Make your own Hussein speech.

[lonewolf]

Suddenly everybody's avoiding my point that tax-cuts for the wealthy are upward redistributions of wealth.--->JMS

Actually, a tax cut for the wealthy means that they only have to pay 3 times the percentage of tax that the wrench-turner pays instead of 3.25 times.

[Hawk]

Suddenly everybody's avoiding my point that tax-cuts for the wealthy are upward redistributions of wealth.--->JMS

Actually, a tax cut for the wealthy means that they only have to pay 3 times the percentage of tax that the wrench-turner pays instead of 3.25 times.

That's funny !

How about if we leave it where it's at. That means that they only have to pay 3.25 times percentage of that the wrench-turner pays instead of 3 times.

Better yet, lets go back to the Ronald Reagan taxes !

[songsmith]

... For making 200 times as much in the first place. --->JMS

[slackin@dabass]

Now, what you believe is that rich people create jobs, and therefore, wealth. WRONG!!

that's funny, the past 2 years i worked for my boss, he gave me a dollar an hour raise each year because i was making him more money. i'm not saying he's rich, but he does have more money. so, he saw fit to give me a little more wealth because i work hard and because i save him money.

[lonewolf]

The best you can hope for is to climb slowly up the ladder until you become one of the elite... and the elite won't let you until they think there's enough room up there.

You don't become wealthy working for somebody else. Anybody who expects to really missed the boat. It never happens and it ain't gonna happen.

The wrench-turner is every bit as important to the scheme, and without him, the boss would have to turn wrenches himself. But you don't see yourself as a wrench-turner, do you? "The people who tout the 'haves trump the have-nots' mentality are ALWAYS either very rich men, or think they will be eventually. "
Suddenly everybody's avoiding my point that tax-cuts for the wealthy are upward redistributions of wealth.--->JMS

While the wrench-turning position may be somewhat important, there are usually several people lining up to be the wrench turner. The graveyards are full of indispensable people.

How many people do you see lining up to risk their capital, start a business and provide jobs?

Whining about the wealthy will never get you anywhere--only hard work and focus on your own goals can do that. I used to be a hi-tech wrench-turner, but I moonlighted and invested to escape the hamster wheel. You would probably be amazed (or amused) at my historical wages...especially during most of the 90s.

BTW, a grantee is one who receives a grant.

[lonewolf]

The difference between a conservative and a federalist liberal is the conservative only cares about himself. A liberal cares about himself first, then everyone else.

Incorrect. It should be phrased:

"A liberal cares about himself first, then everyone else...as long as its paid for with someone else's money."

Edit:

A third option is that a libertarian cares to do what is most effective and logical for everybody. Redistribution of wealth is extremely ineffective and illogical because it tends to reduce the incentive for both rich and poor to perform better.

[lonewolf]

... For making 200 times as much in the first place. --->JMS

Somebody making 200 times as much is paying 600 to 650 times as much in taxes.

[songsmith]

... For making 200 times as much in the first place. --->JMS

Somebody making 200 times as much is paying 600 to 650 times as much in taxes.

For doing no more actual labor. If you're telling me the CEO works 200 times harder, or is 200 times smarter, I'm not buying. And once you get to a certain level, you no longer assume any real risk of your own capital. When C-Cor shuttered, the boardmembers all did just fine.--->JMS

[lonewolf]

... For making 200 times as much in the first place. --->JMS

Somebody making 200 times as much is paying 600 to 650 times as much in taxes.

For doing no more actual labor. If you're telling me the CEO works 200 times harder, or is 200 times smarter, I'm not buying. And once you get to a certain level, you no longer assume any real risk of your own capital. When C-Cor shuttered, the boardmembers all did just fine.--->JMS

Now you are in apples & oranges territory. A CEO of a large corporation is an employee, not an owner. The shareholders are the owners and its the CEO's job to put money in the shareholders pockets. Unfortunately, once the "fix" is in with the salary board, there is very little a shareholder can do to control this. I like some of the regulatory proposals out there right now that put power back into the shareholders' hands.

That aside, most upper level managers don't actually get insane salaries, per se. Generally, they get bonuses with company stock--probably too much stock--but with stock, nonetheless. One of the best gauges of a company's management performance is the company stock's performance. I agree that many bonuses are just ridiculous, but at least they get paid in stock and the stock's value is based on their performance. If the stock goes down, so does their bonus.

As far as being 200x smarter or harder working--that has nothing to do with it. In the capitalist game, you either can do it or you can't do it. If you can run a large corporation, you get the brass ring. If you can't, you don't.

It isn't any different that hitting it big with your own music or not hitting it big and playing in a local cover band, or even worse, playing in a local original band. This is financially speaking, of course.

[shredder138]

Has this thread delivered yet? I'm too lazy to check. Or possibly too inferior, prolly one of the two.

[JackANSI]

Flat percentage tax, or no tax at all. FTW.

[lonewolf]

Flat percentage tax, or no tax at all. FTW.

Yep, but with a standard deduction for each individual/dependent, so that poverty level income is excluded. No other deductions, except possibly charitable contributions.

[slackin@dabass]

Flat percentage tax, or no tax at all. FTW.

Yep, but with a standard deduction for each individual/dependent, so that poverty level income is excluded. No other deductions, except possibly charitable contributions.

i like the sound of that.

[JackANSI]

no nothing. flat percent or no tax.

if people want to give to charity, it's on them, like it should be. if they get a deduction for it, in a round about way I'm forced to give to that charity by covering the tax gap created by the deduction.

no deductions for kids, you shouldn't get rewarded for overpopulating and taxing the system(s) harder.

[RobTheDrummer]

Did you see Obama drove up the deficit a trillion dollars just since he's been in office? Good job!

[JackANSI]

Did you see Obama drove up the deficit a trillion dollars just since he's been in office? Good job!

yep that was all Obama


edit: many who dislike Obama sound like the kid that knocks over the cookie jar when mommy isn't around then blame it on the little brother or the dog.

[RobTheDrummer]

Did you see Obama drove up the deficit a trillion dollars just since he's been in office? Good job!

yep that was all Obama


edit: many who dislike Obama sound like the kid that knocks over the cookie jar when mommy isn't around then blame it on the little brother or the dog.

Have you even been awake the last 6 months? It's a fact.

[Hawk]

If Obama had not spent that money our economy would have collapsed and we would be in a depression instead of a recession. Bush left him with no other choice.

If he had not spent that money and we were in a 1930s type depression, would you be happier ?

[lonewolf]

no nothing. flat percent or no tax.

if people want to give to charity, it's on them, like it should be. if they get a deduction for it, in a round about way I'm forced to give to that charity by covering the tax gap created by the deduction.

no deductions for kids, you shouldn't get rewarded for overpopulating and taxing the system(s) harder.

While this may have merit and I tend to agree with you in principle, it doesn't feed the bulldog.

People won't give nearly as much to charity unless they get a break for it. Don't forget, that's not just for the obvious beneficiaries. That includes billions to universities and research, too.

People won't stop having kids and, in fact, some will have more if they can get direct government aid for having them.

What is the result? Crumbling colleges and more people on government aid.

Who will end up paying for it? Of course...big brother, er the taxpayer...only instead of private money efficiently going where its needed, the money will be laundered thru DC and get redistributed at (if we are lucky) 50 cents on the dollar.

In both of these instances and assuming a 20% flat tax, removing these from taxable income allows the private sector to use private funds more efficiently. Since these are deductions @ 20% and not tax credits, there is only a 1/5 ratio of loss of revenue. That means for every billion dollars of private funding, the government only gives up or "pays" 200 million.

Thats a big effing crowbar.

For this to work well, the deduction amounts would have to be directly tied to the threshold levels of public aid.

What you propose would tax people under the poverty level and then turn around and send them a subsidy check at 50 cents (if you are lucky) on the dollar.

[JackANSI]

Still doesn't cover the fact I'm stuck with having to cover other people's desire to give money to greedy organizations that call themselves charities.

Things cost money, even for the government. They use my money to pay for part of it. Someone gives 1/5th of their share of it away and takes the deduction. I have to give 1/5 of mine away or more of the things the government bought are paid for from my share than the someone with the deduction.

Lets say you have three people paying taxes. Two take a deduction, one doesn't because he think they are mostly f'ed up money grabs that can't do any real good because of the greed of the people who run it.

Tax is 36% with a 3% deduction allowance.

we each make $100 and pay $36 tax, 36*3=108-6(deductions)=$102

Now if the government spends that $102 on something, who paid the most for it? And in that way, I'm supporting their charity by taking a larger part of the bill so they can have their name on a little brass strip in some hallway, while the people who run it soak up large salaries for doing nothing good...

Just like you don't want to have any firearms responsibility forced on you, I don't want to be forced to give to charity.

If people are giving to charity because of a tax credit, instead of actually believing in it, they should be ashamed of themselves. If they truly believe in it, they will give no matter what, thats the way it should be. I shouldn't have to subsidize their religous guilt, sins, or whatever else they feel when they don't give because it actually costs them money...

If they don't want to feel that way, they need to let go of their greed.


You wouldn't like my idea of welfare, I'm not going there.

[JackANSI]

Did you see Obama drove up the deficit a trillion dollars just since he's been in office? Good job!

yep that was all Obama


edit: many who dislike Obama sound like the kid that knocks over the cookie jar when mommy isn't around then blame it on the little brother or the dog.

Have you even been awake the last 6 months? It's a fact.

Don't forget the $100bil+ that was spent maintaining the war Bush started.

[slackin@dabass]

yep that was all Obama


edit: many who dislike Obama sound like the kid that knocks over the cookie jar when mommy isn't around then blame it on the little brother or the dog.

Have you even been awake the last 6 months? It's a fact.

Don't forget the $100bil+ that was spent maintaining the war Bush started.

that obama could end at any time, but instead he thought he'd send some troops to afghanistan.

[JackANSI]

Where the real problem is.

[lonewolf]

Still doesn't cover the fact I'm stuck with having to cover other people's desire to give money to greedy organizations that call themselves charities.

Things cost money, even for the government. They use my money to pay for part of it. Someone gives 1/5th of their share of it away and takes the deduction. I have to give 1/5 of mine away or more of the things the government bought are paid for from my share than the someone with the deduction.

Lets say you have three people paying taxes. Two take a deduction, one doesn't because he think they are mostly f'ed up money grabs that can't do any real good because of the greed of the people who run it.

Tax is 36% with a 3% deduction allowance.

we each make $100 and pay $36 tax, 36*3=108-6(deductions)=$102

Now if the government spends that $102 on something, who paid the most for it? And in that way, I'm supporting their charity by taking a larger part of the bill so they can have their name on a little brass strip in some hallway, while the people who run it soak up large salaries for doing nothing good...

Just like you don't want to have any firearms responsibility forced on you, I don't want to be forced to give to charity.

If people are giving to charity because of a tax credit, instead of actually believing in it, they should be ashamed of themselves. If they truly believe in it, they will give no matter what, thats the way it should be. I shouldn't have to subsidize their religous guilt, sins, or whatever else they feel when they don't give because it actually costs them money...

If they don't want to feel that way, they need to let go of their greed.

You wouldn't like my idea of welfare, I'm not going there.

I concede that charitable contributions would need stricter qualifying requirements. Regular church contributions should not be deductible and some of these questionable organizations like Acorn and the Chiefs of Police Association need weeded out. It needs to be limited to those tasks that would otherwise be taken up by government. In those cases where the government would need to step in, the numbers don't lie.

A 36% flat tax? I see you won't be in elected office any time soon.

Since total yearly tax revenues have historically been roughly 19.5% of GDP, a flat personal income tax should not exceed 20%.

A 3% allowance for deductions? OK. That would also define the slack that the government would have to take up for education, research and government aid to children if it was removed. At the more modest 20% flat tax and (if you are lucky) government spending at 50% efficiency (hahahahahah), they will use 10 times more revenue to compensate for the losses. 1000%. Thats a 10% spending increase needed to compensate for every 1% of revenue reclaimed from the removal of charitable contributions. If the deduction allowance that would have been 3% of revenues is removed, the government would have to compensate with a 30% increase in spending.

[JackANSI]

I concede that charitable contributions would need stricter qualifying requirements. Regular church contributions should not be deductible and some of these questionable organizations like Acorn and the Chiefs of Police Association need weeded out. It needs to be limited to those tasks that would otherwise be taken up by government. In those cases where the government would need to step in, the numbers don't lie.

A 36% flat tax? I see you won't be in elected office any time soon.

Percentages chosen were just an example 2008 I managed to get away with only paying 26.8%...

No charities, or any organization that gets tax breaks, should have any voice in politics, period. Only those paying into the system as much as everyone else should be allowed to say anything at all.