To use 51 to 63 as a baseline we would have to, first have a world war the destroyed most of the world infrastructure but left us untouched. Second then enact trade policies that allowed our industry to capitalize on this. Third our foreign policy would have to be about making sure US owned corporations maximized the investments as other countries rebuilt from the war.

People like to grab stats and points in time to promote a point of view. Best one I bumped into was the farmers. Everyone upset they were going broke, concerts, much concern. Real numbers 25% of the farmers in VERY bad shape. 50% doing just fine. 25% doing better than ever. Base line? Tax policies and government subsidies had made it so the small family farm could not compete. The problem was not driven by market or natural conditions but by government tax & regulation policies.

Any time someone grabs stats to make a point usually best to not place to much faith in them. Their next job will more than likely be selling fire water!

the gov believes they can spend the rich folks money better than they can...

The fact is 'rich'(love that term) folks don't spend all their income, thus stimulating the economy.
They save it in tax havens.
The lower and middle class are the ones spending all their income, thus stimulating the economy, and taking on debt.

Making the rich pay more taxes is unAmerican. Or at least some people say that.

I found this article interesting. It basically shows how the after-tax income of different economic strata has changed since 1979. It is fairly revealing.

Since 1979:
The poorest 20% of the country make 16% more now than they did then.
The middle 20% of the country make 25% more now than they did then.
The top 20% of the country make 97% more now than they did then.
The top 1% (who were obviously already rich) make 297% more than they did then.

A real-life example of the rich becoming relatively richer.

A boring link from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

-AP

Wow, interesting and thought provoking. Economies are immensely complicated and probably "un-knowable" in the long run... I'm sure it's easy to turn up examples of highly taxed economies which were miserable failures too.

But if anything it may argue for a less-than-expected correlation between tax rates and the economy either way.

move to Denmark, unmpoyment non-existant, college free...Tax rate 50%

Anyone that is skilled and wants to make money leaves the country, everyone else lives in the fishbowl.

There aint nuthin like being American, not sure why so many people are deadset to fuk us over. You can do anything you want in this country, your choices cost you, and they damn well should.

What about when you don't make a choice... and it still costs you HOOKUP?

Like in the VAST majority of cases.

Do you REALLY think that unemployment is at 10% and home foreclosure rates are high and continuing to rise simply because folks made bad choices?

You don't really have to answer... I can tell from your posts that you probably do.

The fact is that you are simply clueless and are completely incapable of comprehending anything more than the right-wing talking points you regurgitate here.

Hey I know... why don't you move to say Somalia. No government, no taxes... a veritable wingnut paradise.

Absolutely. If you want to be an American, it should cost you. If you want to be a business owner, it should cost you. You want to own property, it should cost you. Freedom isn't free.

Do you gubment apologists think 200k per year is rich?

Just wondering where your line is.

Last I checked being a business owner did cost me. The property I own also costs me. Everything has a price. Should we price things so nobody can afford anything and then just wait for it to be handed out as part of some social program?

ah not to spoil the chit chat but demographics are really a batch of crap anymore. The reason is cost of living and the fact that high tax, high service states like WA & CA have as a whole, higher cost for everything due to taxes and government regulation. Even medical cost and the federal government pays more to these states because it cost more to live. WA is right in the mix.

Go to Montana, Texas, Georgia non high tax / service states your housing cost ( outside metro areas ) is lower, as all other things including wages but you don't need as much because you keep more. That is one of the big unsaid rubs in congress. The D's want to break the right to work laws as almost NONE of the new green energy jobs will be located in H&T states, so drive is to get wages and benefits up. I sorta support that but having been union all my life I know it will not work, but that is another story.

So 50k in Seattle gets you one thing, Helena another, New Mexico another. We are not comparable at all due to state & local governments. Want to freak out? Price something in New York.

One other thing. Middle class fled to the burbs, big traffic jams on roads, now they are coming back and cities are ( other than steel belt & NE ) becoming less minority driven and the burbs are getting a larger minority population. Redistricting should be a gun fight!

Even medical cost and the federal government pays more to these states because it cost more to live. WA is right in the mix.

Actually the feds pay a higher percentage of AFDC Medicaid, Aid to the Blind etc. to low income states. It's a precentage based on per capita income. So the wealthier staes get a lower fedral participation rate.

Ok stand corrected but explain how the same medical procedure in NY gets a larger payment than say Alabama? Oh yes that is off a CNN lead a while back so I really would like to know.

Am I missing % vs the amount of $$$ ?

Rivrguy:

That’s because Medicaid and Medicare pay based on the 75% of all charges for a given procedure in an area. So if an ingrown toenail fix is say $75 in Texas and $150 in Ney York. The feds pay the New York Drs more. If they used a national average the Texas Dr. would be overpaid and no New York doctor would participate

As for what do I call rich that’s an interesting question. Typical tax trial balloons have defined it as $200 for a single person and $400 for a married couple. I think if I made that much I would consider myself rich.

As Chris Rock says, there's a big difference between rich and wealthy. Alex Rodriguez is rich. The guy who pays him is wealthy.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention--being the rich successful businessman that you are--but we're already fast approaching that era here in America. I don't suppose you've ever pondered why there are more countries that successfully implement a model of liberal social programs than countries that do not?

Owning a business and property is a privilege, not a right. One of the many wonderful things about American freedom is the inalienable right not to own either one, thus saving us from the incessant sniveling and whining of the cost of ownership.

As I recall $250K was considered rich when Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran for president. Now it is $200K (more for married). It is a lot of money when compared to what the rest of the country makes. But, again, depends on where you live (New York vs Bumb Fck Texas). I am sure that NY Doctor pays a helluva lot more for his office, utilities, help, etc., while the other one pays a lot less because of location. But it is not just where you live, it is how you live.

I am two weeks from retirement. As much as I love this area, I learned I could also love Idaho and do. Had to make the move to get us closer to Gandchildren, but the real drivers where affordability of housing, close to good medical, major airport, easy to get back here, and close to shopping. Being ten minutes from Cabelas though is costing me money. Turns out I am saving a butt load of money on taxes, especially property tax. I am in a bigger, newer, and nicer house paying 10% of what I paid over here for property tax and the house cost me $153K less then my lesser house over here sold for. Got an income tax now, but Idaho is considerably lower then Washington in total tax paid by residents. I love that gas which averages 20 + a cents a gallon cheaper then over here and from all I can find out so far, excellent fishing. I will report on that once I am not working. Medical, all I got to say is ooooooooouch! But, it wouldn't be much better here. All my toys are paid for and my small house payment is less then the rent for this crummy apartment I have been living in during the work week since March.

You can be as rich as you want, just depends on your needs.

Haven't heard anybody talk yet about some of the "rich" that write there own wages, ie: They work at a job where most of the compensation comes from working longer hours--- 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week. Why should they pay higher taxes?

You can be as rich as you want, just depends on your needs.


Or as Janis told us. "Freedom is nothing left to lose."

So following your "logic" if you work hard for your money you should pay less tax. By that standard the hotel maids, migrant workers, and other low paid, but hard working Americans should pay less.

Then if we beiliev we must have someone pay taxes we should tax the hell out of those who dont work for their money. Folks like Paris Hilton and the dividend babies. Jerry, I think you may be a closet socialist!

I do not know where you get your reading material but this country came into being over taxes and individual freedom. Owning a business is NOT a privilege but a basic right that all can do and it was intended to be so.

To understand the difference and choices made James Madison is a good read as are the Adams ( all ). Probably be helpful to you.

That's funny. White slave owners in the 18th and early 19th centuries had the exact same sentiments about business and property ownership.

Your comment is really quite telling. You feel it's your right to not own property or a business (which it is) and I assume you own neither. On the other hand you feel you have the right to demand payment from those owners in order to pay for those social programs you so desire. You want the money and the programs, you just don't want to pay for any of it yourself.

In my book taking the property of another using the threat of violence leveraged by the power of gov't is not called social programs, social democracy, redistribution,

...............................................it's called theft.

