NationStates Jolt Archive

I know many people say:

"The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer"

...BUT

Think about it this way. As you earn more money, you pay more tax (progressive taxation). This means that if rich people get even richer, there is more revenue collected to help the poor.

Why social equalitists kick up a stink everytime the gini-coefficient of a nation (gap between rich and poor - scale 0 [perfect equality] to scale 1 [perfect inequality]) gets wider I cannot fathom.

I know many people say:

"The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer"

...BUT

Think about it this way. As you earn more money, you pay more tax (progressive taxation). This means that if rich people get even richer, there is more revenue collected to help the poor.

Why social equalitists kick up a stink everytime the gini-coefficient of a nation (gap between rich and poor - scale 0 [perfect equality] to scale 1 [perfect inequality]) gets wider I cannot fathom.Even assuming this is true, it doesn't help the socalist adgenda to give the rich tax breaks. The reasons why this is wrong are just too many for me to go into at the moment though.

This assumes that the rich are actually going to pay their share.

Two words:
Tax havens.

why the rich should get richer? how about...it's their money and if they grow it that's their money too? how about they have the right to get richer just like everybody else? how about they don't need to say they are sorry for being more successful, or for being born to successful parents?

i've been poor, done the homeless, living in the slums, showering at the Y thing. and i've got zero sympathy for poor people who bitch about The Man like they have some right to other people's money. rich people aren't obligated to do anything other than take care of themselves and their families, just like we all are, and if they chose to give something to the community then good for them.

I know many people say:

"The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer"

...BUT

Think about it this way. As you earn more money, you pay more tax (progressive taxation). This means that if rich people get even richer, there is more revenue collected to help the poor.



There's a logical flaw there...hmmmmm. :roll:

uhh none of the above, in that poll... tax cuts my ass...

While handouts will make a society lazy,

I feel like those who just cannot seem to escape from their hole of poverty should be given a leg up

While I favour earning money and as much as I can; I can't say I pity the rich because they need and have money because I'm a student with little to no income and whatever I get goes to books, fees, bus passes and if I'm lucky, I have some leftover in order to have a life. So, at this point, I'm in favour of cracking down on those who don't pay their fair share...

While handouts will make a society lazy,

I feel like those who just cannot seem to escape from their hole of poverty should be given a leg up

Yeah. The focus should be on universally accessible education and work, and strong encouragement for people to utilise these, rather than throwing money at them.

While handouts will make a society lazy,

I feel like those who just cannot seem to escape from their hole of poverty should be given a leg up

Yeah. The focus should be on universally accessible education and work, and strong encouragement for people to utilise these, rather than throwing money at them.
That I agree with.
It would be nice if post-secondary education was free -- but, of course, you still have to have the grades to qualify for your program and school of choice ;)...

I know many people say:

"The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer"

...BUT

Think about it this way. As you earn more money, you pay more tax (progressive taxation). This means that if rich people get even richer, there is more revenue collected to help the poor.

Why social equalitists kick up a stink everytime the gini-coefficient of a nation (gap between rich and poor - scale 0 [perfect equality] to scale 1 [perfect inequality]) gets wider I cannot fathom.

http://www.toolness.com/nike/swoosh.jpg

At Nike, we're dedicated to making more money so you'll invest in our company when our profits soar. That's why we've established exclusive Sweatshops™ in poverty-stricken nations to allow us to treat our workers like dirt and increase our profit margins. Now that we make more money than ever before, we're sure you'll buy our stock—and you'll be glad you did, when it comes time to retire.

Nike Sweatshops™—unlocking the power of poverty.

Yup, your premise makes sense!! Buy Nike stock now!!

Give them a leg up by getting rid of the regulations that stop them getting up on their own.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economichistory/triumph.html

The poor pay a higher % tax than the rich, all things considered.

Rich people don't keep their money under the mattress they invest it which means jobs and wealth. Taxing the rich is like chopping down the tree to get the coconuts. No more coconuts next week.

What would "perfect inequality" look like, I don't understand what this would mean, Pheonix.

The poor don't get poorer on a free market, this is a ridiculous thing to say with no basis in reality. The poor would get richer too, and much faster than they are now. The gap between rich and poor will increase if (roughly speaking) the interest rate is higher than the rate that wages are increasing. This may or may not be the case in a free market but it's definitely the case in our present corporate controlled economic fascism.

Guy probably makes too much...

If he was made to pay more taxes, he might not be able to buy his sixth car and make his fifth overseas trip this year... :roll:

While handouts will make a society lazy,

I feel like those who just cannot seem to escape from their hole of poverty should be given a leg up

Yeah. The focus should be on universally accessible education and work, and strong encouragement for people to utilise these, rather than throwing money at them.
That I agree with.
It would be nice if post-secondary education was free -- but, of course, you still have to have the grades to qualify for your program and school of choice ;)...

The idea is to encourage the students to try to do well. Most students couldn't give a damn, even though they are perfectly capable of doing well if they wanted to.

"Sweatshops" pay on average 50% more than anyone else in the area. The people you're trying to "save" from sweatshops want to work in them.

Nothing is free. If you don't pay for university now you pay it later in taxes, which amount to the poor subsidising the (generally) middle class students. Poor people could get a loan. They'd pay it back after but how is this different from paying taxes your whole life instead?

Most socialism amounts to jealousy. You want to punish the rich for being rich.

US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrialized countries


The United States, with more than one in five children living in poverty, has the highest rate of childhood poverty among the nations that comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Twelve million American children live in poverty.

*********************

New York state has the highest rate of child poverty, with 26.3 percent of its children living in poverty. California ranks second with a 25.7 percent rate. There are 14 states—including Texas, Florida, Massachusetts and Illinois—where childhood poverty is above 20 percent.


“These numbers are startling and worrisome,” said Timothy Smeeding, coeditor of the book and professor of public policy at Syracuse University. “Despite high rates of economic growth and improvements in the standard of living in industrialized nations throughout the twentieth century, a significant percentage of our children are still living in families that are so poor that normal health and growth are at risk.”

A majority of poor children have at least one parent who works full- or part-time. “Lets face it. Having a minimum wage or low-wage job is not going to pull someone out of poverty,” said Julian Palmer, director for communications and publications at the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) located in New York City. “Single women with children cannot afford rent, pay for child care, pay for gas, phone and electric bills, and buy food even on $8.00 or $9.00 an hour, let alone having to live off of a part-time job at the minimum wage,” he commented.

Now for the affect of recent TAX CUTS in US:

Bush Administration's tax cuts falling short in job creation
The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that the tax cut itself would create 78,000 jobs a month in addition to the 228,000 jobs a month the economy would generate without a tax cut. After eight months of falling considerably short of that projection, job gains for the last two months have averaged above that level. For the 10 months as a whole, however, the administration projected that a total of 3,060,000 jobs would be created after the tax cuts took effect. In reality, only 1,043,000 jobs were created over the last 10 months, far less than the 2.28 million jobs that were predicted would occur without the tax cut.

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040507differenceactproj650.gif

Something tells me that this theory about making the rich even richer is just not such a great concept?

Most socialism amounts to jealousy. You want to punish the rich for being rich.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle. Though admittedly, I do believe rich that cheat taxes and exploit shamelessly do need to be punished. So shoot me.

Rich people should be given tax cuts because:

1) Supply side policy - Reducing taxes will increase the incentive to work hard and so be more productive.

2) Demand side fiscal policy - Reducing taxes will give consumers more money to spend on goods and services.

F*** Bush and his "give rich tax cuts" tude.

US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrialized countries

Wales is worse. :twisted:

"Sweatshops" pay on average 50% more than anyone else in the area. The people you're trying to "save" from sweatshops want to work in them.

You have a source to back this up? Some definite examples perhaps?

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle.

They don't deserve a comfortable life style. If they have miserable lives then that will be an incentive for other people to work harder and so not be poor themselves.

:twisted:

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle.

They don't deserve a comfortable life style. If they have miserable lives then that will be an incentive for other people to work harder and so not be poor themselves.

:twisted:

Thats wrong on so many levels that I can't tell whether you are just kidding to antagonise me or are actually being serious.

I sincerely hope you are kidding.

Rich people should be given tax cuts because:

1) Supply side policy - Reducing taxes will increase the incentive to work hard and so be more productive.

2) Demand side fiscal policy - Reducing taxes will give consumers more money to spend on goods and services.

Increased PRODUCTIVITY equals less jobs. This is happening in the US big time.

Less jobs equals less purchasing power. You have to have a job to be able to benefit from "tax cuts"?

"Sweatshops" pay on average 50% more than anyone else in the area. The people you're trying to "save" from sweatshops want to work in them.

Sweatshops still pay less to workers per day than the average cost of three square meals in their country.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle.

They don't deserve a comfortable life style. If they have miserable lives then that will be an incentive for other people to work harder and so not be poor themselves.

:twisted:

Thats wrong on so many levels that I can't tell whether you are just kidding to antagonise me or are actually being serious.

I sincerely hope you are kidding.

http://www.charlottechurchfans.com/images/wavehello_CC015.JPG

The iron lady is NOT kidding!

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle.

They don't deserve a comfortable life style. If they have miserable lives then that will be an incentive for other people to work harder and so not be poor themselves.

:twisted:

Thats wrong on so many levels that I can't tell whether you are just kidding to antagonise me or are actually being serious.

I sincerely hope you are kidding.
Some people tend to believe their own rhetoric. I call it hearspeak.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle.

They don't deserve a comfortable life style. If they have miserable lives then that will be an incentive for other people to work harder and so not be poor themselves.

:twisted:

Thats wrong on so many levels that I can't tell whether you are just kidding to antagonise me or are actually being serious.

I sincerely hope you are kidding.
Some people tend to believe their own rhetoric. I call it hearspeak.

Are you talking about me? :twisted:

I think they need higher taxes, at least the idot sport stars... most have billions, 5 houses, 10 cars, ??? girlfriends, all a waste of money when they also have free travel to their games where they act stuck up.


working to destroy the corrupt sports based, gender based, religion based socity known as USA. (I love freedom of speech, don't you?)

working to destroy the corrupt sports based, gender based, religion based socity known as USA. (I love freedom of speech, don't you?)

You should come to Wales where "there is no such thing as society".

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle.

They don't deserve a comfortable life style. If they have miserable lives then that will be an incentive for other people to work harder and so not be poor themselves.

:twisted:

Thats wrong on so many levels that I can't tell whether you are just kidding to antagonise me or are actually being serious.

I sincerely hope you are kidding.
Some people tend to believe their own rhetoric. I call it hearspeak.

Are you talking about me? :twisted:
No it was in reference to many utterances of the person you quoted. It is great for people to make a comment but if they cannot back it up with facts then they are just hollow rhetorical comments that accomplish nothing.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle.

They don't deserve a comfortable life style. If they have miserable lives then that will be an incentive for other people to work harder and so not be poor themselves.

:twisted:

Thats wrong on so many levels that I can't tell whether you are just kidding to antagonise me or are actually being serious.

I sincerely hope you are kidding.
Some people tend to believe their own rhetoric. I call it hearspeak.

Are you talking about me? :twisted:
No it was in reference to many utterances of the person you quoted. It is great for people to make a comment but if they cannot back it up with facts then they are just hollow rhetorical comments that accomplish nothing.

I thought it might have been but I wasn't completely sure. But yeah, I totally agree.

working to destroy the corrupt sports based, gender based, religion based socity known as USA. (I love freedom of speech, don't you?)

You should come to Wales where "there is no such thing as society".
Wales is a part of the UK fabric?

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/PovertyAroundTheWorld.asp#PovertyinIndustrializedCountries

Even in places such as Europe and USA, poor people still do not seem to get enough attention or resources to help alleviate their problems. For example, consider Britain:

Even though Britain is one of the most affluent members of the European Union (EU), a report shows that UK is the worst place in Europe to be growing up if you are poor, as more children are likely to be born in to poverty there, compared to elsewhere in the EU.

The UK National Office of Statistics also shows that disparities between rich and poor continue to grow in UK, as reported by a UK newspaper, The Independent, April 2000.

No society in Wales? How is that even possible?

Well I worked hard for my money. But I believe in paying the taxes that I can pay.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle. Though admittedly, I do believe rich that cheat taxes and exploit shamelessly do need to be punished. So shoot me.
Then free the markets. Wages rising rapidly, prices falling = good. Tax is robbery and should be minimised/eliminated. Tax "cheting" = resisting a thief.
You have a source to back this up? Some definite examples perhaps?

Can't remember. It might have been here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930865473/002-9088864-9441641?v=glance

Also, Bush is not a free market president. The US market is a corporate economic fascism. Don't confuse this with free markets. Bush has raised taxes in general by a higher % than anyone since FDR.

Increased productivity = increased wealth. The out of work people can now make something else that we didn't have before, or they could if the govt would get out the way. We could always ban farm machinery, then there'll be plenty of jobs so we'll be rich, right?

Sweatshops still pay less to workers per day than the average cost of three square meals in their country.

I don't know if that is true, but if they pay 50% more and that's less than 3 meals worth that means that they previously had less than 2 meals worth. A clear gain then.
I think they need higher taxes, at least the idot sport stars... most have billions, 5 houses, 10 cars, ??? girlfriends, all a waste of money when they also have free travel to their games where they act stuck up.

You see? Sheer jealousy. What a loser.



So, what is the alternative to free trade? It's the quickest and easiest way to industrialise the 3rd world and everybody wins. Should we try to keep the 3rd world poor? Trade tariffs are just a form of corporate welfare which benefit a few established companies at the expense of the consumer. There hasn't been an intellectually respectable critique of free trade since Adam Smith demolished all the anti-free trade arguments. I'm not going to sit here and lecture econ 101, if you genuinely care about the poor find a good economics book and read it.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle. Though admittedly, I do believe rich that cheat taxes and exploit shamelessly do need to be punished. So shoot me.
Then free the markets. Wages rising rapidly, prices falling = good. Tax is robbery and should be minimised/eliminated. Tax "cheting" = resisting a thief.

No government regulation=no minimum wage laws=low wages, more profits.

No tax=user pays system of healthcare and education. No police force. Anarchy.

No tax + no unregulated economy = Big social problems.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle. Though admittedly, I do believe rich that cheat taxes and exploit shamelessly do need to be punished. So shoot me.
Then free the markets. Wages rising rapidly, prices falling = good. Tax is robbery and should be minimised/eliminated. Tax "cheting" = resisting a thief.

No government regulation=no minimum wage laws=low wages, more profits.

No tax=user pays system of healthcare and education. No police force. Anarchy.

No tax + no unregulated economy = Big social problems.
Britain only recently got minimum wage laws and wages ain't changed much. Most people don't earn minimum wage so why do companies pay them more? Supply and demand. Companies compete for your employment and you can work for whichever one offers the most.

Banning low paid work ensures all jobs will be well paid in the same sense that banning cheap cars ensures all cars are good. This means the poorest have no jobs or cars. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment, otherwise we'd raise the minimum to $1 000 000 and be rich. As I said, read an economics book. You'll feel better inside and you'll annoy me less :D

Why would there be no police? Hail anarchy!

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

No tax + unregulated economy = Prosperity for all. Even the ones who don't understand economics will benefit from it so don't worry.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle. Though admittedly, I do believe rich that cheat taxes and exploit shamelessly do need to be punished. So shoot me.
Then free the markets. Wages rising rapidly, prices falling = good. Tax is robbery and should be minimised/eliminated. Tax "cheting" = resisting a thief.

No government regulation=no minimum wage laws=low wages, more profits.

No tax=user pays system of healthcare and education. No police force. Anarchy.

No tax + no unregulated economy = Big social problems.
Britain only recently got minimum wage laws and wages ain't changed much. Most people don't earn minimum wage so why do companies pay them more? Supply and demand. Companies compete for your employment and you can work for whichever one offers the most.

Banning low paid work ensures all jobs will be well paid in the same sense that banning cheap cars ensures all cars are good. This means the poorest have no jobs or cars. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment, otherwise we'd raise the minimum to $1 000 000 and be rich. As I said, read an economics book. You'll feel better inside and you'll annoy me less :D

Why would there be no police? Hail anarchy!

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

No tax + unregulated economy = Prosperity for all. Even the ones who don't understand economics will benefit from it so don't worry.

Another arrogant person trying to treat me like an idiot. *sigh*

Look. All I can say is look at the world around you. "Fordism" isn't universal. If your philosophy was true, we would have people in third world countries being paid a lot more so that they can purchase the product they are producing. But it doesn't work that way according to your interpretation of supply and demand. Why? Exploitation and Lower Wages for one workforce in order to sell to a more highly paid workforce=Profit, and Profit=Expansion.

The lack of regulation will exacerbate this...and foster unsustainable and irresponsible economic practices.

working to destroy the corrupt sports based, gender based, religion based socity known as USA. (I love freedom of speech, don't you?)

You should come to Wales where "there is no such thing as society".
Wales is a part of the UK fabric?

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/PovertyAroundTheWorld.asp#PovertyinIndustrializedCountries

Even in places such as Europe and USA, poor people still do not seem to get enough attention or resources to help alleviate their problems. For example, consider Britain:

Even though Britain is one of the most affluent members of the European Union (EU), a report shows that UK is the worst place in Europe to be growing up if you are poor, as more children are likely to be born in to poverty there, compared to elsewhere in the EU.

The UK National Office of Statistics also shows that disparities between rich and poor continue to grow in UK, as reported by a UK newspaper, The Independent, April 2000.

No society in Wales? How is that even possible?

With no people. See, there's very few people in Wales. Something to do with consonants being bad for your health. CharlotteMaria is probably a very cleverly disguised sheep. There's tons of those there, I think they thrive on the double-Ls.

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC
About to die a horrible death at the hands of a dozen irate cymry

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle. Though admittedly, I do believe rich that cheat taxes and exploit shamelessly do need to be punished. So shoot me.
Then free the markets. Wages rising rapidly, prices falling = good. Tax is robbery and should be minimised/eliminated. Tax "cheting" = resisting a thief.

No government regulation=no minimum wage laws=low wages, more profits.

No tax=user pays system of healthcare and education. No police force. Anarchy.

No tax + no unregulated economy = Big social problems.
Britain only recently got minimum wage laws and wages ain't changed much. Most people don't earn minimum wage so why do companies pay them more? Supply and demand. Companies compete for your employment and you can work for whichever one offers the most.

Banning low paid work ensures all jobs will be well paid in the same sense that banning cheap cars ensures all cars are good. This means the poorest have no jobs or cars. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment, otherwise we'd raise the minimum to $1 000 000 and be rich. As I said, read an economics book. You'll feel better inside and you'll annoy me less :D

Why would there be no police? Hail anarchy!

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

No tax + unregulated economy = Prosperity for all. Even the ones who don't understand economics will benefit from it so don't worry.

Another arrogant person trying to treat me like an idiot. *sigh*

Look. All I can say is look at the world around you. "Fordism" isn't universal. If your philosophy was true, we would have people in third world countries being paid a lot more so that they can purchase the product they are producing. But it doesn't work that way according to your interpretation of supply and demand. Why? Exploitation and Lower Wages for one workforce in order to sell to a more highly paid workforce=Profit, and Profit=Expansion.

The lack of regulation will exacerbate this...and foster unsustainable and irresponsible economic practices.
I think your crystal ball is broken.

Click the link. It's real easy. Look, *click* that wasn't hard was it? You feel better now don't you?

Now, lets all say it together: "WE DON'T HAVE FREE MARKETS NOW SO DON'T CRITICISE THE MARKET FOR THE FLAWS CREATED BY INTERVENTION (WHICH IS ALL OF THEM)"

Profit not = expansion. Profit = revenue - costs. There is a balance between economies of scale and extra bureaucracy so that there is an optimum size for any business. Bigger isn't always better. But optimum now is big enough to afford lobbyists lawyers and accountants to wrestle with the corporate state. Free markets = *smaller* businesses.

I don't think you're a bad person because you don't understand economics, I just think you shouldn't try to argue about economics.

Most socialism amounts to jealousy. You want to punish the rich for being rich.

No. I want to give the poor more of a chance to have a comfortable lifestyle. Though admittedly, I do believe rich that cheat taxes and exploit shamelessly do need to be punished. So shoot me.

"Cheat taxes" meaning finding a loophole? Sorry, that's not cheating. Refusing to pay or being fraudulent with your tax returns is cheating. If someone finds a loophole to pay less tax in a country that already has too much taxation (the UK), then I think more power to them.

I agree with the exploitation thing though. I haven't got a problem with people being rich - I have a problem with how certain people manage to get rich.

Rich people should be given tax cuts because:

1) Supply side policy - Reducing taxes will increase the incentive to work hard and so be more productive.

2) Demand side fiscal policy - Reducing taxes will give consumers more money to spend on goods and services.That makes no sense. Firstly, the rich already have enough money to just sit on their lazy arses even though they're taxed. And secondly, they can already afford whatever the fsck they want! How, even with tax cuts, would they be able to afford more if they can already afford astronomically more than we can?

i choose reason #4
because they contribute massive amounts of money to the presidents campaign fund and need to be paid back for it

The rich are useless dead weight. They have no right to live off our labor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The rich should not get richer. That is just a drain on resources. I don't think people who are slightly well off should have to pay out, but people like pop-stars who can afford to drink liquid gold (but unfortunately do not) should be taxed more.

The rich should not get richer. That is just a drain on resources. I don't think people who are slightly well off should have to pay out, but people like pop-stars who can afford to drink liquid gold (but unfortunately do not) should be taxed more.

it seems to me that pop stars, big time movie stars, and professional sports stars are the ultimate marxist triumph. they make huge money because their LABOR creates that kind of wealth

The rich should not get richer. That is just a drain on resources. I don't think people who are slightly well off should have to pay out, but people like pop-stars who can afford to drink liquid gold (but unfortunately do not) should be taxed more.

it seems to me that pop stars, big time movie stars, and professional sports stars are the ultimate marxist triumph. they make huge money because their LABOR creates that kind of wealth

As you move towards bigger and bigger corporations, etc. capitalism could actually turn into a stalin-like socialism, with the rich as the state (they can bribe the government, so they are effectively).

Th fallacy of this thread is that 'Rich' is not defined.

Rich could be someone in the top tax bracket - two person household earning $125,000 each. Even with a mortgage, three kids in college and only a few years to retirement.

Rich could be a person with over $1,000,000 net worth - even if it is all wrapped up in the value of their farm and they have no worthy income.

Rich could be a person like Bill Gates, who works more hours than most of his employees, has created more millionairs than anyone in history, gives huge sums to charity and employs thousands and helped launch an industry that employs millions.

Rich could be a blow-hard like Barbara Streisand who has little else to do but send emails full of poor grammar, misattribued quotes and flawed logic.

Rich could be someone powerhungry like John Kerry or George Bush who would rather talk about the difference between ribbons and medals rather than how to fix the looming malestrom of social security.

Rich could be someone like Paris Hilton who inherited millions and is now a ward of the Hilton Trust. Less than 2% of American millionaires have inherited trust funds and even a smaller percentage are lottery winners.

Rich could be someone like Roy E. Disney who, though he inherited a similar trust fund is still working diligently to make his grandfathers company prosper - without even being employed by it!

In Western society most people who are rich and most people who are poor are that way for a reason. Exceptions are real, but rare.

Rich could be a person like Bill Gates, who works more hours than most of his employees, has created more millionairs than anyone in history, gives huge sums to charity and employs thousands and helped launch an industry that employs millions.

Does he work for thousands of hours a week and 1000 times harder than anyone else? That's the only way he could earn billions through working rather than property ownership.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

excellent points, bozzy

bill gates is rich because he worked hard in an expanding industry. he was smart , hardworking and lucky. i may have a few problems with his business ethics but i dont have any problem with him getting rich. if there were no money involved, we wouldnt be talking here today. i have benefitted by bill gates getting rich.

bill gates is rich because he worked hard in an expanding industry. he was smart , hardworking and lucky. i may have a few problems with his business ethics but i dont have any problem with him getting rich. if there were no money involved, we wouldnt be talking here today. i have benefitted by bill gates getting rich.

He got rich because workers sold their labor and freedom to avoid starvation.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

He got rich because workers sold their labor and freedom to avoid starvation.



we should all avoid starvation that way
but with less expensive coffee

we should all avoid starvation that way
but with less expensive coffee

Freedom shouldn't have to be sold to survive.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I've got no real issue with the person who, through his or her hard work and ability is able to become wealthy. Good on him or her.

But I think it's ridiculous that a person should become wealthy just because mommy and/or daddy worked hard. I'm a firm believer in the estate tax, and think it ought to be even stiffer than it already is. What the hell has Paris Hilton contributed to society so that she ought to be obscenely wealthy? What have most heirs done to warrant that kind of financial head start? Not much, in my opinion.

There are exceptions, of course, but the fact that a few do some good, that a few are taught a sense of noblesse oblige doesn't outweigh the detrimental effect that the emergence of an aristocratic subclass has on what is supposed to be the most socially flexible society in the world.

Freedom shouldn't have to be sold to survive.


picking lettuce in the hot sun is selling freedom to survive
working for good money in a nice office in seattle is just a little tedious

Message from Grand Executor Justin Timme of the Empire of Kerubia

Kerubia believes that people should not be punished for being rich, but they should not be rewarded for it also. We believe that all citizens should pay an equal amount of tax. We don't want to take money away that the rich have earned, and we aren't really looking forward to government spending to help the poor get rich. However, we will try and help them live comfortably should the rich abuse their money too much.

if not for the rich our nation would not be what it is (USA) nor would many others. Get rid of the rich and the business and things will not improve, they will get worse. And indeed they are (most of them anyway) hardworking citizens.

rich people need to have their taxes doubled not only because they wouldnt feel it anyway but because they deserve to pay more since theyre the ones to blame for all the economic conditions--middle class and the working poor all deserve a 50% tax cut for subsidizing billionaires on welfare for all these decades

The whole "Tax cuts for the rich" thing bothered me.

Everyone gets a tax cut, it's not for the rich.

Why can't people take a tax-cut without bitching about it.

They always said on the radio, that the tax cut would buy a mercedes for a rich person, and a tank of gas for a poor person, or something like that.

IT'S MATH!!!

The poor people don't put nearly as much money into the system as the rich people, so they don't get as much back when they're given a refund.

It's like, going to the bank, and putting $100 in, and then coming back and demanding $100,000.

It's not, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a brand new car.

It's, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a tank of gas.

You paid a few million in taxes, here's a brand new car.

Is it really that hard to see?

picking lettuce in the hot sun is selling freedom to survive
working for good money in a nice office in seattle is just a little tedious

Because of capitalism, someone is stuck spending hours picking lettuce. You also forget that all workers take orders and thus lose freedom.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

i dont want a tax cut
i dont need a tax cut
i want my president to start acting like a freaking republican and work towards balancing the budget

the one saving grace of the republican party ( to my mind) used to be that they were fiscally conservative. i guess all that really meant was "they were out of power and unable to spend money they way they wanted to"

The whole "Tax cuts for the rich" thing bothered me.

Everyone gets a tax cut, it's not for the rich.

Why can't people take a tax-cut without bitching about it.

They always said on the radio, that the tax cut would buy a mercedes for a rich person, and a tank of gas for a poor person, or something like that.

IT'S MATH!!!

The poor people don't put nearly as much money into the system as the rich people, so they don't get as much back when they're given a refund.

It's like, going to the bank, and putting $100 in, and then coming back and demanding $100,000.

It's not, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a brand new car.

It's, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a tank of gas.

You paid a few million in taxes, here's a brand new car.

Is it really that hard to see?because Bush made a mockery out of tax relief by skewing the cuts to favor the undeserving

The whole "Tax cuts for the rich" thing bothered me.

Everyone gets a tax cut, it's not for the rich.

Why can't people take a tax-cut without bitching about it.

They always said on the radio, that the tax cut would buy a mercedes for a rich person, and a tank of gas for a poor person, or something like that.

IT'S MATH!!!

The poor people don't put nearly as much money into the system as the rich people, so they don't get as much back when they're given a refund.

It's like, going to the bank, and putting $100 in, and then coming back and demanding $100,000.

It's not, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a brand new car.

It's, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a tank of gas.

You paid a few million in taxes, here's a brand new car.

Is it really that hard to see?because Bush made a mockery out of tax relief by skewing the cuts to favor the undeserving

The only way he could do that would be to say "OK, you rich people, you get 50% off your taxes, and you poor people get 25% off."

I decided to vote, but in all reality, i think tax cuts for the rich is like giving financial assistance to an international bank! :twisted:

I decided to vote, but in all reality, i think tax cuts for the rich is like giving financial assistance to an international bank! :twisted:

Good analogy.

Before we get too euphamistic about poverty in the US and the 'nobility' of the rich lets consider what's happening here. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)

If you got rich, it's because society allowed it, created the conditions and fostered it. You owe something to that society. If the rich could be counted on to give back or behave in a way conducive to that, that would be one thing. But our history has clearly indicated that they do not. The wider that gap is, the worse off our society is. Remember the renaissance happened because of the rise of the middle class, not the rich.

The whole "Tax cuts for the rich" thing bothered me.

Everyone gets a tax cut, it's not for the rich.

Why can't people take a tax-cut without bitching about it.

They always said on the radio, that the tax cut would buy a mercedes for a rich person, and a tank of gas for a poor person, or something like that.

IT'S MATH!!!

The poor people don't put nearly as much money into the system as the rich people, so they don't get as much back when they're given a refund.

It's like, going to the bank, and putting $100 in, and then coming back and demanding $100,000.

It's not, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a brand new car.

It's, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a tank of gas.

You paid a few million in taxes, here's a brand new car.

Is it really that hard to see?because Bush made a mockery out of tax relief by skewing the cuts to favor the undeserving

The only way he could do that would be to say "OK, you rich people, you get 50% off your taxes, and you poor people get 25% off."thats basically what he did--in reality the rich didnt need a tax cuts AT ALL--only the middle class deserved and needed one cause thats the only class in america thats overtaxed to the hilt--but Bush is a classic robber baron whose only President to loot the public treasurey for his rich accomplices

So, wait, he gave a tax cut to everyone, instead of just some people, and that's unfair?

.....o..k

The rich are going to rich no matter what, they have so much money the government could take 80% of it and they'd still be fine.

Did you ever learn about division in school? Or maybe how percentages work?

Then free the markets. Wages rising rapidly, prices falling = good.
Ummmm if wages go up, the cost of the product goes up NOT down, unless the company is willing to pay higher wages while decreasing profits.

Tax is robbery and should be minimised/eliminated.
NO tax = no police, hospitals, armed forces, roads, sewers, etc.


Britain only recently got minimum wage laws and wages ain't changed much. Most people don't earn minimum wage so why do companies pay them more? Supply and demand. Companies compete for your employment and you can work for whichever one offers the most.
The only way that companies pay more is if there is a small labour pool. BIG Business loves a certain amount of unemployment so that they can pay lower wages.

Banning low paid work ensures all jobs will be well paid in the same sense that banning cheap cars ensures all cars are good. This means the poorest have no jobs or cars.
Sooo if the poorest people have no jobs AND no Government welfare, then you will have major crime and/or anarchy.

Minimum wage laws cause unemployment, otherwise we'd raise the minimum to $1 000 000 and be rich. As I said, read an economics book.
Fantasy Economics 101? You really don't believe what you are writing here do you?

You'll feel better inside and you'll annoy me less :D
You are easily annoyed by countervailing FACTS?

No tax + unregulated economy = Prosperity for all.
And they all fell asleep with thoughts of sugar plums dancing in their heads?

Even the ones who don't understand economics will benefit from it so don't worry.
BTW, when you start a company and you are going to pay everyone $1,000,000 I would like job there.

Fantasy Economics 101? You really don't believe what you are writing here do you?
Minimum wage laws to create unemployment. If Vietnam passed a law saying everyone had to be paid at least $10 an hour, then all the countries who use cheap labor there would move somewhere else, creating unemployment. The question is whether the unemployment minimum wage laws creates is preferable to the employment no minimum wage laws would result in.

So, wait, he gave a tax cut to everyone, instead of just some people, and that's unfair?

.....o..k

The rich are going to rich no matter what, they have so much money the government could take 80% of it and they'd still be fine.

Did you ever learn about division in school? Or maybe how percentages work?well thats exactly my point--if the rich are gonna be rich no matter what they why do they need a tax cut?

The whole "Tax cuts for the rich" thing bothered me.

Everyone gets a tax cut, it's not for the rich.

Why can't people take a tax-cut without bitching about it.

They always said on the radio, that the tax cut would buy a mercedes for a rich person, and a tank of gas for a poor person, or something like that.

IT'S MATH!!!

The poor people don't put nearly as much money into the system as the rich people, so they don't get as much back when they're given a refund.

It's like, going to the bank, and putting $100 in, and then coming back and demanding $100,000.

It's not, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a brand new car.

It's, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a tank of gas.

You paid a few million in taxes, here's a brand new car.

Is it really that hard to see?
IF it were only that simple. Sigh.......

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

As you can see, the tax break is weighted for the people making the MOST!!

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/ber.htm

There is a HUGE discrepancy there and people should understand that.

Fantasy Economics 101? You really don't believe what you are writing here do you?
Minimum wage laws to create unemployment. If Vietnam passed a law saying everyone had to be paid at least $10 an hour, then all the countries who use cheap labor there would move somewhere else, creating unemployment. The question is whether the unemployment minimum wage laws creates is preferable to the employment no minimum wage laws would result in.last time the min wage was raised under Clinton the economy Boomed and far more jobs are lost due to corporate outsourcing that goes on whether the min wage is raised or not

I'm wrong"

we need a trickle UP economy where the poorest do better the wealth is mass distributed upward to benefit the overall economy--in republican economies where only the rich prosper the overall economy only suffers as a result

The whole "Tax cuts for the rich" thing bothered me.

Everyone gets a tax cut, it's not for the rich.

Why can't people take a tax-cut without bitching about it.

They always said on the radio, that the tax cut would buy a mercedes for a rich person, and a tank of gas for a poor person, or something like that.

IT'S MATH!!!

The poor people don't put nearly as much money into the system as the rich people, so they don't get as much back when they're given a refund.

It's like, going to the bank, and putting $100 in, and then coming back and demanding $100,000.

It's not, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a brand new car.

It's, you paid a few thousand in taxes, here's a tank of gas.

You paid a few million in taxes, here's a brand new car.

Is it really that hard to see?
IF it were only that simple. Sigh.......

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

As you can see, the tax break is weighted for the people making the MOST!!

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/ber.htm

There is a HUGE discrepancy there and people should understand that.

Oh wow, you're right.

Point withdrawn.

Fantasy Economics 101? You really don't believe what you are writing here do you?
Minimum wage laws to create unemployment. If Vietnam passed a law saying everyone had to be paid at least $10 an hour, then all the countries who use cheap labor there would move somewhere else, creating unemployment. The question is whether the unemployment minimum wage laws creates is preferable to the employment no minimum wage laws would result in.last time the min wage was raised under Clinton the economy Boomed and far more jobs are lost due to corporate outsourcing that goes on whether the min wage is raised or not

I got a dog under Clinton's administration, thats why the economy boomed, not because of minimum wage laws.

You can't take two pieces of a puzzle and try to fit them together if they don't.

Fantasy Economics 101? You really don't believe what you are writing here do you?
Minimum wage laws to create unemployment. If Vietnam passed a law saying everyone had to be paid at least $10 an hour, then all the countries who use cheap labor there would move somewhere else, creating unemployment. The question is whether the unemployment minimum wage laws creates is preferable to the employment no minimum wage laws would result in.last time the min wage was raised under Clinton the economy Boomed and far more jobs are lost due to corporate outsourcing that goes on whether the min wage is raised or not

I got a dog under Clinton's administration, thats why the economy boomed, not because of minimum wage laws.

You can't take two pieces of a puzzle and try to fit them together if they don't.Under Bushs economy Im afraid your gonna have to buy the whole kennel :D

This is rediculous. The highest possible tax bracket pay a lower percentage of their income than the lowest tax bracket does. Is this worrisome to anyone else but me. Call be a hippie or a bleeding heart but if caring about my fellow man is wrong, then I guess im wrong. The mega rich tool around in their yachts while their counterparts at the other end of the spectrum live in ABJECT POVERTY everyday of their lives! Yeah tax cuts are a great idea. :roll:

As you can see, the tax break is weighted for the people making the MOST!!

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/ber.htm

There is a HUGE discrepancy there and people should understand that.
Please, that site has enough bad numbers in it to make me cringe. But anyway, that graph makes sense.

The last column has by far the most broad range of incomes, which is why its unbalanced.

If I had one that said None-$1,000,000 the average would obviously be higher than simply None-$20,000. Thats what the Democrat spin machine has done here. The last column includes a guy who makes just over $1,000,000 running his medium-sized business to Donald Trump, Bill Gates, and the owners of Wal-Mart.

Lets just take the middle number between one million and a billion, five hundred million (actually, thats just about it, the real "middle" isn't exactly that). 127,661 divided by gives you less than a tenth of one percent of total income.

Heck, if middle class is 50k - 100k, and we look at the two columns separately,

The middle of the first column is $62,500. Divide 1445 by that and you get .02312, or just about 2.3%

Take the second one, whose middle is at 87,500, and divide 3,825 by that and you get 4.3%.

Now, even if the last range is just 1-5 million dollars, rather than into the hundreds of millions as it should be, 127,661 divided by 3,000,000 gives you 4.25%. Thats hardly 90 times.

What important to look at is the percentages, not the absolute values. I know that I'm pulling out numbers, and I don't know off the top of my head what the average income in those groups are. I'm saying two things :

A.) Having such a broad grouping which includes the extremes will throw off averages (which then supports a Democratic point, which is the point of this graph)

B.) Given that you can't cut taxes below 0%, its not a suprise that the smallest income group has the lowest % of the tax cuts. Just using this table, rather than actual tax cut percentage numbers (which would prove my point further), it can be shown that its simply a case of the fact that a 4% of one number will give you less than 4% of a larger number.

Is it really fair that Paris Hilton shouldn't know what generic food is while homeless people eat generic cat food? Is it fair that Belinda Stronach is guaranteed employment in her father's company while people struggle in unemployment? As Canadian socialist Tommy Douglas was fond of saying, "Every man for himself, as the elephant said while dancing with the chicken."

life is unfair
is it fair that lightning strike the guy next to me and leave me untouched?

all govt can do is try to give everyone an equal chance at a reasonably good life

Kwangistar, you are using your calculator incorrectly.

IF a middle income family ($50,000 to $75,000) gets back $1445 in taxes and the family that is making $1,000,000, gets back $127,661 then you make the following calculation:

$127,661 Divided by $1,445, you will get $88.34

Therefore, for every $1 that the middle income family gets back, the million dollar family will get $88.34 back, even though the million dollar family only makes 13 times more than the $75,000 family.

BTW, there are no brackets between $200,000 and $1 Million because that is the rate for that bracket ($9,824)?

Ok, so life is unfair.

If a judge tries 2 men convicted of a crime, and lets one of scot-free while the other goes to the electric chair, is that fair? Obviously not. If the public ever found out about a theoretical case like that, would they say, "Oh, life's unfair." Or would there be a public outcry?

life is unfair
is it fair that lightning strike the guy next to me and leave me untouched?

all govt can do is try to give everyone an equal chance at a reasonably good life

We should abolish both capitalism and government. One can't be expected to ease the other.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Ok, so life is unfair.

If a judge tries 2 men convicted of a crime, and lets one of scot-free while the other goes to the electric chair, is that fair? Obviously not. If the public ever found out about a theoretical case like that, would they say, "Oh, life's unfair." Or would there be a public outcry?

guilty people get set free and innocent people get convicted many times a year in a country as big as the US. all we can do it our best to make it right. when it gets too far out of whack, drastic measures are taken like when the governor of illinois commuted all death sentences because there were too many errors being committed

the poor will be with us always
either because the government does a bad job of making sure everyone gets a chance or because people do stupid things that end them up at the bottom of the economic pile.

One thing that bugs me about sickenly rich people is the fact that there money is just sitting there, when it could be put to use somewhere else. I do not believe in tax breaks for the rich, because of this fact, and this fact alone.

I know a lot of people complain that they earn the money, they should be allowed to benefit from it. Well, benefit then, don't sit on it.

Put it to use, and I don't have a problem with you, but keep sitting on it and you should be taxed until the end of the world.

I agree. We will always have the poor. But is that an excuse to sit back on our yacht and say, "We'll always have the poor, so let's just bring out the '79 champagne. Why does it matter?"

My point with the illustration is, even though we don't always suceed, we don't purposely make life unfair. We ought to do the same with our rich and poor.

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.

Why does nobody remember the tax-hikes of the Clinton era which resulted not only in balancing the budget, but excessive government spending which crashed and burned as soon as the tech bubble burst.

If that tax hike were rolled back it would be more generous to the rich than anything GWB has done.

The big confusion here is that liberals think high taxes are good but make no accountability for how it is spent. There are TONS of federal programs that could be terminated with little or no remorse. Many more could and should be deferred to the states.

Liberals also would have everyone ignore basic economics and math. If Person A pays $1000 on tax and Person B pays $10,000 in tax, and then Person A gets a 50% tax cut and person B gets a 10% tax cut, Peron B gets MORE MONEY THAN PERSON A, efven though person B got a smaller % cut, they got a larger $!!!! Anything having to do with money will have a greater impact on those who have it than those who don't.

Also liberals would have one (correctly) understand that high fuel costs are bad, because they take money from the economy and high interest rates are bad because they take money from the economy. Then they err by expecting you to believe high taxes are not bad - even though they take money from the economy! Luckily most Aericans are not so foolish.

If you are so foolish or just dont get it - think of it like this: When a store needs more revenues quickly what do they do? They have a big sale and cut prices 20%-50%! If you've ever worked in retail you know what happens. If the store RAISED prices 20%-50% you could imagine the lonely feeling they'd experience - so much for raised revenues!

One innefficiency that govt. has is that they never experience a reduction in proceeds like businesses do, so innefficient budgets are never trimmed. (It is well known that if a govt. agency has not spent their full budget in a year they will go out and spend it all at the end of the fiscal year so they can justify a larger budget the next year)
If every govt agency was told that in 05 they would NOT get any increase in budget, the national defecit would disappear by 06.

life is unfair
is it fair that lightning strike the guy next to me and leave me untouched?

all govt can do is try to give everyone an equal chance at a reasonably good lifewhich the govt fails to do miserably under Bush--sure things will never be totally fair but why does Bush bend over backwards to INCREASE levels of unfairness in the world today?

I know many people say:

"The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer"

...BUT

Think about it this way. As you earn more money, you pay more tax (progressive taxation). This means that if rich people get even richer, there is more revenue collected to help the poor.



There's a logical flaw there...hmmmmm. :roll:

yeah, i concur with the above statement... if you get more taxes as you get richer, wouldn't you not get richer, but stay with in the same socioeconomic level?

Communism is your friend.

Make the wrong decision, Vote Bush 2004!

Well, what is more important? People or profits? The economy or fairness? Is it fair that CEO's make 6-figure salaries and homeless people starve in the streets?

I like the idea that Jack Layton of Canada has proposed. An "excess profits" tax on businesses making more than 10% profit, and an inheritance tax of anyone with an estate over 1 million dollars.

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?

I agree. We will always have the poor. But is that an excuse to sit back on our yacht and say, "We'll always have the poor, so let's just bring out the '79 champagne. Why does it matter?"

My point with the illustration is, even though we don't always suceed, we don't purposely make life unfair. We ought to do the same with our rich and poor.

the rich certainly dont need tax cuts, they are rich already for gods sake.
but im not big on the idea of artificially evening out the gap between rich and poor.
i want there to always be opportunity for the poor to do better for themselves. i certainly want there to be support for those who CANT support themselves.

but there are way too many people who are poor because of their own bad decisions. bad decisions that they will continue to make no matter what help they get. im not in favor of handing them a cushy life just because they are poor.

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?

You need to account for age, which these skewed threads never do. People age 50 tend to have more money than people age 25 who tend to have more money than people age 2. All because they've had MORE TIME TO MAKE IT.

DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!

Well, what is more important? People or profits? The economy or fairness? Is it fair that CEO's make 6-figure salaries and homeless people starve in the streets?

I like the idea that Jack Layton of Canada has proposed. An "excess profits" tax on businesses making more than 10% profit, and an inheritance tax of anyone with an estate over 1 million dollars.republicans complain about poor people getting living wages just to get by but you never hear them utter a word about obscenely bloated CEO salaries and golden parachute penisons that no one person can EVER in 20 lifetimes ever need that much money--oh but god forbid if some poor slob just wants a FAIR wage for a fair days work--such classist hypocrites these republicans are

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.

A very noteable point

which the govt fails to do miserably under Bush--sure things will never be totally fair but why does Bush bend over backwards to INCREASE levels of unfairness in the world today?

the man is a clueless rich boy who is in the thrall of the neoconservatives. he neither knows the real world nor cares to know it. he gets all his info from his close advisors and NO WHERE ELSE. he has said this publicly. if his advisors tell him that his new suit of clothes look wonderful he believes it.

Well, it's true there are those who are poor because they're lazy. But there are also the poor who can't work. It's dependent on human judgement if that is the case, and human judgement is often wrong. It's better and easier to help all poor.

which the govt fails to do miserably under Bush--sure things will never be totally fair but why does Bush bend over backwards to INCREASE levels of unfairness in the world today?

the man is a clueless rich boy who is in the thrall of the neoconservatives. he neither knows the real world nor cares to know it. he gets all his info from his close advisors and NO WHERE ELSE. he has said this publicly. if his advisors tell him that his new suit of clothes look wonderful he believes it.Hes a dangerous fool who not only is bringing america down but is a threat to the entire worlds security by increasing terrorism thru the roof

Well, what is more important? People or profits? The economy or fairness? Is it fair that CEO's make 6-figure salaries and homeless people starve in the streets?

I like the idea that Jack Layton of Canada has proposed. An "excess profits" tax on businesses making more than 10% profit, and an inheritance tax of anyone with an estate over 1 million dollars.republicans complain about poor people getting living wages just to get by but you never hear them utter a word about obscenely bloated CEO salaries and golden parachute penisons that no one person can EVER in 20 lifetimes ever need that much money--oh but god forbid if some poor slob just wants a FAIR wage for a fair days work--such classist hypocrites these republicans are

Conservatives are just as concerned over bloated ceo incomes. We are also just as concerned about homelessness.

Rather than take money from the overpaid CEO and give it to the homeless, (of course, via the never-corrupt government) conservatives thing the shareholders should boot the CEO (and prosecute when fraud is involved) and that the homeless should be given the opportunity to work.

Oh, wait, that is how it is already being done!

There are so many jobs in America that people from OTHER countries have to come here to fill them all. Ther is no excuse for any able-bodied man not to participate.

(NS is the server from hell) double post

Why does nobody remember the tax-hikes of the Clinton era which resulted not only in balancing the budget, but excessive government spending which crashed and burned as soon as the tech bubble burst.

If that tax hike were rolled back it would be more generous to the rich than anything GWB has done.

The big confusion here is that liberals think high taxes are good but make no accountability for how it is spent. There are TONS of federal programs that could be terminated with little or no remorse. Many more could and should be deferred to the states.

Liberals also would have everyone ignore basic economics and math. If Person A pays $1000 on tax and Person B pays $10,000 in tax, and then Person A gets a 50% tax cut and person B gets a 10% tax cut, Peron B gets MORE MONEY THAN PERSON A, efven though person B got a smaller % cut, they got a larger $!!!! Anything having to do with money will have a greater impact on those who have it than those who don't.

Also liberals would have one (correctly) understand that high fuel costs are bad, because they take money from the economy and high interest rates are bad because they take money out of the economy. Then they err by expecting you to believe high taxes are not bad - even though they take money out of the economy! Luckily most Aericans are not so foolish.

If you are so foolish or just dont get it - think of it like this: When a store needs more revenues quickly what do they do? They have a big sale! If you've ever worked in retail you know what happens. If they RAISED prices 20%-50% you could imagine the lonely feeling they'd experience - so much for raised revenues!

One innefficiency that govt. has is that they never experience a reduction in proceeds like businesses do, so innefficient budgets are never trimmed. (It is well known that if a govt. agency has not spent their full budget in a year they will go out and spend it all at the end of the fiscal year so they can justify a larger budget the next year)
If every govt agency was told that in 05 they would NOT get any increase in budget, the national defecit would disappear by 06.

oh my freaking lord. you are a duche bag... remember in the bush era when shitty policies and billions of dollars spent on a 'war' fucked up the economy?

... maybe you just choke on a penis... i mean pretzel... like the leader of your republican party

republicans and conservatives can go oppress each other in some island in the pacific. give the us to the communist party.. but kill the commie who oppresses the people and give me his job.

ps- you may want to learn how to spell american before you call yourself one.

ps again- high oil prices cause inflation. inflation causes recession. recession turns into depression when we go to war for random purposes. and what is with giving control of iraq to one warlord and demilitarizing the rest of them? what do war lords do to other warlords? they kill them. what do warlords that control a country become? saddam husain. what did we just do? flushed a shitload of money down the toilette, or should i say we took it out of the economy, and thus forcing bush to raise taxes?

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?

You need to account for age, which these skewed threads never do. People age 50 tend to have more money than people age 25 who tend to have more money than people age 2. All because they've had MORE TIME TO MAKE IT.

DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!
What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China????

You know what's crazy? The whole less-taxes-for-the-rich-and-corporation thing is supposed to decrease unemployment. Under Bush, it increased!!! Yes, and the war in Iraq should never have happened in the first place, and I'm proud as a Canadian not to have been involved!

You know what's crazy? The whole less-taxes-for-the-rich-and-corporation thing is supposed to decrease unemployment. Under Bush, it increased!!! Yes, and the war in Iraq should never have happened in the first place, and I'm proud as a Canadian not to have been involved!its blatent class warfare and republican neo conservatives are communists for the rich

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?

You need to account for age, which these skewed threads never do. People age 50 tend to have more money than people age 25 who tend to have more money than people age 2. All because they've had MORE TIME TO MAKE IT.

DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!
What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China????

Are you jokeing or do you really not get it?

You know what's crazy? The whole less-taxes-for-the-rich-and-corporation thing is supposed to decrease unemployment. Under Bush, it increased!!! Yes, and the war in Iraq should never have happened in the first place, and I'm proud as a Canadian not to have been involved!

*glares at the smug canadian in ill-disguised envy*

its blatent class warfare and republican neo conservatives are communists for the rich

Communists for the rich. . .that's interesting. I like that.

DP

Are you jokeing or do you really not get it?
I get exactly what the figures mean and if you take some time and look at it long enough, it just might sink in???

This has absolutely nothing to do with age.

Is 'communism for the rich' even really possible? I mean with communism advocating 'everyone be equal and share', I find it impossible to have a communism for every single differant class of person....

Anyways, I would probably have prefered the old days when everyone was middle class. Nowadays there is hardly any middle class, just rich or poor.

No, GWB is the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA. Liberals are only sad that their party never had the guts to stand up to Ira, UBL or anyone else in the same way GWB has.

Liberals are sad because GWB has reduced the amount of money they take from every american to fund their social experements.

Liberals are angry because they are like an abusive husband who's argument has been proven wrong. Rather than admit it like a civil human they attack with no shame and no morals.

The posts on this thread proove it.

Are you jokeing or do you really not get it?
I get exactly what the figures mean and if you take some time and look at it long enough, it just might sink in???

This has absolutely nothing to do with age.

Then you really did not get any of the meaning from my post. Terribly sad that I don't have the time or interest in helping you. It really is quite simple.

No, GWB is the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA. Liberals are only sad that their party never had the guts to stand up to Ira, UBL or anyone else in the same way GWB has.

Liberals are sad because GWB has reduced the amount of money they take from every american to fund their social experements.

Liberals are angry because they are like an abusive husband who's argument has been proven wrong. Rather than admit it like a civil human they attack with no shame and no morals.

The posts on this thread proove it.

*rolling my eyes so hard that im getting dizzy*

Well, have they ever found WMD in Iraq? The U.N. weapons inspectors found none, and after the invasion, the coalition found none. And social 'experiments', as you call them, are necessary to ensure a minimum standard of living for everyone.

No, GWB is the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA. Liberals are only sad that their party never had the guts to stand up to Ira, UBL or anyone else in the same way GWB has.

Liberals are sad because GWB has reduced the amount of money they take from every american to fund their social experements.

Liberals are angry because they are like an abusive husband who's argument has been proven wrong. Rather than admit it like a civil human they attack with no shame and no morals.

The posts on this thread proove it.
For a highly educated moralist, perhaps you should brush up on your spelling??

Are you jokeing or do you really not get it?
I get exactly what the figures mean and if you take some time and look at it long enough, it just might sink in???

This has absolutely nothing to do with age.

Then you really did not get any of the meaning from my post. Terribly sad that I don't have the time or interest in helping you. It really is quite simple.
Well I do understand your reasoning, unfortunately it is severely flawed.....your reasoning that is.

Anyways, I would probably have prefered the old days when everyone was middle class. Nowadays there is hardly any middle class, just rich or poor.

There are really four main classes and have been for a while:

Upper-Capitalists, Pro-Athletes, Actors, Senators,etc.
Middle-Lawyers, Doctors, etc.
Lower-Workers, often have no higher education
Poor-People on welfare, often unemployed

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Heh, sounds like my family has people that might span all four of those classes, despite my immediate family's attempt to help each other through pumping of money. Rather than go try and get a GED, my grandma gets cable...

Are you jokeing or do you really not get it?
I get exactly what the figures mean and if you take some time and look at it long enough, it just might sink in???

This has absolutely nothing to do with age.

Then you really did not get any of the meaning from my post. Terribly sad that I don't have the time or interest in helping you. It really is quite simple.
Alright, your criticism was that you thought it was comparing the income of a two year old to a fifty year old, but the underlined phrase indicates it was a rating of family incomes. Furthermore, the gap is not indicative of the age descrepency you where trying to make, unless you where trying to imply that 50 year olds make up only .5% of the population. So it's not as simple as you seem to think.

Maybe you want to back off the arogance a bit. Sure you where flamed, but come on. It's hard to claim the moral high ground when your covered in the same mud...

People should be paid for the work they do. This means that the factory worker and the coffee grower would get a decent wage and lifestyle. While the ceo would problably have to cut back on the amount of BMW's he had.

Anyways, I would probably have prefered the old days when everyone was middle class. Nowadays there is hardly any middle class, just rich or poor.

There are really four main classes and have been for a while:

Upper-Capitalists, Pro-Athletes, Actors, Senators,etc.
Middle-Lawyers, Doctors, etc.
Lower-Workers, often have no higher education
Poor-People on welfare, often unemployed

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg
Actually Letila, Pro-athletes and actors are our 'cuddly' rich-the ones we watch on cribs and lifestyles. Thier kinda rich is only a drop in the bucket of CEO, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock rich.

but there are way too many people who are poor because of their own bad decisions. bad decisions that they will continue to make no matter what help they get. im not in favor of handing them a cushy life just because they are poor.

