halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:20 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You gotta give him credit - he's at least being up front about his intentions to pass what has to be one of the largest - if not the largest - single tax increases in history, and use it part to engage in the favored democratic tactic of using the tax code to redistribute income.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:29 pm

How Chavez-esque.

Dear Hillary has said some comments along the same lines.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:30 pm

FAIR TAX.

Get on board.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:50 pm

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

Reminds me when Bill Clinton raised taxes on the 'rich'. And then the 'rich' got redefined to cover many more middle class people.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:35 pm

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

Are you sure? My schedule C shows income - expenses = profit which is what I pay taxes on. Ditto with the schedule F.
 
IFEMaster
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:38 pm

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

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

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

 checkmark 

And it'll never fly because those who would need to rubber stamp this would ultimately be out of pocket themselves. And we can't have that now, can we?
Delivering Anecdotes of Dubious Relevance Since 1978
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:43 pm

In your whining about the increase in taxes on that very top income bracket, you are missing the fact that the plan would repeal the alternative minimum tax, which would be a great benefit to middle and upper-middle income families. Since the AMT was not indexed to inflation, ever more families have been forced to pay the AMT (which eliminates many deductions) each year. If you're really concerned about the government not screwing over the average (or somewhat-above-average) Joe, you should be quite happy with this move. And I'm not sure why you are calling this a tax increase, as there is no indication that the government would wind up collecting more money with this bill. It's as much a tax decrease as an increase. Corporations and the middle/upper middle income brackets wind up somewhat ahead, while the upper income brackets wind up somewhat worse off.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:49 pm

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

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

Why?

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

There are plenty of ways that the really rich can use to avoid paying all sorts of taxes.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:25 pm

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

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

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

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

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

It is a tax increase for some, isn't it?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6582
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:37 pm

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2007-10-25 13:39:03]
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:41 pm

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

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

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

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:12 pm

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

 checkmark 

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

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

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

Well that hasn't happen in the past six years and it won't has long as were in Iraq, paying for a war by credit.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:21 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, no.

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

Again....not really. He's always been very open about his politics and his near socialist economic ideals. At least he's fairly honest, if not engenuous all the time.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:32 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:41 pm

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

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

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:55 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:57 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):

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

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

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

Rangel has been nothing but consistent, he is not saying anything shocking or out of character.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:01 pm

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

Perhaps Social Security payments based on income? For instance; if you have $100,000 a year in retirement perhaps your SS check should be smaller? Similar to the Government Pension Offset..It was embarrassing to have a President in office, collecting a Social Security Check, and who then got legislation passed to punished government employees.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:26 pm

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

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

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

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

No, an entire revamp of the program is needed.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:28 pm

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

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

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

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

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

 thumbsup 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:41 pm

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

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

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

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

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

What IS fair? Who decides that?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:51 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is your solution?

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

Yes, who DOES decide what is fair?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13397
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:52 pm

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

What IS fair? Who decides that?

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

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

So while you'd be paying 22% more in a national sales tax, the real cost of goods would - again, supposedly - drop by around 20-25%, meaning no net increase in the price of goods and services, while each person gets to take home everything they make.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:55 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent description!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:38 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 thumbsup 

Sorry. Had to point it out.

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

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

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):

What IS fair? Who decides that?



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

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

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:40 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 18):
This is contrary to the core idea of what the entire program is based around: A monetary benefit reward program, for citizens who paid into the program for 40+ years.

They already changed it against the middle class members who worked in government. See the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provisions, why should a hard working public safety official, or a government clerk have a reduced social security benefit just because they worked for a government agency? The social security program was never designed as a "monetary benefit reward program", it was designed to allow the elderly to live a decent life after they stopped working.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 24):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):Quoting AirCop (Reply 17):
Perhaps Social Security payments based on income? For instance; if you have $100,000 a year in retirement perhaps your SS check should be smaller?
ÊÊ
Sorry. Had to point it out.

No apology necessary. I knew I was taking an somewhat inconsistent position, but if the government isn't going to return SS to its original purpose, then I believe it is high time to means test it. And I take that position knowing full well that I may be one of the people who never get what I put into the fund. But that's OK, because at least I'd be fairly confident that people who need the help more than I do were getting it.

Under Rangel's soak the rich tax plan, that isn't the case.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 24):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):Yes, who DOES decide what is fair?
lol... I wasn't talking about making taxes "fair"! I was talking about "The Fair Tax"! I refuse to believe that two intelligent individuals, such as yourselves, do not know what the Fair Tax is!!!! We're talking about a tax revolution!

I know that. But I'm not sure the OP understood it.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 25):
They already changed it against the middle class members who worked in government. See the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provisions, why should a hard working public safety official, or a government clerk have a reduced social security benefit just because they worked for a government agency? The social security program was never designed as a "monetary benefit reward program", it was designed to allow the elderly to live a decent life after they stopped working.

And if it were returned to that purpose, it wouldn't be the difficult position it currenly is.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 25):
They already changed it against the middle class members who worked in government. See the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provisions, why should a hard working public safety official, or a government clerk have a reduced social security benefit just because they worked for a government agency?

If you have a government pension, and your deceased spouse was receiving a Social Security check, then what you are entitled to, under the spousal Social Security benefit may be offset.

In regards to the WEP, it's designed to stop people from collecting money they did not "earn". Quick scenario for you: I worked for the government for 20 years, and I had a government pension program during that time. During those 20yrs, I did not pay into Social Security. After 20 years, I left and got a private job where I did pay into Social Security. Then I retired.

Why should I get a full social security check, when I did not pay into the program for the entire period of my working life? For those 20yrs I paid into my pension program, not social security. Yet without the WEP, I would draw benefits off of those 20yrs... even though I never paid into the program.

Do you understand?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 25):
The social security program was never designed as a "monetary benefit reward program", it was designed to allow the elderly to live a decent life after they stopped working.

Regardless, it has become that. People did not adequately set themselves up for success, by creating independent retirement accounts.

However, that was not my problem with your proposal. You proposed changing the system so that people making over $100,000, would still pay into the program, but would receive reduced benefits.

To which I pointed out that doing this will not solve the budget crisis, nor would it be fair. Making the wealthy pay into the system, but cutting their benefits (or even eliminating them) is contrary to the program's intent: The government's deal was: If you pay social security taxes, we will return that sacrifice with a social security check when you retire.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:24 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 26):
but if the government isn't going to return SS to its original purpose, then I believe it is high time to means test it. And I take that position knowing full well that I may be one of the people who never get what I put into the fund. But that's OK, because at least I'd be fairly confident that people who need the help more than I do were getting it.

My point exactly! With only 28% of working americans having a pension plan, I can see the need for social security increasing 30-40 years down the road. But then again if Congress won't means test Social Security then they need to repeal the WEP and GPO to level the playing field for everyone. Remember 401k's were never designed as a pension plan.

[Edited 2007-10-25 18:28:23]
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:27 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 24):
Seriously, how do you think we should close this phantom "gap"?

It isn't a make-believe gap, my friend:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/bu...518da6ceb1b&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

The top 1%, if you read it, have not had this level of income share since before the Great Depression. Understand that? We're at a disparity of income not seen since before the economy went in the shitter like no other itme in our history. A harbinger of things to come?

A few more snippets:

"While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent



One more:

"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

So you see, a few are reaping the benefits of this so-called greatest economy, and the rest are being left behind. Now, tell me that's healthy for our economy, our society, or freedom? It's a revolution waiting to happen. It almost happened after the '29 crash.

Not everyone can be millionaires, no matter what Rush Limbaugh might tell his minions. And while there is nothing wrong with being a success, when so very few reap the benefits, that's a powder keg, waiting to explode. Maybe the ultra-rich and multinational corporations are riding high and mighty now, but how secure, really, is their ivory towers? Can such a gap go on, ad infinitum, without potentially dire consequences for our economy, for our society-and for themselves?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 27):
In regards to the WEP, it's designed to stop people from collecting money they did not "earn". Quick scenario for you: I worked for the government for 20 years, and I had a government pension program during that time. During those 20yrs, I did not pay into Social Security. After 20 years, I left and got a private job where I did pay into Social Security. Then I retired.

