Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 5/20/2002 12:24:50 PM EDT
This is a good deal if you are not one of the few. Kind of like being one of those "rugged individualist" farmers who just got porked out of the (the rest of our) wazoo by Bush, Daschle, et al. I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. "I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair." "But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back." I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. Even college instructors are a prisoner of the myth that the "rich" somehow get a free ride in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true, "shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor." The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean!
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 12:36:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 3:35:10 PM EDT
Remember when Clinton was screwing around with the tax codes? He stated that only the tax bracket for the rich would be increased. Well, guess what? I, stator of the middle class, found out that I was the rich and weathly class when Clinton moved me up the tax brackets. There are alot of ways to look at it but I believe a couple of views also ring true. These are: the rich do in fact pay more in taxes, the middle-class is gouged the most in taxes in terms of disposable income percentage, the poor mostly don't pay but receive tax money.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 3:57:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2002 3:58:45 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Remember Al Gore trying to explain on TV that if you owned a $200,000 house for five years you were then considered a "millionaire"? Remember the SocialistScumBags like Hitlery et al. actually having the vile gall to say that homeowners should consider what they "COULD" potentially rent their home for as REAL INCOME for each year. So if you owned a house and lived in it, and the going rental rates for similar homes was $1,000 per month, that means, according to Clinton/Clinton/Gore, you would need to add $12,000 to your adjusted gross income for this "income" you're earning by owning a home of such value. The Socialists/Democrats ACTUALLY tried to get vomit like this to passed through Congress!!! Thank GOD!!! the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. [B]DON'T [RED]EVER[/RED] LET DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS AGAIN!![/B]
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:01:07 PM EDT
Bah, Kick 'em both out and put the libertarians in :) -legrue
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:09:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By legrue: Bah, Kick 'em both out and put the libertarians in :) -legrue
View Quote
That's okay... I'd rather not see Bill Gates buy up the entire Pacific coastline or Ted Turner paint his likeness on the side of El Capitan. [;)]
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:11:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By legrue: Bah, Kick 'em both out and put the libertarians in :) -legrue
View Quote
That's okay... I'd rather not see Bill Gates buy up the entire Pacific coastline or Ted Turner paint his likeness on the side of El Capitan. [;)]
View Quote
I thought they already did?!? :-)
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:13:46 PM EDT
Cry me a river. I see "the rich", that have multi-million dollar vacant homes, just in case they want to "summer" someplace. The hard fact is it takes a certain amount of money to live per year per person in this country. If you make more than that you get to spend the "overage" on what you want, bigger house, nicer car, electronics, whatever. A lot of what our taxes, government, and laws do is allow a system that allows people to gain and keep assets. Trademarks, copyrights and patents are some examples, of course with out Courts they would be useless. Who do you think benefits the most from them? Who gains more benefit from tax payer funded roads? A "poor" person with no car, or a "rich" trucking company owner. The "rich" persons business depends on public roads........ As far as your "meal" analogy, Let's suppose your tenth man had to pay $59.00. Lets also say that he makes $1,000,000 a year. Lets avg that out for the 8746 hours in a year. He made 114.46 every hour of the year. If the meal cost $59.00 and took an hour to eat, he made $55.46 sitting there. The "rich" do pay more in taxes, but they still end up with far more money to spend after meeting their basic needs than anyone else. The "middle class" lose more of their "discretionary income" as a percentage than the rich. The "poor" who may not make enough to meet their basic needs, or pay taxes, have the least discretionary income of all of them. The problem is, none of us like the Gov't getting into our pocket for anything. We can always make a case that we should pay less, and can probalby name people that should pay more. We also want govt. services that benefit us, we can also name govt. services we think should be cut or eliminated, because they don't directly benefit us. The only problem is that we tend to get services from the govt. that we request, we also have to pay for those services.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:17:07 PM EDT
Cool!I've never heard the story, very intresting.
Originally Posted By stator: Remember when Clinton was screwing around with the tax codes? He stated that only the tax bracket for the rich would be increased. Well, guess what? I, stator of the middle class, found out that I was the rich and weathly class when Clinton moved me up the tax brackets. There are alot of ways to look at it but I believe a couple of views also ring true. These are: the rich do in fact pay more in taxes, the middle-class is gouged the most in taxes in terms of disposable income percentage, the poor mostly don't pay but receive tax money.
View Quote
Stator, you and millions of other American fall into the same stupid trap every time. A lot of people are in a state of denial, i.e. this gun law won't affect me.... But if you think about it, most any gun will probably affect you just not right away. That is a term like "assault weapons." There is no universally accepted definition of "assault weapons," except what the politicians want to define it as; as you should know, it could include AR15s, AKs, shotguns etc. Anyways getting back to the point, when the liberal news media says that they're going to "increase and/or tax the rich & wealthy," you really have to stop and ask yourself "who are these people, the rich & wealthy?" Is it the person making $20,000, $30,000, $50,000, $100,000 per year single or married, and the number of children etc. The politicians never want to defined who is the "rich & wealthy" until it is way too late for those affected people to do anything about it. The definition of wealthy/rich all boils down practically, to anyone that is working for a living, and not on govt handouts.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:24:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Remember the SocialistScumBags like Hitlery et al. actually having the vile gall to say that homeowners should consider what they "COULD" potentially rent their home for as REAL INCOME for each year. So if you owned a house and lived in it, and the going rental rates for similar homes was $1,000 per month, that means, according to Clinton/Clinton/Gore, you would need to add $12,000 to your adjusted gross income for this "income" you're earning by owning a home of such value. The Socialists/Democrats ACTUALLY tried to get vomit like this to passed through Congress!!! Thank GOD!!! the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. [B]DON'T [RED]EVER[/RED] LET DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS AGAIN!![/B]
View Quote
So should this little scenario surprise anyone? Didn't Bill & Hillary actually rented out the Lincoln bedroom?
