PDA

View Full Version : OT: Time for Tea?



wierdscience
04-15-2009, 02:31 PM
Any US posters attend a Tea party today?

I missed it here,but about 1,300 showed up in our town of 20,000.

Rep,Dems,Indys even a few Commies showed up.Prolly won't make the news though since they didn't burn anything down,vandalise or loot any businesses and no one got arrested like at "Peace" protests:rolleyes:

Carld
04-15-2009, 02:37 PM
I thought about it but I was to busy to go.

Tinkerer
04-15-2009, 02:54 PM
Well I'm still working on the damn things... (yeah I know but I hate this paper work) but I'm there in sprit. But in the end we'll still get it in the end. It's not in their interest to let us keep our money. :rolleyes:

dp
04-15-2009, 03:10 PM
Wear a tea bag on your lapel. It's the best I can do.

TGTool
04-15-2009, 04:17 PM
Well, I beg to differ, but I don't think the tax proposal is really in our best interest. It's another version of the rich want more and try to persuade the rest of us that they're thinking of us. The consumption tax just means those with enormous incomes will spend a smaller percentage of that and pay a smaller tax as a percentage of income. The rest of us who consume most of our income on food, gas, electricity, housing etc, will be taxed on all of what we earn and spend. How is that to my advantage? :mad:

chief
04-15-2009, 05:07 PM
Reduce taxes across the board and go to a flat tax. Enough of the scams.
People at work thought obama's tax cuts were great until I showed them there weren't any. I was just a withholding adjustment and that next year their $45 a month "stimulus" would be taxed as income.
You can't tax and spend your way into prosperity just like you can't reason with despots and dictators.

madman
04-15-2009, 05:25 PM
Us Canadians only drink BEER

Rustybolt
04-15-2009, 06:40 PM
TGTool. Rich people create jobs. The government can't create a job unless it takes money from someone what has one. I'd rather let everyone keep more of their money. The less money in government hands, the better.

tony ennis
04-15-2009, 06:50 PM
I don't mind paying taxes. I like our military and our police forces. However, I feel that our government wastes and fritters away far too much of my hard-earned money to ever consider seriously the idea that they should have more.

mochinist
04-15-2009, 06:56 PM
Have fun tea baggin each other lol

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/richardcranium/brooksbros2_1.jpg

wierdscience
04-15-2009, 09:40 PM
Have fun tea baggin each other lol



Boy golly,you must be an expert tea bagger to come up with that reply LOL.

gnm109
04-15-2009, 09:52 PM
Have fun tea baggin each other lol

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/richardcranium/brooksbros2_1.jpg


They ran out of room, Mr. "mochinist".

sansbury
04-16-2009, 02:00 PM
I walked over to Boston Common yesterday for my lunch break and there was a modest but respectable crowd considering it was not your usual bussed-in, professionally-organized audience.

Consumption taxes look nice on paper but they are a bitch to implement. You need to have all sorts of credits to fix their regressiveness and there is a large incentive to cheat as the rates go up. A flat tax on income is almost as good in economic incentive terms and a lot easier for everyone to manage.

wierdscience
04-16-2009, 08:30 PM
I walked over to Boston Common yesterday for my lunch break and there was a modest but respectable crowd considering it was not your usual bussed-in, professionally-organized audience.

Consumption taxes look nice on paper but they are a bitch to implement. You need to have all sorts of credits to fix their regressiveness and there is a large incentive to cheat as the rates go up. A flat tax on income is almost as good in economic incentive terms and a lot easier for everyone to manage.

Consumption tax would take longer to implement,but would workout better in the long run since it's easy to police(it's already done by nearly every state and county already) and there is no longer any reason to hide money.So all that drug money and off shore accounts are suddenly not needed because no one cares where the money is coming from.

A flat tax would be a very good start,it's no mistake that China has fixed theirs at 15%.

MickeyD
04-16-2009, 09:21 PM
There is no way that I am going to go and hang out with a bunch of middle aged white guys who are talking about teabagging and guns and nazis. This is just too weird for me...

wierdscience
04-16-2009, 09:57 PM
There is no way that I am going to go and hang out with a bunch of middle aged white guys who are talking about teabagging and guns and nazis. This is just too weird for me...

A white,middle aged,tea bagging nazi?What does Keith Olberman have to do with this?

mochinist
04-16-2009, 10:53 PM
Boy golly,you must be an expert tea bagger to come up with that reply LOL.Thats a good one, I had a couple;e good responses also, but they all involved family members and I decided to be civil.:)


They ran out of room, Mr. "mochinist".excuses excuses, Mr. "gnm109".
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/moran-7512.jpg

Ryobiguy
04-17-2009, 12:26 AM
"Morans"... I was just thinking of posting that picture.

There's another picture along similar lines of a guy holding a sign "Who needs oil? I ride the bus!"

-Matt

Mad Scientist
04-17-2009, 01:05 AM
The constitution gives the government the sole right to “coin” our money. So why then did our illustrious congress turn this right over to a private bank, the FRB? (This is actually a group of banks, some of which are not even American owned.) Why are they in control of our currency and why are we paying interest on this money when it should be interest free?

So it looks like people are slowly waking up to this fact, and others, that there is something grossly wrong with the way government is managing our money.
Even if some of them can’t spell very well. :)

Mike Hunter
04-17-2009, 09:55 AM
Hummm let’s see, 25% federal tax, about 10% sate, FICA, SS, Medicare what another 10%, then figure in Sales tax, Gas tax, Property Tax etc. What’s that about ½ of your wages going to pay taxes?

And to top it off, the more productive you are the more you pay in taxes.

Real incentive to be productive...eh?

Couple of Ideas

Flat Rate 15% tax or everybody, simple, a guy that makes 10 K a year will pay $1500, A guy makiing 1M a year will pay $150K to live in this country.

Taxes would be due on the first monday in November, just before we vote.

Taxes will be paid in one lump sum. Most folks don't have a clue how much they pay when it automatically taken out of their check. BUT if they have to write a check for $20 K at the end of the year...then they will feel the pain.

sansbury
04-18-2009, 02:26 PM
Consumption tax would take longer to implement,but would workout better in the long run since it's easy to police(it's already done by nearly every state and county already) and there is no longer any reason to hide money.So all that drug money and off shore accounts are suddenly not needed because no one cares where the money is coming from.

There are three problems with a consumption tax. The first is that it will hit low-earners very hard compared to the current regime. That is a non-starter. You would probably need a much larger credit scheme like the EITC to rebate people every 2-4 weeks. I'm not sure I like the idea of expanding the number of people who get checks from the government, even if it is initially their money they get back.

The second problem is compliance. In Mass. sales tax is 5%. Some people will drive to NH to buy big things since there's no sales tax, but most of the time, it's not worth the trouble. As the sales tax rates goes up (I've seen estimates of 25-35% to totally replace income tax), the incentive to cheat goes up proportionally. Go into little bodegas in bad neighborhoods and you will find smuggled cigarettes in states where taxes are approaching $5/pack. At a 30% rate you'll see a lot of transactions move to the grey market with cash under the table. Instead of $50, hows bout you ring me up for $20 and I hand you a $20 and we call it even?

The third problem is that sales taxes are a lot more cyclical than income-based taxes. When times get tough, even people with jobs cut back, and sales tax receipts drop. Part of the reason California is such a mess is that most of their tax revenues come from capital gains and high-income people. In recessions it is not unusual for a millionaire business owner to actually have a year when they have negative income. As a result, a 5% drop in GDP translates into a much larger drop in tax receipts. Broad-based income taxes have much less variation. This means that governments need to do less borrowing, and debt is like heroin to governments.

Personally, if it was up to me, I'd like to see the federal government funded by payments from state treasuries rather than individuals, and most federal functions devolved to the state level. I would prefer this even if my tax burden didn't change and I simply went from paying 25% fed/5% state to 25% state/5% fed. This would create a new constituency to prevent growth of the federal government (state legislatures would want to keep the money for themselves) and would create a lot more opportunities for competition between states.

Rustybolt
04-18-2009, 02:51 PM
debt is like heroin to governments.


So's money.


Perhaps if we limited the scope of government to things which they are constitutionally obligated to do, then we'd all have a little more to spend for ourselves. Failing that, reasonable restrictions on the right to vote.

Your Old Dog
04-18-2009, 02:51 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/richardcranium/brooksbros2_1.jpg

It has more to do with speaking the language of the people you are speaking to. Not many of their target audience would notice anything wrong anyway :D

sansbury
04-18-2009, 06:05 PM
Perhaps if we limited the scope of government to things which they are constitutionally obligated to do, then we'd all have a little more to spend for ourselves. Failing that, reasonable restrictions on the right to vote.

No disagreement, but the hard part is figuring out how to do that. The federal government has grown in size pretty much every year the past 80 years or so. The only component of the federal budget that has ever been reduced in a meaningful way for any amount of time is defense, and even that has a way of creeping back up over time.

The only scenario I see for changing this is that the entitlement spending for the Boomers as they retire is going to require much higher taxation, and that might be painful enough that we see a period of reduced growth in other areas. As the boomers die off, perhaps we can keep the rest of the government from making up lost time too quickly. I am not optimistic though. It looks like we are about to do a dive into yet more healthcare spending and whether one agrees or not with the premise, there is no way that is going to be a cheap date.

Al Messer
04-18-2009, 06:13 PM
Your Old Dog, I think this sign (com-PET-nce)is a tongue in cheek poke at the fact that there seems to be more attention being paid to the "First Puppy" than to the "mess" we are in.

wierdscience
04-18-2009, 08:48 PM
There are three problems with a consumption tax. The first is that it will hit low-earners very hard compared to the current regime. That is a non-starter. You would probably need a much larger credit scheme like the EITC to rebate people every 2-4 weeks. I'm not sure I like the idea of expanding the number of people who get checks from the government, even if it is initially their money they get back.

The second problem is compliance. In Mass. sales tax is 5%. Some people will drive to NH to buy big things since there's no sales tax, but most of the time, it's not worth the trouble. As the sales tax rates goes up (I've seen estimates of 25-35% to totally replace income tax), the incentive to cheat goes up proportionally. Go into little bodegas in bad neighborhoods and you will find smuggled cigarettes in states where taxes are approaching $5/pack. At a 30% rate you'll see a lot of transactions move to the grey market with cash under the table. Instead of $50, hows bout you ring me up for $20 and I hand you a $20 and we call it even?

The third problem is that sales taxes are a lot more cyclical than income-based taxes. When times get tough, even people with jobs cut back, and sales tax receipts drop. Part of the reason California is such a mess is that most of their tax revenues come from capital gains and high-income people. In recessions it is not unusual for a millionaire business owner to actually have a year when they have negative income. As a result, a 5% drop in GDP translates into a much larger drop in tax receipts. Broad-based income taxes have much less variation. This means that governments need to do less borrowing, and debt is like heroin to governments.

Personally, if it was up to me, I'd like to see the federal government funded by payments from state treasuries rather than individuals, and most federal functions devolved to the state level. I would prefer this even if my tax burden didn't change and I simply went from paying 25% fed/5% state to 25% state/5% fed. This would create a new constituency to prevent growth of the federal government (state legislatures would want to keep the money for themselves) and would create a lot more opportunities for competition between states.

Like I have explained before.The objection to a sales tax in regards to the lower wage earners can be addressed.

No tax on food staples,bread and milk no tax,ice cream and caviar tax.

No tax on prescription drugs.

No tax on utilities.

No property tax of any kind.

Taxes on other items like cars can be equal footing,no tax on used cars the tax rate would be the same on new whether expensive or cheap.

Same with every mass produced consumer good,same rate,only the dollar amount of the tax increases.$9,000 car $1800 tax,$50,000 car $10,000 tax.

Now,this would also allow different rates for product life.Say a %20 rate on new consumer goods,but a %10 rate on remanufactured goods.Maybe we would be able to buy things that could be re-built when needed instead of hitting the landfill?Might also create some jobs for folks that can fix things?

Enforcement isn't that difficult.Most of the sales tax now is being collected by the big box stores,car dealers and larger small businesses.In my puny little state as a business we get audited by the state sale tax commission every 3-5 years,they do catch the cheats.

As far as cross line traffic there would be two,possibly three levels of sales tax.One uniform tax for the feds,one for the state and possibly one for the county or city.Since most of us are already paying the latter two,the prior would be the only thing new.

Of course the way government spends money now must change regardless of what system we chose and even if we keep the mess we have.The fed has too much it has taken over,there is no need for funding anything on the state level other than defense and infrastructure and the latter should be handled only with bond sales.

The way we spend money in the US should be made a constitutional matter like it has been in several states including mine.It is against our constitution to run a deficit in any program in any year.Taxes must be raise,costs must be cut if need be,but no debt is allowed to be carried.Any changes must be voted on by the representatives and then ratified by the people.The legislature doesn't have enough power by itself to write it's own checks.In other words limited government.

I told all this to a person the other day who replied"so what,I get food stamps" to which I replied,25% of your food stamps paid for the federal taxes of the store,the trucking company and the farmer.How is that for the "fair" system we have now?

Mad Scientist
04-19-2009, 01:05 AM
Couple of Ideas

Flat Rate 15% tax or everybody, simple, a guy that makes 10 K a year will pay $1500, A guy makiing 1M a year will pay $150K to live in this country.


This is a great idea whose time has come. This site & video explains how a fairtax would work.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=grassroots_lunch_videos



Taxes would be due on the first monday in November, just before we vote.

Now that I like! But can you imagine any of our politicians voting for it?:):) For something like that to pass we would need to have real statesmen in charge of the country and they are scarcer then hen’s teeth.


Taxes will be paid in one lump sum. Most folks don't have a clue how much they pay when it automatically taken out of their check. BUT if they have to write a check for $20 K at the end of the year...then they will feel the pain.

Of course and that is the real reason why the withholding tax was introduced. And by the way, as typical with many taxes, it was proposed as just a temporary war time measure during WWII.

sansbury
04-19-2009, 01:52 PM
No tax on food staples,bread and milk no tax,ice cream and caviar tax.

No tax on prescription drugs.

No tax on utilities.


So we'll just ring up the pint of ice cream as a pint of organic free-range milk.

The more things you exempt from sales tax, the more you need to tax other things to make up the revenue. With all your exemptions we will probably be looking at a 30-35% rate to replace income tax. At that level people will invest a lot more effort to evade it.

Also there will be a lot of lobbying to get your product/service designated a "staple" item and your competitors' a "luxury."


Now,this would also allow different rates for product life.Say a %20 rate on new consumer goods,but a %10 rate on remanufactured goods.Maybe we would be able to buy things that could be re-built when needed instead of hitting the landfill?Might also create some jobs for folks that can fix things?

So now you're going to use the tax code to enforce your preferences on the rest of us? We have the kinds of products we do because people buy what they want. Cars are manufactured to much higher standards today because people want reliable cars. Electronic gizmos are cheap and disposable because it is cheaper to replace inexpensive gizmos every couple years than to make them upgradeable. Things like appliances and tools are usually repairable if you buy the better grades available.

Anyway my bigger point is that too many people want to use the tax code to shape behavior to what they think is best for the country. Part of the reason I prefer a flat income tax is that it's completely neutral and stupid-simple to calculate, collect, and enforce.


The way we spend money in the US should be made a constitutional matter like it has been in several states including mine.It is against our constitution to run a deficit in any program in any year.Taxes must be raise,costs must be cut if need be,but no debt is allowed to be carried.

I wish I could be optimistic about this. I just see it being too easy to get 1/3 of states to vote against such a thing. The entire Eastern seaboard is pretty much guaranteed to go against it. Things won't swing back until 5-10 years when all the "millionaire's taxes" start hitting normal people. Then we may see some real pushback.

RobbieKnobbie
04-19-2009, 03:27 PM
also consider that if the average consumer is staring at a 35% tax on non-staple items, that would put heavy brakes on a ton of consumer spending in areas like durable goods. And it's the sale of such durable goods, to average Joe's - not the wealthy, that make up a vast majority of the spending in our economy.

People buy fewer washing machines and plasma TV's... and the guy who assembles appliances is soon out of work. That creates a downward spiral because our economy is supported by a philosophy of rampant throw-away consumerism. If people start fixing instead of replacing, we'd be headed into an even worse depression. (though the planet might be a little better off for the decreased production/landfill utilization)

How long can a world economy based on ever expanding growth sustain itself?

Teenage_Machinist
04-19-2009, 10:17 PM
No flat taxes. It would: A: be WAY too high for the poor, B: Not collect enough money to pay for stuff.

Or if by some miracle it was not too high for the poor, it would still be awfully low for the rich.

Sales Taxes: :mad:


I would suggest not too many. Perhaps a highly progressive income tax, an estate tax applying only to extremely rich inheritances (the "grandchildren need not work for a living" crowd), and a few special ones ( Gas Tax? Carbon Emissions Tax? Some of these could be very helpful, but should not be overly complicated. Tax paperwork is so annoying becuase it is complicated, and needs to be verifyed adding to the complexity. )


Productivity and Riches are not terribly closely linked. I have no trouble with paying skilled workers more than unskilled, or such. It follows that organizers and executives are payed more. But we are at the point where CEOs are payed so much mainly just because they were lucky or climbed the ladder enough. I think there should be no taxes on the class that cannot provide for itself (and a MUCH higher minimum wage. Should be able to live on a 40 hour work week without fear of homelessness due to illness). I still remember that thread I started where the Canadians, Brits, etc said that while imperfect their healthcare was reasonablly good while the americans argued about taxes and socialism.


No, rich people do not make jobs. They make dictators. What make jobs are governments with a lot of money going in and a lot going out, or companies with a lot of money going in and a lot going out- As opposed to the car companies we are bailing out, which paid executives.


Sanbury: "Reasonable Restrictions on the Right to Vote?" :eek:


All Hands On Deck! This is not a drill. Repeat, THIS IS NOT A DRILL! Man your battle stations! Fascist's inbound, high, 12 o'clock. Man all port side turrets. General Quarters All Hands!


while one can imagine a society in which the intellectual elite rule (Such would be fascism resistant as fascist groups generally consist of the elite and the uneducated who vote against their best interests) I do not believe we can restrict voting safely. People who cannot read will not be able to understand the ballot and therefore will not be able to vote. People who do not understand the political situation will not know who to vote for. If voting is mandatory, the ballots must have candidates in different orders to prevent the people who vote for the first of everything to perturb it.



Reduce taxes so you can spend money for yourselves? Easy for you to say, you are able to afford the computer to type that post on. So can I, but I believe that we must have more. Consider Norway, which has much more "robin hood" taxes. Consider Britain, which has a considerably lower GDP than the US, but not too much lower of a standard of living due to more even distribution of wealth. Mandate must serve us when altruism will not.


You do know that the Tea Act was actually a tax cut, right? Read Lies my Teacher Told Me

Frankly the present situation reminds me of the time leading up to the Russian Revolution. A huge food riot lead to the fall of the lord, but the replacement was a weak failure who changed little. Then came... The Commies. Possibly time to stop hating on them? They sound liek a suborbital shot in the right direction, when a few hundred miles is enough.

wierdscience
04-19-2009, 10:19 PM
So we'll just ring up the pint of ice cream as a pint of organic free-range milk.

The more things you exempt from sales tax, the more you need to tax other things to make up the revenue. With all your exemptions we will probably be looking at a 30-35% rate to replace income tax. At that level people will invest a lot more effort to evade it.

Also there will be a lot of lobbying to get your product/service designated a "staple" item and your competitors' a "luxury.".

Okay,so be a "mean"conservative and tax everything:D Sales tax would be more difficult to evade for the simple reason it won't include 64,000 pages of legalise gobbledygook and loopholes as far as the eye can see.




So now you're going to use the tax code to enforce your preferences on the rest of us? We have the kinds of products we do because people buy what they want. Cars are manufactured to much higher standards today because people want reliable cars. Electronic gizmos are cheap and disposable because it is cheaper to replace inexpensive gizmos every couple years than to make them upgradeable. Things like appliances and tools are usually repairable if you buy the better grades available.

Anyway my bigger point is that too many people want to use the tax code to shape behavior to what they think is best for the country. Part of the reason I prefer a flat income tax is that it's completely neutral and stupid-simple to calculate, collect, and enforce..

No,not to enforce,merely offer an option currently not available.Name one TV,DVD player or for that matter PC that is repairable.Haven't seen any,are there even anymore repair shops in existence?I haven't seen any in years.




I wish I could be optimistic about this. I just see it being too easy to get 1/3 of states to vote against such a thing. The entire Eastern seaboard is pretty much guaranteed to go against it. Things won't swing back until 5-10 years when all the "millionaire's taxes" start hitting normal people. Then we may see some real pushback.

You won't be taxed like a millionaire unless you spend like you are one.That is if we got to a sales tax.If you can't afford a Porsche,no problem,you will only pay tax on your Ford Focus.If we go with a flat tax I would be willing to bet all the deductions,exemptions, class warfare,and vote pandering will be alive and well.

Limiting what the fed is responsible for is key.Defense is a given,interstate highways and water ways are another.Beyond those there needs to be some sorting.I don't see a need for a federal agency,only for there to be a duplicate in each state.We have an EPA,do we really need it if we have a DEQ in every state?

In any rate something must be done,because what we have now isn't working.

I will also say that a consumption tax would do one thing that a flat tax won't.A flat tax will not bring all of the money sitting in closets and offshore accounts into the fold.

Mad Scientist
04-19-2009, 11:07 PM
Actually if you check the link in my earlier thread they are talking of a 23% tax not 35%. Now 23% may seem like a lot, but compare it to what we are currently paying. Oh I’m sorry I forgot with the complexity of our current system there is no way to definitively say just how much tax is included in the items that we buy.

Take a loaf of bread for example. From the time the farmer buys the seed to grow the grain and all the other ingredients that are needed are then brought together to produce that loaf of bread how many taxes were paid along the way? Everyone involved in enabling that loaf of bread to be produced will pass any taxes they have to pay onto the next person in the manufacturing chain. But you as the end user are stuck with eating all these included taxes.

So just how much is that? I don’t know how one could go about precisely calculating that number but I suspect that it would be a sizeable portion of the total cost.

So here then is the really neat part about our current system. If you cannot precisely say just how much you are actually paying in taxes how then can claim you are paying too much? :( A politician could not ask for a better system.

wierdscience
04-19-2009, 11:14 PM
Actually if you check the link in my earlier thread they are talking of a 23% tax not 35%. Now 23% may seem like a lot, but compare it to what we are currently paying. Oh I’m sorry I forgot with the complexity of our current system there is no way to definitively say just much tax is included in the items that we buy.

Take a loaf of bread for example. From the time the farmer buys the seed to grow the grain and all the other ingredients that are needed are then brought together to produce that loaf of bread how many taxes were paid along the way? Everyone involved in enabling that loaf of bread to be produced will pass any taxes they have to pay onto the next person in the manufacturing chain. But you as the end user are stuck with eating all these included taxes.

So just how much is that? I don’t know how one could go about precisely calculating that number but I suspect that it would be a sizeable portion of the total cost.

So here then is the really neat part about our current system. If you cannot precisely say just how much you are actually paying in taxes how then can claim you are paying too much? :( A politician could not ask for a better system.

Exactly,not to mention the army of accountants and tax attorney's along the way who are paid well to sort through and cheat past all that crap.

gmatov
04-19-2009, 11:57 PM
Wierd,

Why would a consumption tax bring all that offshore and in the closet bring any more of that money into the fold than a flat tax would? Or vice versa, even.

You have a consumption tax, you pay only on what you spend. You have 10 billion bucks offshore, you don't get taxed on it unless you buy LOTS of ice cream.

You have a flat tax, you pay only on what you earn in that year. It doesn't get you to bring back that 10 billion bucks in offshore banks.

I simply don't understand working poor, you probably fit that category, buying into the rich man's proposal that we should have taxes that exempt them from paying a fair share. Even John McCain said, on the hustings, that a man who makes more SHOULD pay more.

You fall into the trap of the Flat Taxers who preach that, the GDP being what it is, the rich will continue buying rich people's playtoys if they have to pay 15 or 35 or whatever percent on their new yacht.

10% was levied as an excise some years ago and the yachting industry nearly collapsed because the RICH refused to buy new yachts and pay that tax. Just BECAUSE it was a tax. That they could afford it, many buy more yacht than they need, hell, who needs a yacht, was beside the point. They refuse to spend and pay tax, period, full stop.

Flat tax will drop Federal Income, or will get it from the "common man", and that means that you will take it in the rear. You are not rich enough to benefit from your preference.

Consumption tax, you will take it in the rear when the rate rises enough to make up for what the rich will not spend.

The rich love when the peons insist that only flat or consumption tax is the "fairest" taxation. The tax rates were 90& on the margin some years ago. There was not a rich man who did not try to make even more money to pay that marginal tax on. There is not a rich man, today, who will not fight to make another dollar to try to avoid taxes on.

It is only estupidos who say they will quit working after they have reached such or so point of earnings, because "I LOSE money if I make another dollar." I worked with such people many years ago, when 10 grand was not a bad income. If they went to 10 grand plus one, they thought that their, say, 10% tax rate would go to 15% on all their earnings. not just that next buck.

They were dumb, and I think some of you who are proposing flat or consumption tax are just as dumb. 95% of the pop is not all that unhappy with the present tax code. 5% has all the money and can foment a tax uprising that is designed to lower THEIR taxes.

If you WANT to cover their asses when it comes to Federal expenditures, and we have to have them, shoot for the moon. YOU will not be any better off for it, but you will probably feel you have done good. Idjits.

Wierd,

Pray tell, who would you deny the vote to? We became a country with Blacks not allowed to vote, and only landholders allowed to vote. Blacks got the Vote in the 1860's, tho hard to cast one for them, what with the Klan and all. Women didn't get the vote till about 1920. Felons, in some states cannot vote, even tho Felon does not mean a murderer, it means 1 year and a day in jail, or could have resulted in, but paroled.

You are too eager to deny rights. I would not trust your word for that reason. Too much right wing radio listening.

Cheers,

George

gmatov
04-20-2009, 12:14 AM
Mad,

Check into whether a farmer, in your example, is a business. If he is, he is probably tax exempt. He does not pay taxes on all that stuff that he has to buy, except machinery and consumables.

He pays tax when he sells his product, just as you, if you are a business, are exempt and pass on the tax to your clients.

A loaf of bread, your example, is probably, max, zero. Food is not taxed in my state of PA. Use tax is payable on machinery that a farmer buys. A farmer, I think, pays no tax on his seed nor fertilizer. IF he makes a profit, of course, just as you should, he will pay income tax, offset by prior years losses.

I should give up. Some of you are too dense to be taught.

Cheers,

George

Mike Hunter
04-20-2009, 10:31 AM
Wow…everybody that doesn’t agree with you is dumb….

Think I may disagree with that.

Let’s see if I pay 25K a year in taxes, and my neighbor pays 2K, how is that fair? What am I getting for the additional $23K that I send the Feds? Do I get better roads, police services, fire, military??? Does the DMV put me at the head of the line…. Heck for 23K would be nice if I got something for my hard earned money.

Best that I can tell, I’m making so that my neighbor doesn’t have to pay as much. Oh that’s fair !!!

Both my neighbor and I grew up in the same neighborhood, I busted my butt to get good grades in high school, he partied.

I worked 2 jobs to pay my way thru college, he partied, went to rehab. I served in the military, he partied and had a kid out of wedlock,

Now 20 years later, I’m still working two jobs, and he’s working a single minimum wage job. Yet he is taxed at a lower rate than me because???

Taxing the rich does nothing but make the poor feel better, the rich folks are generally the ones that provide the jobs. Think about that for a minute…. Does the lower income bracket really generate a whole lot of jobs.?

Generally folks on food stamps… don’t hire a lot of people.

That example you cited about the rich buying yachts… great example, let’s see, rich guys stop buying new yachts, did it hurt the rich guy…not really, he’ll live another couple of years with the old one. But it did put 500 people (folks that make the yachts and the components) out of work.

If the Obama administration were smart…. They would give tax breaks to large companies/businesses; make it easier for them to do business. I would provide an incentive. Let’s say a company has 100 employees, tell that company that if they hire 10% more employees (10) they would get a 10% tax break for 5 years. Large company that has 15,000 employees, heck if they hire 20%, they get a 20% tax break; they’ve also given jobs to 3000 new employees.

But I guess that I’m dumb, why create jobs,

sansbury
04-20-2009, 11:26 AM
I should give up. Some of you are too dense to be taught.

The question of taxes on the rich has both a moral and practical component.

On a practical level, there are not enough rich people in the country to pay for all the spending, no matter how high they go. Squeeze the orange all you want, there is only so much juice. Even at a 90% tax rate there won't be enough money.

And there is no question it will hurt growth. As a business owner I have many choices in how I invest my time and money. The past five years I've invested all of the profits back into the business and taken a very low paycheck and worked nights and weekends throughout. I hired two new people this year, while the economy tanked, because I think I can use them to make my business worth a lot more. Right now, I get to keep 50-80% of whatever growth I can create.

At the point where my next dollar gets taxed at 90%, I will stop. I'll start taking Fridays off every week. I'll take the summer off and go fishing. I'll take the month of December off. If I get lucky and make extra profit this year, I'll just pay the taxes and pocket it, instead of hiring more people. Growth is risky and hard work. What's the point when I only get to keep a dime of each extra dollar? Government can't tax vacation, so I'll pay myself that way instead.

Maybe I won't be as rich, but it won't be a bad life for me. But it will mean a lot fewer jobs for the middle class. Most job creation in this country comes from two sources: small businesses, and new businesses. Established companies tend to grow very slowly if at all. So tax revenue will not go up. The only choice then will be to start raising taxes on the middle class.

As for the moral question, I think a flat percentage is truly fair. I don't care what John McCain or Warren Buffett thinks. John McCain married his money and Buffett is free to donate his billions to the treasury if he thinks his taxes are too low. When they voluntarily donate their money to the government then I will take their moral high-horse routine more seriously.

Mike Hunter
04-20-2009, 12:08 PM
Sansbury
Good to see a business owner here, your opinion please. Going back to my earlier post, If the Government offered you a tax break for hiring new employees, would that be enough incentive?

Changing the subject slightly, Gmatov’s brought up the yachting industry, which made me remember something after my post.

Friend operates a 3d generation family owned business, they make specialty items for the yachting industry. We had a discussion a couple of years ago, about the Luxury tax….and its impacts, he figured he saw a 75% reduction in sales. He was seriously considering laying off about ¼ of his employees, and was talking about outsourcing to China..just to be able to keep the doors open.

Hummm…the rich guys still have their money, yet half a dozen or so folks out of work, possibly an 3d gen American Owned company closing its doors because we wanted to “stuck it to” the rich.

What’s a yacht cost these days ? Couple million a copy. Sure let’s make it really hard for the workers to see that money.

Let’s see, government increases tax on American made Yachts, Millionaires don’t buy American yachts (they can buy them anywhere) government doesn’t get any tax revenue, yachting industry goes down the tubes, more Americans unemployed… can you say loose –loose proposition.

But we feel better because we “stuck it to the rich”.

It the Government were smart, give a tax break for buying a yacht, More millionaires buy yachts, government gets more tax revenue; 10 % tax on yacht that is sold is better than a 90% tax on one that isn’t. Industry grows , employs more people (more income tax) . Sounds like win - win.

Mad Scientist
04-20-2009, 04:36 PM
At the point where my next dollar gets taxed at 90%, I will stop.
That reminds me of a story that my father told.
In the 1940’s & 50’s he and a partner just happened to be owners of all things a machine shop!:) They had a reputation for making precision parts at very reasonable prices. By the early 50’s they had about 80 people working for them and had more work then they could handle. Thus they looked into the possibility of moving to a larger building buying more machines, hiring more people to run them. The prospect for new work was out there if they wanted it.

So they then sat down and figured out all the costs of moving to a new building, buying new machines, moving the old ones, hiring more people, etc. plus their time needed to actually go out and get the additional work and finally of course what would they personally gain from doing all of this.

Turned out that their after tax income would have only been slightly greater then what they were currently making. Thus they scraped the idea. Naturally this did not change their live style but it did prevent the creation of a number of new jobs and all the secondary work/jobs that they would have created.

Unfortunately this concept is way above our politician’s ability to understand.

Mad Scientist
04-20-2009, 05:40 PM
Mad,
Check into whether a farmer, in your example, is a business. If he is, he is probably tax exempt.
If you are a business, yes there are many things that you can purchase that are tax exempt. But there are many you are not exempt from:

Federal Income Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Real Estate Tax
Social Security Tax
School Taxes
Telephone State and Local Tax

Just to name a few.

So as a business owner where do you get the monies to pay these taxes? If you plan on staying in business you will figure them into the cost of your product, thus you pass the cost of these taxes onto your customer.

If your customer is also a business and he uses your product in his product he to will pass on all your taxes and all of his taxes onto his customer.

Now if his customer is the finial user of the product that person has no one to pass all these taxes on to. Thus he is the one who ends up paying all the taxes. Even if he does not realize it.

Thus the reality is, businesses do not pay taxes.
They have never paid them in the past.
They are not paying any now and will never pay any in the future.

All they do is act as a tax collecting arm of the government and stealthy pass them all on to you. But of course you are not supposed to know that.

So please ignore everything I’ve said and just trust what the politicians tell you. Because they are only concerned with what is best for you:D

Rustybolt
04-20-2009, 06:29 PM
The top 30% of the taxpayers pay over 70% of income taxes collected. What could be more fair?(sarc.)

taxation is legalized theft.

Why Rusty. That's just crazy talk! That's treasonous!


No. When something is coerced from you under a threat, that is theft.



It's for that reason I would preferr a consumption tax. As long as food and medicine were exempt. Then the choice of paying or doing without is up to you. Liberty is about having the greatest number of choices.

wierdscience
04-20-2009, 08:02 PM
Wierd,

Why would a consumption tax bring all that offshore and in the closet bring any more of that money into the fold than a flat tax would? Or vice versa, even.

You have a consumption tax, you pay only on what you spend. You have 10 billion bucks offshore, you don't get taxed on it unless you buy LOTS of ice cream.

George the concept is very simple.There would be no reason to hide that money any longer.It's being hidden to avoid paying taxes now.Nobody makes a huge pile of money just to see it sit and do nothing.Don't tax money as it's being made,tax it when it is spent.That was what was prescribed by the founding fathers,tariff and excise only,no income tax.

Do you honestly believe the rich will all drive 86' model Ford Escorts and live in house trailers if we switch to a consumption tax?

Of course they won't,there will be plenty of mansions,jets and limos to be bought and sold,more importantly built here.



I simply don't understand working poor, you probably fit that category, buying into the rich man's proposal that we should have taxes that exempt them from paying a fair share. Even John McCain said, on the hustings, that a man who makes more SHOULD pay more.

You fall into the trap of the Flat Taxers who preach that, the GDP being what it is, the rich will continue buying rich people's playtoys if they have to pay 15 or 35 or whatever percent on their new yacht.

I'm working,but I am not poor.I am also not rich or well off even.Problem is no matter how hard I work I will always be as I am unless things change for the better.The minute I get ahead some idiot decides they want more of my money.


10% was levied as an excise some years ago and the yachting industry nearly collapsed because the RICH refused to buy new yachts and pay that tax. Just BECAUSE it was a tax. That they could afford it, many buy more yacht than they need, hell, who needs a yacht, was beside the point. They refuse to spend and pay tax, period, full stop.

Wonder what would have happened if they had given them a 10 or even 5% break for buying a yacht?Do you think they would have bought more?Well hell yes they would have.They would have gotten to keep more of what they made instead of handing more of it over to the government.Proof of this is the tax was repealed and the yacht building industry came back.The rich still bought yachts,they just bought them elsewhere.Bimini comes to mind.


Flat tax will drop Federal Income, or will get it from the "common man", and that means that you will take it in the rear. You are not rich enough to benefit from your preference.

Consumption tax, you will take it in the rear when the rate rises enough to make up for what the rich will not spend.

The common man as you call everyone is already paying it.20-28% of every dollar you spend is hidden federal tax passed onto the consumer.

From the fertilizer company to the shelf at the store every single hand that last box of cornflakes passed though to get to your shopping cart paid federal income tax and that tax was passed directly on to you.

Here's another clue,like I mentioned already,the poor person who buys their food with food stamps pays the same as you.Those stamps pay back to the government 20-28% of they're face value.


The rich love when the peons insist that only flat or consumption tax is the "fairest" taxation. The tax rates were 90& on the margin some years ago. There was not a rich man who did not try to make even more money to pay that marginal tax on. There is not a rich man, today, who will not fight to make another dollar to try to avoid taxes on.

It is only estupidos who say they will quit working after they have reached such or so point of earnings, because "I LOSE money if I make another dollar." I worked with such people many years ago, when 10 grand was not a bad income. If they went to 10 grand plus one, they thought that their, say, 10% tax rate would go to 15% on all their earnings. not just that next buck.

George,who is your accountant? Timmy Geithner?


They were dumb, and I think some of you who are proposing flat or consumption tax are just as dumb. 95% of the pop is not all that unhappy with the present tax code. 5% has all the money and can foment a tax uprising that is designed to lower THEIR taxes.

If you WANT to cover their asses when it comes to Federal expenditures, and we have to have them, shoot for the moon. YOU will not be any better off for it, but you will probably feel you have done good. Idjits.

This country was founded by rich,white business men.Not poor white trashers,the poor agreed to fight along because of the 2nd amendment,the right to vote and most importantly the right to limit the amount of money they're government could take from them.


Wierd,

Pray tell, who would you deny the vote to? We became a country with Blacks not allowed to vote, and only landholders allowed to vote. Blacks got the Vote in the 1860's, tho hard to cast one for them, what with the Klan and all. Women didn't get the vote till about 1920. Felons, in some states cannot vote, even tho Felon does not mean a murderer, it means 1 year and a day in jail, or could have resulted in, but paroled.

You are too eager to deny rights. I would not trust your word for that reason. Too much right wing radio listening.

I never mentioned not allowing anyone to vote,that was somebody else.

wierdscience
04-20-2009, 09:03 PM
No flat taxes. It would: A: be WAY too high for the poor, B: Not collect enough money to pay for stuff.

Or if by some miracle it was not too high for the poor, it would still be awfully low for the rich.

Sales Taxes: :mad:


I would suggest not too many. Perhaps a highly progressive income tax, an estate tax applying only to extremely rich inheritances (the "grandchildren need not work for a living" crowd), and a few special ones ( Gas Tax? Carbon Emissions Tax? Some of these could be very helpful, but should not be overly complicated. Tax paperwork is so annoying becuase it is complicated, and needs to be verifyed adding to the complexity. )

We are not considering adding a sales tax to the existing structure.We are considering REPLACING the existing structure with either a flat income tax,or a sales tax which automaticly means NO PAPER work or very little.

If you are poor and can't afford a new car,no sweat you won't be paying tax on one.

If you can afford a new car you will be taxed according to the value of the car.$15,000 car $1500 tax $600,000 car $60,000 tax both will get you where you want to go but the tax just like the car is as fast as you can afford.



Productivity and Riches are not terribly closely linked. I have no trouble with paying skilled workers more than unskilled, or such. It follows that organizers and executives are payed more. But we are at the point where CEOs are payed so much mainly just because they were lucky or climbed the ladder enough. I think there should be no taxes on the class that cannot provide for itself (and a MUCH higher minimum wage. Should be able to live on a 40 hour work week without fear of homelessness due to illness). I still remember that thread I started where the Canadians, Brits, etc said that while imperfect their healthcare was reasonablly good while the americans argued about taxes and socialism.

They used to be more closely linked than they are now.If you were un-productive you weren't rich.We reward laziness in this country and we are paying the price for doing so.



No, rich people do not make jobs. They make dictators. What make jobs are governments with a lot of money going in and a lot going out, or companies with a lot of money going in and a lot going out- As opposed to the car companies we are bailing out, which paid executives.

We aren't bailing out car companies anymore.Ford is floating on it's own,GM and Chrysler are going bankrupt despite Obama's promise to the unions.Notice who the CEO he said should resign was and how much that CEO took in severence pay?It wasn't an accident it happened that way.


You do know that the Tea Act was actually a tax cut, right? Read Lies my Teacher Told Me

Nonsense-
• Where: Boston Harbor.

• Who: From 30 to 130 American colonists, a few dressed in pseudo Mohawk costumes.

• What: Dumped about 342 chests (92,000 pounds) of tea owned by the British East India Co. from three ships into the water.

• Why: Part of a standoff between the colonists and the British government over who had the right to tax Americans. Taxes were levied by the British Parliament, where Americans were not allowed to serve. The Americans said only their colonial assemblies could tax them.

The colonists refused to let the tea be unloaded because the tax would then be paid by the merchants who ordered it, called “consignees.” In other cities, consignees were persuaded to refuse delivery and the challenged tea ships returned to England. But the British governor in Boston refused to let the ships return to England.

• Reaction: The angry British closed the port of Boston, causing great hardship in the colony. But in 1775, Parliament stopped taxing any colony that agreed to pay for the upkeep of British soldiers. The Tea Act was repealed in 1778.




Frankly the present situation reminds me of the time leading up to the Russian Revolution. A huge food riot lead to the fall of the lord, but the replacement was a weak failure who changed little. Then came... The Commies. Possibly time to stop hating on them? They sound liek a suborbital shot in the right direction, when a few hundred miles is enough.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE]

The Czar was ordering more palaces built at the same time people were starving through a famine and fighting a war.The Bolshevics(anarchists) seized the opertunity to overthrow the Czar.Panic insued and the only power strong enough to restore order were the Reds(communists).Restore order they did and under Stalin who correctly calculated that his only real threat to his power were the Bolshevics they quickly began sending them off to labor camps(the gulag).

Communism everywhere it has been tried has failed.I see no reason why we should adopt anything even remotely like it and fail to see why anyone would admire a system that led to the deaths of some 80million people in the last century.

Teenage_Machinist
04-20-2009, 10:44 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10

Here is a great article on the Boston Tea Party and the teabagging (sic) of the white house.


Heavy taxes, often on the poor, were a big issue in the American Revolution (a tax on every piece of printed paper? OH MY GOD!). However, the Boston Tea Party was specifically about tea brought by the British East India company with a large subsidy, resulting in a monopoly.



The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.




A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."


It is also worth noting that although the Founding Fathers were rich, white, and powerful, most of their wealth was in land taken from Indians (low value) and they were not as rich as the elite of Britain. Some were financially runined by the revolution.


Sales taxes tend to harm the poor more than the rich because the poor must spend a greater percentage of their income on purchases of many types of goods including things which presuambly would be taxed.

A tax on income from investments woudl be great. Investments are a "savings enlarger" for most of us, but a source of income with no work for the super-rich who control the US. A flat tax would much increase rates on the poor, who ought not to be taxed at all.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, but those who starve must be fed bread at the expense of the obese.

Rustybolt
04-20-2009, 11:04 PM
To be fair most of the land was traded by the indians to the colonists or won in battles between the colonists and the indians. Battles instigated by either the British or the French using the indians as surrigates. By far most devastaing to the indians was desease. Native Americans were far from the innocent savages that some would make them out to be.

The majority of Britains at the time didn't like the way the colonies were being treated either.

The problem was that these taxes were to be paid in ready money when, at the time, there was very little ready money in circulation. Much of the commerce of the day was carried out by barter. How then were these taxes to be paid if the tax collector wouldn't accept a barrel of ale or a dozen chickens, or a quarter of beef? Parlement wouldn't listen.


Much like today. Congress and the Whitehouse aren't listening.



You can make as much fun of the "teaparty" movement as you like. But the people protesting aren't paid activists. They're your friends moms and dads. They aren't angry white men. They're angry middle class taxpayers. They're not the people politicians ought to be pissing off. This is nopt going to end well for the current administration.

wierdscience
04-20-2009, 11:40 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10

Here is a great article on the Boston Tea Party and the teabagging (sic) of the white house.

That site is a commie propaganda machine repeating the typical lie about the tea parties of last 15th.Typical class warfare and stereotyping.



Heavy taxes, often on the poor, were a big issue in the American Revolution (a tax on every piece of printed paper? OH MY GOD!). However, the Boston Tea Party was specifically about tea brought by the British East India company with a large subsidy, resulting in a monopoly.

The poor,the poor,the poor.Like I have said until I am blue in the face the poor,even those recieving welfare are still paying taxes under the current systemthey do it everytime they buy anything,even with food stamps.If you don't believe it,then prove me wrong.



It is also worth noting that although the Founding Fathers were rich, white, and powerful, most of their wealth was in land taken from Indians (low value) and they were not as rich as the elite of Britain. Some were financially runined by the revolution.

Land taken from Indians?Ever hear of the survival of the fittest?Lefty appologist never mention how many wars were fought between Indian nations,or how many were fought long before the white man arrived.My sympathy only goes so far.

Yes,some of the founding fathers were ruined by the revolution,some even lost family.It was after all a sacrifice they made to bring the nation forth.We best not take that for granted or applogize for it.



[Sales taxes tend to harm the poor more than the rich because the poor must spend a greater percentage of their income on purchases of many types of goods including things which presuambly would be taxed.

No,infact most staes have no sales tax on food or medicine.All states do have state and federal tax hidden in the cost of every item.including those not taxed with a sales tax.


[A tax on income from investments woudl be great. Investments are a "savings enlarger" for most of us, but a source of income with no work for the super-rich who control the US. A flat tax would much increase rates on the poor, who ought not to be taxed at all.

Income from investments are taxed now,some quite heavily.There is also the death tax where the assets of a person who dies and leaves them to their heirs are essintially taxed twice.Once while the person was living and earning the money for those assets and a second time when they are passed on to they're heirs.

The single worst tax of all and the one that hits the poor the hardest is the property tax.If it's not paid every year they lose they're house which may times is the only thing of substance they own.This is one more time when people have been lied too.It's not really a tax,it's in reality rent and if it's not paid they are evicted.It is the most immoral law on the books and the Dems love it because they can "stick it to the rich" at the expense of the poor.


[There is no such thing as a free lunch, but those who starve must be fed bread at the expense of the obese.

There is such a thing as a free lunch,it comes in the form of SS,disability,welfare which are abused at every turn by the un-productive lazy class.The sadest part is those who really do need assistance cannot get it due to those who don't need it gorging themselves at the public teet.

barts
04-21-2009, 03:22 AM
Income from investments are taxed now,some quite heavily.


Capital gains (investments held over 1 year) are taxed at 15%. This is heavy
taxation?



There is also the death tax where the assets of a person who dies and leaves them to their heirs are essintially taxed twice.Once while the person was living and earning the money for those assets and a second time when they are passed on to they're heirs.


This tax is designed to prevent the accumulation of of hereditary fortunes,
which history has shown to have bad effects on society due to the disproportionate power wielded by those who inherited billions, and
thus seeks to insure that society's rules are arranged to protect that fortune. See English and American history during the 19th century.




The single worst tax of all and the one that hits the poor the hardest is the property tax.If it's not paid every year they lose they're house which may times is the only thing of substance they own.This is one more time when people have been lied too.It's not really a tax,it's in reality rent and if it's not paid they are evicted.It is the most immoral law on the books and the Dems love it because they can "stick it to the rich" at the expense of the poor.


Property taxes pay for schools, fire protection, police, etc. How do you run a local government if it has no income?

Rustybolt
04-21-2009, 06:33 AM
To paraphrase a famous economist. Why do you think political greed is any more noble than private greed?

Mike Hunter
04-21-2009, 11:40 AM
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw

sansbury
04-21-2009, 01:40 PM
Sansbury
Good to see a business owner here, your opinion please. Going back to my earlier post, If the Government offered you a tax break for hiring new employees, would that be enough incentive?

When you reduce the cost of something people usually buy more, but it depends. I hire people when I think they will make me more money, not for the fun of having an army of minions to entertain me. I look at what that person will add to the company's value (which is my value) and what they will cost. The higher my taxes are, the smaller my profit margin is on an employee.

Now back before the TARP got thrown over us, there was talk about temporarily cutting the employer portion of the payroll tax, which is 7.65%. This would in cash terms be the same for businesses as laying off 7.65% of their workforce. It would not cause me to hire anyone, but it would improve my margins. In a larger company where 7.65% of payroll is 100s of thousands or millions, it might make a larger difference. It would probably prevent some layoffs, though layoffs are often good for the business in the long run.

This is why I feel that broad-based low-tax policies are the best. While targeted tax incentives may be useful in very specific circumstances, it is better to focus on the big picture of economic health. It's like taking anti-oxidant vitamin supplements versus eating less and exercising more.


We had a discussion a couple of years ago, about the Luxury tax….and its impacts, he figured he saw a 75% reduction in sales.

While I think the luxury tax was an awful idea on principle, I think it would have succeeded if it had been implemented differently. The sudden spike meant a lot of people recoiled from buying a boat, and there was widespread expectation the tax would be repealed. Since these were discretionary purchases, people could wait it out a couple years, which was long enough to be devastating to manufacturers who lived and died on cashflow.

What they should have done was to impose the tax at 1% a year for ten years. This would have caused less demand shock and even provided an incentive to buy now rather than later. I'm glad they didn't, though.

Norman Atkinson
04-21-2009, 02:46 PM
Boston Tea Party?

Another Masonic Secret?

John Stevenson
04-21-2009, 02:53 PM
Boston Tea Party?

Another Masonic Secret?

I thought you were in Scotland ?

.

Norman Atkinson
04-21-2009, 03:59 PM
E-mailing you again
But no real change since last missile- missive

N

wierdscience
04-21-2009, 10:18 PM
Capital gains (investments held over 1 year) are taxed at 15%. This is heavy
taxation?
If the government makes more money then you did it is.




This tax is designed to prevent the accumulation of of hereditary fortunes,
which history has shown to have bad effects on society due to the disproportionate power wielded by those who inherited billions, and
thus seeks to insure that society's rules are arranged to protect that fortune. See English and American history during the 19th century.

Hereditary poverty has had many more times the bad effects and history is showing the disproportionate power wielded by politicians who pander to the non-productive class.They seek to insure society's rules are arranged to maintain a permanent and large under class.See everything that has happened during the war on poverty.




Property taxes pay for schools, fire protection, police, etc. How do you run a local government if it has no income?

Property taxes insure that blighted areas and the homes of poor people are made available as prime real estate.See Tony Rezko.

It's simple local government collects sales taxes too,most already do.

barts
04-22-2009, 02:06 AM
Weird, you don't like income taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes,....

I can understand that like I can understand not liking that my truck needs
to be refueled, regardless of the price of diesel. However, as an engineer
I know that I can't get something for nothing, and the fruits of civilization are the same way. Roads, police, fire, hospitals, universities, schools, ... everything has a price.

How do you propose to pay for modern civilization? If you don't like it, become a hermit and bail out of the economic system. But if you're going to benefit from civilization, you'll need to do your part to pay for it - it's only fair.

If you just need to vent, go right ahead - but realize that complaining about all forms of taxation is like complaining about gravity.

oldtiffie
04-22-2009, 03:58 AM
P'raps we need more gravitas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitas

and its associates/derivatives?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietas_(virtue))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_(Roman_concept)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(virtue)

P'raps we need the magic pudding (OZ version of the loaves and fishes) which should suit the "Me" and "something/everything for nothing" crowds admirably!!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Pudding

And as we are saddled with the "Me" generation's - perhaps in its usual strident chorus it is "Me!", "Me!" and so to "Poor me" and then "Mimi".

Sounds like "Poor little Mimi" (la Bohe'me - by: Giacomo Puccini.).
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_boh%C3%A8me

Poor dears.

But in the meantime - pay ya bloody taxes!!

Norman Atkinson
04-22-2009, 04:07 AM
From the Queran- and told to me from a former big wave from the Baptist Church-

A small contribution to the tree that giveth forth food and shelter

And E.S Ashcroft from HM Inspector of Taxes!!!!!!!!!

( Budget Day in the UK- as if I needed to remember)

St Georges Day tomorrow- and he was a Turk.

Yet another delight!


Norm

chief
04-22-2009, 05:36 AM
Barts,
Taxing for infrastructure and services is fine, paying for illegal aliens like obama's aunt, paying your medical bills,funding your retirements, supporting the third world, paying UN extortion fees is not fair.
95 % of Americans don't pay taxes, 40 percent do, where's the fairness there. Beyond people who are genuinely handicapped everybody else can get off their ass and work. I could qaulify for disabled veterans benefit but I don't, I get up and go to work.

barts
04-22-2009, 01:55 PM
Barts,
95 % of Americans don't pay taxes, 40 percent do, where's the fairness there.

Back when I learned math, it was traditional for the total to be 100%. Is this 135% an
example of inflation?

(ignoring sales taxes):

Let's see... children don't pay taxes.
Folks living on social security don't pay taxes.
Most college students don't pay taxes.
Unemployed folks don't pay taxes.

-= Bart

Mike Hunter
04-22-2009, 02:38 PM
When you start to punish folks for achieving, you limit achievement.

Increasing tax rate as folks income increases; basically tells folks the harder you work, the more inventive you are, and the more you contribute to society, the more we will take from you and the less you will have to show for your labors.

A smart person will look at this and say: I can work really hard and get to keep 50% of what I earn, OR I can work less hard and keep 75% . Hummm… work less, keep more money , Ok I’ll work less.

Don’t think anyone here has a problem with paying for infrastructure; police, roads, fire etc. But when we read about what recently happened in California; the state is basically broke,.thats a big problem.

Think the latest data that I read was that 48% of the state was supporting 52% of the state; that’s non supportable, hence the state went broke.

The 52% non working population continues to support lawmakers & policies that benefit them, and will continue to do so. Their simple answer is to get the working group to pay more taxes. Of course, when you have business, industry and workers leaving California because of this, making the situation even worse.

When you have folks that pay no taxes but demand a tax refund check and you have lawmakers that support them; that’s a problem.

Demonstrations on high taxes, is about as American as Baseball, Hotdogs and Apple Pie, heck it’s how the country was founded. These were peaceful demonstrations (except when ACORN got involved) http://www.examiner.com/x-7897-Green...arty-at-Chiefs .

Yet these tea parties were degraded in every way possible. News Anchors bringing up the sexual connotation “Tea Bagging” , the President’s Senior White House adviser David Axelrod called the "Tea Party" movement "unhealthy" , and legislators saying that they are un American.

Yup…The American worker/ Tax Payer is now the butt of everyone’s jokes.

Mad Scientist
04-22-2009, 02:44 PM
Everyone pays taxes in one form or the other even it they’re not conscious of it.
The question is not whether the government needs taxes to operate and provide basic infrastructure. Of course it does. It is not a question that everyone should pay their fair share. Of course they should.

The question is how much is enough?
And when is it too much?
I consider this too much.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Perm it Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


To this list we should also add all the fee’s (which are just taxes by another name) that are charged to “permits” that give you permission to do something.

So I would suggest that we are all paying our fair share plus awhole lot more even the very poorest of individuals. But of course many don’t realize that the cost of these taxes will eventually trickle down to them.

dp
04-22-2009, 02:59 PM
But of course many don’t realize that the cost of these taxes will eventually trickle down to them.

Trickle down has been so demonized that many people have convinced themselves it does not exist, either as a credit or debit, or worse, is a word game to hide a scam or aid sneaky big business. It does, and tax trickle (really, a torrent) is a good example. Another one is opportunity. If I am free to exploit opportunity and create a burgeoning enterprise, opportunity for others trickles down from there.

Mike Hunter
04-22-2009, 03:22 PM
ignoring sales taxes):

Let's see... children don't pay taxes.
Folks living on social security don't pay taxes.
Most college students don't pay taxes.
Unemployed folks don't pay taxes.

