World Politics

Page 71 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I guess that would be by raising the tax rates on the poor and working classes and selling them material goods, or maybe by providing jobs in industry rather than government social programs?

If you use a consumer tax for the bulk it works best. The guy paying tax for the use and purchase of 3 Escalades and the 1000's of gallons spilled into them as well as his 6 homes will surely pay his fair share. Combined with a flat style income tax. The strange upside down system where I pay 27% and the guy making 10 million pays squat is pretty strange and not very progressive. The single Mom paying 1% of face value on a check to cash it in the ghetto is wrong. Part of the perks for banks to get 6,7 figure bonuses and offer golf vacations to those with 100k balances should be cashing the poor peoples checks for free, the cost of doing business (or being greedy) depending how you look at it. There are lots of numbers that show that 10% percent pay 40% of the taxes,maybe right I don't know just knowing the 20 different levels of tax laws I would guess that it should be more like the richest should pay 80% if we were playing on a flat even field.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
hektoren said:
As I've said before, repeatedly, a society should be judged by how it treats its weakest. A condescending attitude towards the "riff-raff" you make a living from, constitutes an F minus in my book.

I do not have a condescending attitude to most of the people I prosecute - I just have an intense dislike for their actions and the culture that finds those actions acceptable.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
hektoren said:
Modern science has found this nifty little thing they call DNA. It means, f'rinstance, that some people have a genetic makeup that makes them more susceptible to thrill-seeking than others, some run faster, some have blond hair, some are gay, some try drugs and get hooked first time around, some have a more confrontational approach to adversity than others, some have Down's syndrome, some like their Sancerre or Pouilly-Fumé along with french goat cheese made from raw milk (like myself).

Do you think it was DNA that made the woman in the article I linked earlier abandon 3 babies - or is it possible that it was based on her personal choice and the consequences for that choice correctly resulted in a criminal conviction?
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I do not have a condescending attitude to most of the people I prosecute - I just have an intense dislike for their actions and the culture that finds those actions acceptable.

I gotta hand it to you, you're really good at circumventing the jist of what I just wrote, and you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere in anything I've ever written that I find "those actions acceptable". Nevertheless, as there's a gulf between "understanding" and "accepting", there's also an Atlantic ocean between "trying to understand" and "Have a nice day".

Have a nice day!:)
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Do you think it was DNA that made the woman in the article I linked earlier abandon 3 babies - or is it possible that it was based on her personal choice and the consequences for that choice correctly resulted in a criminal conviction?

The answer to all of your questions is 42.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
fatandfast said:
If you use a consumer tax for the bulk it works best. The guy paying tax for the use and purchase of 3 Escalades and the 1000's of gallons spilled into them as well as his 6 homes will surely pay his fair share. Combined with a flat style income tax. The strange upside down system where I pay 27% and the guy making 10 million pays squat is pretty strange and not very progressive. The single Mom paying 1% of face value on a check to cash it in the ghetto is wrong. Part of the perks for banks to get 6,7 figure bonuses and offer golf vacations to those with 100k balances should be cashing the poor peoples checks for free, the cost of doing business (or being greedy) depending how you look at it. There are lots of numbers that show that 10% percent pay 40% of the taxes,maybe right I don't know just knowing the 20 different levels of tax laws I would guess that it should be more like the richest should pay 80% if we were playing on a flat even field.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

I have found the idea of a consumption based tax to be interesting but it is unconstitutional at the moment. Another potential problem is that wealthy incomes that do not spend would not pay taxes - after spending a short period of time while a law student clerking for an estate planning firm I am very aware that those with money are willing to pay an attorney as much to avoid taxes as they would have paid to the government in the first place (one reason I did not consider estate planning after graduation). I believe we might be better off with a flat tax above the poverty level with no exemptions but that is way too scary for congress to move on (it also does not allow for promoting economic expansion either).

Here are some numbers for were the Federal government is getting their tax money:

* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
I do not have a condescending attitude to most of the people I prosecute - I just have an intense dislike for their actions and the culture that finds those actions acceptable.