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:45:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Remember Al Gore trying to explain on TV that if you owned a $200,000 house for five years you were then considered a "millionaire"? Remember the SocialistScumBags like Hitlery et al. actually having the vile gall to say that homeowners should consider what they "COULD" potentially rent their home for as REAL INCOME for each year. So if you owned a house and lived in it, and the going rental rates for similar homes was $1,000 per month, that means, according to Clinton/Clinton/Gore, you would need to add $12,000 to your adjusted gross income for this "income" you're earning by owning a home of such value. The Socialists/Democrats ACTUALLY tried to get vomit like this to passed through Congress!!! Thank GOD!!! the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. [B]DON'T [RED]EVER[/RED] LET DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS AGAIN!![/B]
View Quote
They were trying to be clever using the economic jargon version of "cost". They're too stupid to be able to pull that off though. The house would be considered rented to the owner.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:49:32 PM EDT
Post from OLY-M4gery -
The "rich" do pay more in taxes, but they still end up with far more money to spend after meeting their basic needs than anyone else. The "middle class" lose more of their "discretionary income" as a percentage than the rich. The "poor" who may not make enough to meet their basic needs, or pay taxes, have the least discretionary income of all of them.
View Quote
Gee, OLY-M4gery, I never knew you were a communist![:D] So when's the last time a poor man hired you for a job? Who are you to determine what is discretionary income and what is not? I sure wouldn't want those responsibilities. Eric The(ButIKnowSomeWhoWouldLoveTo-Hillary,ForOne)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 4:51:37 PM EDT
Hahah sounds like you have some issues.
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Cry me a river. I see "the rich", that have multi-million dollar vacant homes, just in case they want to "summer" someplace.
View Quote
Please explain what is wrong with that.
As far as your "meal" analogy, Let's suppose your tenth man had to pay $59.00. Lets also say that he makes $1,000,000 a year. Lets avg that out for the 8746 hours in a year. He made 114.46 every hour of the year. If the meal cost $59.00 and took an hour to eat, he made $55.46 sitting there.
View Quote
So, because someone is successful, you want them to sponsor you? Why is it their business to subsidise your life because you are a poor bastard? I recommend you read Robert Kiyosaki's series of "Rich Dad/Poor Dad" books, maybe they will open your eyes.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:06:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2002 5:07:40 PM EDT by poikilotrm]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Cry me a river. I see "the rich", that have multi-million dollar vacant homes, just in case they want to "summer" someplace.
View Quote
Damn straight. If you work hard you should be able to reap the reward. Punishing people by extorting them for having ingenuity and a work ethic, which is what taxes are, is criminal.
The hard fact is it takes a certain amount of money to live per year per person in this country. If you make more than that you get to spend the "overage" on what you want, bigger house, nicer car, electronics, whatever. A lot of what our taxes, government, and laws do is allow a system that allows people to gain and keep assets.
View Quote
Taxing me, taking money away from me, allows me to keep money? Huh?
Trademarks, copyrights and patents are some examples, of course with out Courts they would be useless. Who do you think benefits the most from them?
View Quote
In a sense, everyone. These things allow mass employment and allow inventors to make sure they will reap the reward of their invention. Without these things people will not be eager to bring innovations forward. It costs to develop new things.
Who gains more benefit from tax payer funded roads? A "poor" person with no car, or a "rich" trucking company owner. The "rich" persons business depends on public roads........
View Quote
Ummm, income taxes don't pay for road construction, maintenance, or improvement. Gas taxes at the pump do. Everybody pays a tax in direct proportion to use except for those un-Ameriacn types who drive fuel efficient cars and thus pay less tax per mile. Buy SUVs, for the children...
As far as your "meal" analogy, Let's suppose your tenth man had to pay $59.00. Lets also say that he makes $1,000,000 a year. Lets avg that out for the 8746 hours in a year. He made 114.46 every hour of the year. If the meal cost $59.00 and took an hour to eat, he made $55.46 sitting there.
View Quote
Good for him, it doesn't make him a villain to be punished for his success.
The "rich" do pay more in taxes, but they still end up with far more money to spend after meeting their basic needs than anyone else.
View Quote
Hence the term "rich".
The "middle class" lose more of their "discretionary income" as a percentage than the rich. The "poor" who may not make enough to meet their basic needs, or pay taxes, have the least discretionary income of all of them.
View Quote
Hence the term "poor".
The problem is, none of us like the Gov't getting into our pocket for anything. We can always make a case that we should pay less, and can probalby name people that should pay more.
View Quote
The problem is, nobody really wants to be known as a Marxist...
We also want govt. services that benefit us, we can also name govt. services we think should be cut or eliminated, because they don't directly benefit us.
View Quote
I can't really think of any government services aside from fire houses, sanitation, or road crews on the local side that I want or need. Federally we need the Treasury, Customs, and the military. Apart from that? Nothing.
The only problem is that we tend to get services from the govt. that we request, we also have to pay for those services.
View Quote
You requested federal services? When? How? And for God's sake tell me why!
