OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring. Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Jon.

On 2010-09-30 16:35:33 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring.

No it isn't, Jon. If they are taxed *more* then they won't be able to
reinvest in the stores or in new people. They work very hard for that
money, seven days a week, sometime until 9 pm at night. More taxes
will means less money, less money means less investment. Hang the
millionaires, but not the $250k/year folks. They don't deserve to be
punished with more taxes simply because they work hard and achieve.


Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

Are you saying you are an underachiever? Not my fault you can't make
money at a small business. My kids did and they don't have any letters
after their name.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

And that is GOOD? It is time to stop the foolishness in Washington.
It is time to stop paying off the unions and everyone else that helped
get them elexted. Enough is enough.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Notice I said "you and me?" At least they realize that I am not
pro-Obama or approve of this spending spree this idiot is taking us on.
He just gave another $20B to foreign aid. That money could have been
spend HERE. The rest of the world hates us because of our freedoms and
our riches and I doubt very much giving more money to them will amount
to a hill of beans.
Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Cook
wrote:

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring. Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%? According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year - where does your "sympathy" begin?

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Um, what's this "we" ****, Kemosabe? I work _hard_ to earn what I earn (and
yes, I readily admit it - I "play" pretty hard, too, but I do it on money I've
earned) and I put my own capital at risk when and where necessary. I do not
feel the need to further subsidize things for those who simply don't wish to pay
for what they want - _want_ - not _need_ and are unable to provide it for
themselves. For example, I've never financed a car or any other consumer
good(s), yet plenty of folks finance darned near everything and do so based upon
_want_, not _need_.

Many folks in the US make such a big deal about how well many European countries
treat folks, but in France, for example, if you earn anything, you pay into the
kitty, and even with that, they've still managed to spend themselves into
problems. Most folks accept the fact that no one will just come right out and
buy them a TV, a car, etc., yet somehow they think that others should pay for
their "government-supplied" services (and even those things that really
shouldn't be government-supplied, like health care or retirement, the small
portion of society who simply cannot provide for themselves excepted).

TC,
R

Jon.

On Sep 30, 3:25*pm, wrote:

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? *Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? *Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%?

Lot's of people have described the merits of progressive tax rates.
You can choose to reject those explanations but I accept them. "To
whom much is given, much will be expected."

*According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year

I didn't say I was the business owner, just that I have personal
experience with it. The business provided a living wage to its
proprietors and its employees, but the nature of the particular
business was that there never would be spectacular profits, and
conscious decisions were made to stay small. Money isn't everything in
life.

I work _hard_ to earn what I earn

I have no idea what you do or how much you make (and don't really care
to know), and I'm sure that you do work hard; so do 11-year-old
Pakistani brick-makers for their two dollars a day. Frankly I don't
think many of us in the first world _earn_ our pay; yes we get _paid_
it, but that doesn't mean we _earn_ it. Lot's of people around the
world work just as hard and get paid a lot less. That goes for my
salary (public domain if you care to find it), and exponentially so
for the overpaid corporate CEOs we read about in the papers (I'm not
at all implying that you fit that category; like I said I have no idea
what you make).

their "government-supplied" services (and even those things that really

I'm with you there; I'm all for less government services, but the
politicians aren't (on either side), and as long as we're going to
promise services, we (corporately) better pay for them...

Take care,

Jon.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:02:16 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Cook
wrote:

On Sep 30, 3:25*pm, wrote:

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? *Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? *Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%?

Lot's of people have described the merits of progressive tax rates.
You can choose to reject those explanations but I accept them.

I don't agree with them, and certainly not to the point that the majority pay
little or no taxes. But even if the US must have progressive income taxes, why
shouldn't it require that everyone at least pony up _something_?

"To whom much is given, much will be expected."

Um, well, apparently not. Much is "given" by the US government, using tax
dollars, and _very_ little is expected of those who receive it (I'm speaking
individuals and "entitlements" - even with the bailouts, something was
expected). And while you may consider your salary as something "given" to you,
I consider what I earn as, well, not given, but rather, earned.

*According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year

I didn't say I was the business owner, just that I have personal
experience with it.

True enough, you didn't, but frankly, and I don't mean to start anything here,
if you didn't own it, then your "personal experience" was merely as an observer,
however keenly you observed, and at the end of the day, that's not anywhere
close to having both the responsibility and if any, the reward.

The business provided a living wage to its
proprietors and its employees, but the nature of the particular
business was that there never would be spectacular profits, and
conscious decisions were made to stay small. Money isn't everything in
life.

No, it isn't, but as you said, it was a conscious choice. That should not
exempt them from paying what a larger and/or more-profitable business owner
should pay.

I work _hard_ to earn what I earn

I have no idea what you do or how much you make (and don't really care
to know), and I'm sure that you do work hard; so do 11-year-old
Pakistani brick-makers for their two dollars a day. Frankly I don't
think many of us in the first world _earn_ our pay; yes we get _paid_
it, but that doesn't mean we _earn_ it. Lot's of people around the
world work just as hard and get paid a lot less. That goes for my
salary (public domain if you care to find it), and exponentially so
for the overpaid corporate CEOs we read about in the papers (I'm not
at all implying that you fit that category; like I said I have no idea
what you make).

Good points. To those who make 2 dollars a day, 25K a year is 30-plus times,
much more than your 10 times, what they make, so again, at what point does your
sympathy begin? At what income level should "business owners" by taxed 40% on
their personal income? And what about wage-earners? If someone earns 25K, why
shouldn't they be taxed just like someone who make earns 250K?

