"The wealthy need to pay their share of taxes"...huh?

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I also favor a carbon tax.

Instituted in what manner and on whom?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FLSTFI Dave

Ok I will sum it up what the differance is.....

Ok couple A in your exmpale, make 50 K and keep 50K, they are both school teachers.....get weekends, holidays and the summer off.

Couple B, they make 100K, he is a plant manager, she is a store manger. They work 50 to 60 hours a week each, and many week ends. They each get two weeks off a year, but they only get to keep 50K

What is the insentive to work harder, longer and more challenging job?

Maybe Couple A values free time more than Couple B does. Life is short!

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Palmguy

Instituted in what manner and on whom?

My boss was talking about this to me, and he's no socialist! It would be levied upon the carbon at the source so that the cost would be built into the products that we buy and use - plastic bags, for instance.

But, I see that any kind of tax is problematic when you have politicians who cannot be trusted with our money. The carbon tax would truly have to be used only for research on alternative fuels, and encouraging the use of public transportation by making it easier to use.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Delija

I'll guess. And I bet I come really close:

Too Many!

Since I've already stated my opinions on this issue almost as many times as Brickboy, I'll try and avoid specifics and stick to generalities and attempt to keep it short (being concise is not one of my strong suits) LOL

First off, I like Brickboy a lot and I think highly of him on too many levels and for too many reasons to list. But in general I think he brings more to XDTalk than the vast majority. I'd say he's in the 99% percentile of members who make this place worthwhile. Every time I go to the range I say a little prayer for BB since his input played such a significant role in my ultimate choice of a 1911. He didn't tell me what to buy, but he gave me the links to the sources that allowed me to do the kind of research that paid off more than words can express.

But.....I cannot for the life of me understand how a guy who not only is knowledgeable in so many areas, is not at all one of the so many "black and white' party line thinkers we have here, but a free thinking and rational guy....can confuse arithmetic with finance.

Yeah, the rich pay the bulk of the taxes....of course they do. They make the bulk of the money. What could be more simple?

Also it seems that BB has some kind of predisposition that implies (to me at least) that the very word "tax" is in and of itself just EVIL....No one likes to pay taxes. So how about "necessary evil"? Don't we want a safe and solid infrastructure? A well equipped and well trained military?

OK, I know already that if BB doesn't say it (and if it hasn't already been said...I did read this thread, but it's very late, I'm very tired and my computer crashed just as I was finishing my original post (this is the replacement). Anyway, I expect to hear that the whole deficit is not a problem at all from the "typical white persons" on the very farthest reaches of the twilight zone, and from others I'll hear that we just need to "cut the pork''....get spending under control.

I'd agree with the cutting of wasteful spending, but it's a little too late for that. "Typical White Person" insists that deficits don't matter. And I'm sure that while he may believe that, when boiler plate tort software has drop-down menus to insert the term "unborn heirs", I'd say that we are in a world of hurt. And further, since "Typical White Person" claims to be a "poor retiree"....what happens to his fixed income lifestyle when his dollars get to buy him (on a monthly basis) a liter of gas, a loaf of bread and if he's lucky a prescription for some new miracle pill (from our landlords in China of course) that will make the nighmare seem like a pleasant dream? China's revenge for the Opium Wars? LOL

To supplement his fixed income of worthless dollars I suppose he could ask Mr. Wun Hong Low at the local Wal-Mart for a part time job as a greeter for 9 Yuan an hour. Of course he'd have to wait for a decision from Wal-Mart's new corporate headquarters in Beijing...but it's the age of the information superhighway, so it may not take too long. And maybe his grandchildren (too soon for his unborn heirs) to help him with the parts of the application that need to be filled out in Mandarin. (Or Arabic if the store in his town is part of the Arabian division).

What are taxes anyway? Aren't they funds needed to run a country (or county or municpality, etc.?) Yeah, we can cut the "pork"...get "honest politicians"....but isn't that very term an oxymoron?

I'm presently visiting Minneapolis. I've seen the I-35 bridge that collapsed into the Mississippi River. I don't know how much money was saved by not spending it on proper upkeep, nor do I know the cost of building the new bridge and getting the old one cleared away. I heard recently the number $49million bandied about. No idea if it's accurate, but we certainly have our share of researh expert here to tell us if I'm far off.....and there's even an added bonus to "prove" me wrong if someone specia can prove me wrong again.....a win-win situation. I get proved wrong, which makes the special person happy, and I also get a shot at some new quote of misinformation made famous by being posted on the billboard that is this persons forum signature. Everyone WINS!

As for the $49million....assuming (probably wrongly going by statistical probabilities as "proved" by my personal auditor), but for fun let's say it's in the ballpark...That money can't seem to be found to spare for this project....so until the federal government can dig it up, it seems that the good peope of Minnesota will be footing the bill. Now how far does $49 million go in Iraq these days? 40 years ago, they said the Vietnam conflict was running about $2million an hour. With inflation, how much time does $49million get us now?

Also, while our inner city schools are crumbling and asbestos is still raining down in the school buildings, we are shown the nice shiny new grammar schools in Bahgdad our tax dollars are paying for. A nice match to the shiny new firefighting equipment we bought for the Bahgdad FD...while we have city fire departments right here in the good old USofA that are running firetrucks held together with duct tape.

It's all very nice to provide the Iraqis with nice new schools and firehouses and the equipment that those firehouses are home to. But what about our needs? Who's in charge of prioritizing our spending? Where's that money for an Interstate bridge that connects the Twin Cities?

Taxes.....why are people hung up on this? It's a number. If for example the magic number to live "Lifestyle X" is $50k per year for two people (just an example)....what's the difference if they make $50k a year and pay zero taxes, or make $100k a year and pay 50% in taxes? They still end up with a $50K annual take home that gets them their "Lifestyle X".....

BTW....someone made a very good point....the very richest Americans don't pay taxes at all for the most part. No tricks, no off-shore tax evading accounts. No money magically laundered on its way to Swiss banks. All straight-up and legal. The super rich (certainly with some exceptions) don't care about accumulating wealth....why would they? They already have it. They care about keeping it. Safe. They care about getting a nice tax free return on their money, so like China and Saudi Arabia lend us money to give to Iraq, the super rich lend their states and cities money to build roads, housing, bridges, hospitals, airports, etc. And for their generosity, they get paid back with tax free interest. Good work if you can get it.

BTW, I just wrote a sentence I re-read before hitting the "submit reply" button that may be the most bizarre thing I've ever written. Maybe I can get a pulitzer prize for irony in writing. Something....I'm gonna have to save it someplace on my computer where I won't forget it...maybe email it to myself.....here it is once again; is this weird or is it just me?:

so like China and Saudi Arabia lend us money to give to Iraq, the super rich lend their states and cities money to build roads, housing, bridges, hospitals, airports, etc. And for their generosity, they get paid back with tax free interest-

Am I alone in seeing the irony here? We borrow money from other countries because we don't have it ourselves. We pay them back with interest. And what do we do with it? We GIVE IT AWAY!!!! The "super rich" don't "give it away" to their own home towns; they get tax free interest. They lend money to their home towns/states/cities/counties to make improvements...but they don't provide a free lunch even to thier friends and neighbors. It's a business deal. Money for their communities, return of capital with tax exempt interest. Our federal govt. on the other hand, borrows money from countries that don't like us very much, we pay them interest on that money and turn around and give the money we borrowed to another country that doesn't seem too crazy about us either..... Is it me? Or is this more than a little bizarre?

As for the non-stop calls for a 'fair tax" (flat tax) or a national sales tax....I've done this before. Class is out and I'm tired and bored and mostly astounded that people can be fooled into thinking this is anything but a rape of the poor.

Of all the possible kind of taxes discussed, these are far and away the most regressive kinds of taxes there are These taxes would be the most harshly unfair to the poor imaginable. They would be almost meaningless to the rich, but a tremendous burden to the poor. I've explained it before. I'm not good at using the search function, but it's all in there....

