2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: obenskik on August 22, 2016, 10:27:45 AM
-
We are a nation at war. The enemy is not another super power or even another major power. It is an asymmetric war. This war is not like the asymmetric wars in the news where a powerful army is constantly embarrassed by the clever tactics of irregulars, sometimes called freedom fighters, sometimes called terrorists. It is as old as civilization, and although we aspire to be fairer, we fail. The winning side is not even aware of this war; they just feel entitled to the benefits they reap without thinking about the situation of the other side. The rich and the poor are equally forbidden to steal bread and sleep under bridges.
In much of the world and much of history a ruling class, was entitled to take whatever they wanted from the lower classes, anything: food, money, sex, livestock, children, anything! The poor put up with it because they had no choice, no power, no mana. Sometimes Menehune is translated as little power. The ruling class was usually reinforced by the priest class offering the rulers moral justification in exchange for protection and a share of the loot.
Some radical came along and wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
They had a little war over those words, won that war and assumed everything was OK, but it was not. Some were still slaves. After a few more wars the words were taken a little more seriously until today we like to tell ourselves that I’m OK, you’re OK, but a lot of our neighbors are not OK. Indeed some men (and women) are less equal than others. The privileged have more limitations now, O.J. had to stand trial, but he could afford a legal dream team. Still we have a legal system that is much harsher on the poor. What is a $50 parking ticket to someone making $500,000? How about someone making minimum wage? Someone who can’t afford a lawyer? Can fines be proportional to the ability to pay? Can we stop disrupting families by jailing breadwinners for non-violent offences?
We have progressive taxes that are not progressive because there are exceptions, loopholes for the privileged. Can’t we design an income tax without those special bargains? We have regressive taxes like GET that hits hardest those who spend most of their ‘disposable’ income on things that are subject to the tax, like food, instead of investments, legal advice, aircraft service and foreign vacations. Social Security tax has an upper limit, no matter how much you earn, after $118,000 income the effective rate goes down.
The main cause of poverty is the original sin of being born poor. Sure some people overcome it, some by hard work, some by luck and some by cheating, but the field in not level. Entry level workers have very little bargaining power, a job offer is usually, take it or leave it. Once hired it is often deemed employment at will, meaning the employer can terminate at any time. Minimum wage has hardly changed for over 20 years, while the cost of living has increased significantly. An increase in minimum wage is good for business. “If they can’t buy the cars, who will?” Henry Ford. If they can’t buy the pizza, who will?
We can’t make everyone equally well off, that has been tried and it never works. What we can do is stop kicking people when they are down. I am not advocating socialism, just social justice, eliminate regressive policies, the asymmetrical war against the poor.
-
Welcome to the forum.
Introduce yourself in the new members introduction.
What type of firearms and shooting you enjoy etc.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4.0
Have you posted anything firearms related as this is a 2A forum ?
-
I like this post and it brings up many points. Civil discussion on these points can be valuable to the overall health of this free nation.
-
Everything is based on the core principles being discussed in the "Conservatives" thread.
So, we should go back to there.
-
I think poverty could be described as the central topic in this thread. Poverty is a real concern without having much in the way of an easy solution. Poverty exists and probably will continue to exist in every large society and every government form in history. We have problems with it here and yes poverty is an unfortunate cycle but i also think we are one of the countries/societies with the largest ability for upward mobility, meaning being able to go from a lower income group to a higher income group through work.
-
The concept of poverty is the single motivator that I and perhaps every citizen in Hawaii has to go to work, continue with education, progress in their careers and be better at what ever we do.
It drives competition. Mother Nature is about competition.
-
My concept of fairness is "pay for the services you use." Like if I go to a restaurant with you, we each pay for what we ordered.
I'm all for everyone getting a chance to succeed, it's the American way where people can do anything. I am happy to pay taxes for other people to go to school, unemployment, welfare, etc so people have a chance at succeeding. We should get people trained for work, give them support if they are laid off from work, help them with medical emergencies, etc. However many people take advantage of it and just want to live off of others. Or worse they feel "entitled" to other peoples money because they think the world owes them something. I think the problem today is people have that cushion that they can rely on so they don't have the incentive to work as hard. Back in American history it would be you either worked hard or starved to death and that was a pretty good incentive to try and succeed. Seems like the goal today is mediocrity.
I see poor people say they've been discriminated against and they need money to move up the ladder. But then I see poor immigrant families (including some of my friends) who came to America with nothing and faced discrimination. They worked very hard and now they have good jobs, bought homes, and have well educated children.
-
My concept of fairness is "pay for the services you use." Like if I go to a restaurant with you, we each pay for what we ordered.
Very Interesting interpretation.
I'm all for everyone getting a chance to succeed, it's the American way where people can do anything. I am happy to pay taxes for other people to go to school, unemployment, welfare, etc so people have a chance at succeeding. We should get people trained for work, give them support if they are laid off from work, help them with medical emergencies, etc. However many people take advantage of it and just want to live off of others. Or worse they feel "entitled" to other peoples money because they think the world owes them something. I think the problem today is people have that cushion that they can rely on so they don't have the incentive to work as hard. Back in American history it would be you either worked hard or starved to death and that was a pretty good incentive to try and succeed. Seems like the goal today is mediocrity.
Good analysis.
I see poor people say they've been discriminated against and they need money to move up the ladder. But then I see poor immigrant families (including some of my friends) who came to America with nothing and faced discrimination. They worked very hard and now they have good jobs, bought homes, and have well educated children.
Although your observation is valid, I would argue that the outcome described is more anecdotal that statistically factual.
There were many that came since the arrival of Captain Cook to the Hawaiian Islands; however, the success you speak was not universally valid for all immigrants. If we look back in Hawaiian history, we find the most successful immigrants from the Hawaiian Kingdom era to the Territorial era, was the European/American whites that dominated the political-social-economic strata. Their success was a result of education, but it also helped when they married into the monarchy and enacted discriminatory laws to all ethnic groups but their own.
Since statehood and the fall of the Big Five (for those who still remember them) to the dawn of the 21st century, that all changed with immigrant Asians, particularly Japanese, that redrew the political-social-economic hierarchy in Hawaii. Although it is true that this transfer of power and status was partially due to hard work and education, the truth to the matter was the work of the progressives/liberals of Hawaii's democratic party (e.g. Daniel Inoye, Spark Matsunaga, Hiram Fong, Dickie Wong, etc.) through the civil rights movement which was the revolution that paved the way for non-white immigrants living in Hawaii to finally have a piece of prosperity.
Unfortunately, the gains that were made were not distributed equally to all immigrants. Filipinos and other Southeast Asian immigrants were some immigrant groups that did not see social justice until much later, while many Polynesians as well as other Pacific Island peoples are still waiting for their opportunity.
The point that ought to be made is that hard work and continual education is a necessary condition for political-social-economic success; however, those factors by themselves is not sufficient enough to attain it.
Kuleana
-
Although your observation is valid, I would argue that the outcome described is more anecdotal that statistically factual.
There were many that came since the arrival of Captain Cook to the Hawaiian Islands; however, the success you speak was not universally valid for all immigrants. If we look back in Hawaiian history, we find the most successful immigrants from the Hawaiian Kingdom era to the Territorial era, was the European/American whites that dominated the political-social-economic strata. Their success was a result of education, but it also helped when they married into the monarchy and enacted discriminatory laws to all ethnic groups but their own.
Since statehood and the fall of the Big Five (for those who still remember them) to the dawn of the 21st century, that all changed with immigrant Asians, particularly Japanese, that redrew the political-social-economic hierarchy in Hawaii. Although it is true that this transfer of power and status was partially due to hard work and education, the truth to the matter was the work of the progressives/liberals of Hawaii's democratic party (e.g. Daniel Inoye, Spark Matsunaga, Hiram Fong, Dickie Wong, etc.) through the civil rights movement which was the revolution that paved the way for non-white immigrants living in Hawaii to finally have a piece of prosperity.
Unfortunately, the gains that were made were not distributed equally to all immigrants. Filipinos and other Southeast Asian immigrants were some immigrant groups that did not see social justice until much later, while many Polynesians as well as other Pacific Island peoples are still waiting for their opportunity.
The point that ought to be made is that hard work and continual education is a necessary condition for political-social-economic success; however, those factors by themselves is not sufficient enough to attain it.
Kuleana
waiting for what?
There are opportunities out there.
Like my man Keslo once said...this stuff is beamed out all over the place...just gotta know how to grab it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_G6rZHp1A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_G6rZHp1A)
There are wealthy, happy Hawaiians. You don't hear about them. Why? Because they are happy and content. We hear about the ones that are not happy and want everyone else to be unhappy as much as them. They do sit ins.
There are many doors to open. I was taught that if ONE doesn't open try another and another. As you explore each door you build a thing called character.
There is also an underlying problem of cronyism in Hawaii that takes away all the fruits from those that are honest and hard-working.
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2014/12/18/alberthee-indicted-for-allegedly-taking-4m-from.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2014/12/18/alberthee-indicted-for-allegedly-taking-4m-from.html)
But most people accept it as the norm.
There has to be a breaking point.
-
BTW, Life in its entirety and true, raw form is not fair. Fair is a human perspective.
Let my man Max explain things from his cab with a psychopath in his backseat...BLUF: CarpeDiem. We exist in this one instance. Life ends and it begins. There is really no "fair" explanation for it. Life happens. Everything in that instance we can control to an extent. Our time on stage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C167s9nEHRU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C167s9nEHRU)
-
All ethnicity have have successful people and poor people, and majority of them start out on a level playing field. Maybe this generation or the previous one. I find successful people have ambition, courage to take risks, adaptable, have foresight, work hard, can accept failure and learn from it, and attitude that they are 100% responsible for their own success. Some poorer people do have these traits and they need encouragement and a helping start. Other people that get no where tend to blame society for their problems, don't want to change, and just want to get by.
There are people of all ethnicities that start at the very bottom and become very successful. There are no excuses nowadays. College and trade schools are already free for the poor and grants help to pay for living expenses while in school. There are lots of good paying jobs in Hawaii right now. You may not get rich, but you can live a good life on it.
-
I don't want "fairness" in my life, and I never have.
Life isn't fair.
Love isn't fair.
The economy isn't fair.
The legal system isn't fair.
The military promotion system isn't fair.
Nature isn't fair.
Disease isn't fair.
Distribution of goods and wealth isn't fair.
Welfare programs aren't fair.
Professional sports aren't fair.
We learn to live and grow and succeed both in spite of and by taking advantage of the unfairness in the world. It's all a part of the "rules", and we all must learn the rules to play the games effectively.
We learn to promote ourselves, improve ourselves and take risks.
Necessity is the mother of all invention.
“The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen.”
― Haruki Murakami
“Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.”
― Edgar Allan Poe
Man was never meant for a life of leisure. It is only through adversity, suffering, and experience that he learns to adapt and succeed in life.
