I hope he has a slow, miserable death

LeftCoast

tonyb wrote: »

Absolutely to the second part of that statement, but the first part....did you not read the link ?

Man, your memory is pretty short my friend. Over the last decade ??? How about just 5 or 6 years ago, when we had 5-6 % unemployment, lots of jobs, reasonable food prices, etc. Did you happen to forget those years ? Things turned south when leftwingers, sorry, couldn't resist, won both houses in Bush's last 2 years. The 6 prior years were not too shabby were they ? God knows I'm not a huge Bush fanboy, lots of things he could have done better for sure, but most people worked at least. Now we have a worldwide debt problem with investors sitting on their coin because the risks are too high. In the last 3.5 years we added 5 trillion to our debt with nothing to show for it. In all fairness too, Bush added his own pretty well also to fund wars which Obama is just continueing. So please tell me how throwing more money at a problem will make it go away. Thats the answer to every problem we face, just ask Jerry Brown, he'll tell ya, throw more money at it. Let me see if I understand this, correct me if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen a time or two. I'm an investor, sitting on billions to invest but given the markets, given the currency problems, european problems, I'm a tad skittish. So you think by charging me more money, that will get me off the sidelines and start investing ? Is that right ?

It's not the tax rates keeping investors on the sidelines, it's the uncertainty that makes them pause. Markets like stability, you see any ?

BTW-here's a part of that link that spells it out.

The president favored a toll highway network financed by bonds, but his aides convinced him that traffic volumes would not generate enough revenue in most corridors to repay bondholders with interest. Therefore, the plan the President submitted to Congress called for establishment of a Federal Highway Corporation to issue bonds to pay for the Interstate System up-front, with the Federal excise tax on gasoline and lubricating oil (which then went to the general Treasury without a linkage to highways) was dedicated to bond retirement. Congress rejected this plan, but adopted a proposal to finance the Interstate System on a pay-as-you-go basis with revenue from highway user taxes. The revenue was credited by the Department of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.

You don't happen to think, maybe...just maybe the 90% tax rate in the 60's was to fund a war, remember that cluster f&ck ?

90 pct tax was to fund the war? Nah couldn't be. Everyone knows that you cut taxes in time of war. Just ask George Bush.

tonyb

LeftCoast wrote: »

90 pct tax was to fund the war? Nah couldn't be. Everyone knows that you cut taxes in time of war. Just ask George Bush.

Won't get an arguement from me there my friend. Bush kept war costs off the books and onto the nations credit card. Stupid beyond belief imho anyway. I'd like to ask these people how that "changeing hearts and minds" thing is working out after 10 frickin' years.....and at what cost to the nation.

gimpod

tonyb wrote: »

Won't get an arguement from me there my friend. Bush kept war costs off the books and onto the nations credit card. Stupid beyond belief imho anyway. I'd like to ask these people how that "changeing hearts and minds" thing is working out after 10 frickin' years.....and at what cost to the nation.

Try 60+ years, they have had and tried that mind set since before Korea and it still has never worked out. I have an idea



Everywhere, I know a bit extreme, But with the direction the worlds going and the rate it's going at it wouldn't surprise me that some moron will push that button. Nothing like a fresh start to straiten things out.

oldmodman

If I ever meet him I will shake his hand, pat him on the back and say "ATTABOY", your mother didn't raise any dummies.

It is the American Way to maximize your financial status in every legal way possible. I know several multi-millionaires that either left California to avoid paying the 10% state income tax, or in one case left the USA completely. Very smart move in each case.

The only thing I don't like about the guy that moved to Nevada to save 6 million in California Income Tax is that he actually had his SDA SRS 1.2TL speakers painted black to please his wife. What a terrible thing to do!

cnh

I've always said the everyone "deserves" every last penny that they've made "legally" because they're such "brilliant job creators" lol No one with 100s of millions or billions of dollars should ever have to pay "anything" back because, somehow, magically, they made ALL that money "by themselves". I wonder just how "they" did that without anyone else's help.

This is NOT an issue of whether or not people should pay taxes. But how much they should pay. Reaching a balance between the "perposterous" (I don't OWE ANYONE, ANYTHING!) and the "ridiculous" (I owe the state "everything"). There has to be a happy middle ground in between. Alas for the middle-classes (and this is the REAL issue, we "can not" hide our income as well as the Big Boys so we end up paying the bulk of everything and this is really what's getting displaced here. The outrage about taxes would NOT be a huge issue if the Middle-class thought "they" were being taxed fairly). The seemingly tenuous alliance between the rich and the middle-class would probably evaporate if taxes for the majority of us were reduced or used appropriately.

So there is an interesting kind of shell game being played here. You have a "real" tax burden on us. The Tax burden on the Big Boys is easily avoided so that they almost "never" pay that 35 percent of more--mostly they pay less than we do. Politicians tie Taxes, or rather dump them all into an undifferentiated pot, then tie the Big Boys to us with phrases like "job-creators" since we need jobs and can relate to that, and abracadabra the rich and the middle-class are "united" fighting off the same demons as our friend Mr. Norquist).

Should we "dis-aggregate" our tax burden from theirs or not? Whatya think? And why?

cnh

tonyb

I think most of us can agree the tax code needs to be revamped, simplified, with many loopholes closed. The tax code started out with good intentions, to entice investment to certain segments of the economy, but quickly fell prey to lobbyist coin. A certain flat tax, in maybe 3 different income catagories, no if's and or but's might be the ticket.

Incidently, the wealthy did not do everything on their own as you may suggest CNH, but they did pay for others services which allowed people to raise families. No agreement was ever brought forth that should the company do good your entitled to a percentage of profits. If thats the path you wish, buy stock in the company....anyone can, and do buy stock.

Closing the loopholes is the ticket otherwise you can charge the rich on face value 100%, but if you continue to give them loopholes that only a certain percentage can take advantage of, it means diddly that 100% figure. It becomes a political football with no real meaning.

Supposedly, the arguement goes, the rich with all their tax deductions wind up paying less as a percentage than the middle class. Has anyone said, Hey, just lower the burden on the middle class then ? Of coarse not, an ever expanding government needs an ever expanding revenue base. Simple economics really. The more you want government to do, the more it needs to take from you. Oh, not you per say, those other guys over there, take their money, not mine. See how silly that sounds ?

Lets face it, government needs revenue to operate, no getting around it. Taxes are a necessity regardless if your rich, middle class, or even poor. With almost half of the nation not paying anything into the kitty, nothing...zero, zip, who then is not paying their fair share, if I may borrow that stupid phrase ? Would it not be more feasable to start collecting from those who pay nothing, while cutting costs on the government side of things ? Of coarse cutting the size and scope of government is one of those things talked about around election time but seldom ever put into reality. The only thing they ever cut is the rate of expansion. You have to have skin in the game, otherwise everything becomes an ever expanding welfare state supported by the ubber rich and corporations. That might seem appealing to some, until those rich people and corporations decide to tell you how to live your life if you want to continue to be on their dole.....and even that too is cool with many folks.

A fixed revenue stream by revamping the tax code, eliminating loopholes the size of the grand canyon, and cutting government waste/spending. Thats my answer, and kudo's to anyone who can do that I don't care what side of the fence they are on. You need to do all 3 or none of it will produce results.

bmbguy

Raising taxes, lowering taxes, revamping tax code -- it's all pretty meaningless until governments learn to live within their means and spend less than they bring in. Then again, our citizenry hasn't done a very good job of leaning that lesson either.

That which is unsustainable will not continue indefinitely. Pretty much sums up the state of the global financial system at this point. It's only a matter of when (not if) it completely comes apart (the process of which has already begun), and what things will look like on the other side.

cnh

tonyb wrote: »

I think most of us can agree the tax code needs to be revamped, simplified, with many loopholes closed. The tax code started out with good intentions, to entice investment to certain segments of the economy, but quickly fell prey to lobbyist coin. A certain flat tax, in maybe 3 different income catagories, no if's and or but's might be the ticket.

Incidently, the wealthy did not do everything on their own as you may suggest CNH, but they did pay for others services which allowed people to raise families. No agreement was ever brought forth that should the company do good your entitled to a percentage of profits. If thats the path you wish, buy stock in the company....anyone can, and do buy stock.

Agreed except that the reverse is also true: those who work for others "did pay for other services which allowed those who hired them to raise their families". No? Labor needs Capital, but Capital "also" needs labor. There is no way we can sever one or prioritize one over the other since profits do not simply come from those who have the Capital to invest and hire you. That's all I'm saying. And I really don't think we disagree here. Why NOT valorize both sides: the Owner and Labor? Since they must always work together.

Otherwise we're pretty much in some agreement. Taxes but not in a runaway manner. And shore up the loopholes, etc. Now why can't we get that done? Because both sides are pretty much beholden to concerns that are NOT interested in solving the problem. But would rather "politicize" it for their own benefit than really talk about it and put something on the table.

We don't always agree with each other here. But I can assure you that if I were on a panel with a number of you whose politics may be different than mine, that "I", for one, would be willing to compromise and "risk" my re-election in the process. How many of our politicians can/do say that?

cnh

bmbguy

cnh wrote: »

Now why can't we get that done? Because both sides are pretty much beholden to concerns that are NOT interested in solving the problem.

You are so right. Not to mention that 'solving' the problem will be difficult and somewhat painful. So, we just kick the can down the road, leaving the mess for 'later'...

tonyb

Well, kicking the can down the road falls on both sides of the political isle, nothing new there as evident by our growing national debt. Unless you address the core problems, everything else is just window dressing played out to win elections.

CNH,
We probably agree more than not, just expressing it differently is all. Unfortunately, the wishful thinking of finding someone to fall on the political sword to do the right thing is less than likely. Which means, it has to start at ground level, local, with people of character that we elect. Too many times it's one or 2 B.S. ideals that get people elected. Doesn't say much for the general population imho anyway. Easier said than done, I know but one has to have faith in those we elect and be more selective in that process. With that, the integrity of the voting booth must be kept to the highest standards, unlike it is today.

As a side note, I saw some down on capital hill are already putting legislation together to tax people on their way out the door. Called that one early on in the thread, but that was an easy call.

Also, lets keep in mind most anyone will use the law, or lack there of, to improve their financial situation regardless of what class your in. Thats just human nature, each one of us in our own way are our own private company. We couldn't last long if we didn't take in more than we spent. When income is fixed or set, you control expenditures like cutting the cable bill, buying clothes at Walmart instead of those fancy designer clothes. Bottom line is you have to spend less than what you take in. The bigger picture is, government needs not control expenditures when they can just take more from you, or print it. Where is the motivation ? Thats why spending never gets cut, no need to.

The g8 summit is not so much about solving world problems, but how to keep financing world governments when you've taxed people beyond their acceptance. You need more people contributing into the kitty, but have to sell that to them as some unforseen crisis about to happen. We live in a world today where we move from crisis to crisis, only under those conditions can governments do the unthinkable, the unacceptable, and not get stoned to death by their people.

Taxes will always be around, and in many forms. Question is, how much is too much ? How much of the fruits of ones labor should be taken for the common good ? Anyone care to toss out a number....as a percentage ? For me, that number is around the 25% catagory, but that would also include state too.

In case nobody is paying attention too, come January, we are looking at the biggest tax increase yet to hit if congress does zip. Given the state of gridlock, I don't see them doing jack.

tonyb

cnh wrote: »

But would rather "politicize" it for their own benefit than really talk about it and put something on the table.
cnh

Actually, lots has been put on the table. Most recently the presidents own commision he appointed had a fairly good non partisan plan....which was quickly ignored for the reasons which you and I both agree to. I've said many a times, they are not interested in solving problems per say, just making you THINK they are solving problems. Two different sides of the coin there. You go home thinking your voices were heard, something is getting done, and your feeling good. They snicker and sneer behind closed doors knowing they just sold you a **** pie. All is right with the world in their eyes at that point.