Fruitless to you is not agreeing with you. Atleast I offer a contradictory theory instead of throwing down my hands and pouting. And, you've never substantively argued with me, lines like including "prattle" aside. Your idea of arguing is saying, "you're wrong, why don't you see that?" What's the "reality?" What's your version of how economies work? How does drastically cutting taxes make for a healthy economy when government spending is going up? It's odd that people think that we can foot a $600 billion dollar tax cut and STILL pay $80 billion for five months worth of war, among many other program increases. Atleast you're arguing this because you have a stake in it. Many people who argue for cutting all taxes on the rich don't even have a stake in it.

I agree, if you're going to earn less, SPEND less. We're not though, we're going to earn less and spend MORE. If Bush were cutting programs and spending, then tax cuts would be okay.

Even if the rich pay all the taxes which is true eventhough corporations pay less than they are supposed to because of tax loopholes, we'd be in fiscal ruin if we increased spending and brought in less.

Does that make sense? There are two factors, principle and responsibility. You'd like to see rich people pay no taxes out of principle. Even if that principle weren't wrong, it would still mess up the economy and in the end, no one would in good shape.

Fine, you want to drastically reduce taxes for the rich, but answer this: who would support the economy? The rich would be laughing all the way to the bank for a few years until inflation and interest rates kick up.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Sorry Norman, read it this way. How can the government collect less taxes, and therefore have less to spend, yet increase its spending? For all the conservatives, read "make" as "collect," or "bring in."

I think all people should pay the same amount of tax. That doesn't happen though, large corporations pay less, in terms of percent of income. I'm all for a fair flat tax. THat's probably not good enough for the rich though.

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

DH, I hope what you are referring to is a REPLACEMENT tax (vs. the ol' additional tax) based upon a flat fee for all sales & transactions?

If so, you bet!

Here in Oregon we have horrendous property taxes and a 9% State income tax from $1. In the last 50 years they have put a sales tax on the ballot at least 6 times: the last time, a couple years ago, it lost (again) by a RECORD of approximately 3 to 1.

Well, you have to remember that last November there was a ballot initiative to provide FREE MEDICAL CARE for everyone (no delineation between citizen and illegal alien) with no limits to the amount of coverage... And almost 25% voted FOR IT!

The hue & cry is always "Where are we going to get OUR replacement revenue?" It never seems to be a question of whether it is due to reduced incomes, a tax cut (fat chance!) or a failed tax increase (much more likely): just not getting the anticipated double-digit annual increase in spending that those on the disbursing end and the receiving end take for granted is enough to send them back to therapy.

Uncontrolled SPENDING on every level of government for entitlements-based social re-programming is what will kill our economy. There is always a new GOOD cause, always a new victim with WANTS & NEEDS that are unfulfilled, and a group that would just love to be the one that's ladeling out the gravy, preferably in a nice, cozy guv'ment job that will pay them over 100% of their final salary when they retire... (This is called PERS here in Oregon)

I'll support a flat tax system 100% when implimentation includes getting rid of the income and sales tax systems.

They can give the people on public assistance a coupon for whatever the flat tax rate is with each $100 of defined benefits they receive.

__________________
'91 420 SEL @ 199K, '92 SVX @ 181K, '93 SC400 @ 86K, '93 Kaw ZX-11 @ 30K, '87 F250 @ 181K , 2001 Valkyrie Interstate @ 6K, Y2K Honda NightHawk 250 with 1.5K, '88 420SEL I.@ 179K & the 2nd latest, an '88 420SEL II.@ 210K runnin' parts car, '85 F150 300/NP435

Same amount, or same percentage? In either case, whether a flat tax is fair depends on who you talk to. Leave revenues the same, and most people under $75k will have to see a pretty hefty jump in their income taxes. Cut the top tax brackets, and long-term revenue goes way way down.

-anthony

You said it! It's a theory nothing more. It is proven that money in the hands of citizens not government increases economic growth -> higher tax revenue.

As for the arguing part it's not people who disagree with me that bother me, it's you. U.S. economic reality is here not in Cannes.

The theories of taxation and revenue generation are much too complex to boil down to a sentence or two. Everyone thinks they somehow earned a graduate degree in economics by watching C-Span and CNN.

Besides, the topic was "what was middle class?" Middle class is generally thought of as the 67% of the families that occupy the "middle" of the normal distribution for income. That means one standard deviation from the mean in each direction.

What is the mean income in your area? In Edmonton, for a family of three (like mine) it is about $45,000. I don't know the value of the standard deviation, but I think it's about $20,000. That makes the middle class range $25K to $65K.

This definition of course can be stretched to include both higher and lower income families, calling them upper-middle and lower-middle class.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

But giving to the rich doesn't always work. Trickle down, or Voodoo economics (as even Bush's father called it) doesn't work. Giving someone who has $10 million a couple hundred thousand back doesn't mean they'll spend more, it just means there's less $$ circulating in the economy.

Where was this proven? Your champion Reagan? So eventhough only a quarter of society did better (income wise) in the 80's, and eventhough we were put in massive amounts of debt, and eventhough he created a negligible number of jobs, all of which were in the government, we, society, did better? Or, are you saying that YOU did better? That's often times the conservative difference. 'Me' before anyone else. My family did much better, but his economics were still bad. Or, are you talking about the period before the great depression and stock market crash when all the capital was in the hands of the private sector?

And remember, people do not invest in the private sector unless there is consumer demand. If NO ONE is buying, would you invest in a manufacturing corporation? There needs to be a balance of both.

Where did the Cannes thing come from?

Norman,
A tax based on fees is interesting, but people in the US wouldn't buy it. And, I don't think it could produce enough to fund our goliath of a government. I agree with cutting or trimming welfare as it is now, but I believe there should be assistance given to those who are without means but who have vast potential. Problem is, we haven't found a way to find these people and distribute the aid accordingly. Social welfare is NOT bad. Our system IS. A healthy society benefits everyone, even the rich. Look at it this way, a healthy society is one where everyone has spending power; the lower classes can provide what they need for themselves, and the upper classes can invest in markets, corporation and services that help the lower classes.

My overarching point though, is that the government can't spend without having the dough to spend with.

On medical care, I believe that everyone should have medical care. It's the most basic life necessity with food and shelter. I think it's possible, it's just that bureaucracy and insurance fees and our legal system make it impossible to provide medical care at a reasonable cost to society and government. The Catch-22 is that what makes our government so effectively stable is the large bureaucracy. So, in ideology, I believe everyone should have medical care (with limitations of course, like certain types of plastic surgery, etc.), it's just that our system has bogged it down to the point of it being one of the drains on our budget.

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

That seems about right.

And you're right, back to the original topic......

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

The particular topic of "no more taxes" has been done to death on this forum.

Are we going to get into that stupid fight again?

For what it's worth, I don't see anyone deciding not to become a billionaire because of progressive taxation. The dis-incentive argument is worn out and just plain incorrect. There is some theory to suggest that marginal tax rates of over 50% (where they keep more of each dollar than you do) is a disincentive, and that might make sense to me. However, progressive taxation on it's own does not inhibit economic growth.

Go to most of the middle east. They have no sustainable tax base or government spending. No monetary policy intervention whatsoever. As Dr. Phil might say - how's that working out for them? Taxes, fiscal and monetary policy, and government spending are TOOLS that economists can use to create a stable economic base.

If you don't like paying tazes and enjoying the benefits that come along with it, then you should find a nation that has unbridled "non-government interference." There's lots to choose from, and funny enough, many of their population are trying to trade places with you...

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

For one thing it's not the Billionaires that get hit, It's the 50-100K a year people that are grinding their way to the top. Of coarse higher taxes will not stop me from earning more money, but higher taxes prevent me from investing money in places that create growth unlike the government.

John your trading places analogy is poppy cock; we have a delicate balance between investing in social infrastructure and maintaining or improving our way of life.

Compare us to the Middle East? How can you compare a regions economics with the US when it has 1 export. If the oil is no longer needed you will be reading about unicef for the Middle East. In the Middle East you either have the money or you don't, I don't hear you discussing their class inequities or France, Germany ect ect ect.

Jeff,
I agree with you. Whether democrats or republicans hold the balance of power in the government, the middle middle class gets screwed over, in varying degrees. They're not poor enough to get benefits and government aid, but they're not rich enough to comfortably support themselves, what with rising living costs, rising college tuition costs, etc. I worked in the financial aid office of my college answering calls and the people who were in the most despair were usually those in the lower-middle and middle-middle classes. Granted, I guess there weren't too many extremely poor students, but the ones towards the bottom of the scale got lots of aid. Anyone who thinks that republicans spend less is fooling themselves. As you said, the Republicans have spent more than the democrats (I'm not including the war and 9/11) but instead of being responsible about it, they just borrow and defer the burden to future administrations and generations. The flat tax in itself would be a good start, but getting rid of all the tax loopholes for the corporations and the elite that would make it an even tax playing field would be even better progress.

John, I also agree with your comments on progressive taxes, and responsible monetary policy, and economists. Too bad others can't see those different layers making up our complex system.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Howdy All,
I don't know what middle class is. I haven't gotten there yet

__________________
Frank X. Morris
17 Kia Niro
08 Jeep Wrangler 4 door unlimited

There is one question in regard to taxes that has always baffled me, and it does relate to the topic of middle class because they (myself included) pay the bulk of the taxes (of course dependant on how you define middle class).

The question is, why is it that tax rates must be increased when taxes based on a percentage of monetary flow should ebb and flow with the economic situation? If government is getting by on x and inflation is 5% of x, then revenues to the government should also increase by 5% to keep pace. Right?

Of course the answer is government always wants more, and bureaucracies are always self-perpetuating. Why in the hell should we ever have to give ever-increasing percentages of our income to bad government? To make more bad government!

I am also a big fan of a flat tax if administered consistently across the board. Unfortunately our tax code takes up some ridiculous length of shelf space to make way for preferential 'targeted' tax cuts for the well-connected. Of course most of the middle class falls short of this type of influence.

In regard to Rep. vs. Dem., there is really little difference in the long run. Taxes and bureaucracy continue to rise. Anyone who truly believes that the Democrats are the champions of the middle class is delusional. As a fairly conservative type, I must say that I have been extremely disappointed by the continuance of business as usual in regard to pork barrell spending with the current Republican Congress. Disgraceful. Whatever happened to abolishing the federal Dept. of Education?

Why is it always assumed that government spending is bad? That it never creates growth or contributes to economic prosperity? Economists in the 1940's recognized the strong role that government spending during the war played in boosting the economy. They had to take on HUGE amounts of debt to do it (in 1946 US national debt was 120% of GDP, much greater than today) but the economic boom of the post war period allowed the economy to rapidly outgrow the debt.

Governments spend money on infrastructure. Use roads as an example. How is building roads not contributing to economic growth? Private companies are often employed during the construction, maintenance and repairs. Even in cases where governments themselves do the construction, they still employ people, often at good wages. What do those people do with their money? Buy T-Bills? Nope. They buy cars and TV's and other consumer goods, contributing to economic growth and prosperity. It is a form of ecnomic redistribution, but we get roads and economic growth.

Exactly. Do we want to be like the middle east? Their class inequalities are precisely my point. Not sure what Germany and France have to do with it. All I'm saying is that a balance of capitalism, democracy, and stabilizing welfare state have allowed North America to become the dominant economic force. Why upset the apple cart? Instead of wrecking it, let's fine tune it and enhance it.

It is not a coincidence that the rise of Western Culture to the top of economic might has been built through the welfare compromise and the intervention of goverments in fiscal and monetary policy. We learned from the lack of intervention and the terrible result: the 1930's depression.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

This is bad? Uh, okay? I don't get it. We're rich, they're poor. But, our system sucks. Not sure I follow, so I'll pass on the pay-for-lesson...

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif