PDA

View Full Version : Raising taxes


Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 01:31 PM
I don't know whether this is going to become a serious debate or not, but I just want to hear what other people (Americans more specifically) think about the prospect of raising taxes. Only two things in life are certain, death and taxes.

In a time when the US deficit is approaching a trillion dollars annually, would people support higher taxes if that's what it takes to overcome with the healthcare, education, and infrastructure problems? And even taxing the most wealthy might not be enough, so even the middle class might have to contribute even more than before.

Personally, I believe it is important to deal with the deficit as quickly as possible. That requires reducing the debt owed by the US, currently over $10 trillion. The interest we pay on that debt is nothing more than waste, which is why we must seek to take care of it. Higher taxes would generate the resources the US needs to increase the production of goods that can be exported, generate new jobs, and pay off the debt.

It will hurt taxpayers, I know that already; but what is happening today is really the result of past decisions leading to delayed consequences. If we don't solve our economic problems today, they will hover over us forever. But that doesn't exactly mean raising taxes will make the difference.

What are your thoughts?

Trench
08-04-2009, 01:35 PM
I hate taxes. Let the government bother someone else. Its their fault that we are in this mess, and they should fix it without putting hard working Americans out on the streets.
I'd better not say any more...

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 01:57 PM
Let the government bother someone else. Its their fault that we are in this mess, and they should fix it without putting hard working Americans out on the streets.

Maybe, but despite who was responsible for it all; we're all in the same boat together. If someone else does something stupid or irresponsible, it does not help us to just brush the problem aside. They may get what they deserve, but everyone else who had nothing to do with it will suffer as well.

Trench
08-04-2009, 02:02 PM
Would you mind if I say something slightly rude? (towards the government:xp:)

We could send them to China to work off their debts in factories.:¨:
:pYou have to admit that it would be effective with all the politicians we've got, and its character building.

All kidding aside, I know that we are all in the same boat together, but these taxes are going to force even more people onto the streets, and that won't do anything good for this country.

jrrtoken
08-04-2009, 02:05 PM
All kidding aside, I know that we are all in the same boat together, but these taxes are going to force even more people onto the streets, and that won't do anything good for this country.Or you could simply alleviate certain taxes for lower and middle-income households, while raise taxes on the astronomically wealthy.

damn, I forgot; that's socialism. :(

mur'phon
08-04-2009, 03:07 PM
Or you could simply alleviate certain taxes for lower and middle-income households, while raise taxes on the astronomically wealthy.

Which is rather hard to do in America as it's one of the countries where the wealthy pay most taxes (as a percent of total taxes paid). Incidentaly I agree with DY that the middle-income households will have to join in. I do not however believe it's right to do it in a downturn, so wait for the economy to pick up first. Unfourtantely since voters tend to hate when the government cut services, and hate it just as much when they raise taxes, I don't see the defecit disapearing any time soon.

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 03:21 PM
Which is rather hard to do in America as it's one of the countries where the wealthy pay most taxes (as a percent of total taxes paid).

Well the social class structure is starting to revert back to the way it was when there were lots of rich and poor with few middle class. The number of wealthy people isn't climbing so much as the sheer scale of wealth the top 1% of income earners have. Since the Reagan years, the upper 1% are increasing their annual earnings faster than everyone below them.

What does that mean? Every social class tends to earn more than they did the year before, but the lower classes are increasing much slower than the more wealthy ones.

Master Shake
08-04-2009, 04:41 PM
damn, I forgot; that's socialism. :(
Aw, and it was just starting to sound good.

Litofsky
08-04-2009, 05:44 PM
Living in the state that I do, the government takes 30% of my family's annual income. That being said, I can't see any other way of getting out of this recession/massive debt any other way. We've been spending billions on two wars for nearly seven years now, and the recent government bailouts (not trying to hit the bailout, just pointing out that they've cost in the trillions) haven't exactly brought in a plethora of revenue.

No one would be happy, but I just don't see a plausible resolution to our debt without raising taxes. :giveup:

Web Rider
08-04-2009, 05:46 PM
People want government services, so people pay taxes. While I agree that government spending is often wasteful, wasteful spending is not solved through increases of reductions in taxes.

As long as people want government services, they should pay taxes, though I do think a lot of non-necessary taxes should be optional, and of course, if you don't pay in, you don't get them.

Q
08-04-2009, 05:58 PM
Or you could simply alleviate certain taxes for lower and middle-income households, while raise taxes on the astronomically wealthy.

damn, I forgot; that's socialism. :(
Isn't that pretty much what we already do? :giveup:

mimartin
08-04-2009, 06:06 PM
Spend and borrow, then let the next generation pay for it. :rolleyes:

It has worked for 17 of the past 29 years.

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 06:32 PM
It has worked for 17 of the past 29 years.

Why 17?

Well there are other options to higher taxes, but one of the consequences is higher population density. Of course that hasn't been very successful around here, but when people are more concentrated, it costs less to provide more bang for the buck in terms of public services.

Then there comes the point of public/private spending causing vast amounts of waste. A solution to reduce that is to designate where private services have proven effective and public ones are just a waste of money. This would inspire for more effective competition among corporations to improve on the private side while the public services which don't work would be scrapped.

mimartin
08-04-2009, 07:08 PM
Your right it, I should have said 19 years.

8 years under Ronald “so-called small government” Reagan

8 years under George W Bush

3 years under George H Bush before his lips lied and he raised taxes. Still took 4 years before the surplus took effect.

8 years under Clinton are the only time the tread was reversed where we had a surplus until 1 year after George W Bush took office.

7 months of Obama look like par for the course. I don’t know why people call him a socialist, seems to take after the Republicans to me.


http://static.scribd.com/profiles/images/auw7rfzmnovul-full.gif

ForeverNight
08-04-2009, 07:14 PM
I would be curious to have the above graph plotted with who was in control of the Congress and/or Senate... otherwise interesting graph Mimartin.

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 07:43 PM
The graph shows the deficit, not the debt mind you. I originally assumed when I saw it years ago that Clinton eliminated all US debt and that Bush ruined it all. Still it is better to be getting a surplus than a deficit.

Also note that Clinton actually had rein of the US in a time where the worldwide economy was booming. Although he may have been a great president, don't make the mistake of assuming he flipped the economy completely around by his action... although he helped, the US economy was booming at the time anyway.

W can take credit for his part in reversing the flow of funds back into the red, but he didn't take the US debt from 360 million in the green to -10 trillion in his 8 years in office.

