PDA

View Full Version : What percentage of your earnings do you think is fair to pay in Federal Taxes?


so.cal.fan
09-20-2011, 03:03 PM
I am willing to pay 25%. I live in California, so I also have to pay state taxes.
I still think 25% if a fair share for everyone.

How about you guys?

DJofSD
09-20-2011, 03:07 PM
10% - they want to act like a religion, that's all they deserve.

so.cal.fan
09-20-2011, 03:18 PM
DJ,
I'm an advocate of a 10% flat takeout both in the mutual pools and what we pay the IRS on a big hit, we should not have to report our winnings. We are already taxed enough!

As for Federal Tax, I would like about 20%, but 25% is probably fair.

I would like to hear from Mr. Mostpost on this question? I'm interested in your opinion here.

LottaKash
09-20-2011, 03:25 PM
This debate has been going on for as long as I can remember, and during one of those times, someone did the math, and this is what he gave:

A 10% tax paid by "ALL" parties living and doing business in the U.S, would simply have the National Treasury "overflowing" with kash....ALL !

So why isn't that being feasibly done ?....."GREED" is why, and because of it, it will never happen....:D

best,

boxcar
09-20-2011, 03:28 PM
10% - they want to act like a religion, that's all they deserve.

Not only that, but it worked for God, so I don't know why it wouldn't work for mere mortals. :lol:

Boxcar

Jeff P
09-20-2011, 04:42 PM
I am a reasonable man. I personally don't mind paying as high as 20% to 25%... with one condition:

When, I as a reasonable man, look at what government (at ALL levels) does with our tax money - I see it being wasted. Just to be clear, by "wasted" I mean I see government (again at all levels) spending money in a manner that is no different than LITERALLY THROWING IT AWAY.

As a reasonable man, I vote that government at all levels do everything in its power first to downsize itself (just like companies and households in the private sector have to when money becomes tight) and stop throwing tax money collected from its citizens away.

After doing that - and ONLY after doing that - should government at any level even consider raising taxes.



-jp

.

HUSKER55
09-20-2011, 04:45 PM
OBVIOUSLY, some of us, (libs, dems) are not that smart.:D

ask them who pays the bills, payroll included, for government workers.

Robert Goren
09-20-2011, 04:52 PM
I believe in a graduated income tax. The richer you the more you pay. That is fair because the richer you are the more you benefits recieve from the government.

TJDave
09-20-2011, 05:22 PM
If my government were honest then whatever was truly needed would be fair.

It isn't...

So whatever it asks for is too much.

so.cal.fan
09-20-2011, 05:32 PM
Robert G?
How do you figure the wealthy get more from the government?
I suppose if they are government workers or politicians this is true.

We are certainly not wealthy, however, here in Calif. we pay well over 30% in taxes, including our State of Calif. taxes.
We don't get much from the Government......never have.

Your comment doesn't make sense, at least here in Calif. it doesn't.
Please tell me where I'm wrong here?

DJofSD
09-20-2011, 05:36 PM
I believe in a graduated income tax. The richer you the more you pay. That is fair because the richer you are the more you benefits recieve from the government.
What screwed up logic.

ArlJim78
09-20-2011, 05:52 PM
the rich get the benefit of paying for government.

Valuist
09-20-2011, 05:53 PM
20%. Have a 20% VAT and eliminate the personal income tax. Our current tax system is too complicated. If you itemize, you either must buy Turbo Tax or take it to an accountant. And by eliminating the income tax, you eliminate loopholes, and you also disincentivize illegals who come here and pay no income tax. Everybody pays based on consumption.

serp
09-20-2011, 06:25 PM
I do not have an answer but I see problems with both.

I see the appeal of a flat tax and the folly of giving the government more money. It's a nice dream to believe that everyone can work hard and get ahead and make their millions.

I also see the great inequality with the current distribution of wealth. The top 10% have 74% of the wealth and the bottom 40% have <1%. That was in 2001 and the trend shows it is growing worse. This top % have well more than they are going to distribute by normal means of spending. And we are not using our personal wealth to create jobs. We are using that wealth to gain more power, control, and money.

At some point, when so few have such a high percentage of wealth it is bad for the economy in a capitalist system.

So if a progressive tax is not the answer.. what is? I'm fully willing to accept that it is not the answer. But I think that there needs to be an answer for this before we toss it out.

DJofSD
09-20-2011, 06:30 PM
I also see the great inequality with the current distribution of wealth.

What a curious turn of a phrase. I think it reveals a lot. None of it good.

Zydeco
09-20-2011, 06:31 PM
I am sorry but I don't want to give a quarter of what I earn to anybody or anything.

rgustafson
09-20-2011, 06:35 PM
Check out the video on this site: www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org) and post thoughts on this approach.

Robert Goren
09-20-2011, 06:37 PM
Robert G?
How do you figure the wealthy get more from the government?
I suppose if they are government workers or politicians this is true.

We are certainly not wealthy, however, here in Calif. we pay well over 30% in taxes, including our State of Calif. taxes.
We don't get much from the Government......never have.

Your comment doesn't make sense, at least here in Calif. it doesn't.
Please tell me where I'm wrong here? Because if the government wasn't there to protect them, they would have the most to lose. If it was not for the government there would be no large companies. Small groups of armed men take over everything. The leaders of the those groups would be killed by one of their own looking move up every so often. Take a look at Somalia to see what happens when there is no government. They are lots of poor people, but no rich people. You can debate what you think the government should or should not do if you want, but one thing is clear, no government equals no rich people. No government does not equal no poor people.

Steve 'StatMan'
09-20-2011, 07:25 PM
Because if the government wasn't there to protect them, they would have the most to lose. If it was not for the government there would be no large companies. Small groups of armed men take over everything. The leaders of the those groups would be killed by one of their own looking move up every so often. Take a look at Somalia to see what happens when there is no government. They are lots of poor people, but no rich people. You can debate what you think the government should or should not do if you want, but one thing is clear, no government equals no rich people. No government does not equal no poor people.

Robert, do you think the former rich people of Somilia are stupid? I'm pretty certain they most got the hell out, or are long dead. Now it's all the broke bastards fighting it out for what's left.

Steve 'StatMan'
09-20-2011, 07:40 PM
I do not have an answer but I see problems with both.

I see the appeal of a flat tax and the folly of giving the government more money. It's a nice dream to believe that everyone can work hard and get ahead and make their millions.

I also see the great inequality with the current distribution of wealth. The top 10% have 74% of the wealth and the bottom 40% have <1%. That was in 2001 and the trend shows it is growing worse. This top % have well more than they are going to distribute by normal means of spending. And we are not using our personal wealth to create jobs. We are using that wealth to gain more power, control, and money.

At some point, when so few have such a high percentage of wealth it is bad for the economy in a capitalist system.

So if a progressive tax is not the answer.. what is? I'm fully willing to accept that it is not the answer. But I think that there needs to be an answer for this before we toss it out.

I really don't see how the bottom 40%, who may very well have <1% of the wealth, will ever have more than that if they aren't working or able to invest. Some may work, but most do are unemployled due to disability, age-retired (some may have good retirement plans, others didn't/couldn't save), lack of available jobs, or choose not to work, some without collecting welfare & umenmployment, for some unemployment pays more than the available jobs, others purelty living off of it and/or welfare, in some cases for generations. While that will get people by, it won't help them generate any wealth. How could that number possibly change, without overpaying people who are working (lots of replacements waiting out there, except for many union positions due to agreements and union members and/or their paid agitors.)

I'm not wealthy, never will be. I'm rather unkeen about stupidly high CEO salaries. And while some may begrudge others that have a lot of money and the things they can buy or afford to do, I don't - I really don't want most of the things they have or want to do the things they can do. Frankly, while were lucky for some of the well to do that runs business that keep some of us employed (like me, grateful for it, the man doesn't need the money and/or losses), some of us are also lucky that many of the well to do like to buy all kinds of expensive things and meals that people really just don't need - and that too give a bunch more of us a lot of jobs. If the rich lived as frugually as myself and many I know, things would be so much worse - we'd have sank as a country long ago.

newtothegame
09-20-2011, 08:06 PM
Because if the government wasn't there to protect them, they would have the most to lose. If it was not for the government there would be no large companies. Small groups of armed men take over everything. The leaders of the those groups would be killed by one of their own looking move up every so often. Take a look at Somalia to see what happens when there is no government. They are lots of poor people, but no rich people. You can debate what you think the government should or should not do if you want, but one thing is clear, no government equals no rich people. No government does not equal no poor people.
Robert, I dont think so cal asked did you want government..lol but I can see why and how you would want to turn the discussion that way.
The question was how much would you want to pay in taxes....your answer...the rich should pay more because they get more. Fact is, they get more in REGULATIONS. They do NOT get more in the form of security (so your Somalia argument is DOA).
No one ever said we didnt need SOME government. Why is it so hard for you on the left to understand that the more money the government acquires, the LARGER it gets. It's a never ending monster that needs to be fed with TAXES.
As to the original question...I have no problem paying taxes. But, here are the stipulations to my answer...
1. The government waste has got to get under control.
2. EVERYONE pays the same amount.
3. TRANSPARENCY in goverment so WE ALL know where our money is being spent.

Steve 'StatMan'
09-20-2011, 08:07 PM
As for my percentage, I'd love it to be 10%-15% for every wager earner, but I don't know that we'd get the deficit down at that rare. I really can't see it being more than 20% though. With state taxes, and high sales taxes (10.5%-11.5%) where I live, etc. gads I hate that it over 18%.

mostpost
09-20-2011, 08:10 PM
DJ,
I'm an advocate of a 10% flat takeout both in the mutual pools and what we pay the IRS on a big hit, we should not have to report our winnings. We are already taxed enough!

As for Federal Tax, I would like about 20%, but 25% is probably fair.

I would like to hear from Mr. Mostpost on this question? I'm interested in your opinion here.

I am in favor of a graduated income tax, therefore what I would be willing to pay would depend upon what I am earning at the time. Lest you think I am avoiding the question, my top rate now is 25%. I think 28% for that bracket is fair. But only if proportional increases are imposed on other brackets.

During the 1960's the top tax bracket paid 70%. There were like 12 billion brackets. How did that effect the economy? Average annual GDP growth was 4.44%. Highest rate in any of the last six decades. Almost three times the growth of the last decade.

By contrast we are now in the era of low taxes and the last decade has seen the lowest taxes of all. Result? We can't pay for anything and the economy is the worst it has been in decades. GDP growth average is 1.69%

Current tax brackets: proposed change in red
Taxable Income Tax
$0 – $8,500 10% of taxable income same
$8,500 – $34,500 $850 plus 15% of excess over $8,500 same
$34,500 – $83,600 $4,750 plus 25% of excess over $34,500 28%
$83,600 – $174,400 $17,025 plus 28% of excess over $83,600 30%
$174,400 – $379,150 $42,449 plus 33% of excess over $174,40035%
$379,150+ $110,016.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150 37% to 400,000

$400,000 to $1M= 42%
$1M to $5m= 48%
$5m+ = 55%

These rates are not nearly as high as the rates of the sixties and we did very well in the sixties

TJDave
09-20-2011, 08:13 PM
What a curious turn of a phrase. I think it reveals a lot. None of it good.

Whatever you might think of wealth redistribution it will happen. It's what all revolutions have been fought over. We are not immune.

It would probably be best for the wealthy if they were to decide the how and when. Of course, that's not the way it usually works. ;)

Steve 'StatMan'
09-20-2011, 08:22 PM
During the 1960's the top tax bracket paid 70%. There were like 12 billion brackets. How did that effect the economy? Average annual GDP growth was 4.44%. Highest rate in any of the last six decades. Almost three times the growth of the last decade.

Who in their right mind would work hard at something difficult that paid high and give 70% of that to the government? I think this board has had this argument before. I'm sure if possible, that's how a business owner's sons, daughters, nieces and nephews, etc all ended up on the company payroll, whether they did much at the company or not. Spread that money around that one might do anyway, at least tax-wise, and maybe take the rest in stock or plow it back into the business, anything instead of taking it as salary.

HUSKER55
09-20-2011, 08:32 PM
If you work smart, and you work hard, and you make good money, why should you pay for someone who did neither?

RaceBookJoe
09-20-2011, 08:45 PM
If you work smart, and you work hard, and you make good money, why should you pay for someone who did neither?

+1 rbj

mostpost
09-20-2011, 10:47 PM
Who in their right mind would work hard at something difficult that paid high and give 70% of that to the government? I think this board has had this argument before. I'm sure if possible, that's how a business owner's sons, daughters, nieces and nephews, etc all ended up on the company payroll, whether they did much at the company or not. Spread that money around that one might do anyway, at least tax-wise, and maybe take the rest in stock or plow it back into the business, anything instead of taking it as salary.

Exactly! That is why the 60's were prosperous in spite of high taxes. People knew they could not keep all their earnings so they invested it in their businesses. They hired workers. They paid better wages. They expanded. They did not expand because they anticipated better sales. They expanded to meet the demand created by customers who had jobs and were earning good wages.

Then, in 1981, the war on the middle class began. It was downhill from then.
By decade here is the average increase in GDP

50's 4.17%
60's 4.44%
70's 3.26%
80's 3.05% Big tax drops under Reagan
90's 3.20% Higher taxes under Clinton
00's 1.69% lowest taxes under Bush.

Sorry I don't have a chart, maybe hcap can work one up and drive bigmack crazy. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

chickenhead
09-20-2011, 11:16 PM
transition to a 100% VAT model over a decade or three. Rejigger rates once in awhile so that revenue as % of GDP is relatively constant at around 17.5% (the remarkably consistent average from 1950 onwards.)

People are bitching a lot about taxes because personal finances are so bad, not because Federal intake from the private sector have gone up. Federal income as % of GDP is at 50 year lows.

Steve 'StatMan'
09-20-2011, 11:48 PM
Exactly! That is why the 60's were prosperous in spite of high taxes. People knew they could not keep all their earnings so they invested it in their businesses. They hired workers. They paid better wages. They expanded. They did not expand because they anticipated better sales. They expanded to meet the demand created by customers who had jobs and were earning good wages.

Then, in 1981, the war on the middle class began. It was downhill from then.
By decade here is the average increase in GDP

50's 4.17%
60's 4.44%
70's 3.26%
80's 3.05% Big tax drops under Reagan
90's 3.20% Higher taxes under Clinton
00's 1.69% lowest taxes under Bush.

Sorry I don't have a chart, maybe hcap can work one up and drive bigmack crazy. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But how long did people keep putting it back into the business, under a tax situation that would punish them by taking twice what the person who worked so hard received after taxes - how long do you plow it back in and have it be successful but too costly to take, or it finally becomes unprofitable, and they lose some or all of what they built up?

Yes, a job has a paycheck but one can lose a job. And one can put many tens or hundreds of thousands into a business and may or may not ever see a profit, although they pay the workers their wagers. There has to be a reward for the risk, or else we'll all just work for the few that want to own/run a business, and the rest just back off and hold onto their money safely and don't create jobs while taking on the risk.

Tom
09-21-2011, 12:51 AM
9% tops.
And I want a re-call options on every office, and single term limits.
And....mandatory balance budget - if we don't have the cash, we do without it.
Any damn fool can spend trillions we do not have - just look at the idiot in the WH today! Leaders are those who can decide what "it" is. We have not had one in DC in years.

mostpost
09-21-2011, 01:39 AM
But how long did people keep putting it back into the business, under a tax situation that would punish them by taking twice what the person who worked so hard received after taxes - how long do you plow it back in and have it be successful but too costly to take, or it finally becomes unprofitable, and they lose some or all of what they built up?

Yes, a job has a paycheck but one can lose a job. And one can put many tens or hundreds of thousands into a business and may or may not ever see a profit, although they pay the workers their wagers. There has to be a reward for the risk, or else we'll all just work for the few that want to own/run a business, and the rest just back off and hold onto their money safely and don't create jobs while taking on the risk.
Apparently it worked very well for a very long time. My post above only took us back to 1950, but data from 1930 to 1949 is equally impressive. After four bad years as a result of the Great Depression, GDP soared averaging a 7.75% annual gain for the next 16 years. True WWII was in that era, but even taking out the war years the average was more than 5.5% per annum.
Taxes in the 30's and 40's? Low of 63% in 1932-high of 94% in 1944.

And we do not know how long this could have continued. We do know that as soon as we lowered taxes in the eighties the economy got worse. GDP growth dropped to half what it was in the 30's and 40's. Unemployment reached higher levels than any time since the Great Depression. Wages stagnated. Purchasing power dropped.

Time and again I have documented this. Times of prosperity coincide with times of higher taxes. Times of prosperity coincide with times of strong unions. It's right there in the numbers for anyone to see. Look at the years of higher tax rates. Then look at the growth of the economy as shown be the GDP. Look at the employment and unemployment rates. Check to see how average wages grew from year to year. Compare that to the situation we are in now and you cannot possibly think that lower taxes will create jobs.

Yet, I know that all of you will ignore this evidence because it does not fit in with your cherished principles. Principles which are just so much hogwash. :bang:

bigmack
09-21-2011, 01:52 AM
Yet, I know that all of you will ignore this evidence because it does not fit in with your cherished principles. Principles which are just so much hogwash.
Most telling, this latest technique of you, hcrap, Maddow & Co. to go to the vault. Back in history they go....

Do you honestly think people are stupid enough to buy into the data you just shared without realizing the VAST amount of other data, nuance, world/country events that might very well show your numbers in a completely different light?

Nah, I didn't think so. Just like hcrap and his GW charts/figures. Bupkus.

turninforhome10
09-21-2011, 01:58 AM
"No one ever said we didnt need SOME government. Why is it so hard for you on the left to understand that the more money the government acquires, the LARGER it gets. It's a never ending monster that needs to be fed with TAXES".
Quote from Newtothegame

Any Proof or just a general statement?

highnote
09-21-2011, 02:18 AM
I think zero tax sounds about right. The Sixteenth Amendment was passed to overcome the constitutional barrier of income taxes. It was was passed by all the states in 1913.

The U.S. got along fine for over a hundred years without taxes. Look at the messes the U.S. has gotten into since she started to collect federal income taxes. Two world wars, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, Afghanistan War.

It's hard to know what would have happened without taxes, but we do know what has happened since taxes.

newtothegame
09-21-2011, 02:28 AM
"No one ever said we didnt need SOME government. Why is it so hard for you on the left to understand that the more money the government acquires, the LARGER it gets. It's a never ending monster that needs to be fed with TAXES".
Quote from Newtothegame

Any Proof or just a general statement?

Do you REALLY need for me to show you that the size of government has INCREASED? Really?
What part of the above quote you took from me did you not understand? I will gladly discuss any of it you wish!

newtothegame
09-21-2011, 02:36 AM
Lets see, I think last year the government payroll was at its highest point. here is a nice little chart to illustrate where we were in 2008 and where we are headed in 2018........

Table 3. Employment of wage and salary workers in Federal Government, 2008 and projected change, 2008-2018.


