Really Arizona?

[PonyUP]

PHOENIX -- Arizona's cash-strapped Medicaid program is considering charging patients $50 a year if they smoke, have diabetes or are overweight.

A spokeswoman for the Arizona Health (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/#) Care Cost Containment System says the tax is intended to push patients to take better care of themselves. Monica Coury says the plan tries to stretch dollars and get people to take better care of themselves.

The fee would only apply to childless unmarried adults.

One part of the proposal affects people with diabetes. Coury says diabetes patients who fail to follow their doctor's orders to lose weight (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/#) would be subjected to the $50 charge.

State Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix says it isn't fair to charge diabetics $50. Sinema says the fee fines people who may have medical conditions beyond their control.

So if your a smoker,and already pay enormous taxes on cigarettes, you now get backdoored with another tax. If you are obese, great we're gonna charge ya more, and don't get me started on diabetes.

When will politicains learn that raising taxes on the poor and the middle class in this country will just continue to break there backs,

Now while I agree that smokers and obese people add to health care costs, so do alcoholics, drug addicts, and people addicted to welfare. Meanwhile our government not only allows GE to not pay taxes on their $14 billion in profits last year, but gives them a rebate to boot.

So tax the hell out of cigarettes, I'm fine with that, and I'm a smoker. How about instead of taxing obese people, you tax the companies that aid the obesity. In other words, why not have a junk food tax and a fast food tax, I'd be fine with that and I'm a fat bastige.

But taxing people after they get diabetes or are already obese, is just plain stupid. I have busted my ass to drop 160lbs over the last 3 years, and I'm still obese, but by this law I get hit with another tax.

Damn I hate our government, both corrupt, idealistic, ivory tower preaching parties. :mad2:

[Bigdogjim]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel!

[Bluerauder]

I just filled out my Federal and State Taxes for 2010. They can kiss my smokey, pre-diabetic, fat AZZ. :mad:

:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2: :mad2::mad2::mad2:

Well, I guess that scratches Arizona from the retirement list. ;)

[SpartaPerformance]

What's wrong with that? $50 isn't that much, but I don't think $50 is going to make anybody live healthier. I wouldn't quit smoking if my healthcare provider charged me an extra $50 a year.

[FordNut]

What's wrong with that? $50 isn't that much, but I don't think $50 is going to make anybody live healthier. I wouldn't quit smoking if my healthcare provider charged me an extra $50 a year.

I agree, $1/week ain't diddly squat. I wish I could get health insurance for $50/yr. Most private insurance companies have been charging a smoker's surcharge for years. And it's a whole lot higher than $50/yr. At least it's an attempt to shift the cost burden to the segment of the population whose poor health has mostly been self-inflicted. I would call it personal accountability.

[sailsmen]

AZ is going bust because being a border state it is over run by invaders. The Fed Gov't refuses to stop it and sued to prevent AZ from stopping it. In AZ schools hispanic "looking" students were put in a separate class to be taught by a La Raza based "hispanic studies" that teaches the Treaty De Guadalupe is invalid and hispanics should take back what was stolen. The former school super became aware of this and is taking legislative steps to stop it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/14/arizona-law-ethnic-studies-immigrants-children http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-19/us/arizona.ethnic.studies.lawsuit _1_ethnic-studies-classes-tucson-unified-school-district-controversial-immigration-law?_s=PM:US

From Wikki - "The land that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo brought into the United States became, between 1850 and 1912, all or part of the States of California (1850), Nevada (1864) Colorado (1876), Wyoming (1890), Utah (1896), New Mexico (1912), Kansas (1912) and Arizona (1912) as well as the whole of, depending upon interpretation, the entire State of Texas. The remainder (the southern parts) of New Mexico and Arizona were peacefully purchased under Gadsden Purchase, which was carried out in 1853."

AZ Medicaid problems are just the begining of what Obamacare will put upon all the states except LA, we got the LA Purchase. Hahahahaha! :lol:

[Bigdogjim]

At least it's an attempt to shift the cost burden to the segment of the population whose poor health has mostly been self-inflicted. I would call it personal accountability.

If you become Diabetic it is not always your fault.

When I attended "class" for diabetic's some 5 years ago out of 45 people in the room only 2 were overweight?

[FordNut]

If you become Diabetic it is not always your fault.

When I attended "class" for diabetic's some 5 years ago out of 45 people in the room only 2 were overweight?

From the original post:

Coury says diabetes patients who fail to follow their doctor's orders to loseweight would be subjected to the $50 charge.

If any medicaid recipient (not just diabetics) refuses to follow their doctor's orders they should be charged the fee.

My comment wasn't intended to be directed toward the diabetic issue, it was mainly directed toward the smoker's surcharge. Everybody knows and has known for decades, that smoking contributes to heart disease, cancer, hypertension, stroke, and numerous other health problems. If someone makes the choice to smoke anyway, they should be willing to take responsibility for the repercussions. I don't smoke and don't think I should have to pay for their self-induced healthcare problems.

The weight issue is another matter. I know some people are overweight due to factors outside their control, but a large percentage of the obese population are that way because they don't take care of themselves. They don't exercise, don't eat right, and then expect somebody else to take responsibility for the health problems associated with their obesity. Maybe I'm an exception, but I saw myself getting too heavy awhile back and took action, losing over 40 lb through diet and exercise. Too many people won't do that because it takes a lot of work, they want a quick fix from a doctor's visit.

We could touch on alcohol and drug abuse in here too... I think all medicaid recipients should be required to take a drug and alcohol test every time they have any medical treatment.

[PonyUP]

From the original post:


If any medicaid recipient (not just diabetics) refuses to follow their doctor's orders they should be charged the fee.

My comment wasn't intended to be directed toward the diabetic issue, it was mainly directed toward the smoker's surcharge. Everybody knows and has known for decades, that smoking contributes to heart disease, cancer, hypertension, stroke, and numerous other health problems. If someone makes the choice to smoke anyway, they should be willing to take responsibility for the repercussions. I don't smoke and don't think I should have to pay for their self-induced healthcare problems.

The weight issue is another matter. I know some people are overweight due to factors outside their control, but a large percentage of the obese population are that way because they don't take care of themselves. They don't exercise, don't eat right, and then expect somebody else to take responsibility for the health problems associated with their obesity. Maybe I'm an exception, but I saw myself getting too heavy awhile back and took action, losing over 40 lb through diet and exercise. Too many people won't do that because it takes a lot of work, they want a quick fix from a doctor's visit.

We could touch on alcohol and drug abuse in here too... I think all medicaid recipients should be required to take a drug and alcohol test every time they have any medical treatment.

As a smoker, I'm fine with paying higher health care costs, I'm fine with paying enormous taxes on the cigarettes themselves, I'm not fine with paying an additional "just because" tax.

For everyone that said "It's just $50" that's where it starts. Does anyone truly believe it will stay at $50? If you do, I hear we can build this bridge in Alaska that I will sell you.

People failing to follow doctors orders are one thing, but what happens when someone develops diabetes after being in perfect healtch following complications from a Heart Attack? I'm sure they love seeing the government foot coming at them while they are down.

If Arizona is having such a budget crisis, I suggest a few things. Having lived in Tucson

1. Your economy sucks, it sucks because you have people hop across the border at will to be day laborers and they hop back home at night, spending the money in mexico
2. You have the 3rd largest stolen vehicle percentage in the country, see problem 1
3. You couldn't lay out and plan a city if a bunch of spocks from Vulcan were on your planning committee.

My point to all of this is that they continue to raise taxes on the people it will hurt the most and give tax breaks to the bracket that doesn't need it. And the longer we are willing to sit back and take it as the middle class, they will do it.

[BODYMAN]

Pony up, youre 100% right start at 50 and once acepted it climbs from there. As for being held accountable for smoking, Iam one of the Dumb*****s that smoke and Iam all for holding us smokers responsible. 50.00 is like give them some gun legislation and they will want more its has become the American way give a inch take a mile.

[kernie]

As a smoker, I'm fine with paying higher health care costs, I'm fine with paying enormous taxes on the cigarettes themselves, I'm not fine with paying an additional "just because" tax.

For everyone that said "It's just $50" that's where it starts. Does anyone truly believe it will stay at $50? If you do, I hear we can build this bridge in Alaska that I will sell you.

People failing to follow doctors orders are one thing, but what happens when someone develops diabetes after being in perfect healtch following complications from a Heart Attack? I'm sure they love seeing the government foot coming at them while they are down.

If Arizona is having such a budget crisis, I suggest a few things. Having lived in Tucson

1. Your economy sucks, it sucks because you have people hop across the border at will to be day laborers and they hop back home at night, spending the money in mexico
2. You have the 3rd largest stolen vehicle percentage in the country, see problem 1
3. You couldn't lay out and plan a city if a bunch of spocks from Vulcan were on your planning committee.

My point to all of this is that they continue to raise taxes on the people it will hurt the most and give tax breaks to the bracket that doesn't need it. And the longer we are willing to sit back and take it as the middle class, they will do it.

Let me add to the list, the following is from the article.
Hockey in the desert, :shake:, a proven loser.

The Arizona Republic reports that the bonds offered by the city of Glendale for Mr. Hulsizer will ultimately cost taxpayers $250-340 million. That figure includes the initial bond offering of $100 million the city plans to issue to help Mr. Hulsizer buy the team, as well as projected interest on that bond. Additionally the city is obligated to pay Mr. Hulsizer $97 million for arena management over 5 years.
Mr. Hulsizer apparently is promising only that revenues from all sources—such as arena events, rental payments, parking revenues—will total at least $75 million over 30 years and that he would make up any shortfall up to that amount. That would still leave taxpayers on the hook for as much as $362 million, which Mr. Hulsizer is not guaranteeing.

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5850

[LIGHTNIN1]

Next they will figure out it is profitable to tax people who have warts or brown hair. Hell tax the blind, the stupid,people who shuffle sideways when they walk.:mad2:

[PonyUP]

Next they will figure out it is profitable to tax people who have warts or brown hair. Hell tax the blind, the stupid,people who shuffle sideways when they walk.:mad2:

No kidding, or how about this, because it really wouldn't be much of a stretch from what they are proposing,

Because the government has deemed 8 cylinder cars to present a clear and rresent danger to the environment, anyone who drives a V-8 wil be subject to $50 tax once a year :mad2::mad2::mad2:, but hey it's only$50 right?

You see it's all alright as long as it doesn't effect you. People won't care about this because smokers are a small population nowadays (except in AZ where it has been my experience they have a 50% smoking population), and discrimination against the obese is the only discrimination that is tolerated nowadays

But when the tyrents want to tax something that directly effects you, by then it will be too late because we didn't stand up at the outset of ridiculous taxes.

[FordNut]

Most of the healthcare providers around here will not hire anybody who smokes. They test everybody, even current employees. Current employees can't be fired for it but they pay a surcharge on their insurance if they smoke, and if their test shows that they claimed to be a non-smoker but turn out to really be a smoker they are penalized. It's not really sold as a surcharge, but non-smokers get a discount not available to smokers. Tomayto or tomahto.

[LIGHTNIN1]

No kidding, or how about this, because it really wouldn't be much of a stretch from what they are proposing,

Because the government has deemed 8 cylinder cars to present a clear and rresent danger to the environment, anyone who drives a V-8 wil be subject to $50 tax once a year :mad2::mad2::mad2:, but hey it's only$50 right?

You see it's all alright as long as it doesn't effect you. People won't care about this because smokers are a small population nowadays (except in AZ where it has been my experience they have a 50% smoking population), and discrimination against the obese is the only discrimination that is tolerated nowadays

But when the tyrents want to tax something that directly effects you, by then it will be too late because we didn't stand up at the outset of ridiculous taxes.

AGEED! In the end there is nothing sacred to these people. Remember they tried to tax cow flatulence? They might do that on humans. They proposed tax on toilet paper. Maybe you get no more than one flush daily or you are charged $50 surcharged. It could easily happen.

[PonyUP]

AGEED! In the end there is nothing sacred to these people. Remember they tried to tax cow flatulence? They might do that on humans. They proposed tax on toilet paper. Maybe you get no more than one flush daily or you are charged $50 surcharged. It could easily happen.


:lol::lol:, I don't know why but this just made me laugh. I just got this image of cows blasting ass and an IRS guy standing there with one of those SARS masks while the farmer is digging deep for the tax penalty.

But you are so right, why they keep raising taxes on those that make the country run is beyond me.

[Fosters]

From the original post:


If any medicaid recipient (not just diabetics) refuses to follow their doctor's orders they should be charged the fee.

My comment wasn't intended to be directed toward the diabetic issue, it was mainly directed toward the smoker's surcharge. Everybody knows and has known for decades, that smoking contributes to heart disease, cancer, hypertension, stroke, and numerous other health problems. If someone makes the choice to smoke anyway, they should be willing to take responsibility for the repercussions. I don't smoke and don't think I should have to pay for their self-induced healthcare problems.

The weight issue is another matter. I know some people are overweight due to factors outside their control, but a large percentage of the obese population are that way because they don't take care of themselves. They don't exercise, don't eat right, and then expect somebody else to take responsibility for the health problems associated with their obesity. Maybe I'm an exception, but I saw myself getting too heavy awhile back and took action, losing over 40 lb through diet and exercise. Too many people won't do that because it takes a lot of work, they want a quick fix from a doctor's visit.

We could touch on alcohol and drug abuse in here too... I think all medicaid recipients should be required to take a drug and alcohol test every time they have any medical treatment.

This.

:beer:

I would type more, but that'll just piss off people :D

[CBT]

Next they will figure out it is profitable to tax people who have warts or brown hair. Hell tax the blind, the stupid,people who shuffle sideways when they walk.:mad2:

Whoa, hey, easy now. I only have so much money to burn.

[Fosters]

I would be all for a tax on the stupid. Hell, they elected Obama, they should pay for the damage... :D

[duhtroll]

There is already a tax on being fat. It is called "having to buy more food."

[CBT]

There is already a tax on being fat. It is called "having to buy more food."
...omg...:lol:

[Bigdogjim]

There is already a tax on being fat. It is called "having to buy more food."

True is cost extra to supersize:flamer:

[ctrlraven]

My insurance company charges $75 per year if the policy holder or anyone on their insurance plan uses any form of tobacco.

[PonyUP]

My insurance company charges $75 per year if the policy holder or anyone on their insurance plan uses any form of tobacco.

Yup, and I'm totally cool with that. If we are stupid enough to smoke after all the warnings, we should pay additional insurance charges, but I shouldn't also endure a "just because" tax from my state government because they managed their finances so poorly, that now they need more money.

Why should I have to pay more money to any governement entity when they have shown they can't balance the countries "check book"

I'll be happy to pay "just because" taxes when the government shows me they can manage the finances responsibly.

[duhtroll]

My homeowners ins. asked me more than once if there were a pool or a trampoline anywhere on my property. They were really worried about the trampoline. Apparently they also insure someone else on the same street that has one and they thought I was lying to them.

And also apparently trampolines are death traps.


My insurance company charges $75 per year if the policy holder or anyone on their insurance plan uses any form of tobacco.

[PonyUP]

My homeowners ins. asked me more than once if there were a pool or a trampoline anywhere on my property. They were really worried about the trampoline. Apparently they also insure someone else on the same street that has one and they thought I was lying to them.

And also apparently trampolines are death traps.

That I kind of understand, because of the increased likelyhood of a serious injury or fatality that would increase the insurance payout, it would go to say the insurance premiums will be higher. Just like if you live in a frequent flood area or hurricane.

It's funny though, when I was a kid, I don't remember the trampoline being dangerous, but now that I'm older I get it, thought I still want to jump on it :lol:

[Vortex]

Do you really "hate our government?" If so, maybe you should move to Algeria or someplace. Im sure you meant you disagree with some public policy.

[Fosters]

Do you really "hate our government?" If so, maybe you should move to Algeria or someplace. Im sure you meant you disagree with some public policy.

I hate our government. But then again, I hate all governments equally. :D

[PonyUP]

Do you really "hate our government?" If so, maybe you should move to Algeria or someplace. Im sure you meant you disagree with some public policy.

Yeah, call it poetic license, I disagree with a lot of their policies because most of them are geared towards hurting the middle class. Most increased taxes are directly assessed to the middle class.

Between the Bleeding heart Liberals of the democratic party and the ultra conservatives of the Republican party, essentially what both parties are trying to do is inflict their thoughts and ideas into my life. These parties are supposed to represent the best interests of the people they represent, instead they represent the best interest of the strongest lobbyists and go where the money is.

Whether it's the Church, the Environment, Wall Street, or the NRA, all the lobbyists get politicians in their pocket so they can swing votes the way they want.

And then when the government overspends their budget, they raise my taxes(and if tax breaks to the lobbyists). When they can prove that they can balance their checkbook, I may start liking them again. :beer:

I love how the Dem's proposed a budget with $20bil in cuts, the Republicans want over $60bil, the Dem's come back with $33bil, which means we'll eventually land somewhere around $45bil

And none of that will make a fricking dent, until I see cuts that amount to something with the word Trillion, it's not gonna matter. $45 bil would be the equivelent of me taking a $5 paycut, that won't benefit the company at all, and won't hurt me at all.

You see it's time for everyone to run for reelection, so they just want to appear as if they are cutting. Rant over

I don't hate the idea that our governemnt is supposed to be, but I do hate what it has become

[CBT]

Don't forget all the crap bills/pork that will be added by both sides. Maybe mass amnesty will try and be slipped in again.

[Fosters]

Yeah, call it poetic license, I disagree with a lot of their policies because most of them are geared towards hurting the middle class. Most increased taxes are directly assessed to the middle class.

Between the Bleeding heart Liberals of the democratic party and the ultra conservatives of the Republican party, essentially what both parties are trying to do is inflict their thoughts and ideas into my life. These parties are supposed to represent the best interests of the people they represent, instead they represent the best interest of the strongest lobbyists and go where the money is.

Whether it's the Church, the Environment, Wall Street, or the NRA, all the lobbyists get politicians in their pocket so they can swing votes the way they want.

And then when the government overspends their budget, they raise my taxes(and if tax breaks to the lobbyists). When they can prove that they can balance their checkbook, I may start liking them again. :beer:

I love how the Dem's proposed a budget with $20bil in cuts, the Republicans want over $60bil, the Dem's come back with $33bil, which means we'll eventually land somewhere around $45bil

And none of that will make a fricking dent, until I see cuts that amount to something with the word Trillion, it's not gonna matter. $45 bil would be the equivelent of me taking a $5 paycut, that won't benefit the company at all, and won't hurt me at all.

You see it's time for everyone to run for reelection, so they just want to appear as if they are cutting. Rant over

I don't hate the idea that our governemnt is supposed to be, but I do hate what it has become

To be fair, the squandering over the few billions here and there are for the remainder of this year. That was done because lazy ass democrats didn't want to pass a budget last year when they controlled the house and senate, as they would have lost even more elections/seats.

The republicans have introduced a budget plan for the next decade, with the word trillion in it ~6trillion depending on who you ask. Still not enough IMO, the cuts should be to the point they take our yearly budget to under the yearly receipts, but this is a start. My idea of a budget would never get signed by Obama.. If the next president (or if Obama wins another term) doesn't ramp up cuts, we're in deep doo-doo. Our debt is a powder keg, and if other nations start to divest themselves from the USD as the world reserve currency, we are royally screwed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/05/gop-unveil-budget-plan-cutting-6t-decade/

[Fosters]

Don't forget all the crap bills/pork that will be added by both sides. Maybe mass amnesty will try and be slipped in again.

:stupid:

It's a good thing I'm not a congressman, or I'd try to sneak in some really idiotic **** into bills until all of them would start reading the stuff religiously...

Mandate at least one shotgun per house where a convict doesn't reside, tax on hybrids to subsidize heating fuels, etc :D

[LIGHTNIN1]

:stupid:

It's a good thing I'm not a congressman, or I'd try to sneak in some really idiotic **** into bills until all of them would start reading the stuff religiously...

Mandate at least one shotgun per house where a convict doesn't reside, tax on hybrids to subsidize heating fuels, etc :D

You could really have fun slipping in rediculous bills, but hey aren't they doing that already, but their rediculous stuff they are serious with.
They are trying to scare us now with shutting down the government. The thing needs to be shut down for a long, long time.I will gladly help pay them all to go to VEGAS to party, drink whiskey, and chase women, the things congressmen should be doing instead of passing legislation that either taxes me more or takes away more of my freedoms. The less they work the better off I am. Shut'er Down. Git'er dun.

[CBT]

You could really have fun slipping in rediculous bills, but hey aren't they doing that already, but their rediculous stuff they are serious with.
They are trying to scare us now with shutting down the government. The thing needs to be shut down for a long, long time.I will gladly help pay them all to go to VEGAS to party, drink whiskey, and chase women, the things congressmen should be doing instead of passing legislation that either taxes me more or takes away more of my freedoms. The less they work the better off I am. Shut'er Down. Git'er dun.
You know, that actually makes perfect sense!

[Haggis]

All Politicians should take at least a 25% paycut to help with the budget.

[kernie]

Tax the poop out of the wealthy {ummm, that's where the money is}and cut a third from the military budget. Outlaw lobbyist and let the government pay itself.
Rejuvenate healthcare using some of the worlds better universal systems as a guide, cutting out the "providers" {lol, man they have nerve stealing that word from the doctors and nurses} who add a huge burden with thier un-needed presence.

I've got more, but not today. :D

:beer:

[Haggis]

Tax the poop out of the wealthy {ummm, that's where the money is}Politicians are wealthy. and cut a third from the military budget. Bring home the troops, even from Europe and Asia. Outlaw lobbyist and let the government pay itself. Agree.Rejuvenate healthcare using some of the worlds better universal systems as a guide, cutting out the "providers" {lol, man they have nerve stealing that word from the doctors and nurses} who add a huge burden with thier un-needed presence. Agreed, there are too many misc. charges add to hospital and doctors bills
I've got more, but not today. :D Come on your on a roll.
:beer:
..........

[PonyUP]

Tax the poop out of the wealthy {ummm, that's where the money is}True but keep in mind that they also pay the mahjority of the taxes in the country and have the ability to easily move to other countries to avoid enormous tax increases and cut a third from the military budget. I agree with Haggis, admit Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are failing. Hell in Afghanistan, because this Karza idiot said something about that Florida Minister burning the Koran, there is now a huge Anti American sentiment in afghanistan, I say fine, you're on your own now jerkweeds. Good luck with the Taliban, Outlaw lobbyist and let the government pay itself. Yup :beer:
Rejuvenate healthcare using some of the worlds better universal systems as a guide, cutting out the "providers" {lol, man they have nerve stealing that word from the doctors and nurses} who add a huge burden with thier un-needed presence. I think Healthcare can only be solved by developing a bipartisan commission of Rep's and Dem's that have a history of working with each other towards an agreement, unfortunately these souls probably don't exist anymore

I've got more, but not today. :D

:beer:

Look at that Kernie, we agree on some stuff :beer:

[PonyUP]

To be fair, the squandering over the few billions here and there are for the remainder of this year. That was done because lazy ass democrats didn't want to pass a budget last year when they controlled the house and senate, as they would have lost even more elections/seats.

The republicans have introduced a budget plan for the next decade, with the word trillion in it ~6trillion depending on who you ask. Still not enough IMO, the cuts should be to the point they take our yearly budget to under the yearly receipts, but this is a start. My idea of a budget would never get signed by Obama.. If the next president (or if Obama wins another term) doesn't ramp up cuts, we're in deep doo-doo. Our debt is a powder keg, and if other nations start to divest themselves from the USD as the world reserve currency, we are royally screwed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/05/gop-unveil-budget-plan-cutting-6t-decade/

Yeah I was just reading about that on CNN money. 6 Trillion in cuts and a Medicare overhaul? I like it a lot. I agree, regardless of who the next President is, they need to have one item and one item only on their agenda, get spending under control, especially with entitlements.

But it won't happen, oh sure they will campaign on it, but then once elected or re-elected they will spend there next terms delivering everything they promised to their lobbyists.

[duhtroll]

And so do I - no more lobbyists, period.

Get us out of our wars, agreed. That in and of itself takes care of much if not all the desired military cuts without even losing any jobs or people to roadside bombs. Let's enforce our own borders instead.

And for healthcare, all we have to do is make our politicians take on the same plan as the middle class average. I think we'd be amazed how fast costs go down.

But if government regulation is bad, what is regulation of government considered? ;)


Look at that Kernie, we agree on some stuff :beer:

[PonyUP]

And so do I - no more lobbyists, period.

Get us out of our wars, agreed. That in and of itself takes care of much if not all the desired military cuts without even losing any jobs or people to roadside bombs. Let's enforce our own borders instead.

And for healthcare, all we have to do is make our politicians take on the same plan as the middle class average. I think we'd be amazed how fast costs go down.

But if government regulation is bad, what is regulation of government considered? ;)

couldn't agree more, especially about healthcare. If we made the politicians victims, I mean patients of the healthcare system, I'll bet it would be pretty damn good.

Can we create a government to oversee and regulate the government? :D

[LIGHTNIN1]

couldn't agree more, especially about healthcare. If we made the politicians victims, I mean patients of the healthcare system, I'll bet it would be pretty damn good.

Can we create a government to oversee and regulate the government? :D

I think they call that an Interagency Task Force. Make them all wear pink.

[duhtroll]

In the first school I worked at the older teachers told me they used to have a "WHO Squad."

If you had a problem with someone, they would call the "WHO Squad," and they would come into the room and ask, "Who?" Then they would drag that person out of the class.

I would like to do the same thing with many of our elected officials.




couldn't agree more, especially about healthcare. If we made the politicians victims, I mean patients of the healthcare system, I'll bet it would be pretty damn good.

Can we create a government to oversee and regulate the government? :D

[PonyUP]

I think they call that an Interagency Task Force. Make them all wear pink.

:lol: The Pink Mafia, I love it.

[Fosters]

Tax the poop out of the wealthy {ummm, that's where the money is}

The whole "tax the rich because they have the money" is the most retarded thing i've ever heard. Why not tax the people who use the services? Why do the rich have to sponsor some lazy octo-mom on welfare? What happened to paying for what you're using? How about I quit my job and have you pay my bills, because you'd be more rich than me at that point? Would you be ok with that, or are you only ok with redistributing other people's money, but not your money?

I agree with the defense budget, everything has to be on the table.

You got more? I'll be here all day. But if taxing the wealthy because they have money is your best argument, I'm afraid this will be a rather one sided battle.
:flamer:

[Bigdogjim]

Use a flat tax!

People on welfare and unemploynent well give 'em a broom and let 'em clean up the town(s) see how quick they find work....

[ParkRanger]

To be fair, the squandering over the few billions here and there are for the remainder of this year. That was done because lazy ass democrats didn't want to pass a budget last year when they controlled the house and senate, as they would have lost even more elections/seats.

The republicans have introduced a budget plan for the next decade, with the word trillion in it ~6trillion depending on who you ask. Still not enough IMO, the cuts should be to the point they take our yearly budget to under the yearly receipts, but this is a start. My idea of a budget would never get signed by Obama.. If the next president (or if Obama wins another term) doesn't ramp up cuts, we're in deep doo-doo. Our debt is a powder keg, and if other nations start to divest themselves from the USD as the world reserve currency, we are royally screwed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/05/gop-unveil-budget-plan-cutting-6t-decade/

There was a budget surplus in 2000. What happened?

[Bluerauder]

Tax the poop out of the wealthy {ummm, that's where the money is}and cut a third from the military budget..:


I agree with the defense budget, everything has to be on the table.

Again, many people like to look at the defense budget as an easy target. A 30% cut there would be devastating. The Defense establishment was cut about 35% after the end of the Cold War. Since then it has grown back about 10% in order to meet the demands in Bosnia, Somalia, Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world. The operational tempo of today's force is burning out the troops. A 30% cut in the defense budget equates to a 30% cut in troop strength .... across ALL of the services. It can't be done unless and until the US cuts back on the number of missions it is required to support.

Oh Yeah and it will throw hundreds of thousands of soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen out of work and into an economy that cannot absorb them until economic growth returns. (BTW -- I didn't mention the USCG because they are not funded under the Defense budget).

Here's some stats that I posted back in February 2011 related to the FY11 Budget submission ..... that OBTW has not even been passed and Defense is operating under FY10 limits.




Something to think about …..

A lot of people turn almost immediately to Defense Spending when it comes to making budgets cuts in Federal Spending. Despite far more lucrative targets like fraud and waste in “Mandatory Accounts’ as I mentioned above … many in the public view military procurement as a big target. They still remember the $600 toilet seat and $3000 coffeemaker examples. Truth is that really isn’t a big target. Here’s why using the FY11 Budget Submission.

DoD Base Budget $552.8 Billion (-30% = $165.8 Billion)

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) $159.8 Billion ($3.07 Billion per week as CBT states) (-30% = $47.9 Billion)

Total DoD Budget Authority $712.1 Billion (-30% = $213.6 Billion)

Where Does It Go?

Military Personnel (Salaries, etc) $158.8 Billion (-30% = $47.6 Billion)

Operations & Maintenance (O&M)(Infrastructure, Utilities, spare parts, etc) $317.9 Billion (-30% = $95.4 Billion)

Procurement (everything from ships and tanks to radios and computers) $137.5 Billion (-30% = $41.3 Billion)

RDTE (Research & Development) $76.7 Billion (-30% = $23.0 Billion)

Military Construction (new buildings, upgrades, roads, etc.) $18.2 Billion (-30% = $5.5 Billion)

Family Housing (on-base quarters and programs) $1.8 Billion (-30% = $0.5 Billion)

Other $0.4 Billion (-30% = $0.12 Billion)


How the Base Budget of $552.8 Billion is Distributed among the Services

Army $141.7 Billion (-30% = $42.5 Billion)

Navy/Marine Corps $160.3 Billion (the USMC falls under the US Navy for budget purposes) (-30% = $48.1 Billion)

Air Force $149.8 Billion (-30% = $44.9 Billion)

DoD-Wide $100.8 Billion (-30% = $30.2 Billion)


Strength Totals in FY11 Budget

Army 547,000 (-30% = 164,100)
Navy 324,000 (-30% = 97,200)
Marine Corps 202,000 (-30% = 60,600)
Air Force 332,000 (-30% = 99,600)
Active Guard & Reserve 78,000 (-30% =23,400)
Civilian 752,000 (-30% = 225,600)

A cut of 30% in Defense would result in immediate unemployment for 444,900 servicemen and women and 225,600 civilians. Total unemployment increase 670,500.

And What Do You Get?

Army 45 Active and 28 Reserve Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and associated support brigades (-30% = 14 Active and 9 Reserve Brigades or roughly the equivalent of 4 to 5 divisions)

Navy 11 Aircraft Carrier Groups, 29 Amphibious Warfare ships, and associated fleet (-30% = 3 carrier groups, 9 AW ships)

Marine Corps 27 Active and 9 Reserve Infantry Battalions and associated support (-30% = 8 active and 3 reserve Marine battalions or the equivalent of 1 Marine Division)

Air Force 32 Active and 28 Reserve Fighter Squadrons, 96 Bombers, and associated support (-30% = 10 active and 8 reserve fighter squadrons and 29 bombers)



Fully 2/3 of the Defense Budget ($476.7 Billion) is in the Military Personnel and the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) accounts. The only way to achieve any real savings in DoD is to reduce force structure which is the driver for both Military Personnel and O&M costs.

Sure you can trim Procurement costs or R&D costs. However, we have been doing that for years. All of the services have delayed procurements of new ships, new aircraft, new tanks and fighting vehicles. At some point the delay will catch up to us. It is already forcing higher than normal maintenance and repair costs. The M1 Abrams tank is now 30 years old. The M2/M3 Bradley is about 25 years old. Service Life Extension programs will only go so far until these basic platforms just can’t make it any longer. The B-52 bomber has been in service for the past 50 years. It is now on its 10th or 11th upgrade. I forget. How old is the F-14, F-15, and F-18 fighter planes. Didn’t the F-22 and F-35 get cancelled? Anyone care to name the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers and when they were built?

Whether we are in Iraq or Afghanistan is a National Policy decision. Since we ARE there, this is the budget that supports it. Sure the wars can be cancelled and we can bring everyone home and eliminate their position. We can shrink the size of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and ……

However, we as a country have never been really good at predicting the future. After every war to date, we continued to shrink the defense force until someone thought that we were weak enough to attack. Or weak enough not to be effective. At that point, the USA had to scramble to replace neglected or outdated forces and train a ******** of new recruits.

History says that we need to maintain a strong base core fighting force.

Can we save a little? Yeah, maybe some. But not a whole hell of a lot. Maybe 10% Maximum

And that’s my thoughts on Why the Defense Budget should not be the 1st target of budget cutters and bean counters.

[Fosters]

There was a budget surplus in 2000. What happened?

If you're looking for me to defend Bush, look elsewhere. If anything, the democrats should have loved him; spent a ******** of money and before Obama engineered the largest expansion of government; catered to hispanics (and still lost that vote), catered to the greenies (and still lost that vote), signed all kinds of green bills, from CAFE standards to subsidies for renewable energy that can't stand on its own, etc...

But hey, feel free to keep blaming Bush, maybe one day Obama and his fans will grow up and take some responsibility for what they're doing to this country...




Again, many people like to look at the defense budget as an easy target. A 30% cut there would be devastating. The Defense establishment was cut about 35% after the end of the Cold War. Since then it has grown back about 10% in order to meet the demands in Bosnia, Somalia, Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world. The operational tempo of today's force is burning out the troops. A 30% cut in the defense budget equates to a 30% cut in troop strength .... across ALL of the services. It can't be done unless and until the US cuts back on the number of missions it is required to support.

Oh Yeah and it will throw hundreds of thousands of soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen out of work and into an economy that cannot absorb them until economic growth returns. (BTW -- I didn't mention the USCG because they are not funded under the Defense budget).

Here's some stats that I posted back in February 2011 related to the FY11 Budget submission ..... that OBTW has not even been passed and Defense is operating under FY10 limits.

I shouldn't have made it as blanket "fully agree" with him as it came out. I agree in the sense that everything needs to be on the table, 30% may not be the magic number - though if Obama said cutting every entitlement program out there completely at the cost of 30% of the military tomorrow, I'd be all for it. I agree, defense is an easy target; but you can't deny that there are all sorts of typical government inefficiencies there that we could do without. If anything, defending the country, is probably the only real duty the federal government has. Redistributing income and being in the charity business is nowhere in the constitution...

[PonyUP]

Again, many people like to look at the defense budget as an easy target. A 30% cut there would be devastating. The Defense establishment was cut about 35% after the end of the Cold War. Since then it has grown back about 10% in order to meet the demands in Bosnia, Somalia, Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world. The operational tempo of today's force is burning out the troops. A 30% cut in the defense budget equates to a 30% cut in troop strength .... across ALL of the services. It can't be done unless and until the US cuts back on the number of missions it is required to support.

Oh Yeah and it will throw hundreds of thousands of soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen out of work and into an economy that cannot absorb them until economic growth returns. (BTW -- I didn't mention the USCG because they are not funded under the Defense budget).

Here's some stats that I posted back in February 2011 related to the FY11 Budget submission ..... that OBTW has not even been passed and Defense is operating under FY10 limits.

Great information Blue, I am for cutting military spending, meaning get out of the Middle East completely and stop sending the boys everywhere where some asshat does something stupid. That would solve the readiness problem, the economic problem as far as troops entering the economy all at once, and it would be a huge step forward in solving the border problem

:beer:

[LIGHTNIN1]

I like blaming Bush for everything. That makes life interesting doesn't it? I think blaming George Forman for a lot of stuff. If he had only not come up with that grilling idea.;)

[duhtroll]

Fine - I'll throw my hat in with the "tax the people who use the services" thing.

Lets do NO personal income tax, for anyone.

Everything is now a sales tax. Prices for every single product sold here (or delivered to here from outside the US) will be taxed by a % of the original cost. The people who spend more, pay more. The people who spend less, pay less. Higher priced luxury items will cost substantially more.

Sign me up. We don't spend money much in my household - never eat out, shop carefully, don't have the latest gear, etc.. I think I'll do well.

Do you think "the rich" will absorb more of the taxes? Or less?

Just one question - what y'all gonna do about defense, public safety, and education?

[Fosters]

Fine - I'll throw my hat in with the "tax the people who use the services" thing.

Lets do NO personal income tax, for anyone.

Everything is now a sales tax. Prices for every single product sold here (or delivered to here from outside the US) will be taxed by a % of the original cost. The people who spend more, pay more. The people who spend less, pay less. Higher priced luxury items will cost substantially more.

Sign me up. We don't spend money much in my household - never eat out, shop carefully, don't have the latest gear, etc.. I think I'll do well.

Do you think "the rich" will absorb more of the taxes? Or less?


I'm all for a consumption tax. It'll never fly though; someone's gonna save their money and soon enough, someone trying to hang with the Joneses will start crying on how the other guy has more money... Not to mention this will be villified as a tax on the poor and a tax cut for the rich.

Everyone's taxes could go down, depending on how much they spent. The advantage is, illegals working for cash would be forced to pay taxes this way, and there would be no more loopholes/deductions/credits (hopefully).


Just one question - what y'all gonna do about defense, public safety, and education?

Just because it's you, fire them all and privatize the whole thing.

[Fosters]

Older graph, but I doubt the picture changed much:

http://www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20 the%20Taxes.jpg

I think we can see who's not paying their "fair share"... if you believe it's the rich who aren't, feel free to point out what you think is "fair"...

[duhtroll]

This is only one side of the story. Find an updated graph that shows where the money is and who controls the wealth. Not just income, since income for lots of rich folks is not the actual money they make since it can be split between businesses (or corporations :D ) Then we can decide what is fair.

EDIT: I should add that "updated" means showing the actual levels of income and WEALTH used - dollar amounts and not just %s that could be interpreted in several ways. Also, does this include corporate taxes, or should I say "refunds for not paying taxes" a-la GE? :lol:

Also, some attempt should be made to show how many people are in each category. Otherwise there is no way to figure individual averages based on income.


Older graph, but I doubt the picture changed much:

http://www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20 the%20Taxes.jpg

I think we can see who's not paying their "fair share"... if you believe it's the rich who aren't, feel free to point out what you think is "fair"...

[Fosters]

This is only one side of the story. Find an updated graph that shows where the money is and who controls the wealth. Not just income, since income for lots of rich folks is not the actual money they make since it can be split between businesses (or corporations :D ) Then we can decide what is fair.

EDIT: I should add that "updated" means showing the actual levels of income and WEALTH used - dollar amounts and not just %s that could be interpreted in several ways. Also, does this include corporate taxes, or should I say "refunds for not paying taxes" a-la GE? :lol:

Also, some attempt should be made to show how many people are in each category. Otherwise there is no way to figure individual averages based on income.

So now if a person doesn't spend all of the money they get, and they save it up instead, you need to know how much wealth they accumulated? Would it make you feel warmer or colder at night knowing someone decides to live a frugal life and save up, or that someone else is knee deep into a McMansion mortgage with an H2 and an Escalade up front on a 50k salary?

What exactly is your rationale for wanting to look at how much people accumulated? What if I'm a millionaire wanting to live on hot dogs and drive a 500 dollar broken down minivan, do I still need to be taxed more just because I'm not out blowing it on high dollar items?

Mind your own business, try to better your own situation, and stop worrying about what others are doing. Let them rise and fall by their own decisions. Leave the sour grapes and politics of envy at home, they do no one any good.

I believe this is personal incomes. I'm a firm believer that either a flat tax rate or a consumption tax would need to be implemented to make everything "fair"; with the added stipulation that ALL deductions and tax credits and subsidies would need to be cut. GE, and any large corporation like that are prime examples; all the way down to small chapter S corps, and octo-moms choosing to have a baby factory.

If I choose to spend my money on Mickeys and Nitrous, and octo-mom decides to spend hers on diapers and strollers, why do I need to sponsor her baby making hobby, and why isn't she buying me bottle refills instead? :D

[CBT]

If I choose to spend my money on Mickeys and Nitrous, and octo-mom decides to spend hers on diapers and strollers, why do I need to sponsor her baby making hobby, and why isn't she buying me bottle refills instead? :D

We touched on this last night in my human behavior class, and I believe, if I remember what the teacher was implying, you are a typical male pig and how dare you try and tell a woman what she can and can't do with her birth canal.

[Haggis]

We touched on this last night in my human behavior class, and I believe, if I remember what the teacher was implying, you are a typical male pig and how dare you try and tell a woman what she can and can't do with her birth canal.

Was your teacher wearing a leather vest with 'Dike's on Bikes' on the back?

[Fosters]

We touched on this last night in my human behavior class, and I believe, if I remember what the teacher was implying, you are a typical male pig and how dare you try and tell a woman what she can and can't do with her birth canal.

Well, then, if that's the case, she should make it law that no woman will ever interfere with car modding, sports watching, and beer drinking from now on.

Hell, that would make for a fun divorce if you had to pay child support and they had to pay vehicle "upkeep & improvements" :P

[CBT]

Was your teacher wearing a leather vest with 'Dike's on Bikes' on the back?
No, I attend Saint Leo, she was a nun. Her biker jacket says "You've never had nun and you never will" on it.

[Haggis]

No, I attend Saint Leo, she was a nun. Her biker jacket says "Nuns' with Buns; You've never had nun and you never will" on it.

Fixed it for you!!

[CBT]

Fixed it for you!!

You need help :lol:

[MrBluGruv]

Fine - I'll throw my hat in with the "tax the people who use the services" thing.

Lets do NO personal income tax, for anyone.

Everything is now a sales tax. Prices for every single product sold here (or delivered to here from outside the US) will be taxed by a % of the original cost. The people who spend more, pay more. The people who spend less, pay less. Higher priced luxury items will cost substantially more.

Sign me up. We don't spend money much in my household - never eat out, shop carefully, don't have the latest gear, etc.. I think I'll do well.

Do you think "the rich" will absorb more of the taxes? Or less?

Just one question - what y'all gonna do about defense, public safety, and education?


If income tax disappeared in favor of a proportionate increase in sales tax, how would it be unfair? Literally EVERYONE who wants to function in this society would contribute to its greater continuance from a financial standpoint. If sales tax doesn't support those programs as it is, redefine code so it does. It's not like we don't have a worker base to ensure proper distribution of the collected taxes, this little ugly billion-headed monster called the IRS. Give them something worthwhile to do instead of sort through tax returns and perform audits using the asinine tax code that's come to be.

It stands to reason a very possible outcome of this, is that even if you increase the sales tax rate to where on average those paying income tax see little to no difference in their annual tax contributions, the actual amount of tax revenue generated goes up because no one can slip under the radar if they expect to lead a realistic life here.

[PonyUP]

Income tax is a tricky conversation. The top 1% wage earners pay over a third of the taxes. It's easy to sit back and say "Well they can afford it" but before we take that rationale, we should consider say a doctor for instance

A Doctor making $250K a year would fall in a higher tax bracket, but being conservative let's say the Doc pays 30% in taxes amounting to $75K. Though we should also remember that the Doc had to pay to go to Med school, but that doesn't factor in

Then look at the person earning $25K in the 10% bracket, again conservatively, paying $2500 a year.

Now these taxes supposedly pay for defense, Social Security, Highways Schools etc.

The Doctor drives on the same highways as the worker, has the same defense, schools etc. yet pays $72.5K more a year in taxes for the same benefits.

And Our response is...They can afford it

Not exactly fair, but then taxes were never meant to be fair. Our revolution was based on the premise of there will be no taxation without representation. By virtue of that fact, you can say that is where the rich really benefit as they exude a tremendous amount of influence over their representitives via lobbyists and campaign donations.

We will never devise an even tax code. I make a good living, and I am happy to pay higher taxes because of it. The only fair thing we can do is when we raise taxes, raise it on everyone and when we lower taxes, lower it on everyone.

Or how about this, we don't need to change the tax code, but rather change what we spend it on and produce a balanced budget each year.

How do we do personal budgets, we look at our income and create a percentage we can spend on necessities (Home, Utilities, Transportation). In the Government, these are the entitlements.
then we set aside money for enjoyment (Social events, Mods :)) In the governement these are programs like the arts.

Then we set aside money for saving, our government has never been able to do this on a regular basis.

The government is no better than the asshat that maxes out their credit cards, has multiple loans they can't make payments on, and is upside down on their mortgage and spends whatever money they get on crap they don't need.

Taxation simplified,a large amount people have a propensity for the lavish and are idiots because of it, and want to keep up with the Joneses, The governement is run by those people.

[ParkRanger]

If you're looking for me to defend Bush, look elsewhere. If anything, the democrats should have loved him; spent a ******** of money and before Obama engineered the largest expansion of government; catered to hispanics (and still lost that vote), catered to the greenies (and still lost that vote), signed all kinds of green bills, from CAFE standards to subsidies for renewable energy that can't stand on its own, etc...

But hey, feel free to keep blaming Bush, maybe one day Obama and his fans will grow up and take some responsibility for what they're doing to this country...

...


I take it you don't know what happened to the surplus either. :confused:

[duhtroll]

For about the 14th time on this board, I will say I like my position and where I am financially. Envy has nothing to do with it. I could easily have taken computer courses and make 3-4x what I make now - or more. But money doesn't drive me like it drives some people.

However, measuring income is misleading and everyone here knows that. GE is a prime example. People with lots of investments, businesses, etc. can funnel money into different sources (legally) so that certain businesses don't make a single dollar or they can state personal income very differently based upon how they file their taxes or list their assets. Some can even get millions (or billions...) in credits and refunds.

I live a pretty frugal life, Marauder notwithstanding. It is one of the reasons people on this board and around school criticize me and make conclusions that "since I can afford a Marauder I am obviously doing well money-wise." Nowadays I respond with "oh, that 8 year old car that has been paid off for 4? You must mean that I take CARE of it because it LOOKS expensive, but it isn't. Sorry."

So I would never criticize someone for saving money. I am talking about the many ways "income" in this country can be calculated.

So it is not me making conclusions about others. Rather, it seems to be the opposite from your post.

Just because I like where I am, it does not mean our tax system is fair. And yes, I am a firm believer the higher income brackets have enough loopholes available to them that they don't pay enough.

EDIT: And those who save more money pay more taxes anyway. You pay taxes on interest earnings. Unless of course you make a whole heaping LOT of them and can move them to offshore holdings. ;)


So now if a person doesn't spend all of the money they get, and they save it up instead, you need to know how much wealth they accumulated? Would it make you feel warmer or colder at night knowing someone decides to live a frugal life and save up, or that someone else is knee deep into a McMansion mortgage with an H2 and an Escalade up front on a 50k salary?

What exactly is your rationale for wanting to look at how much people accumulated? What if I'm a millionaire wanting to live on hot dogs and drive a 500 dollar broken down minivan, do I still need to be taxed more just because I'm not out blowing it on high dollar items?

Mind your own business, try to better your own situation, and stop worrying about what others are doing. Let them rise and fall by their own decisions. Leave the sour grapes and politics of envy at home, they do no one any good.

I believe this is personal incomes. I'm a firm believer that either a flat tax rate or a consumption tax would need to be implemented to make everything "fair"; with the added stipulation that ALL deductions and tax credits and subsidies would need to be cut. GE, and any large corporation like that are prime examples; all the way down to small chapter S corps, and octo-moms choosing to have a baby factory.

If I choose to spend my money on Mickeys and Nitrous, and octo-mom decides to spend hers on diapers and strollers, why do I need to sponsor her baby making hobby, and why isn't she buying me bottle refills instead? :D

[Fosters]

For about the 14th time on this board, I will say I like my position and where I am financially. Envy has nothing to do with it. I could easily have taken computer courses and make 3-4x what I make now - or more. But money doesn't drive me like it drives some people.

However, measuring income is misleading and everyone here knows that. GE is a prime example. People with lots of investments, businesses, etc. can funnel money into different sources (legally) so that certain businesses don't make a single dollar or they can state personal income very differently based upon how they file their taxes or list their assets. Some can even get millions (or billions...) in credits and refunds.

You claim companies can reinvest profits and not pay taxes on it... What that's saying is, instead of taxing profits we should be taxing revenue? All of the money that comes into a business should be taxed? How would ANY company grow, ever? That would be much like taxing you whenever you take money out of the ATM, even if you deposit and withdraw the same $20 bill every time... Have you ever worked in a private sector competitive market? The "could have gone into xyz and made more money" line doesn't work. Wasn't there some Bell California city employee that said he could make the same 800k/yr in the private sector just as easily? Right.

We need to tax profits, not revenues, but we need to stop the loopholes, credits and other subsidies. If a company decides to reinvest all of their profits and thus grow the business, chances are they're gonna need to hire people and put them to work. GE is an example of loopholes, credits and subsidies abuse; not of "funneling money into different sources" (btw, you don't funnel money into a source, you funnel it into an asset or a new venture; also known as an investment). They didn't funnel their money into anything, they made profits. If they reinvested the profits, they wouldn't be claiming 14 billion in "profit" anymore. Tax credits and subsidies basically allow the government to pick and choose winners and losers in the market, which always seems to work out so well... Got bailouts?

If they had 4.9 billion in tax credits, loopholes, and subsidies, and they had an option of say, claiming 20 billion profit and paying 7 billion - 4.9 billion in taxes, OR reinvesting 6 billion into growing the company, and then claim 14 billion profit, effectively having to pay just 4.9 billion which would have been wiped out by the credits and subsidies; which option would you take as a business owner? $6 billion larger business or send 2.1 bil to Uncle Sam and have a smaller business? If you want them to reinvest the money or pay taxes, take out the loopholes, credits, subsidies, deductions and writeoffs.



I live a pretty frugal life, Marauder notwithstanding. It is one of the reasons people on this board and around school criticize me and make conclusions that "since I can afford a Marauder I am obviously doing well money-wise." Nowadays I respond with "oh, that 8 year old car that has been paid off for 4? You must mean that I take CARE of it because it LOOKS expensive, but it isn't. Sorry."

So I would never criticize someone for saving money. I am talking about the many ways "income" in this country can be calculated.

So you wouldn't criticize someone for saving money, but you would still want to know how much of it they have saved up? Why would you even need to know how much they have, what's it matter then?

Obviously I don't think a marauder is a high ticket item, and I'm not criticizing you or anyone else for having one. By all means, buy what you like as long as you can afford it, and as long as my tax dollars don't have to bail you out like they have to do with welfare sucking octo-mom or all of the geniuses foreclosing on their homes.



So it is not me making conclusions about others. Rather, it seems to be the opposite from your post.

Just because I like where I am, it does not mean our tax system is fair. And yes, I am a firm believer the higher income brackets have enough loopholes available to them that they don't pay enough.

Man, money doesn't motivate you, but it sure pisses you off that some people, in your opinion, don't pay "enough". Funny how that works. I guess our version of "enough" differs. You have yet to explain how a flat percentage tax would be unfair, or how a sales tax that's the same for everyone would be unfair. Good job avoiding that subject and just banging the drum that the rich don't pay their fair share. I've also yet to hear how much you think that "fair share" would be...



EDIT: And those who save more money pay more taxes anyway. You pay taxes on interest earnings. Unless of course you make a whole heaping LOT of them and can move them to offshore holdings. ;)

Kinda contradicting yourself out here... First the rich don't pay their fair share, but then you admit to them moving their money to tax friendlier climates... Guess that kind of proves that we do in fact tax them too much, doesn't it? Why not tax them less so they can keep it here? A smaller percentage of something is better than a larger percentage of nothing, right?

[duhtroll]

You claim companies can reinvest profits and not pay taxes on it... What that's saying is, instead of taxing profits we should be taxing revenue? All of the money that comes into a business should be taxed?

Actually, I didn't say that at all.



...we need to stop the loopholes, credits and other subsidies.

That is what I said.


If a company decides to reinvest all of their profits and thus grow the business, chances are they're gonna need to hire people and put them to work.

Lately, not true. The percentage of hires has been much lower than anticipated during the recovery. Managers and owners are apparently nervous and aren't hiring like during previous recoveries.


If you want them to reinvest the money or pay taxes, take out the loopholes, credits, subsidies, deductions and writeoffs.

Yeah, I essentially said that too.


So you wouldn't criticize someone for saving money, but you would still want to know how much of it they have saved up? Why would you even need to know how much they have, what's it matter then?

We already do know how much assets are worth.


Man, money doesn't motivate you, but it sure pisses you off that some people, in your opinion, don't pay "enough". Funny how that works.

Actually, it works just fine. It doesn't really affect me that large businesses have all these loopholes. My taxes are unaffected by theirs for the most part.


I guess our version of "enough" differs.

Correct.


You have yet to explain how a flat percentage tax would be unfair, or how a sales tax that's the same for everyone would be unfair.

Urm, I'm...the...one..who...propose d...sales...tax...

Nevermind.

It seems you have your ideas about me and you are arguing against them rather than arguing against me.

But that happens all the time on this board. I have long since learned to not take it personally.


Good job avoiding that subject and just banging the drum that the rich don't pay their fair share. I've also yet to hear how much you think that "fair share" would be...

Avoiding what, now? This is the first time you have asked me.

I think the Bush tax cuts should be rolled back to the levels they were in the 90s for anyone making over $250K.

I think anyone who makes over $250K has a lot of gall telling people in the public sector that they are rich and lead lavish lifestyles since none of us do/are. OR that they work harder than others (whom they have never met) do. There might be individual examples of abuse, but those are present in every sector.

In other words, having opinions doesn't mean I am "pissed off" unless someone who makes vastly more than I do gets in my face and preaches that I am doing so much better than I should be. Then it gets personal and I show them how wrong they are.

My salary is public record and is every single year. If all of your salaries were published in the paper each year, you'd be defending yourselves just like I have to.


Kinda contradicting yourself out here... First the rich don't pay their fair share, but then you admit to them moving their money to tax friendlier climates... Guess that kind of proves that we do in fact tax them too much, doesn't it?

It proves nothing of the sort. Regardless of what taxes they are supposed to pay, do you think they would pay them if they were lower, or go on avoiding them?

Really?


Why not tax them less so they can keep it here? A smaller percentage of something is better than a larger percentage of nothing, right?

Because they won't keep it here until the tax rates for them are zero for doing so.

[Mr. Man]

Fine - I'll throw my hat in with the "tax the people who use the services" thing.

Lets do NO personal income tax, for anyone.

Everything is now a sales tax. Prices for every single product sold here (or delivered to here from outside the US) will be taxed by a % of the original cost. The people who spend more, pay more. The people who spend less, pay less. Higher priced luxury items will cost substantially more.

Sign me up. We don't spend money much in my household - never eat out, shop carefully, don't have the latest gear, etc.. I think I'll do well.

Do you think "the rich" will absorb more of the taxes? Or less?

Just one question - what y'all gonna do about defense, public safety, and education?
Value added taxes are as regressive as regular sales taxes. "The rich" will not pay more in taxes as they will buy things through their companies and end up writing the tax off.
I'm with BDJ flat tax with no deductions. I think Steve Forbes had a pretty good plan when he ran for President a few years back. Get rid of most of the IRS and everybody could do their own taxes on a single piece of paper.

[Fosters]

Actually, I didn't say that at all.




That is what I said.



Lately, not true. The percentage of hires has been much lower than anticipated during the recovery. Managers and owners are apparently nervous and aren't hiring like during previous recoveries.



Yeah, I essentially said that too.



We already do know how much assets are worth.



Actually, it works just fine. It doesn't really affect me that large businesses have all these loopholes. My taxes are unaffected by theirs for the most part.



Correct.



Urm, I'm...the...one..who...propose d...sales...tax...

Nevermind.

It seems you have your ideas about me and you are arguing against them rather than arguing against me.

But that happens all the time on this board. I have long since learned to not take it personally.



Avoiding what, now? This is the first time you have asked me.

I think the Bush tax cuts should be rolled back to the levels they were in the 90s for anyone making over $250K.

I think anyone who makes over $250K has a lot of gall telling people in the public sector that they are rich and lead lavish lifestyles since none of us do/are. OR that they work harder than others (whom they have never met) do. There might be individual examples of abuse, but those are present in every sector.

In other words, having opinions doesn't mean I am "pissed off" unless someone who makes vastly more than I do gets in my face and preaches that I am doing so much better than I should be. Then it gets personal and I show them how wrong they are.

My salary is public record and is every single year. If all of your salaries were published in the paper each year, you'd be defending yourselves just like I have to.



It proves nothing of the sort. Regardless of what taxes they are supposed to pay, do you think they would pay them if they were lower, or go on avoiding them?

Really?



Because they won't keep it here until the tax rates for them are zero for doing so.

You're a greased watermelon.

You're not bothered by how much money other people have/save but you ask for where the wealth is when showed a graph about share of income and share of taxes.

You're not looking to tax revenue, but it bothers you that companies can "invest in other sources" and hide the profit that way, but by that you actually mean tax loopholes, credits, writeoffs and subsidies... mkay.

You're bothered the people making over 250k (quite easy to do with 2 college educated incomes per household) tell you that you are rich, yet you don't count any of the benefits you get from your job. Furthermore, you claim "none of us" - in the public sector - are rich or have lavish wages or benefits. Funny. Tell that to the tax payers of Bell California: http://abcnews.go.com/US/bell-california-scandal-reaches-court-city-manager-dozes/story?id=13028339

None of you liberals ever define what is considered "fair". It's not fair that the rich pay a larger share of the income taxes compared to their share of the income; and the people paying very little taxes compared to their share of the income, those are the victims... Define what is "fair" in this utopian view of yours. Bush tax cuts? Those that affected everyone, not just the rich? A fact that Obama had to finally admit to when confronted with eliminating all of the Bush cuts or none...

Funny how it's always those just above you that need to pay more. What if I quit my job and suddenly, I'm now poorer than you, will you pay your "fair share" to cover the services I use? Would that be ok?

[Fosters]

Value added taxes are as regressive as regular sales taxes. "The rich" will not pay more in taxes as they will buy things through their companies and end up writing the tax off.
I'm with BDJ flat tax with no deductions. I think Steve Forbes had a pretty good plan when he ran for President a few years back. Get rid of most of the IRS and everybody could do their own taxes on a single piece of paper.

I see everyone agrees to the no deductions thing. I wonder if that's the same feel when child deductions and mortgage interest deductions come into play... I'm ready; I'll gladly give up my mortgage interest if I don't have to pay octomom's, and every other deadbeat babymomma and baby daddy's "oops".

Consumption based tax would be great, never going to happen. Flat percentage tax would be a good compromise, still don't see it happening. As for cutting down the IRS, good luck with that. They would form a union, sue the government and go out and bang drums around the capitol until they get what they feel entitled to. :D

[Mr. Man]

I see everyone agrees to the no deductions thing. I wonder if that's the same feel when child deductions and mortgage interest deductions come into play... I'm ready; I'll gladly give up my mortgage interest if I don't have to pay octomom's, and every other deadbeat babymomma and baby daddy's "oops".

Consumption based tax would be great, never going to happen. Flat percentage tax would be a good compromise, still don't see it happening. As for cutting down the IRS, good luck with that. They would form a union, sue the government and go out and bang drums around the capitol until they get what they feel entitled to. :D
IIRC Steve Forbes said the flat tax rate would be like 17%. If you made less than some amount you wouldn't pay anything and corporations would pay some % no exceptions. I'll root around and see if I can find an article.

[PonyUP]

IIRC Steve Forbes said the flat tax rate would be like 17%. If you made less than some amount you wouldn't pay anything and corporations would pay some % no exceptions. I'll root around and see if I can find an article.

I'd really like to read that. I like the idea, as Fosters said a Flat tax would be a good compromise, and I sure as hell would enjoy paying 17% over what I am paying now.

But it will never happen, because it makes too much sense. When was the last time the Goverment did something that made sense?

But given the fact, we will always have a tax scale directly proportionate to the rate of income an individual generates, the only fair thing to do is to lower and raise across the board. If you want taxes to go up one percent, it goes up 1% for everyone. Want to cut it 1%? Same thing.

As a Democrat(Well more of an Independent), I can tell you we will never win another election running on raising taxes if it effects the poor. The really problem, and it's the root of so many problems, is the two party system.

Democrats seem to want to lift the poor up by tearing down the rich

Republicans seem to want to protect the rich and minimize the impact of the poor

My question is, where is the party that will rally for the middle class. Because here's how it works

The top 1% combined bring in income equal to the bottom 25% and accordingly pay 30% of all taxes

The middle class then pays 60% of whats remaining, leaving 10% for the rest. (Not to mention the illegal aliens not paying any taxes).

So if the middle class pays for 60% of the Gov's income, who the hell speaks for them and protects them?

No one

[Fosters]

I'd really like to read that. I like the idea, as Fosters said a Flat tax would be a good compromise, and I sure as hell would enjoy paying 17% over what I am paying now.

But it will never happen, because it makes too much sense. When was the last time the Goverment did something that made sense?

But given the fact, we will always have a tax scale directly proportionate to the rate of income an individual generates, the only fair thing to do is to lower and raise across the board. If you want taxes to go up one percent, it goes up 1% for everyone. Want to cut it 1%? Same thing.

As a Democrat(Well more of an Independent), I can tell you we will never win another election running on raising taxes if it effects the poor. The really problem, and it's the root of so many problems, is the two party system.

Democrats seem to want to lift the poor up by tearing down the rich

Republicans seem to want to protect the rich and minimize the impact of the poor

My question is, where is the party that will rally for the middle class. Because here's how it works

The top 1% combined bring in income equal to the bottom 25% and accordingly pay 30% of all taxes

The middle class then pays 60% of whats remaining, leaving 10% for the rest. (Not to mention the illegal aliens not paying any taxes).

So if the middle class pays for 60% of the Gov's income, who the hell speaks for them and protects them?

No one

Depends how you think... I'm of the opinion rich people cannot become that way without having people work for them. I've yet to see one guy become a one man army and produce something all by himself, becoming a millionaire. Maybe a one in a million website idea, but even then, when it gets big, one person ain't gonna cut it. In the process of these entrepreneurs becoming rich, people will get hired to work for them. If the work that needs to be done is too complex/hard/hazardous for the compensation offered, people won't do it. The market (supply and demand of the available talent/tradeskill) will decide what the wages have to be. Or in some cases, nosy politicians.

I don't see how taxing the rich until they stop being rich will make them start a business or take any risks investing into stuff. Profits are what drive the growth of the economy. Call it greed or whatever you'd like, it's the reason people strive to get higher. It's very easy to sit at the low end of the totem pole - driving an 8 year old black car - and claim those guys up top are only there because they're greedy and if I wanted I could have done that. That's BS. If you really could do that, prove it, put your money where your mouth is, create some competition for that greedy person, and show us how you can take a smaller profit and offer a product cheaper to the masses. I suggest democrats get into the big oil business :P

I for one, know I don't have what it takes to run a company. I've got to spend a lot of time with the people who started a company I used to work at and saw the kind of effort and risks it took. I'm not willing to risk the roof over my head to start a venture like they did, and you know what, even though I probably now know everything they did in terms of databases (it really was just one huge data warehouse basically), the fact that I'm not willing to take that risk doesn't make them greedy, doesn't make me underpaid compared to them, and it means they deserve every penny they earn. I don't envy them, I know what they've been thru, and I hope we have more people like them - entrepreneurs/rich people in the making.

Maybe I'm more libertarian than republican, but I think the poor need to help themselves; and by paying them when they are poor, the bad decisions (and I'd bet over 90% of the time it is bad decisions that got them there) will have consequences that will be mitigated by the help offered, and those with a low comfort level will just settle for the hand they've been dealt. Few will work themselves out of poverty, if they can still live just fine without being productive in any way... You know the old saying, give a man a fish, and you fed him for a day...

[duhtroll]

You're a greased watermelon.

And you are a sticky kumquat. :confused:


You're not bothered by how much money other people have/save but you ask for where the wealth is when showed a graph about share of income and share of taxes.

Yeah, but you're misinterpreting my motivation. Your graph sucks and I like accuracy. Income means a lot of different things.


You're not looking to tax revenue, but it bothers you that companies can "invest in other sources" and hide the profit that way, but by that you actually mean tax loopholes, credits, writeoffs and subsidies... mkay.

Yes, those investments and placements of money in places where they cannot be taxed ARE some of those loopholes. I did not mention subsidies.


You're bothered the people making over 250k (quite easy to do with 2 college educated incomes per household)

First of all...

Um, have you filed taxes? You can file as single even if you are living together and married. We file single even though we are married. It is easier for us.

And as an aside, we pull in less than 100K with 4 degrees between us. Not that we mind much, but 250K is a lot easier to come by in some areas than in others. /digression

I am not talking combined income here, but keep going...


tell you that you are rich, yet you don't count any of the benefits you get from your job.

Really? What benefits are those? I am waiting to see how badly you put your foot in your mouth this time, because you have no idea what you are talking about, and Bill O'Reilly's talking points memo isn't going to help you.

Here's a hint. I don't take insurance from my school. My wife's NON-union job has a better plan, and MUCH cheaper. Like, 1/4 the cost.

And yes, I contribute half of my pension from my salary, which I earn. The other half my employer pays. I earn that too. Do you honestly expect hard working teachers to apologize for trying to feed their families and build a savings?

GFL with that one. :D


Furthermore, you claim "none of us" - in the public sector - are rich or have lavish wages or benefits. Funny. Tell that to the tax payers of Bell California: http://abcnews.go.com/US/bell-california-scandal-reaches-court-city-manager-dozes/story?id=13028339

That is one example, and I mentioned there are singular stories of abuse in every industry. You uh, conveniently skipped that part.

And none of US (whom I can speak for) ARE rich. Unless you would like to prove me wrong.

I will help with your google. Iowa State Education Association. Iowa Teaching Salaries.

GFL with that one too.


None of you liberals ever define what is considered "fair". It's not fair that the rich pay a larger share of the income taxes compared to their share of the income;

I told you exactly what I thought was fair in my previous post.


Funny how it's always those just above you that need to pay more. What if I quit my job and suddenly, I'm now poorer than you, will you pay your "fair share" to cover the services I use? Would that be ok?

Um, I already do that for people "poorer" than me and I don't have a problem with it.

See, I see taxes as "the way the country is able to function" unlike you, who have plenty of money but apparently don't want to give up a single dollar of it for anything that doesn't directly benefit you.

I don't mind paying taxes. I disagree with some of the ways they are spent and some of the ways in which they are collected, but at the end of the day we are better off with them than without them.

This country has run on taxes for a good long time now, and it will for a good long time after you and I are gone.

If you do not like taxes, and given that the United States will be operating on tax revenue for the foreseeable future, I suggest you might look into living in place where you don't have to pay taxes.

You might be a little less angry all the time.

[duhtroll]

It's very easy to sit at the low end of the totem pole - driving an 8 year old black car - and claim those guys up top are only there because they're greedy and if I wanted I could have done that. That's BS. If you really could do that, prove it, put your money where your mouth is, create some competition for that greedy person, and show us how you can take a smaller profit and offer a product cheaper to the masses.

See -- this is what bothers me.

Since this was directed at me --

On the one hand I get these benefits which you hinted at being really good, or at least not worth what is being spent on them, but I am also at the "low end of the totem pole?"

You don't get both - pick one and stick with it.

Please tell me if I am rich or not so I know whether or not to buy that yacht I have my eye on. Lake Iowa is a-callin' me.

[Fosters]

See -- this is what bothers me.

Since this was directed at me --

On the one hand I get these benefits which you hinted at being really good, or at least not worth what is being spent on them, but I am also at the "low end of the totem pole?"

You don't get both - pick one and stick with it.

Please tell me if I am rich or not so I know whether or not to buy that yacht I have my eye on. Lake Iowa is a-callin' me.

If a UAW worker makes 20 bucks an hour bolting on wheels to a car, he's not rich by any means, but he is overpaid... Make sense now, or do I have to draw it out for you?

[Mr. Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVtVA48kYYg

I'm sure there is more to it but here is the gist. I thought there were no exemptions but apparently there are a few.:)

[PonyUP]

Depends how you think... I'm of the opinion rich people cannot become that way without having people work for them. I've yet to see one guy become a one man army and produce something all by himself, becoming a millionaire. Maybe a one in a million website idea, but even then, when it gets big, one person ain't gonna cut it. In the process of these entrepreneurs becoming rich, people will get hired to work for them. If the work that needs to be done is too complex/hard/hazardous for the compensation offered, people won't do it. The market (supply and demand of the available talent/tradeskill) will decide what the wages have to be. Or in some cases, nosy politicians.

I don't see how taxing the rich until they stop being rich will make them start a business or take any risks investing into stuff. Profits are what drive the growth of the economy. Call it greed or whatever you'd like, it's the reason people strive to get higher. It's very easy to sit at the low end of the totem pole - driving an 8 year old black car - and claim those guys up top are only there because they're greedy and if I wanted I could have done that. That's BS. If you really could do that, prove it, put your money where your mouth is, create some competition for that greedy person, and show us how you can take a smaller profit and offer a product cheaper to the masses. I suggest democrats get into the big oil business :P

I for one, know I don't have what it takes to run a company. I've got to spend a lot of time with the people who started a company I used to work at and saw the kind of effort and risks it took. I'm not willing to risk the roof over my head to start a venture like they did, and you know what, even though I probably now know everything they did in terms of databases (it really was just one huge data warehouse basically), the fact that I'm not willing to take that risk doesn't make them greedy, doesn't make me underpaid compared to them, and it means they deserve every penny they earn. I don't envy them, I know what they've been thru, and I hope we have more people like them - entrepreneurs/rich people in the making.

Maybe I'm more libertarian than republican, but I think the poor need to help themselves; and by paying them when they are poor, the bad decisions (and I'd bet over 90% of the time it is bad decisions that got them there) will have consequences that will be mitigated by the help offered, and those with a low comfort level will just settle for the hand they've been dealt. Few will work themselves out of poverty, if they can still live just fine without being productive in any way... You know the old saying, give a man a fish, and you fed him for a day...

I think we are in agreement here. I believe the rich brackets should stay the same, if not cut them a little bit because they do have the largest impact on the economy, and I definitely agree with you on the poor. I'm just asking that we do these things, but not at the expense of the middle class, which you and I are.

It seems like everytime we talk about the tax rates we talk of the impact on the rich and the poor, what about the impact of the everyday Joe?

That's what they miss, and there is no voice to speak for us

[PonyUP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVtVA48kYYg

I'm sure there is more to it but here is the gist. I thought there were no exemptions but apparently there are a few.:)

Great clip, when I get a chance I'd like to check out the whole thing. I would be real interested, if they did the math, what the comparison would be to what we currently bring in in taxes, and what the flat 17% would bring.

[Bluerauder]

IIRC Steve Forbes said the flat tax rate would be like 17%. If you made less than some amount you wouldn't pay anything and corporations would pay some % no exceptions. I'll root around and see if I can find an article.

Here's some background >>>> http://www.ctj.org/html/flatsum.htm

It appears that the 17% rate has been around for awhile. However, independent analysis by the Treasury Department indicated that the 17% rate would come up about $150 Billion per year short in 1996 $. That amount is probably closer to $300 Billion per year now. Considering the growth in Federal spending, I suspect that $500 Billion per year is closer to the mark now. What that means to me is that the "real" rate will be closer to the 20-25% mark.

Something that gets lost in the discussion is that the 17% ??? Flat Tax will only replace the Federal Income tax. It does not impact on State Taxes, Social Security taxes/withholding, Medicare taxes/withholding, Real Estate Taxes, or Personal Property taxes.

Those "other" taxes bring the total to closer to 30% overall or more.

Part of the article states that everyone under $200K will see a major increase in their taxes under the Flat Tax concept at the 17% level. The impact will be significantly greater at the 20-25% level. How can this NOT hurt the middle class?

If you believe that the Government can live on a 17% rate, then you should check out the "Brooklyn Bridge Sale" over on E-Bay. The analysts don't believe it and neither should you.

Make sure you read the fine print, if ever a Flat Tax starts being discussed again. Find out what the real impact is on REAL people.

[Fosters]

Here's some background >>>> http://www.ctj.org/html/flatsum.htm

It appears that the 17% rate has been around for awhile. However, independent analysis by the Treasury Department indicated that the 17% rate would come up about $150 Billion per year short in 1996 $. That amount is probably closer to $300 Billion per year now. Considering the growth in Federal spending, I suspect that $500 Billion per year is closer to the mark now. What that means to me is that the "real" rate will be closer to the 20-25% mark.

Something that gets lost in the discussion is that the 17% ??? Flat Tax will only replace the Federal Income tax. It does not impact on State Taxes, Social Security taxes/withholding, Medicare taxes/withholding, Real Estate Taxes, or Personal Property taxes.

Those "other" taxes bring the total to closer to 30% overall or more.

Part of the article states that everyone under $200K will see a major increase in their taxes under the Flat Tax concept at the 17% level. The impact will be significantly greater at the 20-25% level. How can this NOT hurt the middle class?

If you believe that the Government can live on a 17% rate, then you should check out the "Brooklyn Bridge Sale" over on E-Bay. The analysts don't believe it and neither should you.

Make sure you read the fine print, if ever a Flat Tax starts being discussed again. Find out what the real impact is on REAL people.

That article is using some funny math then. Here are the tax rates:

http://www.mydollarplan.com/tax-brackets/

The single ones look like this:

0-8500 - 10%
8501-34500 - 15%
34501-83600 - 25%

If you make 83600 only in taxable income, top of just the 25% bracket, your federal tax is 850 + 3899.85 + 12274.75 = 17024.6. That's already 20.36% tax rate; so at 83600 that person would get over a 3% tax cut in the rate.

Yes, deductions like mortgage interest, healthcare, or any kids, currently would make that 83k be taxed more like 60k after all and that may make it into break even scenario or maybe a tax increase, but I can guarantee you that 200k income mark seeing an increase is a stretch of the imagination, and fear mongering. Don't believe everything you read, do some math ;).

[Fosters]

I think we are in agreement here. I believe the rich brackets should stay the same, if not cut them a little bit because they do have the largest impact on the economy, and I definitely agree with you on the poor. I'm just asking that we do these things, but not at the expense of the middle class, which you and I are.

It seems like everytime we talk about the tax rates we talk of the impact on the rich and the poor, what about the impact of the everyday Joe?

That's what they miss, and there is no voice to speak for us

I agree, but it is what it is. I think there are a few of them that do, but usually they get drowned out by the pandering crowd from both sides.

That exact mentality is what drives people to produce less and try less; i'm not saying you will or are doing that, but as a whole, if the mentality is to lift and support the "poor" by giving them money, housing, etc, you will need to draw a line at what is considered poor; and the people right above that line - where the middle class starts - will feel cheated, having worked hard for not much more rewards, and always be tempted to give up.

[duhtroll]

Yeah, I think you do need to draw it out. You ignored everything you supposedly had all the answers to, but now, after we get to specifics on what is so offensive to you about the public sector and why I am overpaid...

Now, you don't choose to educate the rest of us anymore?

That speaks volumes, IMO.

Here's what I think. I think when you and many others think of *any* union, public or private, you think of the UAW.

Well, my union is not the UAW. We weren't debating the UAW from everything I can see in this thread, but here they are as your only rebuttal, finally.

FOX News counted on that when they presented their huge "anti-union" campaign. They know people remember the UAW overstepping their bounds a few times and now they have people believing that ALL unions do that ALL the time, public or private.

On the one hand you indicate that I have these benefits and I didn't define them because it would somehow undermine my argument, which in turn indicates that they are more than they should be.

Then, you label me "low on the totem pole."

THEN, you hint that I am overpaid with that UAW remark.

If you were running for president in 2004 that would make you a flip-flopper. :)

Let me know when you have some substance to your position on why I am overpaid yet low on the totem pole, because until then you sound like grandpa Simpson.






If a UAW worker makes 20 bucks an hour bolting on wheels to a car, he's not rich by any means, but he is overpaid... Make sense now, or do I have to draw it out for you?

[Fosters]

Yeah, I think you do need to draw it out. You ignored everything you supposedly had all the answers to, but now, after we get to specifics on what is so offensive to you about the public sector and why I am overpaid...

Now, you don't choose to educate the rest of us anymore?

That speaks volumes, IMO.

Here's what I think. I think when you and many others think of *any* union, public or private, you think of the UAW.

Well, my union is not the UAW. We weren't debating the UAW from everything I can see in this thread, but here they are as your only rebuttal, finally.

FOX News counted on that when they presented their huge "anti-union" campaign. They know people remember the UAW overstepping their bounds a few times and now they have people believing that ALL unions do that ALL the time, public or private.

On the one hand you indicate that I have these benefits and I didn't define them because it would somehow undermine my argument, which in turn indicates that they are more than they should be.

Then, you label me "low on the totem pole."

THEN, you hint that I am overpaid with that UAW remark.

If you were running for president in 2004 that would make you a flip-flopper. :)

Let me know when you have some substance to your position on why I am overpaid yet low on the totem pole, because until then you sound like grandpa Simpson.

I've explained it, you still don't get it. I didn't claim you were rich, I claimed you are overpaid, and the only reason you got there is because of blackmailing tactics by the union to obtain unrealistic benefits compared to what the rest of the private sector gets. But I digress

This thread is not at all about you. It was/is about charging people that use more for using more. You and the rest of liberals apparently have a problem with that and want the gravy train to keep going. Hope you enjoy wanting...

[duhtroll]

No, see again you're ignoring what I am saying about myself in favor of what you would like to think about me.

I pay taxes too, and I pay more than everyone "poorer" than me, as you put it. And I am in favor of people who use more being charged more. I proposed it, I will say again.

So I am overpaid, yet low on the totem pole? How does that work?

What would you pay teachers, then?

As as far as blackmailing goes, care to explain the bargaining process to all of us? You obviously know all about since you are calling it blackmail.

You're the one digging. I am just handing you the shovel.


I've explained it, you still don't get it. I didn't claim you were rich, I claimed you are overpaid, and the only reason you got there is because of blackmailing tactics by the union to obtain unrealistic benefits compared to what the rest of the private sector gets. But I digress

This thread is not at all about you. It was/is about charging people that use more for using more. You and the rest of liberals apparently have a problem with that and want the gravy train to keep going. Hope you enjoy wanting...

[PonyUP]

Guys, we've been having a civil discussion about taxes, with different views being respected. Let's not turn this into another union thread, we already know we aren't going to agree on that.

Can we continue having an intelligent conversation about the topic where many views can be discussed and debated?