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:15:01 PM EDT
Everyone should have the same tax rate whether you make 1 dollar or 10 million dollars. No breaks for anyone all pay a percentage. If you want to work hard and have a good income so be it. If you want to starve so be it. Then no irs and the tax system is fair.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:19:38 PM EDT
"The definition of wealthy/rich all boils down practically, to anyone working for a living, and not on govt handouts." I feel just a little bit better about myself after reading the above definition.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:21:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:22:10 PM EDT
Head tax.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:23:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:38:30 PM EDT
Poikilotrm: First of what does that name mean? If it is just a random string of letters......it hurt my head when I was trying to make sure I got it right. Taxes do some thing to keep the "status quo" and some things to make commerce possible. Like building roads etc. Look at 3rd World countries. They don't pay taxes. The also have annual incomes that can be measured in bowls of dirt. Why do you think that is? Sometimes it costs money to make money. In the olden days logging companies often had their own railroads to harves trees and transport them to a mill. Taxes for the logging company, logging company owner were low. Now taxes are higher, but the logging company is using public roads for a lot of it's transport needs. So the logging company no longer has to own and build it's own railroad. Ummm income taxes do pay for road construction. When new roads are built 90% of the money comes from the Federal government. The Federal government also uses income tax money to sub-contract with local government to keep the interstates plowed in the winter. The States usually pay for their portion of the road building costs from gas taxes, they may also pay for road maint. partially or fully with gas tax dollars. I also wasn't chastising the rich for being rich. But I grow weary of the whining. As far as the services YOU want, I notice police, courts, jails, prisons, schools, hospitals, and colleges were not on your list. Federally YOU didn't list, Coast Guard, FDA, FAA, FCC, Social Security, or medicare. I'm sure that those non-educated kids that you kept out of school will feel cheated when they can't retire without SS 50 years from now. Defense is a 300 Billion dollar a year cost. I didn't even pretend to have the answer, but I think flat taxes, or set amount taxes cause people on the lowere end of the economic spectrum to lose a lot of their "spending power". If you know about other industrialized Countries we are closer to the low end of taxes than the high end. That doesn't make it right, I know. But what other Countries do is tax purchases, Germany has a 14% sales tax(IIRC). I kinda like the though of being taxed for USE not income, esp if food and rent is left non-taxed.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:57:14 PM EDT
I will attempt to put upper, middle ,and lower class into prospective for you all. If you make $200,000 or more a year your income is in the top 5%. If you make $100,000 a year your income is in the top 10%. If you earn less than $100,000 a year but more than $25,000 you are not a very wealthy person, but are in the majority. poverty level in the US is something like $8500 a year. By the way income tax is a voluntary tax, don't pay it if you don't want to. Roads are paid for with gasoline tax. Schools are paid for with property tax lottery sales. Who knows what they do with sales tax alcohol, tobacco, firearm, and luxury taxes?
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 5:58:25 PM EDT
Well I have posted this before but I'll post it again. Here's how I think think things work. 1)There are more poor people than rich people. 2)In order to get elected you must get the most votes. 3)You promise to (via the tax code) take money from the rich and give it to the poor. 4)You get youself elected. 5)You change the tax code to screw the rich people. Then you skim, say 25% off the top to 'run' the Federal Govt. Then you give back the remainder with plenty of strings attached (social engineering). Thats all....
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 6:21:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ECS: Well I have posted this before but I'll post it again. Here's how I think think things work. 1)There are more poor people than rich people. 2)In order to get elected you must get the most votes. 3)You promise to (via the tax code) take money from the rich and give it to the poor. 4)You get youself elected. 5)You change the tax code to screw the rich people. Then you skim, say 25% off the top to 'run' the Federal Govt. Then you give back the remainder with plenty of strings attached (social engineering). Thats all....
View Quote
Halls of Justice Painted Green Money Talking Power Wolves Beset Your Door Hear Them Stalking Soon You'll Please Their Appetite They Devour Hammer of Justice Crushes You Overpower The Ultimate in Vanity Exploiting Their Supremacy I Can't Believe the Things You Say I Can't Believe I Can't Believe the Price You Pay Nothing Can Save You Justice Is Lost Justice Is Raped Justice Is Gone Pulling Your Strings Justice Is Done Seeking No Truth Winning Is All Find it So Grim So True So Real Apathy Their Stepping Stone So Unfeeling Hidden Deep Animosity So Deceiving Through Your Eyes Their Light Burns Hoping to Find Inquisition Sinking You With Prying Minds The Ultimate in Vanity Exploiting Their Supremacy I Can't Believe the Things You Say I Can't Believe I Can't Believe the Price You Pay Nothing Can Save You Justice Is Lost Justice Is Raped Justice Is Gone Pulling Your Strings Justice Is Done Seeking No Truth Winning Is All Find it So Grim So True So Real Lady Justice Has Been Raped Truth Assassin Rolls of Red Tape Seal Your Lips Now You're Done in Their Money Tips Her Scales Again Make Your Deal Just What Is Truth?i Cannot Tell Cannot Feel The Ultimate in Vanity Exploiting Their Supremacy I Can't Believe the Things You Say I Can't Believe I Can't Believe the Price We Pay Nothing Can Save You Justice Is Lost Justice Is Raped Justice Is Gone Pulling Your Strings Justice Is Done Seeking No Truth Winning Is All Find it So Grim So True So Real Seeking No Truth Winning Is All Find it So Grim So True So Real
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 7:39:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2002 7:43:13 PM EDT by poikilotrm]
