Because They've Earned It
You would think they took the numbers from the top of a boom and the bottom of a bust or something.
Well, duh. The more money you have, the more money you can make. This is not rocket science.
Weell, that seems fair:P
I wonder what those figures are for the mother country.
Probably very similar :P Whilst living standards have improved in recent years, the gap between rich and poor in the UK is on a par with that during the time of Dickens.
:eyebrow:
Well, duh. The more money you have, the more money you can make. This is not rocket science.
I thought it was "the more money you have, the more politicians you can by (in order to reduce your taxes)." :eyebrow:
Not really, it does take money to earn money. Those with the money to gamble will strike the big payoffs, and the more you invest the bigger the return.
:eyebrow:
I thought it was "the more money you have, the more politicians you can by (in order to reduce your taxes)." :eyebrow:
Of course, because for the top earners in the U.S. at least, they are paying 35% of their income in taxes (more than 1/3 of what they make), while the bottom earners are only paying 10%. I know that if I were in that top tier I would want to get that lowered! :eyebrow:
It's just extra taxes for selling their soul. ;)
It's just extra taxes for selling their soul. ;)
Yeah I guess you are right... I mean, anyone who is successful is evil:rolleyes:
kind of sucks for people in the low end of that bracket.
Also, I'd be interested in seeing what the data shows for the missing 8.9%. The chart shows growth for the bottom 90%, and the top 1.1% only...
Also, I'd be interested in seeing what the data shows for the missing 8.9%. The chart shows growth for the bottom 90%, and the top 1.1% only...
Only National Security knows for sure, and they ain't talkin'.
Yeah I guess you are right... I mean, anyone who is successful is evil:rolleyes:
I was retorting to "they earned it." Those of us who work but choose not to climb the corporate ladder and instead help others also earn our money. We just don't earn as much.
I have nothing against people who earn good money! In fact, I have some family members in that category. I just get tired of the old "if you worked harder you'd have more money" when I have worked hard my whole life (started working on a produce farm every summer at 13, and most of my adult life have carried a second job.) Can't you understand how hurtful that might feel?
:)
ha ha ha I seriously may create some bullshit charts to post, when you're least expecting it, just to see UT go to work de-bunking them.
I was retorting to "they earned it." Those of us who work but choose not to climb the corporate ladder and instead help others also earn our money. We just don't earn as much.
I have nothing against people who earn good money! In fact, I have some family members in that category. I just get tired of the old "if you worked harder you'd have more money" when I have worked hard my whole life (started working on a produce farm every summer at 13, and most of my adult life have carried a second job.) Can't you understand how hurtful that might feel?
:)
working harder makes you more money. working smarter or better makes a lot more money.
people that make the kind of money on that chart are making more for other people, too. big earners not only spend more, and therefore create more wealth for those below them, but very often employ people, and directly effect their wealth. don't knock the filthy rich. we need them more than they need us. ( can you tell i just read atlas shrugged)
Working on this, it's really hard to find specific data on personal income broken down by income sector, but what I've found so far suggests that this chart is either built to be specifically misleading or entirely incorrect.
The Census Bureau has some detail on household income through 2001 and the raw data does not like what this chart suggests.
remember, 57% of internet statistics are made up.
working harder makes you more money. working smarter or better makes a lot more money
Some of the hardest working people get paid some of the lowest wages.
Some of the hardest working people get paid some of the lowest wages.
i know. in fact, i would posit that most of the hardest workers make the least. to me, working hard, and being honest is admirable. working hard, and smart, and better than your competitors (for jobs or in business) is
more admirable.
I'd rather work hard for $30,000/yr than rely on state support, but if i have the ability to make $300,000/yr by working harder and smarter? pay me.
ps. i don;t make $300,000
yet
It isn't always a matter of choice though. Some people simply do not have access to the opportunities which wuold allow them to earn $300,000 a year.
It isn't always a matter of choice though. Some people simply do not have access to the opportunities which wuold allow them to earn $300,000 a year.
in the US, at least, everyone has access to the opportunity. many do not have the vision to see it, the intelligence, skill, luck, etc. I have the opportunity to make that kind of dough.....i just haven't realized it yet.
in the US, at least, everyone has access to the opportunity. many do not have the vision to see it, the intelligence, skill, luck, etc. I have the opportunity to make that kind of dough.....i just haven't realized it yet.
I wanted to find a hole in your logic, but couldn't. But I sense no empathy. No concern for those being left behind. There's millions of us former blue collar workers who used to make a living wage who are (not) now. People who like being active. Like working with their hands. But through the rapidly changing demographics of the global economy are finding choices narrowed to an extremely uncomfortable margin.
In other words...Is there room left for the people who don't have the dog eat dog mentality?
I wanted to find a hole in your logic, but couldn't. But I sense no empathy. No concern for those being left behind. There's millions of us former blue collar workers who used to make a living wage who are (not) now. People who like being active. Like working with their hands. But through the rapidly changing demographics of the global economy are finding choices narrowed to an extremely uncomfortable margin.
what? rapidly changing demographics?
i think what you were saying is that there are people that have lost blue collar jobs because companies have moved their manufacturing outside of the country? well, yeah. that's true. these people did not aspire to be factory workers, though. they did not go to school to learn how to join a union and get paid too much for menial, mindless labor. they got jobs. it was enough. they made a living. bills got paid. everybody's working for the weekend.
who ever told them that they were entitled to an income commensurate with a middle class standard of living for doing a job that could be performed by lower class talent? the jobs that have been outsourced are those that CAN be. trades and skilled labor are as secure as ever, if not more. In my personal experience, i have had difficulty getting a plumber, an hvac service, a general contractor....... it seems like the 'blue' collar worker has a gun to the head of the 'white' collar worker when it comes to service that the 'white' collar worker needs to have done. and they are very well paid for having the skill and knowledge that they have to do the work they do.
you ask if there is room for those that don;t have the dog eat dog mentality? sure. at the bottom, there's plenty of room. this is a free country. do what you want.
if you are happy eating, breathing and sleeping for 80 or so years, it doesn't require a whole lot of effort in america. if you want more, you'll have to earn it.
remember. in other countries, not having the dog eat dog mentality means that you will probably get eaten.
If you can find a good HVAC guy, marry him. If you are a guy, gay marry him.
(for once it's ok not to use the she pronoun. there are no women in HVAC)
My ex used to work with an illiteracy program, teaching reading to adults. She quit. The last guy who came around to our house to learn to read would drive up in his Corvette. He had his own home refurbishing company and made huge bucks.
Sorry about triple posting. I am on LJ's side in this; it's not dog eat dog really, it's about motivation. Jacquelita's kid, without any math abilities, is 19 and has a high school degree. Did not make it into the Navy, he will wind up working with his hands somewhere. I can see clearly that there is nothing "dog eat dog" about his situation; it's merely about motivation. Nobody is clutching and grabbing at his shirt so they can get up over him to succeed. It is all up to him. Nobody wants to see him fail so that they can succeed. If he gets out of bed in the morning, goes out and finds work, and works hard at it, and doesn't do anything stupid, he will get along in life pretty well.
"Dog eat dog" may apply in organizations and companies where people are competing. But to live and succeed in this country you are only competing with yourself. Right now there is an almost permanent labor shortage at the low end, especially in the north where it isn't also addressed by 10 million Mexicans. Labor costs are now the top drag on the economy. It's true that you may not be able to do exactly the work you want, but that's the price we pay for having the sort of economy that relentlessly grows. Permanent change is required; lagging industries must close, succeeding businesses must be allowed to succeed and failing businesses must be allowed to fail.
It may not be dog eat dog. But the idea that everybody has equal access to opportunties is a fallacy. The playing field is not level. If you begin life encumbered with disadvantages you are likely not to end up doing well. There are of course xceptions to that. If you start life unencumbered with disadvantages you are likely to do well. There are also exceptions to that.
the jobs that have been outsourced are those that CAN be.
The only jobs that
can't be outsourced are service-oriented ones, but they could be done some day by vending machines or other robots. Government and military jobs (and associated contractors) are pretty safe, too.
The playing field never can and never will be level. But it seems to me that one of the biggest disadvantages you can be encumbered with is the belief/excuse that it's going to be tougher for you because of your other disadvantages -that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever I saw one.
From the BBC, a news item which shows that children from poor backgrounds are half as likely to succeed as those from more comfortable homes
Little progress has been made to close the achievement gap between rich and poor pupils, official figures show.
Children from poorer homes eligible for free school meals in England are almost half as likely to get good GCSE results as pupils from richer homes.
Nearly a third (32.6%) of poorer children get five good GCSEs compared to 60.7% of more affluent children, against a national average of 56.9%.
The achievement gap narrowed 0.9 percentage points on last year.
In 2005, some 29.9% of pupils on free school meals achieved five good GCSEs compared with 58.9% of pupils not eligible for the means-tested benefit in schools.
I don't know if the situation is the same in America as it is here. But the reality is, certainly in the UK, if you are from a poor home, you are more likely to suffer a poor education, be brought up in an environment which doesn't promote learning and leave school with fewer qualifications than you otherwise might. You are also more likely to be brought up in an environment which has a culture of low expectations. That some people have low expectations in life is not merely an indication that they are too weakwilled to succeed.....it may be a factor of their upbringing. There are a good many hidden ways in which the poor are disadvantaged from a young age.
if you apply statistics about the masses to your individual expectations you will probably achieve a state of averagosity. yawn.
each of those kids, as soon as they realize the importance of it, can educate themselves in preparation for life. if their school is substandard, they have to work a little harder than the rich kids. I'd say that that prepares them better than the rich kids.
I don't disagree that the well off children have a head start. It would be silly to discount the environment that people live in. There is nothing stopping someone willing to work hard to improve, though. it's not quite survival of the fittest...more the prosperity of the fittest.
Dana, i hear your message, though. you are sympathetic to the masses, and feel compassion for those less fortunate. fuckin communist ;)
How difficult is it to break thru the class system in the UK?
each of those kids, as soon as they realize the importance of it, can educate themselves in preparation for life.
There are areas of poverty in the Uk, where expectations are frighteningly low. Parents pass along those expectations to their children. In the area I represent, low expectations, teenage conception, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and unemployment are all major facts of life. In an environment where neither parent works, where brothers and sisters are involved in petty crime, family life is fragmented and housing poor and cramped, the odds of the kids making a connection between their actions and their future prospects are seriously reduced.
How difficult is it to break thru the class system in the UK?
Not very difficult. The class system isn't the problem. The problem is the enormous gap between the haves and the have nots. It is very difficult to break out of the mindset one is raised with. If one is raised to expect little from life, then only the exceptional break through that.
The reason I ask, Dana, is a prof of mine, guy from Scotland (also lived in Newcastle) told me it was difficult to break thru the class system--but maybe he meant Scotland.
When was he referring to? The class system was much more entrenched before the 80s.
When was he referring to? The class system was much more entrenched before the 80s.
Well, he's younger than I and I'm 42. The reason we were talking about this was because of a Tony Harrison or Philip Larkin poem...maybe Tony Harrison. About his mom's death...Long Distance or Marked with a D? I can't recall...anyway, that's how we got to talking about it.
I wouldn't say that class is no longer a factor in Britain, but it has been somewhat superceded by income. We still refer to Middle class and working class, upper class and underclass, but the reality is, your accent and manners, which once would have set you apart from another class has taken a backseat to your income. Certainly that is the case within most areas of life. The exception is of course the upper class. You don't get to be upperclass with income.
In an environment where neither parent works, where brothers and sisters are involved in petty crime, family life is fragmented and housing poor and cramped, the odds of the kids making a connection between their actions and their future prospects are seriously reduced.
But all you're doing is proving lumberjim's point, you're just adding on that it's not fair that these kids can't seem to get it through their heads that they can succeed if they work at it. You can't
make someone "make the connection." Either their drive to succeed will be enough to overcome the philosophy they were raised with, or it won't.
It is very difficult to break out of the mindset one is raised with. If one is raised to expect little from life, then only the exceptional break through that.
Then it doesn't seem so much a problem with the economic status of the home as with the attitudes and expectations. I agree with that - my husband's parents were immigrants who arrived right after WWII with literally nothing. All his father's money was stolen on the boat. He saved pennies for a year, working two jobs and walking everywhere to save tram fare, before sending for his fiancee. They always had a very low income (and had grown up in poverty, I might add). But they expected their kids to get educations and do well. All three sons went to university and became professionals.
You don't need a high income to have high expectations for your kids.
Even where the expectations are low, in this country kids can break out of that mold. They have to want to - but it takes that for anyone to really succeed, not just low income kids.
i know. in fact, i would posit that most of the hardest workers make the least. to me, working hard, and being honest is admirable. working hard, and smart, and better than your competitors (for jobs or in business) is more admirable.
I'd rather work hard for $30,000/yr than rely on state support, but if i have the ability to make $300,000/yr by working harder and smarter? pay me.
But, here again is the attitude that if you make less money you do not work hard and smart.
Also, there is an underlying theme in other's posts that says, basically, that success is defined by wealth.
SO not true, and such a sad way to view what life is all about.
Also, there is an underlying theme in other's posts that says, basically, that success is defined by wealth.
SO not true, and such a sad way to view what life is all about.
I think they are only refering to the amount of someone's economic success, but yeah there are lots of different ways you can view success.
