We are screwed ( NSR )

[Buster Highmen]

Most amusing: the middle class bitching about taxes and supporting tax cuts for the rich.

Board: consider campaign finance reform.

[meatdrink9]

MD9 - you're right as long as your basic supposition holds up:

That all people who make less $$ than you are lazy, layabout abusers of the system.

Ask your employer's custodian, your garbageman, a road crew worker, or a Nanny how they feel about this. Ask them if they think this is unfair: the person "only" paying 35% of their $25,000 income (leaving them $16,500) or the poor guy unfairly paying 45% on his $200,000 income (Net: 110,000.)

Ask yourself who works "harder," and who needs a break more.

Yes I oversimplified the situation, but so does the rhetoric that says "rich people" are getting punished. I might be in the top tax bracket - but I also have the disposable income to pay for an accountant who finds ways to hide my money. We NEVER pay taxes on more than 70% of our combined take thanks to loopholes, tax shelters, and other non-standard deductions not available to the folks I mentioned above. My father-in-law is a wealthy man. He brags that as far as the Government knows he makes less than $50K a year, yet he owns 4 Corvettes, a vacation home at the Jersey Shore, and has no problems buying his wife "shiny things" for X-mas.

Who do you people think shoots down the whole flat tax idea every time it comes up? It certainly isn't the "poor" people, but those who will "lose" much more money by losing their deductions: the "rich."

The wife and I also play all the tax games. I write off everything skiing, travel, hardware, gear, remodel costs, tools, etc. We have several corps. It's still ridiculous.

So the guy making $200,000 a year pays $90,000 a year taxes while the others pay $8,500. That's insane, that's over 10 times more than the others. They chose those jobs, jobs without degrees. They didn't work to get through school and earn the bigger bucks. That's their choice. Don't punish those what worked to earn a degree. Stayed later at work to climb the corporate ladder. That $200,000 salary wasn't just handed out. The others may still work very hard, but it's in a field they chose that doesn't pay well. Why punish the doctor for the garbage man's choice? It's reverse evolution. Everytime something or someone works to better itself we take away the benefits of it's efforts.


board, sorry mang. I too agree about the politicians. Whatever it takes to get elected. Any talk of taxes can send me on a serious tangent.

[Tippster]

I know board, I'm off topic again...

Tip- it was Forbes that proposed the flat tax last wasn't it? I don't think that guy is poor. I don't know if I agree that the "rich" don't want a flat tax. I think even the richest most greedy guy would say, "well if the garbage man is paying 8%, and that's all I have to pay, I'm in." And I know what you're saying about your father-in-law. I bet he's paying somewhere though. Maybe he only earns $50K from his corp and the corp owns all the toys but I'm sure the corp pays some taxes too.

Now if it comes down to it and the flat tax rate is like 35% for everyone, I don't think anyone will go for it.

Dood - you totally forgot to put every other word in "quotation marks." Lame republican motorcycle rider.

The person advocating the rollback for the top 2% tax cut is directly affected by his proposal... John Kerry isn't exactly poor, his wife even less so.

Board - I spend 50% of my time covering the Executive & Legislative Branches of our Government, and the other 50% covering the pundits who explain what it all means to us. In the last 10 years of fulfilling my salaried (plus OT ) position I have learned one inalienable truth:

If you took everyone on Capitol Hill and put them in a big sack, then beat that sack with a large club...you'd ALWAYS be hitting an asshole.

Regardless of their position - be it local, regional, or federal - make no mistake what an elected official's #1 job is: TO GET RE-ELECTED. No one is in it for the common man. Jimmy Stewart's "Mr. Smith" does not exist, and IMHO never did.

Charlie Rangell is rather refreshingly candid these days, no? Remember when he called for re-institution of the draft, since it would be more honest than the "back-door draft" the Pentagon is using currently?

[Buster Highmen]

They chose those jobs, jobs without degrees. They didn't work to get through school and earn the bigger bucks. That's their choice.

Sometimes this is true, sometimes not. But for those earning $200k+ per year, they can live rather nicely on the leftovers. Then again, 200k+ per annum is abut upper middle class these days. What about the wealthy, the really wealthy?

Where's the magnanimy? Where's the national identity? Where's the humility for being brought up in a loving and supportive environment where most of our needs were met?

[1080Rider]

Dood - you totally forgot to put every other word in "quotation marks." Lame republican motorcycle rider.

Oh, so now you're calling me a hooligan, huh. Man if I ever catch up to you I'll beat your ass (actually, you're bigger than I am so I'll need a club, or a friend or two).

