My plan. You should have a license before you are allowed to be pregnant. If your dumb ass hooked up with a drug addict then maybe you should starve, but your kid should go to someone who can actually care for it. Non--profits can not save you.

I'll bet you every country has approximately the same percentage of people who could work but don't.

I think work ethics come across in parent's attitude and example, whatever other help they have been offered. I was raised within the Welfare State, which to US eyes should have encouraged everyone of my generation to be a deadbeat scrounger. We're not. The majority of people will always want the freedom of making their own way through life.

You brought your children up in what I see as a we-might-rescue-you-when-you-have-nothing-left system (my bias and I admit it) but they learned the same work ethic I did. And you are probably their hero the same way my Daddy is mine, except you have more money.

If you love your children you will prepare them for the future, whether that means setting them to pick rubbish at 10 years old, working to earn money for them, or taking shifts so you barely see your wife for the best part of ten years. And you take what you feel is your due, whether it's the patch of earth your own father worked, food stamps that gall you or the free schooling that every family is offered.

You think the government is qualified to decide who should be allowed to be pregnant? Do you really want to give that power to the state?

Move to China.

No, but stupid rhetorical questions get stupid rhetorical answers.

Fuck China. There is a perfect example of why communism has failed the people. Now were going to get Obama? Maybe China has already moved here.

A stupid rhetorical question is all a stupid rhetorical statement deserves.

Well I think it's great that you can admit that some of your posts are stupid. :D

Now if you can just give us a hint on sorting out which is which.


You see my point here, right?

You can respond as you deem fit. I shall do the same, wtf, you think this is China or something? :D

:lol2: That was a pretty stupid statement on your part, but hey, that's cool.

There's a link or two (hundred) missing from your chain of logic. Could you fill in, please?

Srsly. I was asking for your plan so you don't have to pay for anything. Which seems to be the moral bottom line for you. Hey let's work it out so you specifically won't have to pay for anything ever...mmm...K?


Really, what is your other suggestion. It wasn't a rhetorical question. If people aren't doing it right how would you have it done, outside of the ridiculous idea of licenseing. (in which case assholes would also have to get one) Scary ain't it? :)

Ok. No it is not that I don't want to pay anything myself. Everyone should pay. All people should pay across the board the same amount as a percent of the income they earn. Pick a number. Say 20%. All people should pay 20% of their income into the system to pay for those that cannot. What we have here on the otherhand, is people driving up in their BMW's to by formula with food stamps. We have generations of people who have learned that they should neither contribute or work. It is a large and complicated subject for sure. But taxing people who worked hard to get ahead and sacrificed to make good for themselves and families should not have to carry the complete burden. Spread it out. A mini VAT tax would help as well for all goods, except maybe food. I don't have all the answers but what we have now is not working and what Obama and McCain have put forth are not solutions either.

I'll say it again. 1% on every dollar earned up to $35,000. 15% on every dollar earned over $35,000. No loopholes, no credits, no deductions, no need to pay thousands of accountants, no need to pay thousands of IRS agents to go through audits line by line.

There's your income. Now start cutting expenses.
Medical care for illegals? nope, buh bye.
Education for illegals? nope, buh bye


Vastly increase the speed and ease for legal immigration while making the penalty for illegal immigration well and truly prohibitive.

Start counting the savings.

If avoiding contributing and avoiding work is such a sweeet deal, why do so many many many more people choose instead to work hard, earn income, pay taxes, knowing that some portion of their taxes, however small, will be given to these freeloaders?

Are all of us, including you with your four jobs, stoopid?

That's appealing. What do you consider income? Wages, I imagine. What about interest and dividends and capital gains? What about entitlements, like social security or survivor benefits and annuities from the government?

I'd say the majority want to make a go of it and succeed on their own. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that are just looking for the scam. those that are genuinely on hard times and need help usually go about it quietly and do whatever it takes to get back on their feet again ASAP.

I think that some 15-30million illegals have an impact on our economy. Some of it positive some of it negative. I do not believe they put back into it the majority of what they get out of it. That bleeder needs to be stopped..

... and add own a TV in this country.
And yet I'm jumping through hoops to be a mentor 4 hours a week.
I do agree with the fact I'm being thoroughly vetted.
It's right.

