When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Sky Dancer]

You think? About 20% of the people of Greece have jobs these days, the country is bankrupt, and is surviving only by huge infusions of 'free' money from its neighbors and us. It will probably not see prosperity again for a very long time if ever. Why is that? Because they have implemented the very policies that our present government seems to be gung ho to emulate.

The Founders wanted government to secure our rights and then get out of our way, allow us to form whatever society we wished to have and live our lives unimpeded by government authority. In the first century, it worked and the USA enjoyed the most freedoms and the most rapidly growing economy the world has ever known. Beginning with the first Roosevelt administration and gradually escalating since that time, however, we have seen erosion of that principle. Our current administration seems to intend to dismantle what is left of it.

Far reaching? If the frog doesn't jump out of the pot when the water starts heating up, it will be boiled.

We could get out of Iraq for one thing. That would save a ton of money.
COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

Balance the Budget

Ya... Obama promised to do that. Another broken promise that must piss off you liberals. Where are all of your anti-war protests? Could it possibly be that you don't really mind war that much, as long as your guy is running it?

That's a stereotype of liberals. I'm a liberal and I mind the war. Always have. I was against us going into Iraq from the beginning.

President Obama hasn't done enough to get us out of Iraq. He ran on that platform and his response has been disappointing to me.

Our economy is run on warfare. Just look at how much of our GNP is weapons. The US is the top supplier of weapons. Then we're so shocked when they use our weapons against us.

 

[Nonelitist]

We could get out of Iraq for one thing. That would save a ton of money.
COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

Balance the Budget

Ya... Obama promised to do that. Another broken promise that must piss off you liberals. Where are all of your anti-war protests? Could it possibly be that you don't really mind war that much, as long as your guy is running it?

That's a stereotype of liberals. I'm a liberal and I mind the war. Always have. I was against us going into Iraq from the beginning.

President Obama hasn't done enough to get us out of Iraq. He ran on that platform and his response has been disappointing to me.

Appreciate your honesty on this matter.

 

[rightwinger]

We could get out of Iraq for one thing. That would save a ton of money.
COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

Balance the Budget

Ya... Obama promised to do that. Another broken promise that must piss off you liberals. Where are all of your anti-war protests? Could it possibly be that you don't really mind war that much, as long as your guy is running it?

That's a stereotype of liberals. I'm a liberal and I mind the war. Always have. I was against us going into Iraq from the beginning.

President Obama hasn't done enough to get us out of Iraq. He ran on that platform and his response has been disappointing to me.

Our economy is run on warfare. Just look at how much of our GNP is weapons. The US is the top supplier of weapons. Then we're so shocked when they use our weapons against us.

Two wars are a major drain on our economy. It is time to start pulling back on Bush's noble experiment on nation building and enforced democracy. Come 2012, we will reach the ten year mark in Afghanistan. If they can't police themselves in ten years, it is time to question if they ever will

 

[froggy]

According to the Govt, never.

 

[Mr Natural]

Ya... Obama promised to do that. Another broken promise that must piss off you liberals. Where are all of your anti-war protests? Could it possibly be that you don't really mind war that much, as long as your guy is running it?

That's a stereotype of liberals. I'm a liberal and I mind the war. Always have. I was against us going into Iraq from the beginning.

President Obama hasn't done enough to get us out of Iraq. He ran on that platform and his response has been disappointing to me.

Our economy is run on warfare. Just look at how much of our GNP is weapons. The US is the top supplier of weapons. Then we're so shocked when they use our weapons against us.

Two wars are a major drain on our economy. It is time to start pulling back on Bush's noble experiment on nation building and enforced democracy. Come 2012, we will rach the ten year mark in Afghanistan. If they can't police themselves in ten years, it is time to question if they ever will

Why would they when they have us to do it for them?

 

[Avorysuds]

That's a stereotype of liberals. I'm a liberal and I mind the war. Always have. I was against us going into Iraq from the beginning.

President Obama hasn't done enough to get us out of Iraq. He ran on that platform and his response has been disappointing to me.

Our economy is run on warfare. Just look at how much of our GNP is weapons. The US is the top supplier of weapons. Then we're so shocked when they use our weapons against us.

Two wars are a major drain on our economy. It is time to start pulling back on Bush's noble experiment on nation building and enforced democracy. Come 2012, we will rach the ten year mark in Afghanistan. If they can't police themselves in ten years, it is time to question if they ever will

Why would they when they have us to do it for them?

See what welfare gets you =D

 

[Foxfyre]

And I'm wondering why our liberal friends have deflected the discussion to Iraq and the costs of running wars, etc.?

Was the thread topic of how much money should people be allowed to make that uncomfortable?

 

[rightwinger]

And I'm wondering why our liberal friends have deflected the discussion to Iraq and the costs of running wars, etc.?

Was the thread topic of how much money should people be allowed to make that uncomfortable?

It has been asked and answered over 24 pages

 

[Foxfyre]

And I'm wondering why our liberal friends have deflected the discussion to Iraq and the costs of running wars, etc.?

Was the thread topic of how much money should people be allowed to make that uncomfortable?

It has been asked and answered over 24 pages

Okay. If you think there's nothing more to say on the subject, then obviously there's nothing more to say. That's cool. Enjoy turning this thread into yet another one of a gazillion threads on Iraq which apparently hasn't been settled despite the hundreds and hundreds of pages devoted to that.

 

[Mr Natural]

When you can put on two wars and cut taxes at the same time, you've probably made enough money.

 

[ConHog]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Should it be taxed at higher levels or should they pay more money in taxes?

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

I support abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a federal sales tax. Obviously rich people would pay more than poor people because they buy more.

 

[rightwinger]

Should it be taxed at higher levels or should they pay more money in taxes?

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

I support abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a federal sales tax. Obviously rich people would pay more than poor people because they buy more.

Not as a percentage of their income
The poor pay a higher percentage for necessities

Consumption tax is also a disincentive to spend which would inhibit our economy

 

[Foxfyre]

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

I support abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a federal sales tax. Obviously rich people would pay more than poor people because they buy more.

Not as a percentage of their income

The poor pay a higher percentage for necessities

I agree with this. The rich would pay a lot more, yes, but not as a percentage of their income.

The poor would be paying taxes on everything they earn because they spend all that they earn.

But do you agree that the poor should have a guaranteed wage? And that the rich should be allowed to make only so much and no more?

 

[ConHog]

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

I support abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a federal sales tax. Obviously rich people would pay more than poor people because they buy more.

Not as a percentage of their income
The poor pay a higher percentage for necessities

Consumption tax is also a disincentive to spend which would inhibit our economy

Oh, I would exempt certain necessities from said tax, I wasn't giving all the details of my idea, which of course are not my original ideas anyway and can be found all over the net, I was just stating the basis.

And as far as the poor paying for everything, there is no reason a tax refund couldn't be issued at the end of the year on a national sales tax just as it is now with the income tax. If you're income fell below a certain level at the end of the year you get $X back say. I mean the details would have to be hashed out of course.

But as the system stands now, the top 1% pay 90% of the taxes and we have people who are getting a "refund" every year that is more than actually paid in. NO ONE should be making money from the IRS in this way, but many do. That isn't right.

 

[rightwinger]

I support abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a federal sales tax. Obviously rich people would pay more than poor people because they buy more.

Not as a percentage of their income

The poor pay a higher percentage for necessities

I agree with this. The rich would pay a lot more, yes, but not as a percentage of their income.

The poor would be paying taxes on everything they earn because they spend all that they earn.

But do you agree that the poor should have a guaranteed wage? And that the rich should be allowed to make only so much and no more?

Of course not.

I believe in a "Safety net" to cover you no matter how much you screw up (3 Hots and a cot)

The rich can make as much as they want as long as they contribute to the society that enables them to grow so rich

 

[Foxfyre]

I support abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a federal sales tax. Obviously rich people would pay more than poor people because they buy more.

Not as a percentage of their income
The poor pay a higher percentage for necessities

Consumption tax is also a disincentive to spend which would inhibit our economy

Oh, I would exempt certain necessities from said tax, I wasn't giving all the details of my idea, which of course are not my original ideas anyway and can be found all over the net, I was just stating the basis.

And as far as the poor paying for everything, there is no reason a tax refund couldn't be issued at the end of the year on a national sales tax just as it is now with the income tax. If you're income fell below a certain level at the end of the year you get $X back say. I mean the details would have to be hashed out of course.

But as the system stands now, the top 1% pay 90% of the taxes and we have people who are getting a "refund" every year that is more than actually paid in. NO ONE should be making money from the IRS in this way, but many do. That isn't right.

Once you start eliminating 'necessities' you put politics right back into it. Who decides what is or is not a 'necessity'. Before long you have a tax code and interpretations that take up shelf after shelf in the library as the current tax code does.

Let's keep it simple and treat every wage earner, rich and poor, exactly alike so that everybody has a stake in the system, everybody has a stake in the laws passed, and politics are removed from the process 100%.

