"if the tax rates were lowered, less of our money would be going to the corporations you mention".
I can not for the life of me see how you can sit at your kitchen table paying your heating, electrical, and fuel bills and say such a thing. They give you more money, perhaps, but in exchange they see to it that those things from which they make profits are more expensive. Look at what's happening now, and I am not referring specifically to the situation in California. Aren't home heating or cooling bills rising? We all know that they are across the country. You are paying them like everyone else, hoping that they will be offset by the fabled tax cut. Your money is going directly into the coffers of the companies that provide you with necessities. It's a lesson learned over a hundred years ago in this country. You pay the company store. The extraordinary profits of the oil and energy regimes in the last three months are things that by law they cannot hide. They wish they could, and back then they could but instead now they have to devise ways to divert your attention.
And you buy in, hook, line, and sinker, while if you ran across one of the wonderful company execs on the street he'd push right past you or if necessary tell you to get out of his way. You're a minion, one of the many, and those you support don't give a flying pig if you live or die.
This country, not so long ago was filled over with people who were no longer useful. They were shucked aside to die, until along came social programs supported communally for the good of all by tax dollars. sure sometimes families took care of them if they could, not always as you claim, but now the children can't, won't or at least don't want that burden anymore in large measure.
posted on June 8, 2001 04:26:07 PM new
Borillar - I think both you and I know we're never going to agree on this.
When I refer to someone paying up to 50% of their income, I am speaking of people who have become successful in their jobs, and who's taxes are taken from a paycheck. People who are in business for themselves and are taking allowed (lawful) deductions are another issue. They are allowed many more deductions than the 'regular guy'. Big corporations are another issue unto themselves also.
After a person takes all their (limited) deductions off their gross income, some still pay 39.6% of what they've have to report as 'taxable income' to the US government. Then they pay their state and local taxes, real estate taxes, etc. Which would probably exceed the 50% amount I used. Those people are already working from January until June of each year to just pay their taxes. That is what I was referring to. AFTER they have taken all allowed deductions. For example a single man filing, *after* taking deductions, will still be in the 39.6% rate if his adjusted gross income is $144,175. I don't believe they should have to pay more. I feel 39.6% is ENOUGH.
As far as you're mentioning 'the backs of others', those on a lower income scale are given the same opportunity to make more money as anyone else is. If this were not so, how would you explain that many immigrants come to this country, with next to nothing, some who can't even speak our language and yet many become successful business owners? They are motivated and want to achieve.
You and I are in agreement as to what would be wonderful for all the school children to have. (Your list.) But unless people want to work all year and give every dollar they make to that cause, it's going to have to happen in smaller changes. Can't do it all at once. We have to spend our tax dollars on the basics...teaching children to read and write.
posted on June 8, 2001 05:01:14 PM new
krs - they give you more money...but.... I see that differently. They aren't 'giving' me more money, they're taxing me less....allowing me to keep more of what I've earned. It's not their's....it's mine.
And yes, I agree that all of our necessities have increased in cost over the years. But do I see that this is the first time it's happened? No. Am I happy about it? No. Do I believe this is something President Bush is doing to get us? No. Sure the people in the oil business are like any other business, their out to make money, and as much as they can. It's the American way.
I believe a lot of the recent increases we've seen would have happened the same way under Gore. IMO, it's because of supply and demand and the increased cost of businesses doing business. Salaries go up, cost of refining goes up, higher costs to meet enviornmental requirements, etc. If we weren't using so much gasoline the price would drop. Matter of fact it has dropped in the last month. Crude oil prices have been down for more than a month now. Hoping we'll see the results of that in a month or so.
And lastly, I'm not saying that I don't believe that those who are in temporarily need of help, shouldn't be helped. I said that many times before. It's just that the government keeps taking more and more of our income to redistribute, and I believe it's got to stop. When will it ever be enough?
