| Author | Message | ||
     R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 394 Registered: 07-2002 |
Not really taking a shot at Paul himself, (because Paul is obviously one of a very few on the "left" who thinks about what he is saying.) but... well if you took the time to read the thread about patriotism and all, then you know what I am talking about when I say this: The thing that really scares me about the left is not so much that they are against war. Because frankly, if Iraq every really tried anything we would squash em like bugs anyway! (so why not stop it before it happens?) What really gets me worried is when they say things like 40% of the people in this country don't have health care insurance. Well, too bad. I've said it before and I will say it again, life isn't fair. If you think that turning to some socialist idealism will make things into a bright and shining future, maybe you should study your history a little more. Or maybe you should take a look at Canada. Ya, they have healthcare for "everyone" But then again, I don't know anyone in this country who couldn't walk into a hospital and get treatment. And in truth, they don't have healthcare for everyone. Last year I was watching the B.C. cable news while up in the San Juan Islands, the big story of the week was about a kid who had died because she couldn't get healthcare because she was retarded and disabled - The whole thing was a mix of Nazi hatred mixed with Soviet bereaucratic impotence. It was sick. I have personally seen the destruction and depression that socialistic governments visit on their people. First, one example is the line that went on for three blocks - people waiting all day for their ration of toilet paper from the government - this was during the height of Glastnost and Peristroika when things were supposed to be good. And not only that, but you had to be a certain type of person to get your toilet paper. The second example is the way that the socialist Oregon Health Plan is bankrupting our state and schools - it is sucking this state dry. I wouldn't want to be a soldier in the U.S. called to duty for a year or more, only to come home to a leftist suedo-socialist U.S.A. We need to take care of our own, not rely on government. When you start asking for handouts what you are actually doing is taking a piece of the foundation of our nation. It is an exact opposite of everything that this country was built for, built on, and has survived on so far. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2003 |
R.B. I hate to burst your bubble but we are already living in a very socialist society. Its called corporate socialism. Have you any idea the levels to which this government subsidizes industry? Rest assured of one certainty, the dollar amount of corporate welfare far outstrips welfare for the poor and unfortunate in this country. You said when you start asking for handouts from the government you are eroding the very foundation of our nation. If that truly is the case then corporate America has an awful lot to answer for. That brings me to another point. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you ask me on another thread if I was a Christian stating something along the lines that I should be thankful that George Bush is Christian too. Well let me ask you, as a Christian, as anyone even remotely believing in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is it not a fundamental part of our belief that we are, in fact, our brothers keeper? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but your seeming lack of care for anyone less fortunate than yourself is anything BUT a Christian, dare I say American point of view. I know that this may not be a good time to mention that wonderful gift the French gave us over a hundred years ago but I seem to recall taking pride in what was expressed on that gift. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" That, my friend, sounds like a far cry from the indifference you displayed in your post. There once was a time we took pride in being a sort of moral beacon to the world. What has happen? What went wrong? Why have we so strayed from such a Christian like ideal? When did we become concerned only for ourselves and what we can acquire regardless of the expense to others? What happened to our character? In this world we cannot be so blithe as to believe that everything can be compartmentalised. Everything, everyone is linked and every action has a corresponding action. Hell, a mulitude of reactions. This applies across the board. From possible reprecussions as a result of a war in the Middle East to cuts in education or senior health care they all impact on each other. One last thing before I'm off to another thread. This country was built on the belief that all men (and women) have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Much of our founding fathers' philosophy is infused with these fundamental rights of man. When we fail to provide for the less fortunate and leave them adrift, it is then when the foundation this country was built upon gets chiseled away. | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 102 Registered: 11-2002 |
"There once was a time we took pride in being a sort of moral beacon to the world. What has happen? What went wrong? Why have we so strayed from such a Christian like ideal? When did we become concerned only for ourselves and what we can acquire regardless of the expense to others? What happened to our character? " It went into defense mode when they moved here and then tried to destroy what has been fought for so hard to keep. Even the finest Hotels have to put out the "No Vacancy " sign when there simply isnt any more room. Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2003 |
Hey Kyle, I had no problem posting with the new password I took when I reregistered. Thanks for allaying my fears because as the saying goes "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you!" Cheers, Paul | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 103 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yeah , I didnt send the "Black Hellocopters" either.. :0 Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| ed hart (Adifferentedh) Member Username: Adifferentedh Post Number: 46 Registered: 12-2002 |
RB, Weren't those lines for toilet paper after the fall of Communism . In the first stages of a Capitalist government in Russia, when all the elite Party Bosses were replaced by corrupt capitalists and thugs or organized crime? I don't really get your point on that one . So our current administration is on the Right track. Our National Energy Policy was formed with the help of Enron execs, cronies of our great leader and vp . Life isn't fair is it , not for the many people who invested their lives and retirement funds w/ Enron or WorldCom. These people don't deserve better ? Or that would be a handout? CEOs and CFOs make multi million dollar salaries while laying off their workers . Life isn't fair . Check out the Telecomm industry ,Verizon ,SBC , WorldCom, AT&T all had record salaries and bonuses for their top execs and all had layoffs . What about these people that find themselves unemployed , life isn't fair? I don't think they are looking for handouts maybe some justice though. I do agree w/ you that I would not want to be a soldier sent away for a year or more , only to come back to this. Land of robber barons and complacent uncompassionate lemmings. Ed | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 397 Registered: 07-2002 |
I did  Paul, I wasn't the one who asked about Christianity and stuff. But it's an interesting turn...I will respond to you about it - just not right now because I need to either eat or work on my Rover. It's a hard decision... | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 398 Registered: 07-2002 |
Wow, this whole thing about corporate wellfare and corruption sure squeezed its' way in here! OK, for now - Paul you're right about the corporate wellfare - help from the government to private organizations has ballooned out of control. And I think that answers some of Ed's insites also. But where in my response did you see me say that because life isn't fair that means we should not help out our fellow man? I am simply saying that government should not be at the forefront of that fight. We all know what happens when the government tries to accomplish the simplest of tasks. Look at the homeless problem in San Fransisco, in the late '80's they declaired war on homelessness. Since then the population of homeless has grown and last I heard they spend some crazy amount like $5k a day per homeless person!! (I could be wrong, I just remember that it was some absolutely insane amount.) People are moving there specifically to be homeless!! Bureaucracy and welfare do not go together. (And I think we can all agree right off the bat that "general welfare" as stated in the Constitution is not what we are talking about here.) This stuff should be taken on by individuals, churches, private welfare groups and the like. Basically, I'm for charity (who isn't) but not for entitlements and hand-outs - especially from the government. The line I saw, and the people I talked to to figure out what was going on, was in L'vov, in the Ukraine in 1990. | ||
| Mike Rupp (Mike_rupp) Member Username: Mike_rupp Post Number: 162 Registered: 02-2002 |
Paul, the whole concept of "corporate welfare" is illogical. Welfare is redistribution of wealth from those who have wealth to those who do not. How can corporations that pay taxes be considered to be receiving welfare? I guess it comes from the leftist notion that all wealth stems from government and is then rationes off to those who need it most. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2003 |
Mike, Did you know that across the board, since the 1950's, the total amount of contribution corporate America makes in the form of taxes has dropped precipitously? Did you know that. according to the Center for Corporate Integrity, 48 out of 82 of our largest corporations regardless of assets or profits paid no taxes at all in the most recent year they studied (1999 if I'm not mistaken). Our previous Secretary of the Treasure, former Alcoa CEO, stated on numerous occasions that he felt corporations should pay no taxes at all. Jack Welsh, former CEO of GE must have agreed whole heartedly because GE has paid litttle or nothing in the way of taxes for some time now. Over 1200 corporations with assets over $250 million in this country that reported "no income" paid no taxes. "No income?" Perhaps the result of accounting slights of hand along the lines of Enron? When a corporation is afforded the leeway of declaring "no income" thanks to unethical use of the tax code (it's been said that Enron viewed their accounting departmnt as a renvenue generator!) then, yes, that is a subsidy provided by you and I. Semantics aside, that is another form of welfare. By the way, why are so many in corporate America afraid of adopting ethical use accounting standards? R.B. I didn't mean to beat up on you over the Christian thing but I do have to take issue with your contention that government shouldn't be at the forefront of help to those in need. Government is the only one with the capacity to offer help of the magnitude required. It is government that has the capacity to provide help if for no other reason than age old 'economy of scale' argument. Have you any idea how much more efficient our government has been in delivering medicare and medicaid to individuals in the country than the typical, for profit HMO? It is a shame that we have come to believe, without question, that if government does something it has to cost more. Such a statement is not always true. One last thing. In my readings of Samuel Johnson, that most erudite author of prose from the 18th century, that Jacobite (read ultra conservative), that contemporary of Burke, I came across another citation I thought worthy of mention. "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." Now, before you burn me in effigy I want to say that this was not intended to paint you or anyone else here with a particular brush. I only mention it so that in the future when you hear someone, anyone, calling for you to show your patriotism you might stop and think deeply about their motivations. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2003 |
I almost forgot to mention another thing about taxes. It is popular to assert that the poor don't pay their fair share. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal last month called people earning $12K a year who paid little or no taxes 'lucky duckies." Two things here. First, even with deductions and allowances these 'lucky duckies' still had to pay FICA and that represented a far far greater percentage of their overall income than what someone earning $120K would experience. The other thing I have to wonder about this editorial is, have you ever tried to live below the poverty line, on $12K a year? To characterize someone grossing $240 a week as a 'lucky duckie' surely is the cruelest joke. Just think, $240 a week figures out to be just a bit above the minimum wage. Do you folks remember when the minimum wage was introduced in this country what it was supposed to represent? I seem to recall that the minimum wage was supposed to provide enough for a family of four to live above the poverty line in America. Somehow, while wealth got concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, that minimum wage wasn't even able to sustain a single person above the poverty line. Is there not something wrong with this fact? | ||
| Mike Rupp (Mike_rupp) Member Username: Mike_rupp Post Number: 163 Registered: 02-2002 |
Since you bring up GE, A quick check to their 10-K (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40545/000004054503000016/frm10k.htm) shows that they paid $3.837 Billion in taxes in 2002, which doesn't include taxes paid by their employees on their personal returns. Did they pay their fair share? Please cite your sources regarding Jack Welsh's tax situation, or is this like when you recycled Barbara Streisand's misquote? | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 153 Registered: 08-2002 |
Paul Along with that $240 a week comes a lone star card of $400 a month for food, health care for the family and children through medicaid or chip $200, WIC (milk, cheese, enfamil,cereal)$120, juice etc), PCI (Day Care for low income families)$200 wk, welfare $300, schooling (?) and housing allowances $500 month. I go to the store and see these Lucky Duckies everyday. Granted some people fall and a hand to help you get on your feet is very much appreciated, however the system is learned and eventually can be taken advantage of. By my calculation this lucky ducky is receiving in excess of $31000 tax free because more than likely they will qualify for an earned income credit at the end of the year. I dont know what the solution is. I just wish sometimes I was a lucky ducky when I am in the grocery line with my one cart and they have two carts stacked with steak, lucky charms and minute maid orange juice. Oh well. | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2003 |
Paul, If you have the time, and maybe you have read this book. Please take a look at "The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixtie's Legacy to The Underclass" by Myron Magnet. srafj40 | ||
| William C. Leek (Onionman) Member Username: Onionman Post Number: 71 Registered: 07-2002 |
I consider my self a moderately liberal conservative. (How about that for a label!) For me, the big question is: Where do we draw the line? Between what's right and what's wrong. Between too much and not enough. Between this side and that side in almost every issue and instance we face in our personal and social lives. How much government is enough? How much is too much? I always look at 2 main issues: civil rights and environmental protection. The ultimate purpose of government, any government, is to protect those within its jurisdiction. Even a totalitarian government has that responsibility. For each of these issues, no real progress was made in this nation until a strong federal govermnment, acting on the will of the majority, forced the issue. In each, both big business and organized religion failed miserably in protecting those who were unable to protect themselves. You might reasonably ask, did we go too far in these and related issues? Maybe so; I'm willing to admit that government can become too overbearing. I am, in fact, a government employee, and I try to make it a part of my job to really help those affected by the programs with which I am involved. (Yes, I've heard the joke: one of the big lies in society is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.") I can and do regognize that sometimes our efforts can be too much, especially when working out the intricate details of our programs. Does that mean we should abolish government programs to help those who can't help themselves? If the big businesses and if the organized religions and other organizations would step-up their efforts, and if ALL OF US AS INDIVIDUALS would do likewise and join in to help, then we could begin cutting back services sponsored through our governments, at all levels. Jesus taught us: "The poor will always be with us." But, He did not mean that we should ignore them or take advantage of our "higher station in life" to use and abuse them. As a Christian, I see that it is my responsibility to help those in need. Other religions preach the same. We are our brothers keepers. But, as Paul Grant has pointed out above, at this time, only the government has the werewithal, through our will and contributions, to organize the efforts required to help those in need. For now, I see a need to continue most of the government programs the current administration seems bent on eliminating or severely restricting. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2059 Registered: 02-2002 |
is the glass half full? or is it half empty because the greedy, rich, capitalist pigs have conspired in the dark of night to prevent the tired, poor, huddled masses from filling it all the way up? Perhaps some of your freedom fighter friends should come help the huddled masses breathe free. Would that make you feel better Paul? | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 49 Registered: 02-2003 |
"The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service show that the 5 percent of taxpayers who earn the most pay more than half of all federal individual income taxes, and the top 1 percent pay almost a third." NCPA.org If corporations aren't paying any taxes, then why are they all packing up and leaving the country? The truth is the top 1% of the working population pay most of the taxes. While there is obviously a vast amount of corporate corruption, Americans who actually work are footing the bill. If you don't believe me check the IRS stats. I am sick of hearing about how the poor are struggling. with all of the aid that is available there is no reason why someone should go hungry. I absolutely believe that we should be responsible for those who are in need. I also believe that if you don't work or don't want to work, then you shouldn't eat. I think its odd that republicans are always blamed for corporate corruption because all of their rich friends own all of hig companies. However, all of the corporate corruption that is uncovered now happened under a democratic administration. I don't think anyone in the media has ever addressed this. It is my opinion that those who work the system and don't work make out well in this country, the ultra rich do well in the country...It is the middle class that gets burdened the most. | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 50 Registered: 02-2003 |
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pd120898f.html | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 516 Registered: 09-2002 |
Interesting discussion. If I had the energy I would participate more fully but to sum up my veiws rather quickly, If you want more money, make more money. Life is not fair but everyone in the U.S.A. has the oportunity to make their own way, even if the playing feild is not level. There is no such thing as luck. Eccept maybe in the case of a lottery winner but money not earned will most likely dissapear as fast as it came in. Human nature. What you don't earn you will abuse. | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 152 Registered: 02-2002 |
How Taxes Work - A Simple Explanation http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827579/posts We then wonder why Corporations AND People with income are moving out of the country. Duh! - Mark | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2064 Registered: 02-2002 |
hehehe Mark, that explanation has been circulating around the net for a while, but your link is by far the most accurate version of it. Very nice! (but you do realize that it's all a lie, don't you? ) | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 516 Registered: 09-2002 |
Paul, my 1040 for 1995 has taxable income of 11k - that for a family of four! - and i've somehow managed to owe a lot of fed taxes (the dickheads at the school couldn't grasp the fact that i was not on student visa). I would have been ways better off doing nothing and getting the welfare! Once I took some ol'lady for her welfare check, and i was amazed at the scene: a white caddy with gold-plated rims rolls in, a tall black chick dressed up from Nordstrom walks into the social services' office, and out with a thick wad of foodstamps. at that time, i thought that (a) a flat income tax must be instituted across the board (b) corporations should pay no taxes at all (c) welfare should be abolished my thoughts haven't changed a whole lot since... a company earns money, and pays taxes. out of what's left, it pays you salary. On which you pay taxes. Out of what's left, you buy things, which are taxed as well. | ||
| Jason Gustavson (Prescottj) Senior Member Username: Prescottj Post Number: 441 Registered: 12-2002 |
NICE!!! | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 399 Registered: 07-2002 |
As far as taxes are concerned: -50% of WAGE EARNERS pay 96% of all taxes in this country. (That is you and me.) -1% of all the people in this country pay 37% percent of all taxes. (Ya, they are rich, but they do pay more than their fair share.) -Less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. -Data covers calendar year 2000, not fiscal year 2000 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security. I consider it a privledge to pay taxes to a country as great as America. But it also believe that it is morally wrong for there to be high taxes just to pay for programs that do not fall under what our Constitution allows and charges the government to do. The line between too much and too little may never be found. You make the point that it took government to finally address the lack of civil rights in this country. You are right, but that was done only at the urging of the righteous leaders of the church - MLKing and others. I am not totally against welfare. But I am against the mission of welfare in this country right now - which is the redistribution of wealth through what could be termed the laundering of money from taxes. Paul - your view, "Government is the only one with the capacity to offer