I might be misreading the winking smiley, but just in case you got my meaning wrong by spending reserves I meant savings. It's easier to have savings than to have a reserve job.</strong>
It was just a facetious comment about people not saving anymore, and would rather go into debt. We're a credit card nation afterall.
My reservations about the NST has always been about what happens to the government revenue stream when the necessities of life (food and clothing) have been exempted from sales tax. The rich will typically always spend, but the middle class and lower class will try to stretch their money.
<strong>This is the same problem states are currently having with internet purchases across state borders, but applied on a national level. Other countries have NSTs so I assume there are already treaty agreements to accommodate such issues.</strong>
My comment was based on the presumption of cheap international shipping fares: "from overseas companies with cheap shipping contracts" and of the product being produced overseas. The NST would be around 20 to 30%. For light products (as in not heavy, not the photonic kind), that 20 to 30% sounds a lot more than shipping costs.
The US also has two very long borders with two countries wherein someone can just hop across the border to save 10 to 20%.
<strong>I don't know that I "backed off" of anything. How bout I put it this way- Under our system of capitalism, lower prices and/or higher quality products are the rule rather than the exception.</strong>
I'm more apt to believe "you get what you pay for." Mostly because the cost of doing something can't be reduced below the human factors involved. Semiconductors are exempted because they are magic alien technology
<strong>It's really, really important to pay attention to the justification used here. If the justification is simply, "Oooh it would help out the poor so much to have this government program, let's take the money from the rich, they don't need it." Then that is the moral equivalent of stealing.</strong>
No one is thinking that way. It's always about the good of the public.
<strong>OTOH, if it can be demonstrated that helping the poor through some program can return some benefit to those paying for it (say by reducing the more expensive costs of prisons) then it's a return on investment.</strong>
The intention of any aid program is to keep people on their feet until they can find another source of income. That such aid programs can be abused doesn't mean that the aid programs are wrong, just that they can be abused. I would agree that programs that don't provide a good return on investment is not a good thing, but there is more than the choice of axing it. Fixing it would be another option.
Huh? Are you suggesting that the rich use government resources more than the poor?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of the industrialized countries, the US taxes the wealthy the least. Property and finance laws favor the wealthy more here than elsewhere.
When the top tax rate was 39% you did not see them moving out of the country though they were the most able to. You did not see their percentage of the total wealth go down - quite the opposite was true. They just got richer compared to everyone else. Good for them.
But here is the thing - rather than admitting how fortunate they were to live here where it is practically impossible to lose money if you have enough of it, where you can pay off politicians to cut your capital gains taxes while they talk freedom, where local funding of public schools assures the poor get the worst education (and are dumb enough to think a flat tax is good for them), rather than being at all grateful ... they just get greedier.
My point is that our whole system favors the wealthy. Their taxes are not paying for social services. Their paying because social services are NOT more extensive. They are LUCKY to live in a country where the tax rate is not 70%. They are FORTUNATE that workers have not demanded more vacation time. etc.
and I still think if George Bush was not a wealthy oil man he would not be proposing so many tax cuts for the wealthy oil men.
<strong>Are you suggesting that the rich use government resources more than the poor? Since the rich obviously do not use more welfare, medicaid, public education, defense, or prison funds than the poor I must ask to what resources you refer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting question.
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as it seems at first - that the poor get the gov't money.
If you look at the big-ticket items in the budget,
1. Social security: it's distributed regardless of wealth.
2. Health care: Medicaid is for the poor, but Medicare is for elderly regardless of wealth.
3. Military: This is harder to evaluate, but many lower- or middle-class people join up and are paid by the military, although many of the expensive line items go to high-tech defense industry contracts and benefit upper-class engineers and business people the most.
4. Debt interest: If anything benefits wealthier investors rather than the poor.
There are welfare, food-aid, children, etc. benefits for the poor, but they don't add up to as much as most people probably think - only a few % of the total outlays.
And there's also "corporate welfare." Granted, tax cuts aren't really gov't handouts, but I think if they're targeted specifically at certain businesses they could be considered as such.
And there are certain services that probably are used by the rich more than the poor: the arts, for instance, and national parks.
With respect to state budgets, most is spent on public education, which can be used equally by rich or poor.
So, what % of our total federal and state taxes are handouts to the poor? Not very much, it seems to me.
My wife and I become more and more disgusted with the amount of taxes we pay. We are in the top 10 percent bracket and hardly feel middle class. We are buying are first home and it's a huge financial burden. And we are super-rich? Not.
Granted, we do live in Los Angeles. But that shouldn't matter. The tax system should be fair and we are getting screwed. Now that I think about it, why would I ever believe in charity again when we are giving away 60+k a year to the govt and less fortunate? That is a LOT of money that we could save for future college education and retirement.
I agree with the current progressive rates. They do NOT need to be lowered aside from the pending Bush reductions over the next decade. However, the ceilings for each bracket need to be lifted drastically! I often don't like the though of making more money per annum because the harder I work the more I diminish my return for that work. Sad, but true.
