Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

  Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the
American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this
until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is
saying. Read below...............

  Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income.  In other words
tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a
nut case! You aren't going to believe this.

  Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market
profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true
- all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed
Minorities!

  This woman is frightening.
  She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income,
(didn't Marx say something like this?), in our country and at the same time
limiting the amount the rich can invest.'  (I am not rich, are you?)

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and
minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants
in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed
minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to
guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as
'Americans'.' 

(Read that quote again and again and let it sink in.)  'Lower your
retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it'. 

Instead of dong this, what they ought to do is phase out Social Security.

Yes, far more terrifying than taxing people who actually need the money to finance wars and corporate tax breaks. Forget impreachment, this is worthy of a good old fashioned stoning and not the dirty hippy kind.

Surprise, surprise, it's fake as hell.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

Really saver, check your sources so you don't look like an ass, mmk?

I would've thought people running smear campaigns would be more creative than to invent something that should actually help the economy

According to snopes, pelosi said something in support of a windfall tax in 2006 and last month someone started circulating the rumor that she wants a 100% tax, which would be a more extreme form of socialism than any prominent American politician espouses despite right-wing radio's claims to the contrary. But she never said 100%, or even enough that the taxed would even miss it.

Surprise, surprise, it's fake as hell.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

Really saver, check your sources so you don't look like an ass, mmk?


But he does it so well.

Instead of dong this, what they ought to do is phase out Social Security.
actually we should phase out the government entirely and live in trees. when someone gets old, we can just kick him off his branch.

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

  Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the
American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this
until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is
saying. Read below...............

  Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income.  In other words
tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a
nut case! You aren't going to believe this.

  Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market
profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true
- all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed
Minorities!

  This woman is frightening.
  She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income,
(didn't Marx say something like this?), in our country and at the same time
limiting the amount the rich can invest.'  (I am not rich, are you?)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and
minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants
in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed
minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to
guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as
'Americans'.'

(Read that quote again and again and let it sink in.)  'Lower your
retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it'.   
Is this a really surprise? Pelosi is from California which has the biggest illegal immigrant population in the US of any state. She wants to cater to the illegal immigrants in California. This is all about political motive for Pelosi and nothing else.

Yeah Equalizing income uh hasn;t Europe done that or tried to that for the past decade and how has that worked out for them? Not too good.

Is this a really surprise? Pelosi is from California which has the biggest illegal immigrant population in the US of any state. She wants to cater to the illegal immigrants in California. This is all about political motive for Pelosi and nothing else.

Yeah Equalizing income uh hasn;t Europe done that or tried to that for the past decade and how has that worked out for them? Not too good.
what does a hoax about taxing retirement income have to do with immigration?

what does a hoax about taxing retirement income have to do with immigration?
Because she supports the illegal immigrants getting Amnesty to be in the US legally. Plus, Pelosi maybe wants a second term as Speaker Of the House so maybe she needs the illegal immigrants in CA to vote for her again. You can vote in some states even if you are illegally.

Because she supports the illegal immigrants getting Amnesty to be in the US legally. Plus, Pelosi maybe wants a second term as Speaker Of the House so maybe she needs the illegal immigrants in CA to vote for her again. You can vote in some states even if you are illegally.
ok, but what does this have to do with a hoax about taxing retirement benefits? i'm aware that nancy pelosi is trying to turn us all mexican but i'm still not getting that part.

Because she supports the illegal immigrants getting Amnesty to be in the US legally. Plus, Pelosi maybe wants a second term as Speaker Of the House so maybe she needs the illegal immigrants in CA to vote for her again. You can vote in some states even if you are illegally.


I've found no record of illegal immigrants being allowed to vote anywhere.  Can you show me where you found this information?

Oh yeah, and in case anyone misses it, saver's original post is FALSE.


Surprise, surprise, it's fake as hell.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

Really saver, check your sources so you don't look like an ass, mmk?

Yeah Equalizing income uh hasn;t Europe done that or tried to that for the past decade and how has that worked out for them? Not too good.


Yea, equalizing income....

Can I have my income equalized with Warren Buffet, instead of Jimmy, the slacker that is 38 years old guy that still lives with his parents and the most ambitious job he has ever had was night clerk at the local 7-11?

why are we even talking about "equalizing income" when the trend's going the other way, toward radical income inequality, and has been doing so at least since the 1980s? sorta like how we're still talking about this hoax as though it's real, we're talking about "equalizing income" as though anything of the sort were taking place in america, and it's not.

why are we even talking about "equalizing income" when the trend's going the other way, toward radical income inequality, and has been doing so at least since the 1980s? sorta like how we're still talking about this hoax as though it's real, we're talking about "equalizing income" as though anything of the sort were taking place in america, and it's not.


Because it's easier to ignore the facts.

I don't wanna live in a tree.  Unless it's the Swiss Family Robinson kind.

actually we should phase out the government entirely and live in trees. when someone gets old, we can just kick him off his branch.



LOL    ;D


Yea, equalizing income....

Can I have my income equalized with Warren Buffet, instead of Jimmy, the slacker that is 38 years old guy that still lives with his parents and the most ambitious job he has ever had was night clerk at the local 7-11?


If you don't want Jimmy Buffets share I will certainly take any part of it you don't care for.  Gotta be a good couple of hundred million.

