Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:48 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
DChapman wrote:
ok, so it would be a good thing to redistribute the wealth?
Yes
DChapman wrote:
How does a "redneck" behave?? Because one maybe religious, then one is a "redneck"? Please advise.
Only when they try to use it to legislate morality or make other laws.
Richard Miller wrote:
Either way, there are ways to tax the rich and keep it from affecting the poor. The question is, what leader is going to have the b@lls to do it, and not care about being labled a Socialist?
Richard Miller wrote:
This reads as if the "poor" pay most of the taxes. You cannot soak the rich. No matter what you make think. The more you try to soak them, the more they will try and hide their money. Tax revenues will decrease. Cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues because people (including "rich" people) will have more money to spend on things on which sales tax and other taxes are paid.
I guess we'll need some tighter controls then, won't we?
I don't think it would be a good idea to even try to redistribute the wealth. How would you do it?? By force if necessary??? People who usually feel like this think the people's money really belongs to the government, and it's the governments obligation to take that money and distribute as they see fit. Wow. I hope you really don't feel this way.
Richard Miller wrote:
Only when they try to use it to legislate morality or make other laws.
Use religion to legislate morality?? What other laws are you talking about here???
Richard Miller wrote:
I guess we'll need some tighter controls then, won't we?
Cutting tax rates will increase tax revenues because people (including "rich" people) will have more money to spend on things on which sales tax and other taxes are paid.
If you are talking about income tax rates, the Big Bad Rich we are alluding to do not tend to pay income taxes as do the middle class and working poor because they don't have to work for a living. They receive funds held in trust and investment income. Their wealth is passed onto them and managed by armies of accountants and lawyers. This will happen whether they are taxed at 1% or 90%. The real winners are accountants and lawyers.
I will never understand why people ostensibly sticking up for the little guy will fight for the right of the extremely wealthy to keep more of their money to their dying breaths. This is like the poor Southern Whites who fought and died for the right to own slaves they could never afford to buy.
What I care about is how my taxes are allocated, what value they provide, what return on investment my society receives. I would happily pay half of my income if the society I live in ended up being worth it, if my government was a good steward of my tax dollars and I could reap the benefit of my investment. My problem with how things are is that the government has been a poor steward of my investment in many aspects.
There is no way to manage a country of this size without tax revenue, and you will never get to decide how to spend every penny of what the government takes in. That's not realistic in a representative democracy of 350 million people in 50 states.
Has it ever occured to you that by not paying your taxes, that YOU are stealing?
Yup, you are right!!!! I agree with you.
That is why I think Charlie Rangell should be fired as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe. A man who chairs the tax writing commitee for the Federal Government, did not pay his own taxes.
Come on! You know its only unethical if a Republican does it. LOL!
Says who? It takes a long time for justice to come to politicians. Rangel will get his turn just like Stevens finally did. It's an absolute disgrace what he has done.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 21:57 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
If you are talking about income tax rates, the Big Bad Rich we are alluding to do not tend to pay income taxes as do the middle class and working poor because they don't have to work for a living. They receive funds held in trust and investment income. Their wealth is passed onto them and managed by armies of accountants and lawyers. This will happen whether they are taxed at 1% or 90%. The real winners are accountants and lawyers.
Yup, I agree with you. People like the Kennedy's would be a perfect example of this.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 400 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sat 20 Sep 2008 12:56 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
I don't think it would be a good idea to even try to redistribute the wealth. How would you do it?? By force if necessary??? People who usually feel like this think the people's money really belongs to the government, and it's the governments obligation to take that money and distribute as they see fit. Wow. I hope you really don't feel this way.
Graduated taxes. Also, businesses set up and run by the government to make and/or sell products at prices that would drive down prices or at least keep them from going up as a result of these taxes. Gas is $3.50 per gallon where I live. If the government started a gas company that charged $2.50 per gallon, what's that going to force other gas companies to do?
And here's something that someone with b@lls would have done: the oil crisis back in '73. Prices go up, the government sets price controls. Good move. But then the oil companies start withholding oil, causing the rationing of gasoline. Someone with b@lls would have forced the oil companies to keep on delivering the oil as before. Looks to me like someone was afraid of being called a Socialist.
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Only when they try to use it to legislate morality or make other laws.
Use religion to legislate morality?? What other laws are you talking about here???
Here's an example - melanie was actually involved with this one - the use of "God's word" as an argument against same sex marriage.
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
I guess we'll need some tighter controls then, won't we?
More government regulation?
Let me ask you a question; have you ever served in the military? I find that those who have, who have enjoyed the benefits that come with being in the military, yet speak negatively about Socialism are hypocritical and don't even know it.
People in the military, know it or not, are living with a Socialist society - all of your basic needs - three meals a day, a roof over heads of you and your family, running water, electricity, etc are provided to you; or you may recieve an allowance (and these allowances are tax-free) to procure these yourself. You're guaranteed a paycheck on the 1st and 15th, as long as you keep your nose clean.
With the value of the monetary compensation alone, if you "gross up" the tax-free allowances (or the value of the necessities provided thereof) that an E1 (Private/Airman Basic/Seaman Recruit) stationed in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia makes and add them to the base pay, he or she has the same take-home pay of a civilian who grosses about $36,000 per year. Not bad, considering the average 18 year-old grosses about half of that; and that the average adult with only a high school diploma would need at least ten years of work experience to make that amount.
My thought is this: everyone who works 40 hours per week has the RIGHT to be able to afford all of his or her basic needs - food, shelter, utilities, and at the minumum, use of public transportation. Now, while this is possible to do on minimum wage in San Antonio, this certainly is not the case where I'm from - Dover, Delaware (Delaware even has a higher minimum wage than the federal), it's not possible in the Hampton Roads are of Virgina; hell, San Antonio is the only place I've seen where it can be done.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Sat 20 Sep 2008 13:49 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
If the government started a gas company that charged $2.50 per gallon, what's that going to force other gas companies to do?
You're kidding me, right? Do you know how much of an expense it would be for the government to set up an oil/gas company??? Where would they get, and who would pay for the start up costs. In a private enterprise, investors would come up with that cost. In the governmentts case, who would the investors be?? You got it, the taxpayer. So what would be the return on investment to sell your product below cost. You would have to make up the difference somewhere, else you would go out of business.
Richard Miller wrote:
And here's something that someone with b@lls would have done: the oil crisis back in '73. Prices go up, the government sets price controls. Good move. But then the oil companies start withholding oil, causing the rationing of gasoline. Someone with b@lls would have forced the oil companies to keep on delivering the oil as before. Looks to me like someone was afraid of being called a Socialist.
How are you going to do that?? By holding a gun to the execs heads??? Fines??? Are you aware that a part of that "crisis" was that the Arabs had an embargo against us?? Granted at the time, the US was supplying more oil than it is today. While I agree with you that the oil companies screwed us and continue to do so, how will you force them to do what you proposed without having them retaliate in some way??? The government is not omnipotent.
Richard Miller wrote:
Let me ask you a question; have you ever served in the military? I find that those who have, who have enjoyed the benefits that come with being in the military, yet speak negatively about Socialism are hypocritical and don't even know it.
People in the military, know it or not, are living with a Socialist society - all of your basic needs - three meals a day, a roof over heads of you and your family, running water, electricity, etc are provided to you; or you may recieve an allowance (and these allowances are tax-free) to procure these yourself. You're guaranteed a paycheck on the 1st and 15th, as long as you keep your nose clean.
No I have not served in the military. How are they living in a socialist society when they are providing a service to the country. They are in fact employed, not unemployed receiving the said benefits. Their salaries are not very high either. So all their benefits they receive are a part of their employment package. Now if they were in prison or unemployed, then yes I would agree, that would be an example of socialism.
I have been to Scandinavia, a very beautiful set of countries. Sweden is basically socialist. I can tell you that socialism does not yield an incentive to work or want to get ahead. What's different about Sweden is that it does not have a large population, roughly the same population as the 5 boroughs of New York City. The tax rates are oppresive. They tax everything that moves and does not move, even food. Many Swedes like to party in the summer, which during the beginning, has more than 18 hours of daylight (when sunny ), what some will do is go on unemployment during the summer and get pretty much paid the same as if they were working. Then work during the long nights of winter. It changed when they kicked out the Social Democrats, but they voted them back in again. My cousin Dan (not really my cousin, but we refer as cousins), got out of Sweden because of socialism and now lives in Austria. Socialism would not work here the same way it does in the Nordic countries because our population is too large. After a while the people working would say, "what the hell am I working so hard when I have to give a lot of what I earn away." There are flaws in capitalism no doubt. I get the willies when people want the government in every aspect of our lives, as they are with socialism.
I agree with Dean that price controls do nothing more than create artificial shortages. If I can make more by producing commodity A than producing commodity B because commodity B is price-controlled, no government has the power to force me to produce commodity B against my will. The government could pay me under the table to produce B, of course, (called "subsidy") but this changes the "if" clause above. Mary Lee and I lived for years in country ruled by a ruthless military dictatorship that tried to impose price controls on different commodities. Each time a commodity was targeted, its production stopped and it vanished from the shelves overnight.
I disagree with Dean that income redistribution is a moral issue. It is a matter of national survival, and has been since Sumerian times. Every nation faces two choices: stop wealth maldistribution from condemning most of the population to poverty, or die. Those choices have not changed in thousands of years.
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 22 Sep 2008 20:13; edited 1 time in total
No I have not served in the military. How are they living in a socialist society when they are providing a service to the country. They are in fact employed, not unemployed receiving the said benefits. Their salaries are not very high either. So all their benefits they receive are a part of their employment package. Now if they were in prison or unemployed, then yes I would agree, that would be an example of socialism.
The military culture is definitely socialist. Healthcare is free - for active duty personnel, retirees AND dependents (who do not serve) - or heavily subsidized for civil servants who work for the DoD. Education is free (and used to be much higher quality...not sure about now). Housing is free or heavily subsidized. There are dozens and dozens of social(ist) programs to help military personnel get home loans, college tuition, priority placement for civil service jobs, you name it. The question is not whether the U.S. is extremely comfortable with having a socialist view of the military, but why U.S. citizens, by and large, support the socialist programs for the military. The answer for me is that the U.S. values the service that the military provides in times of war enough to subsidize it heavily in times of peace.
Socialism isn't predicated on productivity, but need or "entitlement" based on the values a society holds. We value public education, so we provide it. Public education is a socialist as it gets. Go back in time and ask the average conservative 200 years ago whether all children in the U.S. are "entitled" to a free education. Heads would probably explode from the outrage of thinking that some farmer's kid was entitled to the same education, paid for by tax dollars, as some industrialist's kid.
I've said it before, populism is a palatable expression of socialism. People have a problem with the word, not the deed, in many cases.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 400 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 22 Sep 2008 20:09 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
No I have not served in the military. How are they living in a socialist society when they are providing a service to the country. They are in fact employed, not unemployed receiving the said benefits. Their salaries are not very high either. So all their benefits they receive are a part of their employment package. Now if they were in prison or unemployed, then yes I would agree, that would be an example of socialism.
Are you serious???
Okay, let think about this. Eighteen year old kid from North Carolina knocks up his high school girlfriend. They get married. He has no valuable work experience, so he joins the Marine Corps. After he completes his training he gets attached to a unit in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. As a Private, here's how his pay goes:
So how do we figure out what this equals in civilian gross pay? This is easy. Because his base pay is the only thing that gets taxed, we figure out his net pay. Once we obtain that, we add it to his BAH and BAS. We take that total amount, and gross it up.
Net pay of $1340.40, paying North Carolina state taxes and claiming two dependents: $1,188.82 (Calculated at www.paycheckcity.com).
Add this amount to BAS and BAH = $2725.25. This is the net pay per month. Gross this up, and it come out to $2,725.25 (Calculated at www.paycheckcity.com). This is a gross annual income of $32,703.00. Would you call this a "low" salary for an 18 year-old?
Heck, four years later, a Sergeant from the same state with two dependants would have to gross $53,474.28. Gee, low salary for a 22 year-old with a high school diploma, right?
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 400 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 26 Sep 2008 20:49 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Has it ever occured to you that by not paying your taxes, that YOU are stealing?
Yup, you are right!!!! I agree with you.
That is why I think Charlie Rangell should be fired as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe. A man who chairs the tax writing commitee for the Federal Government, did not pay his own taxes.
Come on! You know its only unethical if a Republican does it. LOL!
Melanie, you were a die hard Obama supporter just three months ago... what happened? I sense a little "groupthink" coming from you... something you're not exactly known for around here.