As far as how hard you work tied to how much you make, it is unfortunate that people that can work hard, tiring, and difficult jobs are not making more for their efforts. I know that it can seem frustrating sometimes, and the reasoning behind it is complicated at best. Financial compensation isn't just tied to what your job is, but also how effectively you do it, how easy you are to replace, how much time and money the company already has invested in you, the level of your skills, your drive to learn new skills to expand your usefulness to the company, whether you can lead, innovate, adaptablilty to change, etc....
As far as how hard you work tied to how much you make, it is unfortunate that people that can work hard, tiring, and difficult jobs are not making more for their efforts.
This is very true of many who are in jobs similar to mine, but most any other institution I could go to would pay more for less work. So, why don't I move on? I love my boss, love my coworkers (most of them), I have very flexible scheduling, I'm very close to home, and I feel I have invested so much of myself in this job and this place I have a certain degree of loyalty. We went through a radical change a couple years ago, and I can't go into to details but it almost killed all of us from stress (these are changes we ourselves implemented because it was the right thing to do) so I feel very woven into the fabric of my job.
So, you all have a point: I COULD move on and make more $$ if I chose to, but the other factors are very important to me, for now anyway. How many people can say they love their jobs?
But, I wish I were paid what I'm worth, so that's hard too.
Shawnee you make a lot of sense.
big snip~ I COULD move on and make more $$ if I chose to, but the other factors are very important to me, for now anyway. How many people can say they love their jobs?
On the other hand, if you hate your job, dread dragging your butt in every day, can't wait to leave, it won't make your life longer but it will sure seem that way. :lol:
Seriously though, if you have a job you love going to.....or staying home at....you would be nuts to leave, unless financial or social pressure made it a necessity.
Can anyone here say ''social capital"?
I can say it but I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I think that rather answers Ali's unspoken question
Google it 9th. It refers to the advantages some students have over others because of not only wealth, but the knowledge of their parents and likelihood of them being introduced to different forms of 'culture'.
There is a massive amount of research on this topic, and it's something worth familiarising yourself with as a student yourself. Might help you understand where you got some of your ideas about right and wrong.
Edit: because I'm expecting a negative response to this idea, I'll find some links later on and post them for you.
That some have to work harder than others to get the same things is not wrong, it is nature.
That some have to work harder than others to get the same things is not wrong, it is nature.
Nature and society, are two different things. To a large extent, society acts as an ameliorating force on nature.
All things are nature, in nature... no such thing as un-natural. You cannot be out of nature.
I am dyslexic and got very pissed when I hear others who are whine about not having things given to them when in school. I graduated on the Presidents list and on the national honor roll, as well as Gold Key. Just hard work. Some think that is too much to ask of them.
Just work harder... that is all.
Everyone has to at something... it is the way of things and is correct. Builds character.
Why should a young einstein be withheld from the world at large simply because she comes from a poor black family who don't realize the potential of their daughter because they're not educated enough to see it?
There is no "why", it just happens.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT="]Everyone has the right to believe and accept what they want, but reality doesn’t discriminate. Reality is not different for different people. Not once has reality excused anyone for good intentions, ignorance, or stubbornness. Reality shows no mercy, accepts no excuses, and issues no pardons. Reality does not “turn the other cheek.” This does not mean that reality is cruel, it just means that reality is. -[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Gary Ryan Blair[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT="]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Congratulations on your achievements rkz...but I think your argument is bullshit when applied to society at large. Plenty of people have hard childhoods and achieve great things in their field. My husband is one of them.
We're not just talking about going to school and getting the best out of it. It's about having the opportunity to put to use the knowledge you might gain yourself. Some people simply don't ever get that opportunity no matter how smart they are. No matter how hard they've worked.
I could give you plenty of examples, but one is the commercial fishing industry. An industry which is traditionally filled with people who're uneducated but work hard for the money they earn, and yet governments continually make life harder for them by imposing restrictions which are not usually in the best interest of the industry. How can someone, no matter how hard they work, seriously be expected to understand legal jargon to the extent where they can argue against it in order to improve their likely outcome?
These are the types of scenarios which are regularly to be found in the real world.
Do something else... go to school part time... move on.
Many do it.
Fear of/fighting change is a dead-end.
Reading problems were not my only issues. I had a great deal to overcome... it was very hard and is for anyone who has to do it, as a child or adult.
I am in no way belittling that, I am celebrating it.
I often say, a simple solution is rarely easy.
If your job is dead-end or becoming overpopulated, the solution is simple. It will not be easy.
The only time one loses is when they quit or say that the solution lies in relying on others to solve the problem completely when you can actually do it.
It makes me crazy to see those who can work choose not to for simple excuses when I would give almost anything to be able to work again.
I don't buy it... if you want to work at it, you will, if not... you will not.
I worked until they took me out of that building in an ambulance.
Who is Gary Ryan Blair?
There's no way that my reality is the same as yours, or anyone else's, therefore reality is far more discriminatory than Mr Blair would have you believe.
What's the definition of reality? Something that is real. But from what perspective?
How do you prounounce the word for the car Jaguar? What's the reality? What do you think is a good education? Yr 10? Yr 12? Finishing University? Exactly whose perspective are we talking about?
Everyone has a different reality, and showing them that there's a difference is something that takes more than just telling people.
I disagree.....reality is entirely subjective.
Wow, cool... I get to decide not to be sick!!!!
Yet again I hear an argument based on the fact that a few have achieved what is difficult. For every one who had succeeded despite dyslexia, I can show another five whose lives and self esteem have been irreparably damaged. We as a society lose so much through those people.
I have, in my time as a literacy tutor, met people who were so bright and yet so damaged by life and their early schooling, that they will likely never contribute to society as a whole.....but they could have done so much. It's truly heartbreaking.
No, but you get to decide how much it affects your life - no disrespect intended, but as you say, there are plenty of people who have similar stories as you but who do not live their lives in such a positive way.
Wow, cool... I get to decide not to be sick!!!!
Nope.....but how that sickness feels to you, is entirely your own.
LOL... let me crush your spine and then you get to tell me it feels like a massage.
As for the dyslexia thing... I agree, you choose to let others make you feel like it is a handicap or not.
Social capital consists of networks of social relations which are characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity. Combined, it is these elements which are argued to sustain civil society and which enable people to act for mutual benefit (Lochner et al 1998; Winter 2000a); it is ‘the quality of social relationships between individuals that affect their capacity to address and resolve problems they face in common’ (Stewart-Weeks and Richardson 1998: 2). Thus, social capital can be understood as a resource to collective action, which may lead to a broad range of outcomes. In his analysis of social capital and family life, Winter (2000a: 2-6) argues that despite some conceptual confusion in the social capital literature, three of the most notable social capital writers each conceptualise social capital in this way, albeit it in relation to differing outcomes, of varying social scale. Bourdieu (1993), Putnam (1993) and Coleman (1988) each understand social capital as a resource to collective action, the outcomes of which concern economic wellbeing, democracy at the nation state level, and the acquisition of human capital in the form of education, respectively 6.
