Tax Rates my take

[Kay/NC]

Actually, that was the intent of our Founding Fathers, if my civics calss was correct.  We were taught that in the original organization of the federal government, one had ot be a "freeholder," or owner of porperty, in order to vote in any election.  I think that was the intention: That voters would have something to lose....

Of course, you also had to be white and male, so some things DID need to change!

[dairy mom]

boy wouldn't that play havoc in the ag community.  I have heard but  do not know for sure, that there are a lot of games played with ownership in order to get into programs and to beat taxes.

[Kay/NC]

Looking around us, I have often seen people taking cash payments for helping certain farmers, without claiming the income for taxes.  Even more egregious, we saw a neighbor who was laid off from his factory job working for a farmer, who paid in the man's wife's name, so the unemployment benefits to the household continued. 

To be totally honest, the system - which is OUR government - has quite apparently accepted that, at least for some people, it is less costly to let them suck the system for sustenance, rather than tryign to motivate and train them to be self-supporting.  Oh, sure, it irks the working public, but Congress doesn't give a rat's patoot what WE think, unless our lobbyist is one who's padded their gilded cage. 

Right now, they'd just be that many more unemployed, anyway.  Longterm, they are the multi-generational, legacy welfare families that litter the landscape everywhere you go.  I can almost accept that decision to keep them pacified - as that Nazi officer once said, in explaining how the German people allowed Hitler to do what he did:  "We gave them everything they needed, so they didn't have to think."  

Our problem is, friends that we THINK  too much, don't you think?  

[nwobcw]

  On the voting theme:   I own property in 3 school districts but can only vote on taxes in the 1 I reside in.  Is this fair?

[clayton58]

In the context of your quote of the Nazi officer, I'd have to say that too many of us don't think enough.

Less costly to let them suck the system?   If their "sustenance" was cut off, would not that be motivation to learn to be self supporting?  The more the system takes from the producers to give to the ones who won't work (as apposed to those who CANT work, the less motiveation and incentive there is to bust ones butt to be self supporting.

[Kay/NC]

In my observation, when deprived past a certain point, some people just steal. Do you want to have to physically defend your stash, or let Uncle Sam shave off a sliver to keep the peace?
I am not crazy about our country's lack of work ethic...one Mexican friend told us a long time ago: This is what is wrong with America...in my country, you no work, you no eat. In this country, you no work, you eat anyway.

I cannot find anything wrong with his observation idealistically...realistically, however, I can see where it is less costly to just give some what they need, instead of spending three times as much "making work" for them to do.

[wt510151]

Put this

"

"I think your problem is your way of thinking this out. Why would a company pay a living wage to a single worker when he can get two for the price of one. On top of this get the government or charity to pick up the tab for the child care on top of it. If the government didn't pay for someone "not working hard, " would you pay even higher taxes to keep that same person or more of the same ilk from causing you or your family harm? I would first cut subsidies to people or companies that are successful based on the prices they receive before I would cut taxes. Why should a person's success be based on taking subsidies on top of taking more from people that are relying on my tax dollars? Isn't once enough?"

I don't have a problem except in understand what you are trying to say.   I said nothing about success and subsidies.  But, for my part, I'm happy to vote against subsidies.  If you want them, I don't agree with you."

in a different way from the women's forum.

"

Yes, millions are now conditioned to free handouts, including businesses using them as a way to keep wages low. Forty thousand dollars is what I hear is necessary for a family of four's living (food, shelter, auto, clothes, health insurance). Divide 2080 (40 hour week multiplied by 52 weeks) into that number. What do you get? $19.23 an hour. What percentage of the job force is that high? How many hours does a family have to work to pay for essentials? Remember day care and taxes usually eat up the second job's wages."

In other words, a business only has to keep wages low enough that it takes 16 hours/day (2 full time wage earners) to earn enough to pay for wages necessary for living expenses. So the business gets twice the production for the same amount of pay per family while the family has to rely on charity and government assistance for at least daycare. Convenience products and fast food restaurants also get an indirect subsidy because there is less time to prepare a dinner. There are more hands out in this rat race system, thus leading to less money staying in a family's pocket.

[wt510151]

Not only to avoid taxes, but nonresident tuition. Now that's a big chunk of change.

[buzzardwing]

"I like that idea. Income to a certain level be tax free. I might go higher than 30K though and then a flat rate with no loopholes. close the loopholes for corporations also."

I agree, and also add;

It has never made sense to me for Government to subsidize any commodity with tax payer money and then add more tax % and allow wallstreet speculation to drive prices up!

When a farmer stores a crop, then sells when prices are good, IMO thats just good business!   When wallstreet drives the prices up on a subsidized commodity that is vital to the American economy, isnt that fraud?

I sure don't know it all, and would just as soon Government do the job we pay for and let me do my job. I am for smaller Government too, but how about we make a few new rules/laws to go along with this new game/century first.

[Artifice]

someone works very hard and applies their capital to good use,

both benefit society,

so punish them at 60%    discourage  output,     ok.

be thrilled there are many large earners