13.9 Percent

[Moonshot_1]

I don't see the tax issue to be anything. Vast majority of the wealthy earned the wealth. Raising their rates doesn't solve anything.

The problem is the Government spending. It doesn't make any sense to raise the tax rates on anyone while the Government would simply and recklessly, spend it.

$15 trillion in debt and the answer is to squeeze a little more out of rich folks?

How about a Balanced budget amendment, Congressional Term limit amendment, Soc. Security, Medicaid, medicare, reform.

How bout a government that gives a damn.

[RoadKill]

I don't see the tax issue to be anything. Vast majority of the wealthy earned the wealth. Raising their rates doesn't solve anything.

The problem is the Government spending. It doesn't make any sense to raise the tax rates on anyone while the Government would simply and recklessly, spend it.

$15 trillion in debt and the answer is to squeeze a little more out of rich folks?

How about a Balanced budget amendment, Congressional Term limit amendment, Soc. Security, Medicaid, medicare, reform.

How bout a government that gives a damn.

I'd be a lot happier to pay in, knowing it would not be squandered away on .... Damn,that is a long list of bullshit expenses. I can't post them all here!   

[Thespian]

Personal attacks are disruptive to the board and will not be tolerated.  Harassing, offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or bashing comments; and similar pictures or links, especially those aimed at sexual orientation, gender, race, color, religious views, national origin or disability — are not allowed and will be deleted. 

It's the code of conduct we all agreed to when posting, as set forth by the admin's. Follow it plz.

[alph]

yeah, a smart person would leave this country and move over seas to avoid paying such high income tax.......

[Jabba]

Try to add up what you pay in taxes in a year...  You can't.  Not with income, sales, gas, property, school, luxury, and worst of all... embedded taxes. 

The ONLY way to guess... is to look at how much does the government spend vs the GDP.  It averages about 30%.  To me... that's excessive.  30% of all the dollars that change hands every year goes thru the government.  Why doesn't that offend more of us?

I think we should house and feed our truly poor.  and give them health care.  But it shouldn't be comfortable.  Do it in old fashioned poor houses.  Barracks style facilities with dry beds, and uninteresting but healthy food.  Don't give them debt cards to spend on twinkies and pork rinds. 

I have seen people in line at Wal-Mart buying groceries on an assistance card, and in a separate purchase buy X-Box games and IPhone accessories then go to the parking lot and get in a $30K car.  It's abuse, and it torques me off as one of the guys that is pulling the welfare train.

FairTax is the answer, and would put a LOAD of manufacturing jobs into the US economy.  They keep saying they want good, middle class jobs... they should put their $ where there mouths are.

Jabba

[Robert]

Honestly regardless of trolling or taxes or anything of that nature unless the Federal government stops using the people like their own personal piggy bank raising or lowering taxes really doesn't matter. Why should we chew each other up and be diverted from the real problem the fact that spending by the Government is out of control. That the Federal Reserve is printing money at a alarming rate effectively causing everyone's income to go down. That we actually have less spending power than our fathers did with supposedly more income. If I had someone that I gave money to help out and not only did they not spend it wisely but then came back time and time again and asked for more I would cut them off before I ran out of money. How is it we dont get rid of the lot of them before they bankrupt the lot of us. In the early 1900 s  their was no income tax then only on the rich now its out of control. In 100 years how could we have lost the vision the men the policies that set the greatest country in the world so far off track? Do you know their are the men in court right now the very ones that stated the subprime boondoggle trying to change the laws so not only wouldn't it be a crime to do what they did but will be able to continue in the future. This is where the problem is not in the supposed unfair taxes but in the government greed, lack of fair control, failure to enforce the rules in place, and allowing their cronies to steal even most in congress. Communism/socialism is just the shaving off of the highs and lows till no matter what you do your in the middle.

[Bob E.]

Try to add up what you pay in taxes in a year...  You can't.  Not with income, sales, gas, property, school, luxury, and worst of all... embedded taxes. 

The ONLY way to guess... is to look at how much does the government spend vs the GDP.  It averages about 30%.  To me... that's excessive.  30% of all the dollars that change hands every year goes thru the government.  Why doesn't that offend more of us?

I think we should house and feed our truly poor.  and give them health care.  But it shouldn't be comfortable.  Do it in old fashioned poor houses.  Barracks style facilities with dry beds, and uninteresting but healthy food.  Don't give them debt cards to spend on twinkies and pork rinds. 

I have seen people in line at Wal-Mart buying groceries on an assistance card, and in a separate purchase buy X-Box games and IPhone accessories then go to the parking lot and get in a $30K car.  It's abuse, and it torques me off as one of the guys that is pulling the welfare train.

FairTax is the answer, and would put a LOAD of manufacturing jobs into the US economy.  They keep saying they want good, middle class jobs... they should put their $ where there mouths are.

Jabba

If you want to give the rich and even bigger tax break, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  If you want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  Just because it is called the "fair" tax doesn't make it so.  It is highly regressive, will destroy the economy, and politicians know it and that's why they won't touch it.  Hell, I'd take a flat tax over the fair tax any day.

If you want to destroy the automotive industry and pretty much wipe out the new housing market and new home construction, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  Ask a car salesman what they think about adding 23% to the price of a new car.  Ask a realtor or a home builder what they think about adding 23% to the cost of a new house.  And that's just the start of it.  I couldn't find where the FAIRTAX.org website addresses the sales tax on raw materials so I assume that that would get rolled into the cost as well...now you are up to 46%, not to mention the cost of a company's overhead for office supplies, equipment, buildings, etc.