American's have been taught to be consumers from childhood. We choose to consume and we're going to have to pay the price or conserve.
posted on June 8, 2001 05:58:15 PM new
Dear Deuce:
If you should happen to be talking with Barbara anytime soon, just point her towards General Motors. General Motors has not paid a single penny into the US Treasury since the mid-1950's. Maybe she just has the wrong CPA?
posted on June 8, 2001 06:06:44 PM new If you should happen to be talking with Barbara anytime soon, just point her towards General Motors. General Motors has not paid a single penny into the US Treasury since the mid-1950's. Maybe she just has the wrong CPA?
Not true!
GM has placed millions (billions?) into the coffers with taxes on their automobiles and income taxes on the many thousands of their workers throughout the ages.
To specifically address what I think you mean, as I am unaware of that statistic, can you provide me some facts regarding GM not paying a single cent in corporate taxes since the mid-'50's?
And BTW, how does this have anything to do with what I was speaking of?
posted on June 8, 2001 06:19:31 PM new"Borillar - I think both you and I know we're never going to agree on this."
I don't think so, Linda. I think that you and I, just like Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives are a lot alike. It is the politicians who try to divide us into categories to keep any one group from having too much power. Without the political hype, I think you'd agree that we can agree on a whole range of things and not attach any labels to it other than 'American'.
"When I refer to someone paying up to 50% of their income, I am speaking of people who have become successful in their jobs ..."
OK, we are definitely not talking about the same group of people. You are right about that. In fact, not only are you not talking about the top 1% of wealthiest Ameicans, you aren't even approaching the top 30% of Americans.
I prefer to think of these folks as "Upper Middle-Class", using the older definitions of what constitutes a Middle Class. Yes, the Middle Class of all ranges is neither represented in Washingtin nor is treated as anything but a target. I hate that and the people who want to see the Middle Class destroyed. I won't devolve this discussion into who I think wants the Middle Class gone.
Linda, I only wish to make two points here. The first is that if we hit the Delete key on all federal level programs to help those in need, we would have to pay as much as twenty times more in taxes than we do now. I am not going to get into a big explantion of what the Democratic Principles are, or used to be at any rate, but I will point out just the basics:
Here is a previous thread where I'll explain it a bit:
"#2 Hand out the cash, until the government is broke, on Welfare, Food Stamps and other "social aid" programs."
The first mistaken belief of conservatives is if we dissolved all of these agencies, everyone would have more money in their pockets. The truth of the matter is that these are fixes for social problems that you would end up paying a whole lot more for if these programs were not in place. Crime is one of the worst of the social ills and its sources are many and certainly, no one approach will fix everything. But you just can't lock everyone up. Imprisonment and punishment is not an effective crime deterrent. It's estimated from 88% to 92% of released prisoners re-offend. That means that we are torturing people for no reason - a very sick and sadistic society -- aren't we?
But the Helping Hand of Democratic policy is not solely in giving money away: it is an about free education, leveling the playing field so that anyone can compete and have a chance to pull themselves out of the ditch of poverty. You can't learn in school when you haven't eaten for two days. And starving persons who can not be employed or find employment will resort to criminal means to survive.
HISTORICALLY - Which is Better?
Which is cheaper in the cost of money and human suffering? The Democratic approach. It costs nearly twenty times as much cash to solve social ills the conservative way. Finally, the greatness of any civilization or society lies in how the least of their population is cared for. Should we be remembered for being so greedy that many starved to death at our doorsteps and we inside gluttonously filled up our plates?
*****
The second thing is that I advocate a Flat Tax as being the "most fair" way to tax us. One percentage for everyone. And NO, read again en-oh! deductions or credits!
Of course, only the lower income two-thirds of tax payers want this. For some reason, the upper 33% hate the idea and when back in 1992-1993 it was circulating about in Congress, it was killed in 1994, just after the Republican Revolution. Why was that? Do you think that the top 33% of tax payers actually WANT to pay more in taxes? Work it out for yourself!
There are few things you and I agree on, and while you were not addressing me, your post of:
[i]
I don't think so, Linda. I think that you and I, just like Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives are a lot alike. It is the politicians who try to divide us into categories to keep any one group from having too much power. Without the political hype, I think you'd agree that we can agree on a whole range of things and not attach any labels to it other than 'American'. [/i] a
and
The second thing is that I advocate a Flat Tax as being the "most fair" way to tax us. One percentage for everyone. And NO, read again en-oh! deductions or credits!
posted on June 8, 2001 06:26:32 PM new"And BTW, how does this have anything to do with what I was speaking of?"
Sorry, that's all I could glean out of your comment. If I am wrong, I apologize.
As far as a URL, that may be a bit hard. It was on several 60 Minutes segments in the early and mid 1990's if you want to go dig up the info. That was back when everyone was taling about the IRS, how bad the RIS was, and how totally unfair the tax system was. No one blamed Genral Motors for not paying any taxes, but were angry at the governement for creating so many loopholes and giveaways to the gigantic corporate states.
posted on June 8, 2001 06:50:59 PM new
Duece, did you hear the first words out of Tom Dashel's mouth today/yesterday? It was about attacking the Rich. When will these jackasses LISTEN TO US????
You know, if you read the history of the Democratic Party and the Liberal movement, I think that that you and Linda and many, many other Americans would reclassify themselves as that, or nearing that. The Democratic Party has strayed far, far away from its roots and has suffered for it. To see that they want to beat the same old tired drum about class warfare is just not going to impress a hell of a lot of people.
To reiterate: Conservatives want to use the so-called "tried and True Ways" to solve everything. For those things that it does work for, I think nearly everyone supports it. But it seems to me that conservatives want to apply the Old Methods and when, upon discovering that it does not fix the problem, they say "If at first you don't succeed, etc." Great! But after the second time, the third time, the forth time, and so on, and nothing gets fixed, nothing gets better -- Liberals say: let's think outside the Box, let's try something New. Let's try other things to fix it, since the Old and Tried and True aren't working!
And you know, the old Democratic Principles were established. The idea is to create a level playing field, not keep people dependent upon the state. That last thought was never there to begin with, but became a consequence later. The idea was that the force of government should level the playing field for all persons and to do what is needed to promote people to become self-sufficient and to get out of poverty. What's wrong with that, I ask you?
The first thing is that education should be free, or at least, higher education ought to be inexpensive. Educate the masses and you have skilled workers, not the chronically ignorant poor. But can a child or a man learn while having no roof over his head, no food in his belly, no clean clothes to wear? Are we such a greedy society that we cannot at least cloth them, feed them, house them, train them and make them tax-paying citizens. With all of our richness, are we to simply send them off to workhouses and prisons?
You have to realize that this came about before there was a permanent middle class. Before, as it had always been, there were just two classes: those who had EVERYTHING and those that had NOTHING and seldom did either of the two swap places. With the creation of the Democratic Principles, based upon a socialist agenda, we did create a middle class. The Middle class became a springboard to upper class monetarism. This would never have been possible had not Roosevelt changed our government to a Compassionate one, a Socialist one. Yes, they point to the Second World War as the cause, but that would not be true if the foundation of socialism was not established in America.
So, to make a too long story shorter, on the one hand is to level the playing field by caring for those who can not help themselves. Then, to also give education and opportunities to qualified individuals so that they can contribute to the system instead of being a burden on it. This, is what the Democratic Party has forgotten -- compassion. In addition, I must say, that the Republicans never had it to begin with.
posted on June 8, 2001 07:03:43 PM new
All right, so I guess you all want it like this:
No wealthy getting any cuts. Then, when they leave, and take thier business with them, you all can get a real cut-Job Cut!
krs; What do you do, pray tell; do you not have to work? Any monies you get back from the Fed should be a blessing, but you treat it like a curse. Have your rolling black-outs affected your rational?
If the wealthy inherited it from thier parents, earned it working (and yes, acting and sports are a job, just really well paying ones), then they should give it up? Because they have money? I feel we should all aspire to gain wealth, either spiritual or monitary, and use it to the best of our abilities, not have it given away like candy in a classroom.
Rick
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on June 8, 2001 07:19:06 PM new
Linda,
I don't think socialism is black and white.
I think we do need to offer medical coverage for everyone. That's socialism.
But I am not a socialist. I did live in GB for enough years to see the good and the not so good.
Nader doesn't think greed should be the be all and end all of corporations.
However you want to couch your philosophy, christian, eastern etc, there is the idea of enough when it comes to profit.
Personal responsibility is a given, but there is no personal responsibility for corporations who use government subsidies to start, maintain and abuse resources (people, environment, etc).
So if capitalism is suppose to be the perfect darwinian animal, why are the multinationals changing rules for their own kind of socialism?
See?
We can bash a woman because of a morality issue, but let's face it: It's far cheaper to cloth her, feed her and her kids and educate them all rather than penalize them how we do it is often the catch. I'd rather have a gov't funded school instead of one with Coke and Pepsi adds and Pizza Hut in the cafeteria. I would rather give her a home/health care rather than making some church arbiter of her soul. No one asks that of me, and I wouldn't ask that of someone else. I might insist they get their wonderbuns in detox.
I imagine we agree more than disagree.
Now, I have a future breadwinner waiting who wants to take me out to dinner!
Cap
ps I would have voted for Nader, but I couldn't let what ended up happening happen without at least trying.
Ironic eh?
pps Nearthesea...
A republic can have any form of governance, withing certain parameters...
You can have a mix of communism, socialism, and capitalism. AND be a democracy.
re·pub·lic (r-pblk)
n.
A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
posted on June 8, 2001 07:19:48 PM new
Borillar - Before saying goodnight, I wanted to comment on a few of the things you said.
First I believe the only way to get any serious changes made is going to be for a third party to be elected. Again, I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime. Without the financial support, like the two parties have, they won't (and don't) even get a chance to debate 'the big boys'.
On agreeing on a whole range of things: We might agree on what's needed, but I don't think we'd often agree on how to accomplish those goals as you seem to side mostly with the politics of the democrats.
On a flat tax: I have long believed that would be the best way to go.
As far as: it is an about free education, leveling the playing field so that anyone can compete and have a chance to pull themselves out of the ditch of poverty.
We all have the opportunity to avail ourselves of a free education, K-12. Parents, I believe, need to take a greater roll in working to keep their children in school until graduation. And low income people can apply for student loans if they are interested in secondary education. Many people have worked and put themselves through college. To me, that's just making excuses. People just have to want it bad enough and be willing to sacrifice
for it.
[i]You can't learn in school when you haven't eaten for two days[i].
With food stamps, WIC and other programs like school breakfasts and lunches, I have a hard time believing anyone is starving in this country. Maybe Moms not using the food stamps appropriately, but since she would only have to provide one meal a day, it could be a simple but nutritious one. I'm not saying it can't be happening, but I sure would be working two to three jobs to feed my children before I'd let them go hungry.
And starving persons who can not be employed or find employment will resort to criminal means to survive.
Here again, I think this is a big excuse many make. Borillar, there are plenty of people who don't want to work when they can live (even so poorly) on government assistance. It's easier, and by working they probably figure they wouldn't make much more than they do on welfare.
If a person cannot find employment, there are un-employment benefits already. If they didn't have a previous job...then I'd ask why not. If a person is disabled in some way, we also have government programs for those. It's not like the only choice these people have is to resort to criminal behavior to survive. That's nothing by an excuse!!!
It's my belief that there are plenty of areas in our national budget, where cuts could be made and those funds used in areas that need them more. There is plenty of wasted and misused, and abuse of the tax money we're already paying. The government doesn't need to keep taking more and more.
posted on June 8, 2001 07:33:44 PM new
The flat tax would be great, I just see too many special interest groups preventing it. Maybe someday the support will be greater than the special interests. Here's a link on the Armey-Shelby tax reform bill. It would be a nightmare for accountants and tax lawyers.
posted on June 8, 2001 09:46:36 PM new
Good Night, Linda!
I hope that you will concider this when you wake up in the morning.
I have always believed, as most people do, that being a part of the solution is bettter than being part of the problem. I have spent many years, weekends actually, volunteering my time to be part of the solution. I have worked with the poor: wanting to give them that grand, but naieve advice of yours. I swear, Linda, if you took ou the time to go preach your opnions and phylosophy to those who need it most and stick in there for years like I have, I doubt you'll have any different opinions than I do.
Linda, your opinion is just too simple. Everyone loves the idea of a simple solution to complex problems, but that is simply not realistic. Perhaps why people claim to be Republicans is that they have not spent their time working with the poor and impoverished and trying to make that wonderful phylosohpy work. I think that short of actual experience, you will always be on the other side of the fence, Linda.
posted on June 8, 2001 10:03:35 PM new
Ok I see that Capriole
Someone was saying Republicans were like Socialist Fascists or some such nonesense, I'm not sure how it went
But, before I go, you cannot compare Socialism with Capitalism
its apples and oranges, as Socialism is political, but attempts to bring economics into it. Capitalism is purely an economic concept.
Someone should read the book Greenspan wrote back in the '80's? and it applies to all this.
posted on June 8, 2001 10:03:39 PM new
Strangely, uaru, I happen to find myself agreeing with Dick Armey on most of it, and even weirder, I disagree that the first $36,500 should be tax exempt! There should never be ANY tax exemptions in a Flat Tax system; no loopholes, no deductions, no credits. For those who a Flat Tax rate would be too much of a burden, there are always government programs that they can take advantage of.
That Flat Tax proposal is the same one that was on the board in 1992-1993. Special interests killed it and the extra wealthy paid to have it killed. What chance does t have now when the lobbists are so strong that the President doesn't even try to make it a secret out of his dirty dealings against the American people?
posted on June 8, 2001 10:14:26 PM newBorillarStrangely, uaru, I happen to find myself agreeing with Dick Armey on most of it
If you can agree with a Republican from Texas then there is hope. The political scene isn't as black and white as you seem to paint it, it is a grey landscape. There is no army of darkness conspiring against the American people, and there is no knight in white armor that can kill the dragon. There isn't even a dragon.
posted on June 8, 2001 10:41:37 PM new
True, uaru. for those Republican Voters who voted for McCain and then had too much common sense to vote for a complete moron and putting the Oil companies into the Hen House, they are exempt. But for those who knowingly voted for Bush for whatever reason they had, it was serious breach of common sense and we are all paying for it -- litterally in many cases. Other disasters will come to fruition in the future as they slowly sink home. For those who voted for Bush, they only earn my distain -- and everyone else's as well.
posted on June 8, 2001 10:55:13 PM new
I know a lot of people that didn't vote the way I did. They don't think me lacking in common sense and I don't think them lacking in common sense. We simply disagreed on the issues and what was needed. We can still play a round of golf without beating each other with the clubs, we can still have drinks together without throwing our drinks in each other's faces.
Lighten up! Lighten up a lot!!
THE POLITICAL SCENE ISN'T AS BLACK AND WHITE AS YOU SEEM TO PAINT IT, IT IS A GREY LANDSCAPE. THERE IS NO ARMY OF DARKNESS CONSPIRING AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THERE IS NO KNIGHT IN WHITE ARMOR THAT CAN KILL THE DRAGON. THERE ISN'T EVEN A DRAGON.
posted on June 10, 2001 11:44:36 AM new
The price of gas is dropping? Where? Quick tell me!
I know Borillar has me on ignore, but yes I did vote for Bush. However, in RL, with people, I have never heard anyone so, so.. whatever about this. I know people, a lot of people who voted for Gore, as I know people who voted for Bush. I have close freinds who are liberal Democrats, and we are still good freinds. We still have dinner, go out, whatever.
My partner, 'dyed in the wool' Democrat, who voted for Gore, rooting that night all the way for Gore. The next day, sitting in the office, listening to what happened, after the second required recount, and how Gore wanted hand counts, he got pissed. He said, 'that is not the Gore I voted for' his own reasons I guess.
But he picked up MY phone, and had found the TN Campaign Headquarter number, and called it, on MY dime (told him, like they are going to listen to you? ) and told them something like 'I voted for V.P. Gore, but now, I wish I would not have, he has lost my respect as of now' of course they hung up on him it was a dumb thing to do, and on my phone too. And this was before anyone claiming they punched the wrong chad, or got mixed up on the ballot, or any courts were involved. He now agrees with some things, and disagrees with others in the Bush administration. I think he didn't switch parties either, I believe he is still a Democrat
posted on June 10, 2001 12:06:34 PM new
Borillar -
You said, "I swear, Linda, if you took ou the time to go preach your opnions and phylosophy to those who need it most and stick in there for years like I have, I doubt you'll have any different opinions than I do.
See, there you go again, making assumptions that I don't or haven't done anything to help the less fortunate. I have. And I wasn't preaching to them. Offering suggestions as to how they can better help themselves, or get the help they need, isn't preaching. It's trying to make them aware of the programs that are available to offer them temp. means of help to get back on their feet.
When I was helping to feed the homeless, it just got too depressing for me watching these people who didn't seem to want to help themselves. There have been times when I've felt my volunteer work made a difference in someone's life, so that's where I chose to give more of my time.
We each form our own opinions about issues from our experiences. So maybe in whatever area you're doing your work in, it brings satisfaction to you. Maybe you feel you're making a difference. I didn't preach to them, if they wanted preaching, they'd go to the San Jose Mission for help.
I helped prepare (during the week) and serve them food (on the weekends). I watched friends who were in construction offer them day jobs and I saw how most reacted. I listened to them share how they got where they were. My experience? A *lot* had problems with drugs and alcohol. A lot who could work, didn't want to even when offered the chance. Most were middle aged men, but there were a couple of women and a one very young man.
Sure there were a few who really wanted help, but IMO most I've come across chose the lifestyle they had. They shared they preferred it to having to be accountable to a boss, or the government or anyone. Well....that's their choice. And with that choice comes the consequences of those decisions.
posted on June 10, 2001 12:19:11 PM new
Capriole - I hope you enjoyed your dinner with your 'future breadwinner'. How nice.
Also, thanks for sharing/explaining some of your opinions with me.
For me there just seems to be too much waste and gov't seems to keep growing and growing, and along with that our taxes keep going up and up. There are few in Washington who seem interested in reducing waste, only adding more programs and more money into each project. It never seems to be enough.
At some point people are going to rebel against the constant increase in taxes. So...to me this tax cut at least tried to reduce the tax rate downward instead of upward.
I meant preach in the second definition, not the first or third. Your phylosophy delivered to those who could actually benefit from it. And even after having delivered it to those folks, you've learned that people that need that kind of guidance the most refuse at some point to accept it. Can churches make that any different? Shold people be left out on the street to die in the cold of winter simply because a horrible governement program might have saved them, but would have cost each of us collectively a couple of dollars a year?
Linda, all I am saying is that it is not black and white, as you pointed out. Simple solutions just will not wash and there is too much happening for any chruch agency or family to do eveything for. Most of these folks need mental health treatment, a way off of whatever they are on, and when they are stabilized in their lives with room and board, education and then an opportunity for employment. Just driving by and offering a job to the mentally ill isn't reality. Few church programs and even less familes can give the sort of long-term help that these folks need to get their lives straightened out.
I guess that just won't sink home, so OK, we'll never agree on how to help people out.
.
