E
Exit
Guest
Papa Smurf wrote:
>>>> Ahhh, I see your definition. In truth nationalisation really
>>>> involves the creation of a state owned monopoly which would mean
>>>> for example, your govt buying every electricity company in the US,
>>>> lumping them all together and calling it American Energy Inc or
>>>> similar. What you describe seems to be simply heavy handed remote
>>>> control.
>>>
>>> I agree that it is mere shadow of what you describe, I offer it
>>> nearly as insight into their wishes and desires, as the actions you
>>> describe are currently still against the law in terms of the power
>>> of the government.
>>>
>> I see, of course govt's can always vote themselves some new rights!
>
> That is always true. Our system makes that difficult but the Dems are
> very adept at both incremental law change and legislation from the
> bench (using the courts to endrun Congress right to make law) and the
> Reps are good at using (abusing?) safety fears for greater control.
>
Politicians will always be politicians.
>>>>>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big time. Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm. . . . . .could you elucidate please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Top half of all American Wage Earners Pay almost all Income
>>>>>>> taxes. Nope that probably didn't help. Damned IRS moved
>>>>>>> everything around again, I'll have to go with this link:
>>>>>>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what
>>>>>> would be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be
>>>>>> desirable from both a social and economic perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't feel like debating that at the moment. But my point was
>>>>> that the Libs are for ever higher rates on the top tax brackets,
>>>>> more people on the bottom paying ever lower amounts of taxes, and
>>>>> more and more social programs for those unable or unwilling to
>>>>> help themselves. So clearly they believe in and are very
>>>>> efficient at redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>
>>>> Out of interest, here low earners pay about 22% income tax and the
>>>> top rate is 40% even for millionaires - and everyone gets an annual
>>>> tax free allowance of around $8000 before they start paying tax.
>>>> How does that compare with the US tax system currently?
>>>
>>> On a Federal level (state and countries add their own income (and
>>> other) taxes which vary enormously from State to State. Alaska
>>> actually has a negative tax rate, several states have no state
>>> income tax, and some are heavily taxed. massachusetts is currently
>>> 6% and rising) the Top rate is 37% (it was a high at 71% under
>>> Carter), the bottom rate is 15%, but that really doesn't tell the
>>> picture as 37% pay no tax at all, many are actually given money (A
>>> wonderful wealth redistribution tool called tax credits), and as I
>>> stated before the top 50% pay 96.09% of the taxes. And then several
>>> types of income are taxed completely differently, and some are
>>> taxed twice. Our system is absurdly complex, mostly to keep the
>>> lawyers employeed and make sure everyone feels like a criminal
>>> (which makes them easier to control). One interesting aspect of our
>>> revenue system is you can ask 50 different IRS agents the same
>>> question and get upwards of 50 starkly different answers (this has
>>> been done and documented). But you can see with this kind of a
>>> spread on revenue, NHS on a tax basis, simply is a another aspect
>>> of wealth redistribution.
>>>
>> Yes, that is very complex indeed. I earn twice the national average
>> and get to keep around 70% of it which i consider fair in a
>> physically small country with a large population. Perhaps a national
>> set of tax levels would be a good idea over there but would be
>> painful to implement. We have tax credits over here too and they
>> seem to be working well.
>
> Ideally I would favor a national sales tax as the only form of
> taxation, with exemptions on the necessities, it would be a boon to
> everyone and get government largely out of our life (not to mention
> the billions saved in accounting and such). But it would cripple the
> governments power over us, and it's ablity to buy favor, so it will
> never happen.
>
Hmmm. . . . .shame but anyone who really put their back into making it
change would be worth a vote.
>>>>>>>>>> State provision of services.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know how strongly they feel about publicizing
>>>>>>>>> everything, but they show do go ballistic whenever talk of
>>>>>>>>> privitizing something comes up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what public services are provided by the democrats that
>>>>>>>> aren't by the republicans?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing
>>>>>>>>>> parties neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them
>>>>>>>>>> in the face! ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, we'll just call em 4/5 socialists then....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not even 5% socialists - must try harder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, if that's 5% then they must whip most kids straight out of
>>>>>>> the delivery room into a bubblewrap crate designed for safety
>>>>>>> and health, while pushing the few producers to breaking point
>>>>>>> to keep society going. No, too far from one of my concepts of
>>>>>>> hell. What's good side for the non-leeches?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem somewhat dogmatic - a nations success surely must not
>>>>>> only be measured in dollars, but also how it looks after it's
>>>>>> less fortunate citizens and I say this a right wing Conservative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where as I believe that a country is only as strong as the
>>>>> intregity of it's people.
>>>>> And intregity I measure by the individuals belief in personal
>>>>> reponsiblity. And that I see (by which I mean I observe it
>>>>> happening in this country) as undermined by the entitlement
>>>>> mindset.
>>>>
>>>> We both believe similar things then, but my belief in my fellow
>>>> Englishmen leads me to trust that their self-respect will allow
>>>> them only to use entitlement as a last resort, whereas you seem to
>>>> think many Americans will immediately give up trying if they can
>>>> get the basics for free.
>>>
>>> Forty years of experience has shown me that it works that way here.
>>> The more that is given the more they not only want, but they more
>>> that they feel they deserve.
>>> Pick a random person around my parts, and on one hand they are
>>> proudly milking the system for what it's worth and decrying the
>>> rich as selfish, greedy and not paying their fair share. It's both
>>> insane and maddening. Of cpurse it doesn't help that the
>>> entitlements here are designed to make you more dependant. For
>>> instance: Unemployment discourages working by making it largely an
>>> all or nothing deal. You can't work a little and build your way up
>>> with slowly reduced benefits, because that would lead too many
>>> people off the roles and not dependant on the government. The
>>> system wants to be milked.
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't criticise what is clearly your experience,
>> perhaps I am too much the optimist.
>>
>> The unemployed here get what is called 'Job seekers allowance' which
>> is only paid if you can prove you are actively seeking a job and not
>> excluding any offers unreasonably. It seems pretty effective along
>> with our reasonably robust economy keeping unemployment down to 5%.
>>
>> --
>> Julian.
>> ----------
>> General Melchett from Blackadder describing
>> his regiments coat of arms:
>> ". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
>> of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."
--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."
>>>> Ahhh, I see your definition. In truth nationalisation really
>>>> involves the creation of a state owned monopoly which would mean
>>>> for example, your govt buying every electricity company in the US,
>>>> lumping them all together and calling it American Energy Inc or
>>>> similar. What you describe seems to be simply heavy handed remote
>>>> control.
>>>
>>> I agree that it is mere shadow of what you describe, I offer it
>>> nearly as insight into their wishes and desires, as the actions you
>>> describe are currently still against the law in terms of the power
>>> of the government.
>>>
>> I see, of course govt's can always vote themselves some new rights!
>
> That is always true. Our system makes that difficult but the Dems are
> very adept at both incremental law change and legislation from the
> bench (using the courts to endrun Congress right to make law) and the
> Reps are good at using (abusing?) safety fears for greater control.
>
Politicians will always be politicians.
>>>>>>>>>> Redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big time. Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm. . . . . .could you elucidate please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Top half of all American Wage Earners Pay almost all Income
>>>>>>> taxes. Nope that probably didn't help. Damned IRS moved
>>>>>>> everything around again, I'll have to go with this link:
>>>>>>> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't doubt the figures, but surely this is precisely what
>>>>>> would be expected in a rich economy and dare I say it, be
>>>>>> desirable from both a social and economic perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't feel like debating that at the moment. But my point was
>>>>> that the Libs are for ever higher rates on the top tax brackets,
>>>>> more people on the bottom paying ever lower amounts of taxes, and
>>>>> more and more social programs for those unable or unwilling to
>>>>> help themselves. So clearly they believe in and are very
>>>>> efficient at redistribution of wealth.
>>>>>
>>>> Out of interest, here low earners pay about 22% income tax and the
>>>> top rate is 40% even for millionaires - and everyone gets an annual
>>>> tax free allowance of around $8000 before they start paying tax.
>>>> How does that compare with the US tax system currently?
>>>
>>> On a Federal level (state and countries add their own income (and
>>> other) taxes which vary enormously from State to State. Alaska
>>> actually has a negative tax rate, several states have no state
>>> income tax, and some are heavily taxed. massachusetts is currently
>>> 6% and rising) the Top rate is 37% (it was a high at 71% under
>>> Carter), the bottom rate is 15%, but that really doesn't tell the
>>> picture as 37% pay no tax at all, many are actually given money (A
>>> wonderful wealth redistribution tool called tax credits), and as I
>>> stated before the top 50% pay 96.09% of the taxes. And then several
>>> types of income are taxed completely differently, and some are
>>> taxed twice. Our system is absurdly complex, mostly to keep the
>>> lawyers employeed and make sure everyone feels like a criminal
>>> (which makes them easier to control). One interesting aspect of our
>>> revenue system is you can ask 50 different IRS agents the same
>>> question and get upwards of 50 starkly different answers (this has
>>> been done and documented). But you can see with this kind of a
>>> spread on revenue, NHS on a tax basis, simply is a another aspect
>>> of wealth redistribution.
>>>
>> Yes, that is very complex indeed. I earn twice the national average
>> and get to keep around 70% of it which i consider fair in a
>> physically small country with a large population. Perhaps a national
>> set of tax levels would be a good idea over there but would be
>> painful to implement. We have tax credits over here too and they
>> seem to be working well.
>
> Ideally I would favor a national sales tax as the only form of
> taxation, with exemptions on the necessities, it would be a boon to
> everyone and get government largely out of our life (not to mention
> the billions saved in accounting and such). But it would cripple the
> governments power over us, and it's ablity to buy favor, so it will
> never happen.
>
Hmmm. . . . .shame but anyone who really put their back into making it
change would be worth a vote.
>>>>>>>>>> State provision of services.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know how strongly they feel about publicizing
>>>>>>>>> everything, but they show do go ballistic whenever talk of
>>>>>>>>> privitizing something comes up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what public services are provided by the democrats that
>>>>>>>> aren't by the republicans?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It still looks to me as though you have two right wing
>>>>>>>>>> parties neither of whom would know socialism if it hit them
>>>>>>>>>> in the face! ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, we'll just call em 4/5 socialists then....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not even 5% socialists - must try harder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, if that's 5% then they must whip most kids straight out of
>>>>>>> the delivery room into a bubblewrap crate designed for safety
>>>>>>> and health, while pushing the few producers to breaking point
>>>>>>> to keep society going. No, too far from one of my concepts of
>>>>>>> hell. What's good side for the non-leeches?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem somewhat dogmatic - a nations success surely must not
>>>>>> only be measured in dollars, but also how it looks after it's
>>>>>> less fortunate citizens and I say this a right wing Conservative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where as I believe that a country is only as strong as the
>>>>> intregity of it's people.
>>>>> And intregity I measure by the individuals belief in personal
>>>>> reponsiblity. And that I see (by which I mean I observe it
>>>>> happening in this country) as undermined by the entitlement
>>>>> mindset.
>>>>
>>>> We both believe similar things then, but my belief in my fellow
>>>> Englishmen leads me to trust that their self-respect will allow
>>>> them only to use entitlement as a last resort, whereas you seem to
>>>> think many Americans will immediately give up trying if they can
>>>> get the basics for free.
>>>
>>> Forty years of experience has shown me that it works that way here.
>>> The more that is given the more they not only want, but they more
>>> that they feel they deserve.
>>> Pick a random person around my parts, and on one hand they are
>>> proudly milking the system for what it's worth and decrying the
>>> rich as selfish, greedy and not paying their fair share. It's both
>>> insane and maddening. Of cpurse it doesn't help that the
>>> entitlements here are designed to make you more dependant. For
>>> instance: Unemployment discourages working by making it largely an
>>> all or nothing deal. You can't work a little and build your way up
>>> with slowly reduced benefits, because that would lead too many
>>> people off the roles and not dependant on the government. The
>>> system wants to be milked.
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't criticise what is clearly your experience,
>> perhaps I am too much the optimist.
>>
>> The unemployed here get what is called 'Job seekers allowance' which
>> is only paid if you can prove you are actively seeking a job and not
>> excluding any offers unreasonably. It seems pretty effective along
>> with our reasonably robust economy keeping unemployment down to 5%.
>>
>> --
>> Julian.
>> ----------
>> General Melchett from Blackadder describing
>> his regiments coat of arms:
>> ". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
>> of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."
--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."
) you need