Large Scale Central

Socialism?

General Discussion
#161

I try to avoid name calling and give the respect the man is due…but when you screw up this bad it becomes difficult. Nobody is imune. Bush senior, on the event of welcoming newly elected Senators asked of the Senator from Minnesota, “Who is this chicken s***”?". Seems even presidents are not above “name calling”. It is so much easier to respect one who shares your views.

I had a deep respect for George Sr, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. I would never use disparaging terms for them. “Mr. President” fits them, they earned the title. Try as I might I cannot put Jr. in the same boat.

I wish the GOP a speedy recovery.

#162
Mark Verbrugge said:
I wish the GOP a speedy recovery.
I prefer to remove them from life support :D Ralph
#163

I give a certain level of respect automatically. But more must be earned AND maintained. Bush the Junior LOST my respect over numerous items, especially leaving Gen Powell hang out to dry before the UN. His presence is much smaller than his father’s so therefore “Shrub” instead of “Bush”…tho, I’m still trying to figure out how the left can see him as an incompetent bungling idiot in one sentence and an evil genius in the next… He’s probably a good man, just not a very good president.

Mr Wonderful (OK, president-elect Wonderful) OTOH has done little to EARN any respect from me, at least yet. He can talk the talk with the best, but what else CAN he do? Raise money for elections? He cannot walk on water. I think he’s coming to realise that he probably can’t do HALF the crap he promised (even with congress mostly in his pocket)… time out for a reality break? I’m betting he’s probably going to prove rather mediocre as president, but mostly trying to reserve judgment… but all these people praising him to high heaven just because he ISN’T Dubya, makes me dig my heels in. I may be dumb, but I ain’t stupid, ain’t NOBODY that perfect…soooo…

I do respect the office, I don’t have to respect the person IN it.

#164
Mik said:
...........

His presence is much smaller than his father’s so therefore “Shrub” instead of “Bush”…tho, I’m still trying to figure out how the left can see him as an incompetent bungling idiot in one sentence and an evil genius in the next…


Mik,

The evil genius label applies to Cheney and Rove, not to Dubya.

There have been some very interesting interviews on CBC Radio concerning both Cheney and Rove, their MO and their background.

For that very special someone of the neo-con Republican persuasion on your list.

#165

Aw c’mon HJ you can’t have it BOTH ways…either the man is an idiot, or he’s a genius AND a wonderful actor for buffaloing everybody for so long on Iraq, and everything else… Cheney isn’t THAT good of a ventriloquist.

Either that or a great many people in congress, the press, AND the general public are/were dumber than he is (which, is a rather scary thought… considering who’s been anointed now)

Gah, what’s a moderate to do?

#166

There is a real easy way to “change” everything back to where it will work, it is real easy, and it will take away all the fighting and bickering and politics. It is not my idea, some have heard about it, some not, once you hear it, take time to think about it, I did, and I am convinced it is the way out of this mess.

I am a conservative, just so you know, I believe I have the right to make MY decisions for me and my family, not the people in Washington, or my state, or my town I live in, a lot of people have died for that right!!!
And I hold that right dearly.

What is it you ask - The flat tax, tax EVERYONE the same amount to what you make. It is FAIR, it takes the lobbyists, special interests, and all the pork out of Washington.

The poor pay there share, the rich pay theres, EVERyONE has a stake in how much Washington spends, and where its going.

You will have a tremendous amount of money coming into the economy, and our governments will get more also. But there will be no HIDDEN taxes that you dont know about, no politician hiding stuff from US, the people who PAY.

Please think about ALL the things it could do, they can raise that percentage of what everyone pays, only if we allow them to. It will simplify EVERYTHING.

There is so much detail where it will work if you think about it. I cannot write all here, but please think about it.

Ron, I admire you true American spirit, where people want the right to make there OWN decisions, not some stupid politician making you do these things, and to take away our FREEDOMS.

Mike, I respect your view, but you want other people making decisions for you, I disagree totally with that, our country was founded on the principle that our founding fathers were sick and tired of being told what to do, you as a history teacher should remember that dont you? They were sick of the over taxation, they were sick of the governments(monarchy) hand in there pockets all the time.

You cannot take money from people who are earning it and creating wealth, and give it to people who are not. Thomas Jefferson wrote something about that it is not the governments right to do that, but I cannot find it.

I have said it before, there WILL be a Boston Tea Party in my lifetime( I am 46) there will come a time we will have to take back our country again.

Tom Huisenga

#167

Mik,

Looks like you didn’t get it, Dubya is no genius of any kind. I’m willing to give credit where and when it’s due, Dubya and genius of any kind are at opposite poles of the spectrum and this is a linear spectrum as opposed to a circular one. :wink: :slight_smile:

“Marvin the Marvellous” really got on my case one time in the very early parts of the decade, he didn’t like me calling Dubya what he is: a not so smart backwoods conservative with a very narrow perspective.

#168

So a person making $7.00 an hour should pay, say, 10%, so the wealthy can save 25% ?
This is your idea of fair?
The fact is, life isn’t fair. A police officer or soldier risk their lives for very little pay while others make millions without leaving their homes.
Unless wealth is distributed fairly, we shouldn’t worry about taxing the wealthy fairly.
Ralph

#169
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Mik,

Looks like you didn’t get it, Dubya is no genius of any kind. I’m willing to give credit where and when it’s due, Dubya and genius of any kind are at opposite poles of the spectrum and this is a linear spectrum as opposed to a circular one.


Which leaves us with option #2… A great many people in congress, the press, and the general population must be dumber than he is… :frowning:

Lest you forget there was a HUGE amount of support at the time for going IN to Iraq… (kind of like all the picnickers who went to see the Rebs get spanked at Manassas) On that note, maybe those Islamic extremists were right, the west has become jaded and idolent and doesn’t have the stomach to win a long fight anymore… I hope not. I didn’t agree with going IN to Iraq, but I agree with McCain that now that we are there we should end it honorably.

#170

Tom H,
On the one hand you are saying that there should be one tax level collected by governementand then you say you don’t want any government.
With a desire for no government interference in our lives it sounds to me like you are proposing anarchy?
That has also been tried un successfully.
If you have a formula for making a society work without any form of government please elucidate us all.

BTW I too agree with a flat rate tax.
A Tobin Tax would work just fine. It would be imposed on ALL financial transactions. Including every banking transaction. There would be so much money available the rate could be less than 1%.

Edited for grammar and a spelling mistake.

#171

Ralph, where does it say in the Constitution that wealth has to be distributed equally? You are correct in saying life isnt fair, but you should NEVER take from someone else who is working harder and give it to someone else who isnt, that is stealing.

Flat tax is a tax on what you earn, lets say some is making $7.00 per hour, he makes $25,000.00 per year, lets say it is 10% , he pays $2500.00 in taxes. Lets say someone makes 1 million dollars per year, he pays $100,000.00 per year. Please, you dont think thats fair, then EVERONE is paying, there are no FREE rides. And the wealthy do pay more, because they earn more.

But, charity is from the heart, not from government. Individuals will give to charity to take care of the less fortunate.

I went to Norway 2 years ago, I talked to our guide who was very intelligent, college grad. She said the worst thing about her country which is socielist, was it took all the incentive to be creative, took the drive away to succeed. It was destroying her country from within. Nobody had any drive to do anything to help themselves, every decision was made for them, they were becoming mindless.

It really made me look at our country different, I really appreiciate it now.

You were correct in saying that athletes make way to much money, but who supports them, I stopped watching baseball and everything else in 94 when the strike happened, from then on I stopped supporting professional sports, MY choice, you can make one to.

Tony, I did not say no government, but really, really limited, protect us, and infastructure, keep it really basic, the more it gets in the way, the worse it is

Tom Huisenga

#172
tom huisenga said:
Ralph, where does it say in the Constitution that wealth has to be distributed equally? You are correct in saying life isnt fair, but you should NEVER take from someone else who is working harder and give it to someone else who isnt, that is stealing.

Flat tax is a tax on what you earn, lets say some is making $7.00 per hour, he makes $25,000.00 per year, lets say it is 10% , he pays $2500.00 in taxes. Lets say someone makes 1 million dollars per year, he pays $100,000.00 per year.

Tom Huisenga


I never said money should be distributed equally or fairly. I said that it isn’t distributed fairly. So we shouldn’t worry about it being taxed fairly or equally.
If you make $7.00 an hour…you make $14,560 a year. Hardly enough to live on, much less pay $1456.00 in Federal taxes, not to mention sales tax.
Ralph

#173

Ralph, there would not be sales tax, ONLY a flat tax on income, it would eliminate all taxes except on income. Or Tonys idea about finiancial transactions, or a national sales tax, either one makes sense. Go to the KISS method, keep it simple stupid(not you). Your right, making that per year would not make it, but you have the CHOICE to get another job, start your own business, dont look for the government to fix the problems, they cant, YOU and everyone needs to take there life choices in there own hands, we need to stop relying on other people to get ahead or to get take money from.

Please think about it, no sales tax, no gas tax, no sociel security tax, no payroll tax, no tax upon taxes, only ONE tax, on income, or a national sales tax.

It gets government operations in the open for all to see, and EVERYONE has to pay, there are no free rides.

I have seen in Chicago when people get free housing because they tore down Cabrini Green(public housing) and in 2 years everything was tore apart, because they did not care about it,but make them pay part of it, and put some consequences on the owners, you would get a whole lot of different attitudes about there housing.

tom huisenga

#174

The trouble with the tax code isn’t the tax rates, it’s the loopholes. If you think even a flat tax wouldn’t have loopholes, you’re crazy. If you think a flat tax would be sufficient to keep the wealthy from squirreling their money away out of sight of the government, you’re definitely benefitting from some mind-altering substances.

A flat tax sounds like a great idea, but it overlooks some very key economic situations. First, as Ralph points out, there’s baseline amount that a person has to earn just to make ends meet–feed him/herself and children, pay rent, transportation to and from work; basic living needs. You’ll need to pick an income level at which you start to pay taxes, because the government should not in all fairness tax one into the street. Where do you set that level, and what do you do to the person who crosses over that threshold, who all of a sudden sees his take-home income slashed considerably because he got a promotion which raised his income above that level?

Second, if you remove all those other taxes (payroll, sales, social security, etc.) your tax base falls through the floor, so your income tax rate has to increase to meet the government’s budget. Personal income taxes made up less than half of the total tax revenues for 2006 (roughly 1 trillion out of 2.4 trillion). So, by just using a flat income tax, and using the reported “average” tax rate of 12.6% for that year, you’d have to tax everybody equally at almost 31% of their income for the numbers to balance out. Something tells me that even the top 1% would be a might upset at that one…

Now, one can argue that since the employer is no longer paying his/her share of the Social Security tax, nor paying other payroll taxes, that they would pass that revenue onto the employee in the form of higher wages. Even if that were to happen (about as likely as me playing in the Super Bowl), it’s still a bum deal for the employee, because his wages are now higher. Assume a base wage of $1000/month. The employer’s and employee’s Social Security contribution is $62.00 respectively, $124 combined. Now, assuming the employer gives the employee that $62, since he’s no longer paying it himself. The employee’s monthly compensation is now $1062. The Social Security tax portion of that would be 12.4% of that, or $131. The employee may get a “raise,” but at the end of the day, he has less money after taxes. For the net impact on the employee to be negligible, the rate of pay would have to be “grossed up” above the employer’s tax burden to compensate for the increased tax burden on the employee. Essentially, such a structure would either cost the employer more money in order to be fair to the employee, or it would ultimately lay an increased burden on the back of the employee.

That also assumes that the savings inherent in removing things like the gas tax and other such revenue streams would be passed on to the consumer, so that what he has left after taxes would be able to go farther. See my note above about playing in the Super Bowl. So-called “tax holidays” are great for politicians because it makes it look like they’re doing something for the average Joe. The savings, however, almost invariably don’t make it to the consumer. I’ve seen “gas tax” holidays come and go, and the price of gas never changes. Oh, it goes down for a day or three, but then it’s right back up.

Personally, I think a graduated tax scale as what we currently have is probably the most fair way to do things. What needs to happen (and I’ve argued this previously) is that the loopholes need to be closed so what people report on their 1040s is actually reflective of what they made, not just what they were unable to hide.

Later,

K

#175

Kevin.
I understand everything you are saying.
That is why a Tobin tax on every financial transaction is such a foolproof idea.
There is no need for any other taxation. Period.
There is no way of avoiding it. Especially by the rich.

I know it has been poo pooed. The question we should be asking is, “who is it that will not consider the idea”?
The vested interests that would finally have to pay up comes to mind.

#176
Kevin Strong said:
The trouble with the tax code isn't the tax rates, it's the loopholes. If you think even a flat tax wouldn't have loopholes, you're crazy. If you think a flat tax would be sufficient to keep the wealthy from squirreling their money away out of sight of the government, you're definitely benefitting from some mind-altering substances.

A flat tax sounds like a great idea, but it overlooks some very key economic situations. First, as Ralph points out, there’s baseline amount that a person has to earn just to make ends meet–feed him/herself and children, pay rent, transportation to and from work; basic living needs.

Personally, I think a graduated tax scale as what we currently have is probably the most fair way to do things. What needs to happen (and I’ve argued this previously) is that the loopholes need to be closed so what people report on their 1040s is actually reflective of what they made, not just what they were unable to hide.

K


Kevin,
I agree, the graduated tax scale is fair, and yes, we need to remove the many loopholes.
A flat tax would never eliminate sales tax, or property tax. Not to mention state income tax. That would transfer control of funding away from the local level and we would all have to grovel with the fed for funds.
As for the Tobin tax, I’m not familiar. Time permitting, I will research it.
Ralph

#177

If Tobin tax is similar to a VAT then there is tax charged on top of tax on top of tax (and ON the tax already levied) at every level of production…which means most of it is hidden and stuff costs too much at the end.

#178
tom huisenga said:
Ralph, there would not be sales tax, ONLY a flat tax on income, it would eliminate all taxes except on income.Go to the KISS method, keep it simple stupid(not you). Your right, making that per year would not make it, but you have the CHOICE to get another job, start your own business, dont look for the government to fix the problems

Please think about it, no sales tax, no gas tax, no sociel security tax, no payroll tax, no tax upon taxes, only ONE tax, on income, or a national sales tax.

It gets government operations in the open for all to see, and EVERYONE has to pay, there are no free ride
tom huisenga


Tell the 10 million unemployed they have a choice. The fact is, the wealthy are responsible for the fact we no longer have choices. Costs have doubled and tripled since the mid 70’s, yet unskilled labor is still $7-$8 an hour. Wages for the working class have gone down, while the wealthy have gotten wealthier.
It is not the laborer that has sent all the jobs out of the country.
General Motors will soon be down to 62,000 employees, half of what they had in 2003. I don’t have the figures from 1975, but I’d be willing to bet it is more than double the 2003 figure.
Unfortunately, we are now suffering the consequences of a lack of government regulation. Greed is running rampant in the world. If we don’t let the governments of the world “fix” things, 3% of us will be living like Kings while 97% of us starve to death.
Ralph

#179
tom huisenga said:
...You were correct in saying that athletes make way to much money, but who supports them, I stopped watching baseball and everything else in 94 when the strike happened, from then on I stopped supporting professional sports, MY choice, you can make one to...Tom Huisenga
I wish I could choose but those billionare owners and jerk-wad millionaire players got me where it hurts. I paid extra sales tax's ages ago to build a dome but the greedy clowns keep coming back for more. I pay additional sales taxes in my county for a baseball stadium because the dome we built the last time is "lousy for baseball". Every sports team and millionare owner/player is getting in line for more. Now the football team has threatened they will leave if they don't get a new stadium too! Maybe we can turn the abandoned dome into a homeless shelter.

When I complain about having to subsidize the university teams I’m told we need a great team to attract the best, bull! If this were true Harvard and Yale would have the best football/basketball teams around. I guess they are such “poor” schools because they don’t have free farm teams for the pro’s.

I pay plenty in taxes to the rich, time for us to take some back!

#180

Personally, what I find amusing is all the individuals that really think they aren’t going to get hit with one heck of a tax increase within the first 100 days after the next administration takes office. And I’m not talking about all those individuals earning more than $175,000, $200,000, or $250,000 (you take a your pick) annually.

Has any body taken the time to actually think about all these “fat cat rich individuals” that everyone keeps talking about. I mean the last time I heard Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, worth approximately 57 and 50 billion each respectively. For that matter take the estimated wealth of all these individuals combined, and see just how close to the current $700 billion for the “bailout” (phase one) alone you get, and then try and figure out where the rest is going to come from.

Another thing that’s going to be fun to watch is when government breaks the sanctity of contract law, which they’ll have to do if they’re going to force renegotiation of all these “toxic assets”, unless of course they choose instead to continue on with the nationalization process. Not to mention the problems that will be encountered with the Tax Code, regarding forgiven debt.