Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Will 'Dubya' be a good president.

This is topic Will 'Dubya' be a good president. in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/628.html

Posted by MIB on :

I don't know about anybody else, but I have serious doubts about Bush's ability to run a country well. He's been in office for about 2 or 3 weeks and he is already purposing stuff that�s just...well.....STUPID! He claims he's for smaller government. Sense he became governor of Texas, the government in that state grew by 23%. The minimum wage in Texas is $3.80 an hour. There have been six attempts to raise it while Bush was governor, but he shot down each and every attempt. The reason? According to Bush, $3.80 per hour is a very livable salary and people do not need a raise.
But enough about his idiocy as Governor, lets talk about Bush as president. His whole 'vouchers' program, to put it quite bluntly, will not work! In case anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, Bush's voucher program is a program that pulls funding from failing public schools and gives it to kids so they can go to private school. Sounds like a grand idea if it weren't for a few problems that Bush seems oblivious to.
1) There aren't enough private schools to accommodate the huge number of kids that will be attending if Bush's plan is ratified.
2) The voucher money will not cover a kid's entire tuition for private school. A wealthier family would be able to pay the extra 1000 or so that is needed for tuition, but a poorer family will not be able to pay the extra money. In a sense the poorer family is screwed.
As for the energy crises in California and other parts of the country. Bush wants to open up wildlife preserves to oil drilling so that oil could be cheaper. He also wants to lower the air quality standards in this country so we can build more power plants that run on polluting fossil fuels. Did anybody in his administration ever hear about solar power, or any other methods of power generation for that matter?
As for Bush's tax plan, unless you make an income of $60,000 dollars or more, don't expect to benefit much from it. What do you think of all this?

------------------
If anyone has a Star wars action fleet E-wing starfighter or Tie defender toy they want to sell, please E-mail me at [email protected]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

It looks like we should wait a bit more before passing sentence on him. If he comes up with a dumb plan, and Congress agrees, then we have a problem. If he comes up with a good plan, and Congress disagress, then we have a problem.
He could be such a good Pres. that even JeffK will like him, or he could screw up so bad Omega will give up being a Republican.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I'm a strong supporter of solar power.
However, the technology we have to utilize it so far is simply far too inadequate to meet the needs of our population. (Hence my proposal for an X-prize and tax incentives for research into more efficient solar power, under my Dictatorship)

And thus far, solar power is the MOST viable "alternative" form of energy. So, like it or not, we NEED the oil.

You may ask, "what about hydroelectric, and dams? THEY don't pollute!" But that makes the environmentalists wet themselves with fury as much as the oil plants do. That's why in CA, with abundant mountain vallies and rivers, there hasn't been a new one of THEM build in a decade, either.

Nuclear, same thing. The Greens go apeshit.
Geothermal and Wind are simply inadequate, plus they spoil the scenery. If you think one power plant is bad, try several hundred steel and concrete and aluminum windmills cluttering up the environment. Or a geothermal plant ruining the scenic beauty of a Yellowstone or Hot Springs.

(See a pattern here? You can't win with the Greens.)

Does opening up areas for drilling harm the environment? Answers still cloudy. SPILLS, of course, harm everything, but they mostly occur where oil is transported, more than at the sites themselves (unless somebody sabotages them, like the idiots in ELF are wont to do.) There is also fairly conclusive studies that show that certain things like the creation of the Alaskan pipeline actually had some POSITIVE effects on wildlife (I believe one article showed the caribou herds increased and sought shelter around the pipe, I forget exactly). Naturally, impact should be kept at a minimum, as much as possible. Human activity, roadbuilding, etc. should be minimized.

I have many of the same concerns about vouchers that you mentioned. I would like to see more attempts made to help the faltering schools rather than simply taking their money and students away. That hurts the students who remain, as well.

However, saying this is Bush's idea alone is like saying Communism was Lenin's idea. It's been around for a lOoooong time

And how much growth in the government of Texas was due to HIS policies during his term, and how much of it was carryover due to the policies of his predecessor. Government doesn't always spring up overnight, you know.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 08, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

*Inarticulate wail of anguish*

ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I just typed up a reply, but as I was connecting to post it, my computer spontaneously rebooted and wiped it!

And darnit, Rob, you posted while I was retyping!

*grumbles*

Vouchers:
Mib's objection is based upon a false premise. Vouchers also allow you to go to a different, successful public school, not just to a private one. The idea is to get the kid out of the failing school. Who gives a darn whether the school he ends up in is public or private, so long as it works?

Environment/Energy:
If you think we could run this country off of solar and hydroelectric, you've got another think coming. Same if you think those have no effect on the envirnoment.

As for building more plants, we NEED more plants! Have you looked at CA lately?

Taxes:
Of course the people who make the most money are going to get the greatest dollar-amount tax break. They're the only ones paying any significant amount of tax dollars in the first place! The top, 5% of wage earners in the country pay 50% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of the wage earners pay 5% of the taxes. Of course the rich should pay more tax dollars than the middle-class and poor, but conversely, they should also get a larger break.

If you make less than $60,000 a year, you're hardly paying any taxes to begin with. What do you want, to be in a negative bracket or something? As a percentage of what you're paying now, you get the biggest break of anyone.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

I'll go with what Ritten says. As a Canadian, I'd like to see how he treats his northern neighbours.

Jean Chretien's first meeting with Bush went on without a hitch. They basically talked about Golf and Fishing. Not bad, even though Bush never knew what or where Canada was before he was elected President.

Let's just hope he still doesn't think that we live in igloos and eat icicles for breakfast.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I heard a very interesting debate on "Talk of the Nation," an NPR radio show hosted by Juan Williams. The two participants I had the chance to listen to were:

Robert Greenstein
Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Robert Bennett
Republican Senator from Utah and Vice-chairman of the Joint Economic Committee

Very interesting. Listen. Enjoy. Think.
Talk of the Nation

(Anyone who thinks NPR funding should be eliminated should reconsider their beliefs before listening.)

quote:
I have many of the same concerns about vouchers that you mentioned. I would like to see more attempts made to help the faltering schools rather than simply taking their money and students away. That hurts the students who remain, as well.

Oh Gilgamesh!! I think I agree!! Lions and lambs laying down together.

What's the other one...oh, yes energy. It seems to me that building more power plants and drilling all over creation for oil is not a long term solution for lazy Americans and their luxuriant wasting of energy.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 08, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I think I agree!! Lions and lambs laying down together.

Or maybe sheep and wolves? No, wait. Wrong thread...

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Heck, I'll even give that a

Omega.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

I don't think Bush is as dumb as everyone thinks he is. The media portrays him as stupid because he isn't a wonderful speaker, but I hold that he's much smarter than you think. Still water runs deep.

------------------
"President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor

"Being a liberal is one of the most gutless choices you can make. It doesn't require you to think, it only requires you to feel." - Rush Limbaugh

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Riiiight.

Like I've said before, I don't think that Double U is stupid. However he represents things that I have taken a great dislike of in that he is of the little substance petite bourgeois-esk, wanna hang at the club, anything to make money, anti-intellectualism that is the modern business scene. A little man with big friends.

Someone once described Double U as our first CEO president. And since the term CEO is relatively new, and no longer represnts the older style of business leader, I'd agree. I've seen enough MBA's and business majors in my time to know that for the majority, which includes Bush to my mind, there is no thirst for knowledge there. No desire to read beyond what is required for the next business class.

Style over stubstance. There is no there there.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 09, 2001).]

Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :

------------------
Terry: "Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, ...."
Max: "And?"
Terry: "I forgot."
Max: "Come on, Clinton was the fun one, then came the boring one."
Terry: "They're all boring."

- Batman Beyond (aka: Batman of the Future)

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Okaaaaaaay ...

Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :

Key word: BORING

------------------
Terry: "Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, ...."
Max: "And?"
Terry: "I forgot."
Max: "Come on, Clinton was the fun one, then came the boring one."
Terry: "They're all boring."

- Batman Beyond (aka: Batman of the Future)

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Jay:

Personally, I find it encouraging that the CEO of the country has experience running an actual business, where he had to keep expenditures below income. A president that has real-world experience will be refreshing after the last eight years. And it's even more encouraging that he has experience in the industry that keeps this country running.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Erm...Bush has run every business he has had but one straight into the ground.

Mind you, I don't think the two are all that similar, or that business skills are necessary to be president. Jusy saying.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Teelie (Member # 280) on :

Funny, I know a fair amount of people who make below 40k who'll have a hell of a time with taxes as it is, and it appears Bush will only give those above that any break.
Figures, kickbacks to the rich(er) as always.
I hate his ideas on how to "fix" education too like this voucher thing or lowering standards.
He seems to want to lower standards on a lot of things doesn't he?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I don't see how a tax refund for the people who PAY most of the taxes is a 'kickback' of any sort.

While I might LIKE to get out more than I put in, I don't think that's very just.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Funny, I know a fair amount of people who make below 40k who'll have a hell of a time with taxes as it is, and it appears Bush will only give those above that any break.

Pardon? As I recall, under the Bush plan, no one under $35k even PAYS income tax. Again, what do you want? A negative tax?

I hate his ideas on how to "fix" education too like this voucher thing or lowering standards.

Again, pardon? Lowering standards? THERE ARE NO STANDARDS. That's the frikin' problem! He's creating them, not lowering them!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

While there are no Federally-mandated standards, there are State-standards. I don't know for certain, but it's possible (quite possible) that TSN means that Dubya's plan would set a lower standard than some states require is all.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Aren't the states able, in cases such as this, to create higher standards than what the Feds say to do, the Feds would set a minimum standard. States just under cut Fed standards.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Personally, I find it encouraging that the CEO of the country has experience running an actual business

You mean that failed oil venture? Yeah, that gives me pains of excitement too about his ability.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Yeah, but everybody knows Alan Greenspan's the real CEO of the US anyway...

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 10, 2001).]

Posted by Teelie (Member # 280) on :

I meant that they may pay the money out, but they get it back. Maybe not more, but the rich tend to support the rich, and Dubya's rich. So while those above one tax bracket pay less, those below it pay more for doing more unlike the other side.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I meant that they may pay the money out, but they get it back.

Oh, now you're falling for the DNP line. No one is "getting money back" with a tax cut. That's like spending money on a tax cut. It isn't possible, by definition. Regardless, the rich will STILL be paying far more than the poor after the Bush tax cut, so again... what's your problem?

the rich tend to support the rich

Again, falling for the DNP line. Class warfare, and the like. The rich don't support each other. A rich person supports himself and his family, and the way he does that is by investing money in companies, and thus creating jobs, which I think we all agree is a good thing.

So while those above one tax bracket pay less, those below it pay more for doing more unlike the other side.

Can you please repeat that? In english, preferably.

Posted by Teelie (Member # 280) on :

Anyone below a certain tax line usually gets screwed on any new "tax deals" that only end up benefiting those who have the money.

If you've never lived middle or lower class, then don't pretend to think that the tax laws are fair to anyone. 2,000 may not seem like much to you, but to my parents who won't have it, that's $2,000 they'll have to find somewhere thanks to this shit.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Ah, it's the old virtue of selfishness and other lines of conservative bullshit.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

JeffK: Erm... I what? This is the first time I've even posted in this thread... :-)

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Um. Er. Oooops, I meant TLE. Sorry ... you guys with three-lettered names starting with "T" get confusing sometimes

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

2,000 may not seem like much to you, but to my parents who won't have it, that's $2,000 they'll have to find somewhere thanks to this shit.

WTF? They're getting a frikin' TAX CUT! Unless they somehow avoid paying income tax, your parents will have MORE money to play with after the Bush tax cut.

Anyone below a certain tax line usually gets screwed on any new "tax deals" that only end up benefiting those who have the money.

I'd love to hear your explaination for that statement. How can you get screwed if you end up paying no taxes at all?

Posted by MIB on :

Bush's tax plan is supposed to give tax cuts to certain people, making a certain income, with a certain number of kids. Unfortunately, tax cuts will be primarily given to those who make $60,000 or over. There is ONE tax bracket that I'm aware of that covers people with incomes LOWER than $60,000. That bracket is single people with one child making $30,000

Another problem with Bush's tax plan is that it relies HEAVILY on the accuracy of the budget surplus projections. If the budget surplus projections are a tiny bit off, we'd be screwed!!! Besides, even if the projections are dead on, Bush's tax plan would eat up so much of the surplus, there wouldn't be enough left over to cover increases in the cost of running the country!!!

------------------
If anyone has a Star wars action fleet E-wing starfighter or Tie defender toy they want to sell, please E-mail me at [email protected]

[This message has been edited by MIB (edited February 11, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Who here has actually *read* the tax plan, instead of listen to summaries and liberal twits like Dashle and Gephart?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much everyone making $35,000 or less WILL PAY NO FEDERAL TAXES.
http://www.georgebush.com/issues/taxes.html

Now open your mouth and say something stupid.

*is really pissed off at the misinformation abound in here*

------------------
"President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor

"Being a liberal is one of the most gutless choices you can make. It doesn't require you to think, it only requires you to feel." - Rush Limbaugh

[This message has been edited by Jeff Raven (edited February 11, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

JeffR,

As opposed to those who listen to conservative twits like Limbaugh?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 11, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I giggles when I saw that Rush was talking about not thinking.

Dear Kettle;

Description enclosed.

Black.

- Signed, Pot.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

I suppose you would have a point, JK, if 1. Rush Limbaugh was lying, and 2. Rush actually took himself seriously, which so many people make the mistake that he does.

------------------
"President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor

"Being a liberal is one of the most gutless choices you can make. It doesn't require you to think, it only requires you to feel." - Rush Limbaugh

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Rush doesn't take himself seriously? Wow. Why do so many people then? "Dittoheads" and all them, I mean?

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Pretty much everyone making $35,000 or less WILL PAY NO FEDERAL TAXES.

Wow! That means that the Feds are going to drop the excise tax off of gas and a whole slew of things like that. And FICA and all that is gone then. Excellent!!

That's so nice of the Feds.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Yeah JK, that is the great thing about being Rush. He has no real responsibility to anyone; therefore, when he says something more asinine than usual and actually gets called on it, he can run back to that "I'm just an entertainer" line of crap thinking that let's him off the hook.

It's conservative intellectual dishonesty at it's best. Got to love it.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I still laugh every time I remember hearing Rush assert that any woman with a "big dog" was a lesbian. That was great.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

How come every other time we try to have a discussion, it turns into you guys bashing Rush Limbaugh, instead of trying to make a real argument? Oh, wait, I forgot. You can't.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

It's called a tangent - tan�gent (tnjnt) A sudden digression or change of course. Sometimes people do that when talking.

Still, Limbaugh represents any number of conservative twinkies spouting about how great it is to make sure the wealthy stay that way.

Get over it.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Deal with this big boy.

quote:
When properly measured, the Bush tax cut costs at least $2.1 trillion over ten years, rather than the often-cited $1.6 trillion figure. The primary reason for the larger estimate is that it accounts for the extra federal interest costs automatically generated by the tax cut. If the full effect of the rate cuts are accelerated forward to this year and are not offset by reductions in the remainder of the tax package, the costs would increase an additional several hundred billion dollars over 10 years. A tax cut of more than $2 trillion would exceed the surplus that is likely to be available outside Social Security and Medicare when realistic budget assumptions are used.

quote:
How are the Benefits of the Bush Tax Plan Distributed?
The package of tax cuts President Bush has proposed are heavily skewed toward those at the top of the income spectrum. The broad middle class would receive substantially less relief.

The one percent of the population with the highest incomes would receive between 36 percent and 43 percent of the tax cut, depending on the calculation used. The bottom 80 percent of the population would receive 29 percent of the tax cut.
The Bush plan will deliver an average tax reduction of at least $39,000 to the top one percent of the population. This is 24 times the tax cut of $1,600 that the Administration claims the typical family of four would receive. Moreover, the Administration's family is hardly typical. Citizens for Tax Justice has found that nine out of ten households would receive a tax cut of less than $1,600.
The Treasury Department has reported that the top one percent of the population pays 20 percent of all federal taxes under current law. Under the Bush plan, the share of the tax cut that would go to the top one percent � 36 percent to 43 percent � is about double the share of the federal taxes they pay.
The proposal would repeal the estate tax, even though IRS data show that the estate tax is levied only on two percent of all estates and that in 1997 half of all estate taxes were paid by the 2,400 largest taxable estates. If the estate tax had been repealed in 1997, these 2,400 estates would have received an average tax cut of about $3.5 million apiece. In addition, of those estates that are subject to tax, very few include family-owned farms or businesses.
Of the approximately 2.3 million people who died in 1998, only 47,482 (or two percent) left estates subject to any estate tax. Only 1,418 of the estates that were taxable � or three percent of them � were estates in which family-owned businesses or farms formed the majority of the estate. This means that only six of every 10,000 people who died in 1998 left an estate that was taxable and consisted primarily of a family-owned farm or business. A Treasury analysis found that these estates paid less than one percent of
all estate taxes. Estate tax relief can be directed at these estates at a small fraction of the cost of repealing the estate tax.
White House officials have claimed that lower-income families would receive the largest percentage tax reductions. Such claims focus only on income taxes. Low- and moderate-income families pay more in other federal taxes � principally payroll taxes � than in income taxes. It is possible to eliminate a large percentage of the small income tax liability that many moderate-income families incur and register only a small impact on the total federal taxes that such families pay.
For example, a two-parent family of four with income of $26,000 would indeed have its income taxes eliminated under the Bush plan, which is being portrayed as a 100 percent reduction in taxes. The family, however, owes only $20 in income taxes under current law. As a percentage of all taxes paid (considering only the effects of income and payroll taxes and counting the benefits the family would receive from the Earned Income Tax Credit), the family would have its taxes reduced by less than one percent. Its net tax bill would still exceed $2,680.(1)
Figures that the Bush campaign issued, which showed the top one percent receiving a smaller share of the tax cut than the share of taxes this group pays, reflected only federal income taxes. Those figures omitted payroll, estate, and other taxes. As a result, the figures provided an incomplete picture. Leaving payroll taxes out of the analysis makes the share of taxes that the top one percent pays look larger, while leaving out the estate tax makes the share of the tax cut they will receive appear smaller.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by MIB on :

People who make $35,000 or less will pay no federal taxes? HAHAHAHAHAHA I don't know what's more stupid, that idea in on itself, or the fact that the republicans actually expected us to believe that.

Another thing to, Bush is acting like the Federal income tax is the only tax that exists. What about State income tax, Sales tax, Franchise tax, Social Security Tax, Gas Taxes, not to mention all those other taxes that target people who own there own property (Property tax), and are self-imployed (self-employment taxes). These are all of the taxes I could think of off hand, but I know there are plenty more.

Also, here's a little fun fact for you. When you switch around the E and A's position in the word TAXES you get TEXAS!

------------------
If anyone has a Star wars action fleet E-wing starfighter or Tie defender toy they want to sell, please E-mail me at [email protected]

[This message has been edited by MIB (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

*sigh* You're entire argument is based on the assumption that its not fair the rich get so much, even though most of those people have worked hard to earn it, and certainly deserve to keep it. You also assume that these rich 'hoard' money, when even that's false. A businessman who gets a tax cut of $36,000 will now have more money to hire people, or buy machines for their workers. They don't hoard money, they're constantly reinvesting it.

But of course, this whole idea will go through one ear and out the other, and you will insult me because I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and therefore cannot have anything intelligent to say, etc etc. Why do you think I don't post in the flameboard that much any more? It's like slapping one's head into a brick wall, and you'll never get it.

------------------
"President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor

"Being a liberal is one of the most gutless choices you can make. It doesn't require you to think, it only requires you to feel." - Rush Limbaugh

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

JeffR,

Um, hate to break this to you, but you started it. I brought up Rush in response to YOUR post. And, if Rush doesn't take himself seriously (like you said he doesn't), why should you (or myself) take him any more seriously? The answer: no one should take him seriously, because if Rush doesn't take himself seriously, it's because he knows he's full of hot air. Thank you!

Now, the wealthy 1% pay 20% of Federal taxes, but people think that giving them 43% of the tax cut is FAIR? Please explain this to me -- and don't give me the "they can hire more people!" bullshit. Please give me a good, rational reason. Couldn't someone not making as much use it to buy more products from these rich businessmen, allowing them to then hire more people and purchase new machinery? Couldn't they use it to put their kid through school or make sure they've got food on the table? Or, god forbid, get new tires for their car? The wealthy don't need it, and I'm not that interested in them "reinvesting" it -- give the tax cut to people who NEED it. The top 1% need a tax cut about as much as I need another credit card.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Now, the wealthy 1% pay 20% of Federal taxes, but people think that giving them 43% of the tax cut is FAIR?

Yes. If they're the only ones paying any significant taxes to begin with, how else do you suggest we get a tax cut?

Under any circumstances, that's only in pure dollar amount, which makes sense. If you go by how much of their current tax burden is being removed, the numbers go the other way. The poor get the greatest percentage tax cut, mainly because they won't pay income taxes at all.

Couldn't someone not making as much use it to buy more products from these rich businessmen, allowing them to then hire more people and purchase new machinery? Couldn't they use it to put their kid through school or make sure they've got food on the table? Or, god forbid, get new tires for their car?

Jeff, you're just not getting it. You CAN'T save the poor enough money to do those things with a tax cut. They're not paying enough taxes to do that in the first place!

give the tax cut to people who NEED it

Exactly what we're proposing. EVERYONE gets a tax cut, with the poor getting the biggest one, in the most relevant terms.

And again, what do you think the rich are going to do with their porportionally smaller tax cut? Buy another Jaguar?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Let's go over this again.

If the rich 1% pay 20% of taxes, they should only get a 20% tax cut.

Can you prove that the rich 1% wouldn't use their savings to buy a new car? No, I didn't think so.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

*decides to hijack thread*

The Stupid Rich do Little or No Work

Okay, so someone sent me an e-mail with a message to that effect.

While I agree that Tax Cuts are needed, the other people have a point in which the Tax cuts may be unfairly skewed towards the rich. If the People with the lowest tax bracket pay about 15% in Taxes (I don't know, can someone confirm?), then that cut should be kept constant. Thus the people who pay the most taxes, should have a reduction similar to that amount. With a 43% tax cut, the people at the high end will save more per buck than the people at the lowest bracket.

I guess this is all what the Democrats are crying foul over. Now if they can get their acts together to suggest a decent alternative instead of crying over it all the time.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yes, that's my point, TL. People should get an equal percentage cut of what they put in. Anything else is ... well, biased to the rich.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Can you prove that the rich 1% wouldn't use their savings to buy a new car?

Prove? No, but I can dig up some rich people and ask, if you'd like. Heck, if you were independently wealthy, and already had everything you wanted, what difference would $80,000 make to your personal comfort? What would you do with it? Why, you'd invest it, of course. Make some more money with it. Duh.

People should get an equal percentage cut of what they put in.

Would it not thus follow that people should put in an equal percentage cut of what they make?

If the rich 1% pay 20% of taxes, they should only get a 20% tax cut.

Would it not thus follow that, as the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only 5% of the taxes, their taxes should only be reduced by 5% of total?

Can't have your pie and eat it, too, Jeff.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

I don't think you've understood what I said.

The percentage you pay in taxes should be the amount of the break you get. The rich pay 20% of taxes, they shouldn't get any more or less than 20% of the tax cut. The poor pay 5% in taxes? They get 5% of the tax cut.

But when the rich 1% get 43% of the tax cut, they're getting TWICE a cut of what they should be getting, which means someone somewhere is getting a much smaller cut (percent wise ... i.e., they pay 3% but only get a 1.5% cut, if you understand this example).

That's my problem with Bush's tax cut. Cut the rich 1% benefit to the percentage that they actually pay (20%) and I'll be happy (provided people get a percentage cut equivilant to what they pay in taxes).

Clear enough?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got an apple pie in the fridge I'm going to go eat.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Ya know what? I don't give a flying fuck about the rich. The only thing that matters is what *I* get. This tax cut will make it so I will pay no federal income taxes. My dad, who has four kids and a grandmother to take care of and makes $42,000 a year will pay no federal income taxes. Who cares if the rich get a tax cut as well?

Besides:
$5.6 trillion Projected Surplus - $1.6 trillion Tax cut = $4.0 trillion cushion

This surplus is money that isn't spent by the government. Its money that's going to be taken away that does not need to be. The Government is not giving it back, its just not going to take away so much in the first place.

------------------
"President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor

"Being a liberal is one of the most gutless choices you can make. It doesn't require you to think, it only requires you to feel." - Rush Limbaugh

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

JeffR,

You're completely missing the point.

If the rich get a bigger share of the tax cut (43%) then the percentage that they pay in taxes (20%), someone is getting shafted in here by getting less of a tax cut percentage then the percentage they pay in taxes.

Honestly. First the tax cut is defended by arguing that the rich pay that 43% percent, so they deserve a 43% cut. Then the tactic switches to "oh, let business grow!" when its shown they only pay 20% of the tax. Now its, "Who gives a fuck?"

You know, Greenspan could be -- gasp! -- wrong about this whole thing. It could happen. It did happen, last fall - he didn't see that the economy was softening. So, answer this: if Greenspan couldn't foress the economy four months ahead, why does anyone think the CBO can forsee the economy in 10 years? Do you know the CBO devotes one chapter of its annual reports to "The Uncertainty of Budget Projections"?! No, of course not.

The only thing that matters is what *I* get

Gee that's a surprise. It's also a good illustration of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Thanks, Jeff.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Ok, JK... where are you getting these figures, 43% and 20%? Seriously, I thought you were using them as an example, but since you're sticking to them, where did they come from? I certainly don't understand your logic on this. If someone has $.20 of a dollar taken for taxes, how can they have $.43 cents not taken out after the tax cut? How can they have more not taken out than they're giving? *boggle*

------------------
"President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor

"Being a liberal is one of the most gutless choices you can make. It doesn't require you to think, it only requires you to feel." - Rush Limbaugh

[This message has been edited by Jeff Raven (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

a 43% tax cut = .20 - .086 (cut) = .154 new tax rate.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The percentage you pay in taxes should be the amount of the break you get.

But ONLY if the amount you pay is fair in the first place.

It's also a good illustration of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Yes. The illustration being that you envy those who have more than you, despise them for it, and want to see them treated unfairly, regardless of the fact that it would do you no good.

Ritten:

You're confused. The rich pay 20% of the tax dollars TOTAL. They get 43% (we'll assume JK's numbers are correct) of the dollars given back (for lack of a briefer, accurate term). This is not enough information to figure out their new tax rate.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Relief to Low-income Families?
Over the past week President Bush and his Administration have repeatedly emphasized that his plan will provide tax relief to low-income families and help them enter the middle class. The proposal, however, would provide no assistance to working poor families or to many families modestly above the poverty line. (As described below, these families can pay substantial amounts in other taxes, such as payroll and excise taxes, even after the Earned Income Tax Credit is taken into account.) To estimate the number of families with children who would not benefit from the Bush proposal, we tabulated the latest data from the Census Bureau. These data are for 1999. This analysis considers the effects of the plan on families with children under age 18 as if it were in full effect that year. We found:
An estimated 12.2 million low- and moderate-income families with children � 31.5 percent of all families with children � would not receive any tax cut from the Bush proposal. Some 80 percent of these families have workers.
Approximately 24.1 million children � 33.5 percent of all children � live in the excluded families.
Among African-Americans and Hispanics, the figures are especially striking. While one-third of all children would not benefit from the Bush tax plan, more than half of black and Hispanic children would not receive any assistance. An estimated 55 percent of African-American children and 56 percent of Hispanic children live in families that would receive nothing from the tax cut.
Even the Bush proposal to double the child tax credit � the feature of his tax plan that one might expect to provide the most assistance to children in low- and moderate-income families � would provide the largest tax reductions to families with incomes in the $110,000 to $250,000 range, and confer a much larger share of its benefits on upper-income families than on low- and middle-income families. Under the plan, the maximum child credit would be raised from $500 per child to $1,000. Also, the proposal raises the income level above which the child credit begins to phase out from $110,000 to $200,000, extending the credit for the first time to those in this income category. For many of these relatively affluent taxpayers, the child credit would rise from zero to $1,000 per child. By contrast, millions of children in low-and moderate-income working families would continue to receive no child credit, or their credit would remain at its current level of $500 per child or rise to less than $1,000 per child.
Since the reason 12 million families and their children would not benefit from the Bush plan is that they do not owe federal income taxes, some have argued that it is appropriate they not benefit. "Tax relief should go to those who pay taxes" is the short-hand version of this argument. This line of reasoning is not persuasive for several reasons.
1. Many of these families owe taxes other than federal income taxes, often paying significant amounts. For most families, their biggest federal tax burden by far is the payroll tax, not the income tax. Data from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that in 1999,
three-quarters of all U.S. households paid more in federal payroll taxes than in federal income taxes. (This comparison includes both the employee and employer share of the payroll tax; most economists concur that the employer's share of the payroll tax is passed along to workers in the form of lower wages.) While the Earned Income Tax Credit offsets these taxes for most working families with incomes below the poverty line, many families with incomes modestly above the poverty line who would not benefit from the Bush plan are net taxpayers.
Consider two types of families earning $25,000 a year in 2001, an income level the Administration has used in some of its examples:
A two-parent family of four with income of $25,000 would pay $3,825 in payroll taxes (counting both the employee and employer share) and lesser amounts in gasoline and other excise taxes. The family pays various state taxes as well. The family's Earned Income Tax Credit of $1,500 would offset well under half of its payroll taxes.
Even if just payroll taxes and the EITC are considered, the family's net federal tax bill would be $2,325. Nonetheless, this family would receive no tax cut under the Bush plan.
The Administration has used the example of a waitress who is a single-mother with two children and earns $25,000 a year. If this waitress pays at least $170 a month in child care costs so she can work and support her family � an amount that represents a rather modest expenditure for child care � she, too, would receive no tax cut under the Bush plan despite having a significant net tax burden. In her case as well, her payroll taxes would exceed her EITC by $2,325.(2)
2. While many workers would see their marginal tax rates reduced, the Bush plan fails to reduce marginal rates at all for the working families that face the highest marginal rates of any families � working families with children that have incomes between about $13,000 and $20,000. For each additional dollar these families earn, they lose up to 21 cents in the EITC, 15.3 cents in payroll taxes, 24 cents to 36 cents in food stamp benefits, and additional amounts if they receive housing assistance or a child care subsidy or pay state income tax. Ways to reduce marginal rates on these families are well known. The Bush plan does not include them.
3. Low-income working families face some of the most severe marriage tax penalties. The Administration's plan, however, departs from a bipartisan consensus formed in Congress over the past two years to reduce marriage tax penalties for low-wage working families, not just for middle- and upper-income families. Analysts generally concur that some of the most serious marriage penalties in the tax code are those that can face low-income working individuals as a result of the way the phase-out of the EITC is designed. Every major tax bill from both parties in the last year and a half � including major tax bills that Congress passed and President Clinton vetoed in 1999 and 2000 � has contained EITC reforms to provide marriage penalty relief for low-income working families. (Clinton vetoed the bills for other reasons; his budget, too, proposed EITC marriage penalty relief.)

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

George Double U Bush: Working To Make Sure Wealthy Americans Stay That Way.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
I don't think you've understood what I said.

That's a vast understatement JK. In fact, I'm not sure his brain is even wired correctly to even begin to understand.

quote:
Yes. The illustration being that you envy those who have more than you, despise them for it, and want to see them treated unfairly, regardless of the fact that it would do you no good.

*emphasis mine

Nothing like Omega showing his intellectual and agrumentative improbity again and again. How many times does that have to happen before we reach the level of Irony?? Have we gotten there already??

There's a big historical footprint right in the middle of the back of the working and lower classes left there by the that class that Double U is now working so hard to protect.

------------------
"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Envy? Omega, would I envy them? Or despise them? Look, I'm sure this is hard to understand for a greedy self-interested dude like yourself, but I don't base my self-worth on how much money I earn. Dammit, man (okay, boy), I'm the richest person on the face of the earth, and it doesn't have to do with bonds or checking accounts. It has to do with the people who love me. It's a lesson you should really learn.

I don't despise the wealthy -- I just don't want them getting more back in taxes than other people (percent wise, you realize). I do think the wealthy should pay more taxes -- they can afford it. In a society, people contribute to the general welfare. Those who are wealthy contribute more. Didn't your Good Book tell you that greed is bad? You should be DEMANDING that the rich pay more in taxes. "The meek shall inherit the earth," and all that.

Oh, by the way, I might as well quote First of Two here. "Only children think the world should be fair." You earn more, you contribute more. That's the way of the world folks -- learn it, accept it, love it. There's nothing unfair about it.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 12, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"I'm the richest person on the face of the earth."

"It's quiet. A little too quiet."

"It takes two to tango."

"This hurts me more than it hurts you."

"Eat your heart out."

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You earn more, you contribute more.

Yes, this is why we use something called a "percentage".

Didn't your Good Book tell you that greed is bad?

Hey, aren't you libs always railing about not forcing my morals on others? Sounds to me that that's exactly what you want to do.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

That's soooooooooooooo freaking funny.

------------------
"One reason I like to highlight reading is, reading is the beginnings of the ability to be a good student. And if you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams, it's going to be hard to go to college. So when your teachers say, read--you ought to listen to her."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

JK: "I'm the richest person on the face of the earth, and it doesn't have to do with bonds or checking accounts. It has to do with the people who love me."

Easy tiger.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Bushy-boy wants to get more working-class people into the middle-class catagory? That sounds, well, wrong. Mainly because it's forcing people into man-made catagories of perceived wealth, but also for other reasons that I'm sure are really evil. If I could think of them.

[This message has been edited by PsyLiam (edited February 13, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

I'm simply saying, that if you really do believe in God and follow the Bible like you claim too, then being greedy would be ... hypocritical? No, not you.

Okay, here we go.

Rich guy makes $100 ka-billion-million dollars. He pays 20% in taxes, so that's 20 ka-billion million dollars he pays.

Bush's tax cut will decrease the Fed budget by ... I dunno, let's say 10%. Of the 100% of that cut, Mr. Rich Guy gets a 43% cut of it. So he is now only paying 57% of the 20 ka-billion million dollars he paid last years in taxes. Clear? That's not fair. He should get a 20% cut.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Now, I may be reading outdated materials, but I just looked at a magazine article about Bush's tax plan that says that the taxation bracket for people with incomes is what changes, and not by much:
(This is for married couples, though)

Current:
$161,451 - $288,350 ----- 36%
$288,351 and above ----- 39.6%

New:
$161,451 and above ----- 33%

Will someone tell me how this is a 43% tax cut? Looks like around TWENTY Percent to me...

Whereas I, according to this same article, will see my taxes reduced, at worst, from 15% to 10%, (possibly further) which is a THIRTY percent or more tax cut.

(Reader's Digest New Choices, October 2000)

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 13, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Some of my numbers were incorrect. But ...

In 2000, the wealthies 10 percent of taxpayers - a group whose income begins at $100,000 - paid 66 percent of federal taxes (including payrool and excise taxes), estimates the Joint Committe. In that group, the wealthiest 1 percent - incomes generally above $300,000 - paid 34% of income taxes and 19 percent of all taxes

and

43 percent of benefits (including the estate-tax repeal) flows to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans

--Newsweek, Feb 19, 2001

So, they pay 34% of taxes and get 43% of the tax cut benefits, huh? I do call that unfair. They should only get 34% of the tax cut. What is so fucking hard to understand about this?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Unless you believe that it's already unfair to make the people who earn more pay more percentagewise as WELL as simply pay more cashwise, the logic behind the fact of which I have yet to be shown by any tax proponents.

And, of course, that wealthiest 10% generates HOW MUCH of the ancillary wealth of the rest of the country by being the driving forces behind industries, production, and employment?

You know, some rich guy whose name escapes me has just donated a huge amount of money to my hometown (he's from there, too) for the construction of a library/science technology and reference center. This is cash we'd never have gotten from the government, without jumping through 50-odd hoops or so. I know this, because the city council's been trying for years to do just that thing.

Of course, he couldn't have donated that money if he'd had to pay it to the Feds as taxes. How much could he have donated if he'd had 20, 30, or even 40% more, over several years?

I can tell you what, as an impoverished county with a small fraction of people with old 'coal money' and 'steel money,' we see a lot more coming our way from donations from those rich residents and companies than we EVER see from the federal government. (State, yes. We at the library get some state aid. But not Federal. I think the last Federal project in this area was the building of the National Road. (back in the mid 1800's)

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

First,

Look, it's real simple here. I don't think people should get a larger percent tax break than what they pay. I really don't get what's so hard to understand about this.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

What's hard to understand about it is that it ain't so.
You can't get a break larger than you pay. Nobody is. Nobody's even close. 43% of 33% isn't the same as 33%.

If I'm making 1,000,000, and I'm paying 33% in taxes, I'm paying 333,333. Even if I get a 43% tax cut, I'm still paying upwards of 170,000, because that's 57% of what I'm ALREADY paying. I'm NOT getting the whole enchilada back, far from it.

And as I said before, I don't see how a drop in the income tax bracket rate from 39.6% to 33% is a 43% drop. Do you?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK's entire argument seems based on the (false) precept that the tax burden is fairly distributed to begin with. Why should the rich pay a greater percentage of what they earn? And don't give me, "They don't need it." Whether they need it or not is irrelevant. It's still theirs, and you have no right to take it unless you treat others equally.

Also, why should the "rich" have their estates taxed? This harms the economy, and is simply taxing the income for the second or third time. Again, unfair.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited February 13, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Here is the tax rates given for 2000. This is from the Small Business Resource Guide 2000 that the IRS sent me when I started my business last year.
****The gifs are large, so I won't post them, 725x967 pxls****
If you want a copy go to the IRS and get a CD sent to you. This has all kinds of tax info, reguarding dependents, health and life insurance deductions, and much more.

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3 For wage bracket.

All boils down to the same thing.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited February 13, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

First,

DUH. Didn't I make it clear that I understand that 43% of the tax cut is much less than 33% of the taxes they're paying? Hello?! Anyone home?! The point is, no tax cut of a percentage GREATER than that they're already getting. Re-read some of my examples.

Omega, I'm not even going to respond to that. They're taxed unfairly? You wanna show examples? No, you use cute sound bites and don't back yourself up. Be quiet, or contribute something to the debate. The rich are taxed unfairly? Prove it!

Speaking of which, I did my taxes today. I'm getting about $700 back in Federal and State. I don't need a tax cut of any kind whatsoever, and speaking for myself, I like getting refund checks.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I'm fairly certain, that in higher pay exchelons, the amount they pay as compared to what they earn is a higher ratio than what you pay in regards to your earnings.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

And ... ?

The more you make, the more you are expected to contribute back to society, both in taxes and other services that Republicans in here have listed.

Besides which, if I'm in the top 1%, I'm not going to need to buy another sports car. Honestly, if I can't make it without that extra $50k I'd save, I don't deserve to be in the top 1%.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The more you make, the more you are expected to contribute back to society

Again, this is why we use percentages. Someone making $1,000,000 would pay 100 times the taxes that someone making $10,000 would pay. Sounds like he'd be contributing more to society.

The rich are taxed unfairly? Prove it!

The rich are treated worse than the poor by the government. They are effectively punished for doing no wrong. The tax code is thus unfair.

Gee, that was easy.

You've got three basic possible tax systems.

A: Everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes. The percentage of income paid increases as total income paid increases as total absolute income decreases.

B: Everyone pays a certain ratio of their income in taxes. The percentage of total income paid remains the same across the board.

C: Everyone ends up with the same total income after taxes. The percentage paid increases with income.

"A" is obviously unfair. "C" is obviously unfair, and socialistic/communistic on top of that. "B" is the very definition of fairness, as everyone is treated equally.

I support "B". You support, what, some hybrid?

Tell me what you'd think of this: we ditch the income tax and go to a sales tax. The rich still pay more, because they buy more, but people like you can't discriminate based upon success.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited February 14, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

No, i'd guess he supports C, or something pretty close to it.

Actually, I'd support C too, if I was dumb enough to think that it would mean I'd get a higher salary without being taxed for it. Not that he supports it for that reason, JeffKarde's not dumb.

I'd like a football player's average yearly salary, fries, and coffee, please.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 14, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

While the sales tax sounds like a good idea -- only states can (to the best of my knowledge) implement a sales tax, so the Federal budget would drop to zero (bye-bye military). Perhaps some sort of hybrid, with a percent of the sales tax going to the Feds? Still wouldn't do any good in Del, where there is no sales tax at all. Luxury tax, anyone? Something along that lines would be fair -- provided, of course, the Feds still get the money they need.

I think you're missing the point. I favor a system where those who make large amounts of money contribute a larger percentage to the society as a whole. Believe me, when I'm making $500,000 a year, own a brownstone on Boston Commons and driving ... well, I'll still be driving my Jeep ... I'd be more than happy to pay a larger percentage to the Government.

A problem with the arguments everyone is making here is that it comes down to "fairness" ... which is very subjective.

To some, "fairness" means everyone pays the same percent of taxes.

To me, "fairness" means that those who earn more contribute more (percent wise) than those who make less.

I don't think anyone here is going to convince the other(s) of their views, so maybe it's best to drop the subject.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Again, that kind of 'fairness' is penalizing people who do more (and, by doing more, generally contribute more), simply because they do more.

It's like saying it'd be 'fair' to put weights on the faster runners, or to make the beautiful people wear ugly masks.

Aren't they reading "Harrison Bergeron" in schools anymore?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Luxury tax, anyone? Something along that lines would be fair

No, it wouldn't, because only certain people and industries would be taxed. It's also economically stupid, because if you charge high taxes on luxuries, people simply stop buying them. Yachts, anyone? The entire industry went down the tubes a while back, and destroyed a couple thousand jobs.

only states can (to the best of my knowledge) implement a sales tax

Well, the sixteenth ammendment says that the government can tax income derrived from any source, so that would seem to include sales. Of course, from what I gather, the sixteenth ammendment wasn't legally ratified, but...

I favor a system where those who make large amounts of money contribute a larger percentage to the society as a whole.

Yes, we noticed. We also pointed out that this was unfair and discriminatory, not to mention bad for the economy, and rejected your model on those basies(SP?).

My dictionary defines "fair" as being synonymous with "just," which is defined as suggesting equal treatment of all concerned. You don't want that.

Fairness is not trying to equalize the outcome. Fairness lies in IGNORING outcome, and simply treating everyone equally.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Did you look up the definition of just? I'm wondering.

Just - Valid within the law; lawful; just claims

As far as I know, the IRA is legal, thus, the rich being taxed is lawful, thus, it is just. By your definition, it thus becomes fair! Thank you for debunking your own argument so effectively. Really, you are your own worst enemy.

And how exactly is it bad for the economy? Lest you forget, this nation is coming off its best economy in quite a long while, and the rich have been taxed a higher percentage. Your statement makes absolutely no sense what-so-frickin'-ever.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 14, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Thank your for not paying attention, and thus reducing your own credibility.

"Fair" is defined as being synonymous with "just" when just is defined with the definition I gave. Webseter's Ninth New Collegiate.

Lest you forget, this nation is coming off its best economy in quite a long while, and the rich have been taxed a higher percentage.

Bingo. COMING OFF the best economy. Meaning it's ENDING. The economy's been slowing down for over a year now. Look at records. Every time there's been a major tax cut, the economy kicks up. Sixties, eighties. Remember that brief '91 recession? Remember the tax increase put into effect immediately preceeding it?

Think about it. The economy is, by definition, people moving money around. All other things being equal, the more money out there, the better the economy. A tax increase on the wealthy greatly reduces the amount of money in circulation, and is thus bad for the economy.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

It may be back to the future for econmics. Once upon a time, tax cuts commanded almost universal support among economists as the preferred tool for preventing recessions. When Congress passed the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts in 1964, the enthusiasm was at its zenith. Ever since, fiscal policy (changes in taxes and spending) has gradually lost favor to monetary policy (changes in interest rates by the Federal Reserve). Now George W. Bush is assaulting the convential wisdom.

When he unveiled his tax cut, the biggest selling point was the weakening economy. "We need tax relief now - in fact, we need tax relief yesterday," he said. "The federal government is simply pulling too much money out of the private economy, and this is a drag on our growth." No doubt about it, the economic slowdown has improved Bush's prospects for merchandising his large tax cut. But Bush's approach also creates new risks, and even if he succeeds in changing conventional wisdom, economics may make it harder for him to get the tax cut he wants.

The obvious risk is this: if the slowdown fades, so would the argument for a tax cut. Bush's plan might fall prey to falso promotion. Even now, the proposal has to overcome economist's bias against tax cuts as an anti-recessionary weapon. Thier skepticism mainly reflects the "clunky" nature of the political process, says Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw. By the time Congress acts, the recession may be over. In contrast, the Fed moves quickly.

Most economists still don't anticipate a recession. They think the Fed's interest-rate cuts will revive confidence and growth. (This year, the Fed funds rate has dropped a full percentage point to 5.5 percent; economists expect more cuts.) In the latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter - which follows 51 forecasts - the average prediction for economic growth in 2001 is 2.1 percent, down from 5 percent last year. Growth would recover to 3.5 percent in 2002.

Of course, forecasts can be wrong - and these may be. By and large, the sharp slowdown has surprised economists. In October, the Blue Chip economists predicted growth of 3.5 percent for this year. Economists' continued optimism presumes that the slowdown is a temporary inventory correction. Businesses overordered, and once surplus goods are sold, production and employment growth will increase. The harsher possibility - which strengthens the case for a tax cut - is that the economy is suffered the afterstock of an unsustainable boom.

Emboldened by high stock prices, consumers overborrowed and overspent, the argument goes. Businesses overinvested because venture capitalists and new stock offering provided so much cheap capital. Together, consumer spending (68% of the GDP) constitute four fifths of the economy. If all this spending slows or drops, the economy is in trouble.

"If you argue that the consumption and investment booms are over," says economist Bill Dudley of Goldman Sachs, "Then the time for a contractionary fiscal policy is over." This was Bush's line last week. Expanding budget surpluses are sucking purchasing power from the economy. Lower interest rates alone may not spur recovery, if consumers think they're overindebted and businesses face idle production capacity. Monetary policy must be aided by fiscal policy, which puts money in people's pockets.

In effect, the theory is: it's necessary to cut budget surpluses in order to save budget surplusses. After all, the surplues - now estimated at 5.6 trillion from fiscal 2002 through 2011 by the Congressional Budget Office - are just paper projections. The projections assume healthy economic growth, and without it, the surpluses won't materialize. To get growth requires sacrificing some surpluses. Ironically, the worse the economy looks now, the better the case for a tax cut.

But not automatically Bush's tax cut. The plan sent to Congress was his campaign proposal. It aimed mainly to fulfill a political agenda - not serve as an economic stimulus. It promised to discipline government spending by depriving government of oney to spend. It would cut "marginal" (i.e., top) rates - a step that conservatives believe, promotes work and investment. It would help families by doubling the child tax credit to $1,000. It would help small business owners by eliminating the estate tax. But a political statement now promoted as an economic stimulus invites criticism.

Some provisions (the estate tax, new charitable deductions) would hardly affect the economy. Similarly, the timing is bad. Most tax cuts are phased in so slowly that they wouldn't much help the economy for a few years. For example, the full rate cuts and child-credit expansion wouldn't become effective until 2006. In 2002, the tax cut would total only $21 billion, estimates the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. That's not much in a $10 trillion economy. Bush now favors making tax cuts "retro-active" but hasn't said what he means.

===

What is fair? According to Omega, it's the same as Just. What Omega seems to not understand, is that Just is defined (in my dictionary) as being legal. The tax on the rich 1% are legal, thus, not only just but fair.

Now, if Omega wants to make the argument that "fair" and "just" are subjective, he's more than welcome to. Otherwise, I strongly suggest he pull his head out of his ass.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 14, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I suggest you pull YOUR head out of YOUR ass and actually read what people say to you! My dictionary defines "fair" as "suggesting equal treatment of all concerned". It also defines "just" this way. Perhaps if you would actually READ...

As for your copied-and-pasted article about the tax cut, economic stimulus is not the ONLY reason for it. It's also because it's the morally right thing to do with the money. If you see you're going to overbill someone at some point in the future due to some error, you don't just keep the money and see if you can do them a favor later. You correct the mistake that's going to cause the overbilling.

Besides, what's Washington going to do with it? Last time we could have had a surplus of any size, the Democrats spent it before it even showed up, and we have nothing to show for it. This way, the people can actually do something with their money, instead of having it flushed.

As for the estate tax repellation not being necessary for economic growth, that may be true, but the estate tax is unfair, and thus should never have been instituted in the first place.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

If you'd read, you'd see that "fair" is, as far as I'm concerned, subjective. Yes? No, how about this. The rich make quite a bit of money. Therefore, they can afford to pay quite a bit more in taxes percentage wise because they can bloody-well fucking afford it. The more you make, the more you contribute. The less you make, the less you contribute financially. (Percentage-wise). That is fair. Now, if that's now how you see fair, fine, but don't tell me that's how I have to see it.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The more you make, the more you contribute. The less you make, the less you contribute financially. (Percentage-wise). That is fair.

No, it is NOT fair, because you treat the rich worse than you treat the poor, and "fair" is defined as treating everyone equally. If you've got some other definition of "fair", please, go back to whatever planet you came from, or learn to speak english better.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

At least I know "English" gets capitalized.

But ...

Omega, you need to pull that stick out of your butt. You're really making a big deal about this. But, hey, I understand. You need something to keep ya' busy.

synonyms: fair, just, equitable, impartial, unpredjudiced, unbiased, objective, dispassionate.

These adjectives mean free from favoritism, self-interest, or bias in judgement

Since George W. is himself rich, a tax cut with a larger percentage for the rich is therefore showing all three of the above.

Fair is the most general: a fair referee; a fair deal; a fair fight; on a fair footing

Now, this is what we're arguing about. Fair is not the same as equality, as you think it is. If that were so, the rich would pay the exact same amount as the poorest person in the world.

Now, we both have different ideas on what fair is. You think that the rich should pay the same percent as the poor, I think that the rich can afford to pay a higher percent than the poor. Namely, because the poor have trouble getting by with their bills in lots of cases, and the rich generally don't need that extra $50k to do so. Argue with me as much as you want, you can't legislate morality, Omega, and you really need to get off your high horse and stop trying too.

Just stresses conformity with what is legally or ethically right or proper: a kind and just man; "a just and lasting peace" (Abraham Lincoln).

Are the current taxes imposed on the rich legal? Yes. Are they ethical? Absolutely, everyone should pay taxes and contribute to society. The argument is about how much they should pay.

Equitable also implies justice, but justice dictated by reason, conscience, and a natural sense of what is fair to all concerned: an equitable distribution of gifts among the children

It is reasonable to assume that the rich will have no trouble paying their bills, donating money, etcetra, regardless of whether they save an extra $50k per year or not. When I'm rich, I will be happy conscience wise to pay a larger percentage of my income to taxes then those less fortunate than me. Although I'm not religious, I do know that those who are would support paying more taxes because, UIRW, didn't Jesus Christ say greed was bad?

Impartial emphasizes lack of favoritism: "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" (Edmund Burke).

George W. Bush is rich. Therefore, he can hardly be impartial to this issue. For that matter, very few of our elected officials could be, so don't take this as an attack on Dubya alone.

Omega, why do you scream and wail on this issue for so long? Just wondering. Am I impartial? Well, let's see, I got most of my Federal taxes back, so even under Dubya's plan, I wouldn't save that much money, so it's not going to effect me very much at all, so yes, I could say I'm rather impartial.

Unpredjudices means without favorable or unfavorable preconceived opinions or judgements: an unprejudiced evaluation of the arguments for and against the proposal.

Well, no one in here qualifies for that. Although hearing Omega call himself an "independent" comes pretty close.

Unbiased implies absence of the preference or inclination inhibiting impartiality: gave an unbiased account of her family problems

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the Republican Party leadership (up to and including Mr. Limbaugh) is rich. Therefore, they're unbiased, and don't you feel kind of foolish taking unbiased information? No, of course not.

Objective implies detachment that permits observation and judgement without undue reference to one's personal feelings or thoughts: Try to be objective as you listen to the testimony.

Well, that's no one in here, is it?

Dispassionate means free from or unaffected by strong personal emotions: a journalist should be a dispassionate reporter of fact

Again, that's no one in here.

One more thing. Omega, telling people to go home or leave the US because they apparently don't agree with your definitions ... is that harsh attitude shared by all Republicans? Grow up kid.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 14, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

The idea of a 10% flat tax is, mmm, fair, as long as you take all the loop holes, that are used almost exclusively by the rich. Or the base 15% that it shows on the gifs I linked to would be better.
Then each person would contribute fairly. Keep a deduction for size of family, say use a $55.00 per family member, or $660.00 per year.

Yes, this would give a reduction to the richer people, that are paying higher rates now, but it would make it fair.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Mr. Cats is a man who has only one arm, as he lost it in a terrible accident in which somebody set him up the bomb.

Mr. Lunix is a man with two arms. He lives next door to Mr. Cats. The government of the country in which both men reside institutes a law that changes Income Tax to Arm Tax.

The newly appointed arm collectors, who look like storm troopers, except red, arrive at Mr. Lunix's door.

"Open Up. Arm Collection." They demand.

Mr. Lunix opens the door, and invites the Arm Collectors in for a drink of some Lemon Water and cookies. They decline.

"We're here to saw off your arm." One of the Arm Collectors says while pulling out a saw.

"But why?" Mr. Lunix asks. "You haven't taken Mr. Cats' arm."

"Mr. Cats doesn't have an arm to spare. You have two, you can afford to lose one." The leader says.

"But this isn't -" Mr. Lunix starts, but is cut off.

"Fair? You have two arms. That's more than enough for anyone to survive."

"But you didn't take one from Mr. Cats? Why should I have to give my arm, and not him?"

The leader gets impatient. "Because you have two. That is too much. We need your arm."

The Arm Collectors neatly slice off Mr. Lunix's arm, and leave his house.

The man in the trenchcoat looks around wearily, as a bus pulls up in front of him. A gremlin pops out from beneath it.

"Barbeque" It says.

[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited February 14, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

It would be a bit more accurate if Mr. Cat had 1 arm and Mr. Lunix had thirty, I think.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

you can't legislate morality, Omega

But you can?

didn't Jesus Christ say greed was bad?

So let me get this straight. You want to prevent me from legislating my religious beliefs, but only so long as they disagree with your values? And as soon as my religious beliefs agree with your values, you want me to support your trying to force them on everyone?

Omega, why do you scream and wail on this issue for so long?

Because you're wrong, and I don't want you confusing others.

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the Republican Party leadership (up to and including Mr. Limbaugh) is rich.

Case in above point, the Democrat leadership is quite wealthy, as well. Al Gore, for instance, owns 500,000 shares of Occidental Petroleum. And again, why in the name of Abe Lincoln do you keep bringing up Rush Limbaugh?

As for UM's example, even if Cats had 6,000,000,000 arms, he would still be being treated unfairly if they removed more than they removed from others, relative to what he has. You want to equalize the outcome. This is not fair, as some do more or more valuble work than others, and thus SHOULD have a better outcome.

You want to treat those who have more than you worse. You want to, in effect, punish success. This is wrong. The only legitimate reason to harm someone is to prevent harm, or punish harm already caused, to an innocent person. If a rich person is not harming anyone, you have no right to punish him.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

And do those rich Democrats have any problem paying a higher percentage? Nope.

I don't want you to legislate your religious beliefs. I just don't understand how you can claim to be a good Christian and believe in the Bible, and yet say what you're saying here, which is essentially "greed is good". I'm calling you a hypocrite. You say you believe in the Bible on one hand, then ignore it on the other. I'm not telling you how to act, I'm judging you by what you've said. "I love the Bible! It should be followed! Meek inherit Earth!" "Taxes bad! Greed good!" Clearly, you don't listen to yourself -- or any "higher power".

I have no intention of legislating morality. I want to legislate taxes -- which are fine as they are. Don't you want to pay off Reagan's debt?

Why do I bring up Rush? Well, why not? He's a Republican partisan and like it or not, a leader of the Republican Party (even though, supposedly, no one is supposed to take him seriously). I wouldn't listen to his opinions on taxes because he is biased, being rich himself. Who wouldn't want to save that extra $$$?

No one is punishing success, Omega. Is that how you see it? How sad and cynical. Punishing success would be if they couldn't afford to pay their credit card bills, or send their two point three children to college. The rich for the most part, can vacation in Europe, afford a home or two, and luxury tax be dammed. They're hardly being punished.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 14, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I just don't understand how you can claim to be a good Christian and believe in the Bible, and yet say what you're saying here, which is essentially "greed is good". I'm calling you a hypocrite.

And I'm calling you a moron.

A) We're not talking about greed.

B) I never said what your species calls greed was right. I said people have a right to be what you call greedy. Honestly, do you even read the text in front of you? Apparently not enough to be familiar with this concept, after all the times I've presented it.

"Taxes bad! Greed good!"

What? Now TAXES are the only alternative to hoarding money? Is the concept of a charity THAT foreign to you? In case you were unaware, most charities have at least 200% greater efficiency in helping the needy relative to the government

Don't you want to pay off Reagan's debt?

If Reagan had had anything to do with the budget beyond the military, then we wouldn't be where we are. Bush would have won the '92 election, because he would never have passed a tax increase. We'd have had a surplus. And we'd never have heard the name "Bill Clinton".

I wouldn't listen to his opinions on taxes because he is biased, being rich himself.

Oh, yes, can't have people trying to defend themselves against unfair attacks, can we? Why don't we just remove that right it trials while we're at it?

You want to remove people's right to choose whom they employ or serve. You think discrimination of ANY kind should be illegal, whether by government or private citizen. But you think discrimination based upon INCOME is just A-OK. Now I'm calling YOU a hypocrite.

Posted by Right on :

Wow. Interesting.

The nation is in debt because of Reagan. It's how we defeated the Soviets -- we outspent them. I'm not saying its a bad thing, although now we have to worry about lots of little countries with nukes instead of one big one -- but to pretend the debt isn't in large part due to the "outspend" them mentality of the Reagan Administration is foolish.

What is "Fair"? You can't define "fair" on moral terms, because morality is different for everyone. Certainly, I would agree that if a person makes more, they should contribute more. I've got absolutely no problem with the taxes I pay because I make more than enough to pay my bills, put some in savings, and have a grand old time. And if you're wondering? I am in the upper tax bracket (not the 1%, the 10% I think ... $100,000 or more?).

Now, both you Omega and you JeffK need to chill out. JeffK, telling Omega to pull his head out of his ass wasn't very nice. Omega, you're being very childish calling people a different "species" because they look at things differently than you. How very intolerant. Grow up, both of you.

So, speaking for the "upper class", I for one don't see anything wrong with the taxes -- how are they discriminatory? Okay, we pay a bit more, but it's not like we're RESTRICTED to what we can or can't do. If anything, we've still got more freedom then most people to do what we want to do when we want to do (work and school permitting). Sure I'm not going to bitch about a tax cut (who would?) but I'm not going to bitch if I don't get one. Fact of the matter is, I'll still be paying proportiantly higher taxes than the less fortunate, and that is FINE (and fair) with me. I grew up rather poor, and I've got no problems paying a bit extra to make the country a better place.

Charity? How would anyone guarentee that someone paid anything to charity? Would they have a choice between giving money in taxes or giving to charity? Seems like it'd just be a different organization getting the money, so no real big difference there.

Well, I've got to run. Adieu. Try and keep yourselves from imploding.

Oh, Omega, dismissing other concerns about the tax plan isn't a good idea. They are valid, and Greenspan HAS been wrong (quite frequently) in the last year or two. Do some research, don't believe what people tell you. Go to the library and LOOK STUFF UP.

[This message has been edited by Right (edited February 15, 2001).]

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

The US defeated the Soviets? When was this?

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Here's the difference:

Conservative definition of "Fair": seeing that the laws treat everyone equally, so that everyone has the same STARTING place, then allowing nature to take its course, wherein everyone rises or falls according to their merits, abilities and actions.

Equality under the law.

Liberal definition of "Fair": seeing to it that the laws treat everyone differently, so that that no matter the starting place, merits, abilities, or actions, of a person, everyone ENDS in the same place.

Enforced Equity under the law.

JUST like Harrison Bergeron.
Read it, you'll see. http://www.crosslink.net/~jbloom/harrison.html
I swear, I'm gonna start a petition to have JeffKarde's name changed to Diana Moon Glampers.

FAIR, my friends, has nothing to do with the ratio of tax cut. There is STILL a disparity in how much is paid by whom, and it's still against the wealthy. It's just less UN-fair.

FAIR is what helps EVERYBODY, not the downtrodden-group-of-the-week.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 15, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The nation is in debt because of Reagan.

No. This nation is in debt because of the Democrats in control of Congress during the Reagan administration. I'll try and dig up a web source for you tonight, but if you'd care to do the research yourself, you'll find that, thanks to a couple massive tax cuts, the economy got a kick in the pants after a decade of stagnation, and that that doubled tax revenues between '81 and '89. They went from something like $.5 billion to a trillion, as I recall. Then you'll want numbers on military spending. THAT went from something like 17% of total spending to something like 22% of total budget. You can't possibly believe that that 5% is what put us, what? Four trillion in debt? To eat up as much extra money as we had, the military would have had to have been nearly 60% of spending, not a measley 20%.

Get your facts straight.

It's how we defeated the Soviets -- we outspent them

This is right, though. Reagan was brilliant there.

calling people a different "species" because they look at things differently than you. How very intolerant.

My, has the definition of "tolerance" become that screwed up? "Tolerance" is not saying, "Well, maybe we're ALL right." Tolerance is not burning someone at the stake because they disagree with you. Which, I suppose, doesn't say much for the DNP in their treatment of Ashcroft and Harris.

I for one don't see anything wrong with the taxes --how are they discriminatory?

They're discriminatory in that certain people are treated worse than others. Is that not discrimination?

Okay, we pay a bit more, but it's not like we're RESTRICTED to what we can or can't do.

So you don't care that you're treated worse than the rest of the country, by your own government? That concept is generally considered quite insidious when it takes place in other countries. And actually, you are restricted in what you can do with it. You can actually help people if you keep it, whereas if the government gets its hands on it, it's more likely to spend it on utter crap, like the National Endowment for the Arts.

I've got no problems paying a bit extra to make the country a better place.

And here's the crux of the entire problem. The government DOESN'T use your money to make the country a better place. Again, it spends the extra money on the NEA ("Our strength is our perversity") or other assorted useless programs. YOU use your money to make the country a better place, or at least you can. That's the whole point. In YOUR hands, the money can actually do some good. In the GOVERNMENT's, it may as well be flushed down a toilet. One with a $600 seat on it. Or even better, one that doesn't have a seat, because it's on display in the NYC museum of modern art.

How would anyone guarentee that someone paid anything to charity?

You wouldn't. It's your money, and you have a right not to give it away if you choose. It's all about your rights. Anyway, history shows that when people have more money to play with, they donate more.

Seems like it'd just be a different organization getting the money, so no real big difference there.

Actually, it's a huge difference, because the government doesn't do any good with the money, and even what little it spends on charity, it has something like 25% efficiency (meaning for every dollar put into the program, a needy person gets a quarter). A real charity can have upwards of 90% efficiency. That, and the person donating chooses where the money goes.

Liam:

The US defeated the Soviets? When was this?

Why did you think the USSR fell apart? They tried to match our military spending, and spent themselves into oblivion.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Not everyone starts in the same place, First.

The son of someone making $300,000 is not the same as the son of someone barely scraping $12,000 a year.

Now, let me look at those definitions of yours.

Conservative definition of "Fair": seeing that the laws treat everyone equally, so that everyone has the same STARTING place (not allowing for social and financial inequalities which in fact make certain that not everyone has the same STARTING place), then allowing nature to take its course (so that the rich have an easy time making it, and the less fortunate more often than not don't), wherin everyone rises or falls according to their merits, abilities, and actions (which explains why we've got a 50-year old guy flipping burgers at McD's because more often than not, he went to work ASAP to help support his family and didn't have the advantage of going to school)

Liberal definition of "Fair": seeing to it that individual citizens contribute more or less (depending on their financial standings) to help the less fortunate have opportunities that might not otherwise be available to them, so that no matter the lack of financial or other opportunities readily available to the upper classes, the lower classes will have the opportunity to succeed based on their merits, abilities, and actions.

Your definition completely ignores social equalities which do exist. Therefore, your definition is not correct.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 15, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Your definition completely ignores social equalities which do exist.

BINGO! It's not the government's JOB to fix social inequalities. That's OUR job, as human beings. If you want to shove your responsibility off on someone else who can't do it worth a flip, don't try and force me to do the same.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

>"he went to work ASAP to help support his family and didn't have the advantage of going to school"

Well why didn't he put off having a family until after he was through with school?

Or do you mean he was supporting his parents and siblings?

Guess what? The kids in my gf's family did that too (because their father was too stupid to take a higher-paying job when it was offered to him, because his 19th-Century mentality wouldn't allow him to say 'no' to an Important Person), but... with the exception of my gf, who was PUTTING HERSELF THROUGH GRADUATE SCHOOL when she first became seriously ill, and only hasn't finished because she CAN'T get appropriate government help*, They're all making out economically MUCH better than their parents did. And their kids, if current trends continue and they don't screw it up themselves, will likely do even better.

My father worked early mornings in a bakery while going to a small college, to pay his way, because his father, who worked in the mill and HADN'T gone to college, couldn't cover the whole thing. Having paid for his college, my father worked hard at his job, (and my mother did, as well) and saved enough money that my the time my brother and I went to college, he could cover all of both of ours, although I was on my own for grad school. Now I'm working, in the hopes of being able to support my gf as my family. Admittedly, I botched a lot of it by being lazy, which is my own fault. Fortunately (I suppose) I won't be having children, absolving me of the responsibility for their upbringing.

Success happens by increments. REAL working people understand this. It's the "I want it ALL, now, now, NOW!" whining crybabies that can't accept it.

The rest of America calls it drive, ambition, and hard work.

*Come to think of it, I've never known of anybody who bettered their situation with government help, aside from tuition aid. Certainly not around here, where government aid generally perpetuates through generations.

The Government's type of aid does NOT create independency. It creates dependency, in the long run.
If this is not the case, explain why the SSI people are unwilling to shell out the small amount of extra money NOW to help my gf get the equipment she needs to finish her education and get a job that might make her self-sufficient a couple years down the road.

HMM?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 15, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Wow. First, you've got an example for everything. Let me tell you the story of my friend Dante, whom I met about a year ago. He's a sophmore at Towson now -- he's also thirty years old.

Grew up in Baltimore, did okay. Inner city public schools ain't that great, and especially not in Baltimore. Didn't do drugs or any of that kind of stuff, kept his nose clean. Graduated, thought of going to college.

Then his mom died. His dad was long gone by this point. Dante got a minimum-wage job at and did his best to raise his sisters. How the hell are you supposed to go to college if you're working 60 plus hours a week just to scrape out a living for yourself and two others?

Society is hardly equal. Dante didn't have the chances that others did, and pretending a tax cut is going to fix these problems is border-line delusional. "Oooh, it's all about hard work!" Well, sure it is, and Dante worked real hard for what ... $4 an hour? $6 when he was on overtime? With two kids to support? Please, take your "hard working people can do it!" attitude and shove it up your ass. Every situation is different and pretending that all it takes is hard work and determination is bullshit.

Well, then you ask, how is Dante at Towson now?

One of his sisters moved out. Maryland moved in and took over the city's school system a few years back, and she even got a partial scholarship to Morgan State. Ooooh ... wanna know something else? I forgot to mention this part.

Dante got on welfare to help him out -- about four years ago. Quit the minimum wage job. It's how he's able to afford Towson (his "real" job pays under the table so he's able to afford tuition without the Gov't stopping his welfare), afford the Morgan State tuition that still needs to be paid, support his other sister, and pay rent, utilities, and keep food on the table ... yep, that's right, the Government does help those less fortunate, because without that welfare check, Dante wouldn't be able to afford TU or MSU.

First, I don't know why those guys are being mean to your girlfriends. I've never said that the gov't is perfect, and it certainly needs some reform, but does cutting the taxes of the rich really do any of this? No, it doesn't.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Cool Down. I never said Welfare shouldn't exist.
Actually, I think your friend deserves kudos for what he's done, and I think MORE money should be available to help out people in situations just like his. THAT is what welfare should be for.

Besides, you don't pay taxes on welfare benefits, do you?

I mean, you're expecting, now that he's in college and one of his sisters is too, that he'll be OFF welfare eventually, right? That's good. That's what should be being strived for. But it isn't, and THAT'S the problem I have with it. Like you said, his job HAS to pay him 'under the table' because the welfare folks would cut him off if they didn't.

That shouldn't be allowed. They should, really, add to his benefits for working. I think that'd be right.

Your friend Dante's a good man, willing to work for a better life. So is my gf, except she's a woman. Both need help, both get SOME, but just enough to keep them dependent, without resorting to 'shady' means. The system needs serious reform in that area.

My gripe isn't about these people. More power to them.
My gripe is about the people who AREN'T trying, and despite propaganda to teh contrary, we probably ALL know examples of what we mean. People who screw it up themselves, and want us to clean up the mess.

Dante didn't screw it up, but his 'long gone' dad did. My gf didn't screw it up, but her illness did.

Neither of them should suffer for things that are not their fault. They should both be helped until they are self-sufficient. I WANT to pay taxes for that.

But these people who sit at home and vegetate, who pop out one after another kid, who blow their money on booze and drugs and fraud... screw them. Don't say they aren't out there, I KNOW these people. Help their kids, any way you can, but keep their parents' grubby hands off the money, because they'll only waste it.

Anyways, now that we're sufficiently off topic, who's going to lead us back?

It was the promise of a tax cut that got Reagan elected in 1980. He kept that promise, and the economic growth that followed got Reagan re-elected in 1984. It was the promise of "now new taxes" that got Bush Sr. elected in 1988, and it was breaking that promise that cost Bush Sr. the presidency in 1992.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Incidentally, did a rich guy own the store where your friend worked, or does one own the company he hopes to work at when he finishes college?

Since higer taxes on the wealthy mean less expansion of business, (most large or chain businesses are owned by wealthy people, you know, and they won't expand unless its sufficiently profitable) do you see a potential connection here? You can't get a job, even a minimum wage job, if nobody's hiring. If the jobs are all full, and nobody expands and no new businesses move in to town, what then?

It's kind of like the power in California. If the power plants aren't there, the electricity won't be there, no matter how many people want it.

The old saw "you have to spend money to make money" is true. And the people who can spend the money are the people who have the most of it. And the more that's spent, the more is generated.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I could care less about taxes and money stuff, but I am grandly enthused at one aspect this discussion has brought about. the Flareboard has a new Mom.

Thank you Right, for helping mediate the 'uncivility' between Omega and Mr. Kardde. Sometimes, they just get out of control, with attacks on their parents, their sexual orientation (most often with animals and/or extra-terrestrials), and quite often littered with such profanities as "fucking cock-sucker monkey cum licking dog fucker" & "noodleboy".

I sometimes think that they are 13 year old AOLers, and not the fairly mature young men that they are in actuality. Lord knows they never act like it. Too often will conversations end up in degenerate "NO YUO SI TEH FUCKING HOMO FAGORT!!!!", to which is replied: "I HAEV TEH SEXXOR WIHT YUOR MOM!!!". Extraordinarily rarely are the discussions at least vaguely on topic and rational.

I rarely visit the Flameboards, because, as the name suggests, it gets quite "flamey", meaning hot. But now that we have at least one member concerned with the civility levels in here, I will no doubt be visiting quite often from now on.

I also admire subtlety, and I don't think you can get much more subtle than subtler-than-subtle hint droppings like "in case you are wondering, I'm in the top tax bracket. $100,000." This works in so many ways, as it functions as a class reminder, and as a foil to the largely peasant population that inhabit these forums. (They really do inhabit these forums. They have no homes, of course.) Also, it works so well, as nobody actually was wondering.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

First,

While I completely agree with you that the welfare system needs fixing, I don't see how giving a rich guy a cut amounting to $50,000 is really going to mean much to me. I mean, if he's making THAT much money to be getting that $50,000 back, does he really need it all that badly? And since this is -- as far as I am aware -- personal income, how would it affect how he runs his business?

Now, I'll admit, I'm not quite sure how the business taxes are, true enough. It just seems to me that there's a difference between personal/ and business/ income.

In answer to your other questions:

Dante's crap job was at McDonalds. He's working at the Pizza Palace in Towson (pizzas, subs, beer you know, the mom & pop place on the corner) as a driver.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

But, I think that the main issue here, and feel free to take away all my base if I am wrong, is wether that rich man keeping that $50,000 is more benefitial to society than him giving to the Government as tax money.

The way it seems to me is that there are two situations here:

1) Man gives Money to tax people who collect the money: It goes to the government. It is then distributed throughout the various tax fueled programs, and while perhaps the local homeless shelter may recieve a new bed, a documentary on porn called like "bubbles" or something gets produced, and airs on CBC.

2) Man buys things with money. This creates more demand, which creates more supply, which creates jobs for homeless men, and raises wages, to cope with demand. He may also invest some money, or donate some to charity.

The way I see it is, the more money that can actually get to a helpfull situation, is better. Porn (Especially Canadian Porn) is not good.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I don't think the government produces porn. They'd spend it all on a toilet seat, anyway.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I'll see if I find can find online documentation, but the Gov't has given money to a woman in the late 80's and early 90's to go on stage, strip, and smear chocolate pudding on herself, as an artistic from of enteraintment. This is also the same Gov't that has spent hundreds on toilet seats and hammers, and sells 'surplus' goods to dealers at 10% of cost and sometimes buyes it back a a 1000% markup.

So, to look from another view, a tax cut, that is decent and 'fair', will force the Gov't to tighten it's purse strings a bit tighter. A thriftier Gov't can be had.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
...but the Gov't has given money to a woman in the late 80's and early 90's to go on stage, strip, and smear chocolate pudding on herself...

That's art baby! Oh man is that art!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

UM's got it right. IF you can fix up the government where it doesn't do things like subsidize art (or whatever you call a sculpture of Mary covered in elephant dung), and where it's actually more efficient in helping people than charities (which implies volunteer workers), THEN I might be for setting up a VOLUNTARY system. Other than that, we're just wasting money that could be put to better use. Thus, tax cut.

Under any circumstances, IT'S A SURPLUS. Meaning the gov'ment doesn't need it, by definition.

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Ritten: That was me posting something about a government grant for a study on the stripping. I don't know where the link is, and since it is from a newspaper, I doubt that it is still there.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

It's a surplus in conjecture...as is the amount.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

TL: I heard about it about 8 years ago when I was in the Guard, from my squad leader.

If the Gov't would buy in smaller 'bulk' quanities then there wouldn't be surplus. Better management is needed, so a CEO Pres might be a good thing. Fiscal responsibility was the catch phrase at one point in time.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Right on :

Pop Quiz: What's the single biggest reason people don't have health insurance? They can't afford it, of course. Bush's solution is - you're going to love this - cut taxes. You get the sense that if someone broke their leg, Bush would advise them to take two tax cutsand call him in the morning. As the health care advocates at Families USA point out, Bush has proposed a tax credit of $2,000 per family to help people pay for health insurance. Trouble is, it's a shell game. A typical family health insurance plan runs $5,000 to $6,000 a year, which means a family that can't afford health care still has to come up with $3,000 or $4,000 (10 percent of their income if their income if they're around the national median income). No wonder Families USA calls Bush's proposal a "trivial response to a serious problem."

Bush's call for medical savings accounts (MSAs) is another example of Bush prescribing tax cuts for every ailment. MSAs are great - if you're healthy and wealthy (like Bush). But if you're not, they're of no help. They are basically a tax shelter for rich people, allowing them to save money, tax free, for medical expenses. Most proposals allow you to set aside $5,000 in such shelters. If you don't spend it on medical care, you can keep it. Now, if you have an extra five-grand lying around, these are for you. But if you don't, MSAs wind up being an insurance policy with a deductible of $3 - $4,000. Some deal.

But if you are healthy and wealthy they are a good deal. Experts say MSAs would only help about 10,000 people out of the 44.3 million who lack health insurance. But for those 10,000 they're great. They allow you to shelter more income from taxes, and still protect you against catastropic risk. So what's the harm? If you cherry-pick the healthy and wealthy out of the health insurance pool, you wind up raiing premiums for the rest of us - and cost the government about $4 billion in tax subsidies.

So once again Bush has a proposal that would hurt the middle class and the poor, while helping the rich. How can you NOT admire this man's genius?

-Paul Begala

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

My job pays for my insurance. Something like $30 a month, but it covers virtually everything that might happen to me.

We call these things 'benefits' and they generally come with a job. My parents' job benefits, (when they were teachers) coverd the entire family; medical, dental, eyes, everything.

So where are these people who have to shell out all this money for insurance WORKING? And why don't their unions demand coverage for employees?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

There's always a better solution than running to the government crying, guys.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You know, when I worked at Domino's, I had health insurance.

So one day I had to go to the Doctor's, and get an ingrown toe-nail removed.

Cost $450.

My "insurance" covered ... $30 of it. Gee, thanks. Wonderful insurance.

Not everyone is as fortunate as you, First, to have good health insurance.

Now, I have gotten a much better health insurance policy, and the ONLY way I am able to afford it is:

a) the only time I've been in the hospital since I was born is ... to deliver a pizza. (The toe thing was at a private office)

b) I'm rarely sick. The cold occasionaly. The toe thing is really the biggest thing to happen to me in quite a long time.

c) I get a bit of a discount for being a student.

d) I've got a job which pays rather well, so I'm able to scrape the cash together roughly on time. Thank god!

Because otherwise, I couldn't afford it. I'm having trouble doing so as it IS.

To think that EVERYONE has the same opportunities as you is stupid. Great, you've got a job with great benefits, not everyone does. Lots of employers offer none or minimal benefits.

Liberals believe Health Insurance is a RIGHT (you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)

Conservatives apparently believe not being able to afford health insurance is "too bad" ...

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families."
--Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 20, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually, I think Conservatives believe that the key to everybody being able to afford health insurance is far more complex, and in the long term, more beneficial, than having the government (with tax dollars from you and me) pay for it, and includes:

Doing something about the outrageous costs of drugs (largely due to taxes and overregulation). There's no real reason that a single pill should cost $2.00, while a can of pepsi can be had for 1/4 that.

and Doing something about the terribly litigous aspect of this society which causes everybody with a hangnail to sue their doctor, which causes doctors to need large amounts of malpractice insurance, which causes their prices to be very high indeed.

MY Health plan, by the way, is FAR from 'great' There is no such thing as a 'great' HMO. (And in this part of the state, very few 'great' hospitals or doctors)

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Shit, who cares about HMOs, you get soda for .50 cents up there? Bastard.