Why should I get a full social security check, when I did not pay into the program for the entire period of my working life? For those 20yrs I paid into my pension program, not social security. Yet without the WEP, I would draw benefits off of those 20yrs... even though I never paid into the program.

The only people the WEP really effect are teachers and public safety employees. Say you are a teacher for 40 years and during that time you work a part-time job and you paid into SS, your benefit would be reduced up to 2/3. Another example, a police officer injured in his first year of the job and can't go back to work as a police officer, and starts another career where he works for 40 years, again despite paying into SS for 40 years his SS is also reduced up to 2/3.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 29):
So you see, a few are reaping the benefits of this so-called greatest economy, and the rest are being left behind. Now, tell me that's healthy for our economy, our society, or freedom? It's a revolution waiting to happen. It almost happened after the '29 crash.

Not everyone can be millionaires, no matter what Rush Limbaugh might tell his minions. And while there is nothing wrong with being a success, when so very few reap the benefits, that's a powder keg, waiting to explode. Maybe the ultra-rich and multinational corporations are riding high and mighty now, but how secure, really, is their ivory towers? Can such a gap go on, ad infinitum, without potentially dire consequences for our economy, for our society-and for themselves?

So just how much income ought to be re-distributed to close this gap? How much do you think we should be allowed to keep? How much should we be forced to give to our neighbors - even if they don't deserve it?

Just how successful would YOU let your fellow citizens be? Are you going to tell Warren Buffett and Bill Gates it's time to have a huge percentage of their net wealth taken away? How much would they be allowed to keep? 75%? 50%?

So you want to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. Just how do you think you will be able to accomplish that socialistic task without driving every rich American and their assets offshore just as fast as their wire transfers will move them?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:46 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
So just how much income ought to be re-distributed to close this gap? How much do you think we should be allowed to keep? How much should we be forced to give to our neighbors - even if they don't deserve it?

Honestly, I do not know. But I do know that a society where only a select few are winning, and the rest are losing, cannot go on calmly forever. History teaches that.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
How much should we be forced to give to our neighbors - even if they don't deserve it?

Why don't they deserve it? Because you've sat as judge and jury? You've been in their shoes? You don't approve of all the decisions they've made? But you have no problem handing bigger and bigger wndfalls to those who already have so much that they can never think of what to do with it?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
So you want to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.

It sound like you could care less. Wny not take some of the tax money from the rich, and use it to educate and train those less fortunate, to go and help themselves make a better life-you know, those that cannot afford to go to college because they can't choose between that and putting dinner on the table. That way, it doesn't go into the pocket of those who don't "deserve" it, but it's used to help them become self-sufficient, and to be more successful. Would that be more acceptable to you?

You seem quite serene in handing money to the rich, but not helping out those less fortunate, my friend.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):
Just how do you think you will be able to accomplish that socialistic task without driving every rich American and their assets offshore just as fast as their wire transfers will move them?

Hell, they do that RIGHT NOW. You make it so that instead of putting it offshore, they invest it not in themselves, but to help those less fortunate, by making sure their tax dollars go to education, training, and re-training of those whom they dominate.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13397
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 29):
"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans.

You make it sound as if those top 300,000 earners are somehow unfairly taking money from the other 150 million.

They're not.

Like it or not, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Alex Rodriguez, Mark Cuban - these are people who earned what they make because the free marketplace in our society elected to reward them handsomely for their talent and/or hard work. And others like them who earn practically obscene amounts of money annually for whatever job they do are in the same boat.

While others might wring their hands at how much today's society and free marketplace have allowed a small group of people to earn, it's not being done unfairly at the expense of others - no one is forcibly separating the Average Joe from his money to give it to these wealthy people.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 26):
then I believe it is high time to means test it.



Quoting AirCop (Reply 28):
My point exactly! With only 28% of working americans having a pension plan, I can see the need for social security increasing 30-40 years down the road. But then again if Congress won't means test Social Security then they need to repeal the WEP and GPO to level the playing field for everyone. Remember 401k's were never designed as a pension plan.

Unfortunately, this will not solve the budget crunch. Even if we eliminate the cap, it wouldn't come close.

As Halls pointed out, there is a small percentage of people who are in those top income brackets. Even if we stopped paying them social security, all together, it will not account for a significant savings. Those brackets are not where the lion share of money is going.

This is why many economists reject means testing, because it is a "band-aid" measure, at best. It does not come close to saving the program.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 29):
It isn't a make-believe gap, my friend:

Ok, Falcon, I have a difficult time taking anything the NYT reports, seriously. They are certainly not leading experts on reporting accurate economic data. And they certainly do not report in depth data! But for the sake of argument, I will let it slide.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 29):
So you see, a few are reaping the benefits of this so-called greatest economy, and the rest are being left behind. Now, tell me that's healthy for our economy, our society, or freedom? It's a revolution waiting to happen. It almost happened after the '29 crash.

First, please don't equate this to the Great Depression. Totally different circumstances and events. Apple and oranges.

Secondly, how do we measure wealth and success? You say many people are being "left behind" and I say that many people are living beyond their economic means. You're damn right they're struggling! The middle class use to mean comfortable living. It did not mean a huge mortgage on a 4bedroom, 3 1/2 bath house. It did not mean two $30,000+ vehicles, an average of 3 color televisions, etc...

The middle class is financing their consumption, by reducing their savings and increasing their debt. Four decades ago a middle class family owed ~5% its annual income in consumer debt ( cars, furniture, credit card loans. Not mortgages.) Now? Well the middle class spends 1/3 of its income on consumer debt!

We're being sucked further and further into a "consumer nation" and it's hurting the family's bottom line. When I was in college (Go BC EAGLES!) I had a class with Professor Schor. She wrote extensively on this subject. I encourage you to read her book: "Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture" and an older book: "The Overspent American: Upscaling, Downshifting and the New Consumer"

-UH60

[Edited 2007-10-25 19:08:07]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:04 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):So just how much income ought to be re-distributed to close this gap? How much do you think we should be allowed to keep? How much should we be forced to give to our neighbors - even if they don't deserve it?
Honestly, I do not know. But I do know that a society where only a select few are winning, and the rest are losing, cannot go on calmly forever. History teaches that.

While I disagree with your assertion that we live in a society were only a few are winning and the rest losing, just what past societies are you referring to?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31): How much should we be forced to give to our neighbors - even if they don't deserve it?
Why don't they deserve it? Because you've sat as judge and jury? You've been in their shoes? You don't approve of all the decisions they've made? But you have no problem handing bigger and bigger wndfalls to those who already have so much that they can never think of what to do with it?

How about the fact that they didn't earn it?

And if you took your selective blinders off, you might recall that I have, on many occasions, indicated that I would accept higher taxes on my income IF those increased revenues were used to retire the national debt.

So you can stop the baseless allegations regarding my alleged comfort with windfalls for the rich any time now, thank you.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):So you want to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.
It sound like you could care less

That's your erroneous interpretation.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
Wny not take some of the tax money from the rich, and use it to educate and train those less fortunate, to go and help themselves make a better life-you know, those that cannot afford to go to college because they can't choose between that and putting dinner on the table. That way, it doesn't go into the pocket of those who don't "deserve" it, but it's used to help them become self-sufficient, and to be more successful. Would that be more acceptable to you?

What would be acceptable to me is for once to hear from just one advocate of higher taxes on the rich an answer that has been posted many times before. Just how much income should the "rich" be allowed to keep?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
You seem quite serene in handing money to the rich, but not helping out those less fortunate, my friend.

Where have I advocated "handing money to the rich?"

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
You make it so that instead of putting it offshore, they invest it not in themselves, but to help those less fortunate, by making sure their tax dollars go to education, training, and re-training of those whom they dominate.

"those they dominate?" Sounds like you have a mighty big chip on your shoulder. You might want to see about having it removed....
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:07 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 30):
The only people the WEP really effect are teachers and public safety employees. Say you are a teacher for 40 years and during that time you work a part-time job and you paid into SS, your benefit would be reduced up to 2/3. Another example, a police officer injured in his first year of the job and can't go back to work as a police officer, and starts another career where he works for 40 years, again despite paying into SS for 40 years his SS is also reduced up to 2/3.

That scenario does not seem accurate to me, but I am not an expert so I will stipulate that it's wrong. Like I said: the whole program is fucked up.

But you're really taking a micro view to the issue of how we fix social security. Ok, so we repeal the WEP and we means test social security. What are you going to do next? You still have another 75% of income to find! The program will still be fatally doomed. The grand scheme of things, the WEP is a tiny part of the problem. Much larger, much more innovative thinking is going to be needed, to avoid a collapse of the program.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
While I disagree with your assertion that we live in a society were only a few are winning and the rest losing, just what past societies are you referring to?

The Bolshivek Revolution comes to mind; the fall of the Weimar Republic; the fall of Batista's Cuba. All had some roots in the fact that you had a few who controlled the many. Did that change under their ensuing governments? Not really, but much of the upheaval was due to economic disparity.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
How about the fact that they didn't earn it?

Do you think all those who are wealthy EARNED it? Many did it the old-fashioned way-through inheritance. Some made it thorugh lack of conscience, and willing to do anything to make money? Did they earn it? Many did, but a lot didn't, and you know that to be true.

And

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
And if you took your selective blinders off, you might recall that I have, on many occasions, indicated that I would accept higher taxes on my income IF those increased revenues were used to retire the national debt.

We agree on that point. So would I. Would you also agree to higher taxes if it meant training and/or retraining the American workforce to be more productive, less reliant on the welfare state, and become more productive citizens?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31):So you want to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.
It sound like you could care less

That's your erroneous interpretation.

Fair enough. What would you do to lower this ever-widening gap between richest and poorest?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
What would be acceptable to me is for once to hear from just one advocate of higher taxes on the rich an answer that has been posted many times before. Just how much income should the "rich" be allowed to keep?

the overwhelming majority of what they have now. Anyone advocating a 40 or 50% tax on anyone is a lunatic. I simply would advocate maybe 1 to 2% higher-with that earmarked for training/retraining Americans to get off welfare, to become higher wager earners and more self sufficient. Seriously, that's it.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
"those they dominate?" Sounds like you have a mighty big chip on your shoulder. You might want to see about having it removed....

Do you deny the wealthiest Americans don't dominate this country-socially, economically, politically? They do. They have the money to do as they please, to buy what they please, and influence whomever they please. That's domination. Not in the sense of slavery, but in the manner I have indicated. It's no chip on my shoulder, Halls. It's a fact of American life.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:30 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
I think we need to cut spending...

Starting with programs not necessary to the basic functions of government.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
And lastly, we really need to scrap the tax code and consider a new approach. Hence my fair tax reference!

it's the only real fair thing to do.....people pay based on what they purchase.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):
Several here state "redistribution of wealth" but we need to pay for police, fire, military, airspace control, and all the rest.

not really talking about that stuff...it's the bridges to nowhere and other pork that goes into each budget. It's the social programs of dubious value that spreads money out to garner votes.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 17):
Perhaps Social Security payments based on income?

I'd say that would be ok if they based payouts on what you paid in. The way it was set up and promised. Breaking the pact now would be criminal. If they're going to do it then they need to understand that they're damaging the faith and credit of our institutions. I mean....if we're going to screw over our own people then who's next?

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

Why? Did you pay less into the system? If you want to start a tax up to pay for the people who did not save or prepare then call it that.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
we have such a large gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Number one....who are the have-nots in our society? Do the poor in our nation not drive themselves to the unemployment office? Do the have-nots in our society not have cable for the most part? DId the have's get it handed to them for the most part?

Let''s not engage in the banter of class warfare.

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

You just contradicted yourself. The rich are defined loosely, and many feel that anyone who makes 10k more than they do are rich and don't deserve it because they don't work any harder than the one making 10k less.

Disparity in incomes will always be there, and it's probably the price our society must pay to live in a land where opportunity abounds like no other place. Nothing is free in life, and nothing in our society is denied (other than by luck or circumstances) to the citizen that is willing to seek it out.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
The Bolshivek Revolution comes to mind; the fall of the Weimar Republic; the fall of Batista's Cuba. All had some roots in the fact that you had a few who controlled the many. Did that change under their ensuing governments? Not really, but much of the upheaval was due to economic disparity.