Additionally, you're not really solving any of the problems you mention in your first paragraph since most property, sales, gas, school, etc. taxes are on the state and local level.  So you would still have those on top of what is essentially a 23% sales tax.

[Bob E.]

By the way...even Reagan believed that capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.  Income is income, no matter how you come by it.  My only exception to that is inheritance, not because I don't believe it shouldn't be taxed (yeah...that's right...a double negative ), but only because I recognize real issues with people inheiriting family farms, businesses, and other properties and I just don't know the best way to handle that.

[alph]

By the way...even Reagan believed that capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.  Income is income, no matter how you come by it.  My only exception to that is inheritance, not because I don't believe it shouldn't be taxed (yeah...that's right...a double negative ), but only because I recognize real issues with people inheiriting family farms, businesses, and other properties and I just don't know the best way to handle that.

think family trust funds.  problem is you have to live at least 5 years before it takes effect, this will protect your property from the government, and law suits. 

you have to understand that "rich" people must learn how to "keep" their money, poor people don't need to learn anything......  which is harder?

[Jabba]

If you want to give the rich and even bigger tax break, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  If you want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  Just because it is called the "fair" tax doesn't make it so.  It is highly regressive, will destroy the economy, and politicians know it and that's why they won't touch it.  Hell, I'd take a flat tax over the fair tax any day.

If you want to destroy the automotive industry and pretty much wipe out the new housing market and new home construction, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  Ask a car salesman what they think about adding 23% to the price of a new car.  Ask a realtor or a home builder what they think about adding 23% to the cost of a new house.  And that's just the start of it.  I couldn't find where the FAIRTAX.org website addresses the sales tax on raw materials so I assume that that would get rolled into the cost as well...now you are up to 46%, not to mention the cost of a company's overhead for office supplies, equipment, buildings, etc.

Additionally, you're not really solving any of the problems you mention in your first paragraph since most property, sales, gas, school, etc. taxes are on the state and local level.  So you would still have those on top of what is essentially a 23% sales tax.

Bob.  You don't understand the FairTax.  The FairTax ONLY taxes NEW goods at the point of sale.  Not raw materials used to build things. 

There is ALREADY a 20% embedded tax in EVERY car sold.  PLUS a 7% sales tax (in Indiana anyway).  Those embedded taxes go away... so the cost of the car goes DOWN.  Then the tax is collected at the final point of sale.  This is true of EVERYTHING.  When companies pay tax... they pass that tax onto their consumers in the cost of the goods.  When we eliminate that tax... and move it to the end, where it is anyway, all that wasted paperwork and effort to comply with (and avoid) the tax system is eliminated. 

It also means that the cost of ALL our good manufactured in America goes DOWN by 20%+.  Now... we're more competitive globally.  Now we have an explosion of manufacturing in America.

Now we as Americans can control, and SEE how much we spend in tax.  That exposes the lawmakers.  THAT is why they don't like it.

It does NOT add 23% to the existing costs.  It adds 23% to a cost of a good that ALREADY has that 23% in it.  And eliminates the need for the IRS, taxes illegal money, and foreign money.  Taxes the illegal immigrants. 

It will NOT grind the poor down even worse because of the PRE-Bate.  We'll PAY EVERYONE in America the tax associated with poverty level existence UP FRONT.  Thus making people that exist at the poverty level EXEMPT from taxes...and it'll augment people's incomes that earn less than that automatically, without all the bureaucracy.

Don't believe what people TELL you.  Learn for yourselves.

www.fairtax.org

Jabba

[..]

Try to add up what you pay in taxes in a year...  You can't.  Not with income, sales, gas, property, school, luxury, and worst of all... embedded taxes.  

The ONLY way to guess... is to look at how much does the government spend vs the GDP.  It averages about 30%.  To me... that's excessive.  30% of all the dollars that change hands every year goes thru the government.  Why doesn't that offend more of us?

I think we should house and feed our truly poor.  and give them health care.  But it shouldn't be comfortable.  Do it in old fashioned poor houses.  Barracks style facilities with dry beds, and uninteresting but healthy food.  Don't give them debt cards to spend on twinkies and pork rinds.  

I have seen people in line at Wal-Mart buying groceries on an assistance card, and in a separate purchase buy X-Box games and IPhone accessories then go to the parking lot and get in a $30K car.  It's abuse, and it torques me off as one of the guys that is pulling the welfare train.

FairTax is the answer, and would put a LOAD of manufacturing jobs into the US economy.  They keep saying they want good, middle class jobs... they should put their $ where there mouths are.

Jabba

If you want to give the rich and even bigger tax break, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  If you want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  Just because it is called the "fair" tax doesn't make it so.  It is highly regressive, will destroy the economy, and politicians know it and that's why they won't touch it.  Hell, I'd take a flat tax over the fair tax any day.

If you want to destroy the automotive industry and pretty much wipe out the new housing market and new home construction, go ahead and implement the Fair Tax.  Ask a car salesman what they think about adding 23% to the price of a new car.  Ask a realtor or a home builder what they think about adding 23% to the cost of a new house.  And that's just the start of it.  I couldn't find where the FAIRTAX.org website addresses the sales tax on raw materials so I assume that that would get rolled into the cost as well...now you are up to 46%, not to mention the cost of a company's overhead for office supplies, equipment, buildings, etc.

Additionally, you're not really solving any of the problems you mention in your first paragraph since most property, sales, gas, school, etc. taxes are on the state and local level.  So you would still have those on top of what is essentially a 23% sales tax.

Bob are you thinking of VAT?  Value Added Tax. The English introduced that years ago and stuck the country with 17%. I believe it's now 21%. Cost of living zoomed after that little gem.

[..]

Oh well I've got sucked in.

Where were the wealthers when John Kerry was running for office???

Plesae do your own research to find out how much he paid and what percentage. How much does he pay and what percent now?

Please do your own research to find out how many $ were located offshore.

There are the ill informed who believe the Democrat Party can do no wrong.

There are the ill informed who believe the Republican Party can do no wrong

There are the ill informed who believe every word Democrat Party media speaks or writes

There are the ill informed who believe every word Republican Party media speaks or writes

[Davemn]

Is it really any wonder that nothing gets done in Congress after reading this board?

[Bob E.]

Bob.  You don't understand the FairTax.  The FairTax ONLY taxes NEW goods at the point of sale.  Not raw materials used to build things. 

There is ALREADY a 20% embedded tax in EVERY car sold.  PLUS a 7% sales tax (in Indiana anyway).  Those embedded taxes go away... so the cost of the car goes DOWN.  Then the tax is collected at the final point of sale.  This is true of EVERYTHING.  When companies pay tax... they pass that tax onto their consumers in the cost of the goods.  When we eliminate that tax... and move it to the end, where it is anyway, all that wasted paperwork and effort to comply with (and avoid) the tax system is eliminated. 

It also means that the cost of ALL our good manufactured in America goes DOWN by 20%+.  Now... we're more competitive globally.  Now we have an explosion of manufacturing in America.

Now we as Americans can control, and SEE how much we spend in tax.  That exposes the lawmakers.  THAT is why they don't like it.

It does NOT add 23% to the existing costs.  It adds 23% to a cost of a good that ALREADY has that 23% in it.  And eliminates the need for the IRS, taxes illegal money, and foreign money.  Taxes the illegal immigrants. 

It will NOT grind the poor down even worse because of the PRE-Bate.  We'll PAY EVERYONE in America the tax associated with poverty level existence UP FRONT.  Thus making people that exist at the poverty level EXEMPT from taxes...and it'll augment people's incomes that earn less than that automatically, without all the bureaucracy.

Don't believe what people TELL you.  Learn for yourselves.
www.fairtax.org

Jabba

I guess I'd suggest the same to you.  I did read the fairtax.org website and I do understand it.  It is a federal sales tax that does not abolish any state or local taxes.  At least I couldn't find where it states this.  It actually states..."It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes."  No word of state or local taxes.

The other false assumption is that the cost of goods will go down.  Do you honestly believe that if Ford gets $30,000 for a Mustang now that they will magically reduce the price by 23% (out of the goodness of their hearts) just so that they can give the 23% fairtax directly to the gov't?  No.  I predict that they may reduce the price by 5-10% at most, then BLAME the gov't for making the taxes cars so expensive all the while putting more $$ in their pockets.  So now you are paying 23% on an even more expensive car.  And oh yeah, you still get to pay 7% state sales tax.  If you don't believe this, take a look at what happened with the airlines during the recent budget crisis.  Because the FAA authority wasn't renewed, their authority to collect gate taxes expired.  Did the airlines return that money to customers?  No...they continued collecting that money and put in their own pockets.  I predict the same would happen everywhere.

And finally, how anyone can state that it isn't regressive and puts the most burden on the poor and middle class doesn't understand economics.  Poor people spend 100% of their money and barely get by.  Middle class folks spend all nor nearly all of their money with little to no savings.  These folks get stuck paying the full 23%.  I did read about the "prebate" that apparently helps the very poor...which is good.  But pretty much anyone above the govt dictated "poverty level" which is very low gets nailed.  Now, rich people may spend more dollars than low and middle income people.  But as a percentage of their income will be paying a much smaller effective rate.  Romney made around $43million over the last 2 years.  Do you think he has spent all of that  or even half of it?  No, so even if he did spend half (which I doubt), now he's only paying about 12.5%...which is LESS than he's paid under the current system.  So now, we've given him a tax cut and raised taxes and prices on low and mid-income people...plus contributed to the current expandinig wealth disparity gap.   Yeah...real "fair".

[Bob E.]

Bob are you thinking of VAT?  Value Added Tax. The English introduced that years ago and stuck the country with 17%. I believe it's now 21%. Cost of living zoomed after that little gem.

Fairtax and VAT are similar, but differ in the way it is collected.  Fairtax is a sales tax collected at the final sale of the finished product.  VAT is more complicated in that it is paid as a product is manufactured and is based on what is essentially the profit a company makes as it takes raw materials and turns them into finshed goods.

[..]

Bob are you thinking of VAT?  Value Added Tax. The English introduced that years ago and stuck the country with 17%. I believe it's now 21%. Cost of living zoomed after that little gem.

