[ham] Re: [Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics

[Rik Sandberg]

Michael,

All that and to top it off, now you can't even walk your dog on the beach. 
I think I'd move. :-)

Rik


At 06:32 PM 1/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I am here :-)
>
>lets see were I am in this debate.
>
>Section 1:
>I live in CT, the top state to get back the least tax dollars/services on 
>taxes paid(per cap)
>I live in Fairfield county, the county to get back the least tax 
>dollars/services on taxes paid(per cap) in ct
>I live in Westport, second only to bill in Greenwich, at the town level 
>200%+ the USA cost of living average.
>
>Bottom line, at the fed/state/county level I see the least return on tax 
>dollars and in fact fund everyone else,
>if a nuke was to go off in town, everyone taxes in the county/state/nation 
>would go up.
>
>I pay my own health insurance, even paying top dollar the town/state/fed 
>employs plan in better, infact I would have better coverage
>if I was on welfare.
>Like slim I pay my own SSI, both sides.
>I also pay unemployment insurance, been told I never will be able to collect.
>I pay fee to set up and maintain my retirement plain.
>I pay fee to my account(and their not cheap) to do my taxes.  I have to it 
>would cost more in taxes if I did not.
>I can not have a simple will, that tax thing again, lawyers want 3000+ to 
>draw it up.
>The tax code does effect how my family lives their life, as in day to day 
>actions.
>Most of the town is experts in the tax code, why should I have to live my 
>life that way ?
>
>
>
>I do think Milton is right, Almost by definition. Kind of like the quote 
>"you ever notice that their always enough news every day to
>fill a news paper", I do think we are getting to the point of "ternary of 
>democracy",  to maintain power people are using class
>warfare tactics, passing laws that only effect others. In one breath 
>"Social Security insurance" in a lock box, in the next "Cut
>payroll taxes (which are the SSI taxes)". I believe that to solve the ssi 
>problem it will be taken a taken away from me and my
>family, to become an older welfare program. The Marjory of voters will 
>befits that way.
>
>My problem is that it never lets up,  every time I try around someone 
>after my wallet, lets see this week, bloomberg for ny comuter
>tax(selling it for high eraners), ct for an increase to the cig tax(it 
>good for you), town for bonding for school construction(the
>state backed out of it share, tight budget westport can adfordit). The 
>only choice anyone every give me it to cut and run, do like
>it move. never a thankyou. Even with that thier are still places I can not 
>live or work in the area. Yep I in a foul mood.
>
>a couple of random thought:
>why is it the worst price from doctor is paying cash?
>why has it become being a vitims is now a lotory? less 100 victims of wtc 
>have settled, thier waiting on the law suits.
>how did it become that value of human life is unlimited?
>the world only victims now, lawers doing risk tranfers, Tv ads for any 
>stuiped thing "call 1800 lawwer", with high stacks payoffs.
>
>MJM
>
>Never did work in the CO spending cap
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alex Bell" <alexbell@coastalnet.com>
>To: <wwrhodes@rhodes22.com>; "The Rhodes 22 mail list" 
><rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org>
>Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:25 PM
>Subject: [ham] Re: [Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics
>
>
> > Stan,
> >
> > The only thing I would agree with your commentary is that there's a lot
> > of simplistic logic going on.
> >
> > I am not going to comment on and on about this since I have been
> > chastised in the past for any political view I expressed in joke form.
> > It amazes me that this joke sent by Paul, with a disclaimer attached to
> > boot, would end up becoming a platform for you to express your political
> > views. I think you should keep your commentary to the boats you build.
> > If the rest of us are supposed to adhere to some kind of non political
> > agenda here, then the least you could do would be to refrain from
> > expousing your views.
> >
> > As to debt, I don't want to pay off someone else's debts. I have plenty
> > of my own, thank you. I worked for mine. I started out delivering
> > telegrams on a bicycle, worked on the L&N Railroad section gang,  a
> > spring factory, and road grader manufacturer as a welders helper before
> > my education assisted me in better paying jobs. Like Brad said, I am not
> > going to apologize for what I've accumulated over the years.
> >
> > Someone commented on the fabled double tax and capital gains tax. I
> > suppose some people might feel that these taxes affect only the rich.
> > But it affects anyone who might want to sell a piece of property, only
> > to find that if sold, it would cost them dearly. How many people own
> > some kind of Mutual Fund? We had some that lost 40% of their value, but
> > we had to pay capital gains on them. Aint that great?
> >
> >  When times are tough, we cut back on spending. Something the government
> > programs don't seem to do. I'm tired of the guilt trips people lay on us
> > because we want to keep more of our money. I find myself paying taxes on
> > money I saved and put away once, and it's getting old. I've left the
> > list before because of political discussions, but I think I'll stick
> > around and stir the pot for a change. Of all people, I have OPINIONS. If
> > someone encourages me, I will be able to supply a full diatribe. So
> > there.
> >
> > To Wally, I say, good job in questioning the written word. You are a
> > bright light in a dim day.
> > To RIK, he don't apologize for you comments. That first comment was just
> > not necessary. The second one was better.
> > To MJM, hey where are you?
> > To Brad, gee, I wish I had said that. But then I'm not quite as well
> > off. But I'm not full of envy. Hard work pays off...twice.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > General Boats wrote:
> > >
> > > With the same caveat that Paul posted, here is a reply from the 
> left.  Don't
> > > read it if it moves you to leave the list.
> > >
> > > Would it only be so simple as the professor from SD makes it.
> > >
> > > Just three minor complications -  many more can be contributed by 
> musch wiser
> > > economists..
> > >
> > > a)   50,000,000 of us do not make enough to pay taxes no matter how 
> hard we
> > > work - we are just not that smart. So Tax cuts are not a neutral 
> issue.  Tax
> > > cuts invariably mean tax increases for us. With less revenues, 
> services are
> > > diminished.  Cost of education rises. (That is a very costly error - 
> the free
> > > GI educational bill of WW 2 got the US economy roaring).  States find
> > > themselves in financial holes and have to make up the shortfalls with 
> all sorts
> > > of increases like higher sales taxes (which have the same rate no 
> matter what
> > > your income), higher real estate taxes - perhaps gas taxes -anything 
> to raise
> > > moneys the income tax cuts have taken from them. So tax cuts are a 
> double edge
> > > sword that not only help those who need help the least, but at the 
> same time
> > > hurt those who need help the most. I know some of you chafe at the 
> idea of
> > > someone getting something for nothing.  But those who take advantage 
> of any
> > > good nature the government shows are in the minority of good 
> Americans and good
> > > policing can wean the freeloaders out. Overkill sooner or later leads to
> > > overthrow.   The funny thing about tax cuts is that the very wealthy 
> think they
> > > are a mistake.
> > >
> > > b)   If you step back and see how the rich got rich, with the 
> exception of
> > > those who stole it and then bought their way in and those who contributed
> > > nothing but happen to be born in the right circle, the majority made 
> it the
> > > hard way, they worked for it.  But they were only able to succeed 
> because they
> > > had the invaluable assistance of the police man and fireman and 
> milkman (and in
> > > my day the iceman) and hosts of others that were needed to create the
> > > environment that made the accumulation of wealth possible in the 
> first place.
> > > Part of any money due back the high end is really to be shared with their
> > > silent partners.  President Roosevelt understood this and pulled the 
> country
> > > out of a depression most of you have no inkling of.
> > >
> > > c)   The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial pointing out that while our 
> current
> > > leader says we should cut taxes because it is their own money we are 
> giving
> > > back to them, he skips saying it is also their debt.  Yet it was and 
> is the
> > > very creating of the debt that paved the way for the accumulation of 
> wealth.
> > > But somehow when it comes to who should pay for the debt, that 
> becomes a non
> > > progressive burden.  We are taught that when we have money we should 
> pay off
> > > our debts and instead our leaders cut taxes - all the interest that 
> could have
> > > been saved could have paid for the next war.  What a shame.
> > >
> > > Since no one is reading this I'll stop here.  But for the simplistic 
> logic of
> > > our good professor, there are many other avenues of challenge.
> > >
> > > stan/gbi
> > >
> > > Rik Sandberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I printed that one out. Think I'll frame it and hang it on 
> the wall
> > > > in my office. We had that happen in Minnesota the last couple of 
> years when
> > > > they did a sales tax rebate. People that were living off welfare or 
> other
> > > > gov't programs were all bitching 'cause they didn't get any money back.
> > > > It's amazing how they can translate paying nothing into less of a 
> benefit
> > > > to them than paying less is to someone else. To top it off, it seem 
> there
> > > > really is a fool born every minute, so there's a lot of them out 
> there. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Rik
> > > >
> > > > At 08:00 AM 1/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >Before you read this, it is a commentary on taxes & politics.  It 
> is just
> > > > >one guy's opinion (not even necessarily mine) so don't go crazy 
> with this
> > > > >& start a war.  If you don't like this kind of stuff, delete it 
> now and
> > > > >don't read it. - Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >A VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does
> > > > >
> > > > >make you think!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that 
> every
> > > > >day,
> > > > >
> > > > >ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they
> > > > >paid
> > > > >
> > > > >their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth 
> would
> > > > >pay
> > > > >
> > > > >$1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth
> > > > >$18,
> > > > >
> > > > >and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the 
> restaurant
> > > > >
> > > > >every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one 
> day,
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost
> > > > >$80.00.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. 
> So the
> > > > >
> > > > >first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But 
> what
> > > > >
> > > > >about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy 
> up the
> > > > >$20
> > > > >
> > > > >windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
> > > > >
> > > > >subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the 
> sixth
> > > > >man
> > > > >
> > > > >would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner
> > > > >suggested
> > > > >
> > > > >that it
> > > > >
> > > > >would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same 
> amount, and
> > > > >he
> > > > >
> > > > >proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the 
> fifth man
> > > > >paid
> > > > >
> > > > >nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid
> > > > >$9,
> > > > >
> > > > >the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 
> instead of
> > > > >his
> > > > >
> > > > >earlier $59.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four 
> continued
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > >eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to 
> compare
> > > > >
> > > > >their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the 
> sixth
> > > > >man,
> > > > >
> > > > >but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," 
> exclaimed
> > > > >
> > > > >the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair 
> that he
> > > > >got
> > > > >
> > > > >seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why
> > > > >
> > > > >should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the
> > > > >breaks!".
> > > > >
> > > > >Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get
> > > > >anything
> > > > >
> > > > >at all.  The system exploits the poor!"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he
> > > > >didn't
> > > > >
> > > > >show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But 
> when it
> > > > >
> > > > >came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was 
> very
> > > > >
> > > > >important. They were FIFTY TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Imagine that!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is 
> how the
> > > > >
> > > > >tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
> > > > >benefit
> > > > >
> > > > >from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being 
> wealthy,
> > > > >and
> > > > >
> > > > >they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave
> > > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > >rest?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to 
> grasp this
> > > > >
> > > > >rather straight-forward logic!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >T. Davies
> > > > >
> > > > >Professor of Accounting &Chair,
> > > > >
> > > > >Division of Accounting and Business Law
> > > > >
> > > > >The University of South Dakota
> > > > >
> > > > >School of Business
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >========================
> > > > >Paul Grandholm
> > > > >C&H Technology
> > > > >GrandPower Components Div.
> > > > >========================
> > > > >_________________________________________________
> > > > >Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________
> > > > Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > _________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>_________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list