The liberal vultures are circling.

[Laelth]

The only thing that really ticks me off is seeing 5 generations of Welfare families sitting on their butts and having kids they're not even bothering to raise and collecting money for it, and these are the same people who have designer clothes on and have really good sneakers, and get their mani/pedi's every 2 weeks, and here I am shopping at Walmart, buying shoes at Payless and doing my own nails. I have no problem with the rich who pay more then their fair share of taxes and expenses, but I do have a problem with people that I as a taxpayer are supporting to sit on their butts.

I fully understand your resentment over what you described above.  While I continue to believe that the rich rip us off a lot more than the poor people do, I'm not happy about the poor people ripping us off either.  But how do we solve this problem?  Mandatory sterilization (so much for our freedoms)?  Government-funded day care and a national jobs program that hires, transports, and works any person who doesn't have a job?  Frankly, I'd support that second option, but it would cost us more than what we're currently paying.  I see no easy solution to this problem.

But, as I said earlier, I would fully support more restrictive rules to crack down on poor people who rip us off just as soon as we address the bigger problem--the rich people who rip us off.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

You still haven't answered the question of why they should.

Why should those who enjoy the greatest benefit from this society pay the most for its maintenance?

Beacause that would be fair?

What better reason do you want?

-Laelth

[NHSparky]

Healthy or not, that's what's happening.  The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer.

They're calling it a "plutonomy" now, just so you know.  And, it appears, that's exactly what we have.  Interesting link below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

-Laelth

Simply put, noob--HORSESHIT.

I'm "middle class".  Upper middle-class, perhaps, but still middle class.  10 years ago I had just gotten out of the Navy where my greatest income to that point was just over $30,000 per year.  Within 2 years I was making $80K.  However, that was in California--where property taxes on my home ran upwards of $5K a year, I was taxed at a 9.3 percent rate, paid into state UEI and workman's comp, along with an ever-progressive federal tax and FICA.  Now did a large portion of this money which was confiscated from me go to the "rich"?  No--because I was CONSIDERED one of those "rich" people by that point.  The poor and illegals who sat on their fat asses and bitched about not getting MORE of the fruits of my labor but were unable to do for themselves is one of the main reasons I left California several years ago.

I now make somewhat more since then.  I also live in a state which has NO state income or sales tax--but if you liberals in Concord have your way, that will change.  Look at my neighbors in Maine--the highest state and local tax burden IN THE NATION.  Why?  Because Augusta has determined that redistribution is the way to go.  Pay there is for shit, because if anyone there makes over $30K a year, they get ass-raped.  Property taxes aren't that much lower.  Cops there don't have enough crime to prevent or solve (ya right) but they have enough time to turn you in to the state revenue department if someone parks outside your home with out-of-state plates (gotta get that money, boys!)

The end result?  People are leaving Maine in droves.  For the first time in over 200 years, the population of New Hampshire will exceed that of Maine.  People in Maine (and other liberal enclaves) are getting poorer because the "rich" are sick and ****ing tired of being made into the villains and are packing their shit for somewhere they'll be appreciated or at least not villainized.  Look at what's happening in places like California, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland...then tell me that the "rich" are the bad guys in all of this.

And when someone comes along with their ****ing EIC check which is LARGER than any refund I've ever received for work they never did (but I did do), which reduces their OVERALL (not just federal, but overall) tax burden not only to ZERO, but a NEGATIVE (read: they get money back they never paid in) burden, how is it "unfair" to them?  Then when you throw in every social gimme on top of that?  Can you even begin to answer that one for me?  Government at the city, state, and federal level got almost 45 percent of what I earned (EARNED!!!!) last year--nearly $55,000 dollars of MY labor--GONE to someone else, simply because they know as long as they whine with an outstretched hand, they'll be given a handout so long as they vote the "correct" way.

And you wonder why this country is heading down the road it is now.  Buffet can suck a fat dick--he's manipulating the same system he pisses on and knows full well that when tax rates head up next year, he's pulling out of the game of making money.  You can't tax wealth--only income.

[NHSparky]

In my experience, how much money you have makes all the difference in the world.  I will continue to hold that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance.  

And as a result I'm sure you'll be telling Fat Teddy's estate and the rest of the bluebloods that they need to take all their shit out of trusts and pay taxes on it like the rest of us "little people."