Fairtax and VAT are similar, but differ in the way it is collected.  Fairtax is a sales tax collected at the final sale of the finished product.  VAT is more complicated in that it is paid as a product is manufactured and is based on what is essentially the profit a company makes as it takes raw materials and turns them into finshed goods.

Correct. It also give government a layer of employees that once more the tax payer funds.

The VAT has more power in the United Knigdom than the Internal Revenue (IRS).

[Jabba]

I believe that the middle class people, and poorer people should contribute more than they do to the government, so they'll learn that the trouble is with the massive spending, rather than the taxation.  The incremental rate taxation is unfair if you ask me.  Why should 1/2 of people pay NO income tax while the rest of us pay, and pay a higher percentage as we earn more?  A big earner will pay more taxes as a result of having earned more automatically if the tax rate were flat. 

Mr. Buffet does NOT pay less taxes than his secretary despite what Mr. Obama tells you.

I am not rich.  I am not in the upper 1% or 10%.  Probably the upper 50%, mostly due to my wife and I both working our asses off to support all the freeloaders and illegal immigrants that don't pay THEIR share at all. 

Jabba

[98valk]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/psychopaths-caused-financial-crisis-%E2%80%A6-and-they-will-do-it-again-and-again-unless-they-ar

Psychopaths Caused the Financial Crisis … And They Will Do It Again and Again Unless They Are Removed From Power


http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2379864&spid=32345

[FPG52]

So here are some interesting facts... apply to both major parties.  It ends up being a drop in the "debt" bucket... but it is an indication of how free "they" are to give money away (oh and not a fact but my personal comment at the end) 

   

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of House/Senate ..............................$174,000 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...$193,400 FOR LIFE    This is stupid !
Average Salary of a teacher ..................  $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier deployed in Afghanistan .......... $38,000
I think we found where the cuts should start!
   
“You cannot get the water to clear up - until you get the pigs out of the creek.”

[Bob E.]

I believe that the middle class people, and poorer people should contribute more than they do to the government, so they'll learn that the trouble is with the massive spending, rather than the taxation.  The incremental rate taxation is unfair if you ask me.  Why should 1/2 of people pay NO income tax while the rest of us pay, and pay a higher percentage as we earn more?  A big earner will pay more taxes as a result of having earned more automatically if the tax rate were flat. 

Mr. Buffet does NOT pay less taxes than his secretary despite what Mr. Obama tells you.

I am not rich.  I am not in the upper 1% or 10%.  Probably the upper 50%, mostly due to my wife and I both working our asses off to support all the freeloaders and illegal immigrants that don't pay THEIR share at all. 

Jabba

Jabba...I can respect your point of view, but I guess we'll agree to disagree.  I do believe a progressive tax rate is fair.  And folks like Romney who make more money per day than the median income per year without even having a job are very fortunate.  And that fortune was provided to him because he lives in a country that provides him that opportunity.  And for that, he and folks like him, should contribute back to the country, especially in a time when our country has real problems and needs.  We need to pay down the debt.  We need to invest in infrastructure, education, and research.  Politics demands a $700B+ military. We need to build a private sector economy that is capable of supporting everyone. And contrary to the conservative, right-wing ideaology, that private sector economy is largly created and supported by the public sector.

As to the "freeloaders" who don't pay income taxes...who makes up that group?  Much of that group is made up of seniors (retired), the disabled, and students.  The rest are mostly the truly poor.  In case you haven't heard, we're still in a period of high unemployment and underemployment.  And those looking for jobs are finding that there are few jobs to be had and standing in unemployment lines for over a year.  How are they supposed to contribute more of what they don't have?  I assume you've heard the phrase, "Can't get blood from a turnip."  Plus, you're own arguement for the FairTax says that the poor actually do contribute by way of all of the hidden taxes.  So claiming they contribute nothing is a false statment.  And even the fairtax would have people below the poverty line contributing nothing...even less than nothing becaues of the so-called hidden taxes are also deleted.  The last I saw, close to 15% of all Americans are at or below the poverty line, and close to 30% are just barely above it.  Are there people who game the system? Sure...and not all of them are poor.  I saw an article where a man and woman were living as man and wife.  The man had a $1M+ home that he claimed he was "renting" to the woman.  And she was filing for welfare and food stamps.  I also saw a stat that said that around 1500 people who made over $1M last year paid ZERO income tax.

And while Mr. Buffett (like Romney) may pay more in dollars than his secretary, it is true that he paid a lower RATE than his secretary.  And that is what is not fair.

Quick question...if spending is the problem, and we are currently borrowning 40 cents of every dollar spent, where would you cut 40% from the budget?  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because of the recession, revenues had dropped to less than 15% of GDP..the lowest rate in decades.  How can the problem be all spending and not revenues?

[Bob E.]

So here are some interesting facts... apply to both major parties.  It ends up being a drop in the "debt" bucket... but it is an indication of how free "they" are to give money away (oh and not a fact but my personal comment at the end) 

   

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of House/Senate ..............................$174,000 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...$193,400 FOR LIFE    This is stupid !
Average Salary of a teacher ..................  $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier deployed in Afghanistan .......... $38,000
I think we found where the cuts should start!
   
“You cannot get the water to clear up - until you get the pigs out of the creek.”

I'll agree with you from this standpoint.  Most of the politicians holding national political office are already millionaires several times over.  They aren't in it for the money.  Romney made more in a week last year than he would make in a year in the White House.  I wonder why he is even running.
Why do they need such salaries and retirement plans? 

The answer is...they don't because it isn't true.  Those numbers are the salaries, but not the retirement pensions.  They have the same retirement plan as every other federal employee.  At most, they can collect 80% of their final salary only if they serve at least 20 years.  If they serve less than 5 years, they get no pension.  And they cannot collect anything before the age of 50.  The House of Reps serve 2 year terms, so they would have to serve at least 3 terms to get any pension at all.

[custom1]

Why do none of these "rich" people fall under the Alternative Minimum Tax??  Is there a loophole for that too?

[alph]

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of House/Senate ..............................$174,000 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE   This is stupid !
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...$193,400 FOR LIFE    This is stupid !
Average Salary of a teacher ..................  $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier deployed in Afghanistan .......... $38,000
I think we found where the cuts should start!
   
“You cannot get the water to clear up - until you get the pigs out of the creek.”

i once talked to a represenitive and asked him to propose a bill that would make thier pay a reflective ratio of the average income of thier constituants.  he told me that if that were ever passed, no one would ever run for public office.

[98valk]

the facts on their salaries

http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/pensionFARQ.html


plus it is legal for them to do insider trading, which means they pass policies that will benefit themselves after they have already made the finacial adjustments.

[Bob E.]

the facts on their salaries

http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/pensionFARQ.html


plus it is legal for them to do insider trading, which means they pass policies that will benefit themselves after they have already made the finacial adjustments.

From the link:

"As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006."

[Jabba]

It seems we have now eased off of blatant rhetoric and are engaging in real conversation... of that I am grateful.

Where would I cut?

The IRS right off the top.
Medicaid would get overhauled.
Medicare would get overhauled.
Social Security would get changed.  I think we owe the people that put into it forever, but there is a better way to go in the future.
I would curtail a lot of foreign aid.


Generally, I think the Fed is too big, and the state and local is too small. I think the Fed collecting dollars and spreading it back to small units of government is VERY wasteful.  I don't think there should be Federal grants at all, except for national security.

I think that EVERY piece of legislation should be assessed on its own merit.  No more amendments and lumping this in with that.  Vote on each piece of expenditure individually.  That would clog the system and that is GOOD.  they should prioritize. 

The Fed does WAY more than their charter allows and it should be scaled back, and redistributed to the states.  The states should delegate things even further down the food chain.

Jabba

[texaninsouthfl]

"And that fortune was provided to him..."

@Bob E:

The problem I have with your assertions is that they are predicated on a belief that individuals don't EARN their wealth and thus have no fundamental right to keep it ... it's "provided" to them by or is acquired only with the permission of government. You are fundamentally against the right of an individual to the fruits of his or her labor. You think it's moral for government to remove wealth earned by one person by force and give it to another person who has not earned it. That is no more moral than a thief sticking a gun in your face and demanding you hand over your wallet so that he may give your money to someone he thinks is more deserving.

What moral right have you (or the government) to say how much one should be allowed to keep of what one earns?

I hear that phrase, "GIVE BACK" all the time... and it makes me ill every time I hear it. If one is expected to "GIVE BACK" to society, then it's assumed one TOOK by force from society to begin with. Again, an assumption that wealth isn't earned, it's taken. Capitalism is not a zero sum game... if Romney earns X number of dollars, that doesn't mean that it's X number of dollars that's taken from someone else.

An ironic thing to note is that liberals who bleat incessantly about "fairness" and "those less fortunate" are quick to say the "rich" should pay "their fair share", but when it comes to contributing their own money to the less fortunate, they often take a pass. Historically, conservatives, those evil, heartless people only worried about making a buck (according to liberals) contribute far more to charitable caused than liberals.

[hubcapsc]

What moral right have you (or the government) to say how much one should be allowed to keep of what one earns?

You can't get through article one of the Constitution without spending a ton of money, money which comes from We The People.

The tax laws (the government) dictate how much each of us chips in.

-Mike

[BigAl]

Strong Eagle is my hero.

I have to say this or my posts get dumped.

[Bob E.]

It seems we have now eased off of blatant rhetoric and are engaging in real conversation... of that I am grateful.

Where would I cut?

The IRS right off the top.
Medicaid would get overhauled.
Medicare would get overhauled.
Social Security would get changed.  I think we owe the people that put into it forever, but there is a better way to go in the future.
I would curtail a lot of foreign aid.


Generally, I think the Fed is too big, and the state and local is too small. I think the Fed collecting dollars and spreading it back to small units of government is VERY wasteful.  I don't think there should be Federal grants at all, except for national security.

I think that EVERY piece of legislation should be assessed on its own merit.  No more amendments and lumping this in with that.  Vote on each piece of expenditure individually.  That would clog the system and that is GOOD.  they should prioritize. 

The Fed does WAY more than their charter allows and it should be scaled back, and redistributed to the states.  The states should delegate things even further down the food chain.

Jabba

I tried to use real examples of why I think the fairtax isn't fair and get accused of "blatent rhetoric"...whatever.

As to what you propose cutting...unless you intend to essentially end SS, Medicare, Medicade entirely, you've barely touched the 40% cut.  I'd like to hear specifics as to how you would reform these programs to gain so much savings.  I don't believe the Ryan plan to shift the costs from Medicare to seniors (about $6000 per year per CBO) is a reasonable solution.  Also, contrary to fairtax.org's website, I still believe that the IRS will be needed.  If not, who collects the revenues from the businesses that collect it?  They will still need to submit some sort of forms to document their accounting and justify why they owe what they owe.  Some agency will need to sift through that documentation and process the forms.

