|
|
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
A) I freely admit to knowing a bit less than nothing about economics
It seems to me that IF "getting money flowing" is a goal ... and everyone seems to say that or something very similar ... and both reducing income and increasing spending lead to "too bad kids, we ****ed up deficits" ... which is my impression .... why would Republicans ( besides ideology and classic campaign stump chanting ) think that only tax cuts can be effective to jump start the economy? If I go out and spend X dollars on something, ( taking care that it's something worth the bucks in the long run, purchased for a fair price ) the money IS flowing. If I let you keep money you used to give the Government, you MIGHT spend it. One is a given, the other a gamble. Now, clearly, tax cuts to some people are almost certain to quickly find their way into the 'flow' and tax cuts to some businesses could ( assuming a CEO or owner that gives a **** about people other than himself) be used to keep people employed or, even, create new jobs. But there is a lot of recent evidence that giving the rich more does NOT 'trickle down," or it's one damn slow trickle, and that giving the CEO a big bonus FOR laying off people is our business ( and I believe, cultural, norm ). ASIDE: I used to have regular, but friendly, arguments with a very, very, wealthy guy I know. His position was that rich people, by nature, did good things for the whole economy with their money .... he honestly believed they were somehow truly 'better humans,' I'm sure ... and created jobs and such, whereas the poor people only spent their money. One day on top of hill on ONE of his "it's mine for as far as you can see" ranches, a ranch that existed solely as a tax break, I asked how many jobs the millions and millions invested in the ranch had created ... answer, 4, ( all Hispanic of questionable legality ) I don't buy the more money for rich people makes money start flowing thing END ASIDE The word "trickle" in "trickle down" appears to defeat the things the Republicans are saying about spending plans being "too slow" .... not to even mention other social problems with the idea that as long as rich people are doing OK the economy is doing OK Anyway, those of you that understand all this, why would the Republicans ( besides ideology, and stumping ) insist that ONLY tax breaks really make sense? especially tax cuts to the 'ain't hurtin' people on the top of the heap? |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Jan 26, 1:10*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
A) I freely admit to knowing a bit less than nothing about economics It seems to me that IF "getting money flowing" is a goal ... and everyone seems to say that or something very similar ... and both reducing income and increasing spending lead to "too bad kids, we ****ed up deficits" ... which is my impression .... why would Republicans ( besides ideology and classic campaign stump chanting ) think that only tax cuts can be effective to jump start the economy? If I go out and spend X dollars on something, ( taking care that it's something worth the bucks in the long run, purchased for a fair price ) the money IS flowing. * * If I let you keep money you used to give the Government, you MIGHT spend it. * *One is a given, the other a gamble.. Now, clearly, tax cuts to some people are almost certain to quickly find their way into the 'flow' and tax cuts to some businesses could ( assuming a CEO or owner that gives a **** about people other than himself) be used to keep people employed or, even, create new jobs. * * But there is a lot of recent evidence that giving the rich more does NOT 'trickle down," or it's one damn slow trickle, and that giving the CEO a big bonus FOR laying off people is our business ( and I believe, cultural, norm ). ASIDE: * I used to have regular, but friendly, arguments with a very, very, wealthy guy I know. * *His position was that rich people, by nature, did good things for the whole economy with their money .... he honestly believed they were somehow truly 'better humans,' *I'm sure ... and created jobs and such, whereas the poor people only spent their money. One day on top of hill on ONE of his "it's mine for as far as you can see" ranches, *a ranch that existed solely as a tax break, I asked how many jobs the millions and millions invested in the ranch had created ... answer, 4, ( all Hispanic of questionable legality ) * * I don't buy the more money for rich people makes money start flowing thing * * *END ASIDE The word "trickle" in "trickle down" appears to defeat the things the Republicans are saying about spending plans being "too slow" *.... not to even mention other social problems with the idea that as long as rich people are doing OK the economy is doing OK Anyway, those of you that understand all this, why would the Republicans ( besides ideology, and stumping ) insist that ONLY tax breaks really make sense? * especially tax cuts to the 'ain't hurtin' people on the top of the heap? The only politician I dislike more than a tax and spend guy, is a spend and no tax guy. The Bush tax policy was obviously a failure, so why do the Republicans still cling to it. There is nothing conservative about cutting taxes unless spending is cut to match. There is a "trickle down" that works, but it has a narrow and specific target....small business. Many small manufacturing businesses in the Northeast are looking for skilled help, while major corporations and service industries are making major cuts. A little federal money for training and low/no interest loans would have an immediate effect. I bet the same is true of the upper Midwest. Reading about the **** that went on with Lehman and BOA is enough to make me puke. After all that has happened, those ****ers still don't get it. They should round up all those who received a bonus as a "parting gift" along with their ringleader, and send the whole lot to Gitmo......they've done more damage to the country than most of the terrorists did. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:10:45 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:
