R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => R/E/P Saloon => Topic started by: rphilbeck on September 26, 2007, 11:20:36 AM

Title: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rphilbeck on September 26, 2007, 11:20:36 AM
In another thread we talked about, "rich" being a relative term.  Apparantly, anything over $97,000 a year is rich.  So now we know.

by Neil Boortz,

SOCIAL SECURITY 'FIX'

Obama has a typical liberal solution to fix the Social Security system ... increase taxes on the rich. Hopefully, this comes as no surprise. If there is any one policy that the Democrat Party absolutely loves, it's the idea of raising taxes on the evil rich. So what if the top 10 percent of income earners already pay about 80 percent of all income taxes. That means nothing to MoveOn Democrats. They understand the numbers. You nail 20 percent of the voters with a new tax and get the adoration – and the votes – of the other 80 percent.

Politicians and our media constantly reinforce the idea that rich people are evil, dirty, nasty, crude, dishonest ... you name it. You don't think the term "filthy rich" has anything to do with whether or not someone washes their hands, do you? The term "filthy rich" is intended to send the message that high achievers are dirty just by virtue of the fact that they have earned a lot of money. Actually ... you're more likely to find unkempt and dirty people at the lower end of the income scale; but you sure aren't going to hear anyone refer to the "dirty poor" are you?

Barack Obama's great idea for saving Social Security? Easy ... eliminate the earnings cap. Just go ahead and tax every penny someone makes – no matter how much that is – at the full Social Security rate. wants to impose a 12.4% tax on all income above $97,000 per year. He says that by taxing the rich we can eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.

One thing you could say for Obama's idea: It would expose Social Security once and for all as nothing less than a grandiose income redistribution scheme. You take from those who are working, and give to those who are not.

Robert Bixby is the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan group advocating a balanced budget. He says that this would be a radical change from how Social Security was originally designed, because "it would end the contributory idea of Social Security, where you get back something for what you put in."

So far Hillary Clinton has dodged this bullet by not providing a solution. But Hillary did point out the fact that we are missing a lot of value money to tax! She points to Warren Buffet, reminding us of his famous liberal dogma, 'Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair.'"

SOLUTION?

Simple .. the FairTax. The economic growth that would come from the expansion of business and our economy from the enactment of the FairTax would protect Social Security for generations.

Here are a few things to think about.

Tourists. When the come to this country and spend their billions of dollars on everything from ash trays to second homes, do they pay any Social Security tax? No, not a penny. But under the FairTax every dollar a tourist spends on a hotel room in New York or a ticket at Disney World would see 23% sent to the federal government.

Ditto for the underground economy and the money spent by our wonderful, hard-working illegal aliens. Just how much do you think they're paying into Social Security now?

More about this in the new FairTax book, coming soon to a book store near you.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 26, 2007, 11:24:55 AM
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:20


One thing you could say for Obama's idea: It would expose Social Security once and for all as nothing less than a grandiose income redistribution scheme. You take from those who are working, and give to those who are not.

YES! Its TRUE!

Its a commie scheme to keep old folks alive!

Oh well - let's just kill them. Sorry folks.

So now we know.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Fox on September 26, 2007, 11:28:41 AM
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 11:20


Barack Obama's great idea for saving Social Security? Easy ... eliminate the earnings cap. Just go ahead and tax every penny someone makes – no matter how much that is – at the full Social Security rate. wants to impose a 12.4% tax on all income above $97,000 per year. He says that by taxing the rich we can eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.



THIS is what you're crying about? Are you talking about a 12.4% tax hike or just 12.4%? Because if it's the latter, what the fuck are you whining about? My parents make a combined salary of about $110,000/year and are taxed about 38%-40%. Grow up!
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: bblackwood on September 26, 2007, 11:33:14 AM
Fox wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:28

My parents make a combined salary of about $110,000/year and are taxed about 38%-40%.

Man, they need a good accountant...
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 26, 2007, 11:34:38 AM
Fox lives in Canada.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: bblackwood on September 26, 2007, 11:37:09 AM
Oh, my bad.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jay Kadis on September 26, 2007, 11:37:24 AM
The strident aversion to taxation belies an elitist view of the world.   We owe society a little payback for the chance to make all that money.  The more we make, the more we owe.  It's simple and fair.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 26, 2007, 11:40:08 AM
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:20


So far Hillary Clinton has dodged this bullet by not providing a solution. But Hillary did point out the fact that we are missing a lot of value money to tax! She points to Warren Buffet, reminding us of his famous liberal dogma, 'Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair.'"

I'm w/ Buffet. On many things actually. I believe in taxes. I like highways, and firemen, and common infrastructure ("the commons"), and I suppose its even good to have a little bit of military, or national guard anyway.

23% tax on tourist spending seem xenophobic (surprise!) and loony.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Fox on September 26, 2007, 11:45:23 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the province of Quebec has one of, if not THE, highest tax-rates of all the G8 countries and their states/provinces. Still, the quality of life here is good; Free health care, tons of festivals, the rich are still rich and the poor get housed and fed.

Look, I make a measly $30,000/year at my day job, and I get taxed about 13%-15% on that; It ain't that bad! I can't understand the greed.

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on September 26, 2007, 11:46:33 AM
1 million a year 45%
10 million a year 50%
100 million a year 60%

works for me Shocked
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: bblackwood on September 26, 2007, 11:51:26 AM
danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:46

1 million a year 45%
10 million a year 50%
100 million a year 60%

works for me Shocked

Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on September 26, 2007, 11:55:08 AM
You forgot to add, in your opinion Laughing
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 26, 2007, 11:57:09 AM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:51


It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage.

Which was always Buffet's point.

But Buffet is a unique guy - not only did he actually do reasonably non-destructive things that made him insanely wealthy (as opposed to stumbling into it), and drag a big bunch of people along with him, he understands the insanity of it - the greed that it engenders.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rollmottle on September 26, 2007, 12:21:44 PM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:51


Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage.



you can make 200k/year or 50k/year or 20k/year and still take advantage of the tax shelters in the tax code. as long as its written in there, i don't feel bad. these days i fall in a pretty high tax bracket and i pay about 600 every year for my accountant to sort me out. its a sound investment in making sure there's more money in my pocket at the end of every year. when i was making much less money, it still cost me about 400 bucks. i even used him in college when i was broke as a joke. can't say i've ever felt bad about it nor especially privileged. it surprises me how most people know very little about keeping more of their money in their hands.

besides, even if it cost me 2 grand, i wouldn't much mind because a preparer's fee is TAX DEDUCTIBLE!
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on September 26, 2007, 12:25:50 PM
this is a good point.  Many rich friends tell me that their accountant is only 750 a year, while I make one tenth of their income and pay 3-400. Oh well...
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 26, 2007, 12:32:20 PM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 16:51

danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:46

1 million a year 45%
10 million a year 50%
100 million a year 60%

works for me Shocked

Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage.


One thing to bear in mind though, is that the wealthier someone gets, the more taxation becomes a buyer's market.

Rich people can chose where they live and what taxes they pay, far more so than poor people, so governments have to settle for a smaller percentage of a lot, than a bigger percentage of nothing.

It's the middle earners who often get screwed, the ones who are trying hard to lift themselves up, have achieved some success, but haven't reached the level where they can so easily say "screw you, I'm taking myself and my tax revenue somewhere else"

In the UK at one time the highest rate of taxation was 90%... the problem was that anyone who could earn that sort of money could usually earn it just as well elsewhere, so we had the "brain drain". Tax revenues went up when they reduced those taxation levels.

There's a lot about taxation that really gets my back up, for example I worked out of the UK for a couple of years, how's this for crazy? If you leave the UK on the 4th of April and come back the next year on the 6th, you're deemed to have been non resident for a year, but if you leave on the 6th and come back on the 8th, you're deemed resident!

There is no logic to that rule except that they're looking for extra excuses to tax people.

I rather like the look of flat tax systems, from what I can see you get rid of a huge number of civil servants who's job it is to work out ways to get money out of people, and a huge number of accountants who's job it is to work out ways to keep the money, and then free up the time that the ministers use up trying to find ways to screw the accountants, and then everybody's better off!
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on September 26, 2007, 02:06:01 PM
Two points; flat taxes primarily benefit the wealthy (which is fine with me), and; there will never be a flat tax because governments do more through fiscal legislation than raise revenues through taxes - they also implement social and economic policy.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 26, 2007, 02:49:24 PM
JS wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:06

Two points; flat taxes primarily benefit the wealthy (which is fine with me), and; there will never be a flat tax because governments do more through fiscal legislation than raise revenues through taxes - they also implement social and economic policy.


Several countries already have a flat tax system.

Strictly speaking I guess it isn't a FLAT tax, since there is an initial allowance so the poorest pay no tax, and those with less money pay a smaller percentage of their income (since that allowance makes up a larger percentage of their income than would be the case for a rich person), it's perhaps more accurately described as a simplified flatter tax system.

But from what I can see it is a system that I like.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: el duderino on September 26, 2007, 02:55:31 PM
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 11:20

In another thread we talked about, "rich" being a relative term.  Apparantly, anything over $97,000 a year is rich.  So now we know.




wow. this is hilarious.

if this happened, someone making 98k a year in NYC would be taxed as rich but still qualify for low income housing!

fucking brilliant! Laughing
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jay Kadis on September 26, 2007, 03:30:01 PM
"blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought. ..."
                                                               -Dennis Moore
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on September 26, 2007, 04:03:30 PM
Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 14:49

JS wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:06

Two points; flat taxes primarily benefit the wealthy (which is fine with me), and; there will never be a flat tax because governments do more through fiscal legislation than raise revenues through taxes - they also implement social and economic policy.


Several countries already have a flat tax system.

Strictly speaking I guess it isn't a FLAT tax, since there is an initial allowance so the poorest pay no tax, and those with less money pay a smaller percentage of their income (since that allowance makes up a larger percentage of their income than would be the case for a rich person), it's perhaps more accurately described as a simplified flatter tax system.

But from what I can see it is a system that I like.


Fair enough. Certain former east-bloc countries with emerging economies have adopted somewhat flat tax systems.

I guess I should say that the definition of "flatness" may be up for debate. For instance:

If you enjoy a capital gain should it be taxed at full pop, and is that fair considering the effects of inflation? If  you enjoy a capital gain on the disposition of your principle residence when you are required to move for business purposes should that amount be taxable? If a corporation owes debt to a trust how should the payment of interest by the corp to the trust be treated? Should trusts be taxable if they disburse their income to beneficiaries? What about situations in which people earn passive income in foreign countries? What about pension plan contributions? What about pension plans that hold units in trusts to which corporations owe debt? What should the tax treatment of partnerships be?

Should we tax benefits conferred on employees the same was as we tax income? What about gifts? What about lottery winnings?

Things like this keep certain people awake at night.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on September 26, 2007, 04:55:42 PM
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:20

In another thread we talked about, "rich" being a relative term.  Apparantly, anything over $97,000 a year is rich.  So now we know.

by Neil Boortz


Well, there's one problem right there.  Boortz is an idiot.   And he doesn't understand how the Social Security tax is handled.  Nor do you, it seems.

Quote:

SOCIAL SECURITY 'FIX'

Barack Obama's great idea for saving Social Security? Easy ... eliminate the earnings cap. Just go ahead and tax every penny someone makes – no matter how much that is – at the full Social Security rate. wants to impose a 12.4% tax on all income above $97,000 per year. He says that by taxing the rich we can eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.


Already, EVERY WAGE EARNER pays FICA (Social Security).  The employee pays 6.2% of salary (income), up to $94,200, and the employer pays another 6.2% of salary (income), again up to $94,200.  (That cap is adjusted upwards every year.) (If you are self-employed, then you are responsible for paying the entire 12.4%.)  Earnings over this cap are not taxed for Social Security purposes, if your income exceeds the cap, so once you pay the $5,840, you do not pay any more FICA taxes for the rest of the year.

The cap makes the FICA tax regressive, in the sense that the person making $200k per year pays proportionally less into FICA than someone making $40k per year.

Obama's recommendation (and it's not his idea) is to eliminate the $94,200 cap.  In other words, you and your employer will continue to contribute to FICA at the same percentage regardless of income level.  This makes the tax less regressive, in other words, more fair, and has the desired effect of putting more money into the Social Security trust fund.

