Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
....as long as it involves you getting more government handouts at the expense of people making more than you.
....as long as it involves you getting more government handouts at the expense of people making more than you.
Possibly very basic health care. Much healthcare has gotten too expensive for the government to provide the best care to everybody.
There is no happy balance. Every choice involves unpleasant consequences.
no, um, not so. In fact, my opinions have little or nothing to do with my own personal finances or situation. I am looking for policies that both expand the economy and help people who are struggling & under-represented.....as long as it involves you getting more government handouts at the expense of people making more than you.
the government can provide basic care to all. We're already paying for this anyway through indirect costs.
Possibly very basic health care. Much healthcare has gotten too expensive for the government to provide the best care to everybody.
There is no happy balance. Every choice involves unpleasant consequences.
No, the world is not a zero-sum game. Latin America, where the economies grew wildly without helping the lower classes, is not a pretty place to live. It is possible to help people and have a thriving economy. Our economy is built on this model, we have a mixed economy. Things are just a bit out of balance.
I would agree. There can be win-win scenarios...not always, but the vast majority of the time.
The problem is that it takes visionary people who are out to actually solve the issues facing them, not hold to party lines or accomodate special interests. Washington doesn't have many of those kinds of people on either side.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Bingo bango bongo.I would agree. There can be win-win scenarios...not always, but the vast majority of the time.
The problem is that it takes visionary people who are out to actually solve the issues facing them, not hold to party lines or accomodate special interests. Washington doesn't have many of those kinds of people on either side.
C.H.U.D.
There is going to be war no matter what. THe current policy is just to pay off both sides, we can't keep that up. The sunnis and shites aren't really getting along...they are just taking our money. The still regularly find "al queda" members among them...is it real or just feuds.Oh, I don't know...perhaps a civil war in the Middle East and $10 a gallon gasoline.
If Iraq collapses into civil war...which is a real possibility if we go Obama-o-rama and just yank everyone out and tell them to get along nice without us...the world economy, which is based strongly on the oil coming from that region of the world, will become increasing unstable.
I'm fine with people who don't agree with the Bush administration's decisions regarding Iraq...Rumsfeld was an incompetant moron and Bush isn't exactly a genius. Disagreement doesn't change the status quo though. We are there and basically the one thing standing between peace and civil war. Ignoring that reality is very dangerous IMO. Thinking you can just reverse everything and make it all better by pulling everyone out is NOT a solution at this point.
We can easily maintain peace in Iraq and provide a solution to health care and balance the budget. However, it will take politicians who want to find solutions...not cling to party lines and special interests. Unfortunately, Washington has very few of these individuals...so WHOEVER becomes president doesn't have a chance in hell of accomplishing anything.
Bush and Cheney: That may be the understatement of the year.
I'm sorry, but we can't continue to spend money in that country and do all that we need to do here. The fraud, the waste is just mind blowing. Do you realize how much money has gone unaccounted for?
I kick myself in the ass everyday for not going over there and starting some bs company and stealing from OUR TAX PAYERS like all the other companies.
News to Ty...
You don't have to go over there to do that. There are plenty of companies that have nothing to do with the war that are stealing from taxpayers at home.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
HOFer
First off, 50% taxation? Source?
Secondly, we had a comparatively small government that comparatively didn't spend a lot of money. It was called the Clinton Administration.
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
First off, 50% taxation? Source?
Secondly, we had a comparatively small government that comparatively didn't spend a lot of money. It was called the Clinton Administration.
35% Income Tax - top rate
2.9 % Medicare (employer pays half)
15% Social Security - though its phased out at around $100K and employer pays half.
~7% State Tax
~7% Sales Tax
~5% Property Tax (varies, based on value of home and income earned)
It adds up in a hurry.
wealthy people pay little or no Social Security relative to their incomes. (the justification is that social security is earmarked for an insurance plan, but this has long been bogus, it's just another collected tax.)
wealthy people often pay far less than 35% tax rate, since much of their income comes from investment taxed at a lower rate.
People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass. I got nothing against wealthy people, just want them to pay the same percentage as others.
Ya, income taxes are high. If I were the Czar, they might be higher. That's because I would eliminate all corporate & business taxes, only tax money that people take out of businesses as personal income. I think the it would come out well, but doesn't matter to me - it's great to be the Czar!
The key phrase being "relative to their incomes". They pay far more in real dollars than the lower and middle classes. Though that doesn't count in Harlan math.
People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.
actually a rich person doesn't pay far more, even in absolute dollars, because of the cap, and a total absence of SS charges on investment income.The key phrase being "relative to their incomes". They pay far more in real dollars than the lower and middle classes. Though that doesn't count in Harlan math.
Coincidentally, there was a radio show on tonight talking about how much taxes rich people pay. Check it out. The actual rate that wealthy people pay in Federal taxes is about 18%, not the 35% that you estimated. This is because of the capital gains dodge that I mentioned.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/20...307_b_main.asp
It seems that my "Harlan math" is catching on. I notice when I buy something at the store, they don't have a flat fee tax, like $5 a purchase. No, the sales tax is a percentage, 5.5%. Most people agree that taxes are most fairly applied as a percentage. Good luck with your flat-fee for the wealthy movement.
People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.
I had a similar argument with my Republican old man recently. He points out that the top 5% earners in our society are carrying a larger and larger tax burden. They pay a far larger percentage of total income taxes than 30 years ago.
I tried to explain to my dad the obvious explanation that wealth has become far more concentrated in the top 5%. The wealthy are not more virtuous, just more wealthy. The tax rate for wealthy is at historically low rate.
He'll not hear of it. BTW, I think he would be very interested in your flat-fee-for-the-wealthy plan.
HOFer
That's because they have less to pay tax with and when you're done paying your taxes, you will have far, far more left over than they start with before paying a dime.
People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
The social security tax is anal penetrator numero uno for the lower/middle class earner.
And another issue we haven't even mentioned is the availability of tax shelters for richer people. I hear that the IRS has tightened this over the years, but I expect it is still a factor.
So maybe they should get a second job? The jobs that pay a lot of money are rarely 40 hours a week, ya know. My boss probably works about 70.That's because they have less to pay tax with and when you're done paying your taxes, you will have far, far more left over than they start with before paying a dime.
People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote