Sober article - includes phasing out of itemized deductions. Not good for housing.

-----------------------------------

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171#ixzz0t5rQqjPo

On the bright side (if there is one) I have clients who are looking to sell their investment properties this year in order to avaoid the increase in capital gains tax.

what's pretty scary about this is that most people don't realize it's coming and when it does it will suck alot of discretionary spending from the system. The election will be very heated this fall with tax and spend dems vs. fiscal conservatives who didn't want the bailout in the first place.

This chair would look good over there. Oooh, I think I will move the other chair just a little to the left. These chairs can switch places. Ahhh, much better. Everything will be just fine now.

It would seem as the sky is falling. This is pretty eye opening. What will this mean to Realtors?

It sounds more like tax cuts are expiring and going back to how they use to be than the largest tax "hike" in history.

Have republicans ever had an idea other than cutting taxes?

I think it's a combination of eliminating the Bush tax cuts, reducing deductions, plus increasing taxes. it means we all will be paying more in taxes... and for what? i'd call that a hike and would like to tell my elected officials to take one.

hike or no hike...tomato tomato, potato potato....taxes will be more in the near future...

06-07housing down
07-07housing down
08-09housing down
09-10housing down
10-11housing down
11-12?????more taxes paid than 10-11 (less consumer spending) where will prices go? housing down?(probably...i dont see why it would go up.)

The TARP program (bank bailout) was passed in 2008 under the Bush administration..so much for the conservative republican emphasis against big spending....that 800 million dollar expense is on Mr Bush's head. how quickly we forget the past

Maybe they got the idea from JFK.

I'd vote to pay more taxes IF spending were reduced so we were in surplus territory AND if my higher taxes went to debt reduction.

Raising taxes in an economy like this is like peeing into the wind. It's going to cause a mess.

I might even make an out of the box prediction.

Bush tax cuts remain intact. Watch the economy soar if O announces that. Outback will have lines out the door. O needs to think about his reelection at some point.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0330/076-up-in-smoke.html


forbes

We don't need any other ideas. We need less taxes and less government. Always and forever.

Dittos, written while singing Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee, to Ode to Joy.

If we had elected Ross Perot we wouldn't be in this mess. Amen to less govermnent. This new 2 cent postal increase is likely to cover the cost of benefits to workers - no value received to the public. Same goes with pensions and benefits to retired govt. workers and military. Somethings got to be done about that... we have to stop paying to support others who don't work or somehow arranged a cushy retirement on the public's dime.

Do you suppose that the propossed tax increases are being leaked out as a way for Obama to in the last minute repeal them to look like a hero? Could this be a political stratagy for the Dems?

If these tax hikes do take place our economy is in for a bumpy ride and house values will fall. The Government needs to back off, all they have done is create peaks and valleys in the market and we are getting nowhere. Let the businesses land where they land and let the strong survive.

I think so Oli. Watch for it. I am not betting the farm on it, but I would not be suprised.

I am from Canada. Our highest tax rate is 46%, less deductions than you all have. We pay much more for everything plus we get walloped heavy in consumption taxes. Even with your new tax hike you are still paying less than much of the industrialized world.

The American economy has been in a spending spreed for a long time with lower taxation. Hate to tell you, it's time to control your spending and pay your bills ie: more taxation.

Having said that...I seriously wish some of your "less Government" philosophy would rub off over here as we are seriously over taxed and civil servants are largely over paid and have too many benefits.

I don't think we pay enough taxes. Our national infrastructure is crumbling all around us. We are not investing in making our lives better, but only thinking about ourselves today.
Our political system is broken and our elected officials are not held accountable, all they want is money to go into their pockets.
That's my rant for today.

You know what? You take your money and invest it in whatever you like. But keep your hands off mine. OK?

Oh and by the way, greed is good, self-interest makes the world go round, altruism is evil, and selfishness is a virtue.

Do you really believe that?

You must be from New Jersey, one of the most corrupt states in the nation, where your property taxes are ridiculously high and politicians are some of the worst offenders ripping people off.

I am not so quick to disagree with these words. If you have ever read the best selling book, How to Win Friends and Influence People you might agree with me they are accurate.

I think 2 important notions have to be added. These words describe human nature. Your own self interest is satisfied best when you help others in a positive way. In otherwords, please your fellow man and you will be rewarded.

The one I do have trouble seeing the wisdom of is.....altruism is evil. I can't seem to make that work in my head, unless he is saying altruism is the height of arrogance. You go around doing things for for other people since there is no way they can do things for themselves, and since you are so smart and rich and they really need your help, etc. I don't believe that, I am just playing devil's advocate to try and explain it.

Isn't that the N.J. State Motto?

I think we pay enough in taxes. I think our government officials need to learn how to spend them more wisely for the greater good of the entire nation, rather than a few select groups and their own pork funds...

This has been bouncing around in my head all afternoon.

Event #1 You know of a starving family and provide them a fish. You make certain they know how to reach you when they get hungry again. Make sure they know they can have more fish from you when they get hungry again. They call again and again. They are thankful, but depend on your visits.

Event #2 You know of a starving family and provide them a fish. You also provide the family a fishing pole and basic tackle and demonstrate how to use it. You come back after a few days to check up on the progress of the family to ensure they are able to provide for themselves. They are fine. You go on your way. They are thankful for your help.

If altruism is event #1, the claim of the OP is true in my mind. If atruism is event # 2, then altruism is a virtue and the OP is wrong.

Altruism an an evil can be summed up in this quote from John F Kennedy:

------------------------
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
-------------------------------------------------------

Of course a real estate forum is inappropriate for an in-depth discussion of this concept. A more complete objective discussion on the evil of altruism, by the author of the concept in the popular culture, is here:

http://freedomkeys.com/faithandforce.htm

-Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara, Roman Catholic Archbishop




"
It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."

"There is no other definition of communism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man."
–Che Guevara

If this is evil, we need more of it.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/sponsorship/bill_melinda_gates_warren_buffett.htm

When your spending a trillion a year more than you make, it's about time the government raised the tax rates.

Of course a lot of the problem is your system of government. Congress is designed to be disfunctional.

The solution is NOT TO RAISE MORE TAXES!

The solution is to have people that can balance the budget and get rid of pork politics.

Think of it this way. There are people who can take 100k and make it into 300k and then their are people who if they spent 100k of tax money and you give them 300k of tax money they still wouldn't get anywhere.


I watched GASLAND the documentary today and very eye opening.I am not against the fracking method used by gas companies. I am against pumping chemicals into the environment because it's the cheapest way to do it.I couldn't believe how the gas companies denied wrong doing when the freakin water was catching on fire and the water tests proved it. The gas companies sent letters from THEIR own cronies the water testers who were of course paid off.

Guess who passed a bill EXEMPTING gas companies from any sanction or environmental control. You guessed it Mr. Dick Cheney who is tied into Haliburton.


There is corruption everywhere.It's like my brother said at our re-union on the 4th of July. He said 200 years from now you will still here tv and radio etc. talking about corrupt politics.It is something that will always will be there just like special interest groups.

I believe also that these tax bills will be re-upped. I don't believe the country could survive the increases and being taxed to death with our current economy.

That GASLAND movie was filmed by a guy from my area. There are several properties in my market with gas leases signed. I had one listed for sale and nobody was interested in purchasing the beautiful home and 16 acres.......I loathe the idea of these gas drilling activities...and there are many here in power who are in favor of it because they are ones who signed the leases!

this is going to KILL our area. Our area is a destination for people who want to GET AWAY FROM "it all." Now, they'll be getting away from it - somewhere other than what was once the most beautiful country in the state....

Sorry, rant in progress....off topic but the GASLAND thing got me going.

Those 12 contaminated wells are about an hour's drive from me - maybe an hour and a half.

Yeah it's pretty scary and if people knew what they did to their land they would not sign the lease.

If you did sign the lease you would be smart to get 10 times what they are offering because your land and house will be worthless at that point and you would need to move away. I am surprised that lenders would not put restrictions on buyers having a loan on a property with a gas lease.

Yes. I believe that too. Think of it as an October Surprise. Stocks will soar, confidence will return, middle of the road types will trend back to Obama. The right will flop aroud like a fish out of water. Caught flat footed and speechless, the moderate GOP will break off from the Tea Party tack as soon as pressure lifts from the crowds at home.

There is simply no way O can succeed in his current political condition especially if you add his oversight of the return on taxes to the married, to parents, investors. He really has no other choice if you think about it.

When are we going to start actively talking about bailing out the States ? They're far more important than Wall Street, AIG, GM or Chrysler.

I suppose that's left for AFTER the Fall Elections . . . . if they can stay afloat that long.

At least South Dakota is operating in the black. The rest are going to the pits.

Ron Paul predicted a de facto 10th amendment secession, whereby most states go at it alone, or in loose partnerships with one another, when the checks from the US treas. become worthless.
The idea of bailout really now means....who is allowed access to borrowed funds. If that credit pipeline is interupted somehow get ready to here the question asked (from states to the feds), What have you done for me lately?

Then listen for the answer from at least some of the states, What's the point in hanging around with Uncle Sam anymore?

Why should "we" bail out the states or any government entity for that matter? Why are we spending billions weekly on a war we can't possibly win? Why should we be increasing taxes to cover retirement benefits for govt. workers and military retirees when private companies can cut them loose or reduce their benefits. Why should we pay the prices we do for gas and oil when some company on wall street never touches the stuff and can control pricing and make billions. Why is just one illegal immigrant still in the US? Why is the federal reserve privately owned by big banking institutions? Why do we keep spending money we don't have and creating it out of thin air?

What is going to stop this recession from continuing ?

Very good questions. I think the recession will continue to deepen unless the government stops uncontrollable spending. The housing and credit crisis, IMO, basically happened because there was a feeling that everyone should have the things they want, not need. Just put in on credit or get a loan for it. Now the government is doing the same thing.

Or ourselves ? Who is "we" anyway ?
When "we" unilaterally abrogate all of our obligations, and walk away from our debts. Then the spigots will stop.

Hard assets, denominated in something other than US Dollars, will prevail.

I think your first step should be to stop voting for all of your geriatric senators.

As well Califorina has made some interesting reforms to the primary system which should enable more moderates.

PA did that by getting rid of that old crooked forked-tongued codger, Arlen Specter. GOOD BYE, GOOD RIDDANCE...

Actually, I have to find it again, but that email has LONG been debunked. It's been around under a different guise since before Obama was elected. The TEMPORARY tax cuts are set to expire. THey will be renewed for the average Joe, but those earning over $250k a year will take a hit.

I agree, the US sovereign debt is currently in excess of $13 and growing. Unfunded liabilities are at nearly $110 Trillion.

My belief is that over the next 6-12 months we are going to see a huge increase in tax, and the start of hyper-inflation.

There is a "debt clock" at the following link - makes for some scary reading: http://thedingogroup.com/web/guest/tools

Artiste....c'mon, do you really want to be quoting Che Guevara??

I have a Che quote for you:

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"

"Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become … " Che Guevara

Che was no lover, he was a Stalinist murdering thug. Here is a list compiled by the Free Society Project of documented victims of Che: http://cubaarchive.org/home/images/stori...a_9.30.2009.pdf

Dr. Douglas Young, Professor of Political Science & History at Gainesville State College says it best in his essay:

The meticulous myth of Senor Guevara is of a handsome Argentine heroically helping Fidel Castro’s guerrillas liberate Cuba from Fulgencio Batista’s military dictatorship in 1959. Then he became a global revolutionary icon inspiring the downtrodden to rise up everywhere, even personally leading rebel warriors in the Congo before being executed doing the same in Bolivia in 1967. The (communist) party line says Che personifies the selfless humanitarian courageously fighting for “social justice.” He’s the Marxists’ martyred Christ figure replete with pictures of his half-naked corpse riddled with bullet holes. And the classic poster of an angry young Guevara has scarred countless college dorm rooms for over 40 years, putting a face on the eternally young rebel for angry adolescents everywhere.

The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic’s vehicle of “liberation” was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people. As one of Castro’s top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba’s revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process.

Che was a purist political fanatic who saw everything in stark black and white. Therefore he vociferously opposed freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, protest, or any other rights not completely consistent with his North Korean-style communism. How many rock music-loving teens sporting Guevara t-shirts today know their hero supported Cuba’s 1960s’ repression of the genre? How many homosexual fans know he had gays jailed?