And I don't want a guaranteed minimum income nor any cap placed on earnings in the private sector. I am quite comfortable with caps placed on earnings for those in government or those receiving government contracts.

 

[ConHog]

Not as a percentage of their income
The poor pay a higher percentage for necessities

Consumption tax is also a disincentive to spend which would inhibit our economy

Oh, I would exempt certain necessities from said tax, I wasn't giving all the details of my idea, which of course are not my original ideas anyway and can be found all over the net, I was just stating the basis.

And as far as the poor paying for everything, there is no reason a tax refund couldn't be issued at the end of the year on a national sales tax just as it is now with the income tax. If you're income fell below a certain level at the end of the year you get $X back say. I mean the details would have to be hashed out of course.

But as the system stands now, the top 1% pay 90% of the taxes and we have people who are getting a "refund" every year that is more than actually paid in. NO ONE should be making money from the IRS in this way, but many do. That isn't right.

Once you start eliminating 'necessities' you put politics right back into it. Who decides what is or is not a 'necessity'. Before long you have a tax code and interpretations that take up shelf after shelf in the library as the current tax code does.

Let's keep it simple and treat every wage earner, rich and poor, exactly alike so that everybody has a stake in the system, everybody has a stake in the laws passed, and politics are removed from the process 100%.

And I don't want a guaranteed minimum income nor any cap placed on earnings in the private sector. I am quite comfortable with caps placed on earnings for those in government or those receiving government contracts.

Who decides what necessities are? Food , clothing, shelter. PERIOD. No exceptions, no additions, Food items aren't taxed. And no, booze and ciggies don't count as food, clothing isn't taxed and any household expenses, you know utility bills, mortgage payment, rent, aren't taxed. Everything else get's taxed. No provision for changing that, EVER

. On average an American spends about 25% of his disposable income on non necessities, regardless of how much that income is. So the man who makes $20K is going to be taxed on about $5K of that, while the man who makes $100K is going to pay taxes on about $25K of that. Let's figure a 8% national sales tax. The man who make $20K will pay $400 in national sales taxes over the year, while the man who made $100K will pay $2000 in national sales tax over the year. So we have the man who makes $20K paying an effective tax rate of 2% while the man who makes $100K is paying an effective tax rate of you guessed it 2%.

The difference? Currently the man making $20K is paying NOTHING and in fact is getting a "refund" back which is nothing but welfare subsidized by the man who is making $100K and being taxed at 35%. Is that fair? Shouldn't EVERYONE have to pay SOMETHING? is 2% too much to ask? So yes, the poorer would pay more, because currently they pay NOTHING, but too god damned bad, they have an obligation to, and that obligation is NOT to collect a check every year that is labeled "refund" but is actually a welfare check.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Oh, I would exempt certain necessities from said tax, I wasn't giving all the details of my idea, which of course are not my original ideas anyway and can be found all over the net, I was just stating the basis.

And as far as the poor paying for everything, there is no reason a tax refund couldn't be issued at the end of the year on a national sales tax just as it is now with the income tax. If you're income fell below a certain level at the end of the year you get $X back say. I mean the details would have to be hashed out of course.

But as the system stands now, the top 1% pay 90% of the taxes and we have people who are getting a "refund" every year that is more than actually paid in. NO ONE should be making money from the IRS in this way, but many do. That isn't right.

Once you start eliminating 'necessities' you put politics right back into it. Who decides what is or is not a 'necessity'. Before long you have a tax code and interpretations that take up shelf after shelf in the library as the current tax code does.

Let's keep it simple and treat every wage earner, rich and poor, exactly alike so that everybody has a stake in the system, everybody has a stake in the laws passed, and politics are removed from the process 100%.

And I don't want a guaranteed minimum income nor any cap placed on earnings in the private sector. I am quite comfortable with caps placed on earnings for those in government or those receiving government contracts.

Who decides what necessities are? Food , clothing, shelter. PERIOD. No exceptions, no additions, Food items aren't taxed. And no, booze and ciggies don't count as food, clothing isn't taxed and any household expenses, you know utility bills, mortgage payment, rent, aren't taxed. Everything else get's taxed. No provision for changing that, EVER

. On average an American spends about 25% of his disposable income on non necessities, regardless of how much that income is. So the man who makes $20K is going to be taxed on about $5K of that, while the man who makes $100K is going to pay taxes on about $25K of that. Let's figure a 8% national sales tax. The man who make $20K will pay $400 in national sales taxes over the year, while the man who made $100K will pay $2000 in national sales tax over the year. So we have the man who makes $20K paying an effective tax rate of 2% while the man who makes $100K is paying an effective tax rate of you guessed it 2%.

The difference? Currently the man making $20K is paying NOTHING and in fact is getting a "refund" back which is nothing but welfare subsidized by the man who is making $100K and being taxed at 35%. Is that fair? Shouldn't EVERYONE have to pay SOMETHING? is 2% too much to ask? So yes, the poorer would pay more, because currently they pay NOTHING, but too god damned bad, they have an obligation to, and that obligation is NOT to collect a check every year that is labeled "refund" but is actually a welfare check.

Great points.

What so many liberals and progressives fail to understand is that punishing CEO's and the highly successful will not improve their lives at all.

We need to teach self-reliance. Teach work ethic. Government handouts with no strings attached ultimately rob individuals of their dignity. But, in the liberal welfare state, who needs dignity when they've got big brother to take care of everything?

The entire economic program of Obama and his liberal/progressive cronies is based on confiscating more and more money from those who have earned it, produced it, and saved it, and transferring it to a political and bureaucratic class in washington to spend as they see fit. People should be encouraged to work hard. To Save. To strive for excellence and take PRUDENT risks. Instead, liberals continue enacting asinine policies that spread the misery by shrinking the productive sector of the economy and then then proclaiming the failed result is "fairness".

It's sad, but very true!....Those who back this president and liberal policies in general, need to wtfu as to what this president is actually going to do to them. And none of it is good.

 

[Foxfyre]

Once you start eliminating 'necessities' you put politics right back into it. Who decides what is or is not a 'necessity'. Before long you have a tax code and interpretations that take up shelf after shelf in the library as the current tax code does.

Let's keep it simple and treat every wage earner, rich and poor, exactly alike so that everybody has a stake in the system, everybody has a stake in the laws passed, and politics are removed from the process 100%.

And I don't want a guaranteed minimum income nor any cap placed on earnings in the private sector. I am quite comfortable with caps placed on earnings for those in government or those receiving government contracts.

Who decides what necessities are? Food , clothing, shelter. PERIOD. No exceptions, no additions, Food items aren't taxed. And no, booze and ciggies don't count as food, clothing isn't taxed and any household expenses, you know utility bills, mortgage payment, rent, aren't taxed. Everything else get's taxed. No provision for changing that, EVER

. On average an American spends about 25% of his disposable income on non necessities, regardless of how much that income is. So the man who makes $20K is going to be taxed on about $5K of that, while the man who makes $100K is going to pay taxes on about $25K of that. Let's figure a 8% national sales tax. The man who make $20K will pay $400 in national sales taxes over the year, while the man who made $100K will pay $2000 in national sales tax over the year. So we have the man who makes $20K paying an effective tax rate of 2% while the man who makes $100K is paying an effective tax rate of you guessed it 2%.

The difference? Currently the man making $20K is paying NOTHING and in fact is getting a "refund" back which is nothing but welfare subsidized by the man who is making $100K and being taxed at 35%. Is that fair? Shouldn't EVERYONE have to pay SOMETHING? is 2% too much to ask? So yes, the poorer would pay more, because currently they pay NOTHING, but too god damned bad, they have an obligation to, and that obligation is NOT to collect a check every year that is labeled "refund" but is actually a welfare check.

Great points.

What so many liberals and progressives fail to understand is that punishing CEO's and the highly successful will not improve their lives at all.

We need to teach self-reliance. Teach work ethic. Government handouts with no strings attached ultimately rob individuals of their dignity. But, in the liberal welfare state, who needs dignity when they've got big brother to take care of everything?

The entire economic program of Obama and his liberal/progressive cronies is based on confiscating more and more money from those who have earned it, produced it, and saved it, and transferring it to a political and bureaucratic class in washington to spend as they see fit. People should be encouraged to work hard. To Save. To strive for excellence and take PRUDENT risks. Instead, liberals continue enacting asinine policies that spread the misery by shrinking the productive sector of the economy and then then proclaiming the failed result is "fairness".

It's sad, but very true!....Those who back this president and liberal policies in general, need to wtfu as to what this president is actually going to do to them. And none of it is good.

Your points are good, but I think Conhog is missing the potential for abuse even limiting tax exemptions to food, clothing, shelter. What constitutes food? Potato chips? Oreos? Ice cream? Expensive spices? Caviar? Live lobsters flown in from Maine this morning? The herd of cows you say you will butcher for beef? The pot bellied pig that is actually a pet but which would be food in many cultures?

