For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!


Printer-friendly copy
Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #131166
View in linear mode

Subject: "Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy" Previous topic | Next topic
sophie tuckerWed Jun-13-07 01:43 AM
Member since Jan 31st 2002
6544 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"


          

here is a quote from an editorial on Nat'l Public Radio re: the rich folks keeping their money off-shore. the writer is Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who teaches public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.

"The new immigration bill may not make it through Congress, but that provision about paying taxes that are owed in order to be a citizen serves as a reminder that paying taxes is one of the major obligations of citizenship. After all, if we didn't pay the taxes we owe, we wouldn't have public schools, police and fire protection, national defense, homeland security, roads and bridges, Medicare and Social Security and all the other things we need.

So when the super-rich use offshore tax havens to avoid paying what they owe in taxes, they're reneging on their duties as citizens. It seems only fair to me that the consequence of that kind of tax avoidance ought to be loss of citizenship.

If it's more important to someone to avoid paying what they owe in taxes than to continue being an American, then let them keep their money. They can become a citizen of the Cayman Islands, or Bermuda, or wherever else they store their wealth, and come here on a visitor's visa. If they can get one."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/24/AM200705242.html

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
1
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
2
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
3
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
5
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
6
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
7
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
8
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
10
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 04th 2007
13
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
14
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
15
                     RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
16
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
20
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
39
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
21
                     RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
23
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
24
                               RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
25
                               RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
30
                                    RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
31
                                         RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
33
                                         RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
34
                                         RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
36
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
38
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
43
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
68
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
73
                                         RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
35
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
37
                               RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
27
                               RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
67
                                    RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
72
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
4
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
26
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 25th 2007
9
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 26th 2007
11
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
May 26th 2007
12
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
17
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
18
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
19
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
22
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
28
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
29
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 05th 2007
32
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
48
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
49
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
40
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
41
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
42
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
44
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
45
                     RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
46
                     RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
53
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
56
                     RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
47
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
50
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
51
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
52
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
54
                     RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
55
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
57
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 07th 2007
59
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
69
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 07th 2007
60
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 07th 2007
63
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 07th 2007
65
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
66
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 07th 2007
61
                               RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
70
                                    RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
74
                                         RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
75
                                         RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 10th 2007
76
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 10th 2007
77
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 10th 2007
79
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 10th 2007
82
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 10th 2007
80
                                                   RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 10th 2007
81
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 10th 2007
78
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 06th 2007
58
                               RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 07th 2007
62
                                    RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 09th 2007
71
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 07th 2007
64
RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
83
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
84
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
85
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
88
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
89
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
90
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
91
                     RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
92
                          RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
93
                               RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
94
                                    RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
95
                                         RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
96
                                              RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
97
                                                   RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
98
                                                   RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
99
                                                        RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
100
                                                             RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
101
                                                             RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
102
                                                             RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 12th 2007
109
                                                   RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 12th 2007
108
                                                        RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 12th 2007
110
                                                             RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 12th 2007
112
                                                                  RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 12th 2007
113
                                                                       RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 13th 2007
114
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
103
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
106
                RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 12th 2007
107
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
87
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
105
      RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
86
           RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy
Jun 11th 2007
104

basa48Fri May-25-07 01:46 PM
Member since Apr 18th 2002
1788 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#1. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


          

If only I had those sort of problems !!

Tone
Tone

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

ablibFri May-25-07 02:14 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#2. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


  

          

You could move to Vanuatu where there is no income tax like many do.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

JordanFri May-25-07 02:52 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#3. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


  

          

Anytime you utilize an exemption, deduction, or tax credit on your 1040 form you are avoiding paying taxes. So I guess that makes you a scofflaw. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a way far lefty who almost certainly uses the tax laws to reduce his tax debt.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
ShellyFri May-25-07 05:58 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#5. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 3)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Anytime you utilize an exemption, deduction, or tax credit on your 1040 form you are avoiding paying taxes. So I guess that makes you a scofflaw. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a way far lefty who almost certainly uses the tax laws to reduce his tax debt.


Another bit of nonsense. Exemptions and deductions are legal reductions of taxes owed writen into the income tax code to make it a progressive tax, and/or to encourage behavior beneficial to the national economy such as home ownership. You seem to be incapable of rational discussion of even a facitious statement by someone made to point out inequality in our society.

A "far out lefty" is anyone who does no agree with your confused opinions.

Robert B. Reich, one of the nation's leading thinkers about work and the economy, is professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. Previously, he was University Professor at Brandeis University, and Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis's Heller Graduate School.

Before joining UC-Berkeley and Brandeis, Reich served as the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor during President Bill Clinton’s first term and directed Clinton’s economic transition team at the start of that administration. Under Reich’s leadership, the Labor Department moved forward on several path-braking initiatives to build the skills of American workers, cracked down on unsafe worksites and on fraudulent purveyors of pensions and health insurance, and began a national initiative to abolish sweatshops. As Secretary, he also oversaw the enactment of the Retirement Protection Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the first increase in minimum wage since 1989.

Before heading the Labor Department, Reich was a member of the faculty of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He served as an assistant to the Solicitor General in the Ford Administration where he represented the United States before the Supreme Court, and he headed the policy planning staff of the Federal Trade Commission in the Carter Administration.

Professor Reich is the author of ten books including: The Work of Nations, which has been translated into 22 languages; the best-seller Locked in the Cabinet, published by Alfred Knopf; and The Future of Success, which in 2002 was ranked by Business Week magazine as the #2 best-selling business book. His latest book, Reason describes what America can do to achieve both high growth and widespread prosperity. He has written more than 200 articles on the global economy, the changing nature of work and the centrality of human capital. He is a consultant to many governments and corporations.

Reich’s commentaries are heard weekly on public radio by nearly five million people, and his columns appear regularly in The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and other major national newspapers. He is co-founder of and contributing editor for The American Prospect magazine, and is a regular economic commentator on CNBC.

In late 2003 professor Reich was awarded the prestigious Vaclev Havel prize (Prague), for his original contributions to world thinking and culture. In 2004, he was named one of America’s three most influential opinion leaders on business and the economy based on a study by Accenture.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
JordanFri May-25-07 07:38 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#6. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 5)


  

          

One person's tax reduction is another person's tax increase.
The rest of your reply is nothing more than a cut'n'paste.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
KJTFri May-25-07 08:18 PM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#7. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 6)


  

          

Quote:
One person's tax reduction is another person's tax increase.


Let me get this straight - If I don't claim all the deductions I'm legally allowed to claim, you think your tax, or someone's taxes, will decrease? And if I claim all the deductions I'm legally allowed, your tax, or someone's taxes, will increase?

Maybe that explains why my taxes have risen over the last few years - everyone else has claimed what they are entitled to.



Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
JordanFri May-25-07 10:36 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#8. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 7)


  

          

Ultimately, you and I pay the cost for government and if you pay less then I must pay more or vice versa.
The federal income tax percentages have been cut for the last several years. If your taxes have risen it is not because of the federal income tax.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
KJTFri May-25-07 10:57 PM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#10. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 8)
Fri May-25-07 10:58 PM by KJT

  

          

Quote:
Ultimately, you and I pay the cost for government and if you pay less then I must pay more or vice versa.


Ah, that explains the current Deficit Spending, the National Debt, and Federal borrowing - you haven't been paying your fair share to make up for what I don't pay.

Also, you haven't been paying enough to make up for your share of the current National Debt that your great-great-grandchildren will still be paying. Surely not all of that debt can be attributed to me paying less.

