In our best interest!!!!

[lost-and-found]

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable)

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."



Now where have I heard that before?

Ah, I remember now:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
-- Communism, via Karl Marx

"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD"
-- Program of the National Socialist (NAZI) German Workers' Party

Hillary sure knows how to pick her words carefully!!!

[lost-and-found]

Your right. I wonder if the left are just going to let this thread sink, so they will not have to comment on the message Hillary is trying to convey. :rolleyes:

[Meerkat]

WARNING, TRESPASSER!!!

[lost-and-found]

Ah yes, typical answer if you can't defend your party's thoughts, then attack the person posting them. I would not have thought of anything better from you David.

[Keith Wilson]

All taxes, every single one of them, involve taking your property away from you, by threat of force, for the common good. In a democracy this is legitimate, because the people (us) get to decide who runs the government. The dispute is about who pays and how much, not the legitimacy of taxation. Unless all taxation is Marxism, your analogy is ridiculous. One would think in this case you would appreciate her honesty, if not what she's advocating, but that would require admitting that Hillary Clinton is capable of something other than 100% evil behavior.

A very conservative argument can be made that the federal government should live within its means and not run huge deficits.

[ 07-01-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Dan McCosh]

The analogy was made by Limbaugh the other day. When called on it, he added that communism is based on mass murder as well. Ah, but then he is always being misquoted...

[lost-and-found]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
The analogy was made by Limbaugh the other day. When called on it, he added that communism is based on mass murder as well. Ah, but then he is always being misquoted...Can you tell me how the communists came to power in their states??? How many peaceful take-overs were there?

Ah yes, taxation with representation is one thing; however, stating that they are not going give to us what is already ours is communistic. Does big brother always know what is best for its people's money? Do liberals think that the masses are not capable of taking care of themselves, or their own money. This is a small example of how the neolibs like to keep people dependant upon the state. You can't take care of yourself, your not smart enough, so the government needs to do it for you.

[dmede]

Where do you think you would live without taxes? Would you be a Canadian? El Salvadorian? Our country runs on what we give it. It exists by the will and production of it's citizens. If you don't want to pay, leave.

[Keith Wilson]

Again, a fairly silly argument IMHO, despite the overheated rhetoric. All taxation is forcible confiscation of property, at best for the common good, at worst for no good reason. There are two legitimate questions here, which in a democracy are decided by the people, at least indirectly. These are:
- What do we want the government to do?
- How are we going to raise the necessary money?

The questions are pretty much independent. There are lots of ways of raising money, no matter how much or little the government does. Responsible critics of the current administration have two serious arguments:

First, the federal government is now running large deficits, which are not sustainable in the long run. If one wishes to reduce the deficit, one either has to collect more money or spend less. Collecting more money can either be done by raising tax rates or waiting for sufficient growth in the economy to increase tax revenue. Particularly since this current deficit is mostly the result of tax cuts, one can reasonably argue that restoring tax rates to where they were previously once the economy recovers would be a good idea. Reasonable people may, of course disagree.

Second, the recent changes in the federal income tax have made overall tax collections less progressive, i.e. increased the relative burden on those with less money, particularly by shifting more tax collections to States, whose taxes are much less progressive than federal income tax. Reasonable people can disagree on whether taxes should be more or less progressive, and on what taxes should be based (income, property, sales, etc.) but if one thinks that more progressive taxation is desirable, restoring tax rates to where they were previously would make federal income taxes more progressive.

You may not agree with them, but these people certainly aren’t all fools, and very few of them are Marxists.

[ 07-01-2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[lost-and-found]

I do agree with taxation, for it keeps the wheels of our government spinning, so I am not espousing that we should end it all together; however, we are in need of a major overhaul. We should levy a flat tax, say 10 cents on a dollar for everyone, with NO loopholes. Every business, every person pays 10 cents across the board. That would end the thought process that the government is not giving us what is theirs yadda yadda yadda, and it would be nice if it would control the government's spending. But this is all IMHO. As for Hillary- I still think she is a communist ;)

[Keith Wilson]

Not to defend the current tax code; it's a hideously complicated mess, but what your proposal would mean is that the less money you have, the harder taxes would hit you. Is that what you want?

And in a democracy, the goverment and all its money IS ours. If it isn't, we've got a far worse problem than taxes.

[ 07-01-2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Garrett Lowell]

Isn't that the way it already is, Keith? (The less money you have, the harder it hits you).

Edited for what passes for clarity in my mind.

[ 07-01-2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Garrett Lowell ]

[Keith Wilson]

Isn't that the way it already is, Keith? (The less money you have, the harder it hits you). Some taxes yes - sales tax, excise taxes, property tax, for example. State income taxes are generally moderately progressive, and federal income tax even more so. Sales tax is actually regressive; it takes a larger percentage of income the less money you have. The question is, how should it be? I'd rather not reprint my long defense of progressive tax rates (I wouldn't have thought the concept needed defending, but no . . .) but I will if you like.

[ 07-01-2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Elco's]

and what else would a "tax and spend" Democrat say when her lips flapped?

[George G]

How about a flat SALES tax, and nothing else, with unprocessed food and capital investments exempted?

Oh, but that would never do in CONSUMER economies like ours...

But just think of it. An incentive to put the fruits of your labor into durable things, instead of into keeping the cash flow going and the pollution flowing.

[lost-and-found]

Originally posted by George G:
How about a flat SALES tax, and nothing else, with unprocessed food and capital investments exempted?

Oh, but that would never do in CONSUMER economies like ours...

But just think of it. An incentive to put the fruits of your labor into durable things, instead of into keeping the cash flow going and the pollution flowing.This is a great idea; however, do you then tax internet purchases and what about the rich purchasing their items overseas and shipping them in?

[alteran]

Look at the Fair Tax.

Here is a summary, for more go to Fairtax.org.
------------------------

Thumbnail Sketch of the FairTax

The FairTax is a consumption tax designed to replace the entire federal income tax system, including personal, payroll, corporate, self-employment, capital gains, gift, and inheritance taxes. The FairTax will allow Americans to keep 100% of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), it will dramatically reduce pre-tax prices, and it will fully fund the Federal government, including Social Security and Medicare.

With the FairTax, you will get to take home 100% of your paycheck (minus any state income taxes). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes will be withheld from your paycheck, pension, or Social Security check.

Did you know that hidden income taxes currently make up 20% to 30% of all retail prices? It's true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, from 20% to 30% higher than they would otherwise be for everything you buy.

Therefore, when the FairTax Act of 2001 abolishes the federal income tax system, prices will drop 20% to 30%. The proposed FairTax rate is 23%. So, instead of paying 15.3% of your paycheck in payroll taxes, plus an average of 18% of your paycheck in federal income tax, for a total of about 33% of your paycheck going to the federal government in Washington, you pay only a 23% consumption tax each time you purchase a new good or service for your own personal consumption above the federal poverty level.

At this 23% rate, the FairTax will pay for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. With a consumption tax like the FairTax, government revenues will be even more stable than they are now because consumption tends to be more constant than income.

With the FairTax, if you choose to buy any new good or service for yourself, a consumption tax of 23%, will be added into the price. If you choose to buy used goods -- used car, used home, used clothing -- you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. So, in deciding what to buy, you get to choose whether or not you will pay the federal consumption tax.

Perhaps most importantly, to ensure that no American will pay tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the 23% consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, and lowers the tax burden on everyone else. Can you see how much freer life will be with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

----------
It is a very interesting new approach and is gaining some substantial support in Washington.

[George G]

Originally posted by lost-and-found:
[This is a great idea; however, do you then tax internet purchases and what about the rich purchasing their items overseas and shipping them in?[/QB][/QUOTE]

How about this: tax everything that lasts less than ten years - good or parts. No tax on anything that lasts longer with just ordinary user maintenance, no matter how you bought it.

Same for imported items. If they last more than a decade they´ll do more for your economy than for the seller's

Some of the most beautiful and useful public goods today, from nature reserves to Versailles, started out as durable goods for the rich ;)

[alteran]

.

[Victor]

If she really said that, it was a poor choice of words. On the other hand, she had the balls to tell them to their face that they didn't deserve those tax cuts, which they don't.

[Meerkat]

Al; And when you add on my state's 8.9% sales tax (looking like it could soon go to 9%)?

There are similar state sales tax rates in NY and other places.

[alteran]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Al; And when you add on my state's 8.9% sales tax (looking like it could soon go to 9%)?

There are similar state sales tax rates in NY and other places.Yes... what are you trying to say? I don't get your point.
Al.

I