POST SCRIPTS

"It doesn’t take a genius to realize that lower tax rates make it possible for people with money to create more jobs..."

Ah, but what kind of jobs? Actually, I'm in favor of a nice mix. I don't want to take ALL the rich people's money, just a decidedly equitable portion of it. After all, it's not like this nation doesn't provide them with services, advantages, a nice safe place to be rich. They could be rich in Italy or South America and get kidnapped all the time.

And, call me a resentful member of the proletariate if you like, but I'd rather be a publicly pensioned school teacher, than do retail for some rich bitch.

Well put Tina.

One can also consider all of the charatible organizations that would go "tits up" if they were forced to rely on the good intentions of self righteous liberals.

And here is a shocker for you liberals out there. the progressive tax system is...wait for this...UNFAIR. Yup thats right, by all accounts such a system is unfair. How do we determine if something is fair or not you ask? Simple. we make rules. And as long as everyone plays by those rules we say that whatever the results are, it is fair. I have yet to find a liberal that would tell their A student to go back into the class and give a portion of their answers to a different student so they could all have C's. Yet that is exactly what they expect when it comes to money. Why? It is essentially the same thing. Actually, to be honest, that analysis isnt even FAIR. Why? well because If a student gets an A, that doesnt really help another student. But because capitalism is the way it is, chances are if someone is making a great deal of money, its is probaly providing you with a chance to make money as well, as Tina has demonstrated. So all in all, that evil wealthy guy who is providing a job, is actually doing more with the same opportunity that the country offered to anyone else.

You see, it doesnt matter how much you pay in taxes, the US Government doesnt offer you anything that it doesnt offer the poorest person in the country. In point of fact, the poorest person in teh country is probably getting way more from the government than the rich guy is.

If we wanted to be "fair" everyone would pay the same amount in taxes, since everyone gets the same thing from the federal government. Now this is not to say that everyone has teh same opportunities. that clearly isnt the case. The point is, that the government doesnt provide one American with one set of opportunites and another with a different set. Those things are determined by characther, hard work, family connection and wealth, God given talent, etc. But youre not paying taxes to the talent industry, or the character manufactuer, your paying taxes to the federal goverment.

So here is a challege to the lefties. Compete with that logic. Lets forget for a seocnd the overall issue of tax policy and just talk about "fairness" since that is so important. Address the points given here and above and try not to stray so much. tasker doesnt believe I have room to talk, well there it is Tasker. A theory about the "fairness" of tax policy. Lets debate it.

As far as Tax policy on teh whole,the liberal answer to poverty is make the rich give more. that isnt a solution. It is a temporary fix which yields worse results in the long run.

But it is excellant for democrats, because they depend on the votes of those people.

Middle class and upper class Republicans dont vote that way because they are greedy, we vote that way because we work hard for our money and are offended by the desire of others to take it from us to put into bad investments. Charity is an investment, and Liberals dont seem to understad that.

I donate to charitable organizations based off of their efficency and their product. I want charitable organizations goal to be to work themselves out of the job. I want families and local communities to take more responsibility for their people.

This is selfish? To demand that programs work to get people back to work, and the self sufficency and self respect that such an act creates?

Liberals revel about how many people they "help". Conservatives cheer when a person advances to a position where they no longer need it, andwe support those organizations that assist in that process. Its not because we are selfish, or greedy, or uncompassionate. Its because we have a pride which is based around the idea of self sufficency, and we know what it feels like when it is achieved.

Therefore when I look at a government run program that is cold and distant, inefficent, bankrupt, and not functioning the way it was intended, well Im not afraid to say that something should be changed or abandoned. And demanding taht charitable organizations whos focus is to end poverty, actually take steps to do so, rather than just giving handouts.

And what in particular is wrong with giving people more freedom over their financial future. such as in the case of social security. Not one prominant republican has advocated not paying those who have paid in to social security. Yet this does not stop liberas from claiming that. It is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. What liberals really oppose is fundamentally changing a program which THEY moved from being a protected fund in to the general fund. It is a huge piggy bank that they can pull from to win votes, and a huge scare tactic they can use when anyone suggests changing it.

Please tell me what the big hang up is about allowing people to have more freedom with THEIR money? I would be more than willing to give half of my social security check away if they would let me keep the other half. In return I would promise to NEVER request social security. Why? Because IM not the type to make my children slave under a burden of inefficency so liberals can feel better about themselves.

You could almost put on a blind fold and throw a dart at a signifigat mutual fund and hit something that would make considerably more than what you will ever get out of social security. This being the case, why would liberals DEMAND that such a program continued as is? What is their motivation. Dont give me the compassionate blather, I want to hear why such a poor program shouldnt be replaced?

"You could almost put on a blind fold and throw a dart at a signifigat mutual fund and hit something that would make considerably more than what you will ever get out of social security."

I hardly know where to start. You did take note of the market crash of 2000-2002. The unhappy fact is that your portfolio of 1990 was worth precisely, if not a little more, than is your portfolio of 2005, adjusted for inflation. And this sort of thing happens regularly.

And there is no possiblity at all that an investment of $200-$300 a month over 45 years in the markets will net you anything like the $1200 (plus, adjusted for inflation) a month you'll collect for the 20 years at the other end.

And this is a problem. Something radical is going to have to happen to both SS funding and distribution over the next 20 years.

But this whole private markets thing is a pipe dream -- dreamt chiefly by the financial services industry, which was hoping to rival agribusiness in the vast breadth and depth of its government subsidy.

"I want to hear why such a poor program shouldnt be replaced?"

Perhaps because it's feeding and housing several million people. And, as I said, we're not adverse to modification, but we will not be turning it into a subsidy for Merrill Lynch. Trust me, they don't need it.

Libby,

"Ah, but what kind of jobs?"

All jobs. Even teachers. People work and pay taxes...and they want their children educated. Minimum wage entry level jobs, part time jobs, executive jobs, managerial jobs, retail jobs, mom and pop jobs...all depend on wealthy people in one way or another, directly or indirectly. This is a huge contribution that few acknowledge or appreciate....and they pay most of the taxes too. And still it's never enough!

" I don't want to take ALL the rich people's money, just a decidedly equitable portion of it."

Thanks Libby for telling the truth. You want to TAKE other peoples money and you call the amount you want to take "equitable" or, as the dictionary defines it, "fair to all concerned". There is nothing fair about soaking the rich. In fact, it could be said that it is "decidedly unfair" to take from the people who invest huge sums of money by putting it back into "play" where it creates jobs (see original post)when the result is that it kills opportunity for others. Also see Nick's comment for other examples of unfairness. Thanks Nick.

"I'd rather be a publicly pensioned school teacher, than do retail for some rich bitch."

Wow. Instead of being proud of your profession and a good ambassador for same you choose to put a stain on it by displaying strong prejudice and mean spiritedness toward a group of others that, I would guess, you don't know. I thought that was a no no. Proves my point, though, I said:

"I started thinking about the envious, petty, uneducated, ungrateful attitude..."

I'd say 3 out of 4 just about covers it and the 4th makes it even worse. Educated, but doesn't know better.

Tasker, And your point? The page describes HF history and mission. Big whoop. You maybe thought I'd site a liberal page to prove my point? That would be a "Mission Impossible" if ever there was one.

Interesting Points Libby, but you are failing to take in to consideration some very basic realities.

1. Social Security is bankrupt. It is a pitiful pay as you go system, not the "Insurance" program it was supposed to be.

2. Yes I remember the stock market crash of 2000. They happen from time to time. But it really wasnt all that great a surprise. Infact, if people were responsible for their own retirement they would pay greater attention to how the market works. It doesnt take alot, and a little education in economics goes a long way. Either way, I would rather have the 200 bucks a month. But Im confident in my ability to produce with out coercing money out of others, if your not, well I guess you have social security...for now.

3. The"private Market thing" is not a pipe dream because you say it is. the real pipe dream is the decreased working population fitting the bill for millions of retiring baby boomers. Again, dont tell me that changeis needed, give a suggestion. And try to make it one where we dont milk all the job producers in the country.

4. And there you go again with the starving masses making it on social security. Ididnt say we should throw social security out and not replace it, I claim that it is a failed program and eventually unsustainable. But hey, you andI will probably be dead, so why worry aout it right? Well in my case because I have 2 kids and I dont think they should have to pay into a program that will hang them out to dry. Mabe you feel differently.

5. Merrill Lynch has produced far more wealth for everyone from the little guy on up than the governent ever has. Mainly becaus the government creates no wealth. they can only take it from others.

6. You claim that my portfolio adjusted for inflation would be no greater than it was in 1990. That may be true if I paid no attention. But get this, I do, and I should. there is no such thing as a free lunch, everything has its price. And this idea that you can create one through a government program is a farce as we are finally starting to see with social security.

Im sorry but the conclusion I draw from your statement is that you have a knee jerk reaction to privatization.

"Wow. Instead of being proud of your profession and a good ambassador for same you choose to put a stain on it by displaying strong prejudice and mean spiritedness toward a group of others that, I would guess, you don't know. I thought that was a no no."

Please. The above only quiet amply demonstrates that you've never done retail for the RBs. And I suppose I could have done a paragraph for you full of very sedate adjectives illuminating a world view that you simply have to have SOME experience of ... but "RB" is so very succinct, well, I just went with it.

"There is nothing fair about soaking the rich."

But they should be paying their fair share, and they don't. And every time I suggest that they should, you misrepresent my position: harping on "take" ... the government "takes" my money too. Pulling "soak" out of thin air. The rich don't pay their fair share, especially since BushCo got in. They use our legislators, their lawyers and our multi-volume tax code to concoct an array of tax weedles you wouldn't believe. And when I'm made dictator, all this will stop.

Libby see above, for the "Fair" debate.

Tasker found it to diffcult to understand, but maybe you would like to give it a go.

Be careful Libby...you don't know me or my worldview.

"But they should be paying their fair share, and they don't."

The top 20% of wage earners currently pay 66% of
ALL taxes. The bottom 40% pay zot.

40% of all taxes is not enough? You cannot be this dense. The changes that BushCo put in the tax code have resulted in MORE revenue from the rich. That's more money, cash, geld, bucks! The rich understand business and percentages. They would rather pay MORE money to the government if the percetage is less. When you raise the percentage they back off on investment. Why work hard when you don't get to keep a reasonable percetage of the money you EARN. If you think this is unfair, even when the percentage they pay is still higher than you pay, you are dense!Especially when many of them are also paying salaries, healthcare and other insurance costs, pension expense, ss & medicare tax (business side), and all the other expenses that support the place that millions depend on for work.

RB? well in your case, your half right!

Tasker I have tried countless times to engage you in debates from everything from Iraq, to the broader war on terror, to economics. You wont have it. I think its sweet that you are putting up such a pensive exterior now, but you seem to forget that i have been posting here as long as you have and know the history.

It isnt hard Tasker, the question was one of fairness. In short what would be the fairest tax policy regardless of what might be the most advantageous. And I dont think that was in question to any reasonable person. I understand that you feel that conservatives are out to get you in particular (hence the super secret hidden identity), but I can assure you that bashing you is neither why I post here, or even that fun. All in all I much prefer to debate in person, this is not currently possible as far as you and I are concerned, as I dont think we live anywhere near each other.

For someone that has repeatedly backed out of discussions it is a little disingenuous for you to be pointing fingers now. There has been plenty of debate and discussion on this blog concerning a variety of topics with out meeting the criteria you now find so essential.

as for a forum, well tasker I seem to recall another time when you found yourself unable to comment on one of my posts, I offered you my personal email address so you could answer directly. Do you need it again?

"Be careful Libby...you don't know me or my worldview."

If you'll read it again, you'll find I asserted that you must have come familiarity with the world view (don't we all?), not that you espoused it yourself. I did not intend it personally, but you certainly took it that way, didn't ya. How come?

"Instead of being proud of your profession and a good ambassador for same you choose to put a stain on it by displaying strong prejudice and mean spiritedness toward a group of others that, I would guess, you don't know."

And this was intended in the spirit of charity, I suppose. FYI, I'm not a school teacher.

"The rich understand business and percentages."

And use them to obfuscate, big time. Twenty percent of $50,000 ($10,000) has a decided impact on a family's standard of living. Thirty percent of $500,000 ($150,000) has NO EFFECT whatsoever (or certainly shouldn't have -- I mean, anybody who can't get by on $350,000!!!), and the little weasels can bloody well cough it up.

Libby, How come? Well, I could say the hour was late, the glasses tripped me up, my dog ate my homework...but I won't. I read the sentence poorly, maybe it was the capitalized word "some". I apologize. I have also worked retail...perhaps that stung a bit. As far as thinking you were part of the teaching profession I honestly thought you said that of yourself...once again I apologize.

Correction. I said:

"40% of all taxes is not enough?"

That should have been 66%

Now...

I guess you think it would be perfectly all right to go next door and acquire a TV, china, dvd player, mink coat, BMW, gold watch, glass art object or other "evidence of wealth" because those folks "don't need it" and should "cough it up"? You propose, in the name of fairness, that theft is perfectly OK as long as it's disguised as tax policy. A government stamp puts a nice cover on it, right?

In most cases the people who have more money EARN it. If they didn't someone else in their family did...you know, people like Ted Kennedy or David Rockefeller...or they married it, like John Kerry. These are some of the "feel your pain" bull s**ters that wrote the tax loopholes into the code. The only people who obfuscate regarding the tax code are your pals the democrats who are responsible for most of the crazy convoluted tax code which THEY designed. THEY put the loopholes in for themselves! You give them a pass because they pull out that phony bologna crap about being for the little guy and the down and out. "I feel your pain"...my A**! The kicker is that their helping hand policies have served to keep people hopelessly in poverty for 40-50 years!

And you, you fool, have been convinced that business is the enemy!

True charity is an act of the heart...it does not flow from a cold, thieving, bureaucratic tax system. But taking care of the poor in this cold fashion sure takes care of the LOAD of personal responsibility and a big pile of guilt!

If every citizen had to write a check each month for their taxes instead of having it taken out of their paychecks it wouldn't be long until everyone was screaming. The money you earn is your property..."TAKE" is a perfect connotation.

As I said:

"The top 20% of wage earners currently pay 66% of ALL taxes. The bottom 40% pay zot."

66% of all taxes + providing jobs, goods & services + donating to charity and community projects = one he** of a contribution! It's not just FAIR, it's incredibly generous, civilized and community minded. Instead of being thankful you beat up on them, quite politely, of course. Incredible.

And by the way...under Clintons tax policy the government collected a larger percentage...of less money...his policy doesn't produce more revenue...but it is more PUNISHING for those who work hard and risk their money by putting it back into the economy...hence the word SOAK. His policies also caused the middle and lower classes to pay more. You never address the statistics, how come?