The soul of the right is being displayed out in the open as never before.

[PoliTalker]

Hello guno,

Excellent!

Thanks for posting that.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Walkaway

 

[garyd]

Hello garyd,



But not the federal government. And all of this is done with the approval of the representatives we the people voted into office. America wants this level of government spending.



Progressive taxation is an extremely successful and effective world wide concept. Basically, we don't pay the lower echelon of workers enough to ask them to support government. This is an example of government making up for the cruel failures of capitalism.



They should be paying more. The only way we can have this great nation and do all these great things is if the rich pay most of the taxes. Back when we didn't do that, George Washington was extremely lucky to be able to fight a war with the British using a volunteer starving unpaid fledgling army. America was not great then. Obviously that won't work in current times. Things have changed. We can't tax the poor enough to build nuclear weapons no matter how the math is tweaked.



No, I disagree. A majority of the nation does live paycheck to paycheck, and 50% have virtually no savings. The rich DO NOT spend all they make. The super-rich earn so much they couldn't possibly spend it all in a thousand lifetimes.



That's only your opinion. Each individual's circumstances are unique. Although it is quite common for rich conservatives to blame the poor for their own condition. Blacks, for instance, have been systematically prevented from wealth-building, and many families have been broken up by circumstances of the New Deal, rendering them unable to accrue wealth, with poverty and an impoverished mindset being handed down generation after generation. There is nothing inherently stupid in black genes which prevents success and wealth-building, so it must be circumstantial. A life of wealth or poverty can often be predetermined depending on the luck of which family an individual is born into. Same individual (same genes) with a different upbringing could be fabulously successful and wealthy.



Young people lack the wisdom of age and experience. And the world has changed. With our 24-7-365 shock-factor sound byte news and the lack of good education in the USA, coupled with the low wages of starting jobs, it is not surprising that many young want to live for the day and find it difficult to save. Many teen agers in the USA do not believe they will even live long enough to worry about retirement. There are so many threats to health and survival it is mind boggling. 30,000 die every year on our highways. Just as many are shot to death. And then there is disease. Cancer, heart attack, bird flu, swine flu. The threat of nuclear war. Chemical weapons. A meteor could hit the world. And now it looks pretty gloomy thinking of living past 2100 with the threat of global warming, drought, stronger storms, sea level rise, dying ocean life, the ongoing mass extinction event humans are perpetrating. Over population. A volcano would spew so much ash it could affect the climate and the food chain.

Who could blame a young person for thinking now is the time to enjoy life while you have the chance? How can that be resisted for the 'wisdom' of saving for an uncertain future? A bright and well-informed young mind could reason with just cause that living life to the fullest right now is the wise choice. Especially if that individual has personally watched friends and relatives die young and vanish from the face of the Earth just like that. That is an impressive event for a young mind.



Moving out of the country for lower taxes is a common theme presented by conservatives. But I don't buy it. Taxing is not the only consideration for where to live. People have families and friends they like to socialize with. They have memories and institutions they enjoy. Football. Baseball. Basketball. Freedom. Opera. Rock concerts. The 4th of July. The national anthem. If somebody who was already so rich he didn't have to worry about finances, so rich he never has to work another day in his life, and could live an opulent lifestyle, it makes little sense that this person would give up all that comes with living in their home country, the USA, simply in order to have a little more money. Move far away from the grandchildren? Few retired wives would want to go along with that idea.

I rate this common right wind argument as complete fantasy.



I see the problem differently. Nobody is trying to 'soak the rich.' That is not the point. The point is to collect enough taxes to pay for the budget. We are not doing that. Congress won't reduce spending, so we have to collect more revenue. We have to balance the budget. The rich are so rich they can be taxed at a much higher rate, enough to completely eliminate the deficit and begin paying down the debt. And that is what we should do. You want to talk being responsible? That is the responsible thing to do.

Because we elected Trump, our children and our grandchildren will be saddled with crippling federal debt. THAT is the height of irresponsibility. ESPECIALLY when the rich are pocketing the difference and they don't even need it. We could be paying down the debt by taxing the rich more, and the rich would not even have to give up their opulent lifestyles.

And I will tell you something else that no conservative yet has had the nerve to address.

It has to do with financial responsibility.

Now is the time.

