Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign in

[jmjj215]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign in

The answer is that the administrative is totally chauvanistic, and daycare is a dirty word

Being chauvanistic is obviously negative. But I have to admit that your comment strikes a chord with me - not necessarily in a good way. I for one believe that kids really, really need their mom at home. This has absolutely nothing to do with women in the workforce. It's not chauvanistic to believe a woman does absolute miracles in the lives of her kids by being a full-time mom. What would be chauvanistic is to believe that a woman can't do what a man can do in the workforce - which is totally a stupid and chauvanistic thing to think.

Am I making sense here? My wife stays home full-time with our 11 month old (today) boy and she has a very, very tough job. However, that's what she, and I, wanted in the beginning. She would have it absolutely no other way. I hardly think I'm a chauvanist by thinking that that is what's best for my children. I'm just glad I married a girl that thinks the same thing. She's much smarter, harder-working, and capable than I am in every facet of life. You heard that straight from my mouth. She's doing wonderful things being a stay-at-home mom and I love her for it.

So just because a male thinks that having a full-time mom for his kids is what's best, please do not label him a chauvanist.

[jmjj215]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign

Also, you-know-who blathers on about the traditional family (which existed for, like, 20 years), so I guess only women on Welfare should work? What a crock.

I didn't quite understand what you meant here. Could you expand a bit?

[jmjj215]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign in

The usual suspects. The RightWing of the party shot it down, but they were all for Corporate Welfare.

But what were their reasons for shooting it down? What was the rationale?

[VJW]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign in

They have a warped view that subsidizing the permanent underclass that they've created is somehow bad policy, whereas subsidizing the wealthy and subsidizing Corporate America with Corporate Welfare is good policy.

I can't explain failed RightWing economics. It doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.

#

[Roger]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign

I'm all for lower taxes on working families as well, as long as the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share, which they are not.

In recent report released by the Government Accountability Office (the investigative arm of Congress), in the year 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes. Among the largest corporations - the 1% of all corporations that own 93% of all corporate assets - 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes. It's only gotten worse since then.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp

.

If you want everyone to pay their "fair" share, you should be in favor of a Sales Tax. If you want to pay a tax, you buy something. If you don't want to pay a tax, you don't buy something. Easy to see, easy to calculate, easy to understand. Plus it's fair - you decide how much tax you pay.

[Roger]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign

Frankly, a "Flat Tax" would be an unmitigated disaster.

I In an appendix to their book, Hall and Rabushka estimated that their flat tax proposal would increase the tax bill for the lowest income families by 78 percent, and decrease the tax bill for the very richest families by 41 percent.
So you are saying that is is a good idea for the wealthy to pay a larger percentage of their income than everyone else? Do they have anything to say about it?


A 'Flat Tax', or a 'National Sales Tax', or the so-called 'Supply-side Tax Cuts' for the Rich & Corporate, are all merely different fronts in the same effort to shift the burden of taxation from the wealthy and the corporations onto working people.

I believe that if you would look at the people in Washington who supposedly represent us, you will find that most of them belong to the wealthy category. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that if the tax system is really making the wealthy pay more than anyone else, why hasn't a Flat Tax already been passed if it will allow them to keep more of their money? Seems kinda strange, to me.

[cercis]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign in

I believe babies benefit by being home with their dad. And I'm lucky enough to have married a man who agrees.

Actually, I believe a baby benefits by having a loving, committed provider. Many times that is a parent (mother or father) but often, it's a nanny or daycare worker. Our puritan work ethic is so ingrained in us that many men and women can't relax at home, they feel lazy and dependent and grow to resent being at home and the baby that is keeping them there. I saw it with several of my friends.

I knew that I would have a problem with it, so my DH quit his job and stayed home with our first child. He brought him to me for nursing sessions at lunch and sometimes during breaks. I nursed him for 17.5 months (until I was 4-5 months pg and developed thrush).

After I developed the mothering skills and got into the idea of partnership and each of supporting the other in various ways, I was ready to stay home with the 2nd when I got laid off (which worked out well since I would have been job searching while 9months pg).

However, it was a major sacrifice for us to do this. We went into debt trying to carry health insurance and provide food. If we could have worked out part time child care (not offered in our area) then DH could have worked part time and it would have made all the difference in our income. Now that both are school aged, we're catching back up, but it's still difficult.

We also collected EIC for several years. So the gov't was sending us money to subsidize us staying home (we just only got it in April).

[VJW]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign

If you want everyone to pay their "fair" share, you should be in favor of a Sales Tax.

Not at all.

Sales taxes are regressive, and just as with all consumption taxation, the Middle-class would pay almost 3 times as much of their income, proportionally, as the wealthy, and the poor would pay 5 times as much of their income, proportionally, as the wealthy.

If you want to pay a tax, you buy something. If you don't want to pay a tax, you don't buy something. Easy to see, easy to calculate, easy to understand. Plus it's fair - you decide how much tax you pay.

Except you get killed by the necessities, and it's much more unfair.

#

[VJW]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign

I believe that if you would look at the people in Washington who supposedly represent us, you will find that most of them belong to the wealthy category. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that if the tax system is really making the wealthy pay more than anyone else

Which it doesn’t.

why hasn't a Flat Tax already been passed if it will allow them to keep more of their money?

Quite simply, because the vast majority of the American people, whose tax bills would go up dramatically under a ‘Flat Tax’, are against it.

Seems kinda strange, to me.

And you have some strange beliefs. Go figure.

#

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign in

VJW, in all of your posts you advocate the taxation of high earners. I have three questions for you:

1) Whilst there are exceptions to the rule in general high earners are paid their high income because of supply and demand, ie there are few people capable of doing what they do so they earn alot for their work. That is supply, then of course these people must be in demand, be it sports stars that sell alot of tickets to see them perform or doctors that treat alot of patients. To believe this means that these high earners have to be giving value to society because if they weren't then they wouldn't be earning high wages. So surely to take money from those giving most value to society is an odd theory isn't it because these individuals must be giving back to society services of similar value to the financial rewards they are being given by society. You may not agree with the salaries earnt by certain individuals and in a free market you make your choice by not giving them or their organisation any money, but what you cannot argue with is the fact that if enough people are buying their services then their wage is justified as giving value.

2) I presume that when you adopt your Robin Hood taxation policies to give to the poor that you wish them to assume lofty positions in society and succeed in life, whatever success may be for each individual. As in my previous point when an individual reaches a position of value to society their wages generally rise proportionately to their value to society. In your world these individuals who you wanted to help before would now have large chunks of their labour taken away from them. Where then is the incentive to succeed?

3) It is often said that it is impossible to rule innocent men and that the only power governments have is over criminals. If there are no criminals then they 'make' them by forcing so many individual activities to break the law. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? Create a nation of law breakers and you can then play on their guilt. If such a theory is correct, could it be possible that governments want people to be poor and ill-educated so that they continue to serve a purpose? Could it be that after decades of welfare we continue to find people who are illiterate and destitute that government provided assistance is not the answer? Unless you believe that there will always be those that are poor and needy you have to question the success of government activities because to succeed for them would be to truly minimise the role of government in our lives.

[VJW]

Re: Tax revenues surging, deficit shrinking, yet tax rates are lower. Now just reign in

VJW, in all of your posts you advocate the taxation of high earners.

No, I advocate that the wealthy pay their fair share of the tax burden.

1) Whilst there are exceptions to the rule in general high earners are paid their high income because of supply and demand, ie there are few people capable of doing what they do so they earn alot for their work. That is supply, then of course these people must be in demand, be it sports stars that sell alot of tickets to see them perform or doctors that treat alot of patients. To believe this means that these high earners have to be giving value to society because if they weren't then they wouldn't be earning high wages.

Actually, the majority of the wealthy either inherited their wealth or received help from their wealthy families to achieve their wealth, so “supply and demand” does not come into play.

2) I presume that when you adopt your Robin Hood taxation policies to give to the poor that you wish them to assume lofty positions in society and succeed in life, whatever success may be for each individual. As in my previous point when an individual reaches a position of value to society their wages generally rise proportionately to their value to society. In your world these individuals who you wanted to help before would now have large chunks of their labour taken away from them.

I have no idea where you derived this reference from. I do find it rather interesting that you want to project your beliefs to supposedly define my “world”. That’s a ‘Straw Man’ argument.

Where then is the incentive to succeed?

Certainly not in the policies that you are advocating. The incentives of RightWing economics are exactly backwards.

3) Could it be that after decades of welfare we continue to find people who are illiterate and destitute that government provided assistance is not the answer?

And that after decades of Corporate Welfare and welfare to the rich, it has never produced the promised prosperity, so perhaps throwing money at the Rich & Corporate is not the answer ?

Unless you believe that there will always be those that are poor and needy you have to question the success of government activities because to succeed for them would be to truly minimise the role of government in our lives.

Actually, no.

* Poverty INCREASED during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, when RightWing economic policies were followed.

* Poverty DECREASED every year during the eight years when President Clinton reversed Reaganomics.

* Poverty has once again INCREASED every year of the current administration, who has returned to failed RightWing economic policies.

~

* The Standard of Living of the vast overwhelming number of American workers DECREASED during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush,

* The Standard of Living of the vast overwhelming number of American workers INCREASED during the 8 years of President Clinton.

* The Standard of Living of the vast overwhelming number of American workers DECREASED every year that the current administration has held office.

The historical evidence is just as dramatic here as it is was with tax policy, given that the two periods of greatest economic prosperity in the 20th Century occurred when taxes on the wealthy were the highest.

You are arguing in favor of policies that have been historically documented as dismal failures.

#