ever deficit was $427 billion, 3.5% of GDP in 2004. (and before you say anything, yes, that includes all Iraq costs etc).

Then came the 2008 crash. Congress approved over $700 billion of emergency spending to shore up the banks, but the second half (more like $400 billion) was not to be spent immediately, but pre-approved at the President's discretion, to be spent if needed. Around Christmas 2008, GWB decided that the panic was over, the markets had bottomed out and there would not be a need to spend that last $400 billion.

Then Obama arrives, immediately spends the $400 billion, and then throws in another $800 billion "stimulus".

And then the Dems conspire to not pass any more budgets, so that they can just do CRs and keep spending at super-emergency levels. Spending in FY 2009 (including stimulus and everything) was $3.46 trillion. Latest estimate for 2012 is $3.79 trillion. And the recession is over! It's been over for nearly 3 years. There is no need to spend at these levels.

With the Dems stalling any attempts at passing a budget, Congress is forced to do nothing but CRs, which is what the Dems want.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 91):
How are we supposed to raise revenue without raising taxes?

Let's say taxmaggedon happens. All the bush tax cuts go away, and all of the tax increases the Dems passed when they had full control 2009-2010 (including Obamacare-related) taxes go into effect. Obama's budget proposal (which everyone knows was wildly optimistic) indicate that the effect would be an extra $400 billion in revenue. The deficit would go from $1.3 trillion down to $900 billion. Still far, far too high.

Factor in the fact that all economists, left and right, agree that taxmaggedon will trigger another recession, indicates that those $400 billion won't even happen.

All in all spending has to come down. By a cool $1 trillion per year. that would bring it back down to levels spent in 2006-7, in real terms. Get the illusion out of your head that we can tax our way out of this. It won't happen. Even if every GOP politician in DC is booted out and Obama has congress filled with 100% Nacy Pelosis and Barney Franks, it just ain't going to bring in nearly enough revenue to put a dent in this deficit.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 93, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 85):
Quoting Mir (Reply 82): 50% of the population is paying taxesI wonder if that figure includes children (who pay no taxes) those on Social Security (who pay no taxes) and homeless (who pay no taxes).

This is for people who file returns.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 87):
Would you have the government outsource education and pay a company who

How about we remove the Governement totally.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 94, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 93):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 85):
Quoting Mir (Reply 82): 50% of the population is paying taxesI wonder if that figure includes children (who pay no taxes) those on Social Security (who pay no taxes) and homeless (who pay no taxes).

This is for people who file returns.

To be specific, it is based on the number of households.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11472 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 92):
The cost of the wars were a pittance compared to entitlement spending.

Does your pretty little graph there include no-bid contracts and the hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted military spending like ships that don't float and jets that can not fly in the rain and bullets and missiles the government spent money on? Also, let's not forget that, when a person spends money with their entitlement, that actually puts money back into the economy. As opposed to the bullets being spent on a lie of a war. And, don't forget the soldiers returning who need constant care because they lost both legs or both arms or half their brain and, now have to recieve entitlements just to survive.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 96, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Does your pretty little graph there include no-bid contracts and the hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted military spending like ships that don't float and jets that can not fly in the rain and bullets and missiles the government spent money on?

Of course they are included. Why wouldn't they be?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Also, let's not forget that, when a person spends money with their entitlement, that actually puts money back into the economy.

Ah, if you are going to take that perverted line of reasoning (expressed by Nancy Pelosi as I recall), I can respond as below. Not that I agree with your rationale, but if you buy into what you said it is the logical extension.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
As opposed to the bullets being spent on a lie of a war. And, don't forget the soldiers returning who need constant care because they lost both legs or both arms or half their brain and, now have to recieve entitlements just to survive.

Buying the bullets and guns is money spent on US hardware suppliers, and employs hundreds of thousands (if not millions) who work for companies that sell military hardware. Good for the economy, no? And all that medical care required by wounded veterans, that employs thousands of doctors and nurses and funds hospitals and research.

I don't agree with the rationale, but you cannot argue that government welfare checks (where money is given for no services rendered) are good for the economy and military/veteran care spending (where money is in return for hardware and services) is not.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 97, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1390 times:

[quote=Mir,reply=29]While that sounds great in theory, you've got a whole generation of people paying into Medicare and Social Security who are unlikely to see the benefits of those programs. Why should they be the only ones not to get their money back?

