History Repeats Itself

4/13/2011

I've read in the 1950's taxes were 85% can you
imagine , if you made $100,000 you paid %85,000-
That was a disgrace...No wonder so many movie
stars of those days opted to be paid by the week.

Cheers..Joe

Shelagh wrote:

I think I've told this story before ...

Many years ago, during a visit to Australia, I met a young graduate who had applied for a grant to do a Master's degree. He was waiting to hear if he had been successful. He was also very anti-capitalism and thought the world would be a much fairer place if those with the most money shared their wealth with those with the least. I let him rattle on about the evils of the bourgeoisie. Then I asked him if he would be willing to share his grant (if awarded) with all the students who failed in their bid for a grant. Suddenly, being fair lost its attraction.

Life is not fair. If I were to pay an extra 10% in taxes and everyone in my tax bracket did the same , we would all be better off.

Your friend's grant was based on brains and ability, not on work,

4/14/2011

Flat tax for everyone on all your purchases,
20% , no paying taxes, just a flat tax except
for food, that way everyone pays, period...


Cheers..Joe

Joe,

That might work. It would help.

Quote :

Your friend's grant was based on brains and ability, not on work,

How do you know? Maybe work experience was part of the application. Wasn't just applying for the grant work? And are you saying that the results of brains and ability shouldn't be taxed/shared, just the results of work?

You're really digging yourself into a hole.

Quote :

One final thought--The IRS has 300 billion dollars in uncollected taxes annually. I doubt those are from the poor folks.

Since poor people don't pay taxes, I'm sure you're right! lol

Twenty percent of $25, 000 is a far more significant portion of the whole than twenty percent of $250,000.

A family trying to live on $25,000 a year has their income reduced by $5000, or about $417/month. That could be their grocery budget, and could make the difference between eating or not eating, by the time the rent or mortgage, the utilities, auto expenses, and insurance is paid, if they can afford insurance. A monthly income of a bit over $2000 has dropped to around $1650.

But take $50,000 away from $250,000, and you still have $200,000 left, or 16,500/month after taking something over $4,000 away. You still have more than you will need to meet your expenses, even after that larger house and car, etc.

We used to get into similar discussions at the church where I worked when we talked about expecting every family to tithe, or give 10%. No matter how you look at it, that 10% is much harder on the lower income families.

Ann

I saw a list of the corporations that pay NO tax; they included oil companies, banks, and more; those earning the highest profits in their corporate history; their execs doubling their income as compared to a year ago - my these are difficult times, aren't they. Let's take some more from the poorest and least able to lobby on their own behalf so the wealthiest can continue to benefit without making contribution.

Ann,

I certainly agree with you, I took Joe''s suggestion to be a tax on what was bought rather than earned. He excluded food from the tax.

I think churches should be taxed. Maybe donations to churches should be taxed as expenditures, also.

If the churches can afford to harbor child molestors and pay millions in settlements, why not pay taxes?


DK,

I agree. The rich shoud pay.

LC,

You have forgotten something. I am not in the hole. It is the govt who is in the hole. Why are they in the hole?

They spend more than they take in.
We need to raise taxes and be quick about it.

I know the unemployed bug you, but what do you want? If there are 12 jobs and 25 people looking for jobs, no matter how motivated the people are 13 will be unemployed. Thirteen people working and you want to cut expenses rather than raise taxes. Get rid of five jobs. Now you have 18 unemployed folks and eight employed. The employed are paying taxes, the unemployed collecting unemployment. Very little money is being spent now. What a mess.

Enjoy...

I think the rich should pay, since they are able to.

Alice,
what we learn from history is that we don't learn from history, and that is the part of history that repeats itself.

The rich are in control and make the rules. Do you think they will make rules that affect them negatively? There are exceptions, but too few to make a difference. That's where people power can make a difference. Demanding justice is not the same as expecting justice, and often results in revolution. We applaud revolt in other lands, but object to it in our own.
We constantlyl hear words like, "life is not fair" or "who says life is fair?" Does that mean we just give up? "Whatever will be will be".

It has been suggested that those who want to work will find work. Sounds good and works for many, but not for everyone. As was pointed out, if there are more people seeking jobs than jobs available, there will be unemployment, unless I'm missing some invented new math.

Abe you are right.

If we had a revolution and replaced all the leaders and legislators, in a very short time we'd be back in the same boat. Because position gives power and power corrupts.

Tax breaks to corporations can be explained and justified. In theory, if you lower or exempt taxes for a company, the company has more operating revenue and can create jobs. But you have to be selective about who gets those breaks and ensure that they create the jobs and that the jobs they create are here (wherever you are) rather than being outsourced. Just iincreasing the profits paid to their stockholders is not enough.

Tax breaks to wealthy individuals cannot be explained away or rationalized so readily. Individuals grow their own wealth not that of their neighbors. Nothing trickles down from such individuals. There aren't enough wealthy individuals to expect that their tax break money will make much of a dent in the economy when and if they spend it.

But to get elected, you need to be either wealthy or attract the support of the weathy. Guess what kind of economic foundation gets built. Campaign finance reform and lobbyist regulation would begin to mend that situation.

Did you ever notice that there is virtually no lobby for the middle class? Or the poor? Is there any wonder why our system favors the wealthy?

I just did my taxes. It breaks my heart to know that so much of what I paid is (over)spent in ways I cannot support. So, as they plot and plan to reduce spending and the deficit and the national debt, I wish they'd do it in ways designed to fix the economy and not in ways designed only to harvest votes and seed their wealth.

They say the defense budget is sacrosant, but medicare and social security are up for grabs. What a concept. Keep spending money in ways that kill off young people and stop spending money in ways that sustain the lives and health of the elderly.

Defense budget, my Aunt Fanny's hat. Wake up. It isn't a "defense" budget. It's an "offense" budget. Invading other countries for political (or religous or racist) purposes is not defense. It's wanton aggression. Not to mention expensive.

But a public acknowledgement of that position is political suicide. Joe the plumber won't vote for that, you betcha.

Never overestimate the intelligence of the typical voter.

Abe, David and Al,

Thank you! It is almost funny--what we see clearly, the politicians and LC overlook.

It seems to me that discussing personal income tax and corporate taxes are like comparing apples and oranges.. The same rules just don't apply.

Ann

Shelagh wrote:

I think I've told this story before ...

Many years ago, during a visit to Australia, I met a young graduate who had applied for a grant to do a Master's degree. He was waiting to hear if he had been successful. He was also very anti-capitalism and thought the world would be a much fairer place if those with the most money shared their wealth with those with the least. I let him rattle on about the evils of the bourgeoisie. Then I asked him if he would be willing to share his grant (if awarded) with all the students who failed in their bid for a grant. Suddenly, being fair lost its attraction.

I hear you, Shelagh, but aren't there many shades of grey in between the black and white of the issue? (BTW, how do you like my metaphor?)

It isn't about everybody having exactly the same reward regardless of the situation or contribution, but about these faceless entities (there I go again) that consume ( )far more than any individual might possibly earn.

Ann

4/14/2011

a National Flat Tax , on everything except food.
20% like Europe, everyone pays, no one escapes.
Get rid of the old tax structure it doesn't work...


Cheers..Joe

But, Joe,

Taxing expenditures leaves a whole lot of money untaxed. The casino income, the churches income.

The only thing that should be untaxed is an inheritance.
The rich don't spend much money.

I had a rich boss whom, I kid you not, measured the amount of paper towels we used.

The churches paying taxes would help alot.

It is clear that to solve this issue we would need to fix the human heart.
A task to big for the human race it seems!

4/14/2011

It's true the Churches make a fortune, they
should pay taxes..

Cheers..Joe

dmondeo wrote:

It is clear that to solve this issue we would need to fix the human heart.
A task to big for the human race it seems!

You are so right!
It would take a miracle. People are too selfish.

joefrank wrote:

4/14/2011

It's true the Churches make a fortune, they
should pay taxes..

Cheers..Joe

Good thinking.

If the churches paid taxes, we'd probably have an ezcess.

Lobbyists shuld be outlawed.

A limit shoould be set on campaign contributions.
The length of a campaign shiould be 2 monthes max.
Special interest groups run our country.

Politicians are afraid of them.
This needs to stop.

dmondeo wrote:

It is clear that to solve this issue we would need to fix the human heart.
A task to big for the human race it seems!

Never say never, David. Holding a positive attitude may not be enough for change to happen, but holding a negative one is sure to keep things as they are.

Ann

alice wrote:

Lobbyists shuld be outlawed.

A limit shoould be set on campaign contributions.
The length of a campaign shiould be 2 monthes max.
Special interest groups run our country.

Politicians are afraid of them.
This needs to stop.

You're messing with the 1st Amendment with those arguments. It isn't that simple.

Maybe we should just go back to British rule--at least we'd have health care.
Gun owners could forget about their right to bear arms etc.,
Rght now, the British way looks better to me than the American way.