Ya gotta love a man that does his job well . . .

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I still think it's funny that they attack democrats for that while they plan it themselves

There has never been a President elected that ran on a platform of raising taxes. Yet...they all do. It's just politics as usual.

Quote

Martha Stewart starting a "wipe out insider trading" campaign

I'm sure she will...it'll be community service as part of her sentence.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Yes, but I still think it's funny that they attack democrats for that while they plan it themselves.

My issue simply is that traditionally, the democrats want to target tax cuts to a specific segment of the population, and target tax credits to specific segments of the population.

They want to cut middle income and provide tax credits to families with kids, etc. While maintaining the marriage tax, and the death tax. WTF? I think the head of the household would rather pay less overall, and net closer to zero come April 15th than request a credit, thus refund (at 0% interest).

What about the single young new-professional, or the older divorced contractor?

Like I said in my previous post, it is wrong to single out a single segment of the population. If you're going to cut taxes, you cut them for everyone.

If the threshold for the tax burden is lowered, it doesn't stop those that are using the services to continue using them.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Maybe he's just not the smartest cookie in the barrel,

Even dumb people can work two or three jobs to make ends meet.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe he's just not the smartest cookie in the barrel,

Even dumb people can work two or three jobs to make ends meet.

Right on...I worked two jobs during summers, after HS, college from age 16 to 23. Everyone talks about empowerment, and "teaching" to fish.

Given the opportunity, even those that have special needs (physical, mental, etc) would like to be more independent. The examples are out there. And usually, the results are people that are more diligent with their resources than most of us.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jfields 0]

Quote

I'm not for income taxes period, but since we have them imho those who make more should pay more.

We already do.

Quote

You can't make me believe that the rich aren't taking advantage of every possible break to make their tax burden less...

I wouldn't try to make you believe that isn't true. It is. But as long as they work within the law, what precisely is wrong with that? Change the law, instead of blaming the people. I generally vote in ways that help social services, even at the expense of my own paycheck, because I believe strong in some other issues that tend to be linked to those candidates.

Perhaps I just have a touch of belief in "Financial Darwinism" or something. My mom's parents came to this country with absolutely nothing. They had some hard times, then flourished. Same on my dad's side, one generation farther back.

They all worked hard, and were better off than the generation before them. I work hard and pay my taxes. I don't cheat on them. I don't do anything that is even remotely questionable. But I do have a Roth IRA that gives a tax benefit. And a 401k. My wife has a 403b. We take part in a workplace Flexible Spending Account for Lucy's day care cost. If something is tax advantageous and legal, why not do it? I refuse to have guilt about taking the opportunities available to me. I'm not "rich", but I'm financially careful, which, partnered with hard work, is likely to get me there some day.

I don't think I should be judged harshly on moral grounds simply because I'm not struggling and poor. Some people are poor because of the choices they make. I paid my dues in education and work long hours. Some people don't want to do either. Some people want to work in careers that pay shit, but they love them. That is their choice. I wouldn't take it away from them even if I could.

I did not come into this thread advocating lower taxes for the rich, or suggesting raising taxes for the poor. I just object to anger against people who use their heads and take advantage of the situation as the law allows. I don't think that action is anything a smart poor person wouldn't do if they were no longer poor. Perhaps it would help many poor people accumulate some wealth. Plenty of wealthy people get that way without stepping on the poor to do so. Not everyone is Kathy Lee Gifford, running a sweatshop.

I'd take the idea of personal financial responsibility even farther. I've had conversations with my mother in law about privatizing/abolishing social security. I'd be fine with either, as I will contribute far more in my lifetime than I'll ever take out. While I don't necessarily like paying social security, I rarely think about it. I generally don't care, except when discussions like this come up. Basically, I just pay it and move on without a thought.

My family helps out at a soup kitchen every year. We support food drives for the local food bank. We give to charities, including things like JFTC. But I like the idea of my finances being in my control. I like to choose what I do with my money, because I like to see it be productive and carefully utilized.

I'm not complaining about the tax situation one way or the other. I just have a pet peeve about getting criticized for using my brain to help my earning potential and for carefully managing my money so I can provide for my family the best I can.

[End of mini-rant. I don't mean to come across too harsly. Perhaps I mistook the direction of your comment. And much of this is generalized, anyway.]

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Or - IQ of 70. Fetal alcohol syndrome. Parkinson's disease. Down's syndrome.

There are plenty of both governmental and non-governmental programs to assist and care for those with legitimate disabilities... I guess if Bob had such a condition it was left out of the example...

Quote

Yes, but I still think it's funny that they attack democrats for that while they plan it themselves.

They are looking at a plan to restucture the way income tax is collected... part of the plan they are looking at would shift some of the burden down the ladder... If enacted, some people could see their % of the overall tax burden go up... that does not necessarily mean the $ amount would go up... some of the plans that are being explored would see everyone's $ amount go down... Most of the plans I have seen from the Dem. Party call for a new tax on this and a new tax for that, I think that is what Ari is referring to.

The Federal Government exists for the purpose of Regulating Iterstate commerce, International Relations, and to provide for the National Defense... everything else is fluf that there is no constitutional basis for collecting taxes for... cut all the fluf... and cut taxes across the board.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[PhreeZone 20]

One of the people I assisted while I was growing up was mentally and physically handicapped. Do you know how hard it is for some one like that to be able to find a job that will let them make more then min wage? He was always the first to be let go in anything and always hired only so they could meet thier state requirements for a discount on some policy.

12000 was damn good for Jacob and he had to have roommates that were not disabled just to make sure that if he had a seisure again some one knew what to do. finding a roommate like that normally is more then 300 a month. I saw Jake happy at the littlest things since even an Ice Cream cone was a treat for him. There is no way I'd call what he did was less then hard working.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,119]

>My issue simply is that traditionally, the democrats want to target tax
> cuts to a specific segment of the population, and target tax credits
> to specific segments of the population.

I would agree. The republicans want to do the same, although their 'specific segment' of the population to cut taxes to is the rich. Both want to redistribute money, they just differ in their plans of attack.

Until a few years ago, republicans seemed to be for smaller government, which is about the only way you can reduce taxes overall. During this administration we have seen the largest increase in governmental oversight duties in fifty years, so that's no longer true. The money to do that has to come from somewhere.

>Like I said in my previous post, it is wrong to single out a single
> segment of the population.

I don't think that's the case. I think taxation _should_ help people survive, and hence people below a given poverty line should not be taxed, or taxed less. We need to get X amount of dollars to run the government, and that money has to come from us. It should come from people who can afford to give it.

>If the threshold for the tax burden is lowered, it doesn't stop those
> that are using the services to continue using them.

Quite right. I won't stop using garbage collection (a government service where I live) air traffic control, water management, roads, or state/national parks even if my taxes are lowered. I will still expect laws to be enforced, the injured to receive emergency care (especially if it's me!) and the roads to be fixed.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that only poor people use governmental services - we all do. Some of us (like skydiver's, pilot's and traveler's use of ATC) use more than others.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

(rich people rubbing their hands together again. Yes, yes, yes!)

I wish I was doing that, despite my not falling in the category of "upper income" I still believe in fair play...if there's going to a be a cut, it should be across the board. Even if it's tiered, the "rich" get a higher monetary break....

1,000,000/yr 33% tax br cut to 30% equals about $30K per year

100,000/yr 33% tax br cut to 30% equals about $3K
50,000/yr 27% tax br cut to 24% equals about $1500
12,000/yr 0% tax br....

I'm generalizaing greatly of course, but even using accurate information the overall results are the same. The "rich" people I know pay more in taxes than I make in a year. Their bracket is higher, their need for the services they fund is less and they still take personal accountability...just two cents...

Leona Helmsley

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wlie 0]

Quote

You can't make me believe that the rich aren't taking advantage of every possible break to make their tax burden less...

Yeah! Take a look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. How the heck could anybody shield that much money from the government?

And check out Gates Sr. He's proposing that WA intorduce a state income tax because it's sales and property taxes are really high. Ok. impose an income tax. But why just lower the sales and property tax. Why not eliminate them? Because that way the government can screw with the people's hard earned cash, and raise what they've lowered.

I think that WA should use Microsoft and all their employees as test subjects for the state income tax.

My other ride is the relative wind.

[jdhill 0]

I imagine it is hard for people with mental and physical challenges... Was the income he brought home the only thing he had to live on, or did he have some other forms of assistance (monitary or non-monitary)?

Don't take me the wrong way... if someone is doing all they can and for some legitimate reason all they can bring home is $12K per year, they should not pay much if anything in taxes.

The single high school dropout with 4 kids and another on the way... pay up.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,119]

>There are plenty of both governmental and non-governmental
>programs to assist and care for those with legitimate disabilities... I
> guess if Bob had such a condition it was left out of the example...

An IQ of 70 is a legitimate disability? I have yet to see a 'dumb subsidy' anywhere. Do you know of such a subsidy?

And what sort of governmental assistance do you get if you have a mild case of FAS? (which generally means you just have lessened mental capabilities)

One summer I worked at a county job. My job for half the time there was to follow around a 40 year old janitor with an IQ of around 70. I had to follow him around because he had cut the tip of his finger off in a toilet paper dispenser while trying to change the roll. He had no disease I knew of, no physical disability (other than missing the tip of one finger) besides being dumb. To me, that's Bob. Bob is lucky to make 12,000 a year - and is lucky to find an employer that will take him with all the liabilities he brings to the job.

Bob was lucky to have that job, and it took all his resources to maintain it. If you say 'oh, he could just work two jobs' - you didn't know him. He was working hard to maintain just that one (ineffectually, but he was trying) and I do not begrudge him my indirect (or even direct) support.

>If enacted, some people could see their % of the overall tax burden
> go up... that does not necessarily mean the $ amount would go
> up... some of the plans that are being explored would see
>everyone's $ amount go down...

The current administration is presiding over the largest expansion of government in 50 years. We want another war and a multi billion dollar ABM system ON TOP OF the current war and the new homeland defense department. That, of course, is above and beyond the normal operations of government. If we really think that we can spend lots more money and pay less in taxes we're dreaming.

Taxes are going to go up. The only question is who will pay more.

>The Federal Government exists for the purpose of Regulating
> Iterstate commerce, International Relations, and to provide for the
> National Defense... everything else is fluf that there is no
>constitutional basis for collecting taxes for...

Really? No more interstates, air traffic control, FAA, or center for disease control? No more NSA, CIA or FBI? No more Information Awareness Office? I think we'd miss those things, especially when we had to pay an additional $20 a jump for private airspace separation services (or were just grounded because the airlines sued us for using their airspace.)

[Gawain 0]

This is where the arguments for/against "Supply-side Economics" come into play.

If I want to start a new venture, I need to talk to people with a ton of money to raise capital. These people are VCs, Angel investors, foundations, etc. They are not blue collar segemnt that just got a 2% break on their taxes.

Ironically, the dot.com bust is the result of expansion and spending not unlike the boom of the 80s. It also happened in the 60s into the 70s. It happened in the 30s after the roaring 20s.

Quote

Quite right. I won't stop using garbage collection (a government service where I live) air traffic control, water management, roads, or state/national parks even if my taxes are lowered. I will still expect laws to be enforced, the injured to receive emergency care (especially if it's me!) and the roads to be fixed.

You are applying services that all of us use, and no one has a dispute with (as far as I can tell). I am not fooling myself (though I thank you for reminding me, because it is easy to forget), I do want much tighter strings on the "elective" services that enable generations to stay on welfare, and other services etc.

I think that having our government run a little in the red for a while will be a good thing. If they do it right, they'll limit services instead of raising taxes (a pipe dream of course)...either way, I do not want them running a surplus...ever.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhreeZone 20]

The problem with the State programs is that you have to have a handicap above X to get assistance. If you don't then you are on your own. Jake basically had no control over his left arm since it was so weak, some weakend right arm strength, really bad reading and dislexia issues and had the mental capibilty of a 16 year old. State mins are more then that in Ohio.

He managed to make due on his 5.35 an hour from beeing a greater at Walmart.

Its too hard to say you need to pay taxes but you on the other hand don't need to since you have conditions that make you exempt. A sales tax would be the best way with exemptions for the food products. Buy a car.... get taxed for it, buy a jump ticket get taxed for it. The more you spend the more you get taxed. If you dump it all in savings the income gets taxed.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

An IQ of 70 is a legitimate disability?

I'm sure it differs from state to state but isn't 70 and below considered "mentally retarded" and therefor eligible for state or federal assistance?

Quote

No more interstates, air traffic control, FAA, or center for disease control? No more NSA, CIA or FBI?

All of those have PRIMARY mandates of national defense.

[skybytch 273]

So it wasn't the best hypothetical situation; whattaya expect, I'm also trying to get some work done while I'm posting today, guess I'm doing neither one very well.

I come at this from a different angle than most of you, since I spent more than a few years trying to stretch a $12k/year gross income to cover living expenses (quite a bit higher than Hypothetical Bob's expenses, btw) for both myself and my kid. Of course it was entirely my decisions (or lack thereof) that put me in that position, but the experience has given me a bit more sympathy for those who, for whatever reasons, aren't able to make more than minimum wage.

I've also worked 60+ hours per week, 7 days a week, and can tell you just how much it sucks to work that long and that hard and still not be able to get ahead.

My only question after reading these responses is - What is the income level below which people are not allowed to have fun? Is it okay for a poor person to have fun if the total cost is less than a night at the movies, or is any fun that costs money out of the question?

[jdhill 0]

No no dumb-subsidy... he needs to pay up too.

NSA - Part of DoD
CIA - Supports both National Defense and International Relations
FBI- National Defense (Domestic Counter Intel.)
The interstates were built for National Defense puposes and also serve interstate commerce.
The FAA directly supports interstate commerce.

As for the growth... well we are at war (maybe not by congressional declaration, but we are there), but the war and Homeland security would fall under National Defense and therefore are the Federal Governments responsibility... As for ABM... if you don't like it, call your rep and tell him how you think he/she ought to vote when it comes time for appropriations to the program.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,119]

>As for the growth... well we are at war (maybe not by congressional
> declaration, but we are there), but the war and Homeland security
> would fall under National Defense and therefore are the Federal
> Governments responsibility... As for ABM... if you don't like it, call
> your rep and tell him how you think he/she ought to vote when it
> comes time for appropriations to the program.

I'm not arguing that those programs are or are not necessary, just that they cost money, and that money _will_ come from us in the form of increased taxes. Bush could put them off for a few years, but unless he wants to go so far into deficit spending that the dollar tanks, he can't put them off forever. Heck, he probably couldn't even put them off for six years, which is a popular strategy (make it the next party's problem.)

[jdhill 0]

So everyone puts their cash under their matress... Too bad you can't run a government with no stable revenues.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[jdhill 0]

You are right, that the money will come from somewhere... I just think it should come from cuts in other programs before anyone from either party turns to you and me for more taxes.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,119]

>I just think it should come from cuts in other programs before
> anyone from either party turns to you and me for more taxes.

Which programs? Every politician ever elected has promised to 'trim the fat' from government programs. Which are left?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

is any fun that costs money out of the question?

Yes. If it means that I'm taking on a higher tax burden than you so that you can have fun. (not you, but the generic you). I don't mind some of my earnings going to help those that can't afford basic necessities. But why the hell should I subsidize someone so that they can go to the movies?

Also, if I didn't have so much coming out of my paycheck I would give more to charity. And I guarantee the charities I give to are a lot more fiscally responsible than the federal government and probably your buddy Bob as well.

[wmw999 2,589]

Anyone remember the movie Dave? In it, Dave, the schlub who happens to look like the president, asks his friend the accountant to help trim the budget. The scene where they go through it is pretty funny. That's it -- we just need to make a few skydivers kings for a budget cycle!

Makes me wish it were possible.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skybytch 273]

Quote

If it means that I'm taking on a higher tax burden than you so that you can have fun.

Ahhh... but nowhere in Bob's story did I say he was expecting, asking for or receiving any kind of government assistance. He's just paying his bills as best he can on what he brings home. Whether his low income level is his own fault due to poor decision making, or if it is the result of physical and/or mental disabilities that keep him from higher paying jobs... I don't get why he shouldn't be "allowed" to spend the money he earns on a movie or magazine now and then...

Fukkit, even if he is getting food stamps, I still don't see why anyone should begrudge him a good time once in awhile.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

My only question after reading these responses is - What is the income level below which people are not allowed to have fun? Is it okay for a poor person to have fun if the total cost is less than a night at the movies, or is any fun that costs money out of the question?

I know you aren't advocating that the social system ensure that people be able to have "fun"...

In 1990 and 1991, I worked for a small radio station in Mt. Snow, Vermont. My salary (flat) was $10,500/year. I was netting $150/wk.

My requirements for fun were far more simple than they are today, and even though I couldn't afford to go skiing, I still managed to have some fun. Fun is not a "right" guaranteed by the welfare tit. The freedom for me to pursue happiness is guaranteed.

Someone in my former position should not realistically think they are going to be able to do the activities for fun that you or I do today...it's not a realistic (or financially prudent) expectation. Nor should you or I (presuming we're not filthy rich) expect to be able to regularly enjoy the activities that say, Don Johnson does for fun (he likes to race boats).

I've no regrets about those days in Vermont, my life was far simpler then...so was the fun.
What all this boils down to for me (and maybe "us") is this: All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy!

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!