Bimmerman
08-04-2009, 07:44 PM
While it's very PC to tax the rich, they already pay proportionally more per person in taxes than middle and lower classes do. Simply taxing a select small group of people will never achieve the desired result, the tax increases must be spread out more than the current "people making more than 250k per year."

250k also, while it seems like a lot, isn't much. Before I get flamed for saying that, here's why: 250k is the household tax increase level. Say you have a couple who have advanced degrees and ten years of experience in their field. For an engineer with only a Bachelor's straight out of school, the average pre-tax income is ~$55k. For a Master's, ~$65k. For a PhD, ~$85k. Add a few years of experience, and your Master's degree nets you ~$100k. PhD, $125-150k. Of course, this varies area to area, but the point stands. Fields like law, medicine, engineering, are well known for high salaries. Fields like construction management, business management (MBAs), Biotech, Chemistry, Physics, all make very good money, +/- 10k or so around the Engineer's.

Now, back to the couple. Two people with similar degrees in engineering with similar experience will net them six figures each at some point in their lives, probably before age 35. If both partners make 125k, that's the needed 250k for tax increases. Hence, that threshold is rather low for a hardworking educated salaried family. And yes, I've simplified my model significantly, there are lots of holes for D_Y to aim for, and I could care less. It works and it makes a lot of sense if you look at expected salary data with years of experience factored in.

What I'm not saying, and I know this will be overlooked, is that 250k isn't enough to live on; hell I'd love to earn that much. For a household, 250k is a very luxurious life. What I AM saying is that it isn't as high a threshold as you may believe it to be.

The idea among the more left leaning folks is that those who earn more money somehow work less hard and don't deserve it. I strongly disagree; in order to get to that level of income, you have to work your ass off. Why should someone who has worked hard their whole life to get where they are pay for someone's welfare or illegal immigrant baby? Or an unrelated 65 year old's healthcare? Or GM? Or.....? Most people who earn lots of money put in the hours required to do so. Paris Hilton's an admittedly vapid anomaly.


Anyway, enough of me ranting. My solution is instead of spending money we don't have on ideas and bills that haven't really done anything for the economy in a measurable way (banks aren't lending stimulus funds, so the stimulus was worthless) and raising taxes, we leave the taxes where they are and cut spending.

We don't need to keep fighting wars with dubious benefits in this economic climate; we can't afford it when the economy is in the dumps. Argue the war's pros and cons all you like, I'm talking about the fiscal reasons. So, cut spending on the war, cut spending on medicare/medicaid, cut welfare benefits, cut handouts, cut everything that isn't essential to true government function.

Once the government is running, start adding back in the programs that actually are needed (i.e. medicare/medicaid, veterans benefits.....not social security. that won't happen, but would be nice to see). That would free up a significant amount of money each year that could then be used to pay back the debt, interest, and deficit.

As for taxes, the best solution is to implement an actually fair metric. Impose a tax of 35 or 40% of income on everybody. Then the rich pay the same proportional amount as the poor, so everyone is helping the exact same way. No more bogus tax breaks for Priuses, Hummers, or house renovations. Cut out all the exemptions, all the tax shielding, all the BS, and simply levy a flat tax across the board. Leftists will scream bloody murder, conservatives will scream bloody murder, so therefore it's the right thing to do. Simple, effective, and very very functional (btw, 40% is the top tax rate more or less not including capital gains).

The graph shows the deficit, not the debt mind you. I originally assumed when I saw it years ago that Clinton eliminated all US debt and that Bush ruined it all. Still it is better to be getting a surplus than a deficit.

Also note that Clinton actually had rein of the US in a time where the worldwide economy was booming. Although he may have been a great president, don't make the mistake of assuming he flipped the economy completely around by his action... although he helped, the US economy was booming at the time anyway.

W can take credit for his part in reversing the flow of funds back into the red, but he didn't take the US debt from 360 million in the green to -10 trillion in his 8 years in office.

Very good point! It would be interesting to see that same graph overlaid not just against who controlled congress but also against the stock market trendline. That would show overall market conditions and how the US fared during boom/bust times. I don't know if that's doable, but would be interesting to see. If anyone's a photoshop wizard....you know what to do.

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 08:08 PM
And yes, I've simplified my model significantly, there are lots of holes for D_Y to aim for, and I could care less. It works and it makes a lot of sense if you look at expected salary data with years of experience factored in.

Uh... you really haven't taken macroeconomics have you? I'm not proclaiming to know it myself, but I'm not expecting to make a perfect model, nor do I expect one to come from anyone who has a PHD in multiple economic fields.

What I'm going for in general is that Americans have to realize that the lack of government services are a result of insufficient funding. Where else is that supposed to come from?

While it's very PC to tax the rich, they already pay proportionally more per person in taxes than middle and lower classes do. Simply taxing a select small group of people will never achieve the desired result, the tax increases must be spread out more than the current "people making more than 250k per year."

One of the biggest problems I see with this is the issue of the wealthiest individuals being able to hire accountants and most others can't afford it. There are many loopholes in the tax system that the middle class could exploit, but that's assuming they have a dedicated accountant to do that... most can't. Corporations are able to dodge taxes left and right if they know the proper loopholes to exploit.

There is a major division between wage earners and business owners. This is really where the tax-loophole discrepancy is found. Those who own their own business or take part in a corporation have many options to place wealth and resources in order to reduce what they have to have taxed. This should be where the taxes system is most significantly flawed.


What I'm not saying, and I know this will be overlooked, is that 250k isn't enough to live on; hell I'd love to earn that much. For a household, 250k is a very luxurious life. What I AM saying is that it isn't as high a threshold as you may believe it to be.

The idea among the more left leaning folks is that those who earn more money somehow work less hard and don't deserve it. I strongly disagree; in order to get to that level of income, you have to work your ass off. Why should someone who has worked hard their whole life to get where they are pay for someone's welfare or illegal immigrant baby? Or an unrelated 65 year old's healthcare? Or GM? Or.....? Most people who earn lots of money put in the hours required to do so. Paris Hilton's an admittedly vapid anomaly.

It's not unfair. When there is only so much work to go around for everyone, then there should be progressive taxes in place. Someone who earns 250 K can live comfortably on that salary... and it's not like they are being punished if they are told that any more work they do will be taxed higher. They simply would be given less incentive to work for more than 250 K a year.

And those who earn the least are given the most tax breaks because they may be struggling to get by. It is to ease the burden of minimum wage earners and to give the wealthiest individuals less incentive to earn more than they need to live comfortably.

