TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Smells Like Socialist Spirit
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Is that true? I'm sure you can back those (irrelevant btw) figures up with hard facts?

Source of actual article accompanying the facts on the chart---> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html




Source showing how "rich" pay highest percentage of taxes in 40 years---> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...=googlenews_wsj

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Source of actual article accompanying the facts on the chart---> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html Source showing how "rich" pay highest percentage of taxes in 40 years---> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...=googlenews_wsj

there's about a 20% spread there, which would be consistent with a progressive system. It's highly misleading to say (as i believe you have asserted before) that the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes without stating they also earn about 40% of all income. it doesn't look so bad when you say how much of the pie they actually eat. the simple fact that 5% of the population earns 40% of all income is grossly disproportionate. that disparity isn't for lack of desire or effort. it's likely caused by lack of access to resources.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley One thing I noticed about America is that a politics degree and masters in international relations will be considered vocational for departments such as State.

Yeah... this is the idea... eventually at least.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 there's about a 20% spread there, which would be consistent with a progressive system. It's highly misleading to say (as i believe you have asserted before) that the top 5% pay 60% of the taxes without stating they also earn about 40% of all income. it doesn't look so bad when you say how much of the pie they actually eat.

Not to mention the fact that the growing divide between rich and poor in this country is frightening - the upper percentages are seeing wage increases while the poorer percentages are seeing nothing of the kind.

So as relative income increases, so too should relative taxation.

Let's just post this ole classic for shits & giggles...

quote:

Bar Stool Economics: Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that e everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Not to mention the fact that the growing divide between rich and poor in this country is frightening - the upper percentages are seeing wage increases while the poorer percentages are seeing nothing of the kind. So as relative income increases, so too should relative taxation.

On its face I don't have a problem with increasing wages for rich. The problem is the lack of access to resources that will allow people who are less fortunate to break the cycle of poverty and dispair. So, it doesn't trouble me that the rich make more, so long as they contribute what is necessary to provide the access to resources for every citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Let's just post this ole classic for shits & giggles...

moral of the story is: don't reduce taxes!


on a more serious note, there are few productive places in the world where the taxing system on individuals is not progressive. you really can't go anywhere important (for business purposes) and escape taxation. Plus, the US has some great Ex-pat laws subjecting its citizens to tax for 10 years (i think) post renouncing citizenship. you can't simply say i don't want to be taxed in the US so i'll move. it's not that easy.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You're suffering a similar problem to Shakka, you have a complete inability to see the world outside America.

You're simply wrong. I've been all over the world, and I even help run a business in a Muslim country (Malaysia) where the systems are a LOT different than they are here.

quote:

And when the Republicans do it its actually "patriotism"? All governments tax, are you saying every government America ever had has been socialist?

I'm not saying American's shouldn't be taxed... what are you talking about? I'm saying the taxation should be truly fair (I'm all for everyone paying the same percentage; wealthy would still contribute more in gross that way). I'm saying it's not right for the government to decide how much they want to take from whoever they decide constitutes as "rich", and give that hard earned money to people who don't work for it. Individual property rights is a core value rooted in our constitution, and that is greatly diminished when the government starts taking what they want, when they want, from who they want.

quote:

But that has already happened because of America's capitalist policies. And now people, middle class white collar workers, are homeless!

Wrong... people who are "homeless" were given loans on houses they could never afford to begin with by banks, as mandated by Clinton and Carter policies, as well as all the democrats that let Fannie and Freddie explode into what it is now ("affordable housing" I guess means the taxpayers make it affordable). Say what you want about the Capitalist society, but throughout human history, no nation has produced more wealth/prosperity than America has, with a standard of living unheard of, and in around than 200 years no less. Honestly ask yourself how this can be. Why were all the people who came here unable to do the same thing in the countries they came here from?

quote:

Well I think if anything this economic crisis that America caused for everyone in the world shows that nationalised pensions (subsidising private ones of course) are vital. Our private pensions are thrown into the whim of the stock market, what would have happened if I was due for retirement?