(Employment in thousands)Occupation





Employment, 2008

Percent Change,
2008-18

Number

Percent

All Occupations

2,016.8

100.0

9.5



Management, business, and financial occupations





680.0

33.7

14.0

Buyers and purchasing agents

31.3

1.6

18.4

Claims adjusters, examiners, and investigators

43.5

2.2

19.5

Logisticians

24.5

1.2

18.3

Management analysts

50.0

2.5

8.6

Tax examiners, collectors, and revenue agents

31.4

1.6

19.5



Professional and related occupations





669.3

33.2

9.7

Computer specialists

76.3

3.8

8.0

Engineers

92.3

4.6

9.0

Biological scientists

25.4

1.3

16.0

Physical scientists

32.4

1.6

6.8

Economists

4.5

0.2

-1.3

Lawyers

31.8

1.6

8.6

Judges, magistrates, and other judicial workers

3.6

0.2

7.5

Registered nurses

62.2

3.1

14.1



Office and administrative support occupations





272.7

13.5

-3.9

Financial clerks

38.3

1.9

5.8

Eligibility interviewers, government programs

27.5

1.4

8.6

Secretaries and administrative assistants

28.9

1.4

-0.9

NOTE: Columns may not add to total due to omission of occupations with small employment.
SOURCE: BLS National Employment Matrix, 2008-18.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

Now if you can show me where our government has been shrinking, I will be glad to look at it......

Or,. is your argument that the government does not need taxes to feed itself?

newtothegame
09-21-2011, 02:44 AM
Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue

Since 1965, spending has risen constantly. Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession, but spending has reached a record high.

INFLATION-ADJUSTED TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS (2010)



http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue)



Above is a link showing a nice chart with the growth in federal spending since 1965.......incredible!

newtothegame
09-21-2011, 02:49 AM
I wonder how much the government WASTE???

How much does the U.S. government waste yearly? $125 billion

From fraud to honest mistakes, federal agencies report an overall error rate of 5 percent in their spending


February 19, 2011|By Sally Kestin, Sun Sentinel
What: Improper payments in federal programs

How much: $125 billion

Who's responsible: Federal and state agencies and dishonest or misinformed citizens

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-02-19/news/fl-federal-government-waste-20110219_1_medicare-fraud-federal-agencies-error-rate

And this is what they ADMIT too......how much is it really???

turninforhome10
09-21-2011, 02:52 AM
Or,. is your argument that the government does not need taxes to feed itself?

How else would a government fund itself. If what you are trying to prove is that government has not grown proportionally with the private sector then that is the data you would use something like this
http://oregoncatalyst.com/2631-Must-see-chart.-Private-vs.-Government-job-growth.html
Prove that even the hippies in Oregon are tired of this.
or this
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127628/Federal-Government-Outpaces-Private-Sector-Job-Creation.aspx

Your data cannot prove that government growth outpaces private growth.
Government should not be a job creator unless it is providing essential service. What is an essential service is what separates the right from the left. An here it seems the Neo right from the middle right.

My problem is that we are replacing sound legislation written by honest men and woman for trash written by K-Street that it is so full of loop holes the need for a regulatory agency presents itself. When agencies are born, they die very slowly. If Washington cannot provide us with this then we should bring as much to a local level that it can be done. My whole stance has become with taking care of our cities, counties and states and keeping things local. Why should I keep funding a company that is so inept at performing its function. If big government cant't do it, then give it back to the little people.
Why should I send money to Washington to help pay welfare for a crack whore in California, when for the same money I could take care of crack whore in my own neighborhood and not worry about her robbing my house.

turninforhome10
09-21-2011, 03:07 AM
The right attacking the right. 3 posts for a simple question.

newtothegame
09-21-2011, 03:48 AM
The right attacking the right. 3 posts for a simple question.

Yes, you're right. You question A LOT of us who are on the "right" in this forum.
Doesnt matter to me either way, as I like the discussion.
But NO WHERE did I mention the government in relation to the private sector (in terms of its growth).
My initial post was about government growth in general. And was in referrence to the ORIGINAL topic as to how much I would consider to be fair.
And, I stick to the three things I mentioned.
As this government has grown, it has gotten WAY OUT OF CONTROL.
When we can somehow justify spending millions to study the gay habits of some south american male.....well WE ARE OUT OF CONTROL.
When our own government ADMITS to 5% waste...well enough said. Then to turn around and ask me for a few more percentage points, when they ADMIT THEY WASTE 5% percentage points....well you can figure where I am going with this.

newtothegame
09-21-2011, 03:53 AM
Or,. is your argument that the government does not need taxes to feed itself?

How else would a government fund itself. If what you are trying to prove is that government has not grown proportionally with the private sector then that is the data you would use something like this
http://oregoncatalyst.com/2631-Must-see-chart.-Private-vs.-Government-job-growth.html
Prove that even the hippies in Oregon are tired of this.
or this
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127628/Federal-Government-Outpaces-Private-Sector-Job-Creation.aspx

Your data cannot prove that government growth outpaces private growth.
Government should not be a job creator unless it is providing essential service. What is an essential service is what separates the right from the left. An here it seems the Neo right from the middle right.

My problem is that we are replacing sound legislation written by honest men and woman for trash written by K-Street that it is so full of loop holes the need for a regulatory agency presents itself. When agencies are born, they die very slowly. If Washington cannot provide us with this then we should bring as much to a local level that it can be done. My whole stance has become with taking care of our cities, counties and states and keeping things local. Why should I keep funding a company that is so inept at performing its function. If big government cant't do it, then give it back to the little people.
Why should I send money to Washington to help pay welfare for a crack whore in California, when for the same money I could take care of crack whore in my own neighborhood and not worry about her robbing my house.

I agree with most everything you said. I much prefer the "local" route versus "federal"...(as pointed out by my post). I think the feds have gotten way out of control. And now, must fleece it's citizens to provide for itself.
Meanwhile, that crack whore is still down the street from you as our government would prefer to spend millions to study gay mating habits of south american men!

so.cal.fan
09-21-2011, 02:00 PM
Thanks for posting these charts and links, newtothegame.
Depressing, but we need to know.
:bang:

gm10
09-21-2011, 04:53 PM
I am willing to pay 25%. I live in California, so I also have to pay state taxes.
I still think 25% if a fair share for everyone.

How about you guys?

We pay about 35% here in the UK but I think it's better much better in countries like Germany, Denmark or Belgium where taxes are closer to 45%. I'm not claiming that the extra 10% doesn't contain a bit of waste, but the extra money does create a much fairer society in terms of health care, education, pensions, etc.

so.cal.fan
09-21-2011, 05:05 PM
I notice a lot of you have mentioned this. It sounds good, but what would be the drawbacks?

JustRalph
09-21-2011, 05:12 PM
We pay about 35% here in the UK but I think it's better much better in countries like Germany, Denmark or Belgium where taxes are closer to 45%. I'm not claiming that the extra 10% doesn't contain a bit of waste, but the extra money does create a much fairer society in terms of health care, education, pensions, etc.

don't you mean a society where no one is allowed to excel above their brethren? A society where dancing on the edge of socialism is the real goal?

bigmack
09-21-2011, 05:19 PM
I notice a lot of you have mentioned this. It sounds good, but what would be the drawbacks?
It basically turns the tables on this "pay your fair share" quip being floated about.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/flattax.png
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/pros-cons-flat-tax-4210.html

gm10
09-21-2011, 05:27 PM
don't you mean a society where no one is allowed to excel above their brethren? A society where dancing on the edge of socialism is the real goal?

No I don't mean that. Those taxes (help) pay for essential services that everybody is going to need at some point. Who doesn't need health care, education, a pension, child care? Making it available to everyone is fair, and levels the playing field.

Also, may I point out that those countries have lower unemployment rates than the USA? You could argue that the people there get more chances at self-development.

mostpost
09-21-2011, 05:33 PM
I wonder how much the government WASTE???

How much does the U.S. government waste yearly? $125 billion

From fraud to honest mistakes, federal agencies report an overall error rate of 5 percent in their spending


February 19, 2011|By Sally Kestin, Sun Sentinel
What: Improper payments in federal programs

How much: $125 billion

Who's responsible: Federal and state agencies and dishonest or misinformed citizens

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-02-19/news/fl-federal-government-waste-20110219_1_medicare-fraud-federal-agencies-error-rate

And this is what they ADMIT too......how much is it really???

5% is good. Business writes off 6%
http://businessdate.com/articles/articleA9.htm

That's not to say they shouldn't try to improve.

NJ Stinks
09-21-2011, 06:19 PM
No I don't mean that. Those taxes (help) pay for essential services that everybody is going to need at some point. Who doesn't need health care, education, a pension, child care? Making it available to everyone is fair, and levels the playing field.

Also, may I point out that those countries have lower unemployment rates than the USA? You could argue that the people there get more chances at self-development.

GM10, what you say is obviously true. The amazing thing here in Off Topic is that many of these righties don't even want somebody else's mother to get a social security check to live on. Let alone healthcare if the aforementioned mother cannot afford it.

The 'enlightened' ones here believe Europe is a welfare state worthy only of contempt. They don't know what good is IMO.

hcap
09-21-2011, 06:31 PM
We pay about 35% here in the UK but I think it's better much better in countries like Germany, Denmark or Belgium where taxes are closer to 45%. I'm not claiming that the extra 10% doesn't contain a bit of waste, but the extra money does create a much fairer society in terms of health care, education, pensions, etc.

Ger ready for be called a commie.
Boxcar and a few others have you in their sights already :cool:

boxcar
09-21-2011, 07:29 PM
No I don't mean that. Those taxes (help) pay for essential services that everybody is going to need at some point. Who doesn't need health care, education, a pension, child care? Making it available to everyone is fair, and levels the playing field.

Also, may I point out that those countries have lower unemployment rates than the USA? You could argue that the people there get more chances at self-development.

Why don't you toss in even the more fundamental items, such as food, clothing and housing. Those are needs, also. Don't you think it's very unfair that any of us have to work for these things?

Boxcar

boxcar
09-21-2011, 07:30 PM
Ger ready for be called a commie.
Boxcar and a few others have you in their sights already :cool:

Do you mean in my cross hairs? :D I have already scored a direct hit.

Boxcar

boxcar
09-21-2011, 07:33 PM
GM10, what you say is obviously true. The amazing thing here in Off Topic is that many of these righties don't even want somebody else's mother to get a social security check to live on. Let alone healthcare if the aforementioned mother cannot afford it.

The 'enlightened' ones here believe Europe is a welfare state worthy only of contempt. They don't know what good is IMO.

I do!

Mark 10:18
18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
NASB

The implications to Jesus' statement are rather profound, btw.

Boxcar

HUSKER55
09-21-2011, 09:35 PM
years back when Bob Dole was running for president he claimed that if all businesses paid a flat tax of 4% he would be happy because the majority of all business paid way less than that and most none at all. This came out in one of his debates.

Wasn't he the one that wanted a national sales tax to fund social security and medicare. Theory was everyone paid and no one was exempt and he wanted no body to mess with it.

Wasn't it Bob Dole? Does anyone remember?

Actor
09-22-2011, 04:13 AM
9% tops.God can work miracles. If He wants 10% then the government definitely needs more! :lol:

Actor
09-22-2011, 04:16 AM
What about a flat tax across the board with no loopholesNo loopholes? Yeah, that will happen. :bang:

Actor
09-22-2011, 04:18 AM
I am sorry but I don't want to give a quarter of what I earn to anybody or anything.You don't have to give it. They take it. :lol:

Actor
09-22-2011, 04:29 AM
Check out the video on this site: www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org) and post thoughts on this approach.As I understand it the "fair tax" idea is to replace the income tax with a national sales tax.

During recessions people don't have as much and don't spend as much, causing a shortage of revenue at a time when the needs more. People can cut back spending but they will always try to earn as much as possible.
It is wise for governments, just like people, to diversify their income streams. You can't depend on just a national sales tax to fund government.
It won't last. Even if the income tax were replaced by a sales tax, Congress would eventually (and I think quickly) bring back the income tax. Then we have both a sales tax and an income tax, putting us basically back where we started.

newtothegame
09-22-2011, 04:39 AM
We pay about 35% here in the UK but I think it's better much better in countries like Germany, Denmark or Belgium where taxes are closer to 45%. I'm not claiming that the extra 10% doesn't contain a bit of waste, but the extra money does create a much fairer society in terms of health care, education, pensions, etc.
So the "extra" 10% provides for healthcare, education, pensions, etc etc....???
What does the initial 35% provide for???
Next, if you openly admit the "extra" 10% contains waste? How much waste does the initial 35% have?? Why wouldnt it be better to eliminate the waste in the initial 35% and not be charged the additional 10% at all??
Simple math!!!

Actor
09-22-2011, 04:59 AM
The current Federal budget is about $3 trillion. The work force is about 200 million. The government needs $15,000 per worker. Median income is $50,000. Ergo, the government needs 30%.

However, 40% of the work force pay no taxes because they are too poor. That makes the work force 120 million. Something like $20,000 of personal income is not taxed due to exemptions and deductions, making taxable median income $30,000. The government needs $25,000 per worker. The government needs 83% of your taxable income. Taxable income is adjusted gross income less exemptions and deductions.

newtothegame
09-22-2011, 05:06 AM
No I don't mean that. Those taxes (help) pay for essential services that everybody is going to need at some point. Who doesn't need health care, education, a pension, child care? Making it available to everyone is fair, and levels the playing field.

Also, may I point out that those countries have lower unemployment rates than the USA? You could argue that the people there get more chances at self-development.

in 2011 France was reported as 9.5%
Germany 6.0, Greece 16.6, Ireland 14.0, Albania 13.4, Austria 4.3, Belgium 7.3, Bulgaria 11.2, Croatia 16.8, Cyprus 7.4, Denmark 7.4, estonia 13.8, Finland 7.8, Hungary 10.0, Iceland 7.6, Ireland 14.0, Italy 8.1, Latvia 16.2, Lithuania 16.3, Luxembourg 4.5, Malta 6.2, Moldova 9.1, Netherlands 4.2, Norway 3.4, poland 9.2, ......I could go on with em all ......point is your statement is WRONG. Some countries in Europe have lower unemployment rates. Some are MUCH higher as well. Then, you have to take into account how those figures are derived. I have TWO moldovans who work with me. They assure me it is NO WHERE near the 9.1 listed. That's why they are here!!!
Self development?? Please explain??

newtothegame
09-22-2011, 05:08 AM
The current Federal budget is about $3 trillion. The work force is about 200 million. The government needs $15,000 per worker. Median income is $50,000. Ergo, the government needs 30%.

However, 40% of the work force pay no taxes because they are too poor. That makes the work force 120 million. Something like $20,000 of personal income is not taxed due to exemptions and deductions, making taxable median income $30,000. The government needs $25,000 per worker. The government needs 83% of your taxable income. Taxable income is adjusted gross income less exemptions and deductions.

Ahh but you are wrong sir actor......once they start collecting that much, they will need to hire more IRS people, which will cause the government to grow more and need more in taxes!!~! lol

Tom
09-22-2011, 11:05 AM
congress doesn't need more money - they need a realistic budget that begins with what they have to spend and goes from there.

You know, like it is done in the real world.
By those of us who work and contribute.

gm10
09-22-2011, 06:09 PM
So the "extra" 10% provides for healthcare, education, pensions, etc etc....???
What does the initial 35% provide for???
Next, if you openly admit the "extra" 10% contains waste? How much waste does the initial 35% have?? Why wouldnt it be better to eliminate the waste in the initial 35% and not be charged the additional 10% at all??
Simple math!!!

Sure there is an efficiency factor that cannot be neglected. What costs 10% could probably be achieved by spending only 8%. That is not my main argument, though. I'd rather have social safety nets, quality healthcare that everyone can afford, access to proper education regardless of background, than be 10% richer myself.

Anyway, taxes often earn themselves back. A great example are trains. The UK has refused to invest in them and ended up with a hopelessly outdated infrastructure that costs both individuals and businesses a lot of money. On the Continent, they kept the system central, diverted tax money towards it, and they ended up with a reliable and modern infrastructure that is an asset rather than a liability. Privatizing trains is stupid anyway, the free market doesn't apply.

gm10
09-22-2011, 06:32 PM
in 2011 France was reported as 9.5%
Germany 6.0, Greece 16.6, Ireland 14.0, Albania 13.4, Austria 4.3, Belgium 7.3, Bulgaria 11.2, Croatia 16.8, Cyprus 7.4, Denmark 7.4, estonia 13.8, Finland 7.8, Hungary 10.0, Iceland 7.6, Ireland 14.0, Italy 8.1, Latvia 16.2, Lithuania 16.3, Luxembourg 4.5, Malta 6.2, Moldova 9.1, Netherlands 4.2, Norway 3.4, poland 9.2, ......I could go on with em all ......point is your statement is WRONG. Some countries in Europe have lower unemployment rates. Some are MUCH higher as well. Then, you have to take into account how those figures are derived. I have TWO moldovans who work with me. They assure me it is NO WHERE near the 9.1 listed. That's why they are here!!!
Self development?? Please explain??

I have. I don't know about Moldova, but I know about old Europe (france, Germany, Benelux) on account of having been raised there. You can get jobs, acquire as much wealth as you could ever need, and get proper social security. My opinion: taxes and quality of life (as felt by the entire population) are positively correlated.

Child care is another great example. In the UK, there is very little child support from the state. IF you want to have a job, you need to send your child in to nursery for 5 years, and it will cost you $2000 dollars a month. If you have two children, it doesn't make a lot of financial sense to have a job. The state will give you a minimum income and free rent anyway.

On the other hand, I talked to some family in Belgium a few weeks ago. Nobody there pays more than 500 dollars a month - child care is subsidized with taxpayers' money. So a lot of women choose to stay in their job simply because they will be making money for themselves, and not just be diverting their income towards child care. In this case, taxes are incentivizing a lot more people to take part in the economy.

boxcar
09-22-2011, 07:04 PM
God can work miracles. If He wants 10% then the government definitely needs more! :lol:

You need to pay better attention. Don't you know that the President is Mr. Hope and Change? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Actor
09-22-2011, 07:46 PM
Ahh but you are wrong sir actor......once they start collecting that much, they will need to hire more IRS people, which will cause the government to grow more and need more in taxes!!~! lol
Right. It grows exponentially until it reached critical mass. Better start stockpiling food and ammunition. :bang:

Actor
09-22-2011, 07:50 PM
God can work miracles. If He wants 10% then the government definitely needs more! :lol:
You need to pay better attention. Don't you know that the President is Mr. Hope and Change? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
But the President is not God. I'll stand by my statement.

Actor
09-22-2011, 08:21 PM
congress doesn't need more money - they need a realistic budget that begins with what they have to spend and goes from there.

You know, like it is done in the real world.
By those of us who work and contribute.
Reality check! Most who "work and contribute" do it the other way around. They start with what their bills and go from there.

newtothegame
09-22-2011, 10:51 PM
I have. I don't know about Moldova, but I know about old Europe (france, Germany, Benelux) on account of having been raised there. You can get jobs, acquire as much wealth as you could ever need, and get proper social security. My opinion: taxes and quality of life (as felt by the entire population) are positively correlated.

Child care is another great example. In the UK, there is very little child support from the state. IF you want to have a job, you need to send your child in to nursery for 5 years, and it will cost you $2000 dollars a month. If you have two children, it doesn't make a lot of financial sense to have a job. The state will give you a minimum income and free rent anyway.

On the other hand, I talked to some family in Belgium a few weeks ago. Nobody there pays more than 500 dollars a month - child care is subsidized with taxpayers' money. So a lot of women choose to stay in their job simply because they will be making money for themselves, and not just be diverting their income towards child care. In this case, taxes are incentivizing a lot more people to take part in the economy.

