If you hated Republican Tax Cuts before

Triathlon Forum
21

“he is not going to be using any of the public services that he is supporting. He is not going on welfare, or food stamps or unemployment.”

That may be true - but those services listed consume a small percentage of federal expenditures. The major expenditures are social security/medicare (38%), defense (17%), Medicaid/food stamps/etc. (14%), public health programs/unemployment/housing (7%). That’s all taken right our of your 1040 Instructions, Mr. CPA.

Social security and Medicare ar both non-means-tested, so he will collect some benefits from them - though very small compared to his wealth and income level. Defense, he benefits. Roads, he benefits. National Parks, he may benefit.

While he might never go to a public health clinic, or collect Medicaid/food stamps/unemployment, or be a direct beneficiary of govt social programs, does anyone really doubt that he is an indirect beneficiary of all these programs? These programs enable him to earn the large income he does, by providing a stable pool of workers and consumers on which his business rests. Without that stability, his business could not exist. The present system has evolved over many years to address needs in the system, and I agree that it has many inefficiencies. But the rhetoric coming from the right nowadays seems to want a return to the govt of the 1800s, with few, if any regulations on big business and very low taxes. And it’s based on pure greed.

I believe in a progressive tax system, simply because people at the bottom need every dollar to eat, while people at the top are purchasing a 7th vacation home - two needs that simply are not morally equivalent. And I think the right level of progressivity would have the top bracket in the low to mid 30 percent range. I would not support rates much higher than this, beacause any higher could begin to reduce incentives for individuals to earn more. But, at present tax rates, that simply does not happen.

22

We have folks that DO NOT WORK (i.e. zero income) that receive money from the government to eat, pay rent (or have the rent paid for them), cheap child care, etc. In other words our government (really rich and middle class folks) PAY SOME POOR PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE

My 82-year old mother lives in a County nursing home, where the bill is over $6,000/month. After raising 4 kids and retiring from teaching chemistry for 25 years, she has about $2,000 in assets, and under $2,000/month in pension and SS. Medicare (or is it medicaid?) is footing the bill (and taking the income). I can’t afford to take care of her (that’s more than my take-home pay); my oldest brother just got laid off and he couldn’t help, either. My next-oldest brother is on SSI, due to severe mental disability, and lives in a group home.

What should we do with my mother? Hope that there is some charity running a reasonable nursing home?

Somewhere, I read something like “a society can be judged by how it cares for those least able to care for themselves”. Today, I read that there are 300,000 children in California eligible for the state health insurance, but the state can’t afford it. Similar large numbers in Florida.

Compassionate conservatism, my ass.

Ken Lehner

23

Do somehomework next time rather than repeat the dribble put out for the masses. Read “The millionaire next door”. You will find that the vast majority of millionaires in this country are self made.

Think for yourself instead of parroting the predigested mantras of others.

24

“Defense, he benefits. Roads, he benefits. National Parks, he may benefit.”

“While he might never go to a public health clinic, or collect Medicaid/food stamps/unemployment, or be a direct beneficiary of govt social programs, does anyone really doubt that he is an indirect beneficiary of all these programs?”

“That may be true - but those services listed consume a small percentage of federal expenditures. The major expenditures are social security/medicare (38%), defense (17%), Medicaid/food stamps/etc. (14%), public health programs/unemployment/housing (7%). That’s all taken right our of your 1040 Instructions, Mr. CPA”

If so, then he is paying $12,000,000 towards those programs.

Cholla,

Of course he benefits from Roads, National Parks and defense, but he does not benefit more than another. He can only drive one car at at time and can only visit national Parks one at time like the rest of us. But he is paying $12,000,000 a year in taxes. You cannot tell me he is not paying his fair share of taxes which is what I refered to in my earlier post.

This man started his business with and idea and an engineering degree and built it up on his own to now earn $30,000,000 a year. It is not a big business it is a partnership between he and his son as the only owners. He gives more back to the system in taxes and charity in one year then I will earn in my lifetime. last I heard he drives a 10 year old Honda and lives in a modest home in the small town where he started up his business 30 plus years ago. It is probably the biggest business in a very small town as his type of business could be done anywhere but he elect to stay in this small town and help support it. He donated a large chunk of land to the community college district a few years ago and plans to give millions to help build and support it.

We estimmate he is worth close to $500,000,000. So what if he owns seven homes. What else is he going to do with half a billion dollars in his lifetime. If he owned 7 homes someoone has to build them and he agian has to pay tax on them.

My original post was in regards to the fact that rich people do indeed pay their fair share of taxes. They aslo happen to have a crap load of money left over after paying those taxes but that does not mean they are not paying their fair share. They are paying for the programs that are there for the less fortunate or lazy.

Somewhere I read that the top 10% of earners pay roughly 70% of the taxes.

Willy

25

Ken, I understand your situation. In my post I said “some” as to say not everyone receiving government benefits is/was unemployed forever.

There are not easy answers from any point of view.

As Libertarians we are dependent on the goodwill of others for us to be independent of our government as the consititution seems to employ.

On the other hand, the government taking care of what people cannot afford by themselves (and need) ain’t a bad idea either. As I pointed out before, I don’t see that Socialism (sharing the wealth) is an evil thing. I just keep pointing out that it’s not what is written in our constitution.

I’ve said repeatedly, that if we are going to continue living how we are with many, many government programs which people are dependent on, we should change the language of our documents (i.e. rewrite them) and make it official. Everyone seems to want to live a socialistic lifestyle, but no one wants to say “I belive in socialism”.

I grew up in an era (80s) where socialism was a dirty word, and painted as evil. Now, I live in an era where are very similar to a soclialist government … i.e., the government provides for those that cannot, and those will likely be dependent on gov’t their whole life. It’s called “distributing the wealth” by some. It’s socialism to me.

I already spoke my opinion where I said that I believed that people would help others. I said that I believed if we didn’t have taxes in the same manner we do now, that there would not be a ton of starving, walking dead, uneducated, homeless people. I feel that the country would be better off and better ran than it is now. I have faith that people in the form of churches, local and national charities, etc would provide the same functions that government currently does (more efficiently). Or people could donate to the government and they could issue the money out. It’s choice vs. non-choice

Obviously, more people think that adults are very childish and selfish at heart, and would not help their fellow man. So, by our own attitude we have lost freedom. It is gone. The part that remains will get smaller and smaller.

People talk about freedom as being “everyone looking out for themselves”. IMO, that’s what we have now. People vote for who gives THEM the most stuff. That’s what has lead to where we are.

Again, I am a person who by choice chose a career where I’ll earn less money but make more impact (and have more fun) with young people. I am a Christian. I am compassionate, yet I will defend my beliefs with fervor. I would do what I could to ensure that my fellow Americans eat, etc. I assume others would too. I just like the idea that we do it by choice, rather than by force. It is the same option God gives us. Tells us how to live, let’s us choose to or not. Choice (IMO) is a divine right, which cannot be taken away.

26

Somewhere I read that the top 10% of earners pay roughly 70% of the taxes.

Is that true? If so, that has to be more slanted than an Official Socialistic Government.

Geez, why don’t the top 10% just refuse to pay taxes, take over the government, start their own government (or other elitist party name), and take control. Heck, we’re living off them anyway. Might as well make it official.

This is what I don’t like … we (the USA) boasts to the world of how great our system is. We brag about our democracy (which has very little choice, A or B … and A or B ain’t that different), and we brag about our freedom, which is quickly vanishing.

I wonder why we don’t advertise, “the rich pay for everyone else”. Ah, probably b/c the wealthy and influential of the world would shove that idea right up our arse … or already have a similar plan with the unwealthy making a larger contribution than the unwealthy in the US does.

Interesting stuff.

But the rhetoric coming from the right nowadays seems to want a return to the govt of the 1800s, with few, if any regulations on big business and very low taxes. And it’s based on pure greed.

Good Lord. Why would someone say something like that? Folks we are regulated throught he teeth. Companies pay fines and continue doing what they want. Their profit vastly makes up for the fines. If you believe more of the same will fix the situation, then so be it.

The best regulation a company cannhave is the loss of its clientel … not fines, regulations, etc. Also, the chance of being shut down and never working in the industry again, is a good one. I don’t see where regulations and fines have done much. Lawsuits have done more than regs and fines. We don’t need more regs and fines. If that’s what you want, don’t bitch when they regs and fines infiltrate something you do.

27

I am one of those who inherited a family enterprise (4th generation) a few short years ago and with the help of a great team have managed to create several hundred new jobs in a down economy. So, inheritance along with ‘sweat and brains’ were involved!

I took a huge financial risk in expanding when other were heading to China. Governments & Political Parties can’t provide jobs…free enterprise does!

28

“Geez, why don’t the top 10% just refuse to pay taxes, take over the government, start their own government (or other elitist party name), and take control. Heck, we’re living off them anyway. Might as well make it official.”

I don’t think the rich want to take such a paycut : )

29

Ken … I’ve been thnking about this.

If our mother was in need of home care or nursing home care, and we could not afford it … we would not let her die or go uncared for, if there were no medicare or medicaid.

We would sacrifice for the woman that sacrificed for us. Maybe we go without TV and cable, maybe we go without a PC and internet, maybe we drive a less expensive car, find a less expensive hobby, take on a part time job, etc. In drastic circumstances, maybe the family lives in one big house, and not individual houses (that might be enough to drive everyone to socialism grin) to cut costs, so mother can be cared for (either buy the home or at home).

My point is that things would be done to ensure care … it just wouldn’t be the government doing it for us, even though that option is easiest and allows us to continue to not sacrifice (i.e. we receive more benefit money than we pay in taxes). Based on other comments I have read, having the rich pay for the rest of our benefits seems to be “what should be done”. I’m of the opinion that if rich folks want to help me out … great. If not, I will find a way.

I’m talking about your situation here, but I am using the terms “we”. That is not by accident. I am not sitting on a high horse, because I know one day that my mother will need taken care of. It takes planning and dedication throughout the duration.

I only wanted to point out that if there was not government programs, our mothers would still be cared for … by us. We would get the job done, because we are loving, responsible people. We would find a way. We would do things that would minimize the amount of “outside help”. We would likely be closer to our families, community, etc than we are now.

30

Willy,

I never said that rich people don’t pay their fair share - and I didn’t mean to distract from that point. Sorry. But what I DID mean, is that progressive taxation is fair, because the rich gain in many intangible ways from government services they don’t directly utilize. In other words, I’ll never shed a tear for a rich person who has to pay 35% taxes on the increase in income from $500,000 to $1 million per year, while a person who earns $25,000 will only pay 25% of the increase when his income doubles to $50,000. I think the argument for a flat tax among these two earners is very weak, and that higher marginal rates are justified to a point.

cholla

31

"But the rhetoric coming from the right nowadays seems to want a return to the govt of the 1800s, with few, if any regulations on big business and very low taxes. And it’s based on pure greed.

Good Lord. Why would someone say something like that? Folks we are regulated throught he teeth. Companies pay fines and continue doing what they want. Their profit vastly makes up for the fines. If you believe more of the same will fix the situation, then so be it. "

You might consider reading up on what the Bush administration is doing to environmental regulations and food regulations. Mad cow, anyone? I agree, companies do what they want and pay fines - but the answer is not less regulations, with people paying for companies’ mistakes with their health or their lives, leaving the heirs to sue to “correct” the companies behavior. That is a horrible. wasteful, and inefficient mechanism. There should be tighter enforcement with harsher penalties. It won’t happen under this administration.

You might also consider reading up on working conditions in the early 20th century. The “free market” does nothing to enforce minimally fair conditions for workers. Government must step in. Apparently, you lack that understanding.

33

I don’t think people listen to anything I say. Maybe I type too much. I’ll abbreviate.

  1. Regulations = fines if broken. If by breaking regulations you can increase your profit to 1,000,000 bucks, what influence does a 30,000 fine have on you? None.

2, Now, if we say that if you cause harm to others due to negligence, your company will shut down permanantly and you will not be allowed to reopen another business or join an already existing one. Are you going to make certain your company is top notch in all areas? Me too.

My thoughts is that the punishments for breaking regulations are so lenient that it’s almost like no regulations at all. Have the punishment for harm be lethal (death of the company, civil liability to members which has to be paid, even if the CEO has to sell his mansion to pay for it), and the regulations almost become unnecessary.

We are both for responsibility. Your way is to institute more and more regulations which result in fines and increased costs to the consumer, but really change nothing.

My way is for increased punishment. The biggest threat to a business is to close it down, and banishment from the industry. That is the punishment you threaten with.

Threatening a company with money that they will get from raising costs to a consumer is no real threat at all.

The “free market” does nothing to enforce minimally fair conditions for workers. Government must step in. Apparently, you lack that understanding.

The best workers go where there are the best conditions, i.e. Microsoft.

I don’t understand where you got that I wasn’t for “any” regulations. Obviously I don’t feel that 8-year olds should work a hazardous job 18 hours a day.

All regulations equate to is higher cost of product. I understand that perfectly. I also understand further regulations result in more fines and higher consumer cost, while the executives continue to make the same rate of profit. (I’m repeating on purpose)

If a comapny refuses to be responsibile to it s consumers (keep them from harm), then IMO the government has the right to close the SOB’s down … permanently and as harshly as possible.

Me thinks big donations from big companies keeps the regulations being as ineffective as they are.

34

“You might also consider reading up on working conditions in the early 20th century. The “free market” does nothing to enforce minimally fair conditions for workers. Government must step in. Apparently, you lack that understanding.”

This is the same old saw the liberals and unions keep trotting out. It is invalid today for several reasons:

  1. The labor market of the early 1900’s was not a true free market with supply and demand in relative equilibrium. It was a “buyers” market where you had hundreds/thousands of untrained, uneducated immigrants vying for a relatively few, low skill jobs. Employers could retrain someone in 10 minutes and would have 100 applicants for every job. No need to be “employee friendly.”

  2. The worker of today is highly skilled and trained and is mobile. The employer has spent thousands of dollars training the worker. In many fields, there is a labor shortage, in other words a “sellers” market. If the employer demands too much, the worker walks right into an equal or better job.

  3. Business managers are better trained and equipped for the job than they were in the past. They know that the greatest cost to most firms is human capital. Replacing a highly skilled, motivated, experienced employee costs time and money, and both of those will put you out of business.

If I am lying, explain why companies are building day care centers in the workplace (as well as other perks) without being required to do so by the government. They are doing it because it helps to maximize employee time on the job and therefore productivity. In a true free market, buyer (employer) and seller (employee) exchange their goods (pay for work) at a mutually acceptable bargain. Unions and government regulations interject artificialities into the market place that skew the supply and demand curves and prevent the market from achieving equilibrium.

35

“I’ll never understand any of you people who point fingers at the “Republicans” or the “Democrats” as the source of the problem. You’re completely f-ing blind if you don’t see that they’re all the f-ing same self-serving bunch of shit. WHY IS EVERYONE SO WILLING TO THROW AWAY INDEPENDENT THOUGHT IN FAVOR OF TOWING SOME ABSURD PARTY LINE??”

You are so right. Here in Colorado our entire state is ruled by republicans and mostly has been for quite some time. The only way we have managed to not be taxed into oblivion to get money for an endless number of government spending programs, is that we passed a law called TABOR (Taxpayers Bill Of Rights). This law makes it possible for the people to actually control what happens AFTER the knuckleheads get elected. They can no longer raise taxes every time they feel like it and they also can’t raise spending. It’s still not a perfect system by any stretch but at least it keeps the mighty politicians from doing really stupid things with our money.

The whole party thing is not at all what the framers of the constitution had in mind. We are supposed to elect representatives “of the people”. Instead we end up electing representatives “of the party”. People who don’t share the views of the party are left without representation. Unfortunately this is a huge number of people. These people end up not voting and are governed by a system that may not truly represent them. The independent voice is not heard. Unless a person has great personal wealth, it is virtually impossible to get elected unless you belong to one of the parties. What we end up with is a government that has been elected by a minority of the overall population. The sad truth is that we get the government we deserve. If we don’t like how things are being done we have the power to change it. Instead people keep electing someone from a party because they want to vote for a “winner” rather than someone who may actually represent them.

Don

36

I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve also noticed that less than 5% of the Triathletes win 100% of the races. This is such a blatantly unjust distribution of winners that it should be addressed. We should start attaching parachutes to people. The better they do the bigger the chute. That would be much more fare since I don’t have their genetics, equipment or time to spend training. As a matter of fact I would not even have to worry that much about training on account of they would be wearing the parachutes to slow them down to the lowest common denominator.

37
  1. Don, you are very right.

I view politicians like I do my sports teams. Some guys have a good year, some guys don’t. Just because they’re on my favorite team doesn’t mean they had a good eyar.

If a politician leaves the country in better shape then he inherited it, then he’s done his job.

I vote for the person I think is best qualified, whether they be black, white, green, blue, male, female, both, R, D, etc.

I agree with what someone else said earlier about voting Libertarian being a waste of time. We are forced, through practice, to vote for the R or D that best fits our views, even though neither hit the mark.

You are spot on with the representation we have in this country. Choice A and Choice B, and Choice A ain’t all that different than Choice B.

Those with influence sure have fashioned this govenrment thing to be exactly what they wanted.

This is what we have, and this is what me must work with.

  1. Norm … “brilliant” (to quote a Guinness commercial). I’m all for that. MOF, I’ll stop training now, and you make sure the winner’s chutes are bigger than last year. Weighted backpacks is another good idea, as are square wheels on their bikes.
38

I also like the idea of a sliding scale IM entry fee based on income: those who are students or over 65 should be able to enter for about $30. Those who earn under $20,000-enter for $50, 21,0000-$60,000 enter for $300. $61,000-99,000- for $800. Anything up to 500,000 pay $6000. Incomes above would have an entry fee of $20,000. And anyone entering the CEO challenge would have to fork over $100,000. Why should I have to pay the same $400+ fee as someone who makes 100 times more than me…they can afford it.

39

What I take from your story is that the tax break creates a deficit of $1 per meal!

40

I’m glad someone brought up the deficit.

As someone that has a fairly new interest in politics, the deficit is something that interests me. We have some finance people here. Please answer these questions about the deficit.

As I understand it, the deficit is money that we loan oursleves, right?

Isn’t this like me loaning myself $50?

Do I really care if the $50 gets paid back? How do I pay myself back?

What are the penalties for not paying of the deficit?

I hear “balance the budget” every election, but it never seemed like anyone takes it seriously.

Each election seems to come down to what ideology you prefer, and which candidate will give me the most something for least nothing.

I’m curious about how the deficit works.

41

I am no finance person either, but the way I am looking at it, you are loaning yourself money that you don’t have (if you had it you would not need to loan it). So you must be getting that money not from yourself, but from your bank. I guess that you are paying interests on that loan. If you don’t pay it back then you become a bad customer, bad credit history, blablabla.