No, actually taxes are just evil, and not necessary at all.

Quote:

what is wrong is taxing at a rate less then what is spent and taxing workers more then the RICH REMEMBER capital gains tax is less then income PLUS SS tax rates by a lot so if you do Bill Gates taxes you will find his net gain vs his total tax rate is FAR less them the avg workers most of bill gate's BILLIONS WILL NEVER BE TAXED ESP IF BuSh2 kills the estate tax don't like bill gate fine pick any other guy with millions in stock options and figure their real tax rate on all the money they control the claim the rich are over taxed is a BIG LIE they just tax income not all money they are GIVEN stock options, dividends perks and freebees ect make a big un or low taxed part of the richs money

What Bill Gates, or any other successful person, EARNS is none of your, my, or the government's business.

while I would love to see a smaller cheaper goverment at all
levels bills must be paid
and SHOULD BE PAID IN FULL EACH YEAR
WITHOUT BORROWING

bill's income and total net worth is a matter of public record
as are most other people with real money

I'm sorry, that sentence makes no sense.

Quote:

and SHOULD BE PAID IN FULL EACH YEAR WITHOUT BORROWING bill's income and total net worth is a matter of public record as are most other people with real money

Ah, you see, it's public record because of the tax law; and you see, if there was no income tax, his income wouldn't be known to the public. That's how that works.

Either that or Europe is just more of a communist community than the US is.

I think you are wrong here. I don't think anyone except the gov has access to his income tax records. However his compensation is public as Microsoft is a publicly owned business. He gave up his privacy there.

And why does your friend that everyone is entitled to this at someone else's expense? The US is a great example of how throwing money at certain problems has no effect on them at all. Look at our public schools! We spend more dollars per student and get less for it than any other industrialized country. And why should all citizens have free health care? Why not a free house, three square meals a day and a free car? Where do the government handouts ever stop?

RL, did you attend public schools? BTW, I went to excellent ones (well, except for one year), as did our son.

No, I went to a prep school that cost barely more than DC spent (at that time) per pupil and they have a 65% dropout rate. My school had a 98% college acceptance rate.

Well, I think your lucky to have that opportunity, RL. Most aren't that lucky. It's a bit odd that you'd dismiss public schools out of hand based on your experience it prep school in an affluent area of NJ (Princeton?) compared to the sheethole that is DC public schools. In middle class suburbia, the public schools are often quite good. My son's was good enough to help land him some sweet academic scholarships to excellent private universities.

My childhood's hometown's public schools were excellent, as are the ones where I currently live. But when you see the test scores of American kids vs. those of others in industrialized countries and when you consider most of our major cities spend more $ per pupil than the average private school tuition costs, well, it's pretty obvious that more money won't solve any of our edumacation problems. So saying that every kid is entitled to a quality education is almost insulting to one's intelligence, since plenty of places in the US cannot offer that, no matter how much tax money they spend.

BTW, I'm not all that thrilled to be paying DC taxes to fund our crappy school system. But now I get to vote for the local politicos and try to hold them accountable. We have other social issues here that'll hold back the kids, too. Maybe, when we all really pay megabucks for gas, more of you suburban weenies will move into the city and help push out the dregs that have been sucking at the teat of DC's social welfare system. I won't be holding my breath on that. :D

If we abolished public schools in favor of private schools, how does the kid from the poor family come up with tuition money? Would an inner city private school have greater success than an inner city public school? I can see lots of reasons why it wouldn't make any difference. But then, I'm kind'a cynical at times.

After a weekend of doing this in western MD:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1161134486.jpg

rest assured, I'll never be moving into the gun-ban and crime capital of the US.

Well, I guess my view is that there are two factors involved. First is that any nation has to find some way to fund common infrastructure, commonly needed services as well as providing some level of support for those who cannot do so for themselves (e.g. crippled folks, those very ill etc etc...I don't mean those who do not want to work).

Second factor is the need to provide motivation for people to achieve, to be productive, innovative and industrious...so that they develop and produce the innovations and services we all want to have or use. That suggests that we need to ensure that those who are industrious/clever etc are in fact rewarded for their efforts in proportion to their degree of contribution. And face it, people are generally most motivated by the "what's in it for me" thing.

In my mind these are opposing forces and there is a balance in the middle. Too much skim by the government to service the "common need" results in demotivation of the average citizen. Not enough resources given to the common good results in ill health, poor educational systems, health systems and so forth.

The idea of progressive taxation typically means that there is a proportional increase in taxation (read contribution to the common good) for higher income. The Swedish (and Dutch I might add) is obscene in that it is a double wammy....not only does the absolute tax increase with income, so does the bloody rate of taxation....even more!

Effect? It means that Sweden (and Holland as well....don't want to criticize a fellow European too much!) risks having their best and brightest not bother to put forth effort to contribute, take risks, push the limits of technology as there is no reward. And if you believe that the high achievers are in it for more than just money (e.g. reduced taxation) then what about the upper third.....how about getting them going....or the middle....what makes them want to contribute more, work harder, smarter and longer?

A true story. I was living in Holland, wife got bored (degree in Math, computer science), decided to get a part time job. Hourly rate was Dfl 150/hr (about $60 at the time). She put in about 20 hours per week for 4 months. After the hit on my taxes (lost her as a deduction), her taxes, child care etc etc...net amount in our pocket was about $200. She stopped working.

In my mind, that is what excessive taxation gets you....

Dennis

Dennis nailed it...socialism and communism kills the incentive to be productive and inventive. Why bother, if the Govt. is going to take it all anyway? Thus, the "slacker" mentality. Economic freedom is a key to personal freedom as well. The Government doesn't create weath....

yep.

SORRY but you are wrong THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS
INCOME TAX INFO ON A PERSON IS NOT PUBLIC
BY LAW

STOCK MARKET REQUIRES YEARLY REPORTS
these contain THE pay rate of the officers
and their stock options and % of stock they own IN THE CORP
THE MARKET ALSO REQUIRES SALE OF STOCK AND CONVERSION OF THE OPTIONS DATA FOR OFFICERS to be reported along with DIVIDENDS PAID ect
from this public data it is possable to figure the ruff tax rate paid by a CORP's officers
and the amounts untaxed but earned in the stock holdings

then add in the perks, free travel on CORP's jets limo's
hotels sports skyboxs ect also stated in the reports
to get a ruff total wealth increase in a year
btw bill's total tax vs wealth increase in a given year
is way under 1% total tax paid vs the avg working man 20%
and the fooled sheep bleat the clain the RICH ARE OVER TAXED

BS

Dennis and Wayne mention one of my (IMO) strongest points.

Unfortunately, that does not impress my friend neither. I think he misses out on one fundamental aspects of human nature. Like any living creatures, true altruism is not a driving force. Egoism is. As pointed out - "whats in it for me" is what makes things happen.

And Dennis, you sum it up very well.

yes there was a hypothical 90% tax rate
but nobody paid that rate except a fool
oil depletion 3 for one credits and other loopholes
were a big part of the tax laws too

just as in Bill Gates case the earned and taxed part
is a very small bit of the real money he has made

The only fair tax is a flat tax. I certainly agree that government has to perform certain functions and thus must have an income stream.

HOWEVER, I think our government has gone from its origins of providing minimal services and allowing the states and local municipalities to control their doings to becoming this huge bloated Jabba the Hutt looking thing that tries to touch everything in our lives.

It has been proven time and time again that capitalism and allowing entrepreneurs to solve problems is the best and most expedient way to fix things. I think we should allow that to work to its fullest in our country. Take public schools. Jim correctly points out that simply privatizing public schools won't really work. A significant percentage of the population could not afford to pay the tuition and even if you lowered their taxes to help, it would not be wise to trust people to use that money on their kids. So, I think school vouchers is an excellent idea. Privatize the schools. Allow them to accept students and redeem their vouchers for cash from the government coffers. There should also be a bonus system for educational benchmarks.

I think you could apply the same standard for roadway maintenance, garbage collection, etc.

God help me, I'm sounding like Pat.

I generally agree with what Rick's said here.

The private school / school voucher idea sounds good in theory; however, the social fabric of inner cities is pretty screwed up. I'm not sure that private schools / vouchers will be successful in improving the education of inner city kids. Maybe the argument I'm making is wrong. A good private school gives the kids a chance. If they don't embrace their opportunity, they're out on the street. Of course, the resulting drop in attendance then impacts the financial viability of the inner city school. I'm just not sure how you make any of this work.

Schools in suburbia and rural America might benefit from this approach. I'm wondering if reasonable levels of competition can be realized to ensure the schools are motivated to provide the highest quality of education. Dunno.

Flat tax is fine by me. :)