California is in pretty good shape fiscally. This is a specious argument, about 
only taxing the rich here. Real estate costs a small fortune in California, and 
*everybody* pays a mint in property taxes. It adds up.  

 Contrary to what you say, taxing the rich is not complicated, because their 
wealth doesn't fluctuate during economic ebbs and flows. In fact, the wealth of 
the rich always goes up, unlike yours and mine. They can definitely afford to 
throw more into the coffers. 

 ---In, <punditster@...> wrote :

 On 11/23/2014 5:58 PM, fleetwood_macncheese wrote:
 Corporations DO NOT pay their fair share - It is supposed to be 35 to 40%, but 
several pay NO taxes at all. They can go incorporate in Liberia, for all I care 
- Greedy, unpatriotic bastards. I like the idea of a flat tax, but will settle 
for the letter of the law.

 PS There is exactly ONE political party in the USA - Quit getting played for a 

 It looks like we are in some agreement. Both political parties are not working 
in our interest. Bhairitu's idea of a third party makes a lot of sense. In the 
next presidential election I may vote independent. It's easy to paint taxation 
with a large brush and to combine notions of individual earned income tax with 
corporate taxation and the idea of taxing the rich. It's complicated.
 The problem with taxing the rich is that when the economy is good politicians 
love it, but when the economy is poor, they hate it - the instability is not a 
good thing. In California what is needed is a flat tax rate to help stabilize 
state revenues, according to U.S. Rep Tom McClintock (R., CA).
 "The working class may be taking a beating from spending cuts used to close a 
cavernous deficit, Mr. Williams said, but the root of California's woes is its 
reliance on taxing the wealthy."
 Libertarian Party on Tax Reform:
 "Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without 
their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the 
US Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting 
expenditures, not raising taxes." 
 "The kid-glove treatment of corporate tax offenders by both parties is exhibit 
A in America's shift from a functioning democracy to a nascent oligarchy."
<punditster@...> mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 On 11/23/2014 1:01 PM, fleetwood_macncheese wrote:
   The current situation is shameful.

 Agreed, but the answer is not in continuing the current tax structure. I am 
opposed to unfair income taxation. A better idea might be a tax on luxury 
goods. One of the reason businesses are leaving California and the U.S. is 
because of unfair corporate taxation.
 It is lying with statistics,

 The chart was compiled in 2011 by President Obama's Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) - it's a non-partisan analysis. It proves that the rich pay almost 
all of the income tax in the U.S. Do the math.
 based on an outmoded tax structure - Let the ultra-wealthy give something 
back, besides the minimum. The only reason that chart is trotted out, is to 
quiet those who know they are being screwed, and to appease the very rich. 

 So, it's an Obama government conspiracy to "quiet those" who don't pay any 
income tax? You're not even making any sense today, Jim. 
 The federal government’s most intrusive and potentially punitive institution, 
the IRS, unquestionably worked for Barack Obama’s reelection by suppressing 
activities by conservative groups.
 How is someone worth a billion dollars, going to miss a hundred million or so?

 A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real 
money. But, seriously it's not about the money - it's all about the jobs.
 The ultra rich use a disproportionate share of the common, and they should pay 
their fair share, without any tax breaks.

 Not sure how you figure rich people paying 90% of all the U.S. income tax is 
paying "their fair share. It sounds more like the rich are the ones being 
screwed. The only fair income tax would be a flat tax. 
 We are all supposed to be equal under the law, not prejudiced against those 
that have more. Without the opportunity to be rich people, everyone would be 
poor. Go figure.
 If they did that, and corporations chipped in their fair share, that would be 
good enough for me. 

 It's not good enough for me until they reform the tax code and eliminate the 
IRS and implement a flat tax. A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation 
where one tax rate is applied to all income with no deductions.
 Flat taxes offer simplicity in the tax code, which has been reported to 
increase compliance and decrease administration costs. A true flat rate tax is 
a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no 
exceptions. The flat rate would be applied to all taxable income and profits 
without exception or exemption. 
 It could be argued that under such an arrangement, no one is subject to a 
preferential or "unfair" tax treatment. No industry receives special treatment, 
large households are not advantaged at the expense of small ones, etc. 
 Moreover, the cost of tax filing for citizens and the cost of tax 
administration for the government would be further reduced, as under a true 
flat tax only businesses and the self-employed would need to interact with the 
tax authorities.
<punditster@...> mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 On 11/22/2014 2:28 PM, fleetwood_macncheese wrote:
   Yes, I agree that a larger safety net is necessary, and the bucks for that 
should come from the ultra wealthy who shirk their national responsibility, by 
evading taxes.

 A new CBO study shows that ‘the rich’ don’t just pay their ‘fair share,’ they 
pay almost everybody’s share.
 Otherwise, we will continue to see the middle class disappear, and be headed 
for a second revolution, eventually. 

 Part of the issue, is that corporate titans are seen as great visionaries and 
geniuses, instead of simply being true to their charter, which is to turn as 
big a profit, as possible, resources and populations be damned. We need real 
leaders, not Warren Buffet and a bunch of unethical salesmen, running this 
<noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 One of the ways of doing it would be guaranteed annual income.  That's a 
safety net and keeps people from becoming desperate.  In fact the crime 
reduction it might produce might pay for it.  You can look up the different 
countries implementing it and see how they are going to pay for it.  Otherwise 
limit how much money anyone can have because we're seeing that billionaires are 
mentally ill and don't deserve the power they wield.
 Americans are so brainwashed with a Tarzan like "capitalism good, socialism 
bad" meme that its difficult to get any decent change and it'll just send us 
back to the middle ages where there are two classes the extremely wealthy and 
the extremely poor.  Don't stand for it!
 Nothing brings this out more than than the holiday season or "Crassmust".
 On 11/22/2014 10:20 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... 
mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Yes, but I don't know how that would be possible. This area I now live in, 
was a paradise for the natives, for 3,000 years - no inter-tribal warfare, and 
absolute respect for territorial boundaries. But, they had nothing, and lived 
entirely off the land. I like my tech, and modern life, and not sure how that 
would happen, without monetary rewards.
<noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 People sure are desperate for making money so they come up with their weirdest 
ideas.  If there is a future it's going to be VERY, VERY weird.  Just think 
what a nicer world this would be if people didn't have to worry about making 
 On 11/22/2014 08:11 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... 
mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Can't find your car? Hold your key fob up to your head. (Really.)"; 
 Can't find your car? Hold your key fob up to your he... It sounds crazy, but 
it extends its range just a little bit.

 View on 
 Preview by Yahoo 


 Turn your brain into an antenna, by holding your key fob close to your head...






    • Re: [Fairf... Bhairitu [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... Bhairitu [FairfieldLife]
          • ... Share Long [FairfieldLife]
          • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
            • ... [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
            • ... [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
            • ... Bhairitu [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
            • ... [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
  • Re: [FairfieldL... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to