Outcome of a second civil war?

The Gardener

Senior Member
Reaction score
25
"I love to visit the pro-America parts of the country"
- Sarah Palin

That comment will not be forgotten nor EVER forgiven by many.

The Democratic Party: Healing old wounds.

The Republican Party: Opening new ones.
 
H

HLTMod2

Guest
BlahBlah12 said:
i would like to reply to you, but unfortunately according to new rules i am not allowed to invoke religion into this, however if you read between the lines, you are right..republicans today are NOT republicans and those that are, are far and few in between in comparison to the majority that hijacked your party.
Thanks for the restraint. It's noted and appreciated. :)

HLTMod2
 

Harie

Experienced Member
Reaction score
5
The Gardener said:
The Democratic Party: Healing old wounds.

The Republican Party: Opening new ones.

That should read more like.

Democrat party - all crooks that are out for themselves and their friends.
Republican party - all crooks that are out for themselves and their friends.

I voted yesterday and if I'd had another choice that even had a 1% chance of winning, I'd have voted for them over Obama or McCain. I hate 2 party politics. I was sort of upset that I wasn't given a choice to write in a candidate. Yes...I was hoping to vote for Ron Paul. :)
 

JayBear

Established Member
Reaction score
0
The Gardener said:
"I love to visit the pro-America parts of the country"
- Sarah Palin

That comment will not be forgotten nor EVER forgiven by many.

The Democratic Party: Healing old wounds.

The Republican Party: Opening new ones.

I couldn't agree more. What she said was amazingly divisive. I was especially horrified by Michelle Bachman and Robin Hayes' comments following it. Here is what is confusing me, next Tuesday promises to be a very bad day for the GOP. Some people are actually predicting that McCain losing has drained so much money from the RNC, that the republicans will walk away from the generals with 40 or 41 senate seats. This would be terrible for them, worse even than losing the presidential campaign in some ways. So here is my question, why on earth are these people continuing to alienate voters? Who the hell is running this party? For their own sakes, can't they shut this idiot up??!!
 

casperz

Experienced Member
Reaction score
25
I'm not a republican but in the Reagan years that's the closest any party has come to my ideals but even then
the religious right messed things up.

Furthermore, whether you wanna admit it or not, some aspects that you mention such as social security
are socialism by nature..as is medicaire and the military.

That's not socialism, it's doing the right thing. I absolutely think it's the right thing to do to protect our seniors
and children for that matter. And welfare for those people that cannot earn a living because of physical or
mental handicaps. However every other able bodied person should be expected to fend for themselves. If
politicians spent more time dong the right thing instead of pissing on each other it would be a much better
country. But we should NOT be taxing the rich more and the middle class less because that IS socialism.

So you cannot avoid this and I do not believe that letting the tax cuts amounts to increased socialism. In fact, I believe its fair. You make more, you contribute more. I dont see what is wrong with this...Surely the guy making a million dollars should not be paying LESS taxes than the guy earning 50k and we expect our economy to rise? we expect consumers to shop more and consume more? Or do we only expect the richest of the rich to keep this country going economically? I just don't get how its justified other than concocted arguments that the rich throw out there to stay rich and keep the poor, poorer. As evidenced by any civilization, such a drastic disrepancy in wealth is far more detrimental to a hegemony than to let the rich pair their fair share.

I'm not sure why you would think the guy that earns a million dollars pays less taxes than the guy earning 50K.
But if you look at income taxes on regular income the rich guy is already paying more that middle class guy. He
is paying much more(35% compared to 25%) if I remember the tables correctly. So as a percentage the rich guy
is paying 10% more in taxes on a whole lot more income. So the millionaire pays $350,000 and the middle class
guy pays $12,500. There is no question that the rich guy pays more.

So lets say the rates are raised to 50% and drop to 15% for the middle class. The rich guy now pays $500,000
and the middle class guy $7500. That free's up $5000 for the middle class guy to spend. But every rich guy
in the country has $150,000 less to spend. What do you think the effect on the economy and tax revenues is
going to be? At first thought you would say the economy is going to tank and tax revenues are going up. But
what always happens is the rich take that $150,000 that they would pay in new taxes and shelter it in any
number of legal ways to avoid those taxes. So tax revenues go down along with the economy. It has never
worked to raise taxes on the wealthy and it won't this time. The way to make this work is to cut spending on
all the pork. Spend on the things that count but cut the programs that are fat.

And in regards to free markets, the invisible hand does not work....how much more proof do you need that people are greedy. Its nice in theory, but like communism, doesn't work when human emotions and drives are put into play. Less regulation was the worst thing that happened to our financial institutions as the more risk these places took, the more the average worker lost. Imagine getting hired by a company and having much of your salary in their stock because their a reputable, well traded company..only to have some bastard CEO take so much risk that the losses are unfathomable and the stock tanks to zero along with your life savings while he gets a million dollar paycheck for ruining lives. Its flawed dude...

Do you realize the US has achieved it's status THE economic powerhouse of the world in a relativity short 80
years or so because of the "flawed" process that you describe. The meltdown you are seeing is just part of the
business cycle to be replaced by bigger, stronger businesses. Capitalism is greed and risk is what built
the American business empire. And risk, like hard work always rewarded. No one forced the workers to
hold that stock. They assume the risk and they suffer the consequences when it fails and the rewards when
it succeeds. Do you think any Google employees complained when they became overnight millionaires? If you
want to share in the upside you have to be willing to assume the risk of the downside. And I don't feel sorry for
any of them. And the greatest thing is if that worker is not happy they can change things. Become that
greedy CEO. There is no law saying you can't. Flawed.... not hardly, it's the greatest system on earth to
reward those in a free country.

Democrat party - all crooks that are out for themselves and their friends.
Republican party - all crooks that are out for themselves and their friends.

Absolutely!

Here is my bottom line. I have no beef with anyone, just give me freedom to live my life, let me choose
what I do to earn a living, I'll pay a FAIR share of taxes to take care of those that cannot fend for themselves
and to protect me from the lunatics here and abroad. Give me that from government and I'll be happy.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
casperz said:
But we should NOT be taxing the rich more and the middle class less because that IS socialism.

So if you were running things in this country, you wouldn't even have a progressive income tax? You'd have a perfectly flat tax?
 

hair_tomorrow

Senior Member
Reaction score
5
Could we do an East versus West next time around instead of N v S?

:innocent:
 

casperz

Experienced Member
Reaction score
25
A flat tax I think would be the fairest but I would exclude anyone below a certain level. And
it would eliminate all the gaming of the system and tax shelters.

Everyone under say 30K would pay no tax. That would exclude most kids till the age of 22 when
they graduate college and get higher paying jobs and a majority of blue collar workers that work hard but do
not receive much income. I think it's a joke that we tax kids that are just coming into the system and making
minimum wage. Everyone would still pay social security tax.

You'd have to look at the numbers. To bring in the required revenue it might need to remain
a progressive tax. I'm all for giving the lower income earners a break, just not at the expense of
high earners and I think that a flat tax would do that.

Speaking of social security... that is the ticking time bomb. These was a study done early in the Bush admin
that looked at what we had to do allow social security to stay solvent. The studied concluded that when the
baby boomers start to retire in 2012 it's going to put a huge burden on us to be able to maintain the current
poverty level payments to them. Here are some numbers for you to think about, just to keep it
from going under the study said we must raise social security taxes 40% now (then actually I think it was 2003
or so), cut social security for future retirees 25%. The study was buried by the Bush people. But the GAO looked
at it again and said the SS tax needed to be even higher to around 70% to remain solvent. Clearly that is going
to be the next major crisis and the longer it is put off the bigger the crisis becomes.
 

BlahBlah12

Established Member
Reaction score
8
casperz said:
Speaking of social security... that is the ticking time bomb. These was a study done early in the Bush admin
that looked at what we had to do allow social security to stay solvent. The studied concluded that when the
baby boomers start to retire in 2012 it's going to put a huge burden on us to be able to maintain the current
poverty level payments to them. Here are some numbers for you to think about, just to keep it
from going under the study said we must raise social security taxes 40% now (then actually I think it was 2003
or so), cut social security for future retirees 25%. The study was buried by the Bush people. But the GAO looked
at it again and said the SS tax needed to be even higher to around 70% to remain solvent. Clearly that is going
to be the next major crisis and the longer it is put off the bigger the crisis becomes.
hey caspers,
nice to have a civlized debate with someone who doesnt agree with me on exactly everything, but doesnt start shouting and calling me an idiot like many on the right tend to do. i havent read all of what you wrote yet, but in regards to the social security numbers you threw out-
heres some more info to actually think about:
By conservatives insisting on making the 2001-2003 tax cuts permanent despite cost-benefit analysis, over the next 75 years the changes are projected to actually cost 11 trillion dollars dwarfing the 4 trillion dollars it would actually cost to fully fund social security.
The tax reductions are so skewed toward the upper income brackets, that it actually lessens their stimulative effect.
 

BlahBlah12

Established Member
Reaction score
8
casperz said:
Do you realize the US has achieved it's status THE economic powerhouse of the world in a relativity short 80
years or so because of the "flawed" process that you describe. The meltdown you are seeing is just part of the
business cycle to be replaced by bigger, stronger businesses. Capitalism is greed and risk is what built
the American business empire. And risk, like hard work always rewarded. No one forced the workers to
hold that stock. They assume the risk and they suffer the consequences when it fails and the rewards when
it succeeds. Do you think any Google employees complained when they became overnight millionaires? If you
want to share in the upside you have to be willing to assume the risk of the downside. And I don't feel sorry for
any of them. And the greatest thing is if that worker is not happy they can change things. Become that
greedy CEO. There is no law saying you can't. Flawed.... not hardly, it's the greatest system on earth to
reward those in a free country.
Well im not going to pretend that im a genius at economics, but i do read a lot. And a quote by Warren Buffet helps to sum it up for me
"hyperactive equity markets subvert rational capital allocation and act as pie-shrinkers. Adam Smith felt that all non-collusive acts in a free market were guided by an invisible hand that led an economy to maximum progress; our view is that casino-type markets and hair-trigger investment management act as an invisible foot that trips up and slows down a forward-moving economy"
 

Hammy070

Established Member
Reaction score
0
Tax....age-old debate.

I think it should be customized for each person. How this would be done, is a mystery. How many ways to swindle the system, would be limitless.

Flat taxes avoid the issue and solve the issue at the same time. The problem with flat taxes is that economic conditions are not flat. We have a highly volatile economic system, which means flat taxes will be great sometimes, terrible at other times. A flexible tax system that couples to economic conditions seemlessly would be ideal. If anyone can describe such a system, be my guest. :dunno:
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
casperz said:
A flat tax I think would be the fairest but I would exclude anyone below a certain level.

Everyone under say 30K would pay no tax. That would exclude most kids till the age of 22 when they graduate college and get higher paying jobs and a majority of blue collar workers that work hard but do not receive much income. I think it's a joke that we tax kids that are just coming into the system and making minimum wage.

You'd have to look at the numbers. To bring in the required revenue it might need to remain a progressive tax.

I'm glad to see that in this day and age, even you can see that there are obvious natural limitations to this abstract idea of what you consider to be "fair" (a flat tax).

casperz said:
I'm all for giving the lower income earners a break, just not at the expense of high earners and I think that a flat tax would do that.

You can't give the lower income earners a break that's not at the expense of high earners. Given the amount of revenue required by the government, you simply have to bite the bullet and admit that we _must_ have something more progressive than a true flat tax.
 

Prevent99

Member
Reaction score
0
A progressive tax structure merely inhibits economic growth.

Federal tax revenue always equals approximately 19.5% of GDP.
Hauser's Law is a theory that states that in the United States, federal tax revenues will always be equal to approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of what the top marginal tax rate is. The theory was first suggested in 1993 by Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, who wrote at the time, "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP." In a May 20, 2008 editorial, the Wall St. Journal published a graph showing that even though the top marginal tax rate of federal income tax had varied between a low of 28% to a high of 91% between 1950 and 2007, federal tax revenues had indeed constantly remained at about 19.5% of GDP


As you can see the overall tax revenue does not change much even with wildly different tax rates on the wealthy. However higher taxes do serve to slow and even stop economic expansion. Just like the 80's we should lower the taxes and grow our way out of this recession. Anything else will be counterproductive. Especially Obama's proposed tax increase!
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
Prevent99 said:
A progressive tax structure merely inhibits economic growth.

Yeah, and ain't it just AWFUL that somebody who makes, for example, a million bucks a year before taxes would be forced to scrape-by with only (say) HALF a million bucks or less? Shocking! APPALLING, I say! :freaked:

Prevent99 said:
Just like the 80's we should lower the taxes and grow our way out of this recession.

Really? And what will happen to the deficit and the national debt if we do that? What in fact _did_ happen to the national debt when we lowered taxes during the 80's?
 

Old Baldy

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
Bryan, you're saying it the wrong way. People making more money have more assets to protect, therefore, they should pay a higher rate of tax IMHO. Just leave it at that IMHO. Don't get personal, see below.

When you "set" the amount of income you feel someone should be "happy" with you run into MASSIVE resistance IMHO. It's "dictatorial" if you get what I mean. Just doesn't sit well with people.

FICA, that's another matter IMHO. Everyone should have to pay that tax at the same rate.

I could live with a flat tax for corporations but they essentially have that now (i.e., the highest tax bracket starts so "quickly" that we're almost there now).

Whenever I had to estimate the amount of tax from a corporate adjustment I always just assumed 34 percent (or 35 percent for the "biggies"). (See section 11 - http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Sec ... ax_imposed )
 

casperz

Experienced Member
Reaction score
25
hey caspers,
nice to have a civlized debate with someone who doesnt agree with me on exactly everything, but doesnt start shouting and calling me an idiot like many on the right tend to do. i havent read all of what you wrote yet, but in regards to the social security numbers you threw out-
heres some more info to actually think about:
By conservatives insisting on making the 2001-2003 tax cuts permanent despite cost-benefit analysis, over the next 75 years the changes are projected to actually cost 11 trillion dollars dwarfing the 4 trillion dollars it would actually cost to fully fund social security.
The tax reductions are so skewed toward the upper income brackets, that it actually lessens their stimulative effect.

Our leaders will not start respecting each other until we as a people start talking to each other in a civilized
manner. I think most of us could sit in a bar somewhere and drink some beer while we watch Monday Night
Football and disagree on the teams without dis-respecting the other person. Why can't that happen again in
politics? I say it's our leaders.


Yeah, and ain't it just AWFUL that somebody who makes, for example, a million bucks a year before taxes would be forced to scrape-by with only (say) HALF a million bucks or less? Shocking! APPALLING, I say!

You're missing the point. Those guys are not for the most part blowing that extra 500 K profit on their
rich lifestyle. For the most part it goes back into their business and creates new income. You will find that
people that get to that level of income did not do it living lavishly. They did it through hard work
and living cheaply. As a business owner when you have a 500K profit you want to re-invest that money to
make the business grow so the next year you have $750K profit, and on and on. For so many small
business owners it's not about what you can buy, it's what you can build and how you can make
your business grow. That is why Obama's tax ideas are so wrong. Low income earners might get a break on
their taxes but one in ten of you won't have a job anymore.

Let me give you another example. I have a friend that has a business that employs about ten people. He
tells me that he has looked at Obama's changes in depth and he thinks taxes are going to cost him about 10%
more under Obama. And he says if that happens he will just layoff one employee to cover the 10% increase
in taxes. That will happen over and over in big business's and small. and un-employment will rise while tax
revenues will stay the same. In hard times business's will always take the quick route to expense reduction
and that is always a reduction of labor costs. Add that too the already weak business climate and you will see
unemployment soar under Obama.

I want to point out something else about the Bush's handling of the economy. When he took over in 2000
the market was already tanking, the NASDAQ had basically crashed and his policies and Greenspan's delayed the
inevitable meltdown of the economy. I think the economy was going to tank anyway, they were just able to
delay it for a few years. Look, the US government has grown to enormous proportions since the seventies
mostly dealing with the cold war and Iraq. Computers saved the economy in the eighties, the internet in the
nineties, and consumer debt spending fueled by the run up in house pricing and easy credit in the 2000's.
People need to realize that the days of easy to get and almost free money are gone for a LONG time. The
consumer is dead and that portion of the economy is just starting to die. Next year will be the worst that
many of us have ever experienced. Jobs will be lost in huge chunks, credit cards will start to default just like
the sub-prime loans before them. Housing will continue to tank in the areas where it had run up the most. Higher
quality mortgage holders will start to be effected. All the statistics will indicate we are in a depression by
the end of next year. But it would ave happended anyway under a democratic regime. It's simply the
free market business cycle.