And finally, I can respect the idea of shrinking fed and increasing state and local govt (as someone who lives in a state that pays more than it gets, I guess I'd be better off), though I'm not sure what that accomplishes.  It just shifts the tax burden from one agency to another.  But that creates problems, too...at least in the short term.  For example, the feds cut education funds to the states last year.  In turn, my state cut education funding to the school districts by over 10%.  So, now the districts are strapped and need to raise property taxes.  However, according to the law, they can only raise rates marginally...like 4 or 5%.  As a result, our districts are cutting programs, busing, teachers, etc.  Hell, our local elementary school now shares a principal with 2 other schools.  In another district in our state, the district essentially went bankrupt and the teachers are working without pay.  So it could be done, but would require an entire re-work of state and local tax laws to make up the difference.

[Bob E.]

"And that fortune was provided to him..."

@Bob E:

The problem I have with your assertions is that they are predicated on a belief that individuals don't EARN their wealth and thus have no fundamental right to keep it ... it's "provided" to them by or is acquired only with the permission of government. You are fundamentally against the right of an individual to the fruits of his or her labor. You think it's moral for government to remove wealth earned by one person by force and give it to another person who has not earned it. That is no more moral than a thief sticking a gun in your face and demanding you hand over your wallet so that he may give your money to someone he thinks is more deserving.

What moral right have you (or the government) to say how much one should be allowed to keep of what one earns?

I hear that phrase, "GIVE BACK" all the time... and it makes me ill every time I hear it. If one is expected to "GIVE BACK" to society, then it's assumed one TOOK by force from society to begin with. Again, an assumption that wealth isn't earned, it's taken. Capitalism is not a zero sum game... if Romney earns X number of dollars, that doesn't mean that it's X number of dollars that's taken from someone else.

An ironic thing to note is that liberals who bleat incessantly about "fairness" and "those less fortunate" are quick to say the "rich" should pay "their fair share", but when it comes to contributing their own money to the less fortunate, they often take a pass. Historically, conservatives, those evil, heartless people only worried about making a buck (according to liberals) contribute far more to charitable caused than liberals.

At first I thought you misquoted me because that is far from what I meant.  But actually, I used poor wording.  What I actually meant was that the opportunity to be so fortunate was provided to him...

Beyond that, you, like musclehead in the other thread, really have no idea what I believe.  I have no problem with his wealth and I am not proposing anyone take any of it.  However, his income, regardless of how he earns it, should be treated like anyone else's income and taxed in a fair way.  We obviously have different opinions as to what is fair, just like Jabba and I do.  And that's fine and worthy of a good debate.

[Jabba]

Bob, my rhetoric comment was not directed ONLY at you, but at others (even more so) on your opposition.

Yes, in MY utopian tax system, the entire thing would need reworked.  It would entail localities and counties collecting ALL the taxes in their area.  Then they would send on appropriately, the payments to the state and the fed.  Essentially each locality would then be responsible for the tax rate of THEIR locality.  This would essentially put them in competition with one another for the available dollars being spent.  It would also make sense for people to spend as many of their dollars close to home as possible, as that is the money that supports THEIR community.  There is inherent inefficiency in  bureaucracy, and collecting at the top, and redistributing it down is a terrible way.  Everyone gets a bite... and the waste is astronomical.   

I am not a medicare or medicaid or SS economist.  I do not know the intracasies of them.  I know that they are the largest budget item, they are not being run as they were intended, and they are broken and need fixed.  I would have to go to people smarter than I am to help me figure out HOW to fix them.  But entitlements for the MASSES is a bad way to go.

Mostly what I want to do is teach Americans that work isn't bad, and stop rewarding people for NOT working.  This includes long term unemployment, lifelong welfare etc.  I think we should house and feed people in a POOR house.  And spend the money on job training and education.

Poor is not unavoidable.  People who are poor for their whole lives choose to be.  (Other than the minority who are disabled, mentally challenged etc).  I came from a very poor place and worked my way out of it.  I know too many people, who came from NOTHING and are wild successes because they worked their way out.  They didn't LUCK their way out.  They didn't welfare their way out, and affirmative action did not give them a leg up.  They worked, studied, worked some more, and succeeded.

We generally need more of that in America, and less whining about fair.  Life ain't FAIR.  When life ain't fair, you pick yourself up out of the mud, kick it in the balls and move on.  Succeed despite the challenges you're presented.

Now... these low % of the people that simply CAN'T care for themselves... I am cool with helping.  But failure IS an option.  Fail... move into the poorhouse and squeak thru life.  That IS an option.

Jabba

[Bob E.]

Jabba...SS accounts for about 20% of the federal budget and Medicare/Medicade/CHIP account for about another 21%.

