If there's anything the Democrat Party just loves to do that would be raising taxes ... but only on those people who are not likely to vote Democrat! If you've been paying any attention at all, you will know that the Democrats proposed a $400 billion tax increase last week. That's right ... all you have to do is give them enough votes in the Senate to filibuster (that would be 41) and they'll make sure that the tax cuts passed by the Republican congress six years ago disappear .. and if you give them a good majority in the Senate, the House and Hillary in the White House in 2008 they'll raise taxes even more!

The Democrat Party goal here is simple. They are working to shift the entire federal tax burden away from voters who are more likely to vote Democrat .. the middle and low income voters. Right now only 3.5% of personal income taxes are paid by the lowest 50% of income earners. But wait ... it gets worse. Over 80% of all personal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. So you can see that the Democrats don't have far to go before they have completely insulated their core voters from the responsibility of paying any income taxes at all.

Next will be Social Security. The Democrats have a plan right now -- though they aren't really talking all that much about it -- to exempt the first $15,000 of wages from Social Security payroll taxes. If your parents cared enough to keep you out of government schools you will know that in order to do this the Democrats will have to raise the Social Security earnings cap by more than $15,000 to cover the loss. This means, of course, that these Social Security taxes are merely shifted from the lowest to the highest income bracket.

Can you see where this is heading? Let me give you a little hint of how Democrat campaign advertising will sound once they've managed to shift the entire tax burden to the top 20 or 30% of income earners, and they have their little $15,000 payroll tax exemption in place. Every election season you will hear radio and TV ads for Democrats saying two things: (1) If you vote for Republicans they will make you pay income taxes; and, (2) if you vote for us we'll raise the Social Security payroll tax exemption by a few thousand dollars.

Now ... thanks to Republican malfeasance, Democrat free-spender Charlie Rangel is now running the House Ways and Means Committee. That's the committee that writes all new tax laws. Rangel is not what you would call an honest man. He won't even admit that the Democrats want to raise taxes. He says they're just "readjusting the tax rates."

Who do we have to thank for all of this? Well, ultimately it is the Republicans who take the blame. The Republicans in the Congress completely abandoned their principles and became the new party of big government and pork spending. Core Republican voters became disgusted and sat on their hands. Is anything likely to change? Well ... let me respond to that question with another one. Is there anything that the Republican Party is doing right now that causes you to want to lift one finger to help them? Name one initiative being undertaken by the Republican Party -- not just by some Republicans, but by the party -- that would make you go one foot out of your way to vote for them in 2008? You're right. There's nothing.


http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/04012007/worldnation-01sun-pol-bush.html


http://www.house.gov/rangel/


By: Boortz

. If your parents cared enough to keep you out of government schools



What a smart-alecky comment. My, what a blue blood this fella is.

Apart from that, no, I don't like the idea of raising taxes. Don't like that at ALL......but knew it was coming.

The Democrats are working to shift the entire federal tax burden away from.......middle and low income voters.

<gasp!>

Those callous FIENDS!!!!!!

How DARE they shift taxes away from middle and low income Americans!

[/sarcasm]

I have no problem with raising taxes on the wealthy back to what they were in order to help alieviate the budget crisis the Republicans have caused.

On a side note, the more I hear from this "boortz" character the less impressed I am. He was on Sean Hannity last night sounding very much like a raving madman.

.......the more I hear from this "boortz" character the less impressed I am. He was on Sean Hannity last night sounding very much like a raving madman.

I actually LIKE the guy..........but you have to listen to every side that he presents, not just the one where he (often justifiably) excoriates the Democrats.

I have to applaud Boortz on the fact that he (in the exact opposite fashion of people like gmsisko who use his words selectively) will freely admit that the Republicans have been bad for the nation and that the Republicans have ALSO been profligate spenders and have raised taxes.

Boortz will state in no uncertain terms for his listeners the fact that the CURRENT administration under George Bush has been THE biggest spender in the history of this nation by far.

I actually LIKE the guy..........but you have to listen to every side that he presents, not just the one where he (often justifiably) excoriates the Democrats.

I have only recently heard of him for the first time and I just saw him on tv for the first time yesterday.

So far all I have seen and heard is the hateful ravings of a madman who seems to hate "liberal" Americans more than anyone else on the planet.

The Rep. were handed the war on terror. That is not cheap.

Under Reagan, the Soviet Union fell. You must give the Rep. some credit at least. (If you are honest)

As far as your tax line: We should stop punnishing the people who create jobs with excessive taxes. If we punnish them, they will be less likley to provide more jobs.


Please answer this question: Why should people try to get rich, or why should people try to gain wealth if the government is just going to take half or almost half of it.

Please Please answer that question.

Also............... The pic on your sig is sick............. It's just sick and it explains alot about you.



I have no problem with raising taxes on the wealthy back to what they were in order to help alieviate the budget crisis the Republicans have caused.

On a side note, the more I hear from this "boortz" character the less impressed I am. He was on Sean Hannity last night sounding very much like a raving madman.

