anyone hear about this?

http://www.taxday08.com/

the idea is to take a day off from spending money, call in sick from work, and possibly take your money out of the bank on april 15 to call attention to how the government is misusing and squandering our tax dollars. i wish there was a way to spread the word about this without implicitly endorsing ron paul but still, i like the idea and plan to participate however i can.

anyone hear about this?

http://www.taxday08.com/

the idea is to take a day off from spending money, call in sick from work, and possibly take your money out of the bank on april 15 to call attention to how the government is misusing and squandering our tax dollars. i wish there was a way to spread the word about this without implicitly endorsing ron paul but still, i like the idea and plan to participate however i can.

Um, while I fully support giving the government a yank now and then when they need it, I don't see how this is really going to hurt the government or get them to notice.
All I see is everyone from the bottom, everyone in the private & public service and commercial industry suffering from this.
Imagine if you will everyone really supporting this, can you vision how much chaos would ensue?
Not only would everyone dependent on public (mail, transportation, police, fire) or private services (utilities, medical, food) suffer, a lot of us out there cannot afford to miss a day at work, the loss of commercial services alone would cost others $$ and possibly their jobs.
In the end, you just know this would cost MORE of our tax dollars to clean up from the resulting mess it could create.
All for forms of protest, but this idea is a little half-baked.

well, i'd be interested in hearing an alternative. strikes are a tried and tested way of getting the government's attention, i'm not sure why this is so different from strikes that have been done throughout history. also, i dont think street demonstrations have much effect anymore.

in addition, i think the bush administration showed where their true priorities lay after september 11, when bush had that revolting moment of telling us that we should respond to the attacks by shopping, and also with these tax rebates, which bush seems to think will help squeeze a final drop of liquidity out of this phony service and debt-based economy that's been getting built up since reagan. an action like this would show that the bigwigs cant count on the "consumers" to keep buying cheap, nonfunctional goods made from chinese sweatshop labor.

and i hate posts that start with "um." it comes off patronizing.

also, if a "mess" ensues and our tax dollars were used to clean it up, it would be about the first time in recent memory our tax money had been used to such a purpose. the government either ignores messes (c.f. katrina), or uses our tax money to CREATE them (c.f. iraq). so if there's a mess from this, dont worry, your tax money will probably keep going to the same people and it will just become yet another lingering fiasco the administration wont do anything about. and it probably wont even rate in the top twenty.

also, if a "mess" ensues and our tax dollars were used to clean it up, it would be about the first time in recent memory our tax money had been used to such a purpose. the government either ignores messes (c.f. katrina), or uses our tax money to CREATE them (c.f. iraq). so if there's a mess from this, dont worry, your tax money will probably keep going to the same people and it will just become yet another lingering fiasco the administration wont do anything about. and it probably wont even rate in the top twenty.


Didn't mean to sound patronizing  :-[, but  I do think this idea is/was not thought out completely.

I don't doubt or have any issue with what the reason for it, just that if this protest is to be participated completely, we'd be harming more than helping.

Realistically, would people really participate? Would they risk their jobs, would people give up on buying a pizza, buying gas, renting a video? How are they going to participate in this protest with no utilities, no transportation (we're not buying gasoline right?) no medical services, no media, etc. I know it sounds mundane, but just those simple things all have much deeper impacts than it may seem on the surface and I really don't see it helping the situation, and as usual the little guy, just trying to get to work and pay his bills suffers...

I read the article, and re-read the article and 2 things disturb me the most.

First is that they want us to call in sick, not spend any money on the economy etc... but they want us to send $600 that EVERYONE will supposedly get back on their taxes.... to Ron Paul.

  "On this day the largest planned march and strike will occur but we will also ensure an economic stimulus package arrives at the Ron Paul Official Campaign. The economic stimulus rebate will be issued in July, however we should have all received our tax returns.
So it is recommended that $600 of your tax return be donated as an economic stimulus for liberty and provided to the one man who intends to shorten the coming economic crash and bring back the gold standard - Ron Paul."
8-P

And second, they want us to pass on the word, by going to Post Offices and highly populated areas and hand out Ron Paul dvd's and articles and such, all of which will not likely be provided to you, so on top of the $600 you gotta send, they want you to buy this stuff to hand out for free. And in doing so we will proclaim that
"April 15 will stand as the First official action of the Second American Revolution."

Is it just me or does anyone else seee where this is ultimately going? April 15th I will be doing everything I normally do, and I won't be sending Ron Paul my $600 that I will supposedly get back on Income Tax!

Send him my supposed rebate?  I don't think so. 

I can go without buying anything for a day, but I won't call in sick to work.  I am one of those who has no sick pay and can't afford to call in. 

Probably shouldn't send the rebate to Ron Paul anyway because you gotta pay it back next tax season :P

I read the article, and re-read the article and 2 things disturb me the most.

First is that they want us to call in sick, not spend any money on the economy etc... but they want us to send $600 that EVERYONE will supposedly get back on their taxes.... to Ron Paul.

