By The Numbers He's Not An Idiot...

[Rocky]

Quote
The reason this concerns me, as I'm very very far from being rich, is historically when this type of tax situation happens, the rich leave and find another country. It's convenient for the rich to live here, but they don't have to. They can get anything (and probably a bit more in some cases) from another country they can get here. With their wealth they can buy power and live the way they want to regardless of geography, in most cases. That's why I believe this is a seriously dangerous line to be taking with America's rich.

Sorry scut, but thats the most ridiculous reason Ive heard for not taxing the rich.  If you havent noticed we've taxed the rich disappropriately for a long time and it haasnt happened yet.  We already let them get off a lot of income tax due to off shore bank accounts that we cant tax.  They are still paying more than their share, theres no doubt that we couldnt survive like we do without them.  But with your reasoning we should have a flat tax?  And basically bankrupt the poor people with it?  Im confused cause your logic would also suggest that if the rich left the poor would too to follow the money and we'd be left with just a middle class?

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Rocky

Sorry scut, but thats the most ridiculous reason Ive heard for not taxing the rich.  If you havent noticed we've taxed the rich disappropriately for a long time and it haasnt happened yet.  We already let them get off a lot of income tax due to off shore bank accounts that we cant tax.  They are still paying more than their share, theres no doubt that we couldnt survive like we do without them.  But with your reasoning we should have a flat tax?  And basically bankrupt the poor people with it?  Im confused cause your logic would also suggest that if the rich left the poor would too to follow the money and we'd be left with just a middle class?

No, but it has happened in England and many other European countries where their systems of taxation are severely out of whack.  We're not their yet, but Democratic and populist propoganda/dogma has us on the road to it.  It isn't just poor foreigners that have traditionally fled to the US.  The rich used to as well.  Also remember that our income tax system isn't even 100 years old yet and when it started the maximum amount as a mere 7%.  That number is now in the 40s if I'm not mistaken.  Anyway, the fact that the rich already pay more than their fair share isn't a logical reason for increasing the percentage of burden on them.  If you're going to slash taxes across the board by 1% for every group, then why would you leave the rich out and make them more embittered?  That makes no sense to me.  Give them the same tax break you gave everyone else.  They still have to pay a higher percentage than everyone else, just a slightly smaller one overall.  Is that so hard to deal with?  

And yes, I'd support a flat tax whole heartedly or even better, a consumption tax/federal sales tax instead of our current tax system.  I'd like to make taxes as voluntary as humanly possible.  You don't tax things like food and medicine, but you tax at a higher rate things like ultra expensive cars and big ticket luxury items.  Poor people don't have to pay any taxes to get the basic necessities and rich people still pay the bulk of taxes for big ticket items IF they want to spend them money on lavish items.  You don't want to pay taxes?  Don't buy stuff you don't need.  You pay as much or as little as you really want to in taxes.  Even better, criminals like drug dealers that don't pay income tax now, will have to if they want to buy the bling bling to impress the ladies.  There will still be a black market, but at least they'll pay something instead of nothing as they do now.

BTW, Bush is finally, FINALLY doing something conservative and reducing our troop deployments in Europe and Asia and bringing most of them home and deploying some to Turkey.  Thank god.  The cold wars is over and we don't need those forces in Europe or Japan.  I'm not sure I like the reduction in South Korean with the North doing all it's nuclear threatening, but we need to pull them out of just about everywhere else.  They do nothing but make the Euros and Japanese angry.  

[Rocky]

Quote
I'd like to make taxes as voluntary as humanly possible. You don't tax things like food and medicine, but you tax at a higher rate things like ultra expensive cars and big ticket luxury items. Poor people don't have to pay any taxes to get the basic necessities and rich people still pay the bulk of taxes for big ticket items IF they want to spend them money on lavish items. You don't want to pay taxes? Don't buy stuff you don't need. You pay as much or as little as you really want to in taxes. Even better, criminals like drug dealers that don't pay income tax now, will have to if they want to buy the bling bling to impress the ladies. There will still be a black market, but at least they'll pay something instead of nothing as they do now.

Scut I really hope you rethink this after my problem with it.   WHat you just said will lead to exactly what you warned of the other system.  If the taxes are on just luxury items wouldnt that drive the rich away more than taxing their jobs?  Why buy in a country where its expensive when you can leave it and buy cheap things everywhere else?

Quote
Give them the same tax break you gave everyone else.

Quote


Sure, I $5,000 tax rebate across the board sounds good to me.  Same tax break to everyone and we save money.  But you still ask why we should give the tax breaks to the poor and not the rich?  Heres why,  you give the poor the money, they spend it on the economy via rent, food, clothes, and all that spent money ends back up in the hands of the owners of Wallmart and large housing apartments (the rich).  The rich will get more than their share of any tax credit regardless of who it goes too.  The money ends up in their hands one way or the other, why not have someone spend it first?

[YoungBuck]

Who cares at this point  idiot or not.  "Change is good"  is good enough for me  this time around to vote for the  Dems.

[BallisticGelatin]

Quote
Who cares at this point idiot or not. "Change is good" is good enough for me this time around to vote for the Dems.

Yeah! That's the right attitude!  And changing our Government to communism or fascism would be a big
change too....why don't we try that if "Change is good"?

[Rocky]

BG obviously missed the refference to the campaign slogan and instead thought you just wanted change regardless.  Its tough discussing things when people dont get the allusions and instead rely on illusions.

[Overkill]

Quote
No, but it has happened in England and many other European countries where their systems of taxation are severely out of whack

Pardon? The richest people in Britain by proportion, fiddles, and offshore accounts pay the least!! Why do you think so many wealthy Yanks now have homes here? The "bad old days" of "taxing the rich till' their pips squeek" are loooooooooooong gone. 40% tax on a million is peanuts, 20% plus stealth taxes on 15,000 ( the real average wage) a year is a lot. Mind you, compared to the Irish we're ALL well off tax wise!!!

[YoungBuck]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin

Quote
Who cares at this point idiot or not. "Change is good" is good enough for me this time around to vote for the Dems.

Yeah! That's the right attitude!  And changing our Government to communism or fascism would be a big
change too....why don't we try that if "Change is good"?

   I dont know if Bush is an  idiot but you definitly are.  Change to thinking with your head instead  of  your  buttttt.

[BallisticGelatin]

Quote
I dont know if Bush is an idiot but you definitly are. Change to thinking with your head instead of your buttttt.

At least you have a sophisticated, mature argument to respond with.

[YoungBuck]

I think there is a law  on hte books that says
                                                              "mature argument to respond with"
                                                             
                                                              does not APPLY to
                                                             
                                                             "Yeah! That's the right attitude! And changing our Government to communism or fascism would be a big change too....why don't we try that if "Change is good"?"  

You seem to be looking for  "BIG CHANGE"  while I'm just looking  for little    change   from Rep Prez to Dem Prez  that happens anyways   if not every 4 years than 8 years  in the Beacon of Freedom and Democracy  that USA is.  In case you forgot there   is  also Congress  Of The USA where people  get elected /reelected  as well all the time .  What a horror that must be for you.

 Good day, friend.



 

   


 
   

 

[BallisticGelatin]

Simply trying to illustrate a point...not ALL change is good.  Got that, friend?

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin
Simply trying to illustrate a point...not ALL change is good.  Got that, friend?

All change is good for someone but that doesnt mean it is good for everyone.

Take the two examples you quoted Communism - in almost every country it started in, it came as a mandate from the masses. The people as a whole chose that route because the felt it was better than the way they were being treated.

Fascism saw NAZI Germany become the most efficient nation ever concieved and had Hitlers lust for power not led him to expand his countries borders with invasions of other countries it would have been interesting to see where Germany would be today in terms of financial and industrial wealth. Although that was good for many everyday Germans it was bad for anyone who was not blue eyed and blonde.

There are plenty of other examples where fascism has helped keep the peace, in otherwise troubled countries or improved life for certain sectors of the population.  

[BallisticGelatin]

Quote
There are plenty of other examples where fascism has helped keep the peace, in otherwise troubled countries or improved life for certain sectors of the population.

Yep, and Hitler kept the trains running on time...but the millions of people that got a one way ticket to the ovens might agree with me that not all change is good...Unless you argue that Hitler's reign was good for the oven manufacturers....but I wouldn't.

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin

Quote
There are plenty of other examples where fascism has helped keep the peace, in otherwise troubled countries or improved life for certain sectors of the population.

Yep, and Hitler kept the trains running on time...but the millions of people that got a one way ticket to the ovens might agree with me that not all change is good...Unless you argue that Hitler's reign was good for the oven manufacturers....but I wouldn't.

I just said that in my reply, so you arent adding anything to the conversation except the sound of your own voice.

The number of civilians dying in Iraq is currently higher than under Saddams reigime and although we cant be entirely sure of the numbers the total saddam is known to have killed over the period of his power is less than are dying in the country at the moment. That will eventually sort itself out, but you have to wonder what the people of Iraq who are being shot at the moment think was the better situation.

Mugabe has support of a lot of the people in zimbabwe and is giving people back their tribal lands, but try telling that to the farmers who are being beaten up and driven out of their homes.

Change happens because it is better for someone that still does not mean it is better for everyone

[UglyShoes]

I'm sure on some things Bush is pretty smart. But raw test scores don't always tell you much.  Bush may be smart, but his actions have completely defied this.  His behavior is just plain not smart. But I think a lot of this is that he is controlled by others, which when differant people control the same person for differant things, you get a very incohearent person.  Think of 3 people trying to drive the same car at once, each working one control. It will never be smooth.

Far as his spelling or slips in speach. I don't hold this against him.  I find it amusing, heck i do much the same. Its when he says something dumb or scary that wasn't a mistake that scares me.