I highly recommend reading the whole article if you have time.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP24.pdf LOL... let me crush your spine and then you get to tell me it feels like a massage.
Okay, my point may sound facetious.....but, even with something as serious and devastating as a crushed spine feels different to each person. I cannot know how you feel, you cannot know how I feel, all we can do is extrapolate from our own experience base as to what we think the other person is feeling.
I know the concept and have read about it.
Had to do with me. I had a hard time early in life. Nearest neighbor was 2 miles away, was not related to as a normal child, really. Dyslexia and no social skills for my age group was a real set-back. Never had a social group until Jr. High. Spent the first part of my life solitary, even when in school surrounded by kids, I was alone. I had my nervous disorder and other things I don't talk about.
I learned very quickly to tell people what they wanted to know. Things in my teens made it worse.
Blame is futile... you do what you need to do to make things happen for yourself. If I ever let other's opinions affect me in any way other than a challenge I would be dead. It is not an excuse.
We are all alone in our skin, I learned that from day one... day two, it is not so bad alone.
I think you and I have quite a lot in common.
I was quite isolated early on, actually through most of my childhood and teenage years, through ill health (not stuff I really want to talk about in detail). It makes one quite.....self-sufficient in many ways.
Well I think that's your opinion, and if it works for you that's great rkz, but research suggests that you are probably one of few who have had the ability to do so.
Good on you.
There is no "why", it just happens.
That's not a reason not to attempt to limit the effects when it does, mr gets-annoyed-when-an-ambulatory-person-parks-in-a-handicapped-space.
As you should. Handicapped spaces are a perfectly legitimate way by which society attempts to limit the negative effects of nature, without which you'd have to work even harder to get the same things as others.
Wow! That was a reach.
I agree... but I am not pissed-off about being disabled. That is more on point.
Actually, I think Happy made a very good point. Society in many ways tries to offset the disadvantages that nature burdens individuals with.
Do you think it is "unfair" that I am sick?
As unfair as it was that I spent the first sixteen years of my of life 'sick'
As unfair as it is that my Father is dying.
As unfair as it is that one of the most intelligent men I ever met was taught by his teachers that he was stupid.
Experiences may be subjective, but that lays the best argument for saying that the individual is eventually the one in control. Pain is pain, we all suffer it, just in different fashions. However if you were to suffer a specific injury, lets say a broken arm, the pain itself is not what is subjective. The difference between the person quietly suffering and waiting for treatment and the person screaming as if being filleted alive is not the actual level of pain they experience, but how they choose to react to it. The one in control can understand that imparting their misery onto everyone else will not make the pain go away any faster, the screamer feels that the fact that they are experiencing pain lifts all other responsibilities from their shoulders.
the screamer feels that the fact that they are experiencing pain lifts all other responsibilities from their shoulders.
Or.....the person screaming feels that screaming in some way helps them deal with their pain.
I don't believe in fair. It is a silly concept that only belongs on board-games.
Each person's worst pain is the worst pain in the world as far as they are concerned.
It drives me nuts when I try to comfort someone when something has happened to them and they say some shit like "I have no right saying anything to you with all that you have been through/go through".
Yelling can release endorphins... it does help in extreme cases. Most yell before they need to or because they are surprised because they did not realize how bad something was going to hurt or (mostly IMO) because they are not used to pain.
My Drs are always amazed at my pain threshold (not a good thing, it is a problem with my meds) due to having always been in pain and my brain/nervous system functions differently. Also, I'm just very stoic about it.
Some pain meds do not work on me, I had a root canal with no working meds once, he did not believe me, did not know my history... that was very bad.
I guess 9th has never given birth to a child. lol
Do you think it is "unfair" that I am sick?
Yes. And handicapped spaces, wheelchair-access laws, and the Americans with Disabilities Act are some of the ways in which society attempts to mitigate the unfairness.
LoL ali.
many
rkzenrage, I totally agree. But society isn't really about what's fair, it's about what's useful. Is it really useful to society that millions of people don't reach their potential and therefore do not contribute to their fullest ability? How many Einsteins have we lost to the slums? ....how many Darwins never realised their potential? .....how many Ciceros were too busy surviving to write their thoughts?......How many Fords never got the chance to put their ideas into action?
Good point except for Ford... I am not a fan of that Anti-Semite.
The ADA is a joke.
Just went shopping in a village where I could go into a grand total of four shops (out of around a hundred) and eat in two places, none were really restaurants.
One was a hot-dog place and another was a Blimpys.
Handicap spaces where 90% of the permits are given to people who can walk walk the store and mall, don't need the spot for a lift or ramp... yeah... tell me about fair.
Hey...how come no one acceded my point when I made the same point with less words??? :(
Har. True, but he did a fair amount for mechanisation:P
I guess 9th has never given birth to a child. lol
I have to roll my eyes when women throw out the old 'men have nothing to say about pain because they've never given birth to a child' chestnut. :right: I've had many types of pain, including labor (four children), and the worst pain I've ever had by far was the pain of cluster headache. Second is migraine. Women don't have a corner on significant pain.
I wasn't suggesting they do.
True enough orthodoc, but I also think Ali had a point about 9th. My guess is, with his attitude to screaming, he hasn't experienced pain bad enough to warrant it.
What's the definition of reality? Something that is real. But from what perspective?
How do you prounounce the word for the car Jaguar? What's the reality? What do you think is a good education? Yr 10? Yr 12? Finishing University? Exactly whose perspective are we talking about?
From the perspective of the desired result.
We can talk about perspectives and feelings all day, and while we do, reality is going on around us.
Pointing your perspective at reality does nothing to affect it. Actions affect reality. Actions have positive and negative consequences - and that
is reality.
It doesn't matter what your perspective is on how long is long enough when brushing your teeth. The reality of it is, if you don't get all the crap off of them, you're gonna get cavitites.
So by that logic, you're not educated till you've been to university, completed a Phd and are still studying, because no one on this earth knows everything, but until you do, you're not educated.
Nope, not even close. Wanna try again, or shall I?
The reality of it is, if you don't get all the crap off of them, you're gonna get cavitites.
Or not. I know a lad, who cleans his teeth once in a blue moon and rarely goes to the dentist (like twice in about four years!)and never, ever gets toothache. last time he went to the dentist he only needed one filling.......
I on the other hand, go to the fecking dentist every six months, clean my teeth two-three times a day and somehow need constant fecking work doing. In the last two years I've had fillings, root canals, caps and porcelain veneers.
That wont be necessary. Your argument is the same as rkz's and he hasn't convinced me he's right so it's probably a case of never the twain shall meet on this issue.
If rkzenrage isn't able to convince someone then I seriously doubt jinx, can:P
Just to get back to the original topic of the thread. Those of you who are arguing against the point myself a few others have tried to make, support the huge earnings of the top few executives? Yes? They must have earned it after all right? The deserve to work as hard as you and earn a million times more right?
Oh I don't know about that Dana. I reckon Jinx probably has a few cards rkz hasn't played, but they're from the same deck, so unlikely to help too much. That's all I meant.
Don't forget Ali.....in America, anybody might get into the top-earning bracket. The fact that so very very few ever do, doesn't stop people wanting to defend their right to be there.
Dana, I think if people make it there good for them, although I totally disagree with the actual real amount of money they get paid. I don't think they deserve that amount. I don't think anyone does. They certainly can't need that much when others work their fingers to the bone and still can't make ends meet. There are similar situations here in Australia and I object to it happening here too...hence my argument.
The issue of social capital is important to me because I see evidence of brilliant kids all the time, but they're left to squander their talent because their parents fail to see how they can be supported through to a better life.
So, let me get this straight.... if someone is rich, they should have to pay more for being so?
Poor people have more value or are more "right" somehow, so we tax them less per-capita because we are going to assume that they earned more of their income legitimately?
This is a problem I well understand Ali. The ward I represent is full of children whose expectations in life are tragically low....their family's expectations for them are likewise low....I also know people who've done very well for themselves and yet are patently thick as pigshit....go figure.
let me ask you this. Have you ever given to a charity? Maybe to the victims of Katrina for instance, or the Tsunami in south west asia?
If so, you have a social conscience, if not, your argument might work.
If you have a social conscience, it means you care about what happens to others in your society and see value in helping those who for whatever reason are not as well off as yourself. As to who should pay more tax etc, that's a difficult one. Probably another topic entirely.
Experiences may be subjective, but that lays the best argument for saying that the individual is eventually the one in control. Pain is pain, we all suffer it, just in different fashions. However if you were to suffer a specific injury, lets say a broken arm, the pain itself is not what is subjective. The difference between the person quietly suffering and waiting for treatment and the person screaming as if being filleted alive is not the actual level of pain they experience, but how they choose to react to it. The one in control can understand that imparting their misery onto everyone else will not make the pain go away any faster, the screamer feels that the fact that they are experiencing pain lifts all other responsibilities from their shoulders.
More to the point, a wealthy person probably will get better care for his broken arm than a poor person. That's what this is about. The wealthy get better teachers, better healthcare, nutrition, dentistry, haircuts, skin cream, therapy, tutoring, professionally written resumes, etc. It all goes to why they have an advantage over those who are not as wealthy. No matter how hard a poor person tries, the wealthy person has the edge. Let's face it - it's wealthy people typically who do the hiring. People will typically hire people who are like themselves - it's human nature.
So?
let me ask you this. Have you ever given to a charity? Maybe to the victims of Katrina for instance, or the Tsunami in south west asia?
If so, you have a social conscience, if not, your argument might work.
If you have a social conscience, it means you care about what happens to others in your society and see value in helping those who for whatever reason are not as well off as yourself. As to who should pay more tax etc, that's a difficult one. Probably another topic entirely.
I have... that has nothing to do with anything.
I choose to have one.
To try to force it is wrong.
You cannot, and should not, try to make someone care.
So, unless wealthy people have a monopoly on talent, ability and worth, they are depriving society of the benefits that could be gleaned from t hose who do not come from a wealthy background.
That is called natural selection.
no. society skews 'natural selection' to favour an unnatural set of criteria.
If you choose to live in a society and benefit from doing so, you should have one. If you don't, the state has a responsibility to make you do so because you have benefitted from the state.
Nothing occurs outside of nature.
At the risk of sounding like Ebeneezer, that is what taxes are for... I believe each should be taxed per-capita, not one group more than another.
I don't understand you...
Are you saying you want to get rid of social programs and rape the rich for it?
True enough, but plenty occurs within nature. Natural tendencies can be subverted by societal norms.
That is called natural selection.
It's actually unnatural. Natural selection would be for the "best person" to succeed. Her the "most connected person" to win. The one who was given more just because his parents had wealth.
Nothing occurs outside of nature.
Including stepped tax rates. So what?
Sure... which is why the rich have a vested interest in continuing the current system that allows them to get out of most taxes the rest of us pays.
If you want them to have to pay like everyone else, tax them like everyone else... duh!
"Social norms" is our system of natural selection... "just because" they have wealth is it's determiner. Way it is.
& one has to hang on to the wealth and do something with it... a hell of a lot more than a "just because". It is called swimming with sharks for a reason.
So now your problem is that the rich pay too few taxes?
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT="]Everyone has the right to believe and accept what they want, but reality doesn’t discriminate. Reality is not different for different people. Not once has reality excused anyone for good intentions, ignorance, or stubbornness. Reality shows no mercy, accepts no excuses, and issues no pardons. Reality does not “turn the other cheek.” This does not mean that reality is cruel, it just means that reality is. -[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Gary Ryan Blair[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT="]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
A = A
I have a problem with the tax system as it is. I feel all should pay a flat percentage of what they earn or spend... I could care less which.
Rich or poor. I have heard the argument that this would be easier on the rich. Bullshit, no easier than it is now. Being rich is easier, it should be.
Many want the rich to be taxed MORE than poorer people.
This is wrong. Not only is it unethical, but it encourages them to do what happens now... take over the tax system and rig it with loop-holes so they don't have to pay as much in taxes, or any at all.
I have some extremely rich family who have told me that if they did not want to pay taxes that they would not have to and that they have peers that make money off of the tax system. I also know that for what they make they pay a lower percentage than most.
The reason that there is so much resistance in government to a flat tax is that the rich are in control of it and they don't want it because they will pay more... not because the poor will, that is a scare tactic.
By doing this we would eliminate a sales tax (the states would just get a percentage), it would be easier on the poor and middle class.
Ok, well from what I've read here, and I've only skimmed the last few pages to get up to date, it seems to me that some here think that if you are super rich, you should be taxed higher to support those who do not make as much money. Or, if that doesn't follow, then they at least think that if you are not one of the super rich, then you will need to become dependant on the government to meet your needs. I would argue that it is not the government's job to take the place of charities, as well it is not the governments job to redistribute wealth, regardless of how hard one may think the rich had to pay for it. Now, maybe in a traditional sense, an executive may not work 'hard', but they are worth what they are paid. Now before anyone craps thier pants from what i just said, let me say it again... EXECUTIVES ARE WORTH THEIR PAY, and here is why.
While the U.S. economy is not a capitalist economy in its pure form, it is capitalistic. One of the fundamental concepts of capitalism is supply and demand. Most people only think of supply and demand when it comes to how much you might pay for a certain good or service, however you can apply the same idea to the labor force. You can take any job and an employer will only be willing to pay up to a certain amount to fill that position (demand). At different levels of pay, different amounts of people will be willing to work and become part of the labor force (supply). So for the people who may not be making much for their efforts, know that there is a supply of people who would do the job for the same or less, which keeps pay down. That is one reason unions are effective, they essentially cut off the supply from the people who demand it.
