Cut Taxes, Increase Tax Revenue, Shrink the Deficit

[BigSugar]

.....and the Dem's still say the sky is falling.....

MSNBC Article on Budget Deficit (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220076/)

I love the response of the Democrats......"Yeah, but it's only temporary because the boomers will blow up the budget in a few years with SS".

Ok, so how about a plan to fix SS? We already know that you don't like personal savings plans and you don't like any form of privatization. But what do you suggest? We can't manufacture more, younger workers and simply place them in the work force magically. We're growing jobs at a very nice pace the last 4 years, but that's still not going to be enough i'm guessing. a 13-1 payor to payee ratio was lovely pie-in-the-sky livin', but let's deal with the coming boomer bust and deal with a 3-1 ratio.....how are we supposed to deal with the shortfall? It was a Democratic Congress afterall that decided that the SS money didn't need to be kept segregated and made it part of the general fund (i know....It takes two to tango and the Republicans are just as guilty on this issue), so now that the piper has to be paid, where does it come from?

How about some sort of forced relinquishment to benefits? Anyone with over 1 million in other forms of pension/savings (excluding home equity) wouldn't qualify for SS? do a graduated scale below that so that only the most needy of the retirees qualify for full benefits? There has got to be a better answer than "I don't like the other guys solution." Thoughts?

so far, there has been no plan of action at all from the Dem's on this issue....just bitch and moan about how they don't like the other guys ideas.

[upwithpeople]

''Only a president with such a historically bad economic record would be this excited about a $248 billion deficit,'' said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. ''Under his watch ... record surpluses turned into record deficits as far as the eye can see.''

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit for the current budget year will rise to $286 billion. Over the next decade, the CBO forecasts that the deficit will total $1.76 trillion.One not-awful report amidst six years of awful reports is definitive evidence that budget surpluses are for pansies.

[BigSugar]

No, but in the middle of all of this, we suffered the worst terrorist attacks in all of US history, a recession, the bursting of the 1990's internet bubble and massive scandals related to huge corporations relating to 1990's excesses, had an entire city destroyed by a hurricane, have created and funded two entirely new cabinet level govt. agencies, and have waged 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

all in all, the fact that the country isn't on it's economic knees, pissing it's pants in fear is absofreakinglutely amazing!

and lets not forget that the CBO forecasts are repeatedly overestimated (ie: wrong) and have been beaten back by this economy over and over the last 5 years.

If Gore were President, we'd still be looking for that loooooooock boooooooox where we put SS and wondering why the eastern seaboard was all speaking arabic. :p

Edited to add: i like a balanced budget. i think budget surpluses indicate a real need for tax relief b/c the govt. has too much money if they are running a surplus. i think the administration needs a god damn debt counselor and needs to axe about 30% of the spending programs that are in the budget if we're going to do any real and lasting good. can't cut taxes and increase spending.....it makes no fiscal sense.

[akip]

No, but in the middle of all of this, we suffered the worst terrorist attacks in all of US history, a recession, the bursting of the 1990's internet bubble and massive scandals related to huge corporations relating to 1990's excesses, had an entire city destroyed by a hurricane, have created and funded two entirely new cabinet level govt. agencies, and have waged 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

all in all, the fact that the country isn't on it's economic knees, pissing it's pants in fear is absofreakinglutely amazing!


from what i understand, it's the housing market boom that's propped things up---gave consumers more bucks to spend. now that that's over more than a few economists are worried about a slow down, possible recession.

[Unrequited]

No, but in the middle of all of this, we suffered the worst terrorist attacks in all of US history, a recession, the bursting of the 1990's internet bubble and massive scandals related to huge corporations relating to 1990's excesses, had an entire city destroyed by a hurricane, have created and funded two entirely new cabinet level govt. agencies, and have waged 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/9/_/bush_hardwork.jpg

[akip]

i'm really not counting on that projected $10K a year; i'm trying to sock away as much as i can.

[slopechz]

from what i understand, it's the housing market boom that's propped things up---gave consumers more bucks to spend. now that that's over more than a few economists are worried about a slow down, possible recession.
As well they should be. People were using their home like cash machines. Can't do that anymore. Even Manhattan prices fell last month, and that never happens. Apts are staying on the market 2-3 times longer here in NYC. We haven't seen that in 10 years.

[monkey neck]

...but he still says "nucular". :rolleyes:

[BigSugar]

Means testing as a way of leveling benefits and conserving the funds has been discussed by isolated individuals from both parties for a while. But only among the fiscally conservative mavericks who break with their own parties' lines on a regular basis. The problem is that Old People (and technically, I'm edging towards that demographic - I get a half dozen mailings a month from AARP) have one of the highest participation percentages of the voting public. A guarantee that no one wants to take them on. And if you give a lot of boomers my age the incentive to vote because they think that what they were figuring on is going to get scaled back, I think you'll see the same participation.

So it's essentially generational warfare rather than party based.

But I'm curious. Given that emphasis on solutions - what's your stand on estate taxes, and the push to eliminate them?

i think death/estate taxes are barbaric and need to be eliminated. it's (earned income) taxed to death when it's earned and spent, why in the hell should the govt. get more of it when i die and leave it to my kids/wife/family? forcing families to sell the family home or farm b/c they can't afford the 50% death tax is absurd. proper estate planning can eliminate the worry, but most people (esp. old people with lots of savings and property, or families with large family farms/land) don't plan properly and get smacked hardest.

[DaHood]

why in the hell should the govt. get more of it when i die and leave it to my kids/wife/family?
Because the more you have when you die, the more evil you are and therefore the government is entitled to what you have accumulated during your lifetime. There's no way in hell you actually worked to accumulate all that wealth. This way, your money can be put to a more noble cause such as feeding and housing the poor, something that we all know the government does so well.

[Unrequited]

Because the more you have when you die, the more evil you are and therefore the government is entitled to what you have accumulated during your lifetime. There's no way in hell you actually worked to accumulate all that wealth. This way, your money can be put to a more noble cause such as feeding and housing the poor, something that we all know the government does so well.

The assumption that all these people who fall under the estate tax worked for their money is false. The percentage of people affected is very small. Some call it the Parish Hilton tax.

I'm not a proponent of the estate tax but a lot of these people are from "old money" families.

[akip]

why in the hell should the govt. get more of it when i die and leave it to my kids/wife/family?

crap. it's only for estates over a million. most people think that if their mom dies and leaves them $50K they've gotta pay, when they don't have to pay a cent.

your kids didn't work the business---you did. so they've gotta pay for what they didn't earn---just like they would if they earned it themselves.

[akip]

I'm not a proponent of the estate tax but a lot of these people are from "old money" families.

i absolutely AM a proponent of the estate tax. why should some wealthy kid be exempt from income tax? makes absolutely no sense that they should get a free ride---they're already getting a free ride up to the first mil.

[dannyboy]

i absolutely AM a proponent of the estate tax. why should some wealthy kid be exempt from income tax? makes absolutely no sense that they should get a free ride---they're already getting a free ride up to the first mil.
At the minimum, they should make an exemption for family farms. It doesn't take an absurd amount of acreage with soaring property values to reach that $1 mil. threshold and kids of farmers are more than likely farmers themselves or helped out on the farm up until they grew up and moved out on their own.

[euro60]

i absolutely AM a proponent of the estate tax. why should some wealthy kid be exempt from income tax? makes absolutely no sense that they should get a free ride---they're already getting a free ride up to the first mil.
I have to strongly disagree here, Akip. But that of course marks the defining difference between people who believe the government should decide for them (whether they like ot or not), or whether the individual should decide. First of all, your reasoning on the income tax is incorrect: money in the estate is money THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO INCOME TAX. The death tax is nothing more than a double-taxation. A money grab by the government, which takes the death of someone as an excuse to take money away. Why? just because the person died? It's not like that person made additional income when he or she died, on which of course he or she should pay income tax if in fact there was such an additional income. I don't get it.

If I ever were lucky enough to have lots of money in my estate planning, I know that I will give a substantial portion to good causes and non-profits OF MY OWN CHOICE. The shining examples are of course Bill & Melissa Gates, and Warren Buffett. And yes, I'd still leave money to my kids. If I have installed a healthy work ethic in them, they'll work anyway.

[george]

The assumption that all these people who fall under the estate tax worked for their money is false. The percentage of people affected is very small. Some call it the Parish Hilton tax.

I'm not a proponent of the estate tax but a lot of these people are from "old money" families.

Just over a third of the Forbes 400 is inherited wealth. Among women on the Forbes 400, its more like 80% of them acquired their fortune through inheritance.

[jneale]

.....and the Dem's still say the sky is falling.....

MSNBC Article on Budget Deficit (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220076/) Ok, so how about a plan to fix SS?
Um…why do you think there hasn’t been a big push to kick out illegal aliens? Once they get on someone’s payroll they pay SS tax (and FED) & never collect on it.

It’s a false economy as they suck up other social welfare programs – that is why states are fighting for tougher policies as they are the ones footing the bill.

[Unrequited]

At the minimum, they should make an exemption for family farms. It doesn't take an absurd amount of acreage with soaring property values to reach that $1 mil. threshold and kids of farmers are more than likely farmers themselves or helped out on the farm up until they grew up and moved out on their own.

The current exemption level is $2M, $4M for couples, again, very few farm estates are affected.

[akip]

I have to strongly disagree here, Akip. But that of course marks the defining difference between people who believe the government should decide for them (whether they like ot or not), or whether the individual should decide. First of all, your reasoning on the income tax is incorrect: money in the estate is money THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO INCOME TAX. The death tax is nothing more than a double-taxation. A money grab by the government, which takes the death of someone as an excuse to take money away. Why? just because the person died? It's not like that person made additional income when he or she died, on which of course he or she should pay income tax if in fact there was such an additional income. I don't get it.

If I ever were lucky enough to have lots of money in my estate planning, I know that I will give a substantial portion to good causes and non-profits OF MY OWN CHOICE. The shining examples are of course Bill & Melissa Gates, and Warren Buffett. And yes, I'd still leave money to my kids. If I have installed a healthy work ethic in them, they'll work anyway.


it's not double taxation. the person who earned it is not taxed twice. there's no such thing as free money. you get money, you give the govt their cut. it's how this society operates.

if my kid is ever lucky enough to get more than a million outta me, he can pay his taxes on it. i wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for him.

[DaHood]

Among women on the Forbes 400, its more like 80% of them acquired their fortune through inheritance.
Bitches! Let's tax them!!!

[DaHood]

First of all, your reasoning on the income tax is incorrect: money in the estate is money THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO INCOME TAX. The death tax is nothing more than a double-taxation.it's not double taxation. the person who earned it is not taxed twice. there's no such thing as free money. you get money, you give the govt their cut. it's how this society operates.
Good point/counter point.



Now where's the part where euro calls akip an ignorant slut? :confused:

[akip]

Good point/counter point.



Now where's the part where euro calls akip an ignorant slut? :confused:

not ignorant, not promiscuous. just a little crazy.

[DaHood]

not ignorant, not promiscuous. just a little crazy.
Damn. I guess that reference flopped.

[euro60]

it's not double taxation. the person who earned it is not taxed twice. there's no such thing as free money. you get money, you give the govt their cut. it's how this society operates.

if my kid is ever lucky enough to get more than a million outta me, he can pay his taxes on it. i wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for him.
If I may suggest the following perspective: it's not about the person who dies or the person who gets it. Taxation should occur when additional monies are created. The tax you pay on your work-related income (money you didn't have before, until you created it by working for it) is the prime example, of course.

With the death tax, there is no creation of additional monies. There was X dollars yesterday, and X dollars today. So why would the government be entitled to grab even more of the money that it has already taxed once before?

As to the issue of you not caring that your son would have to pay taxes on it, there may be a lot of other potentially interested parties who'd have a different view. Such as non-profits. Or even cool for-profits. Such as WOXY.com. If given a choice: would you rather have your estate be taxed by the government, or would you rather donate that very same money to WOXY.com, just as an example?

[euro60]

Now where's the part where euro calls akip an ignorant slut? :confused:
ignorant? NEVAH!

slutty? depends if Akip's been doing a Scarlett Johansson lately :p

[DaHood]

ignorant? NEVAH!

slutty? depends if Akip's been doing a Scarlett Johansson lately :p
Damn, flopped on you too. You were supposed to open your last counterpoint with 'akip, you ignorant slut'.

It doesn't matter that it's not true!!

[akip]

Damn, flopped on you too. You were supposed to open your last counterpoint with 'akip, you ignorant slut'.

It doesn't matter that it's not true!!


okaayyy, i get it. just needed a little help. ;)

[markalot]

The current exemption level is $2M, $4M for couples, again, very few farm estates are affected.

Where do you get that? Very few farms are effected? What do you think the average worth of an average size farm is?

Face it, there are people who believe that those with more money than them are crooks. They must have gotten the money unfairly, and they should use that money to help poor people out because that's fair.

It's called socialism.

Tell a story about a guy who ran a grocery store all his life but can't pass it down to his family because of tazes and you whiney shits will talk about old money or hey that's fair, or you shouldn't be able to pass wealth down in a family anyway.

Total and complete bullshit, anti-family, anti-business, anti-capitalist and when it comes down to it, simple jealousy.

[akip]

Where do you get that? Very few farms are effected? What do you think the average worth of an average size farm is?

Face it, there are people who believe that those with more money than them are crooks. They must have gotten the money unfairly, and they should use that money to help poor people out because that's fair.

It's called socialism.

Tell a story about a guy who ran a grocery store all his life but can't pass it down to his family because of tazes and you whiney shits will talk about old money or hey that's fair, or you shouldn't be able to pass wealth down in a family anyway.

Total and complete bullshit, anti-family, anti-business, anti-capitalist and when it comes down to it, simple jealousy.

we don't live in haiti. we live in a society where people pay taxes. it's the law. if you earn money you pay taxes. if you inherit money or win money, you pay taxes. the estate tax is more than fair. nobody is supposed to get a chunk of change and keep the entire thing, unless you're so poor you fall under the line. there is no line on the high end, only exemptions and deductions. and if you inherit money you get a GIGANTIC deduction---what was it now, $2 million?

[markalot]

we don't live in haiti. we live in a society where people pay taxes. it's the law. if you earn money you pay taxes. if you inherit money or win money, you pay taxes. the estate tax is more than fair. nobody is supposed to get a chunk of change and keep the entire thing, unless you're so poor you fall under the line. there is no line on the high end, only exemptions and deductions. and if you inherit money you get a GIGANTIC deduction---what was it now, $2 million?

You're right, which is why no taxes should be paid, as they already have been paid and will continue to have to be paid on the business. The people inheriting the business don't get out of paying taxes on operations or profits or property.

If I buy my wife an expensive diamond should I have to pay tax twice? Once on the purchase price and once as a tax on her receiving the ring? That's nuts.

[euro60]

we don't live in haiti. we live in a society where people pay taxes. it's the law. if you earn money you pay taxes. if you inherit money or win money, you pay taxes. the estate tax is more than fair. nobody is supposed to get a chunk of change and keep the entire thing, unless you're so poor you fall under the line. there is no line on the high end, only exemptions and deductions. and if you inherit money you get a GIGANTIC deduction---what was it now, $2 million?
You never responded to my earlier counterpoint (a couple of posts up).

Other than that, it's not because "it's the law" that we should blindly accept it. Otherwise you can just hang it up and never try to legislate a new point.

You call the death tax "fair", but it's only "fair" if you believe the government should double-dip for the sole reason of someone dying.

[jps]

last i heard there had not been a single family farm that had been impacted by the estate tax (its a tax on estates not a tax on the person that is now dead).

any farms that may have been impacted have been corporate farms.

still not sure whether i like it or not, but calling it a death tax just to make it sound worse doesn't make it so...

and if cutting taxes could cause a real reduction in the deficit why wouldn't the republicans have cut taxes more? it would seem that cut a little reduce the deficit a little would mean cut taxes a lot and reduce the deficit a lot... cut taxes to zero reduce the deficit to zero?

try reducing your own personal income and let me know if somehow that turns in to you having more money.

[Unrequited]

Where do you get that? Very few farms are effected? What do you think the average worth of an average size farm is?

The whole "save the farmers" cry is a straw man. I don't think there are a lot of independent grocers in the affected group either. Here you go:

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

[dannyboy]

The whole "save the farmers" cry is a straw man. I don't think there are a lot of independent grocers in the affected group either. Here you go:

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html
No, the family farmers just get eaten up by the increasing property taxes when they are surrounded by the encroachment of suburban sprawl.

[Unrequited]

No, the family farmers just get eaten up by the increasing property taxes when they are surrounded by the encroachment of suburban sprawl.

They'll be OK, they still have their federal subsidies, welfare for farmers.

[markalot]

Under $1 million 0 $0 0.0%
$1 - $2 million 190 $26 1.6%
$2 - $3.5 million 60 $190 7.5%
$3.5 - $5 million 40 $449 12.0%
$5 - $10 million 80 $1,322 19.3%
$10 - $20 million 50 $2,832 22.9%
More than $20 million 30 $23,442 22.2%
All 440 $2,238 19.9%


Interesting.

So on the one hand it's not that many, on the other hand the majority are between 1 and 10 million. So while I may be wrong about the family farm, where are these corporate farms you're talking about?

[markalot]

They'll be OK, they still have their federal subsidies, welfare for farmers.

Where the hell are you coming from? If they are subsidized so well then why are they going under? Too many subsidies?

[AvatarOfVishnu]

I used to be all in favor of NAFTA & globalization & the resulting out-sourcing that comes with it - thinking that: efficiency = good economics

My thinking started changing on 09/12/2001. I think that our country needs a certain level of self-dependence instead of so much inter-dependence w/ other countries.

We need to be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves.

We need to be able to produce enough energy to power our daily lives.

We need to be able to allow for ALL of our citizens to find dignity & fulfillment in good-paying jobs (so they can earn enough to not only survive, but to prosper).

The desire to sell our products overseas is driven by the large corporations. And I'm beginning to see the large corporations as the enemy now. Their overly inflated power & the results on the global community are partly fueling the rise in this 21st century terrorist culture.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against foreign trade. But, I think if we kept to ourselves more, we wouldn't have as many enemies in the world.

[Unrequited]

Where the hell are you coming from? If they are subsidized so well then why are they going under? Too many subsidies?

We're getting off track here. That was half tongue-in-cheek. My main point, again, very few farms are affected by the estate tax.

[the happy prole]

Exactly.

If you give me anything over $10,000, I have to declare it as income and I'm taxed on it. If you pay me rent, I'm taxed on it even though you were taxed when it was your income. If I win gambling money, I'm taxed on it even though the casinos pay taxes. If I buy something at the store, I'm taxed even though the store pays taxes and so does the farmer and all the middlemen.

You get taxed when you receive income. That's how it works. The estate tax isn't any different. And just like any other tax, there's huge loopholes in it-- like simply setting up a trust fund.

As for the small farmers, I honestly don't give a shit. Stop giving out ALL farm subsidies, and we'll see if they can compete with the corporations. I actually think they'd have a better chance. But if they can't, too bad.

[DaHood]

I used to be all in favor of NAFTA & globalization & the resulting out-sourcing that comes with it - thinking that: efficiency = good economics

My thinking started changing on 09/12/2001. I think that our country needs a certain level of self-dependence instead of so much inter-dependence w/ other countries.

We need to be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves.

We need to be able to produce enough energy to power our daily lives.

We need to be able to allow for ALL of our citizens to find dignity & fulfillment in good-paying jobs (so they can earn enough to not only survive, but to prosper).

The desire to sell our products overseas is driven by the large corporations. And I'm beginning to see the large corporations as the enemy now. Their overly inflated power & the results on the global community are partly fueling the rise in this 21st century terrorist culture.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against foreign trade. But, I think if we kept to ourselves more, we wouldn't have as many enemies in the world.

A *freaking* Men

[dannyboy]

I used to be all in favor of NAFTA & globalization & the resulting out-sourcing that comes with it - thinking that: efficiency = good economics

My thinking started changing on 09/12/2001. I think that our country needs a certain level of self-dependence instead of so much inter-dependence w/ other countries.

We need to be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves.

We need to be able to produce enough energy to power our daily lives.

We need to be able to allow for ALL of our citizens to find dignity & fulfillment in good-paying jobs (so they can earn enough to not only survive, but to prosper).

The desire to sell our products overseas is driven by the large corporations. And I'm beginning to see the large corporations as the enemy now. Their overly inflated power & the results on the global community are partly fueling the rise in this 21st century terrorist culture.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against foreign trade. But, I think if we kept to ourselves more, we wouldn't have as many enemies in the world.I agree. Corporations are as imperialistic as any great empire in world history. Instead of seizing control by conquering land, they seize control by conquering markets. Many empires have wielded power and influence for a great amount of time but ultimately they will collapse. Any human endeavor (governments, cultures, businesses, relationships) that continues to take without giving something back will eventually die.

[euro60]

I used to be all in favor of NAFTA & globalization & the resulting out-sourcing that comes with it - thinking that: efficiency = good economics

My thinking started changing on 09/12/2001. I think that our country needs a certain level of self-dependence instead of so much inter-dependence w/ other countries.

We need to be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves.

We need to be able to produce enough energy to power our daily lives.

We need to be able to allow for ALL of our citizens to find dignity & fulfillment in good-paying jobs (so they can earn enough to not only survive, but to prosper).

The desire to sell our products overseas is driven by the large corporations. And I'm beginning to see the large corporations as the enemy now. Their overly inflated power & the results on the global community are partly fueling the rise in this 21st century terrorist culture.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against foreign trade. But, I think if we kept to ourselves more, we wouldn't have as many enemies in the world.
In what world are you living? The jeanie is out of the bottle, there is no turning back on free trade and the worldwide economy. I see it with the companies that I work with every day (I am a lawyer). Either companies find a way to work in this worldwide economy, or they go under, period. You may not like what is going on in China, just to take an example, but hey, IT'S HAPPENING, now deal with it. The mentality that you seem to espouse reminds me of the ostrich sticking his head in the sand, thinking that it'll all pass over since he's not seeing anything. BUT IT'S STILL HAPPENING.

Better to attack the new world challenges head-on and reposition yourself. If a company cannot compete simply on manufacturing, there are many things that it can do to compete to complete its dimished manufacturing capabilities, such as R&D, marketing, innovation, customer service, etc... The question is: are we getting our employees ready for this? Are we educating our kids and giving them the skills to compete in this worldwide economy?

[dannyboy]

And on the subject of so-called already taxed income. Please point out in the Constitution where it says that you only get taxed once for every dollar you ever make. In fact, you get taxed on that money multiple times no matter where you are. When you pay a sales tax, you are essentially getting taxed for converting your money into some merchandise you desire. You pay property taxes on assets purchased with money that was already taxed. Many regularly pay both state and local income taxes. Bottom line, taxes pay for things that make the quality of life in society in general better. Look at the places where there are no real general taxes levied on those who can afford it. For the most part, they are not places that most people want to live.


It's interesting to point out that a major impetus for the founding of our nation was the cry of "no taxation without representation" and the resulting Boston Tea Party. Now, I have no problem paying taxes but in light of how our political machine is run these days with lobbyists holding the real power behind the politicians (as so eloquently pointed out by Lou Dobb's column in another posted thread) (http://www.woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=41736), the same cry could be raised today from a certain point of view.

[markalot]

From the Progressive Review:

People who complain about liberals are like the man from Virginia who went to college on the GI Bill and bought his first house with a VA loan. When a hurricane struck he got federal disaster aid. When he got sick he was treated at a veteran's hospital. When he was laid off he received unemployment insurance and then got a SBA loan to start his own business. His bank funds were protected under federal deposit insurance laws. Now he's retired and on social security and Medicare. The other day he got into his car, drove the federal interstate to the railroad station, took Amtrak to Washington and went to Capitol Hill to ask his congressman to get the government off his back.

If you enjoy wealth and prosperity, it is to some degree because this society provides you with an environment where it can be accumulated and enjoyed. Even with current tax rates.

Golly, it's too bad that's a gross exaggeration and annoying as fuck. Makes you wonder why we can have the worst government in decades topped by the worst president and yet the liberals still can't regain power. Maybe because they're so annoying?

We need to get these jesus freaks out of congress. But honey, remember what the alternative is? shudder ... oh well.

All that article is telling me is that if you want something something done you need to rely on the government to do it. Why? Why assume that without the government we wouldn't have roads or rail travel or that poor people would die? Why assume that just because it worked out the way it did that it was the right way? There is so much wasted money and so many assumptions made about how people (sometimes called consumers) would starve and die without governments help. So the government props them up, keeps them barely alive, just enough so we can ignore the problem. And they use 5 times too much money to do it.

If people didn't have money to spend then how would the top of the pyramid survive? That's just silly.

Oh, and conservatives don't take trains, they drive SUV's, so that story is totally fiction.

[classicgrrl]

The question is: are we getting our employees ready for this? Are we educating our kids and giving them the skills to compete in this worldwide economy?

maybe another question is are we getting too god damned greedy? I see independent business compete just fine when they stay true to scale.

I think the "global economy" is going to get real old real quick for many folks and you are going to begin seeing niche businesses and marketing popping up everywhere. I, for one, am sick to freakin' death of having to call customer service only to find that I cannot understand anyone. Fuck that. I go to a small mom and pop repair shop if at all possible.

I bank with a small credit union.
I buy my records at small record stores.
I buy my books at small book stores.
I eat in small restaurants.
I take my car to small auto shops.
I shop in small retail stores or on-line.

everything is too big, too noisy, too mainstream, too boring, too suburban and too damned expensive.

[DaHood]

I bank with a small credit union.
I buy my records at small record stores.
I eat in small restaurants.
I take my car to small auto shops.

A few things that I do although not exclusively. My credit union is not totally 'small'. It has a few branches but it's still better than the corporate banks for my needs. My brother's friend owns a small record store and he's very personal in his service. My favorite restaurants are small family run businesses and I feel good about supporting them. I especially support my mechanic and his small shop because he is reputable, reasonable and trustworthy.

I try to support small business whenever I can.

[BigSugar]

While the death tax exemption is currently rising, it will sunset back to $650,000 in 2010 unless changes are made permanent. That brings quite a bit more of society into it's grasp (ie: anyone with an IRA that fails to name a beneficiary, anyone with life insurance that fails to name a beneficiary, old people that bought their dream home for $50K 40 years ago and it's now worth a million bucks and it's not held right of survivor or in trust, etc....) the examples of people who get absolutely hammered by this tax are innumerable if something is not done asap.

the family farm is the only one that gets hit in this scheme too.....corporate farms (many of which used to be family farms until dad dies and son/daughter can't pay the taxes on the 500 acres of farm land they've worked for generations) are outside the scope of the death tax b/c corporations don't die. If a corp wants to transfer property to another corp or subsidiary, they don't take near the hit that the death tax provides...in many cases (ie: Like Kind exchanges), they don't take a hit at all.

the death tax goes back to merry olde england and the succession of noblemans lands and the kings desires to maintain control over the lands and their succession. it's a really old concept who's time has come to end. the transfer via death is not taxed at anywhere near "income tax" rates. Many times, it's up to 50% of the gross proceeds of the estate. The rates/exemptions/deductions are entirely different, so comparing this to standard "gift" taxes or income taxes is a bad analogy.

[akip]

i just think that it's interesting that those who are so terrified of this country turning socialist seem to have no problem with the other extreme, which the founders of this country did fear because it's what they were escaping from---a rigid, self-perpetuating class system. 'cause if you're going to exempt from taxation the inter-generational transfer of wealth, and tax ONLY earned income, then the working people of this country will be shouldering all the burden and people whose sole income is from inherited wealth alone will be exempt (that's particularly true if you also get rid of taxation of dividends and capital gains, as many of the same extremist anti-tax conservatives would love to do).

[Unrequited]

The people who scream "socialism" over and over get tiring. It's a knee-jerk reaction. Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't mention capitalism.

I believe, on the whole, the capitalist system is good for this country, I just don't believe in unfettered capitalism.

[markalot]

then the working people of this country will be shouldering all the burden and people whose sole income is from inherited wealth alone will be exempt

How can that happen? Again it's this belief that we will somehow survive if an entire swath of consumers can no longer afford to live.

And I suppose you believe that the majority of wealthy people in this country pay no taxes?

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh013103.shtml

That was an interesting attempt to figure out how much the rich really pay. Do you have better numbers?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p03s01-usgn.html

Here's another.

Now in total dollars, not percentages of income, the rich are supporting our society (the usual quote is that the top 50% of wage earners are responsible for 96% of all tax money collected). Even with a flat tax they will continue to do so (in dollars). So in fact what you are saying is that you want the rich to prop up everyone else, so is it a surprise that they also have most of the political power in this country?

How would taxing them MORE make the situation better? If you believe in no taxation without representation then certainly the rich deserve to be more represented if they pay more.

[akip]

I believe, on the whole, the capitalist system is good for this country, I just don't believe in unfettered capitalism.

same here. i'm not pro-union and i was for welfare reform. i'd much rather take my chances here than move to canada. but that doesn't mean i want to live in a society where the rug is pulled out from under the working middle class either. you still have to worry about the common good.

[akip]

And I suppose you believe that the majority of wealthy people in this country pay no taxes?


as usual you are twisting what i am saying. i'm not talking about anything EXCEPT the inheritance tax and the effect of getting rid of it. it is something that would obviously favor those whose sole income is from their assets rather than from working, and they DO exist. i never said that NO wealthy people earn their income----i am not an idiot.

our system of taxation is a compromise between allowing free enterprise to create economic vigor and preventing the calcification of privilege. for that, the rich pay a BIT more on their higher levels of income. big deal. they did extraordinarily well under clinton and are shooting into the stratosphere under bush. fine. but, back to the original question, why should the kids of ANYONE, whether the money was made on wall street or a plumbing business, get a free chunk of cash? it's income, and it's taxable.

[markalot]

I did not intend to twist your words.

So the inheritance tax is a good way to prevent perpetual wealth, it seems, but at what level? At what point should a family run business become taxable? Should this number be indexed to inflation?

I'm, still not convinced that the inheritance tax is not doing real damage.

[akip]

I did not intend to twist your words.

So the inheritance tax is a good way to prevent perpetual wealth, it seems, but at what level? At what point should a family run business become taxable? Should this number be indexed to inflation?

I'm, still not convinced that the inheritance tax is not doing real damage.

i think i can live with the current exemption of $1 or $2 million, as a respect-for-family-business (or even just respect for families period) concession. but they shouldn't do away with it altogether.

you'll kill me for saying this, but i would revert to the tax rates under clinton. it was good for balancing the budget and didn't get in the way of a thriving free market economy, without hurting the middle class.

[markalot]

I didn't mind the tax rates under Clinton. :) I've always liked McCain and his ideas on what to do with the surplus.

The estate tax I've always hated, and the limit will go down unless the provision is made permanent.

[Harlock]

The Washington Post has an article about this topic: Lower Deficit Sparks Debate Over Tax Cuts' Role (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html)

Although the "debate" seems to be between Bush and economists. So, uh, yeah. Some debate.

Some quotes:

Economists said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in that process, they said, and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it gained from the resulting economic stimulus.

Of course, it's not at all surprising that a politician, any politician, would do such a thing.

If growth induced by Bush's cuts doesn't explain the surge, where did all those extra tax dollars come from?

The short answer is spectacularly high corporate profits and the advancing fortunes of wealthy Americans, economists said.
...
"The simplest way to think about it, I think, is we know we have growing income inequality, especially at the top," said Isabel V. Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who worked for the Clinton administration. "The very rich are pulling away from the ordinary rich and the middle class. Those very rich people pay higher tax rates. When the distribution of income shifts upward, as it has in recent years, you get a revenue kicker from that."

Quite the surprise: Bush's tax policies have made the rich even richer, while the rest of us get nothing.

[markalot]

"The simplest way to think about it, I think, is we know we have growing income inequality, especially at the top," said Isabel V. Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who worked for the Clinton administration. "The very rich are pulling away from the ordinary rich and the middle class. Those very rich people pay higher tax rates. When the distribution of income shifts upward, as it has in recent years, you get a revenue kicker from that."

Quite the surprise: Bush's tax policies have made the rich even richer, while the rest of us get nothing.


I love it. So are you quoting someone who was in the Clinton administration admitting that the rich pay MUCH HIGHER TAXES and that's where ALL THE EXTRA MONEY is coming from? Those fucking rich people, they need to pay their share!

[the happy prole]

Of course the revenue comes from the very rich. I don't think any economist would deny that. The thing is, Clinton RAISED the taxes on the rich at the same time the economy was growing. When you reduce taxes, you increase income equity and you lower the amount of Federal revenue.

Now I'm not saying we have to have a lot of Federal Revenue (Federal Revenue=big government) or that we have to have income equity. But the point is, Bush's tax cuts have done nothing to reduce the deficit and he can't claim credit for it. Did you see the quote from AEI (who I think you will agree have no love for taxes)?

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan(!) American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

The growth in the economy and subsequent lower deficit (after Bush ran them up in the first place) have nothing to do with Bush's policies. And to be fair, Clinton got the same break by having a nice dotcom boom during his administration.

[Shlep]

My $.02:

I honestly fail to see what Bush playing lots of golf has to do with the relative health, or lack thereof, of the economy. Should I assume that it logically follows that if Bush played less golf and more time in the White House mucking about with matters related to the economy that it would have been *better*? I was under the assumption that critics of Bush considered it a foregone conclusion that he (along with spending so much time maxing and relaxing over 18 holes) was a clueless moron who turned everything he devoted his attention to into a monster pooch-screw...domestic policy, diplomacy, dads' oil company, et al. Hence, I'd think that this same group of folks would be relieved that he's out shooting a round or two.

If not, then I must wonder how one would explain the economy being so darned good under Bill Clinton, who among other things was known to be quite the duffer, making sure to squeeze in a little tee time whenever and wherever he could. If we agree that there is no a directly proportional relation between the Presidents' golf game and the state of the economy (I, for the record, do not...as far as I'm concerned, the President has nowhere the influence on the economy that his supporters claim when things are good as his detractors do when its bad) then either Bush can't be blamed for a weak economy or Clinton can't be lauded for a strong one.

If I am to believe that the President is directly responsible for how good the economy is, then it's worth noting that the economic woes that attended Bushs' first term started precisely on April 14th, 2000 (several months before the election) when the dot-com bubble burst spectacularly. Or, I could buy into the notion that the sorry state of affairs in the first few years of this century *ARE* Bushes fault, as critics of his administration were dutiful in pointing out constantly (but conspicuously silent with regards to giving him an ounce of credit for the steady recovery it's been making).

I dislike the estate tax. I think we get taxed for enough stuff without the government barging in and demanding its due and propers YET AGAIN after someone gets planted in the ground. This includes people from families have been quite wealthy for some time; whether you earned your bankroll, or your dad did, or your great-great-great-granddad did should not, in my mind, affect how much of your dough the government gets to take. This is mostly due to the fact that I don't think that succeeding in life (or your parents succeeding in life) is a crime against poor people that needs to be addressed via conficatory/punitive taxation and in pretty much equal measure my unwavering belief that a total loser with an addictive compulsion to off-track horse race betting could manage my money better than the government can.

I cannot even begin to imagine why anyone, were they blessed with an abundance of wealth, would want it going to the federal government which didn't have jack to do with you getting it in the first place instead of your loved ones.

[the happy prole]

If you worked in DC or know anyone who works in DC, there's no question that Bill Clinton was about as big a policy wonk as there was for a President. Bush might be the least. I don't know if that's good or bad. Reagan wasn't a policy guy, Carter was. I'm perfectly cool with hiring a good cabinet and relying on people with expertise and more time make the calls.

The problem with the Bush administration-- and it's been noted by people on both sides of the aisle-- is that Bush (or Cheney) override their stat-headed gurus on broad, moral principles without understanding the facts.

I don't think Presidents have much control over the economy. They do have control over the budget. Clinton took advantage of a strong economy to balance the budget and lower the deficit. He raised the taxes on the rich (and sonuvabitch, the economy still managed to grow so can we toss out the "tax the rich and the country goes to shit" argument?).

You save when you're strong so you have the money when things are bad. Bush's tax cuts have actually reduced the amount of deficit reduction we could have had according to most economists. That's bad because we're not making the most of our window of opportunity.

As for the Death Tax, get over it. No one is being punished for being rich. That money is all yours while you're alive. When you are dead the money is no good to you.

The person getting taxed is the person that INHERITS the money. Now, if you and I are going to be taxed on money we personally earned by contributing to the economy, isn't it fair to tax someone on money they got by doing nothing? In fact, shouldn't that person probably pay MORE tax?

If we're all about incentivizing people and the value of hardwork blahblahblah, the people who work should be able to keep more of the money they personally earned at the expense of those who have contributed less to the economy.

[Shlep]

If you worked in DC or know anyone who works in DC, there's no question that Bill Clinton was about as big a policy wonk as there was for a President.

Well, I lived in the periphery of the city, but still in the DC metropolitan area. And yeah, I had some friends and acquiantences who worked on the Hill or spent a lot of time interfacing with such folks who came across to me like Tucker Carlson or James Carville in the larval stage. ANd when it comes to politics, DC is a company town.

And yeah, I'm aware Clinton was a rather wonkish President who loved delving into the details of crafting policy...but then, so was Jimmy Carter, and he's *NOT* remembered fondly for it. Personally, I prefer Dubya's leadership style, or would if he wasn't seemingly out of his depth with a little too much touching faith in those he surrounds himself with.

Bush might be the least. I don't know if that's good or bad. Reagan wasn't a policy guy, Carter was. I'm perfectly cool with hiring a good cabinet and relying on people with expertise and more time make the calls.

Ah, so we are in agreement, at least in this regard.

I don't think Presidents have much control over the economy. They do have control over the budget. Clinton took advantage of a strong economy to balance the budget and lower the deficit. He raised the taxes on the rich (and sonuvabitch, the economy still managed to grow so can we toss out the "tax the rich and the country goes to shit" argument?).