Did the Obama volunteers in that Texas campaign headquarters with Che’s poster on the wall know that Guevara fervently opposed any free elections? How “progressive” is that?

How socially just was it that Che was enraged when the Russians blinked during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and withdrew their nuclear missiles from the island, thus averting a nuclear war? Guevara was such a zealous ideologue that he relished the specter of millions of Cuban lives sacrificed on the altar of communism, declaring Cuba “a people ready to sacrifice itself to nuclear arms, that its ashes might serve as a basis for new societies.” Some humanitarian.

Che was a narcissist who boasted that “I have no house, wife, children, parents, or brothers; my friends are friends as long as they think like me, politically.” This is a role model for today’s “post-political” voters claiming we should get beyond partisanship?

Adding to the ridiculousness of the Che cult is that he was virtually a complete failure. As a medical doctor, he never even had a practice. When put in charge of the Cuban economy at the start of Castro’s government, his uncompromising communist diktats ran it completely into the ground, from which it never recovered. Humiliated, and also angry that Castro wasn’t fomenting enough revolution abroad, he then tried to lead such quixotic adventures in Argentina, the Congo, and Bolivia, failing miserably everywhere while sacrificing the lives of scores of naïve, idealistic young followers as deluded pawns in the service of his personality cult.

Another reason he fled Cuba in the mid-1960s was the complete mess he made of his private life. Though he preached sexual purity to his colleagues, he was a shameless adulterer who abandoned two wives and many children, some legitimate, others not. As a grandson put it, “he was never home.” The public Che who supposedly had such great love for humanity privately couldn’t stand most folks.

Guevara’s promiscuous communist adventurism was the pattern of a terminal adolescent running away from his problems to get caught up in some heroic crusade against his eternal bete noir, “Yankee imperialism.”

So why do so many well-heeled American libs still admire this thug? Are the young simply ignorant of his execrable record and drawn to the image of the dashing young rebel? Do older progressives feel guilt for their free market prosperity, and showing solidarity with Che absolves them? Do hippies-turned-yuppies get nostalgic for their youthful protests and rationalize that the symbolism of Che as a “social reformer” eclipses his actual horrific human rights record? And are some American Guevaraistas truly dangerous leftists who seek to emulate their icon and destroy our free, democratic, capitalist society? Ask that guy wearing the Che t-shirt.

Kill 'em with love, right Artiste?

- El Luchador

My bet is that we are going to follow the same path Japan followed.. until it's too late. Kick the can down the road, keep putting things off and burdening future generations, with politicians afraid to make the hard choices. A long, slow, painful deflationary period (possibly depression), followed by the prospect of hyperinflation. Could take 5-10 years or more.

This entire economy is politically manipulated to serve special interests.. including the real estate industry. Just look around the globe to see what happens when debt becomes unserviceable and you will see the future of America.

Oh so he killed people, was a narcissist and had sex? Gee, he sounds like every leader I've ever known. Since you can't attack the ideas, you attack the person. Wut-evah.

What I don't understand is why North America allowed Corporations to ousource it's manufacturing base (ie:millions of jobs). Cheap chinese goods, temporary growth in corporate profits at the expense of high unemployment. With a good manufacturing base, low unemployment, the gov't would have better tax base.

Overzealous Union contracts and coorporate lobbying.

Why pay someone at home $65,000 a year to manufacture widgets, when you can pay a foriegn worker $23,000 to do make the same widget?


Unions bargained for too many costly benefits for workers, corps lobbied to escaped those future obligations.

One way to look at it is the workers collectively killed the proverbial golden goose.

Another way is that the greedy corporation is skirting it's obligation to to provide well for it's workforce by flexing a powerpacked lobby on the congress.

I think a wise approach is to admit there are elements of truth in both angles. ALso I am sure there are other factors.

The phrase 'Consider the source' comes to mind. People and ideas are inextricably linked.
Encouraging someone to consider an idea without allowing for consideration of the source could be deceptive. If I put up a substantial quote from a well known figure, I am taking a stance, akin to vouching for that source--like it or not.

Ben Franklin was a freak in the sack.

Is that why they named the clock in London after him?

yep : )

and I hear that you're a freak in the sack too and that you once killed a man in Reno just to watch him die ... therefore and ergo, your opinions are not to be considered ; )

The grownups are taking about ideas here - if you need, we can talk sexual perversions and war-mongering elsewhere.

Of course the entire process starts when the consumer buys the cheapest widget they can find and don't care if that cheap widget was made in China.

another thing that affects the price of widgets is how many people are linked to that widget through the mfg process and getting it to the store shelf. adding unecessary layers of costs eventually have an impact. i'm relating that to real estate because there are many unecessary steps and costs that have been created over the years simply to create business for people and companies.

i once read a book about how secondary mortgage market got started and it was created by one guy on wall street who had an idea to package loans and sell them. before that it was all done at local banks - simple and less expensive in terms of steps and closing costs. now everything is insured, packaged, underwritten, processed, filed and invested.

we have to get back to basics and i say we just tell all of our creditors we aren't going to pay them - sorry. we honestly can't so that's not a lie. someone told me a story about how they had the national debt clock webpage up on their computer and thier son walked by and asked "what's that"? and the father said: "that's the national debt that you and your kids will eventually have to pay for". kid said "i'm not paying for that"... and why should they. there's a change a brewing where the next generations don't want to be saddled with the mistakes and debt of their parents.. and how it gets resolved is anyones guess. we could get to rifles and pitchforks and living in communes and i'm all for that if it means my kids don't have to pay for our generations wasteful mistakes.

Federal budget gap tops 1 Trillon YTD

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Federal-bu...set=&ccode=

She also believed everyone should do whatever they want. She had a long time affair with a married man right in front of both their spouses, explaining that they needed to have this affair. She had a very strange life.

THis is true, however, I look at the printing industry in New York City. In the 70s, unions were in control and people who worked in printing earned very very high salaries. Many non union shops were started. I know because my father started one of them. They pay was extremely good and we had full benefits, but if you didn't do your job, you were fired. Obviously the printers union wasn't part of the teamsters, or it couldn't have been done.

I don't know about you PAers....I'm glad you got rid of Specter but you had me worried. This is why. Can you tell me why in the h*ll did you re-elect Murtha? I know the guy is dead now but he basically called you "a bunch of rednecks", thumbed his nose and his constituents, and you still voted him back in. Between that and your overpriced always under construction Pennsylvania turnpike.....sheesh!!!!!

That isn't accurate. If you are implying that anything you want means any kind of self gratification regardless of standard then you have a misunderstanding of Rand's philosophy. Pleasure is not a standard of morality nor is it one she endorsed.

Neither did she believe in anarachy. Government had it's place as the protector of individual rights, not the violator that it has consistently been. Government would be concerned only with police, armed services, and the courts. Everything else would be in private hands.

Her views on individual rights run very similar to those of our founding with one exception, Rand did not accept the belief of a God.

Please explain how "private hands" will rebuild Port Au Prince.

LOL!!!!!

Please explain to me how the Haitian government is going to rebuild Port Au Prince? Last time I checked everything was controlled by the government in Haiti hence a string of dictators and corruption going back more than a century.

And when the US government wants to get something done what do they do? They hire out private contractors. Go figure. That's who is largely reponsible for the rebuilding of infrastructure. The greatest innovations in our society came out of private hands.

The government did not invent airplanes.
The government did not create the automobile.
The government did not create a procedure for open heart surgery.

but....

The government did create the war on poverty.
....and poverty as we know it has disappeared in the US, right?

The government did create the war on drugs.
....and we no longer have drug runners crossing the border, right?

And who pays these private contractors who build our infrastructure - our bridges, our roads and parks?

Clearly your support for Che goes beyond simply wearing Che t-shirts & posting his quotes onlline. Based on you saying "since I can't attack his ideas, I attack the person," it's logical to conclude that you support Che and his Stalinist "methods," which is rather disturbing.

Before responding, try to avoid deflecting like last time with another "well every other leader does it."

If anything, it's the corrupt and inept government that is preventing progress. You must have missed this clip from CNN last night about a private contractor that is waiting (and waiting) on a government approval to remove rubble, but the red tape and delays just keep on coming: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/14/video-red-tape-slowing-haitian-rubble-removal/

Government "efficiency" at its best Artiste...

Who's gonna pay that rubble-remover? Private hands?

I reject your implication. Your question is framed in such a way that ONLY government would want to build bridges, roads, and parks? I know it is hard to believe but there was life before the Fed.

Ironically, one of the things that government should be responsible for doing they are doing poorly. How is it going out there in Cali with the Oakland Police Department? The council members and the over bloated government out there can't take a pay cut but the police force can?

That is "responsible" government using the people as pawns.

In a free society, if you want to pay for the rubble-remover, you will not be stopped.

People in this country are the most charitable in the world, not that they have to be or should be, but they simply are. And they are the most charitable in the world in spite of an increasingly collectivist-statist government apparatus. It is the job of private charity to rebuild societies that have faced natural disasters. And private charity would be far more robust if it were not for the oppressive taxation and powerlust that have painted society with a heavy coat of cynicism and narcissism which are reflexive responses to the injustice of collectivism.

We need to remove government from nearly every equation. The result will be a just society where no man has the right to victimize another simply based on the fact that he has a need.

A need should translate to a request, not a demand. That is the first step towards true justice, true equality of opportunity, and true freedom. Nothing less is fit, or even possible, for a society to call itself free.

Charities aren't taxed and they're not going to rebuild Haiti either.

Charities might not rebuild the infrastructure, but they are rebuilding families and communities and peace of mind. That is a job the gov. could never do.

The gov. might pay for the rubble removers, but whose money are they using to make the payments?

Wow. I bet you were good at dodgeball in school.

Since it "appears" that you missed it I'll clarify the point. The charities aren't taxed but the people upon whom the charities depend are. I give to charity quite a bit compared to my income and I could give more if I wasn't giving the Feds, the State, and the Local level beaucracy oppressive amounts every year. Despite the high level of taxation the people of this country still give a lot.

Incidentally, if you want to talk about the "real" infrastructure of a society it is the family. Government has done a real good job of destroying that, too.

You knocked it out of the park with that one. Great point.

How many dual income families do you know that would consider becoming single income families if the tax code would benefit one income families with a stay at home parent? Consider the impact on the next generation if a million families suddenly had a parent at home to raise children and build stronger families? Instead we have marriage penalties in the tax code and deductions for child care expenses.

You could add to that, incentives for bringing a third generation into the household.

Gloria Steinman admitted she was funded by the CIA for her Ms Magazine and Women's Liberation Movement in the 1970's. Why did they do that? Because it's better to have 2 taxpayers in a home than one taxpayer.

Really? I had not heard that. I will look it up. Sounds fishy.
Just did.
Holy cow. I can't belive the implications of that.

If that's true, and that was the plan, I have even more contempt for government. Please let us know if that's the case.

Gov't doesn't care about you or me -- they're all about providing to the corporations and to their shareholders, who demand more profit and more profit every quarter.

So they broke up our families, ruined our education (SAT scores have steadily fallen since 1963,) broke up our unions, turned us all into "at will employess," made profiting off our illness acceptable, removed tariffs and ruined our trade-balance and then they sent all our jobs overseas.

Gov't doesn't care about you. Stupid, sick and broke is the way to control a population. Then put it under surveillance and fly drones over our cities -- Al Queda couldn't have ruined us better than the United States of Corporate Businesses and the bankers already have. And we paid them to do it.

I did not spend but 10 minutes reading, so I am not an authority on the accuracy of the claim, but it popped up all over my bing search and there were plenty of sites that coroborated it.

thanks Artiste

It sure would be nice if we'd stop blaming each other or the gays, immigrants, progressives, conservatives, Muslims, Women's Lib, divorce, unions and subprime borrowers for our all problems and start looking at the real cause of them.

Corporations have moved their business elsewhere - they're done with us. Leave us stupid, sick and broke - they. don't. care.

If you believe all these statements to be true then why were you defending government?

I didn't and I don't defend our Gov't - its corrupt.

I do defend taxes - it's simply a way for people to pool their money and build bridges & roads, hire police, run hospitals, etc.