This statement is just a product of where you've grown up... if you haven't grown up here or experienced true economic freedom, I guess you can't understand. It's funny that the government won't consier their pensions... there's have what's called a defined benefit option which is backed by the US Treasury, which means that Joe Biden and Obama and everybody else in Congress is sheltered from the ups and downs of the stock market. They get a generous pension no matter how bad liberal legislation screws up the economy for the rest of us. They also has the option of drawing their benefits earlier than private sector employees, with no penalty, and their contributions accrue faster.

So if they take away our pensions, and make 401K's non-tax deductable (which they are talking about now), gone will be gone any incentive to contribute to it, in terms of the subsidy you get off the top of your income for whatever you donate to your 401K. And the government will now own your private retirement fund and do with as they please... and they're going to guarantee you say, 3% growth every year with the purchase of government bonds... therefore you give up all of the tax deductibility. Let's say you earn $100K and you put whatever percentage of it into your IRA, then of course your adjustable gross income comes down, so you face a smaller tax payment while saving money. It's a government sponsored deal and everybody is happy with it right? But what they are suggesting also, for example is to take all of that away and put the money in the Social Security trust fund, and then when you retire you'll get one check that represents your Social Security and whatever your 401K has matured to at 3% a year in one check. Well, IRA contributions drive down adjusted gross income. Using the $100K example, and let's say you direct $20,000 of it go to your IRA, whatever the maximum you can put away, so therefore your adjustable gross income is reduced by $20,000 so you're going to have a smaller tax payment.

Once they take that away from you, guess what? Your tax rate's going to also go up because your adjusted gross income is not going to have your IRA deduction, and guess what this is going to do? It's going to push more people into Obama's new tax increase bracket. It's going to push more people over the $250,000-a-year magic number. This is actually a Democrat Party proposal, and they have been conducting hearings on this already, and the appropriate committee in the House and this plan has been advanced by a professor that they brought in, and they're intrigued by it. I think it's scary.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why what's wrong with the NHS? It's the greatest thing a British government has ever done and probably ever will do

One of your own newspapers put out an interesting article that reflects the false premise that government controlled health care is a good idea.

A new study by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden shows that the American health care system outperforms the socialized systems in Europe in getting new medicines to cancer patients. The difference saves lives, and the existing Western European systems force people to die at higher rates from the same cancers, (although the Telegraph buries that lede... see here---> http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=5973

The researchers studied Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa and the US, as well as 19 European countries, with a total population of 984 million, and looked at access to 67 newer cancer drugs.
They found that the proportions of female cancer patients surviving five years beyond diagnosis in France, Spain, Germany, Italy were 71 per cent, 64 per cent, 63 per cent and 63 per cent respectively. In the UK it was 53 per cent.
Among men the proportions still alive at five years in the same countries were 53 per cent, 50 per cent, 53 per cent and 48 per cent. Again in the UK it was lower at 43 per cent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ern-Europe.html

The Telegraph rightly focuses on the British system and its deficiencies. However, when one looks further into the article, the point about the American system finally surfaces:

quote:

Dr Nils Wilking, a clinical oncologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said: "Our report highlights that in many countries new drugs are not reaching patients quickly enough and that this is having an adverse impact on patient survival. Where you live can determine whether you receive the best available treatment or not. "To some extent this is determined by economic factors, but much of the variation between countries remains unexplained. In the US we have found that the survival of cancer patients is significantly related to the introduction of new oncology drugs." ... The proportion of colorectal cancer patients with access to the drug Avastin was 10 times higher in the US than it was in Europe, with the UK having a lower uptake than the European average.

It's funny how the supposedly equalized treatment of people under Western socialized-medicine models holds people back from new therapies and new medicines, while the American model of market-based medicine (with significant regulation) outperforms in this regard by a factor of 10. That response allows patients to start treating their cancers earlier, but what this report misses is that the American model also allows for earlier detection, thanks to the long waits for procedures like CAT scans and the like in Britain and other socialized systems.