What constitutes clothing? The underwear and T-shirts from Wal-mart sure, but how about a $400 Alviro Marin purse? Or diamond accessories. Or a Rolex watch? Or a $10,000 cashmere coat or a collection of cashmere sweaters?

What constitutes shelter? Rush Limbaugh's multi-million dollar condo in NYC or the homemade houseboat my cousin lives in for the summer? Does that constitute one's primary residence and what determines a primary residence? Does it include utilities, maintenance, or local taxes on that residence? Furnishings?

As you can see, there is all sorts of ways to manipulate the system and to play politics with it too. And as each item is evaluated as to whether it is or is not tax exempt, the volumes of laws, regulation, and policy begin to fill those library shelves.

I say limit how much money can be gifted to anybody and then tax income at a flat rate on all income of any variety that will be paid by everybody. Even there the system can be manipulated as to what is a valid net income earned by commerce and industry, but it is more difficult to manipulate that. Simplify. Simplify.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Who decides what necessities are? Food , clothing, shelter. PERIOD. No exceptions, no additions, Food items aren't taxed. And no, booze and ciggies don't count as food, clothing isn't taxed and any household expenses, you know utility bills, mortgage payment, rent, aren't taxed. Everything else get's taxed. No provision for changing that, EVER

. On average an American spends about 25% of his disposable income on non necessities, regardless of how much that income is. So the man who makes $20K is going to be taxed on about $5K of that, while the man who makes $100K is going to pay taxes on about $25K of that. Let's figure a 8% national sales tax. The man who make $20K will pay $400 in national sales taxes over the year, while the man who made $100K will pay $2000 in national sales tax over the year. So we have the man who makes $20K paying an effective tax rate of 2% while the man who makes $100K is paying an effective tax rate of you guessed it 2%.

The difference? Currently the man making $20K is paying NOTHING and in fact is getting a "refund" back which is nothing but welfare subsidized by the man who is making $100K and being taxed at 35%. Is that fair? Shouldn't EVERYONE have to pay SOMETHING? is 2% too much to ask? So yes, the poorer would pay more, because currently they pay NOTHING, but too god damned bad, they have an obligation to, and that obligation is NOT to collect a check every year that is labeled "refund" but is actually a welfare check.

Great points.

What so many liberals and progressives fail to understand is that punishing CEO's and the highly successful will not improve their lives at all.

We need to teach self-reliance. Teach work ethic. Government handouts with no strings attached ultimately rob individuals of their dignity. But, in the liberal welfare state, who needs dignity when they've got big brother to take care of everything?

The entire economic program of Obama and his liberal/progressive cronies is based on confiscating more and more money from those who have earned it, produced it, and saved it, and transferring it to a political and bureaucratic class in washington to spend as they see fit. People should be encouraged to work hard. To Save. To strive for excellence and take PRUDENT risks. Instead, liberals continue enacting asinine policies that spread the misery by shrinking the productive sector of the economy and then then proclaiming the failed result is "fairness".

It's sad, but very true!....Those who back this president and liberal policies in general, need to wtfu as to what this president is actually going to do to them. And none of it is good.

Your points are good, but I think Conhog is missing the potential for abuse even limiting tax exemptions to food, clothing, shelter. What constitutes food? Potato chips? Oreos? Ice cream? Expensive spices? Caviar? Live lobsters flown in from Maine this morning? The herd of cows you say you will butcher for beef? The pot bellied pig that is actually a pet but which would be food in many cultures?

What constitutes clothing? The underwear and T-shirts from Wal-mart sure, but how about a $400 Alviro Marin purse? Or diamond accessories. Or a Rolex watch? Or a $10,000 cashmere coat or a collection of cashmere sweaters?

What constitutes shelter? Rush Limbaugh's multi-million dollar condo in NYC or the homemade houseboat my cousin lives in for the summer? Does that constitute one's primary residence and what determines a primary residence? Does it include utilities, maintenance, or local taxes on that residence? Furnishings?

As you can see, there is all sorts of ways to manipulate the system and to play politics with it too. And as each item is evaluated as to whether it is or is not tax exempt, the volumes of laws, regulation, and policy begin to fill those library shelves.

I say limit how much money can be gifted to anybody and then tax income at a flat rate on all income of any variety that will be paid by everybody. Even there the system can be manipulated as to what is a valid net income earned by commerce and industry, but it is more difficult to manipulate that. Simplify. Simplify.

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?