Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
bxgrl, I actually think you and Legion are saying the same thing (unless I have serious lack of reading comprehension). No one is arguing that those that are suffering don’t deserve help. The question is at what cost to society and to the government. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.
I always loved this little fictional story about the teacher and his/her students which ties to the political debates that goes something like this….
A teacher wanted to teach his political science class about idea of socialism. He asked everyone to take the test and got a bunch of A, B, C, D, F grades. He gave everyone in the class the average grade of the class which was a B. The people that studied a lot were pissed off about getting a B while clearly deserving an A. The people getting F, D, C were really happy to get a better grade.
The next test, the teacher warned them that same process will happen so the kids who studied a lot for an A said screw it we just wont study as much cause we wont get an A anyways and the slackers kept being slackers since they figured others will study and get a better grade. The next test the average grade for the class was a C. The following test it was a D.
You all can figure out the conclusion of the teacher’s lesson…..
Why do all these discussions have to be all or nothing, 100% or zero?
I agree that inheritance taxes are double taxation, but I also think they serve a public good.
I think an inheritance exemption of a few million and an annual gift exemption of $20K with a 40-50% tax on anything over is a good compromise, and is in line with historic rates adjusted for inflation.
That is more than enough to handle the “I want to make sure my children are taken care of” situations.
i said it on here last week, that there are a few lawyers turned comedians….what does it say about the law profession.
Greg Giraldo (RIP) being the most famous. Al Lubel is another that comes to mind. Smart guy and underrated cause his comedy is smart, funny and well written.
“…but I was also raised to believe that you gave people a helping hand when they were down- if necessary, gov’t funded…”
bxgrl,
please site where I have ever said that you don’t give people a helping hand.
In fact, I went out of my way to state that we, as a wealthy nation, are obliged to.
You are once again missing the point of my initial statement which was this:
Government policies which seek to implement programs based on “to each according to his need, from each according to their ability”
are inherently at odds with the capitalist society which has successfully brought prosperity and promise to hundreds of millions of people from around the world.
Worse yet, they will not work.
I understand you lean far left, but I ask you not to confuse your political leanings with the reason our economy is in the state it’s in.
Sorry, yeah. So why can’t employees pay the tax then? And why not be able to carry a personal unemployment insurance policy? Premiums would probably be pretty nasty, though.
“Maybe UC tax should be changed so that employers and not employees pay it – sort of like Social Security. ”
Is this myth starting up again?
Employees do not pay unemployment insurance, at least not in this state. Employers do. And they pay based on experience. Employers who never lay off people pay less than those that do.
“Currently, employers pay federal unemployment taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 earned by each of their employees during a calendar year. These federal taxes are used to cover the costs of administering the UC programs in all states. In addition, the federal UC taxes pay one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provide for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.”
bxgrl, I actually think you and Legion are saying the same thing (unless I have serious lack of reading comprehension). No one is arguing that those that are suffering don’t deserve help. The question is at what cost to society and to the government. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.
I always loved this little fictional story about the teacher and his/her students which ties to the political debates that goes something like this….
A teacher wanted to teach his political science class about idea of socialism. He asked everyone to take the test and got a bunch of A, B, C, D, F grades. He gave everyone in the class the average grade of the class which was a B. The people that studied a lot were pissed off about getting a B while clearly deserving an A. The people getting F, D, C were really happy to get a better grade.
The next test, the teacher warned them that same process will happen so the kids who studied a lot for an A said screw it we just wont study as much cause we wont get an A anyways and the slackers kept being slackers since they figured others will study and get a better grade. The next test the average grade for the class was a C. The following test it was a D.
You all can figure out the conclusion of the teacher’s lesson…..
Why do all these discussions have to be all or nothing, 100% or zero?
I agree that inheritance taxes are double taxation, but I also think they serve a public good.
I think an inheritance exemption of a few million and an annual gift exemption of $20K with a 40-50% tax on anything over is a good compromise, and is in line with historic rates adjusted for inflation.
That is more than enough to handle the “I want to make sure my children are taken care of” situations.
People tried to do private unemployment insurance. Didn’t last long because those that signed up were too often making claims:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/your-money/08money.html
i said it on here last week, that there are a few lawyers turned comedians….what does it say about the law profession.
Greg Giraldo (RIP) being the most famous. Al Lubel is another that comes to mind. Smart guy and underrated cause his comedy is smart, funny and well written.
“…but I was also raised to believe that you gave people a helping hand when they were down- if necessary, gov’t funded…”
bxgrl,
please site where I have ever said that you don’t give people a helping hand.
In fact, I went out of my way to state that we, as a wealthy nation, are obliged to.
You are once again missing the point of my initial statement which was this:
Government policies which seek to implement programs based on “to each according to his need, from each according to their ability”
are inherently at odds with the capitalist society which has successfully brought prosperity and promise to hundreds of millions of people from around the world.
Worse yet, they will not work.
I understand you lean far left, but I ask you not to confuse your political leanings with the reason our economy is in the state it’s in.
Sorry, yeah. So why can’t employees pay the tax then? And why not be able to carry a personal unemployment insurance policy? Premiums would probably be pretty nasty, though.
denton, you were not arguing about the level of estate taxes, you were saying that inheritance should be completely taxed away.
Which is it, 100% or not???? Now you’re being an ass which is probably what Mrs. D thinks!!!! 🙂
jessi, also, soc sec paid 1/2 by employee, 1/2 by employer.
“Maybe UC tax should be changed so that employers and not employees pay it – sort of like Social Security. ”
Is this myth starting up again?
Employees do not pay unemployment insurance, at least not in this state. Employers do. And they pay based on experience. Employers who never lay off people pay less than those that do.
“Currently, employers pay federal unemployment taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 earned by each of their employees during a calendar year. These federal taxes are used to cover the costs of administering the UC programs in all states. In addition, the federal UC taxes pay one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provide for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.”