Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: mogulgangi on October 20, 2008, 11:01:17 AM
-
how is this not a beginning to socialism?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/stephjmort/OBAMAPORTRAITsmaller.jpg)
explain ur answer
-
I think you should explain how it IS the beginning of socialism in America.
Because i think BUSH already has did that.
-
The Hunt for Red Menace
http://www.publiceye.org/huntred/Huntred_TOC.html (http://www.publiceye.org/huntred/Huntred_TOC.html)
-
how is this not a beginning to socialism?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/stephjmort/OBAMAPORTRAITsmaller.jpg)
explain ur answer
LOL.
Hate to break the news to you, however, we are already becoming socialist Country. You can thank the Bush administration for that.
-
how is this not a beginning to socialism?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/stephjmort/OBAMAPORTRAITsmaller.jpg)
explain ur answer
Obama "looks" Dominican.
-
Regardless of who's fault it is, we need to make sure we don't become too far socialist.
-
I love "conservatives". (Not really, but go with it.)
During the last 8 years, corporate subsidies and tax breaks were at an all time high. But a few hits of Kool-aid from Limbaugh, Hannity and Joe the Plumber and all of a sudden it's rebranded as socialism. The only difference being that under Obama it will benefit a larger portion of the country.
-
Regardless of who's fault it is, we need to make sure we don't become too far socialist.
...yeah, you wouldn't want to end up like the TWELVE chronically socialist countries that have overtaken America on the UN Human Development Index over the past 50 years.
This is how really far-left socialist/liberal policies have damaged my country, Ireland...
-insignificant homicide rate
-very low crime rate
-social inclusion
-free quality schooling
-free quality healthcare (rated better than America's)
-prosperity
-generous unemployment/disability benefits (unemployment/welfare payments of $300+ a week tax-free)
-very low wealth disparity between rich and poor
-free university education (our university system is rated better than America's)
-free post graduate education up to masters level
-free PhD education (often including $400 a week subsidies; my brother is doing one of these)
-one of the highest home ownership rates in the world
-one of the lowest homelessness rates in the world
-approx $13 an hour minimum wage (and minimum wage workers pay no taxes)
-$120 a month maximum limit on medication costs (no matter the treatment)
-relatively low unemployment (lower than the America's true jobless figure)
-governmental transparency with very little corruption
...yes, we do pay a little more in taxes... but we get much better value for money through the tax system than Americans get buying such services on the much vaunted "free market".
There has been an economic effect of such radical socialism though... for the past 15 years Ireland has had to deal with a continuously booming economy, regularly ranked as one of the strongest economies in the world. However, it did take us nearly four full days for the government to sort out the fall out from Irish banks involvement in the sub-prime mess (a full, unlimited government guarantee for all personal accounts held by Irish banks and a $400 billion bank-insurance scheme to allow banks recover).
You Americans are right to fear socialism... it sucks.
The Luke
-
Ur comparing us to a country like Ireland, which until recently, suffered massive economic problems. And before u pop off, my mom is from Dublin and I've been back and forth to Ireland many time. Yes Ireland is doing very well now...but ur population is 4,109,086 or so. Give me a break. We have cities bigger then that. U can do alot with small populations....and u guys don't have to defend the West from the rampant stupidity of the rest of the world. Sorry but while I love Ireland....u really can't compare the two.
-
how is this not a beginning to socialism?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/stephjmort/OBAMAPORTRAITsmaller.jpg)
explain ur answer
because it's a t-shirt ::) t-shirts have never been known to force populations into doing anything. They're usually cotton and there is not any magical or intelligent properties in either the cotton or the ink. lolol.
-
I think we need a balance of socialism and capitalism.. Some social programs are needed... TO help people like Coach Palin with his mental retardation...
-
Ur comparing us to a country like Ireland, which until recently, suffered massive economic problems. And before u pop off, my mom is from Dublin and I've been back and forth to Ireland many time. Yes Ireland is doing very well now...but ur population is 4,109,086 or so. Give me a break. We have cities bigger then that. U can do alot with small populations....and u guys don't have to defend the West from the rampant stupidity of the rest of the world. Sorry but while I love Ireland....u really can't compare the two.