Scott...just as an aside and as an 'Ear' listening to your self justifications...you do have a very condescending attitude...sorry man, but that is how you are heard...at least by me...and believe me, I am noone.

As a member of the culture who obviously adds to "finding these actions acceptable" could I give a little advice and it is meant well and with good intentions: rather than finding stats and common facts you agree with, that justify your own position...and defending it no matter what facts and stats are given to you by others...rather than just simply looking for what you already believe...how about enjoying your position, your hard work, nay, even your luck...and opening your mind to the reality around you and giving it some thought and maybe even moving on and developing abit in this life...you might find this opens you up to alot even and especially via your own one life...what I mean is, rather than spouting off platitudes and finding likewise facts and studies from others in your position to justify and entrench your own bull****...to look around you and make some of your own judgments as to what is actually happening in reality at this moment...join some of us in the reality community.

you might find yourself a little confronted by different ideas...and some of your self defences and anger via your own society might fall away...the one nut in his castle is going to be one ****ing lonely last enclave... and perhaps, just perhaps, you have been very marred by idealogy...and from what I can read, I doubt it has done you much good in your innner life.

If I am wrong, let it go and forgive what I say...but you might want to get off your high horse at some point and your own life might be the better for it...just an idea fellow bike rider...
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Cash05458 said:
Scott...

If I am wrong, let it go and forgive what I say...but you might want to get off your high horse at some point and your own life might be the better for it...just an idea fellow bike rider...

Just as an aside - I my name is not Scott :)

It may not sound like it when I am typing, but I really do not dislike the life I have, I do think it could be better and know it could be worse.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
my apologies...there was one other lone nut in his castle arguing over these thousands of threads named scott...saying all the same very sad **** (sad in the sense of seeing someone so caught up in their own ideals and not dealing with what is Reality in their own society) ...but sorry...my statement was meant to you so take it and do what you want with it man...hope someday you find your way and I mean that.
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,078
2
0
scribe said:
Ya like him? Ya don't?

I think he's a weak as hell leader. Negotiates away his advantages up front and seems to assume the other side just wants to cut a fair deal. Naive as hell too. I sort of expected this. He didn't really have any leadership in his past.

I'm pretty sure he's a single termer. Sadly, there's really nothing to go back too. Republicans are just chock full of loonies today. I wonder what it takes to emigrate to Canada?
 
Mar 17, 2009
11,341
1
22,485
richwagmn said:
I think he's a weak as hell leader. Negotiates away his advantages up front and seems to assume the other side just wants to cut a fair deal. Naive as hell too. I sort of expected this. He didn't really have any leadership in his past.

I'm pretty sure he's a single termer. Sadly, there's really nothing to go back too. Republicans are just chock full of loonies today. I wonder what it takes to emigrate to Canada?

What makes him a weak leader in your view? What advantage has he negotiated away? Why does it "SEEM" that he "ASSUMES" the other side just wants to cut a fair deal? What makes you think he is naive? The last point (no leadership in the past) may be factually inaccurate depending on how you are defining it (scope, etc.). And the fact that you "expected this" wouldn't color your conclusion that he has occurred?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

And let me just say as a man who's lived in America all of his life (38 years) and followed politics and American history intensely, I find all of this absolutely amusing. And absolutely predictable.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
CentralCaliBike said:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

I have found the idea of a consumption based tax to be interesting but it is unconstitutional at the moment.

Just curious, and intended as a serious question... Why is it unconstitutional? Has it something to do with the rights of states v. federal gov?

Another potential problem is that wealthy incomes that do not spend would not pay taxes - after spending a short period of time while a law student clerking for an estate planning firm I am very aware that those with money are willing to pay an attorney as much to avoid taxes as they would have paid to the government in the first place (one reason I did not consider estate planning after graduation).

But in the case you highlight it wouldn't really be a problem, because hiring a lawyer or using a financial planner is 'consuming a service', hence would fall under a consumption tax. At least in theory I would assume...

One thing I found interesting when in US stores was first of all the 'sales tax' (being used to VAT) and secondly the fact that it wasn't already included on the price tags in stores.