Nope. The vast majority of "the poor" do want to work. The poor are not poor because they are lazy, or because they have made bad decisions. They are poor because they were born into a family that was poor, and from there received far less opportunity than a person born into a rich family. This nonsense about "lazy welfare bums" really irritates me, not least because I know some of these "lazy welfare bums" who, in the economic climate, are unable to find work, despite them trying to. Think about this; if the welfare state really makes people lazy and leech off the state, then why did unemployment not increase dramatically once the British Government introduced the welfare state? Surely if this was so, thousands of people would have signed on and quit their jobs?

Actually Letila, Pro-athletes and actors are our 'cuddly' rich-the ones we watch on cribs and lifestyles. Thier kinda rich is only a drop in the bucket of CEO, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock rich.

Good point.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

OMG!!!!

7 pages in 9 hours!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:

Um....

Could someone do a brief summary of the points raised...I didn't expect this thread to be so popular :shock:

No, GWB is the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA. Liberals are only sad that their party never had the guts to stand up to Ira, UBL or anyone else in the same way GWB has.

Liberals are sad because GWB has reduced the amount of money they take from every american to fund their social experements.

Liberals are angry because they are like an abusive husband who's argument has been proven wrong. Rather than admit it like a civil human they attack with no shame and no morals.

The posts on this thread proove it.
For a highly educated moralist, perhaps you should brush up on your spelling??

What makes you assume I am educated or a moralist?

RE: Spelling - this is a thread, not an essay contest. Spelling is useful, but in a rapid-fire thread keyslips and other errors are expected - as most posts here proove. If you want to be critical though that is your right - best not make any errors of your own though.

I guess if the only thing people can disagree with is my spelling then I have done ok. Welcome to the Republican Party!

(or go back to your tired old arguments, your call)

Oh, and by definition expresed here arrogance is not the same as civilly disagreeing with you. However, liberal elites are so awash in their own arrogance they can seldom see that.

Actually Letila, Pro-athletes and actors are our 'cuddly' rich-the ones we watch on cribs and lifestyles. Thier kinda rich is only a drop in the bucket of CEO, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock rich.

Good point.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpgrupert murdik is an absolute bottom feeding scumbag who should deported back to australia in a box--I seen his house and his neighbors on center island know it too and hang toilet seats on the property line facing his house

No, GWB is the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA. Liberals are only sad that their party never had the guts to stand up to Ira, UBL or anyone else in the same way GWB has.

Liberals are sad because GWB has reduced the amount of money they take from every american to fund their social experements.

Liberals are angry because they are like an abusive husband who's argument has been proven wrong. Rather than admit it like a civil human they attack with no shame and no morals.

The posts on this thread proove it.
For a highly educated moralist, perhaps you should brush up on your spelling??

What makes you assume I am educated or a moralist?

RE: Spelling - this is a thread, not an essay contest. Spelling is useful, but in a rapid-fire thread keyslips and other errors are expected - as most posts here proove. If you want to be critical though that is your right - best not make any errors of your own though.

I guess if the only thing people can disagree with is my spelling then I have done ok. Welcome to the Republican Party!

(or go back to your tired old arguments, your call)

Oh, and by definition expresed here arrogance is not the same as civilly disagreeing with you. However, liberal elites are so awash in their own arrogance they can understandably seldom see that.

Actually Letila, Pro-athletes and actors are our 'cuddly' rich-the ones we watch on cribs and lifestyles. Thier kinda rich is only a drop in the bucket of CEO, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock rich.

we have an actual upper class of rich people. long term old money rich people
like the vanderbilts for example. the name heinz might ring a bell these days

old time inherited idle rich.

Actually Letila, Pro-athletes and actors are our 'cuddly' rich-the ones we watch on cribs and lifestyles. Thier kinda rich is only a drop in the bucket of CEO, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock rich.

we have an actual upper class of rich people. long term old money rich people
like the vanderbilts for example. the name heinz might ring a bell these days

old time inherited idle rich.and other good rich people with a social conscience like George Soros and Warren Buffet and the morally correct people in Hollywood--conservative rich people use their wealth to hurt america and sponsor genocide abroad

and other good rich people with a social conscience like George Soros and Warren Buffet and the morally correct people in Hollywood--conservative rich people use their wealth to hurt america and sponsor genocide abroad[/quote]

some just use it to stick it to the guy they dont like in their country club

and other good rich people with a social conscience like George Soros and Warren Buffet and the morally correct people in Hollywood--conservative rich people use their wealth to hurt america and sponsor genocide abroad

some just use it to stick it to the guy they dont like in their country club[/quote]conservative rich people are stuck up elitist a-holes who only speak to other rich people and think that makes them superior--liberal rich people know people from all sectors and dont let their wealth rot their souls

Sure, there are some liberal rich people. I'm a little skeptical of them, but I suppose they do exist.

Proof all liberal rich people are happy, friendly people and conservative rich people are the devil incarnate?

Proof all liberal rich people are happy, friendly people and conservative rich people are the devil incarnate?basically--cause according to conservative principles of greed,loathing and selfishness they use wealth to oppress everyone else

Evidence please? Evidence that any politician isnt greedy?

Evidence please? Evidence that any politician isnt greedy?

Give me 20 years and I can provide the evidence.

OMG!!!!

7 pages in 9 hours!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:

Um....

Could someone do a brief summary of the points raised...I didn't expect this thread to be so popular :shock:
For a summary, it was determined that the wealthy ARE wealthy enough without getting any more tax cuts!! :shock: :shock:

Oh and that liberals are not dummies LOL.

I'd probably fall asleep by ten :o

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?Honestly, who cares? Tell you what, let's entertain the thought of re-distributing the wealth. That's right, we'll take the wealth of that top 10 percent that holds the 79 percent of non-residential wealth, and we will distribute it equally among every single one of us.

In a year, you will be back to the start. The original 10 percent will go back to holding 79 percent of the wealth (if not more.) And you know why? Because that 10 percent are the entrepreneurial class, and they will go back to business, while the other 90 percent goes back to the practices that have them handing over their "wealth" to the 10 percent (i.e., drugs, alcohol, lottery, gambling, and other stupid decisions.)

Don't believe me? Just look at the lotto...who buys tickets? Poor people. Most, if not all of the ones who win some big prize (say $100M, for example,) tend to wind up penny-less in a very short time.

The majority of those who are in the top 1, or 5, or 10, or 25, or even 50 percent of taxpayers, are there due to hard work...then there is Jean Francois Kerry, who made his money the old-fashioned way, he married into it (come to think of it, that's how Tay-ray-za made her money!)

Heh, sounds like my family has people that might span all four of those classes, despite my immediate family's attempt to help each other through pumping of money. Rather than go try and get a GED, my grandma gets cable...There, perfect example of my point about poor people making the kind of decisions that keep them poor.

Don't get me wrong, some people are just never going to be able to get themselves above poverty...but when people actively deny themselves the opportunity, I have no pity for them.

How can you tell the difference between the deserving and the undeserving poor? Again, that depends on human judgement, which is often wrong.

Actually Letila, Pro-athletes and actors are our 'cuddly' rich-the ones we watch on cribs and lifestyles. Thier kinda rich is only a drop in the bucket of CEO, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock rich.

we have an actual upper class of rich people. long term old money rich people
like the vanderbilts for example. the name heinz might ring a bell these days

old time inherited idle rich.and other good rich people with a social conscience like George Soros and Warren Buffet and the morally correct people in Hollywood--conservative rich people use their wealth to hurt america and sponsor genocide abroadWhoa, RedArrow...I keep telling you, put the bong pipe down. Putting "Soros," "social conscience," "morally correct," and "Hollywood," all in one connected (sentence? paragraph?) is quite the stretch, even for you. Soros wouldn't know a conscience if it landed on him, and if you call Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand and others of the same Hollyweird ilk "morally correct," then I know you have been smoking too much.

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?Honestly, who cares? Tell you what, let's entertain the thought of re-distributing the wealth. That's right, we'll take the wealth of that top 10 percent that holds the 79 percent of non-residential wealth, and we will distribute it equally among every single one of us.

In a year, you will be back to the start. The original 10 percent will go back to holding 79 percent of the wealth (if not more.) And you know why? Because that 10 percent are the entrepreneurial class, and they will go back to business, while the other 90 percent goes back to the practices that have them handing over their "wealth" to the 10 percent (i.e., drugs, alcohol, lottery, gambling, and other stupid decisions.)

Don't believe me? Just look at the lotto...who buys tickets? Poor people. Most, if not all of the ones who win some big prize (say $100M, for example,) tend to wind up penny-less in a very short time.

The majority of those who are in the top 1, or 5, or 10, or 25, or even 50 percent of taxpayers, are there due to hard work...then there is Jean Francois Kerry, who made his money the old-fashioned way, he married into it (come to think of it, that's how Tay-ray-za made her money!)

How I wish I could say you are wrong, but I cannot. I work at a job where I come in contact fairly often with people who have come into substantial money through life insurance, inheritance and sometimes even lotto. Often they come from modest backgrounds.

Sadly, about 50% of the time they squander their money on senseless things, ending up two years later with nothing to show for it but a two year old car and a second mortgage.

Just like the wealthy, the vast majority of western people who have no money are that way from the fruits of their own labors.

How can you tell the difference between the deserving and the undeserving poor? Again, that depends on human judgement, which is often wrong.Oh, I have a simple, objective test for determining "deserving" vs "undeserving" poor. You ready?

- Deserving: getting an education (or trying to); working (sometimes more than one job) to make ends meet; being socially responsible (i.e., not involved in crime, not conceiving any more children than can be supported by current personal resources and those children that are conceived have the same set of parents;) making smart decisions about how to spend the monetary resources that come (i.e., driving a sensible car or using mass transit; making sensible grocery purchases; wearing serviceable clothing as opposed to the latest fashion.)

- Undeserving: dropping out of school and staying out; engaging in no constructive work; social irresponsibility (involvement in crime; having a lot of children, usually from different "sperm donors;") stupid decisions concerning how to spend the money you do come across (liquor, lotto, "bling-bling," the latest and most expensive accessories for the brand-new car, buying the latest "gangsta" fashion.)

There. As you see, the lists are mutually exclusive, and by no means complete. The bottom line, some people are born in hellholes and are never going to leave them. But for many of them, it is due to bad decisions, as opposed to lack of opportunity.

In an ideal world, it would be that way. However, let us remember Paris Hilton. If she was left to her own devices, she would be starving in the streets by now. There are also a large percentage of children who are homeless. Is this fair?

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?Honestly, who cares? Tell you what, let's entertain the thought of re-distributing the wealth. That's right, we'll take the wealth of that top 10 percent that holds the 79 percent of non-residential wealth, and we will distribute it equally among every single one of us.

In a year, you will be back to the start. The original 10 percent will go back to holding 79 percent of the wealth (if not more.) And you know why? Because that 10 percent are the entrepreneurial class, and they will go back to business, while the other 90 percent goes back to the practices that have them handing over their "wealth" to the 10 percent (i.e., drugs, alcohol, lottery, gambling, and other stupid decisions.)

Don't believe me? Just look at the lotto...who buys tickets? Poor people. Most, if not all of the ones who win some big prize (say $100M, for example,) tend to wind up penny-less in a very short time.

The majority of those who are in the top 1, or 5, or 10, or 25, or even 50 percent of taxpayers, are there due to hard work...then there is Jean Francois Kerry, who made his money the old-fashioned way, he married into it (come to think of it, that's how Tay-ray-za made her money!)

How I wish I could say you are wrong, but I cannot. I work at a job where I come in contact fairly often with people who have come into substantial money through life insurance, inheritance and sometimes even lotto. Often they come from modest backgrounds.

Sadly, about 50% of the time they squander their money on senseless things, ending up two years later with nothing to show for it but a two year old car and a second mortgage.

Just like the wealthy, the vast majority of western people who have no money are that way from the fruits of their own labors.You know exactly what I am talking about. I see it here in my corner of the world, everyday, and it breaks my heart to see people who claim they could make so much good out of their lives, if only they had a chance, only to have them get a chance and squander it...because the "windfall" was spent on any of the following: new rims for the car, new car, more lotto tickets, stereo for the new car, lots of "bling-bling," the latest tattoo or piercing, etc.

Sad, isn't it?

Still, all this is not answering the main point of the thread. Just because there are some non-deserving poor, does that mean we should give the rich tax cuts?

In an ideal world, it would be that way. However, let us remember Paris Hilton. If she was left to her own devices, she would be starving in the streets by now. There are also a large percentage of children who are homeless. Is this fair?If Paris Hilton were left to her own devices, she would be homeless...and you know what? She would deserve ZERO pity, due to her stupid decisions.

As for the "large" percentage (figures and quotes, please) of children who are homeless, they are victims of somebody else's bad decisions. They need help, for sure, but those who put them in that position (usually one or both parents) normally deserve no pity for making poor career decisions earlier (dropping out of high school, doing drugs, etc.)

Still, all this is not answering the main point of the thread. Just because there are some non-deserving poor, does that mean we should give the rich tax cuts?The point is, you CAN'T cut the taxes on the poor, given that (in the US) they normally pay very little, if anything, in taxes. In fact, many poor receive "refunds" from the government (Earned Income Tax Credit?), which really are giveaways, taking money from the productive 50 percent to be given to the other 50 percent.

If you're going to cut taxes, either you do it across the board, or you don't do it at all. And when you do it across the board, everyone benefits. As soon as you punish success (which is what happens with the "progressive" tax system,) you remove all incentives for people to become producers.

I think that one should raise taxes on the rich. . .kinda like Jack Layton from Canada proposes.

I think that one should raise taxes on the rich. . .kinda like Jack Layton from Canada proposes.So you think punishing success will make the successful even more so?

Quick test, let's raise taxes on the super-rich...even better, Bill Gates...just raise Bill's taxes, and no one else's. Do you really think Microsoft software will be cheaper for you? How about more plentiful?

Answer the questions, and you will see why raising taxes on the rich is a dumb idea.

PS: you will also see why the more talented Canadians cross the border to the US, and why so many hockey and baseball players try desperately not to be sent to Canadian teams.

[quote=Panhandlia]Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?

Honestly, who cares?
You truly don't care about your fellow citizens? I believe that there are a lot of people who care and volunteer their time to help out their fellow citizens. Many people donate money, clothing, food, or their time.

Will you care if they turn to crime and steal your car or your purse, or break into your house? Perhaps they'll sell drugs to your kids? Will you care then?


Tell you what, let's entertain the thought of re-distributing the wealth. That's right, we'll take the wealth of that top 10 percent that holds the 79 percent of non-residential wealth, and we will distribute it equally among every single one of us.

In a year, you will be back to the start. The original 10 percent will go back to holding 79 percent of the wealth (if not more.) And you know why?

I am sure you will tell me......


Because that 10 percent are the entrepreneurial class, and they will go back to business, while the other 90 percent goes back to the practices that have them handing over their "wealth" to the 10 percent (i.e., drugs, alcohol, lottery, gambling, and other stupid decisions.)
Some of them just might surprise the heck out of you because they never had money before. Some of them may be smarter than you think, given the opportunity. However, you seem to have your prejudices and tar them all with the same brush as failures. Sad.

Besides, just throwing money at these people who have never had any is the not the best way to proceed. It will take time, lots of time, and money and effort to fix the decay of the past 100 years.


Don't believe me? Just look at the lotto...who buys tickets? Poor people. Most, if not all of the ones who win some big prize (say $100M, for example,) tend to wind up penny-less in a very short time.

So you are just going to write these people off as losers and hope that you never have to cross their path?

The majority of those who are in the top 1, or 5, or 10, or 25, or even 50 percent of taxpayers, are there due to hard work...then there is Jean Francois Kerry, who made his money the old-fashioned way, he married into it (come to think of it, that's how Tay-ray-za made her money!)
Yeah and poor old George Bush being a pauper and all, having to live on that run down old ranch of his just doesn't seem fair HUH???

There is also a thing called corporate welfare, whereby big businesses get Government grants, tax concessions, and bankruptcy protections.

Then you also have your Enrons, Dot Coms, etc....

Right down to the nice lady Martha Stewart.....

Oh and how about your friend Mr. Bush? He wouldn't do anything untowards huh?

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the government's corporate watchdog, questioned Mr Bush in 1991 about his 1990 sale of Harken shares, before the company reported large losses.

The investigation ended without any action against Mr Bush, but questions linger over the issue as well as accounting practices at the Halliburton oil-services firm during Vice President Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive.

BTW, you opened this can of worms by mentioning Kerry, so all is fair in love and politics?

Poverty is real and it exists through neglect and indifferent attitudes, not unlike the one you espouse here. Sad!!

Poverty is real and it exists through neglect and indifferent attitudes, not unlike the one you espouse here. Sad!!

Yes. I've seen many views like this when I debate in RL. A mutant cousin of this view is the one where "they're all doped up on drugs and alcohol and that's why they can't eat."

as far as i can see, looking around the small town i live in, drugs are a huge cause of poverty or at least misery.
the poor but drug free illegal mexican immigrants live a much better life than the native born welfare recipients who ignore their children and spend their money on drugs

You truly don't care about your fellow citizens? I believe that there are a lot of people who care and volunteer their time to help out their fellow citizens. Many people donate money, clothing, food, or their time.

Will you care if they turn to crime and steal your car or your purse, or break into your house? Perhaps they'll sell drugs to your kids? Will you care then?


What do you propose we do about? Tax the rich, the people who make the things we buy, more heavily than before? They probably pay the highest percent of taxes.


Some of them just might surprise the heck out of you because they never had money before. Some of them may be smarter than you think, given the opportunity. However, you seem to have your prejudices and tar them all with the same brush as failures. Sad.

Besides, just throwing money at these people who have never had any is the not the best way to proceed. It will take time, lots of time, and money and effort to fix the decay of the past 100 years.


The best way to proceed is to trim the most idiotic government programs, streamline the budget, and pump money into schools. If neccesary, raises taxes after streamlining. Then use this extra money to lower college tuition and raise school quality, thus getting more people to be able to get higher education, even more of those who-even while trying to do the right thing-simply can not juggle school, many work hours in several jobs to afford it, and life.


So you are just going to write these people off as losers and hope that you never have to cross their path?


He doesnt seem to be to me.


Yeah and poor old George Bush being a pauper and all, having to live on that run down old ranch of his just doesn't seem fair HUH???


I dont't think any politician in the United States is poor.


There is also a thing called corporate welfare, whereby big businesses get Government grants, tax concessions, and bankruptcy protections.


Supposably to help protect the economy. This can go away, along with all other welfare for the streamlining, education money raiser from above.


Oh and how about your friend Mr. Bush? He wouldn't do anything untowards huh?


Neither will any politician. We need a man of Founding Father quality, and we wont see such a person for a long time.


The Securities and Exchange Commission, the government's corporate watchdog, questioned Mr Bush in 1991 about his 1990 sale of Harken shares, before the company reported large losses.

The investigation ended without any action against Mr Bush, but questions linger over the issue as well as accounting practices at the Halliburton oil-services firm during Vice President Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive.


BTW, you opened this can of worms by mentioning Kerry, so all is fair in love and politics?


Indeed.


Poverty is real and it exists through neglect and indifferent attitudes, not unlike the one you espouse here. Sad!!

Truly, see my education proposal above. Not all of the poor get there by choice, but many poor people have made bad choices to end up as poor.

This has been an Official Rambling Session

-----------------...........
........The best way to proceed is to trim the most idiotic government programs, streamline the budget, and pump money into schools. If neccesary, raises taxes after streamlining. Then use this extra money to lower college tuition and raise school quality, thus getting more people to be able to get higher education, even more of those who-even while trying to do the right thing-simply can not juggle school, many work hours in several jobs to afford it, and life.



Before you start 'pumping money into schools' 'thus getting more people to be able to get higher education' don't you think it'd be a good idea to get people to complete the free education already available through 12th grade?

Dropout rates are far too high - largely because people attach the value of their education equal to what they pay for it.

Just 'giving' college away will no more make a person educated than giving every student in a class an 'A' regardless of performance would them smarter.

There are very intelligent people out there who may not be able to go to college because they cannot afford it. Someone I know may be in that same exact spot. As well, increasing corporate sponsorship may further tilt it in favour of the rich.

Besides, an education is no guarantee of a good job. I've heard of someone in the news who dropped out of college and became CEO when she was younger than 40. I've also heard of taxi drivers with Ph.Ds.

I was thinking that the money used would be used to help curb dropout rates. etc, etc., but you seem to agree that I got it in at least the right direction by helping schools.

[quote=Fluffywuffy]
-----------------...........
........The best way to proceed is to trim the most idiotic government programs, streamline the budget, and pump money into schools. If neccesary, raises taxes after streamlining. Then use this extra money to lower college tuition and raise school quality, thus getting more people to be able to get higher education, even more of those who-even while trying to do the right thing-simply can not juggle school, many work hours in several jobs to afford it, and life.



Before you start 'pumping money into schools' 'thus getting more people to be able to get higher education' don't you think it'd be a good idea to get people to complete the free education already available through 12th grade?
How about improving the teaching methods, providing safe, clean, accessible schools, and attract quality teachers.

Dropout rates are far too high - largely because people attach the value of their education equal to what they pay for it.
They dropout because the system is failing them.

Just 'giving' college away will no more make a person educated than giving every student in a class an 'A' regardless of performance would them smarter.
How about the intelligent students who just cannot afford to attend College or University?

Fluffywuffy, with all due respect, I will not respond to your post per se. The post I entered was directed at Panhandlia, and you answered for him, and removed the relevant parts of the thread.

However, as a matter of courtesy, I will suggest that the Government should not incur increasing the National Debt, by borrowing to give wealthy people more money via "tax cuts".

If the Government is determined to borrow this money, then it should be used to improve health care, education, and reducing poverty, NOT provide huge handouts to those who need it less.

Here's my two bits on the whole welfare issue:

While welfare definatly does need reforming, the government should at least try to help, as they are partially responsible for the state of the inner city poor, and I don't mean handouts. Part of the Iran-Contra setup involved taking drugs from Iran and *selling them on the streets of LA to young black kids.* Yes, thats right, the CIA is partially responsible for introducing heroin to the inner city. The powers that be should at least own up to the responsibility and try to clean up the mess.

Then free the markets. Wages rising rapidly, prices falling = good.
1) Ummmm if wages go up, the cost of the product goes up NOT down, unless the company is willing to pay higher wages while decreasing profits.

Tax is robbery and should be minimised/eliminated.
2) NO tax = no police, hospitals, armed forces, roads, sewers, etc.


Britain only recently got minimum wage laws and wages ain't changed much. Most people don't earn minimum wage so why do companies pay them more? Supply and demand. Companies compete for your employment and you can work for whichever one offers the most.
The only way that companies pay more is if there is a small labour pool. BIG Business loves a certain amount of unemployment so that they can pay lower wages.

Banning low paid work ensures all jobs will be well paid in the same sense that banning cheap cars ensures all cars are good. This means the poorest have no jobs or cars.
3) Sooo if the poorest people have no jobs AND no Government welfare, then you will have major crime and/or anarchy.

Minimum wage laws cause unemployment, otherwise we'd raise the minimum to $1 000 000 and be rich. As I said, read an economics book.
4) Fantasy Economics 101? You really don't believe what you are writing here do you?

You'll feel better inside and you'll annoy me less :D
5) You are easily annoyed by countervailing FACTS?

No tax + unregulated economy = Prosperity for all.
6) And they all fell asleep with thoughts of sugar plums dancing in their heads?

Even the ones who don't understand economics will benefit from it so don't worry.
7) BTW, when you start a company and you are going to pay everyone $1,000,000 I would like job there.
1) It's the pattern of 19th century America. Rising wages and falling prices. It would still happen but for govt's inflationary monetary policy. It's not fantasy, it's history.

2) All these things can be and have been provided on the market. It's not fantasy, it's history.

3) Unemployment is created by the welfare state, not relieved by it. The tiny minority who can't work can easily be provided for by charity and helped back onto their feet. This is what has always happened whenever govt welfare was not around. It's not fantasy, it's history.

4) You don't think a $1 000 000 minimum wage would cause unemployment? Why don't you legislate a $1 000 000 minimum wage then?

5) Like the fact that morons like you get to vote on my life? Yes I find that annoying. People like you with immoral and uninformed political views are causing millions of people to suffer needlessly.

6) It's how the industrial revolution brought about the world we live in. It's not fantasy, it's history.

7) What are you dribbling about now? Did you misread my post or something?

Edit: changed the numbering 'cause I missed one of the points.

Here's my two bits on the whole welfare issue:

While welfare definatly does need reforming, the government should at least try to help, as they are partially responsible for the state of the inner city poor, and I don't mean handouts. Part of the Iran-Contra setup involved taking drugs from Iran and *selling them on the streets of LA to young black kids.* Yes, thats right, the CIA is partially responsible for introducing heroin to the inner city. The powers that be should at least own up to the responsibility and try to clean up the mess.
But it's the welfare state which is responsible for these problems. If you got rid of welfare and anti-drug laws most of these problems would disappear and the few remaining would be easily mopped up by charities.

They dropout because the system is failing them.

Just 'giving' college away will no more make a person educated than giving every student in a class an 'A' regardless of performance would them smarter.
How about the intelligent students who just cannot afford to attend College or University?

Oh, I see, so therfore your solution is to give more money to a failing institution - in fact offering even more of it.

Haven't you ever heard of the term "You can't dig yourself out of a hole"

But it's the welfare state which is responsible for these problems. If you got rid of welfare and anti-drug laws most of these problems would disappear and the few remaining would be easily mopped up by charities.[/quote]

Wow, that's a kneejerk reaction if I ever saw one. And not too terrible informative, either. Simpling ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

Heh, sounds like my family has people that might span all four of those classes, despite my immediate family's attempt to help each other through pumping of money. Rather than go try and get a GED, my grandma gets cable...There, perfect example of my point about poor people making the kind of decisions that keep them poor.

Don't get me wrong, some people are just never going to be able to get themselves above poverty...but when people actively deny themselves the opportunity, I have no pity for them.

Absolutely, I guess it's too bad they couldn't afford anything better than a sub-standard education to help them make these choices.

Actually Letila, Pro-athletes and actors are our 'cuddly' rich-the ones we watch on cribs and lifestyles. Thier kinda rich is only a drop in the bucket of CEO, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock rich.

we have an actual upper class of rich people. long term old money rich people
like the vanderbilts for example. the name heinz might ring a bell these days

old time inherited idle rich.and other good rich people with a social conscience like George Soros and Warren Buffet and the morally correct people in Hollywood--conservative rich people use their wealth to hurt america and sponsor genocide abroadWhoa, RedArrow...I keep telling you, put the bong pipe down. Putting "Soros," "social conscience," "morally correct," and "Hollywood," all in one connected (sentence? paragraph?) is quite the stretch, even for you. Soros wouldn't know a conscience if it landed on him, and if you call Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand and others of the same Hollyweird ilk "morally correct," then I know you have been smoking too much.I use a watre bong but I fill it with soco

as far as i can see, looking around the small town i live in, drugs are a huge cause of poverty or at least misery.
the poor but drug free illegal mexican immigrants live a much better life than the native born welfare recipients who ignore their children and spend their money on drugs*ahem rich people do a tremendous amount of drugs

-----------------...........
........The best way to proceed is to trim the most idiotic government programs, streamline the budget, and pump money into schools. If neccesary, raises taxes after streamlining. Then use this extra money to lower college tuition and raise school quality, thus getting more people to be able to get higher education, even more of those who-even while trying to do the right thing-simply can not juggle school, many work hours in several jobs to afford it, and life.



Before you start 'pumping money into schools' 'thus getting more people to be able to get higher education' don't you think it'd be a good idea to get people to complete the free education already available through 12th grade?

Dropout rates are far too high - largely because people attach the value of their education equal to what they pay for it.

Just 'giving' college away will no more make a person educated than giving every student in a class an 'A' regardless of performance would them smarter.

Actually the idea is that by increasing funding to sub-standard schools you're creating a more equal and meritocratic society where the idea that "you get what you deserve" is more of a reality.

Nobody is suggesting that college places and grades should simply be given away, but rather be distributed according to academic merit rather than ability to pay which at the moment is primary determinant of a persons life prospects in the U.S. Do you think that it is fair to restrict access to Ivy League Schools to those individuals capable of paying the $30,000 per annum fee that many of them charge? Or is this a fair way of restricting access to higher education to those who really deserve it?

They dropout because the system is failing them.

Just 'giving' college away will no more make a person educated than giving every student in a class an 'A' regardless of performance would them smarter.
How about the intelligent students who just cannot afford to attend College or University?

Oh, I see, so therfore your solution is to give more money to a failing institution - in fact offering even more of it.

Haven't you ever heard of the term "You can't dig yourself out of a hole"
Are you not concerned that the educational system is failing? There are remedies that I suggested which you ignored.

No "you can't dig yourself out of a hole" but given the proper assistance, guidance, and tools, you can find your way out of it.

Private schools tend to have the best teachers, teaching aids, learning environment, and personal safety measures. Usually these schools cater to the more affluent members of society. Every student should have free access to the best education system that money can buy, including Colleges and Universities. This creates a level playing field and will go a long way towards to achieving "equality", and eliminating regressive barriers to the advancement of society.

Heh, sounds like my family has people that might span all four of those classes, despite my immediate family's attempt to help each other through pumping of money. Rather than go try and get a GED, my grandma gets cable...There, perfect example of my point about poor people making the kind of decisions that keep them poor.

Don't get me wrong, some people are just never going to be able to get themselves above poverty...but when people actively deny themselves the opportunity, I have no pity for them.

Absolutely, I guess it's too bad they couldn't afford anything better than a sub-standard education to help them make these choices.
Hammer meets nail squarely on the head and drives home the point!!

Hear hear!

5) Like the fact that morons like you get to vote on my life? Yes I find that annoying. People like you with immoral and uninformed political views are causing millions of people to suffer needlessly.
Whether you believe I am a moron or not, is neither here or there, as far as I am concerned, you are entitled to your opinion. Actually I wasn’t going to respond to the above but after viewing the profile of Libertovania, I couldn’t resist:

The Commonwealth of Libertovania is a huge, economically powerful nation, renowned for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 389 million live in a state of perpetual fear, as a complete breakdown of social order has led to the rise of order through biker gangs.

There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, corrupt, liberal, pro-business individuals is effectively ruled by the Department of Commerce, with areas such as Social Welfare and Social Equality receiving almost no funds by comparison. Income tax is unheard of. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Door-to-door Insurance Sales, Basket Weaving, and Trout Farming industries.

Televangelists flaunt their expensive cars when they attend charity events, 'Mountain Doobie' is widely regarded as the nation's favourite drink, citizens are allowed to rise or fall based on their own merits, and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honour. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is crippling, and the police force struggles against a lack of funding and a high mortality rate. Libertovania's national animal is the Bender Bot, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the Lucre.

Libertovania is ranked 2nd in the region and 5,725th in the world for Largest Insurance Industry.

Yeah I can see how you might think that I am “immoral, and causing millions of people to suffer needlessly.” Somewhat ironic huh?

How I wish I could say you are wrong, but I cannot. I work at a job where I come in contact fairly often with people who have come into substantial money through life insurance, inheritance and sometimes even lotto. Often they come from modest backgrounds.

Sadly, about 50% of the time they squander their money on senseless things, ending up two years later with nothing to show for it but a two year old car and a second mortgage.

Just like the wealthy, the vast majority of western people who have no money are that way from the fruits of their own labors.You know exactly what I am talking about. I see it here in my corner of the world, everyday, and it breaks my heart to see people who claim they could make so much good out of their lives, if only they had a chance, only to have them get a chance and squander it...because the "windfall" was spent on any of the following: new rims for the car, new car, more lotto tickets, stereo for the new car, lots of "bling-bling," the latest tattoo or piercing, etc.

Sad, isn't it?Holy crap, I actually agree with you. It is sad. These people have had the opportunity to make something of themselves, yet they waste it on needless and unnecessary things, perhaps to make themselves cool. If they think that this makes them cool, then it must be cool to be suffering for unnecessary financial expenditures, too, hmm?

The bad rich will be punished when I call them here. Some notorious right wing gangsters are allready send to the devil, he gives them a very hot welcome.

5) Like the fact that morons like you get to vote on my life? Yes I find that annoying. People like you with immoral and uninformed political views are causing millions of people to suffer needlessly.
Whether you believe I am a moron or not, is neither here or there, as far as I am concerned, you are entitled to your opinion. Actually I wasn’t going to respond to the above but after viewing the profile of Libertovania, I couldn’t resist:

The Commonwealth of Libertovania is a huge, economically powerful nation, renowned for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 389 million live in a state of perpetual fear, as a complete breakdown of social order has led to the rise of order through biker gangs.

There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, corrupt, liberal, pro-business individuals is effectively ruled by the Department of Commerce, with areas such as Social Welfare and Social Equality receiving almost no funds by comparison. Income tax is unheard of. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Door-to-door Insurance Sales, Basket Weaving, and Trout Farming industries.

Televangelists flaunt their expensive cars when they attend charity events, 'Mountain Doobie' is widely regarded as the nation's favourite drink, citizens are allowed to rise or fall based on their own merits, and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honour. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is crippling, and the police force struggles against a lack of funding and a high mortality rate. Libertovania's national animal is the Bender Bot, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the Lucre.

Libertovania is ranked 2nd in the region and 5,725th in the world for Largest Insurance Industry.

Yeah I can see how you might think that I am “immoral, and causing millions of people to suffer needlessly.” Somewhat ironic huh?

Not that I care much for this thread - but, erm, you're using the guy's fictional sim-nation in a computer game to try and tear into his/her character. That's somewhere between David Icke and Jack Chick on the loon-o-meter. You do know I run a nation called RitualSadism? The Theocracy of RitualSadism, no less?

OH NO I'M AN EVIL DICTATOR WHO THINK'S HE'S GOD!!!1

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC
"Oh look, a knight. Someone get me a can opener..."

as far as i can see, looking around the small town i live in, drugs are a huge cause of poverty or at least misery.
the poor but drug free illegal mexican immigrants live a much better life than the native born welfare recipients who ignore their children and spend their money on drugs*ahem rich people do a tremendous amount of drugs

so i hear. but .... since they are still "rich" is hasnt put them into poverty.
im sure it wreaks havoc on their lives just like it does poor people. does this really weaken my point?

Not that I care much for this thread - but, erm, you're using the guy's fictional sim-nation in a computer game to try and tear into his/her character. That's somewhere between Jerry Springer and Jack Chick on the loon-o-meter. You do know I run a nation called RitualSadism? The Theocracy of RitualSadism, no less?

OH NO I'M AN EVIL DICTATOR WHO THINK'S HE'S GOD!!!1

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC
"Oh look, a knight. Someone get me a can opener..."

Ohhh I understand fully, and if you read the whole thread, you might see why I find it ironic that Libertovania's nation had those traits.

However, one might question as to how one picks a name for a nation. Somehow the name "RitualSadism" was already taken so I picked CanuckHeaven instead. :shock:

as far as i can see, looking around the small town i live in, drugs are a huge cause of poverty or at least misery.
the poor but drug free illegal mexican immigrants live a much better life than the native born welfare recipients who ignore their children and spend their money on drugsThank you for making a really good point. You only forgot to include (besides drugs,) lotto, cars that can't be afforded, etc.

Well, not all impovrished people are like that. Sure, there are some, but there are also those who try and cannot succeed.

Well, not all impovrished people are like that. Sure, there are some, but there are also those who try and cannot succeed.

absolutely, temme
and those are the people who "deserve" our help. mostly because those are the people who, if you help them, actuall benefit from it and dont use it as a new way to avoid shaping up and living right.

we need to make sure that all people have a chance, and more importantly that they KNOW they have that chance. too many teens in a small town like mine think that this is all they can expect in life so why not have a bunch of kids and spend their lives living like trash?

You truly don't care about your fellow citizens? I believe that there are a lot of people who care and volunteer their time to help out their fellow citizens. Many people donate money, clothing, food, or their time.

Will you care if they turn to crime and steal your car or your purse, or break into your house? Perhaps they'll sell drugs to your kids? Will you care then?


What do you propose we do about? Tax the rich, the people who make the things we buy, more heavily than before? They probably pay the highest percent of taxes.
No "probably" about it. The numbers don't lie.


Some of them just might surprise the heck out of you because they never had money before. Some of them may be smarter than you think, given the opportunity. However, you seem to have your prejudices and tar them all with the same brush as failures. Sad.

Besides, just throwing money at these people who have never had any is the not the best way to proceed. It will take time, lots of time, and money and effort to fix the decay of the past 100 years.


The best way to proceed is to trim the most idiotic government programs, streamline the budget, and pump money into schools. If neccesary, raises taxes after streamlining. Then use this extra money to lower college tuition and raise school quality, thus getting more people to be able to get higher education, even more of those who-even while trying to do the right thing-simply can not juggle school, many work hours in several jobs to afford it, and life.You almost have the right idea. Yes, we need to trim idiotic government programs and streamline the budget. However, it's a proven fact that spending more on schools doesn't necessarily translate into better education (perfect example: Washington DC's school system.) Raising taxes leads to lower revenues for the government, not higher, because those whose taxes get raised find other uses for their resources, such as investing or saving. College tuitions can not and should not be lowered by government decree...the colleges are simply following one top rule of economics, which is, prices for commodities will be as high as the market can support. One reason the colleges are charging such outrageous prices is simply, the people are willing to pay such prices! Same as gas prices, by the way.



So you are just going to write these people off as losers and hope that you never have to cross their path?


He doesnt seem to be to me.
Thank you for noticing that. I am not writing them off as losers, and I certainly hope that I can be of help to them...but punishing the successful is NOT the way to uplift the lower levels. The economy isn't a zero-sum game...just some people make it seem like it is, due to bad decisions.


Oh and how about your friend Mr. Bush? He wouldn't do anything untowards huh?


Neither will any politician. We need a man of Founding Father quality, and we wont see such a person for a long time. Amen to that. GW Bush isn't, and Jean Francois Kerry certainly isn't. He isn't even a bad imitation of the other JFK.


The Securities and Exchange Commission, the government's corporate watchdog, questioned Mr Bush in 1991 about his 1990 sale of Harken shares, before the company reported large losses.

The investigation ended without any action against Mr Bush, but questions linger over the issue as well as accounting practices at the Halliburton oil-services firm during Vice President Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive.
And your point is? Bush was cleared of any wrongdoing (at least that's what ending an investigation without any charges being made used to mean,) so your bringing that up is simply a nice way to deflect attention from Jean Francois Kerry's opportunism.


BTW, you opened this can of worms by mentioning Kerry, so all is fair in love and politics?


Indeed.Bring it on.



Poverty is real and it exists through neglect and indifferent attitudes, not unlike the one you espouse here. Sad!!

Truly, see my education proposal above. Not all of the poor get there by choice, but many poor people have made bad choices to end up as poor.
And that is the point I have been trying to make. Making excuses for those who make bad choices in life isn't going to help them move past those bad decisions. Choices have consequences, and we all make choices that can tremendously affect our lives. Punishing those who make good decisions, in order to help those who make bad ones, is simply not going to encourage better decision-making.

Fluffywuffy, with all due respect, I will not respond to your post per se. The post I entered was directed at Panhandlia, and you answered for him, and removed the relevant parts of the thread.
Hey, I happen to have a life besides this, and Fluffy was doing a fairly decent job of addressing your "concerns." Lay off of Fluffy.

However, as a matter of courtesy, I will suggest that the Government should not incur increasing the National Debt, by borrowing to give wealthy people more money via "tax cuts".

If the Government is determined to borrow this money, then it should be used to improve health care, education, and reducing poverty, NOT provide huge handouts to those who need it less.One more time I have to address this concept of the "cost" of a tax cut. Tax cuts don't cost the government anything. How can Government put a price tag on money it never earned? Money did NOT come out of the Government's coffers due to a tax cut, it simply never made it in...a grand expansion of the concept "out of sight, out of mind."

The "rich" did not get huge handouts from the Government as part of the tax cuts. Tax rebates are a separate issue, because the Government returned money to those who actually earned it. All the talk about the "squandered surpluses" really bothers me. A surplus means the Government raised more money than it spent (courtesy of the Republican majorities in Congress)...what is so offensive about returning that money to those who rightfully earned it??

They dropout because the system is failing them.

Just 'giving' college away will no more make a person educated than giving every student in a class an 'A' regardless of performance would them smarter.
How about the intelligent students who just cannot afford to attend College or University?

Oh, I see, so therfore your solution is to give more money to a failing institution - in fact offering even more of it.

Haven't you ever heard of the term "You can't dig yourself out of a hole"
Are you not concerned that the educational system is failing? There are remedies that I suggested which you ignored.

No "you can't dig yourself out of a hole" but given the proper assistance, guidance, and tools, you can find your way out of it.

Private schools tend to have the best teachers, teaching aids, learning environment, and personal safety measures. Usually these schools cater to the more affluent members of society. Every student should have free access to the best education system that money can buy, including Colleges and Universities. This creates a level playing field and will go a long way towards to achieving "equality", and eliminating regressive barriers to the advancement of society.

I see, so then you support school vouchers?

)...what is so offensive about returning that money to those who rightfully earned it??

the $500billlion+ deficit

One more time I have to address this concept of the "cost" of a tax cut. Tax cuts don't cost the government anything. How can Government put a price tag on money it never earned? Money did NOT come out of the Government's coffers due to a tax cut, it simply never made it in...a grand expansion of the concept "out of sight, out of mind."

The "rich" did not get huge handouts from the Government as part of the tax cuts. Tax rebates are a separate issue, because the Government returned money to those who actually earned it. All the talk about the "squandered surpluses" really bothers me. A surplus means the Government raised more money than it spent (courtesy of the Republican majorities in Congress)...what is so offensive about returning that money to those who rightfully earned it??Except that tax cuts do cost the government in the sense that government has certain responsibilities to its citizenry, responsibilities that fall under the "providing for the General Welfare" clause of the Constitution, and those have to be funded. Now the only way the government pays for anything is through taxation, and in the last 3 years in particular, its cut taxes--its income--and thus finds itself unable to pay for its responsibilities without borrowing money. So those tax cuts have cost the government both in terms of current and future funding of its liabilities.

Now if you want to argue that the government has taken on too much and that it should cut the services it offers to the citizenry, that's another argument. But you can't legitimately argue that tax cuts don't cost the government--they do, in every sense of the word.

[quote=CanuckHeaven]Fluffywuffy, with all due respect, I will not respond to your post per se. The post I entered was directed at Panhandlia, and you answered for him, and removed the relevant parts of the thread.

Hey, I happen to have a life besides this, and Fluffy was doing a fairly decent job of addressing your "concerns." Lay off of Fluffy.
Panhandlia = Fluffywuffy? Fluffy can answer for you?

However, as a matter of courtesy, I will suggest that the Government should not incur increasing the National Debt, by borrowing to give wealthy people more money via "tax cuts".

If the Government is determined to borrow this money, then it should be used to improve health care, education, and reducing poverty, NOT provide huge handouts to those who need it less.

One more time I have to address this concept of the "cost" of a tax cut. Tax cuts don't cost the government anything.
If they have to borrow to give the tax cuts, yes they do cost the government money. As a matter of fact, there were no fiscal "surpluses" last year or this year, so yeah, the government will have to borrow LARGE to pay off these tax cuts. There hasn't been a surplus since 2000 when Clinton was in office.

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_cbo_surplus.gif


How can Government put a price tag on money it never earned?
A better question is how can a Government borrow huge sums of money to give "tax cuts" that are weighted towards the wealthiest 1% or 2% of the population?

Money did NOT come out of the Government's coffers due to a tax cut, it simply never made it in...a grand expansion of the concept "out of sight, out of mind."
A grand concept of getting everyones grandkids to pay for Bush's largesse??

The "rich" did not get huge handouts from the Government as part of the tax cuts.
The following chart suggests that they do and will:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif


All the talk about the "squandered surpluses" really bothers me. A surplus means the Government raised more money than it spent (courtesy of the Republican majorities in Congress)
Only while Bill Clinton was in office. There have been NO surpluses since George W. took office, just HUGE deficits.

...what is so offensive about returning that money to those who rightfully earned it??
Because there is NO money to return due to the HUGE deficits.

Quick test, let's raise taxes on the super-rich...even better, Bill Gates...just raise Bill's taxes, and no one else's. Do you really think Microsoft software will be cheaper for you?
:lol: Who cares? Microsoft's software is rubbish.


How about more plentiful?

Quite frankly, who would want it to be. I dread the day when aeroplanes are flown by M$ Windows.
"Altitude control has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down."


Answer the questions, and you will see why raising taxes on the rich is a dumb idea.

Nope, not at all. Besides, aren't Bill Gates' personal money, and Microsofts money separate things?

The bad rich will be punished when I call them here. Some notorious right wing gangsters are allready send to the devil, he gives them a very hot welcome.tis easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle then for a richman to get into heaven

The bad rich will be punished when I call them here. Some notorious right wing gangsters are allready send to the devil, he gives them a very hot welcome.tis easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle then for a richman to get into heaven

5) Like the fact that morons like you get to vote on my life? Yes I find that annoying. People like you with immoral and uninformed political views are causing millions of people to suffer needlessly.
Whether you believe I am a moron or not, is neither here or there, as far as I am concerned, you are entitled to your opinion. Actually I wasn’t going to respond to the above but after viewing the profile of Libertovania, I couldn’t resist:

The Commonwealth of Libertovania is a huge, economically powerful nation, renowned for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 389 million live in a state of perpetual fear, as a complete breakdown of social order has led to the rise of order through biker gangs.

There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, corrupt, liberal, pro-business individuals is effectively ruled by the Department of Commerce, with areas such as Social Welfare and Social Equality receiving almost no funds by comparison. Income tax is unheard of. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Door-to-door Insurance Sales, Basket Weaving, and Trout Farming industries.

Televangelists flaunt their expensive cars when they attend charity events, 'Mountain Doobie' is widely regarded as the nation's favourite drink, citizens are allowed to rise or fall based on their own merits, and murderers frequently escape punishment by claiming they were protecting their honour. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is crippling, and the police force struggles against a lack of funding and a high mortality rate. Libertovania's national animal is the Bender Bot, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the Lucre.

Libertovania is ranked 2nd in the region and 5,725th in the world for Largest Insurance Industry.

Yeah I can see how you might think that I am “immoral, and causing millions of people to suffer needlessly.” Somewhat ironic huh?
And of course nationstates is true to life in every way. I'm sure Max Berry has read "for a new liberty" by Murray Rothbard and is well versed in free market economics.

Here is my point about the welfare state. Imagine back before the welfare state and you say to me "I think the govt should redistribute money to the poorest." I would say, "There's nothing to stop people giving money to the poor voluntarily. If people aren't willing to donate voluntarily why would they vote to force themselves to donate?" 100 years ago this would have been a solid argument but now people think that we have a system that defies this logic. They are wrong.

For every govt program which redistributes from rich to poor there is one which goes the other way. The military industrial complex, corporate welfare, public pensions (non college students work for ~ 5 years longer at the start of their lives and these 5 years would pay ~ 40 years of interest in private pensions), subsidised universities, arts grants etc. The income tax is "progressive" but VAT and National Insurance are highly regressive. In 1970s (sorry, the only figures I have) the poorest 20% contributed an average 55% of their income to the taxman compared with average 39%. (and I doubt 20 years of mostly republican/conservative govt have alleviated this at all). Another study of a poor neighbourhood in New York found that the govt collected more money from them than it paid in, tens of millions of dollars more. My point is that it is unlikely that the welfare state redistributes from rich to poor very much, and it is even possible it works the other way on net.

It is more accurate to say that the govt redistributes money within "classes" than between them. So that the working poor subsidise the non-working poor, and the efficient businesses subsidise the inflated inefficient ones. Also, the income tax is not a tax on being rich, it is a tax on becoming rich. Govt regulations are lobbied for by large established businesses in order to suppress new competition. It is true that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but this is due to the political market not the private market and is not a necessary symptom of free market capitalism but a necessary symptom of the corporate state (it was a system very much like our current one that Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" to attack).

What I'm proposing is do away with (or at least drastically reduce) the inflation/taxation/regulation of govt. Then with a booming economy there will be enough jobs for everyone, rapidly rising wages. Services like education and health will half in price without tax/regulation (fantastic as this might sound it is an empirical fact that the free market supplies services at 1/2 the price of govt or regulated provision). All the necessities will be within the reach of working people. Take cars for example. When the govt supplied cars in Eastern Europe the made Skodas. The market in the west supplies everything from beetles to rolls royces. But even the worst cars on the market were better than skodas. The same would be true for market healthcare, education etc.

The very few who are unable to work and other vulnerable people like children will no longer have to compete with lazy bums for the nations charity and people will be happy to give (again, an empirical fact that charity has always done a good job of caring for the vulnerable whenever govt hasn't been involved when you take into account the wealth of society at the time).

I'm sure you like to think of me as a cruel uncaring person but the fact is I believe that the govt is responsible for most of the ills we see around us and that people are capable of resolving virtually all of society's problems without the need for the legalised plunder of taxation and other forms of institutionalised violence. I am a libertarian because I do care about people, not because I don't. And I'm sorry if I got a bit angry and insulted you, it just winds me up when I hear people defending a system which is responsible for so much misery.

The fact is that if you were rich, you wouldnt complain about being rich :P

[quote=CanuckHeaven]Fluffywuffy, with all due respect, I will not respond to your post per se. The post I entered was directed at Panhandlia, and you answered for him, and removed the relevant parts of the thread.

Hey, I happen to have a life besides this, and Fluffy was doing a fairly decent job of addressing your "concerns." Lay off of Fluffy.
Panhandlia = Fluffywuffy? Fluffy can answer for you?
Whoa, buckaroo...turn off the boldface. Obviously something is getting under your saddle here. Boldface is just another form of yelling. And, if Fluffy there is making good points, why should I have a problem with it? Take the pills.

However, as a matter of courtesy, I will suggest that the Government should not incur increasing the National Debt, by borrowing to give wealthy people more money via "tax cuts".

If the Government is determined to borrow this money, then it should be used to improve health care, education, and reducing poverty, NOT provide huge handouts to those who need it less.

One more time I have to address this concept of the "cost" of a tax cut. Tax cuts don't cost the government anything.
If they have to borrow to give the tax cuts, yes they do cost the government money. As a matter of fact, there were no fiscal "surpluses" last year or this year, so yeah, the government will have to borrow LARGE to pay off these tax cuts. There hasn't been a surplus since 2000 when Clinton was in office.
The US government is not borrowing money to "pay" for tax cuts. I know, it is kind of hard for you to grasp this, so follow carefully. When the government collects less in tax revenue (and tax cuts usually end up generating more revenue, due to increased economic activity, but let's not confuse you any more than you already are,) it isn't borrowing money to give back to taxpayers. Even the rebates of 2001 and 2002 didn't require borrowing. I know, it's hard for you to understand, but it works.


http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_cbo_surplus.gif


How can Government put a price tag on money it never earned?
A better question is how can a Government borrow huge sums of money to give "tax cuts" that are weighted towards the wealthiest 1% or 2% of the population?
Again, there is no borrowing going on to "pay" for tax cuts. The money simply stays with the ones who earned it (the taxpayers.) And, EVERY taxpayer got a tax cut, regardless of whether they are in the top 1 percent or the bottom 50 percent. The only difference is the amount that the percentage of tax cut yields. The bottom 50 percent got larger percentage rate cuts than the top 50 percent...however, because the top 50 percent pays so much more in taxes, the actual amounts of money do become larger for that top 50 percent. It's called simple math...I am sure you can handle it, unless you did attend a public school.


Money did NOT come out of the Government's coffers due to a tax cut, it simply never made it in...a grand expansion of the concept "out of sight, out of mind."
A grand concept of getting everyones grandkids to pay for Bush's largesse??I agree...the welfare state has actually grown under Bush, and it needs to be reduced in size. However, I don't trust a liberal to reduce the size of government, because it would never happen. The Republicans in Congress need to start showing some backbone and actually reduce the size of entitlements. After all, neither Social Security, Medicare, nor education, are anywhere in the Constitution...defense is.


The "rich" did not get huge handouts from the Government as part of the tax cuts.
The following chart suggests that they do and will:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gifAgain, it's all a matter of percentage rates. By the way, the "rich" are the one portion of the taxpayers that actually create businesses and jobs for others. Think about that when you suggest that they don't deserve any breaks the rest of us get.


All the talk about the "squandered surpluses" really bothers me. A surplus means the Government raised more money than it spent (courtesy of the Republican majorities in Congress)
Only while Bill Clinton was in office. There have been NO surpluses since George W. took office, just HUGE deficits.
Big deal. I guess 9/11 and the War on Terror don't mean a thing for you... But, to be fair, do you want an easy way to maintain the budget on balance while fighting terrorists and re-building New York City? Ok, let's see if we agree on this...the government should have shut down all programs not specified by the Constitution during the 9/11 and terror contingencies. That means, education, welfare, Medicare, farm subsidies, art subsidies, NPR, PBS...all shut down till further notice.

Ok, libs, you can now stop grabbing your chests. That heart attack you just had was simply a demo.


...what is so offensive about returning that money to those who rightfully earned it??
Because there is NO money to return due to the HUGE deficits.Ahem...the Federal Government collects huge amounts of revenue from every worker (ok, every taxpayer) in America yearly. If fiscal policy were sensible, the Government would spend exactly that amount or less, and return to the public any portion not used. Deficits have developed due to the massive government's inability to live within its means. If you or I allocated and spent fiscal resources in the same manner the government does, we would be hauled off to debtor's court (or have to file bankruptcy, same idea) in less than a year.

However, the taxpayers of the United States have been under extremely high tax rates (spare me the talk about how much more other countries have to pay...if you think you're paying so much in France or Sweden, you DO have choices about it), and deserve the chance to keep more of what they make. The next step is a reduction in non-essential government spending, that brings the fiscal policy back into a sensible stance. Do I think GW Bush has lost his sense of fiscal responsibility? In one word, yes. Do I think Kerry has a better plan? No. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Quick test, let's raise taxes on the super-rich...even better, Bill Gates...just raise Bill's taxes, and no one else's. Do you really think Microsoft software will be cheaper for you?
:lol: Who cares? Microsoft's software is rubbish.
Good point. However, despite that, do you honestly think old Bill wouldn't find a way to pass his load to the consumer?


How about more plentiful?

Quite frankly, who would want it to be. I dread the day when aeroplanes are flown by M$ Windows.
"Altitude control has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down."
Another good point. If cars were running on MS Windows, you would crash every 3 or 4 miles, and need to update the car at least once a week.


Answer the questions, and you will see why raising taxes on the rich is a dumb idea.

Nope, not at all. Besides, aren't Bill Gates' personal money, and Microsofts money separate things?Do you really believe that? Bill Gates' bottomline and MS' bottomline are interconnected. How else do you think he's become as filthy rich as he is? By the way, more power to him if he can become even richer by selling software that is annoying to use (and that's when it works well.)

http://www.charlottechurchfans.com/images/wavehello_CC015.JPG

The iron lady is NOT kidding!

Fear not! Charlotte Church is dead and will never come back.

Let the dead rest.