Well, I don't think taxing the rich dooms the country...if it did, we'd be well into a deep state of doomage by now. Even when they cheat on their taxes, the rich still get soaked, and middle class folks who may seem pretty rich to most of us really get it in the shorts.

However, I don't think they should be effectively penalized more for making more money. First there's my earlier stated reason along the lines of my not getting this whole philosophy that someone "owes" something to the people or the masses or the poor or anyone else, together with my other one regarding my steadfast belief that because government simply doesn't have the same relationship with money as you or I do and don't have a need to spend it rationally that it's no wonder that their no good with it.

Anyway, I find it odd when people slam the government for being fatuous, corrupt, cynical and dreadfully inefficient and then insist that they ought to be taking more of my money to support their efforts (not that I'm saying you do that in general, or at least in this thread, or singling you out).

You save when you're strong so you have the money when things are bad. Bush's tax cuts have actually reduced the amount of deficit reduction we could have had according to most economists. That's bad because we're not making the most of our window of opportunity.

Perhaps, but I have my own debt reduction to worry about, as do people who make more than I do. And America isn't going to go into Chapter 13 over the national debt.

As for the Death Tax, get over it. No one is being punished for being rich. That money is all yours while you're alive. When you are dead the money is no good to you.

And my descendents...what of them? What if I want to donate it to private charity? Hell, if I want to be a greedy bastard and be entombed in a safe surrounded by my worldly swag, I should be able to do it. If the government didn't help me make it in the first place (and were also taxing the dogshit out of me when I was alive and kicking) then why do they get dibs on any of it when I'm dead?

[the happy prole]

I don't understand your point. If you want to be buried with all of your money, that's fine. You won't be taxed on it, because you were already taxed once when you earned it. If you want to give it to charities or establish a charitable trust, they're tax exempt so that will be tax-free as well.

Look-- if you wanted to, you could arrange to give me all of your money while alive and avoid the estate tax. But then you will pay a gift tax. OR you can legally arrange it so that you don't pay the gift tax, but then I'll have to pay the tax on income received-- which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

If the tax were assessed on both the donor and the donee, you might have a case. But it isn't. Think of the estate tax as me paying income tax on income received, it's just taken out before I get it-- the same as if I win the lottery or hit the jackpot in Vegas. That money will be taxed once no matter how it's handled-- whether it ends up being a "salary" (income tax), gift (gift tax), inheritance (estate tax), or stock transfer (capital gains).

If you want to simplify the tax code, then we could get rid of the gift tax and estate tax and everyone just declares the stuff they get as income. It would be less progressive. But there's nothing fundamentally unfair about the estate tax vis a vis other taxes. Your heirs receive income, that income is taxed.

As far the "penalizing" the rich theory-- if we made the taxes less progressive then the poor would less incentive to earn more. Which is exactly what everyone bitches about with the current welfare system. If you want to keep everyone's incentive to earn the same, you'd set the tax rate based on the marginal utility of income. And that would be progressive. Quite possibly a lot more progressive than the current system.

[akip]

What if I want to donate it to private charity?

they'd be perfectly happy to take it, and naturally it would be tax-exempt. your corpse could rest in peace. ;)

btw, it's interesting how many people think it's "good" that their kids should inherit huge sums of money for which they never lifted a finger. better that my kid should learn independence. it's ultimately a lot more character-building and satisfying. and i agree with tHP that this country, if it rewards anything, ought to reward a work ethic.

[the happy prole]

I guess my general feeling on taxes it that politicians on both sides-- but right now mainly conservatives-- use tax "fairness" as stupid election gimmick and the taxpayers fall for it every time.

Tax me 20 times at a 50% rate on a $1 transaction, I don't care. Tax me "fairly" once on a $10,000 transaction at a 50% rate, we got problems.

It's like in Virginia, they got rid of the car tax. Because why should you pay a tax for owning a car? That's "unfair!" So they tried to get rid of the car tax and the local principalities simply reamed everyone with property taxes instead.

Now if you're a free-market type, I know what you're thinking: "At least we got rid of the car tax. Every tax is bad, we'll just do one at a time." But it doesn't work that way. Because everyone in Virginia complained about their property taxes, and the fact that certain government services were reduced and so guess what came back? The car tax. It's just a shell game.

You have to look at the overall tax burden, and then decide if that tax burden is too great based on the government services you get out of it. Until people start to look at taxes that way, the politicians are just going to shuffle stuff around and fool us into thinking they are doing something. Look at Bush-- he cut taxes but didn't reduce spending so we're still just going to have to pay for that shit later. With interest.

[akip]

I guess my general feeling on taxes it that politicians on both sides-- but right now mainly conservatives-- use tax "fairness" as stupid election gimmick and the taxpayers fall for it every time.

Tax me 20 times at a 50% rate on a $1 transaction, I don't care. Tax me "fairly" once on a $10,000 transaction at a 50% rate, we got problems.

It's like in Virginia, they got rid of the car tax. Because why should you pay a tax for owning a car? That's "unfair!" So they tried to get rid of the car tax and the local principalities simply reamed everyone with property taxes instead.

Now if you're a free-market type, I know what you're thinking: "At least we got rid of the car tax. Every tax is bad, we'll just do one at a time." But it doesn't work that way. Because everyone in Virginia complained about their property taxes, and the fact that certain government services were reduced and so guess what came back? The car tax. It's just a shell game.

You have to look at the overall tax burden, and then decide if that tax burden is too great based on the government services you get out of it. Until people start to look at taxes that way, the politicians are just going to shuffle stuff around and fool us into thinking they are doing something. Look at Bush-- he cut taxes but didn't reduce spending so we're still just going to have to pay for that shit later. With interest.

don't forget the alternative minimum tax---another shell. cut your taxes on one 1040 line and add them back on another.

[Harlock]

I love it. So are you quoting someone who was in the Clinton administration admitting that the rich pay MUCH HIGHER TAXES and that's where ALL THE EXTRA MONEY is coming from? Those fucking rich people, they need to pay their share!

Way to miss the point.

A) Yes, people with lots of money are paying more taxes than people with less money.

B) This, in general is good, and the way it's supposed to work.

C) Under Bush, people with lots of money are accumulating quite a bit more money.

D) At the same time, people with not so much money are seeing little or no improvement in their circumstances.

A, B, and C are fine with me; it's D that I have a problem with. But I thought that the phrase "income inequality" was clear enough. I'm not a fan of policies that leave the vast majority of people in the dust.

[akip]

i think nemonster says this in so many words, but the rich have a lot more dispensable income that they can use to make more money. so they're already at a significant advantage, have better access because of what they have to invest, and, even paying a higher top rate, can really use the system to its fullest to create ever more wealth. i don't resent them for it, but i believe that the middle class needs the breaks so that they can put what amounts to a much higher percentage of their income aside to create their nest eggs.

[markalot]

i think nemonster says this in so many words, but the rich have a lot more dispensable income that they can use to make more money. so they're already at a significant advantage, have better access because of what they have to invest, and, even paying a higher top rate, can really use the system to its fullest to create ever more wealth. i don't resent them for it, but i believe that the middle class needs the breaks so that they can put what amounts to a much higher percentage of their income aside to create their nest eggs.

So you want to cut taxes for the middle class so they can save it? Do you think they will save it? How many? What about the credit load most middle class are carrying?

[the happy prole]

Apparently every dollar you give to rich and especially middle class people encourages them to work harder, whereas every dollar you give to poor people makes them less likely to work.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm upper middle class. You give me $1,000,000 and you can consider my ass R-E-T-I-R-E-D.

[akip]

So you want to cut taxes for the middle class so they can save it? Do you think they will save it? How many? What about the credit load most middle class are carrying?

i think that's the rationale for not giving it all to the high end---shlep keeps saying, basically, the rich should have their taxes cut to the same as the middle class. i say, no, they can pay a higher rate on their top earnings.

i can't speak for other middle class people's spending habits, which i'm sure range from profligate to frugal, but they'd better sock something away or they're gonna be screwed.

[purple_octopus]

Apparently every dollar you give to rich and especially middle class people encourages them to work harder, whereas every dollar you give to poor people makes them less likely to work.
I don't think the government should give anything to anybody, rich OR poor. Whether people work harder or fucking rot, it makes no difference to me.

[Handy Smurf]

Exactly.

If you give me anything over $10,000, I have to declare it as income and I'm taxed on it. If you pay me rent, I'm taxed on it even though you were taxed when it was your income. If I win gambling money, I'm taxed on it even though the casinos pay taxes. If I buy something at the store, I'm taxed even though the store pays taxes and so does the farmer and all the middlemen.

You get taxed when you receive income. That's how it works. The estate tax isn't any different. And just like any other tax, there's huge loopholes in it-- like simply setting up a trust fund.

As for the small farmers, I honestly don't give a shit. Stop giving out ALL farm subsidies, and we'll see if they can compete with the corporations. I actually think they'd have a better chance. But if they can't, too bad.
your above examples all refer to business transactions. Markalot's example of buying his wife an expensive gift is a better analogy.

[Harlock]

So you want to cut taxes for the middle class so they can save it? Do you think they will save it? How many? What about the credit load most middle class are carrying?

As akip all but said, if you're using that logic, then why cut taxes for anyone?

Those wealthy bastards are just going to waste their money on yachts, mansions, and hefty political donations!

[akip]

I don't think the government should give anything to anybody, rich OR poor. Whether people work harder or fucking rot, it makes no difference to me.

perhaps you'd feel right at home in a guarded compound in haiti. :p

[purple_octopus]

perhaps you'd feel right at home in a guarded compound in haiti. :p
Haiti? Hell fucking no. I don't want to be in that AIDS ridden hell hole. No, I'd feel right at home in my own compound in the middle of nowhere with three barns, a private runway, my own private armory, and a bazillion yards of electric fencing and concertina wire.

[akip]

Haiti? Hell fucking no. I don't want to be in that AIDS ridden hell hole. No, I'd feel right at home in my own compound in the middle of nowhere with three barns, a private runway, my own private armory, and a bazillion yards of electric fencing and concertina wire.

yeah, but eventually, the zombies would be shaking your compound gates. :p

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Where do you get that? Very few farms are effected? What do you think the average worth of an average size farm is?

Face it, there are people who believe that those with more money than them are crooks. They must have gotten the money unfairly, and they should use that money to help poor people out because that's fair.

It's called socialism.

Tell a story about a guy who ran a grocery store all his life but can't pass it down to his family because of tazes and you whiney shits will talk about old money or hey that's fair, or you shouldn't be able to pass wealth down in a family anyway.

Total and complete bullshit, anti-family, anti-business, anti-capitalist and when it comes down to it, simple jealousy.

i believe WORK should be rewarded. Paris Hilton's eventual inheritance of millions will not be garnered by any work she has done. She will get to keep most of that, but the govt will get some to help pay for the infrastructure that makes this country great - w/o which, her daddy wouldn't have been able to make those multiple millions in the 1st place.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Where do you get that? Very few farms are effected? What do you think the average worth of an average size farm is?

Face it, there are people who believe that those with more money than them are crooks. They must have gotten the money unfairly, and they should use that money to help poor people out because that's fair.

It's called socialism.

Tell a story about a guy who ran a grocery store all his life but can't pass it down to his family because of tazes and you whiney shits will talk about old money or hey that's fair, or you shouldn't be able to pass wealth down in a family anyway.

Total and complete bullshit, anti-family, anti-business, anti-capitalist and when it comes down to it, simple jealousy.

give me 1 example of a FAMILY farm that was forced into being sold because the inheritors couldn't afford the estate taxes - JUST 1 EXAMPLE???

[the happy prole]

your above examples all refer to business transactions. Markalot's example of buying his wife an expensive gift is a better analogy.

Fine. It's exactly like buying someone an expensive gift. And if you buy someone a gift, guess what? You pay a gift tax.

There is an exemption specifically for spouses, where you aren't taxed for a gift to your wife. But guess what happens? If your wife transfers the asset, she's taxed for the entire worth of it. Or when she dies the asset is included in the gross value estate where it comes out of-- you guessed-- her estate tax.

If you chose not to take the marital deduction on a gift tax, then you will pay taxes once upon the transfer. Then that amount is covered. If I choose to convert it to stock or if it's already stock in the first place, I only pay the capital gains on the stock above the worth it had when I received it.

In other words, all that happens is you delay paying the tax while the spouse still needs it. You're taxed once later when you transfer it, instead of in twice in smaller amounts (once on the value when received, and again on the "profit" realized beyond that when sold).

You get $11k a year to give to whoever you want tax free (just like you get $1million on estate taxes). Beyond that, it's taxed one way or another.

And technically, you really should be reporting all that gifts. I just don't think anyone cares if you buy your buddy a beer or your wife some flowers for her birthday. But if you start gifting huge amounts to people you better declare it or the IRS will have some questions for you.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

You're right, which is why no taxes should be paid, as they already have been paid and will continue to have to be paid on the business. The people inheriting the business don't get out of paying taxes on operations or profits or property.

If I buy my wife an expensive diamond should I have to pay tax twice? Once on the purchase price and once as a tax on her receiving the ring? That's nuts.

it doesn't matter if YOU already paid tax, because that's YOUR tax burden. When SHE gets money (by working, gift, prize, inheritance, etc) she should pay her share.

the "right" thinks that tax is a burden, when it is simply a way for us to collectively contribute to shared expenses.

[euro60]

My goodness... is this discussion STILL going? Well, in that case:

I was having a discussion with a co-worker, we both live in Blue Ash, where they are proposing to increase the city "earning" tax from 1% to 1.25%. Even though it will not affect me at all (since I pay a higher city income tax in the city where I actually work, namely Cincinnati), I am nevertheless against raising the Blue Ash tax. My co-worker, who obviously also works in Cincinnati, is in favor "because it doesn't affect me anyway so let's get that money".

Why does Blue Ash, which is engulfed with money from all of the corporate taxes it collects, need to raise taxes at all? And furthermore, I don't like to increase income taxes, anywhere. Look at the tax burden that we Ohioans now find ourselves in. Ohio used to be (I'm talking 30-40 years ago) in the lower tax burden bracket of the 50 states, now is is rapidly moving "upwards" on that list. :mad:

[AvatarOfVishnu]

last i heard there had not been a single family farm that had been impacted by the estate tax (its a tax on estates not a tax on the person that is now dead).

any farms that may have been impacted have been corporate farms.

still not sure whether i like it or not, but calling it a death tax just to make it sound worse doesn't make it so...

and if cutting taxes could cause a real reduction in the deficit why wouldn't the republicans have cut taxes more? it would seem that cut a little reduce the deficit a little would mean cut taxes a lot and reduce the deficit a lot... cut taxes to zero reduce the deficit to zero?

try reducing your own personal income and let me know if somehow that turns in to you having more money.

there may be an optimization point where to raise or lower taxes would both result in decreased revenue - what is that point? - i have an economics minor, but i couldn't tell you.

more important than "how much" to raise/lower taxes, is WHO to raise/lower taxes on.

for every extra dollar in the pocket of a family of 3 who makes under $40K per yr, i can guarantee you, that at least 99 cents of that will be spent, hence helping grow the economy

but for every extra dollar in the bank acct of a family of 3 who makes over $300K per yr, i can guarantee you that MUCH LESS than 99 cents will be spent

hence - for economics stimulus, we get more bang from the buck by a more progressive tax system where the lower end of the income scale pays a smaller percentage than those at the top

[the happy prole]

Where do you get that? Very few farms are effected? What do you think the average worth of an average size farm is?

Right around $600,000. $0 estate tax.

Or look at it this way: the value of farms comes almost entirely from the land, most small farms don't make that much money (so why we want to subsidize them is beyond me). $2 million=1000 acres. That is NOT a small farm.

Or even better: Someone is inheriting more than $2 million worth of assets tax-free. If you want to plow that into a money-losing farm, that's your damn problem. Sell the stupid thing and find a better investment. You're doing you, your family, and the economy a favor.

[jps]

there may be an optimization point where to raise or lower taxes would both result in decreased revenue - what is that point? - i have an economics minor, but i couldn't tell you.

more important than "how much" to raise/lower taxes, is WHO to raise/lower taxes on.

for every extra dollar in the pocket of a family of 3 who makes under $40K per yr, i can guarantee you, that at least 99 cents of that will be spent, hence helping grow the economy

but for every extra dollar in the bank acct of a family of 3 who makes over $300K per yr, i can guarantee you that MUCH LESS than 99 cents will be spent

hence - for economics stimulus, we get more bang from the buck by a more progressive tax system where the lower end of the income scale pays a smaller percentage than those at the top
watch out... making sense like this will drive some people crazy round here...

[markalot]

Define bang for the buck? Does this mean Ted Stevens gets more money to build a bridge to nowhere?

[the happy prole]

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Ted Stevens is a Republican and for the repeal of the estate tax.

[Shlep]

It only cuts this way because you take this viewpoint. You see it as penalized. Based on the criteria above, it makes more sense to call it charged for services rendered. You make that money because you live in an environment where it is possible. That environment does not come for free, and generally speaking, the more you make, the more you have taken advantage of the socioeconomic infrastructure that a stable environment provides. There are lots of countries with no taxes, but for the most part they are shitholes. You pay taxes so you won't have to live in a place where they come and get the garbage once a month if you are lucky, and if you want to keep that money you have to hire your own private army. Or move to the United States.

Perhaps I'm coming across a bit overzealous, nemonster. I'm not proposing a "baby/bathwater" solution to taxes. I understand that a certain modicum of taxation is necessary to maintain a decent infrastructure, or stated another way the government should take a certain amount of the money you make and use it to fund stuff that the government is good for: paving the interstate, taking out the trash, keeping up the infrastructure so we all have running water and electricity, that sort of thing. I'm perfectly cool with that.

What I don't favor is raising taxes to support government programs that subsidize waste and idleness (i.e. boneheaded attempts by the government at resource stewardship, farm aid that pays farmers not to grow stuff, subsidizing a permanent and self-perpetuating underclass, etc) or do things government isn't supposed to do, like make everyones' life "fair" or give everyone what they think they're entitled to because, dammit, they're Americans. And I don't think that rich people "owe" me or anyone else more because they make more.

Personally, I favor a flat tax-- "X" percent across the board. And I favor the government taking a more results-oriented, fiscally-responsible tack on spending (which is to say: they have to spend the money they take from us the way we spend money if we're using our heads). Everyone takes the same hit, the poor pay less, the rich pay more. Though I know for a fact that there are arguments as to why this isn't equitable, though I can't remember what the reasoning was or why I should think so.

You know, your standard response to a lot of people seems to be, "What does that have to do with anything?" Consider it returned here. Please provide an example here, because this one is completely lost on me.

Here's what it has to do with anything: here and everywhere else I roam on the 'Net, lots of folks (usually self-identified liberals) are convinced of two things:

1) Bush is an imbecile, his administration could fuck up a wet dream, and the Republican-controlled Congress is as heartless as it is stupid and spends every waking hour figuring out ways to fuck the little guy.

2) We should give this same government more of our money, because it will allow the government to make life better for that same "little guy."

At what point this makes sense, I have no idea. But there you have it. I'm not pointing fingers, not naming names. If this doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you.

[2weeksleft]

Fine. It's exactly like buying someone an expensive gift. And if you buy someone a gift, guess what? You pay a gift tax.

There is an exemption specifically for spouses, where you aren't taxed for a gift to your wife. But guess what happens? If your wife transfers the asset, she's taxed for the entire worth of it. Or when she dies the asset is included in the gross value estate where it comes out of-- you guessed-- her estate tax.

If you chose not to take the marital deduction on a gift tax, then you will pay taxes once upon the transfer. Then that amount is covered. If I choose to convert it to stock or if it's already stock in the first place, I only pay the capital gains on the stock above the worth it had when I received it.

In other words, all that happens is you delay paying the tax while the spouse still needs it. You're taxed once later when you transfer it, instead of in twice in smaller amounts (once on the value when received, and again on the "profit" realized beyond that when sold).

You get $11k a year to give to whoever you want tax free (just like you get $1million on estate taxes). Beyond that, it's taxed one way or another.

And technically, you really should be reporting all that gifts. I just don't think anyone cares if you buy your buddy a beer or your wife some flowers for her birthday. But if you start gifting huge amounts to people you better declare it or the IRS will have some questions for you.

I don't know how to quote portions of your text to make this easier to read, but a few points to consider:

1.You can't choose to not take the marital deduction. It's called an unlimited marital deduction so there would be no benefit to not using it for gifts to a spouse.

2. It wouldn't make any sense to gift stock to a spouse regardless of the size of the holding, there are much more effective ways to get that stock out of your estate. In the simplest terms the reason you wouldn't gift the stock is if you die and your spouse inherits the stock he/she will get a step-up in basis and be able to sell the stock tax free. The capital gains, at least in respect to the estate tax, is irrelevant and since you can pass an unlimited amount to a spouse you would use a different technique.

3. You get $12,000 a year to gift to anyone without having to report it, the distinction is you also get a $1,000,000 lifetime gift tax exclusion. So you could give an unlimited amount of $12,000 gifts to people, charities, etc. without any tax consequences. If your gift totals more than $12,000 then it counts toward your $1,000,000 gift tax exlclusion. So you can gift a significant sum with no tax consequences.

4. Your unified credit for estate taxes exemption is $2,000,000 per person this year. Again you can pass an ulimited amount to spouses.

5. Whether people think it's good or bad there are many ways to avoid or even eliminate estate taxes even on significant estates.

[2weeksleft]

there may be an optimization point where to raise or lower taxes would both result in decreased revenue - what is that point? - i have an economics minor, but i couldn't tell you.

more important than "how much" to raise/lower taxes, is WHO to raise/lower taxes on.

for every extra dollar in the pocket of a family of 3 who makes under $40K per yr, i can guarantee you, that at least 99 cents of that will be spent, hence helping grow the economy

but for every extra dollar in the bank acct of a family of 3 who makes over $300K per yr, i can guarantee you that MUCH LESS than 99 cents will be spent

hence - for economics stimulus, we get more bang from the buck by a more progressive tax system where the lower end of the income scale pays a smaller percentage than those at the top

I'm not arguing for lower or higher taxes, but much of the money spent by your low income family will go indirectly to a foreign company because of globalization (not that that's a bad thing, it's just inevitable circumstances) and much of the money saved by the upper-middle income family will be invested in a US business, either by form of stock or investing it in their own business, which of course stimulates the economy.

[2weeksleft]

Right around $600,000. $0 estate tax.

Or look at it this way: the value of farms comes almost entirely from the land, most small farms don't make that much money (so why we want to subsidize them is beyond me). $2 million=1000 acres. That is NOT a small farm.

Or even better: Someone is inheriting more than $2 million worth of assets tax-free. If you want to plow that into a money-losing farm, that's your damn problem. Sell the stupid thing and find a better investment. You're doing you, your family, and the economy a favor.

The problem isn't so much the inheritance of the $2,000,000 farm in your example (but, if I may I'll use a $4,000,000 family owned manufacturing plant for my example because of the amount you can exempt from FET.)

Say a father works hard to build a business, plows all his money into growing it through the years and has a heart attack at 45 leaving the business to his 23 year old daughter. Most, if not all, of the estate value is tied up in the business. So this young lady inherits a $4,000,000 business, great for her.

But, 9 months after dad's death the IRS will come knocking on the door demanding its $1,000,000 in estate taxes. She doesn't have that kind of cash, where does she get? Well, she sells the business. Do you think she'll get fair value? Of course not, it will be a fire sale. The competitors will know the situation and let's say she sells it for 50% of its value (which could be generous). So she now has $2,000,000...owes $1,000,000...has $1,000,000 remaining from a $4,000,000 business...is this fair?

As I wrote previously there are many ways to help avoid this, but it happens all to often to the family-owned farm, manufacturer, grocer, etc.

[the happy prole]

You could actually choose not to take the marital deduction by simply not reporting it that way. Your spouse could then report an extra income of $x and then get taxed on that. I don't know why in the world anyone would want to do that, however.

I agree with you. I pointed out earlier that it's not a double tax and there are in fact a myriad of ways to get around it by transfering assets so you pay a different tax rate instead of the estate tax. You can use your $12k gift exemption. Or your spousal exemption. Or you can set up a trust. That money will be taxed (or applied to a tax exemption) one time, and then it's clear.

It's not a "penalty." It's a tax on the transfer of assets because assets acquired are subject to tax (or again, applied to an exemption) whether via intestate succession or whatever. The "penalty" is you were a dumbass and opted to pay a higher rate than you had to.

The only people who pay estate tax do it pretty much on a "whoops I blinked and made $5 million" basis. When you plan your estate, you get all of your hard assets (stock, property) and any future income you foresee taken care of via trust or any number of loopholes. The stuff you get taxed on is stuff you forgot to put in the trust or stuff you accumulated and hadn't figured out yet how to get into a loophole.

In other words, only very rich (or very careless, or more likely both) people pay the estate tax. The whole "small farm" and "small business" thing is a myth.

The thing you need to know about the thread is the guy who started it is a practicing attorney. He's fully aware of how to set up a trust to get around the real estate tax and to his credit said from the getgo that proper real estate planning gets you around it. For people who don't choose not to use proper planning... that's called "personal responsibility." I seem to recall conservatives being advocates for such a thing, apparently I was wrong.

[the happy prole]

But, 9 months after dad's death the IRS will come knocking on the door demanding its $1,000,000 in estate taxes. She doesn't have that kind of cash, where does she get? Well, she sells the business. Do you think she'll get fair value? Of course not, it will be a fire sale. The competitors will know the situation and let's say she sells it for 50% of its value (which could be generous). So she now has $2,000,000...owes $1,000,000...has $1,000,000 remaining from a $4,000,000 business...is this fair?

Well that doesn't actually happen. First off, you aren't assessed on the commercial value of the land. You get to apply special use valuation which knocks your real state value in half. And then you get to pay whatever taxes you owe in installments at a pretty nice interest rate of 2%.

Given the fact that only about 5% of farms pay estate tax in the first place, and the average tax paid is a whopping $5k on a $2 plus million farm... let's just say I feel they're pretty adequately covered.

But okay, howsabout this?

Any farm under 1000 acres not held by a corporation or LLC is completely exempt from estate taxes. Sound good? Great. I'll vote for it. I'm sure a lot of liberals will vote for it because everyone just looooooves "small" farms and the little guy.

And the politicians will vote for it, too. You know why? Because hardly any of those people are getting caught with estate taxes in the first place. It won't make a bit of difference.

[2weeksleft]

Personal responsibility...what a great concept. But I've heard enough horror stories from colleagues to know that the "small business thing" isn't a complete myth...but I do agree if it happens, they were dumbasses.

[2weeksleft]

Well that doesn't actually happen. First off, you aren't assessed on the commercial value of the land. You get to apply special use valuation which knocks your real state value in half. And then you get to pay whatever taxes you owe in installments at a pretty nice interest rate of 2%.

Given the fact that only about 5% of farms pay estate tax in the first place, and the average tax paid is a whopping $5k on a $2 plus million farm... let's just say I feel they're pretty adequately covered.

But okay, howsabout this?

Any farm under 1000 acres not held by a corporation or LLC is completely exempt from estate taxes. Sound good? Great. I'll vote for it. I'm sure a lot of liberals will vote for it because everyone just looooooves "small" farms and the little guy.

And the politicians will vote for it, too. You know why? Because hardly any of those people are getting caught with estate taxes in the first place. It won't make a bit of difference.

I was just trying to keep my example simple, but the IRS expects its money and they aren't nice about collecting it. And as far has being a corp. or LLC, in most cases it doesn't matter for closely held businesses. Irrespective of how most small businesses are structured (S, C, LLC, etc.) the owner is the majority shareholder and it impacts his/her estate.

BTW...I think the "family farm" argument is just a political ploy like any other..."War on terrorism"..."Time for a change"...etc....used to rally the constituents. But, be it apathy, ignorance, lack of interest by the next generation, the government getting its tax dollars, or whatever, only about 10% of family owned businesses make it to the third generation.

[markalot]

Define bang for the buck? Does this mean Ted Stevens gets more money to build a bridge to nowhere?

It means that no matter what tax code we agree on the money goes to the government so that it can be wasted on bridges to nowhere.

[2weeksleft]

It means that no matter what tax code we agree on the money goes to the government so that it can be wasted on bridges to nowhere.

Right on...spending, it matters. I heard the other day on NPR about a government program that subsidizes sheep herders to the tune of $350,000 a year. It originally started during WWI to ensure there would be enough wool for army uniforms and has stayed on the books all these years without a politician thinking it might be wasteful.

[rcc94]

Just remember that family farmers have very little cash sitting around. The little they do have may end up going to recovering from a flood or drought. So while they may have several million dollars worth of land, the only way to get funds to pay the inheritance tax is to sell off part of the farm. Or try to sell. It's not the same as selling off stocks and bonds if you are inheriting investment income.

[the happy prole]

Personally, I favor a flat tax-- "X" percent across the board. And I favor the government taking a more results-oriented, fiscally-responsible tack on spending (which is to say: they have to spend the money they take from us the way we spend money if we're using our heads). Everyone takes the same hit, the poor pay less, the rich pay more. Though I know for a fact that there are arguments as to why this isn't equitable, though I can't remember what the reasoning was or why I should think so.

The reason why is diminished marginal utility of income. The more money you have, the less additional income is worth to you.

Suppose the flat tax were 10%. I pay $1k on $10k and you pay $10,000 on $100,000. If that extra $1k provides me a lot more utils than your extra $10k, then I have less incentive to go out and earn that extra $1k of income. Whereas you might be "shoot, I'm going to retire since I have enough to live on even with taxes."

IF the $1k for me and the $10k for you were the same hit to our utility, then we'd both kind of have the same incentive to go out and make more money. But there's no real reason to assume that's the case.

As far as the government spending taxes in a fiscally responsible manner, I think everyone wants that. The problem is, who defines "fiscally responsible?" The people elect the government, and they tell the government how to spend it. Apparently the people are idiots.

So while I agree that the government needs to be (in my opinion) much more fiscally responsible, my beef is really with the people. They AREN'T using their heads. Now if you gave the money back to the people they might learn to exercise responsibility. Or they might continue to be complete dumbasses, or they might get even dumber. And without the government safety net we will be in HUGE trouble.

I think if people were smart we'd be a ton better off without government help. But I need to see a lot more evidence of intelligence before I start reducing taxes in a big way. Show enough sense to at least elect politicians who will produce a balance budget. Then we'll talk.

[2weeksleft]

Just remember that family farmers have very little cash sitting around. The little they do have may end up going to recovering from a flood or drought. So while they may have several million dollars worth of land, the only way to get funds to pay the inheritance tax is to sell off part of the farm. Or try to sell. It's not the same as selling off stocks and bonds if you are inheriting investment income.

I don't mean to imply that many family farms aren't facing a worrisome burden with estate taxes (but I do feel politicians use the term to fit their needs). But, many closely held businesses regardless of industry, face the same burden and in all cases there are techniques to mitigate, if not eliminate the estate tax burden.

[the happy prole]

I was just trying to keep my example simple, but the IRS expects its money and they aren't nice about collecting it. And as far has being a corp. or LLC, in most cases it doesn't matter for closely held businesses. Irrespective of how most small businesses are structured (S, C, LLC, etc.) the owner is the majority shareholder and it impacts his/her estate.

BTW...I think the "family farm" argument is just a political ploy like any other..."War on terrorism"..."Time for a change"...etc....used to rally the constituents. But, be it apathy, ignorance, lack of interest by the next generation, the government getting its tax dollars, or whatever, only about 10% of family owned businesses make it to the third generation.


Okay, I see you know the tax code a bit better than I do. :o

But anyway, we agree on the fundemental thing here which is that the "estate tax kills family farms and small business" argument has virtually no substance.

[2weeksleft]

Okay, I see you know the tax code a bit better than I do. :o

But anyway, we agree on the fundemental thing here which is that the "estate tax kills family farms and small business" argument has virtually no substance.

Agreed...and if I weren't a technical idiot I would have incorporated my last post to this one.

[the happy prole]

It means that no matter what tax code we agree on the money goes to the government so that it can be wasted on bridges to nowhere.

So then why are you nattering on about double taxation for estate taxes and how tax rates punish the rich? That's an equity issue that has nothing to do with government inefficiency.

That's the exact political ploy the government uses to keep taking taxes. They tell you one tax is bad so you believe them. Then they promise to cut it so you elect them. Then the raise a different tax to a different group of people. Then some other party tells them that tax is unfair so that group elects the new guy who lowers that tax and raises yours all over again.

If you don't want the government building bridges to nowhere then 1) Tell them to not spend more money than they take in, and 2) Take in less money.

Stop worrying about this tax vs. that tax. That's why the tax code and fiscal policy is so complicated.

You get a tax break for X which makes you happy but then you get taxed for Y which makes you mad but the revenue from Y goes to group Z in a subsidy which makes them happy but then Z gets taxed which makes them mad but that ends up a subsidy for you which makes you happy again.

Except that efficiency is lost with every transfer, so while it might seem that the karma balances out, everyone's actually worse off.

[Shlep]

The reason why is diminished marginal utility of income. The more money you have, the less additional income is worth to you.

Suppose the flat tax were 10%. I pay $1k on $10k and you pay $10,000 on $100,000. If that extra $1k provides me a lot more utils than your extra $10k, then I have less incentive to go out and earn that extra $1k of income. Whereas you might be "shoot, I'm going to retire since I have enough to live on even with taxes."

IF the $1k for me and the $10k for you were the same hit to our utility, then we'd both kind of have the same incentive to go out and make more money. But there's no real reason to assume that's the case.

Well, I seem to recall the explanation given to me was a bit more complex; one of the major disadvantages to having a best friend who's a CPA is that if you ask him an accounting question, he positively won't stop answering it until you're ready to jump out a window. But Your explanation makes quite a bit of sense, though I think even heartless pragmatist bastards like me can agree that if you're pulling in ten grand a year, you ought not to be getting soaked for 1/10th of it (or anything, really).

Nevertheless, as one progresses up the scale, the simple fact remains that the more you make, the more they take (just like now) and the wealthier folks will be putting a larger amount into the public coffers. Yes, they will have a much bigger, fatter pile of cash than someone paying the same approximate amount down the scale, but they're still shouldering a larger share of the burden.

As for the relative "worth" of my money to the money my CPA friend rakes in as a corporate accountant (he routinely spends what used to be my car payment for a steak dinner at Mortons') to Donald Trump, I can't say I get behind the idea that they somehow need money less or their money is worth less to them. This is because we come back to the notion of deciding who needs money more or who "deserves" to keep more money and so forth; I don't see the point in busting ones' ass to get ahead (and everyone I know who's made a semi-comfy life for themselves has done this) just so you can givie it away because you apparently don't need it as much.

Besides, there is very little anyone can say to me that will convince me that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do.

As far as the government spending taxes in a fiscally responsible manner, I think everyone wants that. The problem is, who defines "fiscally responsible?" The people elect the government, and they tell the government how to spend it. Apparently the people are idiots.

Perhpas. And I'll grant that talking about fiscal responsibility is easier than defining it. If government programs fail, it's either because it was managed by a bunch of morons (according to the party opposing it) or it was denied the necessary funds to have a chance of working (according to the party supporting it). Thanks to the marvelous calculus of politics, they may both be right and both be full of shit at the same time.

And measuring the success of a government program is not always easy. One cannot quantify, for instance, how many people didn't die because of health care spending or didn't get mugged or raped due to diverting funds to law enforcement.

Perhaps some new way of measuring such things might be in order. Most of us, as individuals, can usually tell when our fiscal habits are beneficial or deleterious, and are easier to correct in the latter case (one more reason why I prefer keeping money in the hands of private citizens).

And without the government safety net we will be in HUGE trouble.

I disagree. Countries with wildly generous ane expansive safety nets (i.e. Sweden, and much of the EU besides) are positively bloated with debt which makes ours look piddling even in a bad year. Countries where there is virtually no such net (i.e. Hong Kong, at least before the Chinese got their mitts on it) have witnessed tremendous growth and economic vitality; according to the folks in Hong Kong, the absence of this net is precisely the reason why (when you're doing your act without a net, you tend to grip the trapeze a little harder).

And I can't even begin to imagine how in a country where we're all living longer and longer that Social Security, which is already not much of a retirement plan as it is, can even keep someone stocked up on dog food in the coming decades.

[rcc94]

I don't mean to imply that many family farms aren't facing a worrisome burden with estate taxes (but I do feel politicians use the term to fit their needs). But, many closely held businesses regardless of industry, face the same burden and in all cases there are techniques to mitigate, if not eliminate the estate tax burden.
I just used the example of family farms, as that's what I'm most (personally) familar with. I agree that it also applies to the earlier example of a small manufacturing business or a retail store.

There are ways to mitigate - at least now there are - the estate tax burden. The challenge may be connecting the small business (farm, store, etc.) owner with the information to do so. In more rural areas of the country, that information may not be as easily accessible. Also, with very little cash, they may not be able to go and pay the costs to do so. With increasing property values in some parts of the country, it becomes even more of a challenge.

(One reason I don't venture much into CE/P - I'm several posts behind.)

[DaHood]

One reason I don't venture much into CE/P
It's an ugly place. :p

[2weeksleft]

Well, I seem to recall the explanation given to me was a bit more complex; one of the major disadvantages to having a best friend who's a CPA is that if you ask him an accounting question, he positively won't stop answering it until you're ready to jump out a window. But Your explanation makes quite a bit of sense, though I think even heartless pragmatist bastards like me can agree that if you're pulling in ten grand a year, you ought not to be getting soaked for 1/10th of it (or anything, really).

Nevertheless, as one progresses up the scale, the simple fact remains that the more you make, the more they take (just like now) and the wealthier folks will be putting a larger amount into the public coffers. Yes, they will have a much bigger, fatter pile of cash than someone paying the same approximate amount down the scale, but they're still shouldering a larger share of the burden.

As for the relative "worth" of my money to the money my CPA friend rakes in as a corporate accountant (he routinely spends what used to be my car payment for a steak dinner at Mortons') to Donald Trump, I can't say I get behind the idea that they somehow need money less or their money is worth less to them. This is because we come back to the notion of deciding who needs money more or who "deserves" to keep more money and so forth; I don't see the point in busting ones' ass to get ahead (and everyone I know who's made a semi-comfy life for themselves has done this) just so you can givie it away because you apparently don't need it as much.

Besides, there is very little anyone can say to me that will convince me that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do.



Perhpas. And I'll grant that talking about fiscal responsibility is easier than defining it. If government programs fail, it's either because it was managed by a bunch of morons (according to the party opposing it) or it was denied the necessary funds to have a chance of working (according to the party supporting it). Thanks to the marvelous calculus of politics, they may both be right and both be full of shit at the same time.

And measuring the success of a government program is not always easy. One cannot quantify, for instance, how many people didn't die because of health care spending or didn't get mugged or raped due to diverting funds to law enforcement.

Perhaps some new way of measuring such things might be in order. Most of us, as individuals, can usually tell when our fiscal habits are beneficial or deleterious, and are easier to correct in the latter case (one more reason why I prefer keeping money in the hands of private citizens).



I disagree. Countries with wildly generous ane expansive safety nets (i.e. Sweden, and much of the EU besides) are positively bloated with debt which makes ours look piddling even in a bad year. Countries where there is virtually no such net (i.e. Hong Kong, at least before the Chinese got their mitts on it) have witnessed tremendous growth and economic vitality; according to the folks in Hong Kong, the absence of this net is precisely the reason why (when you're doing your act without a net, you tend to grip the trapeze a little harder).

And I can't even begin to imagine how in a country where we're all living longer and longer that Social Security, which is already not much of a retirement plan as it is, can even keep someone stocked up on dog food in the coming decades.

*If someone could educate me on how to choose certain portions of text...thank you in advance.*

I think the SS dilemma could be solved by the concept of Progressive Indexing. Low wage earners (avg. career earnings under $25,000) and those in or near retirement would receive the present schedule of SS benefits based on US wage growth during their careers. Higher-wage earners ($110,000 and above) would receive an initial SS benefit indexed to price inflation during their careers. Median wage earners ($25,000-$110,000) would have their benefits pegged to a combination of wages and prices.

Since, historically, wages rise faster than prices, this should slow the rate of growth for higher wage earners and provide protection for lower wage earners. It would close the gap of the shortfall SS faces and provide parity across different earning classes.

Higher-wage earners can contribute more to retirement plans, which of course keeps money out of government coffers for a period of time and thus wouldn't receive as much (proportionately) from the government upon retirement. Conversely, lower-wage earners can't contribute as much to retirement plans and would receive (proportionatley) more from the government in retirement. And retirees and pre-retirees wouldn't be affected.

[akip]

I disagree. Countries with wildly generous ane expansive safety nets (i.e. Sweden, and much of the EU besides) are positively bloated with debt which makes ours look piddling even in a bad year. Countries where there is virtually no such net (i.e. Hong Kong, at least before the Chinese got their mitts on it) have witnessed tremendous growth and economic vitality; according to the folks in Hong Kong, the absence of this net is precisely the reason why (when you're doing your act without a net, you tend to grip the trapeze a little harder).


you're being selective and simplistic. floundering third world countries also have no safety net. lots of other things in the equation, such as history, culture, education, and how well a country has adapted to global economic change.

[the happy prole]

2weeks left,

The use <quote> at the place you want to start quoting and </quote> to end it.
When you choose the "quote" button, you'll notice they automatically put the <quote> at the start of the message and the </quote> at the end. But you can move those around to only quote part of a text or you can add more <quote> and </quote>

So say you start with this:

This is sentence one. This is sentence two. This is sentence three.

You can do this:
<quote>This is sentence one.</quote>

Type a response to sentence one.

<quote>This is sentence three.</quote>

Type a response to sentence three.



Just change < and > to [ and ]

[the happy prole]

As for the relative "worth" of my money to the money my CPA friend rakes in as a corporate accountant (he routinely spends what used to be my car payment for a steak dinner at Mortons') to Donald Trump, I can't say I get behind the idea that they somehow need money less or their money is worth less to them. This is because we come back to the notion of deciding who needs money more or who "deserves" to keep more money and so forth; I don't see the point in busting ones' ass to get ahead (and everyone I know who's made a semi-comfy life for themselves has done this) just so you can givie it away because you apparently don't need it as much.

Besides, there is very little anyone can say to me that will convince me that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do.

You and markalot are doing the same thing. You're both letting your reflexive (though perhaps warranted) hatred of government shoot down any idea you disagree with using the ol' "Government telling me what to do" theory.

Look, if government really sucks that bad you need to go with Plan P_0. No taxes, no police, no government of any kind.

I'm assuming you agree that there must be at least some kind of modest government. A small police force and judicial system, roads, maybe national defense, whatever. But the moment you start deciding on policy of any kind, guess what? You're the asshat dictating values now, and all your arguments can be turned against you.

If $500 truly had the same value to the poor guy and the millionaire, the fair thing to do would be to set a tax of $500 for everyone.

By setting a flat tax rate, you're saying that taking $1k of poor dude's income is equal to taking $100k of a rich dude's income. So you're already "penalizing" the rich guy for being rich.

On the other hand, that $1k for a poor guy may get him a car that he desparately needs to get better job opportunities. That $100k from the rich dude is one night out in Vegas. So maybe you're "penalizing" the poor guy for being poor by not taking enough from the rich guy.

Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. But any time you put in place a tax code, you're deciding what's fair for everyone. It's stupid to get pissed off about that, because that is in fact the government's job.

The government has to generate some revenue to run services. They should absolutely be focused on finding the fairest way to get that revenue, and the only way to do this is to try and guage the relative value of money (and services) to the tax payers.

I'm not against a flat tax per se. I just see no reason to believe it's fairer than a progressive or even regressive tax. It just leads to a nice, simple numbers for politicians to toss out there: What's the tax? 10%. Cool.

[purple_octopus]

Look, if government really sucks that bad you need to go with Plan P_0. No taxes, no police, no government of any kind.
How dare you confuse me with yoshomon.

[DaHood]

How dare you confuse me with yoshomon.
:D :p




.

[markalot]

however they registered an 8% budget surplus in 2001, and it remained a surplus through at least 2005, the last year I have numbers for.

Ah the problem with the word surplus.

I'm glad they have a surplus, but according to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

Sweden is strapped with 516 billion in debt. That number represents 50% of their GDP.

One interestign thing to look at is GDP vs debt. Our GDP is higher than our total debt, Sweden and most european countries is lower than their debt.

Europe will probably continue to pretend that their socialistic welfare nets are a good thing right up until the system collapses under it's own weight.

[the happy prole]

Our public debt is 65% of GDP, so I'm not sure where you all are going with the whole Sweden thing.

Also, so long as debt as a percentage of GDP is less than 100%, your GDP is greater than your debt.

What am I missing?

[markalot]

Sweden's GDP is 350 billion
Sweden's debt is 516 billion
Sweden's growth rate = .16%

USA GDP is 12.4 trillion
USA debt is 8.8 trillion
USA growth rate = .91%

So you tell me, who's got long term trouble? We're much bigger so you're dealing with much bigger numbers, but we are a hell of a lot healthier, financially, than Sweden.

Let's look at it another way (and this is just a visual example)

If this was my debt and I made 50K a year:

using Sweden's numbers I would be 73,700 in debt
using USA numbers my debt would be 35,500

[DaHood]

If ....... I made 50K a year
That's a real knee slapper!! :pI bet you haven't seen a wage that small in more than a decade.

[classicgrrl]

bls.gov

:cool:

[markalot]

So exactly what on this page did you look at, add, divide, or take the square root of to get those figures and that conclusion?

GDP (official exchange rate):
$348.1 billion (2005 est.)

Public debt:
50.4% of GDP (2005 est.)

Debt - external:
$516.1 billion (30 June 2005)

Again you seem to be all excited about a surplus, which simply means that for a few years they made more money than they spent. Their total debt is still bigger than their GDP and they'll need a lot of surplus years to get that debt down.

And again, you show us that the US if running a deficit. Yes we are, which means our debt is growing, but our current numbers are:

GDP (official exchange rate):
$12.49 trillion (2005 est.)

Public debt:
64.7% of GDP (2005 est.)

Debt - external:
$8.837 trillion (30 June 2005 est.)

Now the last time I recall, you took the expeditures, and subtracted them from the revenues. I always did think you were kind of tunnel visioned, but I at least thought you could add. That comes to, oh, spending 300 billion more than what you took in. Yeah, real fiscally healthy. I want to be your banker...


Don't be a dumb. Just last quarter we has a surplus. wohooo, big deal. We all know Bush is spending like a liberal, we all know it's bad, we all know deficits are bad. OK? That's not the health we are talking about here.

Sweden has a massive debt load. DEBT. They can be running a surplus for years and they can reduce their debt, but they are still in debt. The US has debt, a lot of it, and we are running deficits which means that debt is getting larger, but overall our debt load is much better then Sweden.

For the amount of money we make / produce we have less debt.

So the bottom line is this. If Sweden is in such good shape why are they carrying such a large debt load? Why haven't those surpluses payed off their debt? I'm sure they can keep their surpluses up for a few more years, but as their population ages (which is why I used a population growth number) they are going to run into the same problem we are, not enough money to pay the bills. IMO Sweden will crash harder that we will.

[akip]

western europe isn't going to crash, markalot. neither is canada. :rolleyes:

[markalot]

western europe isn't going to crash, markalot. neither is canada. :rolleyes:


So where is the money going to come from then? And by crash I don't mean stock market crash or anything like that, I mean a crash in social services as the money runs out.

If you have an aging population, a large debt, and a big social safety net you'll get to the point where the money required to maintain the services is much greater then your GDP. Then what? If you're already in debt up to your ears it will be worse.

[markalot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt


So why is Sweden's external debt so high? What will happen when Sweden has to raises taxes on their workforce even more in order to maintain their safety net? I know I know, this is like global warming to republicans, it's not happening.

As tax rates (the number 1 concern in the latest Global Competitiveness Report) continue to rise you'll start to see companies pull out. You'll also see additional rapid reform of the so called 'welfare state'.

[akip]

lol, I love it.

So where is the money going to come from then? And by crash I don't mean stock market crash or anything like that, I mean a crash in social services as the money runs out.

If you have an aging population, a large debt, and a big social safety net you'll get to the point where the money required to maintain the services is much greater then your GDP. Then what? If you're already in debt up to your ears it will be worse.

it's just a different system serving a different culture. people in western europe and canada tend to prefer the social safety net and are willing to be taxed higher. they also tend to be less rabid consumers, live within their means, and save more money than we do. certainly mixed-system democracies aren't perfect---they have their budgetary problems that they chip away at, but we have ours---higher crime, for instance, and a medical system that can deliver good services, but which can ultimately rob you of your life savings and which could easily swallow up 20% of the average consumer's dollars in the future if we don't get a grip on it.

i haven't talked to europeans as much as canadians lately, though i did talk to a swiss artist living in the south of france who felt that major european cities were becoming extraordinarily expensive to live in, as are our most thriving cities here. so we're facing some of the same problems of globalization.

however, the citizens of canada that i DO talk to frequently, by and large, are feeling much less anxiety-ridden about their future in canada than we are here. they have mixed feelings about their swelling immigrant population, but in reality those new people fill a lot of the lower-paid service jobs and seem to be thriving without draining the canadian-born of their opportunities. canada feels that they can compete with the united states for educated and skilled immigrants (educated, skilled workers will be necessary to every country's future success in the global economy) because they can offer a quality of life superior to ours. they do NOT envy us.

europe has a bigger challenge integrating and providing jobs to their immigrants, as we've read. no doubt they will also chip away at what they can offer their citizens. the challenges of the 21 st century will bring about changes in all our respective systems. doesn't mean we, or they, will implode.

[markalot]

it's just a different system serving a different culture. people in western europe and canada tend to prefer the social safety net and are willing to be taxed higher. they also tend to be less rabid consumers, live within their means, and save more money than we do.

It's a wonder then why they have so much debt. External debt is not just government, it includes businesseseseseses and consumers. IMO these numbers indicate an imbalance. There's also the question of when will taxes reach a point where the willingness to be taxed more vanishes. When does the tax burden become too much of a drag on businesses?

I'm sure it will be blames on the USA somehow, or the global economy or any number of other things. Countries like Sweden could never survive on their own, so they feed off surrounding economies that prop them up and make everything appear all grand and perfect.

[akip]

It's a wonder then why they have so much debt. External debt is not just government, it includes businesseseseseses and consumers. IMO these numbers indicate an imbalance. There's also the question of when will taxes reach a point where the willingness to be taxed more vanishes. When does the tax burden become too much of a drag on businesses?

I'm sure it will be blames on the USA somehow, or the global economy or any number of other things. Countries like Sweden could never survive on their own, so they feed off surrounding economies that prop them up and make everything appear all grand and perfect.

why is it that americans cannot fathom that other people in the rest of the world have other ways of operating and other values that they hold more important? our isolation presents another range of cultural and economic problems than europeans with their many close neighbors. it's just different, for chrissake.

[the happy prole]

um... markalot?

Sweden's external debt is high because they had a huge banking crisis in the early 90's. Yeah, remember when Reagan deregulated banks and all those S & L's went under? It was like that, only bigger. Private people and companies were borrowing too much money and their market crashed.

In response, the government took a more active role in managing the economy. They HAD to. And since then their economy has stabilized and most people agree they've done an excellent job, and that is why they are held up as an example of a well-managed economy.

So you see, Sweden's external debt is a result of private banking failure due to deregulation. Private individuals and companies (mostly banks) owe lots of money to foreign entities. Their PUBLIC debt is less than ours compared to GDP, which means their government is doing a better job of maintaining fiscal responsibility.

If they hadn't deregulated their banks, there would have been a safety net and their banks would not have crashed so hard. So the lesson here is that if you're worried about Sweden's debt load and you don't want it to happen here, then vote for more regulation and government safety nets.

I'm not twisting the facts. You can look it up.

[2weeksleft]

Just change < and > to [ and ]
Just seeing if this works...sorry to interrupt. Thanks

[Shlep]

you're being selective and simplistic. floundering third world countries also have no safety net. lots of other things in the equation, such as history, culture, education, and how well a country has adapted to global economic change.

Of course.

So then: which countries are these that I'm selectively and simplistically overlooking which which tax the crap out of their citizens (while regulating the crap out of their domestic businesses, as such countries tend to do) and support massive, over-weaning safety nets on par with that of, say, Sweden or Germany which are not saddled with massive national debt and serious problems attracting foreign investment and supporting home-grown business development?

[yoshomon]

I propose replacing this 'estate tax' with a concerted effort around the country to set mansions and expensive cars on fire.

[the happy prole]

So then: which countries are these that I'm selectively and simplistically overlooking which which tax the crap out of their citizens (while regulating the crap out of their domestic businesses, as such countries tend to do) and support massive, over-weaning safety nets on par with that of, say, Sweden or Germany which are not saddled with massive national debt and serious problems attracting foreign investment and supporting home-grown business development?

Again:

Sweden's debt to GDP is LOWER than ours. Germany's debt to GDP is about the same as ours. If they are saddled with "massive national debt" than so are we.

[Shlep]

Look, if government really sucks that bad you need to go with Plan P_0. No taxes, no police, no government of any kind.

I'm assuming you agree that there must be at least some kind of modest government. A small police force and judicial system, roads, maybe national defense, whatever.

I thought I had stated that quite explicitly and clearly earlier in this thread, THP. And I thought it was you I was speaking when I said, though I could be wrong.

But the moment you start deciding on policy of any kind, guess what? You're the asshat dictating values now, and all your arguments can be turned against you.

If $500 truly had the same value to the poor guy and the millionaire, the fair thing to do would be to set a tax of $500 for everyone.

By setting a flat tax rate, you're saying that taking $1k of poor dude's income is equal to taking $100k of a rich dude's income. So you're already "penalizing" the rich guy for being rich.

On the other hand, that $1k for a poor guy may get him a car that he desparately needs to get better job opportunities. That $100k from the rich dude is one night out in Vegas. So maybe you're "penalizing" the poor guy for being poor by not taking enough from the rich guy.

Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. But any time you put in place a tax code, you're deciding what's fair for everyone. It's stupid to get pissed off about that, because that is in fact the government's job.

The government has to generate some revenue to run services. They should absolutely be focused on finding the fairest way to get that revenue, and the only way to do this is to try and guage the relative value of money (and services) to the tax payers.

I'm not against a flat tax per se. I just see no reason to believe it's fairer than a progressive or even regressive tax. It just leads to a nice, simple numbers for politicians to toss out there: What's the tax? 10%. Cool.

These are all perfectly valid, lucid, cogent points you make, THP. However, I do not believe they fully address the specific reasons/criticisms I have regarding certain types of taxation.

1) First of all, there's this whole notion of "owing" society at large this or that, and tangent to that the idea that the wealthier you are, the greater your obligation is to cough up a larger share of your income (take note: I'm not talking about a big pile of swag inherited by some trust-fund baby which frees them up to run around with their ugly rat-dog videotaping themselves getting railed by a B-list actor) because wealthy, successful people are greedy assholes who just want to keep the money they earned so they can lord it over poor people who, if they had half the chance, would be rich greedy assholes just like them.

2) You mention that the country doesn't run itself, it has a government, that government needs financing to run. Absolutely true, no argument there. Where you and I diverge sharply is the scope of the government and by extension the amount of money it needs to run. If the government was less involved in doing that which they do poorly or really ought not to be doing at all, they'd need a lot less money. A massive government operating expense requiring a massive infusion of cash carved out of everyones' paycheck is not some unavoidable visitation of fate, but rather the result of a very deliberate and methodical campaign of coming up with bigger and better ways to allow elected officials to expand their personal fiefdoms and kiss up to their constituents.

3) When people are taxed less and get to keep more of their money, they generally do not carry it in wheelbarrows into the living room, dump it in a pile, and roll around in it naked and rubbing it on themselves yelling "Holy shit! I'm rich!!" the way some folks seem to envision (not necessarily you, of course). They save it up and help ensure their own solvency, providing their own safety net which they can manage as they see fit. They can invest it, providing business capital that prods economic development and creates jobs. They buy stuff which need to be built, transported, sold, and maintained by people with paying jobs or avail themselves of services which likewise must be delivered by these people.

Government, on the other hand, is more apt to plow it into expansive programs such as welfare subsidies which put people on the dole and then yanks the rug out from under them and effectively penalizes them for taking the initiative to try and re-enter the workforce while rewarding inertia, perpetuating a permanent underclass which grows and requires services provided by taxpayer-funded agencies which must be run by (and thereby expand the political authority and consequence of) elected officials and be staffed by people who tend to be in that officials' home district...someone with a slightly more touching faith in our government might say I'm suggesting a connection exists here. Or they spend it on environmental programs that wreck the environment, dole it out to governments more corrupt and inept (or downright brutal) than our own to use to screw the people the aid is supposed to help and in effect take their show vis-a-vis welfare on the road and do it on a global/international scale.