To sum up with a degree of seriousness, your premise as quoted above is absolute nonsense.

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
EdGreeneMon Jun-04-07 10:58 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#13. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 6)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
One person's tax reduction is another person's tax increase.
The rest of your reply is nothing more than a cut'n'paste.


Almost without exception, your "tax" is but a pittance of what you get back in services.
Yep, even you use government services, just like everyone else.
Army, Navy-Air Force; Marines.
Sewer, water, streets-sanitation.
Police-Fire; Health Department.
Social Security.

Don't want to pay your fair share?
Get the flip out, go to Albania.
You b|tch and moan about everything, yet you hang in, sucking up the good while enjoying all tthe creature comforts my taxes pay for.

I'd like for you to leave: never mind trying to keep the benefits I paid for: scofflaws like you are not entitled.

Go, take your sour grapes to... Mexico-see what that'll get you-gringo.

Try living off just your income whereever you go. But if you want all those other things you take for granted here that I pay for? Sewer-Police?

"Fuggeddaboudit"!

Pay for them out of your own pocket.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
giseudaTue Jun-05-07 12:17 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#14. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 13)


  

          

Wow!!! Ed Greene with his name calling and insults have made a joyous return.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
ShellyTue Jun-05-07 12:26 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#15. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 14)


  

          

What insults?

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
giseudaTue Jun-05-07 01:16 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#16. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 15)


  

          

Shelly....It's hard to find anything in that post that's not insulting along with the name calling.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
JordanTue Jun-05-07 10:00 AM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#20. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 13)


  

          

What is my 'fair share' of the taxes paid? If I file a form 1040 and pay the amount required, is that a 'fair share'?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
EdGreeneWed Jun-06-07 04:22 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#39. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 20)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
What is my 'fair share' of the taxes paid? If I file a form 1040 and pay the amount required, is that a 'fair share'?


As long as you pay taxes, it is likely "enough".

I would think no one here does not pay their "fair share" in that none of us have enough to pay for the tax dodges the ultra rich have at their disposal.

If on the other hand yours is a cash business, the bets are off.

If a person has numerous accounts that deal in cash services, or a business where one is allowed 2-3% "spoilage"?
No way they pay all their taxes.

Got a LLC that deals in cash services?
Got you cash registers dialed in to take advantage of a .216 hundreds of a cent tax collection rate and you round the txes you collect up to the nearest penny?
___________________________________
Actually, "Fair share" is whatever you pay so your conscious is clear.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
JordanTue Jun-05-07 11:10 AM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#21. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 13)


  

          

If I receive more in services than I pay in taxes how does that work? Do the 'poor' or the 'rich' make up the difference?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
KJTTue Jun-05-07 11:54 AM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#23. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 21)


  

          

Quote:
If I receive more in services than I pay in taxes how does that work? Do the 'poor' or the 'rich' make up the difference?


The easy answer is neither. You seem not to grasp the concept of deficit spending. The reason there is a National Debt is because the Federal Government spends more on "services" than it takes in in revenue.

Your heirs, probably neither rich nor poor, will pay the difference between what you received in services and what you paid. They are the ones who will pay more and receive less.

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
JordanTue Jun-05-07 12:14 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#24. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 23)


  

          

So who is doing the spending? Do pork barrel projects and tax laws designed to promote 'social engineeering' as the Godfather seems to favor contribute to the deficit? Would it make sense to insist your reps pare back spending, decrease services, or raise taxes to match revenue?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
KJTTue Jun-05-07 12:38 PM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#25. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 24)


  

          

The costs of so called "pork barrel projects" and "social engineering" pale by comparison to the estimated $320 billion dollar cost of the Iraq war to date. The appropriation for 2007 for Iraq is estimated at $378 Billion. I've seen sources indicating that the final cost of involvement will be between $1 and $2 TRILLION dollars.

It will take our heirs quite a while to pay this off.

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
JordanTue Jun-05-07 04:11 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#30. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 25)


  

          

'It will take our heirs quite a while to pay this off.'
Not if you and those who think like you will step up to the plate.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
KJTTue Jun-05-07 04:39 PM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#31. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 30)


  

          

Quote:
Not if you and those who think like you will step up to the plate.


Please explain what you mean - but keep in mind that although I'm retired on an almost fixed income, I'll never see a penny of the money I paid into Social Security.

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
pakoTue Jun-05-07 06:58 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#33. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 31)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Please explain what you mean - but keep in mind that although I'm retired on an almost fixed income, I'll never see a penny of the money I paid into Social Security.



Jim.

Too bad, I pay around $1200 yearly and get a refund of around $2500.
President Bush is good to us folks who know and like him.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
giseudaTue Jun-05-07 07:12 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#34. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 31)


  

          

Quote:
I'll never see a penny of the money I paid into Social Security.


If you're 65, why not? Unless the government has bumped the retirement age up.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
KJTTue Jun-05-07 08:26 PM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#36. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 34)


  

          

I'm not 65. I retired at age 55. Although I contributed a few thousand dollars to Social Security working miscellaneous jobs, I don't have enough quarters to qualify for SS.

My real employment was with government.

Some government employees don't pay into Social Security, but have other, better, retirement plans. I am one of those individuals.

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
JordanTue Jun-05-07 08:33 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#38. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 36)


  

          

How 'bout a poll? How many participants in this forum have gotten to retire at age 55 with a better retirement than Social Security?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
ShellyWed Jun-06-07 03:19 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#43. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 36)


  

          

If you're only shy a few quarters you can pick them up easy enough with a part time job.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
EdGreeneSat Jun-09-07 05:35 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#68. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 36)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
I'm not 65. I retired at age 55. Although I contributed a few thousand dollars to Social Security working miscellaneous jobs, I don't have enough quarters to qualify for SS.

My real employment was with government.

Some government employees don't pay into Social Security, but have other, better, retirement plans. I am one of those individuals.

Jim.


Yep, Railroad pensions being one.
By 1956, GIs were paying into Social Security whereas before, they paid into a pension fund, the name/designation of which I have forgotten.

All I clearly remember is those of us who entered service after Novemeber 1955 were paying into Social Security.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
giseudaSat Jun-09-07 01:37 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#73. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 36)
Sat Jun-09-07 01:40 PM by giseuda

  

          

I receive a disabilty pension (annuity) from the Railroad Retirement Board after suffering a major injury (on the job) in 1988. It pays significantly more than Social Security or Workmans Comp. If you had seen what I've seen in my career, you'd understand why.

By the way, I'd rather work.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
JordanTue Jun-05-07 08:10 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#35. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to KJT (Reply # 31)


  

          

'The appropriation for 2007 for Iraq is estimated at $378 Billion. I've seen sources indicating that the final cost of involvement will be between $1 and $2 TRILLION dollars.'
You Dem/Lib/Left Cut'n'Run cowards can defund the military at any time. Voila!


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
jazz4freeTue Jun-05-07 08:31 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#37. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 35)


  

          

Quote:
You Dem/Lib/Left Cut'n'Run cowards can defund the military at any time. Voila!


You may lay rightful claim to one distinction -- you are the flesh-and-blood personification of the non sequitur. And perhaps the most obvious and inept troll we will ever have the displeasure to encounter. Or, my opinion of you, just a stupid and objectionable man.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
ShellyTue Jun-05-07 02:35 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#27. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 24)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:
So who is doing the spending? Do pork barrel projects and tax laws designed to promote 'social engineeering' as the Godfather seems to favor contribute to the deficit? Would it make sense to insist your reps pare back spending, decrease services, or raise taxes to match revenue?


You conveniently forget that the last balanced budgets we had were under the Kennedy and Clinton administrations.

Forgive my accusing you of forgetting, you more likely didn't know. How could you find out watching Faux News.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
EdGreeneSat Jun-09-07 05:29 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#67. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 24)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
So who is doing the spending? Do pork barrel projects and tax laws designed to promote 'social engineeering'


What in the hell does "social engineering" mean?
You're so fully involved in Right Wing blather you can't ever say what you mean.

Quote:
as the Godfather


More cryptics signifying nothing. What/who is this "Godfather"?

(SNIP)
Quote:
Would it make sense to insist your reps pare back spending, decrease services,


"Pare back services"? That sounds and is ominous when one considers as the baby boomers come on, you would cut the very services the rest of us "elderly" take for granted.
"Ominous" in that "cutting back services" means you would further cut services to Veterans, the blind, alcoholics, homeowners-you get my drift?
But since you were being cryptic again, you need to tell us exactly which services you would cut?

Quote:
or raise taxes to match revenue?


"Ummm"; "errr"; "Taxes" are "Revenues". Unless you meant raise taxes to raise revenues?
Or were you just being cryptic again?

If William Jefferson Clinton taught me anything, it was basic governmental economics:
Make it possible for women and minorities to borrow money to start businesses (it was those two classes of Americans who created more than 300,000 jobs a month) (which Dubya hasn’t ever approached) which made this economy “HUMMM” right along during his administration).
That was just one of his “tools” used to in the same time frame (as Dubya has floundered) to balance the budget, which no Republican has ever managed to do, in particular the “no tax and overspend” Republicans of 2000-2006.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
JordanSat Jun-09-07 12:03 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#72. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 67)


  

          

'or raise taxes to match revenue?' You got me on that one, I really meant to say spending. As to your first two points check reply #5 on this subject. Regarding the cutback of services I could list quite a few I would like to see cut but you would not agree so I'm not going to waste the time. However, it seems you would only be in favor of increasing and expanding Government services.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

BobGuyFri May-25-07 03:09 PM
Charter member
2203 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#4. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


          

Quote:
Robert Reich, who teaches public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.


Maybe Robert couldn't get a job at another university, so Berkeley it is.

Quote:
So when the super-rich use offshore tax havens to avoid paying what they owe in taxes, they're reneging on their duties as citizens.


Hell that's just smart, legally avoiding taxes, and if congress really was worried about the few dollars overseas it would change the law.

Finally we can print more money just like we always have, after all it's just green ink on paper. It's not backed by gold, silver, or dog shit. Go ahead take that dollar bill to the bank and demand gold, or silver, and see what you can really get for it.

At least when the dog shits on a bare spot on the lawn, grass will grow there again. Heck if you grow corn instead you can turn it into ethanol to burn in your car.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
ShellyTue Jun-05-07 02:28 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#26. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to BobGuy (Reply # 4)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Robert Reich, who teaches public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.


Maybe Robert couldn't get a job at another university, so Berkeley it is.

These seem to be a rather good Resume:

Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. Previously, he was University Professor at Brandeis University, and Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis's Heller Graduate School.

Before heading the Labor Department, Reich was a member of the faculty of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.


Quote:
So when the super-rich use offshore tax havens to avoid paying what they owe in taxes, they're reneging on their duties as citizens.


Hell that's just smart, legally avoiding taxes, and if congress really was worried about the few dollars overseas it would change the law.

That is not "legally avoiding taxes" That is committing a felony!

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

JPFri May-25-07 10:51 PM
Charter member
9570 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#9. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


          

When taxation originally started in the U.S., it was only the well-to-do that paid taxes. The average citizen did not until the 20th century.
JP

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
ablibSat May-26-07 12:31 AM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#11. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JP (Reply # 9)


  

          

That must of been when the extravagant government waste started.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
sophie tuckerSat May-26-07 09:52 AM
Member since Jan 31st 2002
6544 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#12. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to ablib (Reply # 11)


          

Quote:
That must of been when the extravagant government waste started.




seriously, tho, the guy has a good point, tho nothing will ever get done about it since the people doing it are the ones making the laws. only someone with nothing left to loose could propose a bill...

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

pakoTue Jun-05-07 01:37 AM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#17. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


          

Sophie Sophie Sophie, It is the American Way girl. If we all were filthy rich who would be left to fuss about the filthy rich. Surely you can see that.

Sides, the President and I like to do with our money like we like to.





  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

bobboTue Jun-05-07 01:47 AM
Charter member
7376 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


  

          

For a little perspective; a number of years ago I worked with a Jewish gentleman, now deceased, who was a holocaust survivor. He once told me that he considered it an honor to pay taxes for the privilege of living in this wonderful country.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
sophie tuckerTue Jun-05-07 08:36 AM
Member since Jan 31st 2002
6544 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#19. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to bobbo (Reply # 18)
Tue Jun-05-07 08:38 AM by sophie tucker

          

thank you, Bobbo.

..........................

i don't consider this smart, nor do i validate it by being the American way.

people are angry because (among other things) illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, but it's ok if you're a millionaire?

also, whatever a minimum-wage earner would be paying in taxes would be a pittance compared to what these people are holding back.

if your neighbor wasn't paying taxes, wouldn't you consider that a situation that needed to be rectified?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
JordanTue Jun-05-07 11:14 AM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#22. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 19)


  

          

Would you hazard a guess as to how much tax a minimun wage worker pays? Alos, do you think it is your business how much in taxes your neighbor pays?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
VijayTue Jun-05-07 02:41 PM
Charter member
2702 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#28. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 22)


          

Can any one state who the 10 largest earners in the US are and how much tax they pay?

Vijay

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
JordanTue Jun-05-07 04:04 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#29. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Vijay (Reply # 28)
Tue Jun-05-07 04:04 PM by Jordan

  

          

The most current information I could find with a quick, cursory search provided information for 2003. Not broken down by individuals:
'A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.'
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
ShellyTue Jun-05-07 06:19 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#32. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 29)


  

          

That's why it's called a progressive tax, as opposed to a sales tax which is a regressive tax.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
JohnnyRebWed Jun-06-07 06:16 PM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
1549 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#48. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 29)


  

          

I just read that link. What a total joke! Only a moron would buy into this guy's argument that the rich pay MORE taxes when taxes are cut!

He claims that the share of taxes paid by the top percentiles has increased following tax cuts is a sign that they pay more. Yes, they do pay more, but only because the income gap has widened during the period. The rich paid more because they earned more, and their earnings grew disproportionately to the increase in their tax payments.

Yet again we find further proof that the National Review's main consumer group consists of idiots who lack the ability to think critically.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
JordanWed Jun-06-07 06:21 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#49. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Vijay (Reply # 28)


  

          

Two related stats you may be interested in:
1. Fewer Americans are paying federal income tax.
In recent years, the number and percentage of Americans who pay no federal income tax has increased. According to The Tax Foundation:

Forty-four million tax returns filed in 2005 will rightly demand the return of every dollar or more that is being withheld from their paychecks during 2004, according to the Tax Foundation.… In 2000, nearly 30 million people had no income tax liability; the 2004 number represents a 50 percent increase.… “Broadly speaking, the 44 million zero-tax filers are low-income, young, female-headed households, part-time workers and beneficiaries of the $1,000 per-child tax credit,” said Tax Foundation economist J. Scott Moody.

And Moody said that in addition to the 44 million who will have no income tax liability, there are another 14 million who will earn income, but will not earn enough to pay taxes, bringing the total number of Americans not paying taxes to 58 million, and Moody stresses that this is still an underestimate. He said the returns can represent households, which ups the actual number of Americans not paying taxes.<5>.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies

2. As US tax rates drop, government's reach grows.
Slightly over half of all Americans – 52.6 percent – now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That's up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass 55 percent, where it stood in 1980 on the eve of President's Reagan's move to scale back the size of government.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
EdGreeneWed Jun-06-07 04:44 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#40. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 19)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
thank you, Bobbo.

..........................

i don't consider this smart, nor do i validate it by being the American way.

people are angry because (among other things) illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, but it's ok if you're a millionaire?


"Errrr-mmmm": Sophie, they are only illegal. Those illegals who work (and most do) pay taxes, no matter what the dunderheads on the Right say and have you believing.

Quote:
also, whatever a minimum-wage earner would be paying in taxes would be a pittance compared to what these people are holding back.


Whatever they pay in taxes Sophie, they pay one hell of a lot more percentage-wise than do the rich; but you had to know that-right?

Quote:
if your neighbor wasn't paying taxes, wouldn't you consider that a situation that needed to be rectified?


Don't know how it works over there, but there are nearly 35 million American women who never worked one day of their lives but collect an average of $72,000 from the US government. How you say?
Their husbands worked while they stayed home.
The husbands died off leaving her his Social Security and all the health benefits.
What's the problem you ask? They will cost more as they age and they demand and get more and more benefits.
**Whatever we've spent on "Welfare" pales to insignificance compared to the "Welfare" we will dish out starting about 2015.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
jazz4freeWed Jun-06-07 10:44 AM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#41. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 40)


  

          

Quote:
Don't know how it works over there, but there are nearly 35 million American women who never worked one day of their lives but collect an average of $72,000 from the US government. How you say?
Their husbands worked while they stayed home.
The husbands died off leaving her his Social Security and all the health benefits.
What's the problem you ask? They will cost more as they age and they demand and get more and more benefits.
**Whatever we've spent on "Welfare" pales to insignificance compared to the "Welfare" we will dish out starting about 2015.


Jesus, Ed, it's nice to have you back, but must you insist on recycling the same old misogynous garbage. It stinks, big time.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
EdGreeneWed Jun-06-07 01:55 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#42. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 41)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Don't know how it works over there, but there are nearly 35 million American women


Quote:
Jesus, Ed, it's nice to have you back, but must you insist on recycling the same old misogynous garbage. It stinks, big time. :-(


The topic deals with taxes, who pays, paid and who does not.
Whatever you think, my very valid observation dealt with a huge population of people who paid no taxes-ever, yet draw the maximum of what they are allowed (entitled) from the goverment.

You see "misogyny" (because I mentioned widows?) I see and saw and pointed out a class of people, along with many others, who not only cost the "Average" taxpayer money, they too are a drain on public resources.
They are not the only non-rich Americans who comforably settled down to suckle at the public teats.

But then, you might not like this: there are many workers who pay into Social Security though huge populations of them never live long enough to collect benefits:
Black males for one, Mexican farm workers and other poor people for another; poverty kills people; poor working conditions, lousy health care-etc. the same.

Quote:
"...but must you insist on recycling the same old misogynous garbage".


Of course advising me that others had recently posted "misogynous garbage" (related to taxes) might have gone down a lot easier in a PM as opposed to your feeble attempt to upbraid me for my honest (and permitted) expression.

And how in hell did you extract vitriol from my again-honest observation?



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
ShellyWed Jun-06-07 03:30 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#44. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 42)


  

          

To be fair Ed, those spouses may have never directly paid a SS tax, but the money their husbands paid reduced the family income that would have existed if there were no SS taxes paid. The widows and minor children are entitled to those benefits. The working spouse worked and paid taxes to support the family.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
jazz4freeWed Jun-06-07 03:42 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#45. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 42)


  

          

Quote:
Of course advising me that others had recently posted "misogynous garbage" (related to taxes) might have gone down a lot easier in a PM as opposed to your feeble attempt to upbraid me for my honest (and permitted) expression.


You, Ed, not others, have posted "misogynous garbage" here.

And, as this is an open forum, your expression (no matter how offensive) is of course permitted, as is (no matter how feeble) my critique. This would be a damned dull place if we all chose to express our dissent backstage via PMs.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
pakoWed Jun-06-07 05:00 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#46. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 45)


          

You two please try to get along, learn how to argue without fighting.
One hundred years from now, no one will remember anything about it.

May peace of mind be with the both of you.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
giseudaWed Jun-06-07 07:36 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#53. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to pako (Reply # 46)


  

          

Refreshing!...The "Majestics" are having a spat.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
bobwWed Jun-06-07 10:05 PM
Member since Nov 24th 2001
2387 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#56. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 53)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Refreshing!...The "Majestics" are having a spat.


This dumber than a doorknob is not in this fray,however I am enjoying it

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
EdGreeneWed Jun-06-07 05:14 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#47. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 45)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Of course advising me that others had recently posted "misogynous garbage" (related to taxes) might have gone down a lot easier in a PM as opposed to your feeble attempt to upbraid me for my honest (and permitted) expression.


You, Ed, not others, have posted "misogynous garbage" here.

Not others, never? And why do you insist on "branding" or singling out my free speech with scurrilous invectives?
When the topic is women, can I expect you to always leap to their defense? Let some woman say she was offended by what I wrote (in context) and I might consider the circumstance and context. But you? You comments are out of context (off-topic) and ignored the content.
What part of what I said was untrue?
Quote:
And, as this is an open forum, your expression (no matter how offensive)


"Offensive"? To whom: you and your tender, chivalrous sensibilities?
If there is to be any comity between us, let it rest on the past, not from your recent insistence you have the right to publically upbraid me, or mischaracterize the tenor or intent of my (free) speech.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
jazz4freeWed Jun-06-07 06:29 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#50. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 47)


  

          

Quote:
What part of what I said was untrue?


That the benefits paid to these women is welfare.

Quote:
"Offensive"? To whom: you and your tender, chivalrous sensibilities?


Precisely! I'm in the habit of speaking for myself.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
sophie tuckerWed Jun-06-07 07:18 PM
Member since Jan 31st 2002
6544 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#51. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 40)


          


Quote:
also, whatever a minimum-wage earner would be paying in taxes would be a pittance compared to what these people are holding back.


Quote:
Whatever they pay in taxes Sophie, they pay one hell of a lot more percentage-wise than do the rich; but you had to know that-right?


Ed, i'm the one who started this topic, about the rich having $$$ they don't pay taxes on. Remember?


Quote:
if your neighbor wasn't paying taxes, wouldn't you consider that a situation that needed to be rectified?


Quote:
Don't know how it works over there


ed, i am from Over Here, Wal-mart and all. (tho i still don't do Wal-mart)

Quote:
but there are nearly 35 million American women who never worked one day of their lives


WHAAAAAAAAT???????????????????????

don't make me go there ed. i mean it. never worked???? are you off your nut?????????

do you expect these women to throw themselves on the pyre when their husbands pass away?


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
JohnnyRebWed Jun-06-07 07:34 PM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
1549 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#52. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 51)


  

          

Quote:
Let some woman say she was offended by what I wrote (in context) and I might consider the circumstance and context.


There you have it Ed. A woman offended.

And she has a valid point.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
EdGreeneWed Jun-06-07 09:30 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#54. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 51)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:

also, whatever a minimum-wage earner would be paying in taxes would be a pittance compared to what these people are holding back.