LOL    ;D

If you don't want Jimmy Buffets share I will certainly take any part of it you don't care for.  Gotta be a good couple of hundred million.





And then we can all waste away in Margaritaville.  :D ;D ;D ;D




Cat

actually we should phase out the government entirely and live in trees. when someone gets old, we can just kick him off his branch.


Well, I'm thinking more along the lines of...  phase out Social Security and replace it with universal healthcare.

Well, I'm thinking more along the lines of...  phase out Social Security and replace it with universal healthcare.
hmm. now we're having a conversation.

hmm. now we're having a conversation.


Indeed...  but the problem is that the AARP fights most SS reform.  If it weren't for them, we'd probably find the route to universal healthcare a little easier.

Indeed...  but the problem is that the AARP fights most SS reform.  If it weren't for them, we'd probably find the route to universal healthcare a little easier.


Social Security and universal health care are two different issues. We should have both.

Social Security and universal health care are two different issues. We should have both.


Absolutely!!!!

Absolutely!!!!
to play devil's advocate, though... paying for it all IS an issue, is it not?

to play devil's advocate, though... paying for it all IS an issue, is it not?


Paying for anything is an issue, whether it be roads, schools, health care, mental health.  The no tax people want to have it all for free.  My thought is ok, don't pay taxes, but don't utilize anything that goes along with tax dollars.  Keep your cars off of the road, your feet off of the pavement, your kids out of schools, forget about hospitals, etc.  See how long that lasts.  The big problem is in oversight.  What we need are fiscal wonks who are able to watch the money, how it is spent, and keep it from being spent of 800 toilet seats at the Pentagon.

Pelosi wants to do THAT?

She's from the state that supported Reagan in the 60's! Is this the reason why? Dumb (I_am_a_loser_who_has_no_respect_for_women)! 8-P

Social Security and universal health care are two different issues. We should have both.


Social Security is an outdated and outmoded idea.

Retirement is a personal responsibility.  Healthcare is a public responsibility.

Essentially, America has it backwards.

Paying for anything is an issue, whether it be roads, schools, health care, mental health.  The no tax people want to have it all for free.  My thought is ok, don't pay taxes, but don't utilize anything that goes along with tax dollars.  Keep your cars off of the road, your feet off of the pavement, your kids out of schools, forget about hospitals, etc.  See how long that lasts.  The big problem is in oversight.  What we need are fiscal wonks who are able to watch the money, how it is spent, and keep it from being spent of 800 toilet seats at the Pentagon.
more devil's advocate: what i hear from anti-tax people is that they aren't opposed to reasonable government spending, it's that cutting taxes actually generates more revenue by stimulating productivity. the odd thing is, they cite statistics, too, and though i strongly suspect the statistics are misleading and it's not true that lowering taxes has a significant stimulative effect (unless the taxes were punitively high to be begin with) it becomes a difficult argument to refute just because then i need to present counter-statistics and it's just not a subject i know much about.

as for social security, different people say different things about when it will go insolvent and conservatives want to trump up that it will go insolvent sooner, but it's plain, from a practical point of view, that something's going to have to be done to reform social security at some point in the next few decades. unfortunately the subject's gotten so politicized it's hard to have a rational debate about it.

actually, it's hard these days to have a rational debate about much of anything. which is a big part of the reason why i'm so end-timesy lately.

Paying for anything is an issue, whether it be roads, schools, health care, mental health.  The no tax people want to have it all for free.  My thought is ok, don't pay taxes, but don't utilize anything that goes along with tax dollars.  Keep your cars off of the road, your feet off of the pavement, your kids out of schools, forget about hospitals, etc.  See how long that lasts.  The big problem is in oversight.  What we need are fiscal wonks who are able to watch the money, how it is spent, and keep it from being spent of 800 toilet seats at the Pentagon.



http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif





Cat

Pelosi wants to do THAT?

She's from the state that supported Reagan in the 60's! Is this the reason why? Dumb (I_am_a_loser_who_has_no_respect_for_women)! 8-P
it's a hoax.

it's a hoax.


You have to say it louder, and slower.


IT  IS  A  HOAX!!!!

This incendiary stuff gets passed around by people who stick to first paragraphs and first pages. 

Social Security is an outdated and outmoded idea.

Retirement is a personal responsibility.  Healthcare is a public responsibility.

Essentially, America has it backwards.

If we live long enough we get to the age where we cannot work.  Social Security, retirement, and health care are interrelated. 

more devil's advocate: what i hear from anti-tax people is that they aren't opposed to reasonable government spending, it's that cutting taxes actually generates more revenue by stimulating productivity. the odd thing is, they cite statistics, too, and though i strongly suspect the statistics are misleading and it's not true that lowering taxes has a significant stimulative effect (unless the taxes were punitively high to be begin with) it becomes a difficult argument to refute just because then i need to present counter-statistics and it's just not a subject i know much about.

as for social security, different people say different things about when it will go insolvent and conservatives want to trump up that it will go insolvent sooner, but it's plain, from a practical point of view, that something's going to have to be done to reform social security at some point in the next few decades. unfortunately the subject's gotten so politicized it's hard to have a rational debate about it.

actually, it's hard these days to have a rational debate about much of anything. which is a big part of the reason why i'm so end-timesy lately.


