The N-word and ghetto sadness/stupidity

[Lizra]

Oh well.....I really should be TCB too ...

[afro-elf]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Oh come on! I'm following you both...buck up T! Let's have a meeting of the minds here ...don't cheese out when the going gets tough/real Telcontarian!

I'm reading this as......AE thinks your gloom and doom heavness is clouding your vision (and *can do* attitude), that you can't see the forest for the trees ...you have gone over the top with suspicious paranoia....What you are calling conspiracy is basic, competitive human nature played out over and over again (as it has for eons, and will continue to do, unless we all do drugs en mass again ) The better thing to do is circumnavigate it, as many have.....you have the power, singularly, to make your own choices and lead your own life.

Lizra you got it. I think most have. Too bad the kid did not. He probably wouldn't even check out the critical thinking site that would sharpen his skills. But alas. I think he may have even missed the complement I gave him.

Spock I think we will have some Hewa - hay wa ( sorry sensei my Romanji is rusty) Well actually it really sucks.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by afro-elf

Spock I think we will have some Hewa - hay wa ( sorry sensei my Romanji is rusty) Well actually it really sucks.

hmmm, "heya" is room

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


茶、コーヒー、為, any of those I'm up for.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lizra

reading this as......AE thinks your gloom and doom heavness is clouding your vision (and *can do* attitude), that you can't see the forest for the trees ...you have gone over the top with suspicious paranoia....What you are calling conspiracy is basic, competitive human nature played out over and over again (as it has for eons, and will continue to do, unless we all do drugs en mass again ) The better thing to do is circumnavigate it, as many have.....you have the power, singularly, to make your own choices and lead your own life.

I agree, though there is a pseudo-conspiracy in that it is really a rich vs. poor problem (not black vs. white) and a majority of the rich do work together in a loose fashion to maintain the status quo, or even increase their own dominance. It is human nature to look out for number one, but it is also human nature to act as a group with people in a similar postion as your own for mutual benefit.

It is also a relatively small proportion of the population loosely working together to keep down a relatively large portion. And the best way to change things is for the poor to use their leverage (numbers) to effect change in the rich's leverage (capital).

The way to do this in a democracy is via wealth redistribution through progressive taxation. I'm not a big fan of giving people money. Plus, taking away money from the poor and then giving some of it back, which is basically what we do know, is terribly inefficient. Better to design a tax code that simply only takes money away from those who can afford it (i.e. incomes below the median simply do not pay taxes at all, while those above pay progressively more). This would make it possible for everyone to earn a fair living, while the most industrious could earn a good bit more, if not quite so excessive as today's highest incomes.

[Spock]

hmm, I don't agree with all of that but some sounds about right.

how about a national sales tax?

I'm not in favor of the richest 1% paying almost 90% of taxes; as it is now.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree, though there is a pseudo-conspiracy in that it is really a rich vs. poor problem (not black vs. white) and a majority of the rich do work together in a loose fashion to maintain the status quo, or even increase their own dominance. It is human nature to look out for number one, but it is also human nature to act as a group with people in a similar postion as your own for mutual benefit.

It is also a relatively small proportion of the population loosely working together to keep down a relatively large portion. And the best way to change things is for the poor to use their leverage (numbers) to effect change in the rich's leverage (capital).

There's no need for a conspiracy because they are getting increasingly blatant in how they do this. They even have the turkeys voting for christmas too.

Tax credits are a good way of achieving it at the low end, though the system they've introduced here is too complex.

Sales taxes shift the tax burden towards poor people because there's only so many purchases a person can make in a day no matter how rich they are.

[Spock]

hmmm, well perhaps you'd agree to a 'flat tax'? that should favor the economically challenged.

[The Gaffer]

No, in our case it would favour the better off. I don't know what your current system is, I guess it varies from state to state, but I think the principles should be:
- people need a certain amount of income to live on, which should be tax-free
- a low tax rate should apply to earning up to the median
- a high tax rate should apply to earnings over the median

The thing is that you have to be careful not to penalise the middle classes, as they are the most populous and, in spite of their comparative wealth, mortgaged up to the eyeballs. Unlike the very rich, who are the ones creaming the interest/rent off the rest.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

I'm not in favor of the richest 1% paying almost 90% of taxes; as it is now.

Why not, they get 90% of the benefits from a mostly free and stable society?

Besides the fact that the richest 1% pay no where near 90% of US tax revenue.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No, in our case it would favour the better off. I don't know what your current system is, I guess it varies from state to state, but I think the principles should be:
- people need a certain amount of income to live on, which should be tax-free
- a low tax rate should apply to earning up to the median
- a high tax rate should apply to earnings over the median

The thing is that you have to be careful not to penalise the middle classes, as they are the most populous and, in spite of their comparative wealth, mortgaged up to the eyeballs. Unlike the very rich, who are the ones creaming the interest/rent off the rest.

More or less what I'm saying.

These are the current US income tax rates:

Income from $1 to $7,300, tax bracket is 10%
Income from $7,301 to $29,700, tax bracket is 15%
Income from $29,701 to $71,950, tax bracket is 25%
Income from $71,951 to $150,150, tax bracket is 28%
Income from $150,151 to $326,450, tax bracket is 33%
Income $326,451 and above, tax bracket is 35%

One could easily argue that in most parts of the country, no one making under 30k can really afford to pay taxes at all (more for families). But instead of keeping things simple and adjusting the brackets, we set up all kinds of complicated credits and inefficient goverment programs to "give money back" to those who need it. Better to let them keep it and increase the burden on the people that need the extra income less.

There is nothing wrong with a society where some people only make enough to live on and other people make much much more, and as long as the top bracket is short of 100%, there is always incentive to make more. But it's in everyone's interest to live in a society without too much poverty, or else other problems arise that threaten everyone, from rich to poor.

[The Gaffer]

That seems sensible, though the rich are clearly having a laugh. Ours is:

- up to £5k ($9k) no tax
- next 2k is at 10%
- next 30k is at 22%
- then it's 40%

A more urgent thing would be to close the loopholes. Loads of really rich people, and businesses, pay no tax at all.

[afro-elf]

Spock,

I was going for the word peace. Maybe Hei-wa? Maybe it depends on the Kanji.

BTW I'm off on a cross country road trip so if anyone makes a direct reply to me on this tread after about 10:00 est time I;ll be gone for a week

[Spock]

Originally Posted by afro-elf

Spock,

I was going for the word peace. Maybe Hei-wa? Maybe it depends on the Kanji.

BTW I'm off on a cross country road trip so if anyone makes a direct reply to me on this tread after about 10:00 est time I;ll be gone for a week

Well your post here was at 13:02 hrs, so I'm not sure this post at 13:22 hrs will catch you.

Kanji for Peace= 平和 it's also used for "harmony".

BTW-A.E. and I know this is off topic

[Spock]

BJ, by your own post 35% is paid by the richer in the US.

The following may be of some help-----we're all getting off the main topic so expect someone to mention this.


Bush Tax Cuts:
The Burden Decreased for All Groups
(More for some than others)

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate


2004 Rates
Change Due to Bush Cuts

Lowest 20%
5.2%
-1.5%

Second 20%
11.1%
-2.1%

Middle 20%
14.6%
-1.9%

Fourth 20%
18.5%
-2.1%

Top 20%
23.8%
-3.9%

Top 5%
25.6%
-5.2%

Top 1%
26.7%
-6.8%


Share of Federal Tax Burden



Lowest 20%
1.1%
-0.1%

Second 20%
5.2%
-0.2%

Middle 20%
10.5%
+0.2%

Fourth 20%
19.5%
+0.7%

Top 20%
63.5%
-0.6%

Top 5%
35.9%
-1.5%

Top 1%
20.1%
-1.8%

Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law , 2001 to 2014," Tables 2, 4.

Lastly, this from 'factcheck.org"
The middle 20% of the population now pays 14.6% of their income for all federal taxes. That's a reduction of 1.9 percentage points as a result of the Bush cuts. And that group now pays 10.5% of all federal taxes, an increase of 0.2 percentage points.
The top 1% of the population pays a much higher rate -- 26.7% of their income goes to pay federal taxes, on average. That's 6.8 percentage points less than they would have paid under the tax rules in effect when Bush took office, so Kerry's ad is quite right to say "the wealthiest are paying less." And their share of the total tax burden did also drop by 1.8 percentage points. But this most affluent one percent still pays more than 20% of all federal taxes.
The lowest-earning 20% of the population now pays only 5.2% of their average incomes in federal taxes, down 1.5 percentage points due to the Bush cuts. This bottom group pays only 1.1% of all federal taxes, and their share of the burden dropped by 0.1 percentage point.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

BJ, by your own post 35% is paid by the richer in the US.

Those were just the base rates in 2005, not % or total tax revenues.

But, assuming your numbers are correct, the 6% of the federal tax burden that the lowest 40% pay could be removed completely by adding a bit more burden to the upper 20%, burden that would hardly effect the upper income earners quality of life at all, while making a huge difference to those living at or below poverty.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Those were just the base rates in 2005, not % or total tax revenues.

But, assuming your numbers are correct, the 6% of the federal tax burden that the lowest 40% pay could be removed completely by adding a bit more burden to the upper 20%, burden that would hardly effect the upper income earners quality of life at all, while making a huge difference to those living at or below poverty.

IYO, I understand, however, IMO, a burden is a burden, be it 1% or 6%. I'm not for a free ride nor for any group to carry the load for others. I'm sure something could be worked out ...it just hasn't been done yet.

[Earniel]

If I remember right in remembering that the highest tax bracket here is 55%, I think your rich people can count themselves lucky.

[Spock]

Residents of Belgium are subject to personal income tax on their total income from all sources. Taxation on a sliding scale is applied to successive portions of net taxable income. Rates in 2005 vary between 0% and 50%.

Residents also pay municipal taxes at rates that vary between 0% and 9% of the total income tax payable. Non-residents have to pay a similar additional tax at a rate of 7% of the total income tax payable.

Certain expatriates who satisfy conditions outlined in paragraphs 18 to 22 are considered fiscally as 'non-resident' and come under a special taxation regime. They are liable to pay Belgium tax only on income connected with professional duties carried out in Belgium.

[Earniel]

Oh yes, now I remember. It's the French that have 55%, which is why Belgium is a prime destination these last years for rich Frenchmen that try to evade the higher French tax...

(Not that this had anything to do with the topic, I realise now. Rather random info. Ignore this and carry on. )

[hectorberlioz]

Bill Cosby's speech made me cry....

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...cakespeech.htm