When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Douger]

Oh. How can you tell when you have enough ?
When some sheep bleats " Wow. How much was that" You can tell them " If you have to ask you cannot afford it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Great points.

What so many liberals and progressives fail to understand is that punishing CEO's and the highly successful will not improve their lives at all.

We need to teach self-reliance. Teach work ethic. Government handouts with no strings attached ultimately rob individuals of their dignity. But, in the liberal welfare state, who needs dignity when they've got big brother to take care of everything?

The entire economic program of Obama and his liberal/progressive cronies is based on confiscating more and more money from those who have earned it, produced it, and saved it, and transferring it to a political and bureaucratic class in washington to spend as they see fit. People should be encouraged to work hard. To Save. To strive for excellence and take PRUDENT risks. Instead, liberals continue enacting asinine policies that spread the misery by shrinking the productive sector of the economy and then then proclaiming the failed result is "fairness".

It's sad, but very true!....Those who back this president and liberal policies in general, need to wtfu as to what this president is actually going to do to them. And none of it is good.

Your points are good, but I think Conhog is missing the potential for abuse even limiting tax exemptions to food, clothing, shelter. What constitutes food? Potato chips? Oreos? Ice cream? Expensive spices? Caviar? Live lobsters flown in from Maine this morning? The herd of cows you say you will butcher for beef? The pot bellied pig that is actually a pet but which would be food in many cultures?

What constitutes clothing? The underwear and T-shirts from Wal-mart sure, but how about a $400 Alviro Marin purse? Or diamond accessories. Or a Rolex watch? Or a $10,000 cashmere coat or a collection of cashmere sweaters?

What constitutes shelter? Rush Limbaugh's multi-million dollar condo in NYC or the homemade houseboat my cousin lives in for the summer? Does that constitute one's primary residence and what determines a primary residence? Does it include utilities, maintenance, or local taxes on that residence? Furnishings?

As you can see, there is all sorts of ways to manipulate the system and to play politics with it too. And as each item is evaluated as to whether it is or is not tax exempt, the volumes of laws, regulation, and policy begin to fill those library shelves.

I say limit how much money can be gifted to anybody and then tax income at a flat rate on all income of any variety that will be paid by everybody. Even there the system can be manipulated as to what is a valid net income earned by commerce and industry, but it is more difficult to manipulate that. Simplify. Simplify.

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?

Yes, a lot of flexibility in the system is really dangerous in the hands of those who 'want to spread the wealth around', and can be deadly in those who want to control what people will or will not be allowed to earn. But it doesn't fair a great deal better even in the hands of conservatives that we might not agree with as to what should be exempt and what should not.

When there is a lot of wiggle room to play politics with anything, it is simply too tempting for those in power to resist that no matter who they are.

So I say let's take politics out of it as much as possible and really level the playing field for everybody. I think a flat percentage of all income paid by everybody is the best way to do that. We might need to require like a 3/4ths majority of Congress plus a Presidential signature to raise that percentage just as a safeguard though or incremental creep could still come into it.

The only way we're ever going to free ourselves from a Congress that will not restrain its own spending is by limiting what it has to spend. So let's let people earn as much as they are legally and ethically capable of doing and trust them to spend their own money on their own behalf more effectively than Congress will spend it for them.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Your points are good, but I think Conhog is missing the potential for abuse even limiting tax exemptions to food, clothing, shelter. What constitutes food? Potato chips? Oreos? Ice cream? Expensive spices? Caviar? Live lobsters flown in from Maine this morning? The herd of cows you say you will butcher for beef? The pot bellied pig that is actually a pet but which would be food in many cultures?

What constitutes clothing? The underwear and T-shirts from Wal-mart sure, but how about a $400 Alviro Marin purse? Or diamond accessories. Or a Rolex watch? Or a $10,000 cashmere coat or a collection of cashmere sweaters?

What constitutes shelter? Rush Limbaugh's multi-million dollar condo in NYC or the homemade houseboat my cousin lives in for the summer? Does that constitute one's primary residence and what determines a primary residence? Does it include utilities, maintenance, or local taxes on that residence? Furnishings?

As you can see, there is all sorts of ways to manipulate the system and to play politics with it too. And as each item is evaluated as to whether it is or is not tax exempt, the volumes of laws, regulation, and policy begin to fill those library shelves.

I say limit how much money can be gifted to anybody and then tax income at a flat rate on all income of any variety that will be paid by everybody. Even there the system can be manipulated as to what is a valid net income earned by commerce and industry, but it is more difficult to manipulate that. Simplify. Simplify.

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?

Yes, a lot of flexibility in the system is really dangerous in the hands of those who 'want to spread the wealth around', and can be deadly in those who want to control what people will or will not be allowed to earn. But it doesn't fair a great deal better even in the hands of conservatives that we might not agree with as to what should be exempt and what should not.

When there is a lot of wiggle room to play politics with anything, it is simply too tempting for those in power to resist that no matter who they are.

So I say let's take politics out of it as much as possible and really level the playing field for everybody. I think a flat percentage of all income paid by everybody is the best way to do that. We might need to require like a 3/4ths majority of Congress plus a Presidential signature to raise that percentage just as a safeguard though or incremental creep could still come into it.

The only way we're ever going to free ourselves from a Congress that will not restrain its own spending is by limiting what it has to spend. So let's let people earn as much as they are legally and ethically capable of doing and trust them to spend their own money on their own behalf more effectively than Congress will spend it for them.

I agree. A flat tax across the board, same percentage for everybody regardless of dollars made is the only way. Everybody contributes equally. What they do with their lives after that, as far as becoming successfull is concerned, is up to them.

 

[ConHog]

Who decides what necessities are? Food , clothing, shelter. PERIOD. No exceptions, no additions, Food items aren't taxed. And no, booze and ciggies don't count as food, clothing isn't taxed and any household expenses, you know utility bills, mortgage payment, rent, aren't taxed. Everything else get's taxed. No provision for changing that, EVER

. On average an American spends about 25% of his disposable income on non necessities, regardless of how much that income is. So the man who makes $20K is going to be taxed on about $5K of that, while the man who makes $100K is going to pay taxes on about $25K of that. Let's figure a 8% national sales tax. The man who make $20K will pay $400 in national sales taxes over the year, while the man who made $100K will pay $2000 in national sales tax over the year. So we have the man who makes $20K paying an effective tax rate of 2% while the man who makes $100K is paying an effective tax rate of you guessed it 2%.

The difference? Currently the man making $20K is paying NOTHING and in fact is getting a "refund" back which is nothing but welfare subsidized by the man who is making $100K and being taxed at 35%. Is that fair? Shouldn't EVERYONE have to pay SOMETHING? is 2% too much to ask? So yes, the poorer would pay more, because currently they pay NOTHING, but too god damned bad, they have an obligation to, and that obligation is NOT to collect a check every year that is labeled "refund" but is actually a welfare check.

Great points.

What so many liberals and progressives fail to understand is that punishing CEO's and the highly successful will not improve their lives at all.

We need to teach self-reliance. Teach work ethic. Government handouts with no strings attached ultimately rob individuals of their dignity. But, in the liberal welfare state, who needs dignity when they've got big brother to take care of everything?

The entire economic program of Obama and his liberal/progressive cronies is based on confiscating more and more money from those who have earned it, produced it, and saved it, and transferring it to a political and bureaucratic class in washington to spend as they see fit. People should be encouraged to work hard. To Save. To strive for excellence and take PRUDENT risks. Instead, liberals continue enacting asinine policies that spread the misery by shrinking the productive sector of the economy and then then proclaiming the failed result is "fairness".

It's sad, but very true!....Those who back this president and liberal policies in general, need to wtfu as to what this president is actually going to do to them. And none of it is good.

Your points are good, but I think Conhog is missing the potential for abuse even limiting tax exemptions to food, clothing, shelter. What constitutes food? Potato chips? Oreos? Ice cream? Expensive spices? Caviar? Live lobsters flown in from Maine this morning? The herd of cows you say you will butcher for beef? The pot bellied pig that is actually a pet but which would be food in many cultures?

What constitutes clothing? The underwear and T-shirts from Wal-mart sure, but how about a $400 Alviro Marin purse? Or diamond accessories. Or a Rolex watch? Or a $10,000 cashmere coat or a collection of cashmere sweaters?

What constitutes shelter? Rush Limbaugh's multi-million dollar condo in NYC or the homemade houseboat my cousin lives in for the summer? Does that constitute one's primary residence and what determines a primary residence? Does it include utilities, maintenance, or local taxes on that residence? Furnishings?

As you can see, there is all sorts of ways to manipulate the system and to play politics with it too. And as each item is evaluated as to whether it is or is not tax exempt, the volumes of laws, regulation, and policy begin to fill those library shelves.

I say limit how much money can be gifted to anybody and then tax income at a flat rate on all income of any variety that will be paid by everybody. Even there the system can be manipulated as to what is a valid net income earned by commerce and industry, but it is more difficult to manipulate that. Simplify. Simplify.

There are already government policies which dictate what qualifies as what. for instance SNAP defines what food is , and yes you can buy oreos with your food stamps Ravi, but I'm sure she already knows that.

Obviously as far as a house goes, primary residence only, just like many other government programs only let you take advantage of them on your primary residence.