While most people at the bottom of an organization may not see it or know it, executives play an important role in a company. They are the leaders, they set strategy, decide on production levels, prices, they make all the important business decisions and have to do all of this while trying to stay competitive in a global economy. Now, when you look at a good executive, a company is going to pay a lot of money for that person. Good executives are hard to come by. Ok, a small company is not going to have the resources to pay for one, but a large, fortune 500 company is, and when they are depending on the leadership and vision a good executive has, they are going to pay them a lot. It is more of an investment, in that if they pick the right one, they can turn around a company and make them more money in the long run. If they can't pay them what they are worth, they will leave to work somewhere else, possibly even a competitor.
Take Bill Gates for instance. What is a 'fair' rate to tax the richest man in the world? He is a college dropout who created one of the most sucessful companies in the world, and most of his wealth has come from appreciation in Microsoft stock as well as what he made from Microsoft. Once the company matured, how much work do you think he did? Should he be taxed more than the rest of the population? Is it the governments job to decide that even? If you think he should be taxed more for the benefit of the 'less fortunate', consider this. As a wealthy individual, he created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation's grants have provided funds for college scholarships for under-represented minorities, AIDS prevention, diseases prevalent in third world countries, and other causes. The Foundation has also pledged over $7 billion to its various causes, including $1 billion to the United Negro College Fund. Also consider that this is not the exception, but a norm with wealthy. Most don't hoard their wealth. Warren Buffett matches all of Gate's contributions to the foundation. Would that money be better spent by the government? Most can agree that if the government had that extra money, it would end up in 'pork' projects rather than in the hands of the less fortunate. So rather than take their money, let us put more responsibility on the shoulders of the people so their is less dependancy on the government, as well as also more hope and faith that people will continue to be generous with their money for the causes they believe in rather than give it to the government in the form of taxes to be spent on causes the government believes in.
I know... long and rambling, but now I've said my piece. have a superb day
Well written Shocker. You make some great points!
Shock did make some good points. If anyone remembers, oh so long ago, was that my objection that the underlying attitude is that if you DON'T make a lot of money you are lazy or stoooopid. This was my problem with it all along.
At any rate, I like Rkz idea of a flat tax. This means flat tax...no high paid tax preparers finding loopholes to save the rich thousands of dollars, and no reward for popping out babies to afford the poor a giant refund of money which they did not initially pay.
So, you see, I am really for equality for the masses, not just those who can afford it, not just those who have the knowledge to fudge it, and not just those who play the system and reap the benefits of people like me: the middle class.
I have said it before and I'll say it again: the middle class is disappearing, and a country without a middle class cannot sustain itself.
Can I ask a question about flat tax please.
If you want everyone to pay the same rate of tax, does that mean you'll raise it a bit for the lower incomes and lower it for higher?
If that's the case, and your country already has massive poverty problems associated with minimum wage earners etc, how do you think that will be recieved?
The reason that there is so much resistance in government to a flat tax is that the rich are in control of it and they don't want it because they will pay more...
They would be just as much in control of a flat tax, and just as able to put in loopholes, but the poor still wouldn't, and now
they'd be paying more.
Can I ask a question about flat tax please.
If you want everyone to pay the same rate of tax, does that mean you'll raise it a bit for the lower incomes and lower it for higher?
If that's the case, and your country already has massive poverty problems associated with minimum wage earners etc, how do you think that will be recieved?
Thats' why it will never, ever, ever get anywhere within a thousand miles of even being considered.
It would wreck the whole system and ruin millions of people's lives. [SIZE="1"]Some things look good "on paper" . . .[/SIZE]
That makes no sense... The poor would pay less in taxes than they do now.
Most poor pay most of their taxes in sales tax and would pay less due to having less income and the poor and middle class are those who support the flat tax the most when it is discussed.
It is the rich, who would end-up paying the most in increases because of the elimination of loopholes and shelters, who fight it and put the most spin against it during those discussions.
Because something is difficult does not mean one does not try. As a Libertarian, all I believe in is an uphill battle. This past election shows that many things one does not believe is possible are often just around the corner.
NOTHING is impossible as long as one never gives in to that pathetic word for losers.
A flat tax is a "Flat Tax"... there are no loopholes, 2% or 10%, that is IT, no matter WHAT, come Armageddon, cancer, three arms, the boogie man or a "religious institution".
Income is income or paying for something is paying for something, end of story.
Again, I don't care how you do it. (yes that includes your kids damn education, your housing and food, etc, etc, etc...)
Whilst we in the UK have a sliding scale for income tax, we also have a huge number of tax allowances, concessions, tax-credits & rebates etc. And although I am a committed socialist, I too favour the concept of a flat-rate tax.
10% - 15% of income (earned or otherwise). No allowances, consessions, tax-write-offs. Not only would it generate as much as the present system it would save on all those civil servants in the Inland Revenue whose sole duty it is to check all those allowances....
Oh, and I would apply it to corporations too....
(back in the 70's, it was said that, because of clever use of tax avoidance schemes, the secretaries at Shell UK headquarters paid more in tax than Shell UK itself did)
Oh, I agree, any corp/sports team/etc that pays a salary to anyone = fair salary.
No one has a right to say squat.
It is the height of ignorance and envy to bitch about what someone else makes.
Wouldn't that still make it difficult for someone to break out of a poverty cycle though?
I'm asking the question. Don't you think it would make it harder for someone to actually get ahead in your country, knowing what your health care system is like just for starters.
That has nothing to do with revamping our tax system... OT red herring.
In my above statement I showed how it would make it easier for the poor to do better under a flat-tax system.
In theory your system seems good rkz, but I don't think it would work in practice for reasons like health care etc.
Maybe it would though. You could be right.
Please tell me how health care has anything to do with this?
health care is expensive. If it's not subsidised by the government then how will low wage earners afford it? Work it out for yourself rkz. You're talking about taking away a lot of funding for things like health care, vet care, aged care, roads, parks and wildlife etc.
Where do you think the money for that comes from? Do you think people are going to say, 'oh yeah, and I've got to go spend some money on that park down the street today, even though my son is sick and needs medication.'
My point is that if you put the 'flat rate' at a rate high enough to cover those things, low wage earners are going to suffer while the wealthy will just continue to get wealthier.
I don't believe flat tax is the answer.
How am I talking about taking anything away?
At what point did I state that the State would receive fewer taxes?... the result would be quite the opposite.
Nor did I discuss, at any time, what would be done with those taxes.
Are you sure you are reading my posts?
Per your second post (you may want to start using the Edit button), now I know you are tail-posting.
I have specifically addressed your points and how, & why, they would not happen.
I will not repeat myself other than to say the poor will pay less due to no sales tax and lower income tax and the wealthy will pay more due to no loop-holes or shelters.
Please read my posts before arguing with me... I cannot figure out why you are making assumptions without reading the posts.
I was, but I've decided to stop for today. :)
It is my opinion that it just bothers you, and many others, that the rich will not be taxed "more" than the poor.
You want a punitive tax, am I right?
Health care is expensive partly because is it subsidized by the government.
About half of all health care in the US is paid for by government and it is a terrible price shopper.
Take for example the prescription drug plan passed recently. Katkeeper notes that the price of her drugs rose to meet the amount of coverage she newly had. Yes, that's exactly how you would expect the market to operate. If the government gives you $2000 a month and says you can only spend it on prescription drugs, then the price of prescription drugs will rise to meet what people will now pay.
This is Economics 101 stuff, and sadly the healthcare companies have taken the course and government has not. You can see a smaller, but similar effect in the price of college tuition, which also rose (at 10%/year a few decades ago) to meet what government was putting into it.
The market forces do not go away simply because you use government to try to "fix" the inequities in them.
Plus, the government was explicitly prohibited from negotiating for lower prescription drug prices.
Healthcare companies have taken Lobbying 101, too.
Health care has nothing to do with how the taxes are taken initially.
This is Economics 101 stuff, and sadly the healthcare companies have taken the course and government has not. You can see a smaller, but similar effect in the price of college tuition, which also rose (at 10%/year a few decades ago) to meet what government was putting into it.
The market forces do not go away simply because you use government to try to "fix" the inequities in them.
I gave my 12 year old this speech last night. She'll spring it on her very conservative civics teacher next week some time and blow her mind. (her teacher loves her willingness to argue politics even if Iraq/environmental issues create the illusion that they are always on opposite sides)
A flat tax is a "Flat Tax"... there are no loopholes, 2% or 10%, that is IT, no matter WHAT, come Armageddon, cancer, three arms, the boogie man or a "religious institution".
Income is income or paying for something is paying for something, end of story.
Just because you say it is the end of the story, doesn't make it so.
Take a look at the
lesson of the movie "Coming To America" as an example of loopholes that will still exist with a flat tax. You probably have heard of this story. Paramount, the maker of the movie, was found to have stolen the idea for the movie from a script submitted by Art Buchwald. He was awarded damages. Even though the movie grossed over $350 million dollars, Paramount claimed there was no "net profit" made. They were able to use a fancy high priced accounting firm to show that the movie made no profit.
Those fancy high priced accounting firms are still going to be around after a flat tax, and they will work for the rich only, showing that they didn't make as much money as everyone assumes they did. Income is income for the poor, but income is not income for the rich.
Gross profit = end of story.
Earnings are earnings.
I think there is probably a lot of misunderstanding between posters here about flat tax and how it will affect poverty, rich, etc. With a flat tax, let’s just arbitrarily pick 1% for example. Currently, we have a progressive tax system, which means the more you make, the more you get taxed. Tax rates vary from 10% for the lowest earners all the way up to 35% for top earners. Amazingly, and very few people ever realize this, but this as far as I know, the
only government sanctioned discrimination written into our laws. They discriminate based on income. Now, to come up with taxable income we take all taxable earnings, and we make deductions.
EVERYONE is eligible to do this regardless of how rich or poor they are. You can either itemize or take a standard deduction to find what your adjusted income would be. I mean, just by giving the option of choosing between the two, the government is allowing people right there to decide how much they can deduct to get the best benefit for the tax payer. Aliantha- you are concerned with the cost of healthcare in the U.S... Well just considering the tax consequences of healthcare, and not any of the social programs to supplement healthcare (because that is an unrelated topic), just know that because EVERYONE is eligible to make deductions, there is also a deduction for qualified healthcare expenses. So even the poor who need healthcare benefit from taking this deduction so they DO pay fewer taxes. Anyways, once you've gotten your adjusted income, you can take tax credits. These nifty little things are for lots of different things. Often, tax credits are given as a means to promote certain activities among taxpayers. There is a tax credit for driving a 'green' car, credits for teachers, for research, having children, going to college, etc. Tax credits are a dollar for dollar reduction in someone’s tax liability. Again, ANYONE who qualifies can take them, regardless of their income. Credits like the Earned Income Credit though, which is typically for lower income tax payers who meet certain criteria can actually even result in a refund for the taxpayer, which means they can get back more than what they paid into the tax system... its like welfare without the stigma! All of the 'loopholes' are not simply ways to get out of paying taxes, but if you know what you are doing and understand the tax code, you can use it to your advantage to minimize your tax liability. And I feel pretty confident that everyone who has posted here tries to find ways to minimize their liability, even if not consciously- because I am sure everyone takes all of the deductions and credits they qualify for to the limits allowed.
Now there are three alternatives that come to mind when there is talk about revamping the tax code. The first has already been talked about in detail here so I won't spend much time. It is the flat tax. Simply put- do away with all income tax withholding, sales tax, capital gains, etc. At the end of the year, you take
ALL of your earnings and multiply by 15% for example. So a person who made $10000 pays $1500 in tax for the year. (Remember no sales taxes, so it isn't as bad as some may think) and a person who is a CEO making $1 million a year in salary and benefits pays $150000. Hell that’s way more than I make in a year! And there are no deductions or credits to get people out of paying. You just pay your fair share. The second option is a National sales tax. This approach is not based on income at all, but rather on consumption. In most proposals for this plan, food is considered a tax free item, so poor people are not hurt by this. However anything else spent with disposable income would be subject to a national sales tax. Again it would be a flat rate, say the 15% again. So it is still equal in that you pay your fair share, plus I'm sure we can all agree that the wealthy have more money therefore they spend more money so they pay more tax.
The third alternative and the one that I prescribe to is called the Fair Tax. I know I've rambled a lot on this one so I will just provide a handy link to a website dedicated to the Fair Tax so that you can also learn more about this plan. In short though it takes the best of the first two alternatives and combines them into one comprehensive plan.
http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/about.htmI'm sure we can all agree that the wealthy have more money therefore they spend more money so they pay more tax.
Nope, most of the wealthy's money sits in savings, investments and in intangibles and is not spent at all... I do not agree and most who know, would find that to be part of the current problem.
Nope, most of the wealthy's money sits in savings, investments and in intangibles and is not spent at all... I do not agree and most who know, would find that to be part of the current problem.
LOL ok rkzenrage that may be true but I guess I didn't say what I meant quite right either. What I meant, and what the national sales tax boils down to is that even if most of a wealthy person's wealth sits in the bank or some other investment house, they will still spend more than your average person. I will agree that there are
some wealthy people that got that way by being frugal, but for the majority, they like to spend their money just as much as the next guy. Whether it be on cars, houses, fine dining, boats, etc... And even when they have money in savings, say under the current system, all that would be taxable would be interest, not the money they've accumulated. And when their money is in investments under the current system, they only get taxed on that when they sell the investments (capital gians). So even if most of their money is in savings or investments, the tax result from those holdings would largely remain unchanged.
I hope that clarified the point I tried to make on that one a little bit.
Currently, we have a progressive tax system, which means the more you make, the more you get taxed. Tax rates vary from 10% for the lowest earners all the way up to 35% for top earners.
Further note (I'm not saying you don't know this, but I have run into people who didn't): The top earners are not taxed 35% on their entire income; just the part over a certain limit. Everyone gets a certain amount of income tax-free, then a certain amount taxed at 10%, then a certain amount taxed at the next level, etc, and the remainder is taxed at 35%. There is no point, based purely on the progressive tax system, at which earning a dollar more will cause your taxes to increase by more than 35 cents. Deductions, credits, AMT, etc. can do weird stuff, though.
Amazingly, and very few people ever realize this, but this as far as I know, the only government sanctioned discrimination written into our laws. They discriminate based on income.
Heh, funny. And parking stickers discriminate based on where you live.
The biggest problem with "flat tax" discussion is that the idea of a single tax rate and the idea of eliminating deductions and credits are in no way tied together. Removing deductions and credits could be done just as easily with progressive tax rates, and removing progressive tax rates could be done while leaving deductions and credits in place. Arguing the merits of one doesn't transfer to the other.
Arguing the merits of one doesn't transfer to the other.
Discussing flat tax means we also have to consider polygamy, because the underlying principles would make us a hypocrite othewise.
Discussing flat tax means we also have to consider polygamy, because the underlying principles would make us a hypocrite othewise.
But only because of the unfair nature of the head of household filing status instead of the multiple discounts one should get for each marriage.
huh? :::shoots you in the face:::
Further note (I'm not saying you don't know this, but I have run into people who didn't): The top earners are not taxed 35% on their entire income; just the part over a certain limit. Everyone gets a certain amount of income tax-free, then a certain amount taxed at 10%, then a certain amount taxed at the next level, etc, and the remainder is taxed at 35%. There is no point, based purely on the progressive tax system, at which earning a dollar more will cause your taxes to increase by more than 35 cents. Deductions, credits, AMT, etc. can do weird stuff, though.
I actually did know this (I'm an accounting studend for those who wondered) but I didn't mention it for simplicity sake. If you are in the top tax bracket, then the actual amount you will be taxed would be $97,653.00 plus 35% of the amount over $336,550.
The biggest problem with "flat tax" discussion is that the idea of a single tax rate and the idea of eliminating deductions and credits are in no way tied together. Removing deductions and credits could be done just as easily with progressive tax rates, and removing progressive tax rates could be done while leaving deductions and credits in place. Arguing the merits of one doesn't transfer to the other.
You are right that those options are not dependent on each other nor are they mutually exclusive. As they say, only 2 things are certain in this world, death and taxes, and we can talk about the fine points for hours upon hours. I was just trying to give those who maybe didn't know much about any of the options out there a bit of a foundation and starting point so they can begin their own research into what they like and dislike about them. All of them are completely customizable and bits and pieces can come and go to fit most situations. I've heard of flat tax rate plans that are based off of all earnings, regardless. I've also heard of others where there is a generous cost of living deduction for all, anywhere up to $20000 so that the first $20000 you make isn't taxed, and then all income starting at $20000.01 is taxed at the flat rate. Personally, I like what I've seen of the Fair Tax which I linked to in my other post, but like I said, I just wanted to give at least a basic foundation so that others knew some of the options.
***Disclaimer*** the above tax rate is taken from the 2006 Single tax schedule. It could be different based on your filling status.
But only because of the unfair nature of the head of household filing status instead of the multiple discounts one should get for each marriage.
LOL there's a discount? Like buy one get one free? Or just 15% off your 3rd wife?
LOL there's a discount? Like buy one get one free? Or just 15% off your 3rd wife?
I can't answer you, Flint shot me.
But if I could reply, I'd say that while DINKs have a marriage penalty, the polygamists make out like bandits with the multiple marriages. You just have to use form 1040P, for polygamists.
:lol: Thanks glatt! oh and I hear you get an additional deduction off your state taxes if you live in Utah.
I can't answer you, Flint shot me.
But if I could reply, I'd say that while DINKs have a marriage penalty, the polygamists make out like bandits with the multiple marriages. You just have to use form 1040P, for polygamists.
Hey man, that's unfair. So, if I were still married, and (theoretically) were ABLE to attract one more man, I'd make out in my taxes? That is discrimination towards the terminally un-mateable.
Hows the weather in here?
Hey man, that's unfair. So, if I were still married, and (theoretically) were ABLE to attract one more man, I'd make out in my taxes? That is discrimination towards the terminally un-mateable.
Just find a few illegals that want to stay in the country. You can marry them so they get a green card and you save on taxes :D
Can we not discuss taxation, and polygamy, without flying off the handle on these flights of fanciful emotionality? People don't wanna pay taxes? Boo-Hoo. I don't have the superhuman omnipotence to lump these issues into a neat package that I feel like caring about. Houston, we have a problem. These tax-mongers are hijacking a perfect discussion about automobile maintenance with their blustery hoopla about poor old granny lazy-bones and her addiction to heating oil. Go tell a bigger fool than myself. I hate America, er, I mean, I hate Americans, er, I mean, hate minorities, damnit, why do I keep saying this stuff? No! Listen to me! You are stupid and I am going to save you from yourselves, and the other guy who says he wants to save you, but really wants to teach you about the no-huggy zones.
Quit bogartin' that shit, Flint! :)
So the Federal Government will flat tax my income at 10% and the State will give up their sales tax revenue? I don't think so.
Is the state going to get a piece of the 10% flat tax to replace the sales tax money?.....and the state income tax money?......and the local income tax, they just instituted, to give property tax relief? No way.:headshake
Why not? Each state gets their percentage.
Why not? Each state gets their percentage.
You think they'll be willing to let the Feds determine that percentage?
Why wouldn't they just determine the percentage based on the percent contribution from each state?
You think they'll be willing to let the Feds determine that percentage?
The Feds are who? State Senators and Reps, if I am not mistaken. Where am I?
Why wouldn't they just determine the percentage based on the percent contribution from each state?
Because some states get more back than they contribute, and if that changed they'd be in real trouble. And while I may be pissed off at some of those states 'round election time, I don't particularly want them to collapse.
The Feds are who? State Senators and Reps, if I am not mistaken. Where am I?
But from a particular state government's perspective, the number of feds from that state is pretty small.
Representative Republic... not a Democracy.
wealth is a great motivator, perhaps the threat of only receiving in direct proportion to what you produce would be good incentive to clean up their acts.
