Wealth redistribution

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

You've just laid support for universal care / nationalized medicine

SO many people want this but nobody can give an answer on how to pay for it.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Thanatos340 1]

The "Loopholes" are how congress dictates behavior. They will never give that power up.

Is the Home mortgage interest deduction a Loophole? How about the Tax Break for buying a Hybrid?

I too would prefer a more streamlined tax code that taxes everyone fairly (We will never agree on what Fair is. I think Fair is that EVERYONE contributes. Those with more pay a slightly higher percentage but absolutely EVERYONE contributes and NOONE has to pay more than 1/3 of what they earn.)

Success is not something that should be discouraged. (And taxing Success at a higher rate is discouragement just like lowering Taxes for something is encouragement)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You've just laid support for universal care / nationalized medicine

SO many people want this but nobody can give an answer on how to pay for it.

Raise employee taxes slightly, since employers won't have to provide it anymore and cut the military in 1/2 so that we spend only 4 times that of the #2 spender. Done deal.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

The "Loopholes" are how congress dictates behavior. They will never give that power up.

Is the Home mortgage interest deduction a Loophole? How about the Tax Break for buying a Hybrid?

I too would prefer a more streamlined tax code that taxes everyone fairly (We will never agree on what Fair is. I think Fair is that EVERYONE contributes. Those with more pay a slightly higher percentage but absolutely EVERYONE contributes and NOONE has to pay more than 1/3 of what they earn.)

Success is not something that should be discouraged. (And taxing Success at a higher rate is discouragement just like lowering Taxes for something is encouragement)

if you want lower taxes, FIRST cut govt. spending. Everyone gives up something.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The "Loopholes" are how congress dictates behavior. They will never give that power up.

Is the Home mortgage interest deduction a Loophole? How about the Tax Break for buying a Hybrid?

I too would prefer a more streamlined tax code that taxes everyone fairly (We will never agree on what Fair is. I think Fair is that EVERYONE contributes. Those with more pay a slightly higher percentage but absolutely EVERYONE contributes and NOONE has to pay more than 1/3 of what they earn.)

Success is not something that should be discouraged. (And taxing Success at a higher rate is discouragement just like lowering Taxes for something is encouragement)

We already have one of, if not the highest wealth disparity in the industrialized world, do you want it to spread more? Do you think it's healthy for a nation to have so many rich vs so many poor? Isn't it what's best for the country over what's best for a few rich? I mean, somany rich and other everyday Republicans are willing to apply utilitarianism in so many aspects of our lives, why not apply it here?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The "Loopholes" are how congress dictates behavior. They will never give that power up.

Is the Home mortgage interest deduction a Loophole? How about the Tax Break for buying a Hybrid?

I too would prefer a more streamlined tax code that taxes everyone fairly (We will never agree on what Fair is. I think Fair is that EVERYONE contributes. Those with more pay a slightly higher percentage but absolutely EVERYONE contributes and NOONE has to pay more than 1/3 of what they earn.)

Success is not something that should be discouraged. (And taxing Success at a higher rate is discouragement just like lowering Taxes for something is encouragement)

if you want lower taxes, FIRST cut govt. spending. Everyone gives up something.

Or quit that 500k/yr job

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

if you want lower taxes, FIRST cut govt. spending. Everyone gives up something.

Agreed. This is something the current administration has been a miserable failure at.

We need to cut government spending across the board. Reduce the size of government whereever feasible.

We wil have to give up some security, We will have to give up some entitlements, we will have to give up many things but we can not continue to spend what we dont have.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No, we are most certainly NOT.

Could you please explain?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

OK. My pension fund is going down the tube w/ all this shit. The CEO's are walking w/ millions. Is that fair?

The citizenship test says the U.S. economy is market/capitalist. It is definitely not "fair" economy. You started in a wrong country.

Those CEOs _earned_ those millions. If you pursued a right career, you'd be too. And yes, when the whole market is going down, your pension funds follow (and the CEO pension follows too). Remember that notice on the form you signed which said that investment product can lose value?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

if you want lower taxes, FIRST cut govt. spending. Everyone gives up something.

kinda shoots a hole in the nationalized health care plan.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

We already have one of, if not the highest wealth disparity in the industrialized world, do you want it to spread more? Do you think it's healthy for a nation to have so many rich vs so many poor?

What country are you talking about?? Not the U.S..
We have the highest standard of living and the largest Middle Class.

