Are you prepared for the higher taxes of 2011?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Bush administration tax cuts implemented from 2001 to 2006 will sunset in 2011. Unless Congress acts, the New Year will bring higher personal tax brackets, steeper taxes on capital gains and dividends, re-instated estate taxes and other tax bites out of your retirement lifestyle.
Furthermore, several other new taxes will be added over the next few years and a dollar paid in taxes is one dollar less for your retirement. So, what is your plan to protect your retirement money? Here are some ideas to ponder before 2011.
If you haven’t started Social Security, postponing might add dollars to your retirement. Good reasons for delaying SS include:
benefits grow 8 percent annually plus annual cost-of-living adjustments;
benefits are always tax-advantaged;
spousal benefits are greater; and
total lifetime benefits could be more.
Using your retirement money like IRAs, 401(k)s and other qualified retirement accounts in the right sequence with SS benefits could add thousands to your retirement income. If you’ve already begun receiving benefits, it’s not too late to stop them. This can be done by suspending and re-starting at a later date or by repaying the benefits received, interest-free and starting again later, at higher benefits.
What other investment pays 8 percent annually ,is inflation proof, has great benefits to a spouse, is tax-advantaged and backed by a government promise? There are none, unless you take risks and depend on luck.
If you are required to withdraw from a retirement account when you reach age 70 1/2, but don’t need the money, you may benefit from a tax-free Roth IRA conversion. Converting to a tax-free Roth IRA is especially attractive if you think taxes are going up or your retirement accounts have not recovered previous losses. You can choose to pay the taxes associated with the conversion with your 2010 return or pay 50 percent with your 2011 return and the other 50 percent when you file your 2012 return.
Another option would be to convert part of your qualified money to a Roth in 2010 with other conversions in future years. This will permit you to manage your tax-bracket and optimize the tax bite. Before you convert money to a tax-free Roth IRA, make sure you and your financial advisor have done the homework to confirm that this is a suitable move for you.
Once converted, the Roth IRA has no required distributions as long as you or your spouse are alive, grows tax-free and can be withdrawn tax-free when needed. Also, if passed to beneficiaries, withdrawals can be stretched over their full lifetime and all the money withdrawn is tax-free.
Before 2010, you could not convert to a Roth if your income exceeded $100,000, but this income limit has now been lifted. The government is offering a great tax break to the retirement-minded; thus, the Roth conversion is an opportunity that should not be missed.
Dividend income will be taxed as ordinary income in 2011, up from the current maximum rate of 15 percent. This means a tripling of taxes on dividend income, which could severely hurt many retirees. Also in 2011, the top long-term capital gain tax rate will increase to 20 percent from the current 15 percent. The ordinary income tax brackets will be reduced in number and the lowest bracket moved up to 15 percent and the highest at 39.6 percent, unless Congress changes before year-end 2010.
In the meantime, new taxes are being “invented” by cities, states and other taxing entities to bridge the shortfall in revenues resulting from declining real estate taxes, less sales tax collection, deficiencies in excise and use taxes, lower incomes and higher unemployment. Taxes are rising, that’s for sure, and you absolutely must consider the impact on your retirement plans.
Any way you slice the tax pie, you’ll most likely pay more after 2010. Starting your tax planning now, to safeguard your retirement income, would be wise.
Opportunities to consider include ways to sequence the use of your retirement money to pay fewer taxes, tax-deferred places to keep your money and converting to tax-free Roth IRAs. Also, if you plan to leave some of your retirement money to heirs, there are other attractive tax-free options.
Immunize yourself from higher taxes by working with a financial advisor to find suitable ways to lower taxes and boost retirement income. The tax breaks will not find you; you must find them.
armybrat (anonymous) says...
sorry whoever wrote this but tax cuts expiring will never happen. Economic suicide for US right now bank on it.
October 11, 2010 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JoshAxelrad (anonymous) says...
The scaremongering of this headline is a disgrace to the memory of William Allen White. Lyons County has a per capita income of $15,724; the impact of the end of the disastrous Bush tax policy will be negligible here. An honest headline for the local population would have read, "Are You Ready For Unchanged Tax Rates in 2011?"
October 11, 2010 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to Alex Jones 120 days to the highest tax rates in history.
October 11, 2010 at 11:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
No such place as Lyons Co. Kansas. Sorry pet peeve of mine. Lyons Kansas is not in LYON Co. either. I agree, they may add some of the tax cuts back in, but not all at once.
October 12, 2010 at 12:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I am curious who wrote this story and why it was published so close to an election. Especially since the Dems have shown no real interest in making any significant changes to the status quo.
October 12, 2010 at 5:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
My guess is this story was written by some body that makes their living as a financial advisor hoping to stir up a little business.
October 12, 2010 at 5:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Tax free this and tax free that.
If those with higher incomes continue to look for ways to get out of paying taxes, I guess that leaves it to the rest of us little people to pay the big bills. But don't you higher ups concern yourselves about paying for big ticket items like wars. You start them and we pay for them with our money and our sons and daughters.
I don't know about anybody else on retirement, but I certainly can't afford to put my retirement income into safe and tidy IRA's or some other tax-free brainchild of the finance industry.
Sounds like this was written by one of those finance advisors who was riding high not so long ago and was shot down when the greedy banking industry couldn't fake balancing their books any longer. And they put Bernie Madoff in jail?
You bastards ate up my investment portfolio by over one-third. Now you want me to give up my retirement income too? I have two words for you.
October 12, 2010 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Well, I found it helpful, thank you.Some of 'YOU PEOPLE' have become soooo angry since your dear leader has fallen from grace.http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
October 12, 2010 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gal...
October 12, 2010 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chevy_Guy (anonymous) says...
And just to keep things in perspective, here is the gallup poll from George Bush's presidency.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/pre...
October 12, 2010 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well sail, since you are doing well enough that you need ways to shelter your taxable income (thereby dumping the burden on the rest of us)....why are you always crying and moaning about the terrible state of the economy? Sounds to me like the economy must be working pretty well for you.
October 12, 2010 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Right on, Chevy Guy!!! Keep 'em honest.
October 12, 2010 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I'm with JoshAxelrad.
The expiration of these tax cuts will affect very few of we Emporians. If you are a millionaire then you might be affected.
What DOES affect more here in Emporia is that social security checks won't be getting a cost of living adjustment in 2011. That makes two years in a row and there are many more that this will affect.
Will the official announcement of this happen before the election?
October 12, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The next session of the Kansas legislature will probably tinker with state income tax rates. Raising them I would bet. I am all for it if they raise the rates on those making $100,000.00 and up a year.
October 12, 2010 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I would also like to hear what reddog thinks the effects of the lending banks "freeze" on foreclosures will do to the economy, and why it was done before the election.
PLEASE REDDOG, your words, not some go to reference.
October 12, 2010 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I voted for Obama and I'm proud of it! Of course I cast that vote in the land of Kansas so it didn't count. Kansans overwhelmingly voted for McCain/Palin. The borrow and spend habits of the farmer is not unlike the spend and borrow habits of the Republican Party so get out there Kansas! Vote red and invest in a brand new combine. Tomorrows prices for wheat can only go up. Oh, wait! That was the eighties when Ronald Regan decided to let the family farm fail. I bet if it was wall street Regan would have bailed them out. But red heads always forget the past unless it is to their parties benefit. I'll bet the some small brained red head will come back and tell me that the farm crisis was due to the "New Deal" and Jimmy Carter's boycott of Russia for invading Afghanistan. "Farm aid, not Contra aid!"; "Butter, not guns!" Remember? No? I figured the right wing would forget about the corruption of their party. Take my advise, when republicans are in charge investments in the military industrial complex are a sure bet.
October 12, 2010 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
REWBA,
LYON county voters
5,924 = 45.88% for Obama
6,698 =51.88% for McCain
only 774 votes difference.
Maybe there is hope for Kansas voters?
I don't know, the hope and change I voted for hasn't kicked in yet. Looks like the same ol sh--.
October 12, 2010 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Granted the voters in the state of Kansas
voted;
McCain 699,655 or 56.50% over
Obama 514,765 or 41.57% .
Is that overwhelming?
Anywho, I think the elderly and retired are going to really see a squeeze in 2011. Not because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but because of everything else that has happened in the last 2 decades in Washington.
October 12, 2010 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree Steve. So far the hope and change I hoped to see seems to have kinda wilted on the vine. I will not even attempt to venture a why as to what happened, preferring to leave that task to people with more time and brainpower than I.
The only thoughts I might offer along those lines are questions about how we can ever expect to move into the future as long as we refuse to give up the past?......Or how we seem to think that the only worthwhile change is the one that cost us nothing and leaves everything in place?
October 12, 2010 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
create, maybe you haven't been reading up on the latest studies. The "little" people, 50% of Americans, don't pay income taxes. I've worked my a$$ off to make the amount of money I make and to get to where I am today. And I didn't do it so I could continue paying an ever increasing tax burden to the sponges of society.
Steve, you are for increasing taxes for those making over 100,000? My guess is that you're income is less than $100,000. Something I've noticed about you is that you are, like all people, pretty self serving when it comes to your general and political views.
I would like to be able to help provide the things for my children that my parents were unable to provide for me. But the harder I work the more you people want to take. How can I ever get ahead like that? When you want to take money out of my pocket for yourselves or for whatever other charitable cause you deem worthy you are stealing from my kids future. That is the basics of it. That is getting personal.
October 12, 2010 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gooseylucy (anonymous) says...
Wow genxer, what planet do you live on?? All the "little" people I know, pay taxes. I say we do an informal poll right here, right now.
OK? I'm a "little" person and I pay taxes. That's one. Who's next?
October 12, 2010 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
I guess the same planet as the AP who penned this article which was widely distributed and reported on at the time:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-...
Welcome to planet Earth lucy.
October 12, 2010 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to Financial Collapse Jim Willie 10-7-2010......well worth your time.
October 12, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Chevy Guy, I agree bush 2 was a turd, just like clinton and bush 1 were, I just wish the rabid demms would see the light about b.o. and his plans for America.As for taxs , the whole country is going to pay dearly, and soon, inflation is just around the corner.