Hmmm, let's see, "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness." Which one of those is analogous to business? Or maybe they snuck an amendment in there I'm not aware of? How many times is the word business or corporation in the Constitution?

Mike--
Perhaps you'll pay a lower percentage of tax because Idaho receives $1.21 from the federal government for every dollar paid in tax, compared to Washington's $.88 for every dollar paid in tax. Anything over a 1:1 ratio makes it a welfare state, doesn't it?

You assume wrong.

I don't demand payment, other than upholding the Constitution that clearly states the government will assess and collect a tax for the general welfare of the United States. I am not exempt from paying those taxes.

SW,

So in your book are all taxes a form of theft? The gov't. collects them under the threat of violence of a sort, and it's certainly leveraged by the power of the gov't.

Sg

Boiled down in that narrow scope, yes one could say that all taxes are some form of theft since they use the threat of jail or imprisonment to solicit payment. Although I myself probably wouldn't go that far.

Do I view taxes that are taken against my will through the use of force that go to pay for immoral and illegal military adventures across the globe or to bailout Goldman Sachs and Society General for their losses in AIG CDS investments as theft? Absolutely.

Could some taxes, i.e. taxes used to pay for roads, schools, fire, and police be construed more as "user fees" as opposed to outright theft? Sure.

Bottomline a government closest to it's constituents has to answer to those constituents when they spend their money.

A federal government, when too large, has literally zero accountability when it comes to spending the people's money.

Central planning does not work, this much we know. The evidence is all around us.

In line with Jerry, I must ask, "what is money?" For many of us it represents the time and sweat we spent earning it. When my family goes out to buy something, I often think, "I worked my but off for .... hours for this?" My wife, who doesn't work, looks at money a little differently, but still gets it a little. My mother-in-law, who is on SSI, still can't figure out why they don't just raise taxes and give her more money each month. I think most people would get really pissed off if someone came to their door, dragged them out of the house, and made them mow the neighbor's lawn and do their laundry. Especially if the neighbor was some idiot who sat their smoking a cigarette and complaining that they needed the house painted too. Then consider that they choose you just because you have the nicest house on the street, so thereforth must be the most able to spare the time. After a while, you might just let your house go and spend your time fishing.

"I think most people would get really pissed off if someone came to their door, dragged them out of the house, and made them mow the neighbor's lawn and do their laundry. Especially if the neighbor was some idiot who sat their smoking a cigarette and complaining that they needed the house painted too. Then consider that they choose you just because you have the nicest house on the street, so thereforth must be the most able to spare the time. After a while, you might just let your house go and spend your time fishing."


No [censored]!

I have often thought one way taxes might be more palatable would be to have a check off list we send in with our taxes. If we could choose which department our money went to maybe we wouldn't mind paying taxes so much. If America is sick of foreign wars and $500 toilet seats we could deny DOD any of our money. If we are sick of Medicaid deny DHHS any of our money. It would be interesting to see how we ended up spending our money under that scenario,

Krijack - Name me ONE... just ONE person who was taxed out of their big home.

Just one.

According to your analogy... it shouldn't be that difficult... right?

A nice thought Dave,........but it'd never happen.

If implemented though I think you'd see some real nice roads and police/fire departments cropping up all over the country

Wouldn't be that hard QuatreSel.

Then again,.....I wouldn't expect you to post something without thinking about what you're writing.

Just take a look at county auctions all over the country where people (mostly seniors) who have had their home foreclosed on for deficient property taxes.

I can name two in my own family that let lots go rather than pay the backed taxes on them. Pretty dumb but everyone seems to have one of those type of people somewhere in the family. One lot was in California City and cant remember where the other was.

Far more common than you think Salt.

And that is one hell of an idea Dave. Can we get that on the ballot.....sadly No.....but we can dream.

This is 4Salts standard response. No offense 4Salt but there is a tipping point. Where it is I don't think we know quite yet. But you can't continually provide programs that are too expensive and not sustainable and keep coming back to the tax payers to fund more and more and more.

We have to find a balance. The D's and R's have proven they are not capable of finding this balance.

Stink - The people you refer to did NOT have their property tax rates INCREASED to the point where they had to leave their homes... and that's my point. They FAILED to plan for payment of property taxes after they retired. Property taxes aren't what Krijacks' analogy described either. It was the 'rich' being taxed out of their homes in general. THAT'S what I asked him to provide one example of.

Wntrrn - The Teabaggers are screamin' about being over taxed... but the reality is that Federal taxes are the lowest they've been in more than 60 years! How do you 'splain that?

Property taxes are a state/local thing also... so ya can't go blamin' Obama and the Democrats in Congress for that. Plus, if anything, people's assessments have gone DOWN to reflect the current market value of the property.

I agree that spending is high... but I believe that it is necessary right now to keep our economy afloat. Inflation is NOT on the rise and the deficits will reduce as the economic stimulation brings more tax revenue into the federal coffers.

Now is NOT the time to suddenly stop the social spending. For every dollar that is spent by the feds as unemployment payments for instance... a dollar fifty is returned. Those people spend 100% of that money stimulating their local economies, which in turn keeps more people employed. It's all cyclical. The less money that people spend the more the economy slows, which results in more people being laid off etc.

The federal tax increase that will result from allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is 3.5% to those making more than $200,000 a year. The marginal rate will return to 39%. Still far LOWER than it was when Reagan took office.

You folks on the right talk about being over taxed and tipping points being reached... but the FACTS just do not bear this out. WHY is that?

I wish just for once you all could be intellectually honest and just say "I don't give a rat [censored] about anybody else. I got mine and I'll be damned if'n anybody's gonna take it away from me."

I'd respect you a lot more.

So they should have been able to keep their places and skip out on their taxes? I'm not following.

Dave's idea is the best I've heard. A lot of the people yelling loudest against taxes (not necessarily on this board) are the same people that were the must gung-ho about heading overseas to bust some heads. They often seem blind to the ludicrous costs required to fund such ventures. Although some of them suddenly seem less blind to it now that Obama is president.

Not sure where you saw I was "blamin" Obama for property taxes. Perhaps re-read,......this time much slower and move your finger along the words as you read.

So every individual past and present who has lost their home due to back property taxes did not in one single case have their property taxes increased??? That's interesting,.......really it is. You must have some staggering knowledge of the nationwide, county to county, property value assessment arena. I'm impressed Considering the rampant increase in assessed values nationwide during the housing boom. I'm sure there's more than a couple of people out there who will disagree with you.

Here's a news flash for you as well. Assessments in most areas have most certainly not gone DOWN. In some areas there may have been small decreases but only when the property owner petitions the Assessor's office to re-assess the property. I've spoken to many county assessor's AND they've all told me the same thing. The county tells them how much money they need, and the Assessor's Office goes out and finds a way to make it happen. Quite a "free market" approach to assessing property values,.........don't you think?

The rest of your post uses such back asswards logic I don't know where to even begin. Other than to congratulate you for finally composing a post void of the icon.

You're a rockstar

Not what he was saying KD.

Salty asserted that never in the history of time and space has an individual ever been taxed out of their home or property.

Probably one of the top 10 stupidest statements I've heard on "The Dark Side" yet.

And that's saying alot.

How did they end up with "back" property taxes in the first place Stink?

Uhhh... maybe 'cause they didn't pay them?

I didn't petition the assessor in either state that I own property in and guess what? My property taxes went DOWN all by theyselves. How do you 'splain that?

Property taxes specifically weren't my point anyway. Krijack's analogy was talkin' about the 'rich' being taxed out of their homes in general... which just isn't the case.

So... since you're the economic Einstein... perhaps you could 'splain exactly how my logic is ass backwards?

Feel free to include any facts you deem pertinent as well... if you would be so kind.

This oughtta be good!

