What would your tax plan be?

[Wild Cobra]

We all have a different view of what is fair. I believe everyone should pay the same rate on income, but at the same time recognize it makes life more difficult for some than others. I would like to compile a few ideas I have had, and others that I have heard.

My idea starts by requiring employers to pay employees the payroll tax they pay for their match of Social Security and Medicare. I start here to make workers realize that the 7.45% match is part of their employment. Now, the employee will be required not only to pay the 6.2% SS and 1.45% medicare, but almost double. The new rate will be 13.87% and called a "Social Tax."

A quick breakdown. Currently, when we forget about the temporary reduction to 4.2% for SS, employees make 92.55% after SS and medicare. $92.55/$100. Requiring employers to pay the 7.45% increases the employees pay to $107.45. Now if we tax this at 13.87%, we get the same $92.55 ($107.45 x (1-0.1387)).

Now, this new social tax can be increased or decreased by congress. Everyone currently paying SS and medicare pays it. No exceptions. It can be raised a maximum of 0.1% per quarter or lowered a maximum of 0.5% per quarter.

I would do other things with other taxes, but this is where I would start, with income taxes requiring a 60% or 3/3rds in both houses to change their rates, and presidents signature of course.

Why the change to a social tax and changing it's rate? So everyone feels the pain. No more talk of raising "other people's taxes." Everyone gets hit equally by percentage, and I believe it will make voters more responsible for who they elect.

[Yonivore]

www.fairtax.org

[ElNono]

This shit again?

[Agloco]

6-6-6 tbh.

The devil would be pretty obvious at that point and not simply in the details.

[ChumpDumper]

Which video games am I allowed to plagiarize?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well the throttle on the rate of change is dumb. Making the government less responsive to change is dumb and its obviously going to have to have exceptions in case of war and disasters off the top of my head. You have already created your first asinine addition that leads to a loop hole.

Your thing on a flat tax is neither novel nor sensible. Taxing people that are getting need based social services is at best inefficient. I prefer to call it stupid.

Your little notion on putting additional voting requirements just goes to demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about how Congress actually votes on things or where that process derives from.

Your thing about making sure that people know that the tax is for their employment makes me want to remind you that you are a putz for the exact same reason as before you dirty fucking shill.

[Agloco]

Why the change to a social tax and changing it's rate? So everyone feels the pain. No more talk of raising "other people's taxes." Everyone gets hit equally by percentage, and I believe it will make voters more responsible for who they elect.

Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?

[Yonivore]

Well the throttle on the rate of change is dumb. Making the government less responsive to change is dumb and its obviously going to have to have exceptions in case of war and disasters off the top of my head. You have already created your first asinine addition that leads to a loop hole.

Your thing on a flat tax is neither novel nor sensible. Taxing people that are getting need based social services is at best inefficient. I prefer to call it stupid.
The Fair Tax actually provides for a refund/rebate/deduction (call it what you want) of an amount equal to the tax that would be paid on necessary items.

As long as people receiving "need based social services" stayed away from the flat screen televisions, they'd pay no tax. Zero.

I'll let WC respond to the rest of your drivel. I just wanted to point out that, under the Fair Tax, poor people would not pay a tax so long as they stuck to the necessities.

[ElNono]

Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?

Class war!

[DMX7]

Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?

People like WC would learn a lot if they lived with the 1% crowd for just a day. He has no clue.

[Yonivore]

People like WC would learn a lot of they lived with the 1% crowd for just a day. He has no clue.
What would be learned?

[Wild Cobra]

www.fairtax.org
I like the Fair tax too, but congress would never give up that much power. The only thing I disagree with in it, is the "prebate."

How about something that is in the realm of possibility?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Fair Tax actually provides for a refund/rebate/deduction (call it what you want) of an amount equal to the tax that would be paid on necessary items.

You capitalize it. Its already dogma in your mind. Just wow.

And what do you think that I meant by inefficiency?

[Wild Cobra]

6-6-6 tbh.

The devil would be pretty obvious at that point and not simply in the details.
How about the Dominoes 777, and we can have as many toppings as we want on our medium pizzas?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?
Income tax rates still apply also. I am not doing away with that. I am only changing the "accounting" of the 6.2% Social security, and the 1.45% Medicare insurances, and matching employer payroll tax deductions. I am then allowing for minor changes in the rates, and holding congress accountable for changes to all workers. therefore the workers will be inclined to think before they vote for someone who wants to raise more revenues in taxation.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll let WC respond to the rest of your drivel. I just wanted to point out that, under the Fair Tax, poor people would not pay a tax so long as they stuck to the necessities.
Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear... Definitely not a bull!

If he says something meaningful, I might respond to him.

Rather than the prebate, I would prefer simply not to have any necessities taxed. Now I think this already happens under the proposed fair tax, and the prebate is designed to replace the standard deduction, exemptions, and earned income credit. I simply believe we have been too generous in the tax system, and we need to stop coddling the poor.

[Wild Cobra]

What would be learned?
I was wondering that too. I have personally known three people rather well in my life, who are in that 1%. They are people just like us. Is it being suggested they are from some other planet, or monsters, or evil somehow?

[ElNono]

"necessities" is a fairly broad term...

[Yonivore]

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear... Definitely not a bull!

If he says something meaningful, I might respond to him.

Rather than the prebate, I would prefer simply not to have any necessities taxed. Now I think this already happens under the proposed fair tax, and the prebate is designed to replace the standard deduction, exemptions, and earned income credit. I simply believe we have been too generous in the tax system, and we need to stop coddling the poor.
I don't have anything against the poor but, I think people should not live beyond their means. People on public assistance have no business filling their houses with flat screens and game systems. They should be concentrating on feeding, clothing, and housing their family.

[Wild Cobra]

"necessities" is a fairly broad term...
Yes it is, and we would all define them differently. I think we can agree the following would be a necessity:

Bread, milk, eggs, toilet paper, tooth paste, etc.

I think we would agree these would not be necessities:

Soda pop, beer, wine, liquor, boat, sports car, candy, etc.

Where would we draw the lines? Is a car a necessity, How about stereos, computers, televisions, bluray players? We now get into areas that we will likely disagree on. Maybe basic comfort items can have a lower tax rate.

When it comes to food, but keep in mind that I am old school... I would tax ready to make foods like TV dinners, cans of soup, etc. but not the basic ingredients to make them from scratch. I was discussing such an idea with a coworker, and he is for taxing clothing, but not the cloth for one to make their own clothes. I don't think I would go that far, but the idea has as much merit for some as my idea if taxing premade foods.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have anything against the poor but, I think people should not live beyond their means. People on public assistance have no business filling their houses with flat screens and game systems. They should be concentrating on feeding, clothing, and housing their family.
We are in agreement. Besides, we have the richest poor in the world. I was amazed hen I lived in Germany that my neighbors had less than our population considered to be in poverty by our standard. My next door neighbor worked at the Mercedes factory in Sindelfingen, and had little to show for such a job. Only the basic necessities, and an old beat up car.

[Yonivore]

Yes it is, and we would all define them differently. I think we can agree the following would be a necessity:

Bread, milk, eggs, toilet paper, tooth paste, etc.

I think we would agree these would not be necessities:

Soda pop, beer, wine, liquor, boat, sports car, candy, etc.

Where would we draw the lines? Is a car a necessity, How about stereos, computers, televisions, bluray players? We now get into areas that we will likely disagree on. Maybe basic comfort items can have a lower tax rate.

When it comes to food, but keep in mind that I am old school... I would tax ready to make foods like TV dinners, cans of soup, etc. but not the basic ingredients to make them from scratch. I was discussing such an idea with a coworker, and he is for taxing clothing, but not the cloth for one to make their own clothes. I don't think I would go that far, but the idea has as much merit for some as my idea if taxing premade foods.
That's all immaterial. Determining what the criteria would for defining necessities would still take less than the tens of thousands of pages of tax code we're now expected to decipher.

But, I don't think the Fair Tax bothers with identifying necessities beyond the exercise of determining what is spent, on average, for "necessities." How they arrive at that figure could be subject to a very complicated algorithm that could still fit in a 50 page spiral notebook.

My understanding is the government will calculate the amount of tax a household (based on household size) would spend in purchasing necessities and provide a refund/rebate or allow a deduction for that amount.

:lmao at thinking it too complex an issue to settle equitably. Have y'all seen the current tax code?

[ElNono]

Yes it is, and we would all define them differently. I think we can agree the following would be a necessity:

Bread, milk, eggs, toilet paper, tooth paste, etc.

That's the problem right there.

[Yonivore]

I would take it one step further.

You wouldn't be required to apply for your refund. You could just let the government keep it. Or, you could designate a recipient for your refund.

In either case, filing an annual tax return would only be to claim the refund of your "necessities tax." That's it.

The IRS Tax form would be reduced to check boxes.

1) Send me my refund.

OR

2) Send my refund to: _____________

[Wild Cobra]

My understanding is the government will calculate the amount of tax a household (based on household size) would spend in purchasing necessities and provide a refund/rebate or allow a deduction for that amount.

:lmao at thinking it too complex an issue to settle equitably. Have y'all seen the current tax code?
Even though I dislike the prebate idea, I agree it is a better solution than what we have now.

[ElNono]

That's all immaterial. Determining what the criteria would for defining necessities would still take less than the tens of thousands of pages of tax code we're now expected to decipher.

You can't stop kicking and screaming for the definition of something as simple as torture. You would cry a river if Democrats had to define "necessities".

[ElNono]

Obviously, as soon as a Democrat endorses the fair tax, yoni will decry how it's "not the same as it was proposed"

[Wild Cobra]

You can't stop kicking and screaming for the definition of something as simple as torture. You would cry a river if Democrats had to define "necessities".
Maybe the definitions would keep them busy enough figuring it out, that they wouldn't have the time to pass harmful legislation.

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously, as soon as a Democrat endorses the fair tax, yoni will decry how it's "not the same as it was proposed"
If I recall, a few democrats have.

[ElNono]

Maybe the definitions would keep them busy enough figuring it out, that they wouldn't have the time to pass harmful legislation.

No "harmful legislation" can pass without the GOP being complicit.

[ElNono]

If I recall, a few democrats have.

Obviously.

[Yonivore]

If I recall, a few democrats have.
And, as long as it is the same as is being proposed now, I'd applaud those Democrats.

Those are Democrats for whom I'd vote.

[ElNono]

And, as long as it is the same as is being proposed now, I'd applaud those Democrats.

Those are Democrats for whom I'd vote.

Democrats that opposed the fair tax? :lmao

[LnGrrrR]

Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?

Agloco, how dare you even suggest that?

While the poor family probably would've spent the extra money received on some sort of luxury like a second car, the rich person most likely would have invested that money into their business, creating new jobs for America!

After all, there's a reason why rich people are rich and poor people are poor!

[Yonivore]

Agloco, how dare you even suggest that?

While the poor family probably would've spent the extra money received on some sort of luxury like a second car, the rich person most likely would have invested that money into their business, creating new jobs for America!

After all, there's a reason why rich people are rich and poor people are poor!
I'm not sure the government is responsible for ensuring equality in outcome, just equality in opportunity.

[LnGrrrR]

I was discussing such an idea with a coworker, and he is for taxing clothing, but not the cloth for one to make their own clothes.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Who the fuck do you hang out with? Amish people? Who the fuck would have time to sew their own goddamned clothes? Some people are fucking idiots.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure the government is responsible for ensuring equality in outcome, just equality in opportunity.

