How come...

[toto2]

The US governement can go to war in Irak , destroy most of it's infrastructure and rebuild it ( with your tax dollars) , but Us citizen have to give to charities to help rebuilt New-Orlean ?

[jrydberg]

Because the US government bears no responsibility whatsoever for the destruction caused by a hurricane.

It is debateable how much responsibility the US bears for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, but clearly there is at least some responsibility there.

Edited to add: not to mention the billions being spent on helping the Gulf Coast to recover.

[Miss Jasmine]

Hmmm well we may learn something more after the President's speech tonight. There have been some rumors about raising taxes to pay for Katrina.

[Charade]

The US governement can go to war in Irak , destroy most of it's infrastructure and rebuild it ( with your tax dollars) , but Us citizen have to give to charities to help rebuilt New-Orlean ?

We aren't the ones that are blowing up the infrustucture in Iraq. We may have taken out a bridge or two in the beginning though. A lot of the infrustucture was in disrepair before we got there.

[bsnyder]

If the OP meant it as a slam, I didn't take it that way. It is pretty amazing, the generosity of the American private sector in times like this. Although what they are giving will only be a drop in the bucket compared to what the government will spend.

Toto, if you're interested in the answer to your question, read some of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

private donations help people--that's what the relief agencies are for. I always thought that was for the immediate needs following a disaster...not to go and rebuild the infrastructure.

For example--my home burns down....red cross or some other agency will be there to help us get back on our feet--but they won't rebuild the house.

[wvrevy]

Hmmm well we may learn something more after the President's speech tonight. There have been some rumors about raising taxes to pay for Katrina.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You don't actually think that THIS president is going to propose actually paying for something, do you ? He's refused to even discuss repealing his tax cuts to the rich in order to pay for Iraq...why on Earth would you think he would do so for Katrina ? :confused3

Last I heard, several Republicans were calling for more tax cuts, including the repeal of the Estate Tax. Bush is already a pariah on the left, and polls seem to indicate that the centrists are starting to feel the same way...the only people he has left in his corner are the extreme right. He's not about to alienate them by calling for a tax increase just to actually pay down our country's enormous debt that he's running up.

[TiggerPiglet]

private donations help people--that's what the relief agencies are for. I always thought that was for the immediate needs following a disaster...not to go and rebuild the infrastructure.

For example--my home burns down....red cross or some other agency will be there to help us get back on our feet--but they won't rebuild the house.


I agree. I do not think charitable dollars will go to rebuilding the infrastructure, that will come from tax dollars.

[peachgirl]

He's not about to alienate them by calling for a tax increase just to actually pay down our country's enormous debt that he's running up.

We can dream, can't we?;)

[Charade]

We can dream, can't we?;)

Dream for what, a tax increase?

[wvrevy]

Dream for what, a tax increase?
I think she was probably saying that we can dream that president frat boy learns that, when you buy things, the money has to come from somewhere. So far, he's shown no hint that he understands that basic concept.

$1 Billion a week for Iraq
$200 Billion (?) for Katrina

Add those up, and I don't think it spells "tax cut for the wealthy". Do you ? 'Cause apparently the Republicans in congress do...

[Charade]

I think she was probably saying that we can dream that president frat boy learns that, when you buy things, the money has to come from somewhere. So far, he's shown no hint that he understands that basic concept.

$1 Billion a week for Iraq
$200 Billion (?) for Katrina

Add those up, and I don't think it spells "tax cut for the wealthy". Do you ? 'Cause apparently the Republicans in congress do...

We know how you feel about the wealthy. Punish them for success.

[peachgirl]

I think she was probably saying that we can dream that president frat boy learns that, when you buy things, the money has to come from somewhere. So far, he's shown no hint that he understands that basic concept.

$1 Billion a week for Iraq
$200 Billion (?) for Katrina

Add those up, and I don't think it spells "tax cut for the wealthy". Do you ? 'Cause apparently the Republicans in congress do...

Thank you...that's exactly right.:)

Watching the reaction of the faithful would just be an added bonus.;)

[wvrevy]

We know how you feel about the wealthy. Punish them for success.

:rolleyes: Yep...that's it exactly.

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

Why is that so hard to understand ? And why is it that Republicans - the supposed party of fiscal restraint - give a pass to this president that has run up larger deficits than any other, and spends worse than any Democrat in 8 years...all while cutting federal revenue to pay for it?

[BuckNaked]

:rolleyes: Yep...that's it exactly.

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

I have no problem with that, to a point. But what is the limit, in your mind? At what point is enough, enough? To me, telling a wage earner "OK, from this point on, 33% of everything you make is going to be taken away and given to someone else" is far enough. Would you be willing to work for 2/3 of your regular salary?

Why is that so hard to understand ? And why is it that Republicans - the supposed party of fiscal restraint - give a pass to this president that has run up larger deficits than any other, and spends worse than any Democrat in 8 years...all while cutting federal revenue to pay for it?

I'm all for cutting domestic spending, and the current spending spree (pre-Katrina) is the big failure of this administration, as far as I'm concerned. But what I don't get is this - you want spending cut, but you want more social spending. How does that work exactly?

[Charade]

:rolleyes: Yep...that's it exactly.

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

Why is that so hard to understand ? And why is it that Republicans - the supposed party of fiscal restraint - give a pass to this president that has run up larger deficits than any other, and spends worse than any Democrat in 8 years...all while cutting federal revenue to pay for it?


The problem is they aren't being asked, they are being forced. If you want to give more than what's taken out on payday, you're more than welcome to but when I'm forced to give more just because someone else thinks I'm not giving enough, I have a problem with that. Why is that so hard to understand?

Hey, I've never endorsed Bush on all of his spending. I think the perscription drug program is a white elephant. That's a really BIG expediture. The problem with healthcare is not finding more ways to pay for the ever rising costs like universal healthcare which just spreads the cost over a wide base, it's finding ways to reduce the costs. My GF was just in the hospital (via the ER) a week or so ago. She was in ONE night and got the bill the other day (she has no insurance). It was $6000!! 1600 for the room, 800 for the ER, 900 for the meds and 700 for a CT scan. IMO, that is OUTRAGEOUS!

[bsnyder]

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.



So how much more are you willing to give, of your wages?

[Charade]

So how much more are you willing to give, of your wages?


Not give. Confiscated.

[bsnyder]

Not give. Confiscated.

Anyone who's advocating tax increases to help those in need should be willing to state how much of an increase their share will be.

[Pugdog007]

So how much more are you willing to give, of your wages?

Wasn't this question posed to Kerry during his campaign? Oh yeah he didn't answer it either. Maybe those that want to pay more just don't know they can? We should educate them! You can, you can!!! Give as much as you want!!! Or is it that you are on the other end of the pipeline and you're a beneficiary of various tax driven social programs? That would make more sense. I pay 28% and I'm not willing to pay a dime more.

Thanks for asking though.

[Charade]

Wasn't this question posed to Kerry during his campaign? Oh yeah he didn't answer it either. Maybe those that want to pay more just don't know they can? We should educate them! You can, you can!!! Give as much as you want!!! Or is it that you are on the other end of the pipeline and you're a beneficiary of various tax driven social programs? That would make more sense. I pay 28% and I'm not willing to pay a dime more.
Thanks for asking though.


Is that your base tax rate (what's taken out of your pay based on your salary) or your effective tax rate (after deductions)?

[Charade]

Anyone who's advocating tax increases to help those in need should be willing to state how much of an increase their share will be.

True, but it's still confiscated, not given.

[Pugdog007]

Is that your base tax rate (what's taken out of your pay based on your salary) or your effective tax rate (after deductions)?

After deductions.

Edited to say: I paid just shy of $20k in taxes for 2004. It makes me sick every time I think about it.

[Charade]

After deductions.

Edited to say: I paid just shy of $20k in taxes for 2004. It makes me sick every time I think about it.

Ouch! Mine was about 11 percent after deductions.

[Pugdog007]

Ouch! Mine was about 11 percent after deductions.

oh my gosh I seriously need a new accountant. I have a house to deduct, but I file single with no dependents. It's a killer. I wish I could claim these pug dogs. :pug:

[Pugdog007]

Ouch! Mine was about 11 percent after deductions.

Ok I had to look at this again after you said you paid only 11. I decided that can't possibly be right. I was taxed at 28% and after deductions I paid 22%.

Sorry can you repeat the question :teeth:

The bottom line is I paid too much and I want a refund!

[Miss Jasmine]

I am another conservative less than enamored with the current spending spree.

[toto2]

What is there to do them ? Let the private sector handle everything ? Privatise everything and then have schools only where a corporation thinks you can make money with the school , have only private hightways that go only beteenw places that will be putting greens in the pockets of people ? Taxes , for me , are the great equalizer : everybody pitch in for the common good, according to there means . On this boear , often the people who are the more against taxes , are the ones who agree the more with the war. How do you apy for this war. So far , it it costing a lot more money too wage this war than to rebuilt New-Orlean: It is expected that . by 2010 , the cost of the war will have been $600 billion , wich is 3 times more that the post-katrine effort .The tax cuts alot of the most well-off American citizens amount to $4 trillion over 10 years , that would be between 25 and 30 Katrina .


So the question is : I dont want to pay taxes , but I want the war to continue. I am the one who wanted to first find WMD because they were so dangerous ( and inexistant ) then , I wanted my governement to bring freedom from tyrany to a society that , for many reasons , dont understant the the American definition of democaraty , and now I want to go to the end of this , out of respect for those americans who gave there lifes trying to make my first two wishes come true BUT , I dont want to pay for it.

The truth is , we pay taxes , and taxes have almost always existed. We do pay a lot of taxes here in Canda , and especially in my province , Quebec. Do I like paying them ? No really. Do I think it is nessesary ? You bet ! Taxes makes sure that some money will be spend on things that the private sector will never built because there is no money to be made there . There is no money to be made with levees in New Orlean , it's only value is to protect life , and private property. You cannot charge people to look at them , or walk on them : they have no market value. But they need to be rebuilt. And this exemple is repeated in thousands of way and places all over the USA.


No ' i dont know if I made sense , but I post it anyway ! :)

[wvrevy]

I pay what I'm asked to pay. If asked to pay more, I will. Yes, taxes are forced payments. If you don't like that, then you're in the wrong country, though I don't know of any that doesn't have taxes . As toto2 pointed out, the vast majority of the projects that receive funding from taxes are things that no private sector company would touch.

How would you suggest we pay for roads ? National defense ? Police, fire, and such ? Should education only be available to those that can afford it ? Should retirement be unavailable to 98% of the population ? Should medicine be unavailable to the poor ? All of those things have to be paid for somehow...so how do you suggest we do it ? By taxing the poor ? Even though there are a growing number of them, I don't think that would get us very far...Kinda counter-productive, know what I mean ? :rotfl:

As for how much of an increase I'm willing to accept...I'd have to figure that out for my own household. But it's not my household that would see the greatest increases anyway, since our income falls well short of $1,000,000 per year. Just rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich would go a long way towards paying for everything that the Republicans are spending.

[wvrevy]

I have no problem with that, to a point. But what is the limit, in your mind? At what point is enough, enough? To me, telling a wage earner "OK, from this point on, 33% of everything you make is going to be taken away and given to someone else" is far enough. Would you be willing to work for 2/3 of your regular salary?
I'm no economics expert, Brenda...But if I was making a million-dollar-a-year salary, no I can't say that I'd complain all that much. Sorry, I have a hard time feeling pity for rich people, when the people that money goes to help are struggling to put food on the table. The quote in my signature should give you a pretty good idea of how I feel about that.
I'm all for cutting domestic spending, and the current spending spree (pre-Katrina) is the big failure of this administration, as far as I'm concerned. But what I don't get is this - you want spending cut, but you want more social spending. How does that work exactly?
For one thing, the money has to be spent wisely. No more "no-bid" contracts to political cronies. That'd be a good start. Secondly, we need to cut the fat. 100 million dollar bridges to nowhere benefitting 100 people need to go. Thirdly, we need to take a serious look at waste and abuse throughout our domestic social programs. Again, that would go a long way towards putting the money that is spent into the places that it would do the most good.

The spending I would like to see increased is for things like education, and obviously, emergency planning. We've spent tens - if not hundreds - of billions of dollars on homeland security since 9/11. After watching the aftermath of Katrina and the bungled response at every level, do you really think that money has been well spent ? Are you in the least bit confident that your city is prepared to handle the effects of a devastating disaster, be it natural or man made ?

[bsnyder]

We've spent tens - if not hundreds - of billions of dollars on homeland security since 9/11. After watching the aftermath of Katrina and the bungled response at every level, do you really think that money has been well spent ? Are you in the least bit confident that your city is prepared to handle the effects of a devastating disaster, be it natural or man made ?

I think this statement misses the forest for the trees. This doesn't mean there weren't serious mistakes made, or that there's not room for much needed improvement. But the notion that the government (at all levels) "failed" is just simply not backed up by the facts.

September 15, 2005
Katrina, What Went Right
By Lou Dolinar

With body recovery teams in New Orleans finding far fewer than the expected 10,000 to 25,000 dead, despite the flooding of 80 percent of the city, it is time to ask: What went right?

Largely invisible to the media's radar, a broad-based rescue effort by federal, state and local first responders pulled 25,000 to 50,000 people from harm's way in floodwaters in the city. Ironically, FEMA's role, for good or ill, was essentially non-existent, as was the Governor's and the Mayor's. An ad-hoc distributed network responded on its own. Big Government didn't work. Odds and ends of little government did.

The critical period was the immediate aftermath of the levy breaks on Monday, August 29 until the flooding crested on Sept. 2. If people were going to be trapped in attics, drowned in their cars, or washed off roofs, this is when it would have happened. Once the flooding crested, while thousands still needed to be removed from their homes, fed, and relocated, at least the immediate threat of drowning was over.

During the critical period beginning Monday, rescue helicopters were already reeling in at least 2000 people a day. These independent units comprised dozens of Coast Guard, Air Force, Air National Guard and Army choppers. Various boat-rescue operations by New Orleans first responders saved thousands more-even as the media's attention was focused on the Superdome, snipers and scenes of looting. The response to the real threat of Katrina, other words, was immediate and massive -it just wasn't the response the media wanted, expected or was spoon-fed at a press conference.

The precise records of who saved how many, when, are incomplete. However, the bottom line here is the count of the dead. That it is far lower than projections indicates that many of the people who faced imminent doom were rescued as waters rose. By Friday of the first week of operations, chopper crews had literally run out of victims to save and had mostly switched to transporting supplies, dropping sandbags, and rearranging people who were already safe.

The Connecticut Post, of all places, gives the best overview of the operation in a column by Peter Urban. He points out that a single chopper of the Louisiana National Guard, on Monday after the storm hit, pulled some 250 people to safety; there were 16 other 30- passenger Black Hawks in the unit that had been stripped of seating to fly similar rescue missions. If the other choppers only saved half as many people, that one unit alone pulled out 2000 people a day.

But the Louisiana Blackhawks weren't the only rescuers. The Coast Guard was flying as soon as the hurricane passed on Monday as well and had already accounted for several thousand victims by Wednesday.

The Air Force reported 1,300 rescues and some 14,000 "transported" by Sept. 4.

By Tuesday night, the Navy's Bataan hospital ship-cited for its inaction by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--in fact had five choppers flying rescue missions and had pulled out several hundred people.

But those weren't the only helicopters flying. Overall, 113 choppers were in operation around New Orleans by Sept. 1, according to The Armed Forces Press Service.

Urban also notes one explanation why the rescue operation flew below the radar of the media: Individual federal and state units were not coordinating their efforts overall. There was no central clearing house for information on rescue efforts. What looked like a hurricane relief breakdown was in fact a press release breakdown.

Local rescue efforts by boat were surprisingly robust, contrary to conventional wisdom. The much maligned New Orleans police and fire departments, which began operations Monday afternoon, were able to field 100 to 200 boats in the first 24 hours after the breach, according to local officials quoted in the Times Picayune. However, with the City's communications system broken down, the 500 to 1000 rescue workers had to organize themselves and so were operating without central command and control, thus also below the media radar. How many these police and firefighters saved is unknown, but with so many boats in the water so quickly, the number would have easily been in the thousands.

Meanwhile the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, claimed 20,000 rescues by Sept. 8 at which point it suspended calls for more volunteers and boats. While it is unclear how many of these rescues took place in the critical time frame, the only mention of this staggering achievement came in the Sept. 8 press release. How many national reporters thought to call the Wildlife department, or even thought it was a go-to agency?

This list is by no means exhaustive. State police and deputies from various Sheriff's departments were operating rescue boats, as was the Coast Guard. Individual National Guard units responded on their own initially, as did civilian rescue teams from out of state. Dates and numbers saved simply haven't been added up, or served to a skeptical media.

Besides the large number of rescuers, there was another key reason for the success of rescue efforts. The nature of the flooding differed from the scenarios that would have resulted in 10 to 25 thousand dead. Worst case models projected a storm surge that overtopped the levies by 10 feet, destroying them and creating an instant flood at or near the time a Cat 5 hurricane leveled 80 percent of the structures in the city and environs.

That only happened in parts of the city, eastern New Orleans. It is clear from video footage that even there much of the housing survived, at least insofar as it provided a few days of refuge from flood waters. The flooding elsewhere was extensive, but not always rapid--in many areas the rise was six inches to a foot per hour, easily evaded by a moderately fit adult or child.

Flooding didn't crest until Sept. 2, giving rescuers a five-day window in which to prioritize operations for the most desperate. Even then, few homes were overtopped and submerged.

The death toll from Katrina in New Orleans will inevitably rise, but it will likely be in the hundreds rather than the thousands, contrary to the ghoulish projections. That doesn't absolve authorities from responsibility for some of those deaths. As is the case in any disaster, the old, the sick and the handicapped will disproportionately be victims, bringing into tight focus the City of New Orleans' failure to take the modest steps needed for early evacuation for a few thousand of its most vulnerable. More died at the Superdome after the Governor decided on a Pol Pot solution for evacuation of the city, e.g. Starve the city dwellers to force them into the countryside. And of course FEMA's political appointees, and by extension the Administration, failed to step in to address these and other problems, particularly the lack of coordination between the many agencies that were flying blind for the first 48 hours. Indeed, if it turns out that there are large numbers of dead remaining, they won't have died for lack of resources, but rather, because there was no one to tell the vast and otherwise successful rescue flotilla where to go.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

What is there to do them ? Let the private sector handle everything ? Privatise everything and then have schools only where a corporation thinks you can make money with the school , have only private hightways that go only beteenw places that will be putting greens in the pockets of people ? Taxes , for me , are the great equalizer : everybody pitch in for the common good, according to there means . On this boear , often the people who are the more against taxes , are the ones who agree the more with the war. How do you apy for this war. So far , it it costing a lot more money too wage this war than to rebuilt New-Orlean: It is expected that . by 2010 , the cost of the war will have been $600 billion , wich is 3 times more that the post-katrine effort .The tax cuts alot of the most well-off American citizens amount to $4 trillion over 10 years , that would be between 25 and 30 Katrina .


So the question is : I dont want to pay taxes , but I want the war to continue. I am the one who wanted to first find WMD because they were so dangerous ( and inexistant ) then , I wanted my governement to bring freedom from tyrany to a society that , for many reasons , dont understant the the American definition of democaraty , and now I want to go to the end of this , out of respect for those americans who gave there lifes trying to make my first two wishes come true BUT , I dont want to pay for it.

The truth is , we pay taxes , and taxes have almost always existed. We do pay a lot of taxes here in Canda , and especially in my province , Quebec. Do I like paying them ? No really. Do I think it is nessesary ? You bet ! Taxes makes sure that some money will be spend on things that the private sector will never built because there is no money to be made there . There is no money to be made with levees in New Orlean , it's only value is to protect life , and private property. You cannot charge people to look at them , or walk on them : they have no market value. But they need to be rebuilt. And this exemple is repeated in thousands of way and places all over the USA.


No ' i dont know if I made sense , but I post it anyway ! :)


Yes, the more we privatize the better.

Democracy (Republic) is a great form of government, but a poor form of doing business.

Taxes, although necessary, are a form of socialism that need to be kept to a minimum.

[ThAnswr]

Dream for what, a tax increase?

Good grief..........You can't make this stuff up.

The dream is that some people on the other side of the political aisle will actually heed some of the personal responsibility lectures and start paying the bills instead of passing it on to the next generation.

Hahahahahahahaha...........broke myself up with that one.

[ThAnswr]

The problem is they aren't being asked, they are being forced. If you want to give more than what's taken out on payday, you're more than welcome to but when I'm forced to give more just because someone else thinks I'm not giving enough, I have a problem with that. Why is that so hard to understand?

Hey, I've never endorsed Bush on all of his spending. I think the perscription drug program is a white elephant. That's a really BIG expediture. The problem with healthcare is not finding more ways to pay for the ever rising costs like universal healthcare which just spreads the cost over a wide base, it's finding ways to reduce the costs. My GF was just in the hospital (via the ER) a week or so ago. She was in ONE night and got the bill the other day (she has no insurance). It was $6000!! 1600 for the room, 800 for the ER, 900 for the meds and 700 for a CT scan. IMO, that is OUTRAGEOUS!

What are you complaining about? This is the best system in the world. Isn't that what the Republicans have been saying us and you've been passing on. You got what you wanted. Got a problem with it...........tell the ones who've been making the claims, raking in the campaign contributions, and getting good folks like you to carrry the water for them.

Healthcare costs are rising dramatically because fewer and fewer people are paying the bills. Then number of people who don't have healthcare insurance has increased by over 10,000,000 since Bush took office. That's why costs are going up.

[bsnyder]

That's why costs are going up.

You're right about one thing. You can't make this stuff up. Unbelieveable!

Wish I could stick around to watch this one play out, but I gotta run. But I look forward to reading more later.

[wvrevy]

I think this statement misses the forest for the trees. This doesn't mean there weren't serious mistakes made, or that there's not room for much needed improvement. But the notion that the government (at all levels) "failed" is just simply not backed up by the facts.
I think maybe you need to look up the meaning of that phrase, Bet. Nationwide disaster preparedness is the big picture. What happened in the aftermath of Katrina (those "serious mistakes") is an indicator of a larger problem: that this country is completely unprepared to deal with the aftermath of a disaster of these proportions, be it natural or man-made. Actually, the indications are that we are considerably less prepared for a man-made disaster, as we would have no warning for that, unlike Katrina.

I don't need a spin-miester essay to tell me what went "right"...like everyone else, I could clearly see all that went wrong unfolding right there on my television screen.

[ThAnswr]

Anyone who's advocating tax increases to help those in need should be willing to state how much of an increase their share will be.

My quote: A $0.05-$0.10 cent increase per gallon of gasoline to pay to rebuild the infrastructure in this country. If you can get used to paying $3.00 per gallon, you can used to paying $3.05- $3.10.

Roll back the tax cuts. We've problems to solve, infrastructure to build, and bills to pay.

That's for starters.

The alternative is to get involved in these ridiculous rhetorical arguments over "punishing the successful", "confiscating my income", ad nauseum.

If you like the America you saw the past few weeks, stick with the rhetoric. And sooner or later, there'll be an earthquake in California, a flood in Missouri, a series of killer tornadoes in tornado alley, etc.

And then your rhetoric will bite you in the ***. That's karma.

As for the argument, you're "punishing the successsful", that's the small price you pay for living in the United States of America that gave you this wonderful opportunity to succeed. Or do you think the only people who should be grateful are the single parents, people on welfare and food stamps, Medicaid recipients, etc.

*generic "you"*

[ThAnswr]

Yes, the more we privatize the better.

Democracy (Republic) is a great form of government, but a poor form of doing business.

Taxes, although necessary, are a form of socialism that need to be kept to a minimum.

Link please to how successful the "privatization" has been.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Link please to how successful the "privatization" has been.

Capitalism, democracy, and Christian principles are responsible for the success of this nation. The link is 230+ years of our history. :sunny:

[peachgirl]

Capitalism, democracy, and Christian principles are responsible for the success of this nation. The link is 230+ years of our history. :sunny:

Your link isn't working...

[ThAnswr]

I'm no economics expert, Brenda...But if I was making a million-dollar-a-year salary, no I can't say that I'd complain all that much. Sorry, I have a hard time feeling pity for rich people, when the people that money goes to help are struggling to put food on the table. The quote in my signature should give you a pretty good idea of how I feel about that.

For one thing, the money has to be spent wisely. No more "no-bid" contracts to political cronies. That'd be a good start. Secondly, we need to cut the fat. 100 million dollar bridges to nowhere benefitting 100 people need to go. Thirdly, we need to take a serious look at waste and abuse throughout our domestic social programs. Again, that would go a long way towards putting the money that is spent into the places that it would do the most good.

The spending I would like to see increased is for things like education, and obviously, emergency planning. We've spent tens - if not hundreds - of billions of dollars on homeland security since 9/11. After watching the aftermath of Katrina and the bungled response at every level, do you really think that money has been well spent ? Are you in the least bit confident that your city is prepared to handle the effects of a devastating disaster, be it natural or man made ?

The Department of Homeland Security spent $22,000,000,000 (that's billion with a "B"). After all, you did get that nifty color code. Don't you feel like you got your money's worth?

Btw, Bush is now going to lead a review of what went wrong? So the people who made the mistakes are now to investigate those mistakes and correct those mistakes..........this has to be a joke. If they knew what the hell they were doing in the first place, we wouldn't have had these major screw-ups requiring a review.

[ThAnswr]

Your link isn't working...

:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

This goes into the "golden gotcha" book.

[wvrevy]

Capitalism, democracy, and Christian principles are responsible for the success of this nation. The link is 230+ years of our history. :sunny:
"Christian principles" ?!?

:rotfl:

Since when has "screw the other guy, I'm getting mine" been a "Christian Principle" ? :rolleyes:

[toto2]

So , what should be privatize and what should be public.


We have a governement here in Quebec that wants to privatize a lot , and it is scary. When the trains and subways were privatize din England , the number accidents went up , because for a private corporation that need to bring in money , safety is a spending , so they will go a strict minimum. Are you willing to put your life into the hands of someone who considered that the strict minimum is a good thing. Is your life worth the stricy minimum. We saw in New-Orlean what the strict minimum did ( and it was governement's strict minimum !) I can tell you that the private sector is very happy with what just happend in the Gulf region right now: catastrophes are a lot more money in there pockets than not !

Abd for a lot of corporation , 9/11 was a wonderfull business opportunity as well.

[BuckNaked]

As for how much of an increase I'm willing to accept...I'd have to figure that out for my own household. But it's not my household that would see the greatest increases anyway, since our income falls well short of $1,000,000 per year.

I wouldn't be so sure. There seems to be a misconception about tax rates/brackets and where the lines fall. We're nowhere near millionaire status, but under the current tax system, we'll pay $6,320 less in federal income tax this year than we would have under the previous system. Maybe you think that's fine, that we don't need that $6,320 every year, but then again, I'm not sure why anyone (not you in particular) would have the idea that they get to decide how much anyone else needs.

It isn't a matter of saying "OK, raise the highest marginal rate to 50%" and that means it will only affect those making $1 M. In reality, it will affect people with taxable income of less than a third of that (assuming married filing jointly). With the 33% example I used earlier, it hits people with taxable incomes of greater than $178,000. Good incomes, yes, but hardly gazillionaires.

[ThAnswr]

So , what should be privatize and what should be public.


We have a governement here in Quebec that wants to privatize a lot , and it is scary. When the trains and subways were privatize din England , the number accidents went up , because for a private corporation that need to bring in money , safety is a spending , so they will go a strict minimum. Are you willing to put your life into the hands of someone who considered that the strict minimum is a good thing. Is your life worth the stricy minimum. We saw in New-Orlean what the strict minimum did ( and it was governement's strict minimum !) I can tell you that the private sector is very happy with what just happend in the Gulf region right now: catastrophes are a lot more money in there pockets than not !

Abd for a lot of corporation , 9/11 was a wonderfull business opportunity as well.

Here's the problem: Too many people think government should be run like a business. They believe you need business people to run government.

Why they thought the person who failed at every one of his businesses and lost over $350,000,000 while doing it, was the man to run "government as a business" is just an example of the schizophenic thinking that part and parcel of today's US. Come to think of it, Bush did run government as he did his businesses, but, I digress.

Government is not a business. Business can pick and choose what they want to do. In addition, when you privatize a program, you've put another layer of accountablity between the voter and the program.

On a lighter note, maybe JoeEpcotRocks can give you a link as to the success of privatization. ;)

[ThAnswr]

"Christian principles" ?!?

:rotfl:

Since when has "screw the other guy, I'm getting mine" been a "Christian Principle" ? :rolleyes:

It's the 11th commandment, the 12th commandment being "if he doesn't cooperate, assassinate him".

[ThAnswr]

I think this statement misses the forest for the trees. This doesn't mean there weren't serious mistakes made, or that there's not room for much needed improvement. But the notion that the government (at all levels) "failed" is just simply not backed up by the facts.

Tell that to Bush who's been "mea culpa-ing" so many times, his next speech is going to feature him wearing sackcloth and ashes.

[wvrevy]

And that's fine, Brenda. But my point wasn't to say that we should raise all taxes back to their Clinton-era levels. I think the middle class (and I would certainly class any family of four or less living on less than $150,000 a year as middle class) deserves and needed tax relief.

But the CEO of Haliburton (or Enron, or GE, or Microsoft, or any other major company or corporation) ? Sorry...Not feeling all that sorry for him. The sports star making 8 figures ? Hardly. The movie producer making 9 ? Yeah...right.

Rather than being stuck on a percentage, why not just return taxes to their previous levels for those making greater than $1 million a year in total compensation (wages, bonuses, dividends, everything) ? Why always make it out like I want the middle class to foot the bill ? I'm sorry, but nobody making 7 figures is living a middle class lifestyle (unless they've got 37 children ;) ).

[ThAnswr]

You're right about one thing. You can't make this stuff up. Unbelieveable!

Wish I could stick around to watch this one play out, but I gotta run. But I look forward to reading more later.

Allow me to make a pre-emptive strike until you come back.

My guess is you're going say something along the lines of:

The problems in today's expensive healthcare system is due to lawsuits brought by people who hired someone like Mel Martinez who became one of the most successful trial lawyers in the country and who's now retired to the Senate where he can presumably fight against the very thing that made him all his millions.

Close enough?

[wvrevy]

It's the 11th commandment, the 12th commandment being "if he doesn't cooperate, assassinate him".
I always thought the 11th was, "Thou Shalt Not Get Caught, but if Thou Dost, Thou Shalt Not Whine About It."

:teeth:

[ThAnswr]

Why always make it out like I want the middle class to foot the bill ? I'm sorry, but nobody making 7 figures is living a middle class lifestyle (unless they've got 37 children ;) ).

Because that's how they want to frame the argument so they can blow enough smoke to make the issue complete and utter "FUBAR".

It's the same with the "death tax" and families who've had to sell the family farm, tractor, cow, pig, chicken, etc. just to pay the "death tax".

Of course, no one has ever been able to come up with something resembling this mythical family, but it doesn't matter.

[Free4Life11]

I'd have no problem with them rolling back to the old tax brackets. In reality I DON'T pay much in taxes.

Also the tax brackets don't really tell the true story though because if you're making $100,000 a year gross with no deductions, you're not actually paying 33% of $100K, it ends up being more like $23K, and less with deductions.

[BuckNaked]

And that's fine, Brenda. But my point wasn't to say that we should raise all taxes back to their Clinton-era levels. I think the middle class (and I would certainly class any family of four or less living on less than $150,000 a year as middle class) deserves and needed tax relief.

I understand that, but when you (again, generic 'you') talk about how the tax cuts have only benefited the very wealthy, it masks the truth, which is that the cuts have benefited millions of families that aren't anywhere near "wealthy". Did the cuts benefit the rich? Of course. But those same provided benefits to everyone that pays income tax, and I see that as good thing.


Because that's how they want to frame the argument so they can blow enough smoke to make the issue complete and utter "FUBAR".

It's not blowing smoke, it's telling the truth about how the tax cuts have benefited millions of families that aren't wealthy, which is something that 'generic you' would rather ignore because it doesn't dovetail with your argument for rescinding the cuts.

[BuckNaked]

Also the tax brackets don't really tell the true story though because if you're making $100,000 a year gross with no deductions, you're not actually paying 33% of $100K, it ends up being more like $23K, and less with deductions.

I don't think anyone has said that the 33% bracket means you're paying 33% in income tax. I clearly explained that it was a marginal rate, not an effective rate.

[ThAnswr]

It's not blowing smoke, it's telling the truth about how the tax cuts have benefited millions of families that aren't wealthy, which is something that 'generic you' would rather ignore because it doesn't dovetail with your argument for rescinding the cuts.

Yes, it is............yes, it is...........yes it is.

The first question that has to be asked and answered is NOT what the tax increase should but whether or not you want to pay the bills or pass them onto the next generation. You couldn't find enough cuts in this budget without going into the Pentagon, the CIA, Homeland Security, etc.

We are fooling ourselves into believing that somewhere in this government is a stash of money that can be accessed by "cuts" and is just there waiting for those "cuts" to be made.

We are broke and are up to debt in the next generation's eyeballs and the only way we're staying afloat is by selling bits and pieces of the US to China, Japan, etc. Think about that. That's our longterm security worries.

[BuckNaked]

Yes, it is............yes, it is...........yes it is.



Then you deny that the tax cuts begun in 2001 have benefitted millions of families that aren't rich?

[SunFloridaDisney]

It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.


That's the Christian principle that should apply here, Joe.

See Peachgirl's siggy line.

Doesn't appear that all that privitization is the answer.

[Jennifer S]

Speaking of money - thought this was interesting

http://www.thepostmanscorner.net/katrina.html

Imagine if you lived in 1927 in NO

[Free4Life11]

I don't think anyone has said that the 33% bracket means you're paying 33% in income tax. I clearly explained that it was a marginal rate, not an effective rate.

I know I was just talking out loud because I think a lot of people don't realize it, hell I only paid 1% of my income in federal taxes last year I'm making out like a bandit.

[jrydberg]

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/charts_C/chartc-3.jpg

This chart illustrates clearly that revenue is not the problem. President Bush has, unfortunately, not followed President Clinton's example in restraining spending.

President Clinton was able to balance the budget because he held spending to relatively modest increases while revenue soared due to a booming economy. Conversely, President Bush has unleashed a torrent of spending while revenue has remained flat.

The answer to this problem is plain as day to me. Tax rates have nothing to do with it. Raising tax rates won't generate billions more in revenue, nor will lowering tax rates result in a long term drop in revenue. Control the spending -- that is the problem.

[Free4Life11]

I agree that spending is an issue. The problem is controlling the spending -- what stays and what goes.

And if you had greater revenue, you wouldn't have to cut as much of the spending.

[jrydberg]

I agree that spending is an issue, but what do you cut?

The funny thing is there's no need to actually "cut" anything. If every segment of the entire federal budget grew at a pace slightly higher than inflation, we'd be in good shape.

However, in my opinion, the answer to your question is everything. Every single part of the budget ought to be substantially cut. But then again, I'm more of a libertarian than anything, so my view probably isn't that popular ;)

[Free4Life11]

Libertarian, eh?? I like a lot of their stuff (and don't they want to legalize pot? Right on!) although some of it is a little "extreme" for my liking, but some good points.

[dcentity2000]

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/charts_C/chartc-3.jpg

This chart illustrates clearly that revenue is not the problem. President Bush has, unfortunately, not followed President Clinton's example in restraining spending.

President Clinton was able to balance the budget because he held spending to relatively modest increases while revenue soared due to a booming economy. Conversely, President Bush has unleashed a torrent of spending while revenue has remained flat.

The answer to this problem is plain as day to me. Tax rates have nothing to do with it. Raising tax rates won't generate billions more in revenue, nor will lowering tax rates result in a long term drop in revenue. Control the spending -- that is the problem.
How is President Bush conservative if he spends so much?

Come to that, how is President Clinton a socialist if he DIDN'T spend so much?



Rich::

[wvrevy]

Rich:

A - Because, on social issues, Bush is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. It's only fiscally that he behaves like a sailor on shore leave.
B - Because Clinton wanted to make sure that everybody in this country got healthcare coverage. (Horrible, ain't it ? ;) )

[bcvillastwo]

He's (President Bush) refused to even discuss repealing his tax cuts to the rich in order to pay for Iraq

Gee the last time I looked at the issue of who pays federal tax and how much they pay I found the following.

The top 50% of tax files with reported incomes over $28,000 paid 96.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

The top 25% of tax filers with reported income of $56,000 or higher paid 83.9% of the taxes collect by IRS in 2002

The top 5% of the tax filers with reported incomes of $126,000 or more paid 53.80% of tax filers collected by IRS in 2002.

On the other hand those who were in the bottom 50% of those that filed taxes paid just 3.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

So, using this information who is "rich"? Those that make over $28,000? How about those who make over $56,000 or maybe those that make over $126,000. Collectively these people already pay nearly 100% of the taxes collected by IRS. Does anyone on these boards earn over $28,000. We if so you are already part of the group the pays almost 100% of the taxes collected from individuals.

This is how so many people are defining "rich" by the income they make. Unfortunately this isn't a measure of "rich". If someone earns $70,000 in many cities they will barely be ablle to sustain themselves. While in other localities this is pretty good income. Either way it isn't still doesn't reflect how "rich" they are.

On the other hand a person's assets minus their liabilities is the true measure of wealth and whether a person is "rich" or not. Most people start out poor (their assets are less than or equal to their liabilities) but over time the equations tends to change until they reach retirement age when in many cases their assets often far exceed their liabilities. Are these the people you want to pay more taxes? Or, would you rather have a young family pay more because they have a $70,000 to $100,000 income but their liabilities exceed their assets due to the fact they live in a high cost area such as Washington, DC.

So what do you mean by "rich"? Who should have their taxes increased and why? What is "fair" and why is it "fair".

Define your terms, tell us what you mean when you say "rich".

I get tired of hearing about tax cuts for the "rich". As it is the poor don't pay a thing. Oh by the way using some people's definition of poor works great for someone who has little income but instead has lots of assets and no liabilites. People like that love to be in the "poor" category because that means with their low incomes they don't pay much in taxes.

[dcentity2000]

Rich:

A - Because, on social issues, Bush is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. It's only fiscally that he behaves like a sailor on shore leave.
B - Because Clinton wanted to make sure that everybody in this country got healthcare coverage. (Horrible, ain't it ? ;) )
OK, that's gotta be the funniest thing I've heard in a long while! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Perfectly put!



Rich::

[bcvillastwo]

If asked to pay more, I will.

Yea I bet if who ever your favorite politician asked you to pay more you would. I doubt that totally. No, like you said they simply set the rate and you pay it and if you don't then they force you to pay or put you in jail.

I think a couple of states actually have set up accounts for voluntary contributions but the effort has failed miserably because almost no one voluntarily contributes to government.

The spending I would like to see increased is for things like education......

Just once I would like to have someone show me a report that shows there is a correlation between education spending and increased results, e.g., our children are learning more and there is evidence to back it up.

On the contrary, every report I've seen suggests there is no correlation between spending and our children getting a better education. In our state children in some of the backward more poor sections where educational spending is less per student than in other more prosperous parts of the state acutally perform better on the whole. Then there is the often cited example of the amounts that are spent on public educationin Washington, DC (one of the highest per pupil spending rates in the nation) yet DC has some of the worst results around.

I don't need a spin-miester essay to tell me what went "right"...like everyone else, I could clearly see all that went wrong unfolding right there on my television screen.

First, there is no doubt that things went wrong and they went wrong at every single level of government. So pointing fingers is useless unless one just has an axe to grind about one political party or the other. Second, I seriously doubt that anyone under any circumstances could have adequately prepared for what happened in New Orleans. So we are faced with a whole lot of coulda, woulda, and shoulda which at the end of the day probably won't be all that helpful but we will have our commisssions, point blame, and feel good because yet again we are soothed by more eye wash. Third, even if we were "ready" it's doubtful that anyone could have gotten boots on the ground any sooner (after everything started to go wrong). There was one way in and one way out. If you know a thing about logistics you must realize that it takes time and energy to mobilize on the scale needed to deal with the problems that happened after the storm. Fourth, if you believe what the media was sending you without the benefit of "perspective" which those in the media rarely provide, then you are going to be mislead most of the time.

"Christian principles" ?!?

You might want to read Paul Johnson's book "A History of the American People" it provides a pretty comprehensive overview of our history including some pretty good reasoning on why we've been so successful as a country--not the least of which is based on our Judeao Christian morality (not perfect because we are all human, but pretty darned good). By the way Mr. Johnson is not an American, he's a Brit. So, he probably doesn't have the same axes to grind, or points to prove that our American historians may have.

[bcvillastwo]

Why always make it out like I want the middle class to foot the bill ? I'm sorry, but nobody making 7 figures is living a middle class lifestyle (unless they've got 37 children

Actually the middle class (not sure what constitutes the middle class) is already footing a large part of the bill (and guess what they always will). Using figures I cited earlier, I would say the middle class have incomes ranging from $56,000 and $92,000. If you accept that then for the tax year 2002, the middle class paid just over 34% of the taxes. If you increase the middle class income to $126,000 then the middle clase paid almost 50% of personal taxes collected by IRS for tax year 2002.

Those that make 7 figures are probably not going to pay the taxes you thing they will because they always seem to find legal ways to get around paying taxes (and they are often aided in this enterprise by those on both the left and right side of the aisle).

Nope the poor won't pay and neither will the wealthy. Only the middle class pays taxes.

[ThAnswr]

Then you deny that the tax cuts begun in 2001 have benefitted millions of families that aren't rich?

Of course people benefitted. Who wouldn't benefit from more money.

However, now there are bills to be paid. And that is the issue. Who's rich and who isn't is not the issue. Cities have to be rebuilt, levees have to be redesigned, etc. and that takes money that we do not have. So you are left with 2 choices: a tax increase or cut spending and you couldn't find enough places to cut to pay for what's needed in this country. There is no stash of money via spending cuts just waiting for someone to find in this government.

[bsnyder]

Those that make 7 figures are probably not going to pay the taxes you thing they will because they always seem to find legal ways to get around paying taxes (and they are often aided in this enterprise by those on both the left and right side of the aisle).




::yes::

[bsnyder]

Of course people benefitted. Who wouldn't benefit from more money.

However, now there are bills to be paid. And that is the issue. Who's rich and who isn't is not the issue. Cities have to be rebuilt, levees have to be redesigned, etc. and that takes money that we do not have. So you are left with 2 choices: a tax increase or cut spending and you couldn't find enough places to cut to pay for what's needed in this country. There is no stash of money via spending cuts just waiting for someone to find in this government.

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?

[BuckNaked]

Of course people benefitted. Who wouldn't benefit from more money.



I only asked because you said I was "blowing smoke" regarding people benefitting from the tax cuts

[cats7494]

The tax cuts may have helped some people for a short period of time but it is definitely hurting us in the long run.

[DawnCt1]

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?
There is so much pork in the highway bill, the farm bill and a few other bills, that we could pay for Katrina and all go to WDW.

[wvrevy]

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?
Why don't you ask the Republican congress, Bet ? :teeth:

[ThAnswr]

Why not pay for some of it by cutting pork? What would be wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with it. However, I don't believe you're going to come up with the dollars needed simply by cutting the "pork".

And here's an idea: Take a long, deep look into how the Defense Department is spending money. Now, you may start racking up those dollars.

[ThAnswr]

I only asked because you said I was "blowing smoke" regarding people benefitting from the tax cuts

What's a little smoke among friends? ;)

[ThAnswr]

Gee the last time I looked at the issue of who pays federal tax and how much they pay I found the following.

The top 50% of tax files with reported incomes over $28,000 paid 96.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

The top 25% of tax filers with reported income of $56,000 or higher paid 83.9% of the taxes collect by IRS in 2002

The top 5% of the tax filers with reported incomes of $126,000 or more paid 53.80% of tax filers collected by IRS in 2002.

On the other hand those who were in the bottom 50% of those that filed taxes paid just 3.5% of the taxes collected by IRS in 2002.

So, using this information who is "rich"? Those that make over $28,000? How about those who make over $56,000 or maybe those that make over $126,000. Collectively these people already pay nearly 100% of the taxes collected by IRS. Does anyone on these boards earn over $28,000. We if so you are already part of the group the pays almost 100% of the taxes collected from individuals.

This is how so many people are defining "rich" by the income they make. Unfortunately this isn't a measure of "rich". If someone earns $70,000 in many cities they will barely be ablle to sustain themselves. While in other localities this is pretty good income. Either way it isn't still doesn't reflect how "rich" they are.

On the other hand a person's assets minus their liabilities is the true measure of wealth and whether a person is "rich" or not. Most people start out poor (their assets are less than or equal to their liabilities) but over time the equations tends to change until they reach retirement age when in many cases their assets often far exceed their liabilities. Are these the people you want to pay more taxes? Or, would you rather have a young family pay more because they have a $70,000 to $100,000 income but their liabilities exceed their assets due to the fact they live in a high cost area such as Washington, DC.

So what do you mean by "rich"? Who should have their taxes increased and why? What is "fair" and why is it "fair".

Define your terms, tell us what you mean when you say "rich".

I get tired of hearing about tax cuts for the "rich". As it is the poor don't pay a thing. Oh by the way using some people's definition of poor works great for someone who has little income but instead has lots of assets and no liabilites. People like that love to be in the "poor" category because that means with their low incomes they don't pay much in taxes.

Do you have a link because there's something wrong with your numbers and I can't tell just what it is. Thanks in advance.

[bcvillastwo]

Another point I'd like to make involves the question of why the rush to tax or cut taxes when at this point we don't really know the cost of doing anything. Yes there are certain things that must be done right away so immediate action needs to be taken to address those needs.

On the other hand, at this point we don't have a clue how much private money is going to be available for rebuilding. I assume that many business and home owners had insurance and that insurance proceeds will cover some of the cost of rebuilding businesses and homes.

Then there is federal flood insurance, I suspect that the flood insurance will cover another portion of the business and home losses and help with rebuilding. (Yep I realize the the money may not actually be there in the flood insurance accounts and they may have to take these funds out of operating accounts. However, the flood insurance program is supposed to be self sustaining so I suspect that any additional funding could be treated as a loan that would eventually be repaid with premiums.)

Another broad area that no one seems to be talking about is how much is due those that have had to leave New Orleans and other damaged areas from Social Security, other retirement accounts, and the various streams of welfare funding that was already going to these people in the first place?

I suspect that when everything is broken down and figured into the equation that the cost may be a good deal less, or at least in theory it should be less.

I understand that for a bit the government (federal, state, and local and private charity) will be needed to help many of these people until their normal income streams can kick back online. But after the income streams are restored then some of the huge amout of money that we are talking about should be able to stop. (or go to other purposes)

The point I am trying to make is that no one knows how much this is going to cost, no one has had the time to sit down and figure out everything that needs to be done, or how they are going to do it. If they don't know the total picture then how can anyone say how much "extra" it will cost us taxpayers?

[bcvillastwo]

ThAnswer, you know it is very possible that my calculations are off a bit. Please take a look at the following link and work your magic. If I am wrong them I apologize to everyone up front. I still make mistakes, darn I hate being humans sometimes, what a burden not being perfect.

lolhttp://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 (http://)

You might try this link as well. You will find that the information they use is not as recent but in my view it pretty much arrives at the same conclusion.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/ (http://)

I look forward to your interpretation of the numbers.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

"Christian principles" ?!?

:rotfl:

Since when has "screw the other guy, I'm getting mine" been a "Christian Principle" ? :rolleyes:


I'm talking about the USA, the country I know and am proud of, not you.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Your link isn't working...

Working better than any country I know. :sunny:

This country's not perfect, but seems a lot more people want to get in than out. (Canada is still waiting for the hoard from the USA that said they would leave after the last election.)

[wvrevy]

I'm talking about the USA, the country I know and am proud of, not you.
Really ? I'll show you my honorable discharge papers if you show me yours. For such a "proud" American, I'm sure you served, right ?

:rotfl:

Lots of things to be proud of in this country...but it's got its warts, too. Ignoring things like the fact that this country was built on the backs of the poor largely to the benefit of the wealthy doesn't make it not have happened. Read a little history some time.

[Tigger_Magic]

Lots of things to be proud of in this country...but it's got its warts, too. Ignoring things like the fact that this country was built on the backs of the poor largely to the benefit of the wealthy doesn't make it not have happened. Read a little history some time. Yes indeed, everyone who has been successful to any degree in this country has done it only by climbing up on the backs of the poor. :rolleyes2 While there are certainly some instances of some doing this, issuing a blanket condemnation of the wealthy like you've done doesn't make it true. But I suppose some still believe if you repeat something often enough it may magically become true. :confused3

[bsnyder]

There's nothing wrong with it. However, I don't believe you're going to come up with the dollars needed simply by cutting the "pork".

And here's an idea: Take a long, deep look into how the Defense Department is spending money. Now, you may start racking up those dollars.

There's waste in every crack and crevice of government, local, state and federal. The Defense Department has a long history of wasteful spending.

[Charade]

I pay what I'm asked to pay. If asked to pay more, I will. Yes, taxes are forced payments. If you don't like that, then you're in the wrong country, though I don't know of any that doesn't have taxes . As toto2 pointed out, the vast majority of the projects that receive funding from taxes are things that no private sector company would touch.



How would you suggest we pay for roads ? National defense ? Police, fire, and such ? Should education only be available to those that can afford it ? Should retirement be unavailable to 98% of the population ? Should medicine be unavailable to the poor ? All of those things have to be paid for somehow...so how do you suggest we do it ? By taxing the poor ? Even though there are a growing number of them, I don't think that would get us very far...Kinda counter-productive, know what I mean ? :rotfl:

As for how much of an increase I'm willing to accept...I'd have to figure that out for my own household. But it's not my household that would see the greatest increases anyway, since our income falls well short of $1,000,000 per year. Just rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich would go a long way towards paying for everything that the Republicans are spending.

I know and agree that taxes are necessary but the issue isn't to eliminate taxes, it's wanting to know when is enough is enough? You seem to be willing to let them dig deeper into your pocket whenever necessary but I'm not. So what is the answer? You already stated something that would stop the hemorrhaging from my wallet. Stop the unnecessary and wasteful spending. By BOTH parties.

I don't understand why you *have* such disdain for the wealthy. It's for the sole reason that you believe they should contribute more (percentage wise) than those that make considerably less. I don't. I think we should all pay an equal percentage (above a certain income level). We don't tax the poor as it is. In fact, if they are eligible, they get more money than they actually earn! No one ever got a job from a poor person. But plenty of people have jobs *because* of rich people.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Really ? I'll show you my honorable discharge papers if you show me yours. For such a "proud" American, I'm sure you served, right ?

:rotfl:

Lots of things to be proud of in this country...but it's got its warts, too. Ignoring things like the fact that this country was built on the backs of the poor largely to the benefit of the wealthy doesn't make it not have happened. Read a little history some time.

This country was mainly built on the backs of great individuals -- many of whom overcame poverty and their circumstances. Just like many great people in the Bible.

Yes the country has some warts, but I've read a great deal of history thank you and I am indeed proud of this great nation. :sunny:

[Charade]

Tell that to Bush who's been "mea culpa-ing" so many times, his next speech is going to feature him wearing sackcloth and ashes.

You mean something like this?

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/stclinton.jpg

[bsnyder]

I pay what I'm asked to pay. If asked to pay more, I will. Yes, taxes are forced payments.

When you do your tax return, do you spend any of your time and/or money trying to minimize (legally) the amount you'll pay to the federal government?

[Charade]

When you do your tax return, do you spend any of your time and/or money trying to minimize (legally) the amount you'll pay to the federal government?


"legally". What is this you speak of? :teeth:

[mickeyfan2]

Because Americans are very kind and caring people. We want to help out any way that we can. The government will do it's share, the insurance companies will do their share and the American people will do what is in their hearts.

[mickeyfan2]

Taxes , for me , are the great equalizer : everybody pitch in for the common good, according to there means .

This is called communism. Ask Russia how well this worked.

[BuckNaked]

What's a little smoke among friends? ;)

Well, alright then. ;)

[dcentity2000]

This is called communism. Ask Russia how well this worked.
As a notion, communism is very noble - to each according to their needs and so on.

Communism doesn't, however, take into account human greed and cynicism and as such just doesn't work; it's sad, but it's true.

I heard an interesting statistic recently that said that one in three Russians would like to have Stalin back in power more than any other leader (cue quips on his current vitality.) He brought great suffering to many, proving that facism and communism can indeed be muxed.

It's a fascinating bit of history, the USSR.



Rich::

[jrydberg]

How is President Bush conservative if he spends so much?

Come to that, how is President Clinton a socialist if he DIDN'T spend so much?



Rich::

Sorry, took me awhile to respond, but I'll put it this way... Bush is not at all conservative when it comes to spending. No getting around that one.

Clinton was only conservative by comparison (I don't think any of them qualify), but of recent occupants of the office, he's the most conservative in terms of spending.

Bear in mind, I'm no great fan of President Clinton. But in terms of spending, there's no contest. He did a far better job of at least limiting the growth of spending somewhat.

[mickeyfan2]

So what do you mean by "rich"?

Anybody but me. :rotfl2:

Seriously, I agree with you. I get tired of others telling me I don't pay enough. They are the ones who are in the lower 50%. I am paying both their share and my share. What I really love is the argument that tax cuts are for the rich and the poor don't get anything. I should get it if I paid it. If they paid it they would get it too.

[BuckNaked]

As a notion, communism is very noble - to each according to their needs and so on.

Communism doesn't, however, take into account human greed and cynicism and as such just doesn't work; it's sad, but it's true.





Greed on the part of whom? Those that earned it and want to keep or on the part of those that didn't earn it and want to take it? Or both?

And no, I don't think it's a noble idea at all.

[bsnyder]

Communism is a fantasy that completely ignores human nature - both the good and the bad.

[dcentity2000]

Greed on the part of whom? Those that earned it and want to keep or on the part of those that didn't earn it and want to take it? Or both?

And no, I don't think it's a noble idea at all.
Greed come in many guises; one of them is the human trait of penny scrapings that are closely guarded instead of invested in health systems, schooling and so on.

Selflessness is a measure of a polite society - no man gets left behind.

There are those who would oppose a drive towards true equality, but then again there are people who want Stalin back in power.

bsnyder is right though - it is just a fantasy and so it should be - centralisation and pressed conformity (the areas you should have focused on) are NOT high points of human nobility.



Rich::

[BuckNaked]

Greed come in many guises; one of them is the human trait of penny scrapings that are closely guarded instead of invested in health systems, schooling and so on.

And another one of those guises is the human trait that some possess which makes them believe that they have a God given right to the money and goods that are earned by others. That's just as bad as what you rail against, is it not?


There are those who would oppose a drive towards true equality,

I'm all for the right to equality of opportunity, but I'm opposed to the belief that there is a right to equal outcomes regardless of effort.

bsnyder is right though - it is just a fantasy and so it should be - centralisation and pressed conformity (the areas you should have focused on) are NOT high points of human nobility.


I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where it's up to you to decide what *I* should be focusing on. You believe that everyone is entitled to an equal outcome, whether they try and work for it or not. I don't.



Rich::[/QUOTE]

[dcentity2000]

Whoa, Brenda, calm down! Do as HAL says before you collapse!

[EDIT]: Joke follows :teeth:

Two Russian friends, longtime members of the Soviet Communist Party, meet in the Red Square of Moscow 15 years after the collapse of the ComBloc. One of them tells to the other:
" Do you see, my friend... everything they used to tell us about how good Communism was, it was all a lie!".
"Oh, pal, there's much, much worse!", the other replies.
"And WHAT might be worse than this?", the friend asks.
" Well...", the second pal replies, "...everything they used to tell ys about how bad the Capitalism was... it was ALL TRUE!".

;)

For the record, I support the Republic and capitalism as the most viable political landscapes.



Rich::

[BuckNaked]

Whoa, Brenda, calm down! Do as HAL says before you collapse!



Rich::

Oh don't worry, I'm not about to collapse. I just find your notions of the "perfect world" to be far ,far, from perfect.

[dcentity2000]

Oh don't worry, I'm not about to collapse. I just find your notions of the "perfect world" to be far ,far, from perfect.

The world clearly isn't perfect; Bush is in power ;)



Rich::

[BuckNaked]

The world clearly isn't perfect; Bush is in power ;)



Rich::

Yep, don't you love it? I know I do!! :goodvibes

[dcentity2000]

Yep, don't you love it? I know I do!! :goodvibes
It certainly keeps all the satirical comedians in work ;)



Rich::

[peachgirl]

The world clearly isn't perfect; Bush is in power ;)



Rich::

Bush is President, but how much power he has, at least to get any of his agenda pushed through is becoming more questionable every day. Republicans are not happy at all and some of them are even having the nerve to say so publicly. After all, Bush may not be facing re-election, but they are and midterms are not that far away.

You can bet that while the right wingers are putting on a good face, in private they're cringing at the thought of all these social programs.

Remember the huge outcry on these boards regarding a mere pittance of $2000 given to evacuees? If that sent them up the wall, what do think Bush's plan to give them an additional $5000 on top of whatever they get through FEMA (up to 26K) to hunt for jobs and pay for babysitters?

And after 6months (I believe it's 6 months) if they haven't spent it all, they get to do whatever they wish with the remainder! Add to that the fact that he wants to give them land for free, pay for healthcare..it goes on and on and on.

Of course, there's no real plan to pay for it, all the budget cuts in the world won't come close so there goes the deficit.

You can bet they aren't happy campers at all, but they're not going to let you know it.


The only thing I found encouraging in Bush's speech is that he finally admitted that poverty "has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which has cut off generations from the opportunity of America." Now, let's see if he really intends to do anything about it besides talk.

[Pugdog007]

As a notion, communism is very noble - to each according to their needs and so on.

Communism doesn't, however, take into account human greed and cynicism and as such just doesn't work; it's sad, but it's true.

I heard an interesting statistic recently that said that one in three Russians would like to have Stalin back in power more than any other leader (cue quips on his current vitality.) He brought great suffering to many, proving that facism and communism can indeed be muxed.

It's a fascinating bit of history, the USSR.



Rich::

And he was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Yeah that's noble. Where exactly did you "hear" this statistic?

[ThAnswr]

ThAnswer, you know it is very possible that my calculations are off a bit. Please take a look at the following link and work your magic. If I am wrong them I apologize to everyone up front. I still make mistakes, darn I hate being humans sometimes, what a burden not being perfect.

lolhttp://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 (http://)

You might try this link as well. You will find that the information they use is not as recent but in my view it pretty much arrives at the same conclusion.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/ (http://)

I look forward to your interpretation of the numbers.

Your links aren't working, but thanks anyway.

[ThAnswr]

You mean something like this?

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/stclinton.jpg

Your photo, I assume it's a photo, isn't working either. Maybe it's me?

[ThAnswr]

Because Americans are very kind and caring people. We want to help out any way that we can. The government will do it's share, the insurance companies will do their share and the American people will do what is in their hearts.

Having been through Charley, I wouldn't count on the insurance companies. You wouldn't believe some of the horror stories down here.

[wvrevy]

Anybody but me. :rotfl2:

Seriously, I agree with you. I get tired of others telling me I don't pay enough. They are the ones who are in the lower 50%. I am paying both their share and my share. What I really love is the argument that tax cuts are for the rich and the poor don't get anything. I should get it if I paid it. If they paid it they would get it too.
:rotfl: That has to be the single silliest statement I've seen yet. "They are the ones who are in the lower 50%." :rotfl: Really ? And exactly how would you know what my income household level was last year ? :rolleyes: My wife is a CPA and a bank officer, and I'm a data analyst for a fairly large, publicly traded international corporation...and you think that I must be in the "lower 50%" just because I don't think rich people should get huge tax breaks at a time that our national debt is going through the roof ?!?

You'll have to pardon me, TheAnswr, 'cause I have to borrow you're line on this one...You really can't make this stuff up. :rotfl:

[wvrevy]

I'll take a beating from the ignorant for this, but I agree 100% with what Rich said. The concept of communism - not the practice, which never approached the actual ideal - is certainly a noble one. More than that...it's a very christian concept. After all...aren't we all supposed to be "equal in the eyes of God" ?

Where Marx failed was in being too optimistic about the goodness of human nature. We simply aren't advanced enough as a species to care as much about a stranger as we do about ourselves.

[BuckNaked]

...and you think that I must be in the "lower 50%" just because I don't think rich people should get huge tax breaks at a time that our national debt is going through the roof ?!?



And as I pointed out earlier, it isn't just the rich that are getting tax breaks. You said that you don't want to go back to the tax rates as they were under President Clinton, but you didn't specify what you did want. Are you looking for a top bracket that kicks in at $1 M? $500,000? And what top marginal rate do you think would be optimum for those in the top bracket?

I'll take a beating from the ignorant for this, but I agree 100% with what Rich said.

I'm not why you believe it is ignorant to believe that people shouldn't be forced to turn over everything to the community at large just so that everyone is totally equal in the area of income.

After all...aren't we all supposed to be "equal in the eyes of God" ?

Sure, but then again, God doesn't measure worth based on material belongings, so people are equal to him no matter how much they have or don't have. In other words, he loves the rich just as much as he loves the poor...

[wvrevy]

And as I pointed out earlier, it isn't just the rich that are getting tax breaks. You said that you don't want to go back to the tax rates as they were under President Clinton, but you didn't specify what you did want. Are you looking for a top bracket that kicks in at $1 M? $500,000? And what top marginal rate do you think would be optimum for those in the top bracket?
As I've said a million times, I'm not an economics expert. All I know is that people making seven figures weren't hurting during the Clinton years, and they certainly are not hurting now. Returning their tax rates to that level is not going to be the end of the world for anyone.
I'm not why you believe it is ignorant to believe that people shouldn't be forced to turn over everything to the community at large just so that everyone is totally equal in the area of income.
It's not...but then, that's not really what communism is, either. The whole ideal of communism is to place the needs of the many above the wants of the few. It's about wanting everyone to have the same opportunities, be they the son of a dishwasher or the daughter of a CEO. You're focusing completely on what is being "taken away" from that CEO...but who said his job was more important than the guy that picks up his trash ? Can anybody do it ? Of course not (although...considering the mismanagement of some corporations, apparently others disagree with me on that point ;) ). But the job that trash man does is important as well. Why must the one be made to seem inferior to the other ?

But again, communism is simply too idealistic for us. In the CEO's position, I would probably want more money than the trashman, too. We're conditioned to equate financial standing and material wealth with self-worth.
Sure, but then again, God doesn't measure worth based on material belongings, so people are equal to him no matter how much they have or don't have. In other words, he loves the rich just as much as he loves the poor...
Didn't Jesus share everything with his apostles ? Didn't he preach that you should help those unable to help themselves ? Seems to me that is a lesson many people ignore, particularly on the so-called religious right side of the fence. I stole the following from some web page I found, but it basically describes what I'm talking about (with biblical references):
1- Communism believes that everyone is equal. Capitalism's human equality is largely influenced by money.

2- Jesus disliked very much the tax collectors because they were money-driven and money-hungry (Matthew 5:46, 9:10, and Luke 3:11-13).

3- Jesus disliked the rich people and promised that only few of them will make it to Heaven (Matthew 19:23-26).

4- Jesus in points 2 and 3 clearly disliked the "Capitalist" people. He clearly disliked Capitalism, because this system is all about money. Human value is precisely determined by the amount of money the person has.

[BuckNaked]

As I've said a million times, I'm not an economics expert. All I know is that people making seven figures weren't hurting during the Clinton years, and they certainly are not hurting now. Returning their tax rates to that level is not going to be the end of the world for anyone.

And that's the whole point that I'm trying to make - there IS no tax bracket specifically for those making 7 figures. That's why I'm asking if you're in favor of adding a bracket at the top. And if so, what marginal rate do you believe would be appropriate? The 39% that was in effect during the Clinton administration? The 70% prior to the Reagan tax cut? The 90% prior to the Kennedy tax cuts? How much do YOU (personally, not as an economist) think is high enough?

[wvrevy]

And that's the whole point that I'm trying to make - there IS no tax bracket specifically for those making 7 figures. That's why I'm asking if you're in favor of adding a bracket at the top. And if so, what marginal rate do you believe would be appropriate? The 39% that was in effect during the Clinton administration? The 70% prior to the Reagan tax cut? The 90% prior to the Kennedy tax cuts? How much do YOU (personally, not as an economist) think is high enough?
For the first part of your question, yes, I think that the tax brackets, as they stand, are out-dated. There is no reason that someone making $100k a year should be paying the same rate as someone making $100 million.

For the second part...I couldn't even hazard a guess. What I do know is that a few percentage points of increase aren't going to hurt them nearly as much as a few percentage points would to someone actually in the middle class.

[BuckNaked]

I'd love to see the site from which you cited the interpretations of the Bible verses.

There was nothing even pertaining to tax collectors or Jesus' dislike for them in the verses from your cite, perhaps they were "interpreting" the wrong verses.

Matthew Chapter 5: 23) Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24) Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
26) Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Nothing in there that said Jesus disliked the rich.

In fact, I've never found anything in the Bible that stated that Jesus disliked anyone. He certainly disliked the actions of many, but that isn't the same thing as disliking the people themselves.

[BuckNaked]

No one making $100,000 is paying the same as someone making $1 M, but I understand what you're saying, though I disagree.

[mickeyfan2]

That has to be the single silliest statement I've seen yet. "They are the ones who are in the lower 50%." :rotfl: Really ? And exactly how would you know what my income household level was last year ?

Where did I say you were in the lower 50%? :confused3 I was refering to people that I knew personally and do know what they make.

Sorry, but your assumption was the single silliest thing that I have seen yet. :rotfl:

[mickeyfan2]

"equal in the eyes of God" ?

We are all equal in God's eyes but each is given different gifts. Those gifts are what make us all unique.

[wvrevy]

Where did I say you were in the lower 50%? :confused3 I was refering to people that I knew personally and do know what they make.

Sorry, but your assumption was the single silliest thing that I have seen yet. :rotfl:

I quoted your exact statement. Here, I'll do it again, since you seem to have missed that part:
I get tired of others telling me I don't pay enough. They are the ones who are in the lower 50%. I am paying both their share and my share. What I really love is the argument that tax cuts are for the rich and the poor don't get anything. I should get it if I paid it. If they paid it they would get it too.
Since I was the person on this thread talking about raising taxes on the rich, please tell me how I was supposed to interpret this comment as you speaking about "people you know" ? :rolleyes:

[wvrevy]

I'd love to see the site from which you cited the interpretations of the Bible verses.

There was nothing even pertaining to tax collectors or Jesus' dislike for them in the verses from your cite, perhaps they were "interpreting" the wrong verses.

Nothing in there that said Jesus disliked the rich.

In fact, I've never found anything in the Bible that stated that Jesus disliked anyone. He certainly disliked the actions of many, but that isn't the same thing as disliking the people themselves.
Um...Did you miss that whole, "It's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle..." part ? :teeth: Seems pretty clear to me. Maybe he doesn't "dislike" them, but this says pretty clearly that he doesn't plan on associating with them in heaven. I'm not even sure how you could possibly infer anything else from that comment. :confused3

[mickeyfan2]

Since I was the person on this thread talking about raising taxes on the rich, please tell me how I was supposed to interpret this comment as you speaking about "people you know" ?


I was not talking about you. Had I quoted you or called out your name then I was referring to you. Keep posting this again and again. It will not change who I was referring to. Now it you really want it to be you, then go for it.

[ThAnswr]

I was not talking about you. Had I quoted you or called out your name then I was referring to you. Keep posting this again and again. It will not change who I was referring to. Now it you really want it to be you, then go for it.

So who is this "they" you're referring to:

I get tired of others telling me I don't pay enough. They are the ones who are in the lower 50%. I am paying both their share and my share. What I really love is the argument that tax cuts are for the rich and the poor don't get anything. I should get it if I paid it. If they paid it they would get it too.

Is there a real "they" or is it just more political smoke blowing?

[What the Heck]

As I've said a million times, I'm not an economics expert. All I know is that people making seven figures weren't hurting during the Clinton years, and they certainly are not hurting now. Returning their tax rates to that level is not going to be the end of the world for anyone.I'm not even going to go into the communism thing, I don't have enough experience/knowledge of the original theory espoused by Marx, but this, I do disagree with. I beleive that the "tax cut for the rich" did a lot to bring jobs into the market. If you take away the tax cut, you take away a lot of jobs. This isn't a good time for that to happen.

[BuckNaked]

Um...Did you miss that whole, "It's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle..." part ? :teeth:

Nope, didn't miss it at all, but saying that it's difficult or unlikely for someone to do something is a far cry from saying you dislike them.

Seems pretty clear to me. Maybe he doesn't "dislike" them, but this says pretty clearly that he doesn't plan on associating with them in heaven.

Only because he isn't confident that they can do what it takes to get to heaven, not because he didn't like them or wouldn't like them if they did get to heaven.

I'm not even sure how you could possibly infer anything else from that comment. :confused3

Of course you can't see how anyone could interpret it differently. You don't like rich people, so it could never occur to you that someone else might.

So who is this "they" you're referring to:

Most like the "they" that have been telling mickeyfan2 that he's not paying enough in tax. It's clear from mickeyfan2's post that someone had been telling him that he doesn't pay enough. Since I never saw wvrevy say, directly or indirectly, that mickeyfan2 isn't paying enough in taxes, I'm not sure why wvrevy just assumed that mickeyfan2 was talking to him.

[ThAnswr]

Most like the "they" that have been telling mickeyfan2 that he's not paying enough in tax. It's clear from mickeyfan2's post that someone had been telling him that he doesn't pay enough. Since I never saw wvrevy say, directly or indirectly, that mickeyfan2 isn't paying enough in taxes, I'm not sure why wvrevy just assumed that mickeyfan2 was talking to him.

Okie dokie. I think you're doing Mickeyfan2 a disservice by assuming he can't speak for himself. I still want to know who they is/are.

And good God almighty, people aren't paying enough taxes. Face reality.

We're up to our grandchildren's eyeballs in debt, the Chinese are keeping this country afloat by buying pieces of the US and still people are still not willing to toss in a few more shekels.

You couldn't find enough "waste, fraud, and abuse" to pay for Bush's Thursday night's laundry list and all the other things that need fixing in this country. Katrina is "NOT" the only problem, just the latest and most visible one.

I'm sure there's lots of waste in the Defense Department, but do you actually think any Republican is going to take on the real "third rail" of American politics and start auditing the Defense Department?

And please don't come back with "but they do audits every years".

What Republican is going to be accused of cutting the Defense Department after what the righties did to John Kerry in going along with then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney cuts?

And, yes, I would be willing to pay $0.05 federal tax per gallon of gasoline if it meant my DD didn't have to pay for my generation's debt and could live in a country that isn't dependent on Chinese investment.

Any other takers?

[NeverEnufWDW]

The US governement can go to war in Irak , destroy most of it's infrastructure and rebuild it ( with your tax dollars) , but Us citizen have to give to charities to help rebuilt New-Orlean ?

Why doesn't Montreal spend more on its educational system ?

[shortbun]

Why doesn't Montreal spend more on its educational system ?
Maybe some people don't want to reveal their real selves. I guess you don't mind. ;) By the way, you've not spelled 'enough' correctly in your DIS name.
Thought you'd like to know. :teacher:

[BuckNaked]

Okie dokie. I think you're doing Mickeyfan2 a disservice by assuming he can't speak for himself. I still want to know who they is/are.

No disservice at all - mickeyfan2 had already said who "they" are:

I was refering to people that I knew personally and do know what they make.



And good God almighty, people aren't paying enough taxes. Face reality.

I'll thank you to speak for yourself, because my family most certainly IS payiing enough in taxes. If you feel that you aren't, then by all means, send in more - that's certainly your right. But it isn't your right to tell me that I'm not paying enough.

And, yes, I would be willing to pay $0.05 federal tax per gallon of gasoline if it meant my DD didn't have to pay for my generation's debt and could live in a country that isn't dependent on Chinese investment.

For gasoline? Sure, because that's a tax that anyone that drives would have to pay, so I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. But I'm not in favor of raising income taxes.

[ThAnswr]

No disservice at all - mickeyfan2 had already said who "they" are:

I'll thank you to speak for yourself, because my family most certainly IS payiing enough in taxes. If you feel that you aren't, then by all means, send in more - that's certainly your right. But it isn't your right to tell me that I'm not paying enough.

For gasoline? Sure, because that's a tax that anyone that drives would have to pay, so I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. But I'm not in favor of raising income taxes.

Can you show me where I mentioned "income taxes"? Go ahead, take your time. I believed I've mentioned a raise in the gasoline tax several times already.

But, while we're on the subject of incomes taxes, if push came to shove, I would be willing to pay .005 % surcharge to go towards rebuilding this country.

However, it is refreshing to see someone agree that we need to raise more revenue and cannot keep passing it on to the next generation and selling pieces of the US.

How any sane person cannot see that is beyond me. We've got bills to pay, large segments of this country to rebuild, and we cannot do it without sacrifice from all. To continue the mantra "no new taxes" is not only blind, but dangerous.

So, Brenda, I take my hat off to you. Hopefully, others will have the same courage to face reality and our responsibilities.

[dcentity2000]

You guys over the Atlantic have it cushy when it comes to gas prices - we pay just under a pound a litre (that's $1.80 to $1.90 a litre or $6.81 to $7.19 a USA gallon.)

THEN there are expensive car taxes and sometimes emission charges too... oh my yes.



Rich::

[bcvillastwo]

Earlier Wvrevy said something along the lines of aren't we equal in the eyes of God.

To this I answer (based on my own understanding) that yes we are indeed all equal in the eyes of God. But, that doesn't mean that God gave each of the same abilities nor does it in any way mean that there should be equal outcomes for everyone.

The forms of government best suited for Wvrevy appear to advocate is either communism or socialism, or the American version--the welfare state.

The Christian principle for helping the poor is not intended to use units of government to pass funds from those who have to those who don't. Instead, it is primarily based on voluntary contributions and assistance via individuals and also secondarily through non governmental organizations such as churches. The operative word her is voluntary.

When units of government get involved you never get a one for one exchange for every dollar given (or in the case of government--taken). Why because the cost of running the organization needs to be paid for somehow and since units of government typically only take money they have to pay their costs by using some portion of what the people pay in taxes. By the time you add up the cost of operations for the federal, state, and local governments a significant portion of what's paid in taxes that is earmarked for helping the poor actually winds up in the hands of government employees and contractors.

Individual voluntary contributions can potentially be a more efficient and effective way of helping those in need because of the greater potential of getting the most bang for your buck. The added attractiveness of voluntary giving is that each giver has to option (I think duty) of searching out organizations that have the lowest operating costs while also meeting the needs of the poor. You can't do that with using the tax route because units of government are inherently inefficient and often ineffective as well.

Nope, I don't think "equal in Gods" eyes can be construed to mean equal outcomes for all. Equal in Gods eyes means the as far as his love for us we are all equal in His eyes.

[bcvillastwo]

A bit earlier ThAnswr made the follwing statement that people are not taxed enough.

And good God almighty, people aren't paying enough taxes. Face reality.

First, if ThAnswr doesn't think he is paying enough tax I am relatively certain he can stroke a check to the governmental unit(s) of his choice for any amount he thinks he has underpaid.

Second, how much is enough tax for us to pay? I can never get a good answer to this question.

I've read that in 1948 a typical family of four paid 2% federal tax. Fast forward to 1994 and the tax paid by a typical family of four had grown to 25%.

In 1928 the average person worked 1.4 months to pay federal, state, and local taxes. Fast forward to today and the average person works 5.1 months to pay their taxes and government spending has gone up accordingly at all levels of government.

[damo]

Why doesn't Montreal spend more on its educational system ?

For someone whose second language is English, I always think that toto2 does a darn good job making himself clear.

[toto2]

Why doesn't Montreal spend more on its educational system ?


First , Montreal is a city , and it is the provincial governement who pays for education. ( Ah , maybe geography classes are lacking in your state !)


Secoundly , as damo nicely said , My first language is french ( again , Montreal is french speaking city , in fact the second largest french speaking city in the world after Paris, with a sizable english speaking population. I will start beliveing that geography budgets are very small south of the border ( not Mexico ! South of the border of Canada is the USA :) )

I learnd my english at school and practicing with people. I know that my spelling is not very good in english , and my typping is bad in any language. I appologise to anyone who is offended by my bad writting ! ,

Now back to our regular schedule !


PS : Thanks Damo !

[ThAnswr]

A bit earlier ThAnswr made the follwing statement that people are not taxed enough.



First, if ThAnswr doesn't think he is paying enough tax I am relatively certain he can stroke a check to the governmental unit(s) of his choice for any amount he thinks he has underpaid.

Second, how much is enough tax for us to pay? I can never get a good answer to this question.

I've read that in 1948 a typical family of four paid 2% federal tax. Fast forward to 1994 and the tax paid by a typical family of four had grown to 25%.

In 1928 the average person worked 1.4 months to pay federal, state, and local taxes. Fast forward to today and the average person works 5.1 months to pay their taxes and government spending has gone up accordingly at all levels of government.

Is there no shame anymore in "bearing false witness against your neighbor"? Don't take what I said out of context, especially when anyone who wants to can go back and look for themselves.

Here's I actually wrote:

"And good God almighty, people aren't paying enough taxes. Face reality.

We're up to our grandchildren's eyeballs in debt, the Chinese are keeping this country afloat by buying pieces of the US and still people are still not willing to toss in a few more shekels. "

The debt we're passing on to our children/grandchildren and if people like you keep the blinders on, great grandchildren, may not bother you, but it bothers me.

It many not bother you that bits and pieces of the US are sold to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Saudis, everyday just to keep us afloat, but it bothers me.

The threat to the US isn't some ragtag religious fanatic holed up in the mountains of Pakistan. The threat to the US is the stratosphere high debt and the amount we owe to the Chinese, the Japanese, etc.

And don't compare 1948 with 2005. This country didn't have the debt we have today. In 1948, it would've been considered irresponsible and the height of lunacy to pile up debt and pass it on to those who'll come after us.

Of course, YMMV, and it obviously does.

In answer to your question "how much is enough tax for us to pay?, the answer is not enough since you can't pay the bills you're incurring.

[M:SteveO]

Is there no shame anymore in "bearing false witness against your neighbor"? Don't take what I said out of context, especially when anyone who wants to can go back and look for themselves.

Here's I actually wrote:

"And good God almighty, people aren't paying enough taxes. Face reality.

We're up to our grandchildren's eyeballs in debt, the Chinese are keeping this country afloat by buying pieces of the US and still people are still not willing to toss in a few more shekels. "

The debt we're passing on to our children/grandchildren and if people like you keep the blinders on, great grandchildren, may not bother you, but it bothers me.

It many not bother you that bits and pieces of the US are sold to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Saudis, everyday just to keep us afloat, but it bothers me.

The threat to the US isn't some ragtag religious fanatic holed up in the mountains of Pakistan. The threat to the US is the stratosphere high debt and the amount we owe to the Chinese, the Japanese, etc.

And don't compare 1948 with 2005. This country didn't have the debt we have today. In 1948, it would've been considered irresponsible and the height of lunacy to pile up debt and pass it on to those who'll come after us.

Of course, YMMV, and it obviously does.

In answer to your question "how much is enough tax for us to pay?, the answer is not enough since you can't pay the bills you're incurring.

How do you propose to fix it then? Tax half of our income to pay for the debt and the economy goes to shambles. That's not the solution, ThAnswr. Look at Europe, they get over half of their income taxed, and their economies rely on the U.S. to stay afloat. Most have socialist programs that don't work effectively and have high unemployment rates (I could go on and on). We have a global economy in this day and age, everyone relies on everyone else. The solution, ultimately, is to cut spending, but this hurricane has complicated things. And just cutting pork won't cut it. Everytime some politician proposes cutting a program, he gets shelled for being inconsiderate or incompetent. We need a Congress and president who are willing to reduce the size of the federal government, as far as domestic spending goes. This president isn't gonna cut domestic spending in the least (yes, ThAnswr, I just criticized the president, so is that considered jumping over the cliff), so the deficit will go on, as it has for most of American history.

[Charade]

You guys over the Atlantic have it cushy when it comes to gas prices - we pay just under a pound a litre (that's $1.80 to $1.90 a litre or $6.81 to $7.19 a USA gallon.)

THEN there are expensive car taxes and sometimes emission charges too... oh my yes.



Rich::


So, would you feel better if we paid more in taxes or would you feel better if you paid less in taxes?

[ThAnswr]

How do you propose to fix it then? Tax half of our income to pay for the debt and the economy goes to shambles. That's not the solution, ThAnswr. Look at Europe, they get over half of their income taxed, and their economies rely on the U.S. to stay afloat. Most have socialist programs that don't work effectively and have high unemployment rates (I could go on and on). We have a global economy in this day and age, everyone relies on everyone else. The solution, ultimately, is to cut spending, but this hurricane has complicated things. And just cutting pork won't cut it. Everytime some politician proposes cutting a program, he gets shelled for being inconsiderate or incompetent. We need a Congress and president who are willing to reduce the size of the federal government, as far as domestic spending goes. This president isn't gonna cut domestic spending in the least (yes, ThAnswr, I just criticized the president, so is that considered jumping over the cliff), so the deficit will go on, as it has for most of American history.

Let's cut to the chase. You don't care about the deficit. You don't care that foreign governments are buying up bits and pieces of this country via bonds. You don't care that the debt will be passed on to future generations. You just don't care as long as it doesn't affect your wallet one damned bit.

So let's cut the BS. You aren't willing to pony up one blessed nickel for the future of this country. Admit it and move on.

And, if I were you, I'd stay away from that cliff. There's just so many times someone can fall on their head before they become nonsensical. Perhaps you've already reached that point.