I feel that if anyone thinks it'd be cute to go "Galt" on their fellow citizens, I'd like them to know they're going the wrong way about things and that our neighbors didn't cause the collapse of our constitution & economy...

... and no group of Muslim goat herders have a bomb strong enough to knock +10% of Americans out of their homes ... but the banksters did it with a housing bubble. Big Business did it with NAFTA - just look what they did to Detroit, for example.

Will you clarify this? Who are they when you are referring to Detroit?

Wasn't your neighbor who turned Detroit into a bombed out shell and threw people out in the streets. And it wasn't the lazy gay immigrant Muslim ghetto queens either.

Blame our Gov't for NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Good, you believe (correctly) that government is corrupt. So you must also believe that government should be limited to the greatest degree possible. And that less government is better. If you have very little government, it logically follows that you have very little government corruption.

Good. We're all on the same page.

Do believe you should give your spouse permission to carry on an affair under your nose?

Because of sudden death, illness or desertion, I think both parents should be able to support their family should the need arise, so I am in favor of anything that enables both parents to work.

Hey, that's cool. What a great form of insurance? It would be a bumpy ride if I could not work anymore, but my spouse is well educated and trained in different occupations, so we could adapt and survive. I am not an AFLAC user, but some go for that. Also there is life insurance too. But in our case we keep that potential income on the shelf in case of an emergency.

Some people who run government are corrupt. The government can't be corrupt.
I know, I probably have said so myself, mea culpa.

If I may I add to you line of thought, which I tend to agree with.....

Some people who run corporations are corrupt. A corporation can't be corrupt.

Seriously, have you EVER seen a government agency that you thought was well run? I've spent 8 years in the military so I have a more up front view then most... but government jobs are way worse then union jobs.

Being competent doesn't matter. You get your pay raises when you get them. Wasting money doesn't matter-without the profit motive, nobody really cares. There's so many levels of buearacracy-there are people who's full time 120k a year job is supervising one person with a 105k a year job. We hire contractors to do work...but don't follow up and make sure the work is done right, and still usually pay them even if they just decide not to show up! We have what, 60 intelligence agencies? Seriously? 5 seperate branches of the military, with 5 complete command structures, broken down way further in each one.

Just drop by your local code enforcement office sometime. Ours has 4 or 5 people hanging out in the office every time I've been in there...but none of them ever know the answer to any questions (last time they couldn't even figure out where I could get a copy of the code).

Government workers get rediculously expensive pensions. In the military I can retire after 20 years and start collecting a pension for the REST OF MY LIFE at 38. Paying me 50% of my salary for 40ish years for 20 years of work? And that's not even going into all the medical retirement type stuff. Or how much more I make then similarly skilled peers (I make/made more then most of my friends with college educations after 8 years). That's forgetting that in the air force at least, after a couple years you become a supervisor... with 47 layers of supervision to supervise the one new guy who actually does the work. And of course the reams of paperwork that all those supervisors pass back and forth to justify themselves.

Look at the stats- government workers median salaries are almost 30k more then private industry. More of them make 100k plus then private industry. The government spends 40% of the GDP of our country between the various levels. And the only people who care even a tiny bit about it, are generally lawyers who have never had a real job anywhere in the government and don't really have the power to change things at the level of things getting done anyway. All they can do is cut the budget...it's up to long time employees to decide how the money is spent, almost always badly.


If the government ran the entire economy, we would all have starved to death by now. It's been tried- see the USSR? Notice how China has loosened governmental control of the economy and had a corresponding boom?

We need less taxes, fewer laws, less government oversight, less everything that the person paying for is using someone else's money for. Not because the ideas are bad-but because NOBODY spends other people's money as well as they would spend it themselves.

It's quite amazing how most people don't understand what's really going on. The only reason we're not in a depression is because our illustrious leaders pulled out the big credit card and charged 1.5 trillion for a short term fix. That money is gone and added to the tab.

Govt. spending and benefits are outrageous. We need to substantially reduce the pensions of govt workers and ex-military and get a handle on expenses. People need to know where their tax dollars are really going and have a say if they want to keep supporting people who no longer work. Not a popular viewpoint but necessary.

The entire system is flawed. Now Uncle Ben says things may not be as good as he had hoped - imagine that.

You are speaking to one of them. I believe I deserve every penny I get. Unless you have walked in my shoes, you are not an equal.
Service members today are just as much risking their lives as my generation did in the 60's. How much is that sacrifice worth and how can these jobs be compared to civilian life? I don't think they can be compared.

This is a tough situation. I have not walked in your shoes but you have not walked in mine. I do know we can't afford to keep paying the benefits folks like you are getting and honestly I don't think you deserve them. I say that based on working for 20 years and then retiring before the age of 45. You may not like that response but it would be the same for any govt. beneficiary where our tax dollars go. And frankly anyone who feels like they are due continued income after retiring in any profession (be it private sector or military) needs to look at the realities facing our future generations. Ultimately, you don't have much of a say in this because it's taxpayers who are sending you your check and if they want to cut them.. they will. No disrespect but this is a 10,000 lb. elephant in the room that is going to be addressed sooner or later and it's not right what some people are receiving for no longer working. I'm sure I'll catch some heat from this post but we just don't have the money anymore and we can fool ourselves all we want... the bill is coming due.

But the military is more than just working for that 20 years. They are living and breathing in risk on an almost constant basis. I believe that if their pay was broken down to an hourly rate, we would all see that they are barely being paid. The least we can do is aid them in their future endeavors in exchange for what equates to servitude. The government owns them during their time in and they have little or no choice in anything in their life, not to mention their families.

As a non service member, I would enter the idea that we are well served by volunteer troops, and service is not compulsory. I am not a policy maker either, but I feel that somehow gratitude has worked it's way into the benefits of our portectors, as if to say thanks for keeping us safe, AND keeping those of us who do not serve out of harms way. The latest GI Bill, sponsored by Senator Webb is a good example of this.

Those who defend our country and our way of life should look at it as just that. Not as a ticket to a lifetime gravy train. It is not a sacrifice to defend your country. It is an opportunity. While in the military, you are getting free room and board, and you are getting free medical care. And you are being paid money also. And you are getting protection from job competition. In many cases, you are also getting your self-respect as a result of the discipline that is forced on you. Let's face it. A good portion of those who enter the military are lost souls to a degree, who do not have better prospects anywhere else. The military GIVES more lives than it TAKES.

But when the service is done, it's done. You should not expect a lifetime of free everything because you defended your country. You're supposed to defend your country. It is NOT selfless and it is NOT a sacrifice. Nor should it be.

Defending one's country does not allow one to later become a parasite. To do so is an insult to the principle of freedom that the military is fighting for in the first place.

With all due repsect, these are cynical suppositions about hypothetical people. How do these apply to the argument? It seems that the post just reflects your feelings about the military (that is my assumption).

Navarac, don't forget that while they are off service our country and protecting our freedom, they are passing up a job that might offer pay increases, promotions and even retirement benefits or matach a 401k.
Imagine for a minute that you have spent the past 8 years working hard at a job that provides, essentially zero marketable work skills. When you leave the military, should you only be eligible for jobs that have the phrase "do you want to supersize that?"
I don't think you truely meant what you wrote, and if so, I am sorry that you feel that way.

I'm sorry DeeVee, but the facts don't support your argument about them leaving a good job behind - more like the other way around:

As the number of jobs across the nation dwindles, more Americans are joining the military, lured by a steady paycheck, benefits and training.

The last fiscal year was a banner one for the military, with all active-duty and reserve forces meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals for the first time since 2004, the year that violence in Iraq intensified drastically, Pentagon officials said.

<snip>

“When the economy slackens and unemployment rises and jobs become more scarce in civilian society, recruiting is less challenging,” said Curtis Gilroy, the director of accession policy for the Department of Defense.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19recruits.html

There are a lot of false statements in here, which I don't want to get into. I would just like to state that I had a draft notice when I went into the service in 1965, maybe we should go back to the draft to preclude people spouting about things they have not experienced and know nothing about.
Just for starters, how many 100 hour weeks in your life have you worked without overtime pay?

If we are going to cut benefits I'd rather start where the real waste is at. The military provides a valuable service to this country. The biggest amount of fraud and abuse lies within the "social" programs such as food stamps, welfare, and those who are being subsidized to not contribute to our society. Eliminating that issue alone would solve a lot of problems. The military would be one of the last things I would want to fiddle around with.

What I believe about it doesn't matter. You made an inerrant statement about her philosophy and I corrected it. Whether you like Rand or not, agree with her philosophy or not, she felt that she was acting in line with her beliefs. To her, if her husband had valued her he would have inserted himself between them. You can liken the comparison to the relationship in Atlas Shrugged between Dagny Taggart, John Galt, and Fransisco d'Anconia.

The other thing to note is that the Branden's themselves were of questionable character. If your sole source has it's roots there you should look at other alternatives as well. Come to your own conclusion.

You mean our military? the one that hasn't won a war in over 60 years?

Artiste - I'm sure if our military had more of a Che Guevara mindset, the U.S. military would have fared better, correct? Our lack of military success couldn't possibly be the result of the politicians and not the military itself, could it?

Fact is, we haven't won a war in over 60 years for whatever reason - it's a huge waste of precious lives, resources and money.

The military serves as more than just a vehicle for offense. It is also a deterrant. Saying we haven't "won" a war in 60 years (which is debatable) and that being your reason to impune the military is silly.

Weak or no military and you end up like Lebanon which is now a puppet of Syria.

Just to clear something up, I am currently on active duty in the Air Force. I've deployed 4 times in the last 5 years. I've worked a LOT of 80 hour weeks without overtime.

I spend a lot of time looking at freeloaders and worhtless pieces of crap that we can't fire or get rid of. Tons of people who have never deployed and never will, but still get promoted. Who still, despite the argument that they put a lot out, are EXTREMELY well compensated for someone with no prior experience and no education.

How many military jobs have no civilian comparison? Not a whole heck of a lot- even infantry does just fine with police jobs, and the military experience shows a lot to prospective employers.


Sure, the military provides a service. But can the taxpayers get that service at a cheaper price? Get rid of everything except the navy and the ICBM's and we are just as safe from invasion as we are today. Do the other 700bn dollars we spend every year for offensive forces provide 700bn in benefits to the taxpayers? Remember that in 1939 the army was a tiny organization of professional officers and a few enlisted people. They were able to build it up rapidly enough to win that war. Since we've switched to a fully proffesional military that is constantly "ready" we have had serious issues with not being able to handle whatever has come up. Remember-it's a lot cheaper to train up swarms of fresh recruits and use them for a couple years when needed then it is to keep huge numbers of professional soldiers making professional wages.


But Artiste- we have defeated every military opponent we've faced since Korea. Our problem isn't military it's political. Soldiers train to kill people and blow stuff up, it's the keeping the peace and pacifying civilian populations that we have trouble with.

We would not be spending this kind of money if we were not involved in 2 wars. Total military retired pay is less than what the VA gets every year, rightfully so, for the benefit of all those mentally and physically injured soldiers coming home from the wars. Military retired pay will shrink compared to the growing VA's expenses.
So, who is the first one to step forward to say that VA expenses should be reduced for the benefit of civilians?

lol- the department of defense budget is 663 billion. The department of veteran affairs budget is 52 billion. The war spending until this year was off budget, and was running between 100 and 200 billion a year. This year it was included in the budget for dod, but dod's budget went up by 110 bn or so over last year.

Also as a random note, the vast majority of "disabled veterans" recieved their injuries running, or skiing, or playing basketball, or in car wrecks. Losing a leg in a firefight and losing it in a car wreck while on leave is treated the same way (well, mostly, they recently have started changing some things for combat related injuries, but the VA pay isn't affected by those).

Oh, DoD's budget is larger then the entire rest of the discretionary budget put together.

And I thought this article was interesting...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

It has always been that way. Civil service making more money than the military equivalent, but not having to deploy away from their families for extended periods and or risk their lives.

Reducing the military budget will definately reduce the national defecit and I hope we will get there soon.

That's not about them making more then their military equivalent, but making more then non governmental employees.

I compared them because they were performing the identical work as I was, making more money.
As the equivalent to the civilian worker, it went like a roller coaster over the years, sometimes they were ahead other times behind. I guess today they are ahead.

No argument about it, we do have a trillion $ defense budget that needs to shrink.

The military is one branch of govt I don't begrudge their pensions. That said, I disagree that when you leave the military you have zero marketable skills. Many in the military are learning skills. Also, there's no guarantee that in the private sector there will be pay raises and job promotions. Especially when they are not earned. This is the case in many govt jobs that just get pay increases every year no matter what the performance.

if you are an optimist you may not want to read this:

http://home.comcast.net/~lcmgroupe/2010/Article-Extend_and_Pretend-Roadmap.htm

if it comes to fruition don't say you were never warned.

Yet more useless, hypothetical, armageddonist, unprovable, manipulative, trash. But with graphs to make it look like research when it is just designed to get you to buy and embrace the newsletters and forecasts and other equally useless toilet paper.

Yet more useless drivel from navarac. 2/3 of the facts in that article have already occured, and a far more educated and enlightened author is proposing one possiblity for an outcome.

I don't see any inaccuracies in this article - point them out to me if you see them. Anyone else for that matter because I sure hope this doesn't happen because we'll all be standing in line for food rationing if it does. Taxes will go to the moon to fund our unfunded liablities and govt. debt... and housing is toast.

btw, this year alone we have a projected 1.5 trillion (that's trillion with a "T") federal budget deficit (not counting the states). that's money being spent that we don't have and are borrowing. that's just this year. who do you think is going to pay that bill?

Here is someone with a different spin on "the end is near" in our paper today.

The end is not just nigh, it's in May 2011: Springs woman touts Armageddon's date
MARK BARNA
The Gazette
Marie Exley of Colorado Springs is convinced that Armageddon, the end of the world as written of in the Bible, will come next year.
Her conviction is so strong that, though unemployed, she’s paid $1,200 to buy advertising space on 10 Springs bus benches through October to get the word out. The ad says, “Save the Date! Return of Christ: May 21, 2011, WeCanKnow.com.”
“I want to do all I can to get the message out,” Exley, 31, said.
Exley got the idea for the ads from listening to Family Radio, a Christian broadcast heard on 55 stations in the United States, including KFRY, 89.9 FM, in Pueblo. It’s hosted by controversial Christian leader Harold Camping.
Camping predicts Christ will return on the date in Exley’s advertisement. Listeners in other states have also purchased outdoor ad space to proclaim the date.
The ads are written and designed by the creators of WeCanKnow.com, an Ohio-based web site devoted to reminding people of Christ’s return.
“We hope it raises awareness and sends people to their Bible,” said Robert Dunham, spokesman for WeCanKnow.com. “Time is running out, but there is still time for salvation.”
Predicting Christ’s return and how the world would end is a controversial subject within Christianity.
Camping teaches that it will happen with Christ’s return, followed by Armageddon, in which nonbelievers are destroyed by fire, and the Rapture, in which believers are taken up to heaven.
Christian leaders have predicted the imminent end of the world since the founding of the faith. Some who base their ideas on the Mayan calendar say the world will end in 2012.
But others say the time of Christ’s return and world’s end can never be known.
“It’s just wrong,” said John Fuller, pastor of Harbor Lights Church in Colorado Springs. “Those who make predictions are just trying to get recognition for themselves.”
Exley has bittersweet feelings about Camping’s prediction.
“There are things I felt I always wanted to do — get married, have a kid, travel more,” she said. “But it’s not about what I want out of life. It’s about what God wants.”

Schwartzenager declares fiscal emergency in CA, again:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2822176520100728

glad i don't live in CA. it would be interesting to find out what percentage of their tax dollars go to support illegal immigrants there.

as a citizen of CA, what are you going to do to help fix the problem(s) of your state? ... including illegal immigration and welfare abuse... what can you do?

We're going to take their jobs away, of course!

"Agriculture in the United States is dependent on an immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all crop workers working in American agriculture were born outside the United States. According to government statistics, since the late 1990s, at least 50% of the crop workers have not been authorized to work legally in the United States.

We are a nation in denial about our food supply. As a result the UFW has initiated the "Take Our Jobs" campaign.

Farm workers are ready to welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field. We will use our knowledge and staff to help connect the unemployed with farm employers. Just fill out the form to the right and continue"
http://www.takeourjobs.org/

Change your philosopy of life to abhor statism, collectivism, socialism, and compulsory altruism. Translate that new philosophy to the political realm by voting for people who share your basic values. Problems solved. Over time.

The problems cannot and will not be solved by changes to policy, the policies arise from bankrupt philosophy and bankrupt morality. Until the population actually learns to think critically, we will meander from one form of statism-collectivism to another in a futile attempt to handle each new "crisis". Changing various rules can change nothing because rules are based on a philosophical foundation, and in the case of Contemporary America, that foundation is disintegrated and broken.

A new foundation needs to be built, and the bricks must be made of individualism, freedom, competence, excellence, rationality, and primacy of the individual. The current foundation is built with bricks of mediocrity, collectivism, mysticism, compulsion, and most of all: ENVY. Such a foundation will never result in a society that anyone could ever be proud of.

Changing welfare or immigration rules at this point is the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It's the enshrinement of greed and avarice that we need to fix.

I want higher taxes. The HIGHEST taxed people are the HAPPIEST people. Why's that? It's because their basic needs are met so they've more time & energy to focus on the higher needs. And their neighbor's needs are met so there's less chance of being victimized by desperate people. They got a college education and they're not in debt for the rest of their life because of it. They get fixed when they get sick or injured.

Think back to your most recent happiest time - it had nothing to do with your bank account or your home - it had everything to do with your health and the love of those you love and love you right back, didn't it?

OTOH, the least-taxed people are the most miserable.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

Okay, you cannot be serious, really?

My most recent happiest time was when I was on vacation with my family. Why, because I had made enough money to pay for it, and I didn't have to stress about the high cost of souviners, dining, activites, etc.

And then, when all was said and done, we were all happy to be home, in our 3 bedroom 3 bath house, not having to share 1 room and 1 bath.

My most happiest thought toward the future, is to be able to do it all over again!

As a working family, we dont' spend much time together. Working all day, kids go to school, we share a family dinner, on nights when my daughter doesn't have sports, watch 1 hour of tv, then go to bed.

My happies time is when I get to afford to pay for my family time together. Raise taxes, those times will be much less frequent!

Wouldn't you like to spend more time w/your kids?

Wish granted.

There was a time when there was no irs, social security or federal reserve.

Was it a time of lower tax rates?

at one time there were no taxes. i can only find charts going to 1913 - here is a link - highest tax rate then was 7%. In 1942 however the top tax rate was 88%, yes... 88%.

take a look at the history of tax rates in this chart and you will see what happens when the country gets into a crisis.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Wasn't 1942 the middle-class/industrial boom generation and the height of the Union memberships?

Anyways, I think we're not taxed enough and it's unfair to make .5% of the country sacrifice for war - referring to service-members and their family's who pay the greatest price. Least we could do is ration chocolate, gas, nylon and melt ipods down for metal or something like that for them...like they used to do in the olden days in order to support a war -- back in the days when war-profiteers were convicted of treason...

LOL! You are a walking talking contradiction.....



That's pretty warped. You say the government is corrupt yet you want them to enforce higher taxes? Last time I checked, the government was the only entity with the ability to enforce taxes.
And now that same corruption will give you better schools and healthcare, too? All that power concentrated in one central area that you call corrupt?

This would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Didn't say I wanted this US government. I'm not impressed w/our facade of democracy at all.

Money is our God. Institutionalized unrestrained pursuit of profit and exploitation of human and natural resources is not in our best interests:

As I said, you are a walking talking contradiction.

You want more government but not this government. Yet, no matter what government you get it is going to be run by the same type. Human beings. All with vunerability and all subject to corruption. Centralized as the heart of commerce and health, there will be no checks or balances. No accountability. The seat of power will rest in one place. Then, of course, you'll bemoan that government too....but I didn't want THAT government!!!

By working in the private sector you are a contradiction. Your pursuit of a better life which you will achieve by means of profit is contrary to the words typed on these pages. If you want to pay more taxes, no one is stopping you. Lead the way. If people see it makes you happier then why would they not follow? Instead of forcing them at the point of a gun, show them the beauty of it. Smile while you write your checks to the local, state, and federal adminstrations. I suggest, if you really believe this that you get a smaller house with a smaller payment, drive a beater and use all the extra money at the end of every month you have to pay more taxes so you'll be a happier person.

Incidentally, the government pursuit of taxation is a pursuit of profit. It just fails over and over since they don't know the meaning of the word "budget". Which is why the political establishment then add supporting incomes by getting into bed with businesses or threatening them with shakedowns.

I think that you assume a lot more than you actually know about my opinions, sorry.

I've only responded to what you've shown to be your opinion. Did I make up the words I put in quotes or are those your words? What about this one?



Did you not say that? Who is stopping you from paying more?



Did you not say that? Wouldn't it be logical then if you took more of your money and gave it to the government for taxes that you would be happier? I didn't make that up, you said it.

What about this one?



Government enshrines greed and avarice. Businesses are only enabled by the power of government. A monopoly could not exist without government controls.

Fixing greed and avarice then? What is your fix?

Bravo!

I really recommend others follow the link. Thanks for posting it broker. Very interesting information.

yeah, wasn't the income tax originally supposed to be temporary to fund WWI or something like that?

Pardon my ignorance here, regarding the tax chart. . . .in 1941 the chart shows a rate of 81% for those making 5,000,000. However in 1944, the rates only go to 200,000 and show a 94% rate on that amount. There must have been a load of deductions allowable. The chart shows if a person made 200,000 a year they got to keep $12,000?

I would like to also see statistics showing how many people earned each category of income, as I remember in the late 60s when my parents bought a 3,000 sq ft house on an acre my dad earned in the mid $20,000s, working in advertising in Manhattan, which at that point was a really good salary.

Maybe you can dig that up and present it here. I don't think there were nearly as many deductions back then and it's primarily because of PAC's that most of them are in the tax code now.

Cool Parceyrider - your dad was a Mad Man!!!??? How neat is that.

Mad Men is my favorite show but I can't watch it anymore...

Sorry for the hijack - back to our tax thread

Regarding this point in bold, the rate is marginal, so it is the rate for the $$$ earned above and beyond $200,000. The tax rates for the earlier dollars are constant for all earners, as I understand it. Think of it as a graduated system. The more you make the more levels you are in.

Taxes on the economy are like rake on a poker game. I play a lot of poker (sorry for the analogy lol).

You have to figure out if a bet is profitable- for example, if I'm risking one dollar to win one dollar, I have to win more than 50% of the time for it to be a profitable bet.

The same goes for investments. When someone invests in a business they risk all of their capital to keep, say, 70% of any profit. Obviously this means that some risks are no longer profitable, so that money doesn't get invested and that business never starts-so those new jobs don't get created.

It's easy to look at the people who are out of work and only get by because of government redistribution. It's a lot harder to see the jobs that those people might have had if not for the taxes in the first place. Remember that the taxes are hardly a linear thing-take 10 dollars from the economy, give 10 dollars in assistance...it's take 10 dollars from the economy and pay someone 8 dollars to give out 2 dollars in asssistance.

In the very simple example, a business doesn't get created that would employ people to produce things for everyone, plus a worker gets a job using up money that also doesn't produce anything.

The more that is produced, the more everyone's standard of living goes up. If you think of the total goods produced in the country as X and you double that, then the total consumption will also double. That's twice as much food and xboxes and cars to go around for everyone. Remember that government doesn't produce ANYTHING. It's just a question of whether the lower classes would benefit more from a stronger economy or from the handouts.

People often forget that there is a cost incurred to process a tax dollar. By the time a tax dollar makes its way through the government machine only a fraction of the original dollar remains. I've read somewhere around 15 percent. Regardless of the percentage, a dollar can only have its maximum purchasing power when it is spent in the private sector. I think the government should give tax credits to high income earners for buying American. That way, the money goes directly into the economy.

I bought my first house in 1986, according to that website, our tax bracket was 42%, and mortgage interest rate was 15%! I was 20, too young to pay attention, or know anything, but Yikes, if it were that way now, NOBODY would be able to afford a house! People are losing their homes now because their ARMS adjusted to 7% and the tax rate Caps at 35%!

WOW, eye opener!