quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that begs the question of how much does the government need to function properly. you're assuming that the current income is an amount sufficient to run government. Shouldn't the amount necessary to fund government be determined before the proper tax allocation? It makes no sense to limit necessary government functions by some arbitrary tax income that you say is proper.

Yes--proper budgeting would be a great start. Then we get to start taking a hatchet to all of the unnecessary entitlement spending programs and pork-barrel spending. Over the long-haul, greater government spending crowds out private investment and stifles long-term economic growth.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's just great and congratulations to you on a fine achievement. No doubt you've worked very hard to get to where you are in your professional life. However, I think it's quite faulty and dangerous to assume that everyone in your shoes or in bigger shoes (for lack of a better word) feels the same way. And feeling differently doesn't make them better or worse than you. You'd be surprised how many "less" financially fortunate people than you actually don't want more handouts and a greater tax burden on the wealthy. Sure many do, but it is not the norm by any means.

obviously people don't feel the same as I do. Noone is talking about handouts. I'm talking about access to education and healthcare. Find someone less fortunate than me who thinks greater access to education is a bad thing. I'm not talking about taxing so that poor people can get welfare checks. I don't mind paying greater taxes if it means more access to education and healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'd be happy with a base tax rate for all citizens, and if you are so altruistic as to be happy to carry more of the burden (as whoever cites Warren Buffet said), then by all means, send some extra income over to the IRS--I know they'd be happy to accept it. For those that are interested, allow me to direct you to the U.S. Treasury, who will be happy to assist you further: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html By all means, show me how patriotic you are. I won't hold my breath.

both you and I know that's a ridiculous sensationist comment. I pay what i am asked to pay, and i expect no more or less from anyone else. Even if i was that altruistic, i wouldn't do such a thing because our government is wasteful. If it was guaranteed that my money was going to education or healthcare i would certainly give a little more.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 both you and I know that's a ridiculous sensationist comment. I pay what i am asked to pay, and i expect no more or less from anyone else. Even if i was that altruistic, i wouldn't do such a thing because our government is wasteful. If it was guaranteed that my money was going to education or healthcare i would certainly give a little more.

But you're being more patriotic! (I know I'm kidding). It goes to show the point though. I am impressed that there is actually such a department for gifts like that. I think most people would prefer to direct their extra funds to charities and causes of their choosing. But your comment about government being wasteful is exactly right and is illustrative of why I abhor the thought of sending more and more taxpayer funds into the black hole that is government spending.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You're hardly an authority

Neither are you, so what's your point?

quote:

So you say you have a claim or title to the services provided by the doctor at no cost?

Yes, and, everybody in my country enjoys that right

quote:

I explained it but perhaps you don't comprehend basic economics

And you can't see the facts when it slaps you in the face...

www.nhs.uk

quote:

See above again. Why don't you tell me how well public defenders are paid in comparison to private attorneys and then perhaps you'll understand the comparison.

This isn't theory, it's fact. I have free health care provided by doctors who are amongst the highest paid workers in the country

quote:

There is no free lunch.

Yet it works in other countries, how do you explain that?

quote:

No question our public education system needs improvement but you seem to think that the only way to accomplish this is to throw more money at the problem and hope it fixes itself. It takes more than just tax money to make a broken system work.

The fact is, those schools that have the resources produce the results...

quote:

It takes willing participants with innovative solutions and a desire to see the system improve. As I suggested above, there is a massive amount of political opposition to many proposals that have been made to attempt to improve the public education system here because not many of the public educators want to be held to any standard--they would rather sit in their cushy government job and collect a pension while the youth of America suffer and fail to get a proper education.

What a ridiculous argument. In my country, if you're not up to the standard you get sacked, just like in any other job

quote:

Not to mention how much of a child's eduction is the responsibility of the parents.

Yes, that's right, it's up to the parents to teach the laws of physics and the history of the world? Shit, why do we even have teachers in the first place!?

quote:

Yes I have and I never realized the hellhole I live in until you just told me how much it sucks here.

You don't seem to be aware of a world outside your American bubble, or more likely, you're so ignorant you assume America does things the best way possible, and that all other ways done in other countries are done by savages. Face facts, the world offers much greater solutions to society's problems than is offered by the inherently selfish American culture (well, there is enough selfishness in your culture that prevents those with the desire to see a better life for everyone in the country make the change)

quote:

That is simply intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of the tax burden already rests squarely on the shoulders of the top 5-10% of income earners in the country while the bottom 30%+ pay no income tax at all.

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

quote:

It has nothing to do with what bracket I think I'll end up in, it's what I think is an adequate system. I think lower taxes for everyone is better. If the government can't function on what it brings in, then the government needs to shrink. I have my own obligations and ambitions and I don't need some twit from across the pond telling me to what degree I'm "rich" or "greedy" or am not paying my "fair" share.