[mr_gyptian]

MD9, F-350's are a swimmingly good write off that is supposed to sunset this year.

think about it.

[meatdrink9]

Sometimes this is true, sometimes not. But for those earning $200k+ per year, they can live rather nicely on the leftovers. Then again, 200k+ per annum is abut upper middle class these days. What about the wealthy, the really wealthy?

Where's the magnanimy? Where's the national identity? Where's the humility for being brought up in a loving and supportive environment where most of our needs were met?

And it's your decision (and the government's) to tell those people with $200K how to live. Is it also our right to tell them how much they should give to be good humans? Hell, while we're making decisions for others shouldn't we tell the gays that they can live rather nicely without healthcare and unrecognized weddings. Give me a break. Just because you belive in one cause and not another.

Who cares if people have more than $200 a year? That's financial bigotry. I think the rich pay too much as it is.

My national identity? Fuck that. Where's the politician that hears my voice? Rewarding their campaign conributors with inflated contracts to spend my money.

I'm glad I was born and raised in a good environment. WTF does that have to do with paying more taxes? I'll do my best to return the favor for my kids. It seems like the gov taking money from parents is actually a deterant from being a better provider. I'm still for paying taxes and supporting the system, but I think the burden should be carried evenly. As it stands now it's reverse evolution. Some serious fat needs to be trimmed from government spending, but then "we're cutting jobs". Sometimes it's needed.

Like I've said before I'm not either party. I like aspects of both parties. I'm more issue by issue. On this issue I'm more republican than dem.

[Tippster]

The wife and I also play all the tax games. I write off everything skiing, travel, hardware, gear, remodel costs, tools, etc. We have several corps. It's still ridiculous.

So the guy making $200,000 a year pays $90,000 a year taxes while the others pay $8,500. That's insane, that's over 10 times more than the others. They chose those jobs, jobs without degrees. They didn't work to get through school and earn the bigger bucks. That's their choice. Don't punish those what worked to earn a degree. Stayed later at work to climb the corporate ladder. That $200,000 salary wasn't just handed out. The others may still work very hard, but it's in a field they chose that doesn't pay well. Why punish the doctor for the garbage man's choice? It's reverse evolution. Everytime something or someone works to better itself we take away the benefits of it's efforts...

Sorry, but I think this is a worthy topic to discuss, even if it's tangential to the original post.

Why (or how) is the doctor being "punished?" It's just as easy to say the reverse - that the lower income earners are being "helped" by a lesser tax rate. Yes, $90K is much more than $8.5K, but $110K is much more than $16.5K as well. Which one would you rather live on? Don't tell me the guy who cleans septic tanks is doing exactly what he wants. He's doing what's necessary to get by. Others do what they can given their backgrounds and/or abilities. I went to school, and paid my own way through it. I've worked at least 20 hours a week since I was 15. I've dug ditches, washed dishes, lifted heavy shit, and other grunge jobs to make a dollar... I do know what it took me to get where I am today. I also realize that I was born into a family that valued education over everything, that didn't need my immediate assistance in their continued survival, and that was able to help me financially and emotionally when I needed it. There are many many many factors involved in the arc of a person's growth and career, not just willingness to work hard.

Again, if that Dentist... err...Doctor you claim is being "punished" is paying taxes on their full income I'll clean your house (and his) for free for a month, and fly out to do it on my dime as well. (Then, of course, I'll deduct the expenses occurred from my gross annual income and pay even less in next year's taxes, whilst getting to hang with a maggott in one of my favorite places... )

[joshbu]

MD:

The rich should pay more and more taxes as long as the trend of more and more of the nations wealth being held by fewer and fewer people holds up.

That's the missing piece: Your proposing to tax rich people proportionatly less even as they account for proportionately more.

[1080Rider]

I don't think MD9 is saying tax the ditch digger 50% and bill gates 1%, because bill is still paying more $$$ even at that. I think he's just saying that it shouldn't be a PENALTY to make more $$$. If ditch digger pays 15% and bill gates pays 15%, that's prolly fair. Now that I'm done speaking for MD9...

I have a doctorate and I bet that ditch digger makes as much as me. Unfortunately, it cost me A LOT more to earn me doctorate than it did the ditch digger to earn his position. Again, my choice. Its also my choice to stay in a city that holds wages for my profession down. I bitch about it but don't expect the gov't to help me out. I could make more $$$ elsewhere but wouldn't have the life I have now. Just like it was ditch digger's choice to not pursue a degree (presumably).

[Buster Highmen]

And it's your decision (and the government's) to tell those people with $200K how to live. Is it also our right to tell them how much they should give to be good humans? Hell, while we're making decisions for others shouldn't we tell the gays that they can live rather nicely without healthcare and unrecognized weddings. Give me a break. Just because you belive in one cause and not another.

All I mean to say is that one can live really well on 110k/year. Should there be no limit to excess?
Taxes pay for some good stuff: roads, education, parks. If you want a cut in taxes, expect a cut in services.
Personally, I don't mind paying more since I earn more.

Mixing in the remarks about gays is below you. It's a completely different issue. I apologize if my addressing the topic in this way incenses you to that extent.

Who cares if people have more than $200 a year? That's financial bigotry. I think the rich pay too much as it is.

My national identity? Fuck that. Where's the politician that hears my voice? Rewarding their campaign conributors with inflated contracts to spend my money.

I don't think the rich pay too much, particularly the very wealthy. We differ.

As far as your national identity, you're an American. One of priviledge as well. If you don't believe that the government should play a role in helping other Americans, the poor, the disadvantaged and the indigent, I guess we differ there as well.

Yup, the government requires control. At the base of my beliefs is that we'll have a more successful time controlling the government than the corporations or relying on the wealthy to look after the poor, our educational systems, roads or parks.

If you feel that the politician doesn't hear you, that's your responsibilty. Vote, phone and write letters. Our government gets out of control because we let it. Take responsibility. If required, riot and revolt. And exactly who are those campaign contributors? The poor?

I'm glad I was born and raised in a good environment. WTF does that have to do with paying more taxes? I'll do my best to return the favor for my kids. It seems like the gov taking money from parents is actually a deterant from being a better provider. I'm still for paying taxes and supporting the system, but I think the burden should be carried evenly. As it stands now it's reverse evolution. Some serious fat needs to be trimmed from government spending, but then "we're cutting jobs". Sometimes it's needed

The issue is that a lot of us have had a lot of advantages. Folks that didn't get those advantages sometimes don't get to choose what they do for a living. So I'm taking issue with that remark of yours. And I don't think the poor should have to pay the same amount the middle class or rich do.

Like I've said before I'm not either party. I like aspects of both parties. I'm more issue by issue. On this issue I'm more republican than dem.

I know you're not and I have a lot of respect for you and your ethics of work and creativity. I guess I just figure that I'll continue to work and try to make stuff independent of my tax burden.

I disagree with the notion of the welfare state. I think it engenders entitlement addictions and hate for the providers. I have different ideas about it.

[basom]

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/...pothetical.GIF

[meatdrink9]

Taxes are way too high. Money is being pissed away. I will say my household is much closer to that 200k than the 28k. I've been in both shoes. I live in the same hood with the 28k households. I work my ass off round the clock while most of my neighbors drink beer in the alley. I don't like knowing that the extra work I'm doing while they party is going to help pay for thier party. They've got the ability to work too. I joined the army to help with college. I've had a job since freshman year in high school. I worked 40 hours a week during college in an airbag factory, and attended Guard drills on the weekends.

So you guys think the rich should not only pay 10 times more in taxes, but also be taxed at a higher percentage? That's nuts. The rich will still always being paying more. They should be taxed at a lesser percentage. They'll still pay far more per year, but it's more of an incentive for people to work harder to get to these other brackets. They've got another reason to work harder. Right now we punish work and no one here has yet to address that argument.

[1080Rider]

Yeah, basom, you're the reason for global warming. You should drive something more aerodynamic, like a corvette, so you wouldn't have to expend so much energy moving that pile of shit. I'm opening the debate over whether vans should be taxed or outlawed... (now board is shitting because his thread is heading towards another unrelated tangent)

[basom]

i was refering to the flow of hypothetical bullshit contained in most of these political threads.

http://forum.powdermag.com/photopost...ht_victims.jpg

[meatdrink9]

All I mean to say is that one can live really well on 110k/year. Should there be no limit to excess?
Taxes pay for some good stuff: roads, education, parks. If you want a cut in taxes, expect a cut in services.
Personally, I don't mind paying more since I earn more.

Mixing in the remarks about gays is below you. It's a completely different issue. I apologize if my addressing the topic in this way incenses you to that extent.

I don't think the rich pay too much, particularly the very wealthy. We differ.

As far as your national identity, you're an American. One of priviledge as well. If you don't believe that the government should play a role in helping other Americans, the poor, the disadvantaged and the indigent, I guess we differ there as well.

Yup, the government requires control. At the base of my beliefs is that we'll have a more successful time controlling the government than the corporations or relying on the wealthy to look after the poor, our educational systems, roads or parks.

If you feel that the politician doesn't hear you, that's your responsibilty. Vote, phone and write letters. Our government gets out of control because we let it. Take responsibility. If required, riot and revolt. And exactly who are those campaign contributors? The poor?

The issue is that a lot of us have had a lot of advantages. Folks that didn't get those advantages sometimes don't get to choose what they do for a living. So I'm taking issue with that remark of yours. And I don't think the poor should have to pay the same amount the middle class or rich do.



I know you're not and I have a lot of respect for you and your ethics of work and creativity. I guess I just figure that I'll continue to work and try to make stuff independent of my tax burden.

I disagree with the notion of the welfare state. I think it engenders entitlement addictions and hate for the providers. I have different ideas about it.

Buster, it's the same thinking, but with different issues plugged in. Below me, whatever. It's an analogy with words. Are you so sensitive to block out the point simply due to the analogy used. The latter of the two is one we share.

I'm an American. I contribute. That's why I said earlier I wish I had a say as what I contributed to. For you to imply I'm not helping the poor is like me implying your bombing babies in iraq. Why so polar? It's the same taxes we both pay going to different things. And at the age you were traveling the US selling drugs I was serving in the Army. So climb down from your civic pride pulpit.

I was advantaged, but I also worked my ass off. Others from my family struggle to get by. The difference in our situations is work.

I think you're a great dude, but enforcing people to do your will is wrong. No matter which side of the fence you're on.

[Buster Highmen]

I believe that I should be taxed at a greater rate because I can afford it.

I think the intent of higher taxes for the rich goes along these lines. It's not punitive in intent.

Clearly this is an emotional issue and we'll never get anywhere as long as it's emotional.

[meatdrink9]

I believe that I should be taxed at a greater rate because I can afford it.

I think the intent of higher taxes for the rich goes along these lines. It's not punitive in intent.

Clearly this is an emotional issue and we'll never get anywhere as long as it's emotional.

Yeah, I'm done with this. None of you have made an argument to sway me in the slightest. In fact you've never really adresssed any issues other than some sort of hippy civic giving, praying in public nobility bullshit.

We agree to differ on this one. My last post in this thread. You're not seeing the whole picture of my posts anyway. More posts won't help.

[Buster Highmen]

Buster, it's the same thinking, but with different issues plugged in. Below me, whatever. It's an analogy with words. Are you so sensitive to block out the point simply due to the analogy used. The latter of the two is one we share.

I think they're entirely different. And I did address the main point. Or at least I try.

I'm an American. I contribute. That's why I said earlier I wish I had a say as what I contributed to. For you to imply I'm not helping the poor is like me implying your bombing babies in iraq. Why so polar? It's the same taxes we both pay going to different things. And at the age you were traveling the US selling drugs I was serving in the Army. So climb down from your civic pride pulpit.

I regret that you're interpreting things this way. I do not mean to imply that you're not helping. I mean to illuminate that you shold take pride in what you do and what you help.
We each paid for college in our own way.
I don't see myself at a pulpit, I see myself in a crowd, talking to another member of the crowd, telling them that they're in a crowd. A crowd more lonely than it should be.

My apologies for allowing you to even begin to consider that I'm postulating so.

You do have a say with your government. But a lot of Americans have shirked their responsibilty in that regard. Disdain the French, but they shut down their government a lot.

I was advantaged, but I also worked my ass off. Others from my family struggle to get by. The difference in our situations is work.

I think you're a great dude, but enforcing people to do your will is wrong. No matter which side of the fence you're on.

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. All I'm saying is that I think it's reasonable for society's elite to bear more than their share of the burden in part because they enjoy more of its bounty.

[Buster Highmen]

Yeah, I'm done with this. None of you have made an argument to sway me in the slightest. In fact you've never really adresssed any issues other than some sort of hippy civic giving, praying in public nobility bullshit.

The greatest attribute of art or humanity is magnanimy. As I wrote, I only meant to point out that you can think of the good stuff your taxes can do.

More posts won't help.

I guess not.

[SLCFreshies]

The issue of whether we are taxed too much or too little is not an easily answerable question. Compared to other industrialized nations, our income tax burden is among the lowest. Of course, we don't get as many services as in other nations, namely subsidized health-care for everyone.

However, as board stated, the MAIN issue is that our government is spending FAR more money than it is taking in and at a rate that is not sustainable over the long term.