October 12, 2010 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Biscuit Boy, my fear about the economy is for our children and the future we are giving them.Have we been good stewards of the country,have we let them down by electing bad politicians?look at both sides of the isle, nafta gatt patriot act, obama care ,wrecking the economy.I hope our children and grandchildren forgive us for taking their freedoms and killing the dollar.
October 12, 2010 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
genxer
Go back and reread your link. That fifty percent of the "little people" you spoke so arrogantly about includes all the not so "little people" making pretty good income that manage to avoid paying taxes through all their deferments, exemptions, write-offs, and dodges.
So it's not just the poor unwashed heathens that are not paying their share of taxes. It's also some pretty fat cats that are living high off the hog at the expense of the working people that do pay all the taxes.
October 12, 2010 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
sail
I agree with what your are saying as far as it goes. But the damage being done to our economy doesn't stop with all the bad or misguided policies that have been foisted on us by both parties. Arguably even greater damage is being done by the things we are refusing to deal with.
These include in part the challenges of moving beyond an oil driven world.....The challenges of competing in a world economy that is played out on a much more level playing field. Developing new ways of competing in a world where the have-nots are no longer content to accept that position while funneling all their resources to us to live high off of.
In the long run these are the issues that will affect our children's future much more than the house-keeping economic issues we worry so much about todays. While we try so hard to hold on to protecting the glory days of a world that no longer exist....we run a strong danger of the rest of the world moving off and leaving us behind wondering where it all went wrong.
We have to stop trying so hard to regain the past and start trying to learn where we fit in the future. I don't see that happening.
October 12, 2010 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
Go back and reread my link. I don't see any of the stuff you are referencing in your 1:06 pm post. You spin it to sound like something it's not. There are no fat cats in that article other than the ones paying 73% of all taxes. Unless you are saying that a family of 4 making $50,000 are fat cats. I guess I disagree, although I would say they should be paying at least a portion of the tax burden. And NOBODY should be making a profit from the income tax system.
And taking deductions is not a crime although you throw it in the same category with evasion.
Also my "little" people response was a sarcastic response to a previous statement by create which stated in part "If those with higher incomes continue to look for ways to get out of paying taxes, I guess that leaves it to the rest of us little people to pay the big bills." According to that article, the "little" people aren't paying for anything.
October 12, 2010 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
What your link does not state however is how much of the total income amount is made by those people paying 73 per cent of the taxes. Maybe they are making 73 percent of the money
I believe your saying I made it sound like evasion is more your spin than mine. In fact, I agree there is nothing wrong with taking the deductions and exemptions you are given....including those poorest of us whose deductions and exemptions allow them to pay no tax at all. But you imply somehow that they are the cheats while the fat cats are just taking what the law allows. If it's good for one it ought to be good for the other.
I'll bet you if the poor give up their deductions and exemptions and you do as well.....you will lose in the long run. Fair is fair.
As to the "little people" remark...you are correct and I apologize.
October 12, 2010 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Genexer, here is a short history lesson for you. Regan decided that the United States of America could borrow money like there was no tomorrow and he spent that money on illegal secret wars in Central and South America and on Star Wars. Well over a trillion dollars spent with absolutely nothing to show for it.
Then there was the Bush I era where we continued to support drug dealers and contra armies even after the congress told him not to…several trillion in debt and nothing to show for it.
Clinton was elected and even though all the experts said that it would take until 2015 to get out of the red, only two years of a Democratic majority brought America back into the black. It was the republicans with their contract on America who lied, cheated and stole their way back into the majority in congress so Clinton only got two years with a friendly congress and the other six years the republicans gave us a never ending multimillion dollar criminal investigation into the secret life of the Clintons and what did we get? A stained dress owned by a fat girl and some cigar jokes. To be continued...
October 12, 2010 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Chevy Guy better look at the poll.http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
October 12, 2010 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
After that Al Gore won the elections but the governor of Florida (who just happened to be G.W. Bush’s brother) decided he didn’t like America’s decision and after a long battle, the Supreme Court (mainly Bush appointees) appointed Bush jr. to the highest office in the world. The three trillion dollar budget surplus was immediately handed over to the wealthy bush supporters and when we asked why the rich got it all Bushy boy told us that the rich pay more so they get more. Then Bush and his republican congress gave the richest 1% of American’s a huge tax break and when we asked why the rich got the breaks bushyboy told us that the rich don’t pay taxes, they pay attorneys so they don’t have to pay taxes. Then while Bush was manipulating energy policy behind closed doors with all the energy executives, he failed to comprehend the nation’s security warnings and we were attacked on U.S. Soil by some unsophisticated camel jockeys led by a bush family friend. In fact, Osama Bin Laden’s mother was having tea with Bush’s mother in Kennebunkport at the time of the attacks. We had to retaliate but Bush decided that Iraq’s freedom was more important than to get the dude who attacked us so after cherry picking any intelligence that could make his case and destroying anyone who said otherwise, the lies became truth and we went to war with Iraq. The generals who didn’t fall in line were forced to retire and the incompetent butt kissing yes men were promoted to generals and off they went to fight a quick war on the cheap…Except it turns out that the generals who said it wouldn’t be quick or cheap were right all along. Of course Bush didn’t count the cost of war (and the no bid contracts) in the national budget cause he wanted to hide that from us. Now we have spent over a trillion dollars and we’re still counting and the sad thing about all this is that once it is all said and done Iraq will still be a crappy Muslim country ran by a dictator, Afghanistan will be a crappy Muslim country ran by a dictator and America will have nothing to show for the trillions we spent. Nothing! To be continued...
October 12, 2010 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Pre...
October 12, 2010 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Warren Buffet some time back was quoted as saying that in a year when he made 47-million dollars he paid a much lower percentage in taxes than his secretaries paid. That hardly sounds to me like the rich are being unduly burdened.
October 12, 2010 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Chevy Guy, this is a better look at the poll.
October 12, 2010 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
America went broke under eight years of Republican leadership and poor Obama was handed two wars, a great depression and no money in savings to do anything about it. I’ll take Obama over any of the crap the republican tea party wants to give us any day. At least the money Obama is spending goes towards making America a better place. Even the Health Care Reform that you tea baggers are crying about will save American taxpayers several trillion dollars over the next twenty years. The Democrats will rebuild America’s Treasury like always and the Republicans will come in by hook or crook and steal every dime they can leaving us broke and without hope like always. History repeats itself because half of America refuses to see the republican party for what it is.
October 12, 2010 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
REWBA
I love the way you write history.....and true!
October 12, 2010 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
genxer
I just went back and looked at my income tax records and did not find one single year in my entire life when I paid no income tax. And that includes last year when I was working at a minimum wage part time job to subsidize my meager social security income. Even then they withheld more money than I got back by a few hundred dollars......So where are all these people that are paying no income taxes?
Also genxer....you article then apparently places the cut-off for the "sponges of society" as you did call them at 50-thousand dollars per year. I'm sure the people working hard to get by on that amount will be glad to hear you think so poorly of them. Or are you now going to claim that people that make fifty thousand a year and pay no taxes aren't sponges? Then at what income level do you officially become a sponge....forty thousand....thirty thousand....maybe fifteen thousand? Just where does spongedom begin? I would really like to here you identify exactly at what point the people posting on these boards become a "sponge"? I'm sure many of them would like to hear that also.
October 12, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
The " Rich/Wealthy " are unduely burdened with the task of trying to figure out how to keep the " Bush Era " tax cuts, that benefited only them from sunsetting in 2011, other than that, the " Rich/Wealthy " are not unduely burdened, in any way shape or form !
October 12, 2010 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
p.s.
And the only other burden the " Rich/Wealthy " have, is hiding " Income/Wealth " so they won' t have to pay taxes on it !
October 12, 2010 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Except some of REWBA's history he is making up on the fly. The GOP gained the majority in Congress in 1996 - and 1998-2001 were the budget surplus years.
The Supreme Court in 2000 also told Florida they could not break their own laws. (I'm sure REWBA is also proud of the fact as a veteran Gore tried to get the military ballots thrown out).
The "3 trillion $$ budget surplus" is also another example of a lie. All 4 years of the surpluses under Clinton only total together roughly 1/2 trillion.
But even with surpluses, the national debt continued to rise each and every year under Clinton (as with pretty much everyone else) - from approx 4 trillion when he took office to 5.6 trillion when he left. Even in the 4 surplus years it rose each and every year. Interest on the existing debt outstripped each surplus.
So think about what that does for us now. We would have to have the highest yearly budget surplus in HISTORY just to pay the INTEREST on our debt - let alone reduce it.
Then most of the rest of the rant is pretty comical. Thx, I got a chuckle out of it ;-)
Yah gotta watch some of these soapbox folks - they play fast and loose with the facts ;-)
October 12, 2010 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
genexer,
I am self-serving. If i don't help myself, who will?
Yes I did make less than 100,000.00 a year the last few years. Most in Kansas do.
There are 3 income tax brackets for Kansas.
If your income range is between $0 and $15,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 3.5%.
If your income range is between $15,001 and $30,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6.25%.
If your income range is $30,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6.45%.
So tell me, how is it fair that say a city manager or superintendent of schools, or university president, all making more than 100,000.00 per year pay the exact same rate as a city cop, or street worker, or the same rate as a teacher, all of whom most likely make less than 40,000.00 per year?
I don't like paying taxes anymore than anyone else. And I don't think people who work hard and make more money should be penalized with high taxes.
I just find it strange, that you and I probably paid the same % in income taxes last year as 2 of the richest men in the U.S. The Koch brothers in Wichita.
October 12, 2010 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think I made my position on taxes & tax rates pretty clear on another thread. I think my position has alot to do with exactly what the definition of "penalized with high taxes" is, and how that directly affects those paying the "penalty". (The "penalty" of success/succeeding).
October 12, 2010 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
Okay, one at a time here. First bb. I don't know why you paid several hundred $ in taxes. Probably an error on you or your accountant's part. Someone who sponges on society is someone who uses the same basic services as me and who does not have to pay a single dime in taxes. So if you are making a million a year and are not paying taxes, probably through fraud, you are a sponge. If you are making 50k a year and not paying a dime in taxes, you are a sponge. Everyone SHOULD pay something as we all get the same amount of services provided. By the way, for purposes of my writings on here by taxes I am speaking purely about income taxes.
Steve, how do I justify it? Let me TELL you.
The person making 15k per year paying 3.5% is paying in $525. The person making 100k is paying in $6450. Someone making 1 million a year is paying in $64500! That is quite a difference don't you think???
So, the Koch brothers are NOT paying the same amount of income taxes as you are. And the guy making 15k is NOT paying anywhere near the amount as the guy making 80k.
Using percentages as a way to figure income tax is certainly fair. Especially if there was 1 basic tax rate. Everyone would pay the same percentage of their income. The less you make the less you pay. The more you make the more you pay. So the people making the most automatically pay a much larger percentage of the overall income tax. However, it is not fair for some people to pay no tax and then sit around and b**ch about how the rich should be paying more. Especially when their idea of rich is anyone who makes more money than they do.
October 12, 2010 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
genexer,
So you worked your ass off to get where you are today. What's your other choice? Wanna joint the low income folks and pay no income taxes, have no credit, drive a clunker, live in a piece of crap house, sign up for free school lunches for your kids???? Huh? No?
I thought so.
Biscuit is right. It's people in your income tax bracket that have all the write-offs. But at the same time, you are also the engine that is driving the country. I'd think you'd feel pretty good about that. Instead, you bitch. Just can't keep you happy. What do you want? To pay no taxes? Read my paragraph one.
October 12, 2010 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
genxer, but how does the amounts you listed above paid by each affect them and their standard of living? Do you think the person living on 15K a year notices the $525 more than the 100k person notices the $6450? Do you think the Koch brothers have to figure their taxes into their budget and spending as tightly as the others?
October 12, 2010 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
My enduring financial goal is to forever make it into higher and higher tax brackets.
I really can't think of anyone off-hand who wishes they made less money so they'd owe less in taxes. Certainly not among those who pay the most in taxes. If that is truly how they feel it should be pretty easy to go broke on purpose or squander all your wealth away if your intent is to go back to a lower and "more fair" tax rate......
October 12, 2010 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I should have known that you would give the republicans credit for the economic boom under President Clinton. That's what republicans do. When they don't like the truth, they lie. For the record, President Clinton enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Why wouldn't the republicans want to reduce the deficit that they created under 12 years of Regan/Bush?
I will be willing to bet that when Obama's policies turn the economy back from the doom Bush led us to, Republicans like yourself will accredit the recovery to the bush/cheney administration.
October 12, 2010 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree with open_eyes that all of this was discussed at length on a different thread just a few days ago...and most of your points were cussed and discussed there at length. Needless to say, there were views both agreeing and dissenting from yours given that are too detailed to repeat here now.
Anybody reading this thread can catch up by referring to the Campaign lies thread of Oct.,6th, 2010
October 12, 2010 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Here's the link.....
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
October 12, 2010 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Helpful hint...
The discussion relevant to this thread can be most easily reached by scrolling up from the bottom.
October 12, 2010 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
A national sales tax would take more from the poor than the rich. The poor go to the grocery store and buy the stuff they need and the owner of the store collects the sales tax. After the work day is over, the grocery store owner packs up the stuff they need (stuff that so far has had not tax paid on it) and take it home for personal use. Will the grocery store owner report the stuff he takes home and pay sales tax on it or will he just write it off as spoiled product?
October 12, 2010 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
genxer says.....
"The less you make the less you pay. The more you make the more you pay. So the people making the most automatically pay a much larger percentage of the overall income tax."
You mean like the people that pay the seventy three percent you were so worried about earlier?
October 12, 2010 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
rewba, why all the neg vibes man,chill out. Repubs taking the congress in a few weeks with the help of the "TEA PARTY" will be change even you can thrive in.
October 12, 2010 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
The TEA- PARTY event has given me true hope that congress now listens to all of us.If the repubs blow this gift, there will be a 3rd party movement of huge importance.
October 12, 2010 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
If you're referring to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, you forgot to mention it was also voted against by 6 Dem senators and 41 Dem Reps. What it did, was create 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.
Which I've repeatedly said I am in favor of on here. Do try to keep up.
And how come you never mentioned a word about the Balanced Budget Act of 1997? Forget about that one? Selective Amnesia? ;-)
But the fact remains, you said 2 years of Dem majority brought us back into the black, which was untrue, it actually happened 4 years later, and 2 years after the GOP took control of congress. I'm sure that if the GOP had been in power 2004-2006, and the Dems after that, you would give all credit to the Dems. In 1995 the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. And the GOP did impose tighter fiscal restraints, as well as working with Clinton on Welfare Reform, which I give them both kudos for.
Personally I think it is a combination of moves by both sides, in addition to the dot.com bubble at the time.
And you tried to slide your 3 trillion surplus by, but only the most ignorant fall for numbers like those. Please try to be honest amongst your branding everyone else a liar.
October 12, 2010 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
"And how come you never mentioned a word about the Balanced Budget Act of 1997? Forget about that one? Selective Amnesia? ;-)"
In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It would have worked but after the American People overwhelmingly voted for Al Gore, the crooked republicans stole the election and GW let Dick's partners at Halliburton steal the money from American citizens. Dick's attorney friend was going to tell on him so Dick shot him in the face. Remember? :-)
October 12, 2010 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
OPEN EYES, your scary the way you respond so fast with reserch,but I like it.
October 12, 2010 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vankamp (anonymous) says...
OPEN EYES. I'm impressed. Thanks for the facts.
October 12, 2010 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
armybrat (anonymous) says...
Reality check is that Bush tax cuts will continue thru 2 years. Actually a vat tax would make most sense then if you consume more you pay more.
October 12, 2010 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Oh, my ! sail,
Did the previous adminsistration, which was dubbed a " Compassionate Conservative Administration " by the consumate " Compassionate Conservative Republican " , himself, G. W. Bush, teach you nothing about the " so called " Conservative Republican Party ", basically that the only thing that they are interested in " Conserving " is their own Wealth, Means of Wealth, rediculious Incomes and not paying taxes on all of their Income and Wealth .
And now you think that the Conservitive Republican Tea Party will actually be able to fix an out of control problem the Compassionate Conservative Republican Party created in the first place ?
My God, sail, are you delusional or what ?
You and others may want to return to the type of government that started this whole mess, but I certainly do not ! I would rather live under the rule of a " King or Queen " !
And was it not the previous administration that managed to get this country into two of the costliest wars in the history of the U.S. and for pretty much no valid reason for doing so ?
And where has engaging in two wars gotten " Us ", except more deficit and debt ?
And was it not the previous administration that gave the friends of that administration billions of dollars in " Tarp/Bailout Monies ?
Was it not the previous administration that saw to it that the wealthiest and richest of the country had to pay even less income tax/taxes than ever before ?
And finally has not the current administration inherited the largest budget deficit and unemployment rate in quite a few years ?
Did you expect the present administration to fix a problem in two years it took 8 years of an inept administration to create ?
October 12, 2010 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
sail,
Don' t get me wrong ! I am by no means defending all that Obama has done since he took office, because I also believe that he has only added to the problem with some things he has done and created even more problems by not doing some things I believe he should have done ! Therefore his lack of " Perserverance, Gumption/Spine and Courage to do what is " Right and Beneficial " for the Nation and its people is his weakness ! In fact, it would seem, it is a weakness inherent in all Political Party and Politicians and I believe is due to the corruption and greed that is part of Political Partys and Politics in general .
October 12, 2010 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The "conservative" (speaking fiscally) Republican party has been anything BUT in recent years. They "claim" to have learned their lesson - but I'm extremely wary - as I am of the entire bunch in Washington. We shall see. I have very little patience for politicians these days. To me, you get one shot, and one shot only. You do what you are supposed to do or you are out and the other side gets their shot at it. And they get exactly the same limit of my patience at the polls.
October 12, 2010 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
methusla, I believe that any person who seeks public office thinks too highly of themselves in the first place. That means we have been, are and will always be represented by pretentious, pompous, people with delusions of grandeur. That goes for both parties. I know that if I were to show up at my favorite President's home, Bill Clinton wouldn't even come to the door and security would escort me off the premises before I could explain that I'm his #1 fan. All we are to the elite elected officials are faithful subjects. We remember meeting them but they forget us before they finish shaking our hand. They remember kissing a baby only because they were in the picture with "that baby" but they don't remember that the baby was ours.
sail, sorry for the bad vibes man. I really hope that the republicans get some seats in the upcoming elections. lol
I sound all anti conservative but that's only because I'm a liberal. :-)
October 12, 2010 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The "Contract With America" which the GOP used to gain majorities in the mid-90's had the following provisions: (from Wikipedia)
Major Policy Changes: Thereafter, during the 1st one hundred days of the 104th Congress, the Republicans pledged "to bring to the floor the following [ten] bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection." The text of the proposed bills was included in the Contract, which was released PRIOR to the election. These bills were not governmental operational reforms, as the previous promises were; rather, they represented significant changes to policy. The main included a balanced budget requirement, tax cuts for small businesses, families and seniors, term limits for legislators, social security reform, tort reform, and welfare reform.
Implementation of the Contract: The Contract had promised to bring to floor debate and votes 10 bills that would implement major reform of the Federal Government. When the 104th Congress assembled in January 1995, the Republican majority sought to implement the Contract.
In some cases (e.g. The National Security Restoration Act and The Personal Responsibility Act), the proposed bills were accomplished by a single act analogous to that which had been proposed in the Contract; in other cases (e.g. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act), a proposed bill's provisions were split up across multiple acts. Most of the bills died in the Senate, except as noted below.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act: An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget unless sanctioned by a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, 1/26/95; rejected by the US Senate Roll Call: 65-35, 3/2/95, two-thirds required), and legislation (not an amendment) provide the president with a line-item veto (H.R.2, passed by the US House Roll Call: 294-134, 2/6/95; conferenced with S. 4 and enacted with substantial changes 4/9/96). The statute was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York (Supreme Court ruled 6-3).
So the requirement to balance the budget was part of the GOP Contract which was released publicly before the elections in 1995.
So when one says "In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years"..... it's obvious it wasn't an original idea of his.......
October 12, 2010 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
REWBA - finally we agree (again) ;-). Anyone who seeks public office at the national level has serious ego/power lust problems me thinks. Our Founding Fathers envisioned the regular people going to Washington, serving their country, and then going home, much like jury duty. Nowadays all we have is a bunch of power-hungry egotistical madmen and women who will stop at nothing to retain power once they get a taste of it. And feather their own nests along the way. Regardless of what they say to which party they represent.
October 12, 2010 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, for the record...I only believe about 10% of what I say. The other 90% is just BS. I really believe what I said in my last post. All the ones before that was just me being silly me. FYI the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was a "bipartisan" bill that was signed into law by my favorite prez. "Bipartisan" is a word we only hear when there is one party in control of the white house and the other party in control of the congress. yen and yang lol
October 12, 2010 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL REWBA. I agree. And "Party Of No" is what we hear when one party controls all 3 branches ;-)
October 12, 2010 at 11:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
campaign spending limits at the level of the first ten elections might be in order.... sort of founders' parity.
October 13, 2010 at 5:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
REWBA
I have actually met, shook hands with, and set down and talked to, your favorite preez...back when he was still Governor of Arkansas. I was working in the news business at the time and interviewed him on several occasions. He even called me by my first name....probably whispered to him by an aide as I approached.
It is strange how few real people these high ranking politicians ever actually have contact with. He is the only person in my life that ever was President, had been President, or was to become President, that I ever touched. And yet I am sure that is one more than most people can claim. They get very far removed from the rest of us......:-(
In fact, the wife of the man I worked for at the time went on to be one of President Clinton's advisors in the White House.....Hernreich.....can't remember her first name.
October 13, 2010 at 5:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Methusila, I agree with you about bush2,
October 13, 2010 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I met Jimmy Carter but he wasn't president anymore and I almost got to eat a turkey day dinner in a mess hall with H.W. Bush but my chain of command decided not to let me be anywhere near the guy. Oh, and I had a dream that I caught Bill Clinton smoking dope in a parking lot beside Hillary's campaign bus. I recall it was some really good S#!+...At least I think it was a dream. lol
October 13, 2010 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
Way too much to respond to and I can't keep responding to all the crap you keep making up and attributing to me.
My point is that everyone should be required to pay something and it should be the same percentage rate whatever that is. If there is no shared sacrifice then we will be a nation comprised of 50% robbing hoods who continually support political parties that promise to steal from the rich to give to the poor.
10% of someones pay is 10% of their pay no matter what they make. $500 will always be less that $5000 no matter how you try to spin it. Yes, people with more money will have more left over after they pay their percentage but that's because they make more money. If you don't think $15,000 is a lot of money to someone making $150,000 you are sorely mistaken. $150,000 is NOT rich! Also, you people act like it is criminal to make money and itemize deductions. That is how the system works, there is nothing criminal about that either. Why should the Koch's be penalized more for being wealthy? Do they take more from the system than everyone else? While you're taking their money, where do you stop? Some parasites kill the host.
But hey, by all means you guys sit around the rest of the day and try to figure out how to take everyone elses money that they earned so you can give it to the worthy cause of your choice. And whatever you do, don't try to figure out how to improve your life! Believe me, it's much easier to sit around on your duffs and blame the system and rich people and your parents and the two party system and whoever else than to put in a little extra work.
Meanwhile, I'll spend the rest of my time trying to figure out how to keep my money, so that I can spend it on my family and whatever else I deem necessary. I know that probably ticks a lot of you off, but hey, I figure since I worked full time to pay my way through college and work 50+ hour weeks professionally earning it, I may as well use what I have left over on something I deem necessary. That is until you guys figure out a way to get that too.
Sorry to interupt the leech fest. Now you can get back to it.
October 13, 2010 at 7:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
The more money someone earns the more public services they use. For instance, someone in Emporia, Kansas who sells cars must first get those cars to Emporia, KS. The more cars they sell, the more profit they earn but the truck that hauls those cars here causes much more stress to the highways and bridges than a passenger car yet we all pay the same highway tax on the fuel we purchase. If a trucker is behind me on a rainy day the dirty water I splash on him won't effect him at all but let him be in front of me and my visibility is near zero. That's really safe isn't it? Is it fair to pay the same tax when you use more than everyone around you? The trucking company gets to write off fuel costs, the car salesman gets to write off business expenses and the guy trying to get to work in all that truck traffic has to buy more windshield washer fluid with no write off at all.
October 13, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
genxer,
I may be wrong, but you insinuated that you make $150,000 and your taxs could be $15,000 ! Well genxer, to anyone having to try and live on $30,000 with a tax burden of $4000, anyone making $150,000 with a tax burden of $15,000 is "Rich " ! FYI, $15,000 is only 10% of $150,000, where as $4,000 happens to be 13.3% of $30,000, therefore, those who make $30,000 and pay $4,000 in taxes are paying more in taxes than you or anyone who makes 5 times as much and yet pays less in taxes !
Then you have some like Warren Buffet etc., whose income is $42 million per year and pays only 17.7% in taxes ! Now think about it for a moment ---------- . Now do you still think the tax code/structure is still equitable to everyone, especially when those mega wealthy income earners are able to hide income and wealth that they do not report as income and pay no tax on at all ? Fair or Equitable, Not on your life !
You stated " Some parasites kill the host. " Well I do agree with that comment , but would add that the " Wealthy, tax evading Rich, are the true " Parasites " that are sucking this country and its true " Taxpayers " dry ... to the point of " Killing " this country, which just happens to be the " Host " of the real " Parasites ", the Rich/Wealthy, who rob from the poor and struggling, in order to give to themselves .
Don' t get me wrong genxer, $150,000 dollars is by no means in the same catagory of a Warren Buffet, but it is rich in the eyes and minds of those who make a fraction of $150,000 .
October 13, 2010 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think we have parasites at both ends. The question is, as always, where to draw the lines. If we want to eliminate the parasites on the low end (those who are able but just want to live off of the work of others) - then we should eliminate the parasites on the opposite end of the spectrum - the rich who suck the country dry for their own greed. Personally I think that "middle ground" of the middle-class income range should be bigger. As I explained in detail on the other thread, even 150,000/year sees an appreciable dent in their habits/standards when taxed heavily. I'm NOT for taxing to the point it isn't worth the extra effort to succeed. At ANY point on the spectrum. But given the choice of making 50,000/year and being in a 10% bracket or making 5 million/year and being in a 40% bracket I'll gladly take the latter. And be glad that I am able to give more back, not just as a straight percentage, but that I am able to give a greater share. Guess that's just my Christian upbringing ;-)
October 13, 2010 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
For those that follow these boards this must be hard to believe....but on this entire tax discussion I have been in almost total agreement with open_eyes and I remain so now. His thoughts however are much more coherent than mine so I just let him speak for me. And to those that might be wondering....yes....I also had a Christian upbringing :-)
October 13, 2010 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well then, biscuitboy, you and some others here have a big decision to make, given your last post. You need to either 1) Start calling yourself a Republican, or 2) Stop calling me a hardcore Republican.
I would much prefer the latter ;-)
October 13, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
The $ is falling , soon we will be paying our "inflation tax", this tax will far exceed the end of the bush tax cuts,. This tax will be paid by all .http://www.traderslog.com/quotes-charts/?sym=DX!
October 13, 2010 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.traderslog.com/quotes-char...
October 13, 2010 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
I don't see what makes it a Republican--not-Republican issue. I think it is a matter of looking at an issue and making a decision based on what appears to be the most correct choice of action irregardless of party ideology. If we had a lot more people doing that more often we might be in better shape.
But if you insist I will stop calling you a hardcore Republican.....at least for today and for this topic..... lol :-)
October 13, 2010 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Which is exactly what I try to do. Which is why the oft-applied-to-me label is incorrect and misleading ;-)
October 13, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I try very hard not to label anyone as a Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, Conservative, Liberal, or any such mantra, only when they have so distinguished themselves as such, either by publicly stating such or by their obvious thought process and comments.
I really don' t know what I am, except an American who wishes for an equitable form of Government, policies and laws for all Americans/U.S. Citizens !
October 13, 2010 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I don't mind being labeled conservative as I have oft stated my leanings are much more in that direction overall. But I disagree with the mainstream of any party on quite a few points. Just some more than others ;-)
October 13, 2010 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TexasGirl (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUWnl7...
October 13, 2010 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Texas Girl, loved the U-TUBE, kind of brings a tear to your eye .Only a few more weeks.
October 13, 2010 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm really not looking for anything to get that much better in a few more weeks. I'm just hoping to stop the locomotive that's headed off the cliff before its too late. It picked up alot of steam the last few years - and I mean more than just the last 2.
October 13, 2010 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree open_eyes. Anybody that thinks the election is going to magically bring some return to some glorious days of yesteryear is as naive as the people that believed the election of Obama would soon see us all marching off together to Mamby Pamby Land. Things don't work that well and that quickly in D.C., I don't care who gets elected. And in a real sense that is great that the whole government doesn't change overnight with every new election.
The best I can hope for is a sustainable concept of how we move forward in to the future aside from just an other attempt to recapture the past. But we'll see.
It's not that I have anything against the past except that it is just that......the past. The world that made us great in many ways no longer exist. We need to start spending more effort trying to figure out where we fit into the new world. Once all the hot button rhetoric dies down I hope who ever gets elected from which ever party realizes that also.
October 13, 2010 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Gee guys I dont expect to wake up the day after the election and find a chicken in every pot, but come Jan 2011 we can at least put a stop to the socialism express.But more important millions of VOTERS will realize the power that the citizen really has.Just hope the rpubs understand that if they blow it ,the voters will turn on them again and for good.
