I'm not following the math. If I understand it, like a corporation, I pay 33% of my income on taxes. If I happen to employ a lawn boy, then the gov't would take 33% of what I pay to him (assuming he reported it).

 

This argument shows how far we have diverged from the original intent of government. Unfortunately, the vast majority wants to elect a government which expands, rather than contracts the power of their constituency. The only argument is ovr which slice of the pie gets more funding between election cycles. More gets added. But you don't get elected by taking things away. Fool's gold.

Ron Paul’s Great Compromise of 2012 by Craig White

 

I think you're double dipping.

I pay 33% of my income. business pays 34% of thier income.

My lawn boy pays his 33% as my employee just like I, as a corporate employee pay 33%.

 

The original intent is no longer very relevant. This is a major flaw in the tea party and libertarian views.

 

Well, the original intent is still the law of the land and federal officeholders still swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so please enlighten us as to why it's not relevant.

 

I hope you're kidding here. University education, (education that isn't free so to speak) is the best kind. Why? Two reasons. An education that isn't free teaches the students the importance of a degree, a fact many people take for granted. The other thing important about University education is it standardizes the needs of a particular field. Because we realized that entrusting your fate to a person who "apprenticed" in a field will end much worse than one that has been educated to a point of standardization we can all appreciate. Not to mention that a University education can double or triple the amount of money you'll make in a year. I'm a student at OU and my major (Mechanical Engineering) averages about 83,000 dollars a year salary. That's over twice the mean for income in the USA.

 

the only reason it seems irrelevant is that socialist government has been in place since the gov't started building dams on every river in the US, without economic justification and without any plan to pay for it. War machines and social safety nets and other unfundable programs have taken us to the brink. Politicians will not solve the problem, because they get elected by spending money, not saving it.

We are going to find out just how relevant it is (or was). Collapse of the biggest economies in the world will be a painful reminder. The fed is getting ot the end of its ability to inject $s into the system to drive inflation and devalue the dollar. It worked in an expanding economy. It will not work in a contracting one.

 

I think geekonamotorcycle is in way over his head here.

You're absolutely correct that we are going to get to find out just how relevant the original intent of our government is.

 

I wasn't kidding and I'm sure your engineering education is wonderful.

In the world of economics, generally speaking, the university system is perpetuating blindness.

 

Universities do not teach "critical thinking" skills. If they did, this conversation might have more depth of ideas and less political positioning.

 

You just proved it.

 

Well?
I'm waiting....

My political position is to have no political position.
I am an unfunded and undereducated student of economics on a home study program.

Politicians will destroy everything, because people want them to, believing they are the salvation.

 

I'm not defending politicians here, and I'm not trying to detract from self taught economists. But the fact remains that a college education gives you the resources to go into a field ready to work and perform with a minimum of a learning curve. OU has one of the best business colleges in the Nation, and I guarantee that there are things the students in that college learn that they'll use that self taught economists wouldn't know. As to teaching critical thinking skills, there isn't anything that can do that besides yourself. Those skills must be learned, they cannot be taught. College does, however, show that you have these skills, because let's face it, having a degree means you can handle yourself and accomplish a long standing goal.

 

Another tax break to get the economy rolling should just about do it. If that doesn't work, another round will definitely do it. After all, the USA is the third least taxed nation next to Mexico and Chile. Being number one should solve all of your problems!
Obviously I'm being facetious but I want to prove a point. The US cannot expect to maintain the high life on such a small income. If you want the life style and services of a Mexican or Chilean, then by all means cut your services to the bone and that includes the military. Fighting non stop wars since WW1 cost has cost the US trillions of dollars yet not one person has suggested cutting the military. Is this sacrilegious with you guys?
The bottom line is that if you do want any type of government services such as schooling, libraries. roads and bridges you need a huge influxes of cash i.e. increased taxes and a huge trim on the budget to get to where you need to be. No more subsidized day care for corporations. Yes the rich pay more than the poor after all, they have most of the money.
As Mikstr wrote in his post, we Canadians went through a period of time starting in the early 90's were the federal government increased taxes and cut services. We eventually got to the point were actually started paying down our debt. The largest dept repayment year was 18 billion. Factor in that we have an economy 1/10th the size of the US, that would be like 180 billion dollars in one year. Our debt to GDP went down considerably. That means more taxes going towards services rather paying interest. We also regulated our banks so that they couldn't act like thieves. I know, more crazy talk (REGULATION).
Yes we pay high taxes but then we kind of want new roads, bridges, schools, health care for everyone, etc. Sorry another sacrilegious type of thing that most of the rest of the industrial world enjoys. Can you imagine walking into a doctor of your choice and getting served, even if you are poor or just plain out of work.
Economics is simple. Each election governments should tell the electorate what services they propose to give us and then be mandated to pay for each and everyone through the tax system. If you don't want any services, great, no taxes. If you do want services, then pay up.

Well, enough of the crazy talk, lets get back to reality. Anyone for a tea party? That should south everyone's mind!

 

Yes, how ungrateful we are here in the US for what our government "gives" us. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not wanting our government to steal more of our money, or print more money out of thin air and put taxpayers on the hook for the principal and interest so it can "give" us even more services. My children and their unborn children should be proud that they were born into debt slavery to private banks and a government that "gives" us all so much.
You do have a point about the military and our perpetual war machine. The warfare state is the flipside of the welfare state and ultimately leads to the same end: more government, less freedom, higher taxes and more debt, which is simply interest "owed" to the private bank which has a monopoly on the issuance of credit due to its cozy relationship with our government.
I like your idea of paying directly for only those services one desires, something that can easily be done (with some exceptions) more efficiently and cheaply through private entities than through government bureaucracies, but can you imagine the stir this would create among those control freaks in government who demand that people be forced to receive certain services from government or be forced to pay for services that OTHERS receive through government? I hate to think that I might disappoint a bureaucrat or, horror of horrors, put a government employee out of work because of my selfish desire to keep more of the fruits of my labor instead of having it confiscated from me at gunpoint by a government that so obviously knows better than I how to spend my money.
You speak as if government is some sort of benevolent, paternal entity that gives us things, takes care of us and loves us when nothing could be further from the truth. Historically governments have been the most murderous entities that ever existed, and the power to tax is the power to destroy. As George Washington said: “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
Too many people have forgotten those words and the words of countless others who warned about huge, overreaching government, but more and more people are starting to remember.

 

An excellent point with excellent backing. Simply put, in order to pay down the debt we must spend less than we take in. This must be done by either reducing spending, increasing taxes, or some combination. The key is keeping the national economy afloat, otherwise tax revenue will drop off drastically. The other important note is the Laffer curve, the curve that dictates the maximum amount of tax revenue is somewhere between 0% and 100% taxing. In essence, it is finding this balance that is the source of all the disagreement in the US. Personally I say we cut all social programs, withdraw all the troops, and put everyone to work building roads and infrastructure to make the US energy independent. I'm not about to be paying for other people's healthcare and food stamps because the government can't handle money well.

 

RK1, I would agree with you if, and only if, it were evident that there was some sort of decrease in prices when no taxes were charged to a company. Instead they post record profits and CEOs seem to get landslide bonuses. And maybe its just an illusion, but it seems that the more money you make (in excess of 250k), the more write offs there are to keep an ever growing portion of what you "made". Why is it that a smaller and smaller portion of america hold an ever growing portion of the nations wealth?

 

We are back to "Greed vs Gubermint stupidity"... The US governement havent yet figured out that "taxbreaks" stops at the highest level of greedy people that can get away with it, "it" being the money, and the highest level usually being the people that control the corporations and therefore the money...

A good example was the US goevernement "incentive" a while back to to buy a domestic car, to fuel the US based car manufacturers... The net result was that Youtube was flooded with evidence that greedy people had perfectly fine, and in many cases more fuel efficient, less costly to own cars traded in and destroyed to "buy" a US made vehicle that they still needed to finance to afford... End result, the whole US vehicle fleet increased it's pollution as a net result, the total debt on the fleet increased, a large percentage of the "bought" cars have been repossesed already, and it cost the US governement an unknown round sum... And guess what, it didn't work... It didn't get the wheels turning, it didn't give the "people" one red cent, it all got stuck in the pockets it was supposed to pass through... And then those pockets ended up empty, and the governement needed to bail them out anyway...

There's a textbook example of economics as it's taught in the universities... Stupid is the word I'd use...

 

I'm not against government-backed social programs. I"m happy to pay taxes for well-managed and funded programs.

Our county is broke and broken, with a debt obligation close to 100% of GDP. This is due to irresponsible financial management. Politicians form their platforms, based on sound-bites presented to a popualtion which they assume to be ignorant of reality - which in the majority of cases is true, I suppose.

It is not even possible for them to have a reasonable, factual discussion. The worse it gets, the more polarized it becomes and the worse it gets.

We have not begun to see the end results of this disaster.

 

Rc,
I was merely posing the question.

As for how I would have dealt with the bank collapse:

Use the bailout money to buy the american people out of the debts owned. Banks are paid off, people are free to spend what was their home payment on "economic recovery". If the nearly trillion dollars wasnt enough, than pay a portion and force the banks to refi all those with standing loans at a low rate. Give the American people a chance, that is what I say. Instead they gave it to the banks to do whatever: bonuses, parties, etc.

 

I think we're saying the same things then. I just didn't understand where you were coming from on the 34% part. I'm very much against the fact that govt taxes and re-taxes the same dollar that floats around the economy. by the time they are done with the various forms of taxing that dollar, they have just about all of it.

 

Bill, I think you're over generalizing and only using part of the facts...or I'm not understanding your point. Here's a specific example of how the process has gone into the pockets of the masses. My son and d-i-l bought a house last year at the height of the collapse. The fed directly gave them $6,000 which they used to pay off bills to offset the new house payment. In addition, the state of NC also gave them a $15,000 grant used specifically to reduce the house price. (their only obligation for the grant was to live in the house for 5 years). These two things together allowed them to start building some personal wealth in real estate and stimulated the economy.

I realize this is only a microcosm of the country, and you could argue that the money eventually made it's way into the hands of the rich anyway, but at least in this case, it provided economic stimulus and allowed a young family to constructively contribute to the economy.

 

Big Shepp, you are making a very wise choice. Engineers are an extremely valuable resource, with a skill set that allows them to approach and solve a very wide range of problems. I'm an ME. So is my dad and my brother. My son just started engineering school this week.

You won't regret it.

 

I like some of the articles these guys present.

It may help pull some heads out of the sand.

Five Things You Need to Know About the Economy - Casey Research

Investment Legends:

 

Good luck with that. I see the linked article mentions a Casey Report interview with Dr. Edwin Vieira, a constitutional attorney who has successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court. I think Vieira should be required reading for anyone trying to get a handle on where we are going and just how dire the situation is. Articles of his can be found at newswithviews.com.
We haven't seen anything yet.

Edwin Vieira, Jr. -- Archive

 

Another tidbit from the 2nd place finisher in the Iowa Straw Poll:

S&P States the Obvious by Ron Paul

 

I am not sure how I am over generalizing. I just think that if these banks needed to be bailed out, rather than tax dollars going directly to them without oversight, they could have atleast bought off the loans, nuke the papers, and let the people start spending the money into the economy. What would you do if you had an extra 15k?

 

Being an engineering student is actually why I bought my 'Hawk. I wanted a cheap project I could fiddle on with a minimum of cost and space. Thanks for the encouraging words!

 

I will garanty you that our health cost is substantially lower than what you pay through corporations and government, however if you are happy with your system, then by all means keep it.
I wouldn't care one iota about what happens south of the border except the fact that the US is our biggest trading partner and vice versa and therefore when you get a cold, so do we. In fact the whole world does. That importance is slowly changing and other parts of the world such as China, India, Brazil, etc are becoming more and more important to the global economy hence why countries such as ourselves are looking at those areas for exports. So instead of a north south relationship we ware looking more and more in an east west direction. Our oil exports have been all to the US but that may change if they decide to build a a pipeline to our west coast and that may happen sooner than later if approval isn't given to the Keystone pipeline.
The US needs to get out of the mess their in and I can't see that happening without a combination of tax cuts and tax increases. You can't possibly cut spending enough now to get to a balance budget. A country such as yours couldn't take that much pain.
Reaganomics works for a short period of time but eventually once the stimulus is over, you are in a worse predicament. Over the last 15-20 years your government has repeated tried this. The latest was the tax breaks for the rich under Bush. I'm sure his buddies are still toasting him, while the other 90% of the populace being squeezed. Buffet knows this, yet people think he has something to gain. In fact he probably does. He know that if you don't get out somehow, his net worth is going to go down or option 2 is that he simply cares about what is happening knows what it is going to take to make things better for the collective good of the nation.
If you think I like taxes, think again. I'm in a healthy bracket and would like to see our governments cut back again until in a slight surplus again. I firmly believe in balance budgets at all times except during recessions, however the other years should have a surplus. If collectively as a nation we want more services from our government, then collectively we have to pay for it. All countries have to hit a balance that they can live with. At the moment, the US is the third least taxed nation so its fair to say you aren't overtaxed. Perception and reality are always different.

 

RK1, is this the effective tax rate or the one that the book says it is, like "retail"? I am pretty sure that most are not paying retail.