I am a bit older than you guys, so I have seen more than of few guys who have skirted paying social security.  Usually guys with their own one man business who have worked under the table, cash only.  They ranted and raved about taxes and social security, they could manage their money better etc.  Then, all of the sudden they are in their 50s and 60s and they find that health care is a necessity, and real expensive and they need help and now social security and medicaid aren't such a bad thing.  They think of themselves as anti tax heroes, but now when they need it it's "well why shoudn't I, everyone else does"  So when I hear people under the age of 50 complaining about medicaid and social security I pull back a little, but I am thinking how I have heard this all my life, just wait....just wait.

I am a bit older than you guys, so I have seen more than of few guys who have skirted paying social security.  Usually guys with their own one man business who have worked under the table, cash only.  They ranted and raved about taxes and social security, they could manage their money better etc.  Then, all of the sudden they are in their 50s and 60s and they find that health care is a necessity, and real expensive and they need help and now social security and medicaid aren't such a bad thing.  They think of themselves as anti tax heroes, but now when they need it it's "well why shoudn't I, everyone else does"  So when I hear people under the age of 50 complaining about medicaid and social security I pull back a little, but I am thinking how I have heard this all my life, just wait....just wait.


Exactly.  I know the type.  It's a Lord of the Flies mentality:  We ARE NOT all in this together; I'm just responsible for ME and MINE and the rest of you can fug off!  I work 80 hours a week so keep your hands off my money and my toys, you liberal f%g bastards....

Uh...I lost my right hand in a wood chipper.  Can you guys help me out?
::)

The only people who would really benefit from the riddance of Social Security don't have to work with their hands.  They could retire tomorrow and live off of dividends in perpetuity.  They don't worry about money, never have, and don't know what it's like.  It's easy for them to create the "rugged individualism" fiction for the rest of us.

If we live long enough we get to the age where we cannot work.  Social Security, retirement, and health care are interrelated. 


Most people nowadays plan to work until they die (or pretty close to it).

They might be related, but universal healthcare is much more feasible than SS.  Retirement is usually better when investing in the private sector.

I am a bit older than you guys, so I have seen more than of few guys who have skirted paying social security.  Usually guys with their own one man business who have worked under the table, cash only.  They ranted and raved about taxes and social security, they could manage their money better etc.  Then, all of the sudden they are in their 50s and 60s and they find that health care is a necessity, and real expensive and they need help and now social security and medicaid aren't such a bad thing.  They think of themselves as anti tax heroes, but now when they need it it's "well why shoudn't I, everyone else does"  So when I hear people under the age of 50 complaining about medicaid and social security I pull back a little, but I am thinking how I have heard this all my life, just wait....just wait.


I understand your perspective, but that's exactly why I want SS to be disbanded.  It's too easy for people to avoid paying into it, and it's too easy for politicians to rape its funds.

Basically, it was a nice idea, but times have changed, and so must the system.

I understand your perspective, but that's exactly why I want SS to be disbanded.  It's too easy for people to avoid paying into it, and it's too easy for politicians to rape its funds.



Pretty strong phraseology there!
:o

That sh*t started under Reagan because his tax cuts for the rich didn't work, and the national debt STILL doubled by 1984!

I understand your perspective, but that's exactly why I want SS to be disbanded.  It's too easy for people to avoid paying into it, and it's too easy for politicians to rape its funds.

Basically, it was a nice idea, but times have changed, and so must the system.



Even if it is disbanded when people are old and infirm we as a society should not just figure we can wipe our hands and tell them "tough luck, you should have thought of that when you were 30".  I think it is true that you measure a society by the way it treats its children and its elderly, and for someone who has to care for an elderly parent I will say times, have changed, and with respect to the caring of the elderly, that is the problem. 

I will add that I could possibly be tempted to consider disbanding the system if the wages of the average person allowed them to live a decent lifestyle as well as save.  I find that the people most apt to lean towards a dismantling of the social security system are also against the idea of a minimum/maximum wage as well as anti-union.  Without an equitable wage scale for the working person, or regulation of business practices in regards to employment, the isn't any way the typical person would ever make enough to even consider retirement. 

Exactly.  I know the type.  It's a Lord of the Flies mentality:  We ARE NOT all in this together; I'm just responsible for ME and MINE and the rest of you can fug off!  I work 80 hours a week so keep your hands off my money and my toys, you liberal f%g bastards....

Uh...I lost my right hand in a wood chipper.  Can you guys help me out?
::)

The only people who would really benefit from the riddance of Social Security don't have to work with their hands.  They could retire tomorrow and live off of dividends in perpetuity.  They don't worry about money, never have, and don't know what it's like.  It's easy for them to create the "rugged individualism" fiction for the rest of us.



Are these the same right-wingers who are anti-abortion, anti stem cell research?  Life is precious "in theory" until it comes to helping that life lead a productive life than forget it.  Coincidentally without proper public health care thousands of those lives wouldn't be healthy enough to go off to war.  If that would be the case we'd have to go to extremes and send the kids of members the desireables of Social Darwinist America.

Pretty strong phraseology there!
:o

That sh*t started under Reagan because his tax cuts for the rich didn't work, and the national debt STILL doubled by 1984!



Sort of.  Al Gore was right when he talked about there needing to be a "lockbox on SS funds", but by the time he even mentioned that, it was too late.

Funding issues had been a problem from the get-go though.  The first major stress on SS funds came when the government decided to apply its funds to people who had never paid into it.  The generations before SS were able to get retirement funds without ever having to pay into the system, which was a very financially unsound way of doing things.

Of course, by Reagan's time, politicians had swept away a lot of the funds to their pet projects, and Reagan wasn't exactly interested in changing that trend.

Are these the same right-wingers who are anti-abortion, anti stem cell research?  Life is precious "in theory" until it comes to helping that life lead a productive life than forget it.  Coincidentally without proper public health care thousands of those lives wouldn't be healthy enough to go off to war.  If that would be the case we'd have to go to extremes and send the kids of members the desireables of Social Darwinist America.


They're the ones who believe in social Darwinism but not real Darwinism!
:D

Even if it is disbanded when people are old and infirm we as a society should not just figure we can wipe our hands and tell them "tough luck, you should have thought of that when you were 30".  I think it is true that you measure a society by the way it treats its children and its elderly, and for someone who has to care for an elderly parent I will say times, have changed, and with respect to the caring of the elderly, that is the problem. 

I would rather simply have a healthcare system in place to take care of the elderly, since that's where most of their money typically goes anyway.  Beyond that, funding is the responsibility of a family, not the government.

I will add that I could possibly be tempted to consider disbanding the system if the wages of the average person allowed them to live a decent lifestyle as well as save.  I find that the people most apt to lean towards a dismantling of the social security system are also against the idea of a minimum/maximum wage as well as anti-union.  Without an equitable wage scale for the working person, or regulation of business practices in regards to employment, the isn't any way the typical person would ever make enough to even consider retirement. 


I'm anti-union, but that's another discussion.  I used to be opposed to minimum wage laws as well, but I have to say that I generally support them now.

The main argument why I support them is that most low wage businesses run on a skeleton crew already, so the counterargument that people get laid off due to rising minimum wages holds little relevance to reality.

Basically, I have no problem with increasing the wages of the poorest people, but I do also believe that the payroll tax is an obstacle to economic growth.  Income taxes are inevitable, but a federal sales tax would be a better alternative to the payroll tax -- and would subsequently better fund a more efficient socialized healthcare system sans Social Security.

Basically, I have no problem with increasing the wages of the poorest people, but I do also believe that the payroll tax is an obstacle to economic growth.  Income taxes are inevitable, but a federal sales tax would be a better alternative to the payroll tax -- and would subsequently better fund a more efficient socialized healthcare system sans Social Security.


Personally, I am a big believer of a "flat tax".

The first $30-40k of income is tax free.  After that everybody pays a set rate.  0 deductions.  You take what you earn, a percentage of that is sent in, period.  The richer you are, the more you pay.  Those that are in the lower income brackets pay nothing.

Of course this would never happen, millions of accountants would be put out of work.

Personally, I am a big believer of a "flat tax".

The first $30-40k of income is tax free.  After that everybody pays a set rate.  0 deductions.  You take what you earn, a percentage of that is sent in, period.  The richer you are, the more you pay.  Those that are in the lower income brackets pay nothing.

Of course this would never happen, millions of accountants would be put out of work.


In a way, I agree.  What that set percentage should be, however, is up for debate.

The thing I like most about your proposal is the income threshold.  I think it's wrong that we tax poorer people on their income.  10% means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich guy.

In a way, I agree.  What that set percentage should be, however, is up for debate.

The thing I like most about your proposal is the income threshold.  I think it's wrong that we tax poorer people on their income.  10% means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich guy.


Exactly.  This is why I had to lauch when the tax break given at the beginning of the Bush presidency was described by some as a "tax break for the rich".

In that act, everybody was given a set amount.  $300 for single people, $600 for couples.

Now at the time I was living in a veterans shelter, and that $300 mad a huge difference.  But Bill Gates got the exact same $300 that I did.  I doubt that it even paid for a pair of his shoes.

The amount taxed is open for debate, that is why I did not list one.  It can even be moved up or down, depending on the state of the economy.  But for it to work, I believe that the poorest people should pay no tax at all, and no deductions be allowed.  The only exception I would consider would be for retirement savings.  But that would not eliminate the tax, simply defer it until retirement.

This means no playing with the books to aviod paying taxes.  To me the problem is not as much of the rich not paying their fair share, as much as useing legal ways to avoid it.  And we all do it.  Unless you fule with the 1040EZ form, you are just as guilty of doing all you can to avoid paying taxes.

But for some reason, people think it is criminal when somebody with more money then they do does it.  They happily take all the deductions they can get, but gripe when others do the exact same thing.

the rebate checks were only a very small portion of the bush tax cuts. he also changed the rates of taxation. in fact the rebate checks were an estimated fronting of a portion of the anticipated tax savings people were supposed to get.

Exactly.  This is why I had to lauch when the tax break given at the beginning of the Bush presidency was described by some as a "tax break for the rich".

In that act, everybody was given a set amount.  $300 for single people, $600 for couples.

Now at the time I was living in a veterans shelter, and that $300 mad a huge difference.  But Bill Gates got the exact same $300 that I did.  I doubt that it even paid for a pair of his shoes.

The amount taxed is open for debate, that is why I did not list one.  It can even be moved up or down, depending on the state of the economy.  But for it to work, I believe that the poorest people should pay no tax at all, and no deductions be allowed.  The only exception I would consider would be for retirement savings.  But that would not eliminate the tax, simply defer it until retirement.