Every once in a while I recall that my grandfather came to America around 1900 and started a business when there was NO INCOME TAX. Trippy to think about :eek:
There are welfare, food-aid, children, etc. benefits for the poor, but they don't add up to as much as most people probably think - only a few % of the total outlays....And there's also "corporate welfare." Granted, tax cuts aren't really gov't handouts, but I think if they're targeted specifically at certain businesses they could be considered as such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Compared to defense all the lower-income targeted programs don't amount to much, I admit. But aside from those corporate subsidies/credits that have been worked into the tax code by corporate lobbiests (which I am entirely against) I don't think it can be shown that the rich are taking tax money from the poor.
<strong>And there are certain services that probably are used by the rich more than the poor: the arts, for instance, and national parks.</strong>
As I recall the repubs, evil defenders of the rich, have never been too friendly to funding the arts. Also, whenever they show the summertime onslaught of tourists on Yellowstone they all look like a bunch of Joe Sixpacks to me.
Of the industrialized countries, the US taxes the wealthy the least. Property and finance laws favor the wealthy more here than elsewhere. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I never understood this line of reasoning. People should be happy with being overtaxed because at least they aren't as overtaxed as in other countries. Does this apply to other liberties? Should we accept more censorship just because most other countries limit the free speech of their citizens more than we do?
It would seem your position is that taxing the rich more is just the way it should be, period. And that the rich should just thank their lucky stars that we aren't taking all there money.
<strong>and I still think if George Bush was not a wealthy oil man he would not be proposing so many tax cuts for the wealthy oil men.</strong>
Bush is most definately a whore for the oil industry and I think both his and the republicans party's resistance to doing real tax reform (like the NST) reveals what hypocrits they are. I'm afraid that both parties have fallen in love with the tax code too much to get rid of it
I never understood this line of reasoning. People should be happy with being overtaxed because at least they aren't as overtaxed as in other countries. Does this apply to other liberties? Should we accept more censorship just because most other countries limit the free speech of their citizens more than we do?]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong> I don't think it can be shown that the rich are taking tax money from the poor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not at all. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, most tax dollars are not sent out to the poor. Most are spent without regard to the income of the beneficiary - social security, military, medicare, interest on the debt.
[quote]Also, whenever they show the summertime onslaught of tourists on Yellowstone they all look like a bunch of Joe Sixpacks to me. <hr></blockquote>Sure, middle class. I live not too far from some of the most beautiful national parks in the world (e.g., Glacier), and I've seen studies that the poor don't go to the parks. Anyway, National Parks are probably .000000000000000001% of the budget.
Comments
I might be misreading the winking smiley, but just in case you got my meaning wrong by spending reserves I meant savings. It's easier to have savings than to have a reserve job.</strong>
It was just a facetious comment about people not saving anymore, and would rather go into debt. We're a credit card nation afterall.
My reservations about the NST has always been about what happens to the government revenue stream when the necessities of life (food and clothing) have been exempted from sales tax. The rich will typically always spend, but the middle class and lower class will try to stretch their money.
<strong>This is the same problem states are currently having with internet purchases across state borders, but applied on a national level. Other countries have NSTs so I assume there are already treaty agreements to accommodate such issues.</strong>
My comment was based on the presumption of cheap international shipping fares: "from overseas companies with cheap shipping contracts" and of the product being produced overseas. The NST would be around 20 to 30%. For light products (as in not heavy, not the photonic kind), that 20 to 30% sounds a lot more than shipping costs.
The US also has two very long borders with two countries wherein someone can just hop across the border to save 10 to 20%.
<strong>I don't know that I "backed off" of anything. How bout I put it this way- Under our system of capitalism, lower prices and/or higher quality products are the rule rather than the exception.</strong>
I'm more apt to believe "you get what you pay for." Mostly because the cost of doing something can't be reduced below the human factors involved. Semiconductors are exempted because they are magic alien technology
<strong>It's really, really important to pay attention to the justification used here. If the justification is simply, "Oooh it would help out the poor so much to have this government program, let's take the money from the rich, they don't need it." Then that is the moral equivalent of stealing.</strong>
No one is thinking that way. It's always about the good of the public.
<strong>OTOH, if it can be demonstrated that helping the poor through some program can return some benefit to those paying for it (say by reducing the more expensive costs of prisons) then it's a return on investment.</strong>
The intention of any aid program is to keep people on their feet until they can find another source of income. That such aid programs can be abused doesn't mean that the aid programs are wrong, just that they can be abused. I would agree that programs that don't provide a good return on investment is not a good thing, but there is more than the choice of axing it. Fixing it would be another option.
<strong>
Huh? Are you suggesting that the rich use government resources more than the poor?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of the industrialized countries, the US taxes the wealthy the least. Property and finance laws favor the wealthy more here than elsewhere.
When the top tax rate was 39% you did not see them moving out of the country though they were the most able to. You did not see their percentage of the total wealth go down - quite the opposite was true. They just got richer compared to everyone else. Good for them.
But here is the thing - rather than admitting how fortunate they were to live here where it is practically impossible to lose money if you have enough of it, where you can pay off politicians to cut your capital gains taxes while they talk freedom, where local funding of public schools assures the poor get the worst education (and are dumb enough to think a flat tax is good for them), rather than being at all grateful ... they just get greedier.
My point is that our whole system favors the wealthy. Their taxes are not paying for social services. Their paying because social services are NOT more extensive. They are LUCKY to live in a country where the tax rate is not 70%. They are FORTUNATE that workers have not demanded more vacation time. etc.
and I still think if George Bush was not a wealthy oil man he would not be proposing so many tax cuts for the wealthy oil men.
<strong>Are you suggesting that the rich use government resources more than the poor? Since the rich obviously do not use more welfare, medicaid, public education, defense, or prison funds than the poor I must ask to what resources you refer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting question.
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as it seems at first - that the poor get the gov't money.
If you look at the big-ticket items in the budget,
1. Social security: it's distributed regardless of wealth.
2. Health care: Medicaid is for the poor, but Medicare is for elderly regardless of wealth.
3. Military: This is harder to evaluate, but many lower- or middle-class people join up and are paid by the military, although many of the expensive line items go to high-tech defense industry contracts and benefit upper-class engineers and business people the most.
4. Debt interest: If anything benefits wealthier investors rather than the poor.
There are welfare, food-aid, children, etc. benefits for the poor, but they don't add up to as much as most people probably think - only a few % of the total outlays.
And there's also "corporate welfare." Granted, tax cuts aren't really gov't handouts, but I think if they're targeted specifically at certain businesses they could be considered as such.
And there are certain services that probably are used by the rich more than the poor: the arts, for instance, and national parks.
With respect to state budgets, most is spent on public education, which can be used equally by rich or poor.
So, what % of our total federal and state taxes are handouts to the poor? Not very much, it seems to me.
Granted, we do live in Los Angeles. But that shouldn't matter. The tax system should be fair and we are getting screwed. Now that I think about it, why would I ever believe in charity again when we are giving away 60+k a year to the govt and less fortunate? That is a LOT of money that we could save for future college education and retirement.
I agree with the current progressive rates. They do NOT need to be lowered aside from the pending Bush reductions over the next decade. However, the ceilings for each bracket need to be lifted drastically! I often don't like the though of making more money per annum because the harder I work the more I diminish my return for that work. Sad, but true.
Every once in a while I recall that my grandfather came to America around 1900 and started a business when there was NO INCOME TAX. Trippy to think about :eek:
some data: <a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/98inrate.pdf"; target="_blank">http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/98inrate.pdf</a>;
Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
There are welfare, food-aid, children, etc. benefits for the poor, but they don't add up to as much as most people probably think - only a few % of the total outlays....And there's also "corporate welfare." Granted, tax cuts aren't really gov't handouts, but I think if they're targeted specifically at certain businesses they could be considered as such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Compared to defense all the lower-income targeted programs don't amount to much, I admit. But aside from those corporate subsidies/credits that have been worked into the tax code by corporate lobbiests (which I am entirely against) I don't think it can be shown that the rich are taking tax money from the poor.
<strong>And there are certain services that probably are used by the rich more than the poor: the arts, for instance, and national parks.</strong>
As I recall the repubs, evil defenders of the rich, have never been too friendly to funding the arts. Also, whenever they show the summertime onslaught of tourists on Yellowstone they all look like a bunch of Joe Sixpacks to me.
Originally posted by wwwork:
<strong>
Of the industrialized countries, the US taxes the wealthy the least. Property and finance laws favor the wealthy more here than elsewhere. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I never understood this line of reasoning. People should be happy with being overtaxed because at least they aren't as overtaxed as in other countries. Does this apply to other liberties? Should we accept more censorship just because most other countries limit the free speech of their citizens more than we do?
It would seem your position is that taxing the rich more is just the way it should be, period. And that the rich should just thank their lucky stars that we aren't taking all there money.
<strong>and I still think if George Bush was not a wealthy oil man he would not be proposing so many tax cuts for the wealthy oil men.</strong>
Bush is most definately a whore for the oil industry and I think both his and the republicans party's resistance to doing real tax reform (like the NST) reveals what hypocrits they are. I'm afraid that both parties have fallen in love with the tax code too much to get rid of it
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>
I never understood this line of reasoning. People should be happy with being overtaxed because at least they aren't as overtaxed as in other countries. Does this apply to other liberties? Should we accept more censorship just because most other countries limit the free speech of their citizens more than we do?]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point.
<strong> I don't think it can be shown that the rich are taking tax money from the poor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not at all. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, most tax dollars are not sent out to the poor. Most are spent without regard to the income of the beneficiary - social security, military, medicare, interest on the debt.
[quote]Also, whenever they show the summertime onslaught of tourists on Yellowstone they all look like a bunch of Joe Sixpacks to me.