No I have not served in the military. How are they living in a socialist society when they are providing a service to the country. They are in fact employed, not unemployed receiving the said benefits. Their salaries are not very high either. So all their benefits they receive are a part of their employment package. Now if they were in prison or unemployed, then yes I would agree, that would be an example of socialism.
The military culture is definitely socialist. Healthcare is free - for active duty personnel, retirees AND dependents (who do not serve) - or heavily subsidized for civil servants who work for the DoD. Education is free (and used to be much higher quality...not sure about now). Housing is free or heavily subsidized. There are dozens and dozens of social(ist) programs to help military personnel get home loans, college tuition, priority placement for civil service jobs, you name it. The question is not whether the U.S. is extremely comfortable with having a socialist view of the military, but why U.S. citizens, by and large, support the socialist programs for the military. The answer for me is that the U.S. values the service that the military provides in times of war enough to subsidize it heavily in times of peace.
While this is true about our military, it is also true that those who enlist voluntarily become Government Issue (G.I.) meaning they do what Uncle Sammy tells them to do and they go where Uncle Sammy tells them to go. Will all U.S. citizens become similarly obligated if/when more and more socialism is introduced into our government and way of life? Will we be able to volunteer for those benefits and obligations the way military personnel does?
Has it ever occured to you that by not paying your taxes, that YOU are stealing?
Yup, you are right!!!! I agree with you.
That is why I think Charlie Rangell should be fired as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe. A man who chairs the tax writing commitee for the Federal Government, did not pay his own taxes.
Come on! You know its only unethical if a Republican does it. LOL!
Melanie, you were a die hard Obama supporter just three months ago... what happened? I sense a little "groupthink" coming from you... something you're not exactly known for around here.
Ah, no, I was never an Obama 'supporter'. I just agreed to give him a chance as a registered Republican who is upset with what Bush has done. I will also take up for Obama in a heartbeat about certain things as a fellow mulatto. {Bush gets a C-/D+ for sure (but at least he's better than Carter, lol) }
I did vote for Bush, and don't regret it as Gore/Kerry were the other choices..... Bush also has done some good things as President so I will give him a C-. However, Bush has done the opposite of what most true Republicans want - he has increased gov't spending/size of federal gov't.
Obama seems to be a decent man as an individual, however, he has far too many nutjobs advising him/in his inner circle. I predict that if he wins, very doubtful, that he will be a one term President. If Obama losses, once gain the Democrats will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And if Obama loses, Hillary will be our next President after the one term Presidency of John McCain.
No I have not served in the military. How are they living in a socialist society when they are providing a service to the country. They are in fact employed, not unemployed receiving the said benefits. Their salaries are not very high either. So all their benefits they receive are a part of their employment package. Now if they were in prison or unemployed, then yes I would agree, that would be an example of socialism.
The military culture is definitely socialist. Healthcare is free - for active duty personnel, retirees AND dependents (who do not serve) - or heavily subsidized for civil servants who work for the DoD. Education is free (and used to be much higher quality...not sure about now). Housing is free or heavily subsidized. There are dozens and dozens of social(ist) programs to help military personnel get home loans, college tuition, priority placement for civil service jobs, you name it. The question is not whether the U.S. is extremely comfortable with having a socialist view of the military, but why U.S. citizens, by and large, support the socialist programs for the military. The answer for me is that the U.S. values the service that the military provides in times of war enough to subsidize it heavily in times of peace.
While this is true about our military, it is also true that those who enlist voluntarily become Government Issue (G.I.) meaning they do what Uncle Sammy tells them to do and they go where Uncle Sammy tells them to go. Will all U.S. citizens become similarly obligated if/when more and more socialism is introduced into our government and way of life? Will we be able to volunteer for those benefits and obligations the way military personnel does?
Well, no. Unless the government plans to introduce sworn pledges of allegiance in order to receive benefits. One has nothing to do with the other. The military was socialist before the draft was struck down.
Citizens do what Uncle Sammy or Uncle Texas or Aunt Delaware tell them to do right now, and they would even in the most conservative society (which would arguably have even more laws restricting personal freedom) because they are required to follow the law of the land/state/city in which they live.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
{Bush gets a C-/D+ for sure (but at least he's better than Carter, lol) 
Bush also has done some good things as President so I will give him a C-. However, Bush has done the opposite of what most 
And