»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Bozo Time
| The Alley |
|
Bozo Time |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
“In one of the bills before us, 6 million seniors are deprived of meals — homebound seniors are deprived of meals. People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground 3 million seniors not receiving meals? I don't think so. We've got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there to the higher ground of national values. I don't think the American people want any one of those 6 million people to lose their meals or the children who are being thrown off of Head Start and the rest of it.” — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), April 4, 2011 In a city with overheated rhetoric, Pelosi’s statement ranks high on this year’s list of bloviated bluster. It’s bad enough that she repeatedly mixed up 6 million meals and 6 million people — and made no effort to correct the record after her statement was reported in the media. But the figure she used appears to have been invented itself, with little basis in fact. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/nancy-pelosis-absurd-math-on-senior-citizens-losing-their-meals/2011/04/06/AFUf51rC_blog.html?hpid=z1 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) once again attacked Republicans’ budget proposal on Wednesday, claiming its cuts target “little children” and “poor little boys and girls.” He added that the spending bill, which will face a vote in the Senate later on Wednesday afternoon, is “insulting” to the American people. “H.R. 1 is a mean-spirited bill that would cut the heart out of the recovery that we have in America today,” said Reid. “It goes after little children, poor little boys and girls ... we want them to learn to read.” http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/148319-reid-republican-budget-goes-after-little-children Is there any wonder why these two clowns are considered by many to be the worst politicians to ever head the House or Senate? They have no shame at all. Even the Democrats are denying these statements. |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The Republicans could take a lesson from them, Mike, and stop linking everything on their agenda to jobs. Both parties are just trying to push the right buttons, and both parties are equally transparent about it. There are bozos to spare on both side of the aisle. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"A pox on botha yer houses." I'd give credit to whomever just said that, but I was listening to the news from the next room. *shaking my head* Our troops aren't going to get paid--insulting enough to them and an embarrassment for our nation, and the talking heads are fussing about who is going to take the blame.  Clowns...are creepy. *shudder* |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ooh. Here's another quote I like: Sen. Mark Udall: "It's as if we are arguing over the bar tab on the Titanic, frankly." Some of 'em know they are wearing rubber balls on their nose.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not even a good attempt, Ron. Pelosi fabricated figures, lied about them and presented the idea that millions of seniors would be deprived of food, due to the republicans. Reid followed her by stating that poor little boys and girls would not be able to learn to read, due to the republicans. These people are supposed to be adults, for God's sake. They are supposed to have at least a drop of integrity and self-respect. I can't believe that even democrats would have any pride in these two despicable creatures. You want the republicans to share the blame with such atrocious behavior? I cannot respect a thought process like that. Yes, there are bozos on both sides but Pelosi and Reid go beyond the limits of decency. They do not deserve positions of authority. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Former speaker Pelosi was wrong about the number of seniors affected if the Washington Post article is correct. It certainly appears to be correct. The actual hold-up appears to be here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/budget-impasse-puts-focus-on-planned-parenthood-womens-health/2011/04/08/AFgm6a2C_story.html After the Democrats have agreed to 38 Billion dollar in budget cuts, the Republicans are giving a lot of trouble because they want to cut funding for women's health care, cancer screening and so forth, as detailed in the article cited above. Hopefully the Speaker of the House may be able to say something to the more radical Right Wing folks in his constituency. I think that the Democrats are making a mistake by agreeing to any cuts at all, since the issue is not with spending but with income, and the Republicans have given tax breaks giving away substantial parts of the country's income to the most extraordinary wealthy of the very wealthy of us. The wars they've started have committed us to ruinous spending for the forseeable future, and the cut backs on direct aid to the poor and suffering, such as the limits of unemployment insurance passed in some Republican States such as Michigan, have limited the stimulus effect that such programs have had on the economy, digging the citizenry deeper rather than out of the hole we're in now while, at the same time, the Republican monied base as reflected in corporate profits seems to have been doing pretty well for themselves. In the meantime, should the impending government shutdown not happen tonight, as I suspect it won't, I look forward to the next time the Republicans try the same sort of blackmail, and attack the Planned Parenthood folks again, predictably. While Former speaker Pelosi may have gotten the numbers wrong in this case, she does seem to have the spirit right. Not the elderly this time, it's be an attack on poor women and it may have been fended off — too soon to tell, really — but that doesn't mean they're safe. And from the attacks that appear to be brewing on medicare, the assault on the elderly may only have been put off slightly. Attacks on school enrichment programs have come from the Republican side of things ever since Headstart began. The notion that education is safe in a Conservative era seems laughable to me. Remind me to talk about that in some more appropriate venue sometime. There are bozos enough, as Ron suggests, to go around. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. We're running out of other people's money and there aren't enough rich to make up the difference. Running the printing press is not the answer either. At some near point whatever money is taken in will largely go to pay the interest on money already spent. Most of us Boomers will be dead by then so we can not care. As for the others like Paul Ryan it's another matter. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Might be interesting if the regular folks weren't paying the the taxes and the loan payments on the debts that we've piled up and gone into debt to give the very very very rich and the corporations they run. Many of those companies not only don't get taxed, they get subsidies from the government running into millions of dollars on top of the profits they make. That seems to me to be the sort of redistribution that conservatives are against when it prevents people from starving to death, but seem to favor mightily when it redistributes wealth from those who can't afford it into the pockets of those who don't need it. It is class warfare declared on the poor and on the middle class by the wealthy and the powerful, and the economics suggests that the wealthy and the powerful are winning. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you have a new favorite phrase with that "very very very rich". Would you define that, please, and put an amount on it, for example? As far as giving tax breaks to the corporations, why not tell Obama to stop? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Money bills constitutionally must start in the House, Mike. President Obama is not in The House of Representitives. The House of Representitives is run by Real Republicans, not Republican Lite folks. Ergo, President Obama cannot originate a money bill. QID Revisions of the tax code must come from there. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Up until the last election, the House was run by Democrats, who danced to Obama's tune, whatever he wanted. Why did they not revise the tax code then and smite the evil corporations? Or those very very very rich?? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Fair enough, mike. I'd peg it as being those folks in the top one hundreth of one percent, who average about 27, 000,000 dollars a year or a touch more. Some folks would start it at those who earn in the top one tenth of one percent, or 3,000,000 or a smidge more, and I could really see how you might build a case for including them, but I really wanted to focus on those folks who were earning a really enormous amount of money and whose earning would justify the number of adjectives I tended to throw in. I have nothing against the money. I simply want the folks who have it to pay a good chunk to help keep the country in decent shape, pretty much the same as middle class folks do but on a slightly larger basis. No skimping on safety in the coal mines, for example, and the nuclear power plants. No skimping on the safety for cars. Support for health care and social security and the general welfare of people who are fellow citizens and who may fight for them in the army or help keep the streets safe or make sure that there aren't so many fires, and that the ones we have aren't as bad as they might otherwise have been. You know. Is that the sort of information you wanted from me, Mike? Is there something else? http://www.marketingcharts.com/direct/wealthiest-americans-dramatically-increase-income-16296/motherjones-average-income-per-family-feb-2011jpg/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What about child rearing, Bob? That's the most important job in this or any country, I think, and heaven knows most people are doing it poorly. As long as you want to shift the responsibility for everything from people to the government, maybe we should at least consider the possibility of putting Washington in charge of raising our kids. All it will take is more money, after all, and surely the rich folk can afford to help raise our children for us, right? And for what it's worth, I'm only being about half-facetious. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So 27,000,000 a year is the very very very rich in your estimation, Bob, and you feel that if these handful of people were to pay more in taxes it would make a huge difference in the economy? Bob, we don't have a tax-receiving problem. We have a spending problem. We have a kid in a candy store sitting in the WHite House. I simply want the folks who have it to pay a good chunk to help keep the country in decent shape One must wonder, then, how you feel about Kerry trying to get around the tax laws to avoid paying his fair share...or how you feel about Gore, doing the same thing - or how you feel about Holder and Rangel, trying to avoid paying taxes altogether, until they got caught. You don't need to look for the 27 mil a year folks to bring more money into the economy. Tell your fellow democrats to do their share instead of doing what they can to get out of it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I'm curious. If you took every dime from every billionaire in the country how much of a dent would that make? . |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: The reality is that you have deficit problem Mike. The US spent 3456 billion last year and took in 2162 billion in tax revenue. Cut spending? To simply balance the books you'd need to cut spending by 1294 billion, the difference between what you spend and your revenue, that doesn't even touch the accrued debt mind you but that's another story. So what are you going to cut? 193 billion is the interest on your debt 416 billion is mandatory spending 793 billion is Medicare and Medicaid 701 billion is social security 689 billion is defence spending Leaving 660 billion in discretionary spending, Congress just agreed to cut that by around 5% - if they can find the other 190% or so you're home and dry. Back in the real world there's another option, as well as cutting spending you can increase revenue to reduce the difference between spending and revenue. . |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Huan, The net worth of the 1010 billionaires in the US was $3.6 trillion in 2010 - up 50% from 2009. Seems some folks are doing ok. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: You forgot to show me the place where I said I wanted to shift everything from the people to the government, Ron. I looked hard for the place where I said that, because I couldn't remember having done so. As I recall, I was attempting to give Mike a straight answer to a straight question about who might those people be whom I thought were were the very, very, very very wealthy people in this country. I do admit that I think they are getting unfair tax breaks, but that's because they own a disproportionate amount of the country. Should you wish to propose a feminist thread, I'd probably agree with most of what you have to say. Are you suggesting the Republicans are in the wrong here for putting women's health issues on the chopping block as a way of blackmailing the Democrats into cutting services for women, children, elderly and the poor? I'd suggest that it shows a poor sense of ethics but an excellent sense of politics. I'm reminded of Shylock in the Comedy, saying "My Daughter! My Ducats!" That's the sort of bind the Republicans are striving to put the Democrats into. Of course, it's the Republicans who are putting the choices up, though, isn't it, and then pretending they have nothing but goodness in their hearts by doing so? It's the tax cuts that have in large measure forced the situation, though. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We have a deficit problem BECAUSE we spent 3456 billion last year..yes, increasing revenue is the right thing to do. One doesn't do it by raising corporate taxes so high that companies move their operations overseas. Some folks are doing ok? I don't begridge them that. How much in taxes did they pay? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's the tax cuts that have in large measure forced the situation, though. A democratic chant very short on validity, Bob, and getting shorter. The "let's blame the rich" isn't really fooling anyone anymore, in my view. Get some of the democrats, like the ones I mentioned, to pay their fair share and your call will at least be a little more believable. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Ah, Mike, while I agree that these folks are a handful of people in terms of their number, you have only asked about whop they are and how much they make per year to get into the club. You are begging the question, and suggesting that those folks at the bottom of the heap are all there is to this club and that there is no more significance beyond that. In order for you to establish there is no significance beyond that, you would have to establish how very small a proportion of this country and other properties this small fraction of the population of the country own or control, even though some of that inbformation was included in the citation I included in my response to you. If you are going to play fairly with those who may be paying attention to our discussion, it would be a good idea to supply that information so the rest of those who are paying attention will know that I actually did supply it to you. That would be fair, I believe. Those very few people own a very lange part of our economy, and are getting tax breaks and rebates paid for by the rest of us for doing so in many cases. Certainly in the case of the corporate citizens. BP paid no taxes and got a really great tax rebate. So did Fox's NewsCorp, among our corporate citizens. I'd really like to see some of them pay taxes, by the way, at an appropriate level, like at the level that a middle