Quote:
Whatever they pay in taxes Sophie, they pay one hell of a lot more percentage-wise than do the rich; but you had to know that-right?


Ed, i'm the one who started this topic, about the rich having $$$ they don't pay taxes on. Remember?

Quote:
if your neighbor wasn't paying taxes, wouldn't you consider that a situation that needed to be rectified?


Still, the topic is taxpayers. Rich or not, my on topic comments had to do with those who never paid taxes, yet are eligible for substantial government benefits.

Quote:
Don't know how it works over there


ed, i am from Over Here, Wal-mart and all. (tho i still don't do Wal-mart)

Quote:
but there are nearly 35 million American women who never worked one day of their lives


Quote:
WHAAAAAAAAT???????????????????????

don't make me go there ed. i mean it. never worked???? are you off your nut?????????


Make you go where; and, are you (nuts)?
35 million is a conservative number. You overlooked the built-in caveat: I said American women, since I know nothing of other labor markets, then or now.
Before WW2, a huge majority of AMERICAN housewives stayed home while their husbands went to work.
When WW2 started, the men were gone and the women were needed to fill defense jobs.
It was only then when American women began working outside the home in substantial numbers.
Even during WW2, tens of millions of women got married right out of high school and stayed home. But you knew that.

Next, the American workforce had few industrial jobs for women before WW2, which further hampered their being employed.
Worse, the jobs that were available were usually unskilled, low-paying "women's" work. But you knew that too.
Even worse for women, the American workforce before WW1 and subsequent, was a mostly (white) male workforce, with little room for women or people of color.
It took massive amounts of legislation to undo that "Good old boys- "Affirmative Action" club.

Women were a substantial part of the WW2 workforce, but when the men came back, most of the women returned to the hearth, many never to work again.

"Single mothers", what there were of them-worked, as did widows. Single women worked at the jobs allowed them. However "back in the days", the single woman spent much of her time hunting a husband and being successful in her pursuit, stayed home afterwards; but you knew that.

Quote:
do you expect these women to throw themselves on the pyre when their husbands pass away?


Actually, it was when the husband died she had to go to work to support the family.
And of those who did and because they generally had few if no job skills, they had to take low-paying jobs, impoverishing the family.

So yes, tens of millions of (American) women got married and became stay-at-home housewives, never having worked a day outside the home..
That trend began before our Pioneer days and lasted until WW2.

You also overlooked the fact many men and women may have worked, but before Social Security became a reality.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
JohnnyRebWed Jun-06-07 09:43 PM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
1549 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#55. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 54)


  

          

I have no idea what you are talking about. I assume YOU do, but I doubt many others do.

Your discussion about women not "working" is juvenile. In the 1940s, 1950,s and 1960s women stayed at home. But they were not "idle" - they took care of the kids and the household so that the husband would not need to worry about these issues and could devote all his time to market work.

Today people take their kids to daycare. Are you willing to say that the individuals employed at daycare centers are not really "working?" Are the cleaners that people employ today not "working?" Non-market work is not the same as not working. If the women were not taking care of the home then that would have to be farmed out to others. In your eyes I suppose they would be "worthy" since they were working in the market.

Do you want to punish women because they lived at a time when women were not supposed to work? You said that much yourself in your previous post.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
EdGreeneWed Jun-06-07 10:20 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#57. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JohnnyReb (Reply # 55)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I assume YOU do, but I doubt many others do.


About a time in America when women did not work outside the home.
And women who, having never worked outside the home, nonetheless draw the benefits of their deceased husbands to the tune of about $72,000 a year.
Surely you got that?

Quote:
Your discussion about women not "working" is juvenile. In the 1940s, 1950,s and 1960s women stayed at home. But they were not "idle" - they took care of the kids and the household so that the husband would not need to worry about these issues and could devote all his time to market work.


That was not my intent with my post. I never addressed other issues with women and jobs outside my original post.

Quote:
(SNIP) Are you willing to say that the individuals employed at daycare centers are not really "working?" Are the cleaners that people employ today not "working?" Non-market work is not the same as not working. If the women were not taking care of the home then that would have to be farmed out to others. In your eyes I suppose they would be "worthy" since they were working in the market.


I am not willing to engage a battery of what are pointless rhetorical questions which I never inferred were the objects of my comment, the gist of it being women who never worked out side the home and who never paid into Social Security yet they are eligible for their husbands benefits.

Quote:
Do you want to punish women because they lived at a time when women were not supposed to work? You said that much yourself in your previous post.


I said what? I wanted to “punish” women; and for what?
I never even hinted at your horribly misguided misconceptions that I said: “…they lived at a time when women were not supposed to work”.

Those are ugly words and false assertions you are attempting to attribute to me and wrongly so, since I never said not inferred anything of the kind.

Reread my first post in this thread and this time, for content and context.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
Paul DThu Jun-07-07 12:28 AM
Charter member
10207 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#59. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 57)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:
...the gist of it being women who never worked out side the home and who never paid into Social Security yet they are eligible for their husbands benefits.



Those were not their husbands benefits - they were their family's benefits. Marriage in those days was a partnership. The husband was the breadwinner, the wife the carer. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, stay-at-home wives had no entitlement to any of the husband's income, either what came home or what went into Social Security.



Paul D

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
EdGreeneSat Jun-09-07 06:03 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#69. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Paul D (Reply # 59)


          

Quote:
Those were not their husbands benefits - they were their family's benefits. Marriage in those days was a partnership. The husband was the breadwinner, the wife the carer. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, stay-at-home wives had no entitlement to any of the husband's income, either what came home or what went into Social Security.


That is your logic and your infernce, thus your conclusions, no deeper or hidden meanings attended my comment.
Actually, each individual worker earns their benfits seperate and apart from a spouse. Social Security (and some pensions) stop upon the death of the named recipient.
Divorce severs spouses, children or not, so no "Family" implies to either participant unless there are children.
If one parent dies, the children's benefit stops at age 18 (unless they continue on in school).
If both die, the children again benefit. But if there are no children, the benefits stop completely.

My comment had to do with those who don't pay taxes but still reap benefits, the stay-at-home wives just one in that category.

There are those who worked but never qualified for "Social Security", yet can draw Supplemental (SSI) checks... from Social Security, the disabled who never worked among them.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
BenewahThu Jun-07-07 02:18 AM
Member since May 07th 2002
304 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#60. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 57)


          


"And women who, having never worked outside the home, nonetheless draw the benefits of their deceased husbands to the tune of about $72,000 a year."

How many people, male or female, do you know that receive benefits of about $72,000 a year? I sure haven't run into any lately.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
bobwThu Jun-07-07 12:27 PM
Member since Nov 24th 2001
2387 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#63. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Benewah (Reply # 60)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:

"And women who, having never worked outside the home, nonetheless draw the benefits of their deceased husbands to the tune of about $72,000 a year."

How many people, male or female, do you know that receive benefits of about $72,000 a year? I sure haven't run into any lately.




Not to get involved ,however I wonder to " whom is receiving $72,000 a year in SS benefits, perhaps he meant over the lifetime ! I might add ,for what the stay at home mom does,perhaps she should be getting that much

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
giseudaThu Jun-07-07 04:43 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#65. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to bobw (Reply # 63)


  

          

Kinda reminds of the country song "Mr Mom" by Lonestar.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
EdGreeneSat Jun-09-07 04:59 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#66. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Benewah (Reply # 60)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:

"And women who, having never worked outside the home, nonetheless draw the benefits of their deceased husbands to the tune of about $72,000 a year."

How many people, male or female, do you know that receive benefits of about $72,000 a year? I sure haven't run into any lately.