October 13, 2010 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Oh I really didn't think you did sail. But I have to remind you that January 2009 there were just as many millions of voters that were realizing their voices had finally been heard and they had achieved power at last.
How fleeting it all can be. So don't get too comfortable in that power seat.
October 13, 2010 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I'd wait until the voters speak before bragging about victory. The tea party might just split the conservative vote and send the dems back stronger than ever. lol
October 13, 2010 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
tou-che
October 13, 2010 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
my post of 6 pm was for BISCUITBOY5:52 POST
October 13, 2010 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I was just doing some musing, and invented a fictional story/scenario to put my views on taxes in perspective:
You have 4 men who must make many, many trips up a very steep hill carrying buckets of bricks to build a shelter at the top for them all. The more weight they carry, the less trips they are able to make, and the less weight, the more trips they can make. Working together, it was decided that they all would carry 10% of their weight each trip. The 4 men consisted of 2 98lb weaklings. One was puny because he was sickly, had a hard life growing up, but was always willing to do what he could. The 2nd 98lb weakling was puny because he was lazy, and always sponged off others and never developed any muscle. The 3rd man was an average 150lb man, worked hard, decent shape. The 4th man was a 220lb strongman who, whether thru lucky genetics or hard work, or a combination of both, was in fantastic physical shape and strength.
For the 150lb man, 10% (15lbs) each trip was just about right. It was a struggle (as the hill was very steep) - but he could do it all day, althought being very worn out and tired at the end of the day.
The sickly 98lb weakling could not carry his 10% (10lbs). He could, but it exhausted him each trip, and was an extreme burden on him and he could not make as many trips.
The lazy 98lb weakling was basically in the same boat as the sickly one.
The 220lb strongman, however, could easily carry 25% of his weight all day long without so much as breaking a sweat.
So they started out the day each carrying their 10% each trip.
continued....
October 13, 2010 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Soon the strongman had pity on the sickly one and said "Give me half your load each time - I'll carry an extra 5 lbs and never notice it." The sickly man was grateful, he didn't manage to make any more trips with half the weight, but it was a great help to him, and the strongman never even noticed the extra weight.
The lazy weakling complained that the strongman should carry half his weight as well. The other 3 told him to shut up and carry his 10% or else he got no part of the shelter at the top once it was built.
Even though the 150lb man was managing, the strongman said "Give me another 3lbs of your load each trip - I'll never notice the extra weight and you can make more trips and not be so worn out at the end of the day". The 150lb man was grateful and managed to make a few extra trips and was much less worn out at the end of the day.
So at the end of the day, the rocks were all actually carried up the hill ahead of schedule, and the 3 men had more energy left and managed to get the shelter built before dark, which they wouldn't have had time to do had the strongman not offered to shoulder more of the burden.
The lazy man sat at the bottom of the hill for awhile and pouted, made 1/2 as many trips as the other men, took a siesta near the end of the day, then made the last trip up the hill with a full load and demanded to be let into the shelter. The strongman and the 150lb man kicked his lazy a$$ down the hill and and threw bricks at him until he ran away. The sickly man surprised the other 2 with 3 pieces of delicious candy he had been saving for the 3 of them to share.
End of story ;-)
October 13, 2010 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So the sickly man only carried 5% of the load - but that was all he was able to. The break made his day a better one.
The 150lb man actually carried less than his 10% - but he worked hard and the small break gave him some extra breathing room and made his day a better one.
The 220lb man carried more than his 10% but never even noticed the burden. It wasn't even as big a burden on him with the extra weight than the 10% would have been on any of the others. His day was fine no matter what.
----------------
Forgot to add - the reason the shelter still got built ahead of time, even though the lazy man didn't pull his share?
When the other 3 men noticed the lazy bum was living off their "welfare", the strong man, because a rain was coming, and he wanted the shelter built, threw several more bricks in his bucket each trip when he thought the others weren't looking. He still never noticed the extra weight - didn't slow him down a single step.
The 150lb man, for the same reason, added and extra brick to his load every trip when he thought nobody was looking.
The sickly man couldn't carry anymore, but he did what he could extra, which involved moving some sharp rocks off the path the other 2 bigger men occasionally stumbled over.
The 3 men who worked were warm and dry for the night. They discussed plans to work together expand the shelter and make it even nicer the next day, each according to his different abilities and what he had to offer.
The lazy man got rained on all night, and nobody cared. Rumor has it the next day he found some other travelers heading east and begged them for some kind of bailout money or tax exemption. Later he met some other travelers headed the other direction and begged them for some "stimulus" money & free health care. But how all that turned out is yet another story. ;-)
October 13, 2010 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And the moral of the story is (as if anyone couldn't figure it out by now ;-)
I don't think a flat tax is fair. It puts more of a burden on some than others.
I also don't think a system where the same burden (proportionately) on everyone is fair either. In other words, I don't think loading up the strong man with enough rocks to where he labored the same as the others (equally worn out by days end) is fair either. (Taxing the crap out of him until he ends up with the same as the others - communism/socialism). Whether by luck or hard work, he has earned the right to his higher standard. For the others, there would be no point in working out and building up their muscle to aspire to be like him if the load they carried increased proportionately in step to where they never "got ahead" any more than they would by staying where they were at (their day never got any easier no matter how much they "bulked up").
But I DO believe the strongman bears a somewhat greater responsibility and burden than the others.
I have sympathy for the sickly man who could not. Given the chance, he did what he could. And he actually managed to do more BECAUSE he was given some assistance and the chance.
And I have no sympathy for the lazy bum.
Maybe if he spends enough nights getting soaked and rained on he'll finally get off his fat a$$ and carry his share up the hill and be invited to come back in out of the rain. His choice, the opportunity is there for him to take if he so chooses.
October 13, 2010 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I know one thing. The present taxation and income tax codes are not equitable at all, neither is ability to hide income and wealth and not pay taxes on it at all. I don' t think anyone can argue the fact that the lower and middle class wage earners bear the heaviest tax burden .
I can only come up with the idea of doing away with a national sales tax and doing away with income tax, all together as an equitable solution to the National Revenue problem and the same would apply to States also.
Not everyone pays income tax or their fair share of income tax, but almost everyone, even foreign visitors to the U.S. and States would pay sales tax.
October 13, 2010 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Sorry, I meant to say, I can only come up with the idea of implimenting a national sales tax and doing away with income tax,
October 13, 2010 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I say let Bush's tax cuts sunset. Everyone says that it will cause the rich to pay more tax on their earnings and hurt the economy but what will really happen is the rich will spend more on deductible business expenses and make more charitable contributions to avoid income tax. (that's what rich people do) That means more fleet vehicles being sold, more equipment upgrades, facility upgrades, luxury items like company boats and corporate jets, etc... That's how the "trickle down" theory is supposed to work but when Bush cut tax on the extremely rich, he sealed up all the leaks and the only thing that trickled down to us poor folk was layoff notices. Trust me, when a rich man is faced with the choice of handing his money to the government or reinvesting it in his business he starts buying. jmo
October 13, 2010 at 11:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Good story open_eyes with a just and deserving outcome for the three. I would like to hear what happened to the fourth guy as he continued to sponge off society. Since he was unwilling to work and incapable of supporting himself otherwise did he eventually take up arms.....join a gang of marauding social outcasts......and terrorize society.
History has often shown a tendency for just this sort of thing to happen when societies permit the growth of a large underclass of outcasts with nothing left to lose.
Would like to hear your thoughts on this and how we could best deal with such a threat. London at one time left such outlaws hanging in the street all over town as a warning but it did little to stop rampant crime. Most European cities had much the same problem.
October 14, 2010 at 4:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
That is a great story open_eyes.
But it's not quite accurate to todays America.
Today , all 4 men would get the house built with Illegal immigrant labor from Mexico, and finished with toxic sheet rock from China. As they set on their chairs from Sweden complaining about the government, even though they didn't vote, the county came in and raised the mill-levy on the house.
The End
October 14, 2010 at 5:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Your modern twist is unfortunately also true Steve.
Don't get me wrong with my questions......I am in no way making excuses for, nor justifying the sloth of, lazy man number four in your story open_eyes. Theoretically, he gets what he deserves to set by the road and beg for alms.
But there is some historical precedent for the development of what we would today call welfare based not on concern and compassion but more on a realistic assessment of a problem. It was deemed at times safer and cheaper for society to keep this underclass pacified with some minimum level of food and (more importantly) drink.....and to keep them isolated in specific areas....than to just have them banding together roaming around doing as they pleased.
Of course earlier...less enlightened....societies just killed them off, but that is the price you pay for enlightenment.
I guess I am wondering if we are being unrealistic in thinking that concern is not still valid today. Especially considering the havoc well armed and supplied street gangs have had on most of our urban areas anyway. Are we just inviting another level of this threat by cutting these people loose to act as they will?
An unfortunate by- product of our second amendment is guns are just as readily available to miscreants in this country as they are to law-abiding citizens. Maybe even more available because they do not bother themselves with permits and licenses.
October 14, 2010 at 6:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
And then you have the societies like Mexico today who have no control over roaming drug cartel gangs. What's next, beheadings to keep us all in line?
October 14, 2010 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I think that is the point I am trying to make create. That we often underestimate the havoc that large numbers of disenfranchised outcast making up and living by their own rules can have on a society. Even a modern one here in the 21st Century.
European history during the middle ages is rife with horrific stories of brutal attacks on the nobility....complete with a savagery and overkill of entire families that is hard to even read....committed by just such bands of disenfranchised outcasts. The level of class hatred was hard to fathom in today's world. But looking at Mexico today...maybe a little less hard to imagine.
October 14, 2010 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
create,
Since you mentioned beheadings !
Severed head turns up in case of missing jet skier
Victim is Mexican investigator, sheriff in neighboring Texas county says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39637423/...
October 14, 2010 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And the thing about this news report is, this head was apparently found in Texas !
October 14, 2010 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Of course, the story was a hypothetical setting. And idealistic, as well.
What probably actually happened in reality was that the sickly man and the 150lb man got taken advantage of by both the lazy bum and the strongman. They found some way using "political correctness" to justify not doing their fair share of the work.
Alternate and more-realistic scenarios:
If a group of hardcore far-right wing Republicans were given total control over the situation the strongman would carry the least load because "he earned the right to work less". To get the shelter built he'd outsource the work to 20 other weaklings paying them 1 piece of candy a day, and then kick them all out once the shelter was built. He'd brag about how he "created jobs" (for awhile, at least) - even thought the other 3 men had plenty of friends that were willing to work, only their minumum requirement was 2 pieces of candy a day - what it took to support them and their families -(which the strongman had more than enough of, he was just greedy).
If a group of hardcore far-left wing Democrats were given total control over the situation the strongman (and to a lesser degree, the 150lb man) would carry the entire load, and the lazy man would invite 20 of his lazy friends over once the shelter was built, kick everyone else out, and sit around and smoke weed all day until the roof began to leak at which point they would go round up some more strongmen and break their backs doing the work for them. They may even outsource it to the 1-candy-a-day people all the while complaining like hypocrites about how people like that are taken advantage of.
Of course, that's not really indicative of what either party is truly about - but anytime one party has total control, things seem to progress further and further down each of those prospectifve roads. Unfortunately.
As for what happened/happens to the lazy bum...... no matter what we do, people like that are always going to exist and be a problem. One direction is to leave them as outcasts - in which case, as biscuitboy pointed out, they turn to banding together & violence. The other option is the pacify them - which only invites others to swell their ranks. Eventually the 150lb man gets tired of working hard and not benefitting much more than the bum and joins their ranks.
Personally I don't believe in adding fuel to a fire. The best thing to do is give them the OPPORTUNITY. Point them to another hill that has plenty of bricks and a good place to build a shelter. Some of them will eventually get tired of being rained on and work. Some of them never will. No matter what has been tried throughout history by society.....those seem to always be with us and have to be dealt with. But hopefully giving them the opportunity will reduce their ranks. Every bit helps.
But after watching on the news about what is happening to Target most likely the lazy bum went out and founded MoveOn.org.
October 14, 2010 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Do your best to create an environment that fosters more and more opportunities for the lazy bum to work and get ahead, maybe even build up his muscle to the point of the 150 or 220lb men. I don't think Communism does that best. I don't think Socialism does that best. I think Capitalism does that best (with appropriate checks and restraints - just like any system). No system is ever going to do it perfectly. You do what works best for the greatest number & deal with the rest in whatever way you can - like you always have to. Unfortunately.
October 14, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I have said repeatedly over the years that I thought we fared best when there was a fairly even balance of power in Washington. That balance then requires compromise to get anything done which was what the framers of our Constitution planned on to keep either extreme from dominating the center.
That plan worked well for the best part of two hundred years during which time we developed a moderately capitalistic system with some moderate socialistic leanings. But of late both extremes have seemed all to willing to fore go compromise seeking instead total domination of one form or the other.
I still believe the hybrid was the overall best bet and compromise was the best way to achieve it.
October 14, 2010 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, Capitalism does a good job, open_eyes, I agree. But let's just look for a minute at something that happened just yesterday in Chile.
Isn't the mining system in Chile state owned or controlled? They did a darn good job of rescuing those miners -- yes, yes, I know, with American help from that company in Pennsylvania-- BUT, in the United States, mining is privately owned.
And wasn't it during the Bush administration -- please save your accusations of my Bush bashing because I'm just stating a fact here -- that federal regulations were downsized on a large scale?
For example, the company that owns that Pennsylvania mine that caved in last year had dozens of problems that were never corrected. Several deaths occurred in that cave in. Do you think that man who owns the mines, the one who was busy denying culpability every single day during that disaster sleeps at night these days? Of course he does.
And how can we forget that arrogant Tony whatshisname from BP.
But then again, there are those that constantly clamor for "lower taxes, no new taxes" without realizing that one of the things taxes pay for is regulatory policing of industries, all industries, not just mining.
Peanut butter anyone? Spinach?
No, they're just protecting their own personal pocketbooks; they don't care about the whole.
Methusla, yes, thanks, I had heard about that beheading in Mexico. In fact, I made that comment about beheadings on purpose, as a nod to that very grisly discovery yesterday.
October 14, 2010 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Of course one way our system seemed to maintain some balance in the past was by bouncing back and forth from left to right and back like a ferry boat moving into a slip.
So we have had periods of capitalistic excess such as the the robber barons of the late nineteenth century...and periods of socialistic excess as in the mid-twentieth century. We have gone back and forth between excessive regulation of business and excessive deregulation of business.....excessive taxation, and ridiculously little taxation. This has been a normal part of our system.
What seems to have changed now is the speed with which we seem to expect to get our way and the loss of any sense of compromise.
October 14, 2010 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree create that there seems to be little thought given by some to just what these taxes actually do pay for. Nobody in their right mind would be for unrestrained government spending on foolishness like bridges to nowhere and the mating habits of tree sloths.
But I, like you, am not comfortable with turning the safety of my food supply over to some guy in some peanut butter plant in Georgia that's trying to maximize profit by minimizing safety. If we need more inspectors to keep the food supply safe...hire them....and raise taxes to do so. The same thing applies to the safety of our infrastructure such as bridges dams and pipelines.
And if we can't figure out a way to provide assistance to those of us that need and deserve it, while weeding out the deadbeats that don't, then we don't deserve to be a major world power anyway
October 14, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree with all the last comments by create & biscuitboy since my last comment.
It's a never-ending battle between being pulled too far in one direction or the other. And the danger of gridlock if the 2 are too evenly distributed.
I agree with all your points, create, and I don't look at it as Bush-bashing. All good points. But just to show the other side of the coin, look at all the government waste & misuse of funds we constantly see. Problem is, those in power end up lining their own pocketbooks & those of friends just as much as the private companies do.
Again. Imperfect people, imperfect world, imperfect governments. We do what we can, and hopefully always will continue to strive for improvement.
It's a never ending battle.
And who knows? Despite all the government safety & oversight regulations..... the disaster STILL occurred in Chile. Had it happened in the US.... maybe we would have gotten them out in 2 weeks. Who knows. Speculation, yes.
So what are we heading for? Did everyone see all the protests in France the other night, because the government is proposing raising the retirement age from something like 60 to 62 or something like that? Even though the country is FLAT BROKE???
Will we eventually reach the point where the age one can stay on their parents health care overlaps with their retirement age? Like you can retire at 40 but stay on your parents healthcare plan until you're 45? LOL ;-)
October 14, 2010 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
How funny you are open_eyes. My first real smile of the day.
I missed the France demos, but did catch a discussion in this country a few days ago relative to raising social security age by adding 3 years. Just a discussion, mind you. Nothing in the works.
I am 67 years old, and retired. Although I can't see myself in a job that requires much in the way of strength or standing for long periods of time, I could work at some kind of desk work or teaching if I still wanted to. My father worked full time until he was 72. He died of a broken hip from a fall at age 99; otherwise he was in perfect health and still worked every day in his garden -- he raised vanilla and sold the beans. We might be amazed at what we can do.
October 14, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I wake up every day of my life since I finally laid down my job this spring wishing I was still working. Sure it has some to do with the money....but the real thing I miss is the sense of accomplishment, the sense of pride and identity, and the respect it brings from others...but more importantly the respect it brings for myself.
This is the thing welfare bums don't get. This is what makes them different than most of us.
If anybody out there has a job that can be done by a man with a bad heart and emphysema....I'm still willing.
October 14, 2010 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I DID say that I felt that I think Capitalism does that best (with appropriate checks and restraints - just like any system). Don't overlook my "with appropriate checks and restraints" ;-). I've often said the pure unbridled/unharnessed capitalism cannot work. There MUST be some checks and balances. Yes, places where government is necessary.
Biscuitboy, a comment - you mentioned earlier that "The world that made us great in many ways no longer exist. We need to start spending more effort trying to figure out where we fit into the new world.".
Well, there's some truth to that - but also, I think that in many ways, the world that made us great in many ways no longer exists PRECISELY BECAUSE we have moved away from the things that made us great. Personal responsibility and accountablility seem to be no-no's in today's world. If people returned to those values and principles much of the world might be great again. I'm not too sure I want to fit into this new world order of it always being someone else's responsibility, whether it be anyone with more than me, or the government's.
But now I'm starting to sound like one of Glenn Beck's so-called "hate speeches". ;-)
And for the record, REWBA, I think we should let the Bush tax cuts expire on the extremely wealthy and keep them for the rest. You & I may disagree on where that line of "extremely wealthy" should be drawn (not precisely sure myself) - or, even, WHEN that action should be taken. There is a time to raise and a time to lower taxes, even if/when it seems the correct thing to do overall. But, that's why we pay the politicians the big bucks - to decide that.
Well, that's why we pay them, not necessarily what they actually do with the money - lol ;-). No, not really lol.
October 14, 2010 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, " But, that's why we pay the politicians the big bucks - to decide that."
Here is where you and I decidedly disagree ! The " Big Bucks, " WE ", the people pay the politicians don' t amount to a hill of beans compared to the " REALLY BIG BUCKS " the " REALLY WEALTHY " pay the " Politicians " for their decisions ! That, by the way, fafor the " REALLY WEALTHY ", 9 times out of 10 !
Hence, this is 99.9 % of the problem with the U.S. government of the last several decades and today ! Therefore the U.S./America is no longer a Democratic Republic, but has become an " OLAGARCHY " in the worst sense of the definition of the word.
October 14, 2010 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I don't really see where we disagree, methusla, because you are in many ways correct - we're really both right.
We do pay our politicians a salary, and we pay them quite well. "The Big Bucks" to most of us.
But perhaps you missed the line that came right after that statement. Where I inferred what they really do with the money. Basically pocket it and then, as you say, obey the wishes of the REALLY big bucks who control the puppet strings. I don't disagree with you, that was just inferred in my last line, not explicitly stated.
October 14, 2010 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNA1yw...
October 14, 2010 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
I hear what you are saying about personal responsibility and accountability and largely agree.
What I was referring to in my comment was more nuts and bolts issues.
We inherited a vast undeveloped country that was rich in natural resources right smackey dab at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Today the country is developed...the resources are mostly used up and the industrial revolution has morphed into the information age.
During that same period the have not nations of the world (largely due to the information age) have become unwilling to continue supplying the haves with their natural resources without sharing in the wealth. It is much easier now for some little entrepreneur in Bangladesh to compete with us on an even playing field.
The age of oil...the thing that we developed, we understood, we utilized to it's fullest, and depended on more than any place else on earth is coming to an end. How soon is a matter of debate....but it will happen. Yet we seem totally unable to face that challenge and look beyond oil. Our only answer is drill baby drill.
Much of our success as a country was of course based on our skill and hard work (not forgetting for a moment that this undeveloped country was also underpopulated thereby allowing us to utilize hugh numbers of underpaid immigrant labor). But much of our success was also based on the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time.And that included the good fortune of our industrial base surviving WW-2 intact while two of three remaining industrial areas (Europe and Japan) were largely destroyed.
All of these things, and others not mentioned, had a major hand in our becoming what we became. And to some extent or another none of them are really relevant today. The end of oil in fact is a reality that could have epic consequences on us if we don't take our heads out of the sand. And the days when we could walk into the middle east and nationalize their oil unchallenged by any body else are over if they ever really existed. Even if we could wouldn't the terrorist have fun with our attempts to get the oil back over here.
These are more the things I was referring to that I fear we are all to easily ignoring in our quest to recapture past glory.
October 14, 2010 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
sail,
your link to "drinking with Bob" was enlightening.
After watching several of his videos, I came away thinking we posters on the gazette are not so bad after all.
I think Bob needs to lay off the red bull and try a nice scotch blend :>)
October 14, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well I'm real glad I watched that...Why?.....Because I finally got an answer to my question--What ever happened to joe the plumber?
He changed his name to Bob and turned to doing the same old schtick on YouTube. How you been Joe?.....I was afraid you were still unemployed.
Or maybe you are....maybe that's why your still so pi@@ed off.
October 14, 2010 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
Sorry, I indeed missed your last sentence in your post o fOctober 14, 2010 at 1:39 p.m., guess my eyes are getting as old as the rest of me !
And after reading the whole post thru, completely, I will have to agree that we do indeed agree ! How about that !
October 14, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL - As we all often do, methusla ;-).
It seems we always (I'm just as guilty as the rest) - focus more on our differences of opinions than our similarities, even when the latter outweigh the former.
Kind of like Clinton vs. Obama debates before the 2008 election.
But then again that's what debate is all about ;-)
October 14, 2010 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Biscuitboy "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men"
October 14, 2010 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I know sail and he has as much right to show anger (whether feigned or real) as I do to make light of him for doing it.
I just think all this theatrical anger in political debate is actually an attempt at intimidation that....quite frankly.....makes me angry. The last thing somebody acting like that will get is somebody to say hey let's talk about this and see what we can work out. They don't want to talk about it. They want to yell and bully and you listen and cave in and I'm not the type that easily caves in.
So then we have two people angry and we are not going anywhere.
October 14, 2010 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
In a nutshell what I was trying to say in my nuts and bolts post last night is that much of what made us the leader of the world in the past was based on situations that can't be duplicated today.
So if we want to continue to lead the world we need to figure out how we can lead from the current state of the world rather than trying to reinvent a past which is largely gone.
October 15, 2010 at 5:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I wonder if we will get our property tax statements BEFORE the election?
October 15, 2010 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
When a nation, any nation, its government and its peoples are divided, instead of united, as is the case with the U.S. and that nation cannot solve its own problems or unite its own peoples ... that nation is looked upon as a nation that is too weak to lead itself out of its own problems and is no longer capable of leading itself or the world, anywhere !
October 15, 2010 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Very true methusla...
October 15, 2010 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GoodMorning (anonymous) says...
Here is my take on the budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton presidency. It is true the surplus did not total 3 trillion dollars at the end of Clinton’s term. However, if the tax rates in place at the end of Clinton’s term had been allowed to continue, a very large amount would have accumulated during the Bush administration. Three trillion?... I do not know if that much, but close. What happened to the true surpluses at the end of Clinton's term and the possible 3 trillion dollar surplus? The Bush election team had floated some ideas during the election that they would use the surplus to “save Social Security.” After the election, Larry Lindsey, chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, wanted the money returned in the form of tax cuts and his posturing prevailed. Technically, I suspect the Bush administration wanted the tax cuts, and prevailed on Lindsey, not a leading economist, to make the suggestion. The Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, preferred the social security option floated during the election. Eventually, O’Neill and Alan Greenspan suggested a compromise that any tax cuts be based on real increases in revenue, not wild guesses. Under their plan, tax cuts would follow after increased revenue targets had been met. The surpluses could have been distributed as tax credits as they developed. However, the Lindsey side believed an advanced tax cut would have more effect on consumer spending. In the end, the tax cut did not result in a sufficient increase in spending by consumers, did not lead to more profits and wages, and did not result in a healthy collection of taxes to maintain the Clinton surplus. There was no trickle down. Instead, the deficit increased and Social Security remains to be saved.
October 15, 2010 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Very interesting take GoodMorning.
I certainly do not know enough to confirm or deny any of it except for the accuracy of the final two sentences. You certainly do present your case with conviction however.
October 15, 2010 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Methusla we are divided ,because many of us see great peril with the course this country has taken. The choice is to be good automatons and take it, or stand up and expose the failures of where are elected officials have and are taking us.
October 15, 2010 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
This is the great thing about our country,We the people can and should express our views.If we give up this right, God help us.
October 15, 2010 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Interesting take, GoodMorning. And possibly might have been the course. But a few comments.....
First of all, we had entered a recession when Clinton left office. So it is doubtful had nothing changed we would have shown a surplus the next year. The surplus was already smaller than the year before as we headed into the recession.
Then 9/11 threw a monkey wrench into everything. Does anyone really believe that for example, had everything stayed the same, whether the law changed and Clinton re-elected to a third term, Gore wins, or Bush makes zero changes to any laws, that we wouldn't have taken the massive dip to our economy that 9/11 dealt it? Really? Regardless of which of your scenarios above had been followed...... it would have all pretty much flown out the door after that fateful day. No matter who was in power and no matter what course had been chosen prior to that. So really, all the "what would have happened" are moot points. No matter what course was taken, none of them would have turned out the way anyone wanted. Both 9/11 and the crash of the dot.com bubble saw to that.
And finally, the "possible" 3 trillion $ surplus. That was just an inaccurate figure thrown out by REWBA who admits himself he doesn't believe 90% of what he says - LOL. The budget surplus each year under Clinton never even met what was required in each year just to pay the INTEREST on the national debt. So each year..... despite running a budget surplus for that year....... the national debt overall increased, not went down. The last time the national debt actually went down was in 1961.
Chart on interest on national debt:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/re...
I'm not trying to take partisan sides here - lord knows I didn't favor Bush's spending habits, nor tax cuts at the very very top end. I just don't see that all the conjecture would have made much difference. Not only 9/11, but the dot.com bubble would have benefitted whoever was in office, and its crash would have also dealt a blow to whoever's lap it fell in. It isn't always just enough to look at the policies and the stats - one has to figure in extenuating circumstances as well.
October 15, 2010 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Not sure I follow all the bookkeeping hocus-pocus - but this next link is an interesting read. Does some explaining the diff between public debt and intragovernmental holdings.
"When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."
It sounds like the article is all anti-Clinton - because it is examining the Clinton surpluses specifically - but it also says the same accounting tricks are used by every pres & admin. So apply it to all. Sounds like everyone cooks the books (explains our current mess)
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
"Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket."
"The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public."
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
part II
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30
Guess we can't really believe any of the numbers our government throws at us. From either side. Which means, if one follows it and believes it, not only were the Clinton surpluses smaller than reported or non-existent, but everyone else's deficits were larger in actuality than what we are told. Its all in how you play the numbers......and they all do it, apparently the same. Again - this is not a partisan rant. Just an interesting FYI. Clinton & the GOP Congress at the time still deserve credit (as stated in the article) for at the very least, even with the same accounting, running less deficit than everyone else ;-)
October 15, 2010 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yet another take on it from factcheck:
"An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in UNANTICIPATED tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries."
It also specifies, as was pointed out in the above links, the debt owed TO THE PUBLIC decreased.... not overall debt.
But be sure to read the last 2 updated paragraphs.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck...
October 15, 2010 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
In response to the article,I've been telling people for 6 months to get your affairs in order before the end of the year.I was listening to that real estate radio show on 580 AM this morning,and they sure had some bad things to say about the upcoming changes.Sure like to have a CPA weigh in on this one-
Is the U.S. government proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions?
...It is true. The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. Their plan is to sneak it in after the...
...moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the...
...[2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction...
Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:26:32 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/...
October 16, 2010 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
I've heard people say"It's only the rich".Rich meaning-you work hard and have a home in Texas,one in Emporia,investments,and 401K. Or a small business and a home.I read where you hit that estate 1 million mark,you'd better have 150-200K put aside to pay the fed.I'm thinking just about all the local snowbirds are borderline rich in the eyes of the fed.
October 16, 2010 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Every time you start talking about having the rich carry a little more of the load, it seems you get besieged by a bunch of middle class people wanting to call themselves rich.
I can't speak for the fed or anybody else, but in all the prior discussion on this thread when I was referring to the rich I was referring to people with a minimum annual taxable income of five million dollars. Not gross income...not estate value....but taxable income. Anything below that in my book is upper middle class.
October 16, 2010 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
It's all what the county and fed decide in the end.If you are not prepared,you won't be affected much or have a bad,bad surprise coming.
October 16, 2010 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
According to the info I found on H.R. 4646 it is a bill that would take this transaction fee on bank business and pay down the national debt. Then this fee would be used to eliminate the personal income tax.
The bill at present has been referred to committee only and didn't appear to be in any danger of immediate action or approval. Much like scores of bills that are submitted all the time.
I am neither supporting nor condemning this bill either way because this is the first I have ever heard of it. But it didn't appear to me to be something the government was about to "sneak past"....and there was more to it than just another way to stick it to the rich.
Here's the link
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill....
October 16, 2010 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
bluelitespecial
Your own link further into it than the part you used said this bill was the brainchild of Rep. Fattah, Dem., Pa., It said it was a consistent hobby horse bill of Rep. Fattah with no sponsorship and no backing of Speaker Pelosi or President Obama. It went on to say it was almost certain to die in committee.
It appears to be another instance where the hype outweighs the threat.
October 16, 2010 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
That's kind of the idea I got,too.Just keep your eyes open for this as It wouldn't surprise me...well nothing about the fed surprises me anymore!
October 16, 2010 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
When I got word of this HR 4646 the idea of the email was to contact your Reps,and make this die in committee.They threw some bs in there to make it seem bigger.If it does see daylight,I'm pretty sure it's going to be a long time before "normal" taxes drop. Just another bill to watch out for.
October 16, 2010 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well, on the surface anyway, it looks to me pretty much like a bs bill to start with. I would be real surprised if it ever became law....Not that I haven't been surprised before. :-)
October 16, 2010 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
Not sure this one is quite so far out there,though. After a bit more research some kind of vote is being bandied about to be scheduled after the election,and passage is wanted by the end of the year.Just sayin'- keep your eyes open.
October 16, 2010 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Surely our esteemed politicians wouldn't be so derelect in their duties to, say, pass a bill none of them have even read..... would they? LOL ;-)
October 16, 2010 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well I don't know. Like I said, I had never heard of this until you brought it up this morning.....and we are both just going by what we have read.
I remain amazed as always how two people can read up on the same bill and get such different ideas as to what is going on. It, as always, boils down to who you choose to read and what you choose to believe...and that usually depends a great deal on your mind set going in.
You want to believe that Obama and Pelosi are getting ready to stick it to you so you look for proof of it. And while I don't agree with everything that they have done...I don't believe they are about to stick it to anybody any more than the other side is....Nor do I believe they are trying to ruin this country. So I look for proof of that.
October 16, 2010 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
Well,it IS your money (for now,anyway)
My work here is finished.
See you in another thread!
October 17, 2010 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Hey...I finally found out what ever happened to Joe the Plumber. According to an interview he did with the New York Daily News, he now says John McCain screwed up his life because he was used as a stooge by McCain. He has also turned against Palin and though he says he still disagrees with Obama's policies he respects him for being honest.
Maybe Joe is looking for his next free ride.....LOL
October 17, 2010 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Bar Stool Economics Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bar bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. Pay $100 per round of beers. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day when the owner threw them a curve. "Since you guys are such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for you ten men now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if theysubtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. The bar owner suggested that itwould be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each man should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six men was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20 saved", declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he saves ten times more than I do!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
October 19, 2010 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"The nine men then surrounded the tenth and beat the crap out of him. Of course, on the very next night the tenth man didn't show up, so the other nine sat down and drank their beers without him. But when it came time to pay, they didn't have enough money between all of them to cover even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. If you tax them too much and attack them for being wealthy, they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics
October 19, 2010 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Hey BUSCUIT BOY AND REWBA how about a beer?
October 19, 2010 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
sail
Are you buying?
It appears to me the situation was working well until the bar owner decided to reduce the cost of the beer (in other words cut taxes). So the morale of this story is obvious.....Tax Cuts are the problem!!!!!
If everybody just keeps paying their fair share everybody is drunk and happy. But once somebody starts trying to make things more equitable it gets all screwed up. Just pay up and shut up was working fine but know nine of the ten are setting home without any beer...the bar owner is going broke....and the tenth man is living high off the hog in some dirt bag third world country where he can't leave the compound to go have a beer for fear of being kidnapped by separatist terrorist, held for ransom and tortured and killed while the government nationalizes his wealth. LOL :-)
October 19, 2010 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
sail,
There is only one thing wrong with your story about the ten men ! It is just that a story, fiction, fable, whatever and has nothing to do with how the rich/richest are able to hide unreported income and not pay taxes on it and that is a true fact of the taxpaying life of all the wealthy. In other words there are those who do not pay taxes on all of their income, only what they report choose to report as income.
Take for instance, in 2008, senator John Mccain claimed an income of approx. $258,000 and actually should have reported an income of closer to $450,000 dollars ! So you see, that tenth man you mention in your story may not be getting " screwed " as bad as you think he is !
October 19, 2010 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes meth...and we can also re-tell the story of Warren Buffet's secretary that pays a higher percentage of income in taxes than he does. Hard to feel too sorry for that.
October 19, 2010 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
I agree McCainn and many of b.o .cabinet should be staying at Levenworth tonight.
October 19, 2010 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The above story illustrates a huge problem right here in River city.
It was that darn bar owner lowering his prices that started all the problems.
There are two drinking establishments here in town that have closed in the last couple of weeks. Hopefully they will reopen for their customers soon. There is a third one whose long time owner is closing the doors this week.
Maybe all of the bars in town need to raise their prices? I'm sure willing, I would love to move into a higher tax bracket. what do you think?
October 19, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Well, maybe madd can turn their attention to text driving now and leave we drinkers alone so we can go out more to Town Royal, and create taxs for our gov to spend .Yes Biscuit Boy ist round on me.
October 19, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Go for it Steve. Nobody else ever misses a trick to raise prices on the slightest real or imagined provocation. Oil prices have started to creep back up. You can bet you booty before long the price of everything else will start to rise...Why?,,,,Because transportation cost have gone up. Of course none of those prices went down when transportation cost went down now did they?.....Of course they didn't!
October 19, 2010 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
biscuit,
real or imagined provocation?
I have had 6 price increases from my wholesalers without raising my prices.
And now there are some wanting to raise the price of gallonage tax on alcohol in Kansas. If it wasn't for taxes on booze you could buy a crown and coke for $1.25 today instead of $4.50
. There are bars where you can buy it for not much more than that, but the owners are working 40 hours a week somewhere else to make their living.
I can't seem to see the sense in that.
Oh well, They are rioting in France over a retirement age of 62 instead of 60 so I guess it's not so bad here, YET.
October 19, 2010 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Anyway, biscuitboy, I know you do not drink alcohol so I will buy you a cup of coffee or a glass of ice tea, it's on me.
October 19, 2010 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Steve
I hope you didn't think I was being sarcastic in my post. I am never opposed to legitimate price raises...and realize many people in the retail and service sectors recognize them as necessary evils that often cost you as much as they help. I do wonder why they never seem to go down. I guess that is just reserved for our incomes. :-)
I would love to come in and have a tea with you sometime. I have often wondered if we couldn;'t perhaps have a forum night where people could come and mingle whether they revealed their identities or not. Probably would need to check guns at the door though.....Just a thought. :-)
October 20, 2010 at 3:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
While I often advocate the need for taxes to finance what I see as needed public service, I have been vocal in my opposition to the so-called sin taxes. Liquor and tobacco taxes are perhaps legitimate to support enforcement of the respective laws in those areas and to support dealing with problems directly related to their consumption.
But any other use of special taxes placed on these items is in my opinion the most unfair tax of all. And I do say that from the position of someone who neither drinks nor smokes so would stand to receive maximum benefit from them.
October 20, 2010 at 3:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Biscuit Boy, im in on the get together, of course I will be the one with a fake nose attached to my glasses.Who knows what kind of stink we could stir up if we all got together! Remember our country was givin its birth pains in "THE GREEN DRAGON INN", a tavern.
October 20, 2010 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
And I'll be disguised as a little white scruffy dog.....
October 20, 2010 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GoodMorning (anonymous) says...
The math logic in the beer drinking at the bar example is badly flawed from a realistic sense. No owner would lower prices by a fixed amount if the pricing were based on Ramsey economics (I think that is the source of your pricing system.) They might lower the price by a percentage amount.
The people who are rich would like to keep their money by maintaining favorable laws. However, there are not enough of them to win an election. Therefore, how can they get more voters to side with them? They promote a variety of hot button issues that the rich could care less about, but uninformed less wealthy voters can be convinced are important to their interests. They also float voodoo economic theories that less informed voters buy into, particularly if beer is involved.
If voters would support economic positions that benefit the majority in the country, the total country would benefit, the rich just a little less.
The country always has prospered when there has been a balanced budget. Right now, the federal income tax level is less than it has been for 50 years. The primary way to balance the budget is to raise taxes on the wealthy.
October 20, 2010 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
GoodMorning
I don't know where you have been but you argue points I have been trying to make for awhile....you just do it so much better than I. And the super rich control this agenda to protect themselves through conservative politicians by convincing the less wealthy that it is all in their best interest.
Huffington Post ran a piece recently about the efforts and money being invested by Kansas' own Koch bothers to buy elections and maintain policies favorable to the super-rich. Part of that effort is aimed at improving ways the super-rich can better convince the not-rich that supporting their "maintain our wealth" policies is in the not-rich voters best interest.
October 20, 2010 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
Well written good morning, but you didnot get the point about money being fluid.Money will run ,and has run to less taxed locations.Many local citz have and will in the future move to less taxed states when they retire.When that happens we all loose...........Like to here what you think about the influence george soros has on demmm politics?
October 21, 2010 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
"Many local citz have and will in the future move to less taxed states when they retire.When that happens we all loose..........."
sail.....It appears to me if we cut taxes to keep them from moving to a state with lower taxes then we have already lost anyway....the only difference being then they would still live here so we would still have to provide them with services. And since the Gulf Coast has better weather than us they will probably still move when they retire no matter what we do with taxes.
So we are shooting our selves in the foot to keep something we are probably going to lose anyway. Besides, as the Republicans have already shown us......old people are nothing but a drain on the system anyway....:-)
October 21, 2010 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Soylent Green anyone?
October 21, 2010 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )