Carlene

Why the rich should pay more taxes --Mark Rosenfelder For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income. Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay. Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount? In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government. Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it. Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire. Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry. Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor. Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages.) Who gets to sit on the tax? Come election season, Steve Forbes, among other millionaires, will be pushing plans for a flat tax. These proposals need to be absorbed with a carload of salt. A plan where everyone's taxes are lowered is of course simply a tax cut. Here, once again, the question to ask as a voter and citizen is, what government services do you want to cut? Somehow I don't think Steve is proposing to slash corporate welfare or defense. It's more likely a way to attempt to cut social spending through the back door. People like to hear about tax cuts; they don't like to hear about service cuts, even though they're financially equivalent. A revenue-neutral plan won't change total receipts any-- it'll just redistribute it. Here you have to ask, who gets shafted? You can't exactly make the poor pay more taxes-- they don't have the money. That leaves only one way to flatten the tax rates-- that is, reduce the taxes the rich pay: soak the middle class. If tax rates go down on the rich, and we're not cutting total taxes, the middle classes have to pay more. So Steve and the others want the government, already pretty much a subsidiary of the large corporations, to be subsidized even more by the rest of us. About all I can say is, if the American people are stupid enough to swallow this, they deserve to pay for it. This is pretty shameless, but it's much of a piece with Republican practice in general. For years some nosy folks (such as Sen. Moynihan) have been investigating what states pay the most to the federal government, and which states get the most benefits back. What a surprise: the biggest winners are the western and southern states that vote Republican; the biggest losers are the northeastern states that vote Democratic. Those who whine the most about taxes are those who suck the most from the public trough. They won't be happy, I suppose, until they can reconstitute a truly medieval system, in which the nobles pay no taxes at all.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred BEFORE I was born. I may be old, but I'm not THAT old! I am just a student of history....and I saw the movie. I've never been to Hawaii, but I would love to go. Friends have told me that it isn't unusual to see Japanese and American veterans embrace at the site of the Arizona memorial. I am so impressed by that. There is a KFC in Hanoi now. There will probably be one in Baghdad someday, too. Peace...it's a GOOD thing.

Karik... I would never belittle anyone for not knowing how to vote. I have never, however, been to any polling place where there weren't people falling all over themselves wanting to help you. All you have to do is show up....really. When each of my children turned 18, I made them register to vote. I got the form, filled it out, and made them sign it. Then I mailed it back in myself. I still remind them to vote. The two who are not so good about it will tell you that I nag them, and they would be right. I would like to amend my previous statement... IF YOU KNOW HOW TO VOTE BUT CHOOSE NOT TO, YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL. IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO VOTE, PLEASE ASK SOMEONE TO HELP YOU. YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE ONE ON WHICH ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE PREDICATED.

I apologize. I assumed that you meant Pearl Harbor. Either way, that makes two attacks on US soil prior to 9/11.

Please define "poor". Inheritance taxes do NOT hurt the poor...they don't even touch the poor, or anyone even close to being poor, per my definition of the word. Google "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" and you will see that it completely phases out the federal estate and gift tax by 2010. Between 2006 and 2009, the first $2,000,000 of an individual's estate is excluded from taxation. In 2009, that amount automatically will jump to $3,500,000. In 2010, the tax is completely eliminated. The post-act law, however, will bring it back in 2011, with an exclusion of "only" $1,000,000, unless Mr. Bush is successful in preventing that. Your next door neighbor's heirs will only be taxed on their mom's bequest if she has another couple of million in the bank. Even then, they will only pay taxes on that portion of the estate that EXCEEDS the exemption, and on a sliding scale. A 50% tax rate would apply to an estate of approximately 5 million dollars. And that's probative assets, of course. Everything sheltered in family trusts, POD/right of survivorship accounts, etc would be exempted from any tax whatsoever. As for Social Security, you, as a young woman, stand to lose the most by Bush's privitization plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "to raise the rate of return for future generations by moving to a funded system, some generations must receive rates of return even lower than they would have gotten under the pay-as-you-go system." It will be your generation, Fay that bears the cost of converting SS. Financial analysts with no political ties believe that benefits for an average wage earner who retires in 2037 at age 67 will be as much as 20 percent lower than they would be under conventional SS, given historical rates of return over a 50 year period. Social Security, as we know it now, is a much better deal for women than for men. Women work fewer years, earn less, and live longer. Women often receive higher SS benefits as dependents or survivors of their husband's SS account. Under privatization, all that goes away. If your husband dies suddenly at age 27 (as mine did), leaving you with 4 pre-school children (as I was), you will get zilch under Bush's proposed system, except what your spouse managed to contribute during his brief stint as a member of the workforce. Other minorities would also be more vulnerable under privatization. They not only earn less, but they are less able to accumulate resources than the wealthier, better educated Anglos. And what about all that "small government" stuff? Private retirement accounts would add enormous administrative burdens, at taxpayer expense. The government would have to establish and track a "savings account" for each worker, or about 150 million accounts - each of them tied to different investments. Great Britain began to implement privatized retirement years ago and it has been a dismal failure. To quote from the Adair Turner Report: "What looked like a very good idea from a financial perspective in cutting costs has put pensioner poverty, which had been all but eradicated, back on the agenda."

Absolutely. George Bush does not care about the GOP, the USA, or Y-O-U. He has spent his administration paying back old political debts, solidifying his VERY long-term association with the Saudis, and setting up himself and his family for many generations to come, financially speaking. He will eventually go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time. He has no conscience. The men and women who have died in the Middle East under his leadership, and who will die today, tomorrow, and next week mean nothing to him. Bush, on meeting with the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who pointedly stated that she held him to blame for her son's death, simply said, "We see things differently." Yeah, George, we do. You're damned straight we do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mindy...you are NOT an idiot. People name-call when they have run out of intellectual ammunition, and they condescend just to make themselves feel superior. Don't buy into it. Your vote counts as much as the next guy's, and you have every right to cast it for whomever you want. Who you vote for is not the first issue. The first issue is to vote - period. IF YOU DO NOT VOTE, YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO CRITICIZE ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL. Unfortunately, none of us are as educated as we should be about political issues. We are too quick to spout rhetoric from unreliable sources. (You mean everything that falls into my "you've got mail" box isn't 100% true? Well color me gullible.) Politics is a dirty game. Historically the players have all too often been self-serving, power-hungry, ego-tripping liars. It's terribly hard to find an honest politician. In fact, I think you'd have to go somewhere other than Washington DC to do that.

Voting is indeed empowering, Karik! But I think this thread has not self-destructed because of the contributors. We have conducted ourselves like adults (as we should at all times, of course). We are an example to everyone on the forum that people can disagree without being disagreeable. Moderators, do we get a gold star?

I don't have enough money to be a Republican. If I did, I might agree with some of my Republican friends, most of whom, incidentally, can't afford to be Republicans either, but some of them haven't realized it yet. They hear "lower taxes" and "small government" and they think the Republican party actually means to deliver on those. Well....good luck with that. The taxes that George wants to lower are the ones that enrich already wealthy people, like corporate income taxes and inheritance taxes (actually, he wants to eliminate that one entirely). He wants to privatize Social Security, which is just a fancy way of saying he wants to eventually do away with it. When Bush says he favors "lower income taxes" he means he wants to lower the maximum percentage that can be levied against an individual's adjusted gross income. That isn't going to help you unless you earn a ton of money every year - as in MILLIONS! He also proposes tax credits and watered-down environmental restrictions for huge corporations. Exxon Mobile, you deserve a break today...NOT! "Small government" is a Republican myth. Besides, it isn't the government's size we should be concerned about - it's the military industrial boys (like Haliburton) that pocket BILLIONS in no-bid contracts and are, in fact, the only ones who have benefited from our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. My son works for KBR (Haliburton) and has deployed twice to Iraq. The project he was working on was estimated to take 15 years to complete. Does that sound like a plan to bring our troops home any time soon? We are not going to win the war in Iraq. If I know that, surely Bush and Rumsfeld do, too. You cannot intimidate suicide bombers and religious fanatics. These people do not fear us. They do not fear death. And they do not want American forces occupying their turf. No matter how much they hated Sadam Hussein, they hate us more. And while we're on the subject, let us not forget that as despicable as Sadam Hussein was, he had NOTHING to do with 9/11. And in conclusion.... I just want to say that we have been on here for quite some time, discussing one of the top two hot button topics (the other being religion, of course) and not once has anyone flamed another member. No one has called names, made accusations, yelled, threatened to leave the forum, or sent nasty PMs (at least I have not heard of any). Take a bow, guys and girls. You are all a class act, and although I may not agree with you politically, I would be proud to shake your hand and buy you a cup of coffee.

In Texas we do not have a state income tax (thank God!). Schools are supported by property taxes levied at the local level. The so-called Robin Hood plan does level the playing field somewhat. I say "somewhat" because there is still a huge disparity between the quality of education in the Carroll School District (Southlake) and inner city schools in Dallas.

