GOP: Taxes and other stuff

[daisy]

Hey Readwryt - watch out for that Federal sales tax - we have one up here - the GST or Goods and Services tax - and it has been a living hell. Our sales tax is now 15% and it is so weird - some products have both taxes, some, like boxed tea(!) have only provinical sales tax etc. Four times a year people get cheques ranging from 25 dollars to 110 dollars as a GST rebate - mostly for low income people - how stupid this system is! How many millions of dollars go into employing people who send us our rebates!!! ARGHHHH!
Anyway, hope you have better luck in the old U.S than we did with the federal sales tax thing....

[Grond]

Gloer, I guess I wasn't clear. What you are saying is exactly what I meant. We must drive home morality issues so that they understand that education is much more important to them in the long run that a career selling drugs. When a 13 year old can make $200 - $500 a day selling crack, he doesn't understand that. Those are values that must be defined and instilled in the home. One parent families who struggle to pay rent and put food on the table have little time to take care of these issues. Until and unless we (society as a whole) are able to address these things, drug abuse, drug addiction, drug sales and kids going to jail will be a way of life.

[ReadWryt]

On average less then 40% of the Cigarette Law Suit Settlement money awarded to any particular state is actually being used for Tobbacco related expenditures. The whole thing was a huge joke...I'm personally disgusted with the way it is being handled here in California.

As for a Federal Sales Tax, I personally don't care if we ended up with a 15% Federal sales tax. I would be far more willing to give an extra 15% of what I SPEND if I could keep 100% of what I EARN. But all I usually hear is that it's a "Regressive Tax System" because it "punishes" the poor more then the rich. Never mind the glaring fact that the "rich" SPEND more then the "poor" as individuals each year, and that we would finally be taxing every Hooker, Drug Dealer and petty criminal that buys something other then Food.

The problems are that A) In order to keep the bleeding hearts from refering to it as Regressive you have to slap larger percentages of taxation on the people who have the most earnings because of the rediculous notion that "The rich should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes because they are rich.", which is as random and irresponsable a sentiment to come down the political pike since Black Slaves weren't recognized as people. B) would be that the two largest political lobbies against repeal of the Federal Income Tax are Sears Corporation (H&R Block) and the I.R.S.. These are MASSIVE lobbying groups and very hard to work against!

The last reason is because, as it has been proposed each time, it would wrest a lot of controll over the money from the Federal Government and put it in the hands of the States, most of whom already collect Sales Taxes of their own. The idea would be that when the Federal Government makes it's annual budget they decide how much the Block Grant to each state will be. Everything that the State collects in Federal Sales Tax above and beyond that Block Grant is passed onto the Federal Government, as opposed to the system we have now where the Federal Income Taxes go to D.C., get passed around and eaten up by administration costs, dumped in the General Fund with Social Security and all the other general budget monies THEN part of it comes back to the State at pennies on the dollar, usually nearly 50% of it having been eaten up by the cost of passing the dollar from place to place.

It really makes a lot of sense, presuming that you aren't taking a big chunk of money out of people's pay checks at the front end as well. By taxing Spending instead of Earning you also make it easier for people to save for retirement without having to worry if their investments will have earned them so much that they loose a chunk of it each year in Taxes, which in turn reduces dependency on the Social Security system to augment or even take the place of Retirement Plans people should have made for themselves in the first place, but didn't because they weren't getting to keep enough of their earnings at the front end in the first place.

On the other hand it makes sense to tax the income of Companies because they are not Consumers so much as Producers. Something like this only works on a national scale if it is applied to Personal Income and not a business, so there would still be work for the I.R.S to do in D.C..

[Snaga]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
As for a Federal Sales Tax, I personally don't care if we ended up with a 15% Federal sales tax. I would be far more willing to give an extra 15% of what I SPEND if I could keep 100% of what I EARN. But all I usually hear is that it's a "Regressive Tax System" because it "punishes" the poor more then the rich. Never mind the glaring fact that the "rich" SPEND more then the "poor" as individuals each year, and that we would finally be taxing every Hooker, Drug Dealer and petty criminal that buys something other then Food.

The problems are that A) In order to keep the bleeding hearts from refering to it as Regressive you have to slap larger percentages of taxation on the people who have the most earnings because of the rediculous notion that "The rich should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes because they are rich.", which is as random and irresponsable a sentiment to come down the political pike since Black Slaves weren't recognized as people. B) would be that the two largest political lobbies against repeal of the Federal Income Tax are Sears Corporation (H&R Block) and the I.R.S.. These are MASSIVE lobbying groups and very hard to work against!

In Britain we now have the equivalent - Value Added Tax at 17.5%.

The poor spend all their income. The rich spend a comparitively small proportion of their income, whilst the rest is saved. If sensible, they will find tax-efficient savings mechanisms. Therefore the poor pay tax on all their income, and the rich do not. That's why its regressive.

The rich should pay more money in taxes because they can afford it. That's just plain common sense.

[ReadWryt]

The poor spend all their income. The rich spend a comparitively small proportion of their income, whilst the rest is saved. If sensible, they will find tax-efficient savings mechanisms. Therefore the poor pay tax on all their income, and the rich do not. That's why its regressive.

Wait...Aren't you talking about England, that country that levies an Income Tax of more then 40% on anyone who earns over a million dollars a year...which is why Paul McCartney, Ian Anderson, Elvis Costello and so many OTHER famous Brittons have fled the oppressively invasive tax structure of that nation? Between that, granted the highest of the 6 different Income Tax Rates (Which helped to take the instructions for the British Income Tax from 8 pages to 28 over the past year), and the capital gains tax, of which the means of avoiding paying the full amount are numerous, confusing and appear to be designed more for the benefit of Accountants then the Public... Nearly HALF of one's annual earnings is hardly offset by a 17% VAT...meanwhile a new £10 a week "Child Tax Credit", a raise of the minimum earnings limit for the 10% tax bracket from £1,520 to £1,880 and the VAT threshold was raised to £54,000 for small business making it more possible for families to start businesses...and on the other side of the fence they raised the threshold for Inheritence Taxes to £242,000...just don't invest your Inheritence or you will have the CGT to pay in the end. Naw, it's no good to compare the U.S. and U.K. taxwise because the U.K. taxes you coming and going, earning AND spending...and joining the E.U. will only make it worse I fear.

And besides, what does PERCENTAGE of INCOME have to do with it? Because someone earns more they should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who earns less?? Yeah, lets punish people for being successfull, spending lots of money and creating jobs...sounds like a really great way to bolster the economy of any nation! That makes about as much sense as the rediculous $1000 per child Tax Credit that the U.S. government is paying out to people. It's not the job of any government to punish people for earning more, nor is it their job to promote procreation. It should be the job of Government to collect a fair amount from any citizens that can afford to support the benefits they recieve from being Governed.

This petty and envious concept that Bill Gates should pay a higher percentage of his earnings in taxes then I do is completely repugnant to me. The argument is that it's because "He can afford to pay more...", but that doesn't change the fact that it's not fair to take more then half the earnings of a man who has been the major creator of more Millionares who also pay taxes and generate revenue then just about any other single citizen, and he certainly does not get more then twice the benefit from paying these exorbitant percentages of his earnings even though he pays more then twice the percentage of his earnings! But for whatever reason there is this horrendous urge on the part of the American Public to tear down in any way possible anyone who is showing signs of great success and impose outlandish charges on them until, as we have it here in the U.S., we are seeing the top 5% of the wage earners paying more then 80% of the total annual revenue of the Federal Government's personal income tax collections.

This is why I am such a strong advocate for every individual paying 0% income tax and perhaps a 15-18% Federal Sales Tax instead. Face it, Bill Gates bought more cars and computers in the last 5 years then any 6 of us put together. His house is estimated at having cost him $50 Million alone, so there would be no fear that the Rich would pay quite a bit more then the Middle-Class or poor, and then there is the benefit of taxing the Underground and Black markets as well, lifting burden off of the Middle-class as well.

[Snaga]

Yeah sob sob sob how terrible that these people have left. Tim Rice keeps saying he's gonna leave too, but he never does. It so unfair.

Actually RW, the threshold for the 40% band is about £30,000, not a million. (i.e. any income after the first 30,000 is taxed at 40%). The other bands are 10%, and 20%.

Many people pay at the top rate (including myself until I decided to go to college), and its not an issue here. Because we believe in having a national health service, free education for all, welfare for those who need it etc etc. The political debate in this country is about whether to put taxes up, to pay for improvements to the health service. The Thatcherite ideas of cutting income tax, and slashing spending on public services and welfare are well and truly dead in this country.

[ReadWryt]

Of course in this day and age the idea of people paying for their own healthcare or giving money to cheritable organizations is repugnant, it's the "Empty-Vee" short attention span, here's my money...do everything for me so I don't have to think generation here in the States as well. There are folks who are so adverse to the concept of people actually starting their own retirement accounts and giving people who do this a break on their Social Security payments that it's not funny. One would think from the actions and reactions of some folks that government and only government was capable of doing so many of these things...it actually goes hand in hand here in the States with the Victim Mentality that seems to pervade every corner of our society. The concept that with Rights comes Responsabilities is so alien to many folks in the U.S. that they actually BELIEVE that everything bad that happens in their lives is someone else's fault. If your car gets hit by a police cruiser on a high speed chase it's the cops fault, even though you pulled out into a high speed chase, so lets argue that High Speed Chases are wrong and the police shouldn't engage in them! Terrorists flew planes into my husband's office building and now the Government is only going to pay me 1.6 Million dollars and it's unfair...I hear these things all the time...

This is the mentality that brought about Term Limits in our politics, because in general the populace is too lazy to vote the bad guys out of office so if they can only serve two terms then it's ok, they go away eventually. Appathy and a lack of a sense of self responsability will always entice a government to take advantage and make the populace more dependent on Government for their needs...it's what a power center does to keep control and it's what politicians do to get votes. "You don't need to worry about doing this for yourself any longer, I promise that We in Government will do that for you at only slightly more then the cost of when you did it for yourself, because you will be paying for everyone else who can't afford it as well you know...and good show on doing that, you should be proud of yourself and so should your children who could have used that money but instead we took it from you under penalty of the law...".

I'm sorry, It's a sore point with me. Government is not always good at taking care of Social Needs efficiently, and the bigger the Government the more expensive it gets for the population to support, the more invasive it must become and the more dependent the citizenry becomes on the big teat of the great mother "G", for Government not Gaia...

[Goro Shimura]

The concept that with Rights comes Responsabilities is so alien to many folks in the U.S. that they actually BELIEVE that everything bad that happens in their lives is someone else's fault. If your car gets hit by a police cruiser on a high speed chase it's the cops fault, even though you pulled out into a high speed chase, so lets argue that High Speed Chases are wrong and the police shouldn't engage in them! Terrorists flew planes into my husband's office building and now the Government is only going to pay me 1.6 Million dollars and it's unfair...I hear these things all the time...

Readwryte--

I have to heartily concur with you here....

Even Spider-man comics are imbued with a greater sense of civic responsibility than the typical American which you refer to. "With great power comes great responsibilty."

What happens to a democratic society when the majority of the populous takes it for granted that the government's going to take care of everything for us?

[Snaga]

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way about your fellow citizens RW. That's quite a shame.

Of course, we in Britain have had a national health service since 1948, rather longer than MTV! Its not really a generational thing to value it. No politician would talk in the language you use, if they ever wanted a vote. The NHS doesn't mean you don't have to think, but it does mean that we collectively have less to worry about. That's why we all value it.

[Goro Shimura]

VK--

The question isn't about whether we want to worry or not.

We're concerned about bloated government bureaucracies ineptly managing services or funds without the "invisible hand" of the market to keep them on their toes. (Wasn't Adam Smith an Englishman?)

The more responsiblity the government takes upon themselves... the more likely they are to hurt us. The principles of our constitutional government are designed to keep too much power from falling into a small number of hands.

If there's anything to be learned from LotR, it's that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton, I think, said that.)

Besides... the people pay for it all in both systems, anyway. It's not like anyone in a Socialist country gets a "free lunch."

[Snaga]

Sorry I'm confused. How does providing health care represent a threatening act of power grabbing?

Of course if you want to make this a value-for-money argument that's seperate. I suggest to you that your purchasing power as an individual is significantly less than that of a government 'buying' for millions. Private health insurance will cost most people far more.

[Goro Shimura]

Maybe it's a bit more clear cut in our Social Security system here.

I think it's fairly certain that people on the whole would have a better return on their retirement investments if they were personally responsible.

If the government run health care system's going to be as eptly run... we don't want to change. (This part of 'we' anyway....;))

(And yes... the Social Security system was a pretty major power grab. I think Mordor had a similar bureacracy....)

[Bill the Pony]

RW and Goro, Maybe the government is not as good at taking care of you as a lucky individual who would be able to afford his own health care, pension plan, education (and even drug prevention if you want it). But the government is definitely better at providing such things for the society as a whole, including those people who can not afford it by themselves.
Yes, I think it's perfectly fair for people who earn so much money that they don't know what to spend it on, so they buy several cars a year, to contribute to the health and education of people who are less fortunate. If I ever get to earn that much money, I have no problems at all giving 60% of it to the dutch government, knowing that it benefits so many more people than just me. As a reward my conscience shuts up, and I get to live in a decent caring society with free and high quality healthcare and education. For everyone, not just for the rich.
Can someone explain to me, how, if healthcare, education, social security etc. are not handled by the government, it is ensured that people who are not so lucky to have a well-paying job, can still go to see a well-qualified doctor, his children can go to a good school, and how he can afford to build up a pension?

Originally posted by ReadWryt
[B]
And besides, what does PERCENTAGE of INCOME have to do with it? Because someone earns more they should be taxed at a higher rate then someone who earns less?? Yeah, lets punish people for being successfull <snip> This petty and envious concept that Bill Gates should pay a higher percentage of his earnings in taxes then I do is completely repugnant to me.
Let's take an example. Minimum wage in US is what, something like $30.000 a year? Taxes in this bracket are almost nothing, so this person gets to spend 30.000. Now let's look at someone who makes 1 million dollars a year. If he had to pay 50% income tax, then he still would have $500.000 per year to spend. That's more than 15 times as much! If that's not enough reward for being successful, then someone is being extremely selfish...


edit: sorry Dengen, I'm afraid we got off topic again. Let us know if you want us to stop talking about this...

[daisy]

Readwryt, some questions for you...
1. Do you have children? Because I do and you're assumption that my tax creidt will make me run out and get pregnant for more cash is repugnant. And I get close to 2300 dollars a year - this is because I am a single, one-income parent. I also recieve a child care supplement of 100 dollars a month so that I can pay 450 dollars a month in childcare. Come on - come back at me and tell me to get a better job and stop sponging off the ogvernment - oh wait! I do have a job, but I lose over 30% in personal income tax and then pay 15% in sales tax when I buy stuff - so I make 45,000 a year gross - Canadian - and am barely making it - but gee, maybe I'll go out and have another kid! Do you have any clue how expensive children are?

2. Have you ever been really sick? Hospitalized? Undergone surgery? I have - two surgeries, one very major - my daughter has been hospitalized twic for asthma.
Have you lived in a country where there is universal health care? Or do you just climb on your soapbox and begin to pontificate about a system you only experience from a distance? I can take my asthmatic daughter to the hospital any time I have to because I live in Canada and don't need an HMO.

Usually I try to have an open, accepting mind about posts on this thread but you're preachy, slightly insulting post is too much.

[Grond]

Daisy and all. You are not making a good argument simply because you fail to understand our American system of healthcare. We have no national health plan. However, our states (yes all 50 of them) have local plans which assure that children get necessary medical care. We also have Medicaid which is a part of the Medicare/Social Welfare System.

I wish I knew where anyone gets the idea that because we don't have a National Health Service that people are dying from lack of care. Quite the opposite is true. We haven't any major plagues that last time I looked. Infant mortality in the inner cities could be better but much of that is a result of social issues and not health issues. Many inner city children are born to drug addicted parents or parents with AIDS or parents who are abusive. Our American Health Care system for the poor is very good. There are free clinics and charity hospitals in almost every major community. Before you bash us, please take the effort bash us with knowledge and not ignorance.

Darn, how did we get to a U. S. versus the World argument again. :confused:

[Snaga]

Grond

I recall we got here through a US attack on the British taxation system!

Perhaps you will need to take issue also with Goroshimura who describes your social security system as something similar to what they had in Mordor! That's not the sort of recommendation I would look for myself.;) I think I prefer the Minas Tirith/Rivendell system of treating people if they are sick, no questions asked which is closer to the UK!Our American Health Care system for the poor is very good. There are free clinics and charity hospitals in almost every major community. The 'almost' in this statement sounds as though you are damning yourself with faint praise - but you are right: I don't know enough to really make a case. Out of interest, I recall that Hilary Clinton was big on health reform in the US, but didn't achieve what she wanted. What was that about?

[Goro Shimura]

VK--

The Mordor quip was in reference to the Social Security number. It's gotten to the point where we're not allowed to sneeze without brandishing our SS cards. (S.S.-- not a good acronym to begin with!!)

It reminds me of that scene where the one orc threatened to report the other's Number to Lugburz.


The issue for me is more about the more lofty ideals of State's rights, and freedom. If you were never suspicious of sacrificing your National autonomy in order to participate in your new European Union... then I'm not sure you all will ever grasp my point.

"I got an idea... you give us lots of power, and in return-- you won't have to bother your pretty little heads with making those oh-so-heady economic decisions for yourselves anymore. Trust me... this is really in the best interests of everyone!!"

[Snaga]

The Mordor quip was in reference to the Social Security number. It's gotten to the point where we're not allowed to sneeze without brandishing our SS cards. (S.S.-- not a good acronym to begin with!!)

I do understand this point! Periodically our government threatens to introduce a national identity card, but usually ends up backing down. The latest time this surfaced was after 7/11. I don't like the idea of a Big Brother state either, but this isn't essential to either a health service or social security system (thankfully).

The issue for me is more about the more lofty ideals of State's rights, and freedom. If you were never suspicious of sacrificing your National autonomy in order to participate in your new European Union... then I'm not sure you all will ever grasp my point.

"I got an idea... you give us lots of power, and in return-- you won't have to bother your pretty little heads with making those oh-so-heady economic decisions for yourselves anymore. Trust me... this is really in the best interests of everyone!!" Well, again, I do get this point too: there is a big 'democratic deficit' in the EU, that's true. But the EU is a collection of cooperating countries, the USA is country which is made up of 50 states. The relationship between the state (or country) and federal government (EU) has more difference than points in common.

What I don't really see is how this pertains to the question.:confused: The point for me is that better provision of health care is provided for most people (i.e. low and middle income families) through a public service funded from taxation than by paying for private health insurance. This is not to prevent people buying private health insurance. Many make the choice to do so: for some treatments this might mean less time to wait, for others individual rooms in hospital as opposed to public wards. That's an informed choice; but it still means everyone gets treated, even if they can't afford insurance.

So the choice is still there. But the question of European integration isn't a question of individual choice or control over a micro-economic decision, its how macro-economic policy is decided.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
But the question of European integration isn't a question of individual choice or control over a micro-economic decision, its how macro-economic policy is decided. [/B]

My point exactly!

(I wish there was a good article that could compare and contrast the original vision of the 13 colonies that became the US... and the integration of the European community. That would be very interesting reading, IMHO.)

It's not a question choice to you-- I fear you been propagandized to think that way! "We're just not smart enough to make those decisions for ourselves... I guess we should just turn all of this over to Saruman and the Wise. They know what's best for us."

(I think Tolkien would have agreed with me in my distate for strong central Solialist government.)

I prefer our current system as Grond described it: Each state sets it's own policy. This way each state decides for itself how to deal with Health issues. If one state comes up with a great system, others can copy it. If a state messes up... the problem/ideology is contained. If the national system stinks... uh... then what?

(It's why many Christians opposed the formation of a World Church bureacracy back in the 3rd and 4th centuries. What do you do if the big guys begin to call the truth a heresy and start killing people? I think it was better in the beginning... if one church fell away, it couldn't take everyone else with them! But that's another topic.)

To a Southerner... this debate brings back dark memories of our War Between the States. We wanted to leave our Union because the economic policies were heavily biased in favor of the North-- with high tariffs making it difficult to export our goods and forcing us into a position of being dependent on the North's manufactured products.

We Southerners lost the war... and our autonomy. And ever since... macroeconomic decisions have been made by people that don't necessarily have our local interests at heart. Don't you think that by joining the EU... you are willingly putting yourself in the same position?

Going to a national health care system undermines what little power to govern our own affairs that has been left to us since our rights were forcibly taken from us over a century ago.

[Snaga]

It's not a question choice to you because you appear to have been brainwashed to think that way! "We're just not smart enough to make those decisions for ourselves... I guess we should just turn all of this over to Saruman and the Wise. They know what's best for us." Goroshimura you're on the verge of being offensive. I don't think you are reading what I am saying.

Whether I buy private health insurance = individual choice.

The direction of macro-economic policy = government decision. Be that local, national or supra-national decisions, those decisions need to be made openly, democratically and with accountability. In other words, the buck must stop with people who are elected. If they mess up, you vote 'em out. Its certainly not an individual decision - how could it be?

Anyway, I don't have an axe to grind about what level of government should have responsibility for ensuring provision of healthcare for all. Clearly what is right in a smallish country like Britain, would not necessarily be right in a vast country such as US. And then the political culture of the country needs to be considered.

What I don't like the idea of is a society where if people are not able to afford to pay for healthcare its just too bad. I can't judge the extent to which that's true in your country, but I am glad that its not the case in mine, and I don't mind paying taxes to ensure it stays that way.

As far as joining the EU is concerned, its a matter of winning in some areas and losing in others. We lose some national control, but gain reduction in trade barriers, currency conversion costs etc etc. Its not a simplistic 'good' or 'bad' thing.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
Grond

I recall we got here through a US attack on the British taxation system!

Perhaps you will need to take issue also with Goroshimura who describes your social security system as something similar to what they had in Mordor! That's not the sort of recommendation I would look for myself.;) I think I prefer the Minas Tirith/Rivendell system of treating people if they are sick, no questions asked which is closer to the UK! The 'almost' in this statement sounds as though you are damning yourself with faint praise - but you are right: I don't know enough to really make a case. Out of interest, I recall that Hilary Clinton was big on health reform in the US, but didn't achieve what she wanted. What was that about? That was about a U. S. National Healthcare Initiative which never gained support by the people of our nation. I will briefly give you a little background on the differences in a U. S. Conservative and a U. S. Liberal. A Conservative believes that social issues are better and more econonmically addressed at the local governmental level. Local governments are better able to assess the needs and what is required to meet those needs. A Liberal believes that larger and more comprehensive Federal Governmental involvement is the answer. You end up with codified Federal Statutes that are uniform and these requirements apply across the board.

These are just two basicallly diverse opinions as to how the needs of the populace are achieved. The Liberal approach assures uniformity but is nearly devoid of flexibility since the standards must be applied consistently regardless of the special circumstances of the community. The Conservative approach typically provides less bureacracy, more flexibility but less control from the Federal level where the money is coming from. Liberal politicians do not like to appropriate money for programs over which they will ultimately have no control. That is primarily because they feel that they have greater insight into the needs of the poor, the uneducated and the uninformed. Conservatives feel that people are plenty smart enough to make decisions and seek help when they need it.

In case you couldn't tell from my dissertation... I'm a conservative. :)

[Snaga]

No kidding Grond?!! (Actually, I'd guessed that before your dissertation.:D)

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
Goroshimura you're on the verge of being offensive. I don't think you are reading what I am saying.

Sorry, VK....

I'll back off.

I (like Grond) am suspicious of 'big government' for a lot of personal reasons that maybe don't make a lot of sense.

Didn't mean to step on your toes too hard.



The argument goes like this:

"You want the government expand and take away our freedoms."

"You don't care about the poor, helpless, and downtrodden."

And everyone goes home feeling smug and more holy than the other.


I prefer to digress into key points in history rather than get involved with mere ideological fisticuffs.... But I've enjoyed the discussion.


I like you in spite of our differences... but I'd rather not offend you than try to win an argument.

[Snaga]

Discuss on G:) Just don't call me brainwashed! If you do, I might like you a bit less;)

[Goro Shimura]

There you go, VK... I edited out the 'brainwashed' and substituted (hopefully) less volatile wording....:rolleyes:

[ReadWryt]

Let's take an example. Minimum wage in US is what, something like $30.000 a year? Taxes in this bracket are almost nothing, so this person gets to spend 30.000. Now let's look at someone who makes 1 million dollars a year. If he had to pay 50% income tax, then he still would have $500.000 per year to spend. That's more than 15 times as much! If that's not enough reward for being successful, then someone is being extremely selfish...

Someone IS indeed being extremely selfish...someone is being selfish with the hard earned wages of another simply because they MAKE MORE MONEY! The point is not how much disposable income an individual is left with after they have paid their tax debt, the point is that their Tax Debt should be comenserate with the benefits they recieve from the government COLLECTING them. There is allways someone who makes less money then you, and they would always love to see you pay more of your earnings and see you keep less of your disposable income because they don't make as much as you do.

The fact is that some people make a great deal of money, and you and I may never make that much...but it doesn't mean that they DESERVE to have to shell out a larger percentage of their earnings simply because they have somehow done something we could not. If you start to take that attitude then it is a short walk down to the level of deciding that since you have more in your refridgerator then someone else you should have to give some of your food to them, or because you can afford a faster Internet Connection then you should have to split some of your bandwidth with those slogging along on 56K modems. After all, you still get 50% of your Cable Modem, which is still a lot faster then a 56K modem!! Why shouldn't you have to share your wealth? I'll tell you why, because it flies in the face of Personal Ownership of Property. If you earn something it should be yours...period. Everyone should pay a fair share to maintain the benefits they recieve from Government, but at what point do we start to decide that someone making $10 million a year recieves $5 million in benefits when someone making $35,000 is only paying 23% instead of 50%? The argument falls apart when the reverse logic is applied because a person making $35,000 has more to LOOSE on a relative basis if they do not have the protections of a Government!! They loose their Car and their House and more wheras a person who makes $10 Million a year would brush themselves off, purchase a new house and a new car and move along, paying the outrageous taxes that would be used to bail out the people who lost everything!

I have yet to have anyone explain in a logical manner why we have the draconian "Progressive" tax structure we have, it's allways "Well, *sob sob waaaaah* they have so much more then I do, so they should have to pay more of a percentage then me!"...the truth is that a person making $35,000 a year and paying 23% pays $8050...a person making $10 Million a year paying 23% pays TWO MILLION, THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND!! If that's not paying more I don't know what is.

Daisy,



1. Do you have children? Because I do and you're assumption that my tax creidt will make me run out and get pregnant for more cash is repugnant. And I get close to 2300 dollars a year - this is because I am a single, one-income parent. I also recieve a child care supplement of 100 dollars a month so that I can pay 450 dollars a month in childcare. Come on - come back at me and tell me to get a better job and stop sponging off the ogvernment - oh wait! I do have a job, but I lose over 30% in personal income tax and then pay 15% in sales tax when I buy stuff - so I make 45,000 a year gross - Canadian - and am barely making it - but gee, maybe I'll go out and have another kid! Do you have any clue how expensive children are?

Do YOU have any idea how expensive it is to have a kid? Did you BEFORE you had a kid?? Did you even research the expense you were incurring on yourself before you made the 18 year investment in having a kid??? Did you think about it as much as the loan on your car that you don't have subsidized by the Government or the Mortgage on your house that you don't have subsidized by the Government?? Did you check with your single friends to find out if they were at all agreeable with the idea of having to take up the slack in the Revenue for every kid you decided to have without contemplating the eventual expense and now suddenly have decided that it is the responsability of the Federal Government to collect extra money from folks who have no kids that they hand over to you simply because you have them? These are the real questions involved in the Per Child Tax Credit that never get discussed. I bet that if the Federal Government stepped in and tried to set price controls on the cost of Disposable Diapers there would be a loud cry from coast to coast that it was not fair, but it seems that everyone with children who the government will be shelling out all manner of revenue to protect, educate and otherwise govern feel that it's the Federal Government's fault that it's so expensive to have children now and so it's their job to redistribute earnings to compensate all those having kids out there for their Procreative Decisions that no other taxpayers get to vote on...



2. Have you ever been really sick? Hospitalized? Undergone surgery? I have - two surgeries, one very major - my daughter has been hospitalized twic for asthma.

I've experienced Socialized Medicine first hand, having been raised in a Navy Family. The truth is that when it works it works well...do I feel that it was a good value? That's hard to say, in other countries with other systems they average citizen does not have to put their lives on the line for their nation to get health care for themselves and their dependents, but I'm not certain that the same Federal Government that manages to return 65 cents on the dollar for the benefits they currently are delivering will not have to make some rather steep increases in the rates at which they tax the citizenry to pay for the great expense that such a system will incur.

I suppose that if Americans can get used to paying $24 a 6 pack for Budweiser, $5 a pack for Cigarettes and $3 a gallon for gasoline as well as other tax generated increases then the health care thing could work, but if it comes to wrapping One Sixth of the National Budget into creating a Health Care Policy as Senator Clinton attempted to do as the First Lady then I don't have the greatest of hope for ever having such a thing here...

[Snaga]

Can I just summarise what I think you are saying RW. If I'm wrong, please clarify:

(1) You think taxes collected should be commensurate with benefits received. Or put another the poor should actually pay MORE tax than than the rich (as the poor get more benefits).

(2) You believe pregnancy must be accompanied with a budget plan, to prove it is a responsible decision.

(3) You do not believe in provision of welfare or similar for children.

Tell me I've misunderstood. Please.

[Bill the Pony]

VoK, those are indeed the points RW seems to be making. With his first post, I thought he was doing his moderator job and trying to stir up a heated debate, but it seems he really means what he's saying. Please clarify RW.
Also
(4) People choose how much they earn. If someone doesn't earn a lot of money, it's his own fault, he should have worked harder. So anyone earning little money is lazy, and steals from the hard-working money earning people through the tax system.

You're not saying this literally, but it seems to be filtering through. I hope I'm wrong??


What you call 'reverse' logic, seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Everybody contributes what he can afford for the general good of society.
**looks at it for a while**
Yes. Still seems logic.

Note that the rich man (at least in the dutch tax system) pays the same amount of taxes as the poor man over a small part of his income. Example Mr. A earns $30.000, pays 23% income tax.
Mr. B earns $300.000, pays 23% over the first 30.000; 40% over the next 100.000 and 60% over the final 170.000 (chose random numbers).
That's perfectly reasonable to me.
Same kind of logic as asking a high sales tax on luxury articles and low tax (or no tax) on things that are needed to survive (like food). Also seems logic to me. I guess it's not for you?

[TheJospeh]

Obviously I can't let a positive right-wing post slide. So to address your remarks: Let us assume that America has elected a complete moron for a president--tough I know. Regardless of how incompetent he is at making policy he was VOTED IN by the people who are apparently so great at making these decisions about social programs. Furthermore, it is part of the job of a politician to care about the down-trodden, the typical bourgeois has problems of his own and often has no time or interest in helping anyone else out.

Now, let us consider the REAL reason the right wants individual communities making the decisions. If we every journeyed to the black heart of the right-wing and were some how not driven insane by the horrors we encountered there we would find pure, unadulterated anti-thought. Yes, the majority of right-wing politicians hate thinking--though some of the best people I have know belonged to the right--it just confuses issues after all. If you think about something it isn't black and white anymore, and shucks that's no good for killing people. Anyway, I'll get off the rant and back to why the right-wing is evil. Take a Canadian example, Stockwell Day. He believed in referendums by the people on many issues and at a provincial level not a national one. Why did he believe this? Simple much as the South is the embarassment of America the prarie provinces are the embarassment of Canada. If Stock had been elected and and put his plan into place those crazy right-wing, fundamentalist christians could have rid themselves of abortion, freedom of speech, and every other nasty thing that gets in their way. Their is no overlying nobility to the right, only the deep, desperate hope that if they pick and scrape away they can oppress people.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Goro Shimura]

**Examines own heart.**

**Ponders.**

VK,

If TheJoesph typifies the benevolence of the average "open-minded" left wing socialist type... then I guess it should be clear why small town conservatives would not be thrilled to contribute greater amounts of tax money to help them implement their vision of social control, reorganization, and redistribution of wealth.

You think I look forward to having people that have essentially declared war on my Faith, my Culture, and my Region in charge of greater amounts of power? :(

- Goro

[Grond]

First and foremost, I do not agree with everything anyone has posted on this thread.

1) Single taxpayers without children do and should pay taxes for Education even though they will never have any kids to educate. That is a prime function of government in action and the cost of educating the populace should be shared by all.
2) Society has changed in the past few years. Families now require the income from two wage earners and are being taxed unfairly due to the marriage penalty. I do not look upon child tax credits as anything other than leveling the playing field.
3) I think that government provided programs to provide child care or child care financial relief and enable single mother's to work are paramount to any society getting their populace off of public welfare rolls and being productive members of the workforce. Any cost associated with this type of program is surely likely to create savings in other areas of society.
4) TheJoseph, I think. And my thoughts lead me to believe that government does not need to tell me everything I can do. Especially a bureaucratic Federal government whose main interest is getting their hand in the pie to see how many plums they can pull out. It is also pretty petty to accuse me of not thinking. I am of the political right and I do think and I do try to pass on ideas that I feel will enhance my community. You must have a pretty narrow view of life to be able to throw every person into neat little categories. You and I have never met, yet you already have me figured out and have rendered judgement, without really knowing me or my views.
5) I do not vote Republican. I vote for the person whose values reflect my ideals. I have voted for a liberal before because his agenda was more in tune with mine and because the conservative running was a disgrace to his party.

Well, I could say more but the more I type the more futile this topic seems. Without being able to have long discussions, face to face, with open minds and a willingness to listen and not just spout off at the mouth, we will never be able to truly understand one another, whether it concerns local, state, national or international issues.

[daisy]

I would get involved in the discussion but I am too busy trying to get pregnant so I can cash in and get even more money from the government! Hey Ralph, bring the oysters over here!:rolleyes:

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by George Washington.