Under Reagan, the Soviet Union fell. You must give the Rep. some credit at least. (If you are honest)

And if you were honest you would give the 40 years worth of Administrations before Reagan stumbled into office the credit they deserve.

Instead you treat it like Hot Potato and you think that because the music stopped on Reagan's term, it was all him. That is nonsense.


We should stop punnishing the people who create jobs with excessive taxes. If we punnish them, they will be less likley to provide more jobs.

The idea that only wealthy people create jobs... is a flat out lie.

Paris Hilton didn't do anything to "earn" her wealth and she doesn't create any jobs.




Please answer this question: Why should people try to get rich, or why should people try to gain wealth if the government is just going to take half or almost half of it.

This is the second time you have asked this same question. Did you not read my answer last time??

Ok, once more, BECAUSE WE WILL STILL BE RICH!!!


Please Please answer that question.

Already did, for the second time. Pay attention this time, ok?
I don't want to see you asking me the same question again.


Also............... The pic on your sig is sick............. It's just sick and it explains alot about you.

A picture of President Bush is "sick"?

I think you are projecting again. :rolleyes:

But paying tax is more reasonable than paying for education, security by individual.

Yes,New Ways & Means Chair {more like new PEST} Rangel is doin
the Cable TV Political head route,to basically Readjust what he
said,just a lowly year ago.
Like he and Pelosi used to brag about No New Taxes.
But,that's like askin a bear to Please,use toilet paper.
And don't furgit to flush the toilet,as well.
Ya gotta lUv the ABSOLUTE Lyin,deceiving,continuum of The
New Democratic Party.
Literallly Nothing is held Sacred by them.
The Vote in Unison to raise their pay {Congress}.
They willingly dupe New Republican members.to GOad along with
Pork Barrel spending to appease their constitutency.
Then...Wham Bam,thank You Madame Pelosi.For hoodwinking the
nation { Hallmark trait of ALL Liberal Democrats } by reversing and
just ignoring whatever seeming good faith pledge,Y'All make during
Election time.
I'd trust a Dimocrat,about as far as I could sling a wet piano.

Hey Deharm:

The Democrats before Reagans day were quite different from todays Democrats. Infact Reagan was a Democrat.
Yes those Democrats deserve pleny of credit for bringing down the SU.
(Except maybe Carter)

Rich people are not the only people who create jobs, but they do create most of the jobs. It takes risk and money to start a business. (Usually)

The picture of those men in tat position doing what they are doing is sick.

Do you wish you were in the middle???



And if you were honest you would give the 40 years worth of Administrations before Reagan stumbled into office the credit they deserve.

Instead you treat it like Hot Potato and you think that because the music stopped on Reagan's term, it was all him. That is nonsense.



The idea that only wealthy people create jobs... is a flat out lie.

Paris Hilton didn't do anything to "earn" her wealth and she doesn't create any jobs.





This is the second time you have asked this same question. Did you not read my answer last time??

Ok, once more, BECAUSE WE WILL STILL BE RICH!!!



Already did, for the second time. Pay attention this time, ok?
I don't want to see you asking me the same question again.



A picture of President Bush is "sick"?

I think you are projecting again. :rolleyes:

Hey Deharm:

You know, that doesn't make you look creative. It only makes you look illiterate.

Yes those Democrats deserve pleny of credit for bringing down the SU.
(Except maybe Carter)

Always the hyper-partisan hack, aren't you?


It takes risk and money to start a business. (Usually)

And thats what Business loans are for.

Paris Hilton didn't earn her wealth and she doesn't provide any jobs, but that is who you are claiming "needs" lower taxes. I say Bull.


The picture of those men in tat position doing what they are doing is sick.

What exactly do you think they are doing?



Do you wish you were in the middle???

Obviously you do, since you have spent so much time thinking about it.

Hey Dharm,

Are you not a hyper-partisan hack??????? (I think you are)

Don't you have to have a down payment to get a business loan?
(like say 20 percent)

Doesn't it take a great deal of risk to start a business?

You are the one who posted that sick picture, not me.




You know, that doesn't make you look creative. It only makes you look illiterate.



Always the hyper-partisan hack, aren't you?



And thats what Business loans are for.

Paris Hilton didn't earn her wealth and she doesn't provide any jobs, but that is who you are claiming "needs" lower taxes. I say Bull.



What exactly do you think they are doing?




Obviously you do, since you have spent so much time thinking about it.

Don't you have to have a down payment to get a business loan?
(like say 20 percent)

No, not always. It depends upon what loan and who you are getting it through. There are also lots of ways to get help getting funds from the Government.


Doesn't it take a great deal of risk to start a business?

Yes that is the traditional understanding of being an entrepeneur, but it is also the gaping hole in your theory.

The reason that is the general understanding is that most entrepeneurs who start businesses are not really wealthy when they start out, or they wouldn't really be taking much of a risk because they don't have to put up everything they have just to start a business.

The average joe does. He risks everything because he puts everything he has into it.

Think about it, Donald Trump has filed bankruptsy something like three times, but he has always maintained his wealth. Why? Because he is wealthy, so no one business will take up everything he has. Also, once you are that wealthy, there are ways to shelter your money that aren't available to the average joe.

Trump is smart. He keeps his business seperste from his personal wealth. If this business has problems, only the business is harmed.

Trump is smart. He keeps his business seperste from his personal wealth. If this business has problems, only the business is harmed.

ROFL!!! Thanks for the kindegarden explaination of limited liability.

He's making the same point you are. Besides, most people who are wealthy put in the blood sweat and tears necessary to get there. My God, Bill Gates started out in his garage.

He's making the same point you are. Besides, most people who are wealthy put in the blood sweat and tears necessary to get there. My God, Bill Gates started out in his garage.
I wouldn't say "most"...

Well, except for professional athletes.

Actors I still have respect for, even if they are currently rediculously overpaid. Before they hit it big, they had to deal with a lot of crap and rejection. And it takes guts to risk everything and say, "I'm gonna be a movie star"

He's making the same point you are.

I know, thats why it made me laugh that he argued with me until he finally just restated what I just said to him.


Besides, most people who are wealthy put in the blood sweat and tears necessary to get there.

I think that is just a myth. Millions of people put "blood sweat and tears" into their work and never become wealthy but some people just happen to be in the right place at the right time and luck out.

Then there are those who simply inherit their wealth and never lift a finger to earn it.

Then there are those who simply inherit their wealth and never lift a finger to earn it.

Yes. Like the smirking clown in the middle position in the picture, hands in pockets, waiting for his lackey to fellate him.

Then there are those who simply inherit their wealth and never lift a finger to earn it.


Do you think we should punnish those people with a Death Tax???

That money has already been heavily taxed. Should we add insult to injury by saying....................................

"We at the Federal and State government are very,very sorry for our loss, we will now take 40 or 50 percent of the money the dead man or woman left you."

Will you say that they do not deserve the money??? (Yeah we should give it to some bum who will not work)

Face it Dharm there are plenty of people who will not work. There are plenty of people who would rather have a hand out then lift a finger to help themselvs.

Katrina is proof of this. (People still looking for a free place to stay almost 2 years after Katrina)

Do you think we should punnish those people with a Death Tax???

That money has already been heavily taxed. Should we add insult to injury by saying....................................

"We at the Federal and State government are very,very sorry for our loss, we will now take 40 or 50 percent of the money the dead man or woman left you."
Doesn't the estate tax kick in at, like, $3 million?

If it does now, I know it didn't always.



Doesn't the estate tax kick in at, like, $3 million?

If it does now, I know it didn't always.
"For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, so if the sum of the taxable estate and the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime is $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion will increase to $3,500,000 in 2009, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, but then the act "sunsets" in 2011 and the estate tax reappears with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000 (unless Congress acts before then)."

Do you think we should punnish those people with a Death Tax???

No such thing.

You can't pay taxes when you are dead.

You are dead.

Are you talking about the INHERITANCE tax?

Yeah, thats what I thought.


Will you say that they do not deserve the money??? (Yeah we should give it to some bum who will not work)

Well, if you are talking about the inheritance tax, then you are already giving the money to "some bum who will not work"... Duh.


Face it Dharm there are plenty of people who will not work.

Yeah, primarily the recipients of any estate which would be subject to an inheritance tax.

There are plenty of people who would rather have a hand out then lift a finger to help themselvs.

And then there are people like you, out fighting for handouts for the rich instead of fightnig for yourself.

How generous of you. :rolleyes:

Alternatively if you are rich then you are just begging for a handout for yourself.


Katrina is proof of this. (People still looking for a free place to stay almost 2 years after Katrina)

What are you talking about specificly? It sounds like something you are just making up.
Cite an example.

There are plenty of people who would rather have a hand out than lift a finger to help themselves.


And then there are people like you, out fighting for handouts for the rich instead of fighting for yourself.

Exactly.

Once again we see it illustrated.....how conservatives seem to be under some sort of hypnotic spell, convinced that they just HAVE TO be against their own best interests, and against the interests of the poor and middle class working people and FOR the interests of the wealthy elitists who rapaciously devour the lion's share of all that is good in this society.

Please give me an example of when I was "fighting for a hand out for the rich"


[QUOTE=dharmabum]

And then there are people like you, out fighting for handouts for the rich instead of fightnig for yourself.

QUOTE]

Hey Dharm:

You can pay taxes when you are dead. See you in all of your wisdom forgot to use your brain.

In many cases if you leave an inhertance, it get taxed before it gets in the hands of the person you left it to. So yes you the dead person are paying taxes.

You clearly hold a grudge against those who have money. Keep it up....
Bite the hand that feeds you. See where that gets you!


No such thing.

You can't pay taxes when you are dead.

You are dead.

Are you talking about the INHERITANCE tax?

Yeah, thats what I thought.




Well, if you are talking about the inheritance tax, then you are already giving the money to "some bum who will not work"... Duh.



Yeah, primarily the recipients of any estate which would be subject to an inheritance tax.



And then there are people like you, out fighting for handouts for the rich instead of fightnig for yourself.

How generous of you. :rolleyes:

Alternatively if you are rich then you are just begging for a handout for yourself.



What are you talking about specificly? It sounds like something you are just making up.
Cite an example.

Please give me an example of when I was "fighting for a hand out for the rich"




And then there are people like you, out fighting for handouts for the rich instead of fightnig for yourself.



You are constantly whining about how the rich are "overtaxed".

Hey Dharm:

You can pay taxes when you are dead.

No, you can't. You are dead.

The ones who really pay it are those who would inherit the money, since after you die it is theirs.

In many cases if you leave an inhertance, it get taxed before it gets in the hands of the person you left it to.

It still legally belongs to them whether it is in the bank or in their hands.

Either way, you are dead.

You ain't doin shit.

You clearly hold a grudge against those who have money.

No, I don't. I simply believe that the measure of a society is not in the conditions of the richest and most powerful in that society, but rather from the conditions of the poorest and least powerful in that society.

I believe in the Commons which is available for all to use to pull themselves up when they are down and I believe that we have a responsibility to the society in which we live to help maintain that society.

I believe we are all in this together.

You believe it is every man for himself.

You believe in that conservative hyper-darwinism wherein if you cannot support yourself and no private charity will help you, then you should just die.

Preatorian said it pretty well:
"I'd rather die than have my money extorted by a group of bleeding hearts for people I'd rather see dead and buried."


Bite the hand that feeds you. See where that gets you!

Is that what this really is for you? Are you a frightened, submissive dog who's primary motivation is his fear of his "Master"?

I am the hand that feeds me.

You speak of things you know nothing about!!

You don't know what I believe. I never said any of those things you have listed.






You believe it is every man for himself.

You believe in that conservative hyper-darwinism wherein if you cannot support yourself and no private charity will help you, then you should just die.

Preatorian said it pretty well:





Is that what this really is for you? Are you a frightened, submissive dog who's primary motivation is his fear of his "Master"?

I am the hand that feeds me.

If this is the best you can do to prove that I want a hand out for the rich then................................. you need to go back to law school.

The rich are over taxed. That is a fact. I amnot asking for any hand outs.




You are constantly whining about how the rich are "overtaxed".

The rich are over taxed. That is a fact.
No, it is an opinion. You really need to work on differentiating between the two.

Katrina is proof of this. (People still looking for a free place to stay almost 2 years after Katrina)

What about all the people who haven't been paid by their insurance companies for their homes to be rebuilt? Is it their faults that the courts and the public have allowed these companies to NOT live up to their obligations and pay for these homes to be rebuilt? The place they are looking for is hardly free if they paid the mortgage and insurance costs. The crime is that, after TWO YEARS, there are still people homeless because of it.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/fematicket.jpg

I was refering to the people in Atlanta who go from hotel to hotel trying to get a free place to stay. I know for a fact of one lady who was staying at a hotel and offered a job at the hotel. She would not take the job.

I don't have any problems with helping those who truly need and deserve help.

I also believe that there comes a time when you must help yourself.

Some people refuse to do this.


What about all the people who haven't been paid by their insurance companies for their homes to be rebuilt? Is it their faults that the courts and the public have allowed these companies to NOT live up to their obligations and pay for these homes to be rebuilt? The place they are looking for is hardly free if they paid the mortgage and insurance costs. The crime is that, after TWO YEARS, there are still people homeless because of it.

I was refering to the people in Atlanta who go from hotel to hotel trying to get a free place to stay. I know for a fact of one lady who was staying at a hotel and offered a job at the hotel. She would not take the job.

I don't have any problems with helping those who truly need and deserve help.

I also believe that there comes a time when you must help yourself.

Some people refuse to do this.

Thank you for clarifying. I think part of the trouble is that everyone is lumped into the same categories and, while I agree with you about the people who refuse to help themselves, they tend to ride on the same gravy train as the people who DO actually need and deserve the help. I wish we could think of a way to help the people who DO need it and deserve it and leave the people who just want to take advantage in the dirt where they belong. Unfortunately, until we do we have three options:

1) Help everyone who claims they need it.
2) Help no one because some of them may be taking advantage.
3) Have these agencies and companies clean up their acts and use the procedures they have in place to detect fraud. And do it quickly. Then they can help the people who need it and deserve it.

Besides, most people who are wealthy put in the blood sweat and tears necessary to get there.
Followed by this brilliant bit of reasoning:
I think that is just a myth. Millions of people put "blood sweat and tears" into their work and never become wealthy but some people just happen to be in the right place at the right time and luck out.
Pfft - :rolleyes:

Yeah, all "wealthy" people do is pull money outta their ass; it's a real neat hat trick, for sure. :rolleyes:

Spoken like a true blue collar scholar – the mating call of a loser.

As far as inherited wealth is concerned, it usually dies out in less than three generations (90% of the time, that is). That aside, money can't buy a backbone, and THAT'S what it takes to make it. If money is your birthright, and you're an idiot, you'll surely squander it. Why do you think something like 80% of all lottery winners end up filing for bankruptcy within 10 years? Case in point.

No, it is an opinion. You really need to work on differentiating between the two.
No....it's pretty much a fact.

The rich are over taxed. That is a fact.

Lets examine your "fact", shall we?

Right now, a middle class wage earner is paying a top tax rate of 31%.

The wealthy, who's money comes from dividends, pay a top tax rate of 15%

They pay less then half the tax rate that most Americans do.

But you think they are "overtaxed".

Sorry, Sisko, the fact is, you are begging for handouts for the rich instead of standing up for yourself.

You don't know what I believe. I never said any of those things you have listed.

You confirm what I said to be correct every time you post your conservative talking points.

I find it sad that you don't even know what you are really supporting.

At least Prat was honest about it.

Yeah, all "wealthy" people do is pull money outta their ass; it's a real neat hat trick, for sure.


Yes, it is.

As you should know it takes money to make money, so yes, quite the "hat trick".

From what I have read it sounds like you should know about inherited wealth.

No wonder you have so much contempt for blue collar working class people.

:rolleyes:

I was refering to the people in Atlanta who go from hotel to hotel trying to get a free place to stay.

A story for which you have failed to produce a shred of evidence.


I don't have any problems with helping those who truly need and deserve help.

Thats the problem, you want to appoint yourself the judge of who "deserves" help.

Lets examine your "fact", shall we?

Right now, a middle class wage earner is paying a top tax rate of 31%.

The wealthy, who's money comes from dividends, pay a top tax rate of 15%

They pay less then half the tax rate that most Americans do.

But you think they are "overtaxed".

Sorry, Sisko, the fact is, you are begging for handouts for the rich instead of standing up for yourself.
Whoa, pardner - back up. Not all wealthy people get paid via dividends. Wealthy people (in this incredibly fair system of ours) pay upwards of 45% of their paycheck only to get triple and quadruple dipped by Uncle Sam. On top of paying an inordinate amount of money to the federal government, their estate gets taxed, and their benefits, overall, are slashed. What's this "top tax rate" bullshit you keep waxing about here? Are you seriously contending that, as a percentage, the wealthy pay LESS??? Dude, if you ever make it in the world, you're in for a serious reality check....

Thats the problem, you want to appoint yourself the judge of who "deserves" help.
And you'd rather have the "wealthy" pay to help everyone without scrutinizing a single detail.

And you'd rather have the "wealthy" pay to help everyone without scrutinizing a single detail.

Only partially correct, I would rather have the wealthy pay the same rate as everyone else. That by itself will help out.

Not all wealthy people get paid via dividends.

Generally most do, it depends upon what you mean by "wealthy". I am talking about the wealthiest people in our society.

Corporate CEOs do get a paycheck but most of their money comes from stock options, which pay in dividends.

The children of those people generally live their lives out of trust funds.



Wealthy people (in this incredibly fair system of ours) pay upwards of 45% of their paycheck only to get triple and quadruple dipped by Uncle Sam.

Wealthy people do not depend upon a paycheck.

Working class people don't have trust funds or portfolios.


On top of paying an inordinate amount of money to the federal government, their estate gets taxed, and their benefits, overall, are slashed.

They don't even pay their fair share, let alone an "inordinate" amount.


Dude, if you ever make it in the world, you're in for a serious reality check....

Coming from someone like you, I had to laugh at that.

Unlike you, I have to actually compete in the real world. I don't have a family business to fall back on.

If money is your birthright, and you're an idiot, you'll surely squander it.

As demonstrated by Smirky the Chimp.

He has squandered untold millions, only to have Daddy and other wealthy benefactors keep bailing him out.

Yet we're supposed to believe that he's a "leader".

:hahanot:

Generally most do, it depends upon what you mean by "wealthy". I am talking about the wealthiest people in our society.
Yeah, but your "unilateral" punishment of the "rich" doesn't apply to just the ultra elite. More on that point to follow...
Corporate CEOs do get a paycheck but most of their money comes from stock options, which pay in dividends.
Only if their companies are in the black can they draw on said dividends. That aside, most wealthy people don't run a multi-national company that's traded on the NYSE. :rolleyes: I seem to remember you bringing up this ridiculously lame argument a few months back...

Did you think it was a better refutation then?
They don't even pay their fair share, let alone an "inordinate" amount.
Like you'd fucking know. :rolleyes:
Coming from someone like you, I had to laugh at that.

Unlike you, I have to actually compete in the real world. I don't have a family business to fall back on.
I know. I'm guessing you don't have much to fall back on at all.

Look - any money you collect on is considered income, thus it's taxed at roughly 45%. Tax deferred interest or a 15% dividend tax is great if you can wait until retirement age, but it hardly means anything if you draw on it prematurely, hence this conversation is pointless.

Asking the wealthy to pay their fair (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/earnpr.pdf) share isn't a "punishment".

“The public needs to understand,” McIntyre said, “that the taxes well-off people aren’t paying on their investment income translate directly into a combination of higher taxes and reduced public services for the vast majority of Americans.”

What do you mean by this??????

The wealthy pay more in percentage and dollar amount.

How do they not pay the same rate as everyone else???


Only partially correct, I would rather have the wealthy pay the same rate as everyone else. That by itself will help out.

What do you mean by this??????

Calm down and read this. (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/earnpr.pdf)

I don't agree with any of you. I think the wealthy pay a perfectly good amount right now. Even after they pay taxes, they are still wealthy.

I don't agree with any of you. I think the wealthy pay a perfectly good amount right now. Even after they pay taxes, they are still wealthy.

By "right now" are you referring to their newly reduced rates, or what they were paying in the 90s?

By "right now" are you referring to their newly reduced rates, or what they were paying in the 90s?
::shrug:: I think they're fine where they are. They could pay a little more but it's not like it's a national emergency that the rich people aren't paying enough.

::shrug:: I think they're fine where they are. They could pay a little more but it's not like it's a national emergency that the rich people aren't paying enough.

Given the crisis posed by the budget deficit I respectfully disagree with you.

Given the crisis posed by the budget deficit I respectfully disagree with you.
You know, I'm at the point where I really believe that none of this crap affects me.

You know, I'm at the point where I really believe that none of this crap affects me.

Ah.... to be that young again...

Ah.... to be that young again...
I'm tired as hell of worrying about things that I can't possibly change right now. Put it down as youthful ignorance if you want, but I'm doing the best I can just trying to live my life and I really don't feel like making a bunch of effort bitching about politics and issues that I can't change. Of course i like to be informed but my desire to form opinions about political issues has been waning.

I never called you "ignorant".

Please do not put words in my mouth.

::shrug:: I think they're fine where they are. They could pay a little more but it's not like it's a national emergency that the rich people aren't paying enough.

DF;

When the wealthiest Americans do not pay their fair share, guess who gets levied to make up the rest.

You. And me.

I never called you "ignorant".

Please do not put words in my mouth.
I thought you meant that I am slightly more apathetic about politics than you because I am young and I don't know as much. I didn't take it as an insult.

I thought you meant that I am slightly more apathetic about politics than you because I am young and I don't know as much. I didn't take it as an insult.

I think you are apathetic about it because you are young and probably have a lot going on in your life, not because you are ignorant.

I think you are apathetic about it because you are young and probably have a lot going on in your life, not because you are ignorant.
I think you take the word ignorant more seriously than I do... It's relative anyways. As far as politics goes, I am far less ignorant than most people my age, but people my age are ignorant as opposed to older people. I know that I haven't lived that long and I haven't had much chance to absorb as much knowledge as someone my parents age. That's all I mean by ignorant.

I think you take the word ignorant more seriously than I do... It's relative anyways. As far as politics goes, I am far less ignorant than most people my age, but people my age are ignorant as opposed to older people. I know that I haven't lived that long and I haven't had much chance to absorb as much knowledge as someone my parents age. That's all I mean by ignorant.
As we age we are suppose to accumulate wisdom, but as often as not we merely ossify.

As we age we are suppose to learn form life's experiences, but often as not we learn the wrong lessons.

As we age we are suppose to continue and deepen our education, but often as not we are too lazy.

I think you take the word ignorant more seriously than I do...

Words are important. They have power and should not be thrown around carelessly.

Regardless, I see your point.

As we age we are suppose to accumulate wisdom, but as often as not we merely ossify.

As we age we are suppose to learn form life's experiences, but often as not we learn the wrong lessons.

As we age we are suppose to continue and deepen our education, but often as not we are too lazy.
::affects stoner voice:: Deep, man. Deep.

:woohoo:

::affects stoner voice:: Deep, man. Deep.

:woohoo:
ROFL

Put up with me on such things: I do a lot of it.

Your tax cuts for the rich is a big big lie!!

i am middle class, and I have gotten tax cuts.

The rich pay more in dollar amount and more in percentage aswell.

The rich fuel this economy.

Stop trying to punnish them for their sucess.

Don't cry about it. The rich are rich it iswhat it is. Don't try to punnish them.


By "right now" are you referring to their newly reduced rates, or what they were paying in the 90s?

DF;

When the wealthiest Americans do not pay their fair share, guess who gets levied to make up the rest.

You. And me.
what would be fair?

Stop trying to punnish them for their sucess.


For the millionth time, paying your taxes isn't "punishment". :rolleyes:

And FYI, it is spelled "punish", smart guy.

Taxes shouldnt be punishment, but I think over the years (like, since the 40's), they've been steadily reaching punitive levels. People get all pissed off about tax breaks for the "fat cats" because they're jealous. Wouldn't we all like to be one of them? I think that the top echelon should pay more, but it's been rediculous. When my family was technically in that class of "wealthy" we had to pay out over half the money we made in a year to the state and federal government. After that, we had to pay all our loans and bills and whatnot. Now that we make less, we actually have MORE spending money on hand. That's messed up.

We can't just lower taxes because we are already running a budget deficit.

When the rich get a tax cut, someone has to make up the difference.

Who is that going to be?

You. And I.

For the millionth time, paying too many taxes is punishment.

You want to punnish success. That is not smart. If you punish success,

there is no motivation for success. Rich people fuel the economy.

Yes they need to pay their fair share, but in may cases they are paying too

much.


For the millionth time, paying your taxes isn't "punishment". :rolleyes:

And FYI, it is spelled "punish", smart guy.

Hey Dharm and FT :

Get this wisdom through your thick head. Do us all a favor!!


Taxes shouldnt be punishment, but I think over the years (like, since the 40's), they've been steadily reaching punitive levels. People get all pissed off about tax breaks for the "fat cats" because they're jealous. Wouldn't we all like to be one of them? I think that the top echelon should pay more, but it's been rediculous. When my family was technically in that class of "wealthy" we had to pay out over half the money we made in a year to the state and federal government. After that, we had to pay all our loans and bills and whatnot. Now that we make less, we actually have MORE spending money on hand. That's messed up.

You want to punnish success.

And you are a fucking liar.

Whats new?

The rich don't even pay their fair share.

You didn't even read the paper I linked to did you?

Obviously not.

Seriously DF,

I think you are very smart!! You impress me. Seriously.

I think you take the word ignorant more seriously than I do... It's relative anyways. As far as politics goes, I am far less ignorant than most people my age, but people my age are ignorant as opposed to older people. I know that I haven't lived that long and I haven't had much chance to absorb as much knowledge as someone my parents age. That's all I mean by ignorant.

Get this wisdom through your thick head.

Hey Sisko, do us all a favor and STFU.

He is entitled to his opinion but I already addressed that post.

The only fair tax is a "consumption tax". Now, before you cry about the poor suffering, groceries (food only), a basic amount of electricity, natural gas, and water would be exempt, for everyone. Beyound that everything is taxed at the same rate, for everyone.

We already pay a sales tax and it doesn't cover the cost of running the government.

I don't feel like paying a 70% tax for everything I buy.

And please don't cite that stupid fairtax website at me. I have already been over that numerous times.

We already pay a sales tax and it doesn't cover the cost of running the government.

I don't feel like paying a 70% tax for everything I buy.



If you add up all the taxes paid, now, I'll bet its not far from from that 70% (income, school, property, sales tax, excise tax, fuel taxes, ect). Its only going to get worse, under the current system of taxing income. Especially when you add all the new "national programs" some people want.
A stright consumption tax COULD replace all of that.

It could also be suplimented by tariffs.

A 70% sales tax would impact the poor far more than the rich, since their money has to go farther.

It could also be suplimented by tariffs.

A 70% sales tax would impact the poor far more than the rich, since their money has to go farther.


I'll buy tariffs on imports. But not internal "fees", such as we have now.

If you exempt the basics the poor are not impacted negatively. Oh sure, each child may not have a cell phone, "grills", and "tats" will cost more, and they might have to send the kids to school without their $200 running shoes. But the increases in welfare payments, and other programs will, more than likely, allow all that to continue.

A sales tax to replace income tax would be a very reasonable solution to our tax system IMO. It would be fair in that it would be difficult for consumers to avoid this tax, including poor people who can afford flat panel plasma televisions, illegal immigrants, and people who are paid cash under the table.

Also, it would require less resources to enforce. Your tax base would be businesses, so you wouldn't have to issue millions of audits in order to enforce the sales tax.

On the downside, you would have more problems with people smuggling or illegally selling "tax-free" goods.

The state of Texas is one of the few states that is primarily funded with a state sales tax (no state income tax), and it's an excellent system IMO.

I'll buy tariffs on imports. But not internal "fees", such as we have now.

If you exempt the basics the poor are not impacted negatively. Oh sure, each child may not have a cell phone, "grills", and "tats" will cost more, and they might have to send the kids to school without their $200 running shoes. But the increases in welfare payments, and other programs will, more than likely, allow all that to continue.

You had said that you would exclude food from the sales tax (which it already is) but what about the other essentials? What about soap? What about shampoo? What about toothpaste?

If you exclude all those essentials in order to protect the poor then you are left with a luxury tax.

It would be fair in that it would be difficult for consumers to avoid this tax, including poor people who can afford flat panel plasma televisions, illegal immigrants, and people who are paid cash under the table.

I don't know any poor people who can "afford" a flat panel plasma television.


On the downside, you would have more problems with people smuggling or illegally selling "tax-free" goods.

Yes, that is true, it would create a huge black market through which millions of people would avoid the taxes.

You had said that you would exclude food from the sales tax (which it already is) but what about the other essentials? What about soap? What about shampoo? What about toothpaste?

If you exclude all those essentials in order to protect the poor then you are left with a luxury tax.


Those items are not "essential", to life, besides everyone of them is available in nature, you just need to recognize the plants that provide them. The only thing I forgot to exclude, from taxes, is non-elective medical and dental care. Everything else, not previously, listed is a "luxury". If you don't beleive that, go visit a third world country (hell, some emerging countries, for that matter).

Those items are not "essential", to life, besides everyone of them is available in nature, you just need to recognize the plants that provide them.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that if the poor cannot afford things like Soap, Shampoo and Toothpaste, then they should start living in third world conditions???


The only thing I forgot to exclude, from taxes, is non-elective medical and dental care. Everything else, not previously, listed is a "luxury". If you don't beleive that, go visit a third world country (hell, some emerging countries, for that matter).

I have been and I would rather not see America reduced to third world status.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that if the poor cannot afford things like Soap, Shampoo and Toothpaste, then they should start living in third world conditions???




I have been and I would rather not see America reduced to third world status.

Was not reading comp taught in your school? Or are you just playing stupid?

Seriously DF,

I think you are very smart!! You impress me. Seriously.
Thanks gm.

As for the national sales tax thing, I'm still not sure about it. I like the idea, but I don't know how it would work. Maybe a fairly low national sales tax coupled with lower income taxes would be the way to go.

P.S.-I've lived in a third world country, in third world conditions, and it's really not that bad. The only thing I would've changed is the medical care...

P.S.-I've lived in a third world country, in third world conditions, and it's really not that bad. The only thing I would've changed is the medical care...
::Shivers:: Egads, DF...

I live in a 3rd world country now, and it's not that bad. There is an income tax, but it's never enforced. Most of the revenue comes from tourism, but there is also a 16% sales tax which works pretty well. They're even gonna put a subway in the capital now!

I like the idea of a national sales tax on all non-essential items; yes, it means everything costs more, but you also have more money to spend up front. We're a consumer economy, let's cash in on it.

::Shivers:: Egads, DF...
Oh come on. It's really not that hard living without TV or internet. Even the fact that the water or electricity went out sometimes wasn't THAT bad (although I definitely missed the water way more than the electricity). Showering in cold or sometimes lukewarm water was hard to get used to, and since i put off my laundry until the last minute it was a pain in the ass to wait for it to dry on the line. But all those little inconveniences were just that: inconvenient. It was like living in America 100 years ago, except with a few things added like a fridge and a stove. We could go to the beach, read, have parties, play cards, take walks through nature.... All in all I think it gave me a better perspective on things than some of my friends, who act like they're going to die if their parents take away their cell phone or their credit card.

I live in a 3rd world country now, and it's not that bad. There is an income tax, but it's never enforced. Most of the revenue comes from tourism, but there is also a 16% sales tax which works pretty well. They're even gonna put a subway in the capital now!

I like the idea of a national sales tax on all non-essential items; yes, it means everything costs more, but you also have more money to spend up front. We're a consumer economy, let's cash in on it.
Good post. Where do you live? I lived in Costa Rica for two years (see my post above).

...my friends, who act like they're going to die if their parents take away their cell phone or their credit card.
I would've, and I'm a guy. :D Of course, cell phones were incredibly rare when I was in high school (1995), but fortunately, I was lucky enough to own one despite the fact that most of the faculty associated having one with dealing drugs.

How could you live without water or electricity (even if it's only for a few minutes)??? Cold showers!?!?! Forget it!

I live in the Dominican Republic. It's 3rd world now, but rapidly moving into the 1st. Still, some things are really messed up.
Every dominican has a hot new cell phone, but none of them have any minutes.

Every dominican has a hot new cell phone, but none of them have any minutes.
Yeah - like try every Dominican who doesn't play baseball. ;) It's the same thing here in Chicago.

I would've, and I'm a guy. :D Of course, cell phones were incredibly rare when I was in high school (1995), but fortunately, I was lucky enough to own one despite the fact that most of the faculty associated having one with dealing drugs.

How could you live without water or electricity (even if it's only for a few minutes)??? Cold showers!?!?! Forget it!
Living without water was a little hard once the dishes started to pile up but electricity it didn't really matter. Couldn't use the washing machine and the hot water wouldn't work (rarely did anyways), but the stove was gas so we just cooked and/or ate everything that was in the fridge that could spoil. When there's no electricity you just light some candles or go to bed at sunset. Or if we had a friend with a car or felt like walking for 40 minutes we could just hop on over to another neighborhood where there might be electricity at one of the bars. Come to think of it actually I think the bars still mostly stayed open even if the power was out.

I live in the Dominican Republic. It's 3rd world now, but rapidly moving into the 1st. Still, some things are really messed up.
Every dominican has a hot new cell phone, but none of them have any minutes.
Yeah, Costa Rica is "developing"... In San Jose it's pretty much just like living in the U.S. unless you happen to be unlucky enough to be a Nicaraguan illegal immigrant and live in a shantytown. But the capital is right in the middle of the country and the further you get from it the less it seems like civilization. Where I lived was a prime tourist area so there were things like internet cafes and the grocery stores had some severely marked up American food items... Still dirt roads and people riding horses around though. And the stupid monkeys were always throwing mangoes at us and making noise, especially the howlers...