POL: Tax rates and Buffett

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

And watch the wealthy flee.

There are already tax havens out there that easily beat the rates we have right now in the United States. What is to stop the wealthy to outsource themselves to another country to avoid costs like they have done in just about every other facet of the economy so far?

If there is some reason they are still here, would another small bump suddenly cause them to flee where they have not before?

Even under the 'fair tax' idea being floated around, the wealth will end up paying more than they do now. With the under 90K taxes factored in, or without, your average middle class American is handing over a third in taxes, while your average 'investor' class American is handing over about a sixth. If we go to a flat rate with no change in spending the middle class will pay less, and the investor class will pay more, perhaps comparable to the same percentage hike that I have been spouting already.

If you chop 10% off middle class and add 5% to the investor class we both end up with about a 20 - 25% rate.

If that scares off the investor class, as you purport a 5% increase would do, then the 'fair tax' that the rest of us will have to pay, assuming spending is constant, starts to skyrocket (instead of a third we would all being paying half our money in taxes).

Sadly, we will never be able to compete with a small island that has no infrastructure/army/real economy to support. They will gladly slash their taxes to a 10% or a 5% or even a 1% rate because it would exist to merely get a percentage of that massive fortune for their country which has no budget. Why hasn't it already come to pass?

If there is a barrier preventing people to migrate away from the U.S., take advantage of it and raise the capital gains rate a couple percentages points. It is not going to make investments suddenly become impossible... there is only a tax on gains and if you look at any calculation method I know of for evaluating an investment, the costs associated with a 1% increase in the tax is ludicrously small. Any investment you would turn down because of that increase you probably should not be making in the first place.

I'm just tired of the scare tactics and false economics quotes I keep hearing from the other side on this. If migration to non-tax countries is going to happen, there is pretty much nothing we can do about it no matter what tax rate we set. Just as with outsourcing, we cannot compete at all. And this disincentive people are talking about just doesn't make sense, just think of a very basic investment scenario and calculate just how big a tax increase it would take to make the investment not worth the risk. Crunch some numbers or reference an economics book written sometime after the 1800's and point to the crippling shutdown of the economy a capital gains tax hike would create.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

There are already tax havens out there that easily beat the rates we have right now in the United States. What is to stop the wealthy to outsource themselves to another country to avoid costs like they have done in just about every other facet of the economy so far?

If there is some reason they are still here, would another small bump suddenly cause them to flee where they have not before?

Remeber, they really can't flee without paying US federal taxes for at least a few years (where they can't get citizenship).

[Tyrith]

It seems to me that there are some elasticity factors here that are being overlooked. If you raise taxes on the top 1% by 1% they aren't all going to flee to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands; there are other factors involved in their moving besides the tax rate. You might lose a few corporations but it's likely a majority of the businesses will stay. It seems that there should be a level of tax increase where these ultra rich taxpayers will be relatively location inelastic and will just gut it out and give the government more money with relatively few losses to other nations. There aren't exactly a lot of other countries with our economic model of largely free market capitalism, reasonable tax rates and easy access to a giant consumer base.

And this is just talking from a revenue neutral standpoint...it's really easy for a conversation like this to get mired down in two issues, tax distribution and overall government spending. Although I don't trust most wealthy individuals to spend their money for the public good anymore than the government does; Bill Gates and Warren Buffet seem to be the exception, not the rule. And if they aren't, heck, they can deduct half their taxable income via charitable contributions anyway. If they're truly altruistic then it shouldn't matter as much.

[Buccaneer]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet seem to be the exception

That's a silly thing to say unless all you watch is Entertainment Tonight. Nearly all medium to large corporations donate a percentage of their profits to local, regional and national charities.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

It seems to me that there are some elasticity factors here that are being overlooked. If you raise taxes on the top 1% by 1% they aren't all going to flee to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands; there are other factors involved in their moving besides the tax rate. You might lose a few corporations but it's likely a majority of the businesses will stay. It seems that there should be a level of tax increase where these ultra rich taxpayers will be relatively location inelastic and will just gut it out and give the government more money with relatively few losses to other nations. There aren't exactly a lot of other countries with our economic model of largely free market capitalism, reasonable tax rates and easy access to a giant consumer base.