I read somewhere that a randomized trial demonstrated that people's spending/purchase would go down x% when they saw the final price of the products on the shelves. Conclusion is that people buy more because they 'forget' to add the sales tax, which they'll only see at the registry.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Bala Verde said:
Just curious, and intended as a serious question... Why is it unconstitutional? Has it something to do with the rights of states v. federal gov?

This amendment is specific for income taxes. Why wouldn't they need to do one for a national sales tax?

The argument is that a national sales tax is a direct tax to the consumer, and as such, violate Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5.

This was already argued in 1796 and the Court decided that " the direct tax clause should be restricted to capitation taxes and taxes on land, or that at most, it might cover a general tax on the aggregate or mass of things that generally pervade all the States"


I found the above statements in a commentary of a blog but noted it followed something I remembered from law school. The XVI Amendment allows for income taxes (but you will find constitutionalists - not attorneys but a far right movement - who believe that this Amendment was never ratified and that the federal income taxes are also unconstitutional).

http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/article...


Bala Verde said:
But in the case you highlight it wouldn't really be a problem, because hiring a lawyer or using a financial planner is 'consuming a service', hence would fall under a consumption tax. At least in theory I would assume...

You might think that; my thought is the mentality that would spend as much to pay the attorney would be willing not to buy stuff just to prevent the government from getting any of their money. Also, I have known some wealthy people in my lifetime that did not spend much in consumption - usually it is the second generation that ends up spending, the third tends to wipe out the inheritance.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,966
1,391
20,680
Apropos of the earlier discussion on healthcare/insurance and this story on Cyclingnews http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/unitedhealthcare-announces-title-sponsorship good to see that they are using their customers premiums for a good cause. Wonder if that make patients who are turned down for expensive operations feel a little better. "Maybe they couldn't afford to save my life, but at least they are sponsoring a pro cycling team."
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Hugh Januss said:
Apropos of the earlier discussion on healthcare/insurance and this story on Cyclingnews http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/unitedhealthcare-announces-title-sponsorship good to see that they are using their customers premiums for a good cause. Wonder if that make patients who are turned down for expensive operations feel a little better. "Maybe they couldn't afford to save my life, but at least they are sponsoring a pro cycling team."

What they should have said is that they feel they will get more value for their advertising dollars from sponsoring a cycling team than from normal channels such as television and magazine adds (also, their CEO thinks it is really net to own a cycling team and cannot afford a major sports team like the Yankees).
 
Dec 3, 2009
14
0
0
Cycling shorts liner

Cycling shorts liner
Relatively speaking, ride-dress look is not important (as long as not too thin, transparent, dew on the trip), it is important that the liner. Inside the liner is more important, because it is we choose to ride rather than the gym shorts, pants reasons. This is JAGGAD cycling clothing cycling shorts web site professionals have told me.
qixing.gif

Liner material, it would not use language to express their own feelings, generally opt for the texture that's pretty good coolmax

Liner seams, joints are the most likely to cause injury, it is best integrated seamless lining, if there are seams, as little as possible, and do not in the file department, where the wounded recuperate, but not good. Sewn seams can only be concave (ie, pp, whether multiple, trouser press the multi-bian, pp also touched, joints)

Pants table cloth, cycling shorts, fabric general, there are two, one is Sweat-absorbent type, one is sweat type. The former is a type cotton fabric, fully absorb moisture, so that surface dry; the latter is a type yarn or polyester fabric, ventilation effect is good, easy perspiration, but the surface did not break sweat the net. Winter, with the former is better, in summer the two have their own characteristics, the former absorb moisture, but heat, which is cool but the tide

Appearance, unless the weather is too hot in China, most people do not wear cycling shorts and directly to the outside because the air quality is poor, cycling shorts, wet vacuuming dust is easily on the lower body is not good, so do not look too much consideration, the general The plain can be. Moreover, the effect of over-the appearance of flowers is too attracted the attention of someone on your lower body, resulting in inconvenience and misunderstanding between the opposite sex, so pigment was relatively low key is better (unless you think your lower body a work of art for everyone to enjoy).
 
