How come...

[mickeyfan2]

That has to be the single silliest statement I've seen yet. "They are the ones who are in the lower 50%." 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%? 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.

 

[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%? 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.

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" ?

 

[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 ? 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.

 

[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 ?

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.

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.

 

[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.