If the tax system, legal system and job markets are unfair, you must either learn to adapt to it, or try to change it. Change does not often come easily, nor without cost. Complaining does nothing but offer excuses for your own lack of trying.
It often comes down to one thing: WHO decides what is fair and what is not. You, as an individual, have no authority to enforce your views on the rest of society. One might decide it is fair for the producers to keep most of what they produce and give the remainder to those without. Someone else might decide it's fair for all to keep an equal share, producer or not, so that all have equal shares.
Fair is a dangerous concept, just like equality. Seems the people deciding on the rules are more equal, and get treated "fairer", than everyone else.
-
You know what's not fair?
Hugh Hefner.
Stole my idea of having beautiful girls naked in a magazine.
Had that idea since I was 5 years old. Grew up and realized too late.
-
waiting for what?
Waiting for the institutionalized discrimination to decrease to a level that allows a fair chance. Let us look at the Hawaii's Department of Education for example post statehood. There was a time when a huge majority of the teachers were Japanese. Was this due to the fact that other non-white residents in Hawaii were less educated or did not work hard enough? Of course not, it was due to the discriminatory practices at that time. This situation could be said almost to all other local government branches as well. It was only towards the end of the 20th century that you had a decent number of Filipino, Vietnamese, etc. working in any public school or other branches of government in Hawaii.
There are opportunities out there.
What opportunities are you talking about? If your saying minimum wage jobs, you are correct. However, if you are talking about the decent paying jobs in the vicinity of downtown Honolulu, good luck in applying. I surely hope you went to Punahou or Iolani or some big name university because if you graduated in a low income public school district, your chances are next to none. If that was not bad enough, you should already know the amount of cronyism and nepotism that does exists in Hawaii further makes it difficult for anyone to climb the socio-economic ladder. Why do you think there is a constant exodus of local-born residents that bolt to the US mainland?
Like my man Keslo once said...this stuff is beamed out all over the place...just gotta know how to grab it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_G6rZHp1A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_G6rZHp1A)
There are wealthy, happy Hawaiians. You don't hear about them. Why? Because they are happy and content
We don't hear much of them because they are a tiny MINORITY of the total amount of Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii.
We hear about the ones that are not happy and want everyone else to be unhappy as much as them. They do sit ins.
We hear more disenfranchised Native Hawaiians because they are the MAJORITY of Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii.
There are many doors to open. I was taught that if ONE doesn't open try another and another. As you explore each door you build a thing called character.
I never disagreed with that.
Kuleana
-
you can wait all you want
you can sit in all you want
This is America. Land of opportunity not handouts. Our current POTUS might have you think that it is the latter but it is not.
The onus is on you. No one else.
-
All ethnicity have have successful people and poor people, and majority of them start out on a level playing field. Maybe this generation or the previous one. I find successful people have ambition, courage to take risks, adaptable, have foresight, work hard, can accept failure and learn from it, and attitude that they are 100% responsible for their own success. Some poorer people do have these traits and they need encouragement and a helping start. Other people that get no where tend to blame society for their problems, don't want to change, and just want to get by.
Although I do believe you should take responsibility for your success or failures in life, society does has to take some blame, for example, if it allows government corruption to thwart one's attempts to better themselves.
There are people of all ethnicities that start at the very bottom and become very successful. There are no excuses nowadays.
Once again, more exceptions rather than the rule. Remember those real estate infomercials from Tom Vu. Are we really going to believe all Vietnamese or any immigrants become as successful?
College and trade schools are already free for the poor and grants help to pay for living expenses while in school. There are lots of good paying jobs in Hawaii right now. You may not get rich, but you can live a good life on it.
Good paying jobs in Hawaii? Please tell me what they are and how much they pay cause I think myself and many on this forum would sincerely like to know. :shaka:
Kuleana
-
Lots of jobs pay decent money. I've been looking for government jobs and there are quite a few. That pay $40k+. Now many people will have to start at lower paying work, but they can move up. Bus drivers, policemen, IT, construction, if you can't qualify for a decent job now you probably majorly screwed something up in the past. Military is always hiring and they provide the best way for people to move up. They have decent pay, good training, pay for college, develop leadership skills and discipline, etc. You can also get a full-time job in the military reserves if you work hard.
If you screw around in school, do drugs, have a criminal record....you still have second chances to succeed if you clean up. I think the make or break thing is ATTITUDE.
-
he said "America", not "Hawaii"
-
All ethnicity have have successful people and poor people, and majority of them start out on a level playing field. Maybe this generation or the previous one. I find successful people have ambition, courage to take risks, adaptable, have foresight, work hard, can accept failure and learn from it, and attitude that they are 100% responsible for their own success. Some poorer people do have these traits and they need encouragement and a helping start. Other people that get no where tend to blame society for their problems, don't want to change, and just want to get by.
Although I do believe you should take responsibility for your success or failures in life, society does has to take some blame, for example, if it allows government corruption to thwart one's attempts to better themselves.
There are people of all ethnicities that start at the very bottom and become very successful. There are no excuses nowadays.
Once again, more exceptions rather than the rule. Remember those real estate infomercials from Tom Vu. Are we really going to believe all Vietnamese or any immigrants become as successful?
College and trade schools are already free for the poor and grants help to pay for living expenses while in school. There are lots of good paying jobs in Hawaii right now. You may not get rich, but you can live a good life on it.
Good paying jobs in Hawaii? Please tell me what they are and how much they pay cause I think myself and many on this forum would sincerely like to know. :shaka:
Kuleana
Lifes' short one day its gone. You'll look back at the times you were pouting and waiting for something to happen when you could've been doing something. You sound like Max the cab driver. island Limos. A concept for 12 years. Well, in your case over 100 years in the making....sit ins at Iolani Palace. Marches (to where by the way? We live on an island). When is the culminating event that would satisfy your people? Bring back the Hawaiian Kingdom? Well, if that happens I don't think they will support commoners having firearms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKX-2pa-UE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DKX-2pa-UE)
-
Well, on second thought you sound like this guy...nothing more than a t shirt. Movie of the week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAm_5fen2k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAm_5fen2k)
-
Lots of jobs pay decent money. I've been looking for government jobs and there are quite a few. That pay $40k+. Now many people will have to start at lower paying work, but they can move up. Bus drivers, policemen, IT, construction, if you can't qualify for a decent job now you probably majorly screwed something up in the past. Military is always hiring and they provide the best way for people to move up. They have decent pay, good training, pay for college, develop leadership skills and discipline, etc. You can also get a full-time job in the military reserves if you work hard.
If you screw around in school, do drugs, have a criminal record....you still have second chances to succeed if you clean up. I think the make or break thing is ATTITUDE.
That much for certain.
AMEN!
Kuleana
-
Good paying jobs in Hawaii? Please tell me what they are and how much they pay cause I think myself and many on this forum would sincerely like to know
Here's just a few Starting pay:
Policeman at $65k
City Bus Driver $42k
Bus Mechanic $50k
medical technical fields $40k+
These are just a few that are hiring and I looked up in 2 minutes. These are jobs people can get with a 2 year degree. If you say there are no jobs or you don't qualify for anything...right there that's all ATTITUDE and you will go nowhere.
-
in the end it's not about what's fair...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAm_5fen2k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAm_5fen2k)
it's all about..
WHAT"S IN THE BOX!!!!
-
I know many here have been to other countries outside of the United States. I have had the opportunity to work for a short while in a country. This place is NOT considered a poor country, nor particularly tyrannical. My observations when there was this.
There are mostly two classes of people that live there. The very rich, and the dirt poor.
The very rich part of this country is lavish to the extreme. The poor part is damn near, or is, human right violations.
Poor are not cared for like they are here in the US. It's a rough existence for them.
This experience gave me a whole new perspective and appreciation for our great nation. And even more questions on why so many feel so discriminated against and hateful for our country.
Here there is a more level playing field, with freedom to do as we please with our lives, than any other country in the world.
In my eyes and opinion, there are too many unaccountable social assistance programs, with too few checks and balances, to keep those benefiting from them from abusing them.
Do I want to see people live the way they have to in my observations? (No work, no money, family and self don't eat)
Hello no. There is a place for help to be given.
Do I like or appreciate the constant 'playing' of the system and no accountability of those who received my hard earned wage, yet keep asking for more, because it's fair.
No I do not.
-
I like this post and it brings up many points. Civil discussion on these points can be valuable to the overall health of this free nation.
:thumbsup: me too
the crazy thing... the rich appease the poor so they can stay in power. the poor rely on policies made by the rich that make them increasingly reliant on financial assistance. and those that aren't rich or poor make up the bulk of society that carry the financial burden. So you see a mini set of classes in the middle class... those scraping by to stay in there, those living in relative wealth, but are not part of the elite, and everyone in between. most often the success stories are about those that rise in the mini set of classes, but not many ever leave the lower, middle and elite class that they started in.
-
Lifes' short one day its gone. You'll look back at the times you were pouting and waiting for something to happen when you could've been doing something. You sound like Max the cab driver. island Limos. A concept for 12 years. Well, in your case over 100 years in the making....sit ins at Iolani Palace. Marches (to where by the way? We live on an island). When is the culminating event that would satisfy your people? Bring back the Hawaiian Kingdom? Well, if that happens I don't think they will support commoners having firearms.
Why are you asking rhetorical questions in regards to the Hawaiian Kingdom?
This thread is about fairness and poverty.
FOCUS.
Kuleana
-
Here's just a few Starting pay:
Policeman at $65k
City Bus Driver $42k
Bus Mechanic $50k
medical technical fields $40k+
These are just a few that are hiring and I looked up in 2 minutes. These are jobs people can get with a 2 year degree. If you say there are no jobs or you don't qualify for anything...right there that's all ATTITUDE and you will go nowhere.
Your facts are correct, provided that the jobs being advertised exist. In addition, the examples you listed are not constantly hiring as there are only a finite amount positions for each of them.
Kuleana
-
Here's just a few Starting pay:
Policeman at $65k
City Bus Driver $42k
Bus Mechanic $50k
medical technical fields $40k+
These are just a few that are hiring and I looked up in 2 minutes. These are jobs people can get with a 2 year degree. If you say there are no jobs or you don't qualify for anything...right there that's all ATTITUDE and you will go nowhere.
Your facts are correct, provided that the jobs being advertised exist. In addition, the examples you listed are not constantly hiring as there are only a finite amount positions for each of them.
Kuleana
open another door
-
Why are you asking rhetorical questions in regards to the Hawaiian Kingdom?
This thread is about fairness and poverty.
FOCUS.
Kuleana
because...you should...FOCUS
Although your observation is valid, I would argue that the outcome described is more anecdotal that statistically factual.
There were many that came since the arrival of Captain Cook to the Hawaiian Islands; however, the success you speak was not universally valid for all immigrants. If we look back in Hawaiian history, we find the most successful immigrants from the Hawaiian Kingdom era to the Territorial era, was the European/American whites that dominated the political-social-economic strata. Their success was a result of education, but it also helped when they married into the monarchy and enacted discriminatory laws to all ethnic groups but their own.
Since statehood and the fall of the Big Five (for those who still remember them) to the dawn of the 21st century, that all changed with immigrant Asians, particularly Japanese, that redrew the political-social-economic hierarchy in Hawaii. Although it is true that this transfer of power and status was partially due to hard work and education, the truth to the matter was the work of the progressives/liberals of Hawaii's democratic party (e.g. Daniel Inoye, Spark Matsunaga, Hiram Fong, Dickie Wong, etc.) through the civil rights movement which was the revolution that paved the way for non-white immigrants living in Hawaii to finally have a piece of prosperity.
Unfortunately, the gains that were made were not distributed equally to all immigrants. Filipinos and other Southeast Asian immigrants were some immigrant groups that did not see social justice until much later, while many Polynesians as well as other Pacific Island peoples are still waiting for their opportunity.
The point that ought to be made is that hard work and continual education is a necessary condition for political-social-economic success; however, those factors by themselves is not sufficient enough to attain it.
Kuleana
I guess you didn't go to Punahou?
Guess I'm fortunate to have family to the Fongs :thumbsup:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/iMnw1t3.jpg)
-
:thumbsup: me too
the crazy thing... the rich appease the poor so they can stay in power. the poor rely on policies made by the rich that make them increasingly reliant on financial assistance. and those that aren't rich or poor make up the bulk of society that carry the financial burden. So you see a mini set of classes in the middle class... those scraping by to stay in there, those living in relative wealth, but are not part of the elite, and everyone in between. most often the success stories are about those that rise in the mini set of classes, but not many ever leave the lower, middle and elite class that they started in.
Well Said.
If I am not mistaken, your analysis is reminiscent of the findings of Karl Marx in his writings in regards to social class. Many often close their minds when it comes to works of Karl Marx, but if one looks at his treaties and evaluation, there is much truth that can be seen all societies today.
Having said that, I am not a communist. :shaka:
Kuleana
-
I guess you didn't go to Punahou?
No. I did not have the opportunity to attend Punahou Schools.
Guess I'm fortunate to have family to the Fongs :thumbsup:
Good for you.
Kuleana
-
The reality is that no race, gender, or creed has a monopoly on hardship or privilege.
-
Well Said.
If I am not mistaken, your analysis is reminiscent of the findings of Karl Marx in his writings in regards to social class. Many often close their minds when it comes to works of Karl Marx, but if one looks at his treaties and evaluation, there is much truth that can be seen all societies today.
Having said that, I am not a communist. :shaka:
Kuleana
then why refer to a communist in your argument?
I think you are more of a socialist.
And why do you quote yourself ?
-
then why refer to a communist in your arguments?
Why not?
I think you are more of a socialist.
You are free to believe what you want to believe.
And why do you quote yourself ?
In order for forum members to not construe my arguments as coming from someone who is adherent of communist ideology.
Kuleana
-
I have to admit, I cheated. I was a career and education counselor for 12 years so knowing this stuff was my job. Those jobs are always available along with many others. Everything I have posted here is what I learned in 12 years at the job. I found my job very fulfilling when poor people who were lost came to me for help, then they found a job or graduated from school to get a good job. On the opposite end, I find it very insulting to this country when people blame society for their predicaments.
-
I have to admit, I cheated. I was a career and education counselor for 12 years so knowing this stuff was my job. Those jobs are always available along with many others. Everything I have posted here is what I learned in 12 years at the job. I found my job very fulfilling when poor people who were lost came to me for help, then they found a job or graduated from school to get a good job. On the opposite end, I find it very insulting to this country when people blame society for their predicaments.
agreed.
The irony is that this country has so much freedoms people don't know what they have or what they can do.
People like Kuleana want a hand-out just for existing and give an excuse for any opportunity that are afforded them.
-
agreed.
The irony is that this country has so much freedoms people don't know what they have or what they can do.
People like Kuleana want a hand-out just for existing and give an excuse for any opportunity that are afforded them.
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think that is what he said.
-
People like Kuleana want a hand-out just for existing and give an excuse for any opportunity that are afforded them.
Please do not make incorrect conclusions or slander my statements in this thread on this forum.
Kuleana
-
This is a good discussion but let's be aware of the trap laid by commies (time and again) of pitting the poor versus the rich. Very old trick.
In fact the commies deliberately arrange for the creation of such extreme classes of people, exactly to create this kind of division and strife and animosity.
The catch is that the commie overlords end up being despotic oligarchs lording over everyone who is still poor (got tricked), or is newly poor (previously well to do).
This poverty analysis is not as simple as a level playing field. There's a lot of devious manipulation going on (e.g., reducing the number of American jobs by shipping them overseas will increase poverty, while rewarding those corporate owners who profit from this offshore labor cost reduction, making those guys richer, all under the banner of free enterprise). All these factors are interrelated and there are many such factors.
It is tricky to read commie stuff (BTW this is not directed at anyone, is a general statement). What happens is that they start off with some very reasonable issues and reasonable concerns that any decent person will agree with. Then along the way they somehow trick you with subtle ideas that gradually get to what they want to achieve, instead of actually solving the original problem as stated.
-
This is a good discussion but let's be aware of the trap laid by commies (time and again) of pitting the poor versus the rich. Very old trick.
In fact the commies deliberately arrange for the creation of such extreme classes of people, exactly to create this kind of division and strife and animosity.
The catch is that the commie overlords end up being despotic oligarchs lording over everyone who is still poor (got tricked), or is newly poor (previously well to do).
This poverty analysis is not as simple as a level playing field. There's a lot of devious manipulation going on (e.g., reducing the number of American jobs by shipping them overseas will increase poverty, while rewarding those corporate owners who profit from this offshore labor cost reduction, making those guys richer, all under the banner of free enterprise). All these factors are interrelated and there are many such factors.
It is tricky to read commie stuff (BTW this is not directed at anyone, is a general statement). What happens is that they start off with some very reasonable issues and reasonable concerns that any decent person will agree with. Then along the way they somehow trick you with subtle ideas that gradually get to what they want to achieve, instead of actually solving the original problem as stated.
Isn't it interesting how discussions of fairness, income inequality, wealthy, wealth redistribution, "pay your fair share", corporate greed and so on always end up as a discussion of Socialism and/or Communism?
Capitalism, unencumbered by government manipulation, is the most fair and moral form of economic system there is. Each party, buyer and seller, makes a free decision on whether the exchange is something they accept. If not, each is free to walk away and seek alternative parties with which to trade. That includes labor.
Socialism focuses on those people disenchanted with capitalism, usually because of envy of the wealthy or the agony of poverty. Given the same drive and ability to learn, there is nothing stopping anyone from achieving the same ends as those they envy. Most have not been taught how to achieve one's dreams, only that the systems are corrupt and stacked against them, so why even try?
Economic Socialism has failed in every society which has tried it. Is it ignorance that keeps people clamoring for it. Or is it pure arrogance? Or perhaps it's the constant desire for a utopia even though adopting the same old rules under new names is destined to fail?
-
Isn't it interesting how discussions of fairness, income inequality, wealthy, wealth redistribution, "pay your fair share", corporate greed and so on always end up as a discussion of Socialism and/or Communism?
Capitalism, unencumbered by government manipulation, is the most fair and moral form of economic system there is. Each party, buyer and seller, makes a free decision on whether the exchange is something they accept. If not, each is free to walk away and seek alternative parties with which to trade. That includes labor.
...
Economic Socialism has failed in every society which has tried it. Is it ignorance that keeps people clamoring for it. Or is it pure arrogance? Or perhaps it's the constant desire for a utopia even though adopting the same old rules under new names is destined to fail?
That's as good (or bad and naive) an argument about capitalism as the argument for socialism.
Without government manipulation, there would be no patents, trademarks or copyrights, etc.
anyone who could produce a comparable product for less could sell it for less.
In country or out of country because there would be no tariffs.
Mexico and China, et. al. making bigger bucks on the American consumer.
Less U.S. Jobs and lower pay.
Not to mention monopolies ( U.S Steel and Standard Oil coming to mind, big banks coming to mind )
The U.S is economic socialism. Even before the New Deal.
-
What you have to remmber is that in the last 50-60 years we have become a nation of WANTS instead of a nation of NEEDS.
I need food, water and shelter,
I want a car, a tv, internet access
I need cloths, medical care and protection
I want Nikes, Starbucks and McDonalds
The problem today is people are living outside their means, They do not have the means to provide for themselves yet they run up dept buying stuff they want. They spend their money buying things that are nice instead of practical. For the price of a pair of Nike's you can buy 4-5 pair of non name branded shoes that do the same job. People cant afford to eat but some hoe mange to spend $50-$100 a month on a cell phone, another $100-$200 on cable tv and internet access. They drive a car with a $400-$500 a month lease or payment and pay $100-$200 a month in insurance. Their kids go to school hungry but they can spend $10 a day on cigarettes and $100 a week on Starbucks.
Yes rent and stuff is expensive in Hawaii. But guess what its part of America, If people cant afford to live here. They can move. You can rent a 2 bedroom house in the mainland for $500-$700 a month.
Lets do some easy math
Husband and Wife both working 40 hrs @ $8 hr is $2560 a month (8x40x4) take away 30% for taxs leaves you with $1792
Rent @ $700 leaves $1100
Untilities @ $300 leaves $800
Food @ $300 leaves $500
Cellphone, internet @100 $400
Thats $400 a month to spend on other stuff you need and want.
The problem especially in Hawaii is people dont want to work, They dont want to leave, They dont want to change, They think that becuase things are not fair that society should change to accommodate them.
-
The problem with these fair trade deals is they are breaking the american economy, They allow other countries to make goods at lower cost and avoid the import traffis that should create a fair playing field.
For example if a product costs $10 to make in America and $8 to make in China, The imported product should have an import Tariff of $2, This money is what is meant to pay for the federal government (not your wages) The problem is this and previous administrations have created global deals to bypass these tariffs destabilizing the american economy by shipping Trillions of dollars overseas.
-
That's as good (or bad and naive) an argument about capitalism as the argument for socialism.
Without government manipulation, there would be no patents, trademarks or copyrights, etc.
anyone who could produce a comparable product for less could sell it for less.
In country or out of country because there would be no tariffs.
Mexico and China, et. al. making bigger bucks on the American consumer.
Less U.S. Jobs and lower pay.
Not to mention monopolies ( U.S Steel and Standard Oil coming to mind, big banks coming to mind )
The U.S is economic socialism. Even before the New Deal.
"Regulating" is not the same as "manipulating". When government harasses Microsoft and gives bailouts to failed green energy companies that donate to their campaigns, offer huge tax breaks to oil companies making record profits ... these are signs the government is trying to change the laws of economics under capitalism. Bailing out banks and car makers might make us feel nice saving some jobs, but why not bail out the home buyers and 401K owners who lost everything instead?
Because CRONY capitalism is manipulative. Capitalism in practice requires some regulation to prevent predatory practices.
-
The problem with these fair trade deals is they are breaking the american economy, They allow other countries to make goods at lower cost and avoid the import traffis that should create a fair playing field.
For example if a product costs $10 to make in America and $8 to make in China, The imported product should have an import Tariff of $2, This money is what is meant to pay for the federal government (not your wages) The problem is this and previous administrations have created global deals to bypass these tariffs destabilizing the american economy by shipping Trillions of dollars overseas.
You are correct that many of these so-called fair trade deals are neither fair or mutually beneficial on an international scale. However, if you look at pure capitalism, it states that in order for all domestic/global markets to run efficiently, there should not be any government controls, which naturally includes taxes and tariffs. We see, however, that for the US, the absence of such barriers causes great social-economic stress for most Americans. Consequently, this is why you have many people who are not staunch capitalists.
What is the solution then?
Nothing yet, but its certainly very important to discuss this issue in all perspectives if a solution is to be found. :shaka:
Kuleana
-
Mexico and China, et. al. making bigger bucks on the American consumer.
Less U.S. Jobs and lower pay.
Aieahound,
I think you forgot to mention that its Mexico, China, and the US Corporations who import and sells those items that are making the big bucks at the expense of the American consumer.
Kuleana
-
Because CRONY capitalism is manipulative. Capitalism in practice requires some regulation to prevent predatory practices.
FJ,
I am afraid I have to disagree with your take on capitalism in practice. Pure capitalism is the economic practice that is free from any government interference. Government interference in an economy whether good or bad intentioned are aspects of socialism. Socialism in economics is based on government influencing the market in the effort to achieve societal goals (e.g. predatory capitalists, illegal activities, etc.).
Kuleana
-
FJ,
I am afraid I have to disagree with your take on capitalism in practice. Pure capitalism is the economic practice that is free from any government interference. Government interference in an economy whether good or bad intentioned are aspects of socialism. Socialism in economics is based on government influencing the market in the effort to achieve societal goals (e.g. predatory capitalists, illegal activities, etc.).
Kuleana
Pure capitalism, as you define it, can only exist if all producers/sellers are playing by the rules dictated by supply, demand, costs and competition. Any tactic or practice which eliminates competition or erects barriers to market entry is working against the fundamental principles of capitalism. Monopolies, collusion and predatory pricing are not readily remedied by the capitalistic system. Therefore, to protect the system, certain practices must be regulated so capitalism has a chance to work for both buyers and sellers.
-
Pure capitalism, as you define it, can only exist if all producers/sellers are playing by the rules dictated by supply, demand, costs and competition. Any tactic or practice which eliminates competition or erects barriers to market entry is working against the fundamental principles of capitalism. Monopolies, collusion and predatory pricing are not readily remedied by the capitalistic system. Therefore, to protect the system, certain practices must be regulated so capitalism has a chance to work for both buyers and sellers.
I agree wholeheartedly, as I believe markets are the way to go.
However, the point I was trying to get at is the fact that capitalism is not perfect and needs regulation to ensure its integrity. As such, although most people will not admit it, such regulation is indicative what socialist based economics is all about. Monopolies, collusion, predatory pricing, unsafe products and services are essentially not in society's interest, which is at the center of the goals of socialist economics.
Is socialist economics the answer?
Maybe not, however, some of its elements should not be discounted outright.
Kuleana
-
Socialism does not exists, The concept of socialism is every one puts in equally and every one gets out equally,
Communism is where the government decides how much is put in and how much every one gets out,
Every example of socialism that exists today is infact Communism.
-
I agree wholeheartedly, as I believe markets are the way to go.
However, the point I was trying to get at is the fact that capitalism is not perfect and needs regulation to ensure its integrity. As such, although most people will not admit it, such regulation is indicative what socialist based economics is all about. Monopolies, collusion, predatory pricing, unsafe products and services are essentially not in society's interest, which is at the center of the goals of socialist economics.
Is socialist economics the answer?
Maybe not, however, some of its elements should not be discounted outright.
Kuleana
Not everything that is created by government and benefits the society at large is "socialism." People like to argue roads, bridges, schools, sewers, and so on are socialistic because government takes taxes and pays for these services for everyone.
That's not socialism. We have rights as citizens and voters to approve or reject projects the government proposes using tax dollars. That's part of our democratic process.
The majority normally rules, but in some cases in Hawaii's legislature, they tend to act Socialistically, doing what they believe is best for all in spite of vocal opposition. If we allow that to continue, we are allowing Socialism to govern us no matter what we call it publicly.
-
did we vote on the rail?
I don't know of anyone that likes it.
since it won't be a money maker, it seems more socialist than capitalist
we'll never make money from it, only lose money
-
Socialism does not exists, The concept of socialism is every one puts in equally and every one gets out equally,
I agree, just like pure capitalism, pure socialism does not exist. What we see in practice are different variations of both.
Communism is where the government decides how much is put in and how much every one gets out,
I agree.
Every example of socialism that exists today is infact Communism.
Not exactly. China, for example, a so-called communist state is actually a socialist state that has incorporated market elements.
Kuleana
-
Not everything that is created by government and benefits the society at large is "socialism." People like to argue roads, bridges, schools, sewers, and so on are socialistic because government takes taxes and pays for these services for everyone.
You may be right, but you can't say the building of public infrastructure that benefits the common good is a byproduct of capitalism either.
That's not socialism. We have rights as citizens and voters to approve or reject projects the government proposes using tax dollars. That's part of our democratic process.
True, but there are lots of countries in Europe that practice some degree of socialism and still have active democracies.
The majority normally rules, but in some cases in Hawaii's legislature, they tend to act Socialistically, doing what they believe is best for all in spite of vocal opposition. If we allow that to continue, we are allowing Socialism to govern us no matter what we call it publicly.
The may say they are doing things in the name of the common good, but that is not correct. For example, the rail project was sold to Hawaii residents that it was for their benefit. However, this project is not socialist based, but rather fascistic in the sense it was the construction interests and developers in Hawaii who partnered with the state legislature to undertake this clearly not affordable endeavor for their own financial gain at the expense of the resident tax payers.
Kuleana
-
Not exactly. China, for example, a so-called communist state is actually a socialist state that has incorporated market elements.
Socialism is a pure fictitious state that has never and will never exist. What we (as a planet across all nations and governments) have is govement controlled social programs.
The government decides who puts in and how much, the government decides who gets out and how much, Not all that put in get out and not all who get out put in. That is Communism.
For example the Hawaiian nation was communist, The chiefs owned everything and got to decide who put in what and who got out what. People worked fro the greater good but ultimatly they were told how much they got.
-
The government decides who puts in and how much, the government decides who gets out and how much, Not all that put in get out and not all who get out put in. That is Communism.
Sounds like the U.S.
And just about every other country in the World.
(By that definition)
But is it fair?
(Reference back to OP)
-
Sounds like the U.S.
And just about every other country in the World.
(By that definition)
But is it fair?
(Reference back to OP)
No its not fair, and thats why this country is about to go the way of the Romans, (along with Europe and a lot of other country). When you take from the people who work to give to the people who dont you build distrust and hatred, You end up with a system that is set to collapse. You can not have 50% of the population dependent on the government for its income (more if you include government workers and the military)
The government has put us and its self into a position where there is no motivation to do better, You get rewarded for not working. I read a book recnently and it was put like this.
Would you put a man in jail if he committed no crime ?
Then why would you reward some one who has done no work ?
The government has got to a point where it would have to tax everybody in the country at 50-60% just to pay its bills. If it did that it would be over thrown ina heart beat. Instead it has printed money to the point where the value of the dollar is worthless. The goveemrnt has no way to pay this dept and must carry on borrowing (printing money) with no possible way to pay it back. The only possible outcome is an economic collapse followed by hyper inflation and the death of 50% + of the population
So is this country fair ? no ? can you ever have a fair economy ? no is their a better option ? im not sure but i know what we have is not working and never will.
Prepare for the end becasue the end is near.
-
Waiting for the institutionalized discrimination to decrease to a level that allows a fair chance.
You are going to be waiting forever. Life will never be fair.
What about the institutionalized discrimination that favors tall people over short in basketball?
We are all dealt different hands in life, some get more beneficial hands either because of something innate or something social. Smart, better looking, taller, stronger, etc. All things that lead to an uneven playing field.
My model is George Washington Carver. He started life as a slave and had way more challenges in his way in terms of discrimination than most of us today could ever face. Yet he worked hard, succeeded, and founded his own college. He didn't let discrimination in whatever form stop him.
-
Socialism is a pure fictitious state that has never and will never exist. What we (as a planet across all nations and governments) have is govement controlled social programs.
The government decides who puts in and how much, the government decides who gets out and how much, Not all that put in get out and not all who get out put in. That is Communism.
For example the Hawaiian nation was communist, The chiefs owned everything and got to decide who put in what and who got out what. People worked fro the greater good but ultimatly they were told how much they got.
I disagree, ancient Hawaii through Kamehameha I was not communistic, but feudalistic. After Kamehameha I, the Kingdom of Hawaii was a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain.
Kuleana
-
When the government own everything and decides who works where and who gets what : that is communisum, Just becasue it was called something else a few hundred years ago it dosent make it a diffrent thing
-
No its not fair, and thats why this country is about to go the way of the Romans, (along with Europe and a lot of other country). When you take from the people who work to give to the people who dont you build distrust and hatred, You end up with a system that is set to collapse. You can not have 50% of the population dependent on the government for its income (more if you include government workers and the military)
I agree with your statements above, but you seem to be forgetting the ultra-wealthy 1% in the US, who shares much of the blame of the current socio-economic situation.
Who really tells the US Government what to do? The food stamp abusing poor or the ultra-wealthy 1%?
What group consistently do not pay their fair share of taxes? The barely visible middle class or the ultra-wealthy 1%?
What group is sending jobs to foreign nations? The mom and pop businesses or the corporations owned by the ultra-wealthy 1%?
Yes, the deadbeats in the US are a contributing factor to the current situation, but to ignore the actions of the ultra-wealthy 1% is irresponsible.
The government has put us and its self into a position where there is no motivation to do better, You get rewarded for not working. I read a book recnently and it was put like this.
Would you put a man in jail if he committed no crime ?
Then why would you reward some one who has done no work ?
How about: if the IRS is willing to gut any middle class American for failing to pay their income taxes, then why does the IRS not confiscate the assets of the ultra-wealthy 1% who repeatedly do not pay their fair share?
The government has got to a point where it would have to tax everybody in the country at 50-60% just to pay its bills. If it did that it would be over thrown ina heart beat. Instead it has printed money to the point where the value of the dollar is worthless. The goveemrnt has no way to pay this dept and must carry on borrowing (printing money) with no possible way to pay it back. The only possible outcome is an economic collapse followed by hyper inflation and the death of 50% + of the population
That scenario is for certain.
So is this country fair ? no ? can you ever have a fair economy ? no is their a better option ? im not sure but i know what we have is not working and never will.
Prepare for the end becasue the end is near.
Fairness in this country was lost long ago, if it ever existed.
Yes, the end may very well be near, except for the ultra-wealthy 1% who probably will retreat to their survival bunkers or private islands when the collapse begins and reveal themselves later to start their shenanigans once again to those of us who survive.
Kuleana
-
When the government own everything and decides who works where and who gets what : that is communisum, Just becasue it was called something else a few hundred years ago it dosent make it a diffrent thing
Yep.. Don't confuse the governmental system with the economic system, even though some economies are more government-controlled than others. Not all monarchies are the same economically.
-
You are going to be waiting forever. Life will never be fair.
Not really, look at the civil rights movementof the 60's. Social changes can be made.
What about the institutionalized discrimination that favors tall people over short in basketball?
I fail to see any institutionalized discrimination in basketball.
We are all dealt different hands in life, some get more beneficial hands either because of something innate or something social. Smart, better looking, taller, stronger, etc. All things that lead to an uneven playing field.
I agree.
My model is George Washington Carver. He started life as a slave and had way more challenges in his way in terms of discrimination than most of us today could ever face. Yet he worked hard, succeeded, and founded his own college. He didn't let discrimination in whatever form stop him.
True, a great role model indeed. However, it does not mean society should not continue to strive and improve life for all.
Kuleana
-
We need a good definition of fair.
The people at the bottom who don't do anything don't pay their fair share in taxes either.
-
We need a good definition of fair.
The people at the bottom who don't do anything don't pay their fair share in taxes either.
As I stated earlier in this thread:
It often comes down to one thing: WHO decides what is fair and what is not. You, as an individual, have no authority to enforce your views on the rest of society. One might decide it is fair for the producers to keep most of what they produce and give the remainder to those without. Someone else might decide it's fair for all to keep an equal share, producer or not, so that all have equal shares.
Fair is a dangerous concept, just like equality. Seems the people deciding on the rules are more equal, and get treated "fairer", than everyone else.
-
We need a good definition of fair.
The people at the bottom who don't do anything don't pay their fair share in taxes either.
WORSE then that, They take from those that do,
-
Who really tells the US Government what to do? The food stamp abusing poor or the ultra-wealthy 1%?
The poor do, They keep voting in the same retards over and over so they can get their foodstamps
What group consistently do not pay their fair share of taxes? The barely visible middle class or the ultra-wealthy 1%?
If you taxed the 1% at 100% the money wouldent last a year with all the entitlements the US govement has. The problem is not the 1% its the 50%+ of americans on entitlment programs who pay zero tax and/or get paid returns that they paid nothing towards.
What group is sending jobs to foreign nations? The mom and pop businesses or the corporations owned by the ultra-wealthy 1%?
Fair trade agreements have eliminated the safeguards (tarifs) designed to stop this from happening. The government has pushed the jobs abroad. The government (that the poor people voted in) has done made it this way. They also treat us companys that register abrtoad as off shor companys allowing them to keep money in tax havens, Again the poor people voted these people into power.
Yes, the deadbeats in the US are a contributing factor to the current situation, but to ignore the actions of the ultra-wealthy 1% is irresponsible.
Why are the ultra wealthy wealthy ? Becasue poor people keep buying their crap, Want to break them. STOP BUYING CRAP and invest in the future. $5 starbucks a day = 1825 a year. 5 years thats over $9k of cooffe that you could made at home for $900 (if you really needed that caffeine fix)
How about: if the IRS is willing to gut any middle class American for failing to pay their income taxes, then why does the IRS not confiscate the assets of the ultra-wealthy 1% who repeatedly do not pay their fair share?
What is this fair share bullshit ? The govement should not be taking taxs ( You dont pay taxs the government Takes them by force) the federal government should be paid by tarifs on imported and exported goods and by the states (who can collect taxs from the people) The only way to have a FAIR tax would be a flat rate with no refunds or exceptions OR a sales tax on all products. You would also have to implement a tariff system on all imported goods. The problem is thats not what liberals want they want people with more money to pay more money and as stated above that does not fix the problem as the amount of money collected can not fix the deficit system, The only thing it dose is reduce the wealth of those that have money and that has nothing to do with being fair but comes down to jealousy
Fairness in this country was lost long ago, if it ever existed.
Yes, the end may very well be near, except for the ultra-wealthy 1% who probably will retreat to their survival bunkers or private islands when the collapse begins and reveal themselves later to start their shenanigans once again to those of us who survive.
Fairness existed before the government got to the point where it made every person into a slave. They took away the right to claim land and implemented a tax system that forces people to work have money to pay taxs. Even if you barter/trade with people you are still required to record and pay taxs on the value of that transaction even if no money changed hands.
The biggest problem today is no one wants to start from the bottom. As a human as an Animal we have one job on this planet. And thats to make sure our children survive and have a better life then us. To many people are not willing to do the work or make the sacrifices needed to make this true and until they do this species is doomed to repeat itself over and over.
-
Who really tells the US Government what to do? The food stamp abusing poor or the ultra-wealthy 1%?
The poor do, They keep voting in the same retards over and over so they can get their foodstamps
The integrity of the voting in this country has been compromised a long time ago. Even if what you say is true, why do the ultra-wealthy 1% continually donate and bribe US government elected officials? They should just line the pockets of the poor, since they are the ones calling the shots in this country.
On the same note, we as 2nd Amendment supporters, got our strategies wrong and should be lobbying the poor to protect our gun rights, since it is they who have the ears of the US Government.
What group consistently do not pay their fair share of taxes? The barely visible middle class or the ultra-wealthy 1%?
If you taxed the 1% at 100% the money wouldent last a year with all the entitlements the US govement has. The problem is not the 1% its the 50%+ of americans on entitlment programs who pay zero tax and/or get paid returns that they paid nothing towards.
That's correct, but if they were made to pay their fair share of taxes, the funds they would use to influence government policies in their favor that shafts common Americans would also be curtailed.
What group is sending jobs to foreign nations? The mom and pop businesses or the corporations owned by the ultra-wealthy 1%?
Fair trade agreements have eliminated the safeguards (tarifs) designed to stop this from happening. The government has pushed the jobs abroad. The government (that the poor people voted in) has done made it this way. They also treat us companys that register abrtoad as off shor companys allowing them to keep money in tax havens, Again the poor people voted these people into power.
Your analysis is very naive in that you shift the blame of the offshoring of jobs and utilization of tax havens to the poor who voted the guilty administration into power. You really think the poor lobbied for the elimination of tariffs and existence of offshore companies? I got new for you, the existence of those items would still be a reality even if the Republicans took power. The ultra-wealthy 1% does not discriminate among the political parties they donate and/or bribe in order to get what they want.
Yes, the deadbeats in the US are a contributing factor to the current situation, but to ignore the actions of the ultra-wealthy 1% is irresponsible.
Why are the ultra wealthy wealthy ? Becasue poor people keep buying their crap, Want to break them. STOP BUYING CRAP and invest in the future. $5 starbucks a day = 1825 a year. 5 years thats over $9k of cooffe that you could made at home for $900 (if you really needed that caffeine fix)
Once again, very naive response. Ever heard of government corruption, bribery, and/or insider trading among US corporations?
How about: if the IRS is willing to gut any middle class American for failing to pay their income taxes, then why does the IRS not confiscate the assets of the ultra-wealthy 1% who repeatedly do not pay their fair share?
What is this fair share bullshit ? The govement should not be taking taxs ( You dont pay taxs the government Takes them by force) the federal government should be paid by tarifs on imported and exported goods and by the states (who can collect taxs from the people)
The issue of taxation is extremely debatable and deserves a thread of its own.
The only way to have a FAIR tax would be a flat rate with no refunds or exceptions OR a sales tax on all products. You would also have to implement a tariff system on all imported goods. The problem is thats not what liberals want they want people with more money to pay more money and as stated above that does not fix the problem as the amount of money collected can not fix the deficit system, The only thing it dose is reduce the wealth of those that have money and that has nothing to do with being fair but comes down to jealousy
Some valid theoretical points, but speculatory on your presumption of jealously.
Fairness in this country was lost long ago, if it ever existed.
Yes, the end may very well be near, except for the ultra-wealthy 1% who probably will retreat to their survival bunkers or private islands when the collapse begins and reveal themselves later to start their shenanigans once again to those of us who survive.
Fairness existed before the government got to the point where it made every person into a slave. They took away the right to claim land and implemented a tax system that forces people to work have money to pay taxs. Even if you barter/trade with people you are still required to record and pay taxs on the value of that transaction even if no money changed hands.
I agree that taxation in the US system needs to be overhauled.
The biggest problem today is no one wants to start from the bottom. As a human as an Animal we have one job on this planet. And thats to make sure our children survive and have a better life then us. To many people are not willing to do the work or make the sacrifices needed to make this true and until they do this species is doomed to repeat itself over and over.
That is true for those guilty of not taking responsibility. However, if the system is rigged such as the US stock market, people have legitimate gripe to their government for redress of such grievances.
Kuleana
-
What group is sending jobs to foreign nations? The mom and pop businesses or the corporations owned by the ultra-wealthy 1%?
Fair trade agreements have eliminated the safeguards (tarifs) designed to stop this from happening. The government has pushed the jobs abroad. The government (that the poor people voted in) has done made it this way. They also treat us companys that register abrtoad as off shor companys allowing them to keep money in tax havens, Again the poor people voted these people into power.
Your analysis is very naive in that you shift the blame of the offshoring of jobs and utilization of tax havens to the poor who voted the guilty administration into power. You really think the poor lobbied for the elimination of tariffs and existence of offshore companies? I got new for you, the existence of those items would still be a reality even if the Republicans took power. The ultra-wealthy 1% does not discriminate among the political parties they donate and/or bribe in order to get what they want.
A great many companies in this country, I would say of larger companies it's the majority, are owned by a great many stockholders, not only the wealthy 1%. The wealthy who started or purchased companies may have controlling shares, but the stockholders are you, me, anyone with mutual funds and 401Ks, direct stock purchaser, employees and retirees with a portion of their portfolios in the stock market.
Most of these companies make decisions for the good of the owners, because the owners want to see profits. As far as numbers go, I'll say the middle class represents the largest number of stockholders in the country, while the 1% represents those holding the largest share of ownership.
If you hurt the 1%, you also hurt the middle class, and the middle class is less able to absorb financial losses.
-
Kuleana
1% of the people control 1% of the votes, Thats basic math. Its not shifting the blame when this problem has been going on for decades and they keep voting in the same people over and over and over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service)
If what we have is not working and the people think it needs to change why do they keep voting in the same people who have been bought by the 1% ? This has nothing to do with the left or the right but to do with the education (or lack their of) of the people voting, The tarif system worked for around 150 years and has been used the world over untill the government realized it could seize more control taxing the people instead of taxing imports.
You keep using the term "fair share" what does this even mean ?
-
A great many companies in this country, I would say of larger companies it's the majority, are owned by a great many stockholders, not only the wealthy 1%. The wealthy who started or purchased companies may have controlling shares, but the stockholders are you, me, anyone with mutual funds and 401Ks, direct stock purchaser, employees and retirees with a portion of their portfolios in the stock market.
Its true that many Americans can claim ownership in some of the largest corporations in the US. However, if it is true that the stock market is undermined by the 1% via insider trading and other illegal activities that adversely affect other stocks and if you were one of those affected stockholders, shouldn't you hold those responsible accountable for their actions?
Most of these companies make decisions for the good of the owners, because the owners want to see profits. As far as numbers go, I'll say the middle class represents the largest number of stockholders in the country, while the 1% represents those holding the largest share of ownership.
In terms of absolute number of people who can claim ownership in stock traded companies, you are correct. However, it is still the 1% that relatively owns the majority of most of those stock traded companies due to the controlling interest they posses.
If you hurt the 1%, you also hurt the middle class, and the middle class is less able to absorb financial losses.
Not necessarily. When I think of main street middle class Americans, I think of people who either work for some company or own their own businesses that are independent of the stock market. Sure, there are a great many people who work for the 1%, but the number who do not are much higher in number. The policies that ought to be enacted to prevent corporate wrongdoings should fairly monitor the activities of all companies, but be much more strict to those companies of the 1%.
Kuleana
-
1% of the people control 1% of the votes, Thats basic math. Its not shifting the blame when this problem has been going on for decades and they keep voting in the same people over and over and over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service
If what we have is not working and the people think it needs to change why do they keep voting in the same people who have been bought by the 1%?
Perhaps this situation you speak of is a result of is the fact that there are only two political parties in the US. The US had many political parties in its early history, then it seemed to whittle down to the democrats and republicans. Why was that? Could one of the reasons be the ultra-wealthy 1% in the past found away to consolidate the many parties to that of only two in order to make influencing government policy via donation and bribery to government officials easier?
This has nothing to do with the left or the right but to do with the education (or lack their of) of the people voting, The tarif system worked for around 150 years and has been used the world over untill the government realized it could seize more control taxing the people instead of taxing imports.
That is one explanation. How about the other reason being of imperial globalism by the international corporations owned by the World's ultra-wealthy 1%? As you pointed out earlier, many free-trade agreements do nothing, but harm working class citizens in most countries. However, you failed to mention how there are still winners, such as the global corporations that go around exploiting the many economies across the globe via those same free-trade agreements.
You keep using the term "fair share" what does this even mean ?
Theoretically, fair share to me means societal accountability by all people in a nation. All citizens must contribute their relative fair share to society, whether it is in the form of their labor, service, capital, or taxes.
Kuleana
-
You keep using the term "fair share" what does this even mean ?
Theoretically, fair share to me means societal accountability by all people in a nation. All citizens must contribute their relative fair share to society, whether it is in the form of their labor, service, capital, or taxes.
So, fair share is relative?
The top 20% of those filing income tax returns pay 84% of all income taxes. That's just federal.
The top 1% paid 45.7% -- almost half of all income taxes.
QUESTION: How much more would make it "fair?" 88%, 95%, 100%?? if 20% are already paying the bulk of taxes, and the other 80% are paying 16%, I'm having a tough time seeing where the fairness is supposed to equal the 1%, 3% or 5% paying more.
-
So, fair share is relative?
The top 20% of those filing income tax returns pay 84% of all income taxes. That's just federal.
The top 1% paid 45.7% -- almost half of all income taxes.
QUESTION: How much more would make it "fair?" 88%, 95%, 100%?? if 20% are already paying the bulk of taxes, and the other 80% are paying 16%, I'm having a tough time seeing where the fairness is supposed to equal the 1%, 3% or 5% paying more.
First of all, your stats references illustrate the share of taxes paid by income level. It does not, however, indicate whether the tax base that were used to derive taxes owed by the ultra-wealthy 1% were truly valid or not.
Let me explain, both the federal and state income tax system are all self-reporting. Hence, anyone can, if they think they can succeed, understate their taxes. Most middle class people in the US report and pay their fair share. However, with the assistance of high-paid tax lawyers and advisers, the ultra-wealthy 1% are notorious of creating and utilizing all available loop holes in the existing tax laws, thus, able to grossly understate the amount of taxes they truly owe. If they can't succeed using loop holes, that's when off-shore tax havens are utilized, which are not available to common citizens by-the-way.
Hence, the answer to your question is not tax rate, but rather cleaning-up the tax reporting guidelines for the ultra-wealthy 1% to ensure they are not side-stepping the current tax system, thereby, paying their accurate fair share of taxes owed to the government.
Kuleana
-
Quote from: Flapp_Jackson on Today at 08:46:12 PM
So, fair share is relative?
The top 20% of those filing income tax returns pay 84% of all income taxes. That's just federal.
The top 1% paid 45.7% -- almost half of all income taxes.
QUESTION: How much more would make it "fair?" 88%, 95%, 100%?? if 20% are already paying the bulk of taxes, and the other 80% are paying 16%, I'm having a tough time seeing where the fairness is supposed to equal the 1%, 3% or 5% paying more.
First of all, your stats references illustrate the share of taxes paid by income level. It does not, however, indicate whether the tax base that were used to derive taxes owed by the ultra-wealthy 1% were truly valid or not.
Let me explain, both the federal and state income tax system are all self-reporting. Hence, anyone can, if they think they can succeed, understate their taxes. Most middle class people in the US report and pay their fair share. However, with the assistance of high-paid tax lawyers and advisers, the ultra-wealthy 1% are notorious of creating and utilizing all available loop holes in the existing tax laws, thus, able to grossly understate the amount of taxes they truly owe. If they can't succeed using loop holes, that's when off-shore tax havens are utilized, which are not available to common citizens by-the-way.
Hence, the answer to your question is not tax rate, but rather cleaning-up the tax reporting guidelines for the ultra-wealthy 1% to ensure they are not side-stepping the current tax system, thereby, paying their accurate fair share of taxes owed to the government.
Kuleana
You didn't answer the question. I'm not asking "is the 1% paying their fair shar now." I'm asking "What would be your definition of their fair share, seeing how they already pay close to 50% of taxes collected by the IRS?"
-
You didn't answer the question. I'm not asking "is the 1% paying their fair shar now." I'm asking "What would be your definition of their fair share, seeing how they already pay close to 50% of taxes collected by the IRS?"
My definition of fair share remains as stated a few posts ago in this thread. The ultra-wealthy 1% should pay their fair share of taxes owed to the government that reflects their actual tax base that is not lowered via their use of illegal tax loop holes and/or tax havens. If the 1% paid their fair share in good faith, the US would get a much larger collection of tax revenues that would work to alleviate some of the excess borrowing by the government.
Kuleana
-
My definition of fair share remains as stated a few posts ago in this thread. The ultra-wealthy 1% should pay their fair share of taxes owed to the government that reflects their actual tax base that is not lowered via their use of illegal tax loop holes and/or tax havens. If the 1% paid their fair share in good faith, the US would get a much larger collection of tax revenues that would work to alleviate some of the excess borrowing by the government.
Kuleana
That is SO naive! The government never has enough money, and always finds a justification to spend us into the hole deeper and deeper.
Assuming a flat tax, with no loopholes, shelters, deductions or exemptions, what is the percentage you'd think is fair for the 1% to pay in taxes? 10%? 15%? 30%? 50%?
-
That is SO naive! The government never has enough money, and always finds a justification to spend us into the hole deeper and deeper.
Assuming a flat tax, with no loopholes, shelters, deductions or exemptions, what is the percentage you'd think is fair for the 1% to pay in taxes? 10%? 15%? 30%? 50%?
If you are looking to what the income tax or any other tax rate should be for a society, I personally think we should let democracy decide and put it up for a popular vote. If that amount is not enough for the government to handle its obligations, then it should either borrow for the difference, reduce its obligations, or have everyone vote again for a higher rate.
Kuleana
-
If you are looking to what the income tax or any other tax rate should be for a society, I personally think we should let democracy decide and put it up for a popular vote. If that amount is not enough for the government to handle its obligations, then it should either borrow for the difference, reduce its obligations, or have everyone vote again for a higher rate.
Kuleana
That, again is naive. You seriously think it's FAIR to let those who will benefit the most and pay the least decide how much those earning the most should pay? LOL!
Not laughing at you, just the fact you think we aren't already doing that. Romney called it. How do you convince the voters a tax cut is something they should vote for when 47% pay no tax?
-
The problem with your idea of a fair share is that it results in people paying for stuff they don't use (welfare) and carrying those who don't pay.
A true fair share tax system would\shpikd work like this. The government sets a budget for services used by all people, military, police, fire, Sanitation , eduction Ect..... This budget would then be divided by the number of people using the services and that's fair shatre every one should pay. This fair system works because every one is paying an equal amount for the services they have access to.
Not the government collecting an undetermined number and then deciding what \ who to spend it with non consideration of who paid into the system. If you can't pay your fair share then you should be given the opportunity to work out of via social project's that benefit the people (reducing overall cost for everyone)
A fair share is not taking more from one person because they have more, but should making sure every onenis contributing for the services they utilize
-
If you are looking to what the income tax or any other tax rate should be for a society, I personally think we should let democracy decide and put it up for a popular vote. If that amount is not enough for the government to handle its obligations, then it should either borrow for the difference, reduce its obligations, or have everyone vote again for a higher rate.
Kuleana
How to destroy a country in one easy step.
-
How to destroy a country in one easy step.
That's your opinion and opinions vary.
Kuleana
-
Ok, so in the news today is a perfect example of how the governments is messing shit up trying to make things fair,
Cheese prices were high, so manufactures started making more cheese to cash in on the boom, The american economy is doing ok right now compared to other country's so the expected buyers cant buy the cheese. So in steps the government to take our tax money and buy the god dam cheese. $20 million worth, they will then give this cheese to foodbanks.
So you have multiple things wrong here.
1 : The cheese makers got greedy, they seen an opportunity to make extra money and flooded the market.
2 : The dollar is strong compared to global markets because the government is propping it up with artificially high interest rates (we should be in negative interest rates) and quantitative easing (printing money)
3 : The international market has also seen the boon in cheese prices and as such has increased production at a lower cost, (Less regulations, taxs and wages)
4 : The government has bought the cheese even tho the country is running on a deficit (this money is fictitious its not generated by taxs its just made up out of thin air)
5 : This will do NOTHING to help the cheese company's as its only 1% of the surpluss built up by greedy companys. That means that their is still around one billion nine hundred eighty million dollars worth of cheese.
Lets be clear, As a tax payer. i dont want the government buying no god dam cheese to prop up a private company.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-government-buying-11-million-212500954.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-government-buying-11-million-212500954.html)
-
That, again is naive. You seriously think it's FAIR to let those who will benefit the most and pay the least decide how much those earning the most should pay? LOL!
Up to this point, you never asked me to comment on what could be considered fair share from the poor.
Allow me to enlighten you.
The poor do not have the financial resources to maintain daily life or pay taxes by the unfortunate virtue of being poor for whatever reason. Recall that I said universal accountability for all citizens. With respect to taxes, the ultra-wealthy should be made to pay their fair share since they have the means to do so. The poor, since they do not have resources would need to make it up in-kind. This would be mean mandatory community service that could come in the form federal, state, or city and county work on tasks consummate to their skills and ability. These people would have access to the very basic necessities of life, but that is all. No free lunch.
Not laughing at you, just the fact you think we aren't already doing that. Romney called it. How do you convince the voters a tax cut is something they should vote for when 47% pay no tax?
Having said above, allowing the populace to then democratically decide what their income tax rate will be, assuming a theoretical flat rate tax, would be one alternative to achieving a fair tax for all in a society.
Kuleana
-
That's your opinion and opinions vary.
Kuleana
ask 100 people how much taxs they want to pay and i can tell you what the answer will be : NONE
Now the only way your system would work would be if it was broken into income brackets like it is now and the answer would be : earn more = pay a higher %. Why because those that dont have dont want others to have "jealousy". Not a fair system.
-
Also want to point out that America is not a democracy, Its a republic. (which many people including those that run the country) seem to have forgotten.
-
The problem with your idea of a fair share is that it results in people paying for stuff they don't use (welfare) and carrying those who don't pay.
Please see my post regarding universal accountability for all citizens.
A true fair share tax system would\shpikd work like this. The government sets a budget for services used by all people, military, police, fire, Sanitation , eduction Ect..... This budget would then be divided by the number of people using the services and that's fair shatre every one should pay. This fair system works because every one is paying an equal amount for the services they have access to.
Sounds good theoretically, but not possible in practice.
The problem with what you are suggesting would require accurate measures on real time use of government services. Although I think it is a great idea, I do not think the government has the technological means to ascertain who actually uses what. For example, why should I pay the same amount for using KHSC if I only use it once a year versus daily shooters?
Not the government collecting an undetermined number and then deciding what \ who to spend it with non consideration of who paid into the system. If you can't pay your fair share then you should be given the opportunity to work out of via social project's that benefit the people (reducing overall cost for everyone)
I agree.
A fair share is not taking more from one person because they have more, but should making sure every onenis contributing for the services they utilize
I agree somewhat.
Kuleana
-
The problem with what you are suggesting would require accurate measures on real time use of government services. Although I think it is a great idea, I do not think the government has the technological means to ascertain who actually uses what. For example, why should I pay the same amount for using KHSC if I only use it once a year versus daily shooters?
But yet you want people that earn more to pay more so that people that pay nothing can get stuff....... The bottom people do not work, They do not contribute they only take.
-
ask 100 people how much taxs they want to pay and i can tell you what the answer will be : NONE
Of course, everyone will knee jerk and say none, but if you add the caveat that their income tax rate will be set for them by the government, I think you will get a straight answer.
Kuleana
-
Fairness... Life isn't.
... Some are born smarter, stronger, faster, or more good looking. Some, not so much.
... Some develop their talent. Some don't.
... Some live long lives. Some die too soon.
... Some are born in wealth or influence. Some in poverty.
... Some have passion and put in the effort. Some don't know what they want to do in life.
... Some are in the right place at the right time. Some don't have the right timing.
You have something to say about life not being fair? Tell it to this guy.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/aed09fdd3f3dcdb9ba538844957f2142.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/d905380584c1264f3b42a47784d0ebd2.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/821306e05260e105f44ceae1f9ac8f77.jpg)
We have one life to live and are blessed to be alive. Live a good life and make each day count.
-
But yet you want people that earn more to pay more so that people that pay nothing can get stuff....... The bottom people do not work, They do not contribute they only take.
I think you need to reread my posts in regards to universal accountability and no free lunch for the poor.
Kuleana
-
I think you need to reread my posts in regards to universal accountability and no free lunch for the poor.
Kuleana
Thats future dreaming (and will never happen) What you have said tho is that you want the 1% to pay their fair share instead of dogging their taxs (using legal loop holes) , The % set for those that earn more is higher then those that earn less, (those that earn nothing can still get money back that they never paid and never earned in the form of credits )
-
Thats future dreaming (and will never happen) What you have said tho is that you want the 1% to pay their fair share instead of dogging their taxs (using legal loop holes) , The % set for those that earn more is higher then those that earn less, (those that earn nothing can still get money back that they never paid and never earned in the form of credits )
I thought we were assuming a flat tax rate for everybody.
If so, ensure the ultra-wealthy are paying what they suppose to pay, make sure the poor earn the assistance they receive, and let the flat tax rate for everybody be decided by democratic popular vote.
Kuleana
-
Fairness... Life isn't.
... Some are born smarter, stronger, faster, or more good looking. Some, not so much.
... Some develop their talent. Some don't.
... Some live long lives. Some die too soon.
... Some are born in wealth or influence. Some in poverty.
... Some have passion and put in the effort. Some don't know what they want to do in life.
... Some are in the right place at the right time. Some don't have the right timing.
You have something to say about life not being fair? Tell it to this guy.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/aed09fdd3f3dcdb9ba538844957f2142.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/d905380584c1264f3b42a47784d0ebd2.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160824/821306e05260e105f44ceae1f9ac8f77.jpg)
We have one life to live and are blessed to be alive. Live a good life and make each day count.
Well said JL808.
there is no better example of why we should whine about "Life's not fair"
He is a shining example of dealing with the cards Life dealt you.
I strive to have an ounce of his motivation, his drive in life.
I used to whine about "it's not fair" - when I was about 10 years old. I then had to make a decision to continue to pout about it or do something FOR MYSELF. Fairness is a relative thing when you STOP and think about it. The key is not to stop but to keep moving and forget about "what is fair". You'll look back from a happier place. When I look back I'm a monument to my own failed dreams. I was Max the cab driver. I had to continue down the infinite hallway of life looking for an open door.
Why should the wealthy pay for social services they don't use? As homage to this great country they live in? If they did, would the people that use them thank the wealthy? Probably not. They'd likely demand more stuff.
I remember when I went to school. My parents would prepare food for me. I went to school to learn.
http://khon2.com/2016/08/23/some-parents-say-unacceptable-breakfast-served-at-public-schools/ (http://khon2.com/2016/08/23/some-parents-say-unacceptable-breakfast-served-at-public-schools/)
-
I remember when I went to school. My parents would prepare food for me. I went to school to learn.
http://khon2.com/2016/08/23/some-parents-say-unacceptable-breakfast-served-at-public-schools/ (http://khon2.com/2016/08/23/some-parents-say-unacceptable-breakfast-served-at-public-schools/)
I actually posted to FB about this last night.
"Parents have a choice : school food or feed your kid yourself.
The rice is 216 calories, the ham link is around 90 the juice is 60
If the took the mil thats another 160 and the orange would be 45
That would be a total of 571 calories or around 25% of their daily intake."
-
Well said JL808.
there is no better example of why we should whine about "Life's not fair"
He is a shining example of dealing with the cards Life dealt you.
I strive to have an ounce of his motivation, his drive in life.
I used to whine about "it's not fair" - when I was about 10 years old. I then had to make a decision to continue to pout about it or do something FOR MYSELF. Fairness is a relative thing when you STOP and think about it. The key is not to stop but to keep moving and forget about "what is fair". You'll look back from a happier place. When I look back I'm a monument to my own failed dreams. I was Max the cab driver. I had to continue down the infinite hallway of life looking for an open door.
Why should the wealthy pay for social services they don't use? As homage to this great country they live in? If they did, would the people that use them thank the wealthy? Probably not. They'd likely demand more stuff.
I remember when I went to school. My parents would prepare food for me. I went to school to learn.
http://khon2.com/2016/08/23/some-parents-say-unacceptable-breakfast-served-at-public-schools/ (http://khon2.com/2016/08/23/some-parents-say-unacceptable-breakfast-served-at-public-schools/)
When I was little, I always used to cry and say "it's not fair!"
And my father would always tell me, "who ever said life has to be fair?"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Kuleana, can you give us one example of someone you know, their background and circumstances, if they have a family, what they do for work and what they previously did, and why they are not able to succeed? I bet all of us here can come up with a plan for them to succeed to show that anyone can do it.
-
I regards to govt.
I vote to get my voice across. I pay to belong to orgs. like the NRA. I believe in them so I give them some of my hard-earned $$$. Is it fair that I have to pay to protect my 2A rights? Nope. Not all. Our founding fathers would be fuming.
I belong to a society - an American society. I live and abide by its laws.
Are there issues about fairness? Yes. That's why I vote as much as I can.
Is it fair that most of us pay for other peoples' unwillingness to better themselves? I don't think so. Most people don't care UNTIL it affects a large portion of their paychecks.
Many people don't think twice about a person on public assistance buying an iPhone or driving a large, expensive SUV.
-
I think you need to reread my posts in regards to universal accountability and no free lunch for the poor.
Kuleana
So, a poor person paying little to no income tax, working two part-time jobs to survive, now has to quit a job to work for public assistance?
Does the single mother have to use gov't-provided daycare to be able to repay gov't assistance?
Not everyone who is poor is idle. Not everyone who is poor is employable.
-
So, a poor person paying little to no income tax, working two part-time jobs to survive, now has to quit a job to work for public assistance?
No, only those who get government assistance and not able to find employment, who are fully capable (i.e., mentally, physically, etc.) to find a job.
Does the single mother have to use gov't-provided daycare to be able to repay gov't assistance?
That would depend on her specifics circumstances.
Not everyone who is poor is idle. Not everyone who is poor is employable.
I agree on both points.
Kuleana
-
Kuleana, can you give us one example of someone you know, their background and circumstances, if they have a family, what they do for work and what they previously did, and why they are not able to succeed? I bet all of us here can come up with a plan for them to succeed to show that anyone can do it.
You would need to define what you mean by succeed and/or success?
Kuleana
-
So, a poor person paying little to no income tax, working two part-time jobs to survive, now has to quit a job to work for public assistance?
No, only those who get government assistance and not able to find employment, who are fully capable (i.e., mentally, physically, etc.) to find a job.