This means no playing with the books to aviod paying taxes.  To me the problem is not as much of the rich not paying their fair share, as much as useing legal ways to avoid it.  And we all do it.  Unless you fule with the 1040EZ form, you are just as guilty of doing all you can to avoid paying taxes.

But for some reason, people think it is criminal when somebody with more money then they do does it.  They happily take all the deductions they can get, but gripe when others do the exact same thing.


Good points.  With a system like this, tax policy would be more transparent.  Still, there are plenty of ways to move money around that the rich can do that you or I can't.  Those would need to be investigated further under a flat tax.

Good points.  With a system like this, tax policy would be more transparent.  Still, there are plenty of ways to move money around that the rich can do that you or I can't.  Those would need to be investigated further under a flat tax.
i'd be really hesitant under a flat tax to give up tax credit incentives. that's a very useful way to steer private industry and entrepreneurs toward innovation. i also think we stand to lose a LOT of revenue under a flat tax. that means ballooning deficits, far bigger than we have now, even.

and as i say above, the rebate checks aren't the tax cuts. they were advances against the tax cuts, and in no way provide any evidence at all that the tax cuts didn't benefit the rich disproportionately.

i'd be really hesitant under a flat tax to give up tax credit incentives. that's a very useful way to steer private industry and entrepreneurs toward innovation. i also think we stand to lose a LOT of revenue under a flat tax. that means ballooning deficits, far bigger than we have now, even.


Well, there are other ways to take care of that.

For one, I would like to see taxes eliminated on stock dividends.  After all, taxes have already been paid several times on the money already (on the money invested from payroll taxes, as well as taxes on the corporation's profits).  Right now one of the reasons the stock market is so flakey is that all the drive is into increasing the price of the stock itself.

For example, Microsoft never paid dividends until 2003.  And currently they pay a whopping 13 cents per share.  So in order to really see any kind of a return on your stock, you have to sell it.  And that defeats the purpose of "long term investing".

This would have several benefits.  For one, it would reward companies for actually being profitable, not for simply driving up the price of their stock.  It would also encourage people to leave their money in more long-term, instead of selling because the value drops 2 cents per share.

There are plenty of ways to encourage investment without having to "sponsor" it through tax deductions.  People in the 1980's were screaming that the loss of deductions for interest on investment property would kill that market.  And it did not have much of an impact at all.  People continued to buy investment property, buy on credit cards, and all of the other things that got cut as deductions.

And one thing I have long felt should not be taxed are federal-state-county-city bonds.  I always thought it was stupid to loan the Government money, then turn right around and tax you for it. 

Well, there are other ways to take care of that.

For one, I would like to see taxes eliminated on stock dividends.  After all, taxes have already been paid several times on the money already (on the money invested from payroll taxes, as well as taxes on the corporation's profits).  Right now one of the reasons the stock market is so flakey is that all the drive is into increasing the price of the stock itself.

For example, Microsoft never paid dividends until 2003.  And currently they pay a whopping 13 cents per share.  So in order to really see any kind of a return on your stock, you have to sell it.  And that defeats the purpose of "long term investing".

This would have several benefits.  For one, it would reward companies for actually being profitable, not for simply driving up the price of their stock.  It would also encourage people to leave their money in more long-term, instead of selling because the value drops 2 cents per share.

There are plenty of ways to encourage investment without having to "sponsor" it through tax deductions.  People in the 1980's were screaming that the loss of deductions for interest on investment property would kill that market.  And it did not have much of an impact at all.  People continued to buy investment property, buy on credit cards, and all of the other things that got cut as deductions.

And one thing I have long felt should not be taxed are federal-state-county-city bonds.  I always thought it was stupid to loan the Government money, then turn right around and tax you for it. 
the problems these suggestions dont address is the problem of re-directing private funds toward projects taht are for the public good but without an initial nudge will never see private investment. for instance, the transfer of energy to alternative sources. without public sector intervention to incentivize green energy we'll never see it; the energy companies will just keep drilling oil till it's gone.

i'd be really hesitant under a flat tax to give up tax credit incentives. that's a very useful way to steer private industry and entrepreneurs toward innovation. i also think we stand to lose a LOT of revenue under a flat tax. that means ballooning deficits, far bigger than we have now, even.

and as i say above, the rebate checks aren't the tax cuts. they were advances against the tax cuts, and in no way provide any evidence at all that the tax cuts didn't benefit the rich disproportionately.


Whether it would decrease or increase revenue depends on a lot of things: the percentage, the economic cycle, etc.

It is true that removing deductions does harm innovation though.

Well, there are other ways to take care of that.

For one, I would like to see taxes eliminated on stock dividends.  After all, taxes have already been paid several times on the money already (on the money invested from payroll taxes, as well as taxes on the corporation's profits).  Right now one of the reasons the stock market is so flakey is that all the drive is into increasing the price of the stock itself.

For example, Microsoft never paid dividends until 2003.  And currently they pay a whopping 13 cents per share.  So in order to really see any kind of a return on your stock, you have to sell it.  And that defeats the purpose of "long term investing".

This would have several benefits.  For one, it would reward companies for actually being profitable, not for simply driving up the price of their stock.  It would also encourage people to leave their money in more long-term, instead of selling because the value drops 2 cents per share.