I was talking about business issues this weekend and a friend of mine asked me why I
almost sound happy about this. It's because I believe in free markets. And I believe that with the coming
turmoil comes ENORMOUS opportunities for the transfer of wealth from the most successful in the past to a new
wave of risk takers and entrepreneurs. There were more millions made after the crash of 1929
than were destroyed during. Market mayhem levels the playing field and even tilts in the favor of
the small guys. The business cycle will wash out those old business's that have grown bloated
and in-efficient and bring new ventures up from nothing. Many of these have yet to be started, but are
being planned right now. Planned by ordinary people that see what is happening and that have a deep
desire to grab a share of it. People that realize it's not what you have right now, it's not what your education
is. It's people that realize it's how bad you want it that makes a difference. I've never been more excited about
my future prospects that I am right now. Yes there will be lean times for all of us. But if recognize it for what
it is you will not only survive it but prosper. But it won't happen sitting on your butt, thinking I wish I could
do that. Start taking risks, quit your job, start a business. Do whatever it takes to get in the game and don't
sit out the coming opportunities on the sidelines.

Your probably thinking that I'm one of those rich guys. I do own a small business and I've done ok for many
years. And I've paid a lot of taxes. But I'm not rich by any means. I do have the free time now, after working
12 hours days with no vacations for many, many years to hang out here posting crap. And I spend a lot of time
thinking about how to profit from the future. But I have that free time because the economy is not what it has
been and because of the economy and because of the coming tax increases it's likely my business will fail in
2009. But just like when I started my business there will be some new opportunity that comes up and I just hope
I still have the balls and drive to grab it.

You can't give the lower income earners a break that's not at the expense of high earners. Given the amount of revenue required by the government, you simply have to bite the bullet and admit that we _must_ have something more progressive than a true flat tax.

I clearly understand that the tax system will never be totally fair, but I feel there are varying levels of fairness
and Obama's plan clearly misses the mark. His pendulum swings too far the other way.

Somehow as a country, a united country and a united people, we need to find ways to agree and compromise
on many of these issues because if we do not our future generations will not have the good times that
we had. Over all the last thirty years has been the most successful in our countries history and we need
to find ways to make that success continue. And I need to add that success has come under Democratic
and Republican leadership. And we have succeeded not because of the politicians and their leadership but in
spite of them and their corrupt ways.

I think we should care very little about McCain or Obama and start talking about how to take back our
country from Washington. That should be the real goal for the next four years of every American. But
the pessimistic side of me sees more of the same and I guess I feel we get the leadership we deserve
because we don't demand better.
 

The Gardener

Senior Member
Reaction score
25

Prevent99

Member
Reaction score
0
Bryan said:
Prevent99 said:
A progressive tax structure merely inhibits economic growth.

Yeah, and ain't it just AWFUL that somebody who makes, for example, a million bucks a year before taxes would be forced to scrape-by with only (say) HALF a million bucks or less? Shocking! APPALLING, I say! :freaked:




Prevent99 said:
Just like the 80's we should lower the taxes and grow our way out of this recession.

Really? And what will happen to the deficit and the national debt if we do that? What in fact _did_ happen to the national debt when we lowered taxes during the 80's?

Whether the government takes the money that the "evil" rich person earned or the person spends it as they see fit the government still takes in about the same amount of revenue. I know what you're thinking, "How dare someone make a lot of money in this country and be allowed to keep it!"

Since lowering the tax rate induces economic growth the an increase to the GDP it serves to increase the government tax revenue. Increased government revenue (and some spending control) equals lower deficit and reduction of the debt. Remember Tax Revenue = Approx. 20% GDP regardless of tax rate. The goal of the government should be economic expansion.
 

The Gardener

Senior Member
Reaction score
25
Prevent99,

I understand the Laffer Curve and the relationship between lower taxes and economic growth... but this concept does not take into account the fact that the majority of government obligations in the near future are a result of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare costs are both increasing. And, since those same retiring baby boomers who stand to collect Medicare in the years ahead voted for a president who set a precedent of underfunding them whilst they were in their younger days, they are now forced to make up the difference now, in the form of higher taxes.

Think of it this way... if SS and Medicare were to have been fully funded, the baby boomers should never have elected Ronald Reagan. Reagan set a budget baseline that underfunded these programs, and gave this amount BACK to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut. Soooo.... the baby boomers were able to enjoy several decades of low taxes which allowed the economy to grow, and allowed them to make a lot of money. Now that the baby boomers are approacing retirement and are about to start collecting their SS and Medicare benefits, the government is needing to ask them to pay more tax on their accumulated earnings to keep the programs solvent.

It's not fair to continue to keep the tax breaks for high income earners in place... as this would shift the cost of entitlements disproportionally onto the backs of the younger generations, who make up most of the lower income brackets.
 
Top