So again that person would not be paying their fair share, they are working but not earning enough so they receive welfare but pay no taxs. or pay less taxs then they receive back in welfare.
To be a fair tax, either every one pays the same rate % wise of income earned or no one pays. welfare should be on a voluntary basis. Is i choose to give aid to my follow man then thats fine, No one should be forced to carry another. But then again i also believe those people on welfare (by choice) should be put on forced birth control untill they are capable of looking after themselves, Why would you be allowed to bring a child into this world when you cant even feed yourself.
-
So again that person would not be paying their fair share, they are working but not earning enough so they receive welfare but pay no taxs. or pay less taxs then they receive back in welfare.
To be a fair tax, either every one pays the same rate % wise of income earned or no one pays. welfare should be on a voluntary basis. Is i choose to give aid to my follow man then thats fine, No one should be forced to carry another. But then again i also believe those people on welfare (by choice) should be put on forced birth control untill they are capable of looking after themselves, Why would you be allowed to bring a child into this world when you cant even feed yourself.
I have always believed in the flat tax.
No deductions, exemptions, credits or shelters. Just straight % of income earned. The more you make, the more you pay. Not a higher %, but the same % -- just a higher total (math is like that!).
We draw a line, say , 25% above the poverty line. Anyone making that or less pays zero tax.
For means-tested welfare assistance, it'll be based on program budget, not just numbers who qualify. If the social services managers want to help more, they have to weed out the fraud, waste and abuse. Give only to those in need, not anyone who is smart enough to scam the system.
A flat tax is FAIR. It treats everyone earning more than they need the same relative to their income, and it treats everyone with barely enough or less the same as each other. Anyone on the borderline will be scrutinized for under-reporting.
The cost of record keeping, filing and tax law compliance is in the $$BILLIONS each year. We can use that money much more productively. And the IRS could be a shell of the monster they are today!
-
I agree.
10% flat tax for everyone.
Someone making $1,000/mo pays $100.
Someone making $100,000/mo pays $10,000.
Someone making $1M pays $100,000.
Everyone contributes and is vested in seeing that the system is not abused.
There is also incentive for everyone to improve their lots in life.
-
I have always believed in the flat tax.
As do i but it has to be fair to every one, i seroulsy think a sales tax and import tariffs is the best way. it dont matter how much you earn but if you spend a penny in the US its tax and if you import items to try and avoid the tax it has a tariff, Tax is paid on every transaction, Wholesale and Retail.
No deductions, exemptions, credits or shelters. Just straight % of income earned. The more you make, the more you pay. Not a higher %, but the same % -- just a higher total (math is like that!).
Only deduction should be for mortgage interest (owning land is the american dream and that should count for something) and charitable donations (upto a fixed percent say 1% of income)
We draw a line, say , 25% above the poverty line. Anyone making that or less pays zero tax.
NO - EVERYONE pays the same percentage.
For means-tested welfare assistance, it'll be based on program budget, not just numbers who qualify. If the social services managers want to help more, they have to weed out the fraud, waste and abuse. Give only to those in need, not anyone who is smart enough to scam the system.
Benefits should be on a state level, no federal money should go to welfare. help that is given should be on the condition of betterment (helping them up instead of keeping them down)
A flat tax is FAIR. It treats everyone earning more than they need the same relative to their income, and it treats everyone with barely enough or less the same as each other. Anyone on the borderline will be scrutinized for under-reporting.
With a sales tax its less people to look at making it faster and more efficient. its very easy to track inventory in and out and look at profit, makes audits easy to run.
-
I have always believed in the flat tax.
As do i but it has to be fair to every one, i seroulsy think a sales tax and import tariffs is the best way. it dont matter how much you earn but if you spend a penny in the US its tax and if you import items to try and avoid the tax it has a tariff, Tax is paid on every transaction, Wholesale and Retail.
No deductions, exemptions, credits or shelters. Just straight % of income earned. The more you make, the more you pay. Not a higher %, but the same % -- just a higher total (math is like that!).
Only deduction should be for mortgage interest (owning land is the american dream and that should count for something) and charitable donations (upto a fixed percent say 1% of income)
We draw a line, say , 25% above the poverty line. Anyone making that or less pays zero tax.
NO - EVERYONE pays the same percentage.
For means-tested welfare assistance, it'll be based on program budget, not just numbers who qualify. If the social services managers want to help more, they have to weed out the fraud, waste and abuse. Give only to those in need, not anyone who is smart enough to scam the system.
Benefits should be on a state level, no federal money should go to welfare. help that is given should be on the condition of betterment (helping them up instead of keeping them down)
A flat tax is FAIR. It treats everyone earning more than they need the same relative to their income, and it treats everyone with barely enough or less the same as each other. Anyone on the borderline will be scrutinized for under-reporting.
With a sales tax its less people to look at making it faster and more efficient. its very easy to track inventory in and out and look at profit, makes audits easy to run.
Right now most pay in the 15% - 25% range of effective tax rate. Average is around 20%. That's after all the deductions for mortgage, Schedule A, daycare, etc.
Are you saying you want to pay in the 10% - 15% range for a flat tax and STILL want the mortgage deduction?
Deductions are how the government encourages or discourages certain behaviors or supports certain industries. When you get a mortgage, part of your "can we afford it" calculation is the tax deduction. That analysis will only change in that you have to settle for less house, less favorable location, or negotiate a lower price. The market absorbs your tax deduction. They price their houses based on your ability to pay. If the gov't is subsidizing the purchase with tax breaks, you know the asking price will be higher!
-
Right now most pay in the 15% - 25% range of effective tax rate. Average is around 20%. That's after all the deductions for mortgage, Schedule A, daycare, etc.
Are you saying you want to pay in the 10% - 15% range for a flat tax and STILL want the mortgage deduction?
Deductions are how the government encourages or discourages certain behaviors or supports certain industries. When you get a mortgage, part of your "can we afford it" calculation is the tax deduction. That analysis will only change in that you have to settle for less house, less favorable location, or negotiate a lower price. The market absorbs your tax deduction. They price their houses based on your ability to pay. If the gov't is subsidizing the purchase with tax breaks, you know the asking price will be higher!
Right now most people pay no taxs.
and i agree deductions (and credits) do encourage certain behaviors (hence poor people poping out kids to get more food stamps and the tax credits) But charitable giving should be encouraged as these organisations do relaly help those that need it and not just those that want it. I dont agree with the price being higher because of the mortgage deduction, Prices are to easily influenced by supply and demand for it to be a factor. Home ownership should be encouraged as it is the single greatest item of wealth that some one can have AND it is something that can build a future for that persons children on into the future and as i have said many times a parents only job is to create a better life for their child then they had.
-
Right now most people pay no taxs.
and i agree deductions (and credits) do encourage certain behaviors (hence poor people poping out kids to get more food stamps and the tax credits) But charitable giving should be encouraged as these organisations do relaly help those that need it and not just those that want it. I dont agree with the price being higher because of the mortgage deduction, Prices are to easily influenced by supply and demand for it to be a factor. Home ownership should be encouraged as it is the single greatest item of wealth that some one can have AND it is something that can build a future for that persons children on into the future and as i have said many times a parents only job is to create a better life for their child then they had.
Don't get confused.
" Right now most pay in the 15% - 25% range of effective tax rate" is referring to those who pay income tax, obviously.
-
Right now most people pay no taxs.
and i agree deductions (and credits) do encourage certain behaviors (hence poor people poping out kids to get more food stamps and the tax credits) But charitable giving should be encouraged as these organisations do relaly help those that need it and not just those that want it. I dont agree with the price being higher because of the mortgage deduction, Prices are to easily influenced by supply and demand for it to be a factor. Home ownership should be encouraged as it is the single greatest item of wealth that some one can have AND it is something that can build a future for that persons children on into the future and as i have said many times a parents only job is to create a better life for their child then they had.
When you pre-qualify for a mortgage, the realtor/finance rep fills out an income and debt analysis. Part of that includes an estimate of how much you'll save on taxes to offset what you are paying in payments, taxes and insurance.
Based on that amount -- how much payment you can afford -- and what you have for a down payment, the realtor works up a list of properties in your price range.
The prices were also (for the majority of properties) created with the help of a realtor. They look at what the median incomes are for buyers, how much mortgage they qualified for, and what other properties have sold recently for how much. They roll all that up, add a healthy margin for negotiating/suckers/"Hawaii premium", and come up with an asking price.
No matter which way you turn it, your tax deduction is calculated into both your ability to pay and the amount that's reasonable to ask.
-
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
- Benjamin Franklin
-
We draw a line, say , 25% above the poverty line. Anyone making that or less pays zero tax.
NO - EVERYONE pays the same percentage.
Isn't that counter-productive? These are the people likely to qualify for assistance. Why take money from their paychecks only to turn around and give it back on an EBT card?
Inefficient.
-
Loopholes?
-
Isn't that counter-productive? These are the people likely to qualify for assistance. Why take money from their paychecks only to turn around and give it back on an EBT card?
Inefficient.
Your paying based on income. to be a 100% fair system if you have income it should be taxed at the same rate even if you are getting assistance.
-
and i agree deductions (and credits) do encourage certain behaviors (hence poor people poping out kids to get more food stamps and the tax credits) But charitable giving should be encouraged as these organisations do relaly help those that need it and not just those that want it. I dont agree with the price being higher because of the mortgage deduction, Prices are to easily influenced by supply and demand for it to be a factor. Home ownership should be encouraged as it is the single greatest item of wealth that some one can have AND it is something that can build a future for that persons children on into the future and as i have said many times a parents only job is to create a better life for their child then they had.
That might be true of Hawaii residents planning to be here until they die, but there are people & places that don't fit that.
It used to be a home was the best investment because you always had a good shot at the value increasing, at having equity for expenses throughout life, and so on.
Now, with the way careers drag us from one town to another, one state to another or even one country to another, there are many who opt to never buy a home and be saddled with maintenance, renters, repairs, and all the other costs and inconveniences of dealing with a house.
If you don't know if you'll be in a home long enough to break even or make a profit when you leave it, buying makes no sense. Plenty of people buy condos which turn around quickly when they sell to move, and they can use the mortgage deduction.
I think the mortgage deduction can be phased out over several years. By then, people will have the ability to adjust their situation if needed.
Did you know if you had been using your operating expenses (including mortgage interest) on a rental to reduce your taxable income by those losses, once your taxable income exceeds $150K, you can't use those losses against your personal income. You can use it to reduce the profit you pay taxes on when you sell if you paid less for it than you sell it for, so at least you don't lose that loss deduction forever (unless you never sell).
These are the kinds of rules we should never have to deal with. It's nice if you qualify for the tax breaks, but not everyone's position lets them do that. Hence, the only fair tax system is to eliminate ALL tax breaks, individual and corporate.
The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax. - Albert Einstein