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?
George,

I have to say I'm in complete agreement with you on this point!!

[Gloer]

I recall that the original reason why USA was formed was export taxation of tea and other goods. UK prohibited free trade, imposed taxes on exports and imports so that the businessmen of the 13 states fells that they were screwed. Hence The Boston Tea -party and the declaration of independence. The former was a terrorist attack and the latter a kind over reaction: Mere taxation was the reason for declaring the whole chunck of land independent! Even the Palestinians have not declared the occupied territories independent and they have a whole lot of reasons to claim that the state of Israel is unfit to govern their population and territories. But hey what am I to say anything!

Then there was the civil war 1860-65 during which Goshimura's Southern states lost their autonomy in the economic issues. That is quite right and good for USA too. The North had expanding industrial developement and it did not need so much foreign trade. The South was only producting of raw materials such as cotton for the European countries. The South was dependent from exports to have income to buy goods. So the war was fought over the economic policy and the industrial Yankees won.

EU was first thought as a steel and coal union, then a free trade area. The idea was to tie the strategic economic interests of the western European countries together so that no war could break between them. Then the idea has developed to form a larger market for goods to provide market scale for companies to reach internationally competetive size. (Here internationally means USA, EU, Japan, China, etc).

Now we have a convent to write down a sort of constitution for the European Union. Now the real power is held by the Council of the national governments. This council is not parliamentarily elected and it's decisions are not under parliamentary control. Individual national government may be voted out for decisions they have madein the Council but this hardly effects the conposition of the whole council since the government's of the other nations remain in power. It is a way to divide and rule: a single government can rely the other governments to back up against it's national parliament and voters. What happened in Austria is a good example: SocialDemocrats were voted out and right wing in. Other SDP governments in EU raised a huge ado about it - to realize it was a bad, bad, bad mistake.

Now, I would like to have system in which we would have a political EU government formed out of the European Commission. It should be elected by and responsible for the European parliament and the Council. The Parliament should give each national area the proportion of seats that the size of the population justifies. In the Council each nation should have equal amount of seats. This is very much like the way US federal Congress is like.

I hope "the wize men" in the convent come out with an acceptable influence for the small countries. Finland did not fight to get independence just to have less influence than Bavaria for example.
Bavaria has a larger population but they are not a nation state.

The above text is about the process of decision making. Entirely different thing is what should be decided on the EU level and what in the national parliaments. Also I would like to see a properly stated that a nation always has independent right to leave the union and that the procedure for this decision is regulated in the national legislation.

It seems we are heading towards a federation no matter what happens...

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Gloer
Then there was the civil war 1860-65 during which Goshimura's Southern states lost their autonomy in the economic issues. That is quite right and good for USA too. The North had expanding industrial developement and it did not need so much foreign trade. The South was only producting of raw materials such as cotton for the European countries. The South was dependent from exports to have income to buy goods. So the war was fought over the economic policy and the industrial Yankees won.

...Also I would like to see a properly stated that a nation always has independent right to leave the union and that the procedure for this decision is regulated in the national legislation.

Good for the North, eh?

And yet you want the right for your nation to leave the EU when it's no longer to your benefit to participate?? :rolleyes:

Let me give you a tip: Once an outside force ties your "economic interests" to theirs so as to prevent war from breaking out... they generally will not let you leave without a fight.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by George Washington.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. George,

You must be rolling over in your grave even as we post....:(

[ReadWryt]

I never said that Government should charge the wealthy less then they do the poor, they infact would still be charging the wealthy more even if we had a flat single percentage tax across the board for all citizens. The Wealthy OBVIOUSLY get more benefit then the poor, even those on welfare and such because it depends on the Government more for things like Road Maintainence and protection of the citizenery in general since in most cases both the Consumers of the wealthy person's goods as well as the Employees making them are under Government Protection and require benefits. My point is that if one person makes 35,000 dollars and pays a bit over 8000 in Taxes at 23% and a person who makes 10,000,000 dollars pays 2,300,000 at the same rate of taxation they have already payed over 285 TIMES as much in taxes as the first individual, yet I don't think that it could be argued that they have recieved much more then 285 times the benefit even with the examples I expressed above. If they were charged 50% they would be paying more then 617 times more then the first individual. While I realize that I will never convince any socialist seeking to redistribute wealth for the sake of leveling the playing field that this is unfair, I really do hope that the plain numbers demonstrate the lack of fairness in such a system of oppressive taxation.

I never implied that people would be making money by having children, the point I was making was that people having children should know the expense instead of expecting Government to subsidize them having children and that penalizing people for NOT having children is equally wrong. I never implied that people NOT having children should not support the Educational System, although I will withold my opinions on what role the Central Government should play in Education anyways for reasons I mention in my last paragraph. Childless people benefit as much, if not moreso, from being surrounded with Educated individuals of all ages, I merely brought up Education as being one of the benefits that the Government is funding at the same time they are reducing the taxes collected from the people who MADE the children simply because they HAD children.

The position I put forth are simple concepts that, when applied to the market place would be as offensive to any of you as it would myself. Imagine that, after recieving a hefty raise from your employer, you walked into your favorite coffee shop to purchase your most loved cup of Caffiene Condensate only to be informed that because you make so much more then the average customer now you would be paying 20 times more for your drink. Or when pulling up to the toll bridge that you cross every day on your way to work you are informed that you cannot cross the bridge for the usual $1, but now you have to pay $18 because of the amount of money you earn...

At least the Canadians have something viable to point to that they recieve for the added cost of their goods, their Health Care system actually includes every Canadian's health care as well as the Vocational Training should they have suffered a catastophic trauma which causes them to no longer be capable of plying their previous trade. (My friend Robert is a good example of this, his arm was damaged badly enough in his motorcycle accident that he can no longer be a brick layer as he had been, so the Canadian Government is teaching him a new trade as part of the Physical Therapy program.) And you will not see me EVER state that the Health Care system in the U.S. is working for the common benefit! It is not in ANYBODIES best interest to have sick and injured individuals of ANY income bracket wandering the streets and spreading disease or worse because they could not afford the attention needed. My only apprehension is that a Large Central Government like the one here in the U.S. would not be capable of delivering such a program efficiently and at as much cost as it creates today...

I never intended to so greiviously offend any member as I have and since I am indeed sorry for having done so, and since this forum is the only one in which I apparently have the ability to do so through the expression of my opinion, and because Members cannot put me on their ignore list and the offended individual is such a nice person, I will be actively avoiding making any more posts in this thread for the benefit of what I will assume is more peacable and enjoyable use by the most members.

[Gloer]

Ok. That was pretty obvious. Can you leave the union? Not the USA. But what about EU?

The Southern states of the US were in a desperate situation by the end of 1850's. Population and industrial growth in the northern states were stearing the US economic policies from being favourable to the South. Paid workers was not something the Southern cotton could afford when it was competing with cheap colonial cotton production in the European export market. The Industrial North on the other hand saw no benefit in slave work: the motivation and skill level was low and constant flow of emigrants from Europe provided enough work force. Slave's being so cheap also hindered the utilisation of machinery. Slave's did not earn money and so did not provide a consumer base for industrial products. Power shifted in favour of the Northern economic structure. South had to change or leave the Union, which they tried. After this it was proven that USA is a Union a state can not leave.

Now. I want to have a possibility for any member nation in EU to retain the possibilety to leave the Union. This would mean that the nation states will retain their ultimate souvereignity. And this must be mentioned in this "constitution" that we are writing. If it is not there we will have a similar situation that USA had after Lincoln got elected and the South left the Union.

Where would be the line along which EU would crack?
- small nations - large nations
- eastern new members - old western members
- mediterratnean beneficiaries - northern states - eastern new members

These are some divisions. I find them a bit superficial. We have to find a structural difference in the economics of the different parts of Europe. Something like "slave labour/low developed goods export vs. industrialism/developed goods for home markets.

I am from Finland. Our worst fear is to become a subcontractor economy in which business id ran by the daughter companies of large multi-nationals. This is avoided by concentrating on a few niche businesses. One of them is of course paper industry. I can already now predict that after this scattered industry has concentrated under a few multi-nationals there will be at least two or three based in Europe. The others are probably in the US and Japan. Of those in
Europe at least two are based in Helsinki. That is our plan.

The other industry we are focusing on is by chance telecommunications. Nokia is based in Helsinki and probably stays here for a while. The company is not anymore providing much growth in jobs Finland for example, but it has huge impact on our status as people and a nation in the world business map. Nokia proves that a finn can be a leader of ground breaking industry.

Here we are waiting to be recruited to lead ailing European giants like Ericsson, DaimlerChrystler, Fiat, and the like... What are you waiting for? A local hero, I guess, since a good european from Finland wouldn't even be considered. And that is usually the fact: there is no pan-european market for top executives. Why not? Because CEO holds power that the elite of each nation will want to keep in their country.

So if the larger nations try to use the EU to collect all the headquarters of all industries on their soil. Then it is time to reconsider. This is the fear. That the larger nations: Germany, UK and France just divide the rest of Europe and direct the industry concentration so that German, French and UK firms buy the rest out. THe French energy monopoly is a prime example...

[Snaga]

And yet you want the right for your nation to leave the EU when it's no longer to your benefit to participate??

Let me give you a tip: Once an outside force ties your "economic interests" to theirs so as to prevent war from breaking out... they generally will not let you leave without a fight.

Goroshimura I think the point here is that the EU has no ability to project military force in its own right. Most definitions of 'statehood' would involve this ability. Therefore the USA is a 'state' (also a union of 50 States) whereas the EU is a supranational body, but not a state.

It is a matter of very significant dispute in Europe as to whether there should be some sort of European Defense Force. This is seen by its proponents as critical to a more harmonious Europe-wide approach to resolving international conflicts; and by its detractors as a European army in embryo, as part of the creation of a European 'super-state'.

While each country retains its own military, and the EU itself has none there is no question that any country is free to leave. Of course the implications of any country leaving would be significant, and for a major player it would be monumental. But no country has signed anything that means they cannot leave.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand


While each country retains its own military, and the EU itself has none there is no question that any country is free to leave. Of course the implications of any country leaving would be significant, and for a major player it would be monumental. But no country has signed anything that means they cannot leave.

VK,

We of the South had the express right to secede from the Union. We never signed anything that said we couldn't leave, either. Abraham Lincoln himself for years said that we could leave the Union at any time.

Things changed when it came to the point though.

Be careful guys!

Am I the only one that is shocked to see Frenchmen and Germans using the same currency??

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Goroshimura


Am I the only one that is shocked to see Frenchmen and Germans using the same currency??

I am not really surprised. The europeans are used to changing currencies when ever they travel. So it only must have felt just like on a holiday trip when the new "foreign" currency was taken to use.

I hardly noticed the change of currency. Some prizes rose up due to seeking a better "psychological" prize. For example a news paper used to cost 5 finnish marks ie. one FIM 5 coin. Now the paper is 1 euro (one coin) which is 6 old finnish marks. There are more of these.

Other thing is that suddenly we have returned to purchasing with coins. The smallest note is 5 euros which is 50 % higher than the smallest note in the old currecy. It was FIM 20 note = 3,3 euros.
Almost all day-to-day purchases are now paid with coins and coins are the only things we get as exchange too. This bugs the hell out of me because the purse pocket of my wallet broke down after one week. I try topay with a card as often as possible to avoid the coins. Holding a note makes you feel rich these days since you never receive one as exchange! I can only hope for a further inflation of the euro so that 5 euros is worth FIM 20.