Let me ask you this: if I let you set my tax rate, would you let me set yours?
Would you let me set yours after you set mine? You know, sorta like the old
deal about sharing - one person cuts the sandwich, the other gets to pick their
portion first.

TC,
R

[this'll be my last post, so feel free to have the last word...]

On Sep 30, 5:51*pm, wrote:

I don't agree with them, and certainly not to the point that the majority pay
little or no taxes. *

Depends on what "the majority" makes. Our middle class is
disappearing, and it's hard to wring much out of a turnip. Meanwhile:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8033845016.htm

Bring back policies where "the majority" will be a true "middle class"
and I'll be happy to tax them.

again, at what point does your
sympathy begin? *At what income level should "business owners" by taxed 40% on
their personal income? *And what about wage-earners? *If someone earns 25K, why
shouldn't they be taxed just like someone who make earns 250K? *

Because we don't live in Pakistan and the way our society is
structured it takes 25K to "just live". I've no idea what the "right"
levels are and don't have the time or interest to figure them out, I
just know that I'm happy to see those that have benefited more from
the social and legal and physical and governmental structures that are
in place that allow them to succeed pay their share, and I believe
that share should be somehow progressive. No one is "self-made" in the
absence of all the societal structures that are maintained to enable
it.

Let me ask you this: *if I let you set my tax rate, would you let me set yours?
Would you let me set yours after you set mine? *You know, sorta like the old
deal about sharing - one person cuts the sandwich, the other gets to pick their
portion first.

That implies that you and I are somehow "equals" on the financial
playing field, which I doubt. How about we lay out how much wealth all
the people in the nation hold at our respective class levels and then
divide our tax responsibility in proportion to the accumulated wealth
at our levels? I'd say that's fair.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Note on that data the difference between wealth and income
distribution, which in part explains why a flat income tax is
_regressive_ when it comes to wealth (and the corresponding impact on
families). If we aren't going to tax wealth accumulation, then I'm in
favor of a progressive income tax that mirrors the wealth curve.

Take care,

Jon.

BTW, Jon, I am going to assume that your estate is worth *more* than a
million bucks. If it is and you must die, do it before Jan 1, 2011
(and no, I am not wishing you dead like some folks on this forum have
wished me). As of Jan 1, I believe the estate tax will go from 0 to
55% with up to the first million being untaxed. If you are worth,
let's say 2 mill, your survivors will pay $550k on you estate. Your
survivors owe the U.S. Government NOTHING, a tax such as what Obama has
in store for us is onerous.

Dave

On Sep 30, 3:45*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

BTW, Jon, I am going to assume that your estate is worth *more* than a
million bucks.

I come from a blue-collar family that can't even imagine anything like
a million dollars, and while I'm doing OK my "estate" is not even
close to that.

*As of Jan 1, I believe the estate tax will go from 0 to
55% with up to the first million being untaxed. *If you are worth,
let's say 2 mill, your survivors will pay $550k on you estate.

Sounds good to me, bring it on. I'd tax large estates (say, 7+
figures) _very_ heavily. Let the kids earn their own. I'd be all in
favor of exemptions for, say, "land-rich and cash-poor" family farmers
and ranchers, but our politicians can't do anything special like that
without selling out to their big donors...

*Your survivors owe the U.S. Government NOTHING,

And even under the above they still won't...

a tax such as what Obama has in store for us is onerous.

Don't include me in that, and FWIW I didn't see the rich give up being
rich when previous eras had inheritance taxes. If it bothers you so
much give your money all away until you fall back under the
cap...problem solved.

Jon.

On 2010-09-30 18:39:55 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

On Sep 30, 3:45*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

BTW, Jon, I am going to assume that your estate is worth *more* than a
million bucks.

I come from a blue-collar family that can't even imagine anything like
a million dollars, and while I'm doing OK my "estate" is not even
close to that.

d;o) So did I. The *maximum* amount my father ever made was
$3000/year. He worked until he was 67 and died behind the wheel of his
trailor truck. When my mom died, she left the three of us $900 apiece.
So, I started from scratch

*As of Jan 1, I believe the estate tax will go from 0 to
55% with up to the first million being untaxed. *If you are worth,
let's say 2 mill, your survivors will pay $550k on you estate.

Sounds good to me, bring it on. I'd tax large estates (say, 7+
figures) _very_ heavily. Let the kids earn their own. I'd be all in
favor of exemptions for, say, "land-rich and cash-poor" family farmers
and ranchers, but our politicians can't do anything special like that
without selling out to their big donors...

Ah, but that's the rub, Jon. The land-rich and cash-poor farmers are
included. Chances are farm sales will abound.

*Your survivors owe the U.S. Government NOTHING,

And even under the above they still won't...

a tax such as what Obama has in store for us is onerous.

Don't include me in that, and FWIW I didn't see the rich give up being
rich when previous eras had inheritance taxes. If it bothers you so
much give your money all away until you fall back under the
cap...problem solved.

I think Obama's tax scheme is onerous. You *never* raise taxes during
a recession, but he is. I don't think the outcome is going to be like
he thinks it will be.

Jon.

Dave

On Sep 30, 5:57*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:

*So, I started from scratch

Care to share in what industries you made your money?

I'd bet if we unwrapped it you'd find that much of what you made and
how much you made came fairly directly from government spending, which
in turn came from debt accumulation. In other words, how much you made
is a direct factor of what our government was willing to borrow and
spend, not some magical intrinsic value of your work ethic and
capabilities. Lot's of people work very hard around the globe and
don't accumulate anything, and it's not their fault.

Take care,

Jon.