And this is just talking from a revenue neutral standpoint...it's really easy for a conversation like this to get mired down in two issues, tax distribution and overall government spending. Although I don't trust most wealthy individuals to spend their money for the public good anymore than the government does; Bill Gates and Warren Buffet seem to be the exception, not the rule. And if they aren't, heck, they can deduct half their taxable income via charitable contributions anyway. If they're truly altruistic then it shouldn't matter as much.

Living in the Cayman Islands sounds like a nice dream, taxes or no taxes.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, it's a bit silly saying "watch the wealthy flee" when their tax rate under a few percentage point bump is still probably lower than any other major Western country. Federal rates going to even 40% (from, IIRC, 30%) is not going to make them leave. If the wealthy didn't flee when the top tax rate was 90%, why would they now?

As for saying the estate tax is government holding a gun to your head and saying "give me half", that's just a difference in political philsophies. I see it more as the government saying, now give us our fair share for creating the situation where you were allowed to accumulate your wealth.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, it's a bit silly saying "watch the wealthy flee" when their tax rate under a few percentage point bump is still probably lower than any other major Western country. Federal rates going to even 40% (from, IIRC, 30%) is not going to make them leave. If the wealthy didn't flee when the top tax rate was 90%, why would they now?

As for saying the estate tax is government holding a gun to your head and saying "give me half", that's just a difference in political philsophies. I see it more as the government saying, now give us our fair share for creating the situation where you were allowed to accumulate your wealth.

I'm not saying that it will happen. But it will give them more incentive. The UK is getting a lot of heat from businesses and individuals threating to move out of the UK.

Aren't federal rates at 35%? The 90% tax rate was a long time. Different environment and results now.

As for the estate tax, I guess it comes down to a difference in philsophies. To mean, I think you do your fair share in paying higher taxes, creating jobs, a big part of the tax revenue (directly and non-directly through your employees taxed income and other taxes), and new products and services that benefit our society.

[Warhammer]

Good grief. It is astonishing to me that we are sitting here saying that we should basically increase the tax rates on the wealthy because they won't leave if we do.

The reason why the rich were willing to stay in the US when the tax rate was 90% was that we were much more advanced than other parts of the world and we were a much larger part of the total global economy. As time goes on, we are going to be a smaller part of the whole pie, and as other areas catch up to us, it is easier for them to justify leaving.

Why do we think that our government can cure our ills? What government service operates as we think it should with no problems? I can think of one area, and that has a relatively low amount of bureaucracy, that is the military. I guess you could throw the Post Office in there if you want, but I have issues with them as well.

I have problems with unequal enforcement of the police, I have issues with the quality of education that many people get from public schools, I have issues with the upkeep of our road system, etc. Why should I give more money to a government that is not concerned about those issues? Judging from the distributions in the government's budget, I should be more concerned with the government taking my earnings and giving it to others based upon factors such as age or income level. I earned that money and am absolutely fed up with the government taking it and putting it towards things that I don't agree with.

[clintl]

So you believe it's right that Warren Buffett's effective tax rate is about half of what his secretary's effective tax rate is? Because that's the issue here. It's not whether the government should increase revenues. It's about the fraud being perpetrated by conservatives that the wealthy are being overtaxed, when in fact, they are being undertaxed compared the rest of us.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Galaxy: You're right, but I believe it is in society's best interest to limit how much wealth gets accumulated in a few hands. The estate tax effects very few people and is designed to put a small brake on the development of a de facto aristocracy.

Buc: I was responding to HA. If we all get to choose where our tax dollars go the unsexy, but absolutely necessary things wouldn't get paid for. Nobody is going to check "national debt service" on their tax form.

even if we get to designate what portion of our taxes go to defense would be an improvement. see, there's a difference between paying for our defense, and paying for our military to act like Team America in other countries and worrying about their problems. our country acts the way it does because government will take huge scoops out of our budget for military endeavors, which is not necessary. when 25% of our homeless are retired vets, yet our defense budget is more than the GNP of some countries - something is wrong. i would like the world to know the difference when the people of America want to go to war and when a war-monger administration wants to go to war. if our presence in other countries was dictated by how much/little was in our military budget, you'd find we wouldn't be so involved in other country's affairs after all. if Iran wants to annihilate Israel - let Israel worry about it. i want American kids to have access to higher quality education. i want improved roads where i live. i want a way to help the homeless in America. these are the things i want my taxed going towards. not what benefits the security of Iraq. that area is hell on earth and we're pissing away money on a lost cause. when something wrong goes on in the world and other countries look for us to get involved, i want us to be able to say "um, sorry, not in our budget this year. maybe the American people will allot more funds to the military next year". obviously i'm not saying the military should go unfunded, i'm saying they should be given a base portion of the budget, akin to what is needed in peacetime, with the people decided how much more they'd want to designate their taxes towards the military. we should have enough in our budget for our defense, nothing more.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I have problems with unequal enforcement of the police, I have issues with the quality of education that many people get from public schools, I have issues with the upkeep of our road system, etc. Why should I give more money to a government that is not concerned about those issues? Judging from the distributions in the government's budget, I should be more concerned with the government taking my earnings and giving it to others based upon factors such as age or income level. I earned that money and am absolutely fed up with the government taking it and putting it towards things that I don't agree with.

exactly, that's what i'm saying. i want to be able to influence where my tax dollars go.

[clintl]

We have a system in place for that. It's called elections.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by clintl

We have a system in place for that. It's called elections.

not for president. ask Gore in 2000.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by clintl

We have a system in place for that. It's called elections.

Hasn't really worked the last decade or two. Both like pork, waste, and spending (if they raise taxes or via debt).

I'm a big states-right fan. I would like to see tax rates, spending, and programs cut at the federal level. Give the the control and spending on domestic issues back to the states.

[Warhammer]

Agreed, elections haven't worked. Who was the last person you saw win who promised to cut spending across the board and actually did it?

[clintl]

Just because the results aren't what you would like to see doesn't mean elections don't work. Probably the reason you don't see that promise made and kept is that the majority doesn't want it to happen once specifics are discussed. Everybody's got their spending preferences, and what ends up getting spent is likely pretty damn close to being representative of the actual public priorities.

[Jas_lov]

Yeah, the majority of the Americans want to stay in Iraq and continue to spend billions of dollars rebuilding their country.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by clintl

Just because the results aren't what you would like to see doesn't mean elections don't work. Probably the reason you don't see that promise made and kept is that the majority doesn't want it to happen once specifics are discussed. Everybody's got their spending preferences, and what ends up getting spent is likely pretty damn close to being representative of the actual public priorities.

Bingo! Everyone is for cutting spending and less federal control UNTIL it impacts the projects they think are great. IIRC, Michael Moore (who have many issues with, btw) went to Newt Gingrich's home district and started railing about government spending, and everyone was cheering him on as he talked about cutting pork. But then Moore went into specifics, saying funding should be cut from X road project and Y project and the crowd went silent as the people there obviously didn't want THAT cut.

So it's a bit of a hypothetically, they are for cutting government. When it comes to specifics? Not a chance. How many Congressmen campaign on bringing money back to X state? A ton of them. It's like how people view Congress. Everyone hates Congressmen and think they are all corrupt, EXCEPT for theirs.

[Buccaneer]

Why should the federal govt be funding local X road project and Y project? To me, it's not that such projects should not be funding but in what the federal govt demands of the states and localities in return for funding. It would be less of a problem if 80% of a road project came from the state instead of the feds.

Most of the pork in our district goes to military. One could argue that is one of the few specific fundings allowed by the Constitution for the federal govt. But they have been trying to cut back and save, as in the huge savings promised when they consolidated the Space Command (e.g., putting NORAD on standby). Squiddy, your post is offensive to me in saying that I don't think when it comes to specifics. All Congressmen are corrupt, including ours and I don't care what they promise or able to bring money back. It is the system that is corrupt and I am an advocate for fundamental changes.

[ISiddiqui]

Because obviously all voters are like you in being against most funding projects .

