RE: Let's Raise Taxes

RE: Let's Raise Taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Stephann -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: They get a return on their investment, pay taxes on their earnings, and in the meantime create 'middle class' jobs and opportunity. Take them out of the picture, or disincentive them to make income and they'll sit contently on their diversified investments enjoying their yachts, homes, and luxury. You can't tax them if they keep their money on the sidelines and don't generate income. That's a fully parroted misnomer. Demand creates jobs.... Capital only facilitates demand. Give me a five-trillion dollar, debt-money-created credit card and we both can lay claim to a miraculous recovery. Taxing the fruits of ones labor/creativity or their personal investments is fucking stupid and counter productive....But taxing all Wall Street transactions at a half to one percent would revitalize our nation. Re-institute the ''Tobin Tax'' {See James Tobin} and protect our markets with tariffs. The old-fashioned, nationalistic way. As far as rich people.....I can think of a few country clubs a few miles over the hill--out in the sand and cacti-- from you that don’t let people join unless their worth at least twenty. [;)] - R Do we really want to take a historical tour of other nationalistic economies and assess the material wealth of their people (vice their leaders?) China North Korea Soviet Union Cuba Venezuala Smashing idea, really. Stephan

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 12:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling COUGH. Stephan Yup,here`s a kleenx. ~General Reply~ We in America, are the freest,least taxed,and least regulated peoples in the free world. We enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world and bar none,we have the most opportunity to prosper here, than anywhere else in the free world. And still, all the whiners whining about this and that and about nothing. People should get a fucking life and some perspective,count their blessings and thank god they`re living in America.

Real0ne -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 12:25:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann I support a flat tax, where every individual is expected to contribute the same percentage of their earnings, regardless of where they come from. All you flat and fair tax supporters.... I cant begin to tell you what a huge mistake you are making. Oh thats right I did several times. reform what we got.

luckydog1 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 12:54:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: the ridiculously partisan Brookings institutite Unlike AEI, Heritage, Hoover, Cato, CSIS . . . [:)] DC, I never have attempted to source a group like that and use the label, "The highly respected ..." as was attempted to be done in this case.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 1:02:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: They get a return on their investment, pay taxes on their earnings, and in the meantime create 'middle class' jobs and opportunity. Take them out of the picture, or disincentive them to make income and they'll sit contently on their diversified investments enjoying their yachts, homes, and luxury. You can't tax them if they keep their money on the sidelines and don't generate income. That's a fully parroted misnomer. Demand creates jobs.... Capital only facilitates demand. Give me a five-trillion dollar, debt-money-created credit card and we both can lay claim to a miraculous recovery. Taxing the fruits of ones labor/creativity or their personal investments is fucking stupid and counter productive....But taxing all Wall Street transactions at a half to one percent would revitalize our nation. Re-institute the ''Tobin Tax'' {See James Tobin} and protect our markets with tariffs. The old-fashioned, nationalistic way. As far as rich people.....I can think of a few country clubs a few miles over the hill--out in the sand and cacti-- from you that don’t let people join unless their worth at least twenty. [;)] - R Do we really want to take a historical tour of other nationalistic economies and assess the material wealth of their people (vice their leaders?) China North Korea Soviet Union Cuba Venezuala Smashing idea, really. Stephan When you conflate/compare a political system that governs it's people through a single-power totalitarian regime with my argument that says we need to protect our markets with tariffs in a nationalistic sense ---like we did for two hundred years, prior to Regan during our country's greatest period of economic expansion---your argument has no contextual relevance. There's zero connection between how China subverts it's populace and how we protect and stabilize our markets/production. Nada. But just to set the record straight....Essentially I gather what you’re trying to say, is nationalism in a economic sense/protecting ones markets by way of tariffs, is the path to a subverted and decaying /deteriorating social class? I don't believe there's much merit in that supposition. I'd actually bet huge money the other way around……Economic globalization will lead to a greater separation of classes here in the States. Hell....it might provide the folks in Bangladesh with a slightly better standard of living, but not us.... Remember……we’re living in era where we’re constantly reminded that home ownership by the masses is at an all time high ; but at the same time, home equity is at an all time low. That's quite a ''sleight of hand'', wouldn't you say? [:D] - R

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 3:57:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Can anyone explain why someone should get a 106 thousand dollar deduction(all in the 1st year) on a $110,000 H-1 Hummer? Prior to enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Jobs and Growth Act), the 2003 tax code schedule for business depreciation allowed for a deduction of up to $25,000 in the year of purchase of a truck or van weighing over 6,000 pounds, and set a five-year depreciation schedule. In March 2002, Congress passed an economic stimulus package that allowed an additional 30% “bonus deduction.” 10 With passage of the Jobs and Growth Act, Congress dramatically expanded the already generous SUV loophole by raising the deduction ceiling for certain purchases— including SUVs—from $25,000 to $100,000.26 Under this new rule, the entire cost of all but one large SUV—the Hummer H1—can be deducted. This act also increased the “bonus deduction” from 30% to 50%3435, which businesses can utilize in the first year of purchase on the amount above the initial deduction. This bonus deduction was established in addition to the five-year depreciation schedule3839, which remained the same. Under the new plan, a business owner who purchases a $110,000 Hummer H1 in 2003 can now deduct a total of $106,000 in the first year (see table). WTF is with that? Why don`t we get a deduction like that? http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxcredit.pdf Would you believe that we don't have that kind of money to spend? Or would you believe that you have no clue that the more you spend on a deductable item the more you get to deduct? Now if you can figure a way to pay my bills and let me go down and pay that kind of cash on a vehicle let me know. Oh and the H1 is a lousy vehicle in my opinion. I wnatone that comes with a gun moount and is uparmored.

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 4:03:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling All this whining about tax cuts and not a DAMN word about the federal deficit. As noted above, Bush has given tax breaks claiming it would stimulate the economy and make things better. ummm............When does the better part come in? When does this stimulation start? Oh yeah......How the FUCK do you expect to pay for all of this spending we're doing????? Oh well, "Let the next generation figure out how to pay for it".....That's been the motto of every president since Nixon with one exception. Well see we have talked about it just people ignore it. How about we go back to indvidual responsibiility and quit electing people that pander to special interests to congress. Congress levies the money. Ever look at the defense appropriation and see that congress (not the military) adds things like a hundred aircraft no one wants or a few more tanks that aren't needed? Or since when does the constitution say that everyone has to have government paid health care? It isn't Bush that writes all that stuff into law. It is the congress.

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 4:26:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I`ll say it again. The law that`s about to expire will not raise taxes on anyone here. So stop farting for nothing.lol ok so we take away the earnings of the rich, without the protection of the law. They haire high paid lawyers, accountants, financial consultants, lobbyists, etc (oh yeah they already have those) and manipulate the economy so that they make more money to account for thie individual losses. Then they fire the poor, reduce benefits, raise prices, outsource jobs to other countries, etc. To achieve their goals. Of course it doesn't affect the lower and middle class people becasue we have eliminated the equal protection under the law anymore. So the economy gets worse Big deal we are taxing the rich aren't we?

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 7:00:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I`ll say it again. The law that`s about to expire will not raise taxes on anyone here. So stop farting for nothing.lol ok so we take away the earnings of the rich, without the protection of the law. They haire high paid lawyers, accountants, financial consultants, lobbyists, etc (oh yeah they already have those) and manipulate the economy so that they make more money to account for thie individual losses. Then they fire the poor, reduce benefits, raise prices, outsource jobs to other countries, etc. To achieve their goals. Of course it doesn't affect the lower and middle class people becasue we have eliminated the equal protection under the law anymore. So the economy gets worse Big deal we are taxing the rich aren't we? No need for the extreme examples or putting words in my mouth. I have said that this particular law should expire. It was/is a ploy and didn`t work under Reagen,and hasn`t worked under Bush. That "tax cut for the rich" didn`t help the economy.It failed to produce any positive results. It has however, helped put All of us on the debt cart heading towards debtor`s prison. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I know you can`t see or feel the ocean of debt that the republicans took on.But it`s there and you`re probably to old to even be around to help pay that debt down. Folks are naturally selfish and don`t want to pay taxes.But the "debt/spend us into the poor house" republicans have left you/us a massive bill to pay. It`s now so bad that it`s a national security issue. Thanks republicans.Thanks neo-cons.

Real0ne -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 7:00:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I`ll say it again. The law that`s about to expire will not raise taxes on anyone here. So stop farting for nothing.lol ok so we take away the earnings of the rich, without the protection of the law. They haire high paid lawyers, accountants, financial consultants, lobbyists, etc (oh yeah they already have those) and manipulate the economy so that they make more money to account for thie individual losses. Then they fire the poor, reduce benefits, raise prices, outsource jobs to other countries, etc. To achieve their goals. Of course it doesn't affect the lower and middle class people becasue we have eliminated the equal protection under the law anymore. So the economy gets worse Big deal we are taxing the rich aren't we? Funny isnt it? When I was a kid I couldnt imagine why th efounding fathers would revolt over taxation of all things. Now its like getting hit over the with a 2x4 obvious. I think the question is what would the founding fathers do if they were here now?

