Political Leanings...

[Miniar]

Asking again:
The point is -- How much do you think is acceptable for the government to take out of every dollar you make?
For the rich living off of inhertance -
For the rich working -
For the Middle class working -
For the Poor working -
For the Poor unemployed -
For the Unworkable -

Or should it all be the same rate....

Daisy

The "general" income tax up here, is 27% on every dollar you make "above" the non-taxxed minimum income. That means you can earn up to X tax free, but after that the income tax is 27%.

We used to have a "high income" tax which meant that people who were earning a lot more money and thus controlling a lot more of the resources had to pay a second tax which was relatively low but made their total tax be "approximately" the same as a 31% income tax.

The unemployable still pay the same tax on what they make over X as everyone else, but that X is there to make sure that they, and others who can not make enough money, aren't being shafted by the system.

I enjoy this system.
I think that what's best for the weakest of the citizens is what's best for the country for a number of reasons.
I like taxes, I like them because I like having roads, and plumbing, and trash collection, and police, and a fire department, and so on and so forth. I like taxes too because they mean that my sister, who's a single mother, won't loose her home, her son, her car, and everything else she can call "hers" if she so much as breaks a single bone in her body.
I like knowing that everyone is taken care of, even people who suffer physical and mental conditions that leave them unable to take care of themselves.

Everyone knows that mass social inequalities breed criminal activity.

[lisagurl]

Reality has made me come to believe that money can sure buy my way out of hunger

Only if the farmer believes that your paper is worth something. The whole system works on beliefs. I have been in places where money is not any good.  A carton of cigarettes worked but not money.
 

The point is -- How much do you think is acceptable for the government to take out of every dollar you make?
For the rich living off of inheritance -
For the rich working -
For the Middle class working -
For the Poor working -
For the Poor unemployed -
For the Unworkable

So you are saying one life is worth more than another? We each have a finite amount of time in this world. I do not think anyone else's is worth more than mine.

[tekla]

I think that what's best for the weakest of the citizens is what's best for the country for a number of reasons.

I don't even know where to begin with this one.  Seems like pitching to the lowest common denominator.

[NicholeW.]

...  I was more than a bit impressed but that has been washed away.

O, I didn't think you were trying to insult. I believed you were surprised that people do not follow party-lines. 

As far as being "impressed" was concerned. I don't anticipate that from you to ever last very long anyhow., Daisy! 

Not sure I understand the animosity -- I was impressed we had common ground.  I respect everyone opinions on this board, but that does not mean I have to agree.  I have done nothing to you personally, except not see the current or past administration the way you do.   But this is America, and I do currently have the right of free speech, just as you do.

Daisy

Actually you said your impression had already "been washed away." I said, "I hadn't expected it to last for long anyway."

Sensitive much?

That I expect your being impressed that we have something in common not to last long?

What would make you think differently?

Next time I make some opine about Texas Secessionists (throwbacks?) or the inane conservative talking-points you trot out I would presume that any "impression" would immediately become negative. Would that be an incorrect presumption?

Now, if you want to think that you are being repressed, get in line with Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and various other yahoos who believe "repression" to be what occurs anytime they are not in-charge of how most people think and act.

Oth, you might just realize that I thought that rather than being impressed you were surprised I didn't adhere to some lock-step "liberal position."

And it looks to me like that's exactly what had occurred from your comment quoted above.

You are allowed, of course, to say anything you wish on this site of a political nature. But, "animosity"?? I'm kinda perplexed where you come up with that notion, Daisy. I don't hold to most of your positions and find most of them both inane and extraordinarily disingenuous. But, I don't dislike or feel an animus toward you because your politics seems to me similar to Jefferson Davis' politics.

N~

[DarkLady]

I am first human before any ideology and do not take any ideology dogmatically. I do not believe that political ideologies should be only watched theoretically without understanding the deeper effect on society and people's lives. I am a fiscal liberal so I dare to critize neoliberalism when it is needed. The fact that socialism did not work does not mean that Reagan-Thatcher ideology of the free market is the only possibility. Sometimes goverment spending is justified and reduces need for more spending in the future.

[Michelle.]

Didn't Churchill say, "Capitalism by far isn't the best system, then again its way better than anything we've tried before."?

Both the US and Britain, especially Britain, did very well under Reagan/Thatcher eco. policies. Even helped to defeat the USSR.

As far as national debt goes. It took a loooong time to get here, it won't be solved overnight. Though I know it's not helping to add a good trillion or two to it either.

[Mister]

Didn't Churchill say, "Capitalism by far isn't the best system, then again its way better than anything we've tried before."?

Churchill cracks me up.  Sad, but true.

[Michelle.]

Churchill kicked a## back in his day.

Heres an interesting link, Bernake on the current debt and spending.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide
Post Merge: June 03, 2009, 06:57:03 PM
Obama proposes a version of "single payer."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul

Add a minimum of 1.5 trillion over 10 years.

[tekla]

Yeah, but versus what cost now over the same amount of time?  Figures are relative.

[NicholeW.]

Churchill kicked a## back in his day.

Churchill wasn't particularly good at warfare. (Read some about his days in the Boer War and his masterminding of Gallipoli.

But sure as shootin' he wrote two excellently readable and artistic histories. He was an excellent stylist and a wonderful one to come up with pithy comments and acerbic observations.

He was an excellent PM when it came to rousing GB to resist the German invasion and ongoing airwar. He rallied the troops and was an inspirational war leader.

O, peacetime? Hmmm, not so hot in that regard. Seemed unable to allow his old-line conservative beliefs to wrap themselves around things like people having to work and make money to feed their kids or how to build or renew an economy in a whole 'nother world.

That would be why he was roundly rejected at the first pass after the war was over. The public just didn't find that his views of political economy were pertinent to Britain in 1946.

I'm sure if he could have run in USA we'd have prolly elected him until he finally dies.

But, Americans have never been adept at understanding their political interests if they weren't part of the "elites."

[Michelle.]

Now we know which nations Health Care system ours will be modeled on: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/jun/03/candadian-leader-stumps-for-obamacare/

Remember Nichole, the Conservative, Churchill came back for another term.

[daisybelle]

Actually you said your impression had already "been washed away." I said, "I hadn't expected it to last for long anyway."

Sensitive much?

That I expect your being impressed that we have something in common not to last long?

What would make you think differently?

Next time I make some opine about Texas Secessionists (throwbacks?) or the inane conservative talking-points you trot out I would presume that any "impression" would immediately become negative. Would that be an incorrect presumption?

Now, if you want to think that you are being repressed, get in line with Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and various other yahoos who believe "repression" to be what occurs anytime they are not in-charge of how most people think and act.

Oth, you might just realize that I thought that rather than being impressed you were surprised I didn't adhere to some lock-step "liberal position."

And it looks to me like that's exactly what had occurred from your comment quoted above.

You are allowed, of course, to say anything you wish on this site of a political nature. But, "animosity"?? I'm kinda perplexed where you come up with that notion, Daisy. I don't hold to most of your positions and find most of them both inane and extraordinarily disingenuous. But, I don't dislike or feel an animus toward you because your politics seems to me similar to Jefferson Davis' politics.

N~

A bit cynical you think.   

I liken this this to a friend of my wife.   She is a complete tomboy - never cares for the frilly girl side. And that is okay in my book.  But she has her long distance boyfriend coming to town, so she let's say went the extra mile.  And looked pretty good.  I was impressed.   I said so.   The difference is she said thank you.

On the other hand you group me in with Texas secessionists etc.... hell in this website don't we have enough labels?   Whether you were correct or not is completely irrelevant.   The fact that your response was barbed is what I have a hard time understanding.

Whatever...

Daisy

Post Merge: June 04, 2009, 09:41:07 AM

So you are saying one life is worth more than another? We each have a finite amount of time in this world. I do not think anyone else's is worth more than mine.

That was not the question...  The question was :  How much of every dollar of yours should be taxed?

[tekla]

How much of every dollar of yours should be taxed?

Oh that's kind of a knee jerk question unless you are also asking:
What is that money being used for?
Is everyone paying that rate, or only a few people?
Is there a better way to get that money, say fees, than just tax it?

I don't mind (though I don't like it either) paying taxes in so far as the money seems to go for things that provide for the common good - and is not wasted, frittered away, spend on pet projects or providing luxury accommodations for people working for the state.  I also don't mind in so far as we all pay them, and the burden does not fall on some groups much harder than on others.

[lisagurl]

That was not the question...  The question was :  How much of every dollar of yours should be taxed?

No, the question is, "how much time of your life do you contribute to the community?"

[tekla]

And the conservative rallying cry is "NONE, my community ought to be contributing to me, damn it!"

But what is clear to me, and becoming clear to others I hope, is that those old notions, labels, and ideologies no longer work on either side.  The problems, issues, and challenges we face no longer fit into either the left or the right, liberal nor conservative seem to have any answers anymore.  Time and change have passed them by.

A few short decades ago conservatives were rallying that marriage was the foundation of society, the bedrock of civilization (such as it was), while liberals were decrying marriage as an oppressive institution and all it took to get both groups to do a total 180 was to try to extend that institution to more people and all of a sudden conservatives wanted less stability and less of a bedrock, and the oppressive nature of the institution was forgot by the liberal in an effort to, I guess, oppress even more people into it. 

In that debate - just to pick one glaring example - both groups forgot what they stood for, and both became pale copies of the other side.

[Michelle.]

In that debate - just to pick one glaring example - both groups forgot what they stood for, and both became pale copies of the other side.

Ha ha.... you are most correct Tekla.

[Alyssa M.]

Our national debt is now at, what, 11 trillion. Thats 11,000,000,000,000. Thats about $36,000 per man, woman, and child in the US.

That's not really that much, historically speaking. It ought to be higher right now in order to fight the economic crisis, and it will be. Yes, it's good in general to have debt under control, but that's not a major problem right now at all.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

and we haven't even begun to install a National Health Care System yet.

The question is, will you pay for health care through high taxes or through high deductions from your paycheck? The current system is profoundly inefficient, in large part because of the number of people who can't afford insurance, and so don't get preventive care, and default on their debts when something major comes up. So you get to pay one way or another.

When does the Zimbabwe style inflation begin?

When the party in control government takes over all the farms in America, kicks all the farmers out of the country (under threat of death), and hands over the land to cronies, leading to mass starvation.

[daisybelle]

to go for things that provide for the common good - and is not wasted, frittered away, spend on pet projects or providing luxury accommodations for people working for the state. 

If you could guaranty that you should run for office...

I also don't mind in so far as we all pay them, and the burden does not fall on some groups much harder than on others.

So are you saying Flat Tax equally or tiered???

[tekla]

Flat, as in a set percentage of income, all income, no matter how obtained.  The notion that someone who works for money should pay a higher rate on those earnings than someone who has acquired that money by clipping coupons on bonds, or in stock transfers, or though other cap gains is silly and counterproductive.  It was a law written for and by people who don't work.

I'd also abolish corporate income (but not property) taxes in exchange for giving up Southern Pacific Railroad vs. Santa Clara County, as I think that corporate taxes are simply passed on to the consumer.  If the system is working right, those profits revert to shareholders, and that income can be taxed at that intersection. 

I know, it puts H&R Block and all them people out of business, as a flat tax is so simple that it would not require in most cases complex laws and forms.

And I would establish a small sales tax (but not a VAT tax) with several exemptions (rent/housing - but only one house at a time - medical/medicine, tuition) as a way of taxing - at least in some small amount - income that comes from illegal (or off the book) sources and encouraging savings and investment as opposed to mindless consumption.


     to go for things that provide for the common good - and is not wasted, frittered away, spend on pet projects or providing luxury accommodations for people working for the state.

If you could guaranty that you should run for office...

If I could guarantee that, and ran for office I'd end up like Bobby Kennedy or Paul Wellstone.

[daisybelle]

At least I do not work here: http://gizmodo.com/5273192/canon-employees-are-forbidden-to-sit-down-walk-at-normal-pace