But I do face a terrible liberal dichotomy re people having children.
- It's a natural urge - support it as best your economy can.
- There are people out there who are unfit parents! Stop them!
- There are women out there who just like pregnancy/ babies - why should we pay for them? Put a limit on it!

Actually that's a trichotomy - if such a thing exists.

Capital Gains is already capped at 15% in a very simple profit/loss calculation. Leave it alone.
Dividends and interest are already considered income and taxed at an individual's rate.

Social Security, survivor benefits, and annuities are income and should be taxed as such.

Of course, being the even tempered individual I am I also suggest that any lobbyist or politician who actually suggests deviating form the code to add deductions or credits for any reason should be executed on the spot and left as a lesson to those that would try to gain special status again.

I would not consider including entitlements as you have them listed above as taxable. And the only retirement I would tax exempt is that for a disabled vet.

Ok, thanks for answering.

What about the difference between individual and corporate tax systems? Your thoughts?

eta: So you would place the floor and the ceiling for capital gains at %15?

I think very few Corps should get any tax breaks. If they do because they provide some special service it should be limited in scope and time.

I also want to say that I find the 1% rate from $0 to $35,000 a very good idea.

We *all* contribute.

Corporate tax code:

revenue under $1,000,000 annually is taxed at 5%.
revenue over $1,000,001 annually is taxed at 10%.

No deductions, no incentives. Produces income for the gummint. Reduces attractiveness for practices that lead to accounting scandals. Companies can quit spending millions trying to avoid taxes.

We have a situation in northern Australia at the moment, where Papuan traders are comming ashore on Torres Straight islands to trade, bringing with them people infectected with a new strain of TB. ATM, these people are being treated by Australian doctors illegally in order to try and prevent further spread of the disease into the rest of Australia. Considering one Torres Straight island is only 3km from Papua, it's difficult to stop the traditional traders from visiting, especially as until about 20 years ago, some parts of Papua were under Australian authority.

15% Capital Gains tax is ok, but lower would be better because the big players move their money and pay their 15% because they are looking at the big picture. Joe Six pack quite often makes horrible investment decision because he doesn't want to "lose" 15% of his gains to the government, thus setting himself up for a crushing when the market turns.

In the end I don't think any of those numbers actually matter so long as they are clear, strict, and enforced. There are two sides to every equation and the income side is less important than the expense side.

The budget should absolutely be balanced and we should absolutely ditch the obscene "progressive" tax system we use. It is simply a political tool to enslave us in class warfare.

I see where you're going and let me assure you that I know none of my ideas will ever be accepted and put into practice. I like simple, well defined laws that don't require an advanced degree and legal representation to enforce. That doesn't play well with lawmakers.

That being said, I've stated my position here before. Overhaul the immigration system here to allow anyone in who can actually find a job. No job? No entry. That is step one. Step two involves enforcing that legal process by absolutely destroying any company willfully employing illegals. Dry up the income which is the motivation for illegals coming in the first place. Step three involves creating truly painful penalties for those caught here illegally. Incarceration? Yep, in tent cities. When they are released they will be returned to the airport within their country of origin that is furthest from US borders.

*Smiles at Lookout* you do realise, of course, that from my perspective the 'flat tax' system is a weapon of class war.

The higher up the income scale you go, the less impact that 15% tax will have on you and your life. If a household has a single earner bringing in $55k a year, 15% of the $20k higher bracket income impacts on decisions about some fairly basic household needs. When someone is paying $4 million in tax as 15% of their earnings above $35k, that doesn't leave them wondering if they can afford to put both their kids through college.

[eta] there's no need for progressive taxation, or anything else, to box us into class warfare. Class conflict is an inherent part of a class based society. You guys may define class differently, but it is there. And the conflict exists when the needs of those classes collide and conflict.

But Dana, you can make that statement about every financial decision and purchase between those two groups.

The purpose of the tax isn't to ensure everyone feels the same weight of burden, it is to raise money for necessary government functions. Penalizing someone for making more doesn't help those that make less to feel better about anything.

More importantly a system like this eliminates the millions upon millions of dollars spent every year trying to beat the tax system. (beat = not pay extra, not pay so little you get audited and penalized)

Most middle class Americans pay in the hundreds of dollars each year for an accountant to make sure they're doing things right and all they while they keep their fingers crossed hoping they don't get audited.

The very wealthy pay thousands up thousands to build tax shelters and bend the system to benefit them.

Who do you think feels the burden of that cost more sharply?

Two men go to a car dealership to replace their old vehicles. One makes $50,000/year the other makes $350,000/year. Who feels the pain more when they purchase a $30,000 car? Should we lower the price for one and raise it for the other so they feel pain equally?

Our government is not meant to make sure we all experience the same pain and joy in equal amounts.

We pay an accountant to keep us out of trouble and to find ways to pay less tax legally. That is the way it is set up. If we all pay the same rate regardless of income not only would they get more money to run the government, we could make things simple for even the common man.

Joe Sixpack can certainly be a doofus, we agree. But having capital gains taxed at a different rate than other "income" flies directly in the face of your warning in the last paragraph here. Clearly, those with capital gains at all are a minority, and those with a substantial capital gains exposure are a fraction of a fraction of the rest of the flat tax rate paying population.

What?! I agree with you that 15 vs 14 vs 16 vs some other dang number is minutiae. But do you seriously mean that one side is more important than the other? YIN vs yang? How can expenses be more important than income?

Good observation, see my first comment.

Keeping in mind that this will not come to be for the simple reason too many people in powerful positions see this as an loss for them.

Accountants - oops, not as much demand

IRS - oops.

Politicians - Uh oh. There goes a major table slapping terrifying subject to rally the troops with.

I wasn't actually going anywhere in particular with that post. I just think it's an ethical and moral dilemma caused by laws which don't allow for such borderline (literally) issues.

Personally, I think it'd be better if we had a ship patrolling the straight in order to stop Papuans from making landfall in Australian territory, however the issue is not just about a boat to stop illegal landfall.

Anyway, I'd rather the disease be stopped where it enters than to be permitted to flourish in our tropical climate.

Which is why none of this will ever make it past any house of Congress. So basically we are stuck with the same ole system and making any attempts to legally shelter money, get tax breaks, or do what ever you can do to avoid wealth redistribution.

More importantly the person who makes 50k a year needs to recognize that they cannot afford a 30k car and needs to get a car that costs 12k. That is what gets people in trouble. Living outside their means. They have this sense of entitlement to "stuff" ownership. The real estate mess is a large part of this as well. Now we have to pay for their bad decisions? I don't think so. Let them go bankrupt. Same for the big corps. And then you will get "what about the children!?!?!?" Sorry, ask mommy and daddy why they bought a Car/house/whatever they could not afford.

Anybody who owns a little bit of a mutual fund outside of their retirement plan has to consider the capital gains tax at some point. That is more than half the country. (not going to pull the stats) Like I said 15% is acceptable. 0% would be better simply because I see what stupid tax-avoidance decisions do to individual retirement plans. Either way as long as it is standardized and "flat" I don't really care.

How are expenses more important than income? Simple answer - my wealthiest client is a retired letter carrier. We all know they don't make a lot of money so his secret to success wasn't earning vast amounts of money - it was wisely managing the money he did earn so that it would meet his needs now and into future generations. It isn't what you make that matters, it is what you spend.

I picked the numbers I used based on some old back of the napkin stuff I did a long time ago. If 15% is insufficient to meet our initial needs - then start with 17%. I don't care so long as it is across the board. It is up to the government to prioritize our spending needs within the very real limits of the income that is generated. I cannot spend more than I make, neither can you, neither should they.

Absolutely. That is the part that upsets me. I see politicians touting more "progressive" tax systems knowing damn good and well it benefits no one but themselves. they're power brokers, nothing more nothing less.

Really? I thought it was rather clever.

This is a question for Dana and Sundae.

Is the social services system in the UK means tested? The reason I ask is this.

My Dad has worked his guts out all his life in average income jobs, first as an electrician and then in sales. He's now 60 and comfortably retired with a business he still draws an income from, and several investment properties which he owns outright.

ETA: It's actually two businesses if you count the mangoe farm he owns and lives on.

My fathers question recently has been that he's contributed to our social security here in Australia for about 40 years, and continues to do so, but he can't even get a pension card so he can get a half price fare on a bus. He doesn't want health care or anything like that. He really just wants someone to acknowledge that he's been a valuable member of society.

Incidentally, from my observations of my father, it's what you spend that's far more important than what you earn.

I don't really have a lot of options. Other than maxing out my SEP contributions to the tune of 30k per year there is not a lot left over. I claim as much business deductions as I can but there is a limit to that as well. I am thinking about just becoming incorprated and funneling all my purchases of anything into that and claiming it, legally as a business deduction.

You're right, taxes are there to pay for what is needed. The act of class war comes in when the legislative class orchestrate a tax system which is inadequate to the country's needs and justifies it by reducing what is considered necessary. The clear winners in this scenario are not just those in jobs paying less than $50k, they're also the billionaires on Wall St. The clear losers: anybody who is economically and socially vulnerable.

Tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor, and ensure everyone has access to healthcare, free at the point of need, schools for their children, a comfortable retirement and dignity in the difficult times.

The tax burden on your wage packet doesn't weigh so heavy when you don't have to try and do everything with it.

I'm not able to check through this entire thread, but has anyone mentioned Iceland's woes?

That just can't be good for those people.

What it is like to live on the edge of it: here and here.

Sad to read. Makes me feel like we're freaking out over nothing in comparison.

@ Ali. The state pension is means tested, but stuff like free prescriptions and bus passes aren't. The government recently reintroduced the pensioner's 'bus pass' giving all over 65s free travel on buses nationwide. There's also something called a pension credit guarantee, which means that if you are at retirement age and your pension (either state or private) doesn't amount to the minimum threshold (£114 p/wk) the government tops it up.

But no, most of the little benefits, and recognitions for being a pensioner come with pension age, rather than the state pension itself. Official retirement age, at which state pension can be drawn is I think 60 for women and 65 for men? I can't recall.

I'll tell Dad to move to the uk then, although he'd have to wait another 5 yrs for his bus pass still.

I don't want the government involved in my healthcare, my retirement, or my kids' school any more than they are now. In truth, a little less would be better. I respect your view but we come at this from two completely different angles. Me: There are few things government actually does well, so why should I trust them to do more? You: Government if properly funded (whatever that means) can and should provide much for the people.

lookout123.
Social Security, survivor benefits, and annuities are income and should be taxed as such.
Have you thought about living on SS? I'm going to redo my budget soon, because my power bill varies with seasons. I'll post the figures later. Tax my money!! No thanks.

Busterb, I fully appreciate what you are saying. As I pointed out earlier there is exactly zero chance of our politicians setting aside their own interests long enough to consider this idea. So let me just put this out there - if you were given a 2% increase across the board would it kill you to pay 1% in tax along with the rest of the country?

Ali, there are quite a few benefits that accrue just for getting older in this country. For example an annual Winter Fuel Payment, to help with the rising cost of heating. £250 for the over 60s, £400 for the over 80s.

And a Christmas Bonus of £10 (go crazy Grandad!) although thinking about it, that might only be for people with low personal income.

As well as free bus travel, which Mum & Dad take advantage of now that petrol is so expensive, Grandad gets taxi vouchers, because he has Parkinsons. Dad drives Grandad around when it's needed of course, so he gives my parents the vouchers to use. They tend to use them if they're going out somewhere, so Dad can have a drink!

On the social rather than the Government side of things, there are lots of discounts for OAPs. Mum is still really flattered when she is asked for ID ("Do you have your bus pass on you dear?"). Places like hairdressers, cinemas, cafes, hotels, even some pubs offer special rates. They are always given discounted or free entry to places.

Old people in this country love to moan. Oh they love it, it's an over 80s hobby! But Mum and Dad think they are treated very well by society in general and feel that they are appreciated for what they've done. Just don't get them talking about the benefits availble to teenage mums.

Hah, I'll see your Brit's moaning and raise you a pissing.
Nobody can piss & moan like Americans. USA! USA! USA! :lol2:

Oh yeah? Well down under, we expect the government to do our moaning for us. Nyeah.

That's the best solution I have heard all day Zen!

Your government must be doing it's job.

Unless that tax is coming from your wages to pay for all the others.

It's just like the ant and the grasshopper.

Yes, but Iceland is in the top 5 of the Happiest Countries

:headshake

Are those polls recent? I suspect that should be past tense since they got run over by the world economy.

Just 3 months ago. BTW Zimbabwe was last with it's 4-digit inflation rate. It's gonna get crowded down there -- and I don't mean the Southern Hemisphere.;)