Quote

Isn't it what's best for the country over what's best for a few rich?

I think what is BEST for this country is that everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to become rich if they choose to work hard, get an education and apply what they have learned.

Putting limits or ceilings on what individuals can achieve doesn’t help anyone.

Wealthy does not always equal Evil as many liberals would want everyone to believe.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Right, taxes follow money, not people; don't want the burden, lose the money.

Give up the money and quit your job. Spoken like a true liberal.

Who's going to fund your national healthcare if the wealthy quit their jobs and lose their money?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[normiss 806]

Nobody cares about the details of it.
They just want to hear they're getting it.
Preferably in a 30 second quip on the news.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

You've just laid support for universal care / nationalized medicine

SO many people want this but nobody can give an answer on how to pay for it.

Again, as with many issues, eliminate the loopholes and exemptions and it is within reach.

Lobbyists for large companies have manipulated the system so that there are entirely different rules based on the size of employer in most states. The biggest is that self-insured companies are exempt from most state legislation, most importantly the funding mechanisms for high risk pools and state run programs.

Many of the biggest exemptions and special considerations are the ones the legislators granted for themselves. They have the fattest benefit package, pay the lowest premiums, and are exempted from most of the health care reform legislation they pass.

What a big surprise.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

The "Loopholes" are how congress dictates behavior. They will never give that power up.

Is the Home mortgage interest deduction a Loophole? How about the Tax Break for buying a Hybrid?

I too would prefer a more streamlined tax code that taxes everyone fairly (We will never agree on what Fair is. I think Fair is that EVERYONE contributes. Those with more pay a slightly higher percentage but absolutely EVERYONE contributes and NOONE has to pay more than 1/3 of what they earn.)

Success is not something that should be discouraged. (And taxing Success at a higher rate is discouragement just like lowering Taxes for something is encouragement)

Agreed. Which is why it will never be an objective (not going to use the word fair) system. It will always be subject to manipulation based on what some interest group or another sees as "right."

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Trent 0]

It always amazed me how people complain about the money or jobs someone else has. Lately, it's focused on CEOs. Sure, I think those salaries are ridiculously high and I think that golden parachute clauses are ridiculous, but the problem isn't that the CEOs are making so much... it's that the board and shareholders allow them to make contracts agreeing to pay like this. The market for top-level executives is competitive and it's become such that huge pay and separation benefits have to be where they are to attract such "top talent". Granted, some of these guys are stupid, crooks, evil, etc... but that's who the board and shareholders hired! If the guy tanks the company, they lose their positions and money in their shares.

I think part of the current problem, and it's happened before, is that people thought that the market was something that you just put money into and it got more money out of it later. Some people forget that when you invest in a company, you assume the risk of losing that investment based on what happens to the company. Same thing happened in real estate. Over the last few years, EVERYONE was some kind of developer, builder, flipper, investor, etc. One of my finance teachers told us that if your mother, father, grandparents, neighbors and friends are all into it... get out! That was sage advice.

As for redistributing wealth, silly. I think that history has shown that every effort at making things equal for everyone only makes everyone worse off. Sure, it sounds great, especially to people who have less or do less, but the long-term effect is that it brings everyone down a few levels and we no longer have the over-achievers that we need for innovation.

I wonder, how much money would our government really lose if they just went to a flat tax with a minimum income level cutoff?

I say cut taxes on investing and corporations to encourage companies to come (back) here and get more jobs out on our market.

Oh, hello again!

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

if you want lower taxes, FIRST cut govt. spending. Everyone gives up something.

kinda shoots a hole in the nationalized health care plan.

Public spending on health in the US was about $2000 per capita in 2004 after combining medicare, medicaid, state children's health insurance, and other programs.

In 2003, countires like the UK with universal health coverage got by on $2300 TOTAL per capita public and private.

Without a profit motive, the government can do better than private industry. I've shipped things via the US postal service for 1/3 the price of Fed-Ex or UPS and gotten better service (shorter wait times and Saturday delivery).

The likelyhood of that actually happening is pretty low though. Just compare what you pay for Social security against it's returns (25-50% income replacement) versus the same money going into a 401K (75-100% income replacement with the ability to leave it to your heirs if you spend less)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So some people have challenges to overcome while others have their granddaddy buy their way into Yale as "legacy admits", and in your mind that's equal opportunity?

It may, or it may not. It depends on interpretation of "equal opportunity" - whether it means "everyone has a chance to get into Yale" or "everyone has _the_same_ chance to get into Yale". But the last was never true since it would require the admittance to be completely random, so I do not see the point.

And it doesn't really matter. Being admitted into Yale does not guarantee anything. People still call GWB a moron despite his Yale experience. Not to mention there is a lot of successful people who have never been admitted into Yale.

Quote

Kids in suburban Illinois high schools have twice as much spent on their education as kids in inner city Chicago, and that's equal opportunity?

This is slightly different. Their parents decided to live in suburban Illinois; they set their priorities. Nobody promised "free equal opportunity".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

if you want lower taxes, FIRST cut govt. spending. Everyone gives up something.

kinda shoots a hole in the nationalized health care plan.

Public spending on health in the US was about $2000 per capita in 2004 after combining medicare, medicaid, state children's health insurance, and other programs.

In 2003, countires like the UK with universal health coverage got by on $2300 TOTAL per capita public and private.

Without a profit motive, the government can do better than private industry. I've shipped things via the US postal service for 1/3 the price of Fed-Ex or UPS and gotten better service (shorter wait times and Saturday delivery).

The likelyhood of that actually happening is pretty low though. Just compare what you pay for Social security against it's returns (25-50% income replacement) versus the same money going into a 401K (75-100% income replacement with the ability to leave it to your heirs if you spend less)

The US Postal Service is the exception to the rule. Everything else the governement touches they royally fuck up.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Butters 0]

Quote

The US Postal Service is the exception to the rule. Everything else the governement touches they royally fuck up.

That's because the United States Postal Service is an authoritarian regime.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The US Postal Service is the exception to the rule.

Good thing they dont issue most of them guns though isnt it.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

The US Postal Service is the exception to the rule.

Good thing they dont issue most of them guns though isnt it.

Can you explain? I'm missing your point.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

The US Postal Service is the exception to the rule. Everything else the governement touches they royally fuck up.

That's because the United States Postal Service is an authoritarian regime.

It can be argued they are a private company with limited goervernment agency powers.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The US Postal Service is the exception to the rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good thing they dont issue most of them guns though isnt it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can you explain? I'm missing your point.

NO....


must not........


do.......



it.....

will.......

not......

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Fine, but don't pretend that every American has the same opportunity. This is NOT an equal opportunity society.

Every American has the same opportunities (but different amounts of work to achieve the opportunity).

You just contradicted yourself.

Your statement is as absurd as saying two marathon runners have the same opportunity to win the race, except one of them has to carry a 100lb weight with him and the other can ride half-way in a car.

What you are doing is adding something else to the problem, doctor. I think you are defining "opportunity" differently. You are, perhaps, seeking only the "opportunity to win" versus the "opportunity to compete." And perhaps "opportunity to win."

See, your argument has two sides. If I understand you correctly, you think it is unfair that somebody could, in effect, be forced to run a notional marathon while getting a ride for half of it when the other competitor has to carry around a 100 pound weight. So, how do you correct this? By giving the 100 pound weight to the other guy and letting that person take a ride halfway? That balances the perceived unfairness with actual unfairness.

This is part and parcel to the problem. The notional marathon runner likely isn't carrying a 100 pound weight with him. Odds are, he's actually carrying 100 pounds of extra weight ON him. He cannot possibly hope to win the marathon, now can he?

There are 45,000 people who competed in the Chicago Marathon on Sunday. Roughly 44,980 of those did so with no hope of winning. Rather, they did it for themselves. A test for themselves. It's a race, yes. But it is true that the point for probably 44,980 people was to run the marathon. Maybe get a personal best. A lot want merely to FINISH it.

I've got a different solution - both of them run their fucking marathons and don't worry about who wins or loses. How about that? The best runner will win. There will not be a 45,000 person TIE. The fastest will not be require to carry to slowest. They will run as they wish to. There will be but one person to finish first (in each class. Yes, wheelchair racers typically have a time WELL below the fastest legged men and women).

There will be another 44,999 who are not losers. We need not feel sorry for all of those people. We need not punish the winner for having the obvious advantage. We need not do anything to alter future results because those Kenyan men keep winning them.

Instead, we clap as they cross the finish line. We appreciate the effort they all made. We can be impressed with the accomplishments of the winners, and be heartened by the efforts of thos who tried to do the feat.

Then again, such a statement as I am making will probably mean that I am a cold, cruel and heartless person..

My wife is hotter than your wife.