If a shit-hole like Ireland can do all that through socialism, why can't America measure up with such a huge GDP? America has natural resources... a huge labour force... modern infrastructure... every advantage imaginable.
Even during the eighties, when Ireland was impoverished and suffered 30% unemployment for years on end we still had a better healthcare and education system than the US. We had less wealth disparity... less homicides... less crime... less homelessness...
How can France have the world's best healthcare system when they spend only a fraction of what Americans spend per capita? America has only the 37th best healthcare system in the world.
Why are the French so much better off than Americans with so much less?
Why are the most socialist countries overtaking America in every measurable way?
Time to take off the giant foam finger people... Fuck-You-Capitalism didn't work. Get over it.
"USA #12!" doesn't have the same ring to it, true... but it's more accurate.
The Luke
-
I love "conservatives". (Not really, but go with it.)
During the last 8 years, corporate subsidies and tax breaks were at an all time high. But a few hits of Kool-aid from Limbaugh, Hannity and Joe the Plumber and all of a sudden it's rebranded as socialism. The only difference being that under Obama it will benefit a larger portion of the country.
Great post. One of the best I've seen.
-
how is this not a beginning to socialism?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/stephjmort/OBAMAPORTRAITsmaller.jpg)
explain ur answer
Why are you afraid of Socialism? It's working for the Wall Street Bankers.
Did you refuse your tax rebate payoff from the Bush Administration?
That governmental expenditure is Socialism under the popular definition. I mean a government expenditure is a government exenditure...socialism.
-
bahaha how desperate are these douches becoming, first they tried calling him a terrorist, now hes a commie, lol whats next they are going to try calling him a homosexual hahahah
-
Why are you afraid of Socialism? It's working for the Wall Street Bankers.
Did you refuse your tax rebate payoff from the Bush Administration?
That governmental expenditure is Socialism under the popular definition. I mean a government expenditure is a government exenditure...socialism.
The government returning the taxpayers' money is socialism? That's a new one.
-
...yeah, you wouldn't want to end up like the TWELVE chronically socialist countries that have overtaken America on the UN Human Development Index over the past 50 years.
This is how really far-left socialist/liberal policies have damaged my country, Ireland...
-insignificant homicide rate
-very low crime rate
-social inclusion
-free quality schooling
-free quality healthcare (rated better than America's)
-prosperity
-generous unemployment/disability benefits (unemployment/welfare payments of $300+ a week tax-free)
-very low wealth disparity between rich and poor
-free university education (our university system is rated better than America's)
-free post graduate education up to masters level
-free PhD education (often including $400 a week subsidies; my brother is doing one of these)
-one of the highest home ownership rates in the world
-one of the lowest homelessness rates in the world
-approx $13 an hour minimum wage (and minimum wage workers pay no taxes)
-$120 a month maximum limit on medication costs (no matter the treatment)
-relatively low unemployment (lower than the America's true jobless figure)
-governmental transparency with very little corruption
...yes, we do pay a little more in taxes... but we get much better value for money through the tax system than Americans get buying such services on the much vaunted "free market".
There has been an economic effect of such radical socialism though... for the past 15 years Ireland has had to deal with a continuously booming economy, regularly ranked as one of the strongest economies in the world. However, it did take us nearly four full days for the government to sort out the fall out from Irish banks involvement in the sub-prime mess (a full, unlimited government guarantee for all personal accounts held by Irish banks and a $400 billion bank-insurance scheme to allow banks recover).
You Americans are right to fear socialism... it sucks.
The Luke
Good post.
-
The government returning the taxpayers' money is socialism? That's a new one.
That's funny. Because just yesterday in the link below, you claimed that what you're describing is welfare. ::)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=241864.msg3398966#msg3398966
-
That's funny. Because just yesterday in the link below, you claimed that what you're describing is welfare. ::)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=241864.msg3398966#msg3398966
lol . . . You are clueless. People who have zero tax liability shouldn't get a tax cut. People who had zero tax liability should not have gotten a "refund." I don't expect you to understand this.
-
Good post.
No it was a very good post.
