Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Benveniste, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. Mike Benveniste

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:17:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    <> wrote:

    >"Trevor" <> wrote in message
    >news:jcdoft$rpn$...
    >>
    >> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >> news:jccs4h$o58$...
    >>> Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that almost
    >>> 50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In New York
    >>> State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.

    >>
    >> Well there's your deficit problem solved. :)
    >>
    >> Trevor.

    >
    >We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have one as a
    >nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the problem, spending
    >is.
    >

    This, to me, is absurdly simplistic. Certainly, a deficit can be
    reduced by either raising revenue or decreasing spending, but say
    spending is the problem is as absurd as saying that the way to reduce
    crime is to make guns illegal or the way to reduce traffic fatalities
    is to remove automobiles from the road.

    None of those solutions are at all practical. The people advocating
    the reduction or elimination of spending want spending reduced on
    programs *they* don't feel to be necessary like anything that doesn't
    benefit them or support a program they favor.

    They want spending reduced or halted on social programs, but are
    willing to continue to pour money into defense contracts or border
    fences or prisons to house non-violent offenders. (And you know what
    kind of offenses are involved)

    A good first step in reducing the deficit would be to set up a
    Washington DC Pale inside of which no lobbyist could set foot or send
    a communication or a brown envelope.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Dec 16, 2011
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Benveniste

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:17:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>"Trevor" <> wrote in message
    >>news:jcdoft$rpn$...
    >>>
    >>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:jccs4h$o58$...
    >>>> Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that

    > almost
    >>>> 50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In New York

    >
    >>>> State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.
    >>>
    >>> Well there's your deficit problem solved. :)
    >>>
    >>> Trevor.

    >>
    >>We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have one as

    > a
    >>nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the problem, spending
    >>is.
    >>

    >This, to me, is absurdly simplistic. Certainly, a deficit can be
    >reduced by either raising revenue or decreasing spending, but say
    >spending is the problem is as absurd as saying that the way to reduce
    >crime is to make guns illegal or the way to reduce traffic fatalities
    >is to remove automobiles from the road.
    >
    >None of those solutions are at all practical. The people advocating
    >the reduction or elimination of spending want spending reduced on
    >programs *they* don't feel to be necessary like anything that doesn't
    >benefit them or support a program they favor.


    Well they shouldnt come screaming to me for more taxes untill they get their
    shit together and lower their spending period.
     
    GMAN, Dec 16, 2011
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:17:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Trevor" <> wrote in message
    >>news:jcdoft$rpn$...
    >>>
    >>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:jccs4h$o58$...
    >>>> Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that
    >>>> almost
    >>>> 50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In New York
    >>>> State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.
    >>>
    >>> Well there's your deficit problem solved. :)
    >>>
    >>> Trevor.

    >>
    >>We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have one as
    >>a
    >>nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the problem, spending
    >>is.
    >>

    > This, to me, is absurdly simplistic. Certainly, a deficit can be
    > reduced by either raising revenue or decreasing spending, but say
    > spending is the problem is as absurd as saying that the way to reduce
    > crime is to make guns illegal or the way to reduce traffic fatalities
    > is to remove automobiles from the road.


    I don't think it absurd at all. If you raise revenue, Washington will find a
    way to spend it, whether it be for pet "green" projects or anything else. Yes,
    they have a spending problem nto a revenue problem.

    > None of those solutions are at all practical. The people advocating
    > the reduction or elimination of spending want spending reduced on
    > programs *they* don't feel to be necessary like anything that doesn't
    > benefit them or support a program they favor.
    >
    > They want spending reduced or halted on social programs, but are
    > willing to continue to pour money into defense contracts or border
    > fences or prisons to house non-violent offenders. (And you know what
    > kind of offenses are involved)
    >
    > A good first step in reducing the deficit would be to set up a
    > Washington DC Pale inside of which no lobbyist could set foot or send
    > a communication or a brown envelope.
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 16, 2011
    #83
  4. Mike Benveniste

    Trevor Guest

    "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    news:jcfgdr$b3g$...
    >
    > We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have
    > one as a nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the
    > problem, spending is.


    I suggest a short course in economics so you can discover that income AND
    expenditure are related. You would probably be the first to complain if the
    government provided NO services at all!
    In fact it's the rich who want a police force, fire department etc. far more
    than the poor do :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 17, 2011
    #84
  5. Mike Benveniste

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/14/2011 12:44 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 12/10/2011 1:56 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>> On 12/8/2011 3:29 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2011-12-04 19:11:00 -0800, "Trevor"<> said:

    >
    >>>>>>> Why not, isn't it the capitalists in France causing that problem? Seems to
    >>>>>>> me the US capitalists are far worse.

    >
    >>>>>> Just wait and see what the German capitalists have in mind for Europe.
    >>>>>> <
    >>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...uro-approach/2011/12/04/gIQAZebwTO_story.html

    >
    >>>>> Start behaving more responsible? 'orrible. The poor Greek ...
    >>>>> imagine having to have money before spending it! It's the
    >>>>> end of the world --- and all that because of US banks.

    >
    >>>> Please explain, in clear English, with supporting facts, exactly why it
    >>>> is the fault of the US banking system.

    >
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession_in_Europe#Greece
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_European_sovereign_debt_crisis#Speculators

    >
    >> You have supplied links to the thoughts of others. YOUR interpretation
    >> and thoughts are conspicuous by their absence.

    >
    > My interpretation and thoughts aren't needed for well known facts.
    > BTW, you are drastically shifting goal posts. How about you
    > explain, with facts(!), that the US banks had nothing to do
    > with any global recession, and that a recession can never cause
    > economies that need growth to survive to falter.
    >
    > If you manage that, you can become a well-paid ghost writer for
    > some of the politicans further removed from reality.
    >
    >> No! I am not going to wade through unexplained links.
    >> this paper gets an "F"

    >
    > You're not allowed to grade on shifted goal posts, assuming
    > for a second you *were* capable of grading me in any subject in
    > first place.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    You made the positive statement. The burden is on you to supply proof.

    You ask me to prove a negative statement that I did not make, while
    accusing me of shifting goal posts.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 17, 2011
    #85
  6. Mike Benveniste

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/16/2011 11:32 AM, GMAN wrote:
    > In article<>, tony cooper<> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:17:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Trevor"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:jcdoft$rpn$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Pete Stavrakoglou"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:jccs4h$o58$...
    >>>>> Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that

    >> almost
    >>>>> 50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In New York

    >>
    >>>>> State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.
    >>>>
    >>>> Well there's your deficit problem solved. :)
    >>>>
    >>>> Trevor.
    >>>
    >>> We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have one as

    >> a
    >>> nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the problem, spending
    >>> is.
    >>>

    >> This, to me, is absurdly simplistic. Certainly, a deficit can be
    >> reduced by either raising revenue or decreasing spending, but say
    >> spending is the problem is as absurd as saying that the way to reduce
    >> crime is to make guns illegal or the way to reduce traffic fatalities
    >> is to remove automobiles from the road.
    >>
    >> None of those solutions are at all practical. The people advocating
    >> the reduction or elimination of spending want spending reduced on
    >> programs *they* don't feel to be necessary like anything that doesn't
    >> benefit them or support a program they favor.

    >
    > Well they shouldnt come screaming to me for more taxes untill they get their
    > shit together and lower their spending period.
    >


    Stop the bullshit. If you want economics, here are some facts;

    People need to eat to stay alive. <no citation needed>
    If a person needs food badly enough they will even perform criminal acts
    to feed their family. <again no citation necessary>

    yes! there are some welfare cheats. According to the Cato Institute, not
    exactly a left wing organization, the cost of welfare is $25,000 per
    recipient per year. If my arithmetic is correct it costs $18,000 per
    year less to maintain move to one of Lawrence a person on welfare than
    to put them in prison.

    <http://improveverywhere.com/missions/the-no-pants-subway-ride/>


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 17, 2011
    #86
  7. Mike Benveniste

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/17/2011 7:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-12-17 11:39:11 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 12/16/2011 11:32 AM, GMAN wrote:

    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >>>
    >>> Well they shouldnt come screaming to me for more taxes untill they
    >>> get their
    >>> shit together and lower their spending period.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Stop the bullshit. If you want economics, here are some facts;
    >>
    >> People need to eat to stay alive. <no citation needed>
    >> If a person needs food badly enough they will even perform criminal
    >> acts to feed their family. <again no citation necessary>

    >
    > All true.
    >
    >>
    >> yes! there are some welfare cheats. According to the Cato Institute,
    >> not exactly a left wing organization, the cost of welfare is $25,000
    >> per recipient per year. If my arithmetic is correct it costs $18,000
    >> per year less to maintain move to one of Lawrence a person on welfare
    >> than to put them in prison.

    >
    > Where did you come up with the $25,000 per recipient cost figure?
    > OK! I guess that might be the administrative cost to the Feds and
    > individual States. Most recipients would love to see all of that $25K,
    > but that is not their reality.


    For discussion purposes I used numbers supplied by the Cato Institute.
    Yes I know those numbers contain an exaggerated spin to the high side. I
    also recognize that your numbers are closer to reality, at least in CA.
    My point was that as a matter of humanity, you can't let people starve.
    It is a lot cheaper to give them welfare, than put them in jail.


    >
    > Most individual SSI (welfare) recipients in California get checks of
    > $830-$854 per month, the great majority of those do not receive food
    > stamps. So their reality is they are struggling to survive on about
    > $10,248 per year. They have limited medical care via MediCal. Many of
    > them come out of failed mental health programs and regardless of any
    > past qualifications are unemployable. Telling these unfortunates to get
    > a job from our privileged position is a non-starter.
    >
    > They face a harsh reality which few of us at our keyboards would be able
    > to endure.
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 18, 2011
    #87
  8. Mike Benveniste

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:38:40 -0500, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >"Trevor" <> wrote in message
    : >news:jc6pnp$moj$...
    : >>
    : >> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    : >> news:p...
    : >>>>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have any
    : >>>>say in it.
    : >>>
    : >>> The government employees who do the buying are, themselves, taxpayers.
    : >>> In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    : >>> employed - usually at rather good salaries
    : >>
    : >> That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually have a
    : >> far better life style than many others.
    : >>
    : >>
    : >>>and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.
    : >>
    : >> Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of progressive taxes
    : >> where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about gone
    : >> unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better the
    : >> accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family trusts you
    : >> can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax you
    : >> actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle class and
    : >> poorest members of the community because they have no ability to escape it.
    : >>
    : >> Trevor.
    : >
    : >Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of all
    : >federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70% of all
    : >federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.
    : >
    : The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
    : means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
    : of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
    : If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
    : their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.

    It's actually more subtle than that. Allowing for certain geographical
    adjustments, there's a level of income that's required to live decently in
    this country and another beyond which you don't really need to care how much
    more you make. Someone well above that second level could easily be paying the
    highest percentage of his/her income and still not feel any "burden".

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 19, 2011
    #88
  9. Mike Benveniste

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/17/2011 10:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-12-17 19:06:21 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 12/17/2011 7:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2011-12-17 11:39:11 -0800, PeterN <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 12/16/2011 11:32 AM, GMAN wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well they shouldnt come screaming to me for more taxes untill they
    >>>>> get their
    >>>>> shit together and lower their spending period.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Stop the bullshit. If you want economics, here are some facts;
    >>>>
    >>>> People need to eat to stay alive. <no citation needed>
    >>>> If a person needs food badly enough they will even perform criminal
    >>>> acts to feed their family. <again no citation necessary>
    >>>
    >>> All true.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> yes! there are some welfare cheats. According to the Cato Institute,
    >>>> not exactly a left wing organization, the cost of welfare is $25,000
    >>>> per recipient per year. If my arithmetic is correct it costs $18,000
    >>>> per year less to maintain move to one of Lawrence a person on welfare
    >>>> than to put them in prison.
    >>>
    >>> Where did you come up with the $25,000 per recipient cost figure?
    >>> OK! I guess that might be the administrative cost to the Feds and
    >>> individual States. Most recipients would love to see all of that $25K,
    >>> but that is not their reality.

    >>
    >> For discussion purposes I used numbers supplied by the Cato Institute.
    >> Yes I know those numbers contain an exaggerated spin to the high side.
    >> I also recognize that your numbers are closer to reality, at least in CA.
    >> My point was that as a matter of humanity, you can't let people
    >> starve. It is a lot cheaper to give them welfare, than put them in jail.

    >
    > As an odd societal dichotomy where we feed and provide medical & mental
    > health care for inmates in county jails, State & Federal prisons better
    > than we provide for those who truly need assistance.
    >
    > We also have part of our society which paints all those in need of
    > assistance with the same brush as those who criminally abuse welfare.
    >
    > I have seen both sides of that ugly part of our national character.
    >
    > I consider myself fortunate to have been able to gain an education, work
    > to obtain a comfortable retirement with medical benefits, and not have a
    > tragic stumble along the way requiring me to ask for assistance.



    And indeed you are. Several years ago I met a cousin who was very upset.
    He had just run across a homeless guy, who turned out to be an old buddy
    from college. The guy was so mentally out of it, that he couldn't accept
    my cousin's help.

    A few years ago we ran across some guy who was asking for money for
    food. He struck a note of credibility with me and I offered to buy him a
    meal. This poor guy was really grateful for the meal, indeed he had
    enough smarts to request something not fatty and he was afraid fat would
    make him sick as he hadn't eaten for a few days. For a few months while
    I would buy him a meal about twice a month, when we were near his spot.
    Then he just disappeared. We continue to hope he is well.

    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Most individual SSI (welfare) recipients in California get checks of
    >>> $830-$854 per month, the great majority of those do not receive food
    >>> stamps. So their reality is they are struggling to survive on about
    >>> $10,248 per year. They have limited medical care via MediCal. Many of
    >>> them come out of failed mental health programs and regardless of any
    >>> past qualifications are unemployable. Telling these unfortunates to get
    >>> a job from our privileged position is a non-starter.
    >>>
    >>> They face a harsh reality which few of us at our keyboards would be able
    >>> to endure.

    >
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 19, 2011
    #89
  10. Mike Benveniste

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/18/2011 8:18 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:38:40 -0500, tony cooper<>
    > wrote:
    > : On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    > :<> wrote:
    > :
    > :>"Trevor"<> wrote in message
    > :>news:jc6pnp$moj$...
    > :>>
    > :>> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    > :>> news:p...
    > :>>>>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have any
    > :>>>>say in it.
    > :>>>
    > :>>> The government employees who do the buying are, themselves, taxpayers.
    > :>>> In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    > :>>> employed - usually at rather good salaries
    > :>>
    > :>> That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually have a
    > :>> far better life style than many others.
    > :>>
    > :>>
    > :>>>and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.
    > :>>
    > :>> Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of progressive taxes
    > :>> where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about gone
    > :>> unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better the
    > :>> accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family trusts you
    > :>> can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax you
    > :>> actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle class and
    > :>> poorest members of the community because they have no ability to escape it.
    > :>>
    > :>> Trevor.
    > :>
    > :>Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of all
    > :>federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70% of all
    > :>federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.
    > :>
    > : The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
    > : means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
    > : of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
    > : If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
    > : their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.
    >
    > It's actually more subtle than that. Allowing for certain geographical
    > adjustments, there's a level of income that's required to live decently in
    > this country and another beyond which you don't really need to care how much
    > more you make. Someone well above that second level could easily be paying the
    > highest percentage of his/her income and still not feel any "burden".
    >
    > Bob



    But, but they are the "job creators." </end sarcastic tag>

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 19, 2011
    #90
  11. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:jcgokg$s4n$...
    >
    > "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    > news:jcfgdr$b3g$...
    >>
    >> We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have one
    >> as a nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the problem,
    >> spending is.

