Rest iN peace, Mr. Jobs

And what are your ideas to allow us to achieve either of those goals? Are you talking "redistribution of wealth" here?

-- The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer

Ever since we stopped living as small groups of hunter-gatherers, the problem of accumulation of excess goods has been with us. The toughest or smartest guys, with the least ethics, glommed onto everything they could and left little for the masses. The advent of technology accelerated the process.

I don't know that there is a solution, since human nature tries to find a way around any restrictions.

Income inequality did seem to be less in the '50s when marginal income tax rates could go up into the confiscatory range, but that may have been a coincidence.

But can anyone truly say that any person is worth more than a million dollars a year? I certainly don't think so.

Larry Jaques wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates. Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up, as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break. It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income people.

And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.

I picked up a copy of a Tea Party book, Rasmussen's _Mad as Hell_, and it appears we've been taking a dive since the second world war. And I don't think it's just the tax rate adjustments, either.

I don't, either, but we're not shareholders and we're not voting on uber manglement compensation.

-- The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer

There is a common notion, with some justification, that if a magic jellybean could somehow redistribute all the wealth in the nation equally, within a short time, the original distribution would again obtain.

Herman Cain said just this week, "If you're not rich, blame yourself!"

What's "worth" got to do with anything? Some HAVE more than a million because others willingly GAVE it to them.

Oh, there are exceptions, but in the main the wealthy earned their fortunes.

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is that fair?

I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax system as it is currently implemented:

1. To raise revenue.
2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.

For example, we think that home ownership is a worthwhile thing, so we give a tax deduction for mortgage interest payments. We think smoking is bad, so we put a confiscatory tax on cigarettes.

Only if you are willing to give up the social goals sometimes associated with taxation will you be able to make the tax system "fair."

"HeyBub" wrote in news:maqdnSCiP--a0gvTnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Obviously that is NOT true. It only holds for federal income taxes, and is in part due to the fact that we as society through our representatives have created a tax code that gives credits for living. Employed people pay payroll taxes (some of that paid by the employer), they pay state taxes and sales taxes, and whether or not they own their homes, they pay property and school taxes.

And to foster or suppress economic activities (this is important too). We all directly or indirectly agreed to the system at some point. But now the system has become burdensome by complexity and inequitable because it created (intended AND unintended) loopholes and special circumstances. Some of those were created by hanky panky. There should be an independent nonpartisan committee that examines the "special categories" and explains who and what the consequences are of each special condition in the tax code.

Yes indeed!! The social and economic goals need to be reexamined over time. Is this or that special condition still what we all want? Or shuld home mortgage interest over a certain amount NOT be deductible anymore? The AMT was a way to limit deductibility, but the asses didn't put in a cost of living escalation clause, so now the AMT is applied to people who aren't that wealthy. Is that right?

I'm sure you and I and others can keep going on ...

"HeyBub" wrote in news:9uqdnTM05-_10AvTnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Having had help gettting were I am, I am sure that such a statement is a bad joke for many who didn't have the same type of help. Cain is a flash in the pan, a true American politician. Next he'll write a book how he almost won the presidency. He has nice slogans and appeals to the simple minds that think as simplistic as he does. Just wait until more real economists talk more about his 9-9-9 plan that'll suck the life out of poor people.

As do I, actually my credit cards, as do probably yours do, actually pay me to use them. And that works for every one providing they pay them off every month.

I believe this country would be a lot better off if our kids were required to take and pass simple finance classes before graduating. Or you must pass a basic understanding of finance charges and their real impact before qualifying for a credit card, controlled by a 3rd party.

What you guys do, besides paying off your own credit card debt every month, is grossly overestimate the intelligence of the progressive fostered middle class who has most of the credit card debt in this country.

Those that earned their wealth, how much harder than you did they work to earn that amount?

Lets say you work 40 hours a week and earn $100,000 per year.

Do you think that on average that some one that makes $1,000,000 per year has worked 10 times harder than you?

For the most part the wealthy beyond need just happened to be in the right place at the right time, so to speak.

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years to fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?

A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into debt or not. We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do, defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.

Snip

Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me? Probably not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the hand that feeds us.

Swingman wrote in news:ZuGdnSt4A4XISgvTnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Amen. Have had to rescue a few people from their mistakes in this regard, including myself. I hadn't read all of the fine print of the "free" loan by a Citibank CC. Free, if you paid it off within a certain period. They forgot to tell me (or I didn't comprehend the language) that payments first went to any unpaid balance, before the statement reflected that balance. Ended with interest charged on the first statement after that. Luckily I could tell them that I paid off the total "loan" that instant and to go shove the whole shebang.

It helps to have reserve funds, but I fully understand that not everyone has them, or can maintain them. I just heard I'll have to spend a few to trim a tree that is dropping rotting branches. Darn DPW oaks ... I guess that happens with 80 year-old trees ...

There are exceptions to this answer but the poor buy more by earning more. The poor will remain poor as long as they are given things that they did not earn. The poor have no business trying to keep up with the Jones. For those that don't know how to earn and are capable, they need to learn how.

Leon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Sounds good, but what you are asking for is a national sales tax. And then we'd have to up the wages of lower earning people somehow so they can pay those taxes. And what are you going to do with people who like to revel in luxury versus the frugal ones? Levy a luxury tax on luxury items? In the way the Europeans have different scales of VAT for different classes of merchandise? Remember that over there VAT goes up to at least 20% for certain things. (VAT is always included in the sale price).

Precicely and why I believe it should be taught in schools what the real cost of financing is.

Leon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

I am paying my fair share of taxes, as far as I can tell. I support in various ways those around me. I have also offered (maybe in words that were too obscure) my Akeda dovetail jig for any reasonable price, since I didn't like it.

Corporations are structured in different ways. Some loose money, some make a profit. Seems difficult to me to structure them so as to always equitably remunerate ALL who contribute to the profit (if any). Look at the car manufacturers. Because of the excessively adversary positions between workers, management and investors everyone has lost lately. But how do you make things really equitable??