But you, like me, do not count in that we are anecdotes... and superfluous.
The likelyhood that we, as individuals, might "run into" somebody (unless you know the finances of say 43 women on Social Security) are remote at best.
*43: an actuarial figure that says if you find 43 people, the likelyhood two of them would have the same birthday-mothers named "Sally"-2.5 children-same handicap (if they are golfers)-etc. are nearly 100% possible.

So in a group of 43 "Golden agers" we might have "run into" 10 or more who cost us taxpayers at least $72,000 last year.
(The figure was derived by totalling their cash benefits and the number of services, including medical, received in one year.)
*Unless that is, you don't think Medicare/Medicaid, glasses and other federal medical and social services and assistance delivery programs are not worth it.
**Even "free" social services cost (someone) money (US.gov) to deliver the services-but you knew that-right?
***Google: "prorated expenses"

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
JohnnyRebThu Jun-07-07 04:27 AM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
1549 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#61. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 57)


  

          

Quote:
Those are ugly words and false assertions you are attempting to attribute to me and wrongly so, since I never said not inferred anything of the kind


You are correct. I was only referring to you saying they were not supposed to work. Not saying they should be punished. I suppose I wrote too quickly and the message got confused. I apologize for that.

But your statements lead to the conclusion, as Paul says, that the women are not entitled to benefits. And that is punishment.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
EdGreeneSat Jun-09-07 06:22 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#70. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JohnnyReb (Reply # 61)


          

Quote:

You are correct. I was only referring to you saying they were not supposed to work.


???!!
Where in hell did I say (or even infer) (quoting you): " they were not supposed to work"? Where did you get that totally wrong statement?
Where, in my post, can you find "supposed"?

Quote:
Not saying they should be punished.


I neither said or inferred that "punshment" tripe in my comment.

Quote:
But your statements lead to the conclusion, as Paul says, that the women are not entitled to benefits. And that is punishment.


You and Paul are both dead wrong in insisting I said or inferred "punishment" or "not entitled" anyplace in my statement.
It was both of you who want me to take the hit (blame) for your own erroneous conclusions.

One thing I do not do is not say precisely what I mean.
There are never-ever any cryptic or "hidden" meanings in my posts.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
JohnnyRebSat Jun-09-07 08:52 PM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
1549 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#74. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 70)
Sat Jun-09-07 08:57 PM by JohnnyReb

  

          

Read your own original post:

Quote:
but there are nearly 35 million American women who never worked one day of their lives but collect an average of $72,000 from the US government. How you say?
Their husbands worked while they stayed home.
The husbands died off leaving her his Social Security and all the health benefits.
What's the problem you ask? They will cost more as they age and they demand and get more and more benefits.
**Whatever we've spent on "Welfare" pales to insignificance compared to the "Welfare" we will dish out starting about 2015.


You infer that it is a "problem" that these women receive SS benefits that they never contributed to... There is NO other way to read this. And as such, Paul and my conclusions that they are not entitled seem to hit the nail squarely on the head.

If you always say exactly what you mean, then I assume you mean that they are not entitled.

And re: you saying they were not supposed to work:

Quote:
Next, the American workforce had few industrial jobs for women before WW2, which further hampered their being employed.
Worse, the jobs that were available were usually unskilled, low-paying "women's" work. But you knew that too.
Even worse for women, the American workforce before WW1 and subsequent, was a mostly (white) male workforce, with little room for women or people of color.


Basically, you said that the economy was not structured to accomodate female workers. That pretty much means they were not supposed to work...

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
giseudaSat Jun-09-07 10:24 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#75. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JohnnyReb (Reply # 74)


  

          

I almost pissed my pants laughing in this thread. Keep up the good work.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
EdGreeneSun Jun-10-07 01:29 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#76. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JohnnyReb (Reply # 74)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Read your own original post:

but there are nearly 35 million American women who never worked one day of their lives but collect an average of $72,000 from the US government. How you say?
Their husbands worked while they stayed home.
The husbands died off leaving her his Social Security and all the health benefits.
What's the problem you ask? They will cost more as they age and they demand and get more and more benefits.
**Whatever we've spent on "Welfare" pales to insignificance compared to the "Welfare" we will dish out starting about 2015.


Quote:
You infer


I did not "infer", I stipulated.

Quote:
that it is a "problem" that these women receive SS benefits that they never contributed to... There is NO other way to read this.


So? And why are you so anal about this? Rereading the statement tells you the "problem" is they will and have lived a long time and have been and will be a drain on resources: i.e.:
they are an "unfunded mandate" as the Right likes to b|tch about.
That is what was "inferred".

Quote:
And as such, Paul and my conclusions that they are not entitled seem to hit the nail squarely on the head.


Where, in that opening stanza, do I "infer" they are not "entitled"? Certainly their entitlement is "inferred" when you (you) read that they collect their husband's benefits, HUSBAND being the operative word?

Quote:
If you always say exactly what you mean, then I assume you mean that they are not entitled.


Your (your-you) problem is I write reading; you seem not to be able to read (or comprehend) writing.

Quote:
And re: you saying they were not supposed to work:

Next, the American workforce had few industrial jobs for women before WW2, which further hampered their being employed.
Worse, the jobs that were available were usually unskilled, low-paying "women's" work. But you knew that too.
Even worse for women, the American workforce before WW1 and subsequent, was a mostly (white) male workforce, with little room for women or people of color.


Quote:
Basically, you said that the economy was not structured to accomodate female workers.


I stipulated the workforce, not the "economy" was not structured for women or Blacks; and it was not.
So why are you whining?

Quote:
That pretty much means they were not supposed to work...


Bullshit. If you were to infer anything from what I wrote (above), you could say they were unable to find work or unable to work because there were few jobs for women and Blacks.

As I noted, you cannot read (or comprehend) what someone writes.
You managed (and always do) to distort evidence which is slapping you in the face.
My quote immediately above does not contain phrasing which would or should lead one to wrongly infer or conclude, as you did:
"...not supposed to work" out of the contextural content of the quote;
but then yours is so often a "Wolkenkukusheim" when it comes to words and their meaning.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
JohnnyRebSun Jun-10-07 02:26 PM
Member since Oct 04th 2002
1549 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#77. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 76)


  

          

You know Ed - you are a true ass.

ASk 10 people to read your post, and my guess is that 9 will come to the same conclusions that Paul, James and I did.

End of discusision.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
bobwSun Jun-10-07 02:40 PM
Member since Nov 24th 2001
2387 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#79. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JohnnyReb (Reply # 77)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:
You know Ed - you are a true ass.

ASk 10 people to read your post, and my guess is that 9 will come to the same conclusions that Paul, James and I did.

End of discusision.


How about 99 out of a hundred ?

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                    
giseudaSun Jun-10-07 10:29 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#82. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to bobw (Reply # 79)
Sun Jun-10-07 10:56 PM by giseuda

  

          

I couldn't laugh any harder if George Carlin and Dennis Miller were on the same stage.

Throw in Redd Foxx too! He always brought the house down.

Attachment #1, ( file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
nightlyreaderSun Jun-10-07 03:00 PM
Charter member
3747 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#80. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JohnnyReb (Reply # 77)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
You know Ed - you are a true ass.

ASk 10 people to read your post, and my guess is that 9 will come to the same conclusions that Paul, James and I did.

End of discusision.


I read and understood what Ed wrote. I also understood where it was going because of some not reading what Ed wrote. Ed makes you read every word, none to be glossed over.

Nightly Reader

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                    
ShellySun Jun-10-07 05:23 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#81. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to nightlyreader (Reply # 80)


  

          

Well, there is the one out of whatever.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
sophie tuckerSun Jun-10-07 02:37 PM
Member since Jan 31st 2002
6544 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#78. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 76)


          

hi, ed,

so you are ok with wives and families (to a determined age) getting benefits, but it is regrettable that these women live so long, as they become a major drain on the gov't?

also, the generation of women who started in the workforce are at retirement age, just so as to put a crimp in the scheme of things. these are the women among whom it was common that they were paid less for the same job as men.

did you have any thoughts on the wealthy and tax avoidance by off-shore banking? just curious.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
giseudaWed Jun-06-07 11:30 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#58. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to JohnnyReb (Reply # 55)


  

          

Quote:
have no idea what you are talking about. I assume YOU do, but I doubt many others do.
I'm glad you had the nerve to say that. My dumbass didn't. He must spend alot of time talking to himself in the rubber rooms.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
sophie tuckerThu Jun-07-07 09:44 AM
Member since Jan 31st 2002
6544 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#62. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 58)


          

ed, are you saying that because women didn't work outside the home, they deserve little or no benefits?

also, I LIVE IN NEW ENGLAND. you need not refer to me as living THERE.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
EdGreeneSat Jun-09-07 06:34 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#71. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 62)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
ed, are you saying that because women didn't work outside the home, they deserve little or no benefits?


Never said nor inferred the content or context of your totally erroneous conclusion.
And even today, women go to school, get their degree and marry, never to work.

Can I help it if you folks want to "spin" everything you read?
That you won't take a statement a person makes at face value, always looking for some hidden meanings?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

JordanThu Jun-07-07 03:42 PM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#64. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to sophie tucker (Reply # 0)


  

          

How about the obligations of the corportions? Should they not be allowed to headquarter in the United States?
http://news.com.com/IRS+moves+to+close+tax+shelter+used+by+IBM/2100-1014_3-6189243.html?tag=nefd.top

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
EdGreeneMon Jun-11-07 03:44 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#83. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 64)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
hi, ed,

so you are ok with wives and families (to a determined age) getting benefits, but it is regrettable that these women live so long, as they become a major drain on the gov't?


I made an observation within the context of the OP. You and others chose to address me directly as if you needed clarification of what I posted, like you did directly above.
Worse, like pranksters, you and the others are consistent if not disingenuous: you ask either "do you still beat your wife" questions, or you post ridiculous statements which are not only rhetorical, but nonsensical.

Quote:
also, the generation of women who started in the workforce are at retirement age, just so as to put a crimp in the scheme of things.


Ah, another superperfluous-out of context question: how in the hell could the (my original observation) women be at retirement age if they never worked?

Quote:
these are the women among whom it was common that they were paid less for the same job as men.


That goes without saying.
_________________________________________________
Quote:
did you have any thoughts on the wealthy and tax avoidance by off-shore banking? just curious.


Those who voted for and consistently vore for Republicans should be asked that question.
You call it “wealth avoidance”, I knew it when it was known as “Tax shelters”, ostensibly done away with by Republican in Congress only to be replaced by pernicious, self-serving “tax” legislation written by lobbyists and industry people who would directly benefit from the schemes.
_________________________________
When I was a working Journalist, I followed the tax shelter shenanigans closely. While my own journalistic ethics have never been compromised, I gleaned enough information to be able to position myself (family) well enough to take advantage of some of the “crooked” advice.
I am a devotee’ of Warren Buffet and follow his advice religiously, as in not having too much “exposure” in stocks, keeping at least 1/3rd of my assets in cash and so forth.


As for “off-shore” banking schemes: They ought to be jailed, damn what is permissible by law, especially since those bastards wrote the laws in order to know how to flaunt their “victory” over the tax codes.
_____________________________________
I’m reminded of a conversation with a a doctor friend of mine who has been a sort of financial advisor for more than 20 years.
We met at a convenience store where I had just bought my weekly Megamillions lottery tickets.
“How much is the prize worth-Ed”?
“$87 million” I answered.
“You’re going to have to pay one hell of a lot of taxes if you win” he joked.
“I can’t wait to write that check Doc”.
“Atta-boy! You’re leaning how to think about money” he grinned.
_____________________________________
What do I think about the super-wealthy and their nefarious money schemes?
“Hang ‘em high”.
(But then, I think the same thing about unctuous Republicans of any stripe or ilk).



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
EdGreeneMon Jun-11-07 04:44 AM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#84. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 83)


          

Jordan:

Quote:
(SNIP)(SNIP) However, it seems you would only be in favor of increasing and expanding Government services.


Of course you're dead wrong.
Quote me from any thread where I ever suggsted such: I'll give you two days to find the document/quote.

But how else (to be facetious and rhetorical-at once) does one fund and service an ever growing elderly population, an ever-expanding general population, a growing need for military equipment-heath services, education-etc. on 2007 tax dollars in say: 2012?
That cadre of 10 fools running for President seem not to have wised up, and tniether have you.
It seems you and the other Right Wingers think you can run a country like Jesus feeding fishes and bread to the hungry masses:
just keep on dividing the same loaves of money, over and over and yet, there will still be enough services-loaves for everyone.
Your (their) really idiotic notion you can continue to cut taxes and raise enough revenues with your fiscsal bunko schemes is ludicrous on its face; stupid in the extremis.

Try this: let us say a military of some 2.5 million persons needs $500 billion this year.
You Republicans believe cutting the military budget so you can fund your tax cuts-the taxes from and of which the military needs.
That is idiotic-circular reasoning Republicans not only believe in, but promote as fiscal responsibility to a still gullible public.
All you have had to do with Dubya at the helm is mix your new brand of Republican “Voodoo economics” in with race hate, gun fears, abortion hating-etc. to blow economic smoke up the public’s arses.

"Baby Boomers" are going to eat our grandchildren's lunches. How? Why?
Cause they are your Moms and Dads and no way in hell will "Welfare" people: (read: Black, poor, immigrants) get things when you folks need them-no sir!
Worse for you Republicans, we're running out of enough working taxpayers and soon enough, those same Baby Boomers will begin to eat YOUR lunch.


Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 09:45 AM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#85. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 84)


  

          

I have a request, Ed -- give us five-thousand on the study someone must have conducted about the projected progressive, mile-by-mile, loss in tensile strength of monarch butterfly wings as they make their annual migratory flight south across the United States of America to their breeding grounds in central Mexico. Or better yet, ten thousand on the most ecologically friendly way to dispose of one's toenail clippings.

My God -- back in your journalist days your editors must have bled the marketplace white of red pencils.

And I thought I was the king of loquaciousness. The depth of my admiration for your tenacity alone finds no words to do it justice. I yield the throne. bow

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
giseudaMon Jun-11-07 11:41 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#88. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 85)


  

          

Quote:
I yield the throne

Now? Why not along time ago? Guess what? You lost! I had my money on Ed. He knocked you clean off your perch and now you admit it.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 12:51 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#89. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 88)


  

          

Look up loquacious, you mental midget. doofus

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
giseudaMon Jun-11-07 01:04 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#90. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 89)


  

          

Look up loser...You mental giant!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 01:37 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#91. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 90)


  

          

I did and, gosh, look what I found:

loser:




Main Entry: los·er
Pronunciation: 'lü-z&r
Function: noun
1 : a person or thing that loses especially consistently
2 : a person who is incompetent or unable to succeed; also : something doomed to fail or disappoint.

Whee!!! It's kinda fun getting back to to our childhood and playing in the sandbox again. Don't ya think?


Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
giseudaMon Jun-11-07 02:42 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#92. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 91)
Mon Jun-11-07 02:52 PM by giseuda

  

          

I have your picture too but I wouldn't paste it in any forum to make a stupid point. You've gone from low class to no class.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 03:07 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#93. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 92)


  

          

No, I agree, you are far above ever doing anything like that. bash bif

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
giseudaMon Jun-11-07 04:35 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#94. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 93)


  

          

If you have proof that I have, show it. Easy enough..no? I've never posted any forum members picture as you did.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 05:11 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#95. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 94)


  

          

Have to agree again. Your taste in photos runs more to lightning-struck outhouses and six-legged goats.

Anyhow, what's wrong with that picture of you? You submitted it here for public display. You look pretty cute with your hair all slicked back and everything. Hell, it's not my fault if they refused to throw in a tie when you rented the cheap suit.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
giseudaMon Jun-11-07 06:34 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#96. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 95)


  

          

Honestly, I don't know why you don't throw a cheap shot at everybody in this forum.

Yep, I bought what I was wearing at Wal-Mart that day, clothes, shaving cream, razor blades and hair-gel. I don't wear ties, my neck is too big.

Other than being an ass, why are you picking on my forum picture?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                    
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 07:49 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#97. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 96)


  

          

Except for the remark I made about your suit, which was uncalled for, my shots are seldom cheap and always narrowly focused.

Again you have done, As you invariably do, when you find yourself at a loss for words and left holding the shitty end of the stick in an infantile game of one-upmanship which you foolishly and gratuitously start...

Quote:
Now? Why not along time ago? Guess what? You lost! I had my money on Ed. He knocked you clean off your perch and now you admit it.


...you resort to a pathetic display of self-defensive whining.

You poor put-upon soul. Why are you asking me, in the heat of an exchange in which we obviously are pissed off with one another, why I'm being mean to you?

Jesus, now I feel like I've been asking a little girl in bobby socks and crinolines to step outside.

Creepy stuff... The best thing we could possibly do in future is to stay out of each other's face. I can think of nothing I could share with you which would be of any possible interest to you and, the same holds true vice versa.




  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                        
ablibMon Jun-11-07 08:29 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#98. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 97)


  

          

This is great!! Keep it up!! I'm getting the popcorn!

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                            
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 08:38 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#99. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to ablib (Reply # 98)


  

          

Unless you're really in the mood for popcorn, don't bother. As far as I'm concerned the nonsense has ended. Sorry to disappoint....

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                
ablibMon Jun-11-07 08:48 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#100. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 99)
Mon Jun-11-07 08:49 PM by ablib

  

          

For Giseuda's benefit...





Visit the Basement

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (gif file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                    
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 08:53 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#101. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to ablib (Reply # 100)


  

          

Fair enough.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                    
giseudaMon Jun-11-07 10:11 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#102. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to ablib (Reply # 100)
Tue Jun-12-07 03:07 AM by giseuda

  

          

Remarks removed on second thought.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                    
giseudaTue Jun-12-07 07:47 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#109. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to ablib (Reply # 100)


  

          

Geez....I think everybody got queezy after looking at me and then you throw in that ashen-faced James (Is James a mortician?)...Everybody lost their lunch.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                        
giseudaTue Jun-12-07 04:50 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#108. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 97)
Wed Jun-13-07 01:49 AM by Shelly

  

          

Quote:
Creepy stuff...


Yes, you're right. Posting another persons collage pic in a completely different thread is about as creepy as it gets.

Go to hell you bottom feeder!

Edited for language

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                            
ablibTue Jun-12-07 07:57 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#110. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 108)
Wed Jun-13-07 01:51 AM by Shelly

  

          

Quote:
Go to hell you bottom feeder!


LOL right at the throat. Are those comments going to be removed on a second thought?

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                
giseudaTue Jun-12-07 08:15 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#112. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to ablib (Reply # 110)
Tue Jun-12-07 08:53 PM by giseuda

  

          

No Adam...Not by me.

A few examples of people that didn't post pics for the collage: Jim (KJT), Ed Greene, and Chewey. It's not hard to understand why now.

If they don't edit or yank that pic he posted yesterday, they can yank me or at the very least, pull my pic from that collage..

No offense to you, thanks for your concern.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                    
ablibTue Jun-12-07 09:01 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#113. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 112)


  

          

You submitted your pic to the forum. It's fair game. If it's not to your liking use the "alert" function in the post.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                        
giseudaWed Jun-13-07 12:50 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#114. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to ablib (Reply # 113)


  

          

Ok..The alert function I'll probably use will not be posting any pics.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
EdGreeneMon Jun-11-07 10:57 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#103. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 85)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
I have a request, Ed -- give us five-thousand on the study someone must have conducted about the projected progressive, mile-by-mile, loss in tensile strength of monarch butterfly wings as they make their annual migratory flight south across the United States of America to their breeding grounds in central Mexico. Or better yet, ten thousand on the most ecologically friendly way to dispose of one's toenail clippings.


“Et tu Brute”?
Don't know nothing 'bout no stupid Butterflies-or toe clippings. But do feel free to ask me about the things I do know.

Quote:
My God -- back in your journalist days your editors must have bled the marketplace white of red pencils.


Actually not. We were told what the topic was and how long the article or editorial had to be: say-150 to a smany as 600 words long.
But you are correct: since I am no longer forced to follow the AP (or whatever) Style Book, and I am not restricted to writing concisely to a 2”, 3 column daily blurbs on technical or social matters, I do, like many of my sentences-run on.

Quote:
And I thought I was the king of loquaciousness. The depth of my admiration for your tenacity alone finds no words to do it justice. I yield the throne. bow


Ah, I would hope the smile is genuine? Or am I to be forever more “damned with faint praise” by you?

I have to remind you: you had nothing at all to say about the wealthy nor their money or their many times elegant flair when avoiding paying taxes.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
jazz4freeMon Jun-11-07 11:44 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#106. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 103)


  

          

Quote:
“Et tu Brute”?


Not at all, Ed. But you perhaps would have to admit that at times the both of us would be rightfully accused of having swallowed a huge portion of the dictionary. And I, for one, do confess to now-and-then belaboring a point well beyond its usefulness.

As for the issue of taxes: I have plenty to occupy myself about the subject here, where I complain about them, in Canada. What you guys south of the border do or don't do with your tax revenue is none of my affair and is one area where I have absolutely no opinion to offer.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
ablibTue Jun-12-07 01:07 AM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#107. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 106)


  

          

Quote:
What you guys south of the border do or don't do with your tax revenue is none of my affair and is one area where I have absolutely no opinion to offer.



Well there's a first!

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
JordanMon Jun-11-07 10:02 AM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#87. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 84)


  

          

?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
EdGreeneMon Jun-11-07 11:10 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#105. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 87)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
?


I'll take it your second ? was a posting mistake.

Otherwise...

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
JordanMon Jun-11-07 10:01 AM
Member since Jan 07th 2002
3946 posts
Click to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#86. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to EdGreene (Reply # 83)


  

          

?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
EdGreeneMon Jun-11-07 11:07 PM
Member since Jan 14th 2003
2649 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#104. "RE: Obligations of Citizenship for Wealthy"
In response to Jordan (Reply # 86)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
?


That ? must indicate you cannot read writing... or write reading.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #131166 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
Home
Links
About PCQandA
Link To Us
Support PCQandA
Privacy Policy
In Memoriam
Acceptable Use Policy

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.