Mir; I hear that question kicked around quite a bit, about never getting back what you have already put in; I must be an exception to the rule; I've only been a social security & medicare recipient for 15 yrs now, and I've already "got it all back" and then some...........and I'm still not even dead yet ! My question is, who should I "thank" for this ? George Bush or Obama ? Seriously, all of this "stuff" is kinda like "the sky"; it's "over my head".

Staying right on-topic here, I am proud to announce that I stopped at two different post offices yesterday, in an attempt to buy stamps for, and mail my yearly tax returns to the IRS and the State of Ohio; for once, the IRS was "satisfied" with what I had already paid in, but alas, I had to send Ohio a check for another $239; ( I sure hope Governor Kasich spends it wisely !)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5467 posts, RR: 13
Reply 98, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

I know with me and sadly I'm not in that Mitt Romney 1% $$$ class but what gets my goat is my tax money going to bullshit such as censor boards, frivolous spending of government workers including Congress on whores, fancy junkets, religious adjendas etc. Also their is a general arrogance and lackadaisical entitled mentality of many in government. Meanwhile much of the super rich have lawyers, loopholes and other ways to cheat the tax man. I'm resigned to paying taxes. There are many good things and services that our money goes to but the above makes me pissed off.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6572 posts, RR: 24
Reply 99, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1362 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 79):
If those programs were pointed to only the people who really need them, you won't have that problem.

Almost everyone will need Medicare except for the very wealthy. No one will provide Medical insurance to the elderly unless they are able to pay out massive premiums.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 92):
By a cool $1 trillion per year. that would bring it back down to levels spent in 2006-7, in real terms.

Sure, but how do you take a trillion out of the economy without pushing the economy into a recession/depression which will cause revenues to fall and actually then require even deeper cuts? The loss of one trillion of spending in our economy means millions losing their jobs. Even most Conservatives are deathly afraid of making these cuts because they know what will happen.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 100, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1354 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 99):
Sure, but how do you take a trillion out of the economy without pushing the economy into a recession/depression which will cause revenues to fall and actually then require even deeper cuts?

That's going to happen. The US economy is like a morphine addict. Morphine is a wonderful drug that has saved many lives, if used only when absolutely needed. But it you become addicted, normal doses no longer work. Deficit spending (i.e. stimulus) can be justified, in limited amounts, when the economy is in recession. But we've been running on deficits for 55 out of the past 60 years. The proof that it no longer works is the fact that we have effectively spent $6 trillion in stimulus in the past 4 years, and the economy is still moribund. Just like the morphine addict, we have reached a point where the medicine simply is no longer effective.

It is inevitable that we will have a huge correction. We have a choice between A) keep on going and wait until stagflation sets in, combined with the inability of the government to sell paper to fund its spending - basically what Greece is looking at, or B) put in place a clear plan (and stick to it) to reduce federal entitlement programs by 30-50% in the next 5-10 years.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6572 posts, RR: 24
Reply 101, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1348 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100):
B) put in place a clear plan (and stick to it) to reduce federal entitlement programs by 30-50% in the next 5-10 years.

But Mitt Romney certainly won't do this. The only way to cut entitlement programs in this timeframe (5-10 years) by this much is to cut Medicare/SS benefits from people already receiving or about to receive SS/Medicare. However, do you see Romney going into Florida telling people that he will cut their benefits? Not a chance.

I would actually argue that Obama is more likely to reform SS/Medicare then Romney because no first term President (that wants to get re-elected) is going to cut these programs.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1341 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 96):
And all that medical care required by wounded veterans, that employs thousands of doctors and nurses and funds hospitals and research.

Stop right there. How on earth is that different to what happens when private citizens use public funds to seek medical treatment? It isn't, that's how.


Amazing how entitlements like welfare, free education, and healthcare are perfectly fine as long as it wears a uniform. Which by the way, is a fine example of the aforementioned (up thread) recursive "taxation" of gov't employees. But for private (tax-paying no less) citizens, the conservative answer is of course to fornicate oneself.


What people on the right often forget is that "entitlements" are indeed a necessary function of the government. Call it social maintenance, hand-outs, forced charity, whatever you like. But the fact is that governments that can't or don't take care of their citizens are not viable or stable. If looking more like Canada than Afghanistan means paying more in taxes, bring it on!