Once again--INCOME is taxed.  Wealth is not.  Those who make the most income pay a disproportionate share of the taxes.  Even you can't deny that.

[NHSparky]

You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.

Correct yourself, MSB.  BEG IS a Greek goddess.

[Laelth]

3.  Libs don't believe in personal responsibility or personal accountability...you always want 'someone else' to pay.  

If you believe this about liberals, you don't know many liberals.

This is the reason you will not only lose the November elections (23% democrat congress approval rating) and the Presidency in 2012.  You see, working Americans don't buy into your ideology.

I don't think it matters much whether the Republicans or the Democrats win in November or in 2012.  As I have said, both parties now appear to be completely in the hands of the rich and the corporations.  Again, I am not here to defend the Democratic Party.

I am here reaching out to sane, reasonable people who might also see that this system is broken (and to defend myself as a Plaintiff's attorney, as I did upthread).  If you don't fit that description, feel free to ignore whatever I have to say.

-Laelth

[NHSparky]

let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........

The state which collects fuel taxes for the yacht, booze taxes (especially if you're a Kennedy) for the parties on the yacht, sales taxes on all items for upkeep of the yacht, business taxes for all the companies which service the yacht, etc., etc., etc...

Face it.  Government is, as Reagan stated, like a baby--an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

[NHSparky]

I don't think we can look to the government to do much of anything these days except to further enrich the rich.  As such, opportunities for those of us who are not rich are limited now and are likely to get more limited in the future.

Sad, but that's the way I see it.

-Laelth

Well, for the last decade, I keep getting told about how "rich" I am.  So where's all that ****ing money you keep telling me I'm getting?  All I see is a shitload of it disappearing from my check every two weeks.

[NHSparky]

If you believe this about liberals, you don't know many liberals.

I see enough of them bitching that "we" need to pay more.  Yet they're the first ones who shelter their income and wealth.  Michael Moore has a multi-million dollar townhome on the Upper East side of NYC--yet he's a Michigan resident.  Why?  Lower tax rate.  His income goes into a foundation run by his wife, and they "donate" just enough under IRS rules to remain so, thereby keeping his income tax exempt.  Nancy Pelosi and her husband own wineries, hotels, and restaurants, but NONE of their employees are allowed to unionize because of the expense involved. (Betcha didn't know that!)  The Kennedy's don't "own" anything, which would require payment of taxes at a much higher rate.  Everything they have is held in trust and taxes are deferred or much lower.

And as others have noted, when's the last time any of these ****ers have given ONE EXTRA DIME to the US Treasury?  IIRC, wasn't it the CLINTONS ("Government knows how to spend your money better than you...") who took a tax deduction for DONATED UNDERWEAR?  

So spare us the bullshit.  Seriously.

[Laelth]

A couple other note about the Liberal Warren Buffett meme that this DUmmie is shoving down our throats.

Not only does he pay billions in taxes (capital gains, dividend tax) on his vast stock holdings, he pays sales on almost everything he or his companies buy.

From my understanding, he is basing his claims on the small token salary he takes as head of warren buffet corp.

There is nothing that says the Sage of Omaha can't pay MORE taxes in to the Treasury every year.  He just has to write the check for what he thinks is "fair".

And he could pay that secretary better too.

This is just more Liberal class warfare/envy by someone who when they say "I" really means everyone BUT him.

Honestly, I thought for a good long while about how I ought to respond to this.  Given that I am a visitor in your home and that you have already invited me to leave, my first instinct was to say nothing.  But, in the end, I decided I had to respond.

Putting aside your atttack on me and your attack on liberalism, I have to say that you're going to win very few allies with this argument.  You want me to feel sorry for poor Warren Buffett who had to pay 15 million in income taxes but still had 45 million left?  Sergeant, Warren Buffett sill made in one year more money than you and I are likely to make in our entire lives.   And you want me to feel sorry for him?  You want me to believe that he's worse off than his secretary who paid $18K in taxes but had only $42K left after taxes?  I am afraid I can't go there.  It's clear to me that the secreatry carries a lot heavier income tax burden.  That $18K loss hurt her a lot more than the $15 million loss hurt Warren Buffett.

But you keep on defending him if you like.  I suspect that most people will be on my side on this issue.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

If such a system were enacted, a CEO would make as much as a janitor - a construction worker would make as much as a senator - a bad artist would make as much as a good one - a 16-year-old living with his parents would make as much as a 30-year-old with three kids and a mortgage - an entry-level clerk would make as much as accountant with 20 years of experience under his belt.