Here's my point...it is easy to say we need to cut these programs to save money.  But in reality, that doesn't solve the problem...it just shifts the cost, usually to someone who cannot pay it.  People tend to forget that programs like SS and Medicare/Medicade/CHIP were created to solve real problems that the "private sector" either couldn't or wouldn't solve.  Medicare was created because old people couldn't buy health insurance.  Insurance companies wouldn't insure them because there's no profit in it...and if they did, the cost was so high, nobody could afford it.  This is the fallacy that the GOP like Paul Ryan tend to forget when they talk about providing vouchers for seniors to go buy their own private insurance.  Furthermore, contrary to popular conservative talking points, is actually run quite well with percentages in the high 90's of dollars collected versus dollars spent on medical care.  This is in contrast to private insurance where they are now complaining that the new health care law will require them to spend 80% on medical care.  Medicade/CHIP were created to help poor and disabled people/kids get insurance because they couldn't otherwise afford it.  Are we as a society supposed to just let these people die?  Many of them already are, or they go to the ER/hospital and get "free" services that we all pay for anyways.  SS was created because we had old people starving and losing their homes.  Poverty among seniors was extremely high.  You can say that it is their own fault because they didn't save enough.  But even today, there are alot of people barely making it, not living extravagantly or beyond their means, raising their kids.  How can they save for retirement when there's nothing left at the end of the month? 

My parents are a perfect example of why we need programs like this.  They got married right out of highschool in '69, put a mobile home (not a big house) on my grandfather's property, dad got a job in the local factory...had a good job with a pension (he thought), mom stayed home to raise three kids.  In the early to mid 80's, when we kids were all in school, she went back to school, got a Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN) degree and went to work in the local nursing home where she still works.  Meanwhile, mid to late 80's, dad's factory goes through some changes, union makes all kinds of concessions, and ultimately the factory closes.  There goes dad's pension.  Meanwhile, the recession of the 80's is going on, he bounces job to job just making enough to get by.  I can remember being on food stamps and going to the food bank for a period of time.  Then we get to the 90's and my parents do everything they can to get 3 kids through college.  I started in 89 and graduated in 94.  My youngest brother was in from 93 to 98.  We borrowed most of the money with student loans.  And despite my parent's low income, we got minimal grants.  In fact, I just paid off my loans about a year ago...I'm 40.  So suffice to say, my parents weren't saving anything in the 90's either.  In the meantime, my dad goes back to school and gets his CDL and starts driving truck.  He started driving OTR for a couple years, then was able to move to a couple outfits that he would drive M-F and home weekends, and ultimately got to where he was driving home every day...with the occasional overnight.  Things were finally starting to look up, then, that company goes bankrupt.  Local driving jobs are hard to find and at his and my mom's age, OTR driving is just too hard...not just for him, but also for my mom to be home alone for weeks at a time.  So for the past few years, he's been driving school bus.  He liked it but the pay sucks and no benefits.  Luckily my mom has benefits and reasonable pay, though not a huge amount...especially after she pays for her benefits.  Then, last fall, my mom has a stroke.  Luckily, it wasn't terribly bad as strokes go and she only had to be off work about a month or so.  But it is becoming apparent that, at age 60, she might have a hard time working 5 more years before she can get Medicare/SS.  So dad, age 61, starts looking for a better job with some benefits.  Now, just before Christmas last year, dad gets a local job driving a water truck for the marcellus gas wells.  At $15/hr, the pay is ok but the most important thing is he has decent benefits with insurance.  Again, things are looking up until this past Sunday, he falls on the ice at work and breaks his wrist.  Now, it looks like he'll have to have surgery and be off for who knows how long.  Hopefully, when he recovers, he'll have a job to go back to...his boss is really pissed about his accident.

I tell you this long story to illustrate this point...here is a real example of 2 blue-collar people who worked hard all their life, were not lazy, raised 3 kids the best they could, did not waste alot of money or live beyond their means...they still live in that mobile home and except for dad's now 10 year old pickup, always had used cars, cut, split, and burned firewood exclusively for heat for the past 25 years...etc.  And they were barely able to save any money for retirement.  And now in their early 60's their health is failing to where it is going to be difficult to work a few more years.  Raising the SS eligibility age will make that much more difficult.  And gutting the benefit or even ending it would ultimately leave them starving for food, let alone the medications they need.  And saying that we can make it available for people close to retirement, but change/end it for people 55 and under so they have time to make different plans for their retirement is bogus.  What could people like my parents have done differently?  There are lots of folks now in their 30's and 40's living that sametype of life and unless somethign happens to chage that situation, they will end up just like my parents. 

SS/Medicare/Medicade/CHIP and programs like them are good programs and I'm all in favor of anything that will make them better or more stable.  But cost shifting to save money is not a reasonable solution because you end up with the same problem that the programs were designed to dolve in the first place.

[G-Man]

The question isn't whether he broke the law or not, but whether the tax law is fair.  Romney knew he was the poster child for the "Buffet Rule" and given the level of dissatisfaction over the growing level of wealth disparity in the country, he expected it would be a problem for him.  So he tried to avoid it by not releasing them...which was something else that could be a problem for him.  The ironic thing is that the tradition of politicians running for office releasing their tax returns was his father...which was something else used against him.

But, if he followed ALL the rules and did nothing illegal, or even considered wrong,.....why is this all a problem for him?  Because the libs and lib media need something to disparrage him with.    Something, anything.  And this class warfare is really the best that they could do. 

[hubcapsc]

The question isn't whether he broke the law or not, but whether the tax law is fair.  Romney knew he was the poster child for the "Buffet Rule" and given the level of dissatisfaction over the growing level of wealth disparity in the country, he expected it would be a problem for him.  So he tried to avoid it by not releasing them...which was something else that could be a problem for him.  The ironic thing is that the tradition of politicians running for office releasing their tax returns was his father...which was something else used against him.

But, if he followed ALL the rules and did nothing illegal, or even considered wrong,.....why is this all a problem for him?  Because the libs and lib media need something to disparrage him with.    Something, anything.  And this class warfare is really the best that they could do. 

We all know that he didn't release his personal tax information until a few days ago.

Only the mind readers among us know what Romney "knew", "expected" or "tried"...

-Mike

[Bob E.]

But, if he followed ALL the rules and did nothing illegal, or even considered wrong,.....why is this all a problem for him?  Because the libs and lib media need something to disparrage him with.    Something, anything.  And this class warfare is really the best that they could do. 

It's not a problem for him specifically...but a problem for the republicans who typically argue for lower tax rates for the upper incomes.  His situation reflects and illustrates the arguement being made by the "Occupy" movement that the system is rigged to benefit rich people.  And that hurts the Republican (his if he is the GOP nominee) chances of winning the arguement and winning the White House.  

I guess specifically as it relates to him, the only thing for him is that his tax plan that he has proposed as a candidate actually lowers taxes even more for rich people, while raising taxes on lower incomes.  Newt's plan would actually cut Romney's taxes to $0 because he eliminates capital gains taxes all together...a direct contradiction to his claim of being a "Reagan Conservative".  Reagan believed capital gains taxes should be treated the same as ordinary income.

[Bob E.]

We all know that he didn't release his personal tax information until a few days ago.

Only the mind readers among us know what Romney "knew", "expected" or "tried"...

-Mike

Actually, it isn't "mindreading".  Romney had stated that the reason he wasn't in favor of releasing his tax returns was because he didn't want to give his opponents something to use against him.  At this point in time with all of the public outcry over tax fairness and income disparity, he knew that his very low tax rate on his very high income would be controversial.  He expected that the dems to attack him, and didn't figure that Newt, a fellow republican, would be the one who not only used the issue against him but also turned his not releasing them into some sort of conspiracy where he might be hiding something.  I'd be willing to bet that if he had beaten Newt in SC and was still holding a big lead in FL, we wouldn't have seen those tax returns.

[hubcapsc]

Romney had stated that the reason he wasn't in favor of releasing his tax returns was because he didn't want to give his opponents something to use against him.

Here's the (CNN) transcripts from the January 19 debate:

When you release yours, will you follow your father's example?

ROMNEY: Maybe.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, I don't know how many years I'll release. I'll take a look at what the -- what our documents are and I'll release multiple years. I don't know how many years, and -- but I'll be happy to do that.

Let me tell you, I know there are some who are very anxious to see if they can't make it more difficult for a campaign to be successful. I know the Democrats want to go after the fact that I've been successful. I -- I'm not going to apologize for being successful.

(APPLAUSE)

And I'm not -- I'm not suggesting -- I'm not suggesting these people are -- are doing that, but I know the Democrats will go after me on that basis and that's why I want to release these things all at the same time. And -- and I -- you know, my -- my dad, as you know, born in Mexico, poor, didn't get a college degree, became head of a car company. I could have stayed in Detroit like him and gotten pulled up in a car company.

I went off on my own. I didn't inherit money from my parents. What I have I earned. I worked hard, the American way, and...

(APPLAUSE)

... I'm going to be able -- I'm going to be able to talk to President Obama in a way no one else can that's in this race right now, about how the free economy works, what it takes to put Americans back to work, and make sure he understands that this divisiveness, of dividing Americans between 99 and one is dangerous. We are one nation under God.

(APPLAUSE)



I'd be willing to bet that if he had beaten Newt in SC and was still holding a big lead in FL, we wouldn't have seen those tax returns.

You're on!... he said he wanted to release them all at the same time. He  hires Price Waterhouse to
do his taxes, they're like hundreds of pages long. We knew before he released his taxes that he had millions and paid 15%,
and we knew, generally, why they averaged out to 15%. Now we know that he has millions and paid 15%.

I'm glad Newt won in SC, that proves we're still lunatics, and I don't ever want my state to change 

-Mike

[Bob E.]

You're on!... he said he wanted to release them all at the same time. He  hires Price Waterhouse to
do his taxes, they're like hundreds of pages long. We knew before he released his taxes that he had millions and paid 15%,
and we knew, generally, why they averaged out to 15%. Now we know that he has millions and paid 15%.

I'm glad Newt won in SC, that proves we're still lunatics, and I don't ever want my state to change 

-Mike

He originally had stated on several occasions that he didn't intend to release his taxes.  Then he started getting pressure and he said he would consider releasing them...maybe, but didnt' think it was necessary.  More pressure...Then he stated he would release them later all at the same time.  More pressure...Then he said he'd release them in April after last year's taxes were filed. More Pressure...he finally said he would release them Tuesday, which he did.  His wife stated at an event that it is "unfortunate" that he had to release them.  Alot of that pressure was from the Gingrich canmpaign...and it was working against Romney because he was falling in the polls and lost SC.  He caved to the pressure because he was losing and had to make it stop.

[hubcapsc]

he finally said he would release them Tuesday, which he did.

He released estimates, Price Waterhouse isn't done with this year's yet.
You can't get blood from a turnip...

-Mike