Code Pink all up in Condi's grill

[Lawrence Fan]

who?

[grainpulp]

MEGABALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MEGABALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[grainpulp]

glgbill, at some point we all learn the futility of arguing with...

MEGABALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MEGABALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[glgbill]

check this out, like 32% in 2005 paid NO US taxes.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... _of_a.html

Wasn't familiar with Caron, but I appreciate the link. But inadvertantly, I think you've helped make my point. As more and more wealth concentrates into fewer and fewer hands, more poor people emerge. And poor people have less to tax.

gigbag wrote "Who's talkin' bout Socialism?"
All Socialism is is government CONTROL of capital. High marginal rates are in effect, higher government control. Socialism in theory is 100% marginal tax rates. Greater control to direct capital, make investment decisions...thats what I mean by "with predictable results". Other peoples money gets spent loosely, sloppily, poorly, inefficiently.

Who's advocating for 100% marginal rates? Please...

I do, however, agree with your premise that we spend our own resources more wisely than others would spend them for us. Assuming, of course, that we have resources to spend -- which fewer people seem to have, according to Caron.

Free markets serve our nation, our society, our communities. By design, they reward hard work and ingenuity. As such, they concentrate wealth. It's not good or bad, right or wrong, it's systemic. It's what it is. But no one is advocating for the abolishment of free markets, or for socialism, communism or civil unrest. But taxation is and will remain an appropriate (i.e. peaceful) method for reallocating wealth across a society, once these natural concentrations become counter-productive to the nation as a whole.

Tax policy is fair in this country. There are other issues surely. But soaking the rich hurts us all. Taxes should be levied equally. Guys like Edwards, Obama , and company are just fishing for votes since there are more lower income voters than higher.

Our tax policy is not fair. It was drafted by millionaires and signed into law by millionaires. Predictably, it benefits the wealthy disproportionately.

Equal taxation assumes the ten millionth dollar is as valuable to the owner as the first dollar, but that's not reality. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. A dollar for food, medicine or shelter is more valuable to the owner than a dollar for vacation real estate. A fair and just society would acknowledge this reality.

This board is already indifferent to me. This post won't change that!
Still I like to think Jayfarrar.net board guys/gals are more well-read and open minded than most .

Well, I'm the new guy...but I'm not sure I'm off to such a great start either. But I'd also like to think that folks attracted to Farra's music would be well-read and open-minded. In the end, all we can do is learn as we go. Thanks for the civil conversation.

Cheers.

[glgbill]

You're right, not all wealthy people get that way by taking advantage of others. Many are quite generous philanthropically as well. Some even support raising taxes on the wealthy...so there are no absolutes.

My points about budget cuts were made on a percentage basis. We do spend less percentage wise on social programs than in years past. However, I also acknowledge the moral risk involved with some who'd rather collect checks than work, but I still believe our country could manage that effectively. For me, hostility toward social programs is a cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face response, but it does make sense when those cultivating such attitudes are considered. We are a country divided against itself, sadly.

Jeffersonville, eh? I went to high school in Louisville before heading up to college at IU. Indy for a couple years after, before heading west. It's a nice part of the country.

[megaballs1]

American tax policy in REALITY, this decade, the actual $s paid by the various segments of the tax code, is skewed towards the "superwealthy" paying more as a % and moreso now that 25+ years ago...and some large % like 20 or 40% pays nothing, nada.

gigbag wrote"Sorry, but with all due and sincere respect...you've missed something."


check this out, like 32% in 2005 paid NO US taxes.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... _of_a.html


gigbag wrote "Who's talkin' bout Socialism?"
All Socialism is is government CONTROL of capital. High marginal rates are in effect, higher government control. Socialism in theory is 100% marginal tax rates. Greater control to direct capital, make investment decisions...thats what I mean by "with predictable results". Other peoples money gets spent loosely, sloppily, poorly, inefficiently.

Tax policy is fair in this country. There are other issues surely. But soaking the rich hurts us all. Taxes should be levied equally. Guys like Edwards, Obama , and company are just fishing for votes since there are more lower income voters than higher.

This board is already indifferent to me. This post won't change that!
Still I like to think Jayfarrar.net board guys/gals are more well-read and open minded than most .

[farrarfan1]

Sure the system is flawed and yes some wealthy people are taking advantage of it but I'd rather live under that then a government decideing how much income is "enough" and how much is "too much".

Well, I believe there's a considerable difference between raising taxes on the richest wage earners and the government somehow telling people how much income is enough or too much. I don't want any government deciding the things you're suggesting, but that's not what I'm advocating. Rather, I'm suggesting that specific social costs arise whenever wealth becomes too heavily concentrated in too few hands. Taxation is a valid means to address these costs. People are still free to earn whatever they want.

But, again, freedom isn't free.

Where does it stop? Anyone with an income of a million, $500,000, $100,000? To someone making $15,000 a year anyone making $100,000 is "rich". Do we penalize the family earning $100,000?

Well, these questions are fair enough. I suppose my answers would still be derived from how wealth has concentrated over the past 30 years. Again, it's not happening because these folks have gotten smarter or more industrious. It's happening because our wealthy congress has changed the tax code to favor themselves and others of wealth.

But, specifically, a family earning $100k won't come close to joining that top group that now controls over 40 percent of our nation's wealth. These folks don't need more taxes.

Why are we (society) so willing to feel the wealthy are somehow obligated to pay for all of these entitlement programs? I think it's wrong and I truly don't understand this concept

Hmmm. Security = Good. Entitlement = Bad. Sadly, it's a legitimate victory for the rich to suddenly realize have effectively they've redefined the way we view these programs.

Simple stated, social welfare should never be a way for people to avoid work. I'm certain we would agree on this point. But I deeply oppose a few people getting extraordinarily rich by disenfranchising the elderly, our children, the sick and the disabled. Bankrupting our nation's educational system, and then accusing it of failure, is no legitimate path towards wealth. Kids are suffering and America is falling behind. Privatizing healthcare, and then denying access, is not an appropriate way to get rich. The sick just get sicker, and then they die. Stealing pensions from retirees during corporate mergers is wrong. The elderly cannot recover. The list goes on and on. And yet, our accounting rules and tax policies encourage all these behaviors and more.

but hey it's been fun with you.

Well, I agree. Besides, it's not like anything we decide is going to change anything anyway.

By the way, where in Indiana do you live? Years ago, I lived in Bloomington, and then later up in Indy. Lots of good memories from those days.

All the programs you mentioned (education, Social Security etc) have seen budget increases every year. Even though the groups that are affected are never satisfied with the amount,much like pay raises, they are increased. Nothing ever gets cut.

You're right though, we'll never change anything or change anybodies mind. I'm just so opposed to advocating raising taxes on the wealthy as a means of punishment or to control, limit or redistribute their income, or to fund the latest social/entitlement program the Democrats think will save the country. Not all wealthy people are evil rotten SOB's that want the elderly and sick to die or cause schoolkids to fail.

I live in Jeffersonville.

[glgbill]

American tax policy in REALITY, this decade, the actual $s paid by the various segments of the tax code, is skewed towards the "superwealthy" paying more as a % and moreso now that 25+ years ago...and some large % like 20 or 40% pays nothing, nada.

Sorry, but with all due and sincere respect...you've missed something.

Say you disproportianately tax the highest marginal brackets at 70% or more. The response is likely not to risk that money, just sit on it or more than likely, hide it from taxes or take it abroad or whatever. Risk capital invests in business and jobs...and moreso when the cost of the fruits are less, ie less tax rates as an input when determining a rate of return prior to risking that money.

This might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Also, investment tax credits would be far superior to simple tax 'cuts.' Tax cuts are a blank check.

In true Socialism, the government controls the capital and decisions with predictable results.

Who's talking about socialism?

[glgbill]

Sure the system is flawed and yes some wealthy people are taking advantage of it but I'd rather live under that then a government decideing how much income is "enough" and how much is "too much".

Well, I believe there's a considerable difference between raising taxes on the richest wage earners and the government somehow telling people how much income is enough or too much. I don't want any government deciding the things you're suggesting, but that's not what I'm advocating. Rather, I'm suggesting that specific social costs arise whenever wealth becomes too heavily concentrated in too few hands. Taxation is a valid means to address these costs. People are still free to earn whatever they want.

But, again, freedom isn't free.

Where does it stop? Anyone with an income of a million, $500,000, $100,000? To someone making $15,000 a year anyone making $100,000 is "rich". Do we penalize the family earning $100,000?

Well, these questions are fair enough. I suppose my answers would still be derived from how wealth has concentrated over the past 30 years. Again, it's not happening because these folks have gotten smarter or more industrious. It's happening because our wealthy congress has changed the tax code to favor themselves and others of wealth.

But, specifically, a family earning $100k won't come close to joining that top group that now controls over 40 percent of our nation's wealth. These folks don't need more taxes.

Why are we (society) so willing to feel the wealthy are somehow obligated to pay for all of these entitlement programs? I think it's wrong and I truly don't understand this concept

Hmmm. Security = Good. Entitlement = Bad. Sadly, it's a legitimate victory for the rich to suddenly realize have effectively they've redefined the way we view these programs.

Simple stated, social welfare should never be a way for people to avoid work. I'm certain we would agree on this point. But I deeply oppose a few people getting extraordinarily rich by disenfranchising the elderly, our children, the sick and the disabled. Bankrupting our nation's educational system, and then accusing it of failure, is no legitimate path towards wealth. Kids are suffering and America is falling behind. Privatizing healthcare, and then denying access, is not an appropriate way to get rich. The sick just get sicker, and then they die. Stealing pensions from retirees during corporate mergers is wrong. The elderly cannot recover. The list goes on and on. And yet, our accounting rules and tax policies encourage all these behaviors and more.

but hey it's been fun with you.

Well, I agree. Besides, it's not like anything we decide is going to change anything anyway.

By the way, where in Indiana do you live? Years ago, I lived in Bloomington, and then later up in Indy. Lots of good memories from those days.

[megaballs1]

Kudos for refering to stats showing top 1% and top 5% paying the vast majority of taxes in this country. I've seen 'em and would rather not go looking . American tax policy in REALITY, this decade, the actual $s paid by the various segments of the tax code, is skewed towards the "superwealthy" paying more as a % and moreso now that 25+ years ago...and some large % like 20 or 40% pays nothing, nada. Economic growth results in huge tax revenues.

Socialism fails just like the tax the rich strategy. Say you disproportianately tax the highest marginal brackets at 70% or more. The response is likely not to risk that money, just sit on it or more than likely, hide it from taxes or take it abroad or whatever. Risk capital invests in business and jobs...and moreso when the cost of the fruits are less, ie less tax rates as an input when determining a rate of return prior to risking that money.
In true Socialism, the government controls the capital and decisions with predictable results.

[farrarfan1]

Sure the system is flawed and yes some wealthy people are taking advantage of it but I'd rather live under that then a government decideing how much income is "enough" and how much is "too much". Where does it stop? Anyone with an income of a million, $500,000, $100,000? To someone making $15,000 a year anyone making $100,000 is "rich". Do we penalize the family earning $100,000? Why are we (society) so willing to feel the wealthy are somehow obligated to pay for all of these entitlement programs? I think it's wrong and I truly don't understand this concept but hey it's been fun with you.

[glgbill]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html An interesting read. The "super rich" are already paying at a much higher tax rate than the lower to middle class and account for a huge percentage of the actual taxes paid. I'm a state worker so I'm obviously not rich by any means but I simply cannot understand this obsession with taxing the wealthy to death in order to pay for all these social programs. Doesn't anyone ever consider asking the government to cut back or, heaven forbid, eliminate some of these entitlement programs? Is it because the non wealthy are so jealous of the wealthy that they want to "stick it to them" at every opportunity?
Seems kind of childish and petty to me. If I can't have it I don't want anybody else to have it either. Or, I want it but I want somebody else to pay for it.

Yes, it was a good read. Thanks for the link.

IMO, it's important to keep in mind the non-linearity of money...that is, that the first dollar earned (used for food, shelter, clothing, medicine) is far more critical to survival than the millionth or ten millionth dollar earned. As you noted, the US does have a progressive system that taxes folks at a higher rate the more they earn. However, your link also makes it abundantly clear that the super rich have benefitted far more than average folks from recent tax policy. As I mentioned before, the amount of American wealth controlled by the top 1% has doubled from 20 to 40 percent in just the last 30 years. It's not because the top 1% has doubled its collective productivity. They've simply benefitted far too much from the tax policies put in place by - well, by themselves. Our millionaire congress. Serving their millionaire constituents.

Of course, rather than make these changes with transparency, the super rich pretend the problems are the welfare cheats and social programs run amok. However, we spend far less on social programs than we did 30 years ago. And where has this money gone? To the top 1 percent.

So, today, we find senior citizens breaking medicine tablets in half, because they system they served throughout their working careers no longer wants to honor their service. Of course, the sooner these non-producers people die off, the less they'll drain the system...

People are justifiably angry, but it's not jealosy or laziness. It's simply what happens when money gets pulled off the table, when the same 99 percent are left to fight over 25 percent less wealth. People are angry, we just don't recognize the causes, largely because Rupert Murdoch, Gannett, Liberty Media, and the other half dozen or so groups that control all information have no reason at all to focus on their own actions.

So, here we are. A society turned against itself. The 'Other 99' led around by our noses, our bigotries, our frustrations and our fears, unable to recognize what the hell is happening.

[farrarfan1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html An interesting read. The "super rich" are already paying at a much higher tax rate than the lower to middle class and account for a huge percentage of the actual taxes paid. I'm a state worker so I'm obviously not rich by any means but I simply cannot understand this obsession with taxing the wealthy to death in order to pay for all these social programs. Doesn't anyone ever consider asking the government to cut back or, heaven forbid, eliminate some of these entitlement programs? Is it because the non wealthy are so jealous of the wealthy that they want to "stick it to them" at every opportunity?
Seems kind of childish and petty to me. If I can't have it I don't want anybody else to have it either. Or, I want it but I want somebody else to pay for it.

[glgbill]

I am quite aware of the necessity of taxes and the cost of freedom. More so than you may be aware.

Okay, but that awareness hasn't shown up in this thread yet.

What I'm opposed to, as everyone should be, is politicians who lay awake at night thinking of ways to take more and more of my money to give to people they have decided need it more than I and my family.

We're in total agreement here. That's why it's important to raise taxes on the super rich.

Since 1976 the share of our nation's wealth owned by the top 1% of Americans has doubled from just over 20% to over 40%. Of course, these are the same people, excuse me, the same 'politicians' that set our tax policy. Ain't no poor people in congress.

Of course, they're also the same people who own our media and constantly barrage us with messages blaming the poor, the lazy, the immigrants, the irresponsible, the school systems, the welfare cheats, etc, etc.

So, unless you're part of the top 1% that's benefitted so disproportionately from changes in tax policy over the past 30 years, I'm certain a closer analysis would put us on the same side.

I'm going to guess that when you file your taxes every year you claim every deduction possible so as to pay the minimum legal amount. Do you feel guilty about that?

Nope. What I'm against is a tax policy that benefits the super rich so disproportionately.

How come a rich person that takes advantage of tax loopholes (income recharacterization, nonqualifed deferred compensation planning, etc, etc)is considered wise? And how come a poor person the takes advantage of tax loopholes (medicaid trust planning) is called a tax cheat?

The answer? Because the rich person controls the labels.

[farrarfan1]

Her plans to save the country are dependant on her ability to exert control over other's (the "wealthy") money in order to redistribute it to those who she determines "needs" it, in the form of ever expanding social programs. She will decide which victims (the uninsured, illegal aliens,fourth generation welfare recipients etc) are more entitled to it than the person or corporation who earned it in the first place. If her vision of taking legally earned income/profits by force from the "haves" and giving it to the "have nots" doesn't smack of socialism then maybe I don't understand the definition of socialism. Perhaps it's closer to government sanctioned communism? And make no mistake about it, as a liberal politician she sees the Government as being the only answer to every "crisis" facing the "victims" and you and I are going to be paying for it. But, if that's what the country wants...

Tax is simply the price you pay for the chance to play in the free market.

Freedom isn't free.

I am quite aware of the necessity of taxes and the cost of freedom. More so than you may be aware. I'm not opposed to a fair tax system. What I'm opposed to, as everyone should be, is politicians who lay awake at night thinking of ways to take more and more of my money to give to people they have decided need it more than I and my family. I'm going to guess that when you file your taxes every year you claim every deduction possible so as to pay the minimum legal amount. Do you feel guilty about that?