spitzer on romney, taxes

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Real credible source, a guy who bangs hookers with his socks on and who still thinks Keynesion economics works! Hahahahahaha

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

You might have made the points using another source?

Spitzer should have disappeared in shame long ago. IMO

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You might have made the points using another source?

Spitzer should have disappeared in shame long ago. IMO

look, i know the guy's rep. but i saw the article on slate, so i posted it. so, there may be others who have made those points-but i figured i'd put it up rather than look elsewhere to see if someone who didn't hire hookers had made the same argument. now, whether the source is a good guy or a bad guy notwithstanding-the facts are the facts in that article, aren't they?
so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?


edit~come to think of it, i doubt it would matter who wrote it. the gist of it would still be ignored. i would imagine that many who post here have already made up their minds one way or the other.
i actually haven't yet-if i had to vote today, i'd probably vote for a third party candidate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

look, i know the guy's rep. but i saw the article on slate, so i posted it. so, there may be others who have made those points-but i figured i'd put it up rather than look elsewhere to see if someone who didn't hire hookers had made the same argument. now, whether the source is a good guy or a bad guy notwithstanding-the facts are the facts in that article, aren't they?
so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?


edit~come to think of it, i doubt it would matter who wrote it. the gist of it would still be ignored. i would imagine that many who post here have already made up their minds one way or the other.
i actually haven't yet-if i had to vote today, i'd probably vote for a third party candidate.

Making up ones mind would require thinking and weighing the issues. On this site it is mostly Bloods vs Crips decisions never come into play.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by jms62

Making up ones mind would require thinking and weighing the issues. On this site it is mostly Bloods vs Crips decisions never come into play.

ROR !!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?.

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

retirement ages need altering, i've been saying that for some time. typically, military and police/fire depts have had full retirements at 20, sometimes 25 years. in rare cases, 30 years service is required.

when my father joined the d.c. police dept, you had to serve 30 years to retire. then it changed to 20, he received full retirement while i was still in high school. he was 43 years old. his retirement pay and benefits are something that many would turn pea green with envy if they saw them. last i heard, they'd raised retirement to 25 years service. considering the rates of return any more on pension plans, it's no surprise that cities are in a tremendous bind. they used to make money while offering decent pensions-those days have been over for years now. yet no one in the govt agencies, city agencies, etc changed with the times. as interest dropped, they didn't change to go with those hits on pensions. now they're in a huge hole.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

retirement ages need altering, i've been saying that for some time. typically, military and police/fire depts have had full retirements at 20, sometimes 25 years. in rare cases, 30 years service is required.

when my father joined the d.c. police dept, you had to serve 30 years to retire. then it changed to 20, he received full retirement while i was still in high school. he was 43 years old. his retirement pay and benefits are something that many would turn pea green with envy if they saw them. last i heard, they'd raised retirement to 25 years service. considering the rates of return any more on pension plans, it's no surprise that cities are in a tremendous bind. they used to make money while offering decent pensions-those days have been over for years now. yet no one in the govt agencies, city agencies, etc changed with the times. as interest dropped, they didn't change to go with those hits on pensions. now they're in a huge hole.

My father was a police officer in NJ, joined the force at 23, got credit for 4 years of Air Force service in Germany and retired with a full pension at age 41. Hasn't worked since other than the occasional kitchen job since he likes to cook but always gets paid in $. Started collecting SS two years back, lives on the water in FL without a care in the world.
I do not condone this as being appropriate.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

I completely concur and it has worked in Wisconsin, by just making public employees contribute to their own pensions not cutting them fully.

Public employees should also not be allowed to double dip or have two or three pensions.

To receive a military pension one has to serve 20 yrs for 50% of the average of your top 36 months in pay and up to 100% for 40 years in. I think if you serve this country for 20 years at FAR FAR under what a public or private sector employee would be paid you deserve every cent of that pension. What more 40 years?

The teachers' union situation is the polar opposite of the military. IMO

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I completely concur and it has worked in Wisconsin, by just making public employees contribute to their own pensions not cutting them fully.

Public employees should also not be allowed to double dip or have two or three pensions.

To receive a military pension one has to serve 20 yrs for 50% of the average of your top 36 months in pay and up to 100% for 40 years in. I think if you serve this country for 20 years at FAR FAR under what a public or private sector employee would be paid you deserve every cent of that pension. What more 40 years?

The teachers' union situation is the polar opposite of the military. IMO

Obviously you do not understand me. I am fine with the amounts of the pensions I just think they should collect it starting at 65 no in their 40's.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

You are seeing the light here, J. Something has to be done about these pensions that the taxpayers cannot afford nor can get in the private sector. They will bankrupt this country. As long as the Unions are in the politicians pockets (overwhelmingly Democracts) we are doomed.

[Danzig]

i was looking up some facts and figures on the state of arkansas yesterday. i found it somewhat disheartening that the top employer in the state was the state government.
third highest with number of employees? the federal government.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

You are seeing the light here, J. Something has to be done about these pensions that the taxpayers cannot afford nor can get in the private sector. They will bankrupt this country. As long as the Unions are in the politicians pockets (overwhelmingly Democracts) we are doomed.

yeah, guaranteed pensions are a killer right now, with the current interest climate-and it's been bad for some time.
my biggest concerns about 401 k's are absolutely no guarantees, and the people working them for companies make HUGE money off them with the fees. that can be scary-some people are clueless about funds, and would be counting on money to be there...but if they screw it up, they won't have any money to retire with.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

your ideas aside, what do you think about romney's proposals, and how they add up? or don't add up? the facts remain, as frequent posts here have shown, that marginal tax rates are the lowest in decades and that the purported job increases haven't materialized with cuts in the wealthiests' taxes. the wealthiest are paying the lowest taxes in 80 years, yet job creation from those supposed job creators haven't materialized. meanwhile, debt and deficits have increased.
so, knowing all that, what do you think of romney's ideas?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

Spitzer also lacks credibility since he was a man drunk on power who governed as a bully who forced people out who disagreed with him (sound like anyone here?). He also is a Keynesion follower which are principles that have been proven to not work. He also left a mess in New York by banging a hooker with his socks on.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

Spitzer also lacks credibility since he was a man drunk on power who governed as a bully who forced people out who disagreed with him (sound like anyone here?). He also is a Keynesion follower which are principles that have been proven to not work. He also left a mess in New York by banging a hooker with his socks on.

so had he taken them off, would it have been less of a mess?????

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so had he taken them off, would it have been less of a mess?????

I'll defer the answer to that to Doug . . . .