|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Gary Locke....A#1 Baboon!
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
![](/ubbmembers/840f.jpg)
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-28-2003 11:15 PM
The Democrats and Republican trade the same barbs over and over again and it is all nothing but rhetoric so they can grab as much power and pork money so they can get re-elected. Nothing new.
I see much of the government as a very large white-collar-welfare entitlement program. We have a federal tax code some 1,500 to 2,000 pages long (or it could be longer; I'm just going from memory) --and it is complicated primarily to keep an industry of government bureaucracy, tax accountants and tax attorneys employed. Many other government programs are similar. On top of that, it is one giant good ol' boys network.
Until the government applies some of the same rules to itself anyone running a small business has to endure, our standards of living are going to keep going downhill. The legal-insurance-medical industrial complex looks to speed that downhill slide.
The group health insurance policy at my work just came up for renewal in January. We get a nice 41% rate increase to pay. I guess the lawyers, insurance guys and medical administrators are all fancying some new $100,000 sports car that just came out. Too bad our political representatives won't step in to help in this madness. But then I can't afford to attend any of their $1,000-per-plate campaign fund-raiser dinners.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/372.jpg)
Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 01-29-2003 11:58 AM
Previous posters are correct that the reason the tax breaks are heavy to the rich is that the rich pay most of the taxes. Its just simply impossible to give much more income tax relief to the middle class and poor. Under Bush's proposed series of cuts, a family of four with a combined income of $40,000 a year (lower middle class) would go from paying about $1,500 in income tax a year to $45. This is accomplished not only by lowering the income tax rate but upping the child tax credit to $1,000. The child tax credit, for those who are interested in giving bush a fair shake ONCE in a while, is a very 'poor friendly' tax policy. If you are making $100,000 a year and have two kids, knocking $2,000 off your taxes is nice but isn't going to really be that big of a deal. If you are making $25,000 a year though and have two kids that is going to help A LOT.
But having defended the majority of the Bush tax plan I have to criticize part of it here; or rather the part that was left out. The poor and lower middle class may not pay much income tax anymore, but they pay a hell of a lot to SSI-social security. Twelve percent of every check (matched by employers) if I am not mistaken. Many people are paying more to social security than they are to income taxes. Now at first glance this might seem only fair, since they are supposed to be paying for their own retirement. Two things destroy that theory, however:
1) Income over $80,000 is not subject to SSI taxes 2) The money taken out paychecks does not go to a retirement account for the person whose check it was deducted out of. It goes to pay current social security to already retired people AND disability benefits to people unable to work AND death benefits to spouses and children, even if they are very young and haven't paid much into SSI yet.
The point? Social Security is a social welfare system, we might as well admit it. It needs to be better funded, and that funding can come from all that money that has never been taxed for it before (the $80,000 number I mentioned). The amount taken out of every check could be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced if all reported income was subject to SSI taxes, not just that under $80,000. Right now SSI is one of the biggest burdens on the poor in this country. Our social welfare system should not be funded almost entirely by the poor and lower middle class. Its just doesn't make any sense.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|