McCain-Palin 2008!

Yes, people, I know that the first link is from an unsavory source. But it deals almost totally with firm numbers and facts, and there's little arguning with those.

Yes wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course you should. You should be glad to pay more taxes. You have more money. What is wrong with you people?

Oh? Could you explain your reasoning, or is it as simple as the Marxist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Or do you have some long-winded, mealy-mouthed reasoning that simply tries to avoid actually saying that?

I don't think Charo believes in taxes at all, as a philosophical constant. Do I misread you?

Lucifers Hammer wrote:

I don't think Charo believes in taxes at all, as a philosophical constant. Do I misread you?

No, that's not true. I've aware that taxes are a necessary evil to pay the expenses of government at every level. I do not, however, approve of taxes to mandate 'nanny-ism' and idiotic regulations, "Do not use hair dryer while in the bath or shower!"

Nothing in our government's structure calls for cradle to grave hand-holding, and the enforcement of more and more bureaucratic regulation, particularly the unfunded regulations. We now have a particularly intrusive, and obnoxious 'Big Brother' bureacracy at all levels of government, and it would be difficult to show objectively that any of it actually works to accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish, but nonetheless absorbs absolutely huge amounts of tax money to support all these bureaucrats and agencies.

Most of it isn't necessary, a lot of it is, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional, and finally, it doesn't work for the most part.

I submit that you are wrong about my stand on taxes. The original question was not answered -- my request for a justification for progressive taxes, that does *NOT* boil down to Karl Marx' famous slogan.

Nothing in our government's structure calls for cradle to grave hand-holding,

Thanks to the Teamsters Union and the federal government you have food to eat, a roof over your head, and an internet connection.

Charo wrote:

Nothing in our government's structure calls for cradle to grave hand-holding, and the enforcement of more and more bureaucratic regulation, particularly the unfunded regulations. We now have a particularly intrusive, and obnoxious 'Big Brother' bureacracy at all levels of government, and it would be difficult to show objectively that any of it actually works to accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish, but nonetheless absorbs absolutely huge amounts of tax money to support all these bureaucrats and agencies.

More and more I'm convinced that there are TWO Charos: The nutty psycho one, and the sensible and smart one. Today, we are fortunate to be in the company of the latter.

Did you read this quote today?

"Power corrupts, and I believe there is no power more intoxicating and corrosive than the ability to spend other people’s money at will." - Bill Whittle

It's from his article in The National Review, "Proud of the GOP: For the first time, I feel like we deserve to win more than they deserve to lose."

Yes wrote:

Thanks to the Teamsters Union and the federal government you have food to eat, a roof over your head, and an internet connection.

Explain.

Yes wrote:

Nothing in our government's structure calls for cradle to grave hand-holding,
Thanks to the Teamsters Union and the federal government you have food to eat, a roof over your head, and an internet connection.

Really?!?!?! So far as I can see, the stranglehold that the Teamster's Union has on the transportation industry and in similar unions overseas, the extortionate wages demanded by the Teamster's Union is a major factor in the high prices of food available in the grocery store.

Algore claimed to have invented the Internet. The feds, through subsidies to cable and telecomm companies, with no fulfillment controls, has left the US in the position of having the smallest percentage of broadband availability anywhere in the first or second world, at prices roughly 3 times the world average, for connection speeds that are about one third of the world average. That means Americans pay 9 times as much for broadband access than most of the rest of the world, and that is when it is even available to them.

I wish I could say 'thank you' for the effects of government meddling, but I can't in good conscience.

And how is the government responsible for providing food to Americans? In fact, the Federal government pays multi-billion dollar cash subsidies to agri-businesses,*NOT* to grow food, and to guarantee that competing products from overseas aren't allowed to be sold in this country at lower prices. The Doha round of talks, for the World Trade Organization, is stalled on precisely that point. Subsidies from our government to agri-business are a substantial part of the Federal entitlement budget. No legislator from a farming state dare ever cut off the tap, lest he be lynched, or boiled in (subsidized) canola oil in his home district.

We are not the only offenders, all the big countries, and some of the small ones try to support their local farm prices through subsidies. It is an irrevocable fact of economics that price floors do not work, and very quickly destroy any relationship between supply and demand, just as in the opposite case, price controls on maximum prices.

It cannot ever work. Political blackmail, particularly from populist voting districts has forced this nation into a myriad of foolish ventures, trying to distort and control the invisible hand in the well-informed marketplace.

Charo, where does your monthly check come from? Didn't you drive a truck? Aren't you disabled?

Yes wrote:

Charo, where does your monthly check come from? Didn't you drive a truck? Aren't you disabled?

I paid into Social Security for 52 years. I started working and paying taxes at age 8. I became disabled when I was 60. Do the math.

I worked for Swift Trucking, which is non-union -- one of the major positive decision points for me, when I started looking for an over-the-road trucking job. When I was younger, and full of piss and vinegar, I was a management consultant who specialized in union busting. I was hired to negotiate or renegotiate about 15 contracts in that 10 year period.

I have never seen unions as anything but an extortion business. "That's a nice (insert type of business) you have there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it." I devoted a good part of my professional life to sticking it to the unions.

I know I'm going to be hammered for this, but:

Just because Marx said it, doesn't make it all bad. Seems to me a fellow named Christ said very much the same thing quite a bit earlier.

But, in the spirit of trying to give Charo an alternative explanation for the desirability of progressive-rate taxation, let me try this:

"What's it worth to you to be a rich American? Well, all right then...."

Charo wrote:

<quoted text>
I paid into Social Security for 52 years. I started working and paying taxes at age 8. I became disabled when I was 60. Do the math.
I worked for Swift Trucking, which is non-union -- one of the major positive decision points for me, when I started looking for an over-the-road trucking job. When I was younger, and full of piss and vinegar, I was a management consultant who specialized in union busting. I was hired to negotiate or renegotiate about 15 contracts in that 10 year period.
I have never seen unions as anything but an extortion business. "That's a nice (insert type of business) you have there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it." I devoted a good part of my professional life to sticking it to the unions.

Yes, that sounds about right.

Lucifers Hammer wrote:

I know I'm going to be hammered for this, but:
Just because Marx said it, doesn't make it all bad.

8<--------some stuff snipped ---------->8

"What's it worth to you to be a rich American? Well, all right then...."

14-1/2% flat tax, no exemptions, no credits. That would cover the bills, and more, to allow paying down the debt (yeah, right! Like thqt would ever happen!) and make sure that every person or corporation paid the same *RATE*. It would put most IRS agents out of work and decimate the tax law business, but hey! Do you care all that much about Juris Doctor sharks who would have eaten their last fat little corporate or personally wealthy seal, and now face species extermination? I didn't think so.

Your return would be a few lines long, and if you leave space for multiple W-2s and dividend or interest statements, it would all fit in a #10 envelope, and could be prepared in under 15 minutes.

Just to clarify. My original statement stands. You are totally dependent on the government and if you get any pension at all it is as a result of the union movement. Without the teamsters and the government you would be in big trouble. So you fought the teamsters. big deal. You still benefited.

Charo wrote:

<quoted text>
I have never seen unions as anything but an extortion business.

You missed a lot before you opened your eyes.

Lucifers Hammer wrote:

<quoted text>
No, maybe not. But you should have to pay at least as much as those making $25K / year. And, with a nod to fahrter's latest post questioning 'percentages', you need to remember that payroll and Social Security taxes function as incredibly regressive taxes affecting mainly the lower-income. When figuring your 'tax load', factor those in as well.
On another side of the question: If you're lucky enough to be making $250K, you've certainly got a tax accountant and an advisor who can and will help you evade some of the taxes you should be paying.

Right.
Then if everyone evades paying tax, where does the money come from to give to the other 95 percenters?

Lucifers Hammer wrote:

...But, in the spirit of trying to give Charo an alternative explanation for the desirability of progressive-rate taxation...

What's wrong with a simple flat rate, in your opinion? Tax policy is used to modify behavior, in addition to generating revenue, that much is certain. Think of the stated purposes of the tobacco tax. It is also used to "make things fair."

If the object is to generate revenue, is it better to get 10% of $1,000,000, or 75% of $1,000?

If you progressively increase the tax rate on income, you create a huge disincentive for any increased productivity.

In other words, if I'm earning vast quantities of money, and you start taxing it at higher and higher rates, I'm going to first start looking for loopholes. If I can't find enough, I'm going to stop being productive at that higher level, because "what's the point, the government is going to take it all."

On the other hand, if you LOWER the tax rates to an optimal point (whatever that is), that stimulates productivity and increases tax revenues.

This is neat! Let's take it to a tax thread --- which I'll open now with a response to Eric's post.

palin is trailer trash, and the son in law is a retard. look what he said on my space. palin makes mccain look like the old senile man he is. this attention seeking bit-h in heat should be home takeing care of that precious child she bore, that needs the love and care only a mom can give. she was appointed by the bush administration too, (don't be fooled), to demean obama. they feel only a woman can get away with this. mccain does not put (count)ry, its palin (count) first and the surge is working in the old pri-ks pants, or should i say mind. you want another war, a draft, vote mccain and his trailer trash bit-h

helena wrote:

palin is trailer trash, and the son in law is a retard. look what he said on my space. palin makes mccain look like the old senile man he is. this attention seeking bit-h in heat should be home takeing care of that precious child she bore, that needs the love and care only a mom can give. she was appointed by the bush administration too,(don't be fooled), to demean obama. they feel only a woman can get away with this. mccain does not put (count)ry, its palin (count) first and the surge is working in the old pri-ks pants, or should i say mind. you want another war, a draft, vote mccain and his trailer trash bit-h

No need for this rant. Put a sock in it.