Not necessarily.  While I somewhat agree with ending stock taxation, I believe more of the problems with the stock market can be attributed to leveraging and speculation.  Those need to be regulated more.

There are plenty of ways to encourage investment without having to "sponsor" it through tax deductions.  People in the 1980's were screaming that the loss of deductions for interest on investment property would kill that market.  And it did not have much of an impact at all.  People continued to buy investment property, buy on credit cards, and all of the other things that got cut as deductions.

And one thing I have long felt should not be taxed are federal-state-county-city bonds.  I always thought it was stupid to loan the Government money, then turn right around and tax you for it. 


Good points.

Whether it would decrease or increase revenue depends on a lot of things: the percentage, the economic cycle, etc.

not really. if we have a progressive code now, meaning the rich pay more taxes than middle class and poor people, eliminating the progressive aspect of the tax code means that that differential will be lost. moving to a flat tax from a progressive tax therefore presents one of two choices:

1. either you lower total revenue, because right now we're taxing the upper class and rich at a higher level than everyone else, and with a flat tax we're getting rid of that, or

2. you raise taxes on the lower income earners in order to make up for the revenue lost by eliminating the extra burden carried by the upper income earners now, and then tax everyone at that new rate.

so our choices under the flat tax (assuming no one reading this is rich) are

1. even HIGHER deficits, or
2. pay more taxes.

let me know which you prefer.  ;D

not really. if we have a progressive code now, meaning the rich pay more taxes than middle class and poor people, eliminating the progressive aspect of the tax code means that that differential will be lost. moving to a flat tax from a progressive tax therefore presents one of two choices:

1. either you lower total revenue, because right now we're taxing the upper class and rich at a higher level than everyone else, and with a flat tax we're getting rid of that, or

2. you raise taxes on the lower income earners in order to make up for the revenue lost by eliminating the extra burden carried by the upper income earners now, and then tax everyone at that new rate.

so our choices under the flat tax (assuming no one reads this is rich) are

1. even HIGHER deficits, or
2. pay more taxes.

let me know which you prefer.  ;D


That's not true though.  There is some truth to trickle down economics.

When Reagan cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 35%, that tremendously increased government revenue.  Even the Young Turks mentioned that in passing once.

When Bush implemented his tax cuts in 2001, a similar but smaller effect occurred.

The problem is that we've essentially reached a threshold where lowering taxes much more probably won't increase revenue.  Still, it's hard to say.  A flat tax changes the cost-benefit analysis so much that it's hard to predict what percentage would be optimal for government funds and economic growth.

That's not true though.  There is some truth to trickle down economics.

When Reagan cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 35%, that tremendously increased government revenue.  Even the Young Turks mentioned that in passing once.

When Bush implemented his tax cuts in 2001, a similar but smaller effect occurred.

The problem is that we've essentially reached a threshold where lowering taxes much more probably won't increase revenue.  Still, it's hard to say.  A flat tax changes the cost-benefit analysis so much that it's hard to predict what percentage would be optimal for government funds and economic growth.
i keep hearing that but reagan and bush both presided over massive deficits. i think what happens is you end up with statistics you can manipulate to your own benefit, given the complexity of the american economy and the US tax code, but eventually you have to just look at the results. reagan and bush both advocated radical tax cuts and trickle down, and they both created mind-boggling deficits. so how can we say trickle-down works? it's failed every time in recent memory that it's been tried. and i know there are a lot of fancy arguments as to why any one particular trickle-down-created deficit is actually the result of something else -- usually a war, either against the russians or against, amorphously, "terror" -- but the fact remains, trickle-down simply has yielded consistent failure on the budgetary front. it's been consistent.

i keep hearing that but reagan and bush both presided over massive deficits. i think what happens is you end up with statistics you can manipulate to your own benefit, given the complexity of the american economy and the US tax code, but eventually you have to just look at the results. reagan and bush both advocated radical tax cuts and trickle down, and they both created mind-boggling deficits. so how can we say trickle-down works? it's failed every time in recent memory that it's been tried. and i know there are a lot of fancy arguments as to why any one particular trickle-down-created deficit is actually the result of something else -- usually a war, either against the russians or against, amorphously, "terror" -- but the fact remains, trickle-down simply has yielded consistent failure on the budgetary front. it's been consistent.


The reason why both Reagan and Bush ran deficits is that their spending greatly overshot the increases in revenue.

The funny thing is...  Had Reagan and Bush actually cut government spending, their ideology would have likely worked pretty well for budgeting and growth purposes.

The problem is that Republicans cut taxes to increase revenue but then spend even more than what they gained from it.  The biggest most pervading lie in American politics is that Republicans stand for smaller government.

The reason why both Reagan and Bush ran deficits is that their spending greatly overshot the increases in revenue.

The funny thing is...  Had Reagan and Bush actually cut government spending, their ideology would have likely worked pretty well for budgeting and growth purposes.

The problem is that Republicans cut taxes to increase revenue but then spend even more than what they gained from it.  The biggest most pervading lie in American politics is that Republicans stand for smaller government.
i'm not sure that you can cut government spending in a massively complex and growing society. and i think once reagan and bush got into office, they discovered that. it seems like conservative ideology hearkens back to foundational principles of governance -- the sort of thing america did back in the 1700s and 1800s, when the population was a few million and we had no massive urban centers -- but once they sit down in the captain's chair in the oval office they realize that simply running the ship of state takes massive resources when the country has 300+ million people and contains urban centers of multiple millions of people.

the country is simply too complex for the "small government" bromide to work. when we try it, it leads to either massive deficit spending or dysfunctionally absent infrastructure. we need to get with the real world, and we need to do it fast.

i keep hearing that but reagan and bush both presided over massive deficits. i think what happens is you end up with statistics you can manipulate to your own benefit, given the complexity of the american economy and the US tax code, but eventually you have to just look at the results. reagan and bush both advocated radical tax cuts and trickle down, and they both created mind-boggling deficits. so how can we say trickle-down works? it's failed every time in recent memory that it's been tried. and i know there are a lot of fancy arguments as to why any one particular trickle-down-created deficit is actually the result of something else -- usually a war, either against the russians or against, amorphously, "terror" -- but the fact remains, trickle-down simply has yielded consistent failure on the budgetary front. it's been consistent.


The trick is to blame the Reagan deficits on the spendthrift Democrat congress!
;)

i'm not sure that you can cut government spending in a massively complex and growing society. and i think once reagan and bush got into office, they discovered that. it seems like conservative ideology hearkens back to foundational principles of governance -- the sort of thing america did back in the 1700s and 1800s, when the population was a few million and we had no massive urban centers -- but once they sit down in the captain's chair in the oval office they realize that simply running the ship of state takes massive resources when the country has 300+ million people and contains urban centers of multiple millions of people.

the country is simply too complex for the "small government" bromide to work. when we try it, it leads to either massive deficit spending or dysfunctionally absent infrastructure. we need to get with the real world, and we need to do it fast.


To me, the problem isn't necessarily conservatism or small government ideals in general.  Federalism is a pretty sound principle in my opinion.  I also believe we don't fully exploit the benefits of the separation of powers between state government and the federal government.

I just think that a few things need to be added to the federal government's responsibilities -- like healthcare.  At the same time, I'd like to cut a lot of pork spending.

The feds also need to be more vigilant in enforcing environmental and antitrust laws.

To me, the problem isn't necessarily conservatism or small government ideals in general.  Federalism is a pretty sound principle in my opinion.  I also believe we don't fully exploit the benefits of the separation of powers between state government and the federal government.

I just think that a few things need to be added to the federal government's responsibilities -- like healthcare.  At the same time, I'd like to cut a lot of pork spending.

The feds also need to be more vigilant in enforcing environmental and antitrust laws.


The right wing likes small government for one reason.  The smaller the government, the more local it is, the easier it is for corporations to influence.

The right wing likes small government for one reason.  The smaller the government, the more local it is, the easier it is for corporations to influence.


That is your interpretation.  However, to most Conservatives that believe in a smaller Government, it all boils down to the 10th Amendment.  This simply states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To a lot of people, this essentially means that the Government should "butt out" of a great many things.  And that a lot of the "bloat" in Washington today is because of Congress placing things on the Federal Government that they have no constitutional basis for doing.

And as an example, a lot of people point to the "Not Yours To Give" speech by Col. David Crockett, of Tennessee.  If you have not read it before, it can be found here:

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

And at this moment, a lot of states are looking into this amendment very closely.  So while you can try to spin it so that people that believe in less government are greedy rich people who want to rip off the poor, that is far from the truth.

And maybe you can answer me this:  Why are half of the 10 richest people in the US (including the top 3) all Democrats? 

That is your interpretation.  However, to most Conservatives that believe in a smaller Government, it all boils down to the 10th Amendment.  This simply states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To a lot of people, this essentially means that the Government should "butt out" of a great many things.  And that a lot of the "bloat" in Washington today is because of Congress placing things on the Federal Government that they have no constitutional basis for doing.

And as an example, a lot of people point to the "Not Yours To Give" speech by Col. David Crockett, of Tennessee.  If you have not read it before, it can be found here:

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

And at this moment, a lot of states are looking into this amendment very closely.  So while you can try to spin it so that people that believe in less government are greedy rich people who want to rip off the poor, that is far from the truth.

And maybe you can answer me this:  Why are half of the 10 richest people in the US (including the top 3) all Democrats? 


Well, to be fair, there is a lot of truth to what Max said.  Conservatives that are true believers in small government think more like how you do.

Although, I'd argue that most of the GOP leadership seems to support smaller government for the reason Max stated.

The easiest way for me to sum this up is the following.  It's the difference between Ron Paul (a true believer) and Dick Cheney (a corporate scumbag).

The problem comes in trying to figure how to set up government that isn't intrusive but still curbs the influence of lobbyism.

And maybe you can answer me this:  Why are half of the 10 richest people in the US (including the top 3) all Democrats? 


I don't know.  When you're dealing with a population of five, it's probably better to look at it on a case by case basis.

I did not say "conservative," I said "right wing."  To me they are not one and the same thing. 

There certainly are reasons for keeping government small and local I'd agree with; however, the proponents of small, local government tend to be tied in with corporations and beyond whatever sanctimonious speeches they make, there's always an ulterior motive to do with decimating social programs and cutting taxes on the rich.

Colonel Crockett's "conversation" is apocryphal.  It never occurred.  He is using anecdote as rhetoric.  I stick by my original statement.
::)


Well, to be fair, there is a lot of truth to what Max said.  Conservatives that are true believers in small government think more like how you do.

Although, I'd argue that most of the GOP leadership seems to support smaller government for the reason Max stated.

The easiest way for me to sum this up is the following.  It's the difference between Ron Paul (a true believer) and Dick Cheney (a corporate scumbag).

The problem comes in trying to figure how to set up government that isn't intrusive but still curbs the influence of lobbyism.


Karma +1.  You get what I'm saying.
:)

In answer to Mushroom's question as to why half of the top 10 richest people are Democrats.  Those people such as Bill Gates are "social liberals".  Obviously just because they're rich does not mean they're welcome in the Republican party. 

In answer to Mushroom's question as to why half of the top 10 richest people are Democrats.  Those people such as Bill Gates are "social liberals".  Obviously just because they're rich does not mean they're welcome in the Republican party. 


Warren Buffett is probably a better example.  Gates contributes almost equally to each party, although slightly more to the Republicans.

In answer to Mushroom's question as to why half of the top 10 richest people are Democrats.  Those people such as Bill Gates are "social liberals".  Obviously just because they're rich does not mean they're welcome in the Republican party. 


Mushroom wouldn't ask the question if he didn't have an answer already...

Surprise, surprise, it's fake as hell.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

Really saver, check your sources so you don't look like an ass, mmk?


I see now!

How do we give you a kudo?
As the source sending me these messages slipped up for the second time and is 'off' my forwarding list.

I usually check these subjects.. yes, with snopes....after this...luckily I didn't claim it as my own... the emailer was a Texan A&M Grad so if that says anything about anything..I no longer take their rants as verified...Maybe they SHOULD seccede, huh

Yes, there still are people living in shelters somewhere that stir things up without checking and I thank you again Jessica and all who caught it..

Mushroom wouldn't ask the question if he didn't have an answer already...


LOL

Actually, it just irks me off when some people throw around "rich" and "Republican" as if they go together.  And they ignore the large number of "Rich Democrats".  And there are a lot of them.

Warren Buffet, Al Gore, John Kerry, the Kennedy Clan, the Roosevelts, the list goes on and on. Some made it themselves, some inherited it, some married into it.

As far as Bill Gates, there was a great article years ago in the National Review.  And to put it in perspective, it was written in 1999, during the height of his DOJ troubles:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_2_51/ai_53662235/

But looking at both his new found friends and the causes he follows with his foundation, it is much more in keeping with Liberal causes then Conservative ones.

LOL

Actually, it just irks me off when some people throw around "rich" and "Republican" as if they go together.  And they ignore the large number of "Rich Democrats".  And there are a lot of them.

Warren Buffet, Al Gore, John Kerry, the Kennedy Clan, the Roosevelts, the list goes on and on. Some made it themselves, some inherited it, some married into it.

As far as Bill Gates, there was a great article years ago in the National Review.  And to put it in perspective, it was written in 1999, during the height of his DOJ troubles:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_2_51/ai_53662235/

But looking at both his new found friends and the causes he follows with his foundation, it is much more in keeping with Liberal causes then Conservative ones.
i dont know that the issue has ever been that no rich people are ever democrats, but that the republicans are quite frank and up front about promoting the interests of the economically privileged over the interests of the rest of us. the fact that rich democrats exist isn't really that relevant.

LOL

Actually, it just irks me off when some people throw around "rich" and "Republican" as if they go together.  And they ignore the large number of "Rich Democrats".  And there are a lot of them.

Warren Buffet, Al Gore, John Kerry, the Kennedy Clan, the Roosevelts, the list goes on and on. Some made it themselves, some inherited it, some married into it.

As far as Bill Gates, there was a great article years ago in the National Review.  And to put it in perspective, it was written in 1999, during the height of his DOJ troubles:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_2_51/ai_53662235/

But looking at both his new found friends and the causes he follows with his foundation, it is much more in keeping with Liberal causes then Conservative ones.


"Rich Republican" is a style of being rich and Republican in which the rich Republican tells you he is rich and/or Republican in the first 120 seconds of conversation...

Bill Gates is not my favorite person in the world, but what he's trying to do in his charitable work is help people who need it rather than people who don't...and I guess that makes him a liberal!

I suppose he could be funding Christian charter schools and homes for unwed mothers, and in a conservative mind, that would be helping people who need it too...
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/farmerjohn.gif

Bill Gates is not my favorite person in the world, but what he's trying to do in his charitable work is help people who need it rather than people who don't...and I guess that makes him a liberal!





If Bill Gates had a company plan that called for all companies doing business with him or his company pay living wages and had standards of employment there wouldn't be as great a need as there is, and some of the people he is helping would be able to help others.

How do we give you a kudo?

Click the more Karamel link under someone's name.. I assume that's what you're meaning..


As the source sending me these messages slipped up for the second time and is 'off' my forwarding list.

I usually check these subjects.. yes, with snopes....after this...luckily I didn't claim it as my own... the emailer was a Texan A&M Grad so if that says anything about anything..I no longer take their rants as verified...Maybe they SHOULD seccede, huh

Yes, there still are people living in shelters somewhere that stir things up without checking and I thank you again Jessica and all who caught it..

Karma given for turning up and accepting you were wrong :)