[Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics
Bill Berner
bberner@optonline.net
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:32:40 -0500
Wally -
I respectfully disagree that a flat tax on wages would be fair. Because
when you add in all of the other taxes and fees that must be paid for
everyone it would shift a disproportionate amount of total taxes to
those in the middle and lower income brackets, creating a seriously
regressive tax system.
Bill Berner
191 South Broadway
Hastings on Hudson, NY 10706
v 914 478 2896
f 914 478 3856
e BBerner@optonline.net
-----Original Message-----
From: rhodes22-list-bounces@rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces@rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Wally Buck
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 3:39 PM
To: rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics
Stan,
Usuall discliamer - hit delete now if not interested in taxes -
I agree with some of what you said -
>Just tried to
>point out that if you cut taxes for some, you raise them for others.
This is not true!!!! You are missing one critical piece of the formula,
you
forgot to cut spending.
>
>Re your wish for a flat tax, Bill B points out that in effect we
already
>have that.
Well Bill tried to point that out, but he is wrong. We actually don't
have a
flat tax on wages. See IRS tax schedule if there are any doubts. If you
throw in all of the other various taxes it might approach a flat tax
overall
but that is not the same thing. I think a flat tax on wages is fair. I
also
said we need to throw out the IRS book and start over.
More tax cutting will make the low end pay even a higher
>percentage of their earning towards their total tax burden compared to
>the wealthy end.
If we had a flat tax how would this be true? If you are below certain
income
no taxes, above everyone pays the same %.
Try Bill Gates
>father who has been outspoken against these cuts. I know a lot of
>variables influence Wall Street but it does represent wealth and so far
>it is not applauding the tax cut.
Well I am sure he is a great guy but why would I want to take his word
for
anything? Previously this discussion did not talk about the current tax
plan. As it is written I am not for current plan either. I still think
we
need to reduce taxes though.
>Corporations should Not pay any taxes. They are not people and only
>pass on the cost of their taxes to the buyers via higher product prices
>which results in the buyer being double taxed. This would also do away
>with the unfair double tax on dividends.
I have an open mind here. I am curious, how much is generated each year
by
taxing corporate profits? How do we make up for this loss of revenue?Are
you
suggesting spending cuts or increasing the tax on the middle class or
rich?
There should be no Tolls. In
>my management consulting days I had a glimpse behind the scenes of the
>NY Thruway. Toll delays create air pollution for everyone and health
>hazards for collectors, waste drivers' productivity time, waste
gasoline
>and create costly duplicate tax collection administrations.
I agree here.
I am against collecting taxes via charities. When Rose was
>nursing, one job was with the March of Dimes. She said only 10% of
>collections got to do what the charity was intended for.
I admit I am not a tax expert. What kind of taxes do charities have to
pay?
Hopefully all donations are recieved tax free. Do they pay real estate
taxes
or capital gains? I didn't think they had to. I don't have a problem
with
charities being tax free. I have my suspicions why charities only have
10%
of the donations trickle down to the needy. Of the 90% that the poor do
not
see how much of that is taken away in taxes VS payroll or entertainment
costs?
I am against
>sales taxes in any form and by any name.
So we remove the sales tax, do you suggest we cut spending or add more
taxes
to the middle class or wealthy?
>But this one is a deal breaker when a buyer faces it at the end of
>negotiating for a big ticket item (like a sailboat).
Well now I can see why you are against sales tax.
There is only one
>way to fairly pay for the cost of running a country and that is a
>graduated income tax.
Again who says so? Isn't this what we have now? The current system
stinks!
With one bureaucracy instead of dozens, it can be
>run more efficiently and better policed.
I agree here, what can be easier than computing and collecting a flat
tax on
wages?
Cutting income taxes under the
>guise of making the economy work via the trickle down theory just does
>not work. I have been there several time under several
>administrations.
I am for cutting taxes period. I would be for tax reduction if the
economy
was booming as well. We need to reduce the size of our government, it is
out
of control. Cut spending!
Our brightest Rhodies, Michael and
>Roger are looking for work. I have to give back a large deposit to an
>IBM employee who was laid off, etc.., etc.
I worked for a company that folded this year and spent four months
looking
for a job as well. Luckily I found one. Now what does this have to do
with
taxes? The economy was dropping before the tax cut, it continued to drop
after tax cut. Are you suggesting we raise taxes?
The first thing Clinton did
>was appoint Rubin of Wall Street to the Treasury and they raised taxes
>and the rest was history - argue all you want.
I think blame or credit for the boom/bust in the 90s is often misplaced.
Some like to say it was Greenspan. Well he was the same guy in place for
Bush #1 and he led us through into a recession in the 80s, he was there
for
the boom of the 90s, and he is still here now. I think he deserves more
blame for current situation than credit for the boom. I also don't think
Clinton or Rubin deserves all of the credit (or blame) either. I think
when
historians look back on this period they will refer to the boom years as
a
hoax. Many of the companies that were booming had no increase in profits
or
revenues. Some of them had no products. Speculation drove up the stock
market not performance, if it weren't so sad it would be funny.
I began to realize that management
>really wanted me to back their already taken position - that is, if
they
>liked what I reported, they used my reports to support their position
to
>the upper powers - if they did not like my position, they threw it
>away.
No argument here, this is what happened at Enron and others.
When Greenspan was called by Congress to tell how to use the
>surplus, I listened to every word. He said, first pay off the debt -
>then if you want, cut taxes. They threw out his advice that they did
>not want and used the rest, citing his support.
As I said I am not totally in agreement with current plan. I agree with
Greenspan but he is missing something obvious to me; Pay off debt,
reduce
taxes, and cut spending! How come you never mention cutting spending?
>
>Brad, I agree. I work very hard - recently been sleeping at the plant
>to save the traveling time. So these kind of diversions are fun for me
>- sort of therapy. So Rick, thanks, but I am easy.
I hope you are not working to hard, stress is not a good thing, take
care of
yourself!
Contrary to Alex's view of the rules, I thought if there
>was a subject title anything was OK.
OK by me!
>Jefferson said that education is the key to a successful democracy so
>let's make education free, like our government did in the days of land
>grant colleges (like Purdue), not more costly, as tax cuts are forcing
>states to do today
Although I agree an education is important I think it is up to one's
family
to pay for college, not the government. Call me crazy (many do) but I
would
not be totally against the governemnt getting out of education
completely.
I do know one source of revenue we are missing the boat on and that is
taxing illegal drugs. I say legalize most if not all drugs. This will
get it
off the street corner and we can start taxing the hell out of it. We
lost
the drug war but we are to stubborn to admit it. I am guessing that most
on
this list do not smoke crack. I am also guessing that if it were legal
you
wouldn't start. This is true with most Amercians. That people that abuse
drugs don't care that it is illegal. We have many former tax payers in
prison for drug use. Now instead of paying taxes they are a $40,000 per
year
tax burden. Put the same restricitons we have on booze, you must be 21,
no
driving, and so on.
Take it easy Stan! I always respect different viewpoints, especially
when
calmly expressed. I follow my heart when I vote and cross all party
lines.
Wally
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list