And yet, the Democrats this year have already begun discussing how they will bring the American system closer to nationalization. Perhaps their presidential candidates should read this report first. Certainly American voters should familiarize themselves with it.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You're simply wrong. I've been all over the world, and I even help run a business in a Muslim country (Malaysia) where the systems are a LOT different than they are here. I'm not saying American's shouldn't be taxed... what are you talking about? I'm saying the taxation should be truly fair (I'm all for everyone paying the same percentage; wealthy would still contribute more in gross that way). I'm saying it's not right for the government to decide how much they want to take from whoever they decide constitutes as "rich", and give that hard earned money to people who don't work for it. Individual property rights is a core value rooted in our constitution, and that is greatly diminished when the government starts taking what they want, when they want, from who they want. Wrong... people who are "homeless" were given loans on houses they could never afford to begin with by banks, as mandated by Clinton and Carter policies, as well as all the democrats that let Fannie and Freddie explode into what it is now ("affordable housing" I guess means the taxpayers make it affordable). Say what you want about the Capitalist society, but throughout human history, no nation has produced more wealth/prosperity than America has, with a standard of living unheard of, and in around than 200 years no less. Honestly ask yourself how this can be. Why were all the people who came here unable to do the same thing in the countries they came here from? This statement is just a product of where you've grown up... if you haven't grown up here or experienced true economic freedom, I guess you can't understand. It's funny that the government won't consier their pensions... there's have what's called a defined benefit option which is backed by the US Treasury, which means that Joe Biden and Obama and everybody else in Congress is sheltered from the ups and downs of the stock market. They get a generous pension no matter how bad liberal legislation screws up the economy for the rest of us. They also has the option of drawing their benefits earlier than private sector employees, with no penalty, and their contributions accrue faster. So if they take away our pensions, and make 401K's non-tax deductable (which they are talking about now), gone will be gone any incentive to contribute to it, in terms of the subsidy you get off the top of your income for whatever you donate to your 401K. And the government will now own your private retirement fund and do with as they please... and they're going to guarantee you say, 3% growth every year with the purchase of government bonds... therefore you give up all of the tax deductibility. Let's say you earn $100K and you put whatever percentage of it into your IRA, then of course your adjustable gross income comes down, so you face a smaller tax payment while saving money. It's a government sponsored deal and everybody is happy with it right? But what they are suggesting also, for example is to take all of that away and put the money in the Social Security trust fund, and then when you retire you'll get one check that represents your Social Security and whatever your 401K has matured to at 3% a year in one check. Well, IRA contributions drive down adjusted gross income. Using the $100K example, and let's say you direct $20,000 of it go to your IRA, whatever the maximum you can put away, so therefore your adjustable gross income is reduced by $20,000 so you're going to have a smaller tax payment. Once they take that away from you, guess what? Your tax rate's going to also go up because your adjusted gross income is not going to have your IRA deduction, and guess what this is going to do? It's going to push more people into Obama's new tax increase bracket. It's going to push more people over the $250,000-a-year magic number. This is actually a Democrat Party proposal, and they have been conducting hearings on this already, and the appropriate committee in the House and this plan has been advanced by a professor that they brought in, and they're intrigued by it. I think it's scary.

how does a contribution accrue faster?

the terms of defined benefit plans differ from employer to employer and there aren't any required standard terms (in response to your claim about obama and biden taking distributions earlier without penalty).

a defined benefit plan run by the government is tax deferred much like a 401K plan (e.g., social security). your initial contribution is put into the plan without being taxed (you need to separate the fact that it was the tax that brought it into the plan and instead look at it as a contribution), and you are not taxed on the contribution or the investment return until you are paid the benefit at retirement. Your SSI contribution isn't really a tax, it's a contribution in the state run defined benefit plan called social security.

i think you need to brush up on how these things work.

Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss One more clarifying thought is in order. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a �charter of negative liberties�. That�s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly. Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that�s radical change you�d better believe in, or else.

How does Obama want to reverse the "negative liberties" of the constitution?

Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How does Obama want to reverse the "negative liberties" of the constitution?

This is how the change would happen: To Obama and his ilk, negative rights are that the government can't do enough... that it's limited. So, if you have someone like Bill Ayers working up a curricula for high schools and colleges where kids are being taught that the Constitution is a charter of negative rights, they're going to make the assumption the Constitution is oppressive and that it limits them. So if you go out and you name something or call something a charter of negative rights, then you have permission to introduce positive rights. I mean, isn't "positive" better than "negative"? Then the poor, uninformed, ill educated students in our shitty public education system say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, positive rights, positive rights."

When he says about the Constituton that what's in there is what the state/federal governments can't do to you, but there's nothing in there about what they can do on your behalf... although it does; It lays out a number of things the government must do on our behalf.... like protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and of course it spells these things out. Obama doesn't see it that way. He's saying that it's very limiting. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you. "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." So he clearly wants a Constitution changed so the federal government, state governments can do something to you. Not FOR you; TO you. He's upset at the fact that there are negative liberties, as he calls them, in the Constitution. But that's precisely what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights in this Constitution, this country, is founded on the concept of individual liberty. The Constitution limits, legally, what government can do. So if you can't change the Constitution, you pollute the judiciary with people with like-minded views who will rewrite laws and enact what you believe using the Constitution as the basis for doing so. The things he would want to introduce would take away from individual rights and give the government that power. The Fairness Doctrine takes away free speech... that is an anti-Bill of Rights example (why name something fair that's anti-free speech)? You take away an individual's right to bear arms, is anti-Bill of Rights,but to Obama that's a positive right granted to the government. A charter of negative rights is demeaning and a deliberate attempt to destroy the Bill of Rights. That's what Obama wants and that's how he plans to implement his redistribution scheme.

What Obama wants to do is an anti-Bill of Rights, basically. Or, like a 2nd Bill of Rights that Roosevelt wanted to implement in 1944. Imagine... Roosevelt at the height of his powers could not get this through. But now it�s very possible that Obama and a powerful Democrat majority in Congress will be able to.


Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, on what will happen if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and nobody is able to stop Obama's judicial appointments.

quote:

"If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food. Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms,"

He wants judges who understand suffering... who understand poverty. He wants judges to rule on that basis, not the law, not the facts of any cases before them. He wants to know if some poor person's been charged with a crime, they should be exonerated because they're poor, because they're already oppressed. He wants people who will look to adjudicate legal cases not on the basis of the merits, but rather on the basis of socialism and using the federal government... he knows the Constitution, and there's too much time to start changing that around. So just get judges on the bench that will invent law. And when that's all appealed to the US Supreme Court, you've got your judges there to uphold the lower courts. Frightening stuff.


OBAMA (2001): I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time. And the court's just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can -- any three of us sitting here can come up with a -- a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

See, he just doesn't think that Supreme Court can do it, but if you got the right judges on these courts then you can bring about economic change through the courts. Stop and think of that. That is not the purpose of a court anywhere is to bring about economic change! By the way, what is his economic change? He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities... that is what is motivating him. He is behaving and thinking as though in 2001 this country still is in slavery, like we're still back in the fifties and sixties where he can't go to the lunch counter or sit at the front of the bus.

Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government � shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss One of your own newspapers put out an interesting article that reflects the false premise that government controlled health care is a good idea.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about the pros and cons of a national health service, where you got that impression from God only knows. Also, it refers specifically to cancer medication. That's one factor out of hundreds. It's also the Telegraph which is very conservative (and anti-government) which goes some way to explaining attacks on the NHS.

Look again at the World Heath Organisation's rankings, the UK is 18th whereas the US is right down in 37th. That measures ALL factors of health care, not just one. Not only that, look at the highest positions - practically every single one has universal health care. America is the ONLY wealthy industrialised nation on Earth that does NOT have a universal health care system

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm saying the taxation should be truly fair (I'm all for everyone paying the same percentage; wealthy would still contribute more in gross that way).

So you want poor people living in poverty to pay absolutely shit loads more so the rich can get richer at their expense? Doesn't sound fair to me. We have the figures - the top 5% pay summat like 40% of taxes, while the poorest 50% pay summat like 3%. Are you seriously suggesting that those poorest 50% (earning possibly less than $9k a year) should share out between them 40% of what is collected from income tax?! Do you even think that the combined wealth of these individuals would even cover 40% of all income tax?

quote:

I'm saying it's not right for the government to decide how much they want to take from whoever they decide constitutes as "rich", and give that hard earned money to people who don't work for it. Individual property rights is a core value rooted in our constitution, and that is greatly diminished when the government starts taking what they want, when they want, from who they want.

Collecting taxes from rich or poor has been the job of every government since governments first came on the scene. Governments decide how much money they need to do what they want, and decide how to raise that money - that's their job.

quote:

Wrong... people who are "homeless" were given loans on houses they could never afford to begin with by banks, as mandated by Clinton and Carter policies, as well as all the democrats that let Fannie and Freddie explode into what it is now ("affordable housing" I guess means the taxpayers make it affordable).

Ah so it's all the democrats fault is it? Nothing to do with the laisse faire economic model championed by the right wing, that calls for less social protection, less regulation for corporations, less workers rights - and all so they can make more money? Listen pal, I'm no fan of the democrats because as far as I'm concerned, they adhere to the same economics. So blame whichever party you want, makes no difference whatsoever to my arguments

quote:

Say what you want about the Capitalist society, but throughout human history, no nation has produced more wealth/prosperity than America has, with a standard of living unheard of, and in around than 200 years no less. Honestly ask yourself how this can be. Why were all the people who came here unable to do the same thing in the countries they came here from?

If 1% of your population controls the majority of that wealth, then it means nothing in comparison to other countries. You have to look at the population as a whole, not just take the richest 1% to hold up as a shining example because America has some of the worst rates of poverty in the advanced world, so where you get this idea your economic ideology has produced miracles from God only knows because compared to the rest of the Western world, large swaths of the American population are living in the dark ages. My country's not far behind because we follow the American economic model closely, but over here it's a national shame that every government tries to fix (as difficult as that may be) but you seem to bury your head in the sand and pretend your country is something it's not. I'd be ashamed if I were you

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Let's just post this ole classic for shits & giggles...

That, is evidence if ever you needed any, of the shockingly poor educational standards in America

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley That, is evidence if ever you needed any, of the shockingly poor educational standards in America

How so, lord master of the classroom? Or did you not learn analogies and metaphors in your 34th grade class?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Let's just post this ole classic for shits & giggles...

I don't understand why people don't get this...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So you want poor people living in poverty to pay absolutely shit loads more so the rich can get richer at their expense? Doesn't sound fair to me. We have the figures - the top 5% pay summat like 40% of taxes, while the poorest 50% pay summat like 3%. Are you seriously suggesting that those poorest 50% (earning possibly less than $9k a year) should share out between them 40% of what is collected from income tax?! Do you even think that the combined wealth of these individuals would even cover 40% of all income tax?

No... what the heck? I'm suggesting that for the word "fair" to be taken literally, the same percentage of one's earnings regardless of overall wealth should be paid out in taxes for everyone. For example, lets say it was 10%. If you make $22,000 a year, you pay $2,200 in income taxes... if you make $485,000, you pay $48,500. Having the person who makes 22K pay 4% and the person making $485K pay 18% just because they can is not fair. Poor people don't pay taxes anyway; something like 33% of people don't pay them now. But the government can never do with less, and so they ask us to... and since they can't snatch it from the lower income people, they just say "well fuck the achievers, they can afford it so lets get it from them." It's infuriating.

quote:

Collecting taxes from rich or poor has been the job of every government since governments first came on the scene. Governments decide how much money they need to do what they want, and decide how to raise that money - that's their job.

We've already been over this. I'm talking about it being done in a fair manner, not taking more from achieving people who work hard for what they earn to dish it out to others. These transfer of wealth programs have been attempted many times, and they never work! It's like the thing about giving a man a fish and he eats for a day vs. teaching him how to fish himself and he can eat for a lifetime.

quote:

Ah so it's all the democrats fault is it? Nothing to do with the laisse faire economic model championed by the right wing, that calls for less social protection, less regulation for corporations, less workers rights - and all so they can make more money? Listen pal, I'm no fan of the democrats because as far as I'm concerned, they adhere to the same economics. So blame whichever party you want, makes no difference whatsoever to my arguments

All the regulation/de-regulation in the world won't help if you have bad management, and the fact is that the Democrats have been managing the housing situation. They enacted laws that mandated giving loans to people who didn't even have to provide an income source, for christ's sake. Read for yourself IN THEIR OWN WORDS below, from the people who are in charge of the Fannie/Freddie thing. It was nothing but a financial cookie jar for all of them, and they just lie and blame Bush and his policies when they are guilty as hell:

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

quote:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez: Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

quote:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

quote:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place. And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers. This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated? Mr. Raines? Mr. Raines: No, sir. Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould? Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . . Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . . Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

quote:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position. Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.

Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

quote:

Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert? Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator. What we're trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . . Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don't know how we do it. I mean, you've alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It's important, is it not? Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . . Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion.

Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

quote:

Sen. Schumer: I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don't undo Fannie and Freddie.

Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

quote:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don't overreact. I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let's not do nothing, and at the same time, let's not overreact. . . Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . . Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.

And for your last quote---->

quote:

If 1% of your population controls the majority of that wealth, then it means nothing in comparison to other countries. You have to look at the population as a whole, not just take the richest 1% to hold up as a shining example because America has some of the worst rates of poverty in the advanced world, so where you get this idea your economic ideology has produced miracles from God only knows because compared to the rest of the Western world, large swaths of the American population are living in the dark ages. My country's not far behind because we follow the American economic model closely, but over here it's a national shame that every government tries to fix (as difficult as that may be) but you seem to bury your head in the sand and pretend your country is something it's not. I'd be ashamed if I were you

Twist the numbers however you choose... there is a reason people from all over the world have been pouring into this country for a long time now. This is the place they all want to come because the opportunity is there for anyone who has the desire. Don't give me that oppressive bullshit like this is Zimbabwe. I don't claim perfection for this country, and perfection will never be had anywhere... but unlike you, I'm proud of where I live and being ashamed of the place that has given me every opportunity to succeed and prosper just isn't the way I operate. Everyone has a chance here.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So you want poor people living in poverty to pay absolutely shit loads more so the rich can get richer at their expense? Doesn't sound fair to me.

Back up - how does the richer get rich at the poor peoples' expense again?

Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is how the change would happen: To Obama and his ilk, negative rights are that the government can't do enough... that it's limited. So, if you have someone like Bill Ayers working up a curricula for high schools and colleges where kids are being taught that the Constitution is a charter of negative rights, they're going to make the assumption the Constitution is oppressive and that it limits them. So if you go out and you name something or call something a charter of negative rights, then you have permission to introduce positive rights. I mean, isn't "positive" better than "negative"? Then the poor, uninformed, ill educated students in our shitty public education system say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, positive rights, positive rights."

I guess you didn't know this. In law school (which Obama went to Harvard's), IT IS CALLED "NEGATIVE LIBERTIES"! IT'S AN ACADEMIC TERM. Why? Because it's telling us and the state what is CANNOT do, which is a negative connotation.

quote:

When he says about the Constituton that what's in there is what the state/federal governments can't do to you, but there's nothing in there about what they can do on your behalf... although it does; It lays out a number of things the government must do on our behalf.... like protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and of course it spells these things out. Obama doesn't see it that way. He's saying that it's very limiting. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you. "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." So he clearly wants a Constitution changed so the federal government, state governments can do something to you. Not FOR you; TO you. He's upset at the fact that there are negative liberties, as he calls them, in the Constitution. But that's precisely what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights in this Constitution, this country, is founded on the concept of individual liberty. The Constitution limits, legally, what government can do. So if you can't change the Constitution, you pollute the judiciary with people with like-minded views who will rewrite laws and enact what you believe using the Constitution as the basis for doing so. The things he would want to introduce would take away from individual rights and give the government that power. The Fairness Doctrine takes away free speech... that is an anti-Bill of Rights example (why name something fair that's anti-free speech)? You take away an individual's right to bear arms, is anti-Bill of Rights,but to Obama that's a positive right granted to the government. A charter of negative rights is demeaning and a deliberate attempt to destroy the Bill of Rights. That's what Obama wants and that's how he plans to implement his redistribution scheme.

Actually, the constitution never says the government's role is protect life, liberty, and happiness. Neither does the Declaration of Independence. What the constitution does say is what the state CANNOT do.

But what's striking is your assertion Obama wants to change the constitution!! LOL. Based on what premise?

quote:

What Obama wants to do is an anti-Bill of Rights, basically. Or, like a 2nd Bill of Rights that Roosevelt wanted to implement in 1944. Imagine... Roosevelt at the height of his powers could not get this through. But now it�s very possible that Obama and a powerful Democrat majority in Congress will be able to.

Really? Based on what? What comment do you base this, "Obama wants to change the constitution and revoke our rights"? I'm really interested in hearing this...

quote:

Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, on what will happen if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and nobody is able to stop Obama's judicial appointments.

So Republicans are allowed 6 years of one party rule, but oh no, the Democrats, no, they can't have it.

quote:

He wants judges who understand suffering... who understand poverty. He wants judges to rule on that basis, not the law, not the facts of any cases before them. He wants to know if some poor person's been charged with a crime, they should be exonerated because they're poor, because they're already oppressed. He wants people who will look to adjudicate legal cases not on the basis of the merits, but rather on the basis of socialism and using the federal government... he knows the Constitution, and there's too much time to start changing that around. So just get judges on the bench that will invent law. And when that's all appealed to the US Supreme Court, you've got your judges there to uphold the lower courts. Frightening stuff.

And you conservatives demand pro-life/conservative judges. I get it. Only Republicans are allowed to have one party rule, and only Republicans should be able to choose Supreme Court judges. Got it...

quote:

See, he just doesn't think that Supreme Court can do it, but if you got the right judges on these courts then you can bring about economic change through the courts. Stop and think of that. That is not the purpose of a court anywhere is to bring about economic change! By the way, what is his economic change? He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities... that is what is motivating him. He is behaving and thinking as though in 2001 this country still is in slavery, like we're still back in the fifties and sixties where he can't go to the lunch counter or sit at the front of the bus.

I think you've exaggerated Obama's stances to suit your own talking points. As if Obama is hell bent on...

a) amending the constitution for some unstated agenda
b) revoke the bill of rights
c) filling the supreme court with "yes" men.

quote:

Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Goddamn man, he's raises taxes for the the highest income earners, and only to Clinton Administration levels. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO RAISE TAXES!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government � shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

A wise and frugal government huh? Like the last 7 years? It's a shame you want the same decrepit party, which has proven to be totally against what everything Jefferson was for, to remain in power. But I'm not sweating it, because history will be against you come this November 4.

Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is how the change would happen: To Obama and his ilk, negative rights are that the government can't do enough... that it's limited. So, if you have someone like Bill Ayers working up a curricula for high schools and colleges where kids are being taught that the Constitution is a charter of negative rights, they're going to make the assumption the Constitution is oppressive and that it limits them. So if you go out and you name something or call something a charter of negative rights, then you have permission to introduce positive rights. I mean, isn't "positive" better than "negative"? Then the poor, uninformed, ill educated students in our shitty public education system say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, positive rights, positive rights." When he says about the Constituton that what's in there is what the state/federal governments can't do to you, but there's nothing in there about what they can do on your behalf... although it does; It lays out a number of things the government must do on our behalf.... like protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and of course it spells these things out. Obama doesn't see it that way. He's saying that it's very limiting. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you. "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." So he clearly wants a Constitution changed so the federal government, state governments can do something to you. Not FOR you; TO you. He's upset at the fact that there are negative liberties, as he calls them, in the Constitution. But that's precisely what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights in this Constitution, this country, is founded on the concept of individual liberty. The Constitution limits, legally, what government can do. So if you can't change the Constitution, you pollute the judiciary with people with like-minded views who will rewrite laws and enact what you believe using the Constitution as the basis for doing so. The things he would want to introduce would take away from individual rights and give the government that power. The Fairness Doctrine takes away free speech... that is an anti-Bill of Rights example (why name something fair that's anti-free speech)? You take away an individual's right to bear arms, is anti-Bill of Rights,but to Obama that's a positive right granted to the government. A charter of negative rights is demeaning and a deliberate attempt to destroy the Bill of Rights. That's what Obama wants and that's how he plans to implement his redistribution scheme. What Obama wants to do is an anti-Bill of Rights, basically. Or, like a 2nd Bill of Rights that Roosevelt wanted to implement in 1944. Imagine... Roosevelt at the height of his powers could not get this through. But now it�s very possible that Obama and a powerful Democrat majority in Congress will be able to. Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, on what will happen if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and nobody is able to stop Obama's judicial appointments. He wants judges who understand suffering... who understand poverty. He wants judges to rule on that basis, not the law, not the facts of any cases before them. He wants to know if some poor person's been charged with a crime, they should be exonerated because they're poor, because they're already oppressed. He wants people who will look to adjudicate legal cases not on the basis of the merits, but rather on the basis of socialism and using the federal government... he knows the Constitution, and there's too much time to start changing that around. So just get judges on the bench that will invent law. And when that's all appealed to the US Supreme Court, you've got your judges there to uphold the lower courts. Frightening stuff. OBAMA (2001): I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time. And the court's just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can -- any three of us sitting here can come up with a -- a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. See, he just doesn't think that Supreme Court can do it, but if you got the right judges on these courts then you can bring about economic change through the courts. Stop and think of that. That is not the purpose of a court anywhere is to bring about economic change! By the way, what is his economic change? He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities... that is what is motivating him. He is behaving and thinking as though in 2001 this country still is in slavery, like we're still back in the fifties and sixties where he can't go to the lunch counter or sit at the front of the bus. Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government � shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

wow....you've obviously never read the constitution. articles I - IV set out how the government is to operate - and generally these provisions don't say that the government must do anything for the people . the amendments are mostly prohibitions on government actions with the exception of trial rights and suffrage (those are the only affirmative rights i can think of without looking). The bill of rights is widely recognized by any person with a legal background as providing negative rights. you should really refrain from talking about legal issues as you usually don't have many correct things to say.


btw....the orange stuff is from the declaration of independence. you are the third person on this forum i've had to correct about that (just ridiculous).

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss No... what the heck? I'm suggesting that for the word "fair" to be taken literally, the same percentage of one's earnings regardless of overall wealth should be paid out in taxes for everyone. For example, lets say it was 10%. If you make $22,000 a year, you pay $2,200 in income taxes... if you make $485,000, you pay $48,500. Having the person who makes 22K pay 4% and the person making $485K pay 18% just because they can is not fair. Poor people don't pay taxes anyway; something like 33% of people don't pay them now. But the government can never do with less, and so they ask us to... and since they can't snatch it from the lower income people, they just say "well fuck the achievers, they can afford it so lets get it from them." It's infuriating.

I'm not going to get into this whole thing, but just out of curiousity, when you guys get raises, assuming constant funding not tied to the business cycle (not reality, I know), do you always get a equivalent percentage increase year after year based on equivalent performance? If you were the boss, would you give your entry levels making $35K per year a 10% raise, then give 10% to an 20 year employee (who by that point would be making an astronomical salary based on those numbers year-to-year?

Or do employers scale those, too?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I'm not going to get into this whole thing, but just out of curiousity, when you guys get raises, assuming constant funding not tied to the business cycle (not reality, I know), do you always get a equivalent percentage increase year after year based on equivalent performance? If you were the boss, would you give your entry levels making $35K per year a 10% raise, then give 10% to an 20 year employee (who by that point would be making an astronomical salary)? Or do employers scale those, too?

good point. as you know i'm a tax lawyer, so i've probably studied tax policy more extensively than almost anyone on the board, and i've never heard someone analogize the progressive taxing system with the broader system of compensation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess you didn't know this. In law school (which Obama went to Harvard's), IT IS CALLED "NEGATIVE LIBERTIES"! IT'S AN ACADEMIC TERM.

haha, well pointed out krypton! youre exactly right, i believe isiah berlin was one of the first theorists to point out the difference between positive and negative conceptualisations of liberty.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 good point. as you know i'm a tax lawyer, so i've probably studied tax policy more extensively than almost anyone on the board, and i've never heard someone analogize the progressive taxing system with the broader system of compensation.

It is a major reason for the increasing difference between the top 10% and the bottom 10%, right, as most of that difference is caused by investments, not wages?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.