Barts

You missed a few:

Obama's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, (D) Tom Daschle

Obama’s Nominee for chief White House performance officer, (D) Nancy Killefer,

Obama’s Treasury secretary, (D) Timothy Geithner

President Obama's nomination for Labor Secretary (D) Rep. Hilda Solis

Obama's pick for Health and Human Services secretary (D) GOV. Kathleen Sebelius,


"Advocating for increased taxes when you won’t have to pay them seems like a cheap political and moral stance to take."

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax

The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

The Bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay only 3 percent of the taxes.

barts
04-22-2009, 05:58 PM
When you start to punish folks for achieving, you limit achievement.

Increasing tax rate as folks income increases; basically tells folks the harder you work, the more inventive you are, and the more you contribute to society, the more we will take from you and the less you will have to show for your labors.

A smart person will look at this and say: I can work really hard and get to keep 50% of what I earn, OR I can work less hard and keep 75% . Hummm… work less, keep more money , Ok I’ll work less.

A really smart person would understand that the the increase in taxes is on the margin.

[made up example]
Suppose I made 200K last year, and paid a federal tax rate of 25% overall. I now read in the tax code that amounts over 200K are taxed at 35%. Should I turn down my next 10% (I wish!) raise? Of course not! The first 200K get taxed at 25%, the 20K above that gets taxed at 35%, for an overall tax rate of

(200*.25 + 20*.35)/220 = 25.9%

So I'm always better off (financially) making more money until the marginal tax rates exceed 100%.

- Bart

sansbury
04-22-2009, 07:45 PM
A really smart person would understand that the the increase in taxes is on the margin.

...snip

So I'm always better off (financially) making more money until the marginal tax rates exceed 100%.

An even smarter person would realize that almost no one makes decisions purely on a financial basis.

The coffee shop down the street from me is trying to hire a weekend dishwasher for $7.50/hr. I would be financially better off if I took that job, but I'd rather spend my weekends not working.

Taxes have the effect of making additional work less valuable to me. If I want to get a promotion that raises my salary from 200k to 250k, I have to work a lot harder, endure more stress, etc. Let's say it means another 5 hours of work a week, 250 hours a year. If the marginal rate is 10%, then that work is worth $45k to me, or $180/hr. If the marginal rate is 90%, then it's worth $5k to me, or $20/hr. Not worth it!

If you think this calculation doesn't go on, you're kidding yourself. I've done it myself a hundred times and every time I've met with bankers or investors, someone eventually says, "yes, but where does that leave us after taxes?"

Rustybolt
04-22-2009, 08:15 PM
Taxes on income are a relatively new thing.
barts. There are some legitimate things that government does that we don't mind paying taxes for. A military is one. That is under providing for the common defense. There are others that are not so legitimate. The constitution never envisioned social security or medicare.
And "Promoting the General Welfare" does not mean everybody that doesn't want to work gets a check. It means things like canals, railroads, and interstate highways. Things that benefit the whole nation. Got that TM?
I fail to see how rebuilding Gaza, or paying african women to have abortions is something my tax dollars ought to be doing. Not to mention bailing out failed businesses that are going to fail anyway. I hope nobody here owns any GM or Chrysler stock.

wierdscience
04-22-2009, 09:41 PM
Weird, you don't like income taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes,....

I can understand that like I can understand not liking that my truck needs
to be refueled, regardless of the price of diesel. However, as an engineer
I know that I can't get something for nothing, and the fruits of civilization are the same way. Roads, police, fire, hospitals, universities, schools, ... everything has a price.

How do you propose to pay for modern civilization? If you don't like it, become a hermit and bail out of the economic system. But if you're going to benefit from civilization, you'll need to do your part to pay for it - it's only fair.

If you just need to vent, go right ahead - but realize that complaining about all forms of taxation is like complaining about gravity.

Your trying to read in something I never said,or you failed to comprehend what you read.

For the record I do perfectly understand why we need and must collect taxes.

What I and an ever increasing number of people are protesting are all the examples of double and unfair taxation.

I did and I am doing my part,others are not doing theirs and I am having to foot the bill for it.I am fed up with being told I have to bailout GM and AIG.I am fed up being told I need to pay so pig farts can be studied.

Enough is enough and the lard will be trimmed from the bloated belly of this government.The only big business not laying people off right now is the federal government,there in exists the problem.

wierdscience
04-22-2009, 09:44 PM
(ignoring sales taxes):

Let's see... children don't pay taxes.
Folks living on social security don't pay taxes.
Most college students don't pay taxes.
Unemployed folks don't pay taxes.

-= Bart

Still ignoring sales taxes-oh yes they do,with the possible exception of very young children.

barts
04-22-2009, 10:15 PM
[QUOTE=sansbury
Taxes have the effect of making additional work less valuable to me. If I want to get a promotion that raises my salary from 200k to 250k, I have to work a lot harder, endure more stress, etc. Let's say it means another 5 hours of work a week, 250 hours a year. If the marginal rate is 10%, then that work is worth $45k to me, or $180/hr. If the marginal rate is 90%, then it's worth $5k to me, or $20/hr. Not worth it!

If you think this calculation doesn't go on, you're kidding yourself. I've done it myself a hundred times and every time I've met with bankers or investors, someone eventually says, "yes, but where does that leave us after taxes?"[/QUOTE]

But we're not talking about a 90% marginal tax rate, are we? Peak tax rates are lower today than they were during Reagan's time in office, and no one accused him of being a socialist.

No matter what the tax rate, we all make judgments about how hard to work for what rewards. Personally, after having worked at a startup and done 80 hour weeks, they really cannot pay me enough to do that again for any length of time. Taxes don't enter into it - and right now, w/ peak marginal tax rates were they are, this prob. doesn't affect many people.

sansbury
04-22-2009, 11:47 PM
Rates are due to reset in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts expire. The top rate on income will be 39.6%. Don't forget state income taxes either--CA, NY, and NJ are all looking at 10% or more on top earners. There has been talk of uncapping the payroll FICA tax--that would add another 7.5%. That would take us to 60%. My use of 90% was partially for illustration, partly because someone mentioned it as the top rate back before JFK cut rates.

You may think a 5-10% change in marginal rates will not affect behavior. Maybe it wouldn't change yours. However there's no shortage of evidence that it does have real effects. Among others is that the US continues to lead the first world in terms of new business creation. I don't think our (relatively) lower taxation is the only cause but I think it is an important one.

Yankee1
04-23-2009, 12:58 AM
Hello Everyone
I will not enter my opinion about taxes, enough has been said. I will however say. We have three branches of government.
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
There is a trump card that trumps all of the above branches.
Its called a Grand Jury of We The People.
The government hopes that we believe that it is part of one of the other three branches and under its rule. However this is not the case. Actually it is more powerful than any of the above and separate.
They work for us and we can get rid of any of our employees by the use of a
Grand Jury of We The People.
United States vs. Williams,504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992) by Justice Antonin Scalia.
We have in the past had traitors that have illegally attempted to transfer that power from the people to the judges. That occurred in 1946 and was in direct violation of the constitution. Much misinformation has been printed in an effort to misinform the public.
Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. Number 4, 1999-2000
What I am saying is there are many in the country that are pursuing this method” Grand Jury of We the People” to correct the misuse of our constitution. After all. They all are sworn to uphold our constitution aren’t they?
Regards
Yankee1

barts
04-23-2009, 02:52 AM
You may think a 5-10% change in marginal rates will not affect behavior. Maybe it wouldn't change yours. However there's no shortage of evidence that it does have real effects. Among others is that the US continues to lead the first world in terms of new business creation. I don't think our (relatively) lower taxation is the only cause but I think it is an important one.

Almost all business that are created are small and stay small, and the incomes enjoyed by their proprietors don't raise them to peak income tax levels. The US creates a lot of businesses because the barriers to entry here are much smaller than they are in Europe or England. This is both good and bad; the phrase "caveat emptor" has real meaning here.

In the short term, deficit spending is required; we must prevent this economy from crashing into a full scale depression. Once things pick up again, the wild spending binges seen during both Reagan's and GWB's terms in office must be a thing of the past. We can either do that via massive government spending cuts across the board (military, social services, everything) or we can raise tax rates to bring income in line with desired expenditures.

Most of this country (based on the results of the last election) is looking for a economic model closer to that of the rest of the first world rather than emulating the developing world's lack of services, public infrastructure spending, etc.

oldtiffie
04-23-2009, 03:11 AM
Hello Everyone
I will not enter my opinion about taxes, enough has been said. I will however say. We have three branches of government.
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
There is a trump card that trumps all of the above branches.
Its called a Grand Jury of We The People.
The government hopes that we believe that it is part of one of the other three branches and under its rule. However this is not the case. Actually it is more powerful than any of the above and separate.
They work for us and we can get rid of any of our employees by the use of a
Grand Jury of We The People.
United States vs. Williams,504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992) by Justice Antonin Scalia.
We have in the past had traitors that have illegally attempted to transfer that power from the people to the judges. That occurred in 1946 and was in direct violation of the constitution. Much misinformation has been printed in an effort to misinform the public.
Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. Number 4, 1999-2000
What I am saying is there are many in the country that are pursuing this method” Grand Jury of We the People” to correct the misuse of our constitution. After all. They all are sworn to uphold our constitution aren’t they?
Regards
Yankee1

As a non-USA citizen, and not having much provision here in OZ for Grand Juries, I have been interested in their history, use, abuse and the current state of them in the US.

This Wikipedia link is a preliminary and perhaps "canned" read as to what Grand Juries are and were - and why they are not in some jurisdictions in the US.

It may not necessarily be applicable to the topic of this thread - or a lot of other stuff either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

Mike Hunter
04-23-2009, 02:07 PM
As we nick pick details the big picture is still why does just 11 % of the American population pay over 90% of the bills?

Pretty hard to justify … on its face one would say that was totally lopsided, unless one was benefiting either directly or indirectly from this arrangement.

Then I’m reminded of the following quotes:

“No Price is too Great for SOMEONE ELSE to pay”:D

“It’s only work if YOU have to do it” :eek:

Yankee1
04-23-2009, 03:03 PM
Sansbury said “but the hard part is figuring out how to do that”
Our government is a constitutional democratic republic.
The relevance is all law and taxation is supposed to follow constitutional dictate. Many of the people in those “Tea Parties” were there because of
our government politicians not following the oath they swore to uphold.
Yankee1

sansbury
04-23-2009, 03:07 PM
In the short term, deficit spending is required; we must prevent this economy from crashing into a full scale depression. Once things pick up again, the wild spending binges seen during both Reagan's and GWB's terms in office must be a thing of the past.

Bush allowed the GOP congress to pig out. No question. But Obama's redefining the scale used to talk about debt from billions to trillions.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg


Most of this country (based on the results of the last election) is looking for a economic model closer to that of the rest of the first world rather than emulating the developing world's lack of services, public infrastructure spending, etc.

Too bad then that most of the spending is going to expand government payroll rather than build infrastructure. Here's what Caterpillar had to say about it earlier this week:

"The infrastructure portion of the stimulus package was disappointing in that it was less aggressive than other countries and missed an opportunity to correct past underinvestment in U.S. infrastructure"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aD4bm4NYfxMs&refer=home

lazlo
04-23-2009, 03:07 PM
As we nick pick details the big picture is still why does just 11 % of the American population pay over 90% of the bills?

Because the wealth of our country is so intensely concentrated in the upper 11%. So even though the richer you are, the lower the overall tax rate you pay (Warret Buffet pays 17.7% of his annual income in tax), they make so much more money than the remaining 90%...

Some Treasury Department statistics from the University of California, Santa Cruz:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/Incomedistribution.gifhttp://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/income.gif

lazlo
04-23-2009, 03:08 PM
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/CEO.gif

barts
04-23-2009, 04:00 PM
"The infrastructure portion of the stimulus package was disappointing in that it was less aggressive than other countries and missed an opportunity to correct past underinvestment in U.S. infrastructure"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aD4bm4NYfxMs&refer=home

I'm sure Caterpillar would have like to see more spending on freeways & public buildings, etc; from what I understand the stimulus was focused on "shovel-ready" projects. Due to Wall Street's amazing lack of judgment (and everyone else's lack of regulation) much of the spending is going to propping up our financial system.

It's going to be an interesting time.

- Bart

Rustybolt
04-23-2009, 06:03 PM
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/CEO.gif



Institute for Policy Studies and United for A Fair Economy?





Just one question. Who gets to define fair?

lazlo
04-23-2009, 06:15 PM
Institute for Policy Studies and United for A Fair Economy?

They're quoting public Department of Treasury data. He's the same graph from a different paper:

http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg


You decide if it's fair -- the average American CEO makes 43 times more than the average salary of the CEO in Japan, and 22 times more than CEO's in the UK:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/ceosalary.gif

andy_b
04-23-2009, 07:10 PM
Like I have explained before.The objection to a sales tax in regards to the lower wage earners can be addressed.

No tax on food staples,bread and milk no tax,ice cream and caviar tax.

No tax on prescription drugs.

No tax on utilities.

No property tax of any kind.

Taxes on other items like cars can be equal footing,no tax on used cars the tax rate would be the same on new whether expensive or cheap.

Same with every mass produced consumer good,same rate,only the dollar amount of the tax increases.$9,000 car $1800 tax,$50,000 car $10,000 tax.




i know i'm jumping in way late on this, but what the heck. :)

i'm with you on all of the above except sales tax on taxed items should be a graduated tax above a certain price. for example on your $10,000 car, make it a 10% tax (or whatever the agreed upon amount is). then as you go up the price range and get to something like a $1,000,000 luxury vehicle, the tax would be $500,000 on top of the vehicle price. don't get me wrong, i think the progressive tax system is broke, but if a person doesn't want to pay a 50% tax on a luxury item, then don't buy it. i'm guessing most folks buying million dollar items aren't going to be too concerned with a 50% federal sales tax. also, there is no other way you will get the lower tax bracket people to go along with the federal sales tax unless they feel they are "screwing the rich folk" somehow. that is just how it is. the voting block of people on the public dole is growing too large to get any measure passed that at least some of them won't support.

and as for the comments on the social make-up of people at the TEA parties. the folks i met were all average working men and women who believe they pay too much in taxes, the government doesn't spend the money it does receive wisely, and the politicians don't seem to listen to many of their constituents. i would believe that anyone who pays taxes and is concerned about how the money is spent would have wanted to show up. i'm guessing people that don't work or pay taxes and think the federal govt spends wisely would have no reason to show up.

andy b.

Rustybolt
04-23-2009, 07:14 PM
So? I knew the president ofPlatinum Technologies before it was sold to Computer Associates . He paid himself 100 million dollars one year.

andy_b
04-23-2009, 07:31 PM
Property taxes pay for schools, fire protection, police, etc. How do you run a local government if it has no income?


i don't believe Florida has a property tax.

andy b.

andy_b
04-23-2009, 07:54 PM
They're quoting public Department of Treasury data. He's the same graph from a different paper:

http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg


You decide if it's fair -- the average American CEO makes 43 times more than the average salary of the CEO in Japan, and 22 times more than CEO's in the UK:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/ceosalary.gif

Lazlo,

i generally end up being a sort of devil's advocate for a lot of what you post. mainly because i think we are kind of "twins separated at birth" in more ways than you would imagine. :) at work we often discuss what your charts show, and many of the older folks i work with quote the 20:1 ratio (the CEO should make 20x what the lowest paid employee makes). i am totally against the government setting wages, and i don't harbor any jealousy against what anyone earns, but there is seriously something wrong if someone thinks the CEO of any company is worth 400x the lowest paid worker at the company. i'm not talking about the temp service janitor, i'm talking a real, full-time employee. it is insane what the BoDs hand out to the CEOs of these companies, especially when many times the CEOs seem to have no idea what they are doing. what is the solution, i have no idea. i do know that eventually people will get so pissed off that the changes that occur will not be welcomed by a lot of people. perhaps that is why we are heading in the direction we are.

andy b.

Rustybolt
04-23-2009, 09:20 PM
Unless you're a stockholder I don't see why it's anybodies business.

Lazlo's dealing with that 100 million figure..................................

tattoomike68
04-23-2009, 11:35 PM
I went to our tea party.

Oh man, I took my dog Coco and she is a ***** magnet. It just pisses me off to no end that im not single.

I took video, it was fun..

holy hell, youtube took my video down the communist penis lickers. there was nothing but good stuff on it. F them punks.

Im upload the video again now.

So PUZZY is on a word filter? Fvck that Bvllsh!t ya dumb azz punk, grow a freakin nut sack ya tard.

This site has turned into a commie shlth0le.

BYE

oldtiffie
04-24-2009, 12:02 AM
Odd that while everyone had their nose in the trough and didn't want to get interrupted in gorging themselves in one way or another - everything was OK and no changes were needed. No talk of CEO's and directors and Executives "take" then.

As soon as it goes sour everybody wants someone else to take the blame and restore their "losses".

This is the chance you take in a cyclical economy.

Buying shares etc. is a bet or wager after all. Some you win, some you lose. If you are going to be smug or brag when "you" win - and the Boards and CEO's have made that wealth - dividends, capital gains, bonuses etc. - for you, with no effort on your part, then don't moan when "they" (its NEVER "you" - oh dear me no) lose then you want your money back and someone else to blame.

If what they are doing is not illegal then there is nothing you can do unless or until those laws are changed. And if that Legislation is not retrospective then not much will or can be done about the rights that may have been see as wrongs that were done prior the effective dates of that legislation.

What a CEO and Executives are paid or remunerated is the business of the Board. Provided it is not ever-turned by those who have the majority of the share-holdings and in the absence of any changes to the Legislation there is nothing that anyone else can do except moan about it all.

How do or will you know what the CEO and Executives of a Private company (not listed on the Stock Exchange nor required to publish public reports either) are getting or doing?

Unless or until YOUR elected representatives do it for you - (they are "acting in your best interests" aren't they? They're not? Surely not? You are too smart to elect anyone that doesn't or won't act in your interests aren't you?) - you may have to do it (for) yourself!!.

So - if you know and can do better why don't you get elected to office and sort it right out. I am sure that with your talents and charisma that you will not only get elected in a land-slide but will sort it all out in no time.

My betting is that in the immediate to shorter terms that there is more likely to be changes (read increases) to taxes in terms on numbers and scales than there is to mandating the remuneration of CEO's and Executives unless they are being "rescued" by the tax-payer.

Further, like it or not, most of the "rich" people (those with real money and tangible assets), like the Banks and investors and other Countries "Sovereign Funds" etc. are hardly going to pour their down a black hole and so will just sock the cash away until its time to use it to their advantage. Given that it is those people and that money that is needed to get things going again, it looks pretty bleak for a while yet - and who can blame them.

I expect that many who made a meal of it during the "good times" didn't "squirrel away" enough for the "bad times" (now and for a while yet).

A lot - but not all - of the problem is the result of some imprudence by those who are complaining about others who they now envy and see as having "got away with it".

I can't see what good any non-productive and ineffective moaning among ourselves is going to achieve that is positive.