Angery people.

Boost_Crazy said:

I've seen a lot of discussion about taxes, much about raising them. Can anyone tell me why we need to raise them? Why the government needs more money? Where is the discussion about spending to go along with it? The elephant in the room is that pretty much every program at every level of government is poorly run, manages it's budget poorly, produces poor results, or any or all of the above. And it seems like the worse they do, the more money we give them, without a return for our investment. And by our, I mean the 51% that still pay taxes. Good luck to us all when that number drops to 49% and the non tax paying majority vote the tax payers into oblivion. 

My plan- fix the spending first. Any department head that can't run within their budget gets replaced. Cut redundant programs. Cut programs that fail to deliver the promised results. Then fix the taxes. Maybe a flat consumption tax. The crazy complex tax code gives more power to the government who can pick the winners and losers, and more power to those who can afford to influence the code ($$$) so that they are one of the winners. Strip the code, and you strip the power. The flat tax would also ensure that everyone has some skin in the game. 

Let’s correct a few errors here. Nearly everyone pays taxes!  A wino pays taxes on the jug of wine. The cash only guy pays it when he buys fuel for his truck. The little old lady on social security buying a package of Sox’s at Walmart pays import duty. 

The guy in prison pays it on the razor he’s gonna melt into a shiv. ( most cheap disposables are imported) that or the flip flops he’s wearing. 

Anyway as for spending control, it’s one of those myths I hear so much about but can never happen.  Politicians get re-elected by bringing home  the bacon. This road project for his construction company owner. That bridge to nowhere.  A government job for Tom Dick and Harry.  Turn this government program into that companies income source.  

Second if you could somehow get politicians to stop breathing.———err bringing home the bacon.  Things actually get more expensive. Inflation, underestimate costs or complexity. Demand increase because a project works.  Etc. 

Finally this country is deeply divided. One persons absolute essential is another persons waste and fraud.  It’s so easy to paint with broad strokes, but people aren’t broad strokes. What provides a nice secure income for one family. Is total fraud and abuse for another.  Even within families!  

Enyar said:

Duke said:

Enyar said:

Duke said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Ovid_and_Flem :

They pay 2% 

That hasn’t ever happened before has it?  So this is fresh new income. 2% 

that hasn’t happened before 2%. 

That hasnt happened before. 2%. 

That hasnt happened before. 

And so on and so on. 

People will pay 2 cents on the dollar because it’s trivial  and the punishment for not paying it is severe

This is called Value Added Tax and it has been around for maybe 100 years. It’s really really super not a good idea. If you’re taxing every transaction that makes up a car at 2%, you just raised the price of that car by at least 100%.

Not quite a VAT tax.  It's similar to a sales tax but it shifts the burden from the end user to everyone along the supply chain. It lets governments collect as the process moves along and prevents people from avoiding sales taxes if the product gets exported. 

How on earth does it shift the burden from the end user to the everyone on the supply chain?  Because you know, I know, and undiscovered tribes in the blackest depths of the Amazon jungle know that each step is just going to increase their prices as required to offset the tax.  Which all flows downhill to the consumer.  ALL taxes are eventually paid by the consumer.  Always.

Absolutely, and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. The difference is where and when the tax is collected.  The most notable difference is where the consumer comes into play. In a VAT system, if the end user is out of the country the local government is still getting their share. In a sales tax situation GM could build a car in the US, sell it in Mexico and the end user will not pay sales tax.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. The person doing the selling collects the tax. He has a line for the deposit and a line for the tax on his deposit slip. GM sells a truck to Mexico? They collect the tax. Boeing sells a jet? Ditto.  Stuff coming into the country we collect the tax on import duty!  

Record keeping amounts to keeping your deposit slips. OK electronic ledger. 

Oh and so what if costs go up! Taxes went down to offset it!  I didn’t say we’d eliminate taxes. It still costs money to run a government.  I’m simply changing the way taxes are paid. Trying to make those who buy the most pay the most. 

In reply to frenchyd :

The real issue is not how taxes are collected. It’s how MUCH tax is collected. And even that isn’t the REAL issue.

The REAL issue is how much We The People want the government to spend for us. Except when we spend it for ourselves, everybody gets to choose what they buy. When we tell the government to spend it for us, it is guaranteed that half the people aren’t going to like what it gets spent on, no matter what that happens to be. 

So why don’t we just cut out the middleman that doesn’t get nearly as much value for each dollar and is guaranteed to piss off the largest number of people while doing it?

Duke said:

In reply to frenchyd :

The real issue is not how taxes are collected. It’s how MUCH tax is collected. And even that isn’t the REAL issue.

The REAL issue is how much We The People want the government to spend for us. Except when we spend it for ourselves, everybody gets to choose what they buy. When we tell the government to spend it for us, it is guaranteed that half the people aren’t going to like what it gets spent on, no matter what that happens to be. 

So why don’t we just cut out the middleman that doesn’t get nearly as much value for each dollar and is guaranteed to piss off the largest number of people while doing it?

What are you suggesting? Fire the government?  Are you suggesting anarchy?  

Maybe you think all one party should go to one part of the country and the other party should go to the other part?  

I’m sorry  America is stronger United. Stronger still if both sides would stop listening to those who want us divided and remember what we all share in common,  accept compromise not as failure but something that moves us ahead. 

Realize that statesmanship is the art of what’s possible and something to be admired.  

Stop vilifying those with different priorities and recognize they have the same rights you do to their opinions. 

We get a chance every two years to overthrow the government and if your side doesn’t win everything  you still got a chance to have your say. Make the compromises you need to in order to convince others. 

Enyar said:

frenchyd said:

Ovid_and_Flem said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I know you've been talkin in the bigger picture view of our tax system. And knowing your age I'm sure that your bus driving gig isn't your only source of income. Plus I know you're something of an entrepreneur with your auto restoration talents. Just curious. What portion of your income do you feel comfortable paying compared to what you're paying under the present system? Not trying to get into your private business but just curious of the inequity you see.

First the tax should be based on consumption not earnings. That will encourage work and savings. 

Second any tax should be easy to explain and without exception. 

Third the myth of progression solving society’s ills is simply wrong. The wealthy will pay their politicians to help them evade or reduce their tax. ( ps,I’m a screaming liberal) 

Fourth those with the most must pay the most.  If the military protects the wino’s bottle the wino should pay a small cost while the billionaires yachts and jets should cost a great deal more. 

I know I didn’t answer your question because I’m the last person you should pattern a tax system on. 

You know what I paid for my house, you know what it’s worth. Under the current system I’ve done very well and I know there are those who greatly exceed me.  In short,  please come up with a better system. 

1, The environmentalist / super saver in me loves a tax on consumption but I don't think it will work. We need to remember that taxes are simply the rules we setup to fund the system we agreed to partake. If we can't fund the system we end up with a deficit which everyone keeps saying is bad. With a consumption tax the revenue streams are going to be too unpredictable as the economy changes and it's going to shift the burden to the people that actually stimulate the economy. The capitalist treadmill has to keep turning. 

 

2. Disagree. The tax code is complex because life is complex. We want to incentivize certain good behaviors and penalize poor behavior. 

 

3. So the fact that the rich minimize their taxes by playing the rules means we should just change the rules so they get an easier way to pay less taxes? The rich certainly pay their fair share in taxes but that's the only way it works. 

 

4. Doesn't this contradict your statement on progressive taxes?

 

1 the economy fluctuates now, and we adjust. I’m not saying this will make life perfect and rosy  just an easier less divisive way to collect taxes . 

2. The tax code is the absolute last place to correct and reward behavior or values.  

3.  The rich pay their share of taxes?  Have you checked their  tax returns?  No the rich pay the absolute minimum they can within the rules. Fairness doesn’t have any place on the income tax form.  

Warren Buffet points  out that he pays a lower percentage of his income tax than his secretary does. If he choose to he could legally avoid paying any taxes at all.  And that isn’t even one of those super secret tax breaks called legal precedent. 

4. No, paying the most in a straight tax system isn’t progressive.  You only pay a lot if you make a lot.  Like I’ve said the myth of a progressive system hasn’t helped the poor or working poor.  

The way I dealt with the working poor is eliminated income tax bellow $50,000 a year  and a flat tax starting at $50,000. 

Here’s how it works. Let’s say we need to collect 10% income tax.  Once you earn more than $50,000 you pay 10% so your tax bill at $51,000 is $100

at $100,000 you owe $5000.  

Now if $50,000 isn’t the number a person can make, have a home, family, and the essentials please make your case.  Yes you will be paying 2% sales tax on things. But that tax burden is offset by the much higher minimum wage.  That’s only $24.00 an hour. 

Shouldn’t work provide you with the essential cost of living? Does the tax payer really have to subsidize business by allowing business to pay less than a living wage?  

To those who claim a higher minimum wage will cost jobs please explain why. There isn’t a businessman in the country who hires people just because they are cheaper.   If your Baker works for less than minimum wage will customers buy more?  

In reply to frenchyd :

Let’s correct a few errors here. Nearly everyone pays taxes!  A wino pays taxes on the jug of wine. The cash only guy pays it when he buys fuel for his truck. The little old lady on social security buying a package of Sox’s at Walmart pays import duty. 

The guy in prison pays it on the razor he’s gonna melt into a shiv. ( most cheap disposables are imported) that or the flip flops he’s wearing. 

You know very well that I was talking about the bulk of the taxes that many people do not pay- income tax and property tax. Of course people pay sales taxes, fees, etc,. But since we are picking nits, in many of your examples those people are receiving far more financial support than they pay in taxes, so I think It's fair to say that their net tax contribution is zero and leave it at that. If you really want to push it, I can show that their net contribution is far less than zero, but that is a whole different discussion, and I only reference it because you brought it up. In fact, a fair portion of the non wino or inmate population do work and pay taxes, but get "refunds" that are greater than what they originally paid. 

You inadvertently illustrated my point- we as a people pay a lot of taxes. Follow a dollar through our economy and you would be shocked how many times it's taxed. 

Lets talk just about that sales tax that you mentioned. It varies from state to state and city to city, but I'll use an example from where I live, in California. Sales tax averages around 9%. The state and local government gets a 9% cut of most business that goes on. That's straight off the top, not counting all of the other taxes and fees and permits. Very few business net anything near 9%, despite that they do all of the work and assume the risk. Yet they usually are able to operate and grow, despite being shaken down for more than they make in profits. The government gets that from almost everyone, and it's no where near enough for them. Something isn't right in that picture. 

In reply to frenchyd :

What are you suggesting? Fire the government?  Are you suggesting anarchy?  

Maybe you think all one party should go to one part of the country and the other party should go to the other part?  

I’m sorry  America is stronger United. Stronger still if both sides would stop listening to those who want us divided and remember what we all share in common,  accept compromise not as failure but something that moves us ahead. 

Realize that statesmanship is the art of what’s possible and something to be admired.  

Stop vilifying those with different priorities and recognize they have the same rights you do to their opinions. 

We get a chance every two years to overthrow the government and if your side doesn’t win everything  you still got a chance to have your say. Make the compromises you need to in order to convince others. 

You should know this more than just about anyone here. The government has grown many times over, far exceeding it's mandate, on your watch. These changes happened in the last 60 years. Most of the departments, programs, and budget (adjusted for inflation) did not exist 60 years ago. It grew because people like you used false logic to push the boundaries and use the slightest excuse to grow. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume for sake of argument that every program was created with good intentions. Even so, rarely did anyone ask, "Is this worth it?" Or "Can we afford this?" No, the argument was that it will help someone, somewhere, so it must be done, never mind the expense. To do otherwise is heartless and cruel.

The cruel fact is that many of these programs are so inefficient, we would be far better off scrapping the programs and giving the money straight to recipients. But the fact of the matter is, our government, often with the people's approval, has been slowly stripping our rights and selling them back to us. Think of that the next time you pay for a "permit."

I can't believe you have the Audacity to ask why we are divided. Many of your posts drip with divisive talk and calls to strip wealth from others. Lots of talk about how others shouldn't have what they have, and how they don't deserve it. How about you do your part? Sell your $Million dollar home, move into a more modest home. You don't want to ruin you children by leaving them an inheritance, so why not donate it? Better yet, write it in on your tax form since you are so confident in the government's ability to redistribute it. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The cruel fact is the population is just about three times what it was when I was born. 

So yes the government needs to get bigger.  In addition Things have have gotten a lot more complex.  I flew planes off carriers during Vietnam. Yet I can’t even start a modern day simulator of an ordinary airline let alone the actual planes that fly off carriers.  Technology is so far advanced I can’t begin to keep up.  

That same technology means the government has to be complex. Your side doesn’t believe or trust my side and my side has vilified your side until I doubt everything! 

Which is exactly what our enemies want!! America divided is a whole lot weaker. 

Look in your heart.  Are you a bad guy? A villain?  No of coarse not. You may feel different than I do about things you may want different things. But you aren’t bad.  Well,  neither am I.  

Let’ s look at some things objectively.  One side has seriously cut taxes three times.  Big major tax cuts.  

Are you better off like they promised?   Or is the national debt higher?  Your wages adjusted for inflation are the same or worse.  Well, you might be earning more because you’ve matured and know what the market will pay for your efforts. 

The top class,  their income is 30 times what it was in just the last 30 years. Even adjusting for inflation.  

Big deal you say, the rich always get richer.

Well  now you know trickle down didn’t work. What other myths are there? How about private enterprise works better than government.  

Well that’s not true. Your health insurance company operates on a 30-45 % administration cost while Medicare operates on a 2% administration cost. 

How about 4 out 5 new start up companies fail in 5 years. Yet the government is supposed to operate at 100%.

Private prisons cost more and have a higher recidivism rate.  

About now you’re angry at me and ready to call me  a liar if you haven’t already. 

I’m sorry,  see how easy it is to get upset?  Let’s try to remember we both like cars.  We appreciate this site let’s us talk about cars. 

In reply to frenchyd :

I think it's worth pointing out that you grew up in a pretty unique time period. WWII devastated most of the developed countries on the planet while simultaneously stoking Americas manufacturing abilities. The US was positioned  for success in the post war era, because it was far and away the strongest economy left standing. As a result, for pretty much the first time, a middle class developed. I'm of the belief that there's basically a finite amount of wealth in the world, and the only thing that really changes is how it's distributed, and for most of your life, it was unevenly distributed to the US. As Europe and Japan rebuilt in the decades following the war they relied less and less on US made goods and began producing competing products which reduced demand for US products globally. In other words, The wealth began to redistribute to other countries where it had been before WWII, as well as new countries.

Corporations (owned by Wall St and the wealthy elite) saw this drop in demand and reduced their payroll through keeping wages stagnant or off shoring jobs to places with cheaper labor as a way to retain a measure of profitability. Again, an example of wealth flowing from the US into other countries. This trend will continue as automation replaces many workers in the coming decades. The companies will do well (as will the wealthy elite who own them), but the wealth that was once distributed among the US middle class has now shifted to other people across the globe.

The days of being able to coast by and have a comfortable, middle class American life with little effort are mostly gone. The world market has developed to an extent that there's always somebody faster, smarter, stronger, hungrier or willing to work for less. The harsh reality, is that changes to tax policy won't fix it. You admit it yourself when you point out that previous tax cuts have only had short term positive effects. If a person is going to succeed in the modern world, they'll probably have to work harder than Americans have in the past.

That reality, is probably a big reason why people are so stressed and angry. Changing tax policy, or voting your preferred party into office isn't going to have the effect you want, because you're trying to return the US to the way it was in your younger years, and that's not possible because the entire world would have to undo 70 years of growth and change.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The cruel fact is the population is just about three times what it was when I was born. 

So yes the government needs to get bigger.  In addition Things have have gotten a lot more complex.  I flew planes off carriers during Vietnam. Yet I can’t even start a modern day simulator of an ordinary airline let alone the actual planes that fly off carriers.  Technology is so far advanced I can’t begin to keep up.  

That same technology means the government has to be complex. Your side doesn’t believe or trust my side and my side has vilified your side until I doubt everything! 

Which is exactly what our enemies want!! America divided is a whole lot weaker. 

Look in your heart.  Are you a bad guy? A villain?  No of coarse not. You may feel different than I do about things you may want different things. But you aren’t bad.  Well,  neither am I.  

Let’ s look at some things objectively.  One side has seriously cut taxes three times.  Big major tax cuts.  

Are you better off like they promised?   Or is the national debt higher?  Your wages adjusted for inflation are the same or worse.  Well, you might be earning more because you’ve matured and know what the market will pay for your efforts. 

The top class,  their income is 30 times what it was in just the last 30 years. Even adjusting for inflation.  

Big deal you say, the rich always get richer.

Well  now you know trickle down didn’t work. What other myths are there? How about private enterprise works better than government.  

Well that’s not true. Your health insurance company operates on a 30-45 % administration cost while Medicare operates on a 2% administration cost. 

How about 4 out 5 new start up companies fail in 5 years. Yet the government is supposed to operate at 100%.

Private prisons cost more and have a higher recidivism rate.  

About now you’re angry at me and ready to call me  a liar if you haven’t already. 

I’m sorry,  see how easy it is to get upset?  Let’s try to remember we both like cars.  We appreciate this site let’s us talk about cars. 

I don't have a side. At least not one with a horse in the game. You may not either if you compare promises with actions and results. I had a good response, but deleted it as this conversation is straying a bit too far into politics. 

I do want to thank you for your service. And while we don't agree on much, I appreciate that you have shared your opinion and point of view. I do agree that it is in the interest of some to keep our people divided, but I fear It is not our enemies who are leading the charge. They are jumping in on the opportunity that our own leaders have created. But it's nothing new, it's been there since the founding of our county, it's just more easily spread today.

I find I’m a lot less anger-y now that I don’t get roped into internet circle-jerks about crap like tax policy where we all say the same E36 M3 we’ve said a billion times on this forum, and then somebody gets so anger-y that they say some E36 M3 that gets us all sent to “time-out.”

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

What are you suggesting? Fire the government?  Are you suggesting anarchy?  

Maybe you think all one party should go to one part of the country and the other party should go to the other part?  

I’m sorry  America is stronger United. Stronger still if both sides would stop listening to those who want us divided and remember what we all share in common,  accept compromise not as failure but something that moves us ahead. 

Realize that statesmanship is the art of what’s possible and something to be admired.  

Stop vilifying those with different priorities and recognize they have the same rights you do to their opinions. 

We get a chance every two years to overthrow the government and if your side doesn’t win everything  you still got a chance to have your say. Make the compromises you need to in order to convince others. 

You should know this more than just about anyone here. The government has grown many times over, far exceeding it's mandate, on your watch. These changes happened in the last 60 years. Most of the departments, programs, and budget (adjusted for inflation) did not exist 60 years ago. It grew because people like you used false logic to push the boundaries and use the slightest excuse to grow. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume for sake of argument that every program was created with good intentions. Even so, rarely did anyone ask, "Is this worth it?" Or "Can we afford this?" No, the argument was that it will help someone, somewhere, so it must be done, never mind the expense. To do otherwise is heartless and cruel.

The cruel fact is that many of these programs are so inefficient, we would be far better off scrapping the programs and giving the money straight to recipients. But the fact of the matter is, our government, often with the people's approval, has been slowly stripping our rights and selling them back to us. Think of that the next time you pay for a "permit."

I can't believe you have the Audacity to ask why we are divided. Many of your posts drip with divisive talk and calls to strip wealth from others. Lots of talk about how others shouldn't have what they have, and how they don't deserve it. How about you do your part? Sell your $Million dollar home, move into a more modest home. You don't want to ruin you children by leaving them an inheritance, so why not donate it? Better yet, write it in on your tax form since you are so confident in the government's ability to redistribute it. 

The Christian Right sure seems intent on keeping their wealth and not doing what Jesus tells them to do . Something  about eye of a needle,  a camel, and a rich man getting into heaven?  

But don’t worry the poor don’t get much.  My late wife worked for welfare for 40 years.  She was always at the bottom of the pay scale.  

Most welfare people were mothers who’s husbands had run off and left them and the kids. Average stay on welfare was 17 months.  Miserable life. 

Some poor schmucks were on it all their lives.  Usually serious medical condition.  Cancer, spinal bifida, mental retardation, MS,  Well you can find it out if you want to.  They break all that stuff down 

My late wife was part of enforcement. She kept records etc  to make sure nobody cheated the system.  10 cents out of every welfare dollar was spent that way.  

In reply to frenchyd :

Just FYI, a bunch of the Zuckerbergs, and Bezos's and Buffets of the world that you've ranted about aren't part of "the Christian Right" that you seem to vilify, but blue bleeding liberals just like you. For somebody who claims to wish to see the US less divided, I'm disappointed to see you make such generalizations.

Let's all try to keep specific religions and political sides out of the discussion. There have been a lot of interesting viewpoints presented here, and for the most part it has been a very civil conversation. Once we start down the path of Right, Left, Red, Blue and Us and Them, it always goes downhill quick. 

I agree. Let's stay within the guidelines. There has been great civility here, which is commendable to all. And interesting views as well. But it still amazes me that the French Guy has an uncanny ability to create good threads and keep them alive. Posters might not know it here, but Frenchy single-handedly revived the morose and sleepy CMS forum with a barrage of posts during the second half of 2017. And that's where he got his momentum. Now he's branching out. Frenchy, my man, keep up the good work. You're a friggin' dynamo!

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The cruel fact is the population is just about three times what it was when I was born. 

So yes the government needs to get bigger.  In addition Things have have gotten a lot more complex.  I flew planes off carriers during Vietnam. Yet I can’t even start a modern day simulator of an ordinary airline let alone the actual planes that fly off carriers.  Technology is so far advanced I can’t begin to keep up.  

That same technology means the government has to be complex. Your side doesn’t believe or trust my side and my side has vilified your side until I doubt everything! 

Which is exactly what our enemies want!! America divided is a whole lot weaker. 

Look in your heart.  Are you a bad guy? A villain?  No of coarse not. You may feel different than I do about things you may want different things. But you aren’t bad.  Well,  neither am I.  

Let’ s look at some things objectively.  One side has seriously cut taxes three times.  Big major tax cuts.  

Are you better off like they promised?   Or is the national debt higher?  Your wages adjusted for inflation are the same or worse.  Well, you might be earning more because you’ve matured and know what the market will pay for your efforts. 

The top class,  their income is 30 times what it was in just the last 30 years. Even adjusting for inflation.  

Big deal you say, the rich always get richer.

Well  now you know trickle down didn’t work. What other myths are there? How about private enterprise works better than government.  

Well that’s not true. Your health insurance company operates on a 30-45 % administration cost while Medicare operates on a 2% administration cost. 

How about 4 out 5 new start up companies fail in 5 years. Yet the government is supposed to operate at 100%.

Private prisons cost more and have a higher recidivism rate.  

About now you’re angry at me and ready to call me  a liar if you haven’t already. 

I’m sorry,  see how easy it is to get upset?  Let’s try to remember we both like cars.  We appreciate this site let’s us talk about cars. 

I don't have a side. At least not one with a horse in the game. You may not either if you compare promises with actions and results. I had a good response, but deleted it as this conversation is straying a bit too far into politics. 

I do want to thank you for your service. And while we don't agree on much, I appreciate that you have shared your opinion and point of view. I do agree that it is in the interest of some to keep our people divided, but I fear It is not our enemies who are leading the charge. They are jumping in on the opportunity that our own leaders have created. But it's nothing new, it's been there since the founding of our county, it's just more easily spread today.

Thank you for that, I do agree that I strayed too close to politics and you showed great restraint in not going down that rabbit hole.  

In reply to Gary :

Thanks for the kind words Gary. It’s easy to hold interesting conversations with this group. They are amazingly intelligent and I’ve learned a lot.  

The Christian Right sure seems intent on keeping their wealth and not doing what Jesus tells them to do . Something  about eye of a needle,  a camel, and a rich man getting into heaven?  

But don’t worry the poor don’t get much.  My late wife worked for welfare for 40 years.  She was always at the bottom of the pay scale.  

Most welfare people were mothers who’s husbands had run off and left them and the kids. Average stay on welfare was 17 months.  Miserable life. 

Some poor schmucks were on it all their lives.  Usually serious medical condition.  Cancer, spinal bifida, mental retardation, MS,  Well you can find it out if you want to.  They break all that stuff down 

My late wife was part of enforcement. She kept records etc  to make sure nobody cheated the system.  10 cents out of every welfare dollar was spent that way.  

Labels don't help, and inaccurate broad generalities don't either. Leads to the whole division thing. 

I'm fine with a person being as generous or stingy as they want with their money. I'm fine with society judging them as they see fit by their actions. Not okay with dictating how generous a person must be. Even less okay with taking their money to do what I think is right with it. I've seen both sides from pretty much every group and type of person, generosity is definitely not exclusive to any group. 

I don't hate welfare. I think it should be a valuable tool to lift up those without help and get them on the right path to becoming contributing members of society. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be set up that way. It appears to be configured in such a way to promote reliance and not encourage growth. I've known people who have used it as intended, who have gone on to lead successful lives. But more often, I've found that it allowed people who were less than ambitious a level of comfort that prevented them from seeking greater achievement. Worse, the ones the genuinely wanted to do better, but were not very good at it, were dissuaded from trying. A starter job was not enough to replace the welfare. So instead of taking that stepping stone to better employment, they did nothing or worked under the table, both of which have limited career advancement paths. I've rarely seen welfare change someone's life. But on many occasions, I've seen a generous employer or business owner take a chance on a person who could use a hand up. 

Now, people who are not physically or mentally able to care for themselves is another matter. I do feel that it is the duty of society to care for those who cannot help themselves. 

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Just FYI, a bunch of the Zuckerbergs, and Bezos's and Buffets of the world that you've ranted about aren't part of "the Christian Right" that you seem to vilify, but blue bleeding liberals just like you. For somebody who claims to wish to see the US less divided, I'm disappointed to see you make such generalizations.

I’m sorry I confused you. I recognize we hold similar views ( Buffets, Bezo,Zuckerberg,)  I’m also aware that you certainly have valid views. I sincerely do hope you don’t feel I trivialized or in anyway diminished   your input. 

In reply to frenchyd :

I'm not offended. I don't really even count myself among that group as I tend to be more moderate. I was just disappointed to see somebody that obviously wants unification use divisive labels like that. Surely you can see that's not going to help advance your primary goal.

Boost_Crazy said:

The Christian Right sure seems intent on keeping their wealth and not doing what Jesus tells them to do . Something  about eye of a needle,  a camel, and a rich man getting into heaven?  

But don’t worry the poor don’t get much.  My late wife worked for welfare for 40 years.  She was always at the bottom of the pay scale.  

Most welfare people were mothers who’s husbands had run off and left them and the kids. Average stay on welfare was 17 months.  Miserable life. 

Some poor schmucks were on it all their lives.  Usually serious medical condition.  Cancer, spinal bifida, mental retardation, MS,  Well you can find it out if you want to.  They break all that stuff down 

My late wife was part of enforcement. She kept records etc  to make sure nobody cheated the system.  10 cents out of every welfare dollar was spent that way.  

Labels don't help, and inaccurate broad generalities don't either. Leads to the whole division thing. 

I'm fine with a person being as generous or stingy as they want with their money. I'm fine with society judging them as they see fit by their actions. Not okay with dictating how generous a person must be. Even less okay with taking their money to do what I think is right with it. I've seen both sides from pretty much every group and type of person, generosity is definitely not exclusive to any group. 

I don't hate welfare. I think it should be a valuable tool to lift up those without help and get them on the right path to becoming contributing members of society. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be set up that way. It appears to be configured in such a way to promote reliance and not encourage growth. I've known people who have used it as intended, who have gone on to lead successful lives. But more often, I've found that it allowed people who were less than ambitious a level of comfort that prevented them from seeking greater achievement. Worse, the ones the genuinely wanted to do better, but were not very good at it, were dissuaded from trying. A starter job was not enough to replace the welfare. So instead of taking that stepping stone to better employment, they did nothing or worked under the table, both of which have limited career advancement paths. I've rarely seen welfare change someone's life. But on many occasions, I've seen a generous employer or business owner take a chance on a person who could use a hand up. 

Now, people who are not physically or mentally able to care for themselves is another matter. I do feel that it is the duty of society to care for those who cannot help themselves. 

Well said. I know that nothing is perfect. It’s all to easy to point to any  flaws  and demonize everything. That goes for both sides and every group.   

In fact that’s what I find so disheartening. I’m not down the line with any points my side has.  Hopefully you recognize it by my suggestions on how to revise the tax system.  

My friends who are on the other side are much the same way. They agree with this but not that. This is really important to them but they don’t think that part is even correct.  

I suspect the vast majority muddle on somewhere in the middle perhaps a little more this way than that. 

Yes there are extremists in any group!  But at least everyone here is nuts about cars.  

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I'm not offended. I don't really even count myself among that group as I tend to be more moderate. I was just disappointed to see somebody that obviously wants unification use divisive labels like that. Surely you can see that's not going to help advance your primary goal.

Well said. I shouldn’t have yielded and I do apologize. 

I think the majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, it's just unfortunate that there is not a party that represents that middle ground with the same fervor and strength as the extremes. 

Perhaps our political system is too much like sportsball, in the sense that each game is just two teams playing each other. I don't know about you guys, but if football, basketball and soccer consisted of three or four teams playing at the same time on the same field, that would be much more interesting to me. Complicated, yes. But far more exciting. Maybe this multi-team trend would then bleed over into the political arena. 

In reply to EastCoastMojo :

What's REALLY ironic about third parties is that they are usually more extreme than the party they break from. And then they usually destroy their "own" party in the next election by cutting it's own votes down just enough to let the other "unified" party win.

I'd love to see a moderate party (they woukd run the world as they would become the "swing" vote on every issue), and i think some current parties are sorta close, but I don't know how they get from "exists" to "legit".

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Let’s correct a few errors here. Nearly everyone pays taxes!  A wino pays taxes on the jug of wine. The cash only guy pays it when he buys fuel for his truck. The little old lady on social security buying a package of Sox’s at Walmart pays import duty. 

The guy in prison pays it on the razor he’s gonna melt into a shiv. ( most cheap disposables are imported) that or the flip flops he’s wearing. 

You know very well that I was talking about the bulk of the taxes that many people do not pay- income tax and property tax. Of course people pay sales taxes, fees, etc,. But since we are picking nits, in many of your examples those people are receiving far more financial support than they pay in taxes, so I think It's fair to say that their net tax contribution is zero and leave it at that. If you really want to push it, I can show that their net contribution is far less than zero, but that is a whole different discussion, and I only reference it because you brought it up. In fact, a fair portion of the non wino or inmate population do work and pay taxes, but get "refunds" that are greater than what they originally paid. 

You inadvertently illustrated my point- we as a people pay a lot of taxes. Follow a dollar through our economy and you would be shocked how many times it's taxed. 

Lets talk just about that sales tax that you mentioned. It varies from state to state and city to city, but I'll use an example from where I live, in California. Sales tax averages around 9%. The state and local government gets a 9% cut of most business that goes on. That's straight off the top, not counting all of the other taxes and fees and permits. Very few business net anything near 9%, despite that they do all of the work and assume the risk. Yet they usually are able to operate and grow, despite being shaken down for more than they make in profits. The government gets that from almost everyone, and it's no where near enough for them. Something isn't right in that picture. 

Don’t you find it extremely annoying that the states with the highest tax rates also have the strongest economies and  highest wages?  

States with the low tax rates ( or no state taxes) have the lowest wages and weakest economies?  

Hmmm I’m pretty sure it works that way in Most industrial nations as well.  

Plus it’s got to be down right frustrating about the happiness factor of all those European countries with high tax rates!  

What’s worse, is they with their high taxes are taller than Americans are.