And just for you:

Gotcha,...........so individuals who worked for years to pay off the property in which they reside lose the home they worked so long and hard for due to increases in property tax assessments "failed to plan" and therefore should have their hard-earned property confiscated for pennies on the dollar. OK.

I guess then we should also say that individuals who are too fvckin' lazy to work and collecting a welfare check "failed to plan" for hard times and should therefore pay all the money back they collected or be imprisoned. Sound good?

The logic you use to justify federal spending as some magic boom to the economy is bass ackwards because you fail to have any forward vision when it comes to the money supply and you fail to acknowledge where the money originates from in the first place. If you can't wrap your midget brain around that than there's no need for me to go any further.

KD.....What stink said. The backed taxes came from hard time in one case and the other was just lack of responsibilty. Should they get it back......No. They should have planned better.

Salt
Lynnwood must be nicer than kitsap as we have had to petition on our taxes for our house in seabeck and to this point we have had no answer. Does not look good though. We will see but I won't hold my breath. Since we have had two appraisals and both were about 3/4 of what the county states you never know. No offer to drop it though has been given on this side of the H2O. Glad your county is making an effort not to screw you though.

Christ Stink... talk about midget brain!

I never said federal spending was a boon to the economy... I just said that dramatically cutting it off now would be bad.

The lame semantics game is pretty retarded too.

In Krijack's analogy... the 'rich' were being taxed to the point that they would just give up and sell their home... and I said that doesn't happen and that he couldn't name one example of where it did.

The federal government doesn't assess property taxes anyway... so you wingnuts can't blame Obama and the congressional Dems for that. Funny how nobody's mentionin' property taxes in states with a Republican governor and legislative majority. Are you sayin' that property taxes never increase in those states?

The bottom line is that we are NOT being overtaxed... no matter what you Teabaggers think.

Now... that should be simple enough for even you to understand.

Of course it would be bad. We've been artificially propping up the economy for years now.

What would be worse would be to continue what isn't working only to suffer the consequences down the road.

You can't fix over spending, public or private, by borrowing more money.

There is no fix to the economy that does not involve some kind of pain and sacrafice. To avoid that is only delaying the inevitable and compounding the original problem. Fixing the federal deficit should involve heavy cuts and temporary tax increases at the same time. Once balanced, a balanced budget proposal should be made and the federal income tax eliminated along with the dissolution of the IRS and the Fed Reserve Bank.

Here's something that'll suprise you about me. I think the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire. We couldn't afford them when they were implemented and we don't deserve them now.

The scary thing about giving the federal gov't more money is it's a cold day in hell when they decide to give some of it back to those who contributed when the problems are solved. If they're ever solved.

what happened to trickle down economics?

looks like bush was right when he called it "voodoo economics"

What I think is you're full of sh!t.

If that's the way it really went down, then every county would have their budget balanced, now wouldn't they?

Don't know goharley. To tell you the truth, it was the low cost of housing, location relative to grandchildren in Canada, the beauty of the area, that won the day. The taxes were a bonus. Couldn't believe how low. It's a pretty conservative state. The Repulican Governor was almost run out on a rail for even suggesting raising the gas tax and some Legislators lost their seats in the primary because they talked about supporting the tax.

Love this area, but it is pretty pricey on a retirement income and I couldn't convince my wife to move to the coast. Got to do what you got to do, but hey, I am happy.

Mike,
The important thing is that you're retiring where you'll be happy. Good on ya. I was surprised to find that fact of the tax ratio with Idaho. I know how conservative that state is, and would have thought they'd be on the lower side.

BWP,
By your logic, fishing and driving a car are also rights. Good luck with that in court.

BWP, the government didn't give you [censored]. Our rights were given by God, and protected by the constitution. Didn't anyone graduate high school? There have been so many idiotic statements in this discussion, it would take too long yo correct them all.

So to you idiots who feel we are under taxed, how much extra do you mail in so you feel you are paying your fair share?

You know somethings do not compute. $100 a month in taxes. Let me see two ways that can happen. One your income is not that hot. Two you have a biz to write things off with.

Now not being a rocket scientist 52k / single will put you in the 25% tax bracket. ( over 39k single / 49k married ) I have substantial deductions and I am able to drive my tax rate down to 15% or around 4k a year and my property taxes are $3800 a year. As anyone that has over 25k income and retired is regarded as rich by congress my Soc. Sec. is taxed back in on a % formula. Then we have sales tax, licenses, fees & taxes built in ph, water, electric. Don't know what your lifestyle is but I hope your Dat B210 is still running!

$100 a month taxes you need a muchhhhhhhhhhh better income guy OR your father in law is a bloody genius.

BaitDunker....I remember the "Pledge of Allegiance", but that was the only example that I remember talking about "god" in school (thankfully).

Snit

I can remember when God wasn't mentioned in the pledge. Somehow we struggled along anyway. If someone tried to remove God from the pledge today some of the fundies would go berserk.

Nope your not and idiot. Just the opposite as you think it through put out a thought and reasons for them and DO NOT sound like a sound bite or parrot.

Taxes are strange things. When I bought this place I almost picked up to different ones and they were both for sale by retired people who were selling as the property taxes had gotten so high they could not afford their own home. Now that is just plain wrong. We need to modify the property tax system similiar to what was done in CA or cap it someway.

Being your hopping out on a limb so to speak, mind if I join you? My ideas?

Soc Sec take the cap off and pay all the way up. Now you pay so much and stop but most folks never get there. Retirement age has to go up some and over 250K gross income no Soc Sec.

State and Fed flat tax ( no deductions ) and same rate for all. If the rate needed is 10% then if you make 10000 you pay 1k You make 100k you pay 10k no loop holes.

Sales tax state and a VAT national.

Flat rate ( whatever % of income is needed ) and a single payer health care that is managed by each state for it's citizens that allows choices and a public option.

Then the big thing, the Federal Government be required to balance its budget except in time of a legal declared war.

They do this type of thing I will join in saying I can afford it as the government will have to deal with services and efficiency. I have been around government agencies most of my life. Right now you give them more money and they will just continue down the same screwed up road.

That is the fundamental difference in European Governments say Germany & France and US. There governments make things work or crap flies and you have a Greece. We aren't there yet but getting close.

Painting break ( any excuse hate painting ) Well now the transfer to corporations on anything, yes / no. Here is the kicker.........ah let me try this.

Medical. What if,
If provided by employer it becomes wages and you do not loose them. Right now those who buy there own get screwed over as my union ins was not wages a bit unfair those who pay from the packet.

All pay in whatever it damn well cost. Breathing is a right and you can stop breathing if you can not get a doctor.

BUT you have the option of a private company or public. The kicker is simple the Ins would have to be standardized nation wide, you could only change providers once year, basic rules to keep ins companies from cherry picking, and some sort of arbitration process so a patient could get after a provider. If the policies and rates are standardized then the only way to maximize profits is by attracting more paying customers. You provide a poor product ( ins policy & service ) then nobody will stick with them.

Despite all the BS from R & D's this screwed up system is of both of their making. Return control of your choice to you and all the government has to do is set the standards, collect taxes for it, and disperse the funds to the states. Frankly steps to insure it is not admin-ed to death would be needed.

Almost forgot. Everyone loves to cut military spending. We have done that over and over again in the history of the nation. The fundamental flaw is that well over 50% of the time it left us vulnerable and actually increased the likelihood of war. FDR violated more laws and absolutely lied to the nation in the years prior to WWII as we built up a military that was in bad shape. You can argue these points forever and both be right.

Here is what is also true. Many millions could be saved by closing bases, getting rid of some weapon systems ( Trident boomers for sure ) getting our troops out of Europe, Asia, wherever and simply maintain Rapid D bases, hell the list is huge. The problem here is THE DAMN CONGRESS which immediately screams jobs / politics and makes a mess out of things. The military is necessary but costly and Ike was blunt in his warning when he was prez.

Wow, many points to agree with from both those whom I usually agree with and disagree with. What's this forum coming to? Where's KK to restore the polarization?

Sg

out to pasture