While this all may sound good to a 16-year-old living at home, the rest of us have some problems with this. Kids should make less than adults, simply because they are less experienced and have fewer expenses. Some jobs simply are worth more than others, and some people need more money than others.

Now, somebody currently making $12,000 a year will probably take issue with this. I mean, who doesn't want to make more money? Even Bill Gates still manages to roll out bed every morning - even though neither he nor anybody even remotely related really needs to work another day in their life. He has more money than he will ever need, yet even he wants more.

At this point, it is important for me to note what kind of people are most likely to be reading this rant ... college students. A quick look at my current site statistics indicates that a good portion of my hits come from colleges. (Yes, Big Brother is watching you) College kids usually work part time for $6 or $7 an hour - I'm sure a lot of you probably think that a "flat pay" system is a great idea, since it would amount to a pay increase of 300%-400%. (This probably explains why some may "young" people vote for Democrats - they consider themselves poor)

I have news for you guys. You are not "the poor". You are just young. In a few years you will probably be in the middle class, or better. It really isn't very hard to do. Just the fact that you will have a college degree is usually enough to secure you a $30,000 a year as soon as you leave college, and most of you will make more than that.

When I was 19, I made about $12,500 a year. By the time I was 24, that amount doubled. Now that I'm 27, that figure has almost doubled again. That's the way this game works. As soon as you get some experience under your belt and learn how to actually be productive, society will reward you by giving you a bigger chunk of the pie.

You will probably only be in college for 4 years - you will be working in the workforce for the next 40 years. So please, stop being so selfish and take the time to think this "flat pay" thing through. Don't vote for boneheads like Clinton, just because they are promising to give you free-health care right now, when you are going to be paying for it through higher taxes for the rest of your life.


All that aside, any government that tried to enact a "Flat Pay" system would invariably run into certain difficulties. For one, it would be difficult to fill certain positions. Some jobs slots would remain empty because nobody would be willing to do certain types of work if they could make the same amount do something else. Nobody would want to take the "Dangerous" or "Dirty" jobs, when there are plenty of "cushy" jobs to be had. But somebody has to take these jobs. In order to fill all of these positions, it would be necessary to force people to take these jobs. With such a system in place, it would be government which would decide what career would be best for you. Want to be a nurse?... Too bad - We need clerical workers. Want to be a writer?... Too Bad, we need construction workers. Want to be a construction worker?... Too bad, we need policemen.

And what do you do with people that refuse to take these new jobs?... Imprison them? Kill them? Half our of population would be forced to become policeman -- just to keep the other half of society working.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

Hows that for "fair"?

I am not advocating flat pay.  Nor is any other liberal, to my knowledge.  I am arguing for a fair tax structure, however.  Nor am I arguing for state control over the professions that one may enter.  Nor, to my knowledge, is any other liberal.

Liberals are not socialists.  There is a very big difference.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.

I have never heard a liberal say anything like that.  Consumer spending is, in fact, absolutely necessary given this economy.

I have come to the conclusion that many people on this board don't know any liberals.  Your ideas about what liberals think strike me as very odd, to say the least.

-Laelth

[Ballygrl]

I fully understand your resentment over what you described above.  While I continue to believe that the rich rip us off a lot more than the poor people do, I'm not happy about the poor people ripping us off either.  But how do we solve this problem?  Mandatory sterilization (so much for our freedoms)?  Government-funded day care and a national jobs program that hires, transports, and works any person who doesn't have a job?  Frankly, I'd support that second option, but it would cost us more than what we're currently paying.  I see no easy solution to this problem.

But, as I said earlier, I would fully support more restrictive rules to crack down on poor people who rip us off just as soon as we address the bigger problem--the rich people who rip us off.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

If a person is able bodied? they need to be totally cut-off and basically forced to become responsible for themselves.

As far as the rich go? I don't have the bash the rich mentality and don't begrudge anyone who has money so I can't go there.

[NHSparky]

I have never heard a liberal say anything like that.  Consumer spending is, in fact, absolutely necessary given this economy.

I have come to the conclusion that many people on this board don't know any liberals.  Your ideas about what liberals think strike me as very odd, to say the least.

-Laelth

And yet you don't recognize that Obama's and the liberal tax policies and class warfare rhetoric is absolutely DESTROYING consumer spending.

