davjohns

Your example compares levels of discipline, not levels of income, but I accept that higher earners have greater opportunity to save. I accept that they are more likely to save. I just don't think we can see it as an 'if, then' thing. The human factor prevents that. I have money cut out of my check and set aside before it reaches my bank account. I pretend I don't make as much as I do. While discussing the human factor, I am reminded of an earlier argument that graduated taxes do not dissuade people from earning more. I accept that it is not all encompassing. But it does happen. In my situation, I was still practicing law on the side after I was mobilized by the Army. I realized too late that my additional earnings threw me into a higher tax bracket. The next year, I quit practicing law and providing the free legal services I had been providing. So, in that one case, the graduated tax had a stiffling effect. How often does this happen? Who knows? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll give that some thought. But my first reaction is that human beings don't really work that way. What I have witnessed is that people tend to spend however much they have. While some saving and investing goes on, most people just buy more expensive stuff and end up living paycheck to paycheck regardless of the size of the paycheck. I'm not saying you don't have a point. I'm just not sure how big a factor it really is. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Agreed. But since the numbers are still changing...it seems anyone declaring a conclusion is forecasting... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Neither for or against West or Murphy. I just find it disturbing that something so simple as counting votes has proven so difficult. Then, there are the reports of turnout exceeding 100 per cent in some areas of the country. I wonder if our society has lost all sense of honor and the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

And that right there demonstrates why the "no deductions" scenario will never gain traction: because deductions, too, are needed to effect equivalence-of-burden. Look, guys, the idea's a non-starter. Give it up. Andy...tried to continue the discussion with you via PM, but you don't accept them. I value your opinions, so I am trying to understand your point. The problem is that the 'equivalent burden' argument is indefinite. It seems to me to be an emotional argument. Once a higher earner (presumed higher performer) has paid their percentage, why shouldn't they enjoy greater fruits? A straight percentage is rational. A sliding scale is arbitrary. What is the point of 'equivalent burden' if not a percentage of income? I don't completely disagree with your comments on deductions. One of the arguments I found against a flat tax was that, if applied at the first dollar, it could drive lower earners under the poverty line. I can buy that argument. So, maybe there needs to be a household deduction somewhere above the poverty line and the tax kicks in thereafter. Some thought would have to be given to what a household is. I don't really care for subsidizing people who want large families by making it a per capita issue. I have to reject your definitive statement that the idea is a non-starter. You base that on your premise that 'equivalent burden' is the standard. Since that term has no meaning, I can't accept it. Help me define what it means and you may very well persuade me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Reminded me of this: Our teacher asked us what our favorite animal was, and I said, “Fried chicken.” She said I wasn’t funny, but she couldn’t have been right, everyone else in the class laughed. My parents told me to always be truthful and honest, and I am. Fried chicken is my favorite animal. I told my dad what happened, and he said my teacher was probably a member of PETA. He said they love animals very much. I do, too. Especially chicken, pork and beef. Anyway, my teacher sent me to the principal’s office. I told him what happened, and he laughed too. Then he told me not to do it again. The next day in class my teacher asked me what my favorite live animal was. I told her it was chicken. She asked me why, just like she’d asked the other children. So I told her it was because you could make them into fried chicken. She sent me back to the principal’s office again. He laughed, and told me not to do it again. I don’t understand. My parents taught me to be honest, but my teacher doesn’t like it when I am. Today, my teacher asked us to tell her what famous person we admire most. I told her, “Colonel Sanders”. Guess where I am now… I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've been dying to see this movie. I have thoroughly enjoyed Craig's performances. The gritty, troubled killer works for me much better than the humorous predecesors. I do regret finding out ahead of time that M does not survive. The relationship between M and Bond was one of my favorite aspects of the new series. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Looks like fun. I think someone answered my question. The displays aren't necessarily accurate. I thought the speedo was waving around too much to be accurate. Wheel spin would explain it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Well, the logic behind it, and I'm sure you already know this, is that the higher your income, the more you can afford a higher tax rate, given what you still have left over after taxes. Take the difference between, say, a 10% flat tax on a family of 4 making $40K vs. one making $200K. You can buy a hell of a lot more with $180,000 left over than you can with $36K left over. But with a graduated tax, the $40K family getting taxed at 5% would have $38K left over; and to them, that extra $2K makes a big difference in paying for basic necessities. Taxing the $200K family at 20% still leaves them with $160K; for them, that might make the difference in what kind of 3rd or 4th car they can buy for the family, but it's unlikely to reduce their ability to pay for basic necessities. (Also, as Wendy points out, we already have one form of flat tax, in the form of sales taxes which everyone pays at the same rate.) A couple times you've expressed a dislike of massaging semantics to rationalize an agenda. OK; well, I get tired of affluent people claiming that their taxes are penalties on their success which get paid to poorer people to reward them for being lazy. Affluent people in the US (even those with only first-generation affluence like, say, doctor children of poor immigrant parents) are affluent not only due to the sweat of their brows, but also, in part, because because the particular nature of American society, resources, economy, etc. gave them the opportunity to become affluent in a manner that would be far less available to them in most other countries. So, paying taxes is one of the several ways (in addition to spending in the economy, creating jobs, etc.) they pay something back into the society that gave them the opportunity in the first place. It's not free payment to the poor and lazy, it's payment-back, and payment-forward, into society at large in exchange for the opportunity given by that society and benefited from. Andy: You are adding things to my argument that I did not put there. I did not suggest anything was being given to anyone. I did not use any terms such as 'lazy'. I just said nobody has explained to me how a flat tax is unfair. You make the argument that those who make more should pay more because they can. Please think that through. It suggests that government is entitled to anything we do not absolutely need to survive. It suggests that people are not entitled to the benefits of their hard / smart work. It also sounds very much like, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need." That was tried. Didn't work too well. I agree with your argument that those who benefit the most should pay the most. A flat tax does just that. A sliding scale tax doesn't make those who make more just pay more. It increases the definition of 'more'. It attempts to remove any excess. The logical end-state to that idea is that anything you don't NEED to survive should go to the government for re-distribution. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Well, except those that make a lot more and pay a lower percentage, Like Mr. Romney. And he still pays more each year than you and I will pay in a lifetime. How, exactly, is it 'fair' to want him to pay more? I've never been one to hate another because that other was successful. I would hate to think anyone hated me for what meager success I have enjoyed. Explain why someone making $tens of millions a year should be paying at a much lower % than a middle class professional making 1/100 as much. Pay attention. I am advocating the same percentage for everyone. However, to answer your challenge, what Mr. Romeny paid was more than he was legally required to. In this specific case, he should pay a lower percentage because that is what the law required. I am suggesting changing the law to prevent that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

True. And those sales taxes effect buyer behavior. I buy plenty of things over the internet just to avoid the taxes. I think a national sales tax would have to be sufficiently high that it would discourage some purchases...negatively effecting the economy. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The article didn't say...but if I presume the tandem instructors are male (probable), some woman attempted to overcome the trauma of rape by: getting naked letting a strange man strap her to him giving him total control over her life Sounds counter-intuitive to me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Well, except those that make a lot more and pay a lower percentage, Like Mr. Romney. And he still pays more each year than you and I will pay in a lifetime. How, exactly, is it 'fair' to want him to pay more? I've never been one to hate another because that other was successful. I would hate to think anyone hated me for what meager success I have enjoyed. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Don't quibble over semantics. Placing a tax burden on an economic activity that is essential to economic health is a bad idea. In other words, it is economically healthy for people to spend money. Taxing that activity is not good. Happy? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Exactly which fear does that address??? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've never thought too much of a national sales tax. Penalizing people for an important part of economic activity seems like a bad idea. I've never had it explained to me why the flat tax is bad. Everyone is invested. Those who make more, pay more. We eliminate lots of useless dead wood...excess accountants, excess tax attorneys, excess IRS beurocracy, excess paperwork...you don't even need tax returns. 10% monthly is the same as 10% annually. What's to report? Do away with deductions; it's not the government's business what you do with your money, anyhow. Seems straight forward to me. ETA: Did a quick search to find cons to a flat tax. Two were brought up. One is that IRS employees would lose their jobs. I considered that a 'pro'. The other is that government dead wood costs so much, they need to tax higher earners to survive. Seems related to the excess IRS problem to me. So, I am still a proponent of the flat tax. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There's that word again. Those who make the most would pay the highest taxes in a flat tax environemnt. We have a sliding scale that ensures success is penalized at a greater rate than a flat tax would provide. You want to raise taxes on those who already pay the highest percentage and dollar amount. You describe that as 'fair'. I'm not sure that penalizing success and calling it 'fair' is a good thing. Nope. Not sure at all... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I cannot say for certain that I have learned anything. However, I am pushed closer to the conclusion that our level of polarization has increased to the point that we have lost sight of the value of diverse opinions...That we are no longer listening to those with different opinions or even talking, so much as shouting at one another...That this greatly increases the chances that the path we are on is highly unlikely to be one that will lead to a good place. I no longer see any leader trying to 'reach across the aisle'. I see the aisle becoming a no man's land that none dare venture into. I am concerned. I am not concerned about who is in office, but about the vitriol from both sides that poisons minds and draws lines of division. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I agree in part, and disagree in part. I think the results of the election will make all of us losers or winners depending on the future results of that decision. There was a violent disagreement in the proper path ahead. The violence of our political disagreements seem to have reached the level of a 'slow civil war' as described by one part of the link posted. So, I think Mr. Kallend has hilighted the fact that the war is heating up, while missing the fact that war creates only losers. I am about to observe 28 years as a professional warrior. I have reached the conclusion that survival and victory are often confused with one another, but rarely synonymous. As the world becomes ever more interconnected, I am reminded of the quote, "We must all hang together, or we will all surely hang seperately". I am going from memory, so don't crucify me if I botched the exact wording. David I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It's difficult to define, but easy to spot. A country station in Huntsville, AL plays a different country version each morning at 0700. None of them are anything but respectful. Some are duets. Some are harmony. Most are solos. All bring a tear to my eye (not in the Rosanne way). As long as the rendition evokes thoughts of patriots old and new; perfect ideals pursued by imperfect people, and; a disparate group of people unified by a common belief that the US rocks, I am not going to quibble. While it lasts, it should provoke an emotional response in the listener. It should remind each of us that we are the beneficiaries of centuries of labor, sweat, blood, passion, debate, love, duty, successes and failures. Simultaneously, it should prick our conscience that we have inherited a duty to those who came before us. We have to protect the gift that was given us at such a high cost. It does all of this and more for me on a regular basis. I am grateful for that. As soon as it becomes about the performer or performance, I am offended. They robbed me of the many benefits I outlined above. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I would probably tell things in this forum that I would never tell my parents. Less judgmental here. I'll let everyone know when I have my first time... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It is morning here in Belgium. I am enjoying a cup of coffee and remembering posting in this thread while in Iraq. And the world turns... Good morning, all. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Interesting. I find nothing objectionable here. I would make some slight alteration in wording and priority, but otherwise tend to agree. Sadly, I don't think our current government can touch the infrastructure issue without exacerbating the debt issue. They just aren't willing to let go of those things they just shouldn't be meddling with and do their proper jobs. IMO I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Who knows, maybe Obama's ideas on marijuana prohibition are about to rapidly "evolve." He was reportedly a dope fiend at one time. What would his views evolve into? Subsidized marijuana crops? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The use of the term 'progressive' kind of bugs me. This change in the law is different. It's motion. 'Progressive' implies forward motion. That's a matter of opinion. This is exacerbated by the rest of your statement that implies lots more legislation will be needed to define the legalization of marijuana. I don't consider that forward movement. I don't like MORE verbiage to define what I can and can't do. Sounds like more 'oppressive' to me than 'progressive'. When I need a legal opinion to tell me if growing pot in my backyard is legal or not, I don't consider that 'progressive'. I'm really not trying to quibble. I've just found the term 'progressive' to be annoying lately. It seems to have joined the term 'fair'. They are both being used to describe a particular agenda that is not innately tied to the traditional definitions of the terms. The use of these terms has begun to make my antenna twitch. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.