-
The government returning the taxpayers' money is socialism? That's a new one.
It's a governmental allocation of governmental resources.
What do you call such redistribution?
-
On April 15th of every year people are required to file something called tax returns. Some people are required to send a check to the IRS.
Others actually receive a check from the IRS.
That check is called a refund.
The refund is not a welfare check. It is a portion of the money that the individual paid to the government throughout the year from their weekly paycheck.
I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'm sure you will force me to find a way.
-
The government returning the taxpayers' money is socialism? That's a new one.
I forgot to mention that Bush's tax payoff went to people paying zero in income taxes. The payment was not predicated on overpayment of taxes, i.e., a refund.
-
It's a governmental allocation of governmental resources.
What do you call such redistribution?
It's not a redistribution if the government is returning tax dollars it collected from the taxpayers. It's actually repayment of an interest free loan.
-
I forgot to mention that Bush's tax payoff went to people paying zero in income taxes. The payment was not predicated on overpayment of taxes, i.e., a refund.
People who paid zero in income taxes should not have gotten a payment.
-
People who paid zero in income taxes should not have gotten a payment.
Withholdings are payments.
-
It's not a redistribution if the government is returning tax dollars it collected from the taxpayers. It's actually repayment of an interest free loan.
This allocation of governmental tax dollars in the form of a tax rebate is pure governmental redistribution. Taxes are not loans to the government. The gov. owns those tax dollars.
All governments redistribute wealth. It could be in the form of the purchase of ICBMs, AFDC payments, or tax cuts in general....all forms of governmental spending.
-
This allocation of governmental tax dollars in the form of a tax rebate is pure governmental redistribution. Taxes are not loans to the government. The gov. owns those tax dollars.
All governments redistribute wealth. It could be in the form of the purchase of ICBMs, AFDC payments, or tax cuts in general....all forms of governmental spending.
Nah. WE own tax dollars. We allow the government to use our money. What should be happening is the government providing essential services in the most efficient manner possible, using as little of our money as possible. If government is able to return some of our money, then it is doing just that. You talk as if the government is doing us a favor by returning our money.
-
Nah. WE own tax dollars. We allow the government to use our money. What should be happening is the government providing essential services in the most efficient manner possible, using as little of our money as possible. If government is able to return some of our money, then it is doing just that. You talk as if the government is doing us a favor by returning our money.
And the government creates the safe and viable marketplace in which you thrive
what's that worth?
-
Nah. WE own tax dollars. We allow the government to use our money. What should be happening is the government providing essential services in the most efficient manner possible, using as little of our money as possible. If government is able to return some of our money, then it is doing just that. You talk as if the government is doing us a favor by returning our money.
You are right. We the People own that tax money...not you or any individual. The government redistributed that money as a stimulus bribe under Bush's plan.
I know my mom got a stimulus check. She paid no income taxes.
-
You are right. We the People own that tax money...not you or any individual. The government redistributed that money as a stimulus bribe under Bush's plan.
I know my mom got a stimulus check. She paid no income taxes.
We are made up of individual taxpayers, so yes, I do own the money that I work hard for and give (or loan) to the government. The government belongs to and works for us, not the other way around. At least that's the way it should be.
The government should not have given a "stimulus check" to anyone who didn't pay income taxes.
-
We are made up of individual taxpayers, so yes, I do own the money that I work hard for and give (or loan) to the government. The government belongs to and works for us, not the other way around. At least that's the way it should be.
That's an interesting spin. There is no legal support for your story though. Taxes are not loans. And our representatives in government figure out the best way to allocate tax revenue.
Notice that I said Tax REVENUE....not tax loans.
The government should not have given a "stimulus check" to anyone who didn't pay income taxes.
Don't blame me. You're the one that voted Bush the Socialist into office.
I tried to warn all prospective Bush voters of the err of their ways....
-
That's an interesting spin. There is no legal support for your story though. Taxes are not loans. And our representatives in government figure out the best way to allocate tax revenue.
Notice that I said Tax REVENUE....not tax loans.
Don't blame me. You're the one that voted Bush the Socialist into office.
I tried to warn all prospective Bush voters of the err of their ways....
I think what you've said is spin. I understand you're trying to compensate for the fact that liberals are firmly entrenched in the redistribution of wealth mindset, as Obama essentially admitted to Joe the Plumber, but I don't agree.
I'm not sure people will heed your warning about McCain either. There will probably be another 60 million-plus dummies on election day. :)
-
I think what you've said is spin. I understand you're trying to compensate for the fact that liberals are firmly entrenched in the redistribution of wealth mindset, as Obama essentially admitted to Joe the Plumber, but I don't agree.
I'm not sure people will heed your warning about McCain either. There will probably be another 60 million-plus dummies on election day. :)
I was talking about Bush. Do you agree with the statement that all types of governments redistribute wealth?
How do you feel that Powell is supporting a candidate that you characterize as 'socialist' and a danger to our country's capitalistic economy?
-
I was talking about Bush. Do you agree with the statement that all types of governments redistribute wealth?
How do you feel that Powell is supporting a candidate that you characterize as 'socialist' and a danger to our country's capitalistic economy?
I don't know about all types of governments, but I agree that ours does to some degree.
I disagree with Powell's endorsement. I posted my comments in the Powell thread.
-
I know my mom got a stimulus check. She paid no income taxes.
My stepdaughter did too, and she doesn't pay taxes either.
-
I don't know about all types of governments, but I agree that ours does to some degree.
I disagree with Powell's endorsement. I posted my comments in the Powell thread.
Can you conceive of a single government that has not redistributed wealth?
-
Can you conceive of a single government that has not redistributed wealth?
Not without doing some research. Will not be doing that in this calendar year. :)
But what's your point? If you're trying to say that unfairly taxing certain segments of the population to benefit other segments of the population is okay, I disagree. That type of redistribution is bad policy. The kind that Obama endorses (spreading the wealth around). The kind of "redistribution" that works is using tax dollars for essential government services.
The government should punish success for the benefit of others.
-
Can you conceive of a single government that has not redistributed wealth?
China.
-
Not without doing some research. Will not be doing that in this calendar year. :)
But what's your point? If you're trying to say that unfairly taxing certain segments of the population to benefit other segments of the population is okay, I disagree. That type of redistribution is bad policy. The kind that Obama endorses (spreading the wealth around). The kind of "redistribution" that works is using tax dollars for essential government services.
The government should punish success for the benefit of others.
All governments redistribute wealth. Every single one. No exception....except for anarchy and that's not really a government, is it. From dictatorships to democracies...all of them redistribute wealth.
So the sine qua non of socialism cannot be redistribution of wealth b/c all forms of government do it.
I wouldn't get too worked up about blanket criticisms of Obama's alleged socialism proclivities. If you don't like his tax program, fine. But accusations of socialism are pure propaganda.
So did you mail your stimulus check back to the Bush administration as form of protest against creeping socialism?
-
All governments redistribute wealth. Every single one. No exception....except for anarchy and that's not really a government, is it. From dictatorships to democracies...all of them redistribute wealth.
So the sine qua non of socialism cannot be redistribution of wealth b/c all forms of government do it.
I wouldn't get too worked up about blanket criticisms of Obama's alleged socialism proclivities. If you don't like his tax program, fine. But accusations of socialism are pure propaganda.
So did you mail your stimulus check back to the Bush administration as form of protest against creeping socialism?
I can't really respond to your comment about all governments redistributing wealth, because I haven't done the research.
But the type of redistribution advocated by Obama is only part of what makes him a quasi-socialist. He believes the government is the answer to pretty much of all of our problems. He wants to the government to step in and takeover the healthcare system. He wants the government to take money from successful people and pay for his government programs. He wants the government to have a more expansive role in the private sector. He believes in pitting "the wealthy" against "the middle class."
If the government ever returns my money, it is going right in the bank . . . and then probably to one of my brat kids who think I'm a money machine.
-
I can't really respond to your comment about all governments redistributing wealth, because I haven't done the research.
But the type of redistribution advocated by Obama is only part of what makes him a quasi-socialist. He believes the government is the answer to pretty much of all of our problems. He wants to the government to step in and takeover the healthcare system. He wants the government to take money from successful people and pay for his government programs. He wants the government to have a more expansive role in the private sector. He believes in pitting "the wealthy" against "the middle class."
If the government ever returns my money, it is going right in the bank . . . and then probably to one of my brat kids who think I'm a money machine.
Obama's plan for healthcare utilizes private insurance companies. Where exactly does the 'government takeover' happen?
Every president for the last 100+ years has wanted government to take money from its citizenry to pay for government programs. It's called taxes. And the Roman Empire crumbled when the taxes went uncollected.
Our country's progressive income tax has been around for about 100 years. That's a sound time-tested policy. Your politics of class warfare in using this time honored system of taxation as a club to defend the avarice of the financial elites is not productive.
Try being conservative and conserve what works and has worked throughout much of our country's history.
-
Obama's plan for healthcare utilizes private insurance companies. Where exactly does the 'government takeover' happen?
Every president for the last 100+ years has wanted government to take money from its citizenry to pay for government programs. It's called taxes. And the Roman Empire crumbled when the taxes went uncollected.
Our country's progressive income tax has been around for about 100 years. That's a sound time-tested policy. Your politics of class warfare in using this time honored system of taxation as a club to defend the avarice of the financial elites is not productive.
Try being conservative and conserve what works and has worked throughout much of our country's history.
We've already discussed the socialist aspects of Obama's healthcare plan.
You're not accurately stating Obama's "spread the wealth" philosophy. He wants to raise taxes on people and businesses who earn over a purely arbitrary figure and use that tax revenue to benefit people who make less money. That's the distinction. That type of class warfare is destructive, not productive.
-
at least he's not flying his kids around on the tax payers dime huh.
-
We've already discussed the socialist aspects of Obama's healthcare plan.
You're not accurately stating Obama's "spread the wealth" philosophy. He wants to raise taxes on people and businesses who earn over a purely arbitrary figure and use that tax revenue to benefit people who make less money. That's the distinction. That type of class warfare is destructive, not productive.
What is arbitrary about providing a modest tax hike to those citizens most able to pay the tax?
Would you prefer that tax revenue benefit wealthy people instead of the lower class?
Why is redistributing a portion of the high wage-earner's money to those making less or nothing a bad thing?
On that third question above, I see progressive taxation and redistribution as a very sound system. Here's why: it keeps the workforce viable. Cooperation works better than pure competition. Your unmoderated pure capitalism is a dead end. We saw the effects of laissez faire economics in the early part of last century. We had a couple of decades of destitute poverty. How was that fixed? Just look at the policies of FDR.
-
What is arbitrary about providing a modest tax hike to those citizens most able to pay the tax?
Would you prefer that tax revenue benefit wealthy people instead of the lower class?
Why is redistributing a portion of the high wage-earner's money to those making less or nothing a bad thing?
On that third question above, I see progressive taxation and redistribution as a very sound system. Here's why: it keeps the workforce viable. Cooperation works better than pure competition. Your unmoderated pure capitalism is a dead end. We saw the effects of laissez faire economics in the early part of last century. We had a couple of decades of destitute poverty. How was that fixed? Just look at the policies of FDR.
It's arbitrary because it picks a number out of thin air and assumes that people and businesses earning anything above that arbitrary figure are "wealthy." Why should a hard working family in a high cost of living area have to pay higher taxes to support some welfare tax refund? A person making $50,000 a year with a family isn’t necessarily working any harder than a person making $250,00 with a family.
I would prefer that everyone who pays taxes receive tax relief.
Taking from high wage earners and giving to low wage earners is punishment. It discourages success. It discourages hard work and high achievement. It gives people something for nothing. It punishes small business, which is the backbone of our economy.
I have never said I favor "unmoderated pure capitalism." I think the market should be regulated. What I oppose is raising anyone's taxes, particularly when raising those taxes is to fund some federal government program. Haven't you noticed how bad the federal government is at managing our money?
Also, what doesn't get talked about enough is raising taxes on business punishes everyone. Increased cost of goods and services are passed along to consumers. We raised the general excise tax here a few years ago and businesses just passed those increased taxes on to us.
-
It's arbitrary because it picks a number out of thin air and assumes that people and businesses earning anything above that arbitrary figure are "wealthy." Why should a hard working family in a high cost of living area have to pay higher taxes to support some welfare tax refund? A person making $50,000 a year with a family isn’t necessarily working any harder than a person making $250,00 with a family.
Progressive taxation is predicated on the notion that those with the ability to pay more as they earn more do so. That's not arbitrary. Basing a tax code on the ability to pay sounds pretty damn rational and delineated to me...not arbitrary at all.
I would prefer that everyone who pays taxes receive tax relief.
Everyone that works does pay taxes--Payroll taxes. When one concentrates only on the income tax that's not true. We're you opposed to the Bush tax cut of 2001 b/c the highest income bracket got much more out of the tax cut than they put in...
(it was disproportional)?
Taking from high wage earners and giving to low wage earners is punishment. It discourages success. It discourages hard work and high achievement. It gives people something for nothing. It punishes small business, which is the backbone of our economy.
How do you know progressive taxation discourages success. In the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. The US enjoyed its highest standard of living in that decade. How could that be if businesses were discouraged?
If people in the top tax bracket don't want to pay that tax on the dollars in that bracket, they are welcomed to earn less and get the hell out of the way of more 'hungry' people looking to earn top bracket dollars. The free market at work my friend. If you don't want it, someone else will take it.
I have never said I favor "unmoderated pure capitalism." I think the market should be regulated. What I oppose is raising anyone's taxes, particularly when raising those taxes is fund some federal government program. Haven't you noticed how bad the federal government is at managing our money?
That depends. If you're talking Social Security, then gov puts all like private enterprise to shame. If you're taking about a bridge to nowhere or an illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq, then I would agree with you.
Also, what doesn't get talked about enough is raising taxes on business punishes everyone. Increased cost of goods and services are passed along to consumers. We raised the general excise tax here a few years ago and businesses just passed those increased taxes on to us.
I have no problem with this at all. It's like insurance. The costs of government via business tax is spread around the population....sort of like insurance.
-
If people in the top tax bracket don't want to pay that tax on the dollars in that bracket, they are welcomed to earn less and get the hell out of the way of more 'hungry' people looking to earn top bracket dollars.
I think this summarizes why we will never agree on this. We have a fundamental disagreement. It's also the difference between the rhetoric/philosophy of Obama vs. McCain. What you're saying is you can work hard, make money, but just not too much or the government will take it from you and give it to someone else. That's not how government should work.
I'll have to find the quote from Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" book. It sounds like you fall into that category of people who are jealous of those who make a lot of money. I don't know if that's true, but that's the impression I get.
-
If Jesus existed.He was a socialist.HTH
-
China.
Wrong.
-
If Jesus existed.He was a socialist.HTH
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
Right.
-
I think this summarizes why we will never agree on this. We have a fundamental disagreement. It's also the difference between the rhetoric/philosophy of Obama vs. McCain. What you're saying is you can work hard, make money, but just not too much or the government will take it from you and give it to someone else. That's not how government should work.
We've had progressive income taxation for almost a 100 years in this country.
You are proposing a radically different approach with your presumed flat-tax approach to governmental revenue.
Your paraphrase of my view on the matter is wrong. Here is my view: under a progressive tax everybody pays the exact same rate of tax at the same bracket. Warren Buffet pays the same tax rates I do.
10% on the income between $0 and $11,450
15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00
25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00
28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00
33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00
See? Buffet pays the same rate I do for every dollar earned up to the 25% bracket limit. He pays a higher rate of tax on the dollars earned in the 28, 33, and 35% brackets.
I'll have to find the quote from Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" book. It sounds like you fall into that category of people who are jealous of those who make a lot of money. I don't know if that's true, but that's the impression I get.
It sounds like you've rationalized your understanding of progressive taxation to the extent that you demonize it and the people supporting it. You can't make a sound argument based on the merits of the tax itself, instead you impugn the motives and character of your philosophic opponents.
To paraphrase you: "If one supports the progressive income tax, he/she must be jealous of rich people."
