quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

So are you saying that we should spend more federal money on pork, raise taxes, to reduce the amount of stuff that I can purchase and the services I can have, thus channeling the money back into the funnel that the government special interests have created?   Like Archer said Kennedy, Regan and Bush (yes that is both parties) cut taxes and revenue increased.   What caused the problem was when Congress allocated more taxes then to their special interests funnels.  Congress is the problem, not the taxpayer.   And why is it that you think that raising my taxes will help me?

I'm not suggesting either we raise or lower taxes.  The term 'tax cut' is a myth.  Cutting taxes really means reducing them.  If you tax a man at 50%, he'll complain his taxes are too high.  Tax him at 20%, he'll say his taxes are too high.  Tax him at .01% and... he'll complain it's too high.

My personal issue isn't really with the amount we're taxed, but rather the way taxes are used to implement social engineering.  I support a flat tax, where every individual is expected to contribute the same percentage of their earnings, regardless of where they come from. 

My point isn't that taxes are too high; it's that spending is too high.  We spend more than we tax, to kill people I don't know.  That's my real issue.

Stephan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Could we all at least agree,that folks who earn a living from investments(ie stock brokers,money traders,etc)ie. "capital gains" should pay the same rate as those who earn wages?

Could we at least agree that "capital gains" should be taxed at the same rate as regular income?

If yes,say bub-bye to the "leave no millionair behind" tax cut law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

No sir, we actually can't say that.  The problem with the "Raise the Capital Gains" mentality is that many of the pension plans/retirement plans/401k plans that our seniors are depending upon for future fixed income payments are invested in places where capital gains taxes will be owed.  Would you like to take 15%-35% of the earnings that a retiree has counted on over his/her lifetime for his/her retirement.
Yes, the wealthy benefit from capital gains cuts, but so does everyone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Could we all at least agree,that folks who earn a living from investments(ie stock brokers,money traders,etc)ie. "capital gains" should pay the same rate as those who earn wages?

Could we at least agree that "capital gains" should be taxed at the same rate as regular income?

If yes,say bub-bye to the "leave no millionair behind" tax cut law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

When this law expires,it will affect those making a 100 grand or more a year.

If that`s your case,I don`t feel sorry for you and
you`ll pay your share like every other working stiff does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

I guess if I make over 100k a year that I'm not "working" in your eyes? 

I would reply that I educated myself via college, reading books, and conferences; I worked very hard in my chosen profession sometimes putting in 100+ hour weeks; I excelled in my profession because of my dedication and knowledge; and finally, my salary is something I have EARNED through hard work, dedication, and  sacrifice.

Are you aware that the bottom 15% of wage earners do not pay ANY net taxes and actually draw out about 10% of the taxes that other tax payers are paying?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

When this law expires,it will affect those making a 100 grand or more a year.

If that`s your case,I don`t feel sorry for you and
you`ll pay your share like every other working stiff does.

quote:

ruinous privatization

quote:

tell the story of the up-trodden wealthy losing their special tax break to the hundreds of thousands of folks losing their private homes to foreclosure and see how much traction you get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

Stephann, I once agreed with the "flat tax" proposal....until I actually did the numbers.  Right now, the top 10% of the wage earners in the United States pay over 80% of the personal income taxes that are paid into the system.  The middle class (as defined from $65,000 - $250,000 per annum) pays approximately 20% of the income taxes collected. With a flat tax, that demographic will suddenly pay around 40% of personal income taxes collected.

And if you want the figures, go to the IRS website, download the spreadsheets of taxes paid and do the figures yourself. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

So are you saying that we should spend more federal money on pork, raise taxes, to reduce the amount of stuff that I can purchase and the services I can have, thus channeling the money back into the funnel that the government special interests have created?   Like Archer said Kennedy, Regan and Bush (yes that is both parties) cut taxes and revenue increased.   What caused the problem was when Congress allocated more taxes then to their special interests funnels.  Congress is the problem, not the taxpayer.   And why is it that you think that raising my taxes will help me?

I'm not suggesting either we raise or lower taxes.  The term 'tax cut' is a myth.  Cutting taxes really means reducing them.  If you tax a man at 50%, he'll complain his taxes are too high.  Tax him at 20%, he'll say his taxes are too high.  Tax him at .01% and... he'll complain it's too high.

My personal issue isn't really with the amount we're taxed, but rather the way taxes are used to implement social engineering.  I support a flat tax, where every individual is expected to contribute the same percentage of their earnings, regardless of where they come from. 

My point isn't that taxes are too high; it's that spending is too high.  We spend more than we tax, to kill people I don't know.  That's my real issue.

Stephan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Merc,
"ruinous privatization"
 
Two words
 
Haliburton,Blackwater.

quote:

I heard(you can check this) that over half of foreclosures are a result of massive medical bills.

If true,that would fly in the face of the greed is good theory.

quote:

Should you lose your home and life savings if you get really sick?

quote:

In big bad Europe,you don`t.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ruinous privatization

Owner,
What is an example of that? Conversely, has there ever in the history of the world, let alone the US, been a non-ruinous, or even successful government take over? 'Success' defined that anyone other than the upper echelon of government officials benefited? You want to replace one group of people - your label 'Rich' - with another group - government bureaucrats. I'd much rather have people strive and have the option to be 'rich' than to have as a career goal - bureaucrat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

In big bad Europe,you don`t.

And it "big bad Europe" if you aren't born rich you have little or no chance of becoming rich. If you want to become rich, from a status of 'poor' - you go to work or find a business to own in the USA. Why is that?

quote:

A flat tax says "here's your paycheck, do what you need to." Not only does that make good fiscal sense, it makes a strong statement on the actuality (vice the theory) of our own individual liberty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stephann
Hi Quietly,

As I mentioned before, my issues with the current system isn't based in the amounts, but rather the concepts.  Flat tax doesn't address just income tax.  It addresses a whole host of other taxes (estate taxes, social security taxes, excise FCC taxes, etc etc.)  An entire industry exists with the sole purpose of ensuring that the wealthy can effectively manage their wealth in such a fashion that they can pay less and less of their wealth on taxes.

More importantly, is the ideology and social concepts behind government funded social engineering. As Merc suggested; why should the wealthy work harder to increase their income, when they only earn another 30 cents on the dollar?  Increasing the amount of wealth the wealthy enjoy, and you increase the amount of actual wealth they may (and will) spend.  This works both ways; currently, as I said, those most likely to spend their entire paycheck week after week, have a big wet 30%+ bite taken out of their paycheck to support a crippled, obsolete, and soon-to-be-defunct entitlement system.

A flat tax says "here's your paycheck, do what you need to."  Not only does that make good fiscal sense, it makes a strong statement on the actuality (vice the theory) of our own individual liberty.

Stephan

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

quote:

ORIGINAL: stephann
Hi Quietly,

As I mentioned before, my issues with the current system isn't based in the amounts, but rather the concepts.  Flat tax doesn't address just income tax.  It addresses a whole host of other taxes (estate taxes, social security taxes, excise FCC taxes, etc etc.)  An entire industry exists with the sole purpose of ensuring that the wealthy can effectively manage their wealth in such a fashion that they can pay less and less of their wealth on taxes.

More importantly, is the ideology and social concepts behind government funded social engineering. As Merc suggested; why should the wealthy work harder to increase their income, when they only earn another 30 cents on the dollar?  Increasing the amount of wealth the wealthy enjoy, and you increase the amount of actual wealth they may (and will) spend.  This works both ways; currently, as I said, those most likely to spend their entire paycheck week after week, have a big wet 30%+ bite taken out of their paycheck to support a crippled, obsolete, and soon-to-be-defunct entitlement system.

A flat tax says "here's your paycheck, do what you need to."  Not only does that make good fiscal sense, it makes a strong statement on the actuality (vice the theory) of our own individual liberty.

Stephan

I agree with the need for a considerable change in the way taxes are collected in this country.  I agree that we need to eliminate an entire industry whose sole purpose is to read, interpret and circumvent (albeit sometimes legally) the US tax code.  I agree the system is crippled, obsolete and soon-to-be-defunct. 

I'm just concerned that from my perspective as a middle-class citizen that my tax rate is going to go up from the effects of meeting the "current fiscal needs" of the country when I believe with all my heart and soul that waste, entitlements, pork-barrel projects (like the bridge in Alaska), and other corruption in our government could eliminate a sizable portion of its financial requirements without changing the major social/political programs that I feel we should be funding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ruinous privatization

Owner,
What is an example of that? Conversely, has there ever in the history of the world, let alone the US, been a non-ruinous, or even successful government take over? 'Success' defined that anyone other than the upper echelon of government officials benefited? You want to replace one group of people - your label 'Rich' - with another group - government bureaucrats. I'd much rather have people strive and have the option to be 'rich' than to have as a career goal - bureaucrat.

quote:

tell the story of the up-trodden wealthy losing their special tax break to the hundreds of thousands of folks losing their private homes to foreclosure and see how much traction you get.

You mean the story about how greedy dumb 'wealthy' Bank corporations, let even dumber, greedy, individuals obtain loans for housing they couldn't afford? That may get laughs from both sides, but little sympathy from the corporations, 'rich' people, and poor people who those ignorant, greedy losers expect to bail them out. You shouldn't get any traction from anyone once they realize they are responsible for footing the bill for any bail out.

They are losing their private homes because their greed gave them a false sense of self. Not that I feel any differently for those greedy and stupid enough to invest in a portfolio generated by others ignorance and greed. 

quote:

I could certainly name a whole series of disasterous privatisations in Europe since th fashion of privatisations began in the 80s. If fact telecommunications apart, I'm struggling to think of one privatisation that has meant more efficiency, lower prices and a better service. The nationalised companies were always far better. In fact Britain's privatisations have such a bad reputation in Europe, many European governments have since halted the process of privatisation. When I go back to Britain, I find myself longing for the old days of British Rail when one could catch a train and get to ones destination on the same day for the price of a ticket that is cheaper than flying to the mediteranean.

quote:

This is clap trap. I have a rich brother and sister to prove it. I could bring along a couple of friends too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Should you lose your home and life savings if you get really sick?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Of course your tax is going to go up and a LOT too!  They gave us nearly 50% inflation, the money is only worth 1/2 as much so they will use that to charge twice as much cuz no one knows the difference! LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

This is clap trap. I have a rich brother and sister to prove it. I could bring along a couple of friends too.

Don't know the reference, but I'm very happy for your family and friends. Anecdotally, my partners in NYC were from France, and the basis of my opinion. Of course, overall, my partners are as irrelevant as your family in terms of this debate.