Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[dust1n]

I find schooling to be a complex subject which is often over-simplified.
I've no problem with public schools existing, but I see private schools as beneficial too.

Vise versa likewise. As long as their is enough public schools to ensure all of the capability of full education, I could care less how many choose to pay for a different schooling, as long as it meets some basic regulations.

I personally think college should be free, too, though. There should be enough public education to ensure that all willing to go to college for free are able to do so.

 

[waitasec]

I find this an interesting statement. I know many former Cubanos, (having lived in Miami) who lived under a socialist communist government who embrace capitalism with all their heart once they became Americans.

from one extreme to the another...

it's interesting to me because i am married to a swede.
i've visited for long periods of time and witnessed how this "socialist" country works. really it's is a parliamentary democracy. and i laugh when people equate socialism as evil...

i think we should take notice at what it is they're doing right...
i never saw a homeless person. the streets are immaculate no matter where you drive. most middle class families have a summer house
4 week paid vacation in your 1st yr of employment. 18 month paid maternity leave shared between both parents...

These people hold a dear place in my heart. They embrace family values and hard work. They are thriving in Miami and are raising some of the most respectful wonderful children I have ever met.

i agree.
:danana:

 

[Reverend Rick]

It happened already in New Jersey. Family farms which had been there since the revolution are gone now.

But, hey, come on Rick, don't you know that the government can use that land more efficiently and effectively than any private person?

That is it in a nut shell. To much is given, much is expected. The rich should help the poor. I just believe the private sector can accomplish this much better than a shameless wasteful government.

Liberals are only 20% of the populace, but want to control the other 80% of the people.

Until the government can learn to live within it's budget, I do not want to send them one more penny. The problem is not that we pay too little taxes, it is we spend too much money.

The military and entitlements are out of control. We do not even control our own borders. We act as if we are still a world super power, but we would be powerless without borrowing more money.

What this country needs is a balanced budget amendment and the fair tax.

Then we as a country can decide what we want to fund and how much we want to pay for it. As long as we have a credit card with no limit and someone else making the payment for us, people will feel entitled to everything given to them.

Right now, we do not even know what our tax rate is going to be next year. How on earth can I as a businessman make decisions without knowing my obligations?

And then people wonder why unemployment is so high.........

 

[Sunstone]

Personally, I would like to see a liberal give a straightforward, moral argument for having a progressive income tax system at all. Forget the estate tax. Why have a progressive income tax structure, if not to prevent people from becoming wealthy?

It would be different if it were a wealth tax, on the wealthy. But no, the rich do not make their money through a paycheck. So.....why the progressive tax structure? And how is it morally justifiable?

If you want a liberal to argue for a progressive tax, read Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, on progressive taxation. He argues for it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The devil is in the details. If we removed all the tax loopholes for the rich, a flat tax would be progressive.

If every time we raised taxes everyone would pay more, alot of this chicken poop would stop.

It's far to easy to demonise the rich and let people vote to raise others taxes.

We need to be in this together and dispense with the class warfare.

 

[Sunstone]

The devil is in the details. If we removed all the tax loopholes for the rich, a flat tax would be progressive.

Sure it would. And the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale too. Do you care to explain why a flat tax would be progressive?

It's far to easy to demonise the rich and let people vote to raise others taxes.

Who is demonizing the rich? And what do you consider demonizing?

We need to be in this together and dispense with the class warfare.

So does that mean you will encourage the rich to stop the war they began against the middle and lower classes? And how do you plan to go about persuading the Koch brothers and Pete Peterson and the others to stop?

 

[LuisDantas]

The devil is in the details. If we removed all the tax loopholes for the rich, a flat tax would be progressive.

That is indeed the point. "Being rich" is in effect shorthand for "generally having more options available in most situations in life".

Rich people have access to more and better ways of negotiating lesser taxes than poor people do. Not out of malice necessarily, but simply because they are rich. They have access to more options for dealing with taxes, just like they have more options for most anything else.

It is futile to expect people who have after all learned to earn and keep money to suddenly act out of character and make no effort to pay as little tax as they can. They can, they will and they should enact such efforts, and that is why stronger taxes are in fact necessary.

We need to be in this together and dispense with the class warfare.

Class warfare is way too strong a term. Rich and poor people are by definition unequal. It is only fair to say as much.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is indeed the point. "Being rich" is in effect shorthand for "generally having more options available in most situations in life".

I thought "being rich" was shorthand for having more money & property.
Being unwealthy doesn't preclude having a lot of options in life.

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought "being rich" was shorthand for having more money & property.

It is. But hey, why do you think that people crave after money? Help me, what can money possibly be used for anyway?

If you want an example: poor people have less access to transports and research, so they end up paying more than rich people under otherwise equal circunstances. So they end up paying more for pretty much everything that they buy.

And that is before considering things such as political privileges, knowledge about legal resources for paying less, and just plain having the time available to seek better and more rewarding ways of doing things.

So you see, being rich is in effect one and the same thing as being privileged. It does not mean that it happened unfairly, of course.

Being unwealthy doesn't preclude having a lot of options in life.

Not completely, but it certainly limits those options sharply.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you care to explain why a flat tax would be progressive?

I would be glad to. What is the goal of a progressive tax? To have the rich pay more taxes than the poor. When you raise the tax rate for the rich and then turn around and give them loopholes, they end up paying less taxes than the poor in some instances. Removing loopholes is way more important than what rate a person is taxed at. You could tax me at 100% and that would accomplish nothing if I found a loophole and only paid taxes on one dollar.

I'm a bottom line guy. One tax rate for everyone, no loopholes. Yes, the poor might get dinged a little, but they would have more entitlements when the rich finally paid their fair share. It would finally be fair if when you voted for tax increases it effected everyone and not just a few.

I guess I am just old fashioned, I believe in shared sacrifice and fairness.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is. But hey, why do you think that people crave after money? Help me, what can money possibly be used for anyway?

One buys things.

If you want an example: poor people have less access to transports and research, so they end up paying more than rich people under otherwise equal circunstances. So they end up paying more for pretty much everything that they buy.

Why would the poor need access to research? As for travel, the more money I had meant I had more responsibility, so I traveled less.

And that is before considering things such as political privileges, knowledge about legal resources for paying less, and just plain having the time available to seek better and more rewarding ways of doing things.
So you see, being rich is in effect one and the same thing as being privileged. It does not mean that it happened unfairly, of course.

Sure, you can buy bigger houses, travel in greater luxury & eat fancier food. But the poor generally manage to find a
place to live, get where they're going, & eat. Do the rich have it better? Of course, that's why they choose to be rich.
The poor have the option of saving, investing, working hard & exploiting their talents to get rich too...if they want.

 

[Sunstone]

I guess I am just old fashioned, I believe in shared sacrifice and fairness.

So do I. But I think my idea of shared sacrifice and fairness is closer to Adam Smith or Thomas Paine, while yours is closer to some more modern notions.

 

[LuisDantas]

One buys things.

And guess what, being richer allows one access to more, better, more durable and more versatile things. Sounds a lot like having more options to me, don't you agree?

Why would the poor need access to research? As for travel, the more money I had meant I had more responsibility, so I traveled less.

Research includes knowing how best to employ one's money. A sufficiently poor person will have to pay for groceries whatever the closest places demand. A sufficiently rich person will know where to find better deals, will have the storage space and hardware to take advantage of same, and will even have the means to make do without necessarily buying groceries. In fact, he or she might even have the option of getting a better education and therefore (hopefully) earning more money. Wealth begets further wealth. And poverty also feeds upon itself.

Sure, you can buy bigger houses, travel in greater luxury & eat fancier food. But the poor generally manage to find a place to live, get where they're going, & eat. Do the rich have it better? Of course, that's why they choose to be rich.

"Choice" is too strong a word. Poverty, as a rule, is inherited. So is wealth, albeit to a considerably lesser degree.

Being the only (or one of the few) child of a well-to-do family means having an instant and durable advantage over children of strugging couples that must feed four or more brothers besides oneself.

The poor have the option of saving, investing, working hard & exploiting their talents to get rich too...if they want.

That is not exactly false, but it certainly is not true for everyone. Even when it is, extrapersonal circunstances make the degree of choice very variable indeed.

 

[Revoltingest]

And guess what, being richer allows one access to more, better, more durable and more versatile things. Sounds a lot like having more options to me, don't you agree?

That's one way to view it. I don't see the rich as having many more options than I do. We can each buy all the cars we want.
Mine will be fewer, cheaper & older, but that's no real sacrifice....at least not enuf of one to justify taking away their money.

Research includes knowing how best to employ one's money. A sufficiently poor person will have to pay for groceries whatever the closest places demand. A sufficiently rich person will know where to find better deals, will have the storage space and hardware to take advantage of same, and will even have the means to make do without necessarily buying groceries. In fact, he or she might even have the option of getting a better education and therefore (hopefully) earning more money. Wealth begets further wealth. And poverty also feeds upon itself.

How much research is there in buying groceries & hardware?

"Choice" is too strong a word. Poverty, as a rule, is inherited. So is wealth, albeit to a considerably lesser degree.

None of the wealthy people I know inherited it.

Being the only (or one of the few) child of a well-to-do family means having an instant and durable advantage over children of strugging couples that must feed four or more brothers besides oneself.

If you're complaining that life isn't fair, then I agree. Some get more talent, have better parents, live in areas of more opportunity.
Educated & well-to-do parents are yet another advantage. As for the poor who have big families, their bad choice is not my responsibility.

That is not exactly false, but it certainly is not true for everyone. Even when it is, extrapersonal circunstances make the degree of choice very variable indeed.

As with all things in life, success is easier for some than others. This would be true even if you took everyone's money & divided it up evenly.

 

[Sunstone]

Much of this talk about rich and poor fails to take into consideration that the vast majority of Americans are becoming poorer or staying about the same, while the rich get richer. As long you don't take that into consideration, you might as well be discussing water rights in the West of the 1880s for all the relevance your discussion has to today's realities.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Much of this talk about rich and poor fails to take into consideration that the vast majority of Americans are becoming poorer or staying about the same, while the rich get richer. As long you don't take that into consideration, you might as well be discussing water rights in the West of the 1880s for all the relevance your discussion has to today's realities.

I'm sorry Phil, but worring about the rich, (believe me, I'm not getting ahead right now) is no different than a bunch of fundies worrying about the orgy going on up the street.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm sorry Phil, but worring about the rich, (believe me, I'm not getting ahead right now) is no different than a bunch of fundies worrying about the orgy going on up the street.

That would be true if the rich were not trying to use their political clout to screw the majority of people up the ***. It's when someone is trying to screw you up that *** that things get personal, Rick. Not before that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry Phil, but worring about the rich, (believe me, I'm not getting ahead right now) is no different than a bunch of fundies worrying about the orgy going on up the street.

The new Puritan worries that somewhere, someone is making money & buying luxuries.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not being dishonest Matt, are you saying no farms have ever been lost to inheritance taxes?

I'm saying it's very, very rare that a farm can't pay the tax from liquid assets. And I can guarantee you the times it happens, it's not your fairy-tale story of just an honest family trying to work the land. As I pointed out, in 2001 there were no farms that had to be sold to pay the tax.

Numbers? Are you implying that all farms are extremely profitable? You always ignore the risk factor when we are talking about investing or farming.

Huh? What I'm saying is that a farm worth $5 million is likely to be making enough money to cover an estate tax.

Fuel prices, equipment prices, market prices, and weather are all factors. Some years farmers make nothing at all, other years they do better. They don't operate with a weekly pay check.

Thanks for the usual digression that has nothing to do with the discussion.

We can quibble about numbers all you like, farming and especially small farms are not mega money makers by any stretch of the imagination. To tax them like the Paris Hilton's of the world is just plain wrong.

That's why they don't get taxed like the Paris Hiltons of the world. Try again.

Anyone with an ounce of reasoning could take one look at their houses, clothes, and vehicles could determine fairly quickly that they are not wealthy. Yes they own land, but they don't think of it as their personal land, it is something that was given to them, but they pass it along to the next generation. They are more like stewards, not actual owners.

And the people you're describing here have nothing to worry about the estate tax. That's my whole point, which I've supported with evidence that you still seem to be ignoring.

It is a shame anyone would want to take this from them.

Nobody wants to take it from them. Do you realize how much help farms get from the government even aside from the estate tax? Please stop with the lies and misinformation.

 

[Magic Man]

Personally, I would like to see a liberal give a straightforward, moral argument for having a progressive income tax system at all. Forget the estate tax. Why have a progressive income tax structure, if not to prevent people from becoming wealthy?

I'm guessing you've seen it explained before, but you won't accept it due to your bias.

The reason for a progressive tax is that all income is not equally valuable. If you're taking from the money someone uses to buy basic food, clothing and shelter, that's a lot harsher than taking from the money someone uses to buy a boat. With each successive portion of income you make, it gets increasingly less necessary or valuable, and you are more able to contribute more and more without sacrificing anything from your lifestyle.

It's the only real way to raise the money needed to support a decent government.

And your question is just ridiculous. It's not to prevent people from becoming wealthy, as we can see by the fact that the U.S. and pretty much every other industrialized country has a progressive tax system, and there are loads of wealthy people in all of them. Someone making $2 million and paying 36% in tax is still making $1.28 million. I'd hope that would be enough to become wealthy. The person making $1.5 million and paying 33% in taxes is still making $1,005,000. And those numbers are exaggerated for what Americans pay.

It would be different if it were a wealth tax, on the wealthy. But no, the rich do not make their money through a paycheck. So.....why the progressive tax structure? And how is it morally justifiable?

What would you define as wealthy? the progressive tax means you don't have to determine that. It means, the more you make, the more percentage you pay. Someone making $100,000 can pay 20% more easily than someone making $35,000 can pay 10%.