Clothes? Same thing, there are defined standards in place. NO ONE considers a watch or purse to be clothing. A mink coat, however extravagant, would be clothing.

And right on down the line.

The point is , people want to cry that the rich should be paying more, but they are already paying the bulk. Look at NJ , at some point the rate gets so high that the rich get pissed and leave, then who's going to pay for things?

And I notice you have not addressed my point about people who collect "refunds" every year which are actually welfare.........

 

[Sky Dancer]

Your points are good, but I think Conhog is missing the potential for abuse even limiting tax exemptions to food, clothing, shelter. What constitutes food? Potato chips? Oreos? Ice cream? Expensive spices? Caviar? Live lobsters flown in from Maine this morning? The herd of cows you say you will butcher for beef? The pot bellied pig that is actually a pet but which would be food in many cultures?

What constitutes clothing? The underwear and T-shirts from Wal-mart sure, but how about a $400 Alviro Marin purse? Or diamond accessories. Or a Rolex watch? Or a $10,000 cashmere coat or a collection of cashmere sweaters?

What constitutes shelter? Rush Limbaugh's multi-million dollar condo in NYC or the homemade houseboat my cousin lives in for the summer? Does that constitute one's primary residence and what determines a primary residence? Does it include utilities, maintenance, or local taxes on that residence? Furnishings?

As you can see, there is all sorts of ways to manipulate the system and to play politics with it too. And as each item is evaluated as to whether it is or is not tax exempt, the volumes of laws, regulation, and policy begin to fill those library shelves.

I say limit how much money can be gifted to anybody and then tax income at a flat rate on all income of any variety that will be paid by everybody. Even there the system can be manipulated as to what is a valid net income earned by commerce and industry, but it is more difficult to manipulate that. Simplify. Simplify.

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?

Yes, a lot of flexibility in the system is really dangerous in the hands of those who 'want to spread the wealth around', and can be deadly in those who want to control what people will or will not be allowed to earn. But it doesn't fair a great deal better even in the hands of conservatives that we might not agree with as to what should be exempt and what should not.

When there is a lot of wiggle room to play politics with anything, it is simply too tempting for those in power to resist that no matter who they are.

So I say let's take politics out of it as much as possible and really level the playing field for everybody. I think a flat percentage of all income paid by everybody is the best way to do that. We might need to require like a 3/4ths majority of Congress plus a Presidential signature to raise that percentage just as a safeguard though or incremental creep could still come into it.

The only way we're ever going to free ourselves from a Congress that will not restrain its own spending is by limiting what it has to spend. So let's let people earn as much as they are legally and ethically capable of doing and trust them to spend their own money on their own behalf more effectively than Congress will spend it for them.

What's wrong with spreading the wealth around? To me, as a Buddhist, it sounds like a good idea. Put a curb on greed.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

 

[Gadawg73]

Your points are good, but I think Conhog is missing the potential for abuse even limiting tax exemptions to food, clothing, shelter. What constitutes food? Potato chips? Oreos? Ice cream? Expensive spices? Caviar? Live lobsters flown in from Maine this morning? The herd of cows you say you will butcher for beef? The pot bellied pig that is actually a pet but which would be food in many cultures?

What constitutes clothing? The underwear and T-shirts from Wal-mart sure, but how about a $400 Alviro Marin purse? Or diamond accessories. Or a Rolex watch? Or a $10,000 cashmere coat or a collection of cashmere sweaters?

What constitutes shelter? Rush Limbaugh's multi-million dollar condo in NYC or the homemade houseboat my cousin lives in for the summer? Does that constitute one's primary residence and what determines a primary residence? Does it include utilities, maintenance, or local taxes on that residence? Furnishings?

As you can see, there is all sorts of ways to manipulate the system and to play politics with it too. And as each item is evaluated as to whether it is or is not tax exempt, the volumes of laws, regulation, and policy begin to fill those library shelves.

I say limit how much money can be gifted to anybody and then tax income at a flat rate on all income of any variety that will be paid by everybody. Even there the system can be manipulated as to what is a valid net income earned by commerce and industry, but it is more difficult to manipulate that. Simplify. Simplify.

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?

Yes, a lot of flexibility in the system is really dangerous in the hands of those who 'want to spread the wealth around', and can be deadly in those who want to control what people will or will not be allowed to earn. But it doesn't fair a great deal better even in the hands of conservatives that we might not agree with as to what should be exempt and what should not.

When there is a lot of wiggle room to play politics with anything, it is simply too tempting for those in power to resist that no matter who they are.

So I say let's take politics out of it as much as possible and really level the playing field for everybody. I think a flat percentage of all income paid by everybody is the best way to do that. We might need to require like a 3/4ths majority of Congress plus a Presidential signature to raise that percentage just as a safeguard though or incremental creep could still come into it.

The only way we're ever going to free ourselves from a Congress that will not restrain its own spending is by limiting what it has to spend. So let's let people earn as much as they are legally and ethically capable of doing and trust them to spend their own money on their own behalf more effectively than Congress will spend it for them.

Well said from an obvious fiscal conservative.
Focus on this and this only and we will gain the day. Stray from this, like the far right has always done recently,and this takes a back burner to non issues such as gays, family decisions and the like.

 

[Mr Natural]

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?

Yes, a lot of flexibility in the system is really dangerous in the hands of those who 'want to spread the wealth around', and can be deadly in those who want to control what people will or will not be allowed to earn. But it doesn't fair a great deal better even in the hands of conservatives that we might not agree with as to what should be exempt and what should not.

When there is a lot of wiggle room to play politics with anything, it is simply too tempting for those in power to resist that no matter who they are.

So I say let's take politics out of it as much as possible and really level the playing field for everybody. I think a flat percentage of all income paid by everybody is the best way to do that. We might need to require like a 3/4ths majority of Congress plus a Presidential signature to raise that percentage just as a safeguard though or incremental creep could still come into it.

The only way we're ever going to free ourselves from a Congress that will not restrain its own spending is by limiting what it has to spend. So let's let people earn as much as they are legally and ethically capable of doing and trust them to spend their own money on their own behalf more effectively than Congress will spend it for them.

What's wrong with spreading the wealth around? To me, as a Buddhist, it sounds like a good idea. Put a curb on greed.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

Works pretty good for the 10% who own 80% of the wealth.

 

[ConHog]

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?

Yes, a lot of flexibility in the system is really dangerous in the hands of those who 'want to spread the wealth around', and can be deadly in those who want to control what people will or will not be allowed to earn. But it doesn't fair a great deal better even in the hands of conservatives that we might not agree with as to what should be exempt and what should not.

When there is a lot of wiggle room to play politics with anything, it is simply too tempting for those in power to resist that no matter who they are.

So I say let's take politics out of it as much as possible and really level the playing field for everybody. I think a flat percentage of all income paid by everybody is the best way to do that. We might need to require like a 3/4ths majority of Congress plus a Presidential signature to raise that percentage just as a safeguard though or incremental creep could still come into it.

The only way we're ever going to free ourselves from a Congress that will not restrain its own spending is by limiting what it has to spend. So let's let people earn as much as they are legally and ethically capable of doing and trust them to spend their own money on their own behalf more effectively than Congress will spend it for them.

What's wrong with spreading the wealth around? To me, as a Buddhist, it sounds like a good idea. Put a curb on greed.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

There is nothing wrong with spreading the wealth around, there is PLENTY wrong with the government taking money from me to spread around.

Surely you see the difference?

 

[Gadawg73]

Wealth is earned, not redistributed.
And the worst way to redistribute wealth is through the government. Lucky if 20% gets back to the public.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't worry Fox!....I'm sure Obama will tell us ALL what constitutes what?

I mean hey, why think for ourselves when the messiah can think for us?

Yes, a lot of flexibility in the system is really dangerous in the hands of those who 'want to spread the wealth around', and can be deadly in those who want to control what people will or will not be allowed to earn. But it doesn't fair a great deal better even in the hands of conservatives that we might not agree with as to what should be exempt and what should not.

When there is a lot of wiggle room to play politics with anything, it is simply too tempting for those in power to resist that no matter who they are.

So I say let's take politics out of it as much as possible and really level the playing field for everybody. I think a flat percentage of all income paid by everybody is the best way to do that. We might need to require like a 3/4ths majority of Congress plus a Presidential signature to raise that percentage just as a safeguard though or incremental creep could still come into it.

The only way we're ever going to free ourselves from a Congress that will not restrain its own spending is by limiting what it has to spend. So let's let people earn as much as they are legally and ethically capable of doing and trust them to spend their own money on their own behalf more effectively than Congress will spend it for them.

What's wrong with spreading the wealth around? To me, as a Buddhist, it sounds like a good idea. Put a curb on greed.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

Okay, charity begins at home as it were. So please send me your paycheck and I'll be happy to redistribute your wealth. Other than that absolutely necessary to operate the constitutional functions of government, I prefer to distribute my own wealth myself, however, rather than have elected officials do that for me. I hope you understand.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Ask the Russians how well trickle up economics worked for them under communism.

Ask them about the bread lines, when there was actually bread to stand in line for.

Ask them about eating/slurping nothing but Borscht for breakfast lunch and dinner.

Ask them if they are better off now then they were under trickle up.