[Buccaneer]

A couple of years ago, we (the city) got a $1.25m grant from DHS to do something with. We wasted in conducting an emergency drill that no one learned anything from (because we already have something like it in place). But they dictated that we had to spend it and put on a show in order to say that we are prepared. Then came along other strings attached (e..g, in wanting our geographic data for free in the name security), which we have refused. They stopped sending us money.

Squiddy, I have listened to you over the years and this latest (political) change has led to me believe that you have some vested interest in ensuring expansive federal powers. Should everyone continue to believe that it's all about 'what's in it for them' and therefore, make any arguments to the contrary irrelevant? There must be some out there that wouldn't be that hypocritical - complaining about the fed's role in X but don't want anything tangible done.

Here's another good example - the latest flap about the veterans funding bill. Congress automatically starts attaching numerous riders to the bill that have dealyed its passage. The reason they give? It's always been done like this.

So, is anyone out there truly wish for change (to scale back federal powers, to bring more accountability local, to eliminate the deficit) or do you wish for business as usual?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So, is anyone out there truly wish for change (to scale back federal powers, to bring more accountability local, to eliminate the deficit) or do you wish for business as usual?

I don't believe those two things are entirely exclusive to each other. Or mutually exclusive. Or whatever the proper phrasing would be.

What I'm getting at is this.

-- I'm not particularly wrapped up in the notion of scaling back federal powers at this point.
-- I certainly have no desire to see more control shifted to local, as I've found an even higher concentration of braindead morons in smaller governmental units than exists in larger/broader governmental units.
-- I can't say that I've ever lost a single night's sleep worrying about the deficit.

On the other hand, however, I don't believe that's entirely the same as advocating "business as usual" since funding sources and spending priorities and spending procedures are all part of the current mode of doing business where I would like to see adjustments made.

You really need a third category or option or something in there, because I believe I'm part of what would at least constitute a significant minority (if not a majority).

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because obviously all voters are like you in being against most funding projects .

I am. I agree with Bucc and War Hammer. One area that could be changed somewhat quickly is foreign policy. No nation building, don't police the world! We can't afford it. The dollar is crashing, we're borrowing billions of dollars from the Chinese to pay for the Iraq war, and we're going to owe a lot of money to the baby boomers in entitlements. You can't just shut these programs down overnight because people have grown to depend on them. But you can change the foreign policy and save a lot of money there. We shouldn't be the world's police force. Over 60% of Americans want the Iraq war ended so that is a spending project that the people want cut! Not to mention leaving people alone would help prevent more September 11ths from happening. Saves lives, makes us safer, and saves money that can be spent on Americans! This is one area where the President can have a big impact without Congress because he is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

Americans should realize this when primary elections start in 2 months if they really want a change. Then we can work on cutting federal government spending here at home and letting people opt out of these entitlement programs. More power should then be returned to the state and local governments regarding social and economic issues.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Not to mention leaving people alone would help prevent more September 11ths from happening.

What a load of horseshit.

Better to keep your mouth shut & let people think you a fool than to grab your keyboard and prove it.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What a load of horseshit.

Better to keep your mouth shut & let people think you a fool than to grab your keyboard and prove it.

No, it's not a load of horeshit. Believe it or not, people don't like it when we occupy their holy lands and bomb their countries!

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/...uer-1156277744

Interview with Michael Sheruer(CIA Agent and former chief of Bin Laden Unit).

"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world's oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies."

Ever read Bin Laden's fatwa? Search for it on the internet. He gives the same 3 reasons as Scheuer. It's a lot easier for them to recruit people to commit suicide to attack us when we've been involved in their homelands and killing their families. They would not be able to recruit anybody if we left them alone and let them live their lives. They do NOT attack us for our freedoms! That's something the neo-cons want you to believe, but it's a LIE!

Also, if we aren't invading other countries and involved in these nation building projects, we can spend money on defending this country and defending our borders with improved border security of this country and not middle eastern countries. Enforcing immigration laws would also help as the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired visas.

Now it's time for your rebuttal on why they attack us for our freedoms.

[Jas_lov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ohz0omUjIE

More from Scheuer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7aFXRAW7mg

David Cross makes fun of people who think they attack us because of our freedoms.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

No, it's not a load of horeshit. Believe it or not, people don't like it when we occupy their holy lands and bomb their countries!

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/...uer-1156277744

Interview with Michael Sheruer(CIA Agent and former chief of Bin Laden Unit).

"In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world's oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies."

Ever read Bin Laden's fatwa? Search for it on the internet. He gives the same 3 reasons as Scheuer. It's a lot easier for them to recruit people to commit suicide to attack us when we've been involved in their homelands and killing their families. They would not be able to recruit anybody if we left them alone and let them live their lives. They do NOT attack us for our freedoms! That's something the neo-cons want you to believe, but it's a LIE!

Also, if we aren't invading other countries and involved in these nation building projects, we can spend money on defending this country and defending our borders with improved border security of this country and not middle eastern countries. Enforcing immigration laws would also help as the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired visas.

Now it's time for your rebuttal on why they attack us for our freedoms.

exactly. there is no way to spin it - we're hated for our involvement/occupation in the Middle East, not because we allow our women to wear thongs on the beach and let them vote. we'll never leave the region, but in a perfect world where the will of the people is heard and followed we'd leave the Middle East, tend to our own affairs and reap the benefits of our tax dollars. it's a vicious cycle we started ourselves. we need a big budget for defense to keep us safe from terrorism, we have terrorism because we are meddling in other country's business, we are meddling so as to keep the fight on other country's soil, we fight on other country's soil to keep us safe here in America.

[Anthony]

Jon is so extreme and narrow in his views that i'm sure he'd feel right at home amongst Islamic radicals.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Now it's time for your rebuttal on why they attack us for our freedoms.

Nope, because you haven't heard me say that, now have you?
Again, nope, because that's not my approach.

They attack us because they're one of the embodiments of evil on the planet.
And the error that's been made is not recognizing that & acting accordingly.

Regardless of whether we're there, here, or living under the sea in Atlantis with utter & complete isolation, they'll still act the same way.

They're no better than rabid animals -- either actively rabid or a latent carrier -- and frankly anyone who refuses to recognize that is simply too blind or too stupid to be of any practical use.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

Jon is so extreme and narrow in his views that i'm sure he'd feel right at home amongst Islamic radicals.

Yep. I think he's the one who got upset when the Georgia court let the kid that got the blowjob out after 2 years in prison. So he's basically a lost cause when it comes to common sense. Unfortunately he makes up a good % of Americans who still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and are still being duped by the neo-cons. Don't fall for it again with Iran!

LOL at Jon's rebuttal: They're evil.

[Galaxy]

This went off track.

[ISiddiqui]

Oy veh... all these people saying "I am!!". Please... it is time to realize you occupy a distinct minority. Or else you'd have different politicians in office. Simple as that. An old saying (paraphrased) that works here is that the people deserve the government they vote for.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oy veh... all these people saying "I am!!". Please... it is time to realize you occupy a distinct minority.

Have I, Bucc, SkyDog or anyone else on this board who promotes libertarian ideas ever claim not to be in the minority? You act like you are telling us something we don't already know.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Have I, Bucc, SkyDog or anyone else on this board who promotes libertarian ideas ever claim not to be in the minority? You act like you are telling us something we don't already know.

When I tried to point out to Bucc that he was a minority by saying "because all voters are like you...", Jas_lov jumped up and said "I am". Like him being like Bucc invalidated the pointed.

[Jas_lov]

I said I am, not the majority of America is. Of course the majority of Americans are like you and want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave and that's what's wrong with this country. I said something like this towards the beginning of this thread.

[ISiddiqui]

So... what's the point in jumping up and saying "I am" when I'm trying to make a point that a vast majority of voters like the idea of cutting spending until it directly impacts them? Hence backing the point made that elections DO work. Just because they don't back your point of view doesn't mean that they don't.

Oh, and I could point out the "want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave" is as useless a political rallying cry as "you are either with us (ie, the Bush Administration) or for the terrorists", but I won't.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So... what's the point in jumping up and saying "I am" when I'm trying to make a point that a vast majority of voters like the idea of cutting spending until it directly impacts them? Hence backing the point made that elections DO work. Just because they don't back your point of view doesn't mean that they don't.

Oh, and I could point out the "want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave" is as useless a political rallying cry as "you are either with us (ie, the Bush Administration) or for the terrorists", but I won't.

I heartily disagree. I cannot remember the last time a state or national election here had a third party candidate that was able to get their message out in the media. Sure, we've had some socialist and libertarian whack-jobs on the ballot, but none of the third parties have ever put up a serious candidate to threaten either of the two main parties.

The problem with the main parties is that there is too much power in the parties. You have these political machines with lifelong politicians who wait for their turn to go up to Washington and line their pockets. My choices are a) vote for a third party that isn't serious about the election, b) vote for the lesser of two evils among the main parties, or c) not vote. I'd rather hold my nose and do b, rather than a or c.

One more thing, the third parties need to stop worrying about trying to get the presidency and should focus more on winning Congressional elections. They have a bigger role to play there, and that is a realistic goal to pick up say 10 or 15 seats.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So... what's the point in jumping up and saying "I am" when I'm trying to make a point that a vast majority of voters like the idea of cutting spending until it directly impacts them?

Because you made a blanket statement that all people who say they are for cutting government spending don't really mean it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They attack us because they're one of the embodiments of evil on the planet.
And the error that's been made is not recognizing that & acting accordingly.

Regardless of whether we're there, here, or living under the sea in Atlantis with utter & complete isolation, they'll still act the same way.

They're no better than rabid animals -- either actively rabid or a latent carrier -- and frankly anyone who refuses to recognize that is simply too blind or too stupid to be of any practical use.

Jon, I'm going to make an attempt here to not just dismiss you as batshit crazy and try to get at where you could possibly be coming from with this extremely judgmental line of thinking.

Why exactly do you think that these people are "embodiments of evil" and are (presumably given your judgmental categorization of them) different from 'us'? Religion? Culture? And if so, why are 'we' in some way 'superior' to them, i.e. not "embodiments of evil"?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

One more thing, the third parties need to stop worrying about trying to get the presidency and should focus more on winning Congressional elections. They have a bigger role to play there, and that is a realistic goal to pick up say 10 or 15 seats.

And here is the crux of the issue. It isn't necessarily that the big two parties are sooo entrenched (though with a first past the post system you usually have a "big 2"), but that third parties are really focusing on the wrong things. You realize (I'm sure you do, but I'm talking of the general "you") that 10 to 15 seats in the House would make a third party a HUGE power player as both main parties try to court them.

Because you made a blanket statement that all people who say they are for cutting government spending don't really mean it.

And generally that's the case. Hence the political system we have now.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And here is the crux of the issue. It isn't necessarily that the big two parties are sooo entrenched (though with a first past the post system you usually have a "big 2"), but that third parties are really focusing on the wrong things. You realize (I'm sure you do, but I'm talking of the general "you") that 10 to 15 seats in the House would make a third party a HUGE power player as both main parties try to court them.

That's exactly it though, the party would have a huge amount of power, and 10-15 seats is not unrealistic if they ever got serious about it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Then why in the world would you advocate reductions in investments? Do you think the federal govt does not have enough money?

Enough? Hardly, given that it's spending way beyond what it is taking in. When was the last time the US government had two consecutive balanced budgets?

[Warhammer]

I think '99 and '00, it may have been '00 and '01.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Jon, I'm going to make an attempt here to not just dismiss you as batshit crazy and try to get at where you could possibly be coming from with this extremely judgmental line of thinking.

Why exactly do you think that these people are "embodiments of evil" and are (presumably given your judgmental categorization of them) different from 'us'? Religion? Culture? And if so, why are 'we' in some way 'superior' to them, i.e. not "embodiments of evil"?

oh snap.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by clintl

So you believe it's right that Warren Buffett's effective tax rate is about half of what his secretary's effective tax rate is? Because that's the issue here. It's not whether the government should increase revenues. It's about the fraud being perpetrated by conservatives that the wealthy are being overtaxed, when in fact, they are being undertaxed compared the rest of us.

Over half of all tax paid is made by the top 5% of earners. The top 1% pays nearly 33% of all tax revenues. The bottom 40% doesn't pay anything at all.

I'm not a conservative, but I think this notion that the rich are somehow getting off scott-free is ridiculous. The rich pay almost all the taxes in this country. The poor don't pay anything (and use more government expenses than the rich). While there are problems with the current tax code, I don't think the issue is the rich being undertaxed. This society shouldn't be punishing people for being innovative and succesful.

[JPhillips]

That's very misleading. Sure the rich pay the majority of taxes, but they also control the bulk of wealth in the country.

Also, you're only considering the federal income tax. When you add all taxes paid we're close to a flat tax now. Consider just the SS/medicare tax. It cuts off at around 90k. It's a highly regressive tax that costs most taxpayers more than the federal income tax, but most arguments about the fairness of the tax code conveniently ignore this tax.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nope, because you haven't heard me say that, now have you?
Again, nope, because that's not my approach.

They attack us because they're one of the embodiments of evil on the planet.
And the error that's been made is not recognizing that & acting accordingly.

Regardless of whether we're there, here, or living under the sea in Atlantis with utter & complete isolation, they'll still act the same way.

They're no better than rabid animals -- either actively rabid or a latent carrier -- and frankly anyone who refuses to recognize that is simply too blind or too stupid to be of any practical use.

Life isn't an episode of 24 where you have good and bad guys. There are people with different ideas and beliefs. People with different financial and spiritual motivators. They don't commit terrorist attacks because it is programmed in their DNA and they got bored one day, they have reasons for it. Just as we have reasons for installing leaders in countries, rigging elections, or just bombing the shit out of a lot of people.

People in the Middle East hate us for a lot of reasons, many of it justified. First, Western society stormed through the Middle East hundreds of years ago, burned down cities, killed millions, and "colonized" it for their own profits. They enslaved them and exploited them for financial and in some cases spiritual reasons. From then on, the Middle East and particularly Muslims have always felt some form of enslavement by Western culture and rightfully so. Think of the Native Americans in what we now call the United States. Do you think they are pure evil?

Fast forward to the 20th Century where we overthrew democratic governments to put in brutal dictators that would sell us cheap oil. How we forced countries to pick sides with us or the Soviet Union with those not choosing us being hampered with severe sanctions. How we funded various terrorist organization, government coups and anything else to keep chaos going in the Middle East. If someone else did that to your country, would you be happy with them?

But the most ironic thing with all this is that we created all these monsters. We funded Osama Bin Laden in the 80's and gave his groups the money and weapons they needed. We supported and funded the Taliban in their fight to take over the country. We kissed the ass of Saudi Arabia (where almost all the 9/11 hijackers came from) for cheap oil. Heck, we were the ones that helped put Saddam into power.

The only one stupid is the one who has no knowledge of history. The one that doesn't understand why some of our previous actions have brewed a society of hatred for the United States.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's very misleading. Sure the rich pay the majority of taxes, but they also control the bulk of wealth in the country.

Also, you're only considering the federal income tax. When you add all taxes paid we're close to a flat tax now. Consider just the SS/medicare tax. It cuts off at around 90k. It's a highly regressive tax that costs most taxpayers more than the federal income tax, but most arguments about the fairness of the tax code conveniently ignore this tax.

First off, someone making over $90,000 a year every year won't need the same retirement benefits that someone who didn't make that much would need. So basically you are saying that people who make more money should pay for everyone else's social security benefits? That doesn't sound very fair to me. If you want fair, shouldn't everyone be putting in their fair share?

[JPhillips]

Even if you believe that, your statement that 40% don't pay anything is just simply wrong. The payroll tax is just one example, but you could include property taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc. if you wanted. The point is that arguing about the fairness of the tax code while only discussing one tax is dishonest.

There's also the very real issue that the payroll tax has been financing the federal budget for the past twenty years. Most people agree that those IOUs are unlikely to be paid in full, so in effect the payroll tax has been a de facto income tax.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Enough for what? Can you tell me what is enough?

Obviously they have enough money to keep adding more onto proposed spending bills, not to mention tons of money that goes to the ME. It's like going to Best Buy to buy a huge TV and then on the way out, throw in several laptops, a bunch of iPods and a handful of dishes so you can make a few people happy. Problem is that you have the budget and authorization to only buy the TV.