Quote:

Robert Bixby is the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan group advocating a balanced budget. He says that this would be a radical change from how Social Security was originally designed, because "it would end the contributory idea of Social Security, where you get back something for what you put in."


Robert Bixby is an idiot and doesn't understand how Social Security is funded.  Your current contributions have ALWAYS gone to pay for the CURRENT retirees, and when you retire, your payment will come from the deductions of future workers.

Quote:

SOLUTION?

Simple .. the FairTax. The economic growth that would come from the expansion of business and our economy from the enactment of the FairTax would protect Social Security for generations.


Seems to me that taxing ALL income at the same percentage is the very defintion of "Fair Tax."

Quote:

Tourists. When the come to this country and spend their billions of dollars on everything from ash trays to second homes, do they pay any Social Security tax?


No, because Social Security is a payroll tax, not a sales tax.

Quote:

No, not a penny. But under the FairTax every dollar a tourist spends on a hotel room in New York or a ticket at Disney World would see 23% sent to the federal government.


So has anyone calculated the effects this would have on tourism?  And though the idea is to extract money from foreign visitors, doesn't it also extract money from American vacation and business travelers?

Quote:

Ditto for the underground economy and the money spent by our wonderful, hard-working illegal aliens. Just how much do you think they're paying into Social Security now?


But they're also not getting any of the benefits of Social Security.  If the illegal immigrant gardener lives to be 65 and "retires." do you really think he's going to claim his benefits?

Please ... just learn to think things through, rather than parroting the bullshit claims of know-nothing conservative commentators.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 26, 2007, 05:15:29 PM
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 13:55


Well, there's one problem right there.  Boortz is an idiot.

Not necessarily. Like O'Reilly and Limbaugh, like Kristol and the Heritage Foundation people, he earns a good living spreading dis-information and reasons to fear and distrust others. So while he may be an idiot, he may simply be "paying the mortgage" by  creating idiots.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: PookyNMR on September 26, 2007, 07:01:40 PM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 09:51

danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:46

1 million a year 45%
10 million a year 50%
100 million a year 60%

works for me Shocked

Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage.


Exactly.

I believe that a lot of the stats are skewed.  Folks who are very wealthy can do their accounting in such a way as to leagally minimize reportable income and drastically lower their taxes.  

2 of my siblings are successful business owners.  With good accounting they are able to keep their taxes very low (percentage wise) in comparison to the actual increase in wealth that they are accumulating.

Facts are, it's the middle class that's getting hit the hardest.  Due to the ways the current tax laws work (at least in my country), there are lots of folks who are very wealthy even though they may not 'officially' on reports appear to be so.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 26, 2007, 07:22:02 PM
JS wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:03

Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 14:49

JS wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:06

Two points; flat taxes primarily benefit the wealthy (which is fine with me), and; there will never be a flat tax because governments do more through fiscal legislation than raise revenues through taxes - they also implement social and economic policy.


Several countries already have a flat tax system.

Strictly speaking I guess it isn't a FLAT tax, since there is an initial allowance so the poorest pay no tax, and those with less money pay a smaller percentage of their income (since that allowance makes up a larger percentage of their income than would be the case for a rich person), it's perhaps more accurately described as a simplified flatter tax system.

But from what I can see it is a system that I like.


Fair enough. Certain former east-bloc countries with emerging economies have adopted somewhat flat tax systems.

I guess I should say that the definition of "flatness" may be up for debate. For instance:

If you enjoy a capital gain should it be taxed at full pop, and is that fair considering the effects of inflation? If  you enjoy a capital gain on the disposition of your principle residence when you are required to move for business purposes should that amount be taxable? If a corporation owes debt to a trust how should the payment of interest by the corp to the trust be treated? Should trusts be taxable if they disburse their income to beneficiaries? What about situations in which people earn passive income in foreign countries? What about pension plan contributions? What about pension plans that hold units in trusts to which corporations owe debt? What should the tax treatment of partnerships be?

Should we tax benefits conferred on employees the same was as we tax income? What about gifts? What about lottery winnings?

Things like this keep certain people awake at night.


These things are never as simple as we'd hope are they?

I do suspect that if they simplified and made taxation more consistent, and passed the savings made on the government side through simpler administration back to the taxpayers, then we could all be better off.

For example why is it that in the UK we effectively pay three different lots of income tax? We have income tax, employee's national insurance, and employers national insurance (I pay them all because I employ myself, which means I really feel the pain!!)? Once upon a time national insurance was specifically for pensions and medical, so it made sense, but these days it isn't, so why don't they put all three together and save on two lots of admin?

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rollmottle on September 26, 2007, 07:38:09 PM
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 16:01

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 09:51

danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:46

1 million a year 45%
10 million a year 50%
100 million a year 60%

works for me Shocked

Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage.


Exactly.

I believe that a lot of the stats are skewed.  Folks who are very wealthy can do their accounting in such a way as to leagally minimize reportable income and drastically lower their taxes.  




a couple of you have said this now, but i don't get it. only wealthy people can do this? how do you figure? maybe it's different up in Canada, who knows.

i can drastically and legally reduce reportable income because i hire somebody to make sure that i keep what's rightfully mine. it's there in the tax code. if i was a tax code and tax law expert, i would do it myself. just as if i was a car transmission expert or a refrigerator repair expert or an electrician, i'd do it myself. but i'm not so i hire out the service. this is not something unavailable to everybody. anybody who has a vested interest in the well-being of their finances SHOULD be doing whatever they can to maximize the money that stays in their pocket. there's no "wealthy privilege" here... it's just SMART.

as i stated above, i've paid for this service at all different levels of income throughout the years. 400 - 750 dollars a year for services that can potentially save you thousands and 10s of thousands of dollars every year is well within the reach of almost everybody.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on September 26, 2007, 08:28:36 PM
the loopholes are there because the rich people's politicians put them there.  That is the other part of the problems.  it is a two-part problem that can be solved in two steps.  
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rphilbeck on September 26, 2007, 08:37:26 PM
danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 20:28

the loopholes are there because the rich people's politicians put them there.  That is the other part of the problems.  it is a two-part problem that can be solved in two steps.  



If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.  
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on September 26, 2007, 08:42:36 PM
rollmottle wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 16:38

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 16:01

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 09:51

danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:46

1 million a year 45%
10 million a year 50%
100 million a year 60%

works for me Shocked

Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage.


Exactly.

I believe that a lot of the stats are skewed.  Folks who are very wealthy can do their accounting in such a way as to leagally minimize reportable income and drastically lower their taxes.  




a couple of you have said this now, but i don't get it. only wealthy people can do this? how do you figure?


Most non-wealthy people earn a straight salary, either hourly or weekly, and they are paid by check by their employer on a regular basis.  All taxes are deducted by the employer, according to standard tables, from each paycheck.  At the end of the year, the employer fills out W-2 forms for each employee and sends a copy off to the IRS.

Because the IRS knows exactly how much you are making, and they know exactly how much your employer withheld from your paycheck for the payroll taxes, they know exactly how much tax you owe and how much you have already paid.

If you own a home, they also get the property tax statement from your local gov't, and if you have a mortgage, they get the interest statement from the lienholder.

In other words, for most non-wealthy people, there's very little wiggle room in terms of deductions.  If you (and your spouse, if applicable, each) have only one job, then your 1040 each year is pretty straightforward and it shouldn't take more than an hour to deal with.  If you have a second job or you're self-employed, it's worth hiring an accountant to make sure you don't screw up.

On the other hand, wealthy people don't get paid the same way the non-wealthy do. They may draw a salary from their employer, but in many cases that salary is a minor part of the total compensation package.  The total take-home may be stocks, stock options, things like company cars/homes/etc.  Other income may be derived from trusts, or from the sale of real estate or other big items.  It's all a lot more complicated and the IRS reporting rules are widely different for different things, and a good accountant can do clever (but legal) things to reduce the income on paper.

And this is where the issue of tax rates for capital gains comes in.  Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than salary income, and no Medicare/FICA taxes are paid on that money either.  So if a wealthy person's primary income is in the form of capital gains, then clearly they pay less tax than someone who gets a W-2.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rollmottle on September 26, 2007, 08:56:38 PM
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:42



Most non-wealthy people earn a straight salary, either hourly or weekly, and they are paid by check by their employer on a regular basis.  All taxes are deducted by the employer, according to standard tables, from each paycheck.  At the end of the year, the employer fills out W-2 forms for each employee and sends a copy off to the IRS.

Because the IRS knows exactly how much you are making, and they know exactly how much your employer withheld from your paycheck for the payroll taxes, they know exactly how much tax you owe and how much you have already paid.

If you own a home, they also get the property tax statement from your local gov't, and if you have a mortgage, they get the interest statement from the lienholder.

In other words, for most non-wealthy people, there's very little wiggle room in terms of deductions.  If you (and your spouse, if applicable, each) have only one job, then your 1040 each year is pretty straightforward and it shouldn't take more than an hour to deal with.  If you have a second job or you're self-employed, it's worth hiring an accountant to make sure you don't screw up.

On the other hand, wealthy people don't get paid the same way the non-wealthy do. They may draw a salary from their employer, but in many cases that salary is a minor part of the total compensation package.  The total take-home may be stocks, stock options, things like company cars/homes/etc.  Other income may be derived from trusts, or from the sale of real estate or other big items.  It's all a lot more complicated and the IRS reporting rules are widely different for different things, and a good accountant can do clever (but legal) things to reduce the income on paper.

And this is where the issue of tax rates for capital gains comes in.  Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than salary income, and no Medicare/FICA taxes are paid on that money either.  So if a wealthy person's primary income is in the form of capital gains, then clearly they pay less tax than someone who gets a W-2.

-a


good points.

also, i guess i'm speaking from the perspective of a self-employed person. even when i was employed through a company though, i always hired an accountant because i was always doing other gigs on the side (which IS one hell of a tax shelter)

i always thought the capital gains tax was something in the realm of 40%? guess not...if you're not confused by income taxes, be prepared to be confused by the capital gains laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United _States
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 26, 2007, 09:15:21 PM
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37

If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.  

Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on September 26, 2007, 09:19:59 PM
Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:22


I do suspect that if they simplified and made taxation more consistent, and passed the savings made on the government side through simpler administration back to the taxpayers, then we could all be better off.



I do think, however, that words like "simplified" and "consistent" are not useful in the context of tax law. Not only that, but "simplifying" or streamlining the law may very well result in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I tend to think that if we threw out our tax codes and started again we'd probably end up with the same thing in no time flat.

Why?

When a government somehow eventually gets around to implementing fiscal policy they will tend to do so through the tax system. To promote certain behaviours they create incentives. To discourage other behaviours they make those behaviours more costly, or they legislate them into oblivion.

Research and development are worthwhile things to incentivize, so we get R&D tax credits. The purchase of new whizzy high tech equipment may be incentivized by way of accelerated depreciation. Hey, we all like people and companies to "go green," so we could incentivize that by giving credits and accelerated depreciation on "green" stuff.

The government worries about how people will support themselves in their old age. Tah dah, they allow for people to put money into tax-deferred vehicles like retirement savings plans. The government likes education, hence tuition deductions or credits.

We like small business people - rah rah rah. We get lower tax rates for small business - hooray! We recognize that certain reasonable business expenses should be allowed as part of the income earning equations - ta dah we get lots of deductions related to business. But, wait - some clever boys and girls will structure their affairs so they they own 10 small businesses instead of one large one. So we need rules to deal with associated and related corporations to prevent people from beating that system.

Businesses need to raise money, so they sell shares. Some people borrow money to buy the shares so that they can earn dividend income, and get a deduction for interest expense because they borrowed money to earn income. But wait - if the corporation pays tax on its income, and then it pays a dividend, and the dividend is taxed in the hands of the recipient, the same income is taxed twice. Uh oh. We need a dividend tax credit.

There are business realities to contend with. Companies are formed, companies are financed, companies are refinanced, companies amalgamate, companies acquire others, companies go bankrupt, companies are wound up. Tax issues are inevitable, so tax rules are inevitable.

International trade is a reality. There are lots of opportunities  for domestic growth, and governments will tend to encourage foreign investment. At the same time, governments tend to recognize problems with the use of off-shore investment vehicles so we get into a morass of rules designed to control investments in tax haven countries etc.  Along the same lines, international mobility of people is an issue as much as international mobility of capital. What happens when you live in one country and work in another country? It becomes more complicated when you contribute to a tax-efficient retirement savings vehicle in one or the other country. We need rules for that.

I could go on and on. Basically, for a modern government to govern effectively, tax policy is a desireable tool. The minute they create an opportunity, there is a potential for abuse, and so anti-abuse rules get enacted. Tax systems have to recognize business realities, domestically and internationally.

So, I dunno, I tend to find flat-taxers and such folks a bit peculiar because their views are not really informed by any real in-depth knowledge of commercial realities or tax policy. Tax isn't complicated because the people behind the system are stupid I think?
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: ih2005 on September 27, 2007, 12:26:47 AM
While many who are invested in the current income tax system seek to demagog the well-researched FairTax plan (1), FairTax's theoretical underpinnings have been professionally reviewed (2), and its acceptance in the professional / academic community continues to grow (3).

Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown (4) because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the coming collapse of the income tax system (5).

Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's:

• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity

Its benefits are as follows:

For INDIVIDUALS:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30%
• Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
• FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
• Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate"
• "Prebate" is "advance payback" for taxes payable on monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
• Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates

For BUSINESSES:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
• No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
• No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets

For the COUNTRY:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
• Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie"
increases
• No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow

(1) http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted (.pdf)
(2) http://snipurl.com/taxnotes_galerebut (.pdf)
(3) http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter (.pdf)
(4) http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress
(5) http://snipurl.com/incometaxcollapse

It's well past time to scrap the tax code ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode ) and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold.

Also, register for the FairTax presentation at the webcast American Solutions seminar: http://americansolutions.com

The FairTax will be presented this Saturday during the seminar.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on September 27, 2007, 01:25:48 AM
I'm at fan of that but here's  a downside ......

It does not reduce goverment income .

Also , it's inclusive  ( ? hmmm ). People should see how much tax they're paying I believe , so a few bugs would need to be worked out there .


I know that Ron Paul has essentially stated that he would vote in favor of Fair Tax if it's brought  to a vote in the house . He doesn't see it as the best solution however . That's worth noting IMHO  .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on September 27, 2007, 02:23:06 AM
ih2005 wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:26

For INDIVIDUALS:
? No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
? You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions


Of course the so-called FairTax applies only for Federal taxes (income, and presumably payroll/FICA/Medicare).

What about state and local income taxes?  How will the FairTax people convince the states that levy an income tax to convert over to the sales-tax system?  Don't forget that most states have a sales tax, and counties and cities also may impose a sales tax.

Quote:

? You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"


So will "Retail" include online and mail-order purchases?

Quote:

? Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS


I know what it is ... I see it on my paystub every two weeks.  Now how many people keep track of how much they pay in sales tax in a year?

Quote:

? Households have more disposable income to purchase goods


But imagine the sticker shock when they have to pay 38% tax on a new car.  Pay me now, pay me later.

Quote:

? Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates


I thought higher interest rates bolstered savings, and for two reasons: if you get more for your money in a savings account, it's a reasonable option, and higher interest rates means that credit is more expensive, and that keeps spending down.

Quote:

? 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax


Their crystal ball is as good as mine.  I can pull numbers out of my ass as well as they can.

Quote:

? Jobs return to the U.S.


What makes anyone think that by eliminating income taxes, all of a sudden overseas production will move back to the U.S.?  Why would that happen?  Why wouldn't the corporations just take they money saved from paying taxes and claim it as profit instead of paying higher wages for American workers?

Quote:

? Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.


They may set up sales and marketing arms here but certainly they won't add production jobs here.

Quote:

? No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business


Sure, like that'll happen.  Maybe not tax deals.  Look at the Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Ted Stevens deals.  Lotsa graft, nothing to do with taxes.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on September 27, 2007, 08:07:39 AM
ih2005 wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 00:26

While many who are invested in the current income tax system seek to demagog the well-researched FairTax plan (1), FairTax's theoretical underpinnings have been professionally reviewed (2), and its acceptance in the professional / academic community continues to grow (3).

Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown (4) because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the coming collapse of the income tax system (5).

Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's:

• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity

Its benefits are as follows:

For INDIVIDUALS:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30%
• Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
• FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
• Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate"
• "Prebate" is "advance payback" for taxes payable on monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
• Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates

For BUSINESSES:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
• No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
• No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets

For the COUNTRY:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
• Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie"
increases
• No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow

(1) http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted (.pdf)
(2) http://snipurl.com/taxnotes_galerebut (.pdf)
(3) http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter (.pdf)
(4) http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress
(5) http://snipurl.com/incometaxcollapse

It's well past time to scrap the tax code ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode ) and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold.

Also, register for the FairTax presentation at the webcast American Solutions seminar: http://americansolutions.com

The FairTax will be presented this Saturday during the seminar.


This sales pitch for a seminar brought to you by the sockpuppet otherwise known as?
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rphilbeck on September 27, 2007, 09:28:16 AM
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37

If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.  

Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.

DS




Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.  

I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.    
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 27, 2007, 09:48:50 AM
RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:28

mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37

If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.  

Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.

DS




Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.  

I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.    


The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income.

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 27, 2007, 10:12:21 AM
You know Philbeck, I seem to recall someone in here was very fond of the expression Dip Shit - I see why. What you're aware of is hardly what most people are aware of, since so far almost everything you've had to say doesn't exist. And how much easier is it to write a smarmy reply than do the work? (Income can and does include Capital gains, which do not qualify as work. And I've paid them.)

You're now on the ignore list (Congrats! You're #1!). So far you've contributed nothing but fantasy and hearsay, and a vivid and appreciated demonstration that you're the perfect receiver drone for manufactured fear mongering and bullshit. Oh, and counterproductive insult of course. Reply all you want, I won't see it. But look out - the world, and your neighbors, really are out to get you.

Kids today. The Atlanta school system should be ashamed, and your parents (assuming you knew them) even more so. Your allegation was that the "evil rich" pay 90% of taxes. That's an easy half-witted remark to make, since it requires no support and can't be supported. That Treasury table provides information about  proportions but it gives no break point in which we get any idea of how much the "top" income earners earn, as Jon pointed out. You're not very bright after all, are you? The conspiracy I see is the one in your mind in which poor people are out to screw you.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on September 27, 2007, 11:51:18 AM
Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 02:23



Their crystal ball is as good as mine.  I can pull numbers out of my ass as well as they can.

-a


Quote of the day, as picked by me Cool
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on September 27, 2007, 11:55:01 AM
mgod wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 10:12

 you're the perfect receiver drone for manufactured fear mongering and bullshit. Oh, and counterproductive insult of course. Reply all you want, I won't see it. But look out - the world, and your neighbors, really are out to get you.

DS



The quote of the day, as picked by me Cool

(I can have as many as I want, read by by-laws)
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: PookyNMR on September 27, 2007, 12:01:23 PM
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:15

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37

If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.  

Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.


I'd like to see the source on that as well.  

I have a feeling that the stat would reflect upper-middle class, but not what I would consider "the wealthy".

When you have wealthy folks who are business owners and portfolio players, the rules change.  

Folks who are merely reasonably well paid executives don't fall into that category (though some of them are indeed financial savy).  

Many top executives often have it set up so that they are not necessarily employees but business owners who work in conjunction with their respective companies.  Doing it this way allows them to access a new set of tax rules and see their share of the load significantly lightened in comparision with everyone else.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on September 27, 2007, 01:08:00 PM
Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 06:48

RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:28

mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37

If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.  

Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.

DS




Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.  

I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.    


The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income.


Indeed.  If Bill Gates walks into the room, suddenly the average income of the people in the room shoots up to millions of dollars.

Quote:

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.


EXACTLY.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: garret on September 27, 2007, 01:09:02 PM
Arguing about who should pay taxes misses the larger issue... the federal budget is out of control.  Mostly because of defense spending, but interest on the debt doesn't help either.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2 007

Federal Spending, 2007:
(percentages indicate change from the previous year)  

$699 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
$1.1 billion (+47.6%) - Energy
TOTAL: $2.8 trillion

Federal receipts:

$1.1 trillion (+12.1%) - Individual income tax
$884.1 billion (+7.4%) - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$260.6 billion (+15.5%) - Corporate income tax
$74.6 billion (+1.3%) - Excise taxes
$28.1 billion (+0.7%) - Customs duties
$23.7 billion (+9.2%) - Estate and gift taxes
$48.4 billion (+14.0%) - Other
TOTAL: $2.4 trillion

What party is control of Congress doesn't matter... the fed govt just keeps growing and growing and growing...
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/ch arts_S/s1.cfm

What party has the presidency does matter..... and it's the opposite of "conventional wisdom.:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/ch arts_S/s4.cfm

Bottom line though... $21,000 per household... dang, that's a lot.


Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rphilbeck on September 27, 2007, 01:37:19 PM
Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 09:48

RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:28

mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37

If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.  

Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.

DS




Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.  

I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.    


The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income.

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.


I am guessing you are not from the U.S.?  The numbers are from the Internal Revenue Service, where total gross income is reported by every American citizen once per year.  That's total gross from any and every form of income including stock sales to gambling wins!

Good points though.  It is a well known fact, and obvious from this report, that the top earners in this country pay the good majority of the taxes.  The rest of us pay dick in comparison, but it hurts a lot more because we have less discretionary funds available to us.  

But my ultimate point was and is, that if the evil rich (basically defined as anyone with an above average income based on the attitude of this forum)were really so influential than they'd be paying a lot less that the good majority of this nations expenses!  
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rphilbeck on September 27, 2007, 01:42:15 PM
Hodgson asks:
Quote:

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.


Andy responds:
Quote:


EXACTLY.

-a



He asked a question about how income is calculated on this report, and your answer is "exactly"?  
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on September 27, 2007, 02:42:56 PM
RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 10:42

Hodgson asks:
Quote:

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.


Andy responds:
Quote:


EXACTLY.

-a


He asked a question about how income is calculated on this report, and your answer is "exactly"?  


My exclamatory "exactly!" was in support of his declaratory statement, "Because wealthy people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary," rather than an answer to his two questions.

I apologize for not editing his statement, but I assumed that most people understood what I was getting at.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rphilbeck on September 27, 2007, 03:59:30 PM
Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:42

RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 10:42

Hodgson asks:
Quote:

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.


Andy responds:
Quote:


EXACTLY.

-a


He asked a question about how income is calculated on this report, and your answer is "exactly"?  


My exclamatory "exactly!" was in support of his declaratory statement, "Because wealthy people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary," rather than an answer to his two questions.

I apologize for not editing his statement, but I assumed that most people understood what I was getting at.

-a



Well what in the world does that have to do with the link to the treasury info, or how our tax system works?  Who cares what their salary is.  You pay tax on your income whether it is salary, commission, sold stocks, etc. etc.  It doesn't make a shit where the income comes from.  It's income!  

I think his question was do the tables include total gross income, or just the portion of their income that is salary?  The answer is total gross minus deductions.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 27, 2007, 05:36:14 PM
Actually it helps to know exactly what is being talked about when they say the "top 50%"

The figures seem to broadly match this document, so I think they are calculated in the same or similar way.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/12-29-FedTaxRates.pd f

As described in this case "The top 50% of income earners" actually doesn't mean people who earn more than the average, it means the higher earning half of all income earning families... a very different thing.

Still this and other documents, whilst not giving such an impression that just the rich people pay all the taxes, do support the suggestion that wealthier people aren't paying relatively lower taxes... though it doesn't have enough detail to tell us anything about the super rich, the average income of the top 1% of households is apparantly around a million dollars before tax... and we know there are some individuals who earn considerably more than that.

so all in all, I think both sides need to be taken with a pinch of salt
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Ali Moniack on September 28, 2007, 11:56:22 PM
"Eat The Rich" - Lemmy Kilminster

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Les Ismore on September 29, 2007, 09:23:49 PM
You guys have nothing to complain about. My wife is from Denmark. They have the highest taxes in the world. For instance the automobile sales tax is 200%. That means that a $50k car costs you $150k.
They also have some of the best social programs in the world and most Danes feel the taxes are ok. They also have a much higher income generaly than in North America, so it all seems to work out.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 30, 2007, 06:08:41 AM
Les Ismore wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 02:23

You guys have nothing to complain about. My wife is from Denmark. They have the highest taxes in the world. For instance the automobile sales tax is 200%. That means that a $50k car costs you $150k.
They also have some of the best social programs in the world and most Danes feel the taxes are ok. They also have a much higher income generaly than in North America, so it all seems to work out.


At one point is was looking like I was going to be living in Denmark for a year, so I learned a little about this stuff.

There are some weirdnesses with the tax laws regarding cars there, for example a vehicle with only two seats is taxed at a far lower rate. I think this is to make the burden on commercial vehicles less... but it has the side effect that there's a big market for normal 4 seat cars with the back seats taken out!

Interestingly for years the UK has effectively subsidized the high sales tax on cars in Denmark, because the car manufacturers offset cutting their profits there with hiking them up in Britain. The net result was that we had the highest pre tax price in Europe and they had the lowest. Since people noticed that under the treaty of Rome they could go to Denmark and order a UK spec model, which the manufacturer was legally to oblige at local pre tax price, then export it back to the UK and pay UK taxes, this situation has levelled out a bit, but there's still quite a difference.

But I have to say that what I saw of copenhagen was generally positive, it seemed clean, even the rush hour traffic didn't seem that bad, but it's not a cheap place to live by any means.

If you really want a shock, just order a beer in Copenhagen. 45 Krona when I was there... about 9 dollars. And I hear Norway is twice the price.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Tidewater on September 30, 2007, 09:30:39 AM
Awesome! It always makes me so happy to know that someone else has it worse than me, the basis of moral relativism.

When I might be held at gunpoint, by masked bandits, attempting to take my possesions, and possibly my life, my mind wanders back to other's perils.

Arbeit Macht Frei

There, not so bad, after all.


M
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on September 30, 2007, 10:00:27 AM
It does raise the question of how good the public transport system in Denmark is. Living in a huge city in which driving is an absolute necessity because the very good public transit system was deliberately destroyed by a consortium of car, rubber and fuel manufacturers helps me see this as a broader issue. Communistically, of course. The remains of that system are all over my neighborhood.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on September 30, 2007, 10:31:00 AM
mgod wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 10:00

It does raise the question of how good the public transport system in Denmark is. Living in a huge city in which driving is an absolute necessity because the very good public transit system was deliberately destroyed by a consortium of car, rubber and fuel manufacturers helps me see this as a broader issue. Communistically, of course. The remains of that system are all over my neighborhood.

DS


Can you elaborate as to how the automotive industrial complex destroyed the public transit system in LA?
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jay Kadis on September 30, 2007, 12:09:03 PM
JS wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 07:31

mgod wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 10:00

It does raise the question of how good the public transport system in Denmark is. Living in a huge city in which driving is an absolute necessity because the very good public transit system was deliberately destroyed by a consortium of car, rubber and fuel manufacturers helps me see this as a broader issue. Communistically, of course. The remains of that system are all over my neighborhood.

DS


Can you elaborate as to how the automotive industrial complex destroyed the public transit system in LA?

It wasn't just L.A.  The SF bay area had the Key System, a light rail system that connected the east bay neighborhoods with San Francisco back in the 1940s and 50s.  The system was dismantled in favor of cars, roads and gasoline interests.  Thanks, GM, Firestone and Standard Oil!

Decades later BART was implemented, but it is far more limited and expensive to use.  Most users drive to the BART station.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 30, 2007, 01:46:17 PM
mgod wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 15:00

It does raise the question of how good the public transport system in Denmark is. Living in a huge city in which driving is an absolute necessity because the very good public transit system was deliberately destroyed by a consortium of car, rubber and fuel manufacturers helps me see this as a broader issue. Communistically, of course. The remains of that system are all over my neighborhood.

DS


Well I didn't really experience the public transport system, except for taking the train to the airport, but I believe it's pretty good. I've used public transport in Belgium and Germany in the past few years and it was excellent.

Britain has pretty crappy public transport, I don't blame that on the automotive industry though, or on us having lower taxes than Denmark, it's more of a national sickness, not enough drive for quality and service. For example replacing a single escalator in the London underground takes several months, they even put up posters explaining how it's done... hoping that people will be understanding about the disruption... considering I'd just watched a program where 5 germans came to the UK and erected a whole house in four and a half days, I wasn't impressed!

Copehagen also provides free public bicycles in the summer months, you put in 10 krona to release them from the rack, get it back when you put them back in. I think that's a testimony to the honesty and decency of the Danes to be honest, I suspect that if you tried the same thing in London they would all be either stolen or vandalized.

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on September 30, 2007, 02:30:56 PM
Jon Hodgson wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 03:08

If you really want a shock, just order a beer in Copenhagen. 45 Krona when I was there... about 9 dollars.


If you really want a shock, order a beer in NYC.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 30, 2007, 02:54:45 PM
Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 19:30

Jon Hodgson wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 03:08

If you really want a shock, just order a beer in Copenhagen. 45 Krona when I was there... about 9 dollars.


If you really want a shock, order a beer in NYC.

-a


How much? Shocked
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Tidewater on September 30, 2007, 03:04:52 PM
10,900 sheckles
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on September 30, 2007, 11:21:32 PM
Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 12:09

JS wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 07:31

mgod wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 10:00

It does raise the question of how good the public transport system in Denmark is. Living in a huge city in which driving is an absolute necessity because the very good public transit system was deliberately destroyed by a consortium of car, rubber and fuel manufacturers helps me see this as a broader issue. Communistically, of course. The remains of that system are all over my neighborhood.

DS


Can you elaborate as to how the automotive industrial complex destroyed the public transit system in LA?

It wasn't just L.A.  The SF bay area had the Key System, a light rail system that connected the east bay neighborhoods with San Francisco back in the 1940s and 50s.  The system was dismantled in favor of cars, roads and gasoline interests.  Thanks, GM, Firestone and Standard Oil!

Decades later BART was implemented, but it is far more limited and expensive to use.  Most users drive to the BART station.


Ok, but I guess I was really asking for specific evidence that supports the conclusion that a consortium of auto, tire, and fuel makers played an active role in undermining public transit.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 01, 2007, 12:12:25 AM
it was done by a group of corrupt lobbyists and I am guessing they did not document their work for your or anyone's benefit.

But it is a well-known urban legend that has been bantered around for decades in the two Golden state big cities.  

You may even be able to google info on it if you are truly skeptical.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 01, 2007, 09:02:29 AM
danickstr wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 00:12

it was done by a group of corrupt lobbyists and I am guessing they did not document their work for your or anyone's benefit.

But it is a well-known urban legend that has been bantered around for decades in the two Golden state big cities.  

You may even be able to google info on it if you are truly skeptical.


Being truly skeptical, I did google this. Found an article from the LA Times dated March 23, 2003 that says that although auto, fuel and tire makers were investors in National City Lines (owner of the LA Yellow Car Co. - a public transit provider) any subsequent changes to the Yellow Car system were merely a final blow to a flawed and unpopular system of transit that was about to collapse.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: ssltech on October 01, 2007, 09:27:02 AM
Andy Peters wrote

If you really want a shock, order a beer in NYC.

I plan on shocking myself silly next weekend.

Ah yes... the British "Special Car Tax".

It made importing cars (after driving them a hundred feet so that they could be classed as "used") from mainland Europe a VERY viable proposition. To help counter that, many manufacturers used different vehicle and brand names for Europe Vs UK: Ascona/Cavalier, Kadett/Astra, etc.

Anyhow, the British special car tax was completely larcenous. They keep telling me that it's now largely a thing of the past, but a VW (Golf) GTI in the US is still almost 50% less expensive in the USA than in the UK... Somebody wannta 'splaina me that? -About
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jon Hodgson on October 01, 2007, 09:37:56 AM
ssltech wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 14:27

Andy Peters wrote

If you really want a shock, order a beer in NYC.

I plan on shocking myself silly next weekend.

Ah yes... the British "Special Car Tax".

It made importing cars (after driving them a hundred feet so that they could be classed as "used") from mainland Europe a VERY viable proposition. To help counter that, many manufacturers used different vehicle and brand names for Europe Vs UK: Ascona/Cavalier, Kadett/Astra, etc.

Anyhow, the British special car tax was completely larcenous. They keep telling me that it's now largely a thing of the past, but a VW (Golf) GTI in the US is still cheaper than in the UK, to a MASSIVE degree.

Keith


You don't even need to drive it.

The thing is that tax on cars in Britain is LESS than in other countries in Europe, it is the pre tax price that is hiked up by the manufacturers. However the Treaty of Rome states that a Franchised dealer in any European state has to supply any national specification at local prices (including UK spec). So you buy it in another country at their local price and export it back to the UK and pay UK tax. This even counted for cars that were made in Britain, you could make a 25% saving on Rovers by taking the ferry to Calais... crazy!
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: GreekPeet on October 01, 2007, 11:15:03 AM
Hey, how about no income tax? Since, its totally illegal in the first place. Its so funny how people discuses these new silly taxes when there shouldn't be one in the first place. The country got by for its first part of its life, civil war, British invasion, and ended black slavery in the south. Did we have an income tax then? No we had a 'war' tax. Basically if the public didn't want to be taxed on a war that was unpopular it STOPPED!

How about the idea of returning to a 'free' country where you don't have to pay the government to work. Which is essentially what income tax is. You give your money to them, then they give it back to you minus their cut for 'protection'.

The Fed is a private bank that pays the military industrial complex its ever, expanded, cruel and bloated powers. These taxes won't do shit for heath care.

Lets be serious, someone that makes 100 million dollars a year probably won't every pay more than 1% of that in taxes with these said laws. There are even MORE loopholes to over tax the poor and let the rich get off. Its a bold faced lie.

Look at how the federal government does at taking care people during Katrina. Pretty shitty. You don't want a profit driven health care system handed over to the government. We're talking peoples medical history, dna, ect ect all within any federal agencies grip.

Freedom is much more important than government health care.

Democrat voting and giving money to Dr. Paul. Its time to join the revolution.

ronpaul2008.com

Man, we really need someone like John these days speaking for peace too.

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 11:38:31 AM
JS wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 06:02

Being truly skeptical, I did google this. Found an article from the LA Times dated March 23, 2003 that says that although auto, fuel and tire makers were investors in National City Lines (owner of the LA Yellow Car Co. - a public transit provider) any subsequent changes to the Yellow Car system were merely a final blow to a flawed and unpopular system of transit that was about to collapse.

You left out quite a bit. Like testimony to Congress about this in 1974, and the fact the GM was successfully prosecuted for anticompetitive tactics in the process. But too late.

Maybe you're insufficiently skeptical. Here's an essay by the man who brought this to Congress:
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

BTW, notice that we run into Alfred P. Sloan, one of the great and terrible characters of 20th Century America, the man who was the point figure behind an attempted coup against FDR.

Can you provide a link to the LA Times article?

There are partisans on each side of this history - on the one hand are the people calling it  myth, but even on their pages you find lots of links that suggest that well, maybe, its sort of a myth, with a lot of truth behind it. And to their credit, they provide links to the people who disagree with them.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 01, 2007, 12:50:31 PM
http://www.calendarlive.com/visitor/cl-me-then23mar23,0,7636 464.story?coll=cl-sights

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jay Kadis on October 01, 2007, 01:41:16 PM
JS wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 20:21



Ok, but I guess I was really asking for specific evidence that supports the conclusion that a consortium of auto, tire, and fuel makers played an active role in undermining public transit.

http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html

No doubt there were other factors, but they just served to make the job easier for those involved.  At the very least there has been lack of foresight involved in our public transportation systems.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 02:03:31 PM
Useful article. But I find a few strange holes:

"During the Depression, the electric cars were augmented with more bus service. Then World War II's shortages of gasoline and rubber crippled bus service. By the end of the war, the trolley lines were decrepit, obsolete and deep in the red. Some Angelenos purchased the trolleys from scrap dealers, moved them to vacant lots and began living in them during the city's housing shortage."

There's a time jump there - what happened during that time? The buses are going away due to shortages, and suddenly "by the end of the war" the rail cars are going too. The implication is that they simply broke down from usage. Why in the red? No buses, and people didn't need to get around? This isn't reporting, its just skating over something that's an important, in fact THE important part of the story which the article is allegedly reporting. This is about what happened to the system, but it doesn't tell us at all, it just tells us it started going away. Decrepit and obsolete - why? Bus shortages, and no one is maintaining the available means of public transit? Why?

Then there's this:

"In 1945, Huntington's estate sold the Yellow Car system to American City Lines, a subsidiary of National City Lines, a Chicago-based company whose investors included General Motors and other big oil and rubber interests.

"Here is where the conspiracy theorists have a point.

"National City Lines soon controlled 46 transit networks in the Midwest and West, including Los Angeles. The company began scrapping these electric systems and replacing them with diesel buses that -- surprise -- used fuel and rubber. Clearly, L.A.'s electric-car days were numbered.

"By 1946, the Justice Department had caught on. It filed an antitrust suit against National City Lines for conspiracy to monopolize the transit industry. But before the suit came to trial in Chicago, the consortium of big companies bailed out, selling their holdings in National City Lines. That essentially left it as an empty corporation. In 1949, the case finally came to trial. The verdict was mixed, with acquittals and convictions. Although they no longer owned National City Lines, the companies in the consortium were fined wrist-slapping amounts of $5,000 each, while individual company officials were fined $1 each, for a total of $37,007. By then, the far-flung suburbs were crisscrossed by cars, highways and a few freeways, and the so-called conspiracy plot simply applied the coup de grace to a dying system."

There's a lot of opinion in those paragraphs, and quite a bit of unsupported rhetoric. What this article does is pretty typical agenda-assertion along with some reporting, just to blur the boundaries a little. It either purposefully or irresponsibly leaves out crucial moments in the timeline of the death of the public rail system, but by careful placement of opinion like "so-called" and "wrist-slapping" makes little of the fact that it fills in the crucial holes it left earlier with the facts of the acquisition and the court-cases. Nice bit of manipulation. LA Times, at work again. Still, there are worse. And in my reading, it doesn't in any way contradict the PoV on the page I linked from Bradford Snell, the former Senate counsel. It just omits the inconvenient, and places things in a dismissible context.

I guess we're both skeptical.

DS

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 01, 2007, 02:32:53 PM
mgod wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 14:03



There's a lot of opinion in those paragraphs, and quite a bit of unsupported rhetoric. What this article does is pretty typical agenda-assertion along with some reporting, just to blur the boundaries a little. ....Nice bit of manipulation.




Well, I was going to say something similar about the link you posted, but let it slide. No disrespect intended.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 03:53:15 PM
JS wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 11:32

Well, I was going to say something similar about the link you posted, but let it slide. No disrespect intended.

And none perceived. But do the work - show us where you see it.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 05:01:17 PM
Jay Kadis wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 10:41


http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html

Pretty well done site. For a left wing paranoid anti-capitalist conspiracy-theory site of course.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Les Ismore on October 01, 2007, 05:22:31 PM
The consoritum of GM, Standard Oil and Firestone was involved not just in the de-commisioning of public transit in LA and SanFransico, but all over North America. In Vancouver Canada where I grew up they lobbied heavily and "$$$influenced$$$" shall we say the de-commissioning of the light rapid transit system that went all over the lower mainland in favour of diesel busses built by, you guessed it GM with Firestone tires and powered by fuel from Standard oil. It ushered in the endless freeway paradigm and everyone in thier own car (as the bus service was vastly inferior to the former rapid transit system.)
Now we are suffering endless gridlock and are paying billions and billions to build new rapid transit systems that at this point frankly still aren't as good as the ones we had 70 years ago.

In LA I believe they actually bought the light rapid transit system and burgeoning subway and closed it down. A few of those old subway stations still survive as relics.
The head of GM was convicted of conspiriacy or somesuch thing and fined $1 if I remember correctly.

There is some great stuff on this subject in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
Very interesting stuff.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 06:08:54 PM
Here's something from the site Jay linked. It addresses the years that are ignored in the LA Times article:

"The Los Angeles system consisted of two companies, Los Angeles Railway, with 1042 yellow streetcars, and Pacific Electric, with 437 red electric cars. At least one line was quad tracked for express train service. Pacific Electric had a subway thru downtown Los Angeles. [Figures from PUC Special Study TR-23, 1944].

"General Motors has admitted that "GM made ... investments in American City Lines in 1943." Soon, American City Lines was buying stock in Los Angeles Railway. By May 1, 1945, they owned 59% of the outstanding stock. The same month, the Los Angeles Railway announced plans to scrap most of the streetcar lines [Source: Moody's].

I find it interesting, at the very least, that the one California city that GM failed to make an investment in is the one city that still has a great public transit system. Still, that's probably just paranoia and conspiracy theory.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 01, 2007, 06:34:55 PM
Les Ismore wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 17:22


Now we are suffering endless gridlock and are paying billions and billions to build new rapid transit systems that at this point frankly still aren't as good as the ones we had 70 years ago.



Wow, you rode public transit 70 years ago? My, you're looking great for your age, if you don't mind me saying so.

Too bad that Vancouver has such mass transit problems. I always found the highways in Vancouver sub-par compared to Toronto. Not that I drive much anymore. I take the subway or streetcar mostly. Yep, got rid of my car 6 months ago, and take public transit, including electric streetcars, all the time.

Bummer that the military industrial complex killed off the public transit systems in Roswell or wherever you guys call home now.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
"A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

Well said - maybe something for you to think about. Until the CIA space ships abduct you of course.

Still waiting for your anal-ysis of the problems with The Senate counsel's assertions.  

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 01, 2007, 08:28:00 PM
mgod wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 19:53

"A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

Well said - maybe something for you to think about. Until the CIA space ships abduct you of course.



You surely recognize the quote. It's from a famous Democrat.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a dinner meeting with Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, Dick Cheney, and Dan Brown. We're going to discuss our grand unified theory that will tie together 911, JFK, the Knights Templar and the demise of LA streetcars. I'd invite you, but you have to be a card-carrying member of the Illuminati.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 09:58:45 PM
In other words, you make assertions that you won't, or as appears more likely, can't support. And then are forced to denigrate the people and the conversation you got yourself into -  to distract from your lack of ability. Typical. But it is worth pointing out - you wallowed into something and started throwing around accusations of "conspiracy theorists" when you couldn't prove that you weren't yourself crazy. The more of these discussions I encounter in here, the more its become completely clear that the people who are so quick to accuse others of being conspiracy theorists are themselves the worst sort of conspiracy theorists (which only makes them seems like contemporary Republicans) - what appears to be must be, because to entertain doubt requires you to accept the possibility of a conspiracy to doubt. Hence spreading the topic from public transit to the Illuminati. Just a touch desperate, huh?

OK - you're excused. Hope your dinner mates fortify your reasoning capabilities. And no matter how much you try but fail to insult by bringing in irrelevant fantasies, the fact remains that a number of us have shown GM's involvement with the destruction of pubic transit, and you still haven't done anything. But if you smell a rat remember that you're sitting by yourself. Bye.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 01, 2007, 10:21:30 PM
mgod wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 21:58

In other words, you make assertions that you won't, or as appears more likely, can't support. And then are forced to denigrate the people and the conversation you got yourself into -  to distract from your lack of ability. Typical. But it is worth pointing out - you wallowed into something and started throwing around accusations of "conspiracy theorists" when you couldn't prove that you weren't yourself crazy. The more of these discussions I encounter in here, the more its become completely clear that the people who are so quick to accuse others of being conspiracy theorists are themselves the worst sort of conspiracy theorists (which only makes them seems like contemporary Republicans) - what appears to be must be, because to entertain doubt requires you to accept the possibility of a conspiracy to doubt. Hence spreading the topic from public transit to the Illuminati. Just a touch desperate, huh?

OK - you're excused. Hope your dinner mates fortify your reasoning capabilities. And no matter how much you try but fail to insult by bringing in irrelevant fantasies, the fact remains that a number of us have shown GM's involvement with the destruction of pubic transit, and you still haven't done anything. But if you smell a rat remember that you're sitting by yourself. Bye.

DS


Looks like someone takes himself a little to seriously. Have a sense of humor, man.  
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 01, 2007, 11:04:26 PM
I used to take you seriously.

Anyway, this is perfect - I just heard the opening sponsor announcement of the PBS Ken Burns doc "The War" for tonight -

"Funding for The War is provided by: General Motors."

Hysterical.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: maxim on October 02, 2007, 12:11:11 AM
why is it hard to imagine that a corporation will do ANYTHING in its power to increase the profits of its shareholders?

it would be NAIVE to think otherwise...
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 02, 2007, 12:34:30 AM
Maxim - if I may be so bold as to take your hypothesis a bit further and say that a corporation will do anything beyond its power to further the profits of its shareholders.

mgod - and I must use that term with a smile on my face for its innuendo - i like your approach to argument: full sails hoisted and strapped to the Captain's chair as you enter the perfect storm.  I am a firm supporter of the democratic effort as I am sure anyone could gather from the most cursory perusal of my posts, so we are on the same team.

Oh ya, and TAX the rich.
edited for less obnoxiousness Embarassed
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Les Ismore on October 02, 2007, 01:05:25 AM
JS wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 15:34

Les Ismore wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 17:22


Now we are suffering endless gridlock and are paying billions and billions to build new rapid transit systems that at this point frankly still aren't as good as the ones we had 70 years ago.



Wow, you rode public transit 70 years ago? My, you're looking great for your age, if you don't mind me saying so.

Too bad that Vancouver has such mass transit problems. I always found the highways in Vancouver sub-par compared to Toronto. Not that I drive much anymore. I take the subway or streetcar mostly. Yep, got rid of my car 6 months ago, and take public transit, including electric streetcars, all the time.

Bummer that the military industrial complex killed off the public transit systems in Roswell or wherever you guys call home now.


Well, you can't tell what I look like so you actually have no idea how old I am, but I'll take compliments where ever I can so thanks anyway.  I am 50 and I am 3rd generation Vancouver raised and I've studied the history somewhat.
The old streetcar system had an express that ran all the way to Chilliwack at 80 mph according to my father who used to ride it regularely. And down to Steveston. All over the freakin place.
When they closed it down the whole section of town that used to be the hub of the city around the street car station on Carol street died. You used to change cars there to go anywhere else so it was really bustling. Then it turned into skid row.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on October 02, 2007, 09:22:50 PM
GreekPeet wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 08:15

Look at how the federal government does at taking care people during Katrina. Pretty shitty. You don't want a profit driven health care system handed over to the government. We're talking peoples medical history, dna, ect ect all within any federal agencies grip.

Freedom is much more important than government health care.

Democrat voting and giving money to Dr. Paul. Its time to join the revolution.

ronpaul2008.com


So, explain to me exactly how a government of the sort advocated by Ron Paul could have done a better job dealing with Katrina than the fuckup promulgated by the Bush Administration?

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on October 02, 2007, 10:49:48 PM
hey -a ,

If you're really wondering what out just asked ....... then give this a glance . see what YOU think . ( & the comments too of course )  http://lp.org/yourturn/archives/000090.shtml

It's not a clear cut answer to your question  but RP will lean that way . the LP is likely the way of the future . It's just a matter of time ( like 70 years from now ),  .
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on October 02, 2007, 11:48:09 PM
groundhog day wrote on Tue, 02 October 2007 19:49

hey -a ,

If you're really wondering what out just asked ....... then give this a glance . see what YOU think . ( & the comments too of course )  http://lp.org/yourturn/archives/000090.shtml

It's not a clear cut answer to your question  but RP will lean that way . the LP is likely the way of the future . It's just a matter of time ( like 70 years from now ),  .



You must remember that when you have a government run by people who think that government is wasteful and ineffective, you end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on October 03, 2007, 09:05:24 AM
Ok , but the LP's "believe in their abilities to improve things" & their numbers are growing .

More to the point ( I think ), I hope that all have learned  from Katrina that'll improve  methods of dealing with catastrophes , wherever , whenever ,whatever . Not just the executive branch but all the way through to the citizenry . But uhhh ....who doesn't want that .

The great thing about RP being elected ( highly unlikely ) is that not much would get done . In fact every time they would give the guy something to to sign that involved more spending he would say , "no " repeatedly . We could use four years of that . Of course he would never be re-elected .

Long story short , RP would be much like  Calvin Coolige  . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge I think that it would be a good thing right now .  

By the way -a , if you check out that link , be sure to follow the page down to the " Boston police Strike " entry . Look at who the mayor of Boston was at the time !
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 03, 2007, 11:42:27 AM
I'm really enjoying looking around that LP website - thanks for providing the link. I find some things I like, the open immigration policy for instance, and some things I think are suspect, and some things I guess I'll just have to differ with them about. I'm doubtful that private industry can be trusted to give us a reliable infrastructure. Of course, public funding using private contractors hasn't exactly worked out great all the time either. But I feel a little uneasy handing over everything but protection of citizens to private hands. All utilities (we know how that worked out in California with electricity) and roads...I don't trust it. Its Reaganesque - it places a great deal of faith in the honesty and kindness of corporate strangers. But corporations are obligated to do whatever they can to maximize shareholder dividends. I fail to see how that primary motive squares with the public good.

And on the social security page I found this:
"If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show. That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year - about five times what you could expect from Social Security."

But stock mutual funds can plummet as well as rise, and please show me anywhere I can put a bunch of money that will give me a 10% interest rate right now - I'm in! Also, who gets to invest ALL their earnings as that suggests?

It feels a little Pollyana-ish to me, as if the platform was written decades ago in a different America, with vastly different economic conditions.

Over the years a few of my very best friends have been Libertarians, but they've all abandoned the LP, and it may have more to do with the rise of Ginrich-Rove Republicanism than anything to do with the LP itself - although it seems to me that the LP may not have been keeping pace with the times. Still, more reading to do.

DS

Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 03, 2007, 10:28:46 PM
Allow myself to introduce......myself.  I mean allow me to put the kibosh on the libertarian party.  Unless you are a smart white guy that doesn't care about others, it's not for you.

I would like to think there are lot of smart white guys here, but hopefully not many that don't care about others, which is sort of a tacit part of being a libertarian.

It privatizes everything, which means that only the rich and privileged will get the best care.  

Not that this isn't the way it is now, it's just that the current system is actually trying to make things a bit more equal for the disenfranchised.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 03, 2007, 10:42:51 PM
danickstr wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 22:28

Allow myself to introduce......myself.  I mean allow me to put the kibosh on the libertarian party.  Unless you are a smart white guy that doesn't care about others, it's not for you.

I would like to think there are lot of smart white guys here, but hopefully not many that don't care about others, which is sort of a tacit part of being a libertarian.

It privatizes everything, which means that only the rich and privileged will get the best care.  

Not that this isn't the way it is now, it's just that the current system is actually trying to make things a bit more equal for the disenfranchised.


Hmm, I thought libertarians valued individual liberty and freedom, and advocate minimal state interference with private rights. Live and learn I guess.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on October 03, 2007, 10:55:42 PM
JS wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 22:42

danickstr wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 22:28

Allow myself to introduce......myself.  I mean allow me to put the kibosh on the libertarian party.  Unless you are a smart white guy that doesn't care about others, it's not for you.

I would like to think there are lot of smart white guys here, but hopefully not many that don't care about others, which is sort of a tacit part of being a libertarian.

It privatizes everything, which means that only the rich and privileged will get the best care.  

Not that this isn't the way it is now, it's just that the current system is actually trying to make things a bit more equal for the disenfranchised.


Hmm, I thought libertarians valued individual liberty and freedom, and advocate minimal state interference with private rights. Live and learn I guess.


Here's a place where you might look for some insight . A place to start perhaps .
That is , if you "really care" to .
http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/alston1.html

here's a nice short RP piece http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9j578IyTXo


Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on October 03, 2007, 11:32:54 PM
danickstr wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 22:28


It privatizes everything,.....

Where did you come up with that ? Sorry , it's simply not true ....... way extreme .

No easy answer . But people are getting smarter..... always ?  And as they do things change  . In fact maybe the D's will do a  good thing or 2 soon . They are clearly up to bat right now with runners in scoring position .




Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 04, 2007, 12:15:51 AM
Any thoughts on my question about the LP Social Security policy? I understand they don't like it, but as I said earlier, the stated policy seems to include serious fantasy. Am I missing something?

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 04, 2007, 07:03:11 AM
Well that is what I get for oversimplification and poor word choice...of course it is not true that Libertarians want to privatize EVERYTHING, but they want to remove more social programs than even the conservative republicans.

And that is unfair to the underprivileged.

Anyone doing well that doesn't want to feel obligated to help those who are not doing well is bound to think that the libertarian party's "increasing freedoms" is a good idea.

But the money that people would pay to replace the programs that they need, which currently requires a million or more government employees to analyze and distribute, money that would go to private companies, would then be paid by people on an "as needed" basis.

So when there is a single mother with 4 kids that did not have any insurance or savings, how is she going to pay for her life?  After libertarians eliminate welfare, job placement programs, childcare subsidies, and food stamps, since these programs costs infringed on their "freedoms" what choice will she have when the landlord evicts her and the children need dinner?


Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on October 04, 2007, 08:46:50 AM
danickstr wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 07:03



So when there is a single mother with 4 kids that did not have any insurance or savings, how is she going to pay for her life?  After libertarians eliminate welfare, job placement programs, childcare subsidies, and food stamps, since these programs costs infringed on their "freedoms" what choice will she have when the landlord evicts her and the children need dinner?




Ahh ... it wouldn't go down like that in the first place .

One thing that L's & C's often have in common ( internationally) ;  A belief that whomever is in disagreement with their beliefs is either a fool or an evil person .Why is that ? Because they care so much ?

You seem informed , but likely missing key  info on the LP outlook ..... ( but who isn't ? )

=======================================

- scratch surface here and good luck ....
Highlights of the Libertarian Party's "Ending the Welfare State" Proposal


From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure.

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility.

1. End Welfare

None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

2. Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity

If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

3. Tear down barriers to entrepreneurism and economic growth

Almost everyone agrees that a job is better than any welfare program. Yet for years this country has pursued tax and regulatory policies that seem perversely designed to discourage economic growth and reduce entrepreneurial opportunities. Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.

In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

4. Reform education

There can be no serious attempt to solve the problem of poverty in America without addressing our failed government-run school system. Nearly forty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, America's schools are becoming increasingly segregated, not on the basis of race, but on income. Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped -- forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate.

It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty.

Summary

We should not pretend that reforming our welfare system will be easy or painless. In particular it will be difficult for those people who currently use welfare the way it was intended -- as a temporary support mechanism during hard times. However, these people remain on welfare for short periods of time. A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance. But our current government-run welfare system is costly to taxpayers and cruel to the children born into a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.

The Libertarian Party offers a positive alternative to the failed welfare state. We offer a vision of a society based on work, individual responsibility, and private charity. It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion It is a society built on liberty.



Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on October 04, 2007, 08:57:59 AM
mgod wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 00:15

Any thoughts on my question about the LP Social Security policy? I understand they don't like it, but as I said earlier, the stated policy seems to include serious fantasy. Am I missing something?

DS

Yeah .  I don't think it's very well written for one thing .

I'm with you on your "Pollyana-ish" appraisal too .
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 04, 2007, 12:34:44 PM
groundhog day wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 08:46



To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.



Don't get me wrong, I like some of the fundamental principles you quote but the tax credit thing....this is a bit off the wall though, isn't it? Basically, if  you give a dollar to charity then you get a dollar reduction in taxes (it appears that this is a credit against tax payable rather than a deduction from taxable income). So this is basically tantamount to zero contribution from the "donor," and 100% contribution from the state. But instead of a state program being delivered by elected representatives, the state foots the bill for charities chosen by private individuals. Bit odd, isn't it?
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: jwhynot on October 04, 2007, 12:49:20 PM
Quote:

Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.


A Dickensian Utopia.

Are there no prisons?  Are there no workhouses?

JW
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 04, 2007, 01:47:37 PM
And there you have it - the essential problem. At the moment I know a woman who runs for local office as a Libertarian. She doesn't win of course. But the thing is, those seemingly heartless principles kind of fall apart when the LP party member themselves need a hand up, like say, in a medical crisis. This particular woman is in the process of divorcing her husband, a working musician, and while they had a signed mediation agreement, on the day it went into effect, she filed a suit and has been fighting him for 3 years ($$$) to force him to support her for the rest of her life at $20,000 a month. Now THAT'S freedom!

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: jwhynot on October 04, 2007, 08:23:13 PM
And, what if because of God-given abilities or lack thereof, or misfortune, or bad action, someone can't "bridge the gap"?

Is there someplace they're supposed to crawl before they die?



It's really a very silly concept...

JW
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 04, 2007, 08:34:57 PM
They would most likely crawl into a life of crime, which would necessitate more private police and higher walls on luxury homes.  
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 04, 2007, 10:32:42 PM
mgod wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 13:47

And there you have it - the essential problem. At the moment I know a woman who runs for local office as a Libertarian. She doesn't win of course. But the thing is, those seemingly heartless principles kind of fall apart when the LP party member themselves need a hand up, like say, in a medical crisis. This particular woman is in the process of divorcing her husband, a working musician, and while they had a signed mediation agreement, on the day it went into effect, she filed a suit and has been fighting him for 3 years ($$$) to force him to support her for the rest of her life at $20,000 a month. Now THAT'S freedom!

DS


I'm having difficulty with your argument.

A libertarian might say "don't spend my tax dollars on public health care, I'll pay for my own insurance." Thus, the medical crisis is dealt with, through private means. When I lived in the US I paid for health insurance, and enjoyed excellent care. In Canada,  not only do my tax dollars go towards the truly awful public health care system, I also pay a substantial direct "health tax." I don't know how much I pay for the terrible health services I am stuck with in Canada, but I am quite confident I pay more money for less service here. In the event of a health crisis, I would be better off paying less for more in the US.

With respect to your point about the libertarian politician - a divorce is a civil proceeding (an oxymoron, I realize) between two private parties. There is no relationship between between her political views and her private dispute with her ex-husband. In the absence of facts there is no way of knowing if her claim for support from her ex-husband is excessive or frivolous. Note - she isn't claiming that her neighbors should support her, which is kind of the point that a libertarian might make.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on October 05, 2007, 01:38:23 AM
JS wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 19:32

I'm having difficulty with your argument.
 As I am with yours.

Quote:

A libertarian might say "don't spend my tax dollars on public health care, I'll pay for my own insurance." Thus, the medical crisis is dealt with, through private means. When I lived in the US I paid for health insurance, and enjoyed excellent care.


Sure, it's easy to say, "I'll pay for my own insurance."  IF (and that's a mighty big "if") you can afford it.

And there are a lot of big IFs.

If your employer chooses to offer a reasonable plan that covers not only "major medical" things, but routine visits to the doctor.  It should be obvious that preventative care costs much much less than emergency care.

If your employer's plan covers not only you, but also dependents.   And if the cost to cover dependents isn't astronomical.

If you're self-employed, or your employer does not offer an insurance plan, then you can look around for private plans. If you're a member of a professional association (such as the IEEE) you can take advantage of the organization's large membership base and get an insurance plan at a reasonable cost.  Or perhaps your income is sufficient to purchase an expensive private plan.

Now, what if you are a low- to medium-wage worker, whose employer does not offer an insurance plan?  Obviously, you could look on the private market for a plan, but you'll probably be shocked and awed by the costs of plans that offer reasonable coverage for things like regular checkups with your doctor, prescriptions, etc.  Imagine if your choice each month was to pay the rent or pay for an insurance plan!  It's obvious what option gets chosen.

What if you have a pre-existing condition?  Either you're rejected out of hand, or your premiums go up.  After all, the insurer knows they will have to pay if you are a customer, and we all know insurance companies just love to pay claims.  If an insurer will have you, you'll have to wait six to twenty-four months before they'll pay for a treatment for that condition, which in the meantime can worsen because it's not being treated.

A person might reasonably ask, "I am young and in good health.  Why should I pay for health insurance?  If I get sick and need to go to the doctor, I can pay the costs out of pocket."  The gamble is that the cost of care for the few times it's needed will be less than the cost of insurance premiums.  That sounds reasonable, but a dirty not-so-secret is that the insurance carriers negotiate reduced prices with providers. (OK, "negotiate" is generous.  The insurers say, "This is how much you will be paid for these services.") Walk-ins who have no insurance may get charged considerably more for the same services.  Or, knowing that there's no insurance, the doctors may not order vital tests that the patient might not be able to afford.

I am glad that you received excellent care.  You should consider yourself fortunate.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 05, 2007, 01:42:35 AM
There is something different about the "ifs" in that post.  I am not sure what it is, but I know that is something special about them.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: jwhynot on October 05, 2007, 04:00:26 AM
Quote:

but I am quite confident I pay more money for less service here.
That's a bold statement.

To insure my family with equivalent coverage in California to what I would get in Ontario would cost me about 22k a year.

To make it at all affordable I have to carry high deductibles and pay for doctor visits up front - and usually uncompensated.

Medical is my biggest expense after housing - and housing is not far ahead.

How about comparing the retail price for care in both countries?

The cost of equivalent services for care not covered by insurance runs about 25% in Canada.

And I'm not sure how you measure the services - but I live in the US and work in Canada, having grown up there.

I just don't see how you can support that statement at all.

Just sayin'

JW
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Fox on October 05, 2007, 07:38:13 AM
Yeah, I don't see what you're talking about at all either. I grew up here, and the longest I ever spent waiting at a hospital was about 6 hrs, and that was when I was in 2nd grade with a broken elbow. Hardly an emergency room priority. Check-ups every year are free, virtually everything is free.

The only things you have to pay for here are prescription drugs (which I get covered through my health insurance plan at work along with full dental care and life insurance: $12.66/paycheck!) and cosmetic surgeries, and even they are pretty cheap; I just had laser eye surgery here in Montreal 2 weeks ago. It cost me $2000 total and I've now got 20/20 vision.

Because I have health insurance, I don't have to pay as much into medicare as I otherwise would, in fact, last year I got a $700 refund. Please explain how you can say that you pay more here for less medical services.



Fox
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: rphilbeck on October 05, 2007, 08:17:58 AM
Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 01:38


Now, what if you are a low- to medium-wage worker, whose employer does not offer an insurance plan?  




THAN YOU MAKE A JOB CHANGE!  Preferably to one of the many employers in this country who offer excellent benefits.  


Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 08:19:59 AM
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 04:00

Quote:

but I am quite confident I pay more money for less service here.
That's a bold statement.

To insure my family with equivalent coverage in California to what I would get in Ontario would cost me about 22k a year.

To make it at all affordable I have to carry high deductibles and pay for doctor visits up front - and usually uncompensated.

Medical is my biggest expense after housing - and housing is not far ahead.

How about comparing the retail price for care in both countries?

The cost of equivalent services for care not covered by insurance runs about 25% in Canada.

And I'm not sure how you measure the services - but I live in the US and work in Canada, having grown up there.

I just don't see how you can support that statement at all.

Just sayin'

JW


Here is how I support that statement, and this is for the benefit of the others who take exception to what I said.

Like many Ontarians, I do not have a family doctor, nor can I obtain a family doctor because there aren't enough to go around. If I cold call a doctor I cannot get an appointment, period.

Thus, for any medical complaint I go to a walk-in clinic. I have been to walk-in clinics in the city that are so nasty I don't want to sit in the chairs or touch anything. Thus, I don't go to walk-in clinics.

I have been to hospital emergency rooms, not for myself, but with aging family members. The wait times are extraordinary.

A friend recently dealt with an issue with her sick, aged mom. Her mom went to the hospital with a complaint with her leg. She caught pneumonia there. They admitted her. She was agitated, so they drugged her so heavily she started to hallucinate. When my friend got to the hospital to visit her mom, the woman had been strapped to a gurney and left there, suffering. This was because there was not enough staff to deal with her. Brilliant.

To this I add the following; my ex is a doctor. She said that if ever got sick and ended up in hospital she would stay there 24/7 to make sure they didn't do anything terrible to me.

The care I received when in the US was stellar, period.

I'm not going to tell you what I pay in income tax, sales tax or property tax, but it's not insubstantial, to which gets added the so-called Ontario health tax. I haven't done the math, but you'll have to take my word for it that there is no way on earth that I pay less in Canada. And there's no way the care is better here. It's much worse.

So, John, if you have some tips you'd like to post I'd love to read them. Perhaps you know an excellent doctor who is taking patients. Please advise. Maybe you know a clinic that one can get out of without contracting something worse than what you went in with. I would be interested in knowing this.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 08:22:35 AM
Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 01:38


I am glad that you received excellent care.  You should consider yourself fortunate.




I made a choice to budget for what I consider important. I don't think fortunate is the word to use.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 05, 2007, 10:57:31 AM
All hail the good planners.

The lessons that single mothers could learn from them...

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

If only single mothers had budgeted for condoms they could afford to budget for healthcare.  

I really don't feel that their mistake should cost me good money.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 11:05:14 AM
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 10:57

All hail the good planners.

The lessons that single mothers could learn from them...

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

If only single mothers had budgeted for condoms they could afford to budget for healthcare.  

I really don't feel that their mistake should cost me good money.


There is no way to argue with this particular perspective. No one with any ounce of human empathy can rightly say "cast the poor to the wolves." You are, however, citing the worst case scenario.

Now, if you are so wise, why don't you address the other points I made?
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 05, 2007, 11:18:44 AM
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 07:57

I really don't feel that their mistake should cost me good money.

But, whether for good or for ill, they will, one way or another. At some point all our mistakes are mutual. There's no escaping we're in this together, much as we might sometimes feel that isolationism - individual, tribal, national - is justified. And her bastard might just be John Lennon, or a Nobel prize-winning poet or scientist. Thank god for poor planning.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: phantom309 on October 05, 2007, 11:21:21 AM
I immigrated to Alberta in 2000. I had a GP doctor within 2 months of living here with NO "insider help". I have been in the Peter Lougheed Hospital once for 3 weeks and got excellent care that cost me NOTHING.


Health care in Los Angeles with Blue Cross HMO cost me 5200.00 a year when I hit 40...and I didn't get to choose my doctor or testing facilities.


I guess it sucks to live in Ontario. Maybe it's a provencial problem?


And BTW, don't we have a real names policy on this board?
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 11:26:17 AM
phantom309 wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 11:21

I immigrated to Alberta in 2000. I had a GP doctor within 2 months of living here with NO "insider help". I have been in the Peter Lougheed Hospital once for 3 weeks and got excellent care that cost me NOTHING.


Health care in Los Angeles with Blue Cross HMO cost me 5200.00 a year when I hit 40...and I didn't get to choose my doctor or testing facilities.


I guess it sucks to live in Ontario. Maybe it's a provencial problem?


And BTW, don't we have a real names policy on this board?


I too had very good care in Alberta. Yes it does suck to live in Ontario. Yes, there is a real names policy on this board. If a moderator would like to enforce that policy for everyone I should be happy to receive a PM duly informing me that I have to comply.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: phantom309 on October 05, 2007, 11:38:18 AM
JS wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 09:26

phantom309 wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 11:21

I immigrated to Alberta in 2000. I had a GP doctor within 2 months of living here with NO "insider help". I have been in the Peter Lougheed Hospital once for 3 weeks and got excellent care that cost me NOTHING.


Health care in Los Angeles with Blue Cross HMO cost me 5200.00 a year when I hit 40...and I didn't get to choose my doctor or testing facilities.


I guess it sucks to live in Ontario. Maybe it's a provencial problem?


And BTW, don't we have a real names policy on this board?


I too had very good care in Alberta. Yes it does suck to live in Ontario. Yes, there is a real names policy on this board. If a moderator would like to enforce that policy for everyone I should be happy to receive a PM duly informing me that I have to comply.


"HAVE to comply"?? That's all I needed to hear.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 05, 2007, 11:45:01 AM
I thought I addressed many points in previous posts, but if there is one critical one that I missed in my haste, I would be very happy to have you point it out to me.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 05, 2007, 11:54:50 AM
Rather than be all hypothetical and shit, let's do some real numbers:

Currently my monthly Blue Shield PPO premium is $306. My wife has none - she teaches nearby at a private 2-year college that only hires contractors, no full-time employees. Earlier this year my premium went to $543, so I gave up a lot of coverage. I can't afford to lose my insurance, so in the years that I qualify for AFM insurance I have to ignore it, because you can lose it if work slows down, which it has. AFM coverage is very expensive anyway.

In  2003 I had surgery for kidney cancer. I went to Norris Cancer Center, very close to my house, a 60-bed facility that obviously only deals with cancer, and was there for 5 days. My wife is no doctor, but she stayed with me every night because as good as some of the nurses are, some aren't. I was given straight morphine in the ICU and hallucinated badly - fortunately it was early AM and she hadn't left yet for work yet, and I yelled out for her, and she got the problem solved by finding a nurse from a different shift who hadn't left yet.

My surgery and stay cost a bit over $50,000. Blue Shield covered most of it. Great. I interviewed 3 surgeons but everyone said if I got into see this guy at Norris, he'd be the guy. Amazingly I did, and he was. People come in from all over the globe for him. I had, according to him the most miraculous surgery he'd ever done. Everything came up aces. Great Dr. I have no complaints about any of it and it was a great experience. But let's be real - even in the US, at a small specialty hospital mistakes are made. My wife got this when she saw me in the ICU and realized that even there I needed a full-time advocate to improve my chances of rolling out.

Of the 3 surgeons I interviewed, only one took insurance. Someone at Blue Shield told me wife "None of the good people take insurance anymore." Why? Blue Shield paid the doctor $700. I owe the balance - over $6000. Every year I get about $15,000 worth of scans. Insurance covers some of it, better than half.

11 months after the surgery, I had a heart attack - went back on the road too soon. So glad I have insurance but even with insurance I still owe tens of thousands. My credit is shot. I simply don't work enough to live in a city like this, have a family and pay all these medical  bills, AND keep my insurance payments up. But you can imagine where we'd be if I lost it. And I learned pretty quickly, that although my cardiologist said I should go into an emergency room if I have chest pain, I really shouldn't - long wait, huge expense.

Now before anybody get aroused by all this, I'm cancer free, I still have a great kidney and we only really need 50% of one, and my cardiac stress tests indicate that I'm in better than average shape now. Physically. Financially, we're screwed, especially being a musician in a dying industry. My wife gets sick, we're outta here. If she doesn't we'll recover eventually. But its kind of all we do, deal with this stuff. So for many of us, this isn't a discussion of hypothetical political principles, its day-to-day reality.

Just sayin'.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 05, 2007, 12:00:25 PM
phantom309 wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 08:38

"HAVE to comply"?? That's all I needed to hear.

Laughing
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Fox on October 05, 2007, 12:23:11 PM
Glad you're okay, Dan.

I have a feeling that those who oppose health care reforms and such would be singing a different tune pretty quickly if they had to deal with a surprise visit from cancer or the like.

Good financial planning can't account for everything, y'know.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 12:32:13 PM
mgod wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 11:54



Now before anybody get aroused by all this, I'm cancer free, I still have a great kidney and we only really need 50% of one, and my cardiac stress tests indicate that I'm in better than average shape now. Physically. Financially, we're screwed, especially being a musician in a dying industry. My wife gets sick, we're outta here. If she doesn't we'll recover eventually. But its kind of all we do, deal with this stuff. So for many of us, this isn't a discussion of hypothetical political principles, its day-to-day reality.

Just sayin'.

DS


In all seriousness, I am glad that you are healthy and that you made it through this harrowing ordeal.

I am not, however, trolling you - fyi.

My perspective, though not grounded in as troubling a set of facts as yours, is also not hypothetical and is a day to day reality.

Health issues that I had while in the US, while nowhere near as serious as yours, were dealt with very well. To the extent that I was not covered I paid, though not in the tens of thousands. Although I've not faced serious health challenges in Canada, I am genuinely afraid of the level of treatment I will receive, which is not a fear based in ignorance, I assure you. For the bad care I currently receive, I pay. I would like to not pay. I would like to have lower taxes, and would like to purchase private health insurance. Thus, if/when I eventually fall ill, I won't die. This is not because I am a libertarian, republican, or subscriber to any form of politics ending in -ian or -ism. It's because I don't want myself or anyone close to me suffering an awful fate.

In Canada....well, phantom309 enjoyed very good care. That's awesome. I know someone who also lives in Alberta who faced a health catastrophe, and rather that wait to die in a Canadian waiting room went to the US for immediate surgical intervention which saved his life and cost a huge amount of money.

When a member of my immediate family faced a spate of health issues last year we contemplated going to the US and paying out of pocket. Why? Because the problem was not being dealt with here. Although ultimately not necessary last year, the US option remains in our minds for future reference.

So, in any case, we all have our life experiences and our views. Someone else can come along and post with their own experiences, and they can make fun of me, and won't that be jolly good fun for all. In the end I doubt that we will extract a set of principles that we can all agree on, based on sharing individual accounts.

I do think it is a bit ironic that on this board many folks decry their governments in the most bitter terms, and yet in the context of this discussion of health care seem to favor socialized medicine, if I understand everyone correctly. If governments can't be trusted to deal with us in good faith, and corporations can't be trusted to deal with us in good faith, I guess the moral of the story is that we're screwed.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 05, 2007, 12:34:09 PM
With all these under-covered sick people and the programs that tax me to support them, I won't be able to get the yacht I really want, and will have to settle for something with less bling.

Maybe people like Dan wouldn't mind too much moving to a socialist country and help me free up more capital for a nicer yacht and other things that I have carefully planned for.

I just didn't plan for your sickness, and I don't think I should have to feel bad about that.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 12:38:39 PM
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 12:34

With all these under-covered sick people and the programs that tax me to support them, I won't be able to get the yacht I really want, and will have to settle for something with less bling.

Maybe people like Dan wouldn't mind too much moving to a socialist country and help me free up more capital for a nicer yacht and other things that I have carefully planned for.

I just didn't plan for your sickness, and I don't think I should have to feel bad about that.



Way to get the point, big guy.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: jwhynot on October 05, 2007, 01:02:13 PM
JS - Your experience in Ontario is not typical.

I won't waste time giving every example I know - but I lived there for 31 years, travel there frequently - most of my family still lives there - I have hundreds of business associates and friends.

Their experience is completely different from yours, which I find mystifying.

I don't have any tips for you.  I can tell you that, even though I'm not covered by the Ontario insurance program any more, I've had a couple of issues while up there, and dealt with both ER treatment and a doctor's appointment.  The care was measurably better than what I have experienced down here, and cost about 1/4.

That's at retail.

My Dad recently switched doctors.  2 phone calls.  One to the old guy, one to the new guy.

He's had a series of health problems, including the big C, heart attacks, a broken elbow, broken hip, Parkinson's.

His first heart attack happened during the SARS scare - when the health system was supposedly crashing.

It was inconvenient - people couldn't visit him without going through a fairly serious rigmarole.  But the medical care was top notch.

One of my closest friends passed last summer in Toronto - from cancer.  His treatment had lasted a year - and extended his life probably 9 months.  Though they were unable to tamp down the disease permanently, from every indication I can glean he had excellent care from the very beginning - timely and comprehensive.  I watched it happen, and spoke to him very, very often.

And he was able to live through his last year knowing he wasn't putting his family and heirs hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

So, JS, whomever you are, it's fairly hard for me to look at my experience, that of the people I know well, the statistics you can find on the topic, read your posts and not call "bullshit".

JW
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Jay Kadis on October 05, 2007, 01:09:08 PM
There is a lot of variability in everyones' health care systems.  They're huge enterprises run by people.  The question of whether it is more efficient to allow private insurance companies to determine who gets what services or to allow a nation-wide governmental department to make those decisions hinges on how you see health care: as a universal right or as a personal choice.  There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but neither guarantees perfect outcomes for everyone.  Personally I do not see how the profits made by the insurance companies maximize the services we get for our contributions.  

I have been Kaiser Permanente member since I was born.  Their care can be quite good, although we spent 8 hours in the ER waiting for a scanner operator to show up to do a 5-minute procedure.  Emergency medicine is always going to be problematic.   But for preventive care they're excellent.  It's private insurance but not for profit.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: jwhynot on October 05, 2007, 01:13:57 PM
Seems to me a nationwide program would be pretty much impossible...

But, one could get the thin end of the wedge in statewise..

I reckon there's a better chance of that happening.

JW

PS Individual health-care decisions aren't made by the Gov't in Canada.  If you are a resident you get it.  One's doctor doesn't have to call anyone to authorize treatment.  That's a commonly-propagated misconception about single-payer.  There is in fact more choice and control for the patient - not less.

There is of course management on a macro level - how many beds, where to build or not build hospitals, pay scales for support workers, etc.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 01:22:02 PM
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 13:02

JS - ...it's fairly hard for me to look at my experience, that of the people I know well, the statistics you can find on the topic, read your posts and not call "bullshit".



Admittedly, there are lies, there are damn lies, and worse still, statistics. Still, from a recent edition of the "Ottawa Citizen":

"...despite the laudable efforts of the current and past governments, more than one million adults and 130,000 children are without access to a family doctor. Ontario ranks seventh among Canadian provinces in terms of number of doctors per 100,000 people. And the baby boomer doctors are aging with their patients. It is anticipated that 31 per cent of doctors will retire in the next five years. Currently 85 per cent of family doctors are at capacity, unable to take on new patients. In addition it is expected that Ontario's population will grow by 2.5 million people over the next 20 years, with the proportion of those over 65 — the ones needing most access to primary health care — doubling in number."

This is in the context of a province with a population of just over 10 million.

I would also recommend that you have a look at a Supreme Court of Canada case called Chaoulli v. Quebec, for further objective insight into the issues in Canadian health care.

Anyway, so you guys don't accept my personal experiences and those I quote from people I know, and have your own personal experiences and quote from those people you know. So the battle of personal anecodotal evidence continues.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 05, 2007, 01:30:59 PM
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 09:34

Maybe people like Dan wouldn't mind too much moving to a socialist country and help me free up more capital for a nicer yacht and other things that I have carefully planned for.

I just didn't plan for your sickness, and I don't think I should have to feel bad about that.

Well, if you read what I actually wrote, I did plan for my sickness, not that I knew it was coming - I bought the best health insurance available to me. What you feel bad about is yours to choose.

But the point of my post is that medical care is SO expensive that insurance doesn't cover everything. Nor will it cover you when the time comes - you'll have to sell your yacht. As I've had to sell some of my recording equipment. (Not the mics yet!) And my cousins live in Hungary, and have enjoyed excellent care their whole lives. I've been there several times - quite a lovely place. Just not a lot of music work, although that makes Budapest not a lot different from LA lately.

JS - you were only being mocked for your insistent anonymity. And no, I don't think you're trolling me at all. But you guys are missing a major possibility here - the Libertarian view is essentially that we're all on our own. Now personally I don't mind  little of all of us caring for each other - I think it will stand you in good stead Nick when the money from your yacht runs out. Probably better than being out in the street in the unsympathetic world you seem to be promoting. BUT - since you're not  a subscriber to any -ism JS, the other possibility is that rather than government run medicine, we enact some serious regulation. The government can get involved in ways other than taking over the whole system. It can pass effective regulation that can keep things in range. The Libertarian philosophy appears to be let people do whatever they want, and to the victors go the spoils but yachts are not hard to steal, nor to sink, and are easily taken into international waters.

I believe our problem is not the lack of government run health care, out problem is that we're TOO Libertarian at the moment - yes we each are our own responsibility, and have the option of planning or not planning for our own health care. The problem is, increasingly, fewer and fewer can afford it. I planned for it, on paper I'm pretty wealthy, and we'll pull though, but its crippled us for quite some time. Fencing a stolen yacht would help though...

Of course, to enact effective regulation we also have to reform election financing and lobbying reform. The crisis is the way it is because both parties are bought and sold to the medical industry itself. And personally, I don't think replacing either one of them with the LP would make this any better.

But for me there's a MUCH bigger issue at the heart of this - and this debate brings it to the fore - do we really wish to be so careless of our fellow people? Apparently, some of us do - but inevitably at some point everyone of us will suffer individually  for that.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Fox on October 05, 2007, 01:52:05 PM
I think Nick is being sarcastic
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: organica on October 05, 2007, 01:57:07 PM
We'll be right back after this brief intermission ..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPUZqcibh4E
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Andy Peters on October 05, 2007, 02:55:19 PM
RPhilbeck wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 05:17

Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 01:38


Now, what if you are a low- to medium-wage worker, whose employer does not offer an insurance plan?  



THAN (SIC!) YOU MAKE A JOB CHANGE!  Preferably to one of the many employers in this country who offer excellent benefits.


That's all well and good, if you have skills that are in high demand.

But many employers do not offer health insurance.  Some are upfront about it: "We can't afford to offer it."  Others have really creative ways of "offering" health insurance.  For example, Wal-Mart offers and pays for (part of) health insurance to full-time employees.  But they "prefer" to hire part-timers, who are offered a very expensive major-medical plan.  And the company keeps people part-time by scheduling them for 39 hours a week.

Remember the big GM strike a couple of weeks ago?  It was all about health insurance.  The employees wanted it and the company said, "It's bankrupting us."

I think the whole notion of employer-based health insurance is a crock.  There was an article in the New Yorker awhile ago that looked at the original reasons behind it.  After WWII, unions were pushing to offer health insurance to their members, but the auto makers, concerned about employee retention (training an assembly-line worker is expensive), said, "We will pay for our employees' health insurance needs."  After all, if your benefits are tied to your employer, quitting and starting from scratch isn't a desirable option. Clearly, the automakers regret this choice.

-a
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Les Ismore on October 05, 2007, 04:21:30 PM
Well for what it's worth, I had spinal surgery last fall here on Vancouver Island B.C. on the west coast of Canada. I had been lying on the floor in absolute hell for almost a month and at that point did not have a family doctor as I wasn't happy with the one I had.
Let me say that I don't like being in hospitals.
But if I had stayed out of the hospital it would have taken several months to get scans etc unless I paid for them ($800) to even find out what was going on.
So I went into emergency and had a CAT scan that evening and an MRI the next day. I had spinal surgery 2 weeks later done by a very good surgeon that was successful except I was left with some minor nerve damage which keeps me from sitting or driving. This is common on repeat surgeries such as mine.
If I had not spent the 2 weeks in the hospital waiting for the surgery it would have taken maybe 6 months or more to get the operation, by which time I may have been paralized. So I stayed in the hospital and had the surgery in 2 weeks.
Total cost to me:  $0.


A few years ago I was in Texas and I went to emergency to get a prescription for bronchitis. Total time in emergency, 15 minutes. Cost: $958 US which at the time equalled almost $1500 Canadian.

And that didn't include the antibiotics.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 05, 2007, 05:17:42 PM
I liked the intermission...hairy college drop-outs performing moulin rouge.

I am not arguing that health care organizations and even group health co-ops are going to do the right thing.

And actually health care is just one way to cheat the disenfranchised by going libertarian/republican.

To tell the truth, in my 20's the libertarian idea sounded great.

Then I grew a conscience and it sounded selfish.


Is there anything I missed?
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: CCC on October 05, 2007, 05:59:06 PM
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 17:17

I liked the intermission...hairy college drop-outs performing moulin rouge.

I am not arguing that health care organizations and even group health co-ops are going to do the right thing.

And actually health care is just one way to cheat the disenfranchised by going libertarian/republican.

To tell the truth, in my 20's the libertarian idea sounded great.

Then I grew a conscience and it sounded selfish.


Is there anything I missed?


Since your post expounds on your own views and their evolution I don't know if you missed anything.

Perhaps you neglected to say that rich, white libertarians want to use the corpses of the poor and disenfranchised as fuel for their yachts.
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: Fox on October 05, 2007, 07:06:13 PM
...they can do that!!??
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: mgod on October 05, 2007, 09:44:36 PM
Les Ismore wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 13:21

So I went into emergency and had a CAT scan that evening and an MRI the next day. I had spinal surgery 2 weeks later done by a very good surgeon that was successful except I was left with some minor nerve damage which keeps me from sitting or driving. This is common on repeat surgeries such as mine.

See, that's the stuff that makes me think I got off easy.

But it doesn't seem to have affected your guitar playing.

DS
Title: Re: More on Taxing the Rich
Post by: danickstr on October 05, 2007, 10:54:52 PM
JS wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 17:59


Perhaps you neglected to say that rich, white libertarians want to use the corpses of the poor and disenfranchised as fuel for their yachts.


Is that scientifically possible? Shocked

oh sorry fox I guess you are as technically ignorant as I am, just faster on the draw.

perhaps there is a chemical we could put in free government food to enhance the chance of spontaneous combustion, and then give the homeless sleeping quarters in the boilers of yachts.