It would seem on the surface that it's impossible to run the country on revenue bonds, but they also say that nothing is impossible. Maybe I can figure something out that would put me in the history books. LOL

Peace,
D.

Good post. And I too am perplexed by Brickboy's simplistic, black and white thinking on taxes and government spending when he seems so smart about guns and cars and other things.

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

My boss was talking about this to me, and he's no socialist! It would be levied upon the carbon at the source so that the cost would be built into the products that we buy and use - plastic bags, for instance.

But, I see that any kind of tax is problematic when you have politicians who cannot be trusted with our money. The carbon tax would truly have to be used only for research on alternative fuels, and encouraging the use of public transportation by making it easier to use.

So it would result in effect as being an additional tax on gasoline/diesel fuel?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Palmguy

So it would result in effect as being an additional tax on gasoline/diesel fuel?

I believe the goal should be to discourage the use of carbon-based products. That's my opinion.

[akhimark]

I am so disappointed to hear Marxism and big gubment promoted hear. Please read the 10th amendment and tell me how the federal gubment can get away with most of what it does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We are supposed to have a federal gubment limited to those powers, and only those powers, enumerated in the Constitution. The framers knew the dangers of a powerful central gubment and wrote the Constitution to prevent that. If only we could find some politicians to follow said document.

[Brickboy240]

So...am I not paying enough in taxes?

Barack, Hillary and some here apparently think so.

What number is enough? When I add up sales taxes, gasoline taxes, various taxes slapped on utilities and my income tax...about 50% of my income is going to taxes.

What number is enough? 60%, 70%, 80%?

And who gets to decide I can "afford to pay more?" What business is it of anyone's what I bring home? How does the size of my paycheck or bank account affect your daily lives?

No, I don't see taxation as inehrently evil. BUT...if govt. wants me to be onboard with taking more of what I make...I'll fell better about forking it over when THEY start being better stewards of the monies they take in.

Pay down the defecit, cut the waste and pork and learn to live within your means, big govt. You ask us to do just that.

Yeah, I know...I am dreaming, but there will come a tipping point. A place in time where they will be taking too much. I'd love to get rid of the big spenders, but everyone runnin for prez this time is a big spender and part of the overall problem. They have created a system that protects the system. They know noting of reigning in spending or paying back the defecit and their only knee-jerk response to any crisis is to ask us to pay higher taxes.

I really started this post, only to point out that the two Democratic front runners have hopped on the tried and true old bandwagon of "the wealthy are not paying their fair share" and this myth needs to be done away with because many hear this, do not question it and take it as the gospel truth. Sorry, but the numbers say the exact opposite.

The main reason I get to pissed at govt. for their spending and asking for more is because they have not shown me that they are good stewards of what they already take in. And by asking for more, not solving the problems their mis-spending has already caused and telling the populance that we're simply not paying enough, they have again touched a nerve in me.

If you're not outraged...you're not paying attention. Is this a black and white view of taxation and spending? To some...maybe and I admit to being ovely simplistic, but to me, mathematics was always seen as a great subject becaue there was always ONE right answer and everything else was wrong. We're not talking about horseshoes or hand grenades...so close does not count. Mathematics IS the one subject that is black and white...numbers do not lie..like our career politicians.

- Brickboy240

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I believe the goal should be to discourage the use of carbon-based products. That's my opinion.

A laudable goal when other choices are financially feasible.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I believe the goal should be to discourage the use of carbon-based products.

Just so we understand what we're getting into here...

We live on a planet whose very life forms are carbon-based. Nearly all animal life generates methane and most generate carbon dioxide; most plant life releases carbon dioxide at night (photorespiration), and plant sugars - which are carbon-based - and oxygen during the day (photosynthesis).

Plant life binds up carbon temporarily, but at some point, either through consumption as food, burning as fuel, or rotting on the ground, that carbon get released back into the environment.

With the possible exceptions of water and the barrels of the guns we have at home, carbon is present in almost everything we eat, own, wear, work with or live in.

Personally, I think a carbon tax is plain silly. That is not, however, contrary to my belief that energy independence and alternative energy sources aren't critical. I just think taxes are no way to achieve those goals.