Sorry Oly, it won't let me list your quotes. Poikilotrm is the aol mandated abbreviation of poikilotherm, meaning "cold blooded". Taxes make commerce possible like an anchor makes sailing possible. Taxes do not increase the bottom line, they detract. Always. 3rd worlders pay taxes, often at outrageous rates. Not only that but they often pay additional fees in the form government graft, which is semi-redundant. The logging company uses roads because they are cheaper than making a railroad and because they are forced with the rest of us to pay state and FEDERAL fuel taxes to support them. Corporations exist to maximise profit. Maximum profit yields greater capital for expansion, which leads to greater employment which leads to greater general good. Corporate and income taxes damage the bottom line preventing greater prosperity. Using public roads that are paid for with fuel taxes by the corporation is just another way to maximise profit. No money comes from the federal government. It is extorted from us. Plowing, sand, and salt are paid for by tolls fuel taxes. Income tax is not used for this purpose. Please link to the part of the Federal budget that provides this money. If by whining you mean wealthy people complaining about being extorted, I gotta tell ya, you extort me and I am going to complain mightily. I will also "whine" if I am attacked, raped, robbed, etc. Unkindness towards a man should result in at least complaint, if not retribution, in a man posessed of dignity. We need to do away with most tax funded "services" and privatize them. All are most often these days either fully or semi-privatized. Not so much with jails, but it is heading that way and is the future. Don't we have a navy? Good bye redundant Coast Guard. Non Semper Paratus Nunc. Privatize the rest. Social Security? That horror that Ronald Reagan called "an intergenerational Ponzi scheme? Hasta la vista. Medicare and medicaid? Ever hear of private insurance? Can't pay that? Charities are there for charitable acts. FDA and FAA? Privatize. I am saving for my dotage. Those little bastards better get off their pampers and start saving now. Behold the mighty 401k. $300 Billion a year for the military is so wrong for so many reasons. We pay those intelligence agencies $27 billion a year and probably plenty more. In return we get the WTC incident, no foreknowledge of the Soviet breakup, no foreknowledge of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and on and on. When they fail they say "Oh, so sorry. We didn't have that info because our budgets are too small." Fuck 'em. In the private corporate world guys like this lose their jobs. They don't get raises and promotions. Why do we reward incompetence? They were going to line out the BATF after Waco, instead they got a budget increase and the culprits got medals and raises. They were talkling about doing away with the INS. Same thing for the screw-ups. Our military has one function-to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It has been used for that purpose on 4 occaisions, The American Revolution, The War of 1812, WW II in the Pacific only, and now in Afghanistan. No where is there authorization to use the US military as a Hessian force. A Hessian force we pay for to the tune of $300 billion a year. Want them to have their spending power? Quit taxing them at all. I say let them tax my food. I will be happy to give them the end result when I don't pay it.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 8:32:06 PM EDT
POIKILOTRM, Excuse me I didn't realize you were lashing out at taxes because you just don't like the government. I may be wrong on this, but didn't the US Constitution set up the frame work for the Government? If you are and ubber-patriot, you will yell about parts of the Constitution you agree with because you have RIGHTS, and ignore those parts you don't like. You didn't pay anything for the WTC, others that wanted to kill Americans, because they are Americans, paid for that. Of course your little "scream from a cave" won't do anything to prevent an attack like that or do anything to make this Country better. You sir are an ungrateful "taker" that wants everything the Constitution and BOR's has to offer but you will not even pretend to support the Country that upholds the values of the Constitution. Look either work to improve the place or get out. Sweep, E-T-H, I'm not arguing the well to do should be killed, unless they are well to do lawyers. I have nothing against anybody. But I think it's disingeneous to argue that they pay too much. What are the having to put regular unleaded in the Beemer instead of premium, the horrors. Sweep, Wal-Mart has provided lots of jobs by selling good and services to many people at low prices. The reason anyone at Wal-MArt has a job is because of the CUSTOMERS. SNorman, Do you know me?? Why do you think I am a "poor bastard"? POIKILOTRM, While you are railing about the government, please stay off the roads, keep your kids out of the schools, don't ever accept un-employment, or Workers Comp. Also if something unsafe is going on in your workplace, ignore it, those bastards at OSHA are just keeping your employer from making you run with scissors so that can lord over the populace. Oh yeah and why don't you give back all the money you got when you were going to college, be it Pell Grants, Student Loans, or taxpayer funding of your school. As far as "privatize" I looking forward to the day Wal-Mart is running Fire and EMS services, I'll feel much better knowing I'm saving 1% on my taxes so if I need an ambulance the lowest bidder will be right there giving me the most cost effective service. I'm sorry If I manage to nail my foot to the floor with a nail gun I want the BEST EMS not the cheapest.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 8:53:13 PM EDT
Ah progressive taxation... the ultimate equalizer of the rich and the poor... communism at it's best. There are few things in the world that poor people like more than being given other people's money. Especially when it comes with the sweet taste of revenge because it came from someone so much more successful and educated than yourself. Considering how much rich people fund when it comes to income taxes, they should be the only people allowed to drive on the roads, use the public schools, etc. They foot the bill for it all, and you reap the benefits of their success, Oly. The success tax needs to go, with the rest of Clinton's "legacy." A straight up flat tax percentage would be nice, and even then the rich would still be footing a majority fo the bills in this country. If you keep raising taxes, eventually all of the rich successful people that make this country work are going to more elsewhere, leaving everyone else behind to rot. They can feed into their own welfare system until it chokes on itself. And then, guess what... you're living in Mexico! P.S. Oly, FYI (since you obviously don't understand) you can't put low octane "regular" gas in a nice Beemer or your engine will knock. Sort of like putting lame surplus ammo through a target rifle. It defeats the point.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 9:06:48 PM EDT
So, I get to be forced, at the point of a gun (try not paying taxes, cops with guns come for you), to pay for services I may or may not want. Isn't that extortion. The same fallibilities in people that run businesses are in people that run the government, the government just gives them the power of the gun. And as far as Walmart paying the lowest bidder for fire and EMS services, do you think our govt. really hires the best??? They go for the lowest bidder just like everyone else. Why do you think the wait time in S.F. for a city run ambulance (at least a few years ago, haven't heard any updates) was eleven minutes? Would much rather have someone whose job relied on performance rather that secure govt. funding to come get me.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 9:26:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebrain: By the way income tax is a voluntary tax, don't pay it if you don't want to.
View Quote
Close, but its only voluntary if your not a US citizen. As long as you remain a US citizen then you must pay the taxes. Now if you're a STATE citizen, thats another story....... [:D]
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 9:32:50 PM EDT
The basic fact is that the Democrats are using the power of the majority to remove as many of their constituents as possible from the tax rolls, while getting the other side to pay their freight. A message for all (3 maybe) gun owners who believe in the Second Amendment and who lean Democratic - guns, money, it's all really about the same thing. Freedom from interference in your personal life and your ability to secure your and your family's future. If it wasn't for the abortion issue, we would all be listening to President Gore/Kennedy/Feinstein/whoever lecture us on how we really don't deserve what we earn and how we owe it to the poor downtrodden here and elsewhere to give it to them instead.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 9:38:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ratters: And as far as Walmart paying the lowest bidder for fire and EMS services, do you think our govt. really hires the best??? They go for the lowest bidder just like everyone else. Why do you think the wait time in S.F. for a city run ambulance (at least a few years ago, haven't heard any updates) was eleven minutes? Would much rather have someone whose job relied on performance rather that secure govt. funding to come get me.
View Quote
Most EMS and FF's that I have met are very dedicated, hell they'll run into a burning building to get you out, even if they don't know you. Could part of the problem with the amubulance be: 1) It's Kalifornistan. 2) Some beancounter has figured what the absolute minimum number of ambulance the city needs. Guess how many ambulances you get? 3) Could it be that some people are using the city ambulances for minor (BS) transports? 4) Could it be that a fair number of calls are generated by intoxicated, drug and alc., persons but for "liability" reasons if the FD gets a call they send an ambo. 5) Could it be that a fair number of people drive with their head in the 4th point of contact..................making it more difficult for the ambulance to get there. I think it was Chuck Taylor on 60 Minutes saying stuff to the effect-You never think about the Fire Dept until your house is on fire, then you want them to have a truck, it better be fast, have well trained FF's on it, and it better be able to pump a lot of water. Unfortunately that is true with Fire, Police, EMS, Courts, Jails, etc. No one thinks about them until they are a victim, Then they wonder why those services are understaffed, working out of 50 year old buildings. Every day I go to work I share a car with a shotgun that is older than I am. Every year we fight to get new cars, we put 100,000 miles on them in about 14 months. Of course some beancounter can tell you how much a new car costs............. What they often fail to figure in is that at about 100,000 miles the cars are starting to get to the age the will start needing major repairs. COSTLY. Also if you dial 911 because you are having a SHTF moment do you really think that an officer in a clapped out car with 250,000 miles can get that as quickly or safely, as someone in a well maintined car with 80,000 miles? That's assuming that the 250,000 mile car is running that day. Of course the longer you keep those cars the lower the re-sale value is, I'll let you in on a secret we can sell those 1 year cars at a pretty good price regardless of mileage. But the value shoots down as the age of the car goes up. Then again you don't care about that you want to save $7.50 on your taxes, I guess we'll just hope you never need that kind of help.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 10:50:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2002 11:21:53 PM EDT by Ratters]
I have no problem with Firefighters or EMS personel. One of my best friends is in the SFFD. In your post you make excuses for all the things that are wrong with govt. run ambulance services. You seem to think a private service would be worse, but how? BTW, it IS basically a taxi service for the poor, addicted, and homeless, as they know the key phrases that get the ambulance out. My point was that govt. is not necessarily better than private services, not that I don't appreciate the efforts of the men and women (fire-watchers, as they are referred to by the dept.) that do the work. You still haven't shown why govt. run is better. BTW, I have no problem with paying a nominal fee or tax for fire protection, as well as police and roadway. Those costs are minor and can be provided at the local level. My problem is with the many thousands of dollars I pay to the feds every year to allow them to conduct unconstitutional activities, such as the FDA, and CDC, as well as the ATF, not to mention bloated social services and inefficient military spending. What can the feds provide that the states can't? Over half of what I made last year went to some form of income tax, sales tax, gas tax, liscence fees, property tax (which means I don't own my house, just rent from the govt.) and all the other little fees tacked onto just about everything. I remember being taught in school how awful the fuedal system was because the peasants had to give half of what they grew to the king/lord. How is this any different? How come there is no outrage? Oh yeah, people were given the power to vote themselves my money so it is all OK.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 11:33:02 PM EDT
Ratters, See your post illustrates the problem. You immediately say we spend too much on defense. I think the majority here would say we spend enough or not enough. The post started about tax rates, but it changed to some ant-government guy, and now you saying that certain parts of government don't past your muster. I'm not sure how the CDC is UnConstitutional, I thought in the Constitution it mention providing for the common good. Here's a few of my observations of privatization. 1) The upper level staff at a prviate facility usual INCREASES their pay compared to their government counterparts. 2) They lower the pay, hiring, and training standards of the line personell. 3) Private companies often fail to meet the same perfromance standards as their government counterparts. I see that mostly in private jails. Often their record keeping is subpar too. What they won't tell you is that they won't run Max. security facilities ir accept "problem" inmates. Escape rates often increase in private prisons too. Don't get me started on what happens to staff levels. I just heard on the news we are running a $60 Billion deficit for this year. I'm sorry right after 9/11 I looked at a lot of posts that said that airport security should be federalized, and the Sky Marshall program should be reinvigorated. I really diagreed with the airport screeners being federalized, partially on a cost basis. But others here were for it. I understood that the cost of that program would have to come from somewhere. As others have pointed out, there are other problems. Debt, and deficits are two biggies. I though that the US Govt. was getting smaller and things were looking up. Then some rascals attacked us. We now have the Office of Homeland Security, a War on Terror, and Federalized Airport Screeners. Who do you suppose wanted that? Guess who will pay for it. I said it before, everyone has services that the want the government to provide, other people have other services they want the government to provide, lots of people want lots of services. Yet we are all shocked when the tax bill comes. The nanny state is effecting each one of our personal finances. That's the problem with democracy, sometimes when the masses clamor for something they get exactly what they demanded, be careful what you wish for.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:02:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 4:02:54 AM EDT by AlClenin]
OLY: See if I have this straight. Your justification for the rich paying a much higher tax rate than the rest is that a) they have more spending money left over anyway, and b) they get more services out of the gov. then the poor. Is that correct?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:05:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ratters: I have no problem with Firefighters or EMS personel. One of my best friends is in the SFFD. In your post you make excuses for all the things that are wrong with govt. run ambulance services. You seem to think a private service would be worse, but how? BTW, it IS basically a taxi service for the poor, addicted, and homeless, as they know the key phrases that get the ambulance out. My point was that govt. is not necessarily better than private services, not that I don't appreciate the efforts of the men and women (fire-watchers, as they are referred to by the dept.) that do the work. You still haven't shown why govt. run is better. BTW, I have no problem with paying a nominal fee or tax for fire protection, as well as police and roadway. Those costs are minor and can be provided at the local level. My problem is with the many thousands of dollars I pay to the feds every year to allow them to conduct unconstitutional activities, such as the FDA, and CDC, as well as the ATF, not to mention bloated social services and inefficient military spending. What can the feds provide that the states can't? Over half of what I made last year went to some form of income tax, sales tax, gas tax, liscence fees, property tax (which means I don't own my house, just rent from the govt.) and all the other little fees tacked onto just about everything. I remember being taught in school how awful the fuedal system was because the peasants had to give half of what they grew to the king/lord. How is this any different? How come there is no outrage? Oh yeah, people were given the power to vote themselves my money so it is all OK.
View Quote
If we had no automatic paycheck withholding and someone went door to door each year forcing people to cut a check for the previous years taxes we'd see much more complaining. The way it is now, most people are so stupid that, because they never really get their hands on the money, it doesn't seem like it's been taken from them. TV and paycheck withholding of taxes keep the sheeple docile. It's all about comfort. There will be little public outrage as long as most people are comfortable.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:24:39 AM EDT
Oly: Sociologists use the same arguments to justify blaming the wealthy for all of the world's ills. The rich exploit the poor, the justice system protects the rich from the poor, the government spends more money on the rich than the poor, etc. They call it "richfare." It's bullshit. The end game is that the wealthy do not pay taxes that are proportional to their usage of public domain. In a sense, they are paying twice as much as the middle class, and 50 times as much as the poor to use public infrastructure far less. The police, fire, and EMS guys are used far more frequently by the poor than the rich. Police are the poverty service branch of the government. I've never once seen a police car in my neighborhood, nor have I been on ridealongs in which we went to rich neighborhoods. Who needs and uses the police disproportionally? The poor. The public school systems are almost never used by the wealthy.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 10:21:30 AM EDT
I get a good laugh out of things like this....the whole 'tax the rich, they can pay for it'. It's more emotional pap from the leftie mindset, who'd have you believe the rich are just the guys with six cars, private jet and a winter lodge in aspen. It's crap. Rich isn't defined like that...hell, a good friend of mine is consider rich....since he makes close to 180,000 a year. Of course, about 80,000 of that alone is taken up in just federal and state income tax. Then you have other costs including housing and school loans (4 years college, 3 years law school, all on his own) which come up to close to another 50,000. I find it funny that people bitch to him about having to pay more taxes, when he gives more to the government than most of these people's YEARLY PAYCHECK BEFORE THEIR OWN TAXES. While they're going home at 6 to the wife and kiddies and popping up a beer, he's working his ass of from 5a-10p monday through saturday and 6a-5p sunday to do his job. There are a LOT of people like this who are categorized as rich. Hard working, industrious, and quality people. Course, it doesn't matter how hard you work, how much you persevere, how much you try to embody the truth of the American dream...if you have the greens you deserve to get fucked apparently. That's just a side beef, though. HAs anyone ever noticed how the whole concept works? Incremental taxation pushing the brunt onto the rich and doing the most for the poor. What does that accomplish? The poor get taxed back into middle classdom, the government riding their blood and sweat to profit. The poor are weaned onto the government teat, and risen up to...the middle class. Welcom to the new society....or shall I say the new Proletariat. All hail the state......no thanks. Even the Russians decided to ditch communism because it doesn't work. We don't want it here. People shouldn't be punished for trying to better themselves, or trying to provide the best possible life for their children.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 11:57:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 2:27:54 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Hard-case, Is your friend a Doctor? I might point out that the govt. enforces laws that keep anybody that wants to from practicing medicine, or allowing college to churn out doctors, in a willy-nilly fashion. Most medical schools are also at public universities. Let me think how those are paid for. I think that in a few years he'll have those loans paid of and will be in much better shape, I hope. AlClenin Yes, that is part of what I'm saying that most people that have money made there money with some help from the govt. I no not a lot of help. How would a trucking company make money w/o taxpayer funded roads? How would investors keep their money from being stolen w/o the SEC or FDIC? How would the econmic state of the Country be changed without the Federal Reserve. How could anyone make a cent in the computer business if Microsoft and Intel were allowed to be monopolies? People that have more assets have more to protect. The govt. runs jails and prisons if we let all those guys go do you think the would want to steal $5.00 from kids at the bus stop? Or would they want to rob a business? Or burgle a rundown apt. or a multi-million dollar house? Redmanfans, Where did I say that "the rich" were responsible for the worlds evils. Of course "the rich" in this country are much different than say "the rich" in Mexico. Where 11 families own 90+% of the Country. Do you think that those 11 families do what they need to, to keep anyones else from getting "a slice of the pie". Think about it. I work out of a precinct nestled in between $750,00[red]0[/red] and up to probably $2,000,000 homes. Most of those kids that live there do go to public schools. When I get to my patrol area one part of it is a gated community the house in that area are multi-million dollar homes. We get plenty of calls of burglar alarms from there. The only home invasion that I've worked was there, $100,000 stolen. We got most of it back and captured the suspect. It was also down the street from one of the areas more infamous "home invasions" that happened a few years ago, befor the phrase home invasion was widely used. He got captured too. I also have farms in my patrol are. I spend very little time in farming country, because there is so little going on there. I might also point out that we "can't afford" a snowblower for the company parking lot because it costs to much.....................
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:59:58 PM EDT
Oly: The preponderence of government services go to the poor, not the rich. That isn't anecdote, that isn't opinion, that is irrefutable fact. My point was that you use much the same argument that leftist sociologists use exactly the same argument you use for forced redistribution of wealth (which is exactly what taxes are). The fact that your precinct serves a wealthy area and coincidentally gets the majority of calls from rich folk means zilch. [url]ncjrs.org[/url] has plenty of information on who gets what, and where the majority of criminal cases are developped. Let me tell ya, it ain't the rich folk doing the most calling on average.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:23:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 1:29:30 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Whoa, hold up. There are 3 issues her that are getting twisted up. 1) Tax fairness, for lack of a better term, who pays how much etc. 2) Tax amounts, the amount of taxes the govt. takes in. 3) What is done with taxes. I was just talking about #1. #2, is too much.... #3, I don't like redistributing the money. But I also don't want to hear about elderly folks not having medicines or medical care. Or people that worked there whole life living on the street. If we get into it the govt. does goofy stuff. They will pay for abortions, but not birth control pills. Which is cheaper?? I would rather have people working, there are an awful lot of people walking around with their hands out. Of course once you make rules to start "cutting people off" there is always a story of the govt. evicting a Korean War vet because his benefits were cut off. Then there is an outcry that more people need to be protected. I was just reading of the unfairness of the govt. about an eviction. A 90 year old woman dies after spending some time in the hospital, paid for by medicaid. Her niece was her sole heir. She got the womans $58,000 house, and moved in. The niece is a retired school teacher. The government sent notice that the deceased exceeded her Medicaid benefits by $18,000 and asked for the money. The retired school teacher claimed the govt was forcing her out of her house........blah blah blah, to pay the bill. As a result of that and similar situations the Govt. is changing what it does about Medicaid bills and estates. Great, super, she gets to keep the house. Hey wait a minute who pays the $18,000?? How do you get to be a retired school teacher and not have a place to live before your aunt dies? if the house is worth $58,000, and paid for, and the estate owes $18,000, why can't a mortgage be taken out? Or the house be sold?? Then again citizens demand the govt. provide services. Who do you think is required to pay for those services?? As far as rich vs. poor. How do roads benefit people that don't have cars? Who goes to State Colleges, Universities, and Technical schools?? How do you figure in National Defense? Social Securtiy goes to anyone that is eligible, regardless of income. Yes the poor are disproportionally represented in jails, and prisons. Then again if you are in jail are you receiving that service? Or are the rest of us paying to keep your low life ass on ice? I read a story that as the WWII generation is dying off more and more people are inheriting substantial sums of money. Prior to WW-II very few people went to college or owned their own homes. Most people worked until they died, and had to die on a budget. That changed after WW-II Veterans benefits enable the housing boom and college boom after the war. Govt guaranteed student loans, VA mortgages, and The GI Bill, changed America. It seems that more people are doing better now than ever before. I think that in some part is because of how people demand their govt. work.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:26:14 PM EDT
I always get a kick how the socialists classify richness. Say you're driving around outside Austin, TX and you see a $200,000 home. You have to figure you need $50,000-$60,000 a year in income to afford that home, correct? Now, put yourself in the San Francisco Bay Area. If you want to live anywhere near your job, in a house of similar size, it may cost you anywhere from $500,000-$800,000 for that same house. In that case, you probably need $150,000-$200,000 a year in income to make those house payments. Now, would you consider yourself rich?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:29:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: I always get a kick how the socialists classify richness. Say you're driving around outside Austin, TX and you see a $200,000 home. You have to figure you need $50,000-$60,000 a year in income to afford that home, correct? Now, put yourself in the San Francisco Bay Area. If you want to live anywhere near your job, in a house of similar size, it may cost you anywhere from $500,000-$800,000 for that same house. In that case, you probably need $150,000-$200,000 a year in income to make those house payments. Now, would you consider yourself rich?
View Quote
No.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:39:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:26:18 PM EDT
It depends where you are, The South is more pay as you go. I remember being asked to pay for a "membership" with the local ambulance service when I lived in LA. They told me I would get a discoiunt on any "fares" if I used the ambulance as a menber. Most places provide the ambulance, and there is a small fee for the service per transport. $559 seems steep. I think it's $900 for a helicopter/ambulance ride here. I don't think anyplace charges for fire service here, but when I lived down South..........
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:30:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: I always get a kick how the socialists classify richness. Say you're driving around outside Austin, TX and you see a $200,000 home. You have to figure you need $50,000-$60,000 a year in income to afford that home, correct? Now, put yourself in the San Francisco Bay Area. If you want to live anywhere near your job, in a house of similar size, it may cost you anywhere from $500,000-$800,000 for that same house. In that case, you probably need $150,000-$200,000 a year in income to make those house payments. Now, would you consider yourself rich?
View Quote
If you are refering to me the post said 750-K to 2 million, (I had a typo fot the 750,000, I just saw it). The avg house price around here is appx. 135,000 so yes a house a 750,000 (5x) would be better off and a house at 2 million is certainly getting into the rich area.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 12:54:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By mattja: I always get a kick how the socialists classify richness. Say you're driving around outside Austin, TX and you see a $200,000 home. You have to figure you need $50,000-$60,000 a year in income to afford that home, correct? Now, put yourself in the San Francisco Bay Area. If you want to live anywhere near your job, in a house of similar size, it may cost you anywhere from $500,000-$800,000 for that same house. In that case, you probably need $150,000-$200,000 a year in income to make those house payments. Now, would you consider yourself rich?
View Quote
If you are refering to me the post said 750-K to 2 million, (I had a typo fot the 750,000, I just saw it). The avg house price around here is appx. 135,000 so yes a house a 750,000 (5x) would be better off and a house at 2 million is certainly getting into the rich area.
View Quote
I was referring to Gore and the reasoning he used to dispute Bush's tax cut.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 2:18:52 AM EDT
Arguing with a person who has abandon reason is like giving medicine to a dead man. OLY, read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and take a good long look at the state of the socialist systems in Europe that people like you are pushing the USA to emulate.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 3:04:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Cry me a river. I see "the rich", that have multi-million dollar vacant homes, just in case they want to "summer" someplace. The hard fact is it takes a certain amount of money to live per year per person in this country. If you make more than that you get to spend the "overage" on what you want, bigger house, nicer car, electronics, whatever. A lot of what our taxes, government, and laws do is allow a system that allows people to gain and keep assets. Trademarks, copyrights and patents are some examples, of course with out Courts they would be useless. Who do you think benefits the most from them? Who gains more benefit from tax payer funded roads? A "poor" person with no car, or a "rich" trucking company owner. The "rich" persons business depends on public roads........ As far as your "meal" analogy, Let's suppose your tenth man had to pay $59.00. Lets also say that he makes $1,000,000 a year. Lets avg that out for the 8746 hours in a year. He made 114.46 every hour of the year. If the meal cost $59.00 and took an hour to eat, he made $55.46 sitting there. The "rich" do pay more in taxes, but they still end up with far more money to spend after meeting their basic needs than anyone else. The "middle class" lose more of their "discretionary income" as a percentage than the rich. The "poor" who may not make enough to meet their basic needs, or pay taxes, have the least discretionary income of all of them. The problem is, none of us like the Gov't getting into our pocket for anything. We can always make a case that we should pay less, and can probalby name people that should pay more. We also want govt. services that benefit us, we can also name govt. services we think should be cut or eliminated, because they don't directly benefit us. The only problem is that we tend to get services from the govt. that we request, we also have to pay for those services.
View Quote
Sure that sounds all well and good to people who don't have much money. But don't forget that the rich are the ones who provide jobs. Most rich people are smart enough to know that by investing their money (which creates jobs for you, me, and everyone else) they become richer. They spend more, helping the economy, and provide jobs for people. I love the rich, and I'm flat broke at the moment.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 4:21:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: >Who gains more benefit from tax payer funded roads? A "poor" person with no car, or a "rich" trucking company owner. The "rich" persons business depends on public roads........ Interesting comment. Does this mean that the poor don't get to use the "public roads?" How does public transportation figure into your equation? >As far as your "meal" analogy, Let's suppose your tenth man had to pay $59.00. Lets also say that he makes $1,000,000 a year. Lets avg that out for the 8746 hours in a year. He made 114.46 every hour of the year. If the meal cost $59.00 and took an hour to eat, he made $55.46 sitting there. This one really bothers me. So, I spent 7 years (4 BS, 5 MS/PH.D.) in College to get several degrees that allow me to get a good job. I put my wife thru school (4 BS, 4 PharmD) that allows her to get a good job. Because my parents are good with their money and saved for my college education, are you saying that my family needs to punished for giving me an education and that education allowing me to make a good living. Do you realize that you are punishing folks for being good? (i.e. getting an education, contributing to society) Isn't that backwards? >The "rich" do pay more in taxes, but they still end up with far more money to spend after meeting their basic needs than anyone else. Let see, does not the "rich" fund an amazing amount of federal programs, like 80%? Last time I check the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution says all folks get equal access and protection under the law. Wonder why this does not apply to “rich” folks? >The "middle class" lose more of their "discretionary income" as a percentage than the rich. Define middle class? If your parents save for their children college education, does that make them middle class or are they the terrible "rich" folks. If you own a farm, does that make them “rich or middle class?” >We also want govt. services that benefit us, we can also name govt. services we think should be cut or eliminated, because they don't directly benefit us. What services? Due to my job, I don't qualify for services. Can't get the county to fix potholes on my street. Can't get the county to pay for street lighting on my street. Can't get my children into after school programs/tutoring programs due to I having a good job.
Top Top