[Shlep]

I propose replacing this 'estate tax' with a concerted effort around the country to set mansions and expensive cars on fire.

For someone who claims to love the environment, care deeply about its stewardship, and be outraged by mankinds' increasing pollution of it, you seem to be quite an enthusiastic proponent of dramatically increasing the amount of pollutants discharged in the air via fire and the amount of detritus littering the landscape and polluting the soil and water table by burning or otherwise trashing everything everything you don't like (which is quite a lot of stuff).

[the happy prole]

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing taxes cut in half. At least. I've probably said that a dozen times on this board. As for taxing the rich, it was bigsugar who brought up the whole "estate taxes are unfair" thing, NOT me. I'm simply pointing out that your facts are wrong.

Estate taxes are NOT double-taxation any more than any other tax, and more importantly, they can easily be avoided with a little financial planning. As a supposed conservative, you tell me: Why should the government cut a break to people whose net worth is completely tied to physical assets used to prop up a failing business, and who could have easily avoided the estate tax with a modicum of planning?

You're essentially arguing that taxing the rich is bad because it's inefficient. If that's the case taxing the poor is ALSO bad. I don't see any of you guys making that argument with anywhere near the same amount of fervor.

If you have to tax, you spread the burden fairly among income classes. That's all I care about. Who am I to say that a progessive tax is fair? Who are YOU to say that a flat tax is fair? I don't see why you think you have the moral highground here.

At one level, the fairest way to tax would be to tax in proportion to services used. Unfortunately, that doesn't really work because if you could do that, then the government shouldn't be in that area. That should just be turned over to private industry as there wouldn't be an externality there.

So for externalities, the fairest way to spread the tax burden is probably to take the same amount of utility from every person. That means that the tax should be indexed to the marginal utility of income. I have no idea what that curve actually looks like, but I can tell you this: There's pretty much no way in hell it's a straight line, which is what the flat tax assumes.

If you want to know where I stand, I think Reagan reamed the poor. Clinton reversed it and probably went too far the other way. Where we are under Bush seems about right to me. I don't want him going any further. The problem is less the spread of the burden, but the SIZE of it on every income class. That, and the middle class whining incessently.

What's funny to me is that you and markalot keep trotting out these arguments that I have an emotional bias against the rich, when in fact all I am doing is refuting you with raw facts and economic theory straight out of the Adam Smith free market playbook. You are citing very poor examples in support of your arguments, which makes me think that it's *you* who have the bias.

To sum up:

estate tax hurts small business/farms-- Bogus.

Sweden's debt<US
Sweden's external debt: The result of banking DEregulation
France and Germany's debt ~= US.
UK debt<US
Canada's debt<US
Japan's debt>US
Hong Kong's debt<<<< US
China's debt<<US

See a pattern there? I sure don't. There is a bit of a trade-off between public debt and overall debt. In essence, if the government doesn't borrow the money to provide services, then people borrow the money themselves. Whatever floats your boat. The truth is, the UK, Sweden, Germany, and the US are in pretty good shape. We all have our problems, but by and large our economies are pretty healthy.

And shockingly there are 60 million people in the UK who seem pretty happy. Those countries are quite a bit older than ours and have seen some crazy times and they're still around. It's a bit arrogant to be calling for their imminent downfall, don't you think?

PS. If you want a better example of what could be considered "unfair" multiple taxation: Try sales tax.

[DaHood]

For someone who claims to love the environment, care deeply about its stewardship, and be outraged by mankinds' increasing pollution of it, you seem to be quite an enthusiastic proponent of dramatically increasing the amount of pollutants discharged in the air via fire and the amount of detritus littering the landscape and polluting the soil and water table by burning or otherwise trashing everything everything you don't like (which is quite a lot of stuff).
Not only that, this behavior serves only to denigrate their cause even if the cause is itself a just cause.

[yoshomon]

Does ruining the lives of the ruling class count as a "just cause"?

[seafoamgreen]

Does ruining the lives of the ruling class count as a "just cause"?

I'm sorry. Is it 1848? Who even uses the term 'ruling class' anymore?

[Hogarth]

Golly, it's too bad that's a gross exaggeration and annoying as fuck. Makes you wonder why we can have the worst government in decades topped by the worst president and yet the liberals still can't regain power. Maybe because they're so annoying?

We need to get these jesus freaks out of congress. But honey, remember what the alternative is? shudder ... oh well.

All that article is telling me is that if you want something something done you need to rely on the government to do it. Why? Why assume that without the government we wouldn't have roads or rail travel or that poor people would die? Why assume that just because it worked out the way it did that it was the right way? There is so much wasted money and so many assumptions made about how people (sometimes called consumers) would starve and die without governments help. So the government props them up, keeps them barely alive, just enough so we can ignore the problem. And they use 5 times too much money to do it.

If people didn't have money to spend then how would the top of the pyramid survive? That's just silly.

Oh, and conservatives don't take trains, they drive SUV's, so that story is totally fiction.

Mark, who do you think built the highway the conservatives drive their SUVs on? That's right.

What is often annoying about extreme libertarians is their ignorance of history. If you want to see what a true laissez-faire society would look like, just study our own history 1870-1900. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. It was not a pretty time.

The true problem of Bush's economics is that it is leading to concentration of wealth. This will lead to a classical Marxian situation of a Proletarian class repressed by the business owning class. (No, I am not a Communist)

Perhaps Conservatives should quit crying about taxes and just be happy there aren't angry mobs with pitchforks and torches outside their gated communities.

[akip]

I'm sorry. Is it 1848? Who even uses the term 'ruling class' anymore?

i think rolling out the guillotine might be just the thing. :p

[purple_octopus]

Perhaps Conservatives should quit crying about taxes and just be happy there aren't angry mobs with pitchforks and torches outside their gated communities.
Not that I'm a conservative, but I was really looking forward to the angry mobs with pitchforks.

[DaHood]

Does ruining the lives of the ruling class count as a "just cause"?I was speaking of other things that some of these groups you're involved with or seem to support that may be good contributions to society. C'mon Yosh. I know you've done some good things and you've actually put your sense of community where your mouth is so I guess when you're instead shooting your mouth off I can only assume you're looking for a reaction. Or not. What do I know.

I'm sorry. Is it 1848? Who even uses the term 'ruling class' anymore?
For real though. :rolleyes:

[Hogarth]

I love it. So are you quoting someone who was in the Clinton administration admitting that the rich pay MUCH HIGHER TAXES and that's where ALL THE EXTRA MONEY is coming from? Those fucking rich people, they need to pay their share!

Just view it as Revolution Insurance

[Shlep]

Does ruining the lives of the ruling class count as a "just cause"?

The "ruling class" tend to insure their stuff, yosh...they'd just get a payoff and buy a new mansion and a new luxury car. And since the cops generally tend to respond to calls coming from the "ruling classes" neighborhoods the fastest, you'd probably just wind up getting shot.

The true problem of Bush's economics is that it is leading to concentration of wealth. This will lead to a classical Marxian situation of a Proletarian class repressed by the business owning class. (No, I am not a Communist)

Considering that Bush will be leaving office in 2 years, I'd say he has his work cut out for him.

Anyway, I've been hearing this lament vis-a-vis "the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer" for as long as I've been paying attention to politics, a bit over 20 years I'd say, and it's as much nonsense now as it was then. It's not as though there's a finite amount of wealth to be had, and those darned rich people are hoarding it. If it were, the number of rich, fat, pie-eating bastards (a.k.a. households with a net worth over $1 million) would not be growing lustily as they have for the past couple of years.

Perhaps Conservatives should quit crying about taxes and just be happy there aren't angry mobs with pitchforks and torches outside their gated communities.

Indeed. I suppose it's a good thing that liberals never, ever make a lot of money or get rich or live in swanky neighborhoods or anything because it relieves them the burden of worrying about this sort of thing.

Besides, conservatives (at least political conservatives) favor laws upholding the right to keep and bear arms. I'm pretty sure the effective range of even a small-caliber pistol exceeds that of a pitchfork or a torch.

[the happy prole]

Anyway, I've been hearing this lament vis-a-vis "the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer" for as long as I've been paying attention to politics, a bit over 20 years I'd say, and it's as much nonsense now as it was then.

And I've been hearing the "poor people do nothing but feed off the hard work of the rich" lament for just as long. Which is also pure nonsense.

[Hogarth]

My goodness... is this discussion STILL going? Well, in that case:

I was having a discussion with a co-worker, we both live in Blue Ash, where they are proposing to increase the city "earning" tax from 1% to 1.25%. Even though it will not affect me at all (since I pay a higher city income tax in the city where I actually work, namely Cincinnati), I am nevertheless against raising the Blue Ash tax. My co-worker, who obviously also works in Cincinnati, is in favor "because it doesn't affect me anyway so let's get that money".

Why does Blue Ash, which is engulfed with money from all of the corporate taxes it collects, need to raise taxes at all? And furthermore, I don't like to increase income taxes, anywhere. Look at the tax burden that we Ohioans now find ourselves in. Ohio used to be (I'm talking 30-40 years ago) in the lower tax burden bracket of the 50 states, now is is rapidly moving "upwards" on that list. :mad:

The reason Ohio is high on the tax list is because:
1. Ohio has a lot of old infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers, etc.).
2. Ohio has a lot of old people on Medicare.

I would imagine if you looked at the low tax states, you would find new infrastructure and few seniors. Nevada might be a good example.

[Hogarth]

The "ruling class" tend to insure their stuff, yosh...they'd just get a payoff and buy a new mansion and a new luxury car. And since the cops generally tend to respond to calls coming from the "ruling classes" neighborhoods the fastest, you'd probably just wind up getting shot.



Considering that Bush will be leaving office in 2 years, I'd say he has his work cut out for him.

Anyway, I've been hearing this lament vis-a-vis "the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer" for as long as I've been paying attention to politics, a bit over 20 years I'd say, and it's as much nonsense now as it was then. It's not as though there's a finite amount of wealth to be had, and those darned rich people are hoarding it. If it were, the number of rich, fat, pie-eating bastards (a.k.a. households with a net worth over $1 million) would not be growing lustily as they have for the past couple of years.



Indeed. I suppose it's a good thing that liberals never, ever make a lot of money or get rich or live in swanky neighborhoods or anything because it relieves them the burden of worrying about this sort of thing.

Besides, conservatives (at least political conservatives) favor laws upholding the right to keep and bear arms. I'm pretty sure the effective range of even a small-caliber pistol exceeds that of a pitchfork or a torch.

The difference between a rich conservative, and a rich liberal is that the liberal will say "There but for the Grace of God go I", and try to enact legislation that either tries to help others, or at least give others the opportunity to better themselves. Conservatives buy safes and concertina wire.

Also, my working class neighbors tend to prefer shotguns to pistols.

The problem with the Republican program is that those who have, tend to get more, while making it harder for those who don't to earn a better life for themselves. A great example is the dramatic rise in college tuition. States used to pay the lion share of tuition, but now, because no one wants to pay taxes, students have to go deep in debt to improve their lot. Does it make sense to hinder people from becoming more productive citizens? Only if you're trying to create a life long underclass.

[akip]

A great example is the dramatic rise in college tuition. States used to pay the lion share of tuition, but now, because no one wants to pay taxes, students have to go deep in debt to improve their lot. Does it make sense to hinder people from becoming more productive citizens? Only if you're trying to create a life long underclass.

saving the college tuition for my kid, so he doesn't have to go into debt, is my biggest single worry. and i'm not what anyone consider to be "struggling" financially. but the cost in 2013-2017 is gonna be staggering.

[drougan]

It seems to me you're either reading way too much malice into the actions of conservatives or you've been brainwashed into repeating some left wing propaganda.

The truth is, the fiscally conservative aren't trying to create a life long underpriviledged class. They're not trying to keep anyone down actually. There is no malice or ill will at all, generally speaking. They are just a class of people trying to protect their own interests. Incidentally, thats exactly what the underpriviledged classes are doing too, they just (again, generally speaking) don't have either the financial savvyness or financial ability to take the upwardly mobile route that the kid of a middle class or uppermiddle class household can take.

I (like some other people in this thread) think the whole "class war" notion is a little mellodramatic.

[dannyboy]

A great example is the dramatic rise in college tuition. States used to pay the lion share of tuition, but now, because no one wants to pay taxes, students have to go deep in debt to improve their lot. Does it make sense to hinder people from becoming more productive citizens? Only if you're trying to create a life long underclass.
I used to feel the same way but then I realized that if everyone has a college degree, having a degree doesn't mean as much as it once did. I personally think the best way to becoming successful is working hard. This article discusses this point (http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/great_1.html). I don't have a degree, and while not "rich", I own my own house and can pay my bills. It also helps that I'm rather frugal. There are countless millionaires and billionaires in this country that have not gone to college or dropped out. I think the main reason for going to college is to enrich you as a person. Having a better opportunity to earn more is a result of that, but is not a guarantee.

[DaHood]

I (like some other people in this thread) think the whole "class war" notion is a little mellodramatic.
Good post.

[Hogarth]

It seems to me you're either reading way too much malice into the actions of conservatives or you've been brainwashed into repeating some left wing propaganda.

The truth is, the fiscally conservative aren't trying to create a life long underpriviledged class. They're not trying to keep anyone down actually. There is no malice or ill will at all, generally speaking. They are just a class of people trying to protect their own interests. Incidentally, thats exactly what the underpriviledged classes are doing too, they just (again, generally speaking) don't have either the financial savvyness or financial ability to take the upwardly mobile route that the kid of a middle class or uppermiddle class household can take.

I (like some other people in this thread) think the whole "class war" notion is a little mellodramatic.

I don't think conservatives are doing it deliberately(some of my relatives are conservatives, and they don't seem to have protuding horns or anything like that). I think that their actions are short-sighted and that they fail to realize that we live in a complex, interconnected society, and that it is in their best interest to promote a society where everyone can get ahead, even it means doing with a little less themselves. I guess the root difference in the liberal vs. conservative viewpoint lies in whether you value success of the tribe or that of the induvidual.

GO TRIBE!

[AvatarOfVishnu]

I'm not arguing for lower or higher taxes, but much of the money spent by your low income family will go indirectly to a foreign company because of globalization (not that that's a bad thing, it's just inevitable circumstances) and much of the money saved by the upper-middle income family will be invested in a US business, either by form of stock or investing it in their own business, which of course stimulates the economy.

Interesting theory - so you are saying that the poor folks will spend most of their extra dollar at WalMart (or some such place) that gets its products from mostly foreign sources? - perhaps this is true

which is why our country needs to provide incentives for purchasing domestic goods & services (especially including labor services - aka: make it more profitable for companies to hire Americans instead of outsourcing to India, Mexico, China, etc)

[markalot]

When can we admit that lack of intelligence keeps a whole lot of people from making it in a society that requires smarts more and more? I don't have a college degree, just a good work ethic.

woops, boss is coming, got to go ...

[AvatarOfVishnu]

I was just trying to keep my example simple, but the IRS expects its money and they aren't nice about collecting it. And as far has being a corp. or LLC, in most cases it doesn't matter for closely held businesses. Irrespective of how most small businesses are structured (S, C, LLC, etc.) the owner is the majority shareholder and it impacts his/her estate.

BTW...I think the "family farm" argument is just a political ploy like any other..."War on terrorism"..."Time for a change"...etc....used to rally the constituents. But, be it apathy, ignorance, lack of interest by the next generation, the government getting its tax dollars, or whatever, only about 10% of family owned businesses make it to the third generation.

& this is a problem??? why??? - my grandparents deserve the rewards for their hard work - but i'm not entitled to live off of the spoils of their sweat. i need to make my own way & deserve what i can earn & provide for myself (PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY)

i'm not saying that SOME wealth can't/shouldn't be allowed to be transferred from generation to generation - but i don't deserve it more than anybody else in our society - why not share some of the wealth?

[markalot]

& this is a problem??? why??? - my grandparents deserve the rewards for their hard work - but i'm not entitled to live off of the spoils of their sweat. i need to make my own way & deserve what i can earn & provide for myself (PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY)

i'm not saying that SOME wealth can't/shouldn't be allowed to be transferred from generation to generation - but i don't deserve it more than anybody else in our society - why not share some of the wealth?

Your parents should be able to decide if you deserve their money without government 'incentives'.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

When can we admit that lack of intelligence keeps a whole lot of people from making it in a society that requires smarts more and more? I don't have a college degree, just a good work ethic.

woops, boss is coming, got to go ...

i don't think we'd get much arguement about that point - but the least intelligent person can still contribute to society & should be allowed the "pursuit of life, liberty & happiness" - there needs to be some minimum standard that we don't let these people fall below - & i'm afraid that many have sunk so far that they have no chance at finding happiness in their lives :(

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Your parents should be able to decide if you deserve their money without government 'incentives'.

huh??? - how do i deserve ANY of their money? - what did i do to help create that wealth? - most kids (myself included) often were obstacles in the way of their families business ventures - not to say that the joys of parenthood aren't worth the hassle - i'm not a parent yet (if ever).

[the happy prole]

I don't know when you guys started working, but increasingly you're totally screwed without a college degree. It's really a significant barrier to success. In fact, it's so huge it's beyond ridiculous. The only thing people are missing is that the barrier is not between rich and poor but rather the poor and the middle class.

The reason college tuition is increasing is because those who aren't intelligent enough (or weren't previously) can buy their way into a myriad of private colleges. And the middle classes pay these exorbitant sums because it's a guarantee you'll stay middle class. Where there's demand, price will increase.

This is one reason I have very little sympathy for the middle class. The whole "we can't send our third kid to college" story is just so old. You can send your kid to college by raising them up real smart. Or you can work harder. Or you could not have so many kids.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

It means that no matter what tax code we agree on the money goes to the government so that it can be wasted on bridges to nowhere.

i'm sure that the people on that island don't consider their homes "nowhere" - so it's a matter of perspective, but it is ALOT of money for such a few # of people - i don't support the Feds funding this bridge - it should be funded at state &/or local levels

just because there are examples of money being appropriated unwisely doesn't mean we should stop letting congress tax us - it means we should embolden our representatives to stand up to this pork (even the pork that goes to our own districts)

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Right on...spending, it matters. I heard the other day on NPR about a government program that subsidizes sheep herders to the tune of $350,000 a year. It originally started during WWI to ensure there would be enough wool for army uniforms and has stayed on the books all these years without a politician thinking it might be wasteful.

let's scrap tha program ASAP! there are too many other programs that are underfunded to waste it on sheep

[AvatarOfVishnu]

*If someone could educate me on how to choose certain portions of text...thank you in advance.*

I think the SS dilemma could be solved by the concept of Progressive Indexing. Low wage earners (avg. career earnings under $25,000) and those in or near retirement would receive the present schedule of SS benefits based on US wage growth during their careers. Higher-wage earners ($110,000 and above) would receive an initial SS benefit indexed to price inflation during their careers. Median wage earners ($25,000-$110,000) would have their benefits pegged to a combination of wages and prices.

