seruzawa

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
- Ayn Rand, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957

V2Rider

[quote=Kenneth_Moore;220440]I'm in favor of a serious discussion without all the BS.

How much is enough? Extremely wealthy people in this country didn't get that way because God opened up the heavens and dumped cash in their wallets. They built their wealth using the resources, infrastructure, and labor of OUR nation. For decades the tax codes had a threashold of about $3M a year, above that the tax percentage went way up. We had a good economy for the most part, and the "rich people" seemed to be pretty comfortable. At the beginning of this century (we'll leave the names out of it) that tax code was changed and the tax contribution of the extremely wealthy went down drastically. Coincidently, or not, the deficit began to rise dramatically. When I was a little kid I recall there being a lot of discussion about how England was taxing the rich to the point they'd leave and the UK economy would collapse. That didn't happen, and in some ways their economy is stronger than ours. I'm NOT saying we should be like the UK, but I do think the rich have the ways and means to set the debate and skew opinions."

I think the well off already pay their fair share. If you notice, the tax burden on the wealthy actually went up during the Bush years.

The following is a table showing the percentage of federal income tax paid by taxpayers in 1999 during Bill Clinton's presidency. Following below is the table showing the percentages paid in 2006 under George Bush.

1999


2006

__________________
'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan

Kenneth_Moore

They shouldn't move to China for a few good reasons:

1. I don't want to see our standard of living being dragged down to match the Chinese. We aren't on a level playing field in wages, duties, etc. I think there are a lot of circumstances where we're better off paying an extra $.50 in order to preserve our future.

2. If we try to survive on a "service" economy, we're doomed. Handing our manufacturing capability off to the lowest bidder results in us becoming an agrarian colony to the nations that do actually create wealth.

3. Making a buck isn't the most important thing in life. If you believe it is, then we're on different pages and any argument I present isn't going to make sense to you.

__________________
www.kennethmoore.org

SmokeU

True, but it is directly related to every other aspect of my life. Without making a buck how could I ride motorcycles?

longride

1. So you believe in not moving our businesses overseas, yet you own and ride a Japanese motorcycle? Ok. Got ya on that one.

2. So we need the highest bidders for our 'services'? OK. You and everyone else going to pay for that? 10-4 good buddy!

3. So if making money isn't the most important thing in life, why aren't you riding motorcycles for a living? What a load of Liberal crap. Sorry. You love money as much or more than anyone on this board. Of course, acting like you don't makes you the 'moral superior' right? Just like your 'global warming' schtick. You care SO MUCH about the environment......just as long as it doesn't interfere with your lifestyle. Quit the phony posturing and admit you do your job for the money, otherwise you wouldn't show up every day, just like the rest of us.

We are on the EXACT same page, only you have some fantasies that don't jibe with your words. When was the last time you paid more to buy a NEW American product? I bet not in a looooog time or never. You want the cheapest prices like everyone else does, but please don't move out the production out of the country. Ok, so you own a business, and your competetor just moved overseas and is kicking your ass on pricing. Since making money isn't all that important to you, I guess a guy like you just goes out of business and goes surfing. Gotta love you Ken. You come through every time.

__________________
I'm a knucklehead

seruzawa

Okay. How are we going to achieve this? There are only two methods:

1- Install an Iron Curtain, i.e. use threats anf force.

2- Reduce taxes and regulations and enact tort reform so that the US is an attractive business environment again.

Guess which one our current political climate will opt for. The threats and force option. Our govt has become extremely vicious with fraconian laws like the one where you get 5 years in if you pick up an eagle feather from the ground.

There is no way for everyone to have everything they want. Impossible. Either they give up a lifetime of govt handouts and social programs for jobs and freedom or they become wards of the govt in a land of shortages and misery. Since the govt has carefully created a large population of adult children these people are becoming the majority of voters. When you add the earned income credit people to public sector employees, social security recipients, etc you get a voting bloc larger than 50% of the electorate. It looks to me like we are nearing these famous quotes' predictions:

Historian, Alexander Tyler, said "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury."

Author, Alexis de Tocqueville, added to this idea saying, "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

We're there now I fear.

Buzglyd

I hear ya cluckin' big chicken.

We ARE there.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for." the Dali Obama on the campaign trail.

Kenneth_Moore

If all we were taking about was Federal income tax on personal wages, this chart would really mean something. Most of the tax cuts Bush ladled out were dividend payment tax cuts and other types of taxes most of us don't even know about, let alone pay (remember the comment on how the rich can set the agenda and skew the opinions?)

In Congress there is no discussion about IF taxes were cut, everybody, Dems and Republicans alike know they were. The discussion is about if repealing the tax cuts will be good for us in the long run or not. BTW, there's also no debate that repealing these tax cuts would have a huge impact on the deficits that have been running up since they were enacted. Again, the debate is centered on if keeping the cuts in place is a good idea or not.

__________________
www.kennethmoore.org

The_AirHawk

My man, we have been there for a long damn time. The Collapse is imminent..............

__________________
Parfois, on fait pas semblant
Sometimes, it's not pretend
Oderint Dum Metuant
Let them hate so long as they fear
политики предпочитают безоружных крестьян
Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants
Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along now...

seruzawa

Okay. But tax policy and spending policy are two entirely different things. The tax cuts Reagan pushed through in the 80s did result in greatly increased tax revenues. Just like they did with Kennedy's tax cuts in the 60s. The canard "voodoo economics" is a simply a propaganda line. Conversely the economy killing results of tax increases are also undeniable. Some clever lawyers types can always argue that black is white and fool some of the people, but the relationship is between tax rates and economic prosperity are clear and even codified in the Laffer Curve.

The deficit problems of recent decades are entirely the result of spending policy that ignores tax revenues. Federal revenues doubled under Reagan but spending tripled. It's not rocket science. One can also handle revenue/expenditure inequities by printing money, but the inflation results in pols being thrown out of office, like Carter.

Deficits are caused by spending more than you take in. Revenues increase as you increase taxes from zero until the rates become so high that they suppress economic activity and revenues go down again. We have been walking that fine line for decades and simply put, raising taxes today won't bring in much more money. I know that's hard for a lot of people, but then a lot of people also believe that Elvis is still alive. Reality doesn't care what anyone thinks.

We won't balance the budget unless the various govts decide to control spending. If there's any voodoo economics going on it's those that are being proposed in DC today. The claims that nationalized healthcare will save up money is another example of true voodoo economics.