More USA political questions

[Larry L.]

You talk about Detroit........................

Sean, how much worse would that part of the country be if the Conservatives got their way and allowed GM, Chrysler and the Banking industry to fail?

Had they failed, better run outfits would have bought 'em ALL up - in whole or in pieces.

The 'gubmunt' didn't bail out Studebaker, Duisenberg, Packard, or whomever else you'd care to mention, did it. NO, it didn't. And the country survived, didn't it. YES, it did. (The gov't bailout of Chrysler back in the '80's was the only exception I can think of...and THAT was a big mistake if only because of the precedent it set.)

All 'bailouts' do is kick the doomsday can further down the road. One of the basic tenents of the capitalist system is that poorly run outfits DIE.

IMHO, Detroit's gov't is the epitome of a pathetically and totally incompetently run 'outfit'. FIFTY YEARS of continual spend, spend, spending and bowing to unions under Democrat control totally ruined that city. DETROIT exemplifies where the U.S is headed currently.

I shuddup now...

 

[Robert May Eng.]

I find this map a little confusing. Are these areas and percentages of non paying filers relevant to the wage earning population or of the population as a whole. Perhaps these areas in the lower states have a larger population of retired folk or larger families with children in further education . I can think of a few possible reasons the map reads the way it does without starting a political shit fest.

Bob

 

[Sean]

Sean,

Let me see, you look at this map.....................

Do you say, my God, I had no idea that those red state consevatives who complain the most about some not paying taxes, lead the nation in not paying taxes?

Do you say, why would those Red State Consevatives who want nothing more than ending wellfare and food stamps lead the nation in receiving welfare and food stamps?

Do you say, its kind if stupid for those Red States that virtually all take in more from the Government than they pay in taxes trying to cut those taxes that they receive?

Noooooooooo!

You talk about Detroit........................

Sean, how much worse would that part of the country be if the Conservatives got their way and allowed GM, Chrysler and the Banking industry to fail?

****************

Sean,

You said this.......

"You know jim the problem with you is its a polarised competition. I dont see red and blue or dem and republican, frankly they are both aholes."

Now Sean, we might even believed what you say, except you continualy blame all problems on "Libs".

You continually talk about the problems of polarisation, yet that all you do!

No I am, debating you, because you take a strong lib position, so I try to take a logical yet different view on some subjects, to point out your one sided views.

You see as I keep trying to point out, its not acompetition, and no one group is totaly right, well yes pro choice is mostly right and certainly pro life are off another planet. But mostly there is a lot of sense all around. We are being pitched against eachother by a political entertainment complex which know no bounds.

Now if you think texas would be worse off with recieving less federal dollars you are wrong and here is why. If there were a lower Federal rate, each state would still be free to charge local taxes to pay for what those citizens(voters) felt was important. By the same token states that were uncompetitive to citizens needs would find loss of jobs and people moving elsewhere. That way we could easily see which system was better and which one people prefered, and the system woulkd be more dynamic and responsive.

Lets face it no one moves to texas for the climate or natural beauty. California has that in spades yet its current systems alienates people by percentage of pop to a far greater degree than Texas, actualy texas has a net population gain, and work growth calif would envy, why.

I use detroit as an example because that city now has half the population it did 30 years ago, something unseen in the modern world, short of war.
It lost its industry primarily because of poor work practices manadated by unions. Now you could well say management designed crappy products too, and you might be right, but even then how come the transplants did not move to detroit where the infrastructure and skill sets may have been easier.

If you read what led to the bankrupcy of detroit, read what the person who tried to run their MTA said about work practices, there was not hope or possibility.

Yes unregulated sytems run amok and can be abusive too, but regulated systems end up eating their own as happened in detroit.

I repeat, we do not need more of the same, either from repubs or dems. Both have some good ideas on some subjects, both have extremist idiots, we need a pastiche of ideas. We can be as socialy liberal as people will choose to be, i dont care, but we also need to be fioscaly sound and responsible, and we certainly are not. Our country risks becoming a giant detroit, somethign no one will want to bail out. If you cant see that, then there is no hope. Our current path leads nowhere good. In the end with no money there will be no school lunch programs or anything other than the basics.