Since, historically, wages rise faster than prices, this should slow the rate of growth for higher wage earners and provide protection for lower wage earners. It would close the gap of the shortfall SS faces and provide parity across different earning classes.

Higher-wage earners can contribute more to retirement plans, which of course keeps money out of government coffers for a period of time and thus wouldn't receive as much (proportionately) from the government upon retirement. Conversely, lower-wage earners can't contribute as much to retirement plans and would receive (proportionatley) more from the government in retirement. And retirees and pre-retirees wouldn't be affected.

sounds good to me - where R U again? - let's elect U 2 congress so we can move this country back on the right track again!

[AvatarOfVishnu]

...Sweden is strapped with 516 billion in debt. That number represents 50% of their GDP.

One interestign thing to look at is GDP vs debt. Our GDP is higher than our total debt, Sweden and most european countries is lower than their debt.
...

you say Sweden's debt is 50% of their GDP (that's by definition, 2x more GDP than debt)...then you go on to say Sweden's (GDP) is lower than their debt.

That is mathematically impossible!

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Sweden's GDP is 350 billion
Sweden's debt is 516 billion
Sweden's growth rate = .16%

USA GDP is 12.4 trillion
USA debt is 8.8 trillion
USA growth rate = .91%
...

these #s don't mesh w/ your saying that Sweden's debt is 50% of it's GDP

50% of their GDP (assuming that 350 billion is correct) is 175 billion NOT 516 billion

you are wrong somewhere - although i don't know where

[markalot]

these #s don't mesh w/ your saying that Sweden's debt is 50% of it's GDP

50% of their GDP (assuming that 350 billion is correct) is 175 billion NOT 516 billion

you are wrong somewhere - although i don't know where

I was using Sweden's external debt, which according to Prole is high because of a banking crises a few years back.

[akip]

This is one reason I have very little sympathy for the middle class. The whole "we can't send our third kid to college" story is just so old. You can send your kid to college by raising them up real smart. Or you can work harder. Or you could not have so many kids.

not really. kids are who they are. not every bright kid is academically talented. a lot of those kids have other traits associated with success---people skills and tenacity, for instance---but they still have to get through high school and college competing against kids who've never had a childhood---though some of those A+ students don't necessarily have personalities that are geared for long term success in the real world. americans are already working very hard...if they don't spend ANY time with their kids, that's a negative as well. pediatricians tell families to slow down and they warn against kids burning out. the pressure is enormous, even for a family with ONE kid.

[blackdog]

Here's the deal...the real deal...ready???

Get off your lazy butts and work. Quit complaining and do something about it. THEN...VOTE! And vote for the person (Not the PARTY), to whom you have done some research on. Don't let the Media (CNN/FOX) do the research for you!

Only a fool votes for their party straight down the ticket.

Don't blame it on the Party, grow a pair and blame yourselves!

[purple_octopus]

Here's the deal...the real deal...ready???

Get off your lazy butts and work. Quit complaining and do something about it. THEN...VOTE! And vote for the person (Not the PARTY), to whom you have done some research on. Don't let the Media (CNN/FOX) do the research for you!

Only a fool votes for their party straight down the ticket.

Don't blame it on the Party, grow a pair and blame yourselves!
Yep. I'm not a fan of AARP, but I really love their "don't vote" ad campaign this year.

[markalot]

It is ironic that the people who complain about the 'ruling class' tend to also be the idiots who think it's a waste of time to vote.

[the happy prole]

They covered this on that "War on the middle class" thing yesterday on CNN. They had a segment on the rising cost of tuition. But who's driving up the costs? A public university is like 1/3 the cost of a private institution so the governments are holding the line there. And both the Feds and the states are yanking money from need-based programs and putting them towards educational-voucher or merit-based stuff but of which benefit the middle class.

And tuition still keeps going up because the demand is there. Give an institution $5k per student, they just raise prices $5k.

I don't think the rich care that much if middle class kids go to college or not. Some of the poor would like to go, but they're not a significant part of the population to drive up the costs. Besides, they're not getting the opportunity.

Who's at war with the middle class? Mostly themselves. And there's not a government solution for that. I'd still be a little more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that the middle class civil war is being funded with money that could be going to the poor.

I'm sure most middle class kids are nice enough people. And they try hard and whatnot. But some of them don't have either the intelligence or people skills (or both) to make it through college or in a professional environment. So maybe that chance should go to a poor kid who DOES have those attributes.

Middle class people shouldn't be protected. Some of them should fall into the lower class. That's how the lower class gets a shot. Just like how the middle class should have a chance at taking a slot from one of the elites.

[purple_octopus]

It is ironic that the people who complain about the 'ruling class' tend to also be the idiots who think it's a waste of time to vote.
markalot, do you really want these people voting? I don't. I'd be just as happy if they sat their asses at home.

[akip]

middle class kids will go to college--at least those on the upper half of that stratum. it's the middle class value system to send the kid(s) to college. it's just going to be a lot more difficult than it used to be when college was open to almost everyone, cheap, and non-college grads could make good money working at factories anyway. i think a lot of people are just going to end up in bad financial shape when they retire. they'll probably have to move in with the kids they spent everything to educate. there will probably be many more 3-generation households. perhaps fewer people will be homeowners.

[markalot]

markalot, do you really want these people voting? I don't. I'd be just as happy if they sat their asses at home.

Yea, I do. Maybe most would vote independent, maybe their vote would be so scattered for extreme candidates it wouldn't matter, but then again maybe the stars would align and something good would happen. :) Who knows!

The thing is most of these radicals are young and stupid and eventually will realize that the system was good enough they could have changed it; if they just didn't waste their time hating it.

The constitution does not define the politics of government we have today, it just allows it.

[akip]

Who's at war with the middle class? Mostly themselves. And there's not a government solution for that. I'd still be a little more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that the middle class civil war is being funded with money that could be going to the poor.

I'm sure most middle class kids are nice enough people. And they try hard and whatnot. But some of them don't have either the intelligence or people skills (or both) to make it through college or in a professional environment. So maybe that chance should go to a poor kid who DOES have those attributes.

Middle class people shouldn't be protected. Some of them should fall into the lower class. That's how the lower class gets a shot. Just like how the middle class should have a chance at taking a slot from one of the elites.


no matter how you slice it, the current conditions will mean less upward mobility for most. there's no war of the middle class against itself. it's people fighting the current of change, which is global and impersonal.

[the happy prole]

The fact is that we're pulling financial aid for poor people and replacing it with financial aid for the middle class so more middle-class kids can get a degree.

And there is no upward mobility for someone without a college degree.

[classicgrrl]

They covered this on that "War on the middle class" thing yesterday on CNN. They had a segment on the rising cost of tuition. But who's driving up the costs? A public university is like 1/3 the cost of a private institution so the governments are holding the line there. And both the Feds and the states are yanking money from need-based programs and putting them towards educational-voucher or merit-based stuff but of which benefit the middle class.

And tuition still keeps going up because the demand is there. Give an institution $5k per student, they just raise prices $5k.

I don't think the rich care that much if middle class kids go to college or not. Some of the poor would like to go, but they're not a significant part of the population to drive up the costs. Besides, they're not getting the opportunity.

Who's at war with the middle class? Mostly themselves. And there's not a government solution for that. I'd still be a little more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that the middle class civil war is being funded with money that could be going to the poor.

I'm sure most middle class kids are nice enough people. And they try hard and whatnot. But some of them don't have either the intelligence or people skills (or both) to make it through college or in a professional environment. So maybe that chance should go to a poor kid who DOES have those attributes.

Middle class people shouldn't be protected. Some of them should fall into the lower class. That's how the lower class gets a shot. Just like how the middle class should have a chance at taking a slot from one of the elites.

I'm more pissed off that money going into corporate welfare could be going to either small businesses or the poor. certainly MUCH more than are going toward student loans.

[the happy prole]

Student loans ARE corporate welfare. What else do you call it when the government underwrites BILLIONS of dollars in bonds for a Fortune 500 corporation, essentially telling them "If you lose money on this venture, we'll pay you back?"

That's why Sallie Mae hands out loans like candy. Everyone can get a $30,000 loan, so colleges just raise their tuition $30,000. If you can't pay back your loan or you don't graduate, you could very well end up screwed. But Sallie Mae's ass is still covered. They make gigantic profits every year. And now they're using those profits to buy out non-profits.

You cannot win this game. The more they hand out in loans, the more colleges raise tuition. The more they raise tuition, the more you need loans. The more you need loans, the higher your taxes. Everyone loses except Sallie Mae.

Your taxes go to paying the government to underwrite your student loans. Student loans that you wouldn't have needed to take out in the first place if Sallie Mae weren't there. They take your cash, skim some off the top and then loan your own money back to you at interest.

It's a huge scam. When do the Bush administration, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, and 60 Minutes ever agree on anything? Well, they agree on this issue. There are bipartisan bills every year proposing reform and they NEVER pass because the taxpayers think Student Loans are the greatest thing ever. If you vote against them, you're the guy who voted against sending kids to college.

[akip]

i believe the reality is that the majority of this country---those with average intelligence, even on the high side of average (90% of the population has an IQ below 119 and only 2% has an IQ above 130) ---are gonna have a rough time in a college system that is way over-priced. it's gonna create downward mobility for not a few people. and in an economy that will need highly educated workers, that's not a great thing---not for people heavily mortaging their futures to pay for college, nor for the future of the country overall.

[markalot]

i believe the reality is that the majority of this country---those with average intelligence, even on the high side of average (90% of the population has an IQ below 119 and only 2% has an IQ above 130) ---are gonna have a rough time in a college system that is way over-priced. it's gonna create downward mobility for not a few people. and in an economy that will need highly educated workers, that's not a great thing---not for people heavily mortaging their futures to pay for college, nor for the future of the country overall.

If that's the case then the economy will collapse or correct, schools will have massive recruitment problems, and the problem will correct itself. If the housing market collapses or credit institutions collapse then the problem will correct itself.

[akip]

If that's the case then the economy will collapse or correct, schools will have massive recruitment problems, and the problem will correct itself. If the housing market collapses or credit institutions collapse then the problem will correct itself.

or, what is more likely, nothing will actually collapse, there will be certain amount of correction, but the economic baseline will lower. the classes will become more rigidly defined as they are in many other parts of the world, the unemployed poor will reproduce more rapidly than the middle, and the standard of living for the average american will decline.

[markalot]

or, what is more likely, nothing will actually collapse, there will be certain amount of correction, but the economic baseline will lower. the classes will become more rigidly defined as they are in many other parts of the world, the unemployed poor will reproduce more rapidly than the middle, and the standard of living for the average american will decline.

And then what? Do these people vote?

I realize it's kind of hard right now to believe that our democracy works, but we're always only one election away from a revolution.

[akip]

And then what? Do these people vote?

I realize it's kind of hard right now to believe that our democracy works, but we're always only one election away from a revolution.

you're right---it's hard to believe right now that our democracy works, especially if we're looking at deteriorating public education for the average future voter. seems also that the more polarized we become, the more easily we're manipulated.

[akip]

just happens to be an AP article, just filed in the nyt, about college cost inflation---

college costs top inflation (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-College-Costs.html?_r=1&oref=login)

College Costs Top Inflation

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 24, 2006

Filed at 11:39 a.m. ET

College price increases slowed this year but they again topped inflation, and financial aid isn't keeping pace, a new report says.

Tuition and fees at public four-year public colleges rose $344, or 6.3 percent, to an average of $5,836 for the 2006-07 academic year, according to the College Board's annual ''Trends in College Pricing'' report, released Tuesday.

Accounting for inflation, prices rose just 2.4 percent -- the lowest rise in six years, and the third straight time the gap between prices and overall inflation has narrowed.

Tuition and fees at private four-year colleges rose 5.9 percent overall, to $22,218.

The news that price hikes are getting smaller is tempered by the fact that this decade has been a period of an extraordinary increases in college costs. Published prices are up 35 percent in five years -- the largest increase of any five-year period in the 30 years covered the report.

That's coupled with the reality that grant aid -- from the government, colleges and private sources -- isn't covering the price hikes. For the 62 percent of full-time undergraduates who receive grant aid, the average net cost of a four-year public school rose 8 percent to $2,700, the report said.

''There is some good news: There's a lot of aid out there that is helping students,'' said Sandy Baum, senior policy analyst at the College Board. ''But there are real notes of caution about ... the failure of grant aid to keep up with the rise in prices.''

The best news came for people at the nation's public two-year colleges, which educate nearly half of American college students. There, tuition and fees rose just 4.1 percent to $2,272. The increase was limited by California, which is home to more than a fifth of the nation's two-year public college students and lowered tuition and fees 12 percent this year. Elsewhere, prices rose 5.1 percent.

Accounting for financial aid, however, the average net cost nationally for two-year public college students declined, and is less than $100.

''We're seeing more students who would generally have gone to the state university coming to the community college because of the issue of pricing,'' said Wilfredo Nieves, president of Middlesex Community College in Connecticut, who spoke at the announcement.

At four-year public schools, adding room and board to tuition and fees makes the college prices average $12,796. At private colleges, the price is $30,367.

The cost increases at state schools are baffling to many students and parents, given the relative health of the economy and state finances.

After several years of sharp cuts, state spending on higher education has been rising again nationally. The problem is that more people are enrolling, so there is less and less to spend per student.

[markalot]

And I can't wait to hear academia start to cry when the enrollments start to dry up. But that's the cool thing about us, you'll see more alternative or cheaper institutions open up to educate people. It's a business, and someone will figure out how to make money.

[the happy prole]

There's no doubt that college tuition costs are too high, and rising disproportionately.

What people don't understand, and what that article doesn't explain is WHY. The increased demand is a part of it, but only a part. Throwing money into student loans and scholarships for the middle class is going to make it worse. I guarantee it.

[seafoamgreen]

And I can't wait to hear academia start to cry when the enrollments start to dry up.

it's already started, 1st year rentention rates dropped from 88% to 80% this past year and show no sign of improving.

that said, i'm self financing college through loans and grants, so i get a little sensitive about the discussion. It's best i stay out.

[the happy prole]

And I can't wait to hear academia start to cry when the enrollments start to dry up. But that's the cool thing about us, you'll see more alternative or cheaper institutions open up to educate people. It's a business, and someone will figure out how to make money.

No you won't. There's almost no way a private institution can match a public institution because the public institution gets tax money and takes advantage of economies of scale. Private institutions cost 3 times what a public university does and other than a few exceptions (and US News's bogus rankings) they really aren't that much better.

btw, for-profit institutions live off the government more than public institutions do. UVA for example, could stop getting a single dollar in public money and they'd be fine because they have a gigantic endowment. If you pull student loans, pretty much every for-profit institution would go bankrupt.

[the happy prole]

that said, i'm self financing college through loans and grants, so i get a little sensitive about the discussion. It's best i stay out.

Just so you know, I think grants are great. I don't really think loans are a bad thing per se, either. I think it's Ohio State that does direct loans for students, which is incredibly forward-thinking of them.

I don't like FFEL loans.

[DaHood]

I don't like my tax dollars supporting schools who then treat tuition increases as increases based on demand. Either be a state sponsored school or be a corporation, not both.

[akip]

There's no doubt that college tuition costs are too high, and rising disproportionately.

What people don't understand, and what that article doesn't explain is WHY. The increased demand is a part of it, but only a part. Throwing money into student loans and scholarships for the middle class is going to make it worse. I guarantee it.

whatever they do, i'm sure we'll be paying top dollar for an out-of-state university tuition. my kid's dream is to play division 1 hockey...or if he can't make it, division 2. considering the competition, i'm not banking on any tuition breaks.

[the happy prole]

I don't like my tax dollars supporting schools who then treat tuition increases as increases based on demand. Either be a state sponsored school or be a corporation, not both.

I have issues with some of the things public institutions do as well, but they do understand their mission to serve the public. The more students they need to serve, the more revenue they need. To some extent, the fact that more students=more revenue ameliorates those costs. But there's other stuff like buildings where they have a high cost up front or need to float bonds or whatever.

They're getting caught just like everyone else. When their tuitions get frozen by the board or other gov. agency then everyone wonders why they don't rank as high on US News and World Reports. It's because quality costs money. If they up their quality people complain about the tuition costs.

Public institutions costs a fraction of private ones. I promise you, University of Virginia is NOT receiving $20,000 per student to make up for the tuition difference between them and University of Richmond.

Many states have two-year college systems that are not only dirt cheap and have open enrollments, AND they have transfer policies with the public four-years. So pay $3k/semester for two years and do well and you can then finish off at a public university at $8k/semseter for two years. Your entire cost will be less than one semester at a private college. I don't know what more the state can do.

[akip]

Many states have two-year college systems that are not only dirt cheap and have open enrollments, AND they have transfer policies with the public four-years. So pay $3k/semester for two years and do well and you can then finish off at a public university at $8k/semseter for two years. Your entire cost will be less than one semester at a private college. I don't know what more the state can do.

this would be what i'd be thinking about IF NOT for the hockey factor. c'est la vie.

[the happy prole]

I like direct loans much more than loans which use private banks as a middleman. Conservatives love the private loans because they think the government entities will botch anything they touch.

But private business only beats the government when they have an incentive to compete and pay the stakes when they lose. If they don't, you might as well have the government do it. It gets rid of the middleman and at least the process is more transparent. The government has to open it's books and if you don't like the way things are going, you can vote people out of office.

Let's say I'm a for-profit institution. My primary revenue source is tuition payment from students, so the more students I can take the more money I get. It kinda doesn't matter if they don't graduate, even.

So let's say I charge $25k for tuition. You want to attend my institution, so Sallie Mae lends you the money. No matter what happens, I'll get my money from Sallie Mae. And Sallie Mae will get their money from the government.

If something goes wrong and you don't graduate or can't get a good job then you're scrambling for a long time to pay off your loan. Or you default. Sallie Mae just puts a giant red mark on your credit and moves on. They don't care if you default because the government pays them regardless.

Now you're screwed because of your debts and/or lousy credit and the years you lost pursuing a degree when maybe you could have been working. The tax payers are in the hole because they're subsidizing your principle and interest. Sallie Mae and the institution both have their money, so they win.

There's no consequence to them if you don't pay your debts so they can make a ton of money by taking as many students as possible and maxing out their loans. Every loan Sallie Mae makes is a guaranteed profit for them, so no wonder they give out loans to anyone-- even if it's not the best thing for that person.

The student themselves would have been much better off going to community college and not taking on such a huge debt load. So would the public, because we wouldn't be paying off the students' debts.

[the happy prole]

btw, I work in a state higher education coordinating agency so I may have a biased perspective as well.

I know there are some people on the boards that work in Financial Aid or Admissions offices at institutions. Maybe they can give their viewpoints on this.

[dannyboy]

Someone who is 18 and considering their options would be wise to possibly hold off a year or so before entering college if they aren't ready to put 100% into it. Otherwise you may wind up with a loan the size of some peoples' mortgages with no reasonable way to pay it back.
It seems kind of like playing Russian Roulette strapping yourself with so much debt early in life. A degree gives you a better opportunity to get a higher paying job, but it certainly isn't a guarantee. I haven't seen any stats but how much better off are graduates that have high student loan debt in terms of debt to income ratio compared to those of the same age that aren't college graduates?

[onest2.0]

But it's worth bearing in mind here that the school decides whether it wants to do the Direct Loan or FFEL. Some do both, although most pick one or the other. But in either case, the government is on the hook for the tuition if you don't pay it back. Schools that want to fill up their enrollments have the same incentives that private lenders do in terms of acceptance. It basically means that they can enroll as many people as apply, and that the government will assume risk for the tab.

Schools aren't off the hook if students don't pay back their loans. Every school has a default rate that is monitored by the gov. If that default rate gets too high, the school risks losing eligibility for Title IV funding.

In response to a previous post: increasing federal student loans are not the reason for increasing tuition costs. Direct and FFELP borrowing limits are finally going to increase next year for the first time ever. So in real dollars, loan amounts have actually decreased. Also, the government has stopped putting additional funding towards the Perkins program. If any loans are to blame, it is the alternative loans, which are not part of any government program. I'd venture to guess that tuition hikes are a result of a combination of things, namely reduction in state subsidies, increased labor costs, and the increase in demand for hi-tech campuses.

[dannyboy]

It seems kind of like playing Russian Roulette strapping yourself with so much debt early in life. A degree gives you a better opportunity to get a higher paying job, but it certainly isn't a guarantee. I haven't seen any stats but how much better off are graduates that have high student loan debt in terms of debt to income ratio compared to those of the same age that aren't college graduates?
I found this article. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257094_studentloandebt26.html?source=rss) Sounds like prospective college students need to make some wise decisions.

[the happy prole]

Schools that want to fill up their enrollments have the same incentives that private lenders do in terms of acceptance. It basically means that they can enroll as many people as apply, and that the government will assume risk for the tab.

They have the same incentive to fill their enrollments, which is still a problem. But at least they don't have the same incentive to issue loans because they don't make "processing fee" costs like Sallie Mae does. As a private middleman, Sallie Mae skims some off the top resulting in efficiency loss.

But the more important thing is that they'd have to deal with the Feds as individual institutions. If Xavier U. starts issuing loans willy-nilly and students keep defaulting at some point someone will hopefully say "What the hell are you doing here?!?" I don't know that Xavier U has friends in Congress who will look the other way.

On the other hand, by an amazing coincidence the House Majority leader (you know who he is) just happens to be a huge backer of Sallie Mae. He also happens to receive a shit-ton of money from Sallie Mae lobbyists and investors. And it just so happens he has a daughter with a job with a loan collection agency owned by Sallie Mae. Let's just say the relationship is suspiciously "cozy."

For-profit institutions and trade schools have insanely high default rates on the loans they issue to students. You would think therefore, that Sallie Mae would not be their friend. Yet those same two groups basically jointly fund Boehner's campaigns. That's how you know it's a problem.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Here's the deal...the real deal...ready???

Get off your lazy butts and work. Quit complaining and do something about it. THEN...VOTE! And vote for the person (Not the PARTY), to whom you have done some research on. Don't let the Media (CNN/FOX) do the research for you!

Only a fool votes for their party straight down the ticket.

Don't blame it on the Party, grow a pair and blame yourselves!

you got parents working 2 or 3 jobs to make enough to pay the bills & take care of their kids - when do U suppose these people have time to do serious research on political candidates

yes they SHOULD do the research, but it's not very realistic to expect them to - w/ so many other higher priorities (changing diapers, PTA mtgs, cooking dinner, etc)

[blackdog]

Yep. I'm not a fan of AARP, but I really love their "don't vote" ad campaign this year.

Nice, very nice. You know, Wal-mart does need greeters!

[DaHood]

Nice, very nice. You know, Wal-mart does need greeters!
Did you know that a big legged woman ain't got no soul?

[purple_octopus]

Nice, very nice. You know, Wal-mart does need greeters!
Have you heard the ads? (I'm assuming their national, but I don't know for sure.)

[blackdog]

Did you know that a big legged woman ain't got no soul?

Oh yeah! Oh Yeah! UH UH OOOOOOOOOOO!

[AvatarOfVishnu]

If that's the case then the economy will collapse or correct, schools will have massive recruitment problems, and the problem will correct itself. If the housing market collapses or credit institutions collapse then the problem will correct itself.

i don't disagree - but govt can certainly help ease these transitions - i don't think anybody wants wild fluctuations & collapses - there is value in stability

[blackdog]

Have you heard the ads? (I'm assuming their national, but I don't know for sure.)


All I've been hearing is that MJ FOX has turned against Republicans. No matter what I watched, or heard...He was even on Cartoon Network telling Shaggy and Scooby that cloning stem cells needed more Legislative support.

Seriously, I've heard rumors about people not voting this midterm, because they want to make a statement about the war. This happens every election.

"If you don't vote, you don't have a voice, then no one can hear you" or something like that

[AvatarOfVishnu]

And I can't wait to hear academia start to cry when the enrollments start to dry up. But that's the cool thing about us, you'll see more alternative or cheaper institutions open up to educate people. It's a business, and someone will figure out how to make money.

i would think that the demand for college education is fairly in-elastic. higher costs will reduce demand some, but not a significant amount

if all products & services of value were perfectly elastic, then there would be no problem letting the free market forces control everything

the problems come in with the products & services that are IN-ELASTIC (aka: stuff everybody MUST have regardless of price such as water, power, food, healthcare, education, etc) - the market does not regulate these items very well

[markalot]

i don't disagree - but govt can certainly help ease these transitions - i don't think anybody wants wild fluctuations & collapses - there is value in stability

Ah, but government helps create these problems.

[purple_octopus]

All I've been hearing is that MJ FOX has turned against Republicans. No matter what I watched, or heard...He was even on Cartoon Network telling Shaggy and Scooby that cloning stem cells needed more Legislative support.

Seriously, I've heard rumors about people not voting this midterm, because they want to make a statement about the war. This happens every election.

"If you don't vote, you don't have a voice, then no one can hear you" or something like that
Basically, these ads say "if you're one of these idiots who vote on candidates/issues because of some crap campaign ad you saw on TV, or who vote mindlessly down party lines, please do the rest of us a favor and sit your ass at home on election day." Of course, it's worded a little more nicely, and then it gives a url where people can get educated on the issues & candidates.

[blackdog]

Basically, these ads say "if you're one of these idiots who vote on candidates/issues because of some crap campaign ad you saw on TV, or who vote mindlessly down party lines, please do the rest of us a favor and sit your ass at home on election day." Of course, it's worded a little more nicely, and then it gives a url where people can get educated on the issues & candidates.


I'll keep an eye out for it. I'm interested to see who, exactly, it is targeted to.

I live in Florida...home of the Old Farts, Hanging Chads, and Grease Ball Politicians.

I'm a registered Repub, but I AINT VOTIN' FOR DAT HARRIS GAL (and all of her make-up). I'm going to vote for Bill Nelson (Dem.), again. We also have the Dip Wad (Repub) who is running for state CFO. This guy's claim to fame has been his track record in the Florida Congress, and his Mom and Pop family real estate biz he had. He's running against a Dem who has been a president of a world wide banking institution, and she was also appointed by a former governer as a commissioner on gov't accountability. Hmmmmm...who do you think I'll vote for?

Sounds like Blackdog is turning into a lib.......ertarian!

[the happy prole]

Those ads make me want to punch old people in the face repeatedly.

"Don't vote until you know where the candidates stand on health care reform and Social Security!" Because you know, those are the only important issues in this election.

I suppose they deserve credit for simply telling people to investigate SS instead of telling them HOW to vote. I dunno, I just hate the AARP.

[akip]

I think that government funding of educational endeavor is one of the best investments they can make. Given that nations have a vested interest in increasing the quality of their inhabitants, this is, overall one of the cheapest investments they can make in this regard. In this day and age it is hard to have too many smart people. My own opinion is that even now we really don't have enough - election results and the television schedule should be evidence enough of that.

i agree. in the long run, we need a qualified work force and we need for the majority of our average citizens to be able to make a half-way decent wage. just 'cause people are desperate enough to put off saving for retirement in order to send their kids to college, or to let their kids assume the huge debt burden, doesn't mean it's good for our collective economic future.

[blackdog]

Those ads make me want to punch old people in the face repeatedly.

"Don't vote until you know where the candidates stand on health care reform and Social Security!" Because you know, those are the only important issues in this election.

I suppose they deserve credit for simply telling people to investigate SS instead of telling them HOW to vote. I dunno, I just hate the AARP.


It's the "age old" saying (ha ha - get it, age old..ha ha) The old people put out the majority of the votes..they have nothing else better to do than to sit home and complain about social sec, and medicare. They stilll think that a politician is going to help them. So they come out of the wood work to vote.

Then you have the politicians who know this and push the old people to vote for them because of their stance on soc. sec. reform. I have been hearing the same story for the past 16 years, since I became a reg. voter. This shat never changes.

[purple_octopus]

Sounds like Blackdog is turning into a lib.......ertarian!
Watch out! We're not too popular in these parts. (As if you cared about popularity or something...)

[jps]

Watch out! We're not too popular in these parts. (As if you cared about popularity or something...)
its not that you aren't popular... its that you aren't very practical. at least the platform itself isn't very practical. a little compromise with some lefties and some righties and we might have a coalition (but thats for another thread).

[purple_octopus]

its not that you aren't popular... its that you aren't very practical. at least the platform itself isn't very practical.
It's perfectly practical. Most people just don't understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

What libertarianism lacks is marketability. But you're right, that's another thread.

[the happy prole]

That's not true, I like you and shlep. And markalot although he's really more of a classic conservative than Libertarian. :cool:

I consider myself a libertarian (small "l"), if you must know. The reason I don't like the Libertarian party is because to me it has lost its way. You can't preach personal responsibility while blaming the government for everything.

Every Libertarian I know has at least a bit of an anti-authoritarian streak, they hate politics, and they're not the kind of people that like, join clubs. I like that about them. I strongly identify with a good portion of the philosophy and general attitude.

It's just that everytime they lose an election or issues go against them, they're like "Why did that happen? It's the stupid government holding us down!" Well no, they lost because it's very hard to have an effective political party or even a strong membership of people who hate politics, hate clubs, and are skeptical about leaders.

The government is run by insiders. Libertarians tend to be outsiders. I like outsiders, and consider myself one. But I'm happy to remain on the fringes, and I'll pay taxes or whatever costs it takes to be left alone. If you're not happy with that, go out and kick-ass in the free-market. Invent some Reardon steel or shit. Then no government can stop you and the Libertarians will win. And I'm totally cool with that.

[jps]

It's perfectly practical. Most people just don't understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

What libertarianism lacks is marketability. But you're right, that's another thread.
well i couldn't resist the chance to rephrase myself... the ideas might work practically (completely different thread). but libertarians would have to be compromised on all sides in order to get enough people elected to change things. anyway... i was a republican several years... then a libertarian for even longer... and now i am firmly indie but currently anti everything this republican leadership has wrought upon us.

[blackdog]

well i couldn't resist the chance to rephrase myself... the ideas might work practically (completely different thread). but libertarians would have to be compromised on all sides in order to get enough people elected to change things. anyway... i was a republican several years... then a libertarian for even longer... and now i am firmly indie but currently anti everything this republican leadership has wrought upon us.


WAIT A MINUTE....Don't you guys see what we are all saying? We are all breaking free from the major parties! This is a good thing!

[jps]

WAIT A MINUTE....Don't you guys see what we are all saying? We are all breaking free from the major parties! This is a good thing!
to borrow a line...
let's put our heads together and start a new country up...

[the happy prole]

Yeah, I mean I get what you're saying from a certain standpoint but the bottom line is-- if it's not marketable, then it's not practical.

[purple_octopus]

That's why I'm waiting for civil war to break loose. I truly believe it's the only way to take the country back. I want shit to fall apart. I want the average middle class person to suffer. Temporarily, at least.

[blackdog]

That's why I'm waiting for civil war to break loose. I truly believe it's the only way to take the country back. I want shit to fall apart. I want the average middle class person to suffer. Temporarily, at least.


History repeats itself...so we have to have a revolution first, then a civil war. Or wait, we have to run all the Indians off, then rip apart the Earth first.

Oh crap, we have a lot of work to do...screw it, I'm just going to claim welfare and get my food stamps...and then bitch about what everyone else is doing wrong.

[blackdog]

to borrow a line...
let's put our heads together and start a new country up...

Sorry to bore you with this, but....

I actually read the Declaration of Independence a few months ago...Good Lord, man...we are in such sad shape as a country. It seems like we can apply everything to our Government that the Continental Congress had done against the Brits.

[the happy prole]

Yeah but see, you're trapped.

Sitting on your ass is decidely un-Libertarian. And sitting on your ass and waiting for civil war is actually Communist. OTOH, affecting change via force of arms is exactly what Libertarians hate about government authority.

The Libertarian revolution has to take place in the free market. Go out and start up kick-ass businesses until everyone who owns stuff is Libertarian.

[blackdog]

Yeah but see, you're trapped.

Sitting on your ass is decidely un-Libertarian. And sitting on your ass and waiting for civil war is actually Communist. OTOH, affecting change via force of arms is exactly what Libertarians hate about government authority.

The Libertarian revolution has to take place in the free market. Go out and start up kick-ass businesses until everyone who owns stuff is Libertarian.

Actually...the Communism thing is a little off. But I see where your coming from...............................and where you are going........he he

[the happy prole]

It's perfectly practical. Most people just don't understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

btw, I think this is the fault of Libertarians to properly distinguish themselves. Most Libertarians I know are of the opinion that government should be small, and therefore more efficient, more transparent, and more responsive to the needs of the people. But they are also big on personal freedoms, and recognize that to some extent a government is necessary to protect those freedoms.

The problem is, all they do is moan about how government sucks. Government is inherently power hungry, corrupt and hopelessly incompetent blahblahblah. Well if I can't trust government with my tax money, I'm sure as hell not going to trust them with my life and fundamental rights.

If you want to distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism you need to state what things the government might be good at. How much power should police have? Why is national defense good, but environmental regulation bad?

Most libertarians I know do in fact have intelligent responses to these questions, but you really have to talk with them for a long time to pull them out because they're so unwilling to give even the slightest shred of credit to the government.

If you listen to the rhetoric, libertarians and anarchists are virtually indistinguishable. They have very different views of what life without large-scale government might be like, but it's all theory. From a practical standpoint it makes no difference.

[dannyboy]

I find myself to be more of a moderate these days than ever. However, since I am big on personal responsibility, I will vote Libertarian when I can because I am really upset with the 2 party system and I think there needs to be a shake up. A few years ago, I was a staunch Libertarian but I have moderated a lot since then. I do think there are segments of society that need a handout every now and then and the free market won't always extend it. Part of my stance on personal responsibility is that if you have some excess (wealth, time, good will, cheerfulness, compassion) you should give it back to everyone else. I'm also seeing less and less black and white and seeing a lot more shades of gray in life.

[akip]

problem with libertarians is they don't wanna pay for ANYTHING upfront, not recognizing that it's actually more costly in the long run to let infrastructure and stabilizing systems fall apart. you can't tear down without expecting to rebuild something in its place. better to re-examine, adapt and maintain as the world changes.

a lot of them are also self-righteous hypocrits. they want guns (to protect their little fiefdoms) but they also want to ban abortion, or at least pontificate about how everything boils down to the character defects of "those people." they have a double standard---i should be free to do whatever i want 'cause i'm wonderful but if you're not like me, you can live in chaos, or in a police state. in that case, they're not libertarians---just control freaks.

[markalot]

a lot of them are also self-righteous hypocrits. they want guns (to protect their little fiefdoms) but they also want to ban abortion, or at least pontificate about how everything boils down to the character defects of "those people." they have a double standard---i should be free to do whatever i want 'cause i'm wonderful but if you're not like me, you can live in chaos, or in a police state. in that case, they're not libertarians---just control freaks.

I don't think they have a specific stand on abortion.

[dannyboy]

I don't think they have a specific stand on abortion.
The official party platform on abortion is that it's not an issue that government should be involved in.

[akip]

I don't think they have a specific stand on abortion.

maybe the party doesn't officially, but there is a whole wing of socially conservative libertarians.

[the happy prole]

There's hypocrites and fakers in every party. Libertarians are staunch defenders of individual property rights so it's not like they think they should be able to do whatever they want and others can't.

A "true" libertarian just doesn't believe anyone should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. They're aren't anti-government per se, it's just like I said, I think that for whatever reason this message doesn't get across.

If they use a government service they'll pay for it, and they don't mind paying up front. They just think it should be your choice. If you want to send the government lots in taxes every year and demand lots in services, they probably think you're pretty stupid but that's your option. As long as they don't have to pay for your stuff.

If you want to be lazy and not work, that's your right. Just don't ask a libertarian to pay for it. The problem is that viewpoint has been co-opted by non-libertarian social conservatives masquerading as libertarians who think it's actually *wrong* to be lazy and not work.

I think abortion cuts across all political parties. It really depends upon your view of when life begins. No liberal, conservative, or libertarian is really going to condone murder. I think you can be libertarian and pro-life without conflict.

In the end, it really comes down to the view that there is maybe a certain set of core rights. So long as your actions don't affect anyone else's core rights, you can do whatever you want. There's nothing hypocritical or immoral about that ideal, in fact it's a pretty good one. It's just highly idealistic and completely impractical. I think everyone should have a strong libertarian streak, I just don't think they should be actual Libertarians. :p

[akip]

There's hypocrites and fakers in every party. Libertarians are staunch defenders of individual property rights so it's not like they think they should be able to do whatever they want and others can't.

A "true" libertarian just doesn't believe anyone should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. They're aren't anti-government per se, it's just like I said, I think that for whatever reason this message doesn't get across.

If they use a government service they'll pay for it, and they don't mind paying up front. They just think it should be your choice. If you want to send the government lots in taxes every year and demand lots in services, they probably think you're pretty stupid but that's your option. As long as they don't have to pay for your stuff.

If you want to be lazy and not work, that's your right. Just don't ask a libertarian to pay for it. The problem is that viewpoint has been co-opted by non-libertarian social conservatives masquerading as libertarians who think it's actually *wrong* to be lazy and not work.

I think abortion cuts across all political parties. It really depends upon your view of when life begins. No liberal, conservative, or libertarian is really going to condone murder. I think you can be libertarian and pro-life without conflict.

In the end, it really comes down to the view that there is maybe a certain set of core rights. So long as your actions don't affect anyone else's core rights, you can do whatever you want. There's nothing hypocritical or immoral about that ideal, in fact it's a pretty good one. It's just highly idealistic and completely impractical. I think everyone should have a strong libertarian streak, I just don't think they should be actual Libertarians. :p


that's all great, but it breaks down in reality. we'd all have to live with the consequences of a country without a reasonable safety net. i pay my share, and everyone else has to cough it up as well.