F
And if thngs don't change...we will go to Washington,
Announce the 12 names of the people staying and tell the rest you have 20 minuts to clear all your personal belongs from your desk and be escorted out of the building!
Lee S.

There are three systems of taxation: progressive, regressive, and flat. Progressive taxation means the richer you are the higher percentage you pay. Regressive taxation means that the poorer you are, the higher percentage you pay. Flat tax means everyone pays the same.

We live in a system of regressive taxation. Overall, the middle class and the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Let's take a couple that makes 40,000 a year together. They are paying so many regressive taxes to support state, local, and federal government. Sales tax is very regressive. Let's say if this couple drinks a beer each every day, they're paying $200 a year in alcohol tax - .5% of their income. The $100 excise tax for each of their dumpy cars comes out to another .5% of their income. The property taxes their landlord passes on to them is regressive. The rich pay a much smaller percentage of their income on property tax. This couple has to pay taxes on utilities and on their cell phones. Every time they fill up their gas tank they have to pay gas tax, another regressive tax where the poor pay a higher percentage of their income.

The federal, state, and local governments in order to not raise taxes have been raising fees. They raise the prices on immigration forms, fishing licenses, fees to enter state and federal parks, registration fees for your child's school. These are regressive forms of taxation where the poor pay a much, much larger percentage of their income on these inflated fees which exist because the politicians don't want to raise taxes.

Let's say one of the people in the couple is a self-employed musician. We have to pay self-employment tax, for what social security. Social security, the way it is set up is a regressive tax - and I'm for social security. But the middle class and most of the poor pay a substantial portion of their income to social security to get, if we're lucky, a few percent of gain per year on our investment. Bill Gates pays about $20,000 to $25,000 per year into social security (just a guestimate), the same as someone making $200,000 a year. The middle class is forced to pay a substantial amount for a program where we get little in return, while the rich pay a fraction of a percent - that they will only get a fraction of a percent back doesn't take away from my point.

So a progressive income tax is only fair in order to make up for all of the regressive forms of taxation that there are in this country. The people who propose a flat tax, they sound fair, but they are not fair. A flat tax would only reapportion more wealth from the poor and middle class to the upper crust.

Forbes did a list of happiest countries, and the US comes in at #14. Take the country at the top, Denmark. Progressive taxation and higher taxes. Longer life spans, less poverty, less crime, better education, better (and cheaper) health care. World class athletic and recreational facilities available to all.

I think the US has become a very mean-spirited country - with all these asinine talking heads leading the discourse. Their message is simple, if you don't have enough money to feed your family, eat sh**.

Beakybird



[This message has been edited by Beakybird (edited 12-03-2010).]

We do have a convoluted system of taxation in this country... and when you add fees, state and local taxes, we may be the highest taxed nation on the planet. I'm not surprised that the US came in at number 14 in the Forbes survey. (I did not actually see the report... since I'm not wealthy enough to subscribe to Forbes... LOL!)

If I were King... our tax situation would change considerably and Marie Antoinette would be resurrected as the "surrogate queen"... LOL! (Let them eat CAKE!)

The solution to our tax problem(s) will probably never occur but it needs to be fair to all and very simple. Surely, there is a middle ground where the wealthy can continue to create jobs for the rest of us and the poor can pay their fair share. Life is never gonna be fair but I wish it could be.

"I think the US has become a very mean-spirited country - with all these asinine talking heads leading the discourse. Their message is simple, if you don't have enough money to feed your family, eat sh**."

BEAKYBIRD
-------------------------------------------

"If I were King... our tax situation would change considerably and Marie Antoinette would be resurrected as the "surrogate queen"... LOL! (Let them eat CAKE!)"

DAVE RICE

--------------------------------------------

Well Dave, looks like you're trying to prove Beakybirds point.

The point is; nearly 22,000,000 jobs were created during the Clinton administration while approximately 1,000,000 were created during the Bush era of tax breaks for the rich. So how many jobs do you think will be created because a billionaire got an extra 20 grand in tax breaks? Funny how we're so willing to throw reason and common sense out the window in the name of ideology.

chas

Good ol' Canada comes in at the 4th happiest country...I'm not surprised.

And, Cape Breton Island is the nicest part, in my opinion.

Probably why we sell so many arrangers here...ha ha.

Ian

Hi Ian! Haven't looked at those styles yet. Working on Xmas tunes.

Here is some interesting statistics from the census bureau:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/who-needs-a-tax-cut/?src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/business/economy/index.jsonp

Basically, since 1980, median income has gone up 13% and income among the extremely rich, .01% of people, has gone up over 300%.

Since 1980 overall federal tax rates have gone down a few percent when including everyone, but when you look at just the upper 1%, .1% and .01%, their federal taxes have been practically cut in a third to a half.

Beakybird

Hi Charles:

No, I'm not trying to enhance BB's case or defend my own with this statement. Levity is what I was seeking. Look, we have a tax philosphy between the two parties here in the US that will probably never meet in the middle. Mr. Clinton (just plain Bill) obviously got some advice that our current President does not care to access.

In the end, our opinions (yours, mine and BB's plus anyone else in the free world) matter only within our power to influence others. I have no power... only an opinion. Ain't it great that we live in a country where we can disagree amicably?

Dave

Dave-

Clinton didn't care to listen very much until the Mid terms went badly for him and he decided to moderate his Presidency and reach across the aisle.

Remember the first thing he tried to do? That's where DADT came from, which with apologies to my GLBT friends, was a stupid way to expend political capital. Simultaneously, the first lady was pushing her own version of a national health care program and we remember how fast that got killed.

Clinton had no choice. He'd blown his capital stupidly and understood he'd have to govern from the middle if he wanted to get anything done.

Since the new congressmen/senators haven't even been sworn in yet, it might be a tad early to say Obama refusing to triangulate as Clinton did and move more towards the middle.



------------------
Bill in Dayton

Hi Bill:

Your observation is right on the money. After enduring Slick Willie's "reign" in Arkansas... we pretty well had him measured for political obscurity when he "escaped" to Washington so he could hunt interns.

In his defense (and you don't know how it galls me to defend him) he did listen and kept his liberal friends in check to some degree. Thanks for your well made points.

Dave

Much of the reason for the current financial crisis began with Clinton's triangulation. With Republican support, he deregulated the financial industry, and the major financial collapse that occurred wouldn't have happened if he hadn't.

No politician can wage a campaign without the help of the rich, so both parties curry their favor. The Democrats are deferential, the Republicans are rabid about increasing their wealth.

Health care is now 17.3% of the economy and growing. Do you really think that if Clinton passed health care it would be worse?

According to the yearly Commonwealth Fund report:

Despite having the most expensive healthcare system, the United States ranked last overall compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The research measured five performance areas: quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives.

While there is room for improvement in every country, the United States stands out for not getting good value for its healthcare dollar, ranking last despite spending $7,290 per capita on healthcare in 2007 compared to the $3,837 spent per capita in the Netherlands, which ranked first overall.

Netherlands has universal healthcare. If government run healthcare is so horrible, why do they outlive us by about four years when they spend half of what we do per capita on healthcare?

Beakybird