That you apparently consider the state of our democracy and economy to be anything close to the three scenarios you have described above is both sad and disappointing.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
Do you think all those who are wealthy EARNED it? Many did it the old-fashioned way-through inheritance. Some made it thorugh lack of conscience, and willing to do anything to make money? Did they earn it? Many did, but a lot didn't, and you know that to be true.

OK, assuming some of the rich didn't really earn their wealth, why should those that did have their pockets picked for the benefit of the less well off? Are you going to impose the same kind of "means test" on the recipients of Rangel's proposed gift, or does it not matter that some of the less well off don't deserve it?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
We agree on that point. So would I. Would you also agree to higher taxes if it meant training and/or retraining the American workforce to be more productive, less reliant on the welfare state, and become more productive citizens?

Sure I would. But that is not what Charlie Rangel is intent on doing.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
Fair enough. What would you do to lower this ever-widening gap between richest and poorest?

Provide incentives for those that are on the low end of the pay scale to obtain the education they need to better themselves.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
I simply would advocate maybe 1 to 2% higher-with that earmarked for training/retraining Americans to get off welfare, to become higher wager earners and more self sufficient. Seriously, that's it.

Rangel wants more than twice the amount you do, and he isn't going to provide - as far as I can tell - any of the programs you propose.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):"those they dominate?" Sounds like you have a mighty big chip on your shoulder. You might want to see about having it removed....
Do you deny the wealthiest Americans don't dominate this country-socially, economically, politically? They do. They have the money to do as they please, to buy what they please, and influence whomever they please. That's domination. Not in the sense of slavery, but in the manner I have indicated. It's no chip on my shoulder, Halls. It's a fact of American life.

Just how does Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the other richest people actually dominate your life. Seriously. What are they doing to prevent you from leading your life in the manner you wish?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:49 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39):
That you apparently consider the state of our democracy and economy to be anything close to the three scenarios you have described above is both sad and disappointing.

Not saying we're there, my friend. But we almost had a revolution in the early 30's, and economic disparity was part of the problem. My point is that, eventually, if the rich keep making more and more, dominating the society more and more, at the expense of those not so well off, human nature says that eventually there could be a breaking point, a point of no return where those who feel downtrodden rise up on those they perceive to be their social, economic and political masters.
That's all I'm saying. It isn't a desirable state to be in.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39):
OK, assuming some of the rich didn't really earn their wealth, why should those that did have their pockets picked for the benefit of the less well off?

Who's talking about having their pockets picked? I said 1 or 2% more. That's not highway robbery. And Rangel's tax doesn't excactly wipe out their fortunes, now does it?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39):
Just how does Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the other richest people actually dominate your life.

They dominate the economic life of this nation, along with Multi-Nationals. They can call the shots, and through influence, influence the policy of this nation. That's how they can dominate. Do you deny that?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:54 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 38):
Starting with programs not necessary to the basic functions of government.

What exactly are the programs you are talking about?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 38):
I'd say that would be ok if they based payouts on what you paid in.

Remember anything earned over $102,000 in 2008, no social security would be deducted, so it you make $1million a year you're only paying SS on 10% of your salary. .

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 36):
That scenario does not seem accurate to me

Believe me it is. Find a retired teacher from California and they will confirm.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 36):
But you're really taking a micro view to the issue of how we fix social security. Ok, so we repeal the WEP and we means test social security

Maybe all federal pension programs should be examined, as a means to help the federal budget. Would you be happy if they changed the military pension from 20 years to requiring you to wait until you were 60 to collect, and do away with dependent medical care, as was discussed in the early 80's. Just enacting this would result in a major savings to the DOD, but would it be fair?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 40):
But we almost had a revolution in the early 30's, and economic disparity was part of the problem

We did? In the classical sense? I disagree - completely. The government wasn't in danger of being overthrown, was it? Now - if you want to consider what Roosevelt did as a "revolution" - in a sense, it was. FDR cast aside the traditional limits on government's role and in many ways, created the modern welfare state we have today. And I don't mean that in a negative way. The New Deal was a positive force.

But to suggest that we were on the brink of general insurrection is simply inaccurate.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 40):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39):OK, assuming some of the rich didn't really earn their wealth, why should those that did have their pockets picked for the benefit of the less well off?
Who's talking about having their pockets picked? I said 1 or 2% more. That's not highway robbery. And Rangel's tax doesn't excactly wipe out their fortunes, now does it?

Not answering the question, I see.

You seem to base your support for increased taxes on the rich on the grounds that many/some of the rich didn't earn their wealth. That means some/many did. Why should the government be allowed to take money from them and give it to people who didn't earn it?

Is the purpose of the income tax to provide money for the operation of the government, or to serve as a vehicle for mandatory income redistribution?

Whether it is 1% or 4%, what is the justification for taking that money and giving it directly to other citizens? Because that is exactly what Rangel wants to do.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 40):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39):Just how does Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the other richest people actually dominate your life.
They dominate the economic life of this nation, along with Multi-Nationals. They can call the shots, and through influence, influence the policy of this nation. That's how they can dominate. Do you deny that?

Just how do they control your daily life?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 41):
Would you be happy if they changed the military pension from 20 years to requiring you to wait until you were 60 to collect, and do away with dependent medical care, as was discussed in the early 80's. Just enacting this would result in a major savings to the DOD, but would it be fair?

LOL, that won't happen anytime soon. Last time they screwed around with the 20 year military retirement, recruitment suffered and retention tanked.

One place they could help the budget out is to adjust the cost of retiree contributions to our Tricare medical plan. The annual fee we pay now has been level for a number of years, and there is no reason that we retirees can't shell out a little bit more - at least to cover for inflation.

Now - once people hit 65, that annual fee could be frozen, but given the number of us in well paying second careers, the amount we pay is rather scandalous.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):
Whether it is 1% or 4%, what is the justification for taking that money and giving it directly to other citizens?

Did I say that? I said earmark it to train/retrain American workers, to make them more competitive, more self-sufficient, more economically secure. What's the problem with that?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):
But to suggest that we were on the brink of general insurrection is simply inaccurate.

Again, I did not say that. Read what I wrote. I said that if such a disparity festers long enough it COULD lead chaos and insurreciton.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):
You seem to base your support for increased taxes on the rich on the grounds that many/some of the rich didn't earn their wealth.

Didn't say that either. Jeez! I was contrasting what you said-that some of the not-so-well off didn't earn anything, by sayin many rich didn't earn it either. It cuts both ways, Halls.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:01 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):Whether it is 1% or 4%, what is the justification for taking that money and giving it directly to other citizens?
Did I say that? I said earmark it to train/retrain American workers, to make them more competitive, more self-sufficient, more economically secure. What's the problem with that?

Should we fund the training of workers? Sure. Make them more competitive? Absolutely. But what do you mean by "more economically secure?' That sounds suspiciously like what Rangel wants to do with his tax plan, which is simply to transfer money from the rich to the poor.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):But to suggest that we were on the brink of general insurrection is simply inaccurate.
Again, I did not say that. Read what I wrote. I said that if such a disparity festers long enough it COULD lead chaos and insurrecition.

Here are your exact words: "But we almost had a revolution in the early 30's, and economic disparity was part of the problem."

I don't see a "could" in that sentence, or anywhere else in that paragraph.

So maybe I shouldn't have said "brink," so I'll rephrase my statement. "But to suggest that we almost had a general insurrection is simply inaccurate."

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Didn't say that either. Jeez! I was contrasting what you said-that some of the not-so-well off didn't earn anything, by sayin many rich didn't earn it either. It cuts both ways, Halls.

Here is what you said: "Do you think all those who are wealthy EARNED it? Many did it the old-fashioned way-through inheritance. Some made it thorugh lack of conscience, and willing to do anything to make money? Did they earn it? Many did, but a lot didn't, and you know that to be true."

perhaps I misunderstand your intent, but what that quoted passage means to me is that you aren't concerned about many of the rich having to be taxed more heavily, since, after all, they didn't earn their wealth - they inherited it.

And if that is the case, if you are going to take money from one group of citizens on the partial grounds that they really don't deserve to keep it because they really didn't earn it, then it is only fair to require a similar test on the recipients of this government aid.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:42 am

I say let it pass. Jack that tax rate up. Suck that money out of the economic engine. When things slow down, inflation cranks up, and there are no jobs to train or retrain anyone for. Maybe, just maybe, the majority of folks in this nation will finally realize that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. I know the figures are there for anyone who wants to look them up. You know, the ones that show that the government is taking in more money now than ever before since the tax cuts went into effect a few years ago, but some people just have to be reminded.

Until we get serious about cutting spending no tax hike will solve our nations financial problems.

BTW Falcon, anyone can be a millionaire. It just takes discipline to make it happen. There are too many of them out there for it to be an accident.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13397
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:11 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 42):
Whether it is 1% or 4%, what is the justification for taking that money and giving it directly to other citizens?

Did I say that? I said earmark it to train/retrain American workers, to make them more competitive, more self-sufficient, more economically secure. What's the problem with that?

The problem is with those - and regrettably, there are many of them out there - who have absolutely no interest in being more competitive and more self-sufficient - they just want the 'more economically secure' part at the expense of others.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:15 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 45):
But what do you mean by "more economically secure?'

Training/retraining them to get better, higher-paying jobs will make them more economically secure. That's it.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Robin Hood Rangel To The Rescue

Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:24 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
The top 1% don't control "almost everything."

Somewhat wrong, the ultra rich may not directly "control" things individually but they do as a group, whether you like it or not. They own controlling stakes in and sit on the boards of the great corporations. Their view points get more attention because their money gives them political influence far beyond what "normal" people get. Check out this site:www.lcurve.org/ for an interesting perspective, and before you lambaste me for "believing" it just know that I don't consider it to be 100% right, just provides information to add to what you know.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 24):
I refuse to believe that two intelligent individuals, such as yourselves, do not know what the Fair Tax is!!!!

Sorry I don't know what this is, I guess I am not one of the two intelligent individuals. Can you please expound on this and enlighten me? Thanks.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 26):
Under Rangel's soak the rich tax plan, that isn't the case.

It's fairly revenue neutral. If it "soaks" it also frees up billions of dollars on the lower end. Thats the thing about tax changes and reform, its changes the money "stream" and who's to say the a wealthy persons money is going top better invested in the economy than a poorer persons? As a service economy the services will just shift to the population with the money, the economy really doesn't care that much as long as the money doesn't leave. Wealthy people may invest larger amounts at one time in people and business but they don;t increase the amount available, lower income people would "invest" the same amounts if the tax burden shifted but would do so in greater numbers with smaller amounts.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 27):
Making the wealthy pay into the system, but cutting their benefits (or even eliminating them) is contrary to the program's intent: The government's deal was: If you pay social security taxes, we will return that sacrifice with a social security check when you retire.

True, if you pay in you should get the benefit, period. No one knows before hand who will become "the rich" or who will become "the poor".

Quoting AirCop (Reply 28):
Remember 401k's were never designed as a pension plan.

Something most people forget. Many people think nowadays that you just get the what you get and if you were lucky to hit the "big stock" you deserve it and if yours tanked you deserve that too. Pension is an alien concept now: getting a stable predicted income stream in your later years.

Taxes should not forcibly redistribute income. The people with the power to direct the money-flows by the government will do just as lousy a job as anyone. What taxes and/or government policy should do is cause or "encourage" money to be re-invested into the economy. This alone is what generates growth and energizes an economy, as opposed to hoarding money. So tax policy that encourages savings up to a certain level (say 4,000,000) and than after that encourages taking greater risks and investing in business, services, and goods could work better than what we currently have.

Now as to answers or at least suggested answers to the current taxing structure, how about a flat tax? The total woudl be built from two flat taxes, one based on annual income, and the other on total net worth of individuals and corporations. So I'll propose a half-percent tax on total net worth with a mechanism to average it out across five years and a 5% (10%?) tax on annual income.

What say you?

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dandaire, Hillis and 20 guests