I have no idea how much you earn, so I'm not telling you how much you should or shouldn't contribute to society. However, if you fall in the top 10% of earners, I expect you to contribute a hell of a lot more than those at the bottom. Likewise, if you were earning minimum wage, I would not expect you to pay as much and I would also provide you with basic services to further reduce your financial burden like give you free health care...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka But you're being more patriotic! (I know I'm kidding). It goes to show the point though. I am impressed that there is actually such a department for gifts like that. I think most people would prefer to direct their extra funds to charities and causes of their choosing. But your comment about government being wasteful is exactly right and is illustrative of why I abhor the thought of sending more and more taxpayer funds into the black hole that is government spending.

while i was on the train home i had an additional thought. a single person giving more to the government will do nothing. it is only through the collective increase (i.e., higher taxes) that it would be effective.

we are both on board with cleaning up spending, there is no disagreement.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...4/36/995/643777

Eh?

___________________

"In a world of illusion you only see what you feel"

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What exactly is wrong about redistributing wealth to create a more fair society where opportunity exists for everyone, not just for those that can afford it?

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread... been out all day. Anyway, if wealth distribution was a good thing, and worked, then the "Great Society" and the "War On Poverty" and the "New Deal" would have been successful, as their aim was exactly this idea to even the playing field and make everything fair... with those programs there's been over $7 trillion in wealth transfer, redistribution style and they've only created more entitlement programs and haven't solved a damn thing. It's failed every time it's been tried and it never makes those people any happier. Take the housing situation... the beneficiaries of "affordable housing" who were promised a house got what they wanted, but it's in foreclosure! Dems of course are going to find a way to keep them in the house with our tax dollars, even though they can't pay for it. But even when they got the house they were no happier because they really didn't pay for it, and there was nothing that they did themselves to engender self-satisfaction or pride. THAT is what socialism destroys.

If the Dems get this social engineering dream of utopia accomplished, plus a 60 seat majority in the senate, well, the last time that this happened was during the Jimmy Carter presidency, and you know what happened during the Jimmy Carter presidency. The Left was left unchecked and it was able to implement what it believes. How about the last time before that? It was during the Lyndon Johnson presidency when we got the Great Society, and the War on Poverty. We got all of these entitlement programs and there's nothing that can be done about them, per se. Again, if those programs had equalized all the inequalities and if it made fair all the unfairness, there would not be any argument that we need to keep doing it. In two years, Pelosi and Reid have been running the show and you can go back and you can check statistics from 2006, and you take a look at the way things were during the first six years of the Bush economy, take a look at the last two years with the Democrats unchecked in the House of Representatives and so forth, you can see the economic disaster.

This whole notion that redistributing wealth is a distraction, is not a distraction... it's the core issue here. Bottom line, When a candidate proposes to use the power of government to steal money from tens of millions of citizens to give to other citizens who have not earned it, it's socialism.

And if you think our economy is bad today, wait for his massive tax increases on the middle class, which is going to happen in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts expire, and he doesn't have to do anything. I know I know, the Obama campaign is trying to say, "This is not a tax increase, it's just a tax cut expiring." Well, the practical effect of it is you're going to have less disposable income. And then from there is where Obama's going to apply the rest of his tax increases. There are going to be massive tax increases on your employer. You think 6% unemployment is high now? If he gets 60 seats in the Senate and Pelosi does her magic in the House, there is no Republican opposition anywhere, we're back up to 12% unemployment just as we were during the Jimmy Carter years. You think the financial markets are a mess today, you wait and see what happens to them when they are taxed beyond their ability to pay, what happens to mortgages and bank accounts, and when the economy comes crashing down, who do you think Obama will blame, what do you think he'll do? The ground has already been set for massive nationalization, including our pension plans.

Then when he crashes the economy, it will be time for another crisis measure, and that will be nationalizing everything because the first attempt didn't quite get it right.

Your whole notion that the bailout was strictly Republican is hilarious. And your assertion that Britain's health care system is a model for the world is equally disturbing.

Did you really attempt to use a Nirvana song in your title?

I think you did.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Did you really attempt to use a Nirvana song in your title? I think you did.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread... The concise history of America snipped!

You're suffering a similar problem to Shakka, you have a complete inability to see the world outside America. I'm no communist/marxist, I don't think those ideologies work. But that's not what socialism means. A socialist ideology might be described as communist in its extreme form, but most people around the world when they talk about being a socialist is because they favour certain individual policies, not the whole package. Sweden and Norway are perhaps the most successful countries on Earth, and their economic model is something I aspire to for my country. But you would never think about Sweden or Norway as being America's deadliest enemies would you? (Obviously not saying these countries are perfect and they still have a lot of problems as you would expect) The fact is, there aren't any policies that I would argue for that haven't successfully been tried elsewhere, so I know they work.

quote:

When a candidate proposes to use the power of government to steal money from tens of millions of citizens to give to other citizens who have not earned it, it's socialism.

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

quote:

And if you think our economy is bad today, wait for his massive tax increases on the middle class

Well me and you have different definitions of "middle class" I think. In every other country in the world, middle class means petit bourgeoisie (ie the more well off people). In America, I think middle class is that bulk of people that fall between working class and middle class (so 'working class done good' or 'lower middle class'), I guess your typical white collar worker right? Well, if we're talking about the same group of people, and this is the most important group for the economy, then why not subsidise their tax with those above them? The working(UK)/middle(US) class do suffer in times of difficulty and they should be assisted too (they would benefit from free health care for example or child benefits, etc).

quote:

what happens to mortgages and bank accounts, and when the economy comes crashing down

But that has already happened because of America's capitalist policies. And now people, middle class white collar workers, are homeless! If you had more social protection, you can ward off the worst effects of an economic collapse for the population, but your current policy offers no such protection as you see with all the problems you're facing today

quote:

The ground has already been set for massive nationalization, including our pension plans.

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? My life savings pissed down the sink! At least with a state pension British people get the basic costs of living, anything else they saved up is a bonus, but without that state subsidy, you might as well go straight to the soylent green processing plant!

quote:

And your assertion that Britain's health care system is a model for the world is equally disturbing.

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

quote:

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

Quoting a couple of passages from The Gartman Letter, a daily economics publication:

quote:

"According to data supplied by the IRS and the National Tax Foundation, at its best back in the early 1980's, only 17% of the public did not pay any tax to the federal government. That began to change in '86 with the passing of the tax reform act of that year. Quietly, the number of those not paying taxes rose. By 1990, that number was up to 21%. By '93 it was up to 24%...and it held essentially steady there through the remainder of the 90's. After the turn of the century, the chart turned upward, and did so materially. By '01, 27% of America did not pay taxes to the Federal government. By '04 it was 33%, and the trend was accelerating. It is now expected that under Sen. McCain's tax proposals, that by '09, 43% of Americans earning wages will not pay federal taxes of any kind. Under Sen. Obama, it will be only marginally worse, for under his proposals, 44% will not pay any federal taxes. At the current pace, by the mid-"teens," we will pass the 50% level, and once past there we fear that the acceleration will only worsen. This is creeping socialism at its very worst, for it happens slowly but it happens inexorably. We are left to wonder if we have not already passed the point of no return? Sadly, we fear we have.

quote:

...Firstly, we note that the top1% paid 40.4% of the total taxes in '06 (the last year for which hard data is available) and received 22.06% of the total revenue. In fact, the top 1% of the nation's taxpayers in '06 paid almost exactly the same amount of total tax as the lower 95%...a truly astounding comparison in our opinion. Further, since 1980, the percentages have been moving "against" the upper 1% and "for" the lower 95%, for according to our friend Dr. Mark Pery again of the University of Michigan in 1980 the top 1% paid only 19% of the total federal income taxes paid, while the bottom 95% paid more than 63%. Over the last 25 years, the tax burden on the top 1% increased from 19% to 40% while the tax share of the bottom 95% has decreased from 63% to 40%. This is not an inconsiderable shift, in our opinion. However, the public's perception of the manner in which the tax burden is shared is incredibly skewed...and manifestly wrong. Nearly 7 of 10 people surveyed...actually it is 68 of 100, but let's not quibble...though that the "rich" paid less than 40% of the nation's tax burden, while only a bit more than 1 of 10 thought they paid more than that. 9 of 10 Democrats thought the "rich" paid far less than the 40% they do pay. Interestingly, the figures did not move much according to education levels: 92% of those with a high-school education thought the top 1% paid less than what they do, while 89% of those with some college education thought so. 9 of 10 Obama supporters thought the top 1% paid less than they actually did, but surprisingly, 7 of 10 McCain supporters thought the same. For the record, as we prepare ourselves for a much higher and rising tax burden, we note the following figures from the IRS as of last October: The top 1% paid 39% of the total taxes. The top 5% paid 60%. The top 10% paid 70%. The top 25% paid 86%. The top 50% paid 97%, and The bottom 50% paid only 3% of the total taxes. To make the top 1%, one needed to earn $364,657; to make the top 5%, the break point was $145,283; to make it inot the top 10%, one needed $103,912; the break for the top 25% was at $62,068, and for the top 50% the break came at $30,811.

quote:

However, if you fall in the top 10% of earners, I expect you to contribute a hell of a lot more than those at the bottom.

Don't worry, I pay plenty.