Like any sane person, yes there are things our government spends on that I wish it didn't (A bloated, entitlmentarian defense and associated cottage industry being the most glaring example), and things I wish it spent more on (like a credible space program, transportation infrastructure revival, and a healthcare plan that doesn't bankrupt citizens). But all in all, we do have it pretty great with regard to taxation here.

To the conservatives that revile any form of entitlement spending, get used to that not changing. As more and more people are put out of work by an economy incentivized to outsource and cut wages, we need to accept the fact that those who can afford to pay more, will. At that level, it's not even political. A sea change will have to occur within our economy to alter this path. And if that's not something we can live with, I'm sure places like Somalia (where captialism is not hindered by taxes and entitlement spending, of course) will be happy to let you on in.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5467 posts, RR: 13
Reply 103, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1329 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 102):



  

Of course both sides (parties) have their pet projects, supporters, people and interests so pork barrel spending gets funnelled toward these. Especially on the Mitt side. Big Pharma, big oil, and other big money interests get many loopholes, write offs, kickback and boodle. With our polarized society and political climate the battle lines are drawn and there will always be fighting just like all that frivolous spending. Some examples fault of both left and right. In no particular order:
  • $750.00 toilet seat
  • Secret service and their whores on our dime
  • When President Ford kicked the bucket, Federal employees got a paid day off. In DC this made sense due to logistics and the funeral festivities but the entire country?
  • If a holiday like Memorial Day, Christmas, New Years and a host of other holidays fall on a weekend, your government workers still get a paid Friday or Monday off though the holiday fell on a Saturday or Sunday. In our business (airline) and many other non government businesses if it falls on a Saturday, that's the holiday and you work the Monday or Friday unless you have that day as your day off.
  • Congress and their lackeys fly first class wherever and whenever.

In Maryland:
  • local libraries pay people as censors
  • bloated administrative education red tape
  • In Baltimore City: A clueless mayor who has a bug up her behind to have an annual Grand Prix car race mess up and clog our streets which are already in poor repair and traffic sucks normally. The company that ran this disaster last Labor Day lost money. A second company took over and they failed. But our mayor with the hyphenated last name just couldn't take no for an answer and had to have this cluster f again. She got a third company. Meanwhile, hood rats are robbing and assaulting everyday citizens and recording it for You Tube and the hip hop communitty. The city denies, denies, denies and says it's no problem meanwhile forcing out the police commissioner who has done a very good job in a city where crime and desperation run rampant. If it were up the Mayor she'll get some crony and get someone who will be her yes man or woman and the city will look like Waiting To Exhale while people are chased out of this once proud old town. Eventually, the rich folk from DC, NYC and Boston will realize that they will be bait for the hood rats and they will just stay on I-95 and pass through the city.


I think this rant is done for now.   



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6990 posts, RR: 8
Reply 104, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1309 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 99):
Sure, but how do you take a trillion out of the economy without pushing the economy into a recession/depression which will cause revenues to fall and actually then require even deeper cuts?

So you end up with a self fulling prophecy, where government needs governmemt spending to survive.
A number of smaller countries have this same dilema, where the government is the largest employer and ultimately the creator of wealth for its employees. Since the bulk of government work is actually services and not revenue generation how does an economy grow and remain self sustaining?
Citizen will pay funds for government services but if they are also employed by government who is giving them that money growth will not take place. The tax base has to grow if those are government jobs the money has to come from external sources, cue the IMF and other international financial organization who funnel money in for infrastructural projects / services.

I think keeping the government payroll as small as possible is critical, government can throw funds into the private sector which can assist in more revenue growth. Unless government is allowed to own and operate pure revenue business such as hotels, restaurants, airlines, car companies, factories etc. the bulk of their employees are providing services to the population which as already mentioned, in a true sense is not creating wealth that assist the population at large. As long as more of the money being used to pay taxes is coming from a non-government source growth will be sustainable.


User currently offlinemirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7443 posts, RR: 62
Reply 105, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1262 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You asked "What's Your Issue With Paying Tax?"

Can't say I have a problem with paying taxes. I do take great offense at watching my dollars being pissed away to entitlement programs.

As a young doctor, I used to truly be much more empathetic to the economically challenged. Nowaways, these folks come in on welfare healthcare, driving BMWs and calling on iPhones while at the same time, we hear on the radio to "look out for healthcare fraud with your doctor." Great way to enable class warfare.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):

When I think about these multimillionaires and billionaires who do anything to avoid paying tax, it makes me sick that they are the ones who should be paying taxes but are avoiding it. Are people love for money deeper than paying back society and assisting the future generation?

First off, those multimillion/billonaires are creating the jobs. Secondly, they are looking to reduce paying their taxes. their tax bill is higher than most peoples salaries.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
I personally know a lawyer who made a crapload of money, drove nothing but Cadillacs and lived an a very upscale neighborhood in north Dallas. His house was filled with artwork he collected over the years. But when he got cancer and spent his last 6 months in the hospital, Medicaid ended up paying 100% of his bill, because he never bought insurance.

In my mind, that's just abusive. Who divvied up his belongings once he passed? His kids or the government?

Coming back to the original question, I have no problem paying it. But I should have a say in how my money is pissed away.



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21457 posts, RR: 60
Reply 106, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1245 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 44):
You going to jail all the other CEO's who do (or have done this) in the past...including guys like Mitt Romney!!

It would be a start, wouldn't it?

I'm not in favor of the ridiculous CEO compensation, nor the way it is worked to be in the form of capital gains vs. salary, but I also think the tax rate on income is too high, which is why it's done this way.

My complaint with Buffet is that he's doing it, yet complaining about it being unfair. NOBODY IS FORCING HIM TO DO IT. After all, not all CEOs are paid this way. Many are paid a high salary taxed at the income rate. He doesn't have to do it. He could practice what he is preaching and set the bar for others to follow...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 46):
That kind of thing makes me, well, not homicidal, but almost. It's absolute enslavement. It is a civil rights issue. My kids should not be indebted to these slobs whose cronies legislated a huge benefit for them, payable by my child. Get your affluent family's damn hands off my child's money. The idea that these giant self righteous asses are defeating my team on the basis of mathematics and actuarial science makes me ill. I refuse to lose that game. So, I don't live in California.

This is why Wisconsin is so important in the USA. I believe in the right of federal workers to unionize, but there is a conflict of interest in collective bargaining of salaries as well as the "job for life" status that was imparted on many workers, and it has created the mess we are in. Working conditions, staffing rules, etc., sure, collectively bargain that. But being able to buy votes to raise your own pay and earn a 200% pension after being forced to retire (since you can't really be fired), paid for on the back of taxpayers, is criminal.

Quoting tugger (Reply 60):
Yes, sadly we have Republican's to thank for that. During the tax revisions of Reagan's time the lowest ~50% of income earners were removed from the taxes roles. And I firmly believe they shouldn't have. It certainly does have its logic to it and the Democrats absolutely supported it as well but it was a mistake.

Romney is a mormon. Maybe he will act to end this stupidity. The Mormon church requires tithing of all, even those who are being assisted by the church. 10%. So, even if you only make $10,000 a year and are getting $20,000 in services free from the church (child care, home assistance, food assistance), you have to tithe $1000. It was explained by the church that this is because without this tithing, those receiving aid from the church (which is very generous to those in need) would not appreciate that someone else is paying for it, and would feel entitled to it forever, but by having to give to the church no matter what you get back, it makes you respect that everyone bears responsibility for society, even if you are in need.

By removing roughly 50% of the public from the tax roles (excluding SS and Medicare, which aren't taxes), the government has created a populace which thinks they are entitled to everything without contributing anything. And these people also believe that those who ARE paying taxes somehow aren't paying enough taxes, even though they themselves are paying nothing...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's Your Phone/tablet? posted Wed Dec 15 2010 09:13:24 by corinthians
What Is Wrong With The French? posted Sat Jul 17 2010 14:24:49 by Springbok747
Friday's Useless Thread: What's Your Luggage Tag? posted Fri Jul 16 2010 01:32:17 by Elite
"What Your Doctor Doesn't Want You To Know" posted Fri Jul 2 2010 22:49:07 by DocLightning
What's Your Current Temperature? posted Fri Jun 25 2010 13:45:32 by Fly2HMO
What's Going On With Rand Paul? posted Fri May 21 2010 15:13:36 by Ken777
Lobbying For Your Country With A Cessna 172 posted Mon May 17 2010 07:58:39 by Kiqaboy
What Your Favorite Locomotive? posted Fri May 7 2010 18:57:06 by 747400sp
Monday's Stupid Thread: What's Your Eye Colour? posted Mon Mar 29 2010 02:53:12 by AirPacific747
What's Going On With MSN.COM/IE? posted Thu Mar 25 2010 10:12:22 by varigb707