Wolfie

Actually, the economy was improving while GWB Sr was still President. Funny thing is though, the Democrats loved him while Clinton was President then hated him when Bush became President, going as far as blaming him for the economy the same time they are blaming Bush....but I guess they forgot the fact that him and the Federal Reserve did an excellent job of curbing inflation while the economy was hot.....

Fait_Maker

With 401k, I save 5%, my company gives me 3%, and another 5% whether I put in or not... so all told, I have 13% going into my 401k. As long as I work here, I'll save 5%. If I have to move to another company that isn't so generous, I'll start making up the difference. I hear you what you are saying though Wolf.

__________________

Fait_Maker

I don't necessarily disagree with you on this Logical, but let me throw this out to you to chew on. If all men are created equal and we all expect the same rights as Americans, why then is it that we do not charge taxes even across the board.

Does the rich guy who worked his butt off, to get where he is, deserve having a sizable chunk taken away from him only because you don't earn much? It almost seems like you think he owes that money as a sin tax or something for earning it.

I realize that we need the "rich" to keep taken the biggest burden of the taxes but by the same token, I don't think anyone has the right to snub their nose at someone for having the money and think they should get hit with big taxes because they do. If "him" and you both pay 10%, that's 10k for you and 100k for him. 100k is a pretty big piece of change for anyone.

__________________

leejo

And why assume that the government will make a better decision about how to use that money?

Fait_Maker

First off, he said those over $26,000 share the burden. He never said it was middle class.

Secondly, what you say is simply not true. The last data I can find is a bit dated, but in 1999, the top 1% of wage earners in America paid 29% of the tax burden. The top 5% paid 50% of the tax burden. The top 10% paid a whopping 63% of our tax burden.

The same goes for doctors as well. That's why you need to get a second opinion. Interpretation.

Statistics, in and of themselves, are incredibly accurate. The problem comes when you don't give it good data or a large enough sampling. The problem comes in interpretation.


Actually we are in a Federal Republic, in which we have constitutionally-recognised states united as a whole and our head of state (not a monarch) being elected by a body of people. To be more specific, we are a representative democratic federal republic. If we were a Socialist Republic, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Our government would be doing the best thing economically for the majority of the people, not for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class. You would see the free market crumbling as capitalism was eroded and private ownership of large enterprises were taken away. Capitalism and Socialism really can't exist in the same society They are two totally different economics. But anyway... back to your discussion on Kerry.

__________________

L0GiCaL1

That is why flat tax will not work. You have to tax equally. Percentages do not equate with equal tax burdening. Again I said everyone should have the right to fair tax and tax will impact your lifestyle only to help support it. Again the current tax structure sucks for everyone, under it you have to force one side or the other to hold the burden as you cannot possibly spread it evenly. A per BTU energy tax has the capability if taxed at the well-head for oil, at the dam for water, at the mine for coal, etc etc, to fairly tax everyone. The cost to the production point of the taxable source is then built into the cost of the item saving Americans billions of dollars in paperwork and manpower filing taxes because the tax is hidden. Also the tax becomes equal for everyone because everyone shares the need for power and the people that have the money to buy more BTU's of energy will obviously pay more taxes. It also levies a fair tax for corporations and large entities that use large amounts power as well as small businesses that don't use as much. I know I talked on this before but it is worth mentioning again and elaborating on.

__________________

Raven Shield Admin

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams

L0GiCaL1

You might find this interesting:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/compliance2002.html

The cost in terms of the money paid to the Federal Government might have statistics like you have mentioned although I am have trouble finding those statistics. I won't say they are false until I have proof otherwise but the lack of available data seems to point in that direction. But do not forget that there are other costs as well.



Numbers are numbers. If you leave room for interepetation, you leave room for error. Economists thrive on interepetation just as much as doctors, and IMHO are just a much a bunch of quacks.


You took the statement out of context. I specifically stated when money was/is involved. Again it reverts back to the previous quote. I'll trust the statistics an economist provides about as far as I can throw them. Professional or not, a CPA can make numbers dance with his slight of hand. Sounds more like magic than science to me.

The only issue with that statement is that we have a free-market with "controlled" consumers that equals nothing more than a Socialist Republic. Any way you twist the arm, it is still twisted. You can control the market or you can control the people (in many different ways). You can call it a Democratic Federal Republic, but you are simply deluding yourself with a lot of words that mean almost the same thing. The American public is not being forced with guns, but the government has gained so much control (more than it was ever intended to have according to the original Bill of Rights and Constitution) mentally over our everyday lives, via propaganda that makes China and Russia look like a bunch of rookies, that it seems to integrate seamlessly and gently nudges us the way they want us to go. They are using the carrot instead of the stick but the end result is no different.

We don't have to go back to a discussion on Kerry because this is about what Kerry's party is pushing. This is about what is going to come up during the next term of office regardless of who is in the hot seat. You either secure the future now by being informed or starve to death waiting for another opportunity to make the right decision at the right time. Me, personally.... I like to eat.

__________________

Raven Shield Admin

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams

Wolfie

Just because Bush Sr appointed Greenspan doesn't mean Bush told him what to do. I hope this isn't your "proof" that Greenspan is following Bush Jr's economic policies and not doing things he believes is best for the economy.

I just used Turbo Tax to figure out what my taxes would be if I earned 1,000,000. Currently, I pay 17 percent in taxes to the US government. If I earned 1,000,000, my taxes increased to 32.8 percent. Seems to me I am paying a bigger share at 1,000,000 than at my current salary.

Wolfie

Here is my issue with this. I want a leader that stands up for what he believes and does it, even if it isn't popular.

Throwing medals away to protest something was the "popular" thing to do at that time. Mr. Kerry did a photo op where he threw away medals, ones that were not his, to show people that he was doing the popular thing. His medals did not resurface until it became popular to show you are a strong military leader.

USN_Squid

Edit:
I disagree in part, but I think you may have missed this link: www.fairtax.org

This fair tax is based on what you spend, not what you make. It is similar to an energy consumption tax, but it's based on everything you buy instead, which sounds like a good common denominator you mentioned. It is balanced so that the poor are given a break.

And thanks for the kind words. These discussion do go a lot deeper and more meaningful when we don't get personal. Cheers!

__________________

Geisha

Well, I'm only an amateur, but my guess would be it has to do with unmanageable credit card debts and people wanting to get into the house market while rates are still low. Yeah, I had confidence enough in my job security and the future market to spend a thousand dollars on fun stuff last Christmas, but my husband and I saved all our cash so we could buy a house two weeks ago. Meanwhile, other people who would happily buy lots of things just like they did five years ago are getting their credit rejected because they bought lots of things five years ago. I repeat this is just a guess based on a small cross-section of people I know, most of whom are in that $25k-$60k range, so take it under advisement as an opinion. Economics is by definition a study of past patterns, and I think L0GiCaL1 is entirely right that new situations aren't necessarily going to conform to old patterns. Meanwhile I'll back Wolfie on Presidents having little to no long-term effect on the economy (experiences deja vu).

fr1j0l3

well I'll be...

While this discussion has gotten off-topic, I do enjoy the spirited and POLITE discussion it has spawned!

Couple points.

1. I love the energy tax idea.

2. Wolfie- if you earned a million last year, you would NOT be usin turbo-tax to file, and I'm willing to bet that you would be able to get a tax attourney to shelter a large portion of your funds for you. It's just the way the game works.

And back on topic:
3. Why is the admin so eager to make kerry "fess up" to which foreign leaders support him, while still refusing to divulge who on his staff outed the CIA agent?


Keep up the great discussion. Love it when these don't degrade to petty name calling.


carry on

Wolfie

Probably would use a tax attorny but then again, I do think it is unfair to tax a certain group of people a higher amount just because you can. So I would use every legal advantage I can to lower the amount of money I owe the government. Besides, if I was earning that much a year, I am pretty sure I would have done something to earn it....unlike the liberals who think that being rich is a sin....

Isn't the administration cooperating with the investigation as to who leaked that information? Besides which, before we accuse the current administration about covering it up, lets find some facts that support the accusation.

fr1j0l3

sheesh... guess I was wrong about the non-childish behaviour.


Oh well.. I guess when you have a grand jury subpeona you for stuff, you can drag your feet, or just say to your staff : "You, you, and you, which of you did this? Fess up, or you're all fired".

Theres a big difference between prolonging an external probe, and handling buisness.

I tend to call a spade a spade.

Wolfie

Sounds like they are turning over records though. However, I question some of the subpoenas and wonder if there is another motive behind them....

for example

"One subpoena demanded a list of attendees at a July 16 White House reception for the 90th birthday of former president Gerald R. Ford. The reception apparently came up in interviews conducted by FBI agents or in grand jury testimony, but Bush's aides said they did not know why. "

And I got a question. Why did you say "sheesh... guess I was wrong about the non-childish behaviour." after my post when all I said was that from my perspective, the current administration is working with the investigators?