I've pointed out that the PT treats all americans equally and that it is predicated on the basis of ability to pay.
You respond by calling me 'jealous' and restating your irrelevant hatred for redistribution of money by the government.
Do you hate the redistribution of the income tax dollars earned in the 35% bracket or all brackets (which include payments by the working poor to bail out millionaire bankers)?
-
Good points all around.
One way Ireland helped its economy is to cut capital gains taxes.
Many of us think our government has become too big with too much waste. I am very hesitant on any policy that increases taxation because first the gov must reduce its waste and its excessive spending.
-
The country was founded on the notion that the gov works for the people and is accountable to the people. One of the biggest criticizms of the Bush administration is that he spent our $ like crazy! We need to send a clear message to washington that is unacceptible. Thats why I supported Ron Paul.
Something like universal health care, if done right with gov oversight instead of control might work because everyone benefits from it. However, there are great challenges because the country is so large and we spend so much on expensive proceedures and end of life care.
-
The country was founded on the notion that the gov works for the people and is accountable to the people. One of the biggest criticizms of the Bush administration is that he spent our $ like crazy! We need to send a clear message to washington that is unacceptible. Thats why I supported Ron Paul.
Something like universal health care, if done right with gov oversight instead of control might work because everyone benefits from it. However, there are great challenges because the country is so large and we spend so much on expensive proceedures and end of life care.
It would seem that nothing short of a national disaster would force politicians to freeze spending and become responsible.
I still think the problem with spending is something inherent in the political process itself. Politicians are elected and re-elected b/c they bring home federal spending (for the most part) which means jobs. People like jobs and vote for candidates that supply them. It becomes self-perpetuating.
That's a hard cycle to break.
-
Very true. Thats why pork projects have to go. Both Obama and McCain talk about this but it will be incredibly difficult to change the system since pork is an integral part of how bills are eventually agreed on and passed. If you look at the system, its pathetic pandering. It would be so much more simple to just vote on a single clear ammendment without all the sub-ammednment pork projects. Then we can also hold each politician accountable for their votes on 1 particular item.
I also feel that voting present is not acceptible. We elect leaders to vote on our behalf. Make the ammendments clear and about 1 single issue then force everyone to vote. You can't vote present to avoid sensitive and controversial votes! (I know its more complicated than that but thats the general idea). Some of our inherent traditional gov complexities have caused self-inflicted disorder.
-
We've had progressive income taxation for almost a 100 years in this country.
You are proposing a radically different approach with your presumed flat-tax approach to governmental revenue.
Your paraphrase of my view on the matter is wrong. Here is my view: under a progressive tax everybody pays the exact same rate of tax at the same bracket. Warren Buffet pays the same tax rates I do.
10% on the income between $0 and $11,450
15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00
25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00
28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00
33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00
See? Buffet pays the same rate I do for every dollar earned up to the 25% bracket limit. He pays a higher rate of tax on the dollars earned in the 28, 33, and 35% brackets.
It sounds like you've rationalized your understanding of progressive taxation to the extent that you demonize it and the people supporting it. You can't make a sound argument based on the merits of the tax itself, instead you impugn the motives and character of your philosophic opponents.
To paraphrase you: "If one supports the progressive income tax, he/she must be jealous of rich people."
I've pointed out that the PT treats all americans equally and that it is predicated on the basis of ability to pay.
You respond by calling me 'jealous' and restating your irrelevant hatred for redistribution of money by the government.
Do you hate the redistribution of the income tax dollars earned in the 35% bracket or all brackets (which include payments by the working poor to bail out millionaire bankers)?
Our tax system does not treat people fairly, because it increases the percentage of tax you pay over some artibtrary number.
Here is the excerpt from Bork's book that I was talking about:
"Progression today sets in for a married couple at an income of $38,000, and the next higher bracket begins at $91,850. Those incomes are certainly not large enough to distort the evaluation of inputs between such couples and couples making $25,000. The difficulty of assessing the ratio between inputs and outputs does not exist. The ratio assessment problem cannot account for even more dramatic examples of progression. A family with a $500,000 income pays $154,000 in taxes while a family with an income of $45,000 pays $3,800. 'With eleven times the income, the rich[er] family pays 40 times the taxes.' Something besides a suspicion of skewed ratios is obviously in play. Even if a discrepancy in wealth or income were great enough to make ratio assessments difficult, the presumption [James Q.] Wilson describes favors denying that the inputs of the richer person can really be great enough to justify his rewards. Why that presumption? Why not a presumption that the richer person has in fact merited his wealth? The presumption Wilson describes is not explained by the difficulty of comparing inputs and outputs. If difficulty of assessment does not explain current rates of progression in the tax code, the only remaining explanation seems to be envy."
-
Our tax system does not treat people fairly, because it increases the percentage of tax you pay over some artibtrary number.
Here is the excerpt from Bork's book that I was talking about:
"Progression today sets in for a married couple at an income of $38,000, and the next higher bracket begins at $91,850. Those incomes are certainly not large enough to distort the evaluation of inputs between such couples and couples making $25,000. The difficulty of assessing the ratio between inputs and outputs does not exist. The ratio assessment problem cannot account for even more dramatic examples of progression. A family with a $500,000 income pays $154,000 in taxes while a family with an income of $45,000 pays $3,800. 'With eleven times the income, the rich[er] family pays 40 times the taxes.' Something besides a suspicion of skewed ratios is obviously in play. Even if a discrepancy in wealth or income were great enough to make ratio assessments difficult, the presumption [James Q.] Wilson describes favors denying that the inputs of the richer person can really be great enough to justify his rewards. Why that presumption? Why not a presumption that the richer person has in fact merited his wealth? The presumption Wilson describes is not explained by the difficulty of comparing inputs and outputs. If difficulty of assessment does not explain current rates of progression in the tax code, the only remaining explanation seems to be envy."
And what a fine quote that is. Robert Bork has an inflated sense of autocratic importance to guide his extreme suppressive rightwing beliefs. That's why he was shitcanned as a Sup. Ct. Justice nominee and rightly so.
Remember in that same book Bork opined that the US's leftwing and it's terrible tool of control (political correctness) portended a new dark ages where only pockets of civilization would exist protecting true scholarship. Of course those pockets would be populated with quasi-fascist extremists like Bork, himself.
This little snippet looks like typical Bork nonsense. Notice how he mentions nominal tax rates and is silent about effective tax rates? This jack-ass never heard of deferred comp, exemptions or deductions.
Take a look at the history of marginal tax rates in this country:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
The top marginal rate that has Bork crying like a pussy about envy is roughly 1/3 of the rate in the 1940s and 1950s (a period of incredible growth with a high standard of living).
Oh yeah, look at how he states your jealousy argument...an assumption totally pulled out of his ass. Forget ability to pay or the like....it's envy.
-
Right.
Please show proof of your claim.
Show me how Jesus endorsed government redistribution of wealth, where the bible endorses a punitive progressive tax system, or a government nanny state over individual liberty.
-
Wrong.
Didn't the Bible quote Jesus as saying "give to every one who begs from you"
???
-
I do believe the Bible quote jesus as saying "
Didn't the Bible quote Jesus as saying "give to every one who begs from you"
??
There is a big difference between you and I giving to help our brothers in need and the government acting as the middle man doing it for us.
Jesus didn't say give your coins to Ceasar and let him decide which beggar to give to.
-
There is a big difference between you and I giving to help our brothers in need and the government acting as the middle man doing it for us.
Jesus didn't say give your coins to Ceasar and let him decide which beggar to give to.
Actually he did. Wasn't Jesus asked about Taxes? Didn't he ask him to look at the coin and see whose face was on it, then he said give unto Caesar that which is his, ...and give unto God that which is his? Jesus supported taxes. :P
-
Actually he did. Wasn't Jesus asked about Taxes? Didn't he ask him to look at the coin and see whose face was on it, then he said give unto Caesar that which is his, ...and give unto God that which is his? Jesus supported taxes. :P
totally taken out of context.
read it again and get back to us.
and the discussion wasn't about taxes (which I support btw) it's about whether he'd be a socialist.... which is actually a stupid argument... how'd i get sucked into this? ???