Is it time to resurrect the "Georgia will go blue" threads from 2008? (home, schools)

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well said, Neil. It's disgusting how many people are living off the government (i.e., the citizens who are paying taxes). That includes cities, states and counties, too.

I don't have any problem the general idea of stimulus spending, and in fact it wouldn't have bothered me to spend a good bit more; however, it should have been lasered in on infrastructure spending with absolute strict accountability and tight time limits.

Actually, I find this more disgusting:


Then there's this:



So yeah, the top 20% pay 69% of the taxes, but they have 93% of the country's money. The bottom 80% pay 31% of the taxes, but have only 7% of the money. Using a different graph, the bottom 40% don't even show up, but still pay 5%.

Please hold on while I feel bad for the ri..OK done. Maybe once those people making so much money and having to pay so many taxes actually start paying their lowly employees a livable wage, only then can we really start to even out the tax-payment responsibilities. If some big corporate CEO is going to pay his employees nothing while he gets paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year, then he's dug his own grave. When CEO salaries, and I'm sure managerial salaries as well, has skyrocketed in the last 15 years, average worker pay has gone up only 4.3% (while minimum wage has effectively gone down). Guess what...the lowest on the pole don't HAVE any money to pay because they aren't paid even close to a livable wage to LIVE. And that's the problem with this wonderful thing we call capitalism. The "market" has decided that CEOs need tens of millions of dollars a year to live, while the guy who keeps his whole office clean makes only $14,000 a year.

Hold on while I grab another tissue. I'm sure those that pay very little or nothing in taxes would LOVE to pay their fair share if it meant they got a fair, livable wage. But that will never happen.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Who is "refusing to give into the same system that gave them the ability to succesd?" You really need to understand and speak to facts.

I have no problem paying my FAIR share and contributing to my gov't, and all but the most extreme feel the same way. What I and many others object to is paying tens of thousands of dollars in federal and state taxes every year, while a majority pays absolutely nothing, very little, or gets back handouts in the form of programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and other refundable credits. Then, to add insult to injury, we're told it's not enough. We're "greedy" and "selfish" and made to feel like we don't do enough.

I have no problem funding what gov't should do and must do, such as build roads, fund schools, public safety, national security, some level of business and economic development, and other constitutional and necessary functions that I as an individual cannot do for myself. What I and many others (as expressed by the recent election) do not want is an ever growing gov't taking over the private sector, or one that passes ill conceived "stimulus" programs that anyone with a brain knew would not be effective and was merely wasted spending.

The state of Georgia has gone down the correct path. You cannot grow the budget and raise taxes in recession. Other states like NY, NJ, CA, MA and other more tax and spend leaning states have huge budget shortfalls, despite their increases in taxes and huge gov't programs.

Your argument/vision seems to be that middle aged people are greedy and sitting back in their houses counting their money, laughing while poor people and old people die in the streets. I don't know where you get that from, but the reality is much simpler. We pay the bulk of taxes. We see the tens (in some cases hundreds) of thousands of dollars come out of our paychecks every year. Now we're told it's not enough, while others pay nothing. We're saying enough is enough. No more. Cut spending back to levels we had when we were in our 20s. Get more earners paying taxes again. Remove ridiculous gov't regulation and mandates that stifle business and chase them offshore.

It goes on and on. Learn the facts and it becomes easier to understand the mindset of many middle aged people. We "invest" way more than we ever did in my parents' time. The difference is back then, everyone paid and spending on earmarks, waste, and people living off the gov't was not at the obscene levels it is today.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Actually, I find this more disgusting:


Then there's this:



So yeah, the top 20% pay 69% of the taxes, but they have 93% of the country's money. The bottom 80% pay 31% of the taxes, but have only 7% of the money. Using a different graph, the bottom 40% don't even show up, but still pay 5%.

Please hold on while I feel bad for the ri..OK done. Maybe once those people making so much money and having to pay so many taxes actually start paying their lowly employees a livable wage, only then can we really start to even out the tax-payment responsibilities. If some big corporate CEO is going to pay his employees nothing while he gets paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year, then he's dug his own grave. Guess what...the lowest on the pole don't HAVE any money to pay because they aren't paid even close to a livable wage to LIVE. And that's the problem with this wonderful thing we call capitalism. The "market" has decided that CEOs need tens of millions of dollars a year to live, while the guy who keeps his whole office clean makes only $14,000 a year.

Hold on while I grab another tissue. I'm sure those that pay very little or nothing in taxes would LOVE to pay their fair share if it meant they got a fair, livable wage. But that will never happen.

Let's look at the other side of that little coin. First of all, you lost me with the term 'big corporate CEO'; did you know that over 70% of the employers in this country are running shops with 16 employees or less? Hardly the picture of a fat cat that you would like to paint. These so-called wealthy are the reality of what the bulk of our economy is, these are the ones that lose sleep over how to keep their employees on despite a flagging economy and an increasingly burdensome tax system. My DH happens to be the head of a small company, so I know personally of the hardships that he has endured, the personal savings he has gone into, the cuts in compensation that he has taken over the last two years so that employees can stay on and a couple can even continue to keep their kids in college. Believe me, he doesn't spend a lot of time chomping on his cigar and laughing at the bundle of cash that he's making off the backs of his workers. That, my dear, is more the reality of 'Corporate America' in 2010 than is the naive anti-capitalist diatribe that I'm reading above.
Sorry if I'm sounding a little heated over this subject, but I take it a little personally since it's what comes home to me every night.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

That, my dear, is more the reality of 'Corporate America' in 2010 than is the naive anti-capitalist diatribe that I'm reading above.

Sorry if I'm sounding a little heated over this subject, but I take it a little personally since it's what comes home to me every night.

I'll chime in on this one, too. We have run small businesses all our lives and the reality is that when you do you are the one who puts in the longest hours, has the most at risk, and is the last to get paid if you get paid at all. Yes, you may have good years but it's because you've put everything on the line. In the lean years you may get little or nothing.

We have always treated our employees like family, and shown them the same dignity and respect we give our close friends. The ARE our close friends. We've bailed them out when they had trouble, and have always paid for their education when they or their families wanted to go further. And we have shared the profits when times were good.

I agree that there is a great deal of recklessness and greed in halls of some large corporations, and that it is totally absurd for some dude to make $20 million a year, especially when he's driving the company down the drain or living on taxpayer bailouts. But as LovinDecatur says, that is not the typical story of small business in America.

And if you don't believe me, then come on down and give it a try yourself. What's holding you back?

[RainyRainyDay]

I'm really impressed at the quality of discussion on this thread. I've been avoiding looking at it as I assumed it would just be a lot of the usual trading of stereotypes. Instead, there's a lot of good content here.

I'm 54 years old and was commenting to my husband (57) just the other day on how I feel our generation has blown it. We've frittered away some great advantages and allowed things to get into a pretty terrible mess. I think we've lacked vision and leadership and seem pretty much devoid of a spirit of self-sacrifice. Now the working class of this country has been abandoned in favor of investors making a quick buck by outsourcing, climate change is threatening the planet, the US has squandered a ton of domestic resources and foreign credibility by the war in Iraq. It's not looking like a good legacy at all.

Personally, I don't think more tax cuts are going to help us address any of these problems.

[Akhenaton06]

I blame agriculture.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

I think we've lacked vision and leadership and seem pretty much devoid of a spirit of self-sacrifice.

Well, I would disagree. Isn't paying 30 to 50% of your income to the gov't sacrfice enough? I'm asking honestly and sincerely....besides hard work and paying the lion's share of taxes, what self-sacrifice do you want?

Why can't I work hard, pay a fair share for our common gov't, give my thousands to charity, and just be left alone? Why do I have to "sacrifice" for anyone? Honestly...help me understand.

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

Now the working class of this country has been abandoned in favor of investors making a quick buck by outsourcing, climate change is threatening the planet, the US has squandered a ton of domestic resources and foreign credibility by the war in Iraq. It's not looking like a good legacy at all.

What exactly is the "working class" anyway? Are you implying that only low income or blue collar people actually "work" or what?

As for investors...do you have a 401K? We're all investors in many companies and many industries. The fallacy that somehow corporations are owned and run by some back room group of evil people is just that.

The war in Iraq... I won't rehash and go through the entire history, but suffice it to say that every major intelligence agency worldwide agreed on the threat. Bill Clinton agreed on the threat. The imperative of 9/11 made ignoring that threat impossible. To now go back with hindsight and try to revise history is a bit much.

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

Personally, I don't think more tax cuts are going to help us address any of these problems.

No one is really talking tax cuts. At least no one serious or in a leadership position.

What is being discussed is not raising the tax rates on everyone on Jan 1 by letting them increase due to Congress and the President failing to act.

What is being discussed is cutting spending and not introducing new taxes. We have let the spending part of the equation get out of control. The Republicans have proposed merely going back to budget levels in the 2008 budget.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Well, I would disagree. Isn't paying 30 to 50% of your income to the gov't sacrfice enough? I'm asking honestly and sincerely....besides hard work and paying the lion's share of taxes, what self-sacrifice do you want?

Why can't I work hard, pay a fair share for our common gov't, give my thousands to charity, and just be left alone? Why do I have to "sacrifice" for anyone? Honestly...help me understand. .

Totally agree. Paying 30-50% of your income in taxes, plus making charitable gifts and significant investments of time in your community is enough of a contribution in my opinion. I simply can't do much more than that and don't think I should have to, especially when a good chunk of it goes to people who commit crimes, drop out of school, ignore the rules, take government handouts when they are able-bodied, and basically won't hit a lick at a snake.

As to Iraq, I won't rehash it either but there were a lot of us who thought the intelligence reports were dubious at best, and that even if there was a threat it could not be effectively addressed by a conventional war.

[cwkimbro]

Neil....

You are going off on tangent arguments and missing all of the arguments I am making.

We have been going through a period of CUTTING taxes and a period of CUTTING investments on infrastructure over the past several decades. Every time taxes are cut people go off ranting on how we need to cut taxes again and complain about how taxes went up (when they never went up).

We could never start a new public project today as big as the interstate system that has dramatically changed how our country operates and grows.

The generations before the baby boomers spent more on infrastructure and paid more in taxes.

You are turning this into an argument on the progressive taxation system (Which has always existed and is growing less progressive), but ignoring the fact that we keep cutting taxes.

That is the central root to what I am saying.

When people read your arguments they think taxes have been going up and the tax system is more progressive, but in reality the fact of the matter is the opposite is true.

"Your argument/vision seems to be that middle aged people are greedy and sitting back in their houses counting their money, laughing while poor people and old people die in the streets."

Also, I am sorry. I don't care what you SEEM to think my arguments are. I care what my arguments ACTUALLY ARE. That is why you don't understand me. You aren't listening to me and you are filling in what YOU THINK I am saying.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

The generations before the baby boomers spent more on infrastructure and paid more in taxes.

Don't forget that the Boomers paid for a huge portion of the interstate highway system and most of the modern urban transportation systems such as MARTA, BART, the DC Metro, etc. Lots of other infrastructure, too. Boomers began entering the work force in the late 1960s have been shouldering much of the load for the past 40 years.

[cwkimbro]

But as their parents generation grew smaller from about the 70s on... taxes and infrastructure investments have been going down, while the baby boomers entered the peaks of their working careers. It isn't that they haven't been taxed, but overtime the taxes collections have decreased, often at the expense of infrastructure investments.

That is going to leave the next generation not just needing to expand infrastructure, but to pay for the costs of not always properly maintaining the current infrastructure we have. This is why the bridge in Minnesota collapsed several years ago and many of our nations bridges are ranked lowly as far as their structural condition. Most of the infrastructure condition grades and rankings have been falling over the past several decades.

It is like our society spent to make the system it has now, then just stopped and said ... we can live off this. But, in the meantime our country has grown so much that it is quickly not enough. Traffic is higher than it has ever been and structural conditions are lower.

As babyboomers retire, Generation Y is going to start working with infrastructure that is in more disrepair and traffic conditions that are much higher than when the babyboomer generation started working.

I will admit the funding for MARTA, BART, and the DC Metro, which also paid for Miami's and Baltimores single lines was a bright spot in the past few decades. However, even that federal funding was short lived and only lasted at a one period of time. I would rather see us have a system where we have consistent funding for growth, rather than these short spurts that can only go so far.

The other problem I guess I have isn't just spending on infrastructure, but where it is spent. Most of it is spent by local governments to make the next newest suburb further out of town, but that completely leaves out and doesn't fund the infrastructure needed to handle that growth regionally.