   "On this day the largest planned march and strike will occur but we will also ensure an economic stimulus package arrives at the Ron Paul Official Campaign. The economic stimulus rebate will be issued in July, however we should have all received our tax returns.
So it is recommended that $600 of your tax return be donated as an economic stimulus for liberty and provided to the one man who intends to shorten the coming economic crash and bring back the gold standard - Ron Paul."
8-P

And second, they want us to pass on the word, by going to Post Offices and highly populated areas and hand out Ron Paul dvd's and articles and such, all of which will not likely be provided to you, so on top of the $600 you gotta send, they want you to buy this stuff to hand out for free. And in doing so we will proclaim that
"April 15 will stand as the First official action of the Second American Revolution."

Is it just me or does anyone else seee where this is ultimately going? April 15th I will be doing everything I normally do, and I won't be sending Ron Paul my $600 that I will supposedly get back on Income Tax!
i'll actually be surprised if paul is still in the race come april 15. it'd be my hope that this goes on without him as a more general type of action, but i'd ask again, if you dont like this idea, what is the alternative? i've notice that half measures seem not to be doing much. i also think it's telling that people in america have become so strike-averse. all around the world this is pretty much the only way that everyday workers have of getting the government's attention when the government has spun out of control, but in the US we've been propagandized to think of strikes as somehow socialist or authoritarian, which is ironic given the administration's decidedly authoritarian bent the last few years.

naturally i wont go without necessities but i do plan not to engage in any extraneous spending. there's also another aspect to an action like this, which is to demonstrate that there's more to life than money and consumption, that we shouldn't feel an obligation to consume needlessly in order to prop up the economy and if we have an economy that requires buying needless and poorly made goods that wind up in a landfill in a week because they don't work, well, that's an economy in need of reform. but because government officials are making a killing they're unlikely to do anything about it without a firm nudge. but also there's a spiritual component, it's a way of saying we're not "consumers," we're citizens, and we're more than what we buy -- we're human beings and americans who have more to offer our country than just a credit card number and a tax receipt.

... but also there's a spiritual component, it's a way of saying we're not "consumers," we're citizens, and we're more than what we buy -- we're human beings and americans who have more to offer our country than just a credit card number and a tax receipt.


To be honest with you - this is the only part I actually understood. ;D

I'm not trying to be ignorant towards you either, I am actually a bit daft when it comes to politics and such. ;D

So I do understand where you are coming from in regards to this, but maybe that is how they should have put it out, instead of recommending that we send him our money and we do all this great stuff for him. Hey, if someone has to pay their income tax, instead of receiving a refund, does that mean they can send the statement to RP and he will pay it then, since he is the one "who intends to shorten the coming economic crash and bring back the gold standard"?

Personally, I am very thrifty. Everyday for me is pretty much April 15th! ;D

But asking people to call in sick - to lie - that is just absurd IMO.

Well, the gist of it is the transformation of the US economy from a manufacturing-based to a consumer-based economy. We no longer make things, we buy things imported from china and other countries with lax labor and environmental regulations. This is why so many things you buy at Wal-Mart are so cheap. It’s also why they don’t work very well and why your kids’ toys have lead in them.  It’s also why Detroit and so many other cities that were originally built around manufacturing are ghost towns and why the workers there, who used to have decent union jobs with living wages and benefits, have been forced to take jobs in the service sector (e.g., become a cashier at costco or a night manager at mcdonalds) that don’t pay as well and don’t have benefits.

In the old days, say before world war ii, we had a manufacturing-based economy so if we had a recession like we’re having now, the government would fix it by putting people to work making things. But now the government wants to fix the economy by having people buy things. But if we ever want to go back to any kind of sustainable financial system in this country we have to get back to making physical goods. Which is to say the government needs to see us as workers and citizens rather than consumers.

My refund’s going to pay off debts. That’s not really negotiable.

Well, the gist of it is the transformation of the US economy from a manufacturing-based to a consumer-based economy. We no longer make things, we buy things imported from china and other countries with lax labor and environmental regulations. This is why so many things you buy at Wal-Mart are so cheap. It’s also why they don’t work very well and why your kids’ toys have lead in them.  It’s also why Detroit and so many other cities that were originally built around manufacturing are ghost towns and why the workers there, who used to have decent union jobs with living wages and benefits, have been forced to take jobs in the service sector (e.g., become a cashier at costco or a night manager at mcdonalds) that don’t pay as well and don’t have benefits.

In the old days, say before world war ii, we had a manufacturing-based economy so if we had a recession like we’re having now, the government would fix it by putting people to work making things. But now the government wants to fix the economy by having people buy things. But if we ever want to go back to any kind of sustainable financial system in this country we have to get back to making physical goods. Which is to say the government needs to see us as workers and citizens rather than consumers.

My refund’s going to pay off debts. That’s not really negotiable.


Ahhhh - I get it now! ;)

So I am basically doing the right thing right now anyway - because I am so thrifty! ;D

Ahhhh - I get it now! ;)

So I am basically doing the right thing right now anyway - because I am so thrifty! ;D


This is a solution with factors that have nothing to do with solving any problem.  Usually I only spend money on what I need to and our family tries as hard as they can to avoid buying things made in China. 

It's funny but friends and I were talking about something like this the other day.  We were thinking that everyone should pick a day and cancel their cable to protest pay TV.  We thought it would be good for everyone who is not essential to the public well being(police, firefighters, health care) to stay home for a day.  It is a great thought, but don't for a minute think it would happen.  It wasn't that long ago when on the Major holidays people did just what is being asked.  Heck it wasn't so long ago that every Sunday was like that. Everything closed down on Fourth of July, Christmas, New Years.  No one went shopping, people went to neighborhood parks and/or stayed home and barbecued.  Now people would see it as a terrorist plot.  Oh Yeah


I'M IN

In principle I'd support this idea, but this government is unprincipled.  Do you really think our federal government gives a damn about losing money?  This protest is tantamount to jettisoning the barf bags on a kamkiaze run!
:D

Lord knows I don't always agree wtih Rice, but that $600 rebate is likely to end up costing you $1200 in the long run.  I'm doubtful I'll even get mine in the first place.  They'll find an excuse not to pay it out to me.
::)

In principle I'd support this idea, but this government is unprincipled.  Do you really think our federal government gives a damn about losing money?  This protest is tantamount to jettisoning the barf bags on a kamkiaze run!
:D

Lord knows I don't always agree wtih Rice, but that $600 rebate is likely to end up costing you $1200 in the long run.  I'm doubtful I'll even get mine in the first place.  They'll find an excuse not to pay it out to me.
::)
Evidently they DO care because otherwise why is bush so insistent that we’re supposed to frivolously spend money for America? I figure these cats are so bad that, if they ask you to do something, it probably behooves ya to do the opposite. But the other thing is that I think people feel very disempowered and feel like their sole purpose in life is to buy junk and going through an exercise like this could get it across to people, as danoota seems to be pointing out, that there’s more to life than SUVs and McMansions. That could be a nice touch for making average joes and janes feel empowered totally apart from the government and totally apart from what the government’s reaction to this might be. Something like this could be as much a step toward making the current government irrelevant as much as trying to compel them to take a certain action – they get their power from the citizens’ money and without that, they’re nothing. Which has nothing to do with whether they “care” or not.

Evidently they DO care because otherwise why is bush so insistent that we’re supposed to frivolously spend money for America? I figure these cats are so bad that, if they ask you to do something, it probably behooves ya to do the opposite. But the other thing is that I think people feel very disempowered and feel like their sole purpose in life is to buy junk and going through an exercise like this could get it across to people, as danoota seems to be pointing out, that there’s more to life than SUVs and McMansions. That could be a nice touch for making average joes and janes feel empowered totally apart from the government and totally apart from what the government’s reaction to this might be. Something like this could be as much a step toward making the current government irrelevant as much as trying to compel them to take a certain action – they get their power from the citizens’ money and without that, they’re nothing. Which has nothing to do with whether they “care” or not.

I stand by my initial opinion of the tax rebate: It's like an abusive parent bribing a battered child with a new toy. 

Go to the mall and buy some Chinese-manufactured crap. 

This is  kamikaze administration...only it's our airplane and we're the pilots!
:D

oh i definitely agree about the rebate. it's like a payoff to look the other way over what a bunch of effups these cats are. but they do seem to have a stake in keeping consumer spending up, too, because it means they dont have to reform the system and the cash cow wont dry up quite as quickly. it's another way of transferring public funds to private hands... unless, of course, the american people make like commie rats and save the money instead of getting 600 baubles at the dollar store.

^ That's probably why the economy is "tanking", because Americans are like "Holy crap!  I should save some of this money!" :D

oh i definitely agree about the rebate. it's like a payoff to look the other way over what a bunch of effups these cats are. but they do seem to have a stake in keeping consumer spending up, too, because it means they dont have to reform the system and the cash cow wont dry up quite as quickly. it's another way of transferring public funds to private hands... unless, of course, the american people make like commie rats and save the money instead of getting 600 baubles at the dollar store.

The commies don't get to save any money.  It's up to the Central Committee to distribute for the common good (or the Central Comittee's good).  I don't need a bank account, all I need is my hoe (that's a farming implement, wiseguy!)
                                                                                                        http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/twak.gif

Anyway, if I get my rebate, my dentist will get it.  If I was smart, I'd just get 'em all pulled out, pick up a pair of cheap dentures and spend my money on a nice plasma teevee!
:P

i guess i mean more the phony western view of communism, where anything short of maximized consumption is vaguely socialist somehow. there's something in the value system today that views frugality, conservation and savings with suspicion. i mean, think about the funny looks people get if they get an economical or compact car. everyone with SUVs kinda mock you as a socialist hippie type. i mean that's probably not as bad now as it used to be since gas is 100 dollars a barrel but still... that ethos seems really engrained. and it has nothing to do with real communism or socialism, it's this rhetorical reactionary move meant to shore up the indulgence of "pure", utopian capitalism.

i think a good way to think of this might be less like a general strike (although i still like that idea) and something more like a holiday from consumption.

I can support the strike because I don't have any money with which to buy frivolous crap with :D

You know what's annoying?  Is that all the news sites are reporting the tax rebate, but few are actually telling the reader that it's merely an advance on next year's refund and not free money...wife has good point, it's probably planned so that by the time people realize what's going on, Bush is out of office and President Obama will get blamed for it :P

I can support the strike because I don't have any money with which to buy frivolous crap with :D

You know what's annoying?  Is that all the news sites are reporting the tax rebate, but few are actually telling the reader that it's merely an advance on next year's refund and not free money...wife has good point, it's probably planned so that by the time people realize what's going on, Bush is out of office and President Obama will get blamed for it :P
that's true, many of us may transcend consumerism by being flat broke.  ;D hey, suddenly i really DO have nothing to lose but my chains! omg!

i guess i mean more the phony western view of communism, where anything short of maximized consumption is vaguely socialist somehow. there's something in the value system today that views frugality, conservation and savings with suspicion. i mean, think about the funny looks people get if they get an economical or compact car. everyone with SUVs kinda mock you as a socialist hippie type. i mean that's probably not as bad now as it used to be since gas is 100 dollars a barrel but still... that ethos seems really engrained. and it has nothing to do with real communism or socialism, it's this rhetorical reactionary move meant to shore up the indulgence of "pure", utopian capitalism.

i think a good way to think of this might be less like a general strike (although i still like that idea) and something more like a holiday from consumption.

Limbaugh had a long-running pro-SUV campaign in the '90s in which he encouraged SUV drivers to, as you say, mock non-SUV drivers as socialist hippie-types.  The fact that perhaps a lot of people couldn't afford the damn things didn't enter the the picture.  This let people who blew their dough on too much car and too much house to think of themselves and capitalists. 

Oh well, now he's playing "Barak the Magic Negro" on his show!

I was just remembering an account a woman told of life on Stephen Gaskin's commune (The Farm) in Tennessee back in the '70s.  You had to turn all your money over to the administrators when you joined because all wealth was to be shared equally.  However, Stephen and his inner circle were free to buy a new air conditioning system for the main house or buy the latest video equipment, but if you needed a new tooth brush or a pair of socks, you had to appeal to the committee to get it.  Just like the pigs took the apples and milk in "Animal Farm," the leaders of these communist collectives immediately began exploiting their power.  Gaskin didn't make anybody stay on The Farm.  He wasn't like Jim Jones or something.  He was just like, "Hey, man, if you can't be groovy, leave."  The Farm fell apart by the early '80s via attrition. 


I can support the strike because I don't have any money with which to buy frivolous crap with :D
You're not alone there, Rice!
::)

You know what's annoying?  Is that all the news sites are reporting the tax rebate, but few are actually telling the reader that it's merely an advance on next year's refund and not free money...wife has good point, it's probably planned so that by the time people realize what's going on, Bush is out of office and President Obama will get blamed for it :P

Exactly, "free money" is an oxymoron.  Whether it's Obama or Clinton (or McCain for that matter), they'll be blaming the next president for everything!

i'll actually be surprised if paul is still in the race come april 15.




I'm actually surprised that Paul is still in the race NOW!!!



Cat

the idea is to take a day off from spending money, call in sick from work, and possibly take your money out of the bank on april 15 to call attention to how the government is misusing and squandering our tax dollars. 


One day wouldn't do any damage; people would just be deferring spending for another day.  The government doesn't make that much money off of sales taxes anyways.  To really hit home, you'd need to hit the government's revenue arm where it hurts: payroll withholding.

Since many workers are salaried (and since hourly workers still don't get paid at the end of each day, but must also wait until payday where their wages can be tallied and taxes withheld), the only way to accomplish the stated goal would be for a material number of workers to take unpaid leave of absence, and/or to quit their jobs for at least two weeks.  If you're not getting paid, your employer isn't withholding income tax from your paycheck.  (You're also probably short on funds, which means you're not buying stuff you don't need.)  Sole proprietorships and independent contractors, who have no shareholders (and who therefore have no fiduciary duty to their shareholders) could simply take a few months off.  Going further, businesses, which typically pay corporate taxes on a quarterly basis, have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and can't just close up shop without selling their assets to the highest bidder (who might choose to continue running the business instead of shutting it down), but that doesn't mean their boards of directors couldn't just stop showing up for work until a buyer was found.

Some crazy chick wrote a book about that once.  Something about the guy who carries the world on his shoulders giving up on the whole rat race. 

Maybe there'd be enough communally-minded individuals who'd volunteer to work for the government, and maybe they'd be competent enough that the government would in turn be able to take care of everyone without any money changing hands.  I'd bet on something between Idiocracy and the crazy lady's book. 

And as I file out a form that tells me I've (for the Nth year running) paid more in taxes than I paid for housing, food, booze, transporation, amusement, and everything else put together, I begin to wonder if it's worth it.  What I don't spend I put into investments, but the war hasn't been profitable to me this year, and I'm beginning to think like the crazy lady again.  I'm hardly the guy who carries the world on his shoulders, but why do I bother to go to work every day when the government gets more out of my labor than I do?  Why do I continue to feed the parasites?  Why not just... shrug?

I'm trying to decide if Ron Paul has jumped the shark and is batsh** insane or possibly the greatest politician that will never be President.

Anyone know the name of the second song of the second video on that link Tia left? That Ron Paul would use "Promentory" from Last of the Mohicans in an ad is almost worth sending him 600$... well, not, but I'm still impressed with him.

As for a consumer strike on April 15th, I think it would be more a symbolic gesture than anything else.

What the hell, I'm in. The only thing Hillobama and McPain inspire me to do is change the channel.

Ant

One day wouldn't do any damage; people would just be deferring spending for another day.  The government doesn't make that much money off of sales taxes anyways.  To really hit home, you'd need to hit the government's revenue arm where it hurts: payroll withholding.

well, i dont think the strike part is about making less money so you dont pay taxes, exactly. it's about withholding the services you provide as a worker for a day.


Some crazy chick wrote a book about that once.  Something about the guy who carries the world on his shoulders giving up on the whole rat race.  i actually read and thoroughly enjoyed atlas shrugged. but you're right. ayn rand was completely crazy. i actually think a more appropriate analogy would be a fat rich man on an island eating half the available food and otherwise gobbling up all the island's resources. for a while all the people on the island serving him would think, hey, if anything happens to this guy the economy on our island would collapse! he's buying all the food, he's giving us all jobs serving him and gathering all the food he eats. but before too long they have a eureka moment, send the fat man packing, and even though the island's general GDP might go down everyone suddenly realizes they have a hell of a lot more available to them.

basically, if you consume more than you produce, you're part of the problem. and i submit most super-rich people are in the latter category, regardless of the claims they themselves make about how essential they are to the rest of our well being.

And as I file out a form that tells me I've (for the Nth year running) paid more in taxes than I paid for housing, food, booze, transporation, amusement, and everything else put together, I begin to wonder if it's worth it. 
i take that as a sign you're not drinking enough booze.

And as I file out a form that tells me I've (for the Nth year running) paid more in taxes than I paid for housing, food, booze, transporation, amusement, and everything else put together, I begin to wonder if it's worth it. 



I think you need a new accountant

I think you need a new accountant
i was brooding on that. there isn't even a 50% tax bracket anymore, is there?

anyone hear about this?

http://www.taxday08.com/

the idea is to take a day off from spending money, call in sick from work, and possibly take your money out of the bank on april 15 to call attention to how the government is misusing and squandering our tax dollars. i wish there was a way to spread the word about this without implicitly endorsing ron paul but still, i like the idea and plan to participate however i can.


Anyone who starts these kind of 'empty' protests must not have ever taken a math class to realize whether you don't shop,miss a day from work or don't buy gas a certain day, it is all made up after the day of the event....

Find a bettter way to protest, I would say avoid buying anything made in China whenever you come across it..I've had to look harder to find items as MARTHA STEWART,TARGET,K-MART AND WALMART, AND SEARS all sell massive amounts of China made items..by not buying they will get the message, we don't ned to rely on them and can help them if they help us combat the N. Koreran nuclear weapon issue and other political points overseas that they have influence over.

I do my part already. 

i was brooding on that. there isn't even a 50% tax bracket anymore, is there?


http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/crocker-in-britney-clip.jpg
LEAVE FOO-BAR ALONE YOU BASTARDS!

:D


well, i dont think the strike part is about making less money so you dont pay taxes, exactly. it's about withholding the services you provide as a worker for a day.
i actually read and thoroughly enjoyed atlas shrugged. but you're right. ayn rand was completely crazy. i actually think a more appropriate analogy would be a fat rich man on an island eating half the available food and otherwise gobbling up all the island's resources. for a while all the people on the island serving him would think, hey, if anything happens to this guy the economy on our island would collapse! he's buying all the food, he's giving us all jobs serving him and gathering all the food he eats. but before too long they have a eureka moment, send the fat man packing, and even though the island's general GDP might go down everyone suddenly realizes they have a hell of a lot more available to them.
Karma for the analogy.  I find it humorous how right-wingers can call Marxists pie-in-the-sky idealists and then turn around and quote Ayn Rand.  When put into practice as supply side economics, the Ayn Rand "objectivist" philosophy turns out to be abject failure like the Marxist-Leninism practiced behind the Iron Curtain.  Now, my friends on the far left will write you screeds about why so-called communism didn't work and so will right-wingers write you manifestos about why Reaganomics didn't work.  It's all subjunctive.  It's all based on "if."  Don't give me "if."  It just didn't work.  Period. 

basically, if you consume more than you produce, you're part of the problem. and i submit most super-rich people are in the latter category, regardless of the claims they themselves make about how essential they are to the rest of our well being.
If Americans produced more than we consume, we'd be Chinese!

i take that as a sign you're not drinking enough booze.

"enough booze"  Another oxymoron. 

Here's an idea.  Instead of just refraining from spending that money...  why not invest it?

Americans really need to learn how to save money, and investment is very underrated among the average American.

Here's an idea.  Instead of just refraining from spending that money...  why not invest it?

Americans really need to learn how to save money, and investment is very underrated among the average American.

Oh gimme an effing break.
Most Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs trying to pay for healthcare, education, and housing.  It is true Americans by the millions make unwise consumer choices every day, but this does not negate the fact that our standard of living is going down the crapper.  Instead of addressing the problem, our plutocratic government merely made bankruptcy illegal and handed the reins over to the banks.

The "ownership society" means the man owns your ass. 

What Americns really need to learn is how to stop voting against their own economic interests. 

Oh gimme an effing break.
Most Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs trying to pay for healthcare, education, and housing.  It is true Americans by the millions make unwise consumer choices every day, but this does not negate the fact that our standard of living is going down the crapper.  Instead of addressing the problem, our plutocratic government merely made bankruptcy illegal and handed the reins over to the banks.

The "ownership society" means the man owns your ass. 

What Americns really need to learn is how to stop voting against their own economic interests. 


I definitely agree with that last sentence, but wouldn't you say that part of the problem is that people have been relying on the government to serve their economic interests when investment plans in the private sector are generally safer than depending on Social Security?

The point I'm trying to make is that the government is probably the worst role model for spending habits.  It spends itsellf further into debt than any family is allowed to.  Most of this results from war and the inefficiencies of federal social programs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should move away from depending on the government to financially support us, which is essentially what we do when we continue supporting things like Social Security.

In addition to this, I'd actually argue the federal government has made bankruptcy laws too lenient, not too tight.  Look at how easy it is for business owners to go "bankrupt" but still hold onto their personal property.  We need to bring back debtors' prison.  That'll encourage less people to be so careless with money that others lend to them.

We need to bring back debtors' prison.  That'll encourage less people to be so careless with money that others lend to them.


You need to go and get your head examined.

You need to go and get your head examined.


So, you don't think it's a good idea to imprison CEOs that declare bankruptcy just so that they can't have personal property seized when they embezzle money from a loan that is intended for a company's coffers?

So, you don't think it's a good idea to imprison CEOs that declare bankruptcy just so that they can't have personal property seized when they embezzle money from a loan that is intended for a company's coffers?

It is ludicrous for me to even address this, but here goes:

We are headed in the direction of debtor's prison.  There are two tiers to our justice system, one for rich people the other for everybody else.  You get the best justice money can buy.  This is a fascist state. CEOs will always be able to declare bankruptcy because the corporations own the politicians.  If we get debtor's prison it will be for people who owe money from defaulted mortgages, credit card debt, student loans, and medical bills.  The debtor's prisons will be labor camps where the debtor willl work off his debt (plus the $100 per day rent for room and board) at $1.50 an hour.  Wal Mart will own and administrate the labor camps and the prisoners will build Wal Mart products.  This will be the McCain Administration's jobs program!
:o

It is ludicrous for me to even address this, but here goes:

We are headed in the direction of debtor's prison.  There are two tiers to our justice system, one for rich people the other for everybody else.  You get the best justice money can buy.  This is a fascist state. CEOs will always be able to declare bankruptcy because the corporations own the politicians.  If we get debtor's prison it will be for people who owe money from defaulted mortgages, credit card debt, student loans, and medical bills.  The debtor's prisons will be labor camps where the debtor willl work off his debt (plus the $100 per day rent for room and board) at $1.50 an hour.  Wal Mart will own and administrate the labor camps and the prisoners will build Wal Mart products.  This will be the McCain Administration's jobs program!
:o


Why don't we have a threshold of debt that must be crossed, so that the only people who will be subject to debtors' prison will be the Enron types?

HOORAH! HOORAH!! The (retail)gods must be listening...just saw the headline: TRADER JOE'S MARKETS CUT SALE OF FOOD FROM CHINA...

Hope it spreads as I have often mentioned of the China products... :)   < this sign is no endorsement or subliminal  advertisement for a 'certain' chain that uses it as a logo-it just expresses my delight).... I know where I'm shopping soon!

I think you need a new accountant


Naw, it's mostly my own fault.  I'm a bachelor - no opportunities to "hire" a wife to "work" for "my company", or "gift" a few shares of stock to the kids every year.  I have no kids - no tax deductions.  I rent because I refused to jump into the real estate bubble - why take on a $3-4K+/month mortgage (and $500+/month property tax) to get a tax deduction?  Being a bachelor, I don't need a 2000-square foot house, and rent on a nice single-bedroom condo is way cheaper than $4-500, even with the mortgate interest tax deduction in play... which it isn't, because as a childfree bachelor, my income puts me firmly in AMT-land, so I wouldn't get full advantage of the tax breaks anyways.

Dumb-ass me.  Work, live beneath my means, invest the difference.  Shoulda done the proper thing, you know, buy a house I couldn't afford, marry a woman to share the living expenses, and when she's got a couple of kids and I'm doing 80 hours a week to pay the bills, she could get bored because I'm never around, but at least I'll get a great tax deduction as long as I'm buying her second husband's house...

Sure, compared to my married friends and co-workers, I'm still ahead of them at the end of the month when it comes to having money to invest, but that's not the point -- I'm paying all these extra taxes due to lifestyle choices, and it's not like I actually need federal assistance to keep women away from me.  I'm enough of a jerk that I can do that all by myself :)


i was brooding on that. there isn't even a 50% tax bracket anymore, is there?


For the record, no, there isn't, not even with state income taxes (although some states get close, especially when you include 6.2% social security taxes on the first $97K).

I think you're counting money stashed in a bank account, brokerage account, or 401(k) as "spent".  In one sense, you're right, buying a 50-inch plasma display is no different than buying 100 shares of XYZ.  At the end of the year, you can sell the TV for whatever TVs are worth, and the shares for whatever shares of XYZ are worth. 

To clarify my original statement, I differentiate between buying things for conumption and buying things for investment; that is, I don't count investments and savings as "spending".  That is, the government takes about 30-35% of my income, I spend 20-25% of it on myself, and I invest the rest.

My bitterness is from the fact that every year, I get reminded that out of $XYZ I've earned, the government bought more shiny toys with my money than I did.  I can't fix this by buying more shiny toys myself -- because if I do, I'll end up eating microwaved cat food in my 60s.  Someday I'll have enough savings to quit my job, drop my taxable income to the point that I'm barely paying any taxes, and live off my savings -- enjoying my sweet sweet revenge on all of you...

...one Presidential term before the income tax is abolished for a national sales tax of 30% :)

Actually, I'm only half-joking there -- I advocate the national sales tax.  If I had to pay an extra 30% on everything I bought, there'd be no tax advantage to retiring and living off the principal, but I'd be delighted to stick with working tax-free for a living and getting tax-free returns on my investments.


I find it humorous how right-wingers can call Marxists pie-in-the-sky idealists and then turn around and quote Ayn Rand.


Naw, we get exactly what she was on about, and she was pretty pie-in-the-sky herself.  Her original title for the book was The Strike.  The only difference between leftists' calls for a general strike and Atlas Shrugged is who walks off the job -- the employee or the employer.  (well, there's one subtle distinction; Rand's strikers individually walked off the job -- no unions, no collective decisionmaking, just individuals deciding to shut down their factories and not show up for work anymore -- but that's a philosophical distinction; the macroeconomic effects were the same)

Naw, it's mostly my own fault.  I'm a bachelor - no opportunities to "hire" a wife to "work" for "my company", or "gift" a few shares of stock to the kids every year.  I have no kids - no tax deductions.  I rent because I refused to jump into the real estate bubble - why take on a $3-4K+/month mortgage (and $500+/month property tax) to get a tax deduction?  Being a bachelor, I don't need a 2000-square foot house, and rent on a nice single-bedroom condo is way cheaper than $4-500, even with the mortgate interest tax deduction in play... which it isn't, because as a childfree bachelor, my income puts me firmly in AMT-land, so I wouldn't get full advantage of the tax breaks anyways.

Dumb-ass me.  Work, live beneath my means, invest the difference.  Shoulda done the proper thing, you know, buy a house I couldn't afford, marry a woman to share the living expenses, and when she's got a couple of kids and I'm doing 80 hours a week to pay the bills, she could get bored because I'm never around, but at least I'll get a great tax deduction as long as I'm buying her second husband's house...

Sure, compared to my married friends and co-workers, I'm still ahead of them at the end of the month when it comes to having money to invest, but that's not the point -- I'm paying all these extra taxes due to lifestyle choices, and it's not like I actually need federal assistance to keep women away from me.  I'm enough of a jerk that I can do that all by myself :)



  Ha!  Sweet... ;D

  Ha!  Sweet... ;D


Marriage:  Find a woman you hate and buy her a house.

Divorce:  You know why it's expensive?  Because it's worth it!

Happiness:  Learning from other people's mistakes.

Wisdom:  Realizing that I could have made those same mistakes too.  But by the grace of my stubborn-arsed selfishness, I could have been one of those guys too.

Naw, it's mostly my own fault.  I'm a bachelor - no opportunities to "hire" a wife to "work" for "my company", or "gift" a few shares of stock to the kids every year.  I have no kids - no tax deductions.  I rent because I refused to jump into the real estate bubble - why take on a $3-4K+/month mortgage (and $500+/month property tax) to get a tax deduction?  Being a bachelor, I don't need a 2000-square foot house, and rent on a nice single-bedroom condo is way cheaper than $4-500, even with the mortgate interest tax deduction in play... which it isn't, because as a childfree bachelor, my income puts me firmly in AMT-land, so I wouldn't get full advantage of the tax breaks anyways.





You are bitter.  I lived the single renter lifestyle for 40 years, without making enough money for investments.  Paying the bills and eating in the same month was a my vacation. But I never tried shifting the reasons for that on the lack of tax deductions.  And those deductions that have come with now having a child do not in anyway improve my status.  I bought a house well within my means(don't buy anything you can't afford on unemployment), the deductions for that and the child care deduction do not in any way come close to the amount added to take care of them.

You are bitter. 

Yes, I know the rhetoric of a bitter man when I hear it.  I know because I'm bitter too.  I just have much more to be bitter about than he does, so I just try and keep a lid on it!
>:(

Yes, I know the rhetoric of a bitter man when I hear it.  I know because I'm bitter too.  I just have much more to be bitter about than he does, so I just try and keep a lid on it!
>:(


  I don't think the sentiment is bitter at all.  It's pragmatic and realistic, not a bad thing.  I, too, tend to use a finer gauge mesh through which to filter reality.  You won't believe the chaff left on top..!

  Nah, I think you would... :)

You are bitter.

Yep, I am.  (Sorry, Davester, I am :) 

It ain't exactly rational, but there it is.  My bitterness on taxation probably comes from the same sort of dark place in the human psyche that came up with class envy.  Og sees all the fruit in the territory controlled by Ook, he grabs the nearest animal bone, and it's the opening sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey all over again. 

I just didn't think they'd be inflating away the value of my savings while simultaneously taxing the hell out of my income.  (I thought they'd be deflating the assets of the poor in order to hold them more firmly in wage slavery, which serves me right -- duh, the poor are already in wage slavery, you don't have to do anything to keep them there!  But by inflating away the value of the assets saved in the middle class, you can add them to the wage-slave pool too!  Hindsight's 20/20, and at least I had the option to short the financials and get into commodities two years ago...  Asstastic macroeconomic policy might be the government's fault, but sloppy trading against it is still my fault.)

Long story short... I'm not a fan of Reich's proposed solutions (basically, taking more of my money and making it even less likely that I'll someday be able to join the lower ranks of the upper class), but the graphs  from his op-ed piece (use www.bugmenot.com to bypass NYTimes registration) are fascinating and go dead-on-topic as to where different demographics "spend" (or invest) their money.  Wish I'd had that link handy last night!

I lived the single renter lifestyle for 40 years, without making enough money for investments.  Paying the bills and eating in the same month was a my vacation. But I never tried shifting the reasons for that on the lack of tax deductions.  And those deductions that have come with now having a child do not in anyway improve my status.  I bought a house well within my means(don't buy anything you can't afford on unemployment), the deductions for that and the child care deduction do not in any way come close to the amount added to take care of them.


Ouch.  40 years, you're stronger than I am.  I'm not sure whether to ask how or why?  I treaded financial water for 3-4 years at a high-stress job and found it extremely embittering.  I threw up my hands, walked away and lucked (talent may have gotten me the job, but pure dumb luck made me send a resume there instead of somewhere else) into my present gig, where I've been for the past 10 years.  I've mellowed a lot since then; the job's fun, we don't pull 60-hour weeks, and I've got enough of a cushion saved that I'm within a few years of being able to retire.  All of which makes it easy to mellow out, at least until April 15th of every year, when I'm painfully reminded that my tribe's Silverbacks still get to buy more shiny toys with their taxes than I get to buy with my non-investment budget.

Long story short... I'm not a fan of Reich's proposed solutions (basically, taking more of my money and making it even less likely that I'll someday be able to join the lower ranks of the upper class)
You know who made it unlikely you will somedaby be able to join the lower ranks of the upper class?  The upper ranks of the upper class.  That is the result--if not the intent--of Reaganomics.
::)

You know who made it unlikely you will somedaby be able to join the lower ranks of the upper class?  The upper ranks of the upper class.  That is the result--if not the intent--of Reaganomics.


Which upper-upper-classmen are you talking about?  (Let's ignore the Hollywood crowd; they're middle-upper-class - tons of money, but zero actual political power beyond the ability to issue goofy celebrity endorsements and feel-good proclamations for their fans.)

Buffett is squarely on both sides of that fence.  On one hand, he'll argue for taxes so high that I'll never catch up with him.  On the other hand, at least he makes an honest buck.  I don't think Buffett intends to keep us almost-po' folk down, but that may also be the result of Congress paying too much attention to his tax policies and not enough attention to free markets.

At least when the Gord Gekkoes of the world go out and rapaciously carve up companies for outsourcing, the shareholders of the LBO targets get a good premium.  Sure, Blackstone and Carlyle go on to make 20% for themselves and another 20% for their investors when they buy an ailing company out, but at least they pay a hefty up-front premium to the existing shareholders when they do.  Outside of the LBO world, anyone can invest in the military-industrial complex and at least get some return on their tax dollars when a war breaks out.  (My mistake was in thinking we wanted to win the war, not merely use it as an excuse to drive commodity prices up and the dollar down.)

For what it's worth, at least most of Obama's $200B infrastructure boondoggle will go, in the end, to publicly-traded companies (cement manufacturers, steel recyclers, industrial equipment manufacturers, electrical utilities, maybe some more boost to the solar and nuclear crowds), which is more than I can say for Hillary!'s health care boondoggle, which will be frittered away among so many layers of bureaucracy that even the HMO and pharmaceutical sectors won't be able to make much money out of it.  For the Jackass party, that's a refreshing change.  (Heh, Obama's got a new slogan... "Change you can invest in!").  The spending platform's not much different than the Republicans, and I'd be willing to call the spread on "extra taxes paid" versus "roads for Americans to drive on instead of roads for Iraqis to blow themselves up on" as fair value for the additional dollars I'll be forced to throw into the pork barrel.

I think it's a good idea. If you're not outraged by the times we live in then you're not paying attention. We're in need of a revolution and we need to stop whining and do something! We can't let our kids be ashamed of how conformist and lazy we were.

Here's a little treat to get us riled up :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aEaxa187B0

I think it's a good idea. If you're not outraged by the times we live in then you're not paying attention. We're in need of a revolution and we need to stop whining and do something! We can't let our kids be ashamed of how conformist and lazy we were.

Here's a little treat to get us riled up :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aEaxa187B0

Start a whining revolution!  I come from a long line of whiners.  Took 3rd in state finals senior year!

Start a whining revolution!  I come from a long line of whiners.  Took 3rd in state finals senior year!


I see!


And this is your role-model,no?  ;)

http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/crocker-in-britney-clip.jpg