Bimmerman
08-04-2009, 08:38 PM
Uh... you really haven't taken macroeconomics have you? I'm not proclaiming to know it myself, but I'm not expecting to make a perfect model, nor do I expect one to come from anyone who has a PHD in multiple economic fields. No, I have not. I do, however, have hard copies of data showing exactly what I have described over decades of experience. So in this case, yes, I am right. I will see if I can get scans of the graphs....may be a while as the books are literally 6000 miles away.

What I'm going for in general is that Americans have to realize that the lack of government services are a result of insufficient funding. Where else is that supposed to come from?

....maybe we should rely more on ourselves and less on the government to help us inefficiently? Considering how much you love efficiency, why do you believe the government, which is basically the epitome of sloth, ineptitude, and inefficiency (regardless of party), must help the people? You can do it better, faster, and quicker yourself.

One of the biggest problems I see with this is the issue of the wealthiest individuals being able to hire accountants and most others can't afford it. There are many loopholes in the tax system that the middle class could exploit, but that's assuming they have a dedicated accountant to do that... most can't. Corporations are able to dodge taxes left and right if they know the proper loopholes to exploit.

Well, I'm not wealthy, and I've never hired an accountant. I also don't need to. People just need to go to Barnes and Noble, but JK Laser's latest Tax Code book, and work through the worksheets for a few weeks before tax time. It's not hard, it just is mindnumbingly tedious. Paying an accountants is a tax on being lazy or not having enough time to do it yourself, or both.

Similarly, I invest my money in IRAs, mutual funds, and money market accounts entirely on my own without any oversight from an accountant. I do well on that, despite me not having a lot of money. All the knowledge you need is available in the financial section of a bookstore (Bogle on Mutual Funds is GREAT). Again: me = poor college student. I don't use an accountant, but I invest a significant portion of my income and do my own taxes. Why do people in the middle class, with more time on their hands, and money, not do the same? Laziness and/or overbooking of time.

Also, for loopholes, I think they should all be closed and everyone be subject to the same tax rate. Fair for all.

There is a major division between wage earners and business owners. This is really where the tax-loophole discrepancy is found. Those who own their own business or take part in a corporation have many options to place wealth and resources in order to reduce what they have to have taxed. This should be where the taxes system is most significantly flawed.

Again....I'm no business owner, and while I work fulltime, I barely earn enough to live on the time honored ramen and beer (occasionally pasta) diet. I live like this solely to fund my automotive habit and to put the max possible into my IRAs and mutual funds as possible per year. This will pay off tremendously when I'm near retirement age, and I'll undoubtedly get nailed by new income-distribution BS. But, always in motion is the future.

Acquiring wealth isn't relegated solely to business owners, nor is knowledge of tax-loopholes. If a poor broke college idiot can do it....anyone can.

It's not unfair. When there is only so much work to go around for everyone, then there should be progressive taxes in place. Someone who earns 250 K can live comfortably on that salary... and it's not like they are being punished if they are told that any more work they do will be taxed higher. They simply would be given less incentive to work for more than 250 K a year.

No, that strikes me as absurdly unfair. There is only so much work to go around, and the cold hard truth is that the better a worker you are, the better skilled you are, the greater your motivation and drive, and your willingness to get the job done no matter how much time it takes (most people I know or have met who earn six figures or more work 85hrs a week or more), the better you will do in your career. Why should there be disincentives for working hard to better your life?!? I want to own a Ferrari someday. I fully expect to put in 80hr+ weeks to get myself to a point in my career and life where I can afford one. If you're not willing to work that hard to realize your life goals, then that's fine, I'll just end up paying your healthcare, and can justifiably bitch about it. I will also be understandably angry when I hear repeated calls for more of my money to be distributed amongst the not so driven.

Case in point: I know a man, a son of a day laboring machinist, who went to school, got a PhD while working full time, and still over 35 years later, still puts in 80-100hr weeks including weekends. He is immensely successful, living comfortably, with a very nice family. What he does not need to spend on living, he invests. Now can you honestly tell me that someone like him, who came from absolutely nothing, should not work so hard to live his life the way he wants to? Are you honestly going to tell me he doesn't deserve the fruits of his considerable labor?

If so, well, we're going to agree to disagree. I will not budge on this.


And those who earn the least are given the most tax breaks because they may be struggling to get by. It is to ease the burden of minimum wage earners and to give the wealthiest individuals less incentive to earn more than they need to live comfortably.

So, rather than give them incentives to work hard and move up in life, we give them everything and expect nothing of them. The blatant hypocrisy here is astonishing. If you come from a welfare family, living off of food stamps, make something of yourself, and earn a significant amount of money per year and accumulate wealth over time, the leftists then have the utter gall to tell you that you do not deserve that money, and that you shouldn't work as hard or you will be taxed more. How is that possibly fair?

As Jesus said, there will always be poor. There is no point trying to ease their suffering too much, as those with drive and ambition will rise above it (and they do, more often than you know). I suspect that your family has lived a comfortable middle class life for many generations. Mine has not. Understandably, I fully believe that those who make something of themselves should not be penalized for it, and those with little to nothing can better themselves if they have the drive.

mimartin
08-04-2009, 09:14 PM
The graph shows the deficit, not the debt mind you. No, the graph shows deficits and surpluses. If you run a budget deficit (spend more than you take in) then your get into debt.


don't make the mistake of assuming he flipped the economy completely around by his action.. I believe it begin to be flipped when George H Bush finally got conservative and raised taxes instead of continuing to practice his predecessors spend and borrow philosophy

W can take credit for his part in reversing the flow of funds back into the red, but he didn't take the US debt from 360 million in the green to -10 trillion in his 8 years in office. No, George W Bush took spending from a little under $200 billion surplus to deficit of $162 billion in 2007 (the last real year of numbers).

Also note that Clinton actually had rein of the US in a time where the worldwide economy was booming. Kind of ruins the entire theory of trickle down economics. Clinton did not cut taxes on the wealthy, but the economy was booming during his term.

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 09:22 PM
Case in point: I know a man, a son of a day laboring machinist, who went to school, got a PhD while working full time, and still over 35 years later, still puts in 80-100hr weeks including weekends. He is immensely successful, living comfortably, with a very nice family. What he does not need to spend on living, he invests. Now can you honestly tell me that someone like him, who came from absolutely nothing, should not work so hard to live his life the way he wants to? Are you honestly going to tell me he doesn't deserve the fruits of his considerable labor?


What? Simply because he sought an absurdly great annual salary that he shouldn't have a progressively higher tax rate for everything he earns past $250,000? You speak as though I suggest he work harder and give it all away. He knew that the more hours he worked, the greater the proportion of his wages would go to taxes. What I would suggest instead is that this guy work fewer hours altogether. He gets about 250K and has more time to himself per week.


