Doug, Doug (okay, you can win : )

"So where we disagree is that I think they're ALL in it together, you just want to lay the blame (or the lion's share of it) on the right, and believe the false choice of having to vote Dem (better of two evils argument)."

There is a difference between Ds and Rs

Rs vote unanimously to maintain unlimited, anonymous political contributions. Ds voted to at least make the contributions public.

Rs vote unanimously to uphold every tax loophole. They call it "taxes on the job creators". The Ds vote almost unanimously to at least end the Bush Tax cuts. And vote for the "Buffet Rule" that would require people over $250K a year to pay at least 30% tax.

You're right that they're all in it together. Without political donations they won't get elected so they have to cater to contributors. Ds are heavily influenced by those same super-wealthy.

Still - if we call our representatives and tell them we want fair taxes, very limited political contributions, and some government spending on programs that help average people - and vote for people that advocate those - maybe this will turn around. The same thing happened in the 1930s.

Jeffery,

Did I say do away with taxes and rely solely on contributions? No. I was referring to the comment Jerry made about how some wealthy people like Gates, etc want to give away their wealth. Obviously we need taxes to run the country and we need to make adjustments to the current system. However it is not the federal governments role to continue taking more and more from the wealthy and deciding how to spend the money.

My oldest son started college a few weeks ago. I sure saw a lot of nice college buildings and facilities with the names of wealthy people on them. Just imagine how that process would have worked if the money would have to be filtered through the federal government. When a donor gives directly to the recipient it is dollar for dollar. Wonder what the yield would be if the federal government was in the middle.

Your fire truck example is not completely accurate. Volunteer fire departments play an important role in fire protection in the US. Often times they rely on contributions from the community (which includes wealthy people) to purchase new fire equipment. At least that is the way it happens in my community.

Maybe it's just where you live and things are just different. Where I live it's clearly evident that the wealthy people in my community give significantly to excellent local causes.


Brad

"Why is it bad for a wealthy person to decide where he would like to direct his money?"

Nothing wrong with this. We should all be free to decide where to spend our money.

But, to depend on the charity of super-wealthy people doesn't seem right. Sort of Dickensian.

The funding isn't stable.

A wealthy person could have crazy ideas like to fund racist organizations or to buy off the government.

I think it's better to have taxes paid fairly by every one pay for limited government services. We will have to decide how much and what to spend it on.
Politicians administer this. If you don't like the way it's spent, vote in different ones. This isn't perfect, but it's better than other systems.

"A wealthy person could have crazy ideas like to fund racist organizations or to buy off the government."

And we all know that politicians don't have any crazy ideas and they are great stewards of our tax dollars.

I always hate the "fair" word. How do you define it? Why is what's fair today, not fair tomorrow or in 2 years, 10 years, etc. What one deems fair might not be seen as fair to another. So who's right then? However the "fair" word makes some feel like they are being treated unfair, so they jump on the bandwagon. Why don't we just say that taxpayers should only pay X in taxes and it will never change. Then adjust spending accordingly. This would be "fair" because everyone would know the number and could count on it to not change. However the "fair" group will not give you a number because then they couldn't increase the "fair" number next year when they deem it no longer a "fair" number. See the agenda is not about determining a "fair" number, but about making you think you are getting treated unfairly so you will support them. You can take the same logic and use it against the Rep. on another issue.

Brad

Fellas, I realize there's a lot to talk about but, when you reach consensus will you please post the answer, so I know how to vote?

Just let me know.


When you have consensus.

Edited by EBasil on 09/05/2012 12:19:55 MDT.

Jerry 

"And you Fred, are being manipulated. You think they're looking after your interests. If you pay more than 15% of your income in Federal tax (SS, Medicare, income,...) then you're being screwed."

I enjoyed the first part of this comment. Second - I don't want anyone looking out for me thanks...THAT'S THE PROBLEM Jerry. I want them both to leave me alone and get the heII out of the way. I just spent an hour and a half during lunch trying to legally send a package to South Dakota and will have to try another option tomorrow. Thanks Federal gov't for all your dipstik unintended consequences while trying to help us dummies out. Im suprised we can still run with scissors.

It you want to eliminate the influence, take away the reward.

@ Erik

The more I see, the more I think it doesn't matter. We are hosed either way.

Edited by BFThorp on 09/05/2012 12:42:23 MDT.

Erik - I just returned from WalMart - good to go for fishing!



Wait..........umm, wrong thread.....

Brad, it seems to me that you're arguing from a very abstract level. There will never be an absolute consensus on what's a "fair" tax, for example, in general. But there are, today, actual tax rates in existence that many find to be unfairly tilted in favor of the very wealthy, based at least in part on historical tax rates in this country and by comparison with other countries. There's also the fact that wealth in the U.S. has been accumulating with the famous 1 percent over the last several decades, while the tax rates for this same group has fallen to historic lows. Many in my camp find it wrong that the very wealthy have had such a bonanza in terms of tax rates for so long--decades--and yet scream bloody murder when anyone tries to restore balance. This is what Democrats mean by "fairness": balance, based on historic rates and on the good deal that the wealthy have had for so long. But there is no magic formula that will create absolute fairness or justice in every instance. You have to wait for the next world to get that; here we have politics and the Law. And good luck doing away with either, because anarchy ain't fun. In those conditions the wealthy will be "volunteering" their money in ways that they really don't want to! By the way, this is part of what Obama meant by no one building a business on their own: you do need a functioning legal and political system as well as a civil society that believes in the first two, as a bare minimum, and other things as well to be able to even begin a business.
And there goes my lunch break!

I would be more comfortable having the people I vote into office to help set social policy (right to vote, fair housing laws, reproductive freedom), provide basic services (roads, education, etc), and help provide for the most needy among us than rely on the charitable donations of corporations. There are some magnanimous corporations and wealth individuals, but they are the exception, not the rule. Ultimately corporations and wealthy individuals are largely motivated by self-preservation and not the social good. Job creators frequently become job exporters once they are able. Corporations are answerable to themselves and shareholders first then to their communities. I have no problem with that, but I see that is incompatible with the social good.

And regarding everyone having "skin in the game," i would suggest that a family earning 18,000 a year already may not have any skin left to offer.

Edited by delvxe on 09/05/2012 14:55:52 MDT.

Jerry

"By the way, this is part of what Obama meant by no one building a business on their own: you do need a functioning legal and political system ... and other things as well to be able to even begin a business."

100% horse apples

With out these things, businesses must
1) maintain an army to secure trade routes
2) negotiate the terms where any route crosses another
3) maintain their trade routes so they are useable.

With a government roads can cross without negotiation.

In the mythical fantasy world where private everything is better, getting goods to market becomes a painful exercise in diplomacy.

People can not afford to go it alone.

Even the wealthiest of corporate people don't want to go it alone. The benefits are nil, the risks are absurd, and the rewards are going to be less than the investment in a functional government that provides common infrastructure.

Companies are investing heavily in the government they want. They are not fighting to reduce the government, they are shaping it to be ideal for them. What's ideal for maximum profit and unrestricted greed is not the same as what's best for communities.

Edited by redmonk on 09/05/2012 15:27:47 MDT.

I'm all for cogent arguments and debate, but I really can't believe the whole furor (manufactured, stupidity-based, and otherwise) around the "you didn't build that" quotation (not the quote without context, the whole paragraph). People and businesses work to make things happen within the large backdrop of police, fire, roads, national defense, social programs, FIDC-insured banks, and a million other things. Yes, you built your business or whatever, and the framework that allowed it to happen was provided and maintained in (large) part by local, state, and Federal governments. Please get over it.

"In the mythical fantasy world where private everything is better, getting goods to market becomes a painful exercise in diplomacy."

Really? I'd be curious to know what you do for a living. On a micro level, I see a lot of fails or businesses that barely get by, because of the restrictions and expenses CREATED by government. There is a place, there is a size. We passed it a long time ago.

Edited by BFThorp on 09/05/2012 15:35:20 MDT.

Why would conditions favorable to small business matter to big business ? Big business is writing the laws that benefit them. The more people who fail, the larger the pool of exploitable labor.


I'm a bard.

That's too funny.

I own a business that employees 25 people in california. I do business with and speak to many small business owners. Every time i here a pol suggest that i don't pay my fair share it makes me want to scream. taking all of the different taxes i pay (income,property,payroll,biz lic,corp fees,fuel taxes,etc,etc) combined it is between 50 and 75% of my income. I am not college educated, come from poverty (by todays standards)and borrowed cash from my credit card 20 years ago to get going.

It doesn't take a government program to make it. It takes a willingness to RISK, work hard and hope for some luck. Our current president has no idea of what it really takes in the private sector. He is very smart, and very unwise. His actions have caused our economy to continue to flounder. We need to get people back to work and paying taxes to get the country well. Most business people see him for what he is, unfriendly to business.

If the tax increases in his health care law actually happen (i already pay med ins for my people) it will cost me thousands, income tax increases will cost me more thousands. Those new expenses will come from capital to grow, or wage increases, or reduction people working for me. Government is the problem.

Hah hah hah...

Anyone that would run for office must be a damaged person

You do several events a day where you "glad hand" people and kiss babies

Or phone people for hours asking for money

Anyone willing to do this must have an ego that has to be constantly reinforced

If they didn't have to spend so much time begging for money, maybe they could spend more time governing - we'de have better people in office

Rick - you don't quite understand

You pay fair taxes - you're a small businessman

The problem is the super-wealthy don't pay fair taxes

And then the Rs say they want to further reduce taxes on small businesses "the job creators". But what they really mean is reduce taxes on super-wealthy.

Oh, and they want to "reduce regulations to unleash small businesses" but really they mean big businesses like the biggest banks and oil companies.

Don't be propogandized by their talk - look at the actual tax rates and other hard data.

Rick:

You should have learned from Romney and you would be paying 15% or less; you can really only pull that off, though, if you were already rich. It really does seem to be a messed up system when earned income (i.e. money you actively work for) is taxed at a much higher rate than unearned income (money you make because you have loads of investment money). If we are rewarding anyone with lower taxes, shouldn't it be for income we earn instead of income we get because of the fact that we are rich and don't have to work? I haven't learned either, Rick. I pay a high rate because almost all of my income is earned income.