Bathroom reading material
- Thread starter Ross
- Start date
Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:
An ambitious Plan. They have been busy, haven't they. I like what I see but let's see what is ultimately enacted.
Jim
Jim
Ross
Well-known member
It all sounds good, but we know full well it's going to come at tremendous cost.
Well if you don?t want to read it you can always use it to??..
K
Karlynn
Personally - I think what's been going on lately is better explained in a bumper sticker I saw.
Socialism: A great idea... 'till you run out of other people's money.
I heard Barney Frank say we need to cut our military budget by 25%. And this isn't going to affect jobs??
Sorry - I just feel like what's been enacted in the last month just fosters the Era of Irresponsibility because most people are expecting the Wealthy 5% to pay for everyone.
Socialism: A great idea... 'till you run out of other people's money.
I heard Barney Frank say we need to cut our military budget by 25%. And this isn't going to affect jobs??
Sorry - I just feel like what's been enacted in the last month just fosters the Era of Irresponsibility because most people are expecting the Wealthy 5% to pay for everyone.
Here are the savings:
End the Iraq War - which never should have been started in the first place.
Restore progressivity to the tax code. End the Bush era tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Pays for a lot.
Jim
End the Iraq War - which never should have been started in the first place.
Restore progressivity to the tax code. End the Bush era tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Pays for a lot.
Jim
K
Karlynn
Unfortunately, the ending of the tax cuts for the "very wealthy" are those people who earn 250K a year and more. There's quite a bit of difference between those who make 250K and 5 million. We have 2 sets of friends who own small businesses and probably net just about 250 - 260/year. These people often work 18 hour days. They are in fear of their businesses going under if Obama keeps considering them the "very wealthy". The first thing they say they will have to do is fire the few people who work for them. Last figure I saw was that small businesses employ 90% of the people in the US. I guess we'll see.
Ross
Well-known member
As a business entity, perhaps, but if an individual is making $250G they are wealthy. People need to come down to our level and see what it's like to live on $19,000 a year. We can't do it and there are people making even less.
K
Karlynn
Well friend, that's where we disagree. These friends of ours that are small business owners were not given the businesses by anyone. They built them from the ground up. Took out loans and went into great debt. There were many years they weren't bringing in 250K. One couple, the wife worked nights to bring in money for them to live on while their business wasn't bringing in much of anything. They already know what it's like to live on little. Glenn and I could look at these friends and say "Gee, it's not fair that they have this money." But in reality, we know that this is the US and it affords all of us opportunities to do the same. Although it is getting harder and harder. These people took a risk and could have easily ended up in a very bad spot.
One of our friends has been together since they were 16 and found themselves becoming parents. 33 years later they have 4 grown children and a successful heating and cooling business. It started with the man cleaning pools and mowing lawns to make money for his 16 year old wife and baby, living in her parents' garage because neither family had the money to support them nor the room to house them. (And the wife went in for her 6 week post-partum checkup only to find she was pregnant again. So before they were 18 they had 2 children to support.) To say these people don't have a right to keep their money is saying there is no longer an American Dream. Which I guess could solve our immigration problem if we publicized it enough.
I think it's a big mistake to assume that everyone with money doesn't know what it's like to struggle. These friends also are big charitable givers. One thing we already know - the more money the government takes, the less people contribute to charities. There is no way the government can make up for the lack of money given to charities with any amount of government programs. It's just not financially possible. Unfortunately the less charities are able to function, the more the government has to take over. And we are on the very slippery slope to socialism.
My friends would not say they aren't wealthy. However, they are not very wealthy, and that's what people are saying when they speak about repealing the Bush tax cuts for the "very wealthy" because it's for anyone that makes 250K/year. The other problem is that the truly "very wealthy" have teams of accountants and lawyers that know their way around tax shelters. Much of the Kennedy fortune is off shore - aka - they don't pay taxes on it.
One of our friends has been together since they were 16 and found themselves becoming parents. 33 years later they have 4 grown children and a successful heating and cooling business. It started with the man cleaning pools and mowing lawns to make money for his 16 year old wife and baby, living in her parents' garage because neither family had the money to support them nor the room to house them. (And the wife went in for her 6 week post-partum checkup only to find she was pregnant again. So before they were 18 they had 2 children to support.) To say these people don't have a right to keep their money is saying there is no longer an American Dream. Which I guess could solve our immigration problem if we publicized it enough.
I think it's a big mistake to assume that everyone with money doesn't know what it's like to struggle. These friends also are big charitable givers. One thing we already know - the more money the government takes, the less people contribute to charities. There is no way the government can make up for the lack of money given to charities with any amount of government programs. It's just not financially possible. Unfortunately the less charities are able to function, the more the government has to take over. And we are on the very slippery slope to socialism.
My friends would not say they aren't wealthy. However, they are not very wealthy, and that's what people are saying when they speak about repealing the Bush tax cuts for the "very wealthy" because it's for anyone that makes 250K/year. The other problem is that the truly "very wealthy" have teams of accountants and lawyers that know their way around tax shelters. Much of the Kennedy fortune is off shore - aka - they don't pay taxes on it.
i'm unclear on this. spending money through the stimulus plan to create or
maintain jobs is socialism, but spending money through the pentagon to
create or maintain jobs is not? you don't think the defense budget is
a tad high? after all, we're spending more than the rest of the world
combined (while complaining that china is spending 10% what we spend).
there's a heckuvalotta weapons systems that could be removed from
inventory or upcoming procurement. do we really need a military that
can fight a three-front war with two soviet unions, yet is unable to
pacify a 3rd world country with an army consisting of two dozen illiterate
poppy farmers and a couple mules? we haven't had an adversary with an
air force since ww2.
that 25% reduction, if done properly, really wouldn't be missed. could be
spent on new roads, rail lines, electric grid, ports, bridges, lots of useful
stuff. could maybe even fund security measures for our ports.
Our government has spent more than it takes in for several years. This was justified with the idea that lower taxes would make a "bigger pie", and we would all benefit. Our government got us into a very expensive war, but never reflected that expense in the federal budget. Instead we counted the money held in Social Security as a "surplus", even though everyone knows there is not nearly enough money there to honor promises made to our elderly.
Barb and I started with nothing. When we were first married we looked for change to see if we could walk down to the Dairy Queen for a small cone. I feel Barb and I did work hard, and sacrifice a lot for the money we have now. It didn't come easy, but that doesn't mean we aren't rich by any normal standard. For several years tax laws have changed (from previous laws) in ways that have favored those with money. In the view of some, that has made our laws fairer. That is a legitimate discussion. But the argument that we can continue to spend more than we are willing to pay in taxes is not legitimate-it is a disaster.
Now you need to decide where the cuts will be, and where the taxes will increase. I feel the "rich" are going to have to go back to paying higher rates. And an income that exceeds $20,000.00 per month means you are rich, IMHO. I don't at all mean to imply that such an income is morally wrong, or inherently unfair--but you are rich.
Barb and I started with nothing. When we were first married we looked for change to see if we could walk down to the Dairy Queen for a small cone. I feel Barb and I did work hard, and sacrifice a lot for the money we have now. It didn't come easy, but that doesn't mean we aren't rich by any normal standard. For several years tax laws have changed (from previous laws) in ways that have favored those with money. In the view of some, that has made our laws fairer. That is a legitimate discussion. But the argument that we can continue to spend more than we are willing to pay in taxes is not legitimate-it is a disaster.
Now you need to decide where the cuts will be, and where the taxes will increase. I feel the "rich" are going to have to go back to paying higher rates. And an income that exceeds $20,000.00 per month means you are rich, IMHO. I don't at all mean to imply that such an income is morally wrong, or inherently unfair--but you are rich.
You all got me thinking.......good discussion......anyway, what on earth would I even do with $20K monthly?
you could invest in the stock market for $100 monthly!!
I'm already freaking out on mutual funds, thank you.
M
Mary
Just think . . . $20,000 a month is more than the $19,000 annual amount mentioned by Ross.
I believe I'm my brother's keeper, and I don't consider that socialism.
K
Karlynn
But the government being your keeper - is socialism. Each individual person doing their part in being our brother's keeper is not. I tried to locate the article I read a year or so ago, but it was a great breakdown of what the private sector contributes to charities and social causes and matching it up to government programs. Individuals or businesses contributing to private charities supplies much more service and programs than the government. The more the government takes, the less people give to charitable causes.
We've seen the effect in our own church's budget this year (not necessarily with taxes but lowered income on retirement investments) 40% of our church's annual budget goes to mission. One of our causes is supporting a large Hispanic community center that teaches English, does job training and job finding, as well as providing "in the breach" support for families in need. We had to significantly lower our amount this year - while still keeping it at 40% of our budget because of our pledged income. This program is looking at having to decrease it's staff because of this and will most likely have to decrease the amount of support it offers. Will the government be able to pick up these services in the way this organization has done for 20 years? I highly doubt it.
A 25% reduction in military budget sounds good. But we have to understand just how many civilians are employed by companies that supply goods to the military. Chances are, some of these companies will take a hit, resulting in more people losing jobs. The same thing goes with reduction in coal processing, oil etc. It all sounds good - but there are many people employed by these industries.
I just have a really hard time accepting the government taking more money from it's citizens when we just saw a $400+ billion dollar spending bill with 9000 earmarks. I do not trust them to handle this money. I was also very upset by all the spending that went on in the last 8 years. I think Washington is just way out of touch.
I just heard a tax lawyer on the news cautioning people to be careful of this additional $14/week promised to start in April, because the way the tax tables are written, you'll have to claim it as income next year and he suggested that you increase your withholding to compensate, so you don't end up paying a penalty for not having enough withheld for 2009. (In other words - let's say you make $200/week. Next year the Tax Man will say you made $214/week and want his tax based on that. It won't look at it as you making $200/week and you got a break that caused you to pay $14 less in taxes. It's going to count it as additional income.) Whether this is true - I don't know. But it's worth being cautious about.
We've seen the effect in our own church's budget this year (not necessarily with taxes but lowered income on retirement investments) 40% of our church's annual budget goes to mission. One of our causes is supporting a large Hispanic community center that teaches English, does job training and job finding, as well as providing "in the breach" support for families in need. We had to significantly lower our amount this year - while still keeping it at 40% of our budget because of our pledged income. This program is looking at having to decrease it's staff because of this and will most likely have to decrease the amount of support it offers. Will the government be able to pick up these services in the way this organization has done for 20 years? I highly doubt it.
A 25% reduction in military budget sounds good. But we have to understand just how many civilians are employed by companies that supply goods to the military. Chances are, some of these companies will take a hit, resulting in more people losing jobs. The same thing goes with reduction in coal processing, oil etc. It all sounds good - but there are many people employed by these industries.
I just have a really hard time accepting the government taking more money from it's citizens when we just saw a $400+ billion dollar spending bill with 9000 earmarks. I do not trust them to handle this money. I was also very upset by all the spending that went on in the last 8 years. I think Washington is just way out of touch.
I just heard a tax lawyer on the news cautioning people to be careful of this additional $14/week promised to start in April, because the way the tax tables are written, you'll have to claim it as income next year and he suggested that you increase your withholding to compensate, so you don't end up paying a penalty for not having enough withheld for 2009. (In other words - let's say you make $200/week. Next year the Tax Man will say you made $214/week and want his tax based on that. It won't look at it as you making $200/week and you got a break that caused you to pay $14 less in taxes. It's going to count it as additional income.) Whether this is true - I don't know. But it's worth being cautious about.
I just hope THEY read everything before they sign it this time, can you put copies in congress's bathroom?
K
Karlynn
Without blabbing on (too late), I think the phrase - to whom much is given, much is expected, holds true. We certainly are not "the wealthy" but we know many people who are, and I can't think of one who doesn't give back in many ways. Their giving puts me to shame. At the same time, I don't begrudge them their income. It's a mixture of hard work, luck and being in the right place at the right time. I just think you get much better results from people doing things out of their own desires, than forcing it out of them.
K
Karlynn
Buy more goats???
I agree with both money and giving of time