Define "equality in opportunity" for us?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Who the fuck do you hang out with? Amish people? Who the fuck would have time to sew their own goddamned clothes? Some people are fucking idiots.
It never kept my mother from sewing.

I admitted to being "old school."

[ElNono]

Newsflash, we're in 2011

[Yonivore]

Define "equality in opportunity" for us?
Gladly.


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's all relevant but, I bolded the last sentence because it actually embodies the idea of equal treatment...equal opportunity.

[ElNono]

"equal protection of the laws" = "equality in opportunity"???

What are you smoking, yoni?

[Wild Cobra]

Newsflash, we're in 2011
That doesn't mean we can't return to proven past ideas.

Call me heartless if you want, I call it tough love. I want to make it difficult for people to rely on the government, and deterrents to being irresponsible. I want them to have incentive to do all they can to get off of government reliance. Sorry, but that must include making the free ride, difficult, and having a family before having the means of support difficult.

[ElNono]

That doesn't mean we can't return to proven past ideas.

Call me heartless if you want, I call it tough love. I want to make it difficult for people to rely on the government, and deterrents to being irresponsible. I want them to have incentive to do all they can to get off of government reliance. Sorry, but that must include making the free ride, difficult, and having a family before having the means of support difficult.

Not really. What you want is to punish the poor for being poor.

[Yonivore]

There was a time when charities, mostly faith-based, did a pretty decent job taking care of the poor and destitute. They were also good at means-testing.

That was the rub. People want stuff given to them without any questions.

It started out as a cry for esteem and for people not to have to be ashamed to ask for help.

Well, you've got you wish. People aren't ashamed to live off the government tit. They even flaunt it these days.

[ElNono]

There was a time when charities, mostly faith-based, did a pretty decent job taking care of the poor and destitute. They were also good at means-testing.

There was a time when national growth meant everybody, not just the top 1%, did better too.

That ship sailed a long time ago.

That's not to say there isn't wasteful spending. But there's also obviously a lot more people sharing the same (or less) wealth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There was a time when charities, mostly faith-based, did a pretty decent job taking care of the poor and destitute. They were also good at means-testing.

That was the rub. People want stuff given to them without any questions.

It started out as a cry for esteem and for people not to have to be ashamed to ask for help.

Well, you've got you wish. People aren't ashamed to live off the government tit. They even flaunt it these days.

Go look up the poverty demographics from before 1930 and try again.

[Yonivore]

By the way, the Fair Tax Plan doesn't pass any judgement on current government programs.

The plan is revenue neutral. With a 23% sales tax on all products and services, the government could be sustained -- well, maybe not this year's budget level but, -- at 2009/2010 budget levels.

If you wanted to continue your pet welfare/military program, the Fair Tax Plan would pay for it.

[Yonivore]

Go look up the poverty demographics from before 1930 and try again.
The problem with government welfare is that you eventually run out of other people's money. In an economy like we're having, you run out of it faster. You're not doing the poor any favors by taking our economy into the tank.

Because when the bottom falls out, we'll be back in 1930 when no one had money -- not even the government. Except, of course, for the rich Democrats.

[ElNono]

The problem with government welfare is that you eventually run out of other people's money. In an economy like we're having, you run out of it faster. You're not doing the poor any favors by taking our economy into the tank.

Because when the bottom falls out, we'll be back in 1930 when no one had money -- not even the government. Except, of course, for the rich Democrats.

Is that what Cain told you to say? crofl

[Amarelooms]

Son let me settle this for all you dummies

1. If you make less than 30k a year...NO TAX FUCK OFF YOU LOSER and go to school

2. 30k to 100k you pay 10%

3. 100k to 500k your ass pays 20% (my category)

4. 500k on up you pay 30%

Done...see how simple that was.

:elephant

[ElNono]

Son let me settle this for all you dummies

1. If you make less than 30k a year...NO TAX FUCK OFF YOU LOSER and go to school

2. 30k to 100k you pay 10%

3. 100k to 250k your ass pays 20% (my category)

4. 250k on up you pay 30%

Done...see how simple that was.

:elephant

Why don't you think about those poor rich people? Class warfare!

[LnGrrrR]

It never kept my mother from sewing.

I admitted to being "old school."

WC, I wasn't bashing you, you disagreed.

However, sewing =/= sewing your clothes from scratch. I'm pretty sure if everyone had to sew their own clothes, they wouldn't have time for a job.

[Amarelooms]

Why don't you think about those poor rich people? Class warfare!

did some number crunching and made it 100-500k category

30% as the max rate is more than fair for those making a shit load....they still save with my 10 - 10 - 10 increment plan

:elephant

[Yonivore]

WC, I wasn't bashing you, you disagreed.

However, sewing =/= sewing your clothes from scratch. I'm pretty sure if everyone had to sew their own clothes, they wouldn't have time for a job.
So, we have evil corporations that make clothes we buy. Some of those manufacturers are listed in the exchanges on Wall Street.

If the Occupiers get their way, you may be making your own clothes; killing your own dinner; building your own car; etc...

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. What you want is to punish the poor for being poor.
No, I don't want to coddle them to the point that they are comfortable staying where they are, and not bettering themselves.

[Wild Cobra]

By the way, the Fair Tax Plan doesn't pass any judgement on current government programs.

The plan is revenue neutral. With a 23% sales tax on all products and services, the government could be sustained -- well, maybe not this year's budget level but, -- at 2009/2010 budget levels.

If you wanted to continue your pet welfare/military program, the Fair Tax Plan would pay for it.
I don't know. That was before the democrats started wring the annual budget. Now we are so far in debt, that 23% might have to be 25%.

[ElNono]

No, I don't want to coddle them to the point that they are comfortable staying where they are, and not bettering themselves.

What makes you think they aren't trying? People are not looking for jobs?

[Wild Cobra]

Son let me settle this for all you dummies

1. If you make less than 30k a year...NO TAX FUCK OFF YOU LOSER and go to school

2. 30k to 100k you pay 10%

3. 100k to 500k your ass pays 20% (my category)

4. 500k on up you pay 30%

Done...see how simple that was.

:elephant
Why not go with a flat tax, I say per worker, a set rate for all, and an equal deduction for all. At one point I threw out the idea that you pay the same percentage of all income above minimum wage. Maybe 125% of minimum wage would be better.

With no write offs other than a single standard deduction, why should a high wage earner pay a higher percentage than a low wage earner?

At 125% of minimum wage...

$7.25 x 2080 x 1.25 = $18,850 for a standard deduction. taxes would be paid at a set percentage above the $$18,850. Someone earning $12/hr would make just short of $25k and pay $1,087.70 in federal income tax. $30/hr would make $62.4k and pay $7,403.50 in taxes.

I think 125% would be a good number, but I would be willing to accept 150%.

[Wild Cobra]

What makes you think they aren't trying? People are not looking for jobs?
Some people are happy with their government handouts and section 8 housing, and do not look for work!

I'm not talking about the newly unemployed, but the long term welfare recipients.

[Yonivore]

Why not go with a flat tax, I say per worker, a set rate for all, and an equal deduction for all. At one point I threw out the idea that you pay the same percentage of all income above minimum wage. Maybe 125% of minimum wage would be better.

With no write offs other than a single standard deduction, why should a high wage earner pay a higher percentage than a low wage earner?

At 125% of minimum wage...

$7.25 x 2080 x 1.25 = $18,850 for a standard deduction. taxes would be paid at a set percentage above the $$18,850. Someone earning $12/hr would make just short of $25k and pay $1,087.70 in federal income tax. $30/hr would make $62.4k and pay $7,403.50 in taxes.

I think 125% would be a good number, but I would be willing to accept 150%.
The problem with taxing income is it requires that income be reported. That leads to all sorts of schemes to determine what constitutes income. Do you claim gifts? Cash salaries? Do you have to report dividends? income on investments? It's just too messy and, in all probability, just leads us back to where we are today.

That's what I like about the consumption tax.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with taxing income is it requires that income be reported. That leads to all sorts of schemes to determine what constitutes income. Do you claim gifts? Cash salaries? Do you have to report dividends? income on investments? It's just too messy and, in all probability, just leads us back to where we are today.

That's what I like about the consumption tax.
Yes, I know and agree. However, do you think congress would ever give up so much taxing power?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Some people are happy with their government handouts and section 8 housing, and do not look for work!

I'm not talking about the newly unemployed, but the long term welfare recipients.

This was the same rhetoric during the Clinton, Gingrich, and Gramm years with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. All the claims were proven to be wrong then but you keep on beating that same GOP thought.

Gingrich fed us that shit back then.

its hilarious you guys bitch about AFDC and ignore the clusterfuck that is Dodd-Frank.

You specifically tell us to think of others when viewing corporate policy and then spout this. You are a sad commentary on humans.

[Yonivore]

Yes, I know and agree. However, do you think congress would ever give up so much taxing power?
Yes, I think they will. One election at a time.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I think they will. One election at a time.
I hope you are right.

[ElNono]

Some people are happy with their government handouts and section 8 housing, and do not look for work!

Welfare queens!

Who are these people? How many?

[Wild Cobra]

Welfare queens!

Who are these people? How many?
I am not going to attempt to quantify it. However, you agree they exist. Right? Just the fact they exist shows we are too generous.

[ElNono]

I am not going to attempt to quantify it.

Of course you won't. Basically, you've walked away from about 4 of your own claims today alone.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course you won't. Basically, you've walked away from about 4 of your own claims today alone.
And I will continue to do so when you ask for me to look up references you can for yourself. I already spend too much time here on the keyboard, and have no intent right now taking so much more time searching for things. I am comfortable with my words. I don't need to justify them. I have better things to do than spend that much more time here.

Back to my words and underlying question:

I am not going to attempt to quantify it. However, you agree they exist. Right? Just the fact they exist shows we are too generous.

Do you agree we are too generous when some people are comfortable living off the handouts?

[admiralsnackbar]

And I will continue to do so when you ask for me to look up references you can for yourself. I already spend too much time here on the keyboard, and have no intent right now taking so much more time searching for things. I am comfortable with my words. I don't need to justify them. I have better things to do than spend that much more time here.

Back to my words and underlying question:


Do you agree we are too generous when some people are comfortable living off the handouts?

Do you agree people are too generous when they let you pass your opinion off as fact when the burden of proof is actually on you?

[ElNono]

And I will continue to do so when you ask for me to look up references you can for yourself.

I actually cannot. That's why I'm asking you to back them up.


Do you agree we are too generous when some people are comfortable living off the handouts?

I don't know one single person living off "handouts". Now, I don't know a lot of people, but I can only speak from what I know.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know one single person living off "handouts". Now, I don't know a lot of people, but I can only speak from what I know.
Well, I have met such people. It's a real eye opener to know such people.

[ElNono]

Well, I have met such people. It's a real eye opener to know such people.

How many?

[admiralsnackbar]

How many?

Some of my best friends are black.

[Yonivore]

In the early part of my career, I was in and out of Section 8 housing projects. I saw the squalor and the desperation and the resignation. I also saw the expensive electronics, gold chains, tricked out cars, and designer clothes.

Unlike Wild Cobra, I wouldn't say they were "happy" with their government handouts. They were never "happy" with anything. What I would say, is they weren't going to lift one finger to improve their situation so, unless government comes along and gives them more, they'll settle for what they have and just move along, spending their discretionary income (of which they have more because we're paying for everything else) on things that are transient because they're flashy or trendy or because they think it gives them status.

They don't save the money our tax dollars keep them from having to spend. They don't even spend it modestly. They load their shopping carts with steaks and alcohol and unhealthy snacks and then let their Lone Star Card (or whatever the current incarnation of shame-free gimme card is being used to replace food stamps where they actually had to purchase the item on the document) pay for it.

What disgusts me is liberals don't recognize this and just continue to give them more and more and more, oblivious to the fact the people will just sit there and take it and continue to complain about what they don't have.

If you went back into those neighborhoods today, it'd be the same people, or their kids, living the same lives, blaming the rest of us for their situation.

No, they're not happy with their Section 8 housing and their government handout. They want what you have too. They just don't want to do the work you had to do to get it.

[ElNono]

91% of capable workers, in this shitty economy that's not offering many jobs, do work.

Not that long ago, on a more favorable economy, that was 95%. I'm not sure what "liberals" have to recognize. That most people that can work, do work?

[LnGrrrR]

So, we have evil corporations that make clothes we buy. Some of those manufacturers are listed in the exchanges on Wall Street.

If the Occupiers get their way, you may be making your own clothes; killing your own dinner; building your own car; etc...

Way to put words in my mouth Yoni. When did I ever say corps who make clothes were evil?

Why don't you just back the f up before you start assuming what I think, thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

Way to put words in my mouth Yoni. When did I ever say corps who make clothes were evil?

Why don't you just back the f up before you start assuming what I think, thanks.
So you agree the Occupy Wall Street is misguided, that not all corporations are evil?

[boutons_deux]

'Occupy Wall Street is misguided, that not all corporations are evil?"

I thought you guys didn't know what OWS was protesting, so you make up shit to denigrate them?

They aren't saying all corporations are evil.

Keep on defending the financial sector, as if we needed any more proof that you're assholes.

[LnGrrrR]

So you agree the Occupy Wall Street is misguided, that not all corporations are evil?

I don't think all corporations are evil. I also don't think the "Occupy Wall Street" movement says that all corporations are evil. I'm relatively neutral on the whole thing. If people want to protest, go for it. I don't think it will accomplish much though.

[boutons_deux]

Nothing will be accomplished unless the protest movement gets many 10s of seats in Congress and Senate, but the system is so rotten, the Repugs will block all reform.

There were Dem Senators who would have voted against Barry's Jobs bill, but they knew it had no chance of passing the unConstitutional anti-filibuster obstruction of 60-votes, so they voted for it to hide their true enslavement to UCA.

There won't be 2012 candidates running on a platform that supported the OWS grievances.

America is so fucked, and will be more fucked in the coming years as the Repugs obstruct all reform while continuing to protect/enrich the UCA and capitalists to the detriment of Human-Americans, water, land, air. And suckered evangelicals and red-state lower class will be right there to keep voting against their own interests and re-electing destructive Repugs.

My tax plan would be to roll all tax cuts back to 1980, re-install Glass-Steagall, add a truly punitive, confiscatory carbon pollution tax on BigOilGas and BigCoal, and announce an introduction of Federal transport fuel tax over 5 years to push gas and diesel to $7 or $8/gallon.

[Yonivore]

I don't think all corporations are evil. I also don't think the "Occupy Wall Street" movement says that all corporations are evil. I'm relatively neutral on the whole thing. If people want to protest, go for it. I don't think it will accomplish much though.
The "Occupy" movement is anti-capitalist. They hate all corporations even though they wear the clothes, eat the food, use the electronics, etc...

If they had their way, they'd bring down our free market economy and, LnGrrrR, whether you like it or not, they don't seem to be very discriminating about which corporations are evil and which are not.

So, get ready to make your own clothes, kill your own food, and build your own car. That's not putting words in your mouth or telling you what to think, it's what the "Occupy Wall Street" idiots would like to see happen.

Of course, I'm not inclined to believe they've not thought it through that well.

[boutons_deux]

"The "Occupy" movement is anti-capitalist."

YOU LIE

Easily more accurately, as always, I say they are against unregulated, predatory, polluting, wealth-sucking corps and capitalists.

iow, the way the USA was set up before 1980 with St Ronnie's initiation of the VRWC shitfest which got the planet into the current and unending human disaster.

btw, the basic principle of capitalism is to sell the shittiest possible product for the highest possible price, while externalizing all costs of damage to employees, land, water, air, and with absolutely no allegiance to any country, no allegiance to anything except increasing the wealth of the owners. A great system to be against and to demand that it be regulated to protect people, air, water, food and contribute its fair share to building and maintaining infrastructure.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I've said it repeatedly, I'm also against "unregulated wealth-sucking" corps. They're not the ones who made themselves unregulated, the government did. Don't protest Wall Street, protest DC and the people who actually have the ability to restrict power corporations have.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What do they expect Wall Street to do? More charity and philanthropy work? Give more jobs to lazy political science and psych graduates who have absolutely no skill or ability to contribute to their business?

I've got news for the unemployed college grads with a major in shit like political science, your degree was just as worthless to employers 15 years ago as it was now. The only difference is the job you used to get can be done for a lot cheaper, but it never required a degree.

[LnGrrrR]

What do they expect Wall Street to do? More charity and philanthropy work? Give more jobs to lazy political science and psych graduates who have absolutely no skill or ability to contribute to their business?

I've got news for the unemployed college grads with a major in shit like political science, your degree was just as worthless to employers 15 years ago as it was now. The only difference is the job you used to get can be done for a lot cheaper, but it never required a degree.

I think the problem most people have is that it would be one thing if the bankers were dumb and ruined us financially, but didn't mean to.or if they were scumbags, but they kept the financial world running smoothly.

It's the seeming "wreck the country on purpose to make money then hold the country hostage" combo of scumminess and stupidity that pissed me off. The only way this protest could ever work is if they threatened lives of CEOs that fucked up in the future. Obviously a bit extreme, hence why I think the protests are kinda dumb.

[Agloco]

Income tax rates still apply also. I am not doing away with that. I am only changing the "accounting" of the 6.2% Social security, and the 1.45% Medicare insurances, and matching employer payroll tax deductions. I am then allowing for minor changes in the rates, and holding congress accountable for changes to all workers. therefore the workers will be inclined to think before they vote for someone who wants to raise more revenues in taxation.

I gathered that there was more to it, but you didn't answer the question:


Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?

ie will your income tax rate provision assuage equally the burden your plan places on a 40k per year family and 1m per year family?

[Agloco]

What do they expect Wall Street to do? More charity and philanthropy work? Give more jobs to lazy political science and psych graduates who have absolutely no skill or ability to contribute to their business?


You seem to know an awful lot about what degrees are held by new graduates. Just saying.

How about asking them to reinvest in the taxpayers that contributed to help them stay afloat? Do companies not have record amounts of capital siting on the sidelines right now?

[Wild Cobra]

ie will your income tax rate provision assuage equally the burden your plan places on a 40k per year family and 1m per year family?
I guess that would depend on your concept of equality. We all think differently upon those lines. Of course the burden will be redistributed somewhat.

[ElNono]

I guess that would depend on your concept of equality. We all think differently upon those lines. Of course the burden will be redistributed somewhat.

Answer the fucking question

[Cry Havoc]

Just to be clear here:

The right was all too quick to lambaste Obama's lack of experience because it would impair his abilities to make decisions as president...

The solution is to nominate a man who took ideas from a video game and wants them to become federal tax law?

[baseline bum]

Just to be clear here:

The right was all too quick to lambaste Obama's lack of experience because it would impair his abilities to make decisions as president...

The solution is to nominate a man who took ideas from a video game and wants them to become federal tax law?

You're underselling him; he also found a way to get fat fucks to eat more fast food.

[Trainwreck2100]

You're underselling him; he also found a way to get fat fucks to eat more fast food.

yeah cause thats hard