class citizen pays. But for those guys who earn minimum of 27,000,000 per year, I'd like to see them pay as well. Because that level is just to get in the front door, and it goes up from there. quote: Spending bills originate in the house of representitives, Mike, not in the White House. The White house can spend less than appropriated, not more. That's the way the constitution set it up, that's the way it runs. The kid in the candy store has an allowance set by the House. No matter how many times you say otherwise, thems still the facts, and doubly so with a Republican House. Even without a Republican house, for the previous term, the Republicans did everything they could to bring everything to a coimplerte and utter standstill there, and took pride in doing an excellent job in doing so. quote: I'm sorry, Mike, was there someplace in my presentation where I said that I only wanted to make Republicans who made more than 27,000,000 dollars a year pay their fair share? I must have missed that part. Would you point that out for me or appologise for suggesting that I said something that stupidly partisan, please? I have nothing against wealthy people. I object to people who descry redistribution of wealth to keep other people alive and healthy without materially damaging their own level of comfort and safety. When some sort of religious justification is added into this, I tend to get not only upset but nauseated as well. In those circumstances, it seems to me that they have no actual objection to redistribution, but that their actual objection is that the redirtribution not be specifically to themselves. That strikes me as hypocritical. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: How would you raise revenue Mike? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If more jobs are created in the private sector tax receipts would increase. Maybe we should give that a try. We can elimate the deficit by cutting spending and increasing revenue without increasing anyone's taxes. Maybe it would also help to close the loopholes for corporations like GE so that they will never again pay less taxes than I do while shipping jobs and potential tax receipts overseas. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Even without a Republican house, for the previous term, the Republicans did everything they could to bring everything to a coimplerte and utter standstill there, and took pride in doing an excellent job in doing so. I'm afraid that falls under the category of balderdash, Bob. A democratic senate, House and WHite House could do anything they wanted. Whatever you allude to that the republicans did to stop them did not exist. There was nothing to stop them, as long as they stuck together. When there was a chance that a filibuster could tie up the health care bill, Obama simply kicked over the table and brought it in anyway, eliminating the filibuster possibilities. All three majors - senate, House, and WHite House and you still blame republicans for stopping them...an amazing statement. But for those guys who earn minimum of 27,000,000 per year, I'd like to see them pay as well. It's your contention, then, that they don't pay, Bob? As I said, the "tax breaks for the rich" chant is used by the democrats to rile the masses and turn one segment of society against the other while, in reality, it means nothing. Double or triple the taxes against your "rich" and we still have the same problems. I brought up Kerry, Gore, Rangel and Holder simply to show that Democrats who use that same tired chant don't even follow it themselves, which makes it even more fake in it's delivery. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Ok Denise that's a start. The GE thing? I'm with you 100%. On the increased jobs? How many jobs do you think would be needed? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Uncas, I am not an expert in that field not a member of congress. I'm just an average guy with more questions than answers. Off the top of my head, I would say revenues rise when production rises, therefore find ways to cause production to rise. What causes production NOT to rise? I would say unions that can place strangleholds on business with unfair demands. I would say taxes unfair enough to cause companies to either move or relocate their prodution overseas. I would say making businesses so leery of what the government may do to them that they don't hire and, therefore, don't produce as much. All of these things are happening now. We do not have a healthy environment for production increase and I don't think we will have as long as Obama is in office. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Thanks Mike, Raise production - sounds reasonable. Any idea how high production would need to be raised? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No idea but I would think that it would be tied in to how much the governments spends. If you quadruple production and quadruple government spending, you have gotten nowhere, I would think. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
If you kept spending at today's rate Mike you'd need to increase production across the board by 60% to raise enough revenue to cover it, to put that into some perspective production increases, on average, by 3% per year. Denise's suggestion doesn't fair too well either. You'd need to add around 80 million jobs to maintain current spending levels, which, unfortunately, is several times the available workforce. I'm not shooting holes in your suggestions, or Denise's, for personal fun Mike, I'm trying to make a point that any one method for reducing the deficit isn't likely to work and that some are far less likely to work than others. Fixing the deficit is going to take a whole bunch of different methods, raising production is one of them, increasing employment is another, raising tax has to be part of the solution too as well as spending cuts. The fun really starts when you realise that almost all of those things are interrelated - change any one and you can negatively impact one, or more, of the others. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If you kept spending at today's rate Mike you'd need to increase production across the board by 60% Well, that presents a simple solution, doesn't it? Stop spending at today's rate. Next case... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm living on 2007 wages in a 2011 world. That seems like a good place for Congress to begin. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
We seem to be right back where we started. Which area are you going to cut to make up the deficit Mike? All the discretionary spending and every penny of the defence budget perhaps? Because that’s the level of cuts you’d need to make. Chanting the ‘cut spending’ mantra is all well and good but unless you have a real suggestion of the specific areas you’d cut it doesn’t really get you anywhere. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: You begin to make an interesting point and then qualify it out of existence. To suggest that Democrats are a united party is a waste of good electrons. To suggest that the initiatives that they passed were anything approximating the initiates they proposed is absurd. You may have forgotten the discussion about filibuster and the Republican use of it during the last couple of years in the Senate, but I have not, and I have some sympathy for the use of that instrument. The democrats were able to get some legislation through because of their control of the House during the last election cycle. Much of that was blocked or traded away by the stalemate in the Senate and by the razor thin margin there, which was not enough to overcome the threat of fillibuster. That required a supermajority of sixty votes for virtually every piece of legislation, and the Republicans made virtually every piece of legislation exactly that sort of battleground. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: It certainly is. In the situation where the Republicans held all three, they didn't stand for anything of the sort. I believe that the Democrats may be a little bit more queasy about the exercise of power than the Republican's, frankly, or that the Republican donors may have spread the wealth around a little more broadly, or that there are more right wing Democrats than people actually credit. The latter is my best bet, given the fact that real simply-a-bit-to-the-right-of-center-Republicans have all been excluded from the Republican party, it's likely that a fair number of them, like our current President, have simply started calling themselves Democrats to get some sort of electoral validity. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Uncas is making a series of valuable points, in my opinion. During the period of steady healthy growth in the forties and fifties, the tax rates were far higher, by the way, especially on the most wealthy, and there was a healthy and growing middle class. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Which areas, Uncas? Well, let's begin by making a list of all governmental agencies created since, let's say, 1975. Let's do a comparison of the amount of government workers decade by decade. That's a good place to start. Let's take the figures of Medicare fraud and see how much the government is losing on them. We have become government dependant. I'm afraid I would take a hard-line approach, which I know would not endear me to many people. I know that, when I went to school, I was given a buck a day from dad to buy lunch in the school cafeteria. If I didn't have the buck, I didn't eat. The government wasn't responsible for giving me that dollar...my parents were or else I was. When and why did Uncle Sam start being responsible for my lunch? Was it really to feed kids or was it a way for the government to get a hand in the school's business? Where did all of the government programs come from, doing all of the things people used to be responsible for doing themselves? Ok, I'm rambling but I could come up with a hundred thoughts along the same vein. Knock out the over-abundance of government agencies....that's a start. There are thousands of ways to cut spending or get things done. There was a great movie called "Dave" in which a normal guy (Dave) who happened to be a physical twin to the president of the US was put in his place as a substitute when the president had a heart attack the powers that be didn't want the public to know about. He was supposed to be a figurehead, nothing more. He saw, however, that he could do some things better. He wanted a program to aid the poor but was told there was no money that could be allocated for it. He saw that money was being paid to a major company for producing fighter planes and that they were way behind schedule. He took the monthly payments the gov't was paying to the company, telling the company they would be paid when they produced, took the money, put it in the bank and used the interest produced to fund the program he wanted. He came up with all kinds of solutions. Yes, it was a movie but it had a lot of truth in it as far as how inefficient the government was and how much better it could be when looked at with sensible eyes. How to cut spending? Have the government get back to governing and stop being all things to all people. Have people get back to being responsible for themselves without standing there with their hands out. Get some efficiency and common sense back in Washington, DC. Will that ever happen? I say no. The government is a big blender. Decent people get placed in the top and, after going through the grinder, we are left with a colorless mass of goo at the bottom. What I do know is that the government will keep spending money and keep insisting that the people pay more to support that habit. End of Sunday rant..... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, you shouldn't encourage people to break the law. Seriously. I think anyone, be it Democrat or Republican, individual or corporation, who doesn't avail themselves of their legal deductions is just plain anti-American. Anyone here planning on paying more than they have to simply because the government says they need it? Yea, I didn't think so. Don't blame people, Mike, for following the law. Blame the law. quote: No, Bob, I didn't forget. I quoted you precisely so I could show you where you said it. You don't see it that way, of course, because you think it's a given that government should pay for people's needs. I, on the other hand, don't think the rich or anyone else should be forced to assume responsibility for you and me. We should take responsibility for ourselves. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Cuts need to be made across the board to everything bringing them down to at least 2008 levels, at least. Nothing can be exempted from cuts. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't blame people, Mike, for following the law. Blame the law. Yes, I suppose you are right, Ron. Personal morality or integrity has little importance where money is concerned. If you can get away with something through whatever loopholes you can find, do it. As you say, it's your duty as an American. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "up 50% from 2009" That doesn't sound like cash; rather like market values which would quickly diminish with any major attempt at conversion. Even so, the total, (3.6 trillion), would cover about three years of current deficit spending. At least then the very very very rich would be very very very poor which is some comfort. "The net worth of the 1010 billionaires in the US was $3.6 trillion in 2010 " Where did you find that information? My search comes up about 600 short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_billionaires . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, to clarify, I have no issue with people using deductions they are entitled to. When they manipulate the facts, though, in order to sneak through a back door to avoid taxes and still not have it be illegal, then morality/integrity comes into play, I believe. That's what Kerry did with his boat and what Gore does with his time. Holder and Rangel didn't even have that going for them. They just broke the law...period. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: No, Ron, I didn't say this. Nor do I agree with this. These are words that it appears you are trying to attribute to me that I do not agree with. If you wish to disagree with things I have said or I do mean, I have no quarrel with you on doing so, though we might have an interesting back and forth, as we've had from time to time in the past. This would be like me suggesting that you want an oligarchy with no governmental protections to keep people from being ruled by corporations and those people that run them. You may be fond of entrepreneureal spirit, but you still believe in Democracy as I understand things, and — also as I understand things — understand that our form of government is Democracy (or a democratic Republic or a Republican democracy or however you would like to parse it) rather than Capitalism. I make an effort not to attribute things I know are antithetical to your thinking to you, as I suppose is not only prudent but also fair. I have no interest in shifting responsibility for everything to the government. I do not trust the government enough to do so, as I have made clear in postings not only about Republican administrations, but also Democratic administrations and their assaults on human rights and civil rights. I'd appreciate it if you would take that into account. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: If they can hire decent tax attornies? Otherwise I have the same access to their tax records as you do, Mike. I take it your contention is that they do, and that the tax breaks pushed through congress have nothing to do with them is that right? That the oil depletion allowance saves all of us money? And that BP should be getting tax rebates after the oil spill? You know what percentage of America these folks own, and you know in aggregate, what percentage of the taxes they pay on that ownership. You know because I supplied you with those figures. Some of them pay, evidently. Do they pay proportionately to what they're extracting from the rest of us and to what they give back, however? And there I suspect your answer will be very different than mine. Also, I don't approve of welfare for the rich. It isn't as effective a spur for the economy as welfare for the poor. It tends to go into banks and stay there or go overseas, whereas welfare for the poor tends to go straight back into the economy and have a stimulus effect of far more than the amount that was put into it. Wefare for the rich contracts the economy; welfare for the poor makes it expand. We've been over this ground before, including the economics of it and articles from the economist talking about the laffer curve and all sorts of conservative economic data. You're better at computer stuff than I am, maybe you can dig it out of some of our old conversations back in the time, roughly of Katerina, that is, if you're still interested. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: My mistake, then, Bob. So you don't advocate government funding for "health care and social security and the general welfare of the people who are fellow citizens," as you suggested earlier in the thread? I'm glad to see you changed your mind about taking those things out of the hands of the people and putting them into the hands of government. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I'm curious Mike and Denise -- just how much success have you had at pushing ropes? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I take it your contention is that they do not only mine, Bob. I'm sure you have seen as well as I the charts showing how the upper 10% or so pay the 80+% of all taxes. (those aren't exact figures but you know what charts I mean). How do you feel about the incredible percentage of people who pay NO taxes at all? (including those demanding rebate checks for taxes they didn't pay???) They also receive the benefits of living in this country. They are supported by the taxes those evil, money-hoarding rich pay. Are they thankful for that? No, they berate them and demand more. What's wrong with that picture? As far as looking things up in the archives, the last time I looked Ron had erased access to archives when we had the administrative shutdown so I don't think that's an option anymore unless they are back. Heading off to work, I don't have the time to check right now. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I like Eric Cantor's thoughts on Obama's 2012 plan.. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said in an interview that Mr. Obama had already passed up an opportunity to show seriousness about deficit reduction with his 2012 budget. "Instead of returning back to the age-old playbook of raising taxes so that spending can continue, I think maybe the White House ought to take a look at what we're talking about…which is to cut spending as well as to reform these entitlement programs." |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[/quote]Rone As long as you want to shift the responsibility for everything from people to the government{. . .] [/quote] quote: At what point, Ron, does the subset of the things I listed, including "government funding for 'health care and social security and the general welfare of the people who are fellow citizens,'" balloon to include the larger set of "responsibility for everything?" Especially when I said that I specifically did not agree with such a statement. Surely there are difficulties enough with positions that I actually do take. Spending time attacking positions I do not take, such as taking all rights out of the hands of people and reserving them for the government, is a waste of time. That's not a position I take. Perhaps I should, but I don't. I feel no need to do so. The apparent sarcasm is wasted on me here. Save it for somebody who disagrees with your position on this. I agree with those positions I actually advocated. Not the ones you assign to me without checking in first. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I included some of those charts in my citation, Mike; so, yes, I've seen them, and I appreciate them. You might try going back to those charts, however, and looking up what percentage of the income that top ten percent of the population makes before asking yourself if that 80% is actually as fair as it looks. (It's not 80%, by the way, more like 60%) but I do get your point.) The amount paid is not a fair representation of what's being taken in, and the amount paid by the rest of the population as a percentage of their income hits them harder. Money you make tends to go more directly back into the economy than the money that Donald Trump makes. quote: I think that there is nobody who pays no taxes at all in this country, Mike. You have been listening people say that so long that you actually believe it, when you know that every time you buy a gallon of gas, a candy bar or a rubber ball you pay tax on it, and that those taxes are directed disproportionately at the poor. That is, they are flat taxes, and everybody pays them at the same rate no matter how much money they have, and that the burden is proportionately greater on the poor than on anybody else. I don't know why for sure you believe that these aren't taxes, because they are clearly labeled taxes on the cash register receipts, and they are certainly included in the calculation when the republicans talk about tax day, the day that all the taxes of the years are supposed to be payed off, right? I speculate you must mean INCOME TAXES. You want me to believe that it's incredible that there are people in this country that don't pay Income taxes? You find that impossible to believe. Why would that be, Mike? I have an inquiring mind, and I really do want to know why you believe that is so hard to believe that some people are in such bad shape in this country that their choice is between paying income taxes and starvation or being homeless. When there is an economic upturn, Mike, that number goes down. When there is an economic downturn, that number goes up. There's actually a fair amount of research done on this stuff, and a lot of it's been done by social workers. quote: Actually, you could say the same thing the other way around. Money paid the poor for welfare and other supports drives the economy and keeps it from collapse. Perhaps you might actually provide proof that more money is paid to subsidize the poor than is paid out in tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthy; since you assert it so forcefully, I'd actually like to see some neutral figures supporting that assertion. You make the statement as though it was a given. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Donald Trumps of the world can and do create jobs, thereby increasing productivity, thereby creating more wealth, thereby spurring the economy. I can't do that. Most of us can't. We just basically keep the supermarkets and other bare 'necessities of life' providers in business. When we have to tighten our belts, they suffer as well. What we need is for the wealthy job creators to have an environment where they feel safe to invest their money in creating more of those jobs. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You want me to believe that it's incredible that there are people in this country that don't pay Income taxes? You find that impossible to believe. I always find it amazing, Bob, that you can take sentences and convert them into something completely different that what they represent. Please point out where I believe I find it incredible that there are people who don't pay income taxes. After you do that, please point out where I state I find that impossible to believe. Otherwise, perhaps you can apologize for creating such a misrepresentation of my words. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. George Will noted some time ago that the US is reaching a point where more people will be paying no federal income taxes than are which then creates a population with no vested interest in how the federal government spends money. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Money you make tends to go more directly back into the economy than the money that Donald Trump makes Bob, I'm afraid that is bias talking over reason. Check out the Trump empire and it's holdings. Count up the employees, in the hotels, casinos, construction companies, golf course construction, television programs....let me know when you get into the thousands. Then count up the companies that benefit by dealing with those companies in a secondary manner, such as supplying and servicing them. Hitting the tens of thousands yet? You speak of people like Trump as though they are Scrooge McDuck, hoarding their little gold pieces in chests they bury in the back yard or something. You couldn't be more off-base. I'm thinking perhaps it's because he is a conservative? There a whole lot of liberal ultra-rich McDucks out there that I've never seen you mention at all, like the Kennedys and the Kerrys, for example. Why is that? How many people does Kerry employ, or Pelosi with her millions? How many does Gore give jobs to? If you want to complain about ultra-rich that sit on their money and keep it out of circulation, THERE would be a good place to start, not with someone like Trump, who has tens of thousands of people taking home a paycheck thanks to him. My only deduction from your post is that it is all politically motivated. I can't see it any other way. You chant the standard democratic "tax breaks for the rich" mantra and point out conservatives to target with it. In other words, I see little fair and balanced |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Certainly, Michael. I read your text and as a speaker of english I am aware of the preferential meaning of the word "incredible." in·cred·i·ble adj \(ˌ  in-ˈkre-də-bəl\Definition of INCREDIBLE 1 : too extraordinary and improbable to be believed Quite literally, you do not credit it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Sorry, Mike, I still stand by that. Those examples aren't examples of money Donald Trump makes, Mike. Those are examples of money Donald Trump owes, before his bottom line. Those are his costs of doing business. If he's a good businessman, he has other people pay those, and one set of debts covers the other. The money Donald Trump makes is the money that's left over afterward, the money available for investment. That may go into the sort of hiring you speak about, but probably not in this sort of economy in this country. If you'll notice, the sort of investments youi're talking about simply aren't happening on the street. While the employment has emproved for working stiff in some places a hair, it has not improved very much at all for them overall. If your theory were correct, we'd be rolling in dough, wouldn't we? The overall economy is improving a great deal for those at the very upper end because it's going into oil and into longer term stuff that simply doesn't pay off for the folks that you claim it does pay off for. Otherwise, the smaller economies would be going great guns and they're not. The money you make doesn't go back into high fallutin investments, defense spending, oil and the like. You and I pump money directly into the economy in terms of grocery stores, gas stations and so on. And so do those folks on food stamps and welfare, but for them it's even more direct. I have no preference for Democratic investors over Republican investors. I think tax rebates should be cut for all of them and most of the tax loopholes should be closed for them as well, Democratic and Republican and Independents as well. If we're going to cut spending, we need to make a point of stopping this other massive haemmorage of revenues as well. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Those examples aren't examples of money Donald Trump makes, Mike. You have finally gotten me to use the word "incredible", Bob. I will use it to describe both of your last two replies and we can leave it at that. I am neither dazzled or baffled....and I didn't expect the apology, anyway btw, as long as English lessons are in order, the adjective applies to the following noun, so when one says, for example, "incredible percentage of people, incredible refers to percentage, not people. Just a tip.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Look beyond the preferred definition for those uses, Mike, for secondary, tertiary and quaternary meanings. |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: Actually, there is a part of the tax code that I would LOVE to drop into the bottom of the Dead Sea and pray for it to never resurface: The people who do not pay ANY taxes, and yet somehow seem to get a tax refund. I have a friend who is dating a welfare mother (no challenges with wither her being on welfare, or him dating her... that is not the issue here), who has the Commonwealth pay her her housing, her food, her health care, her light bill, and almost anything else she needs. She has a combined income (outside oif her monthly cash check) of exactly ZERO... She just got her refund check in the mail last week, and they went out for dinner, with her paying the ticket instead of him, for once. I have another friend who- under treaty from the government- pays no federal taxes on ANYTHING. She is a member of the Iroquoi nation and has a non-tax id number that allows her to make purchases without paying tax, and to earn income without paying federal taxes on it... and, yet she also gets a refund check. (No, I don't have an issue with the government finally keeping their agreements... keep on track, here) Now, I find it hard to believe that these are the only two people across this great nation who have figured out that they get money from the government without having to feed the good that laid the Golden Egg. Do I believe that stopping these people from getting a refund of taxes they don't pay is going to solve the deficit? No. Do I believe that spending cuts that equal less than 1% of spending is going to fix the budget? No. Do I believe that defunding Planned Parenthood is going to put our nation back into the black? No. Do I believe that everything that is being proposed could help... yes. If I shoot a deer, it doese very little to drop the deer population in my area.... if myself and all of my bambie blasting friends shoot 15 or 20 deer a season, is that going to dwindle the numbers? Most assuredly. What our politicians need to do is to stop fighting, stop lying, stop agrandizing, stop politicizing, and give back their free gyms and free meals, and free posting priveledges for personal items, and give back their free cars, and their ability to travel to foreign countries on the American dime to do their shopping, and then take a cold hard look at the choices they have before them, and stop worrying about keeping their jobs and doing what is right. Until all of these self-righteous public dis-servants are willing to lose their jobs, they will never get anything done. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What??? You want Obama, Michelle and family to stop taking vacations, along with 60-100 people, booking entire hotels, using multiple planes...on our dime? Get serious.....  Ringo, I couldn't agree with you more! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: If you have no problem with her being on welfare, I am uncertain what your actual problem here is, Ringo. Do you believe that she's living high off the hog, or something? Would you feel better if they actually paid her another ten bucks a week? I figure this way, once a year she can feel like she gives her boyfriend something special back without threatening her kids' survival completely, but who knows? You already said you understood about the Indians, didn't you? So if you really understand about the Indians, what the actual problem there? In England, the guys who originally owned London still own most of it, and all the houses and buildings are on long term lease for a hundred or a hundred and fifty years. If the Indians had done it right, that's what they should have done, you know, and you'd be somebody's tenant until your lease ran out and you'd have to renegotiate it. We're lucky that all we've got to fork over is a little bit of tax relief, and that they don't have a chip on their shoulders about the folks with no lineage who've only been over here three or four hundred hundred years or so. Probably a cheeky football yob, anyway. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's not a tax refund, Ringo. It's a tax credit. It's not greatly different from sending people a stimulus check, though the rationale for tax credits is much more varied. You'd have to know the specific tax credit they collected to determine whether you felt it was justfied (assuming you can be convinced that ANY tax credit is ever justifiable). Here's a few links for a few types of tax credits and the motivation behind them: http://schools.dor.org/registration.cfm?subpage=46 http://www.columbiabusinesstimes.com/9112/2010/09/17/tax-c redits-tied-to-productivity-can-solve-information-problem/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I bow to superior understanding of the tax code, Ron. I didn't recognize it as a tax credit. My apologies, Ringo. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Some things really light my fire...ok, MANY things do! I think the chant about tax breaks for the rich is bogus. I think raising taxes on the rich is bogus. Yes, I know it is a favorite rallying cry for the left but it makes no sense at all to me. First, doubling the tax rate on the rich wouldn't solve any problem. Second, if you want to level the playing field, you don't need to raise their taxes, you just need to eliminate the loopholes. Yesterday I saw the cover of Barron's Business magazine. What did it say in big, bold letters?? HOW TO PAY NO INCOME TAXES!...and then under, "learn how to avoid paying taxes like the rich." Isn't this an ironic situation? The adminisitration is encouraging everyone to pay their fair share of taxes, our national fiscal status is obvious to everyone, and one of our leading business magazines is encouraging people how to get out of paying taxes. Taxes don't need to be raised. Loopholes need to be closed. Avenues open only to the rich, or people who have enough money to employ them, need to be shut down. That would raise a lot more money than raising taxes, which would simply be negated by their use of loopholes. You all know that I am a champion of the rich, those who provide jobs to others. But I'm not a champion of those who will use manipulations to get out of paying taxes others pay. Yes, Ron would say it's their American right to do so and so it is.....so eliminate them. What's wrong with that thought process? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I would say that both need to be done in a targeted fashion. Do you, for example, wish to eliminate deductions for charity? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Bob, I don't however there are ways, I know, to move money around and several sophisticated manipulations which somehow shield money from being taxed. There are also ways to declare bankruptcy and keep everything. Not having been in the economical stratosphere, I don't know a lot about them. I just say that advocating finding ways to not pay taxes while the country is in need of tax dollars sticks in my craw in a bad way. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Got to say it sticks in mine as well. You're right about eliminating the loopholes. Oil depletion allowances, farm subsidies for, say, tobacco, and for not growing some crops and the like seem to me to be good candidates to go, off the top of my head One of my thoughts that would never get through, of course, is to legalize and tax marijuana at fair prices. It'd cut crime at the same time as probably empty out some of the prisons of potentially non-violent offenders, at least a few of them, and fund treatment some of the federal bucks for treatment of addictions that we now have to get from other places, and ,quite possibly, add some decent amount to the general coffers. Ron is probably right about it being okay to take advantage of the breaks that the laws provide. It might be a good idea to simply get a good idea of exactly what the law does provide people, however, wouldn't it? Then, maybe, we could see which laws were designer laws written especially for single people or for single groups, and we might be able to make some intelligent decisions about how good an idea it would be for the country to continue that designer tax breaks. I'm curious if there is a list of what those tax breaks are someplace? I wouldn't even have to know which party sponsored them, at this point; I'm sure there are plenty to go around for almost everybody, just so long as we could whittle that list down. Call me foolishly optimistic. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-21-2011 01:06 AM).] |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Ron- I say Rome, you say Gala.... in the end we're both talking about apples. I understand the rationale behind the tax credits: I have been known to benefit from a few myself... What I am talking about, here, is the fact that these people in specific (the ones I used as an example) pay no taxes to begin with... zero, goose egg, zilch, etc... and, yet, we end up giving them the benefit of a tax credit for something they don't pay. Around my part of the world, homeowners are the ones who must pony up for the school taxes. My friend doesn't own a house, she lives in subsidized housing (which taxpayers pay twice the average local rent for; however, that is a separate issue). Her kids go to public school. She pays no education expenses other than pencils and paper. She doesn't pay income taxes as she has no income other than what the state pays her, and child support (the little her ex gives her). This woman's total tax burden is zero, and yet, she receives a check come tax time. The descendant of the Iroquois nation has, by treaty, a zero tax liability... she has some document number that allows her to forgo the entire process of income taxes. He earns her living for herself and her family. No challenges with that. Her ancestors allowed her to have the benefit of not paying taxes (the wording is off, but stick with me, here), and I have no hassle with that. The hassle I have, again, is that she- with not a single dollar paid into the system- is getting money out of the system. Bob- My challenges are listed above. I have no hassles if anyone uses the legal means (tax credits, etc) to get back money that they put in... as long as they put it. Ok... let me try it this way: The money we get back from our taxes is the government re-paying us money that we gave them in excess of what they asked us to give them. In essence, the overage is a loan to the government that they are paying back. They are giving us back money we put into the system. The examples I listed- and the many others across this country who do the same- are getting repaid the loan they never made. They never put a dime into the system, and yet the system is handing them the cash back. As for the Indians.... it is not fair to them to suggest that they should have done things differently when they were playing our game with our rules and no one to explain either. (a quick aside- the welfare mother I listed above is graduating from the local community college this May, and should be able to get on her feet by the end of Summer. I would like to publicly- if virtually- shake her hand for a job well done). As for the loopholes.... the more I read into the tax code and have it explained to me, the more I think Steve Forbes was right and a flat tax should be instituted. 