A) I freely admit to knowing a bit less than nothing about economics It seems to me that IF "getting money flowing" is a goal ... and everyone seems to say that or something very similar ... and both reducing income and increasing spending lead to "too bad kids, we ****ed up deficits" ... which is my impression .... why would Republicans ( besides ideology and classic campaign stump chanting ) think that only tax cuts can be effective to jump start the economy? If I go out and spend X dollars on something, ( taking care that it's something worth the bucks in the long run, purchased for a fair price ) the money IS flowing. If I let you keep money you used to give the Government, you MIGHT spend it. One is a given, the other a gamble. Now, clearly, tax cuts to some people are almost certain to quickly find their way into the 'flow' and tax cuts to some businesses could ( assuming a CEO or owner that gives a **** about people other than himself) be used to keep people employed or, even, create new jobs. But there is a lot of recent evidence that giving the rich more does NOT 'trickle down," or it's one damn slow trickle, and that giving the CEO a big bonus FOR laying off people is our business ( and I believe, cultural, norm ). ASIDE: I used to have regular, but friendly, arguments with a very, very, wealthy guy I know. His position was that rich people, by nature, did good things for the whole economy with their money .... he honestly believed they were somehow truly 'better humans,' I'm sure ... and created jobs and such, whereas the poor people only spent their money. One day on top of hill on ONE of his "it's mine for as far as you can see" ranches, a ranch that existed solely as a tax break, I asked how many jobs the millions and millions invested in the ranch had created ... answer, 4, ( all Hispanic of questionable legality ) I don't buy the more money for rich people makes money start flowing thing END ASIDE You are looking at things through the wrong lens. First, unless this ranch is VERY unusual, the 4 jobs created directly _upon_ the ranch are nowhere near the end of the overall economic impact created. Take even the most potentially "self-centered" aspects of such a ranch: if there is some big fancy ranchhouse, the construction, maintaining, and furnishing of it created work and income for others. The vehicles used upon the ranch needed to be manufactured. The taxes paid on it are used/abused by the tax entity to create work. And on and on... And if it is a "working ranch" to any degree (IOW, a _real_ _working_ ranch or just a "working" vanity ranch) it creates an entire chain of "off-ranch" economic benefit to a whole host of people and entities. And beyond the vast, as far as you can see borders of the ranch, I'd guess that a "very, very wealthy guy" doesn't keep his wealth under his mattress. If it is personally-earned wealth, his acquisition of it almost certainly created jobs, regardless of anyone's opinion of the "right-ness" that acquisition. Heck, even Madoff has created jobs and work. And even if it is inherited wealth and he personally has never done so much as a lick of work, choosing to lead a life of pure self-centered extravagance, his expenditures create work and jobs. The word "trickle" in "trickle down" appears to defeat the things the Republicans are saying about spending plans being "too slow" .... not to even mention other social problems with the idea that as long as rich people are doing OK the economy is doing OK Anyway, those of you that understand all this, why would the Republicans ( besides ideology, and stumping ) insist that ONLY tax breaks really make sense? especially tax cuts to the 'ain't hurtin' people on the top of the heap? You do realize that currently, a large portion of the potential pool of US taxpayers are, well, taxpayers, and if Obama gets his way completely, even less will be. Look at the actual numbers - the top of the pile pays the most, by far and away, tax. They are going to use their money for something, even just passive investments (which create work), so the more they have to use via less taxation, the more work it will create. TC, R |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
wrote You are looking at things through the wrong lens. First, unless this ranch is VERY unusual, the 4 jobs created directly _upon_ the ranch are nowhere near the end of the overall economic impact created. I do understand that .... but it doesn't answer my poorly asked question. Let me try again. Why do Republicans seem to think that, IN THE CURRENT SITUATION, where either tax cuts or spending will increase the already terrible and dangerous deficit, ... why do they think that Xdollars of tax cuts are better than Xdollars of spending, especially tax cuts for the 'not hurtin'. ALL of the spending starts flowing, some of the tax cuts will, some will 'just' get saved or tucked away for investment in better times. My friend is one of this area's biggest developers, and he has created many many jobs, but right now is not a time I'd bet he's eager to spend more money 'developing' so why give him money 'back' instead of building improved levees to protect all of his past 'development,' RIGHT NOW as a recovery plan. {{ As for my 'lens,' my life's work and circumstances have brought me into contact with a lot of very wealthy people ( multi-million, billions in a couple cases ) and, on the whole, I'm not impressed with that group. I admit to, at this point in my life, having a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude about the true 'moral' ( can't think of better word right now ) character and motives of extremely rich people, especially inherited rich. But I wasn't born that way, my experiences on the fringes of their world have made me that way, so it's not. exactly, prejudice. NOTHING is this world irritates me more than the very common idea, in their circles, that rich people are not only rich they are actually 'better people' than others. Few things irritate me more than flagrant consumption simply for the sake of comsumption and 'because I can,' and this is true when I see it in all economic levels. I've acquired my own luxuries, for sure, when compared to most of the world, but I find the trememdous excesses of many wealthy people, revolting. Thus, I admit to being a bit bias against 'big money' people but I'm not a 'commie' G I'd bet that this makes it harder for me to see and accept advantges of tax cuts to the rich, but I'm trying to do just that, and not just bicker }} Um ... a typical Larry L stream of semi-consciousness, aside ..... Last night, my wife and I were discussing something I haven't seen mentioned, as a possible consequence of bad times. The current situation with huge disparity in wealth and the accumlation of it in a relative few hands, coupled with lots of the 'masses' actually suffering, is a historical proven recipe for social turmoil. If I was rich, I'd be careful about suggesting that the people with no bread, eat cake instead. And, imho, that is exactly what we're seeing in some of the most ugly CEO cases being reported. You do realize that currently, a large portion of the potential pool of US taxpayers are, well, taxpayers, and if Obama gets his way completely, even less will be. You lost me there, so I guess I don't realize. , even just passive investments (which create work), so the more they have to use via less taxation, the more work it will create. Again, why is ( in practical terms, ) is that a better way to get Xdollars out actually working proding the economy into motion than direct spending on projects in the public good? Especially considering the fact that those projects will benefit the wealthy, too, and not just as 'levees' but one of my contacts owns a huge Catapiller dealership, he can sell some bulldozers and buy himself a third private plane. Larry L ( who lives in California where Arnold got elected by repealing the' car tax' ( a very fair one, imho, and one the state needed for a dependable source of income ) and is now fighting his own Republican 'brothers' with their 'no new taxes,' as the 8th largest economy in the world goes straight to the ****ter ...... I, for one, would be happy to pay some more taxes instead of stealing money from furture education spending and such, and a $thousand to me is more than a few $million to the rich guys I know, in terms of real affect on my daily life ) |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Jan 27, 1:09*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
Few things irritate me more than flagrant consumption simply for the sake of comsumption and 'because I can,' * and this is true when I see it in all economic levels. * I've acquired my own luxuries, for sure, when compared to most of the world, but I find the trememdous excesses of many wealthy people, revolting. * * Examples of that aren't hard to find, but one that caught my attention a while back was some reality show about exorbitant weddings. I just caught a few minutes near the end as some of the luxurious purchases and services were being mentioned. In the end, the guy had spent upwards of $400,000 on his daughter's wedding. I appreciate the pomp and pageantry of such an occasion; but when the price tag for conspicuous consumption goes that high, I can't help thinking how many people starved to death for want of a meal or medical care that went unfulfilled in lieu of this asshole's daughter's excesses. Something about that just ain't right. Joe F. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
"rb608" wrote Something about that just ain't right. Amen Larry L ( who hasn't been in a church [ 'cept some trout streams] in years, who knows that what's 'right' to me may not be to others, but who still believes some truths are truly self evident and deserve an 'amen' ) |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
Larry L wrote:
Let me try again. Why do Republicans seem to think that, IN THE CURRENT SITUATION, where either tax cuts or spending will increase the already terrible and dangerous deficit, ... why do they think that Xdollars of tax cuts are better than Xdollars of spending, especially tax cuts for the 'not hurtin'. 'Cause they're idiots? |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
Allowing someone to keep most of what he earns is not giving him
anything. After you understand that, you then may be able seriously to discuss fiscal policy. cheers oz, fisherman |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
|
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:21:23 -0600, Kevin Vang wrote:
In article 21a1a2e8-4f34-4a7e-9c87-05dc6164dbb2 , says... Examples of that aren't hard to find, but one that caught my attention a while back was some reality show about exorbitant weddings. I just caught a few minutes near the end as some of the luxurious purchases and services were being mentioned. In the end, the guy had spent upwards of $400,000 on his daughter's wedding. I appreciate the pomp and pageantry of such an occasion; but when the price tag for conspicuous consumption goes that high, I can't help thinking how many people starved to death for want of a meal or medical care that went unfulfilled in lieu of this asshole's daughter's excesses. Something about that just ain't right. I know how you feel, Um, well, explain it to me, please. How, if this guy hadn't spent/****ed away S400K on a wedding (or anything else), would that have translated into someone NOT starving to death or getting whatever medical care they needed? If the idea is that he could have given that money to "worthy causes," there are a coupla-few points/questions: one, who is to say that the guy doesn't already give big to "worthy causes," and two, why should Joe, you, me, or whoever get to tell this guy what to do with _his_ money, be it what we each think of as "worthy" or simply not spend it on whatever, and, third, if, Joe, you think that "luxury" spending is wrong, is your own spending in-line with that thinking - IOW, do you spend _anything_ on non-necessities of life, including higher ed for kids, recreation, etc. (if so, it's then just a matter of scale)? but here's a more positive way to look at it: This dude clearly had at least $400,000 more than he needed, and he just transferred all that wealth to a large group of caterers, chefs, waiters, musicians, parking valets, photographers, seamstresses and taylors, florists, bartenders, and probably a lot more that I can't think of off the top of my head. Not to mention the farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and brewers, vintners, and distillers that produced all of the ingredients for the food and drink, and so on and on and on... A lot of people probably had food and medicine _because_ he was willing to blow all his dough. Pretty much exactly. And there's a good chance that anyone who has $400K to spend on a wedding already pays more in total taxes than most of the above-named people make, and a good chance very few of the above-named pay much if any _income_ tax. OTOH, we watch those same shows, and we mock those people mercilessly. On the plus side, it gives my wife and I the opportunity to tell our two teenage daughters how when we got married, by keeping things small and doing everything ourself, we managed to pull off a nice little wedding for less than a thousand. We believe the message is getting through... ;-) And the thousand you spent "trickled" just as surely as the $400K. TC, R Kevin |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Jan 27, 11:21*pm, Kevin Vang wrote:
I know how you feel, but here's a more positive way to look at it: This dude clearly had at least $400,000 more than he needed, and he just transferred all that wealth to a large group of caterers, chefs, waiters, musicians, parking valets, photographers, seamstresses and taylors, florists, bartenders, and probably a lot more that I can't think of off the top of my head. *Not to mention the farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and brewers, vintners, and distillers that produced all of the ingredients for the food and drink, and so on and on and on... A lot of people probably had food and medicine _because_ he was willing to blow all his dough. The job creation based on the wedding industry is undeniably a positive result from this sort of thing; but it's the excesses that frost me. I didn't mean to imply that the entire price tag was wasteful; but the cooks, wait staff, & bartenders are going to get paid pretty much the same whether it's caviar or creamed chipped beef on the menu. I'd bet the caterer ****canned more leftover food than some sub-Saharan villages eat in a month*. Sure, farmers still get paid to grow the stuff, but is that how we want to allocate our resources? And if this guy wants to give a few people a free meal, how about maybe a few thousand people who are actually hungry? JMHO, of course. Joe F. *Yes, I know that there are some charitable enterprises who have arrangements with caterers to collect and distribute leftover food to the less fortunate, and that may or may not be the case here, but my point stands. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
"rb608" wrote in message ... .... but is that how we want to allocate our resources? And if this guy wants to give a few people a free meal, how about maybe a few thousand people who are actually hungry? It still comes down to the 'discretion' part of discretionary spending. Who are you, I , or anyone else to tell him what to do with his money?? It boils down to this: in the real world, life isn't fair, the playing field is never going to 'level' and no system that I have ever been made aware of will change that(and still enable productivity and progress to occur, to any extent). So, bless his heart if he wants to spend that money on a wedding, or someone else wants to drop 1.5 million dollars on a sound system(like some dude I read about in China someplace), or another wants to spend boatloads on fishing tackle. None of those 'foolish' expenditures are actually hurting anyone, and no one should be arrogant enough to think that he or she has the right to dictate to another the details of their expenditures. Now, returning to the original idea of the thread, taxation is a manner of controlling that 'excess' money before the point of discretionary spending, and can be used for the common good. The point that has to be observed is when taxation serves as a disincentive to productivity and investment to the point where the whole 'pie' shrinks. Tom |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:09:28 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:
wrote You are looking at things through the wrong lens. First, unless this ranch is VERY unusual, the 4 jobs created directly _upon_ the ranch are nowhere near the end of the overall economic impact created. I do understand that .... but it doesn't answer my poorly asked question. Let me try again. Why do Republicans seem to think that, IN THE CURRENT SITUATION, where either tax cuts or spending will increase the already terrible and dangerous deficit, ... why do they think that Xdollars of tax cuts are better than Xdollars of spending, especially tax cuts for the 'not hurtin'. ALL of the spending starts flowing, some of the tax cuts will, some will 'just' get saved or tucked away for investment in better times. My friend is one of this area's biggest developers, and he has created many many jobs, but right now is not a time I'd bet he's eager to spend more money 'developing' so why give him money 'back' instead of building improved levees to protect all of his past 'development,' RIGHT NOW as a recovery plan. {{ As for my 'lens,' my life's work and circumstances have brought me into contact with a lot of very wealthy people ( multi-million, billions in a couple cases ) and, on the whole, I'm not impressed with that group. I admit to, at this point in my life, having a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude about the true 'moral' ( can't think of better word right now ) character and motives of extremely rich people, especially inherited rich. But I wasn't born that way, my experiences on the fringes of their world have made me that way, so it's not. exactly, prejudice. NOTHING is this world irritates me more than the very common idea, in their circles, that rich people are not only rich they are actually 'better people' than others. Few things irritate me more than flagrant consumption simply for the sake of comsumption and 'because I can,' and this is true when I see it in all economic levels. I've acquired my own luxuries, for sure, when compared to most of the world, but I find the trememdous excesses of many wealthy people, revolting. Thus, I admit to being a bit bias against 'big money' people but I'm not a 'commie' G I'd bet that this makes it harder for me to see and accept advantges of tax cuts to the rich, but I'm trying to do just that, and not just bicker }} Um ... a typical Larry L stream of semi-consciousness, aside ..... Last night, my wife and I were discussing something I haven't seen mentioned, as a possible consequence of bad times. The current situation with huge disparity in wealth and the accumlation of it in a relative few hands, coupled with lots of the 'masses' actually suffering, is a historical proven recipe for social turmoil. If I was rich, I'd be careful about suggesting that the people with no bread, eat cake instead. And, imho, that is exactly what we're seeing in some of the most ugly CEO cases being reported. You do realize that currently, a large portion of the potential pool of US taxpayers are, well, taxpayers, and if Obama gets his way completely, even less will be. You lost me there, so I guess I don't realize. I'd have lost me, too - it should read "are, well, NOT taxpayers..." , even just passive investments (which create work), so the more they have to use via less taxation, the more work it will create. Again, why is ( in practical terms, ) is that a better way to get Xdollars out actually working proding the economy into motion than direct spending on projects in the public good? Especially considering the fact that those projects will benefit the wealthy, too, and not just as 'levees' but one of my contacts owns a huge Catapiller dealership, he can sell some bulldozers and buy himself a third private plane. Well, it's better to allow folks who have acquired wealth to do with it what they see fit (as long as it isn't illegal, etc.). And when I say "wealth," I mean it in the economic sense, not the common speech sense. I've never understood the supposed logic behind the idea that those who earn or have more should pay _disproportionally_ more than those who haven't earned as much. Even Cuba, where "socialism" works about as well as it can, _depends_ on, first, "parental support" (USSR) and now, capitalist support (tourism). And this is in a State where the leaders are generally speaking, "walking the walk," unlike, say Venezuela, where Chavez wears Patek Philippe watches and his cronies spend like, well, the despotic nouveau riche trash that they are. Larry L ( who lives in California where Arnold got elected by repealing the' car tax' ( a very fair one, imho, and one the state needed for a dependable source of income ) and is now fighting his own Republican 'brothers' with their 'no new taxes,' as the 8th largest economy in the world goes straight to the ****ter ...... I, for one, would be happy to pay some more taxes instead of stealing money from furture education spending and such, and a $thousand to me is more than a few $million to the rich guys I know, in terms of real affect on my daily life ) And this kind of thinking does nothing but hasten a collapse. It may sound like a good idea to fund "future education spending," but it's not and here's why: what such spending does is shift the burden, and it shifts it from those who benefit from it. Look at it like this - if someone has enough income to support two children through college, while living "comfortably" but not "luxuriously," they could probably support another coupla-few children, although their style of living might go from "comfortable" to "getting by well enough." Now, suppose they are then forced to support their grandchildren. The person with two kids, who each have two kids, goes from "comfortable" to "getting by well-enough" and the person with 4 kids who have 4 kids each goes from "comfortable" to, well, "broke." Now what? You've bankrupted the source and the beneficiaries are SOL as they are unprepared on a variety of levels to support themselves. Granted, a very simplistic illustration using broad terms like "comfortable," but the principles remain - the "haves" cannot, even assuming they were willing to try, support a geometric growth in "have-nots." To put it in ranching terms, you cannot successfully run 15 pairs per acre on 10 pairs an acre land. Think about this - the whole _practice_ of socialism/social welfare/whatever term you prefer is really only about 80 years old (granted, the _concept_ is much older), and it has never really worked. WW2 brought the world out of the "Great Depression" - "Rooseveltesque" stuff wasn't working (go look at the actual data), Sovietism...well, I don't really see anyone suggesting it worked, and those that point to the alleged successes of various semi-socialist schemes in Europe can only do so when those "successes" are viewed in a vacuum (take all of the supposedly-wonderful healthcare schemes in Europe). TC, R |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
wrote in message ... I've never understood the supposed logic behind the idea that those who earn or have more should pay _disproportionally_ more than those who haven't earned as much. the logic deals with social stability, and the observation made earlier that when a society gets to the point where economic disparity is too great, social upheaval occurs. Usually violently, I might add. Why you haven't ever understood this, I don't know. Lord knows I've tried to explain it to you enoughbseg. Later in the post, you refer to the fact that such 'schemes' have never 'worked'. I am not sure that is the case, but before dashing off in search of case studies, would like to hear your example of 'working'. In my view, the goal was to prevent massive social upheaval, but your definition of success may be quite different. Finally, you cast out an aside about healthcare. Trust me, while no one's healthcare system is perfect, there are(there HAVE to be) vastly better ways of going about it, in the name of the good for ALL the citizens of the nation, than the present US method. Another debate for another day........ Tom |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Jan 28, 10:03*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
It still comes down to the 'discretion' part of discretionary spending. Who are you, I , or anyone else to tell him what to do with his money?? It boils down to this: in the real world, life isn't fair, the playing field is never going to 'level' and no system that I have ever been made aware of will change that(and still enable productivity and progress to occur, to any extent). So, bless his heart if he wants to spend that money on a wedding, or someone else wants to drop 1.5 million dollars on a sound system(like some dude I read about in China someplace), or another wants to spend boatloads on fishing tackle. None of those 'foolish' expenditures are actually hurting anyone, and no one should be arrogant enough to think that he or she has the right to dictate to another the details of their expenditures. On the whole, I can't disagree with reality as it exists. I think that as long as human nature rules, greed will always triumph over altruism. And no, I don't presume to dictate how anyone should spend their money, but I can disagree with their choices. As for it not hurting anyone, I disagree. If I spend my discretionary dollars to benefit people who have plenty and by doing so cause harm to those less fortunate, I have hurt someone. If I do that with $400,000 or $1.5 million, I've hurt a lot of people. I do know that when I buy a new fly reel, it's money I could have spent elsewhere, with likely more benefit to the world as a whole. In doing so, I'm being selfish and arguably excessive; so I don't intend to set myself as the arbiter of good and evil here. I surely don't presume to, nor am I the least bit qualified to quantitatively draw the line between enough and excessive; and it's as much philosophical as financial; but in some cases, I think I know it when I see it, and that's all I'm saying. Joe F. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:28:27 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message .. . I've never understood the supposed logic behind the idea that those who earn or have more should pay _disproportionally_ more than those who haven't earned as much. the logic deals with social stability, and the observation made earlier that when a society gets to the point where economic disparity is too great, social upheaval occurs. But in most of the "western world," economic disparity is nowhere near what it would take to cause "social upheaval" in the sense of violent upheaval. While the difference between, say, Bernie Madoff and much of those in the US might be, in pure numbers, great, in real terms, they aren't all that different insofar as the necessities of life AND a few "luxuries." IOW, while some folks might be able to spend $400K on a wedding using pocket change and others have to settle for only one movie channel on their cable and are only able to afford to eat at Mickey D's and then, only a coupla-few times a month, their "standard of living" is, on a scale, closer to "rich" than much of population of the world outside of the western world. So that brings us around to the fact that, in comparison, the lesser-well-off in the western world, are, to truly _poor_ in the rest of the world, "rich." So, in some mythical, ahem, "fair world," those in the western world of even modest means would be taxed to (allegedly) help the truly _poor_, while the (contextually) "rich" would be taxed to help, well, the whole friggin' population. There are much larger numbers of people in the "less-well-off" category than in the "rich" category, and so, if you had to guess, whom would you guess is going to potentially react more "violently," the "rich" people whose lifestyles aren't terribly affected or the "less-well-off" who are reduced to basic cable and the value menu on their visits to Mickey D's? Usually violently, I might add. Why you haven't ever understood this, I don't know. Lord knows I've tried to explain it to you enoughbseg. Later in the post, you refer to the fact that such 'schemes' have never 'worked'. I am not sure that is the case, but before dashing off in search of case studies, would like to hear your example of 'working'. In my view, the goal was to prevent massive social upheaval, but your definition of success may be quite different. Finally, you cast out an aside about healthcare. Trust me, while no one's healthcare system is perfect, there are(there HAVE to be) vastly better ways of going about it, in the name of the good for ALL the citizens of the nation, than the present US method. Another debate for another day........ There are things that can be done to improve the healthcare system in the US and worldwide - taxing the bejeebers out of anyone isn't the way. One thing to consider is the cost of being a doctor. On a related-but-somewhat-converse line is the attitude that doctors are entitled to be "rich" - the whole concept of doctors being "rich" because they are, well, doctors, is new. TC, R Tom |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
wrote Well, it's better to allow folks who have acquired wealth to do with it what they see fit (as long as it isn't illegal, etc.). I, more or less, understand the ideology you support .... and support it myself, ... again, more or less. But, I still don't understand why NOW, in a state of crisis, with all the economists I have seen suggesting that getting money into the economy, in quantity and quickly, is desperately needed ... why in these unique circumstances, .... why chant the ideology when it certainly seems, to me, that thoughtful government spending ( odious as government spending may be ;-) is a more practical, pragmatic, approach ..... one that leaves us with the dangers of a huge deficit, for sure, but then so would reducing government income .... and, at least, we'd have the actual created infrastructure as well as the deficit to leave our kid's. Maybe I'm just very dense, but I don't see a pragmatic, non-ideological, answer in the "better to" or "communism didn't work" |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
wrote And this kind of thinking does nothing but hasten a collapse. It may sound like a good idea to fund "future education spending," but it's not Well in the Arnold case, he is moving money that the public voted to spend SPECIFICALLY on education ...... and using it for nearly anything else, because everyone on both sides say cuts can't get deeper and the Republican side simply chants "no new taxes" to any idea that income must be increased. To use your homey, family situation, analogies for government it's time for dad to admit that we can't cut more and even though it hurts get a second job to increase income and not just chant " I don't believe in that" Larry L ( whose ideology includes the idea that what the public voted to tax themselves for is what that money should be used for .... ) |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
"Larry L" wrote Well in the Arnold case, FWIW, Arnold has proven to be a better governor than I would have ever guessed and it' interesting that his "own' party is the main reason he can't govern better ... ah, in the opinion of many observers from the extreme middle, not just me Larry L ( who also will point out that he thinks that at the national level, the Dem congress are being foolish in many ways... at least enough so to equal the 'other side' ) |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
wrote in message ... But in most of the "western world," economic disparity is nowhere near what it would take to cause "social upheaval" in the sense of violent upheaval. would this, therefore, be an argument that 'socialist' taxations schemes do work? Also, it brings up a very valid point in the whole discussion, that of what entities or 'systems' we are looking at. If someone out there is to suggest that we can implement a plan that equalizes to the same extent the entire planet, I would suggest that they are crazy. The global population is entirely too large for the resources at hand for that to be readily pulled off by any method. Once again, another problem for another day........Still, within the smaller scale systems inherent in a typical Western nation, such a taxation scheme can and does work to a great extent. Tom |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Jan 27, 9:21*pm, Kevin Vang wrote:
I know how you feel, but here's a more positive way to look at it: This dude clearly had at least $400,000 more than he needed, and he just transferred all that wealth to a large group of caterers, chefs, waiters, musicians, parking valets, photographers, seamstresses and taylors, florists, bartenders, and probably a lot more that I can't think of off the top of my head. *Not to mention the farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and brewers, vintners, and distillers that produced all of the ingredients for the food and drink, and so on and on and on... A lot of people probably had food and medicine _because_ he was willing to blow all his dough. This is objectionable not because the money was spent, but that it was spent so conspiculously, on television no less! This crass display of materialism is like the potlach ceremonies of the Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest. They would actually destroy valuable goods to show how rich and powerful they were. As a counterexample, Warren Buffett is widely admired not because he is wealthy and knows so well how to make more money, but because despite that he lives unostentatiously. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
So far the U.S. government has allocated $700 billion to bail out our banks. It turns out that total could amount to merely drops in the ocean of red ink. “The amount of working capital you'd expect the government to take into this would be around $3 trillion to $4 trillion,” Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, tells Fortune magazine. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
In 6 years, Bush borrowed about $780 billion for the Iraq war. Obama
proposes to borrow a trillion dollars EACH YEAR for the forseeable future on top of the existing budget. There is an enormous diff tween borrowing 780 billion over 6 years and borrowing a TRILLION MORE EACH YEAR. I realize Libs cannot do math but at least try |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
way to go Hussein...nice work
-----news snip----------------------- A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message ... way to go Hussein...nice work -----news snip----------------------- A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud. way to go Beancounter, for repeating an obvious flat-out lie. I must be a nice role, serving as our house idiot. Tom |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
love is blind .... ea tom?
On Jan 28, 2:38*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote: "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in ... way to go Hussein...nice work -----news snip----------------------- A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud. way to go Beancounter, for repeating an obvious flat-out lie. I must be a nice role, serving as our house idiot. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message ... love is blind .... ea tom? Idiot, what you claimed simply is not true. Please provide link to the actual wording of the proposed legislation to prove otherwise. Pure and simple: you are a liar. Tom |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
"Larry L" wrote in message ... "Larry L" wrote Well in the Arnold case, FWIW, Arnold has proven to be a better governor than I would have ever guessed and it' interesting that his "own' party is the main reason he can't govern better ... ah, in the opinion of many observers from the extreme middle, not just me Larry L ( who also will point out that he thinks that at the national level, the Dem congress are being foolish in many ways... at least enough so to equal the 'other side' ) Being a California social liberal and fiscal conservative. Sort of old style Democrat. I will state Arnold is a disaster. He has a line item veto and did not use it enough. The budget was $69 Billion dollars 8 years ago. Now we are talking a $40 billion deficit. If the budget had grown at the rate of inflation and population growth, we would be talking about the $10 billion surplus. The Teachers union convinced the idiots to vote that 1/2 the budget went to education. No strings attached, no guarantee of improvement in teaching results. So they now get $40 billion more than 8 years ago and the schools still suck. But we do have state unions that contributed to the election funds of the correct politician (can you say bribe?) and now get way more money than they deserve! Average prison guard starts at $80k and goes up from there. Just one of the examples. We need to toss all the overpaid legislators in this state and go back to a part time, citizen legislature. Maybe they would be responsive to the people. Why can not the state cut spending? Just like every person in the country does when they run short on money. Renegotiate the overpaid contracts. Where has the money gone the last 8 years? The last 4 years? It has not been on infrastructure. Not on game wardens. DF&G is a prime example. Davis put in his political crony as the head. Then they hired about 60 highpaid attorneys. They had more legal staff than wardens in the field. go back to the budget of 1997 before the dot.com boom and use that as a base and allow inflation and population growth for all facits of the budget. That is the amount of money they get to squander. |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Jan 29, 9:23*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
love is blind *.... * ea *tom? Not as blind as hatred, apparently. FWIW, yes, ARRA2009 does include monies for neighborhood political advocacy groups, but its not limited to ACORN. Right-wingers are welcome to access the funds. Its called 'democracy'...unless what you want is the money banned from anyone who disagrees with your political POV. There are names for that process, too...and strangely enough, those are the same names that you call people who you oppose. You are your own enemy...funny, eh? But to accuse ACORN of being the big recipient is quite misleading. For starters, why don't you define who 'ACORN' is for us? Hint: it's a they. --riverman |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
On Jan 29, 9:26*pm, riverman wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:23*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote: love is blind *.... * ea *tom? Not as blind as hatred, apparently. Oh, and here's ACORN's response to your drivel. From the ACORN website: "Statement from ACORN Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis in Response to Statement from U.S. Rep. John Boehner January 28, 2009 Earlier this week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) released a statement inveighing against the developing economic recovery bill and using ACORN as the poster child for his opposition. "Incredibly, the Democrats' bill makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for 'neighborhood stabilization activities'," the press release rather breathlessly stated. This obfuscation was picked up across the right-wing echo chamber and has been used as a fig leaf by conservatives in their attempts to justify their opposition to progressive economic policies. In response to Mr. Boehner's statement, ACORN CEO and Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis said: "We are disappointed to see that Representative Boehner is uninterested in helping President Obama and Congress create or save 3 to 4 million jobs. The Economic Recovery Package focuses on investments that create jobs, and ACORN's 400,000 member families think that is the right focus. Rep. Boehner's accusations are, as with anything he says about ACORN, divorced from reality. "In fact, ACORN has worked for years to open access to working class homeownership on fair terms and warned against predatory lending long before the issue made headlines. We watch with bemusement as he tries to gin up opposition to progressive solutions to America's deep economic crisis by accusing ACORN of doing something we have never done. We have not received neighborhood stabilization funds, have no plans to apply for such funds, and didn't weigh in on the pending rule changes. "Rep. Boehner would do better to focus on the very real issues facing working families in his district." |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
"Calif Bill" wrote Being a California social liberal and fiscal conservative. Sort of old style Democrat. I will state Arnold is a disaster. I said he was better than I expected when I DIDN'T vote for him and that members of his own Republican party are the main reason he isn't/ can't be even a bit better ..... Not that I like him G I intentionally try to stay fairly ignorant ( some say it's a natural talent I have ) about the details of his particular financial mess, but, clearly it's a big one. I'm relieved he isn't turning out to be one of the BibleThumpingMoron Republicans so trendy and popular at the national level, and I'm happy about his stance on things like the environment and stem cell research, although his ability to find practical ways forward seems limited ... no screen writers throwing in a surprise salvation for the macho mannyMan hero in the real world G |
OT taxes, spending, spending, taxes
who cares? we have an illegal alien president...all
bets are off --------------news snip------------------------------- The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday. The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter