Too funny. Do you even realize that in attempting to categorize me, you just walked into your own little box and locked the door?
Printable View
Either way it's a class war.
The rich want less taxes for themselves and their buddies.
The poor want more taxes on the rich and less on themselves and their families.
It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.
However, I have no desire to be rich...to own all kinds of crap and have the luxuries that no human should have while others live in squalor...no thanks. My income combined with my girlfriend's is just over the poverty line...but I enjoy life without cars, fancy appliances, and all that other junk...hell, I don't even have cable!
I work in the ghetto. Sometimes I feel that I have way too much compared to these people...it doesn't make me want more, that's for sure.
People need to spend more time on the streets, day to day, see how people live, both rich and poor.
Re welfare moms: I agree. While we're at it, women that get raped should be charged with enticement for wearing nice clothes. The elderly should be reprimanded for being too frail to fight back. Defenseless countries should be thankful they get invaded!
More so than the rich paying more taxes, a cap on wages, way more control over sprialing private ownership, no longer dealing with corporations that have abused employees under them, and slowing production.
It's people before profits, right? Maybe not I guess...
People need to just chill out, don't buy so much, don't work so much, have some more leisure time, don't be so darn greedy! Who cares if the economy grows in a country like the US where a lot of people don't even have health care?
Most of us have to operate within a system that makes us feel it is either me or them, and it's going to be you no matter how ruthless I have to be. It's disgusting. People give away their humanity and decency to get a new car, to get a raise, to buy a bunch of stuff that isn't going to be there when you die...but the people, the family, the friends, hopefully they will be around and you haven't alienated all of them becoming a greedy little squirrel with your pathetic nuts all hidden away!
Either way it's a class war.
Reply]
Yup
The rich want less taxes for themselves and their buddies.
Reply]
That is because they are paying more in taxes each year than most people even make in that time....they are getting the short end of the stick , especially when you consider they are providing the engine that drives the over all economy, hires the employees, and pays them the salaries in which small portions of which go to taxes. In other words, if you make $50,000 a year, and pay $12,000 of that in taxes, your employer is probably paying 50,000 in cold cash to the government for his taxes (Higher bracket, makes more etc...)
I'm sure he's wondering whats so fair about him having to pay $50,000 in taxes, when you only have to pay $12,000.
Sure he wants to pay less for him and his buddies..imagine if YOU had to fork over FIFTY G'S every year!!
The poor want more taxes on the rich and less on themselves and their families.
Reply]
And that is exactly what they got...stick it to the rich so they don't have to pony up!
It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.
Reply]
Winning it? How do you figure? when was the last time YOU had to dish out an average person's yearly salary to the tax man? sound more like the rich man is getting heavily shafted to me!!
.Quote:
The only difference between the welfare mother and these corporate parasites is where their check comes from
True, those guys may be parasites, though I would more than not call them conmen, but your right, the big difference is I am not paying there severance. It's not even close to the only difference I see, but I will concide that.
:rolleyes:Quote:
It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.
Good for you. A lot of people don't want to live like that.Quote:
However, I have no desire to be rich...to own all kinds of crap and have the luxuries that no human should have while others live in squalor
That is a genuine statement of grade A horsesh!t. Talk about changing around what someone said.Quote:
Re welfare moms: I agree. While we're at it, women that get raped should be charged with enticement for wearing nice clothes. The elderly should be reprimanded for being too frail to fight back. Defenseless countries should be thankful they get invaded!
No they don't.Quote:
People need to spend more time on the streets, day to day, see how people live, both rich and poor.
Canadian right....yep...could of guessed it. Which means its a lot of uneducated garbage about the US to follow.Quote:
a cap on wages
And here comes the cowpie, served up warm and toasty. Dude, everyone in America has access to healthcare, you will not be turned away, but the best part is since most of the healthcare system is private based, we have the very best in the world, its where people come to get the real deal.Quote:
People need to just chill out, don't buy so much, don't work so much, have some more leisure time, don't be so darn greedy! Who cares if the economy grows in a country like the US where a lot of people don't even have health care?
Get a better job so you can buy a couple of books and get a more solid understanding of the geopolitical formation you are trying to dis. Not just the liberal internt propaganda.
Bawhaha....what the hell is in the water up there.Quote:
People give away their humanity and decency to get a new car
I am cool with everyone paying a consistent across the board average, be it 25% 35% or 50%, whatever.
Its only fair.
How is that fair? you still have the wealthy paying more cold cash to taxes than the average man even makes in a year.
If you want fairness, maybe dropping the income tax all together, and only taxing sales of consumer goods.
Royal,
Between the Bush Tax cuts, the Republican Congress back in 1996 and even slick Willy, I believe well over something like a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax at all. Now these people are from the much more poor side of our population, and due to benevolence of the tax policy are actually being helped.
Countries need taxes, it helps with the defending of our nation, and many, many, many other aspect which keep the machine in working order.
Yeah, that's what I am talking about. IMHO tax system should be democratic not discriminative in order to be "fair" but that's not what government like it to be. In Canada, personal income tax was brought in for fighting the WWI (God and Country for the Brits BS). Then the government got a taste of the "good life" such pension plan, health care, etc all the good ol' golden handshakes that afforded to the members of parliment, all thanks to having a reliable revenue. They never restore that wealth to the people. Politicians are blood sucking scums, period!
Mantis108
Between the Bush Tax cuts, the Republican Congress back in 1996 and even slick Willy, I believe well over something like a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax at all.
Reply]
You know what? I don't care. I can see if people are so poor they are struggling to make rent and food, but a fulll third of the country? Basically you now have the rich shouldering thier wieght so they can slide bye on other's.
Now these people are from the much more poor side of our population, and due to benevolence of the tax policy are actually being helped.
Reply]
If they are that poor, to where they can't survive other wise, I can see in those cases, but a full THIRD of the US? Are there that many under employed people out there that can't make ends meet?
Countries need taxes, it helps with the defending of our nation, and many, many, many other aspect which keep the machine in working order
Reply]
Agreed, but it's still not right when a certain class must pay more in taxes each year than the average even makes....
I agree with your original premise MP, the rich use more of the infrastructure, albeit indirectly, so they must shoulder a larger burden of taxes. Rich people don't live in a vacuum, as much as they'd like to pretend that they do.
In addition, a flat tax rate is disproportionate in terms of actual impact on how people live at different income levels.
For example, let's say I have 10 dollars, you have 100 dollars. We both pay a flat tax of 10 percent on that money.
I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?
FP
Just exactly *How* does a wealthy man use more of the infrastructure? Do they drive more or something? Do they take bigger dumps, and thus need larger sewer pipes?
If anything they contribute far more, by providing JOBS, and HEALTH insurance to thier workers, not to mention creating consumer goods and products that fill the demands of the average middle income population.
Your premise is skewed. Think about it.
I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?
Reply]
You think it's just for the rich man to pay so much? How would you feel if you had to part with 90 bills, and your neighbor only had to lose 9?
How about this, suppose you went to a baseball game, and you had to pay 90 to get in because you are rich, but the block next to you only pays 9? You are getting the same thing (a baseball game) Is it fair that you have to pay 90, when the guy next to you gets in for a tenth of that?
The big green round thing with lots of white teeth was supposed to emphasize my button pushing at that point. I know your opinion on Chavez, which is why I suddenly brought him into an unrelated argument... it was just a humourous attempt at pre-empting anybody accusing me of being a liberal or (shoot me!) a socialist... ;)
I don't know enough about Venezuela to make any informed opinion on Chavez. And irony doesn't come across so well in writing!
Separating the wood from the trees is difficult in economics. Are you suggesting an analysis of everybody who earns more than a certain income, and including and offsetting their wealth managers' efforts to get them good tax deals offshore? And how do you assess their perks (especially when many of them, as with the offshore deals are going to be confidential to some extent?). Ask them nicely?Quote:
Secondly, I don't know if the rich use more of everything or not, and I'm not sure the analysis would be all that hard. The problem that people have arises when they look at the specific data. You need to go to the aggregate for this - the lumps and bumps even out over the aggregate.
That's a good point that no-one has addressed yet.
Unkokusai, it seems MP was genuinely asking a question from the PoV of an economics problem. It seems that you were framing his question through your preconceptions of his political beliefs. You have more of an agenda.
BJ, the answer to your welfare mom's prob is as ever, (lack of) education. Which is a taxation problem among other things. Since this isn't going to change, shooting them or putting contraceptives in the water and getting them to apply to have kids would be far more relevant to their problems than taxation of the rich (or not). I'm all for the second one. This time, I might not be joking! ... :D
I've been reading some of this......You know it must really be a ***** to make something like 2 million dollars a year and have to pay 50-60% taxes. I don't know how these people make it on a little less than a million a year. It really makes me feel bad that my taxes are only about 20%. I might have to loan these people some money!
Happens all the time. You been to a game recently? 9 bucks gets you a bleacher seat in the sun, long walks to the loo, and the beer, and lots or rowdy fans.
90 gets you down in front, maybe a plastic seat, short walk to whatever you want, and most importantly, freedom from being bothered by the 'riff raff'.
The reality is that class war is good. It lets one group manifest power, and make the advances, reap the rewards, yet counter-balances the extremes with the the demands of the working class, who also want more for their contribution.
This is the beauty of the free world economy, the balances. Like the speculators I refered to earlier. At least in our class war, name calling and peacefull protest is the battlefield for the most part. Not that much shooting and disappearing in the night going on.
=======
Black Jack, your grasp on superlatives is strong, your grasp on reality seems lacking good Fu. Do you really think all your welfare dollars go to pot smoking, trick turning, crack mamma baby factories? Come on, you know anybody with a crippled kid that gets some state support for wheelchairs or special education? How about some old folks, you must know an oldie or two on medicare/medicade. Perhaps a wounded vet? Some kid that gets subsidised lunch at school?
Sure, cut them loose, next week they'll be sticking a 38 special in the window of your Ford Pickup at the stop light. I know, you probably keep a gun handy too. Good luck! Or maybe one will crack your back door while your at work and make off with your plasma? My point is, there are costs, financial or societal, to having poor, and not helping them rise out of the cycle of poverty. A$$, gra$$ and Gas, nobody rides for free.
Redistribution of wealth - do you really think that when the Big corporate guy gets a massive payout, you aren't financing that? Not through taxes, perhpas, depending on the level of corporate welfare paid to his failing company, but surely through prices which have to cover the costs.
Yes, yes, yes, there are the unredeemable, at both ends of the bell curve, but you can't rule the middle based upon the extremes.
The issue I hear from you is not one of fiscal concepts, and economic management, but one of "Every man for himself, survival of the fittest."
Rogue,
The battle is a three-way tag team. Management vs Stockholders vs Workers.
Some think Management is superior, and deserves the biggest piece of pie to motivate them to increased profitability, sales, and develop. Problem is, that they often neglect the long term for the short term bonuses and cut and run.
Some think the Stockholder is the one who deserves the big piece, as they finance it all, and without them nothing happens. Their weakness is, they are out of touch with the business, and don't make anything without the workers and managers.
Some think the workers deserve the most, because they are the producers, and that management and capital are simply parasites. Obvously, their weakness is that they are just uncontrolled rabble without management and without plant or equipment to work without capital.
However, as a few wise men have realised, that if you look out for labour, than there will always be rewards for management and capital. Labour is in it for the long term.
Economic rationalism, and its spawn the MBA, have lionised profits above viability, and therein lies its weakness. Who here loves that little fake tire you get as a spare these days? Thank the next MBA you see for that present.
Labor is in it for themselves just like management is. Why does it cost 2 to 3 thousand extra to build an American car?
People in Mexico make less than I pay in taxes.
They do drive the economy...and that is the problem. It is systematic, it is not a matter of fixing it, it is a matter of getting rid of it.
I'm sure that you are a glorified 21st century peasant like the rest of us...unless you're pulling in over several million a year.
The rich man makes the rules that he knows many cannot follow...the rich man makes the decisions for the way poor people conduct their lives, while he does not have to see how really hard it is...the rich man gives you all the opportunities in the world but if you get out of line, whammo!
It makes sense for many to side with the rich, they have the weapons and the means...but Robin Hood will always be a hero to me...even if he'd be called a terrorist by today's double standards.
I may be uneducated about the US in some regards, but I'm sure you know all about the world outside your country!
For the record I am on the Dean's honour list and am currently completing an honours program. I think long and hard about what I say. IN fact, I have attended extensive seminars and done extensive research on most of these subjects, I wonder if you finished grade school? Or did you inherit daddy's business?:rolleyes:
As to getting onto the streets, seriously dude, you must be up in some gated community too afraid of the beggars to try and figure out how other people live. I have compassion and I try to understand the way people are treated.
People come to America to get "The very best in the world" if they are rich. Sorry buddy, most of the world is not a fat overpaid American or Canadian for that matter. I know you're so concerned about your little scrap and don't want the baddies coming to get it, but you should pick up a book. Or maybe some spirituality, or even some compassion.
Rogue,
Everybody is in it for themselves, except of course for me. :D
I do take your point.
And of course, massive salaries and bonuses for management have nothing to do with the price of an automobile, as BJ has already established, its the lazy workers, bludging their way through an 8 hour shift sticking widgets into doohickeys, so they can go off and drop a few tinnies of beer before they head over and crash the yogurt truck into one of those unemployed crack mammas after work, breeding up more of the scum of society to pick your pocket for the next generation....
Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable. MP was asking what tests it would be valid to use: of course, people's answers will show their colour, but the question could quite easily be neutral.
For example, CBA is a testing procedure often espoused by the left and renowned for subjectivity.
Merry was asking if the rich should pay more and if so, how should that be determined. He wasn't saying they should be and it should be determined by XYZ. Of course he has his opinions, but that's as objective as you're gonna get, matey.
For once your talent for understatement, pithy one-liners and put-downs isn't enough to contribute to the argument (though, in many threads they're quite spot on! :D )
The problem with losing our manufacturing edge is that it's caused by everyone involved, including the consumer who just wants some cheap crap. Sadly what management takes out of a company is a drop in the bucket compared to what some retired workers do.
Quote:
washingtonpost.com
General Motors Getting Eaten Alive by a Free Lunch
By Allan Sloan
Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page E03
A free lunch can be the most expensive meal in the world. For living proof, look at General Motors. A big reason that GM has gotten into such trouble is that the pension and health care commitments it made to employees decades ago seemed to be a free lunch.
The United Autoworkers placed a high value on these benefits, but the accounting rules of the time placed no cost on GM's risk of providing them. So the UAW and GM made deals that were heavy on benefits, relatively light on wages.
Lower salaries meant that GM reported higher profits, which translated into higher stock prices -- and higher bonuses for executives. Commitments for pensions and "other post-employment benefits" -- known as OPEB in the accounting biz -- had little initial impact on GM's profit statement and didn't count as obligations on its balance sheet. So why not keep employees happy with generous benefits? It was a free lunch. Besides, GM's only major competitors at the time, Ford and Chrysler, were making similar deals.
Now, as we all can see, pension and health care obligations are eating GM alive. The bill for the "free" lunch has come in -- and GM is having trouble paying the tab. In the past two years, GM has put almost $30 billion into its pension funds and a trust to cover its OPEB obligations. Yet these accounts are still a combined $54 billion underwater.
"Any market economist would tell you that things that are 'free' are overconsumed," says Greg Taxin, chief executive of Glass, Lewis & Co. "That's true of pensions, it's true of OPEB, and it's true of stock options in the '90s." That's a lesson the SEC seems to have ignored, given last week's decision to let companies delay counting the value of options as an expense. But that's a topic for another day.
GM began its slide down the slippery slope in 1950, when it began picking up costs for medical insurance, pensions and retiree benefits. There was huge risk to GM in taking on these obligations -- but that didn't show up as a cost or balance-sheet liability. By 1973, the UAW says, GM was paying the entire health insurance bill for its employees, survivors and retirees, and had agreed to "30 and out" early retirement that granted workers full pensions after 30 years on the job, regardless of age.
These problems began to surface about 15 years ago because regulators changed the accounting rules. In 1992, GM says, it took a $20 billion non-cash charge to recognize pension obligations. Evolving rules then put OPEB on the balance sheet. Now, these obligations -- call it a combined $170 billion for U.S. operations -- are fully visible. And out-of-pocket costs for health care are eating GM alive.
GM spokesman Jerry Dubrowski says the company expects to pay $5.6 billion in health care costs this year for 1.1 million people covered by its plans. That's up from the $3.9 billion it shelled out in 2001 to cover 1.2 million people.
"At the time GM began offering these benefits, no one had any idea that the costs for prescription drugs and medical services would explode the way they have," Dubrowski said. True. But the UAW was astute (or lucky) enough to push the risk of covering these costs onto GM.
GM's pension funds are in pretty good shape, thanks to an $18.5 billion infusion two years ago. GM got this cash by selling bonds at relatively low rates, hoping to resolve its pension problems once and for all. This maneuver has been successful so far, but funding the pension plans has consumed much of GM's borrowing power and strained its balance sheet.
At the end of last year, GM says, its U.S. pension funds showed a $3 billion surplus. GM's pension accounting, which assumes that the funds will earn an average of 9 percent a year on their assets, is highly optimistic. But things are under control -- as long as GM stays solvent.
By contrast, OPEB is out of control. At year-end, OPEB was $57 billion in the hole, even though GM threw $9 billion into an OPEB trust in 2004. The company has no legal obligation to pre-fund these costs, but it's trying to show the financial markets and its workers that it's dealing with them. The OPEB trust has a hefty $20 billion of assets -- but GM calculates its obligations at a staggering $77 billion.
What's more, GM says they're rising at 10.5 percent a year. Thus, even though President Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit whacked $4 billion off GM's OPEB obligation last year -- thanks, George -- it covered barely half the year's increase in the liability.
If GM were making lots of money selling vehicles, this would all be manageable, sort of. GM could buy enough time for demographics to bail it out, as more retirees begin getting Social Security and Medicare, reducing GM's costs, and other retirees die off. Its ratio of retirees to workers, currently 2.5 to 1, would shrink. Alas, GM's vehicle business is in the tank. Unless GM starts making money on vehicles or gets a break from the UAW or the federal government, things are going to get really ugly. I hope that doesn't happen, but it easily could.
The bottom line: Whenever you offer someone a free lunch, make sure that you'll be able to pay the bill when it comes in.
Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail address is sloan@panix.com.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
I never said they weren't.Quote:
Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable.
However, there is a big difference between taking a political stance because a particular analysis seems to stand on its merits, and adopting a particular economic policy because of your political viewpoint.
I think, as much as is practicable (since I recognize that we all walk around with particular assumptions) the analysis should drive your political viewpoint; ideology per se should not drive policy.
I think that is the mistake being made by many people. They allow their ideology to override sober analysis of a problem. You run into this all the time with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and people who think AQ attacked us because of U.S. foreign policy. Actual reading of actual AQ documents and transcripts would make it quite clear that WHOEVER the top dog in the free world was, AQ would attack them, sooner or later.
I'm suggesting only that on many issues we be as objective and thorough as possible. It occurs to me that this may be one of them.
As I should have expected, this thread has largely degenerated into a tiff over social justice vs. personal responsibility, instead of coming anywhere near the original question. Oh well.
I see Rogue, another example of mis-management: bad short-term gain negotiation, non-existant forward planning and irresponsible financial management by overpaid "management" being blamed on the workers and paid for by the stockholders?
Glad to see I'm winning you over mate. :D
We here in Oz have the same problem, for example, with QANTAS, where employees have negotiated great benefits, but which are now becoming a burden, and making problems for the financial viability of the organisation in a new competitive environment. So, tragically, they wind up the company, or threaten to, and re-negotiate or re-structure. In the bad old days, they didn't even have to carry the long term liabilities on the current account, kind of like the US Social Security pension. Nowdays, its harder to get away with that kind of 'see no evil' accounting.
I have another suggestion, perhaps the reason GM is going broke is because they make sh1t cars?
Oh, and I agree with you on the "Cheap cr@p" issue. People whine about it all, but still love to dance in the middle of a pile of cheap cr2p, like monkeys like to smear sh1t on their fur and pretend to be all dressed up.
Back to one of my original points, consumers drive the economy, not entrepreneurs. Dollar votes.
Cheers
Looks like I didn't put that very well.
I was disagreeing with you Unkokusai... as I think you know... but since MP doesn't seem to realize I was agreeing with him either, let me try again.Since he is not making economic policy, and he not putting forward any particular type of testing/study (he is asking what others think about what type would be feasible, or whether we think the rich even do benefit more), he has separated his political viewpoint from his economic opinion. His question is asking us our colour. You've shown yours in that you obviously don't agree that rich people benefit more heavily than the middle class or the poor... but wait, no you haven't, you've gotten all judgmental about why he was asking and about your opinion that a higher taxation grade can only be seen as some kind of punishment. It ain't necessarily so.
why not get rid of welfare all together
tax the rich as is appropriate and give money to poorer(note not food stamps just plain hard cash) families and take it away aftert a period if they dont get jobs
this will force ppl to beocme independant as opposed to dependant while still providing support
as for big CEO's driving the economy
to some extent they do but they are dependant on consumers just as they are dependant on the big compnies to provide what they want to consume
so if people habe more incentives to get jobs and make money then they can consume more thus driving the economy
u might wonder as to what kind of society this might create tho
but hey if u want to be a shallow consumer or change your life and go beyonf that then a prosperous economy and society will provide the stable nase from which that can occur
One thing that I believe is wrong with your argument is including corporations in with rich people. You can have a company of poor folks or rich folks who do not own a company. To me including the two together cloudies the water.
If a company uses the interstate highway system then they should be taxed for it's use. These days it would be quite easy to tax say trucks hauling goods, and a company's trucks could be taxed for using federal and local infrastructure. Of course they will pass that tax down to the consumer.
When it comes to rich people, regardless of whether they are the salt of the earth, or whale turds on the bottom of the Marianas Trench, should be taxed just like anybody else. I'm for a simplified tax. That means no loop holes, easy to figure out how much you owe whether by flat rate or a simple bracketed rate.
Rogue, that's an interesting division, and one I hadn't considered. I was thinking that corporations are "legal people," in many senses, so just lumped them in.
Is there a way for us to figure out what the indirect benefits of public infrastructure/services are, relative to income as a whole, and incorporate that into our taxation scheme? I think that's what I was actually asking. And the reason I was asking it is because I would find analysis of something like that, provided it was done in a reasonably thorough, straightforward way, rather compelling. By way of example, presumably the Walton family has a greater vested interest in our transportation infrastructure, our civil security, our national security and our diplomatic relationships with other countries. This would extend to education as well, etc.
While it's clear they "owe more" in the absolute sense, which a flat tax would accomplish, I'm asking do they owe more in the RELATIVE sense? That is - do they derive a greater relative benefit than a middle class individual? Also, do they derive a greater or less relative benefit than what they are currently paying out?
The question I am asking is basically "given their tax burden now, are they paying too much or too little, and do we have any analytical mechanisms/tools that could give us a reasonable conclusion?"
This is in contrast to social justice arguments and personal responsibility arguments, which I find ludicrous unless there is a good cost-benefit analysis attached.
Question - is there enough room in our economy for a VAT tax (which would make every echelon in the chain pay, not just the consumer) and an elimination of the income tax altogether? Some economic growth would be lost to be sure, but I don't know how much.
One thing I am definitely not in favor of is a wealth tax, as some people have proposed (albeit not on this thread). You can be asset rich and cash poor. That would be a killer!
The rich man makes the rules that he knows many cannot follow...the rich man makes the decisions for the way poor people conduct their lives, while he does not have to see how really hard it is...the rich man gives you all the opportunities in the world but if you get out of line, whammo!
Reply]
This is a warped statement...NO ONE makes the rules for me, and no one but ME makes the decisions for the way i conduct my life...regardless of my level of income.
OF COURSE THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES...and the fact that they don't pay ENOUGH taxes is the single biggest problem that exists in our country...because it impacts everything in a negative manner.
EVERYTHING...
from the funding of the war ON THE CHEAP (and the results of that has been devastating to our soldiers and our standing in the world)...to the environment...immigrant problems because U.S. companies don't want to pay (or in some cases simply can't afford to pay) a decent salary to American workers in industries that other countries exploit with dirt-cheap labor...
the entire war on terror being handled the wrong way (ie.- we should be hunting down Al Queda and the Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistan border instead of waging a phoney war on terror in Iraq because the Haliburton's and the Exxon-Mobil's of the world want access to Iraq's oil fields)...
the environment and our use/dependence on fossil fuels (mostly imported from abroad)...health care that doesn't offer enough people adequate coverage - and companies like Wallmart that try to cheat its workers out of health benefits...lousy schools (teachers don't get paid enough to teach in public schools)...
the devastation brought about by NAFTA and other foreign FREE TRADE policies that are killing us economically and socially, ie.- China pays it's workers peanuts in a totalitarian society so that they can get rich by selling us goods at half of what we sell the same goods for - we should be raising the tariffs on their goods - and then provide subsidies for U.S. companies to compete in those industires that China tries to exploit with overly-cheap labor)...
the lack of alternative energy sources and related industries ("Who killed the electric car")...etc. With more money at the disposal of the Federal and State governments...we could offer economic tax incentives/support/R&D funding for companies that want to develop AFFORDABLE alternative energy sources (ie.- solar panels...electric power, wind power, water power, ethanol made from soy, sugar, wheat, corn, etc.)....
the same with companies wiling to invest in the electric car....the same wth affordable health care/drug providers...tax incentives/funding for companies in service industries, etc.
It is a very emotional issue. THat is why some people dump arguments as soon as they are questioned and resort to personal attacks.
I grew up middle class, most of my friends were middle or working class and still are as they've grown up. I see, day to day, the issues that very hard-working people have to face...that is more important than all the university courses and intricate dialogue will ever accomplish. We can debate all we want in the ivory towers, or we can get in the gutter and try to fix a thing or two.
For all its worth, I think it is great that people are able to live luxurious lives, but it is not for everybody and I think no one should be rich on the level of millionares.
What are you babbling about....?Quote:
And of course, massive salaries and bonuses for management have nothing to do with the price of an automobile, as BJ has already established, its the lazy workers, bludging their way through an 8 hour shift sticking widgets into doohickeys, so they can go off and drop a few tinnies of beer before they head over and crash the yogurt truck into one of those unemployed crack mammas after work, breeding up more of the scum of society to pick your pocket for the next generation....
When did I establish this now? Talk about walking a insincere line:rolleyes:
Same with this nonsense. I never stated it did at any time. What I did state was that "career welfare"is a serious problem. Don't go protesting arguements you make up for other people.Quote:
Do you really think all your welfare dollars go to pot smoking, trick turning, crack mamma baby factories
Merry just asked if the rich should pay more, if its a fair avenue of reasoning. In certain respects I disagree, even though I know its always fashionable for people to hate those that are successfull and blame there woes on them, take Winter Palm for example, but its not a game that I follow.
Is a fixed, Maggie Thatcher poll tax the answer?
Some may say so, well not the left, as for some reason they believe the evil rich use more national infrastructure to such a degree that they have to fund more on social spending. Meh....I have not seen a case yet that proves this without getting political.
Saying the fact that the rich don't pay enough taxes as the single biggest problem in our country is full of it. I was going to debate it intell I came across this little diddy below, then said f@ck it.Quote:
OF COURSE THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES...and the fact that they don't pay ENOUGH taxes is the single biggest problem that exists in our country...because it impacts everything in a negative manner.
No point now in talking rational.Quote:
waging a phoney war on terror in Iraq becasue the Halliburton's and the Exxon-Mobil's of the world want access to Iraq's oil fields)...
Winter, that is a understatement. Get out of school, find yourself in the real world then come back and talk this flimflam.Quote:
I may be uneducated about the US in some regards,
How blase.Quote:
and I think no one should be rich on the level of millionares
Good lord, did I really write "cloudies the water"? I need to up my coffee intake.:eek: I'm going to try to make some coherent thoughts,though I'm not making a guarantee.
While I think we can directly see how infrastructure benefits a company I'm not so sure we can really make the same link back to individuals with as much certainty. Something like Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company, one in which I have owned stock in and made money on. While the Walton family benefited from Wal-Mart doing well so did I, so do I as someone who owns stock in Wal-Mart also need to have my taxes for infrastructure use raised while owning that stock regardless if it's doing well or not? After all if the Waltons are benefiting from infrastructure and services then so am I, if a little more indirectly. But what amount should I pay? That's one reason why I believe you have to separate corporate entities from actual people.Quote:
Is there a way for us to figure out what the indirect benefits of public infrastructure/services are, relative to income as a whole, and incorporate that into our taxation scheme? I think that's what I was actually asking. And the reason I was asking it is because I would find analysis of something like that, provided it was done in a reasonably thorough, straightforward way, rather compelling. By way of example, presumably the Walton family has a greater vested interest in our transportation infrastructure, our civil security, our national security and our diplomatic relationships with other countries. This would extend to education as well, etc.
I don't think we can come to a reasonable conclusion. I'm somewhere around middle-middle class. While my neighborhood is well off we generally use the local infrastructure and services (roads, police, public schools and libraries), the actual rich people that I know use private schools, may have their own security in their neighborhoods and even pay an association fee to maintain the roads in their communities. Other than that they use the same major roads that I do, the same highways and the same sewers, so I don't see why they need to be taxed more for services that they don't use any more than I do.Quote:
The question I am asking is basically "given their tax burden now, are they paying too much or too little, and do we have any analytical mechanisms/tools that could give us a reasonable conclusion?"
I need more coffee.