No, that strikes me as absurdly unfair. There is only so much work to go around, and the cold hard truth is that the better a worker you are, the better skilled you are, the greater your motivation and drive, and your willingness to get the job done no matter how much time it takes (most people I know or have met who earn six figures or more work 85hrs a week or more), the better you will do in your career. Why should there be disincentives for working hard to better your life?!? I want to own a Ferrari someday. I fully expect to put in 80hr+ weeks to get myself to a point in my career and life where I can afford one. If you're not willing to work that hard to realize your life goals, then that's fine, I'll just end up paying your healthcare, and can justifiably bitch about it. I will also be understandably angry when I hear repeated calls for more of my money to be distributed amongst the not so driven.

And the unemployment rate is how high right now? If instead of one person working 80 hours a week, you had two people working 40 hours each; that would mean FEWER people leeching off the welfare system. More people would find work and you'd find that people don't exactly like being on welfare, nor can they be on it for long. It's better to provide jobs for more people than to have elite few earning way more than they would ever need.


So, rather than give them incentives to work hard and move up in life, we give them everything and expect nothing of them. The blatant hypocrisy here is astonishing. If you come from a welfare family, living off of food stamps, make something of yourself, and earn a significant amount of money per year and accumulate wealth over time, the leftists then have the utter gall to tell you that you do not deserve that money, and that you shouldn't work as hard or you will be taxed more. How is that possibly fair?

You don't start spiking taxes until a person earns over $250 K a year. That's plenty of opportunity to have a comfortable living, but only when you start earning an outrageously high sum of money that restrictions are placed. People are naturally going to want more money... welfare doesn't exactly promote everyone to stay home and do nothing. And a 250 cap isn't going to demotivate people from working harder to earn more than ~100 grand a year.

No, the graph shows deficits and surpluses. If you run a budget deficit (spend more than you take in) then your get into debt.

It doesn't show debt... that's significant. What I assumed was that the US got out of debt when I originally saw the graph and then went into the hole again with Bush. Those 'surplus' years represented times when the US reduced its debt. Here's an example using one trillion dollars as a base example:

Clinton surplus years:

-1,000,000,000,000
+100,000,000 surplus
-999,900,000

-999,900,000
+150,000,000 surplus
-999,750,000

-999,750,000
+200,000,000 surplus
-999,550,000

In the Bush Years...

-999,550,000
-125,000,000 deficit
-999,675,000

-999,675,000
-370,000,000 deficit
-1,093,000,000

See what I mean? Although a surplus is a good thing, it actually has a very small impact upon the total national debt.

mimartin
08-04-2009, 09:47 PM
The graph serves the purpose I wanted. Despite what you assumed, the graph does a better job a looking at the difference between income and expenses for any given year. The data is not flawed just because you misread it. Particular when you look at the context that it was in response to your question of me.

Master Shake
08-04-2009, 10:13 PM
I want Clinton back.

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 10:32 PM
The data is not flawed just because you misread it. Particular when you look at the context that it was in response to your question of me.

I wasn't aiming to say it was flawed, but what I misread four years ago (where debt and deficit were easily misrepresented) was another aspect that I thought people shouldn't mistake on. The graph showed EXACTLY what you wanted.

What I wanted was to say that people shouldn't mistake that a 'surplus' doesn't mean the US debts were paid back in full at 1998. I simply wanted to remind people that the $10 trillion US debt is not to be mistaken for what the chart shows, which is the US annual loss or surplus. We can quickly go from deficit to surplus, but to pay off all US debt will take much more than a few years to accomplish. That's all.

Darth InSidious
08-04-2009, 10:36 PM
Personally, I think there should be a poll tax of 95% on all people who are not British citizens and who have lived outside the UK for more than three weeks.

Lord of Hunger
08-04-2009, 10:59 PM
I am normally against the taxation of the rich, but in this case I say we might as well raise 'em back to what they were under Reagan, which was higher than even Clinton.

Q
08-04-2009, 11:01 PM
7 months of Obama look like par for the course. I donít know why people call him a socialist, seems to take after the Republicans to me.
Yeah, he's certainly spending money like one. Or like a Democrat, with the main difference apparently being that the Democrats know that in order to spend more they'll need to raise taxes, whereas the Republicans don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.

The thing is, Republicans were always supposed to tax and spend less. It never worked that way in reality, though, even when they had the White House and control of Congress.

Darth Avlectus
08-04-2009, 11:34 PM
In a time when the US deficit is approaching a trillion dollars annually, would people support higher taxes if that's what it takes to overcome with the healthcare, education, and infrastructure problems? And even taxing the most wealthy might not be enough, so even the middle class might have to contribute even more than before.

I don't really see how we can get away without increases in taxing the middle class to be honest. I hope it doesn't have to, but it just doesn't seem to look like it will work out.

Personally, I believe it is important to deal with the deficit as quickly as possible. That requires reducing the debt owed by the US, currently over $10 trillion. The interest we pay on that debt is nothing more than waste, which is why we must seek to take care of it. Higher taxes would generate the resources the US needs to increase the production of goods that can be exported, generate new jobs, and pay off the debt.

How so? Abolishing minimum wages and getting rid of quality and safety standards?

Forgive me, but I do not see how any thriving business will last very long in our conditions. A sustaining business, maybe. Increased taxes seem, if anything, to reduce and discourage business.

Producing goods? The international play field is not a level one. I do not know of any firm in the country that will be able to compete against competitors in other countries when it comes to manufacturing or technical. If the goods are a services it is different, somewhat. However, it seems everything is going up in prices but the wages won't.

Also, yeah yeah, say what you will (not at you specifically DY) about punishing monopolistic predatory behavior in an industry. It might happen to be enforced on the national level, albeit selectively. On international levels, not so much that I can see. Multinational firms, though hurting, could easily still force smaller firms out of business or into merger. With uneven playfield, I do not see how any business can long survive in America if it is not competitive. This means one of two things happening:
Big firms only, and there is no competition.
OR
Suddenly abolishing minimum wages and safety laws. I do not believe I am exaggerating either. That is part of why we're considered uncompetitive. I shudder to think where this will lead.

I am going to go with the former, because I see big resistance for the latter, unless it gets passed through quickly and quietly.

It will hurt taxpayers, I know that already; but what is happening today is really the result of past decisions leading to delayed consequences. If we don't solve our economic problems today, they will hover over us forever. But that doesn't exactly mean raising taxes will make the difference.

What are your thoughts?

Fiscal conservativism and responsibility, with ethical business practices, please.