help of the magnitude required." Shows a lack of self motivation and self-reliance. That is surpising for someone who drives a Discovery. Do you purposefully go out off-roading without the proper preparations or tools because you know that the guy behind you will be forced to help if you get in trouble? Why should we not ENABLE people rather than create dependants? As a philanthropist I am in constant contact with people and organizations who are doing things that would be absolutely out of the question for a government agency. All due to the simple fact that it would take years of bureaucratic red tape cutting, and many times the amount of money that the private organizations spend. One organization comes to mind that is able to feed approximately 40k hungry people in Oregon on a budget of just $10-15k per year! Try that with your government agency. The sad thing is that more and more laws are coming on the books every year that make it harder and harder for such organizations to do their work without having to pay more and more money in fees, and even "taxes", or legal insurance. In simple terms, Government should stay out of the private lives of people as long as no harm is being done to others. That is why we have laws that you cannot drink and drive, not so you won't kill yourself - you have every right to drink - but so you won't kill others. That is a good law. A bad law is one that won't let my parents sell their house and property without paying more than $15k to the local government agencies just to do the paperwork and surveys that shows that the place has been used as a small farm for the past 14 years. (We're talking about 15 acres!) And on top of that, even if they do jump through all the hoops, they MUST wait 18 months for city and county processing - their paper work has been done for 3 months, but they can't get it because the 18 months is not up. And this is in the USA! In the mean time, the agency that is supposed to protect children from abuse is actively sending out deputies to homes with registered fire arms - just to check... While my wife gets the phone hung up on her when she calls the same agency in question to report that one of her students is coming to school with belt bruises and cuts on her face. They actually told her that they have checked into the matter and cannot do anything because they are a poor family and it would be discrimination against the poor to investigate them!! This is true! NO LIE! You read this stuff and you wonder why I am questioning the ability of our government to take care of some of these things? And you wonder why I am against a growing government and its power over our everyday lives? | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 400 Registered: 07-2002 |
More on taxes If you make $239k before taxes, per year, you are in the top 1% Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 8 Registered: 03-2003 |
Mike, Here are a couple of my sources for my comment on GE paying little or no taxes. Business Week 1/27/03 Death, Taxes, and Tax Shelters "A 2000 study by the Washington-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that GE racked up a staggering $6.9 billion in breaks in just three years, trimming its tax bill by 77%. Since 1998, the last year of the study, GE's effective tax rate has declined dramatically, hitting 20.5% in the third quarter of 2002--a far cry from the 32.6% it reportd in 1996, or the 35% statutory rate." Business Week 3/4/02 Tax Dodging: Enron Isn't Alone Plenty ofCompanies Pay Little or Nothing. "GE was also able to push much of its taxable income into future years, mostly through its financial arm GE Capital. Know as deferral, this technique is commonly used, allowing many businesses to delay paying taxes indefinitely." "From 1995 to 2000 corporate earnings jumped by more than a third but taxes rose by only about 17%. As a result, the spread between book income and taxable income is widening." "Harvard University economist Mihir A. Desal estimates that just among companies with assests in excess of $250 million, book earnings in 1998 exceeded taxable income by a staggering $287 billion." "The trouble is, the tax code has become so riddled with loopholes that tax avoidance has become a profit center of its own." These comments and figures are from Business Week not some left wing website. The notion of accounting departments as profit centers is highly questionable from an ethical standpoint. Again, why is corporate America so resistent to adopting the use of ethical accounting standards? Charles, I guess the poor in my area are just plain dumb because I don't see the plethora of shiny Cadillacs or brimming shopping baskets that are so prevailent in other parts of the country. I see poorly feed children at the Dorothy Day Soup Kitchen during the day and a lottery for the few beds available to the homeless at night. Stacy, honestly, I have not seen the book you've mentioned but I will see if I can find it in my local library or bookstores. I have no problem with reading perspectives that are contrary to my own. I hope that Mark will vouch for me on that statement. Mark, I haven't had a chance to look at your link but you know I will. Give me some time to respond to the rest of these assertions. Peter, it is the opinion of an awful lot of economists that a flat tax would be regressive. A flat tax would consume a far greater percentage of a low income wage earner's pay than a graduated, progressive tax rate. Basically, a flat tax would be grossly unfair to the poor. I know that Paul O'Neill was an advocate of zero taxes for corporate America. While I know the argument is that employee and consumers pay for corporate taxes anyway so it's sort of a double taxation. I put this argument right in there with Reagan's trickle down economics. All a move such as this would do is benefit the truly wealthy. Any benefits to reach the lowest 50% of income earners would be insignificant. If providing aid and assistance to those less fortunate than ourselves is abolished, what then do you propose to do for the millions that have been forced into a tenuous existence in this country. Leave them to die? Hope that underfunded and undersized charities step in and carry the burden? R.B. I want to give your arguments their just response so please afford me a bit more time. I too have to eat every now and then. I'll talk to you later. Paul | ||
| Matt (Doc175) Member Username: Doc175 Post Number: 117 Registered: 11-2002 |
Here is an interesting site for anyone who is pro or con the war and the hollywood involvement. www.celiberal.com | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 11 Registered: 03-2003 |
Mark, I had a chance to check out your link and found it humorous. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the disparity of wealth continues to grow as it has over the last quarter century, ultimately, there will be hell to pay. Taxation is only one of a multitude of ways to redress income inequity but (and I don't 'only' blame the current administration) many of the other avenues have been weakened or dismantled. Look, you ought to know from my posts about our dealings with Iraq that I am highly distrustful of our government. Frankly, I'm distrustful of any government. However, to pretend that at this moment in time, that there are alternatives for dealing with the extent of social inequity in the US is mistaken. Also keep in mind that, prior to many of the social programs started under Roosevelt and Truman, a genuine thriving middle class did not exist in this country. As we watch the ranks of that middle class shrink, we should remind ourselves that we are on the brink of falling into a strict class society where very few have everything and the majority are left to fight for the scraps. Maybe for the majority of the poster here on DWeb such a class society is perfectly acceptable. Maybe everyone here is in that magical top 2% and as such is perfectly content with the way things are. Again, I remind you that there are hundreds of millions who are not quite so fortunate and many are not pleased with the direction our government is taking us. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 12 Registered: 03-2003 |
Mark, Here are a few numbers to support my contention about the shriking middle class. I mentioned on another thread we were on that prior to today income disarity had been greater during two other periods in American history, the 1890's and the 1920's. Using US Census Bureau figures (that typically are on the low side due to exclusion of such items as capital gains) the richest 5% of American families earned approximately 30% of the nations total personal income. Figures for 1947 show that that number had declined to 17.5% and by 1969 the top 5% of income earners represented 15.6% of the total. By the late 1970's things began to change if ever so slowly. By the end of the 1980's, 1989 to be exact, the share the top 5% received ha grown to 17.9%. Currently, the figure stands at 21% of earned income goes to the top 5%. Let me remind you, again, that these United States Census figures are on the low side because they do not take into consideration a variety of factors such as were mentioned above. I'm going to make citaions from a chart to illustrate income growth over the last 55 years since shortly after World War II. I'll provide the link as well. http://www.inequity.org/facts3fr.html Basically, what the chart I am citing from deals with is income growth among the five quintiles of income earners from 1947 to 1997. I'll highlight the figures for those who have trouble accessing the link. Basically, from the lowest 20% of income earners to the top 5%, all saw increases in their earnings. The interesting thing is how the increases were dispersed among the various groups. From 1947 to 1979 the lowest 20% of income earners saw an increase of +116%, the next highest (21-40%) was 100%, the next (41-60%) was 111%, the next (61-80%) was 114%, the next (81-100) was 99%. Interestingly enough, the top 5% of earners during that 32 year period saw only an 86% increase in earnings. What can be seen from this data is an acros the board, healthy increase in earnings for all groups. But, as I said above, by the late 190's things began to slowly change. From 1979 to 1997 he lowest 20% of income earners actually saw an adjusted drop in income by -1%. The next group (21-40%) saw an increase of 6% a far cry from the 100% increase they experienced over the previous period. The next group (41-60%) saw a whopping 10% increase. Again, hardly comparable to the 111 increase they had seen earlier. The next group (61-80%) wallowed in a 17% increase in earnings all the while wondering what happened to the 114% increase they had seen from '47 to '79. Things only start to get interesting when we start to look at the top 20% or highest paid income earners. Here we see that while during the period from 1979-1997 the "only" saw a 56% increase in earnings. However, when you examine the numbers more carefully you can see that the top 10% earned a more palatable 68% increase. Going still further the top 5% got a more healthy 85% increase. But it all pales in comparision to the gains made by the top 1% who saw an obscene 157% increase in income! This stuff is gleened from the census folks and like I said before, tends to be on the low side especially when calcuating high income earnings. In 2002 Business Week stated that from 1990-2001 the average CEO saw a 463% increase in earnings. Correspondingly, the average worker saw an increase of 42%. While partying with that 42% increase we all had to deal with a cumulative inflation rate of 36%. Hmmm. A bit more information to chew on. It would appear as thought, while middle class families enjoyed 28% of the stock market boom from 1989 to 1998, they also sank more deeply in debt. Mom and Pop with two kids and a dog in the suburbs took on 10% more debt than they earned in the stock market during the same period. Keeping up with the Jones' has never been easy. The only problem is the debt wasn't erased the way the gains were thanks to Wall Street's bubble bursting! On another, no less important, note, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 16.3% of American children live in poverty. Is that anything the 'richest nation in the world' should be proud of? The US Departmant of Agriculture reported a shocking figure. Some 33 million Americans miss meals because they can't afford them. That number includes around 13 million children. I guess those 33 million just haven't figured out the system the way that Cadillac driving, Nordstroms clad welfare cheat did. Charles, I guess a large part of those 33 million haven't learned how to exploit the system so that they can have an equivalent income of over $30K like the people you spoke of. I guess the families I see, the homeless I help feed every night I'm at work really just are a figment of my wild imagination. I'll just offer up a couple of more numbers thanks to the NCHS for you fols to ponder. Did you know that while we spend more of our GDP (13.1%) on medical care than any other industrialized nation our life expectancy rate for females is 18th and males is 19th among OECD countries? Our infant mortality rate is ranked at 28th. In 1960 we almost cracked the top ten (12%) but again, are these numbers we should be satisfied with? I'll leave you now because my fingers are cramping up! Cheers, Paul | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 401 Registered: 07-2002 |
Your numbers show that everyone has bennifited from the growth of our enconomy and - yes there is a growing gap between the "rich" and "poor" (I am very sceptical of those labels because they change according to congressional vote - 3 years ago I was considered poor, now I am in the upper part of the lower middle class - yet my net worth has only gone down.) But what business does the government have in trying to close that gap? If you can show me some law, some constitutional mandate that shows that this is the way our government was designed, then at least I will be forced to agree with you that our government is doing what it should when it attempts the redistribution of wealth. Not that I wouldn't then want an amendment or repeal of that law, but the law is the law. Again, I redirect your attention to recent history. The abject failure of communism. And you will invariably point me in the direction of the "booming" economy of China - a country which defines the separation of the poor and the wealthy - but the only reason there is any economy in China is because they have purposefully accepted a capitolist system for their economy while leaving the rest of the country and government in communism. Look at Korea, they are virtually starving. Their sole purpose for starting up the nuclear tensions is to try to blackmail the U.S. and others for economic help. My point is that the sparkleing idealism that is the redistribution of wealth is one of the main parts of a communist/socialist regieme. It is also one of the its most profound hypocracies. When you start picking and choosing who deserves to be wealthy and who doesn't, the government will, for it's survival, pick on the "chosen" the "healthy" and "strong". Not something I want to see. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 402 Registered: 07-2002 |
Holy cow my spelling is bad this morning! I need more coffee... | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2085 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jack Welsh, former CEO of GE must have agreed whole heartedly because GE has paid litttle or nothing in the way of taxes for some time now. A 2000 study by the Washington-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that GE racked up a staggering $6.9 billion in breaks in just three years, trimming its tax bill by 77%. Since 1998, the last year of the study, GE's effective tax rate has declined dramatically, hitting 20.5% in the third quarter of 2002--a far cry from the 32.6% it reportd in 1996, or the 35% statutory rate." Since you bring up GE, A quick check to their 10-K (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40545/000004054503000016/frm10k.htm) shows that they paid $3.837 Billion in taxes in 2002, From 1995 to 2000 corporate earnings jumped by more than a third but taxes rose by only about 17%. Little or nothing? This is classic manipulation of data. A few billion translates to "little or nothing" if it suites your argument. You can also creatively choose your X & Y axis values on your graphs to make the data get your message across... Look at this red line plummetting off the bottom of the graph! Someone get me more paper to catch this red line as it falls to the floor. That red line, gentlemen, is GE's declining tax rate! They're not being taxed enough! It's not fair! Now please look at this next graph - this big green line shooting to the moon is Big Corporate America's earnings! This little red line that's only rising half as fast is their paltry tax rate! Their taxes are only rising half as fast as their earnings! Half!!! That's a 50% savings for rich corporate America! Straight into their pockets! The poor thin red tax line is being left in the dust by this big, bold, evil green skyrocketing earnings line! It all comes back to the message in Mark's link (How Taxes Work - A Simple Explanation http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827579/posts). "It's not fair!!!" | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 521 Registered: 09-2002 |
Paul, Well, so far this year my income is down and my debt is up and my rover breaks alot. I sure would like some of the rich people out there to help me pay off my credit cars. It is not fair that I went to dinner and used a card and now I have to pay for it. I think the government should help me, (it is not my fault that I got into debt) but since they probably wont because I am not poor enough maybe some rich guy on the board will feel sorry for me and spread the welth. I accept paypal. | ||
| John Cinquegrana (Johnc) Senior Member Username: Johnc Post Number: 391 Registered: 07-2002 |
What's your paypal account Brian??? | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 523 Registered: 09-2002 |
Thanks john. And you can use your donation as a tax deduction. This is most definatly a win win situation, for you and me that is. Not so good for the government though because your tax deduction will reduce the amount of taxes you are required to pay thus screwing the next guy that got in to debt and needs some food stamps or what ever. Better not use your donation as a tax deduction. | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2003 |
Paul, I have to disagree with you as to the policies of FDR and Truman creating a genuine middle class. Yes America has its J.P. Morgan’s, and Robber Barons who manipulated the weak, but. America has always had a merchant and farming middle class, they owned property. This was unheard of in Europe at the time; this is why people came to the America's. A chance to own, make, and be something. WWII impacted America in ways that would forever change it. Not the policies of FDR and Truman. The middle class grew substantialy out of the social effects of the war. WWII showed Americans that another half of the population, (woman), could and wanted to work and produce income. Millions of men returned home and did something that most never thought of doing prior to the war, higher education. The men went to universities and colleges on the G.I. bill. The men became engineers, accountants, politicians, etc.... More income. The large middle class was now a vital part of the American landscape; it is the 50's and 60's. America became a world force. FDR's programs, CCC, WPA, and the rest of the alphabet helped some, but it took the War to move U.S. industry out of the crapper. Do I advocate war as a cure for an economy? NO. Did the war make the industrialist richer? YES. Did it put millions of out of work Americans to work, and give the men who fought a want and will to better themselves and this country? DAMN SKIPPY. This generation stared at HELL. Do you resent this time in America? Did you revolt at Berkley? Why do you want to redistribute hard earned money? Individual choices effect ones life. Thank goodness that America allows people to have soooo may chances to changed their own lives, with education and jobs. I use this on my students. I am an educator in a completely broken system, (Arizona, ranked 48th). “There once was a group of people. Really smart guys, a whole lot smarter than me, Mr. A. The people who founded and wrote our constitution. The constitution that changed the world. The constitution that provided for the peaceful change of leadership. The constitution that has stood the test of time”. The constitution that provides for you and I to have a wonderful debate. Reread the Federalist papers, the debate that went on with Hamilton and Jefferson, fantastic stuff. My opinion; I do not think that Jefferson would want a redistribution of wealth on the scale that you speak of. It is ironic that just last night I was introduced to Jefferson’s letter to George Wythe dated 13 Aug. 1786, while an ambassador to France. The letter calls for public education to protect what the U.S. is creating. This I can understand, and want, because this is a rightful use in the redistribution of wealth. “Teach a man to fish”. Jefferson wrote the letter because France made him sick. Yes the French revolted 3 years latter, however they tried a socialist approach that you want. It does not seem to be working. I look at the GNP and other economic indicators. My opinion; The French still have a class structured society that has not changed that much. It has not created a large middle class. Same ideas that the U.S. used different approach and result. Yes, the framers used the ideas of some French philosophers as the base of the constitution, but lets not get caught in the whole egg & chicken thing. Why are some French moving to Quebec? Taxation. Why do the English move to Canada? Taxation. Why do Canadians move to the U.S.? Taxation. Why do Americans move to Costa Rica? Taxation, and surf. Thank You for the debate Stacey P.S. do not worry, I did not hand out a work sheet to the students, letting them fend for them selves while I composed this. I came in early, and used my lunch. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 525 Registered: 09-2002 |
damn, one needs to be an economist to come up with such a conclusion. you earn 10k a year, pay a grand. you earn 10B a year, pay a Bil. how's that unfair for the poor? The same poor who's 10k come from that Bil? Come on Paul. Stop this bullshit about "awful lot of economists," and use your own reasoning. peter | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 405 Registered: 07-2002 |
Blue, I started scrolling up from the bottom of the thread and saw the RED and BLUE stuff... I knew it was you even before I saw your name - geeze, how many posts do I have now? | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 406 Registered: 07-2002 |
right now the state of Oregon is in the dump, like a lot of others, because they rely on income tax - the most complicated, politically correct, time-consuming, scheme thought up by man in a long time - anyway, if there was a flat tax or even just a sales tax the state would be fine. A little down, but nothing compared to relying on the income of people who no longer have an income!! Income tax is a punishment for doing well. I can't wait till I get into the next tax bracket, it will be like a graduation, and castration combined! Yeah I get a raise of 2%! Now my taxes go up 7%! Gotta love the income tax. | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2003 |
Paul, speaking of the 60's and the change that you note in the 70's, using the data. If you were poor and not earning enough, Johnson and his "War on Poverty", gave you every reason not to try to find work. Why work and generate income,(i.e. poor earn less according to your stats),if the government is going to give you the money. You use figures while not looking at the multitude of influences that shape a society. There is an old saying about figures and statistics and I think you are doing it. Economics is cyclical and ever changing. I get the feeling that you feel that there should always be nothing but an increase. Never a down turn? I hope you were not calling us all fols (sic). Stacey | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 100 Registered: 08-2002 |
Didn't we have a brief discussion regarding the flat tax and how it increased revenues for russia's government in an earlier thread? The thread had a hummer look-alike vehicle as the original topic. | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 101 Registered: 08-2002 |
Anyway...the flat tax will never happen in this country. Its too simple, the multi-billion dollar accountant lobby will make it so. Alas, Thems is the breaks, so get yourself a good accountant and a good lawyer to cover your butt. Thats the "American Way" as its currently played. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 14 Registered: 03-2003 |
Hey guys, I was just reading the latest posts while bouncing up to mine and I noticed a typo. When I posted 'fols' the missing letter was a 'k' not an 'o.' I hope no one thought I was trying to call them a fool. Anyway, I'll post some responses later. Thanks, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 15 Registered: 03-2003 |
As I see it, whenever we're talking about taxes and tax codes we are talking about more than a method for providing the government with the means to function. How the government chooses to collect taxes from its citizens and business is a reflection of how it would like society to grow and develop. By this, I mean that when a government chooses to tax a particular group or industry at a certain level it is, in a sense, expressing an opinion on said group or industry vis a vis society. Be it a 'sin tax' on alcohol or cigarettes, an estate tax on an individual, or a graduated income tax with a variety of deductions and credits, these taxes serve a specific purpose and send a unique message. This tax philosophy, if you will, has an effect on wealth and its distribution. While I think that all of us here are sophisticated enough to realize the necessity of taxation, how are we so sure that the code that we operate under is the right one? It seems as though an awful lot of us have complaints about something in the tax code. What is it we would like to ultimately see? If we are seeing a dramatic increase in the earnings of the very top levels (1%) of income earners at the same time they are getting reductions in their tax rate can we not draw someting from that phenomenon? Could it not be said that the tax code is in fact expressing an opinion vis a vis that group? Conversely, cannot the same be said for the vast majority of Americans that compose the lowest four quintiles of income earners? If they have seen a slowing, or even a decrease in earnings without enjoying a significant relaxation of their tax obligation isn't the government, through its tax code expressing an opinion vis a vis this group also? Is it fair? Basically, what it comes down to is regardless of who gets the 'breaks' every tax code will have winners and losers but what is it about the form of our current code that makes it right? Is it right when the largest benefactor of the tax code is the smallest income earning group or would it be more just if the majority of income earners reaped the greatest benefit? I am not arguing against the majority of you folks (spelled it right this time!). Rather, in my hope for tax reform that would help the majority of Americans, I am advocating for you. A reform of the tax code to reflect fairness to all income earners would affect redistribtion but I fail to see how it would be harmful to the vast majority of Americans. A more just and fair tax code would not simply rob from the rich to give to the poor. It would empower and enable the majority of Americans. If a more equitable tax code was coupled with a genuine effort to 'teach a man to fish' through education and training then I truly believe that everyone would prosper. I'll post more thoughts later. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 16 Registered: 03-2003 |
Stacy, While I won't disagree with your assertion of a farm and merchant class in America I would like to point out that the G. I. Bill that you write so favorably of was a creation of the Roosevelt Administration. Having been forced to deal with veterans of the First World War descending on Washington in protest over the redemption of War Bonds shortly after his election in 1932, Roosevelt, unlike Hoover, learned his lesson. Wisely, he set in motion comprehensive programs that would enable soldiers returning from WWII to get the education and training they needed for the burgeoning new economy. With just the coupling the G. I. Bill with a progressive restructuring of the tax code you have two very important fundamentals in place for expanding wealth and opportunity to a much broader class of people. Cheers, Paul | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 158 Registered: 08-2002 |
The Tax Code is a game. You say "teach a man to fish" a man can learn the game just like anyone else. All the rules apply to everyone equally. I say understand the game, learn the rules, and play. My eye opener was Robert Kiyosaki's 'Rich Dad Poor Dad'. This is an excellent book and I recomend it to everyone. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 17 Registered: 03-2003 |
Stacy, Regarding your comments about the 60's and 70's I'm not sure I understand you or that you understood me. The statistics I used from 1947-79 show that the lower quintiles of income earners actually saw the greatest increases I don't know about you but if I saw that my economic status was improving it would provide a tremendous stimulus for me to work even harder. This occurence would partly help explain the explosive growth of the middle class over the 32 years studied. The reversal of income increases only began to be felt in the latter part of the period, the late 1970's. It was at this time that the first movement back to a widening of the income gap was seen. Following your logic, if I am understanding you, it would seem that from the late 1970's through 2001 (the last year studied) we would see a greater likelihood of the poor 'dropping out.' In fact, that is precisely what did happen. As earnings for the lowest quintile failed to keep up, more and more of the very people that composed that group failed to keep up as well. That is my point. As wealth disparity increased, as tax codes changed, as programs to help in education were dropped or modified, as the very cost of education skyrocketed more and more of the lowest quintile of earners got left further and further behind. I accept that there were many, many other reasons as well but I hope you see some of my point. One final thing. I don't deny that there are people out there at every income level that will cheat and manipulate any system. I believe they represent the minority of Americans out there. It is my contention that most people want to work. They want to be self sufficient. They want to be productive. Give a man an education, the neessary tools, and the sense that achievement is more than a pipe dream and you'll see a highly motivated worker. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2003 |
Paul, You are right about the G.I. bill. I was shooting from the hip and mixed it up with the rehabilitation act from 1919, Wilson and so on. That led to Hoover's and McArther's actions. I do recognize many of your points as I feel that we are now not using the same operational definitions. My point about the "war on poverty" is that the lower quintile had more incentive to not work and take the ever growing government handouts. Thus the reason that your figures work. These programs have not gone away. My opinion: the current fiscal situation that most municipalities, states and federal governments have is from the fact that during the 90's that government did not cut back. Most forms municipal, state etc... did not check their growth or reach. It, being government saw all the tax windfall and got big eyes. Good times do not last, and the result is what you and I, all of us face today. Massive deficets. Democrates and Republicans both fell asleep. It is now up to us the people to get the idea people into place by voting them in. Do you want to run? LOL :-) It seems that the real juxt(sp.), is tax code. Hey I just teach 7th graders. But I will see what I can infuse to the topic. Thanks Stacey | ||
| Paul Grant (Paul_grant) New Member Username: Paul_grant Post Number: 18 Registered: 03-2003 |
Stacy, Just a quick observation. I think you and I have a lot more to agree upon than not. I am not calling for a reckless violent revolution at all. We are blessed to have a system that can be extraordinarily responsive. As you said, we have to get people to realize they do have the power. What saddens me is that so many of us feel marginalized and disenfranchised. These are dangerous worms that can borrow into the framework of any democracy. Have a great day with the kids and know that I have tremendous respect and appreciation for your impact on the furure of America. Cheers, Paul | ||
| TPH (Snowman) Senior Member Username: Snowman Post Number: 309 Registered: 12-2002 |
Charles- Robert Kiyosaki's 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' is interesting stuff! He has some great ideas and when I saw him speak he completly changed my view on my home as an investment. I was a little bummed at first but he just makes sense. He has two books out now. S- | ||
| charles pastrano (Charles) Member Username: Charles Post Number: 159 Registered: 08-2002 |
Yeah I have read them and they are pretty much like the first except they go into more detail on understanding balance sheets, investing etc. I will tell you this man changed my life completely. Three things: 1. Never work for someone else ever again. You are limiting yourself to the amount of income you make. 2. Learn everthing there is to know about something that will make you money or save you money. The right education is key. 3. Invest in assests that will pay for itself. Charles | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2003 |
Charles, I will pick up a copy this weekend. Stacey | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2089 Registered: 02-2002 |
I can't wait till I get into the next tax bracket, it will be like a graduation, and castration combined! Yeah I get a raise of 2%! Now my taxes go up 7%! Gotta love the income tax. LOL RB. Back in high school & college I worked summers in a steel plant in Cleveland. A fellow high-schooler came to work there with me my second year. Since I had been there longer, I received a $0.25 raise (to about $6.50/hr - which was good money for a 16-year old in the mid 80's). My friend made $6.25/hr. All else being equal (timeclock hrs, deductions, etc), his paychecks were larger than mine after taxes! I actually petitioned the foreman to reduce my hourly pay so I could take home more cash each Friday (the typical instant-gratification high school mentality). Now please explain the logic or justice in that. | ||
| Greg Davis (Gregdavis) Senior Member Username: Gregdavis Post Number: 714 Registered: 08-2002 |
OK, here's my screwey way of looking at it. Why should I pay a higher percentage than someone that makes less than me? Because I earn more, do I cost the Gov't more? Probably just the opposite. The higher wage earners are probably going to rely less on Gov't programs, meaning we actually cost the Gov't LESS to live in this country than the others, yet we have to carry our weight and someone else's? I was not given anything, either financially or educationally. In fact, I'm only a HS graduate, yet through damned hard work and perseverence, I've managed to do quite well. Hell, after I got out of the military, I picked up trash for a living for 3.5 years! But I did what was necessary to make ends meet. I have real problems with people who say things in this country aren't fair. You either wait for good things to happen, or you make them happen. OK, I feel better now. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2093 Registered: 02-2002 |
bravo Greg | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 525 Registered: 09-2002 |
Rich Dad Poor Dad...excellent reading. I've read them both too. Very different thought processes from what the average person does and his ideas make a tremendous amount of sence. | ||
| KJ (Karen) Senior Member Username: Karen Post Number: 109 Registered: 02-2002 |
Stacey, You can take Costa Rica off the list for North Americans. About 10-12 years ago the government there discontinued the Pensionado program, and thus the huge incentives for North Americans to retire/relocate there. Taxation and import duties are stiff there and no longer are the greenbacks exempt as far as I know. We were looking to buy real estate there and then they repealed the monetary incentives, so we bought elsewhere. We got tax-free AND surf (G). Karen | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 19 Registered: 03-2003 |
Karen, that stinks, I guess (G) is where they make some cotton clothing? Enjoy the sunsets. What do you know about Chile? Not the UN mess. Tax problems for Germany http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2382691 Stacey | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 114 Registered: 11-2002 |
Puke...... This is the government you made... Its never gonna get better , only worse. As long as slinging bullshit gets votes and people like hearing pretty talk it will continue to degrade..... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| BW (Bwallace35) New Member Username: Bwallace35 Post Number: 31 Registered: 07-2002 |
Anyone know where I can buy a .50 cal Hawkin rifle. Of course, I'll settle for a .30 cal. I think Johnson was on to something. | ||
| Greg Hirst (Gregh) Member Username: Gregh Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2002 |
Go to: http://www.gunsamerica.com | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 121 Registered: 11-2002 |
No shit BW , my thoughts exactly. The really hillarious part of this thread is that the ones with the most to say here are the same ones largely responsible for where we are. In these times , the higher the importance you put on something , the higher the dollar signs are that are asociated with it. Politicians are now selling themselves like used cars and I see people debating over which used car salesman is the best guy to run a nation. Anyone see a problem here ? There was a time when pride and honor were worth more then any currency from any country. WE all know those days are gone and as long as that is the climate , well , you are all educated , you should know the rest. Kyle "Blow me" |