[Laelth]

The rich provide jobs, the rich are taxed to support that large percentage of americans that don't even work.

If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

But I wouldn't abolish them either.  We need them, and we need the jobs that they begrudgingly create.  I would take away the incentives they have to ship those jobs to India, however.  I would tax them fairly.  I would regulate them carefully.  I would try to make sure that their profit-making enterprises didn't hurt us too much (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico).

But, as I have also noted, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any interest in protecting us from big business now, and I wonder what we're willing to do about this.

-Laelth

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Fair to whom and who decides what is fair?

The free market--so long as it is also free of force and fraud--decides what is fair...freely. It isn't a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around saying, "I think that company owner should have 90% of his pay taken away because his janitor is only making $7.50/hour."

The best people to decide if a janitor's time is worth $7.50/hour is the janitor and the company owner. If the janitor wants more but the owner doesn't want to pay more then the owner is free to mop his own damn floors.

Fees and percentage taxes will always hit the poorest people first but progressive tax rates encourage the tyranny of democracy as people demand their fare share from somebody else's pocket for work they effort contributed and corruption in politicians who whore themselves to lobbyists from companies vying for the best advantage.

Left to our own devises we're quite capable of managing for ourselves. Liberalism not only acts like a nanny it treats everyone as children too stupid to handle their own lives.

[Laelth]

2 points.
1 - Buffett is a fawking liar. He COULD get taxed at the full rates but CHOOSES to get paid in dividends instead of income. He's a hypocrite of the worst kind.
2 - As him when he last wrote an EXTRA check to the IRS because he didn't think he was taxed high enough...

LOL.  I have never understood this response.  I have no idea whether Buffett is lying or not, but the idea that those who even dare to suggest that the tax system is unfair should be made to pay more in taxes is very telling.  Why should those who have the courage to say that the system is not fair automatically have to pay more?

Becasue it serves the interests of those who benefit from the current tax scheme, that's why.  Those who do not want change attack those who dare to suggest that change is needed.

Seriously, now, whose interests does this argument serve?  Do you really want to defend Warren Buffett from those who suggest he should pay his fair share of taxes?

-Laelth

[Ballygrl]

Fair to whom and who decides what is fair?

The free market--so long as it is also free of force and fraud--decides what is fair...freely. It isn't a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around saying, "I think that company owner should have 90% of his pay taken away because his janitor is only making $7.50/hour."

The best people to decide if a janitor's time is worth $7.50/hour is the janitor and the company owner. If the janitor wants more but the owner doesn't want to pay more then the owner is free to mop his own damn floors.

Fees and percentage taxes will always hit the poorest people first but progressive tax rates encourage the tyranny of democracy as people demand their fare share from somebody else's pocket for work they effort contributed and corruption in politicians who whore themselves to lobbyists from companies vying for the best advantage.

Left to our own devises we're quite capable of managing for ourselves. Liberalism not only acts like a nanny it treats everyone as children too stupid to handle their own lives.

Exactly, who decides what's fair? I don't want the Government to make that decision.

How many jobs were lost when the Government raised the minimum wage?

If anyone thinks we need to keep fleecing the wealth then look at NJ. At 1 time we were considered the wealthiest State, currently $70 billion dollars has been lost to the State over the past few years when the wealthy had enough and moved out and moved to States with lower taxes, not only did that remove the $ going to the State but it also shifted the tax burden to the middle class and lower middle class, my property taxes have gone up almost $6,000 in the past 10 years to the point where my taxes are higher than my mortgage payment.

[Laelth]

And as a result I'm sure you'll be telling Fat Teddy's estate and the rest of the bluebloods that they need to take all their shit out of trusts and pay taxes on it like the rest of us "little people."

Once again--INCOME is taxed.  Wealth is not.  Those who make the most income pay a disproportionate share of the taxes.  Even you can't deny that.

Yes, those who make the most income pay the most income taxes.  But income is not the only thing that is taxed.  If you look at sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, government fees, and all the other forms of taxation we pay, it's clear that the poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of all of us.  The middle-class is not much better off because we pay income taxes too (and our income taxes hurt us a lot more than income taxes hurt the wealthy).

I should also add that the government could tax wealth if it wanted to.  While I am not sure that this is a good idea, it has been dne before and it is being done now.  Property taxes, for example, are a form of "wealth" tax.

-Laelth

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hey! You know what would really help in deciding how much to charge for taxes?

Deciding what the government should be providing.

Services that protect people from force, fraud and calamity would be awesome.

Everything else is negotiable (and, hence, dispensable).

[Texacon]

Laelth, I've read this whole thread and unless I'm missing something you ARE the typical liberal and yes I know some.

What makes you typical?  You have not once in this entire thread advocated for less government spending.  All you've advocated for is taking the rich to the cleaners.

No, I don't feel sorry for Warren Buffet but at the same time I don't begrudge him his wealth.  Most rich people have earned what they have.  Just as YOU are trying to do.  As I stated up thread I don't think you'll be singing this same tune if/when you hit the big lawsuit that pays you millions.  I really don't.  I think you will find a way to cry about how you worked for years making nothing and you deserve to keep what you earned because of those years.

We need the government to stop spending NOT figure out how to bilk the American people out of more money.  We also need to figure out how to get the losers off the government payroll.  As a liberal you like to talk about how much the rich are stealing because they aren't paying enough yet the poor who are on government benefits payrolls are paying nothing and you won't admit they are stealing far more than the rich because everything they get comes straight out of the working mans pocket unlike the rich who ARE paying into the system.  That's some ass backward thinking right there.

KC

[NHSparky]

If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

But I wouldn't abolish them either.  We need them, and we need the jobs that they begrudgingly create.  I would take away the incentives they have to ship those jobs to India, however.  I would tax them fairly.  I would regulate them carefully.  I would try to make sure that their profit-making enterprises didn't hurt us too much (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico).

But, as I have also noted, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any interest in protecting us from big business now, and I wonder what we're willing to do about this.

-Laelth

Newsflash, genius--one of the biggest reasons companies ship labor (if not the entire company) overseas is that pesky little 39 percent corporate tax rate.

[NHSparky]

Yes, those who make the most income pay the most income taxes.  But income is not the only thing that is taxed.  If you look at sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, government fees, and all the other forms of taxation we pay, it's clear that the poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of all of us.  The middle-class is not much better off because we pay income taxes too (and our income taxes hurt us a lot more than income taxes hurt the wealthy).

I should also add that the government could tax wealth if it wanted to.  While I am not sure that this is a good idea, it has been dne before and it is being done now.  Property taxes, for example, are a form of "wealth" tax.

-Laelth

Post proof or retract.  If we both bought the same amount of things, then yes, they would pay a higher percentage of their income.  But guess what--they DON'T buy as many or the same things as those with higher incomes.  Sales taxes, gas taxes, "sin" (oh, how you do love that one) taxes (BTW--poor people don't buy luxury items, dearest) all affect people the same, so please don't tell me the poor pay more.

They don't.  Not even close.  And as I've stated before, which you've conveniently ignored thus far, is the fact that in many cases, EIC gives lower income folks a NEGATIVE tax burden, to say nothing of the social services they use at far greater percentages than do the middle or upper-class folks.

[Texacon]

If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

But I wouldn't abolish them either.  We need them, and we need the jobs that they begrudgingly create.  I would take away the incentives they have to ship those jobs to India, however.  I would tax them fairly.  I would regulate them carefully.  I would try to make sure that their profit-making enterprises didn't hurt us too much (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico).

But, as I have also noted, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any interest in protecting us from big business now, and I wonder what we're willing to do about this.

-Laelth

This post really bothers me and is very telling on how you feel about rich people Lealth.  Why do you think the rich only create jobs because they must in order to be wealthy?

Hell, we have a whole class of people who have figured out how to make money by doing NOTHING.  You still champion them ..... why is that?

KC

Edited to Add;  I don't guess you've ever given much thought to how much the middle AND lower classes have in stock in these companies through 401k's and such ...  You cut off the trunk of a tree and the branches are going to die.  Law of unintended consequences and such.

[USA4ME]

If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

That belief is so divorced from reality it's not worth the time try and convince you otherwise.  You have a viewpoint that the rich and multi-national corps are evil, they're out only for themselves, and your worldview is then built upon that foundation and seen throught that prism.  But you aren't the only one, practically the whole DU board is that way.  They, and you, hold that belief, and then I consistently see posts at DU asking why their viewpoints are marginalized.  But, of course, it's because they're the more intelligent and they see things and understand things that others either can't see or refuse to see.  Yeah, whatever.

.