We should be paying down the debt RIGHT NOW, because now is the only time we can do it.

You pay down the debt during a strong economy.

The debt rises during a recession.

You can't pay the debt down during a recession so you have to do it when the economy is good. NOW!

Let's don't fool each other here.

Capitalism is fraught with highs and lows. It cycles back and forth between good economic times and bad. Over and over. Another recession is coming. Recessions cause government debt to rise. government pays out unemployment and increased welfare during recessions. And there might be bail outs and stimulus packages. Debt soars during a recession. You can't pay down the debt then.

IT HAS TO BE DONE NOW WHEN THE ECONOMY IS GOOD.

The Republican tax give-away for the rich tax cut during good economic times is highly irresponsible.

Republicans are consigning us to VERY HIGH DEBT.

I find it highly ironic to be hearing Republicans talking about financial responsibility given what Republicans just irresponsibly did to us and our financial future.

Not really No most haven't even a clue and a lot don't even vote. The voters have been voting for change since at least 2006. Trump is simply the latest indicator of that fact. Even were what you say in your first paragraph true that still doesn't make it sustainable. Further state budgets are driven largely by unfunded federal mandates and the cost of compliance with federal government rules and regulations not necessarily by what the people living in those states and cities want.

Progressive taxation beyond certain levels has been a disaster where ever it's been tried. It doesn't diminish wealth disparity it either sets it in stone. Or drives the best and the brightest and most talented off shore. Witness Britain in the sixties. You can either have an economy or you can tax the rich out of existence in your country. You cannot have both. Ditto corporations who will in any case pass along as much of their tax burden as possible to their customers. You either recover all your cost including taxes or you go broke. Tinkering with the law of supply and demand is a really horrible idea that begets all sorts of horrible and often unintended consequences. Not the least of which is underemployment and consequent low pay. It is not capitalism that produces this it is rabidly stupid government policies. Again sir the rich already pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes. This is true even under a flat tax. And most of what the federal government does barely qualifies as decent let alone great. Current military spending is less than 20% of the budget. Infrastructure spending is well under ten percent. That means that 70% of the budget is being spent on other things, things that are often wasteful or counter productive. Why for instance do we need 17 different intelligence agencies? Why do we need thirteen different government agencies running job training programs almost none of which are training anyone to do anything that will get them a job in the work force?

When did I ever say the majority don't live paycheck to pay check? What we disagree about here is the cause of this fact. You track it to those mean business folk I track it back to a constantly increasing minimum wage. which sets a false floor under all other labor. I've been a working man my whole life. The one constant has been the fat that if you don't make at least twice minimum wage you are living hand to mouth. With a ten dollar minimum wage you need to be making at least 20 an hour to get a bit ahead of the game. Anr that means your boss is shelling out about 40 and hour to have you on the payroll.

 

[garyd]

Sorry Harvard study says Christianity is on the rise not the wane. The churches losing people are the most liberal ones but those people aren't becoming secularists they are going to more conservative churches. Oh and further note one does not have to be a Caucasian to be a Chrisitian.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

looking for the minorities that appreciate Guano's support....

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello garyd,

Wow. It's like you open a can of worms with every sentence. It's hard to keep up. We could have a lengthy discussion about each point.

Not really No most haven't even a clue and a lot don't even vote. The voters have been voting for change since at least 2006. Trump is simply the latest indicator of that fact. Even were what you say in your first paragraph true that still doesn't make it sustainable. Further state budgets are driven largely by unfunded federal mandates and the cost of compliance with federal government rules and regulations not necessarily by what the people living in those states and cities want.

So, if we all recognize that it is not possible for the government to please everybody, then what makes some think the government should please them only and not somebody else?

Progressive taxation beyond certain levels has been a disaster where ever it's been tried.

Example please? What countries have had a disaster with progressive taxation? What level of progressive taxation do you feel is effective? Do you agree that progressive taxation is proper but we only differ in deciding how much?

It doesn't diminish wealth disparity it either sets it in stone.

I disagree. Conservatives claim the poor live better in this country than any other. Progressive taxation did that.

Or drives the best and the brightest and most talented off shore.

Wrong. That's a conservative myth which is easily dispelled. We had far higher levels of progressive taxation in the 1950's and plenty of rich people stayed.

Witness Britain in the sixties. You can either have an economy or you can tax the rich out of existence in your country. You cannot have both. Ditto corporations who will in any case pass along as much of their tax burden as possible to their customers. You either recover all your cost including taxes or you go broke. Tinkering with the law of supply and demand is a really horrible idea that begets all sorts of horrible and often unintended consequences. Not the least of which is underemployment and consequent low pay. It is not capitalism that produces this it is rabidly stupid government policies.

The natural laws of supply and demand will cause wages to be reduced when unemployment is high. Automation causes lower demand, thus lower wages. Without government to regulate the market, capitalism will eliminate jobs. Capitalism does not care if people are laid off. People care if they are laid off. The government is we the people. We made our own government. It is doing what we told it to do. People want prosperity. Capitalism does not guarantee prosperity. Capitalism doesn't care if people starve. People care. People tell government to make sure nobody starves. We have to tax the rich to pay for that. No rich person has ever been taxed into poverty. The rich stay rich even with high taxes because they pay the same taxes as everybody else on the first part of their income. The high taxes only apply to the amounts OVER what everybody else makes. That's the beauty of progressive taxation. It is equitable.

Again sir the rich already pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes. This is true even under a flat tax. And most of what the federal government does barely qualifies as decent let alone great.

We have a great country because of government spending. Millions of government workers have great jobs. Millions of low wage workers and poor people are helped with assistance programs. Our government protects us from enemies; and also dangers such as poison, harmful chemicals, pollution, greedy capitalists, criminals (although it could do a better job of dealing with white collar crime.) It is good that we have a big government studying everything under the sun so we can learn of new dangers and take measures where needed. The plague wiped out multitudes long before we had a CDC. With big government, we have protection from various dangers which once extracted heavy tolls on society.

Current military spending is less than 20% of the budget. Infrastructure spending is well under ten percent. That means that 70% of the budget is being spent on other things, things that are often wasteful or counter productive. Why for instance do we need 17 different intelligence agencies?

I accept that our leaders have been well-informed enough to decide we need them. Without a strong government the USA would quickly be infiltrated and over-ridden by enemies within and without. We can't know everything so we have to delegate responsibility. It is not realistic for every citizen to know and understand the need for every part of government. It is unrealistic for people who are not in the know to demand the elimination of government functions they do not understand.

Why do we need thirteen different government agencies running job training programs almost none of which are training anyone to do anything that will get them a job in the work force?

Please show some evidence that the government has 13 job training programs which are not training anyone? That sounds like propaganda.

When did I ever say the majority don't live paycheck to pay check? What we disagree about here is the cause of this fact. You track it to those mean business folk I track it back to a constantly increasing minimum wage. which sets a false floor under all other labor.

The minimum wage was instituted because capitalism failed us and caused the great depression. It is currently too low. Minimum wage needs to rise concurrent with inflation. It should immediately be raised to $15 and thereafter raised proportionally to inflation.

I've been a working man my whole life. The one constant has been the fat that if you don't make at least twice minimum wage you are living hand to mouth. With a ten dollar minimum wage you need to be making at least 20 an hour to get a bit ahead of the game. Anr that means your boss is shelling out about 40 and hour to have you on the payroll.

If it is so difficult to live on minimum wage then it should be raised.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Sorry Harvard study says Christianity is on the rise not the wane. The churches losing people are the most liberal ones but those people aren't becoming secularists they are going to more conservative churches. Oh and further note one does not have to be a Caucasian to be a Chrisitian.

Absolutely correct.

One doesn't even have to be sane.

In fact, not being sane probably helps.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

If it is so difficult to live on minimum wage then it should be raised.

most people on minimum wage either live with their parents or in a college dorm room..........

 

[Nordberg]

most people on minimum wage either live with their parents or in a college dorm room..........

Typical for you. Making shit up. You should spend some time looking it up. But that is not how you work. Min wage workers are mostly women. Avrage age is 24. They work full time and cannot pay an aprtment rate with every dime. You can work for a cheap place and require food stamps and welfare to survive. So they live on more than min wage. they get PPs tax money to make up the rest while the company makes out like bandits. I guess you like that.

 

[garyd]

Hello garyd,

Wow. It's like you open a can of worms with every sentence. It's hard to keep up. We could have a lengthy discussion about each point.

So, if we all recognize that it is not possible for the government to please everybody, then what makes some think the government should please them only and not somebody else?

But that's why it's called politics we decide every so often who gets to have a say this time. Everybody want's it there own way there is no neutral setting. Elections are about who get's there way this time.

Example please? What countries have had a disaster with progressive taxation? What level of progressive taxation do you feel is effective? Do you agree that progressive taxation is proper but we only differ in deciding how much?

Again Great Britain. which in the sixties saw a tax the essentially stripped you of everything you made over about 50k. Most everyone from the Beatles and up left the country. And until the election of Margaret Thatcher and the repeal of that nonsensical tax England suffered by all accounts and astonishing loss of talented people. If there is no reason to excel few people will try and those that do will try elsewhere.

I disagree. Conservatives claim the poor live better in this country than any other. Progressive taxation did that.

No progressive taxation combined with regulatory over burden diminishes their chances of being anything other than poor.

Wrong. That's a conservative myth which is easily dispelled. We had far higher levels of progressive taxation in the 1950's and plenty of rich people stayed.

Of course we did. We also had a bout twice as man tax brackets and a great many more deductibles. And that top 90% tax rate as I believe I already pointed out only effected 3 people and they did indeed move. If adjusted for inflation and brought back today it is unclear as to whether or not anyone other than WArren buffet would be affected. And if you restored the old deductions present at that time next rate down 75% if memory serves was effectively only 50%.. And let us not forget that in the fifties everyone else had effectively been bombed flat, that is to say we had no competition. By the time Kennedy was elected that had changed and Our high tax rates had become an obvious burden on our productivity and out ability to compete in the world. And he cut the top rate to fifty percent This resulted in an immediate though brief economic rebound. Please note it was Brief because it was only in effect for a brief period of time because the worst president in the history of the country LBJ, The chief culprit in the destruction of the African American, raised it back up to 75% in order to finance both his destructive war in Southeast Asia and his equally destructive war on the African American family.

The natural laws of supply and demand will cause wages to be reduced when unemployment is high. Automation causes lower demand, thus lower wages. Without government to regulate the market, capitalism will eliminate jobs. Capitalism does not care if people are laid off. People care if they are laid off. The government is we the people. We made our own government. It is doing what we told it to do. People want prosperity. Capitalism does not guarantee prosperity. Capitalism doesn't care if people starve. People care. People tell government to make sure nobody starves. We have to tax the rich to pay for that. No rich person has ever been taxed into poverty. The rich stay rich even with high taxes because they pay the same taxes as everybody else on the first part of their income. The high taxes only apply to the amounts OVER what everybody else makes. That's the beauty of progressive taxation. It is equitable.

Self serving liberal Mythology, combined with a complete misunderstanding of how the tax code works and awful mathematics. Automation produces more jobs not fewer. Job titles change and that work becomes more valuable than what was done before. And a whole host of service jobs are created to go with it and the cost of product decreases drastically. It has always been that way and it always will be so unless of course government as usual throws a monkey wrench into the works.

Have you ever done your own taxes? In all my years of doing mine I have never seen a line that says you will pay x% for the first 20K then Y% for the next thrity k. Rather there is a chart and it shows your adjusted gross income, and across from that is an amount you pay based on that It goes up a bit through each bracket because after all 10% of 100 is less than 10% of $1000. And you get a big jump whenever you move from one bracket to the next.

We have a great country because of government spending. Millions of government workers have great jobs. Millions of low wage workers and poor people are helped with assistance programs. Our government protects us from enemies; and also dangers such as poison, harmful chemicals, pollution, greedy capitalists, criminals (although it could do a better job of dealing with white collar crime.) It is good that we have a big government studying everything under the sun so we can learn of new dangers and take measures where needed. The plague wiped out multitudes long before we had a CDC. With big government, we have protection from various dangers which once extracted heavy tolls on society.

Au contraire we have a great country in spite of government spending not because of it. Name me one thing government produces other than red tape. The chief product of government is sand in the gears, excessive paper work, sloth, unintended consequences and monumental stupidity. If you look at a chart of on the job industries and deaths over the last hundred years you cannot tell where OSHA came into being. Why? Well for one thing those capitalist may be greedy but they aren't stupid. Constantly having to train new people to do a given task because the other got killed or crippled is not only a tragedy for the guys family and a downer for work place morale, but grossly inefficient and during the training period makes accidents even more likely thereby increasing that inefficiency to say nothing of the fact that newbs are almost always less productive than old hands.

I accept that our leaders have been well-informed enough to decide we need them. Without a strong government the USA would quickly be infiltrated and over-ridden by enemies within and without. We can't know everything so we have to delegate responsibility. It is not realistic for every citizen to know and understand the need for every part of government. It is unrealistic for people who are not in the know to demand the elimination of government functions they do not understand.

Now that's just sad. Of course no one knows everything and that includes those bureaucrats in whom you place so much faith. About 25% of our federal government is involved in protecting us from dangers within and with out. The other 75% seems to be involved in trying to make sure that no one anywhere ever gets anything accomplished including at times the other 25% of the federal government. There was, as I recal,l a story a few years ago about the navy being fined by the EPA for not using jet fuel that did not yet exist. And please government bureaucrats will always find a way to justify hiring more bureaucrats. It's like asking a rooster if he needs more hens, or an alcoholic if he needs more booze. The fox guarding the hen house metaphor comes immediately to mind. Bureaucrats are human beings too that in and of itself is sufficient reason to be wary of their answers when asking them about things that have a direct bearing on their livelihood.

Please show some evidence that the government has 13 job training programs which are not training anyone? That sounds like propaganda.

Please I didn't say they weren't training anyone, I said they weren't training them in skill sets that were terribly useful in the private sector. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ar-federal-job-training-programs-have-been-an That should tell you everything you need to know.

The minimum wage was instituted because capitalism failed us and caused the great depression. It is currently too low. Minimum wage needs to rise concurrent with inflation. It should immediately be raised to $15 and thereafter raised proportionally to inflation.

Which is like saying there needs to be permanent and mandatory and unstoppable inflation. Every time you hike minimum wage you set into motion a five year cycle during which the the new minimum wage slowly falls back to the purchasing power it used to have more workers than before are suddenly living hand to mouth and entry level jobs become rarer. And all but bureaucrats and the top 20% wind up worse off than they were before. Oh and for what it is worth minimum wage laws weren't instituted because capitalism failed but because bureaucrats and politicians full of little more than their own hot air and hubris thought they could dictate to economic reality. Economic reality laughed at them. It still does but the joke is lost upon them and it is increasingly less funny for the rest of us.

 

[garyd]

Typical for you. Making shit up. You should spend some time looking it up. But that is not how you work. Min wage workers are mostly women. Avrage age is 24. They work full time and cannot pay an aprtment rate with every dime. You can work for a cheap place and require food stamps and welfare to survive. So they live on more than min wage. they get PPs tax money to make up the rest while the company makes out like bandits. I guess you like that.

Most of whom still live at home with Mom and dad and can't find a job because liberals want it that way else what would they insist on doing all these things that minimize job creation, and maximize labor costs without increasing anyone's wages?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Typical for you. Making shit up. You should spend some time looking it up. But that is not how you work. Min wage workers are mostly women. Avrage age is 24. They work full time and cannot pay an aprtment rate with every dime. You can work for a cheap place and require food stamps and welfare to survive. So they live on more than min wage. they get PPs tax money to make up the rest while the company makes out like bandits. I guess you like that.

educate your sorry ass.....
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm

 

[Nordberg]

educate your sorry ass.....
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm

And this. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html Wrong aagin. They had to factor in MIN from different states.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And this. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html Wrong aagin. They had to factor in MIN from different states.

hmmm.....who should I believe.......bureau of labor statistics or the New York Times......such a difficult choice.....

 

[Nordberg]

have you come up with anything new since the election?.....

Lots . Trump lied about the Germany getting 70 percent of energy from Russia. It is 9. However if selling to Germany means they own Germany, then China surely owns us.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...for-buying-gas-from-russia-heres-what-we-know

 

[Nordberg]

hmmm.....who should I believe.......bureau of labor statistics or the New York Times......such a difficult choice.....

I found about 8 sources that were in line with NYT.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello garyd,

But that's why it's called politics we decide every so often who gets to have a say this time. Everybody want's it there own way there is no neutral setting. Elections are about who get's there way this time.

Touche'

Again Great Britain. which in the sixties saw a tax the essentially stripped you of everything you made over about 50k. Most everyone from the Beatles and up left the country. And until the election of Margaret Thatcher and the repeal of that nonsensical tax England suffered by all accounts and astonishing loss of talented people. If there is no reason to excel few people will try and those that do will try elsewhere.

I am not proposing any type of tax plan which would result in no reason to excel.

I calculate that a tax rate of 50% on the highest incomes, with a progressive tax reduction across the income spectrum until the magic poverty level at which the rate is zero as it is now, would be sufficient to eliminate the deficit and begin paying down the debt. Well, I should clarify. I last performed that calculation during the Obama presidency. Trump has run the deficit way up since then, so I don't know if that would be enough currently. But if not, it is very close. Earners would be taxed at the same rate as everyone else for amounts up to what everyone else earns. The higher rates only kick on ON THE AMOUNT OVER WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS. I wanted to emphasis that because it is important. There is no threshhold income level above which it is not worth earning any more. But for individuals who are earning more than 99% of earners, amounts earned above what the 99% earns would be taxed at 50%. They still get richer if they earn more, so there is no reason to leave.

Another thing I would like to see would be an executive pay cap for large employers. Executives must raise the pay of workers such that the average of all their workers is 5% of the top executive pay package (everything - all the perks, too.) That's what it was in the 60's and America was great then. (actually it was more like 10%, but 5% would be fantastic to what is seen on the free market.) The free market means employers will cut wages as low as they can get away with and still be functional. There is no pretense that the worker is part of a 'company.' No. The company exploits the worker's talents, which nets the company far more than the company shares with the worker, adn the company flips the worker a set amount. Equitable profit sharing is almost unheard of any more.

Of course we did. We also had a bout twice as man tax brackets and a great many more deductibles. And that top 90% tax rate as I believe I already pointed out only effected 3 people and they did indeed move. If adjusted for inflation and brought back today it is unclear as to whether or not anyone other than WArren buffet would be affected. And if you restored the old deductions present at that time next rate down 75% if memory serves was effectively only 50%.. And let us not forget that in the fifties everyone else had effectively been bombed flat, that is to say we had no competition. By the time Kennedy was elected that had changed and Our high tax rates had become an obvious burden on our productivity and out ability to compete in the world. And he cut the top rate to fifty percent This resulted in an immediate though brief economic rebound. Please note it was Brief because it was only in effect for a brief period of time because the worst president in the history of the country LBJ, The chief culprit in the destruction of the African American, raised it back up to 75% in order to finance both his destructive war in Southeast Asia and his equally destructive war on the African American family.

There is some truth there.

Self serving liberal Mythology, combined with a complete misunderstanding of how the tax code works and awful mathematics. Automation produces more jobs not fewer.

Gotta call baloney on that one. If automation resulted in more workers they wouldn't do it. It wouldn't be worth it. They automate jobs to reduce the number of workers and reduce the labor cost. Artificial Intelligence is not here yet, but we are getting close. When it is realized, our society will have to change drastically because automation will eliminate most jobs. Even doctors could be replaced by machines. There won't be any jobs building and servicing the machines because other machines will be doing that. By that point we will have to give up on most social assistance programs and simply issue a Universal Basic Income to everyone, paid for by taxing the rich. You might as well get used to the idea because it is coming.

Have you ever done your own taxes? In all my years of doing mine I have never seen a line that says you will pay x% for the first 20K then Y% for the next thrity k. Rather there is a chart and it shows your adjusted gross income, and across from that is an amount you pay based on that It goes up a bit through each bracket because after all 10% of 100 is less than 10% of $1000. And you get a big jump whenever you move from one bracket to the next.

I have done my taxes every single year, myself, since I first earn enough to file, as a teenager. I never hired anybody else. Every single time I read the materials, figured out and understood what was required, filed all the needed forms, on time, and paid all of my taxes. I have never been audited and never has the IRS even questioned anything on any of my returns. I never needed a lawyer or an accountant, despite having run businesses and used Schedule C and paid all the Schedule SE taxes, and quarterly payments where needed, as well as having worked for employers larges and small as both a direct employee and a contract worker.

What I have seen is a gradual rise of taxes across the spectrum until one gets to the top bracket, and a formula to calculate tax above that.

Au contraire we have a great country in spite of government spending not because of it. Name me one thing government produces other than red tape.

How can you not see all that government does for us? The fact that you have a safe car, the fact that there are almost no plane wrecks, the National Weather Service, Social Security. I could go on and on. Government does SO much for us.

And we could help OURSELVES if we would just tax the super-rich enough to start paying down the debt.

The chief product of government is sand in the gears, excessive paper work, sloth, unintended consequences and monumental stupidity. If you look at a chart of on the job industries and deaths over the last hundred years you cannot tell where OSHA came into being. Why? Well for one thing those capitalist may be greedy but they aren't stupid. Constantly having to train new people to do a given task because the other got killed or crippled is not only a tragedy for the guys family and a downer for work place morale, but grossly inefficient and during the training period makes accidents even more likely thereby increasing that inefficiency to say nothing of the fact that newbs are almost always less productive than old hands.

Don Blankenship.

Now that's just sad. Of course no one knows everything and that includes those bureaucrats in whom you place so much faith. About 25% of our federal government is involved in protecting us from dangers within and with out. The other 75% seems to be involved in trying to make sure that no one anywhere ever gets anything accomplished including at times the other 25% of the federal government.

OK, now you're just completely exaggerating. That is a completely unproveable claim.

There was, as I recal,l a story a few years ago about the navy being fined by the EPA for not using jet fuel that did not yet exist. And please government bureaucrats will always find a way to justify hiring more bureaucrats. It's like asking a rooster if he needs more hens, or an alcoholic if he needs more booze. The fox guarding the hen house metaphor comes immediately to mind. Bureaucrats are human beings too that in and of itself is sufficient reason to be wary of their answers when asking them about things that have a direct bearing on their livelihood.

Colorful descriptions but lean on verifiable facts. Seems to be offhand conjecture.

Please I didn't say they weren't training anyone, I said they weren't training them in skill sets that were terribly useful in the private sector. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ar-federal-job-training-programs-have-been-an That should tell you everything you need to know.

What you have linked is an opinion piece. It is not necessarily the whole story. The Heritage Foundation is dedicated to small government. It is their nature to attack parts of government, call them ineffective. It is good that we have these criticisms, but we should not accept them without balance and verification.

Which is like saying there needs to be permanent and mandatory and unstoppable inflation. Every time you hike minimum wage you set into motion a five year cycle during which the the new minimum wage slowly falls back to the purchasing power it used to have more workers than before are suddenly living hand to mouth and entry level jobs become rarer. And all but bureaucrats and the top 20% wind up worse off than they were before. Oh and for what it is worth minimum wage laws weren't instituted because capitalism failed but because bureaucrats and politicians full of little more than their own hot air and hubris thought they could dictate to economic reality. Economic reality laughed at them. It still does but the joke is lost upon them and it is increasingly less funny for the rest of us.

A little inflation is normal.

 

[garyd]

Hello garyd,



Touche'



I am not proposing any type of tax plan which would result in no reason to excel.

I calculate that a tax rate of 50% on the highest incomes, with a progressive tax reduction across the income spectrum until the magic poverty level at which the rate is zero as it is now, would be sufficient to eliminate the deficit and begin paying down the debt. Well, I should clarify. I last performed that calculation during the Obama presidency. Trump has run the deficit way up since then, so I don't know if that would be enough currently. But if not, it is very close. Earners would be taxed at the same rate as everyone else for amounts up to what everyone else earns. The higher rates only kick on ON THE AMOUNT OVER WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS. I wanted to emphasis that because it is important. There is no threshhold income level above which it is not worth earning any more. But for individuals who are earning more than 99% of earners, amounts earned above what the 99% earns would be taxed at 50%. They still get richer if they earn more, so there is no reason to leave.

Another thing I would like to see would be an executive pay cap for large employers. Executives must raise the pay of workers such that the average of all their workers is 5% of the top executive pay package (everything - all the perks, too.) That's what it was in the 60's and America was great then. (actually it was more like 10%, but 5% would be fantastic to what is seen on the free market.) The free market means employers will cut wages as low as they can get away with and still be functional. There is no pretense that the worker is part of a 'company.' No. The company exploits the worker's talents, which nets the company far more than the company shares with the worker, adn the company flips the worker a set amount. Equitable profit sharing is almost unheard of any more.

Pay for top executives is where it is because the people who do the hiring and firing value that particular skill set because it is rare. If they could gain the talent they need for less than what they currently pay they would. Top execs are workers just like everyone else. They just have a more valuable skill set. Again sir the reality is that your pay is determined by your skill set and that skill set's relative rarity within society. Trying to increase the value of that skill set by government fiat just screws everything else up. Your pan will result in more concentration of wealth at the top. What you and most other leftist do not seem to understand is that once the tax rate goes above a certain level increasing amounts of money will be shifted into wealth preservation schemes rather than wealth generation schemes. Wealth preservation strategies create vastly fewer jobs and most of those jobs are high end specialist jobs not entry level. Wealth generation creates jobs at all levels of the economy.

Gotta call baloney on that one. If automation resulted in more workers they wouldn't do it. It wouldn't be worth it. They automate jobs to reduce the number of workers and reduce the labor cost. Artificial Intelligence is not here yet, but we are getting close. When it is realized, our society will have to change drastically because automation will eliminate most jobs. Even doctors could be replaced by machines. There won't be any jobs building and servicing the machines because other machines will be doing that. By that point we will have to give up on most social assistance programs and simply issue a Universal Basic Income to everyone, paid for by taxing the rich. You might as well get used to the idea because it is coming.

But their won't be any rich either or very few. After all if it is all robots and machines why do I need a highly paid human being to boss them around? After all Robots don't require leadership. Just programing. It is just as likely given 3d printing that everyone will have his or her own little factory with contracts to make widgets wingnuts or whatever and we will all be rich businessmen.

I have done my taxes every single year, myself, since I first earn enough to file, as a teenager. I never hired anybody else. Every single time I read the materials, figured out and understood what was required, filed all the needed forms, on time, and paid all of my taxes. I have never been audited and never has the IRS even questioned anything on any of my returns. I never needed a lawyer or an accountant, despite having run businesses and used Schedule C and paid all the Schedule SE taxes, and quarterly payments where needed, as well as having worked for employers larges and small as both a direct employee and a contract worker.

What I have seen is a gradual rise of taxes across the spectrum until one gets to the top bracket, and a formula to calculate tax above that.

But that formula applies to your total adjusted gross income. Not just this much at that rate this much more that much higher a rate.

How can you not see all that government does for us? The fact that you have a safe car, the fact that there are almost no plane wrecks, the National Weather Service, Social Security. I could go on and on. Government does SO much for us.

And we could help OURSELVES if we would just tax the super-rich enough to start paying down the debt.

Social security is just about the worst retirement plan other than the lottery ever conceived by the mind of man. In no small part because the investment strategy it is saddled with is ridiculous and is all but guaranteed to lose money over time. Add to this the fact that when it was originally established average life expectancy was 65 which meant half the country never collected a dime and the overwhelming majority of people never lived long enough to draw out all the paid in. It has long since been increased to 67, but given that we now live into our eighties on average even that was like too conservative. And please note we are in a lot better shape than most of Europe where retirement ages are much lower. This ticking demographic time bomb is why they are bringing in all the Muslims.

Don Blankenship.

Who?

OK, now you're just completely exaggerating. That is a completely unproveable claim.



Colorful descriptions but lean on verifiable facts. Seems to be offhand conjecture.

well as they say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

What you have linked is an opinion piece. It is not necessarily the whole story. The Heritage Foundation is dedicated to small government. It is their nature to attack parts of government, call them ineffective. It is good that we have these criticisms, but we should not accept them without balance and verification.

So look up the government study it references and see if you can find any variances from there statements and it.

A little inflation is normal.

Alittle inflation, say 2-3% a year would be acceptable but that will generate 5 to 10% and slowly increasing over time Until it all collapses.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I found about 8 sources that were in line with NYT.

how many were in line with the actual statistics?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Lots . Trump lied about the Germany getting 70 percent of energy from Russia. It is 9. However if selling to Germany means they own Germany, then China surely owns us.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...for-buying-gas-from-russia-heres-what-we-know

Germany wants us to pay to protect them from Russia while they buy their energy from them........not logical......