However in all realness, I see only the largest businesses really pulling through ultimately. Continuing and screwing everyone like they have been doing.
>:^}

Right now there is this "no tax increase for the lower to middle class". I see it as a ruse to start business growing, only to chop the grass short when it *just begins* to show a blade of green. Setting it up to knock it down and take away from it. Then it will be, "oh, we need it, it's time to sacrifice EVEN MORE!"

I thought about starting my own business...I guess it'll have to be low key if I do, since anything I make beyond a certain point will all be taken as if I had not earned it anyway. No help or smiles--I'm just a piece of **** to them. So why the hell bother?

Which is rather hard to do in America as it's one of the countries where the wealthy pay most taxes (as a percent of total taxes paid). Incidentaly I agree with DY that the middle-income households will have to join in.

I third this.

I do not however believe it's right to do it in a downturn, so wait for the economy to pick up first. Unfourtantely since voters tend to hate when the government cut services, and hate it just as much when they raise taxes, I don't see the defecit disapearing any time soon.

You pretty much have it down.


8 years under Clinton are the only time the tread was reversed where we had a surplus until 1 year after George W Bush took office.


I would be curious to have the above graph plotted with who was in control of the Congress and/or Senate... otherwise interesting graph Mimartin.
Good point. Also: What happened to our social security fund during that time I might also add; Why we do not have it now.

Proof that like the free market, regulations and government programs are just as prone to getting screwed up as a result of human nature.

That's life. :dozey:


Also note that Clinton actually had rein of the US in a time where the worldwide economy was booming. Although he may have been a great president, don't make the mistake of assuming he flipped the economy completely around by his action... although he helped, the US economy was booming at the time anyway.
QFT

W can take credit for his part in reversing the flow of funds back into the red, but he didn't take the US debt from 360 million in the green to -10 trillion in his 8 years in office.

True, he didn't. Also he didn't help matters either the way he ran stuff. But you're right, this spending has rivaled, and is dwarfing what 'dubya' ran up.

Still, it is all for **** either way. :indif:

<snip>
250k also, while it seems like a lot, isn't much. Before I get flamed for saying that, here's why: 250k is the household tax increase level. Say you have a couple who have advanced degrees and ten years of experience in their field. For an engineer with only a Bachelor's straight out of school, the average pre-tax income is ~$55k. For a Master's, ~$65k. For a PhD, ~$85k. Add a few years of experience, and your Master's degree nets you ~$100k. PhD, $125-150k. Of course, this varies area to area, but the point stands. Fields like law, medicine, engineering, are well known for high salaries. Fields like construction management, business management (MBAs), Biotech, Chemistry, Physics, all make very good money, +/- 10k or so around the Engineer's.

Now, back to the couple. Two people with similar degrees in engineering with similar experience will net them six figures each at some point in their lives, probably before age 35. If both partners make 125k, that's the needed 250k for tax increases. Hence, that threshold is rather low for a hardworking educated salaried family. <snip>

This 250K income thing is rather broad and vague and I *never* heard it specified: is that based off of income net or gross?

Even so, what it takes to run a business...money. If it is of significant size, it will be hit. I'm talking construction, utility, and maintenance; all with crews of around 10 people, give or take some. Hardly what I'd call top tier. People seem to think that those who make that kind of income always keep it all to themselves. They don't.

What I'm not saying, and I know this will be overlooked, is that 250k isn't enough to live on; hell I'd love to earn that much. For a household, 250k is a very luxurious life. What I AM saying is that it isn't as high a threshold as you may believe it to be.

I'd like to add to that. Let's see:

1) running a business, paying for equipment, paying for labor, paying for supplies, paying to maintain that equipment, paying for property to run that business from (assuming it isn't in all your garage), not to mention all the legal stuff involved, as well as insurance... also there *will* inevitably be lawsuits. THEN taxes on top of this.

2) leaving what is left over: Household (buy or rent), sustinence, supplies (linens, groceries, cleaning supplies, to start), equipment for the home like furniture and what is needed to maintain it. Family costs. Government services. Transportation. Then throw on insurance (optional) and taxes (mandatory). This isn't EVEN factoring in Regional planning or town regulations for homeowners or homeowner's associations. Don't forget
Entertainment! (Face it, we all need it somehow!)

The idea among the more left leaning folks is that those who earn more money somehow work less hard and don't deserve it. I strongly disagree; in order to get to that level of income, you have to work your ass off. Why should someone who has worked hard their whole life to get where they are pay for someone's welfare or an illegal alien's baby? Or an unrelated 65 year old's healthcare? Or GM? Or.....? Most people who earn lots of money put in the hours required to do so. Paris Hilton's an admittedly vapid anomaly.

Well you have their general perspective down. I rather suspect many of these same people are ones who've never owned or at least managed a business, themselves. (Not everybody on the left fits that description!)

Or who have never had the displeasure of working a competitive job where the cheapskate boss decides to let you do some of the harder work initially, then halfway through term decides he'd "like to cut costs" and lays you off while hiring an illegal for less than minimum wage to finish out.

Come to think of it--I don't know of very many competitive jobs anymore now that technical and manufacturing is mostly gone. Can you?

The media does such a great job at riling up folks into "class jealousy" frenzies. While, yes "the wealthy can afford it," often times people are ignorant as to what it really is to make that much money AND run a business. Not saying bigwig corporate CEO's are necessarily innocent, but people making that much are *not* all in that category all the time either. (Not everyone making that much is a greedy bastard, though some are.)

Anyway, enough of me ranting. My solution is instead of spending money we don't have on ideas and bills that haven't really done anything for the economy in a measurable way (banks aren't lending stimulus funds, so the stimulus was worthless) and raising taxes, we leave the taxes where they are and cut spending.
<snip> Cut out all the exemptions, all the tax shielding, all the BS, and simply levy a flat tax across the board. Leftists will scream bloody murder, conservatives will scream bloody murder, so therefore it's the right thing to do. Simple, effective, and very very functional (btw, 40% is the top tax rate more or less not including capital gains).

Ever heard of "Fat ********ing Chance"? The whole reason folks get in office nowadays is to make money. Screw what 'the people' want--we're just their pions.

Capital Gains Taxes.
Oooohhh yeeeeeaah.
So nice. People who've slaved away their whole lives that now need to sell their homes they own, can't--or at least won't be able to sell it for nearly as much. So much for retiring on what you've earned.