Dec 3, 2009
14
0
0
Rim deformation and correction

Rim deformation and correction
As the car had snapped or the vehicle caused the car loop of loose deformation, generally axial runout (rim from side to side), and through to the beat (rim up and down). If the deformation is not too large can be adjusted in the car now, such as deformation of larger wheels can be removed, remove the tires, put on a flat ring device to adjust. Exclude axial beating approach: First, to readjust the bearings stalls, tighten screws to find the car ring axial runout size and scope of the section is flashing on the rim or the tire to make mark. If the right swing, pull with the first beat of the right segment pulled too tight on the faceplate of the car due to relax, and then pull the left faceplate too loose an appropriate tightening of the car; if left to beat, adjust the opposite way.
Ruled out by the beating method: first of all to exclude the beating of the heart will be beating a more compact segment about the car on the faceplate of alternating spin-song; and then centrifuged to exclude the beating, the beating of the car sections are relatively loose alternately tightened. If the rim is still beating, in addition to a good beating to adjust the tightness of truck segment, we should also adjust the beating of the elastic segment near the car.
Adjusting the car ring is a delicate work, bar cap nut for each spin momentum, not too big. Generally allow only rotating one quarter to one half weeks to adjust to the whole car circle runout is less than one mm, as the standard.
qixing.gif

Cycling training Shihai of wearing ride-dress, bicycle training due to collisions or wrestling, cars circle will have a serious distorting or "dead bend." Article vehicles using elastic methods can not be corrected, it can circle the car, tires and car articles (or part) removed, with a wooden stick or a hammer and knock on positive (when using a hammer percussion pads wood chips, to prevent the smashed cars circle). If the distortion of large ring on the ground the car with the two-foot flat. Space bar can also be used to the long axis direction of the car a short press, or the short axis direction of stretching. Then on the ground to mark a circle diameter of 670 millimeters, to be checked. If the car circle and the circle on the ground basically coincide, indicating rim oval have been removed. Corrected rim and then loaded on the train to the level of precise calibration on the circle device.
 
fatandfast said:
That was a smooth slam on the social agenda ! Wealth redistribution and private property rights all in one. Do they not have filthy rich people and private property in all the socialist countries we are talking about ? France and Germany and Italy to name a few. Are you saying that a person will have to park his or her limo at a casino in Monte Carlo?

We're not talking about a redistribution of wealth or the elimination of private property in the marxist sense, which, while arguably the most humane of ideologies and socially just, is not practicable (as we saw in the Soviet misadventure) because utopian.

We are simply talking about taking out of the American capitalist system the greed of the economically dominant class, with its corporate and finacial market agendas, to ensure that some basic human needs (like healthcare and education) are provided for by collective society following the European model.

For all the reasons Titan-90 mentioned above, the European model is simply more civil and just for all members living within the society. It is certainly far from perfect, but more civil than what one gets in America. While nobody in Europe, if they desire to become rich, are prevented from doing so from the State. However there are more rules to abide by, because the economic interests of the individual are not supposed to prevail over those of the community at large.

In America, just the opposite holds true: namely that the financial interests of the individual pervail over those of collective society. And this is ideologically, and therefore culturally, reinforced by the State itself: which gives tax breaks to the mega-rich (so that the famous "crumbs" falling down from the table of the rich will be more abondant for the poor - so-claimed Regan), does not spend public funds on healthcare (or at least in extremely limited quantities proportionally speaking) while letting the financial interests of the insurance corporations dictate who gets treatment and what kind of care, strongly promotes private funded education (which leads to huge student debt) and withholds from its citizens a number of other social programs that taxation in Europe provides for.

What has taken place since the Regan years in deregulated financial market capitalism, has simply lead to the rich getting richer and the middle and lower classes becoming increasingly burdoned with various forms of debt as their mean wages have not come up to meet the inflation rates, nor pay off the nation's debt. And the "crumbs" have of course not been falling in any greater quantities, because the rich have even been allowed by government to sweep these up for themselves.

And now with competition comming from overseas, and job outsourcing to cut labor and production costs being the sacred policy of the capitalist industry owners (not exlusive to the US), work opportunities in America have diminished as the job market has become less dynamic and increasingly tight. This as well as the recent financial crisis caused by Wall Street's insatiable greed and the US government's unwillingness to give the financial market strickter rules (that has led to entire savings being wipped out for millions of working class Americans), accompanied by immense public spending to bail the so-called financial gurus out that the next several generations of American workers will be paying for (while surly their wages will not be increased to meet this debt burdon, further weakening their financial status), not to mention the colossal military spending to fund wars on two fronts: has meant that the middle and lower classes in America today are worse off than they were a generation ago. And things will only get worse if change does not occur. These weaker classes are even made to take on the burdon of costly insurance policies for their family medical care and high tuition costs to educate their children, in addition to having of course to pay their taxes. Taxes which largely go toward paying for the military and the national debt. The latter mostly generated by a wealthy class who rules at the financial markets, the same wealthy class that has seen their taxes systymatically diminished proportionate to earnings, because supported by a political elite that caters almost exclusively to their interests. This amounts to a sitution that is not only scandalous from the point of view of American civilization, but offends the entire history of democracy and the emergence of the modern State going back to the Enlightenment period.

The very first thing that absolutely has to change in this unjust system, is that the rich have to be forced by government to pay their fair share to the collective community based on just proportional taxation, and no longer recieve the scandalous tax breaks the politicians have repeatedly given them over the past several decades. No more, no less, just their fair share. Wages need to come up for the middle and lowerclasses, their debt droped from, among other things, getting them off of credit purchasing (which higher wages would partially help, though a psychological factor needs to change too), and taxes need to also cover everyone's medical and eduaction costs. The markets need to be regulated more stricktly, so as to avoid the kind of financial collapse the bubble burst caused and to ensure relatively high protection of one's retirement plans.

So we are not asking for America to become a marxist state, simply one which ensures greater social justice for all those that make up the national community. To not effect these changes means that the nation is destined to see increasingly hard times for an ever growing and marginalized working class, while at the same time the financial elite become an increasingly and unjustly privliged class.

Is this the democratic model the nation wants to export globally? If necessary, by force?
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
rhubroma said:
The very first thing that absolutely has to change in this unjust system, is that the rich have to be forced by government to pay their fair share to the collective community based on just proportional taxation, and no longer recieve the scandalous tax breaks the politicians have repeatedly given them over the past several decades.

* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Edit/Delete Message

So I guess this is not considered to be their fair share:confused:

Since it is not their fair share, how much should they pay - percentage wise, perhaps a break down of what you think would be appropriate?
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,966
1,391
20,680
CentralCaliBike said:
* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Edit/Delete Message

So I guess this is not considered to be their fair share:confused:

Since it is not their fair share, how much should they pay - percentage wise, perhaps a break down of what you think would be appropriate?

Well the top 1% owns nearly 40% of the money so maybe that would be a more fair amount for them to pay?
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Hugh Januss said:
Well the top 1% owns nearly 40% of the money so maybe that would be a more fair amount for them to pay?

Under that theory the bottom 99% owns 60% of the money - where should they send it?
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Edit/Delete Message

So I guess this is not considered to be their fair share:confused:

Since it is not their fair share, how much should they pay - percentage wise, perhaps a break down of what you think would be appropriate?

Your numbers show the same thing that is suspected by the IRS.They reflect the amount paid of total taxes and not the % of income. The top 400 would be a great. 1.58 of taxes paid. Combine the incomes of the 400 and look for % it will probably still show a need for a flat tax. All these numbers always add up to 100's of percent
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,966
1,391
20,680
CentralCaliBike said:
Under that theory the bottom 99% owns 60% of the money - where should they send it?

Well according to your own figures out of their 60% they are already paying 65% of the taxes.
 
CentralCaliBike said:
* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Edit/Delete Message

So I guess this is not considered to be their fair share:confused:

Since it is not their fair share, how much should they pay - percentage wise, perhaps a break down of what you think would be appropriate?

The statistical analysis is misleeding, for the simple reason mentioned by HJ. 1% of the US population owns 40% of the wealth.

That the top 400 richest Americans pay only 1.58% of total income taxes is far from what they should pay if proportionally based.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts