Who will run for governor in 2010 from GOP if Pawlenty doesn't? (Warren: sale, insurance)

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

In the next year/ two, Pawlenty is going to be credited with doing to Minnesota what George W. Bush did for the country. I'm not sure what his current popularity rating is at, but plan on it going way down.

Bush is credited with running up the deficit after spending our tax surplus. Bush was a no-tax and spend like mad kind of guy which is the worst possible combination. TimPaw is no Bush as Bush was an absolute disaster. Thankfully TimPaw will run for Prez. If he wasn't running, he would have increased our taxes and caved. Right now, he is pretending to be fiscally conservative. But I'll take that.

Personally, I liked Bill Clinton a whole lot better than Bush. He actually was paying off the deficit. Many top earners won't mind paying more in taxes if they pay off the debt and reform welfare, make deadbeat dads be responsible etc. People may complain about Clinton's personal life but I think history will remember him as a great President. The person who wants to spend trillions more than he takes in is Obama. We will see where his popularity is in a couple of years. He will blame it all on Bush when he fails miserably.

[jmgg]

Since this is Minnesota and anything goes, my guess is Richard Simmons.

[gearedtowardssalad]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

Exactly, now you can elect a Dem who will increase spending and taxes.

I never understood how paying more taxes, if you make a good amount of money, is a bad thing.

[marmac]

Originally Posted by gearedtowardssalad

I never understood how paying more taxes, if you make a good amount of money, is a bad thing.

We already have that in place. Income taxes are based on a percentage of one's wages,thus the more you earn the more you pay.

The problem is that some who pay very little,want others to pay even more.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by marmac

We already have that in place. Income taxes are based on a percentage of one's wages,thus the more you earn the more you pay.

Although it's relatively easy for those at the very top to avoid doing so through various legal means. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it isn't quite as cut and dried as you state.

The problem is that some who pay very little,want others to pay even more.

I don't pay very little, but I'm also not sympathetic to those who make more than a half-million a year. I wish I could afford to have their tax concerns...

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Although it's relatively easy for those at the very top to avoid doing so through various legal means. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it isn't quite as cut and dried as you state.


I don't pay very little, but I'm also not sympathetic to those who make more than a half-million a year. I wish I could afford to have their tax concerns...

No kidding! Well said....

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Although it's relatively easy for those at the very top to avoid doing so through various legal means. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but it isn't quite as cut and dried as you state.


I don't pay very little, but I'm also not sympathetic to those who make more than a half-million a year. I wish I could afford to have their tax concerns...

I have to agree that those making more money probably pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes then those making an average income because of various tax shelters available to them (well to anyone but they have the means to take advantage of those more often). The only way to really eliminate this is to have a flat tax with no deductions.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I have to agree that those making more money probably pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes then those making an average income because of various tax shelters available to them (well to anyone but they have the means to take advantage of those more often). The only way to really eliminate this is to have a flat tax with no deductions.

I hear this argument all the time; the "rich" top 1% or > $350K per year have these supposed loop holes. Please educate me as to what these loop holes are again??? I'm all ears. I must have a stupid accountant. Sure, there are ways to smooth out paying your taxes (taking a loss one year versus another year) but in the end, you always have to pay accordingly.

Mysteriously, I have found the exact opposite (loop holes when I have a strong income year). As an example, when I have had strong income year, I lose deductions left-and -right such as mortgage deduction, a portion of child deduction, alternative minimum tax etc. Now this isn't folklore, this comes from personal experience.

So please do share what loop holes you are speaking of. I'd like to educate my accountant.

I do agree a flat tax would be the smart approach but that ain't happening! Our politicians like to "reward" their constituency. In reality, they only want to get re-elected to line their own pockets but I am suspicious of all politicians.

As to why people complain (make a lot and pay a lot)... That should be pretty obvious. No one would complain if there was a flat tax. But. Those "loop holes" work both ways. If you make $40K as an average American family and take your child deductions, mortgage deduction, personal deduction, charity, etc etc etc, you won't pay a nickel in taxes if you work at it. So that is how the lower 1/2 pay a measly 10% of the entire budget. How is that fair???

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I hear this argument all the time; the "rich" top 1% or > $350K per year have these supposed loop holes. Please educate me as to what these loop holes are again??? I'm all ears. I must have a stupid accountant. Sure, there are ways to smooth out paying your taxes (taking a loss one year versus another year) but in the end, you always have to pay accordingly.

Mysteriously, I have found the exact opposite (loop holes when I have a strong income year). As an example, when I have had strong income year, I lose deductions left-and -right such as mortgage deduction, a portion of child deduction, alternative minimum tax etc. Now this isn't folklore, this comes from personal experience.

So please do share what loop holes you are speaking of. I'd like to educate my accountant.

I do agree a flat tax would be the smart approach but that ain't happening! Our politicians like to "reward" their constituency. In reality, they only want to get re-elected to line their own pockets but I am suspicious of all politicians.

As to why people complain (make a lot and pay a lot)... That should be pretty obvious. No one would complain if there was a flat tax. But. Those "loop holes" work both ways. If you make $40K as an average American family and take your child deductions, mortgage deduction, personal deduction, charity, etc etc etc, you won't pay a nickel in taxes if you work at it. So that is how the lower 1/2 pay a measly 10% of the entire budget. How is that fair???

A lot of the loop holes are there for business owners. If you are a W-2 employee you don't have the benefits. There are plenty of deductions, tax shelters, etc. that you can take advantage of if you have the means. Do you own rental property? What is your charitable giving like? If you are a business owner you can deduct all kinds of things like health insurance costs, employee benefit costs, office expenses, etc. Warren Buffet had a good article on several months ago, maybe around election time, that outlined how he paid less proportionally in taxes then most of the people that worked for him.

[nateduluthnative]

As a conservative/libertarian, the GOP no longer appeals to me. The Dems may be pushing us off a cliff at 80 miles per hour, but the GOP were pushing us off a cliff at 70 miles per hour-either way, we crash. There are only a handful of true constitutionalists in either party on the state and national levels, so I have to throw in a Libertarian and Constitution Party candidate when I vote. The Reform Party is no different, Jesse gave us light rail and was a radical "environmentalist", he didn't govern like the libertarian he campaigned to be. As far as taxes, people should pay for the government they use and not pit class against class. It is no ones business how I'm educated, how much health insurance I buy,what kind of home or business I can have, and it is no ones business what I eat, smoke or drink, as long as my behavior is not harming anyone else(yes, I said HARM and not OFFEND). The government is there to protect life and to protect the individual from force and fraud, not to redistribute wealth and property!