There are major differences between the deficits now and those in the Reagan era. The Reagan era was at the cusp of the end of the Cold War. After the Cold War was over, the U.S. was able to make huge cuts in defense spending, which was one of the main reasons that we were able to reduce the yearly deficit and return to a brief surplus in the late 1990s. This was a one-time event that will likely not happen again. With the "War on Terror" and the money pit that is Iraq, defense spending will be high for as far as the eye can see.

On top of this, we are now two decades closer to the retirement of the baby-boomers, which will put an enormous strain on both Social Security and Medicare. Instead of saving more money in the face of these future obligations, we've been raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for general budget items. In addition, we've ADDED to our entitilement obligations by passing a prescription drug benefit to Medicare without passing any cost-containment reforms AT ALL (which is another dicussion).

Why does a deficit matter? Just as individuals cannot indefinitely spend more than they earn, countries cannot as well. There will come a time when this debt has to be paid, and the ONLY way it will be paid is with our tax dollars. Sure, the government can issue bonds, but this just defers the inevitable. Or it can print money, but inflation will go through the roof and wreck the economy. Some here say that the "economic cycle" will drag us out of debt. I seriously doubt our economy will grow at a rate that will outpace the rate of our entitlement growth when the baby-boomers hit retirement. Even the President's rosy, unrealistic budget projections see deficits for as far as they are willing to forecast.

Think we pay too much taxes and want to cut them? Fine, cut spending too. But the path that we are on is unsustainable and will lead to a LOT of pain for everyone in the future. To those that say this is like the '80s and will just blow over--you are sorely misinformed.

[optics]

IMHO, bellyaching about paying higher taxes as you get richer smacks of serious short-sightedness.

You're lucky enough to have born into a country where it's not too difficult to live better than most of the world. If you're complaining about tax increases, you're lucky enough not to have to worry about putting food on your plate.

The same amount of work put out by someone born in Afghanistan would not yield the results it does here.

Seems to me, if you're able to get rich here, you should help pay more to support the infrastructure from which you benefit.

[board]

Mr. Burns - those damn swindlers in Washington are trying to bleed me dry

Smithers - we'll with our team of lawyers and creative accounts we only paid 3 dollars in taxes last year

Mr. Burns - You're right Smithers WE ARE GETTING SCREWED ! ! !


lets all keep in mind that we as American's enjoy one of the lowest overall tax rates in the world. Trust me if you think you're getting screwed it could be a hell of allot worse. This country BADLY needs tax reform out tax code is a god damn mess with more loopholes than we could ever plug. A flat tax isn't a bad place to start but there are problems with it and it would hellishly hard to ever get made in to law, but lots not give up. The best we can do is become as educated as possible and not give up on democracy.

" democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others "

[slim]

The problem is that the tax structure, as it is, is set up in a manner that discourages risk, entrepreneurialism, and harder work/extra hours. MD sort of hit on this. If you're working 25 extra hours per week, but getting taxed in a manner that you're only getting paid for 12 of those hours, where is the incentive to continue to work those extra hours knowing you're giving away half your time? Additionally, if the additional income you stand to make by taking the financial risks to start your own business does not outweigh the risks involved (due to the tax burden on that additional income) where does that leave our economy. Which is more valuable, the additional tax revenue or the boost to the local economy that a successful small business can provide?

It simply isn't an issue of the rich getting taxed more and the poor getting taxed less. The reform needs to come not in the Bush tax cuts for the top 1/2 of 1% but in tax reform for the middle to upper-middle class earners that are eager to grow their income through hard work and financial risk.

Also, the real problem with the U.S. is the pork in government spending that is presently being heaped on by both sides in Washington due to absolutely zero restraint and threat of veto by G.W. The answer to the deficit shouldn't simply be raise taxes... as so many Democrats love to suggest... it should be responsible government spending. When politicians tell you school programs and national parks will be cut, it's scare mongering because they don't want to risk their pet pork project that benefits solely their constituency and thus pads their re-election.

[13]

board, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that politicians are sell-outs. Imagine how different our government would be if you were limited to 1 term as a member of the executive or legislative branch.

MD9,

I agree with you that people who work harder should not be taxed more for their extra effort and having a say in how our taxes are spent would be awesome -- everyone's money would be talking, not just corp dollars.

However, with all due respect, the assumption that people who haven't made it like you did for lack of effort is in my opinion, flawed. One's position in society is definitely a factor in whether or not you "make it." As both a victim and witness of many types of discrimination, I can honestly tell you that despite the best efforts of many people to get ahead, effort alone will not pave the way.