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 7:58:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 We in America, are the freest,least taxed,and least regulated peoples in the free world. America might be the least taxed and the least regulated people in the free world (even here I'm not sure) but I would argue about Americans being the most free people in the free world. Many European governments are elected in more direct and responsive democratic systems than the American system. Lack of regulation doesn't reflect the amount of freedom people have. Most Europeans choose regulation, that way they get superior health and education systems for the whole nation and not just for the privileged wealthy minority. Regulation stops the rich hijacking the media and feeding the population with their own self serving propaganda. Regulation has proved to be more efficient at facilitating social mobility (OCED), cutting crime and increasing education standards in the populace. Freedom without education and health doesn't exist other than in a nominal way. The rich must love living in a deregulated society as it gives them the power and the wealth to buy politicians and laud it over the suckers who buy their propaganda. As Chomsky pointed out “Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.” . Freedom is an illusion, people who think they are free are the people who have bought into the illusion, they will not see the bars than pen them in because they choose not to. I was watching an item on the news the other day of homeless people living in tents in LA. Yep, they might have their freedom but surely sights like that don't belong in a civilised developed nation?

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 10:39:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Funny isnt it? When I was a kid I couldnt imagine why th efounding fathers would revolt over taxation of all things. Now its like getting hit over the with a 2x4 obvious. I think the question is what would the founding fathers do if they were here now? I think the founding fathers would be having not just a cow but a whole damn herd and yelling at the top of their lungs - Personal Responsibility, Fisical Responsibility, States Rights not Federal Regulation

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 12:44:38 PM)
meatcleaver, how in the heck do you not get that Government Regulation is the opposite of Freedom? You tout the benifits of the european models, yet you ignore the lack of class mobility in comparison. Europes money has not shifted by and large from the control of the very few other than directly to the government, by comparison US millionaires are 80% self made having started in the middle and sometimes lower economic classes. SO while europe has the model of shifting control of the wealth from the rich to the government, the US model has money being collected by and large from willing paying customers to those with the talent and will to earn it.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 2:19:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer meatcleaver, how in the heck do you not get that Government Regulation is the opposite of Freedom? You tout the benifits of the european models, yet you ignore the lack of class mobility in comparison. Europes money has not shifted by and large from the control of the very few other than directly to the government, by comparison US millionaires are 80% self made having started in the middle and sometimes lower economic classes. SO while europe has the model of shifting control of the wealth from the rich to the government, the US model has money being collected by and large from willing paying customers to those with the talent and will to earn it. Is this more of your "general knowledge"?

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 4:39:47 PM)
Actually yes it is general knowlledge widely reported in trade journals and regualr newspapers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm You really need to get off this quoteing every source bit when google is available to do a quick check. Funny though who you seem to apply this to and who you chose to lets slide right on by. When I see you asking for ciutations from the more left leaning I may take your argument a little more seriously. Google returns 341,000 hits for the querey. Most of them cite the source for the figure as either the Spectrem Wealth Study produced by http://www.spectrem.com/ or the study by Thomas Stanley Phd who wrote The Millionaire Next Door.

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 5:02:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: Archer meatcleaver, how in the heck do you not get that Government Regulation is the opposite of Freedom? You tout the benifits of the european models, yet you ignore the lack of class mobility in comparison. Europes money has not shifted by and large from the control of the very few other than directly to the government, by comparison US millionaires are 80% self made having started in the middle and sometimes lower economic classes. SO while europe has the model of shifting control of the wealth from the rich to the government, the US model has money being collected by and large from willing paying customers to those with the talent and will to earn it. Is this more of your "general knowledge"? Be nice.[;)] Archer is correct on this one. It`s almost impossible to become wealthy in Europe. However, it`s almost impossible to lose your home and savings from medical expenses(something that`s very common here) and the overall standard of living is high. All in all,the majority of folks there live pretty well. Here,you can soar to great heights or fall off the edge of the earth. But that`s what makes us a bit freer,for better or for worse. Added: I don`t equate regulation with having less freedom. You better be not be polluting my water upstream or my air up-wind. My money better be in my checking account and my Dr. better have his papers straight. I don`t want to worry that my food will make me sick or worse and I prefer cars to be safe. Regulation does this. Question for Archer... Would you accept twice the pollution and twice the environmental damage(less regulation) to you personaly, if it meant you could make twice as much money?

theslave123 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 5:14:26 PM)
it dont matter what country you live in when it comes to tax it seems most people around the world want tax cuts. Why is this tax is there for a reason the more tax we pay the better the country will be. i no people who earn over 100 000 per year and moan that they pay 30 000 in tax. This still leaves 70 000 i think its greed in england our tax pays for schools welfare hospitals etc i think tax should be 45 per cent of what you earn over 40 000 per year pay tax and watch the country grow

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/15/2008 8:32:15 PM)
Would you accept twice the pollution and twice the environmental damage(less regulation) to you personaly, if it meant you could make twice as much money? This is where I get a little different from many. The idea of regulation runs counter to freedom however freedoms only extend to the next man's nose. So I believe there should be tort courts that handle such cases as well as criminal courts to deal with the fact that polution beyond standards constitutes a battery. And handle them fiercely. Knowingly dump waste, emmit poison to the air, polute waters and the company pays a onerous penalty one that is likely to just short of banrupt the company and corporate officers get jail time. Polution and waste are the resposibility of the person generating it, this is not very different than any other view but I think it has been ignored because it has been viewed as waste and waste can just be tossed aside has been the attitude about waste. So you generate it you are responsible for it (And oddly enough this is part of what I do for a living; for some clients I deal with disposal of both non hazardous and hazardous wastes) To me this is not the same thing as regulation but rather a matter of ballancing the rights of those people the pollution effects, against the responsibility of the company to properly handle the waste. I'm not against regulation entirely, I'm not an anarchist, my line gets drawn simply when the actions of someone damages someone else through force or fraud. When a law or regulation can't show me where someone else is damaged I question the need for the law. But yet there are those times when sure polution can be "acceptable" as a trade off. Case in point one that Bush catches hell for. delay of the emmissions standards for power generation stations upgrades. Bush caught hell because he traded off capacity for pollution following the effects of the massive black out. Do I want the new standards to be reached? Yes. Do I think the delay was a nessisary thing? again Yes. There are times when production must come first, and there are times when production does not need to come first.

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/16/2008 7:32:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer meatcleaver, how in the heck do you not get that Government Regulation is the opposite of Freedom? You tout the benifits of the european models, yet you ignore the lack of class mobility in comparison. Europes money has not shifted by and large from the control of the very few other than directly to the government, by comparison US millionaires are 80% self made having started in the middle and sometimes lower economic classes. SO while europe has the model of shifting control of the wealth from the rich to the government, the US model has money being collected by and large from willing paying customers to those with the talent and will to earn it. Read the 2006 OCED report on social monbility, the USA has the least social mobility of all developed nations, Britain the other country that espouses the lack of regulation as the way to social mobility has the second least social mobility. The countries with the most social mobiltiy were the social democratic north European countries which according to the report, not only had the most social mobility, but the higher education standards and better health statistics. The fact that a relatively few people (though more than in other countries) can become millionaires in the USA is neither here or their when the USA has 40 million people without health cover, the mean education standard is lower than most other developed countries and that even millionaires have a shorter life expectancy than poor people in most other developed countries. Regulation doesn't necessarily mean money shifts from the wealthy to the government, it could mean companies have to pay for their own pollution (which could involve money moving to other private companies) and not put that burden of enviromental degradation on the tax payer. ie. It prevents capital using the environment as a free resource, which helps maintains the quality of life which is both good for health and education. You forget that Europe has lived through an era of lasissez faire capitalism which is why it rejected it. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer which is what is happening in the USA and the UK. Countries with lower wealth differentials have according to all international statistics, have more cohesive societies. This has caused forward thinking politicians to put into any socio/economic equation, the price of well being. They have realised that beyond a certain economic living standard, the quality of life does not improve accordingly if the social fabric and environment are being degraded. In fact, with the rise in wealth in Britain which has since Thatcher tended to copy the American economic model has come a widening of the wealth differential, a rise in serious crime and other social problems that were once associated with the US, while Britain's social democratic neighbours haven't experienced the same social problems as Britain.

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/16/2008 10:53:10 AM)
That report seems to focus solely on the move from poverty to middle class though. No examination seems to be there for mobility from middle class to upper class. Which according to several stories here is the overall trend from 1967 to 2003 The myth of the stagnating middle class: It's true that the middle class is shrinking -- but that's because more families are better off. The share of prime-age adults in households with real incomes above $100,000 rose by 13.1 percentage points from 1979 to 2004. The share of households making less than $75,000 dropped by 14 percent. Fully 41 percent of prime-age American adults are in households with incomes above $75,000. And that's taken from aliberal org web article http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11943 But according to economist Stephen Rose in the Washington Post, the percentage of households making more than $100,000 has actually doubled over the past 30 years, from 12 to 24 percent. By contrast, there was no change in the percentage of households making less than $30,000 a year. Thus, he says that all of the “decline” in the middle class was due to people moving up the income ladder. That’s a success story, not a failure. BTW Stephan Rose who makes this statement is not a right winger but a group called third way at the Progressive Policy Institute Can't just focus on mobility in a single sector while ignoring the others the way the free available parts of the OCED report seems to and call it a report on class mobility.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875