15% of your income, single amount family deduction, go home. People who are single, with no dependents, and no deductions can do their taxes on a single sheet of paper... perhaps the rest of us could as well. Another avenue is the bogus "subsidies" that we are giving people/companies. Notice, I said BOGUS subsidies... I am not including payments to the farmers who are getting $30/acre for soybeans and have 1000 acres (hence, netting $30,000 before having to pay for seed and fertilizer and farm equipment and family bills and...). I am talking about the oil companies who are only making a 2% profit (to the tunes of billions of dollars) and are getting help from the government. (No, I am not for a windfall tax... I give them enough cash, I do not wish to give them cash outside of my normal daily stop at the pump.) I am talking about not permitting the unions to have an exemption for the Cadillac Insurance Plan tax because they helped get the chief cook and bottle washer elected. (notice, I did NOT say I am against the unions themselves). I am talking about the politicians who get a new car every couple of years that the tax payers buy for them. I am talking about the 11 or 12 housing programs that don't work and yet are still being funded. I am talking about de-funding profit generating companies who still get money from the government.... and there are too many more to gripe about here. There are places to make legitimate cuts (and not just lowering the increase and calling it a cut) to help, and no one seems to be truly interested. If any one of those over-paid bellhops were to truly care about doing their job, and not keeping the power they have so artfully stolen from their constituents, then this mess would be over. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Gotta like a man who knows his apples |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Actually, Ringo, I don't think we are. You're tying tax credits to tax refunds because they both include the word "tax" and both are handled by the IRS. Would you get similarly upset if someone had to pay a tax fine that greatly exceeded their income? And before anyone snickers, it's exactly the same thing; i.e., linking a tax something-something to income. Neither tax credits nor tax fines are directly linked to income, and neither has anything at all to do with refunds. Credits, fines, and refunds all serve very different purposes. Besides, Ringo, tax credits are a drop in the national bucket. How many people in this country have drawn and continue to draw more from the social security pool than they contributed? Rome and Gala aside, Ringo, nomenclature still matters. For example, tax loopholes are often much better understood when you start calling them tax incentives. The government can't pass a law forcing all citizens to contribute to charity (though they're not above taxing us and giving THAT to charity). So, rather than force citizens, they allow charitable deductions in hopes of encouraging our generosity (sic). Virtually every loophole on the books started out as an incentive. The most egregious incentives, at least for most people, were originally put into place to motivate businesses to do something the politicians felt would be good for the country. This is usually more apparent at the state level than at the Federal level. Why? Because every state is trying to attract new business at the expense of every other state. The competition between states is horrendous and getting more so every year. The Feds are competing, too -- against Mexico and Canada and Europe, to name a few -- they just haven't been smart enough yet to realize it. Until they do, we'll continue to lose jobs that move out of the United States. Mike says he doesn't want to eliminate deductions for charity. We all pretty much have something we don't want to eliminate. Tax incentives aren't going to go away and we're never going to find unanimity on which ones we should keep and which should be eliminated. Each, I think, has to be beaten half to death individually. That conversation is never going to get started, however, until we all start speaking the same language. Tax incentives, unlike loopholes, have a purpose. When we recognize them as incentives, we can objectively examine those purposes and find common ground for discussion. Rome and Gala aside, nomenclature still matters. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have no trouble with tax incentives....it's the loopholes where I do....although, distinguishing between the two can be a little trying Non-tax incentives are also good, like not raising corporate taxes to drive companies away or not piling higher taxes on the people who hire the work forces. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Actually, Ringo, this woman's tax burden is not zero. Even if her income tax burden is zero — which it may or may not be, you might try asking her about that — She still has to pay the same taxes as everybody else has to pay on most items she buys, such as gasoline, for example, clothing for school or work for herself or her children, and whatever the local food may or may not be on food and so on. These are regressive taxes, and will hit her more solidly than they will hit those of us who are fortunate enough to have dough coming in in more dependable amounts. [Edited Discuss the post, Bob, not the poster. - Ron ... the subsidy of the landlords whose twice market level rents you are paying for, a redistribution upward, not a bad business to be in, by the way, and one that contributed to the housing bubble in a very large way a few years back. Banks gained, speculators gained and the folks who lived in scarcely rehabbed housing got blamed. I had friends who were in it in Boston. It was a business, by the way, where the banks did most of the gaining, because the entrepreneurs were pretty heavily leveraged, and if any one deal fell through, the whole house of cards tended to fall through pretty quickly. A lot of those junk loans got bundled up and sold and were over-valued. People took serious baths on buying up those loan-bonds. Scam-O-Rama. The money went from your pockets to the pockets of various banks and lenders, and at no point did they actually stop in the pockets of the poor long enough to do other than maintain them in poverty. They stopped in the pockets of the wealthy. Now it's better for the poor than if nothing whatsoever is done, but it doesn't actually address the problems of poverty in the same way as actually investing in housing or education for them does, or offering a path to home ownership does. Hey. [This message has been edited by Ron (04-21-2011 09:43 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Consumption taxes aren't regressive, Bob, whereby the poor pay the same as those who have more money to spend on consumer goods. The more you buy, the more you pay. The less you buy, the less you pay. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp FYI. Sorry, though. They are. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Check out the resources at this site, Bob. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=action_contribute |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
A possibly interesting but separate discussion, Denise. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Why is it a separate discussion if we were talking about consumption taxes, Bob? That's what the fair tax is. It also includes a government subsidy for low income people. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, You're talking about junking the entire tax code and substituting a specific other tax plan for it. That requires the axis of conversation to shift to the new tax plan. If others feel that discussion is important enough to have, you and they should by all means do so. This conversation, it seems to me, merely touched upon consumption taxes as one part of the revision of the tax plan that most of us are looking at, which includes revisions in income and spending and, especially, some of the unfair elements of designer tax breaks for individual companies and for specific people.. Nothing wrong with your wish to discuss your topic if enough people want to take it up, even here in this space, I guess, but since you asked, these are my thoughts on the matter. If anybody else has thoughts, I'm interested to hear them as well. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think the new tax plan would solve ALL the problems with the current one, that's why I brought it up. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