Ok, maybe I am a bit confused in realtion to the pound.....
but here is an article I found from 2009. The average wages in UK are 24,000 pounds a YEAR. How in the hell can anyone pay 2000 per MONTH for child care?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5314132/Average-wage-falls-for-the-first-time-in-at-least-45-years-but-not-in-public-sector.html

Next you say the "state will give you minimum income and free rent anyway"....
That is such BULL. Nothing is free! Just because YOU personally do not pay it does not mean that someone is not paying for it. Hell based on what you said, I think we should all move to the UK and get FREE money and FREE rent and sit at home!!

mostpost
09-23-2011, 12:49 AM
Ok, maybe I am a bit confused in realtion to the pound.....
but here is an article I found from 2009. The average wages in UK are 24,000 pounds a YEAR. How in the hell can anyone pay 2000 per MONTH for child care?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5314132/Average-wage-falls-for-the-first-time-in-at-least-45-years-but-not-in-public-sector.html

Next you say the "state will give you minimum income and free rent anyway"....
That is such BULL. Nothing is free! Just because YOU personally do not pay it does not mean that someone is not paying for it. Hell based on what you said, I think we should all move to the UK and get FREE money and FREE rent and sit at home!!
1 pound =1.53994 dollars. Which means 24,000 Pounds equals $36,814. So it doesn't seem logical that someone would pay $24,000 for child care. I hate to agree with you, but I also question gm10's numbers.

Lots of things are free to different people. I got some presents. They were free....to me. It does not matter that someone paid for them at some point. To me they were free. Same thing happens when I buy something for someone. To that person it is free. Tomorrow evening I am going to an autumn fest in our suburb. Admission is free. There will be a chili cook-off. Samples are free. Someone paid for the ingedients; that was their choice. They chose to give the finished product away. It is free.

Good! I feel better now that I could disagree with you. ;)

newtothegame
09-23-2011, 01:00 AM
1 pound =1.53994 dollars. Which means 24,000 Pounds equals $36,814. So it doesn't seem logical that someone would pay $24,000 for child care. I hate to agree with you, but I also question gm10's numbers.

Lots of things are free to different people. I got some presents. They were free....to me. It does not matter that someone paid for them at some point. To me they were free. Same thing happens when I buy something for someone. To that person it is free. Tomorrow evening I am going to an autumn fest in our suburb. Admission is free. There will be a chili cook-off. Samples are free. Someone paid for the ingedients; that was their choice. They chose to give the finished product away. It is free.

Good! I feel better now that I could disagree with you. ;)

I like how to tried to attempt to hide that little key thing in there.....
IT's THEIR CHOICE!!! When the government "provides" things...people have NO choice in it. Just as I would NOT have bought ANYONE, much less a government official 14.00 muffins!!

mostpost
09-23-2011, 01:02 AM
Ok, maybe I am a bit confused in realtion to the pound.....
but here is an article I found from 2009. The average wages in UK are 24,000 pounds a YEAR. How in the hell can anyone pay 2000 per MONTH for child care?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5314132/Average-wage-falls-for-the-first-time-in-at-least-45-years-but-not-in-public-sector.html

Next you say the "state will give you minimum income and free rent anyway"....
That is such BULL. Nothing is free! Just because YOU personally do not pay it does not mean that someone is not paying for it. Hell based on what you said, I think we should all move to the UK and get FREE money and FREE rent and sit at home!!
FYI
http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/pages/childcare-costs-surveys.html
The average yearly expenditure for 25 hours nursery care per week for a child under two is £5,028 in England, £5,178 in Scotland and ££4,723 in Wales

X1.53994 to get $$

Not nearly what gm10 said, but high.

boxcar
09-23-2011, 01:28 AM
But the President is not God. I'll stand by my statement.

I know that and you may, but our Narcissist-in-Chief doesn't. So, I stand by mine, as well.

Boxcar

newtothegame
09-23-2011, 01:41 AM
FYI
http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/pages/childcare-costs-surveys.html

The average yearly expenditure for 25 hours nursery care per week for a child under two is £5,028 in England, £5,178 in Scotland and ££4,723 in Wales


X1.53994 to get $$

Not nearly what gm10 said, but high.

5000 pounds PLUS per year????? Thats 7700 USD per year.....WTF???
Thats about 4 pounds per hour.....relatively cheap I would think (of course I am thinking in terms of here in america)
25 hours per week x 52 weeks = 1300 hours. 5028 pounds divided by 1300 hours = 3.86 pounds per hour

http://www.unitconversion.org/currency/british-pounds-to-us-dollars-conversion.html

Seems more in line with what the numbers should be.....amazing that GM (who is from there) would be so far off from what is being reported....????

hcap
09-23-2011, 06:35 AM
Why don't you toss in even the more fundamental items, such as food, clothing and housing. Those are needs, also. Don't you think it's very unfair that any of us have to work for these things?

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
....Adam Smith

hcap
09-23-2011, 06:46 AM
Republican/TP'er history....

Good Old Days circa 1890.


Rep. Ron Paul.. "“We should be like 1900… I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.”

Reality check......

1900 was a time of Dickensian squalor in America. As for disaster relief in that year, “somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 people died in the Galveston hurricane – so many bodies that people couldn’t bury them all. Barrels of whisky were handed out to dull the horror of the funeral pyres that burned across the city for weeks on end. That seemed to be the extent that the government could respond, to dull your pain
with some free liquor. ‘Sorry, we can’t do more"

As the Lone Ranger says. "Return to the good old days of YESTERYEAR" :lol:

Abd s Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that the deaths and destruction from North Carolina to Vermont were God’s way of alerting us to his will that America “rein in the spending.”

hcap
09-23-2011, 07:04 AM
Why I am happy to be labeled a Liberal

"A list of important developments in the field of rights and liberty in America since 1900 must include women’s suffrage, child labor laws, antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission, the National Park Service, the Food and Drug Administration, social security, the minimum wage, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal highway system, racial integration, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Pell Grants, seatbelt requirements, health care privacy rights, women’s equality laws including education and employment opportunities and prohibitions of spousal abuse and marital rape, the Environmental Protection Agency, the creation of the internet, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and, recently, the extension to homosexual Americans of the right to serve in the military."

.........................................


I. Sources of Progressive Reform

A. Industrialization, with all its increase in productivity and the number of consumer goods, created

1) Unemployment and labor unrest
2) Wasteful use of natural resources
3) Abuses of corporate power

B. Growing cities magnified problems of poverty, disease, crime, and corruption

C. Influx of immigrants and rise of new managerial class upset traditional class alignments

D. Massive depression (1893-1897) convinced many that equal opportunity was out of reach for many Americans.

II. Who Were the Progressives?

A. New middle class composed of young professionals

1. Sought to apply principles of professions (medicine, law, business, teaching) to problems of society
2. Strong faith in progress and the ability of educated people to overcome problems
3. Rise in volunteer organizations organized to address issues (American Bar Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Municipal League, eg.)
4. Mainly urban in residence and orientation

B. Muckraking journalists attacked corruption and scandal with a sense of moral outrage
1. Lincoln Steffens exposed city machines in The Shame of the Cities (1904)
2. Ida Tarbell exposed Standard Oil Trust abuses
3. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1906) attacked the meat-packing industry

C. Political reformers (many opposed to traditional party politics)

D. Socialists--frustrated workers who promised to destroy capitalism. Led by Eugene Debs (who polled 900,000 votes for president in 1912), socialists were rejected by most Progressives as too extreme in their goals and methods

II. Teddy Roosevelt & the Square Deal

A. Using the power of the presidency (a "bully pulpit") as no president since Lincoln, T.R. loved to lead and to fight those he felt were not acting in America's best interests.
1. Coal Strike--When coal mine owners refused to deal with the union in a 1902 strike, T.R. summonsed them and the head of the mine workers to the White House and threatened to use army troops to keep the mines open. Owners backed down and T.R. was credited with ending the strike
2. Northern Securities Case--T.R. used the Sherman Antitrust Act to attack a railroad monopoly. Supreme Court ordered the company to dissolve.
3. Added Departments of Labor and Commerce to the Cabinet
4. Pushed through the Hepburn Act (1906), strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission
5. Urged Congressional approval of the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906), which forbade impure foods and required labelling of ingredients of foods and drugs.

Of course there is a lot more.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/lec.prog.html

hcap
09-23-2011, 07:42 AM
v/SILpcE7wffo

bigmack
09-23-2011, 08:00 AM
Republican/TP'er history....

Good Old Days circa 1890.


Rep. Ron Paul.. "“We should be like 1900… I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.”

Reality check......

1900 was a time of Dickensian squalor in America. As for disaster relief in that year, “somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 people died in the Galveston hurricane – so many bodies that people couldn’t bury them all. Barrels of whisky were handed out to dull the horror of the funeral pyres that burned across the city for weeks on end. That seemed to be the extent that the government could respond, to dull your pain
with some free liquor. ‘Sorry, we can’t do more"

As the Lone Ranger says. "Return to the good old days of YESTERYEAR" :lol:
Your Mothership is getting mighty, mighty desperate.

Fact checking Ron Paul on 1900 :confused:

Can you say quintessential goofs?

And running errands for those quintessential goofs, hcrap. :sleeping:

hcap
09-23-2011, 08:06 AM
Hey BigAssCrack, not only do you deny science, reality and GW, you are now denying recent history.

http://www.federaljack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/UNCLE-JACK-SHEEP-FOXNEWS.jpg

Please remove your brain from where the sun don't shine

Actor
09-23-2011, 10:03 AM
As the Lone Ranger says. "Return to the good old days of YESTERYEAR" :lol:

Actually it was the announcer who said "Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear."

hcap
09-23-2011, 11:17 AM
Actually it was the announcer who said "Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear."
I stand corrected ;)

I do remember this tho'

The Lone Ranger & Tonto are riding down into a box canyon. At the far end, the Lone Ranger notices an army of Comanche Indians, in full war-paint, frowning down from the cliff walls at him.

Turning to his left he notices a great number of very mad looking Arapaho Indians staring down.

On his right he observes a host of Cherokee Indians peering at him over the rim of the canyon.

Looking behind, he sees every Apache brave in the world slowly creeping into the canyon, blocking the exit.

The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, "We're in a heap of trouble, Tonto!"

Tonto's nervous reply, "Uhh...who do you mean we, pale-face?"

Tom
09-23-2011, 11:34 AM
Why did the Lone Ranger shoot Tonto?

hcap
09-23-2011, 11:51 AM
Why did the Lone Ranger shoot Tonto?
Tomto's real name was GONZALEZ, he was gay and a member of the green party. Kemosabe was really a secrtet code name for Rick Perry's great grandfather and founder of the original Texas Tea party and discovered Tonto's vile deception.

Real 'murkens don't cotton to them thar sneaky aliens

Tom
09-23-2011, 12:30 PM
No.
The LR went to an Indian cattle ranch to look at some cattle. He walked into the corral, which was overflowing with longhorns.

The Indian rancher hollered out to him, "Be careful ya'll don't step in any kemo-sabe!"

classhandicapper
09-23-2011, 02:06 PM
I'm willing to pay whatever rate is required to pay for the services of government that virtually everyone agrees belong there. I'm not sure exactly what the standard "virtually everyone" should be, but it's a lot higher than 51% - probably closer to 90%.

Any time the standard is anywhere near 51% (or typical standards in a democracy), it becomes a kind of gang rule where some people can confiscate the wealth of others and dictate what their values have to be and what the fruits of their labor have to be spent on. That's a recipe for conflict that is apparent in our politics. That's why they are so hostile and divisive. Everyone thinks they know what's best and is trying to ram their values and priorities down the throat of everyone else.

If we only implemented the things that most people agreed to, there would be nothing stopping people from using their personal wealth and savings to advance agendas they believe in or to try to persuade others to their side so we would eventually reach the appropriate threshold to make permanent changes.

I should add one thing.

If you were going to using a democratic process to play horses, would you have more faith that you were doing the correct thing if 51% of the handicappers here agreed that the horse was good value or if 90% of the handicappers here agreed the horse was good value. IMO, the answer to that is a no brainer.

Now imagine if we asked the same question, but instead of opening it up to handicappers here (sophisticated) we opened it up to everyone. I'm willing to bet you'd bet on a lot of horrible horses that way.

What makes anyone think we aren't doing a lot of ridiculously dumb things in government because of our standards for making changes and adding services to government?

gm10
09-27-2011, 05:26 PM
Ok, maybe I am a bit confused in realtion to the pound.....
but here is an article I found from 2009. The average wages in UK are 24,000 pounds a YEAR. How in the hell can anyone pay 2000 per MONTH for child care?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5314132/Average-wage-falls-for-the-first-time-in-at-least-45-years-but-not-in-public-sector.html

Next you say the "state will give you minimum income and free rent anyway"....
That is such BULL. Nothing is free! Just because YOU personally do not pay it does not mean that someone is not paying for it. Hell based on what you said, I think we should all move to the UK and get FREE money and FREE rent and sit at home!!

We pay £1300 a month. That is about $2000. There is no discount if you have two or more. I don't live in London, where it's usually more expensive.

When I say FREE RENT, I mean the person on the receiving end gets free accommodation (some end up in really big villa's by the way). Of course nothing about this is really free from the taxpayers' point of view.

Feel free to move to the UK. You will get free heath care, a minimum income, and in due course, free housing. The weather sucks, though.