    >
    > I suggest a short course in economics so you can discover that income AND
    > expenditure are related. You would probably be the first to complain if the
    > government provided NO services at all!
    > In fact it's the rich who want a police force, fire department etc. far more
    > than the poor do :)


    No. The state has a spending problem. Is is that difficult to uinderstand that
    when you spend more than you earn you need to curb your spending?
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 19, 2011
    #91
  12. "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Pete Stavrakoglou <> wrote:
    >
    >> My figures are correct, check them out for yourself

    >
    > So where are they? URLs, please ...
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    You're late to the discussion, I've already done that, go back and check the
    messages in the thread.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 19, 2011
    #92
  13. Mike Benveniste

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:02:09 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    :
    : "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    : news:p...
    : >>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have any
    : >>say in it.
    : >
    : > The government employees who do the buying are, themselves, taxpayers.
    : > In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    : > employed - usually at rather good salaries
    :
    : That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually have
    : a far better life style than many others.

    The widespread belief that government employees in the U.S. are lavishly
    compensated is largely myth. Police officers and teachers are usually paid
    more than private sector employees of comparable education and experience,
    because they're represented by extremely powerful labor unions. (In some
    jurisdictions the same is true of fire fighters.) But the rest don't usually
    fare as well as private-sector employees.

    : >and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.
    :
    : Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of progressive taxes
    : where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about gone
    : unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better the
    : accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family trusts you
    : can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax you
    : actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle class
    : and poorest members of the community because they have no ability to escape
    : it.
    :
    : Trevor.

    And where on earth did you get the idea that public sector employees love flat
    taxes? I've been a public sector employee for almost 17 years, and I can't
    remember the last time I heard one, other than a candidate pandering to the
    Tea Party, advocate a flat tax.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 19, 2011
    #93
  14. Mike Benveniste

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:03:25 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 12/18/2011 8:18 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:38:40 -0500, tony cooper<>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >> :<> wrote:
    >> :
    >> :>"Trevor"<> wrote in message
    >> :>news:jc6pnp$moj$...
    >> :>>
    >> :>> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    >> :>> news:p...
    >> :>>>>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have any
    >> :>>>>say in it.
    >> :>>>
    >> :>>> The government employees who do the buying are, themselves, taxpayers.
    >> :>>> In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    >> :>>> employed - usually at rather good salaries
    >> :>>
    >> :>> That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually have a
    >> :>> far better life style than many others.
    >> :>>
    >> :>>
    >> :>>>and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.
    >> :>>
    >> :>> Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of progressive taxes
    >> :>> where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about gone
    >> :>> unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better the
    >> :>> accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family trusts you
    >> :>> can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax you
    >> :>> actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle class and
    >> :>> poorest members of the community because they have no ability to escape it.
    >> :>>
    >> :>> Trevor.
    >> :>
    >> :>Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of all
    >> :>federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70% of all
    >> :>federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.
    >> :>
    >> : The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
    >> : means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
    >> : of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
    >> : If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
    >> : their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.
    >>
    >> It's actually more subtle than that. Allowing for certain geographical
    >> adjustments, there's a level of income that's required to live decently in
    >> this country and another beyond which you don't really need to care how much
    >> more you make. Someone well above that second level could easily be paying the
    >> highest percentage of his/her income and still not feel any "burden".
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    >
    >But, but they are the "job creators." </end sarcastic tag>


    Yeah, that thing about cutting taxes for "job creators" gets me too.
    From what I've heard, if the lost tax revenue from the bush tax cuts
    had all gone to payroll for new jobs we'd have no unemployment. So
    where are all the jobs it was supposed to create?

    Plus there's the issue that money you spend on paying employees is
    taken out before your income taxes are calculated, so income tax rates
    really have no bearing on job creation at all.

    If you want to stimulate job creation through tax breaks, give them to
    companies/employers *for* creating jobs. Don't just toss the money out
    there and hope it's used to create jobs.

    But of course the job creation thing is just a rationalization for
    giving the rich lower tax rates period, so there's no way the Tea
    Party hijacked GOP is going to go for something like that. I do wish
    the Dems would put up a plan that would repeal the Bush tax cuts for
    the upper brackets while offsetting that with tax breaks for employers
    who do in fact create new jobs, and dare the GOP to oppose it.
     
    John A., Dec 19, 2011
    #94
  15. Mike Benveniste

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Pete Stavrakoglou <> wrote:
    >"Trevor" <> wrote in message
    >news:jcgokg$s4n$...
    >>
    >> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    >> news:jcfgdr$b3g$...
    >>>
    >>> We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have one
    >>> as a nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the problem,
    >>> spending is.

    >>
    >> I suggest a short course in economics so you can discover that income AND
    >> expenditure are related. You would probably be the first to complain if the
    >> government provided NO services at all!
    >> In fact it's the rich who want a police force, fire department etc. far more
    >> than the poor do :)

    >
    >No. The state has a spending problem.


    Idiot propaganda.

    > Is is that difficult to uinderstand that
    >when you spend more than you earn you need to curb your spending?


    Gee, maybe next time I go to the grocery store I should just demand
    that they accept less money. Maybe the bank will agree to lower my
    mortgage if I say I need to reduce expenses.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 19, 2011
    #95
  16. Mike Benveniste

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:02:09 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >:
    >: "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >: news:p...
    >: >>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have any
    >: >>say in it.
    >: >
    >: > The government employees who do the buying are, themselves, taxpayers.
    >: > In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    >: > employed - usually at rather good salaries
    >:
    >: That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually have
    >: a far better life style than many others.
    >
    >The widespread belief that government employees in the U.S. are lavishly
    >compensated is largely myth. Police officers and teachers are usually paid
    >more than private sector employees of comparable education and experience,


    No they're not. Teachers are paid little compared to the many years
    of training required and the hours that they put in. Police and fire
    are paid a lot because they work at dangerous jobs.

    >because they're represented by extremely powerful labor unions.


    You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?
    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 19, 2011
    #96
  17. Mike Benveniste

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:53:02 -0500, John A. <> wrote:
    : On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:03:25 -0500, PeterN
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 12/18/2011 8:18 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:38:40 -0500, tony cooper<>
    : >> wrote:
    : >> : On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    : >> :<> wrote:
    : >> :
    : >> :>"Trevor"<> wrote in message
    : >> :>news:jc6pnp$moj$...
    : >> :>>
    : >> :>> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    : >> :>> news:p...
    : >> :>>>>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have any
    : >> :>>>>say in it.
    : >> :>>>
    : >> :>>> The government employees who do the buying are, themselves, taxpayers.
    : >> :>>> In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    : >> :>>> employed - usually at rather good salaries
    : >> :>>
    : >> :>> That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually have a
    : >> :>> far better life style than many others.
    : >> :>>
    : >> :>>
    : >> :>>>and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.
    : >> :>>
    : >> :>> Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of progressive taxes
    : >> :>> where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about gone
    : >> :>> unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better the
    : >> :>> accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family trusts you
    : >> :>> can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax you
    : >> :>> actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle class and
    : >> :>> poorest members of the community because they have no ability to escape it.
    : >> :>>
    : >> :>> Trevor.
    : >> :>
    : >> :>Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of all
    : >> :>federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70% of all
    : >> :>federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.
    : >> :>
    : >> : The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
    : >> : means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
    : >> : of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
    : >> : If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
    : >> : their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.
    : >>
    : >> It's actually more subtle than that. Allowing for certain geographical
    : >> adjustments, there's a level of income that's required to live decently in
    : >> this country and another beyond which you don't really need to care how much
    : >> more you make. Someone well above that second level could easily be paying the
    : >> highest percentage of his/her income and still not feel any "burden".
    : >>
    : >> Bob
    : >
    : >
    : >But, but they are the "job creators." </end sarcastic tag>
    :
    : Yeah, that thing about cutting taxes for "job creators" gets me too.
    : From what I've heard, if the lost tax revenue from the bush tax cuts
    : had all gone to payroll for new jobs we'd have no unemployment. So
    : where are all the jobs it was supposed to create?
    :
    : Plus there's the issue that money you spend on paying employees is
    : taken out before your income taxes are calculated, so income tax rates
    : really have no bearing on job creation at all.

    Not quite true, but for a reason Republicans prefer not to discuss. There's a
    loophole in the tax code that allows the owners of at least some small
    businesses to comingle their earnings with those of their businesses, thereby
    achieving a lower overall tax rate. I forget the exact rationale, but it
    doesn't matter. The practical effect is that for those who comingle, an
    increase in the owner's personal tax rate may lessen the tax advantage to the
    business. That's what Republicans mean when they trumpet their accusation that
    revocation of the Bush tax cuts would hurt "small businesses", the principal
    "job creators" of the U.S. economy.

    But the Republican position is disingenuous because it ignores the fact that
    the comingling strategy is a loophole to begin with and that business owners
    don't have to use it. They're free to use whichever computation they consider
    most beneficial. Just another example of the fact that deceiving the American
    people has become one of the fundamental organizing principles of the
    Republican party.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 19, 2011
    #97
  18. Mike Benveniste

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 19 Dec 2011 19:00:02 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:02:09 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    : >:
    : >: "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    : >: news:p...
    : >: >>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have
    : >: >>any say in it.
    : >: >
    : >: > The government employees who do the buying are, themselves, taxpayers.
    : >: > In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    : >: > employed - usually at rather good salaries
    : >:
    : >: That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually
    : >: have a far better life style than many others.
    : >
    : >The widespread belief that government employees in the U.S. are lavishly
    : >compensated is largely myth. Police officers and teachers are usually paid
    : >more than private sector employees of comparable education and experience,
    :
    : No they're not. Teachers are paid little compared to the many years
    : of training required and the hours that they put in. Police and fire
    : are paid a lot because they work at dangerous jobs.
    :
    : >because they're represented by extremely powerful labor unions.
    :
    : You really are a sucker for right-wing propaganda, aren't you?

    Did you actually say that? I hope it's just your idea of a bad joke. If it
    isn't, then you must not have read, or at least not have understood, anything
    else I've ever said, even in this very thread.

    Or have I simply failed to appreciate an outpouring of your sarcastic wit? If
    so, then I guess you'll just have to excuse my obtuseness.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 19, 2011
    #98
  19. Mike Benveniste

    Trevor Guest

    "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    news:jcndod$pgl$...
    >>> We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have
    >>> one as a nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the
    >>> problem, spending is.

    >>
    >> I suggest a short course in economics so you can discover that income AND
    >> expenditure are related. You would probably be the first to complain if
    >> the government provided NO services at all!
    >> In fact it's the rich who want a police force, fire department etc. far
    >> more than the poor do :)

    >
    > No. The state has a spending problem. Is is that difficult to
    > uinderstand that when you spend more than you earn you need to curb your
    > spending?



    To a degree that is correct, however taxes and spending are a necessary
    consequence of a civilised society, and just because YOU think the taxes are
    too high doesn't make them so. Obviously there is a limit to taxation beyond
    which you simply MUST reduce spending, that level is certainly NOT too high
    for the wealthy at the moment, as witnessed by their MASSIVE levels of
    disposable income beyond a normal persons comprehension.
    Whether the best use is currently being made of the taxes already being
    collected from both rich and poor is another matter. The first thing I'd cut
    is corporate welfare, and welfare for the rich which HAS certainly gotten
    out of hand in *many* countries!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 20, 2011
    #99
  20. Mike Benveniste

    Trevor Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > And where on earth did you get the idea that public sector employees love
    > flat
    > taxes? I've been a public sector employee for almost 17 years, and I can't
    > remember the last time I heard one, other than a candidate pandering to
    > the
    > Tea Party, advocate a flat tax.


    I said the highly paid public sector employees, ie. the fat cats making the
    taxation recommendations to politicians.
    Are YOU one of those?
    Obviously the lowly public sector employees have no say in the matter.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 20, 2011
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Biz
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    849
  2. tony cooper
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    626
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 12, 2010
  3. Mike

    ACLU: Know Your Rights: Photographers

    Mike, Sep 9, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    322
    PeterN
    Sep 21, 2011
  4. Robert Coe

    Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

    Robert Coe, Sep 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    266
    ASCII
    Sep 11, 2011
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

    Robert Coe, Sep 15, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    301
    Robert Coe
    Sep 30, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page