Deck of Weasels! (morphed to debate on taxes/economics)

Remove all ads!

Capstone - I'll just settle for being free and happy someday. You can keep the rich.

 

@Chandos the Red: I, too, will leave the job of responding to your rant about the GOP in the capable hands of Darkwolf. But I want to ask, are you familiar with the Earned Income Tax Credit? I'm not current on the specific details and income levels of this program, but here's the essence. If you're "poor enough" to not have owed tax in the previous year, you can get a refund in the current year on tax money YOU never paid in the first place.

If this sounds fair and reasonable to you, could you please explain the justification to me? I just don't see it.

 

Rally - Yes, I think Enron may have used something similiar to it. Although I'm not an accountant. I would still like my 800 million dollar refund also. But then I'm not a large corporation.

To arch-conservatives: Don't feel left out, Darkwolf is not the only capable one on these boards, although he is very good and I always look forward to his rants. I know there are more of you out there. Come on, put that issue of the Wall Street Journal down and feel free to respond.

Edit:
By the way, the last politician I heard giving away money for votes was GW with his pie-in-the- sky tax cut. And I think it was right at about 300.00 too, unless you were rich of course. In that case it was much larger.

[ May 10, 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Capstone wrote:

We don not resent their success. We resent that they are stealing away from their responsibility as citizens. Paying taxes is part of that responsibility, if one is in the appropriate financial situation.
In my eyes, the one who has more money should be paying more taxes than the one who has less (and I do not mean absolute sums).

Darkwolf wrote:

If this is right, what does this say about the development of wages in the US?

[ May 11, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

You're full of **** Darkwolf. I'm probably in the bottom 10% at the moment, and guess what. I pay taxes. Holy ****. Not only do I pay them, I don't whine like a little ***** at having to pay them. Last I recall my refund was much less than what I paid. Not only that, but if and when I reach the top 10%, I don't imagine I'd start. Your percent of income taxed doesn't even break 35 until you've broken 300,000. Boo-hoo. If you don't like the taxes here go to Europe. You'll kiss the ground when you return.

Yes, the current tax code is horrific, but no one has presented a better alternative.

 

umm Alex, I think I can promise you that more or less all European countries have atleast twice as high taxes as the States. The US is, believe it or not a low-tax land.

 

Joacqin, I don't agree. In my view, Americans pay a whole lot more of taxes. It is true, that most (not all, they're some countries, which do not have taxes like that, ahm mine) European countries have "nominally" higher taxes, but the tax-payer gets a lot of it back in services. Like who pays the dentist ??? A dentist costs a whole lotta money, who pays it ? How much have people to pay for the education of their children ? How is the whole infrastructure of the country ? That makes a huge difference. So comparing taxes is another thing which is nearly impossible, because there are so many things which have to be looked at. .> That's a job for a national economist.

I think in the end it's: Heh, I pay nominally less taxes, but I can't pay the bill of the dentist.

Or in other words, Swedes live in a paradies. A paradies, as far as I understand, has problems and needs some reform. But still, a paradies. I personally envy you for some of the benefits of the system you live in.

Now, I see, that there are problems with the system all over the place. But that's a system problem. If a lot of people get indifferent versus the system, they don't know what's going on, then problems is what they get.

 

What tax table are you looking at, Alex? I can guarantee that we paid more than 35% AND that our AGI is nowhere near 300,000.

Maybe you need a new accountant? But now we're getting seriously

[ May 12, 2003, 14:55: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

Chandos,

Bush 43 gave tax refunds based upon the next years taxes. Everyone did not receive a check, and it was part of a tax cut plan, not a redistribution of wealth. It was an attempt to stem the damage done to the economy under the Clinton administration, and it was probably doomed from the start. Evens "stupid" Bush 43 was able to see that the economy was in for a major correction, and he made desperation move to save it. It turned out to be ill advised, but at least he tried. Also, he was had just become President, so exactly which election was he buying votes for?

The earned income credit that Rally is talking about is for individuals. It is a pure redistribution of wealth plan. When I used to work in banking I used to have people who supposedly made less that $30k in household income bring in over $8K in refund checks. They used to laugh in my face about how they were cheating on their taxes, really making more money than I did by taking jobs where they are paid in cash, and then robbing me by letting the government take money from me to give to them. My only revenge was the fact that I got to turn down their loan requests for insufficient income I am not talking about individuals, I had at least a half dozen of these every year.

Quite buying the Democratic liberal bull**** and start doing your own research. It is all public record, and no, the majority the taxes are not paid by the middle class. The top 1% of wage earners in 2000 provided over 43% of the total federal revenue. The top 25% pay over 3/4 of the total.

As far as the shot that the Republicans are responsible for all the evil of big corporations in America, well lets just say that individuals are much more responsible for their actions. Remember, the ultimate form of Democracy is a free market.

Alex,

If you are in the bottom 10% that would put your gross income at about $17k per year. If you are that far down the income bracket, quite wasting time posting to internet forums, and start working and studying more.

Also, if you are that low, and you are paying Federal income tax, find someone else to do your taxes for you, because you are making mistakes somewhere. You should be getting back more that you pay in unless you are a full time student and mommy and daddy are still claiming you on their taxes, and if that is the case, quite whining. As far as your claim about going to Europe, as our European friends here have stated, they receive services for the taxes they pay. Perhaps their governments are more efficient, but I will never endorse or vote for such a system in the US because to government is way too inefficient, and the return would justify they expense. Remember, the US government pays $500 for the same hammer you and I can by at Home Depot for $24.99. What do you think the US government would pay for a $10K heart bypass? There are better ways to address the health care issue in America (like making insurance premiums 100% deductible for individuals, or even companies, just keep Uncle Sam out of it)

Capstone,

WASP

White
Anglo
Saxon
Protestant

A term that has negative connotations in much of America.

 

Chandos the red wrote:

Darwolf wrote:

Tax-Evasion is a real problem. And it's no secret, that there are amries of lawyers, bankers, economics, tax-specialists who are earning their own income in counselling people how to "legally" evade taxes. And it's no big secret either, that usally taxholes are fulll of loopholse, special treatment of special groups.

And the main problem is, a hairdresser has usually not the chance to claim, that she "lives" in Moncaco and not in Berlin.

I made a little list, I guess a little longer search can show more intersting details.

And by the way, thank you EU for crashing on Swiss civil rights and liberties. F=== u

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2025244.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2681655.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2161055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2355147.stm

 

Yago, no one EVER claimed that the tax system wasn't screwed up or rife with abuse!

 

Huh ?

We agree then. For once.

 

Tax collection will always be a problem, and there's always going to be a group that claims they're getting the short end of the stick. Also, the way those taxes are spent by the government is another hot topic that is always going to tick people off. No country is perfect in this regard.

What this has to do with the Deck of Weasel's, I have no clue, but the topic seems to have morphed a bit.

My question on taxes (and the reason I'm a right winger) is this: would I rather work hard, make money, and then be permitted to spend my money the way I wish? Or, would I rather work hard, make money, and then have the government take it and give me back what they feel I need?

I go with option one. Being Christian, part of my expenditure would be in contributions to the poor (as it is now) so please don't start in with the "lack of love for the less fotunate" stuff.

 

Darkwolf -- If anyone has been buying politcal bull, it is you. It is common knowledge that the poor don't vote. So, your theory that dems buying "votes" has no validity. If they did, this would be a very different country. I mean no disrespect and am not being sarcastic (for once), but you are in a no-win argument. First, how accurate are those numbers you cite? What are your sources? Second, if they are correct, do they include the rich as individuals, or do your numbers include businesses and corporations? How many, and what streams of income does our government have? Such as taxes on gasoline, which even the poor pay. Third, assuming that rich individuals pay the majority of taxes, what does that say about the distribution of wealth in America? Do so few really control that amount of America's wealth? If that is the case, then the "American dream" cannot be as inclusive it is claimed to be.

Here is something to think about. S&Ls received 500 billion dollar bail-out program from the federal government. Money that was just given to them because they were suffering from deregulation that they faught years to get. It is the worst example of corporate welfare ever.

Second, the FCC gave away -- yes the airwaves are owned by the public -- to the electronics industry for HD TV. Why? Because they are huge campaign contributors to political candidates, both parties are included in this scandal. Value: $70 billion.

My sources: Just type Ralph Nader into your web browser and it will take you to any number of his sites, including, essential.org, third world traveler, The Ralph Nader Reader, Citizen Watch, etc. Take your choice.


Dapaara -- I'm glad that we agree that as Christians we have a responsibility to the "less fortunate." But charity is a tricky thing. I'm very cynical about large organizations that do charitable work. But we had one here in Houston, Kid Care. This lady started in her kitchen, making lunches for hungry kids in her neighborhood. It grew and got a lot of media attention. It looked good and I thought, well this is a different bunch; they really are doing something for hungry children.

Fast forward, to now. Last week this lady was appearing before a judge and has had to resign as head of the organization she created because she was stealing from the fund. Well, what do you do? You help, but everywhere you turn there is dishonesty.

If we have these values, then our government needs to reflect the values of its people. If we agree that children should not go hungry, then it our collective responsibility that they should not. So should not government policy reflect these values?

[ May 13, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos the Red, if you think that Ralph Nader is an unbiased source of information, WAKE UP! I've been on the inside of one of his targetted industries and had access to the raw data behind one of his frenzied "reports." He's as much of a spin doctor as any other politician out there. That's not to say that he hasn't accomplished some significant good as a consumer advocate for safe and effective products, but why is his version of social engineering any more palatable than anyone else's?

 

Chandos,

My sources for recent data are varied across the internet. However they are consistent with the research that I did in college on these items while getting my degree in finance with minors in accounting and economics. I have actually looked at the public IRS records, and done the statistics myself, have you?

Just like so much other "common knowledge", that is wrong. The greatest turnout at presidential, and congressional elections is among the poor, the unemployed, and retired. Amazingly enough, that is exactly who the Dem target with their lies, "like the Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich", "the Republicans want to make sure people don't get a fair wage", and my personal favorite, "the Republicans want to steal your Social Security" (by the way, Clinton "borrowed" more from the SS trust than any other president).

How many S&L's are there in your hometown? Guess that they didn't really bail them out so much as prop them up until the sound financial institutions could absorb them. That said, the "bail-out" was to prevent people from losing everything. You statement is ignorant. If the Gov't would have walked away from the S&L's the real losers would have been the poor. Not only would they have lost everything they had in the bank, but also it would have set off an economic disaster that would have made the Great Depression look like a boom time. I worked in the banking industry for just shy of 7 years, and financial intuitions were part of my emphasis in college. Bad choice for an example.

Value by what standard? The broadcasters would never have paid that for it (do you even know the mechanism by which the gov't sells radio bandwidth? If you did, you would know that you can't make a claim of its value). The return the government will get from the taxes on the purchase of new expensive TVs will more than offset any money they could have made in the auction of the airwaves, and guess who will be paying all that tax, the rich. Of course the liberal in you will find it terribly unfair that the rich get to watch HDTV while the rest of us are stuck in low-res hell.

Rally already caught this one, but I will say this. All of you Nader myrmidons, quit listening to what he says, and start watching his actions. Look at the lawsuits he files and look at his congressional voting record. You will find actions speak much louder than words. I think that many of you will be surprised when you find out what he really stands for.

I agree completely. But should the government feed children, or get the economy to where it feed children by employing more people?

One interesting fact, and if you want the source I will go hunt it down, though I am getting tired of having to prove myself time and time again...
George W Bush gives much more to charity than Albert "I invented the internet" Gore. Texas gives more per capita to charity than California or Massachusetts. What does that prove? Nothing, but it does make me wonder why liberals are so fast with charity when it is not their money, and why greedy conservatives are so giving with theirs.

 

Urban Legend.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

The federal goverment says:

This helped contribute even more to the widening gap in pay between highly skilled and unskilled workers -> the Republicans want to make sure people don't get a fair wage.

Well, don't want to go into domestic politics. But at least, there's a problem with fair wages.

Back to taxes. The federal goverment says:

- individuals, which in 1999 brought in about 48 percent of total federal revenues

- In 1998, payroll taxes accounted for one-third of all federal revenues

-The federal government raises another 10 percent of its revenue from a tax on corporate profits

-while miscellaneous other taxes account for the remainder of its income

48% + 1/3 + 10 % = approx. 90 % plus misc approx. 10 %

With the rich are the only one paying taxes, there must be something wrong. When the payroll-taxes make 1/3 of the federal income. Corporate and misc. make together 20 %. Misc. I guess, anyone has to pay.

http://www.usinfo.pl/aboutusa/business/labor.htm
http://www.usinfo.pl/aboutusa/business/business.htm

Did I mention that I love google ?

 

Don't get me wrong, Chandos, I'm not saying that the government should collect no taxes or that they should not be involved somewhat in aiding the poor. I just don't thgink that the sole responsibility for aiding the poor should be the government -- handouts are no solution. I prefer the right wing approach to aiding the poor -- get them working, help them to help themselves so they can get on their feet and not need any more help. I find that many government programs actually perpetuate the problem by making these underpriviledged permanent welfare recipients.

In addition, I feel that a government is ot the most effective way to do it -- private business is, IMHO, more effective. Now, they need tobe regulated so they don't do heinous things to cut corners, but overall, I'd sooner trust a private charitable organization that is regulated (so as to avoid problems like your soup kitchen lady) than the government.

The bottom line is that I do not like having vast amounts of my paycheck being taken and redistributed at someone else's whim.

 

Yago,

Your statistics are skewed by the fact that they include social security and Medicare. Those are services and retirement plans. They are not part of "Federal Income Tax".

Misc revenues are not necessarily paid equally and by all. There are many usage taxes and trade tariffs that are paid in different ways.

Perhaps I should be more clear. Of all the “Individual Income Tax” revenues collected by the US Federal Government, the vast majority of revenue are paid by the smallest minority of people, and the majority of people pay no income tax at all, while almost half receive back more than they pay in.

Taxing the rich to give it to the poor is not what this nation was founded on, and in the long run, it is counter-productive to the public good. It is good for the politicians however, as it creates dependency on the government, the long-standing goal of the Democratic Party.

Don't believe that, then why do the Democrats want to block affordable healthcare plans for people?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030513-43733062.htm

Oh and Chandos, as the Insuarnce industry is a TRILLION $ a year business, don't you think they would have those nasty, big business loving Republicans in their pockets? Amazing, the Republicans are trying to help people, and the Dimocrats (not a typo) can only think of how they can get people more dependant, who cares how they suffer in the meantime!

The more you look into this, the more you will find out who is really on your side!

 

Thank you, Yago, thank you, for taking the time to put some hard data on this topic. Something that the "business" people on this board seem less inclined to do.

Lord Dapaara -- The Welfare Reform Act has made it so that welfare is no longer "permanent." That bill was passed by a republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton. He signed it because he had promised to reform welfare during the campaign. I think the time limit is now two years.

Also, if you have ever worked in private business, as I have, you would see that it is not efficient at all. Most can't even manage their own inventory. You would think that mult-billion dollar corporations were well-run. That is another conservative myth. I've seen it from the inside. Big business efficiency go together like military intelligence.

Darkwolf -- Unlike most republicans, Mr. Nader is not owned by big business. Thus, I would be more inclined to believe him. Your statement is not very well thought out for a business major regarding S&ls. If you took 500 billion dollars and gave it to every poor person who had an S&L account, who you claim would have suffered as a result somehow of S&L failures, each would have been far better off. Besides, even I know that the federal government insures money on deposit. And I was only a Liberal Arts major in college(English Literature, with a concentration in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, since you wanted to throw credentials around). Maybe that reading skill helped whenever I walked into an S&L and read the big sign on the wall that stated as much. So your idea that they would have lost out is nonsense. Maybe basic reading should be required in business college as well.

I gave the reasons why the rich like charity so much in my first post and I'm not impressed with Shrub's pretense of caring about humanity.

Rally - I have worked for Ralph Nader on and off for years now, mostly against big polluters here. I was glad to be a part of the drive to stop a toxic waste site that was planned to be put next to Lake Houston some years back, from which most of the city's water supply is taken. But thanks for the coffee pix. I loved it.