....maybe we should rely more on ourselves and less on the government to help us inefficiently? Considering how much you love efficiency, why do you believe the government, which is basically the epitome of sloth, ineptitude, and inefficiency (regardless of party), must help the people? You can do it better, faster, and quicker yourself.
Quoted For utmost Truth and Emphasis. However, most who rely upon it don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

Never mind the damned small print! CASH FOR CLUNKERS! If you click 'yes', then you agree that we now OWN your computer and you have given us the right to investigate you at any time for any reason from now to forever henceforth! That's right, we can search your ENTIRE HISTORY because YOU gave us the AUTHORIZATION to do so! Anything you said or did can and will be used against you. We may decide to extend it indefinitely for all possible machines and IP addys you'll ever have for the rest of your life.


Also, for loopholes, I think they should all be closed and everyone be subject to the same tax rate. Fair for all.
Again, much to my dismay, can you say FAT + CHANCE? If you can get rich as a regulator by being cozy with a bigwig and having a double standard, why not?
.
..
...
:swear:


No, that strikes me as absurdly unfair. There is only so much work to go around, and the cold hard truth is that the better a worker you are, the better skilled you are, the greater your motivation and drive, and your willingness to get the job done no matter how much time it takes (most people I know or have met who earn six figures or more work 85hrs a week or more), the better you will do in your career. Why should there be disincentives for working hard to better your life?!? *brevity*

Well, there is more to life than material goods or achievements, but you do have a point. Punishing you for only doing better is a surefire way to make people decide to throw up their arms and say "to hell with it". However, I'm going to (as a rightward leaning individual) challenge you.

What is hard work? What is merit--can't we just 'do what is good for business' like we always have, instead?

Do all those things really make you any happier?

Shouldn't you just do it because it is what you want to do?

The little people have rights too. So if you're the winner, they're the losers. You'd just leave them to suffer?

As Jesus said, there will always be poor. *brevity*
How will the losers you made take care of themselves if they are destitute? (Keep in mind not everyone on the losing end is an unmotivated slug!)

mimartin
08-04-2009, 11:57 PM
Good point. Also: What happened to our social security fund during that time I might also add; Why we do not have it now. I donít know what you are talking about.

The "so-called" surplus in Social Security disappeared in the 1980's. You know the surplus made possible after Ronald Reagan removed Social Security (http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8819:1) benefits from orphans wanting to go to college.


1) running a business, paying for equipment, paying for labor, paying for supplies, paying to maintain that equipment, paying for property to run that business from (assuming it isn't in all your garage), not to mention all the legal stuff involved, as well as insurance... also there *will* inevitably be lawsuits. THEN taxes on top of this. You donít pay taxes on top of all those expenses. You pay taxes after all those expenses.

$250,000. Income
$100,000. Business Expenses
$150,000. Taxable Income

Darth_Yuthura
08-04-2009, 11:58 PM
1) running a business, paying for equipment, paying for labor, paying for supplies, paying to maintain that equipment, paying for property to run that business from (assuming it isn't in all your garage), not to mention all the legal stuff involved, as well as insurance... also there *will* inevitably be lawsuits. THEN taxes on top of this.

2) leaving what is left over: Household (buy or rent), sustinence, supplies (linens, groceries, cleaning supplies, to start), equipment for the home like furniture and what is needed to maintain it. Family costs. Government services. Transportation. Then throw on insurance (optional) and taxes (mandatory). This isn't EVEN factoring in Regional planning or town regulations for homeowners or homeowner's associations. Don't forget
Entertainment! (Face it, we all need it somehow!)


Taxes are supposed to be applied to the profit made by the business. If you run a store that earns 1.5 million, but required 1.3 million to operate, you're supposed to be taxed for your profit of $200,000. There are some tricks in the accounting that go into timing of inventory, on-account profits, and a few other things; but the taxes get applied only if you make a profit.


Come to think of it--I don't know of very many competitive jobs anymore now that technical and manufacturing is mostly gone. Can you?

No, most American jobs revolve around the tertiary sector of services and programing. Although it would be nice to have a factory-based economy, we do export services. Computer programing and tourism don't yield physical goods, but they are goods of which are demanded around the world.

Now most jobs are for highly-skilled workers, or minimum wage earners flipping burgers at Mcdonalds. There are teachers, plumbers, and electricians, but those kind of tech jobs are dwindling in this economy.

Q
08-05-2009, 12:20 AM
According to mimartin's graph, the best combination, fiscally speaking, would seem to be a Democratic president + a Republican congress. Why? Because while the Republican congress cut spending (something that they epically failed to do under Bush II) Clinton vetoed all of their proposed tax cuts. Hence, the surplus. :p

mimartin
08-05-2009, 12:30 AM
According to mimartin's graph, the best combination, fiscally speaking, would seem to be a Democratic president + a Republican congress. Why? Because while the Republican congress cut spending (something that they epically failed to do under Bush II) Clinton vetoed all of their proposed tax cuts. Hence, the surplus. :p It was already inproving even before the Republican Congress took over, but you are correct that they most likely never would have gotten into the black with a Deomocratic president and Congress. However, I would add Clinton not only vetoed tax cuts, but he vetoed the Republican Congress spending projects.

Totenkopf
08-05-2009, 05:42 AM
I donít know what you are talking about.
The "so-called" surplus in Social Security disappeared in the 1980's. You know the surplus made possible after Ronald Reagan removed Social Security (http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8819:1) benefits from orphans wanting to go to college.


http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/04-15-02.html

Note especially the part about how since the early 1960's, the non-Social Security part of the budget has run a deficit every year except 1999 and 2000. Social Security Trust Fund surpluses � Social Security tax collections minus payments to beneficiaries � have automatically been transferred to cover the gap. In fact, trust fund surpluses have actually encouraged non-Social Security spending. "History has shown that Social Security surpluses, if anything, have led to more spending, not saving," O'Neill concludes.

The govt, under dems as well as reps for >40 years has raided the so called SS trust fund (including Clinton).

Problem with high taxation is it leads to low productivity and reduced tax bases as $$ looks for more hospitable environs. CA and MI are but two examples of the dems running states into the ground in the unholy pursuit of the high tax grail. People are going to have to decide how much services they need/want and then figure out how they'll pay for it. In the meantime, I suggest a modest starting point is clipping federal and govt salaries (especially Congress and the President....along w/his 41 or so "czars") to put a dent in govt budgets. If the people have to "suffer", so should their leaders. Let them "eat cake" for a change. :D

mimartin
08-05-2009, 10:18 AM
I’m sure the Republican Congress under Clinton raided it to. Of course, they did, they were taught by their poster child for “conservative values Ronald Reagan.” You really expect anything less out of the Cato Institute. They may be critical of the new “fake” conservative movement, but Ronald Reagan is a different story.

Totenkopf
08-05-2009, 06:00 PM
Actually, unlike you mimartin, I've shown no political axe to grind on this. ;) I provided a source (a former director of the CBO) that lays the problem down in a bipartisan fashion (if only by not calling one side worse than the other). The SSTF didn't just disappear on Reagan's watch and seems to have been full of nothing more than IOUs for >40 years. Remember, the president proposes, congress disposes (I think that's why a lot of people voted against the last republican congress......it spent too much).

Darth Avlectus
08-06-2009, 01:16 AM
You don’t pay taxes on top of all those expenses. You pay taxes after all those expenses.

$250,000. Income
$100,000. Business Expenses
$150,000. Taxable Income

'On top of' and 'after'...meant the same thing to me. :indif:
I'll make sure I get the wording more correct next time, but thanks for your corrections anyways.

Taxes are supposed to be applied to the profit made by the business. If you run a store that earns 1.5 million, but required 1.3 million to operate, you're supposed to be taxed for your profit of $200,000. There are some tricks in the accounting that go into timing of inventory, on-account profits, and a few other things; but the taxes get applied only if you make a profit.

Okay, Thanks.

No, most American jobs revolve around the tertiary sector of services and programing. Although it would be nice to have a factory-based economy, we do export services. Computer programing and tourism don't yield physical goods, but they are goods of which are demanded around the world.

Now most jobs are for highly-skilled workers, or minimum wage earners flipping burgers at Mcdonalds. There are teachers, plumbers, and electricians, but those kind of tech jobs are dwindling in this economy.

I'm a part of the electrician crowd, too. :swear::swear::swear:
For now, I only have to worry about rarity of jobs or being undercut by illegals. The outlook is that I see much less work and jobs coming up in the next 2 years.

Guess I'm a hafta go back to school and learn computer programming. That or go back to washing dishes and workng grocery stores. Least I got me a start to coding from using LF. :D


Problem with high taxation is it leads to low productivity and reduced tax bases as $$ looks for more hospitable environs. CA and MI are but two examples of the dems running states into the ground in the unholy pursuit of the high tax grail. People are going to have to decide how much services they need/want and then figure out how they'll pay for it. In the meantime, I suggest a modest starting point is clipping federal and govt salaries (especially Congress and the President....along w/his 41 or so "czars") to put a dent in govt budgets. If the people have to "suffer", so should their leaders. Let them "eat cake" for a change. :D

While the voters here in CA decided to cut officials' salaries at state levels with our little vote in March, and funds for all sorts of projects...I still see the people in office here going into overdrive to put 'charge-per-violation' rules and regulations on *everything* into play. Much like the Clinton years, not that Bush was any flying improvement either. :dozey:

Don't get any tickets out here or in NV, you *will* be sorry.

Tommycat
08-08-2009, 04:53 AM
If they raise taxes(which they probably will), they should cut spending to match. Personally I would rather the (federal) government cut spending by the amount of the deficit. Kinda like how we have to do. If I overspend, I have to cut back on extraneous spending until my budget is back in line. I can't vote to have my boss pay me more money. So I cut out that extra spending. Our federal government needs to do the same thing.

Darth_Yuthura
08-08-2009, 10:12 AM
Another idea I thought of in regards to cutting spending was to, instead of laying off state employees in a budget crunch, would be to drastically cut salaries by providing many more benefits instead. Healthcare coverage would be a given, insurance coverage provided by state funding, and various other bonuses would be much cheaper to provide than to pay the required salaries needed for these luxuries to be paid for privately.

This would also go to promote increasing the number of jobs available while not exactly promoting people to work for the state. For people who are desperate for health coverage and other financial difficulties, this would offer a number of solutions that would allow for more taxpayer money to provide for more state jobs. While this would offer a temporary occupation for those who otherwise might be unemployed.

mur'phon
08-08-2009, 03:47 PM
Warning, monster post iminent, to survive this wall of text it's recomended that you look for your section, and read only that.

Litofsky:
Living in the state that I do, the government takes 30% of my family's annual income. That being said, I can't see any other way of getting out of this recession/massive debt any other way.

Actually, to get out of a recession, increased taxes is not the way to go, if anything they should be reduced in the short term before the expanded govt spending takes effect. Obviously said taxes should be raised again once the economy picks up.

Bimmerman:

The idea among the more left leaning folks is that those who earn more money somehow work less hard and don't deserve it.

Not really the idea is that since the environment you grow up in/you parents background have such a major effect on how well you'll do, the state is supposed to level the playing field to give people more equal opportunities.

Anyway, enough of me ranting. My solution is instead of spending money we don't have on ideas and bills that haven't really done anything for the economy in a measurable way (banks aren't lending stimulus funds, so the stimulus was worthless)

Errr what? The banks lend stimulus funds, just not as much as was desired, in adition said funds have helped many banks stay alive something which is fantastic if you want to see some green shots, finally that's just a bit of the stimulus. Granted a lot of the stimulus was terribly designed (buy american and other protectionist crap comes to mind, with the worst example being the rescue of GM), but that hardly means the stimulus was worthless.

We don't need to keep fighting wars with dubious benefits in this economic climate; we can't afford it when the economy is in the dumps. Argue the war's pros and cons all you like, I'm talking about the fiscal reasons.

Fair enough, fiscal arguments it is :xp:
Since the military esentially functions like any other part of the state (most soldiers are american, most equipment is america, most rebuilding contracts go to americans etc), cutting the wars are unlikely to do much when it commes to geting out of the downturn. Once out of the downturn, obviously those fiscal arguments no longer apply.

So, cut spending on the war, cut spending on medicare/medicaid, cut welfare benefits, cut handouts, cut everything that isn't essential to true government function.

Same as above, you don't want to cut spending during a downturn (yes, it's Keynesian, but I have yet to see anything good coming from cutting spending in a downturn). As an aside I also disagree with doing that in better times, but this post is long enough allready.

As for taxes, the best solution is to implement an actually fair metric. Impose a tax of 35 or 40% of income on everybody. Then the rich pay the same proportional amount as the poor, so everyone is helping the exact same way.

Helping the same way, yes. Helping acording to ones abilities, no. (wee, I sound like a communist :xp:). Seriously though, if I have forgotten to bring water when I hike, I don't ask everyone for 20% water if one guy carries a bottle and the other a large cammelpack.

No more bogus tax breaks for Priuses, Hummers, or house renovations. Cut out all the exemptions, all the tax shielding, all the BS, and simply levy a flat tax across the board. Leftists will scream bloody murder, conservatives will scream bloody murder, so therefore it's the right thing to do.

In the US pherhaps, our local conservatives have been shouting for a flat tax for, I dunno, a hundred + years :xp:

Simple

yes

effective

Depends on what you want to achieve, if you just want income for the state, it should prove efective enough (then again, so are most tax systems), aside from its simplicity, I fail to see the nice effects of this system.

Why should there be disincentives for working hard to better your life?!?

Because there are still plenty of incentives left, so the impact of said disincentive is small? It's not as if you can't work more to achieve your goals.

So, rather than give them incentives to work hard and move up in life, we give them everything and expect nothing of them.

We don't, and a lot of welfare is used to help people get back to work. Health care (in this case including everything from vaccines to free condoms) keeps people healthy enough to work. A tax break for those earning little gives former high a earners an incentive to take humiliating jobs instead of living of the state/relatives. Granted, I disagree with a lot of welfare spending, but my gripe has more to do with how it is spent rather than how much is spent.

The blatant hypocrisy here is astonishing. If you come from a welfare family, living off of food stamps, make something of yourself, and earn a significant amount of money per year and accumulate wealth over time, the leftists then have the utter gall to tell you that you do not deserve that money, and that you shouldn't work as hard or you will be taxed more. How is that possibly fair?


If the world was fair and everyone had the same opportunities, it wouldn't be fair for anyone. Unfourtantely, the world is far from perfect.

Darth_Yuthura

And the unemployment rate is how high right now? If instead of one person working 80 hours a week, you had two people working 40 hours each; that would mean FEWER people leeching off the welfare system.

Not really, It's not a zero-sum game. To use an example If some electricians working 80 hours a week means other electricians are out of a job, those others might create new jobs, by for instance starting a shop selling electrical apliances (and installing them), get more education to take another job, or, since they are out of a job and willing to work for less, people who usually wouldn't hire electricians will due to the lower wage.

Many european countries (including France) have tried cutting hours to solve unemployment during bad times before, and so far, it hasn't worked.

and various other bonuses would be much cheaper to provide than to pay the required salaries needed for these luxuries to be paid for privately.

Help me out here, why would it be cheaper, and just as important, why would people accept this?

mimartin

Kind of ruins the entire theory of trickle down economics. Clinton did not cut taxes on the wealthy, but the economy was booming during his term.

Not really, most "trickle down"ists don't believe you need to lower taxes, just keep them fairly low, which they where.

GTA

don't really see how we can get away without increases in taxing the middle class to be honest. I hope it doesn't have to, but it just doesn't seem to look like it will work out.

Why not? If you are talking about getting away with it politically, I agree, otherwise, I don't see why it won't "work out".

Tot:
CA and MI are but two examples of the dems running states into the ground in the unholy pursuit of the high tax grail.

CA is an example of what happens when the politicans extremely little controll of the budget due to propositions on one hand requiring them to do a lot, and on the ohter requiring them to ask the people if they wan't to raise taxes to pay for it, and the people don't vote for higher taxes.

Totenkopf
08-08-2009, 04:03 PM
Tot:
CA is an example of what happens when the politicans extremely little controll of the budget due to propositions on one hand requiring them to do a lot, and on the ohter requiring them to ask the people if they wan't to raise taxes to pay for it, and the people don't vote for higher taxes.


Perhaps I should have added big spending to that formula. My "bad" I suppose. Generally not a good idea to try to promise people everything and not have a way to pay for it besides (comparatively) draconian taxe rates. If they wanted to really get out of their hole they'd be looking at making CA a more hospitable climate for business and start tapping into their natural resources for sources of revenue while downsizing the scope of state govt.

mur'phon
08-08-2009, 05:28 PM
It's not the politicans doing the promising, the people passed propositions demanding this and that, while at the same time they refused to pay the taxes to pay for said demands (tax increases go to a vote in Cali). While the politicans sure have made their mistakes, the current budget problems are more due to the voters unvilingness to lower their demands or increase the tax rate.

Darth Avlectus
08-08-2009, 06:41 PM
Warning, monster post iminent, to survive this wall of text it's recomended that you look for your section, and read only that.
Thanks!


GTA
Nice color choice. :lol:


Why not? If you are talking about getting away with it politically, I agree, otherwise, I don't see why it won't "work out".

Nono, I was referring to taxing only the wealthy...I just don't see how that could continue to last...and obviously you don't either. I just don't see that it will continue to work in the status quo. Clear enough?

I wasn't referring to getting away with anything, politically--if they want to screw you over, they are going to do it anyways. Despite the supposedly opposite 'sides'. All it means is that the person accused of "doing it" will relocate somewhere else while someone else comes in promising to do different.

Whether they actually do something different is entirely debatable. :¨:
Usually just a nauseating semantics game.


Tot:


CA is an example of what happens when the politicans extremely little controll of the budget due to propositions on one hand requiring them to do a lot, and on the ohter requiring them to ask the people if they wan't to raise taxes to pay for it, and the people don't vote for higher taxes.

That is interesting. Living here in CA it looks to me that it's pork and pet projects. Fixing stuff that really is just fine if left as it is. I'd say it is misappropriating and misspending what funds they are given.

While we may not vote higher taxes, that doesn't mean that CA doesn't have other ways of making that money back or sneaking it in. Sales taxes and inflation cause things to be a little higher priced here than everywhere else. Why you think I go to NV so often to get things?

Destination resorts are *everywhere* here in CA, and prices in those places are sharply much higher than even nearby or adjacent areas. Taxes for this go up accordingly as well as other stuff which gets tacked on.

Penalties & regulations=financial murder. NV is no picnic, but in some places of CA a ticket may cost upwards of $1-2 grand. Otherwise just several hundred dollars average.

It's not the politicans doing the promising, the people passed propositions demanding this and that, while at the same time they refused to pay the taxes to pay for said demands (tax increases go to a vote in Cali). Which vote are you referring to? We just voted down funding a ton of things in march because our state was going broke and we knew we needed our tax money to pay back the debt incurred alreay. I'm not sure what you're referring to, exactly.
:giveup:

While the politicans sure have made their mistakes, the current budget problems are more due to the voters unvilingness to lower their demands or increase the tax rate.

Illegals may pay their taxes, however, for every one that pays, there seems to be 4 more that need to take money from services. I have some mentally ill friends I take to the SSI office every 2 weeks to get their check and then go cash it. I am always waiting at least a half hour or more. It is always swamped with mexicans who hardly speak english. One cannot blame illegals for trying to survive; so I wonder if this isn't resultant of employers trying to save money by using illegals.

Before you accuse me of overcharging for my services, believe me, I'm not "chauffeuring" for the money I'm paid because this doesn't make me enough to survive on for the time I spend. Might as well open my own taxi service in that case.