Also spelling has nothing to do with inteligance.  The smartest people who every lived have been horrible spellers.  those who are extremely good spellers often arn't good at much else.  The reason is pretty simple.  Spelling is part of written lanuage. It has no basis in math or physics, it's simply a random construction of man. Thus those who are really smart, who happen to be those who have a special sense for how things work, and do math and physics so well and so forth. Spelling just doesn't fit in with this.  It's not a natural process or follow any true logic, so to be good at spelling or grammar is more of just a good learning of something, not a sign someone is very smart or dumb depending on how they do.

I happen to be one who has  high IQ,  am good with math and science to where i tend to just know the answer and so forth, but i'm a terrible speller.  There is information out there on this issue.  I find it a real shame how so many thing spelling has anything to do with intelegance. Furthermore, if it did, and i dropped you off in a country where you don't know the language at all, and i tested you there,  you would tank,  are you any less smart? no.  But if you had to take an IQ test, or do something in math or science, you would be fine, just the same infact.

[ScutMonkey]

Rocky, I believe this was you:

Quote
Scut I really hope you rethink this after my problem with it. WHat you just said will lead to exactly what you warned of the other system. If the taxes are on just luxury items wouldnt that drive the rich away more than taxing their jobs? Why buy in a country where its expensive when you can leave it and buy cheap things everywhere else?

No it won't because you can get goods and services in the US that you can't get anywhere else.  More to the point, it's easier to stomach taxes when you have control over how you're taxed.  It's alot harder to complain about being taxed when you get a big screen tv or a Cadillac Escalade with it.

Quote
Sure, I $5,000 tax rebate across the board sounds good to me. Same tax break to everyone and we save money. But you still ask why we should give the tax breaks to the poor and not the rich? Heres why, you give the poor the money, they spend it on the economy via rent, food, clothes, and all that spent money ends back up in the hands of the owners of Wallmart and large housing apartments (the rich). The rich will get more than their share of any tax credit regardless of who it goes too. The money ends up in their hands one way or the other, why not have someone spend it first?

Well there are a couple problems with that.  First is that the current IRS numbers shows that the rich support the country with their taxes, not the poor.  The top 10% pay 65% of all taxes in the US.  What's also interesting is that a vast amount of that is made off stocks, so when the market is bad, tax money dries up.  Guess what happened when Bush lowered the tax rate on dividend profits with his cuts?  Tax revenues went up.  The effect was twofold.  One, the stock market went up which means capital gains taxes, secondly the incomes of the rich went up and since they are being taxed the most so did tax revenues.  According to the NY Times:

Quote
The major tax rate reductions for highly paid Americans did not take effect until 2003, when - it is clear from spending patterns, general income data and the performance of the stock market - more affluent taxpayers regained some of the losses they experienced in the earlier years of the decade.

Falling incomes, rather than tax cuts, appear to count for the greatest share of the decline in income taxes paid. That is because the higher one stood on the income ladder the greater the impact was likely to be from the stock market crunch.

At the same time many of those whose incomes fell the most - those reporting $200,000 to $10 million in income - paid at the highest rates, which meant that the drain on revenues was even greater when their incomes shrank.

In other words, a crappy economy is more responsible for our recent deficits than tax cuts.  Tax cuts spurred the stock market which begat economic growth.  If you want to increase tax revenues in this country you MUST do something for the rich because they pay the vast majority of the taxes collected in this country.  If you just give tax cuts to the poor you get next to nothing in return because your trickle up economics doesn't work.

PS.  If anyone would like to see who pays the taxes in the US, they can find it on the IRS website right here.  The top 25% of wage earners pay 82% of the taxes in the US collected by the IRS for individuals and you have to make $56,000 a year to be in the top 25%.  Obviously this doesn't include corporate taxes or other forms of revenue.  

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Rocky
I guess you have a much lower expectations for someone in charge of our country.

Like Al Gore, who had a very mediocre Harvard career and flunked out of both Divinity School and Law School?
 

[Rocky]

Well I think flunked out is arguable.  Also Id put Gores work experience up against Bush's as well.  I didnt say intelligence was the only thing, but it is a major thing.  I think you would even admit Gore is smarter and more experienced than Bush was.  You just dont agree with his opinions as much.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Rocky
Well I think flunked out is arguable.  Also Id put Gores work experience up against Bush's as well.  I didnt say intelligence was the only thing, but it is a major thing.  I think you would even admit Gore is smarter and more experienced than Bush was.  You just dont agree with his opinions as much.

More experienced?  Yes.  Smarter?  That's in the eye of the beholder.  

[Rocky]

Hence I said you wouldve at the time at least said he was probably smarter.  When are confronted you cant say in the eyes of the beholder, lol.  

[Babar]

Didnt Gore teach journalism classes at Columbia? Id love to give G-Dub a college classroom and see if he even knew more than the students did!