We need a balanced budget, coherant tax code,( look at simpson bowels, a dem created bipartisan comitte, neither party would touch it, yet the public loves it and it makes sense.) Economic growth and opportunity will creat upliftment. Gov cannot create economic growth, it is at its current size and tax policy an impediment. yes I know Gov stopped the 08 collapse, and that is correct, but what comes after that, what is needed after that Gov cannot do. We also know the 08 collapse was a result of financial industry destroying itself, so regulation was needed, we also know the genesis of the subprime was tax policy and gov regulation in terms of housing. I dont argue for ultimates either red or blue.


If we are going to have taxes lets have 25% for the rich with no loopholes, we know at the very least its revenue neutral, it will get riod of code distortions and lead to more effcient economy and decisionmaking.

In conjunction with all of the above, we need an enviroment of personal responsibility, equal opportunity and brarriers for people such as exist removed. We dont need a big mother trying to make everybody the same, because we are not. Some are smarter but lazy, some are not as smart but driven and everything in between.

And yeah if the parents are going to be morons, then if they have smart self starter kids the path should be clear, and if the kids are average then that is what they will be. And if parents are involved and their kids are not really smart or self starters but the parents push and teach their kids then their kids will be better off than average. That is just the way it is, and more revenue and spending cant change that..

And if we cant afford a trillion dollar military then we have to be smarter about it and make do with less, maybe the results will be beter, same with social programs. Because they way we are going now we are going to end up with less of everything and not in a good way.

As they say in africa where I am from, better to have half a loaf of bread than none. Or give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life. That of course assumes the person is prpared to go out and fish, why would some will and others will eat bad but free fish, as long as there are fish to catch its up to you to do it. In my society there are fish to catch but few free fish. In our current society there a fish to catch for some but not others, and there a crappy free fish which cost a fortune and have to be borrowed from the chilldrens future to pay for..

 

[Jim Craik]

I find this map a little confusing. Are these areas and percentages of non paying filers relevant to the wage earning population or of the population as a whole. Perhaps these areas in the lower states have a larger population of retired folk or larger families with children in further education . I can think of a few possible reasons the map reads the way it does without starting a political shit fest.Bob

Bob,

This data shows the percentage of people in each state who actually file a return, who don't pay any Federal income tax. Keep in mind, this data is from 2008, things may have changed some.

Examples:

41% of the people who actually filed an income tax return in Arkansas did not pay any Federal income taxes!

39% of the people who actually filed a tax return in Texas did not pay any Federal income taxes!

*************

The article stressed that these numbers are only for people who actualy filed a tax return. If you added in those that don't even file, the numbers would be huge!

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Bob,

This data shows the percentage of people in each state who actually file a return, who don't pay any Federal income tax. Keep in mind, this data is from 2008, things may have changed some.

Examples:

41% of the people who actually filed an income tax return in Arkansas did not pay any Federal income taxes!

39% of the people who actually filed a tax return in Texas did not pay any Federal income taxes!

*************

The article stressed that these numbers are only for people who actualy filed a tax return. If you added in those that don't even file a return, the numbers would be huge!

I have got that bit Jim. What I was getting at is over here there are various reasons to have to file a tax return https://www.gov.uk/self-assessment-tax-returns/who-must-send-a-tax-return if you have a quick squint at it you can see that although here you may need to file a tax return you may not necessarily be a wage earner or a tax payer. Perhaps its different in the states.

Bob

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Larry your idea of a simple flat tax would or should be a no brainer, it won't happen because it would put every tax accountant and lawyer out of work, as it would at the tax office. Large corporations would lose their loopholes and would rail against change.
Another idea is a transaction tax, where every transaction has a say 2% tax on it.
You buy a beer 2%, a corporation buys a business or a luxury boat or ten million shares2%.
Income tax is abolished, as are all indirect taxes.
Would it raise enough revenue? You bet, do the math. Will it happen no, for the same reasons a flat tax won't happen. It's too simple and would put too many vested interests out of business and above all it would be impossible to avoid.

 

[Sean]

Larry your idea of a simple flat tax would or should be a no brainer, it won't happen because it would put every tax accountant and lawyer out of work, as it would at the tax office. Large corporations would lose their loopholes and would rail against change.
Another idea is a transaction tax, where every transaction has a say 2% tax on it.
You buy a beer 2%, a corporation buys a business or a luxury boat or ten million shares2%.
Income tax is abolished, as are all indirect taxes.
Would it raise enough revenue? You bet, do the math. Will it happen no, for the same reasons a flat tax won't happen. It's too simple and would put too many vested interests out of business and above all it would be impossible to avoid.

Correct on every count.

 

[Larry L.]

Larry your idea of a simple flat tax would or should be a no brainer, it won't happen because it would put every tax accountant and lawyer out of work, as it would at the tax office. Large corporations would lose their loopholes and would rail against change.
Another idea is a transaction tax, where every transaction has a say 2% tax on it.
You buy a beer 2%, a corporation buys a business or a luxury boat or ten million shares2%.
Income tax is abolished, as are all indirect taxes.
Would it raise enough revenue? You bet, do the math. Will it happen no, for the same reasons a flat tax won't happen. It's too simple and would put too many vested interests out of business and above all it would be impossible to avoid.

Yeeeeeeeeeep. 'Couldn't agree more. That's one of the reasons I said, "simply put" and left it that way!

 

[Robert May Eng.]

A bit to much info left out of some of the posts re non tax payers so I had a dig about and it has little to do with left or right wing states and more to do with the geographical placing of the poverty stricken and elderly. Your tax system is not that different to ours.

Bob

In response to the Occupy Wall Street outcry over wealth and income inequality in America, conservative politicians and organizations are quick to point out that the richest Americans pay the largest share of taxes. For example, the top 20 percent of Americans earn 53.4 percent of the total U.S. income, but pay 67.2 percent of total income tax [source: Tax Policy Center]. To drive the point home, conservatives express shock at the fact that more than half of all Americans pay no Federal income tax at all. Occupy Wall Street may be the "99 percent," but let's give some credit to the "53 percent" who keep the country in business, right? But is this statistic true?
In 2009, according to a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bi-partisan Congressional committee, only 49 percent of Americans owed money on their Federal income tax returns [source: PolitiFact]. So yes, it's true that more than half of all Americans paid no Federal income tax in the tax year 2009, and the number of people who did pay taxes was even lower -- 51 percent, not 53 percent. For tax year 2011, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 54 percent of Americans will pay Federal income tax.
As with any statement of this nature, there are some qualifiers and distinctions to be made. First of all, these numbers refer to Federal income taxes, not all income taxes and withholdings. Most workers have money withheld from each paycheck as mandatory contributions to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. If you're self-employed, you pay 15.3 percent of your gross earnings in so-called payroll taxes. If you're employed by someone else, you pay 7.65 percent and your employer pays the same amount [source: Social Security Administration]. Many workers are also subject to state and local income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes, in addition to Federal income taxes [source: Khimm].
That said, why don't 49 percent of Americans owe any federal income tax on April 15th? There are two main reasons: income level and tax benefits. The tax system in the United States is designed to be progressive, meaning that higher incomes are asked to pay a larger percentage in taxes. If your income level is relatively low, standard deductions and exemptions can quickly lower your tax burden to zero. According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research center, a family of four earning $26,400 a year will pay no taxes because the $11,600 standard deduction plus four exemptions of $3,700 each will lower their taxable income to zero [source: Williams].
Roughly half of Americans who pay no Federal income tax do so because they simply don't earn enough money. The other half doesn't pay taxes because of special provisions in the tax code that benefit certain taxpayers, notably the elderly and working families with children. For example, the tax code excludes a portion of Social Security income and gives larger standard deductions and tax credits to the elderly. And many working families with children qualify for both the child credit and the earned income tax credit. Together, the elderly and working families with children account for 74 percent of all nontaxable households that aren't excluded by income level alone [source: Williams].
So who are the 49 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes? The vast majority are the lowest income households, the elderly and young working families with children.

 

[Sean]

A bit to much info left out of some of the posts re non tax payers so I had a dig about and it has little to do with left or right wing states and more to do with the geographical placing of the poverty stricken and elderly. Your tax system is not that different to ours.

Bob

In response to the Occupy Wall Street outcry over wealth and income inequality in America, conservative politicians and organizations are quick to point out that the richest Americans pay the largest share of taxes. For example, the top 20 percent of Americans earn 53.4 percent of the total U.S. income, but pay 67.2 percent of total income tax [source: Tax Policy Center]. To drive the point home, conservatives express shock at the fact that more than half of all Americans pay no Federal income tax at all. Occupy Wall Street may be the "99 percent," but let's give some credit to the "53 percent" who keep the country in business, right? But is this statistic true?
In 2009, according to a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bi-partisan Congressional committee, only 49 percent of Americans owed money on their Federal income tax returns [source: PolitiFact]. So yes, it's true that more than half of all Americans paid no Federal income tax in the tax year 2009, and the number of people who did pay taxes was even lower -- 51 percent, not 53 percent. For tax year 2011, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 54 percent of Americans will pay Federal income tax.
As with any statement of this nature, there are some qualifiers and distinctions to be made. First of all, these numbers refer to Federal income taxes, not all income taxes and withholdings. Most workers have money withheld from each paycheck as mandatory contributions to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. If you're self-employed, you pay 15.3 percent of your gross earnings in so-called payroll taxes. If you're employed by someone else, you pay 7.65 percent and your employer pays the same amount [source: Social Security Administration]. Many workers are also subject to state and local income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes, in addition to Federal income taxes [source: Khimm].
That said, why don't 49 percent of Americans owe any federal income tax on April 15th? There are two main reasons: income level and tax benefits. The tax system in the United States is designed to be progressive, meaning that higher incomes are asked to pay a larger percentage in taxes. If your income level is relatively low, standard deductions and exemptions can quickly lower your tax burden to zero. According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research center, a family of four earning $26,400 a year will pay no taxes because the $11,600 standard deduction plus four exemptions of $3,700 each will lower their taxable income to zero [source: Williams].
Roughly half of Americans who pay no Federal income tax do so because they simply don't earn enough money. The other half doesn't pay taxes because of special provisions in the tax code that benefit certain taxpayers, notably the elderly and working families with children. For example, the tax code excludes a portion of Social Security income and gives larger standard deductions and tax credits to the elderly. And many working families with children qualify for both the child credit and the earned income tax credit. Together, the elderly and working families with children account for 74 percent of all nontaxable households that aren't excluded by income level alone [source: Williams].
So who are the 49 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes? The vast majority are the lowest income households, the elderly and young working families with children.

Yeah and its easy to vote that others pay more when you have no skin in the game.

 

[Larry L.]

Yeah and its easy to vote that others pay more when you have no skin in the game.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

...and we clearly have a majority of Pauls in this country now. 'Have had for several years.

 

[Nick]

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

How ironic,

George Bernard Shaw : He was most angered by what he perceived as the exploitation of the working class. An ardent socialist, Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society, a middle class organization established in 1884 to promote the gradual spread of socialism by peaceful means.


Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness.

George Bernard Shaw

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Well he was Irish!
One of his quotes which could apply to this place,
A man who cannot change his mind cannot change anything.

 

[Jack]

Well he was Irish!
One of his quotes which could apply to this place,
A man who cannot change his mind cannot change anything.

Another GBS quote for 'ya Pete:

"If the lesser mind could measure the greater as a footrule can measure a pyramid, there would be finality in universal suffrage. As it is, the political problem remains unsolved".

 

[Jack]

In desperation, another for you Pete:

"We will piss on their ashes and make mud. Then, justice will have been served.
Beware the fury of a patient man". John Dryden

 

[Bob Fechter]

"Politely" using the term "socialism" for "communism" is not dissimilar to using the term "sex worker" for "hoe." Mr. Fechter

 

[Mark]

"Once a wanker, always a wanker"
Me

 

[Nick]

"Politely" using the term "socialism" for "communism" is not dissimilar to using the term "sex worker" for "hoe." Mr. Fechter

So applying your terms, reasoning, labeling etc "Politely" using the term "conservatism" for "fascism" is not dissimilar...... you know the rest.

Which is plainly a ridiculous sound bite as they are poles apart, Mrs Thatcher plus a few in the paddock excepted

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Yeah and its easy to vote that others pay more when you have no skin in the game.

Sean are you suggesting the voting rights of the elderly, underpaid and sick should be withdrawn?

Bob

 

[Mark]

The problem with voting system, is that people are allowed to vote. Some of those people couldn't be entrusted to run a bath.

This why our politicians are such tossers, they need be nothing more. All they have to do is sell their snake oil to fools, as there are more fools than anything else that vote.

"Look at the shiny shiny! Do you want the shiny shiny? I will give you a shiny shiny and you will be happy. If you waste your shiny shiny, I will take another from someone else and give your theirs, your need is clearly greater."

I am the most caring shiny giver of all the shiny givers. All others are fools and charlatans, not to be trusted, because they come from a long line of hoarders of the shiny shiny."