No kidding! Did I care that Bill was fooling around in the oval office? Of course I did! It cheapened the presidency and made a laughing stock of us in front of the whole world. But was it fatal? No, it wasn't. No one died as a result of Bill's frat boy indiscretion (although I'm sure Hillary WANTED to kill him). I think the one time Clinton told the whole truth was later, when he said, "She made me feel young". I found that very poignant, especially since Bill and I are very close to the same age. Anyway, I'm with you...Clinton behaved badly, but Bush is deadly.

What about the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? That attack - a car bomb - was courtesy of Arab Islamist terrorists. How soon we forget.

Anybody besides Dick Morris think this is actually a possibility? To a lot of the men I know, this would be the worst possible scenario! Who ya gonna vote for, Bubba? I LOVE IT!!!!!!!! Dick Morris: Condoleezza vs. Hillary Unless the Republican Party can break the Democratic hold over minorities and reduce or eliminate the gender gap, it will fade into history, Dick Morris tells NewsMax's Insider Report. Just as the British Liberal Party died in the face of economic changes, so the Republican Party may wither away as the nation's demographics move away from its white male base. By 2008, blacks and Hispanics combined will likely account for 28 percent of the vote (in 2000 they were 24 percent). Can Republicans count on getting the 70 percent of the white vote they will need to overcome these minorities if they vote solidly Democratic? Not very likely. Only a black or Hispanic Republican candidate can hope to puncture the Democratic minority group base. And with Hillary Clinton as the likely Democratic candidate in 2008, who better to contest for minorities and women than Condoleezza Rice?

But that was Columbus and his guys, right? Not the "founding fathers", meaning G. Washington and his crew. Edited to add this: Never mind...I remember now...it was VD that Columbus and his shipmates gave the Indians.

Cashley...did you delete your earlier post? Please...don't let us scare you off. We may not all agree with you, but we will NEVER disagree with your right to argue your point of view. As far as I'm concerned, a poster loses that right only when he/she starts making personal attacks on other people. Smack my beliefs around all you want, but be nice to me, the person, or I'll cry. :think

Yes, I have. Was that deliberate, or did it wreak havoc simply because the Indians had no immunity to the disease?

The Lutherans use the "Catholic version"...go figure. Martin Luther, being the original "protester", you would think otherwise, wouldn't 'ya?

Gonnabethin... I worked in social services for 15 years (in Tarrant County). I saw lots of abuse of "the system", and I saw the system abuse many struggling, desperate people, too. The problem is that everyone wants to see their entitlement dollars go only to "honest, hard-working Americans" who "appreciate it". There is, unfortunately, no practical way to achieve that. It is a lot more complex than "kick the lazy slackers off the welfare roles". As long as there are entitlement programs, there will be some degree of fraud; it's inevitable. But the solution is not to punish people for being poor. What amazes me is that John Q Public does not seem nearly as outraged by the BILLIONS of dollars misdirected, stolen, and wasted by those whose job it is to be good stewards of our public funds. I promise you, there was way more money thrown away, misused, and stolen by dishonest, lazy, unqualified, underhanded, good-old-boy politicians and government employees last year than was collected by the parents of premature babies. (I'm also curious as to how one deliberately delivers their baby prematurely.) I agree with you about the evacuees. In 14 months they should at least have started to get back on their feet, and many have. Lots more haven't, and their "relief" should have been curtailed long before now. Bear in mind, however, that these programs were all headed up by the Feds. The Katrina mess was an administrative abortion from day one. Everyone, I think, agrees with that. "Brownie", far from doing "one hell of a good job", stank as head of FEMA and NEVER should have been appointed. He had ZERO credentials for the job. The man's area of expertise was in judging horse shows! He got the job because Bush owed someone a favor, and that's abusing the system, too. I also agree with you that the system is flawed and broken. Handout programs are not the answer. They sap a family's initiative and not everyone will use them as a ladder out of poverty, but as a stopping place where they can live forever, albeit not comfortably. In Texas you can't really live exclusively on welfare. You can get a Section 8 housing subsidy if you are elderly or a single mom, or if you are disabled. And you can get food stamps and Medicaid...maybe some WIC coupons if you have pre-school kids. There are time constraints on food stamps, however, so sooner or later, the state is going to stop feeding you. You still have to find a way to pay for utilities, transportation, clothing, laundry, shoes, haircuts, etc. In other words, you do have to work and earn some cash, somewhere. But that's small consolation to people who work 40 hours a week and are picking up the slack. I am raising a grandchild who is on Medicaid. Because we do not have court-ordered custody of her, our group medical plan will not allow us to add her, even though we are willing to pay the additional premium, so the state considers her to be in the same category as a foster child, or a homeless child. Mostly I do it all by mail and phone, but occasionally I have to make a trip down to my local Dept of Human Services, and I absolutely HATE it. I hate seeing caseworkers treat other human beings like dirt just because they can, and some of them definitely do. They are condescending, impatient, and rude and the clients have to swallow their pride and take whatever they dish out. I also want to tie some of the clients down and force feed them some common sense and self-respect. They come to the food stamp office loaded down with bags and bags of fast food because you can easily be there the whole day, and they might get hungry. Didn't they ever hear of a Peanut Butter and jelly sandwich??? And because it's such a boring, depressing place (and it really IS), they bring video games to entertain their kids, while they talk non-stop on their cell phones!!!!! HELLO....is there something wrong with this picture???? I hate it when I see young parents lay a baby on that nasty, disgusting linoleum floor to change a diaper, or pick up a dropped pacifer and give it back to a dirty, already sick looking toddler. I hate it when they leave crying because they were turned down for food stamps (and it never fails - someone always does). I feel like I want to explain to everyone around me that I don't belong in this place, and I hate that, too.

I understand your point and certainly don't disagree, however, Native Americans became victims of genocide much later than the founding fathers era. Our country was not founded on genocide, it just prospered as a result of it, which is just as bad, of course.

It's $15,000 self-pay in the US, too - give or take a bit. US hospitals charge more than Mexican facilities. US doctors are forced to pay very high overhead expenses, including malpractice insurance premiums. And I suspect they are a little greedy and have hugely inflated egos. I once told a surgeon what my insurance would pay him for a particular procedure. He told me that he "wouldn't scrub up and walk into the operating room for that kind of money".

Mindy... That's the dumbest thing I ever heard, and you are better off without "friends" like that. I suppose, if you took that kind of logic to its natural conclusion, you could say that: If God had meant for you to fly, He would have given you wings. If God didn't want childbirth to be painful, He would alleviate the pain Himself, so no drugs. If God wants your teeth to rot, so be it. Don't brush or floss and don't visit your dentist twice a year. How many children does your friend have? If God wants her to have one every year, maybe she should not interfere with His plan by using birth control. My DH is from West Virginia. There is a whole sect of people in the mountains who believe this way. They are called "snake handlers" and as part of their regular church services, they handle poisonous snakes. The idea is that if God wants you to be bitten (or even die), you will and if He doesn't, you won't. If you have faith, it's supposed to protect you. As for myself, I have faith. I also have some degree of common sense. I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive.

Mindy... I have heard of "30 Days", but haven't seen it. I did see "Supersize Me" and found it very enlightening. I will definitely be on the lookout for "30 Days". My way of thinking has changed a lot since I reached my majority some 35+ years ago. Life has changed me....taught me, maybe I should say. I've learned that bad things often happen to good people, and hardly anyone gets what he/she deserves. I've learned that good parents don't necessarily produce good kids, and that it's a much greater accomplishment to graduate from college if you're poor than if you were born privileged, but hardly anyone seems to notice that. I've learned that money buys lots of things it shouldn't. I've learned that it's a lot easier to take a firm stand against abortion when you are the parent of all boys. I've learned that you can't trust anyone completely - not your pastor, your president, or your kids. And if you think you can, you're a fool. I've learned that you cannot save people from themselves. And I've learned that nothing is the end of the world, except the end of the world.

Dpingl...it's GREAT to be a Christian! "Small government" would be nice, too. It ain't happening under Bush, though. "Less taxes"....who wouldn't like lower taxes, but how much good does it do to lower taxes when the cost of living is rising faster than wages? The US deficit is in the trillions of dollars, and growing every day. Does that not worry you just a tiny bit? We are fighting a war that cannot be won, on soil that we should never have trod on, while our real enemy laughs at us and plots more acts of terrorism. Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? Is the country better off? What exactly has George Bush done for you, to make you like him so much?

Dear Scribby... Not to start a big war or anything, but GENOCIDE???? In what respect was our nation founded on genocide? But that question aside, I am a Christian who happens to agree with you. I don't want religion taught in the schools either. Have you noticed that the people who want to pass on "Christian values" via the public schools are only interested in spreading THEIR brand of Christianity? They would all pee their pants if I showed up to teach a classroom full of 5 year olds how to pray the Rosary. Not all good people are Christians, and not all Christians are good people. But forgiveness....well, that's something we can all use, and unlike oil, let's hope it's never in short supply.