What is Fair Share?

[ssd]

Trampled:
Compare poverty in the US to poverty in Africa.

Wanna switch?


Sorry but poor to me does not mean 1 or 2 cars or a plasma TV or cable.

I grew up poor. I didn't have those things. And I told myself very early on that one day I would.

 

[Duff Miver]

I have worked plenty hard writing my software code and testing and backtesting my trading system; getting up for the Asian and European market openings for many, many years; reading and re-reading books about trading and about trading legends. I've put in a lot of effort and it has paid off for me - but do not tell me that I did not work for it.

Hooray for you. I'll tell you something which you will one day learn....probably the hard way:

1. Trading creates nothing of value.

2. No matter how bright, how fast, how informed you are. there will always be someone better, and you will eventually get your clock cleaned. Unless you are smart enough to quit while you're ahead.

Alas, gamblers think they can beat the house.

3. Veggies will always be worth something.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I guess the whole charity thing, when it gets right down to it, is WHY you are donating to the charity? In my mind, REAL charity shouldn't be about the tax deduction. And I do agree that this might cut charitable causes, because some probably are doing it in large part because of the deductions. Otherwise, it shouldn't affect things all that much, right?

You will certainly see charitable contributions drop when they are no longer deductible--can't see that being a good thing regardless of reason for giving. I think regardless of reason--one giving voluntarily to those he chooses is better than being forced to give by others to beneficiaries of their choice-
-it's the old conservative vs liberal values thing.


-and I'm not as concerned about peoples reasons for giving as I am about the reasons people don't give -especially those ranting about poor the loudest.

Appears we have two types of generousity--
-- one side with their own money and one side with others peoples money.

Per data below--not hard to see why one side is for deductions and other side could care less :SIB
=========================
these archives sure come in handy

Here's the facts once again on the character of charity preaching liberals when its their dime.

Obama's 2002 return--
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...tax_return.pdf

Gave less than 1/2 of 1% to charity--of course he was still paying off those credit cards.

Biden a whooping $195 to chairty
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/presre...Biden_1998.pdf

--and common knowledge on Kerry and Gore

"Two America's"-Kerry tax returns (1995 & 1991)have 2 years where he donate """0"""" to charity

Gore 1997- $353

---now on other side of fence we have the greedy conservative as portrayed by drive by media--
GW--heres a few from Goggle ranging from $82,000 to $334,000
1998
http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/105283.html


Cheney--how many million and which year you want?????

Ok lets drop down to Sarah Palin have 2 years on her--06 ($4,250) and 07 ($3,325)----
and thats with 4 children and one being special needs.

Hmm more than years reported on Gumby-Biden-Kerry and Gore COMBINED--

This should once again --clear up any questions on chartity.

 

[Cie]

My question to dems on the board is simple. Do you really want to increase taxes before we put an end to these irresponsible spending patterns?????

 

[Cie]

Trampled:
Compare poverty in the US to poverty in Africa.

Wanna switch?


Sorry but poor to me does not mean 1 or 2 cars or a plasma TV or cable.

I grew up poor. I didn't have those things. And I told myself very early on that one day I would.

Many of the 'poor' in these parts, and I deal with them when I handle investigations on apartment complex fires, have TVs on the wall, drive cars I could not afford until I was out of college 4-5 years, dress is designer clothes, own hundreds of pairs of shoes, carry coach purses, etc.

 

[ssd]

1. Trading creates nothing of value.

I do not see it this way.

It has created tremendous value for me. I can do what I want to be doing - in this case, my CSA garden, without worrying about making a living from doing it.

And I know full well the pitfalls of the market. My trading regimen and system undergoes constant tweaking - it works until it doesn't - then you have to fix it.

I understand the concept that trading has no value in the scope of the world. However, in this sense, do not hate the player, hate the game.

 

[StevieD]

My question to dems on the board is simple. Do you really want to increase taxes before we put an end to these irresponsible spending patterns?????

Without a doubt the problems run very deep. For every welfare cheat you name I can name a millionaire or corporarte tax cheat.

We have to get this country back on track before we can start fine tuning out the cheats. Just look at the gap between the middle class and the rich. How middle class wages have not risen and how exectutive pay has sky rocketed. How corporations have profited by sending their work over seas. Now, they expect our workers to work for those third world pay checks while they get millions in bonuses.

This is what must be stopped. Before we fell into this hole the Republicans dug for us Clinton had actually reduced the welfare roles.

Yes, I want to increase taxes on the wealthy. Let them pay their fair share overall. There is more to taxes than income

 

[Chadman]

You will certainly see charitable contributions drop when they are no longer deductible--can't see that being a good thing regardless of reason for giving. I think regardless of reason--one giving voluntarily to those he chooses is better than being forced to give by others to beneficiaries of their choice-
-it's the old conservative vs liberal values thing.


-and I'm not as concerned about peoples reasons for giving as I am about the reasons people don't give -especially those ranting about poor the loudest.

Appears we have two types of generousity--
-- one side with their own money and one side with others peoples money.

This should once again --clear up any questions on chartity.

I know you think by posting your links and opinions that that will "clear up any questions" on charity. I don't think you cleared up anything regarding MY questions. You posted some specific people who don't give much, posted some who do. You say YOU'RE not as concerned about people's reasons - which DOESN'T answer my question, it avoids it, and you change the subject. More of the same.

These people you mention - and plenty you don't - give for whatever reason. I'm guessing it is in some part, if not mainly, because they get a tax deduction for doing so - offsetting their tax burden and responsibility in the process. You can say that doesn't matter - that's fine. I say it does matter, because if that wasn't the case, then they should continue to give if they really care about the charity. I think the fact the wealthy that you point out would stop donating says a HELL of a lot about why they do it, and the fact that they would stop doing it.

The marginal donators, who don't make a lot of money - yes, I see that as being a concern. But I personally look at part of my taxes as benefiting many people. That has to be a consideration for those that don't cry out about their taxes being cut. Do I wish more of it went to good places and not to waste, fraud, other things I can't control, sure. But I do think their is a charitable value to some of my taxes. My opinion, of course.

 

[Chadman]

And, I note, no comments on my taxation opinions/questions - I guess those thoughts answered all questions about taxes...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

My question to dems on the board is simple. Do you really want to increase taxes before we put an end to these irresponsible spending patterns?????

:0074

You make things to simple Cie

Your correct- real and only question --do we spend less or tax more.

 

[Duff Miver]

However, in this sense, do not hate the player, hate the game.

Hate you? Naw. What you're doing is no different than going to Vegas. If you play really well, you might make some money. Win or lose, the house doesn't care; they always get their cut.

You know that up front, and it's voluntary on your part, so I don't hate the house either.

 

[Chadman]

:0074

You make things to simple Cie

Your correct- real and only question --do we spend less or tax more.

I agree with Cie - but it's not just a question for non-conservatives. It's for everyone. I think most people at this point are for reduced spending. It's WHAT you are choosing to reduce that is the point. Nobody wants what they personally believe in to be reduced. I'd propose again, and almost complete reduction across the board in spending, if nothing could be agreed upon. Whatever percent it might be... would be something to put up to all legislators currently in office, or anyone crying about cutting spending with only sharp cuts in one side of the political spectrum being on the table.

How's that? It will never fly, because we all have our personal views of what we should be about as a country...