So, we live in a country where everyday, people break their backs to further the profits and political interests of a corporate structure that hates individual rights, yet demands that its own structure be treated as an individual in the eyes of the law. Sounds a bit fishy to me.

On the subject of Kerry's tax on those in the 200k or over tax bracket. Bush claims this is a bad idea because many small businesses file their business taxes personally and a tax such as this would hinder small businesses abilities to grow. Kerry dodges that issue to try to make the small taxpayer feel that he will only tax millionaires. Well, there's an 800,000 dollar difference between 200,000 dollars and a millionaire. There are two solutions available, but neither of these two jokers care to explore this.

Solution 1: Make the millionaire's tax only apply to millionaires. That seems logical enough.

Solution 2: Correct the situations that make it more beneficial for a business owner to file their taxes personally. Then, allow small business to recieve a tax cut while forcing those making over $200,000 to contribute to the greatness of America that allow them to rise to wealth.

On the subject of healthcare. Let's take a nasty look at things. The liberals believe we all deserve healthcare, but we had 8 years of this philosophy under Clinton and I still have no benefits. The conservatives wonder who the hell will fund such an undertaking and they point to the socialized medicine of canada, what with waiting lists and other such nonsense. This makes me think a bit. If it's a given that socialized healthcare would create breadlines at the doctor's offices and ER's of America, then there is a moot point being valued by the conservatives (of which I count myself a member, proudly). If socialized medicine would create these pill-lines, then so would the reality of every american working hard to get benefits. Even if everyone worked hard enough to pay cash for all healthcare needs, there would still be these pill-lines. It could be the fact that our society NEEDS a certain amount of "expendable poor" that will never recieve healthcare, no matter what, in order to meet the needs of the priviledged many. Sorry, but we cannot take care of everyone. The recent revelation of flu-shot vaccine shortages underscores (but does not stand as sufficient proof) of this very problem. I hear that the suggestion is that we save these limited supplies for infants and the elderly. That's nice, but, if I may show a tinge of heartlessness, let's forget about the elderly and infants for a minute. They do less for our society than any other demographic. I will take the flu vaccine, I have at least 50 more years of living to do, I have a job that needs me there and I have people who would miss me numbering upwards of 50 (three on memestreams.net). Granted, there are about twice as many people who would fancy me dead, but we must prioritize, here. ... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

terratogen wrote:
] So, we live in a country where everyday, people break their
] backs to further the profits and political interests of a
] corporate structure that hates individual rights, yet demands
] that its own structure be treated as an individual in the eyes
] of the law. Sounds a bit fishy to me.
]
] On the subject of Kerry's tax on those in the 200k or over tax
] bracket. Bush claims this is a bad idea because many small
] businesses file their business taxes personally and a tax such
] as this would hinder small businesses abilities to grow.
] Kerry dodges that issue to try to make the small taxpayer feel
] that he will only tax millionaires. Well, there's an 800,000
] dollar difference between 200,000 dollars and a millionaire.
] There are two solutions available, but neither of these two
] jokers care to explore this.
]
] Solution 1: Make the millionaire's tax only apply to
] millionaires. That seems logical enough.
]
] Solution 2: Correct the situations that make it more
] beneficial for a business owner to file their taxes
] personally. Then, allow small business to recieve a tax cut
] while forcing those making over $200,000 to contribute to the
] greatness of America that allow them to rise to wealth.
]
]
] On the subject of healthcare. Let's take a nasty look at
] things. The liberals believe we all deserve healthcare, but
] we had 8 years of this philosophy under Clinton and I still
] have no benefits. The conservatives wonder who the hell will
] fund such an undertaking and they point to the socialized
] medicine of canada, what with waiting lists and other such
] nonsense. This makes me think a bit. If it's a given that
] socialized healthcare would create breadlines at the doctor's
] offices and ER's of America, then there is a moot point being
] valued by the conservatives (of which I count myself a member,
] proudly). If socialized medicine would create these
] pill-lines, then so would the reality of every american
] working hard to get benefits. Even if everyone worked hard
] enough to pay cash for all healthcare needs, there would still
] be these pill-lines. It could be the fact that our society
] NEEDS a certain amount of "expendable poor" that will never
] recieve healthcare, no matter what, in order to meet the needs
] of the priviledged many. Sorry, but we cannot take care of
] everyone. The recent revelation of flu-shot vaccine shortages
] underscores (but does not stand as sufficient proof) of this
] very problem. I hear that the suggestion is that we save
] these limited supplies for infants and the elderly. That's
] nice, but, if I may show a tinge of heartlessness, let's
] forget about the elderly and infants for a minute. They do
] less for our society than any other demographic. I will take
] the flu vaccine, I have at least 50 more years of living to
] do, I have a job that needs me there and I have people who
] would miss me numbering upwards of 50 (three on
] memestreams.net). Granted, there are about twice as many
] people who would fancy me dead, but we must prioritize, here.
] What good are infants and elderly if everyone in-between is
] dead?

Sometimes I wonder if any conservatives have ever actually met any Canadians. The lines and delays are a myth, unless you're in rural Canada, in which case there are issues.

Vile wrote:
] On the subject of Kerry's tax on those in the 200k or over tax
] bracket. Bush claims this is a bad idea because many small
] businesses file their business taxes personally and a tax such
] as this would hinder small businesses abilities to grow.
] Kerry dodges that issue to try to make the small taxpayer feel
] that he will only tax millionaires. Well, there's an 800,000
] dollar difference between 200,000 dollars and a millionaire.
] There are two solutions available, but neither of these two
] jokers care to explore this.
]
] Solution 1: Make the millionaire's tax only apply to
] millionaires. That seems logical enough.

Define "millionaire" for me. Is that someone who *makes* a million dollars per year, or is this someone who *has* a million dollars? It's easy for people to hide their assets - especially by placing them off shore - so the litmus test of possession kinda falls by the wayside. If it's someone that makes a million dollars per year, that seems more fair to me, but then there are all these nice adjustments to income that can be made - regardless of income - that bring the number back down. $200K for an individual is a hella lot of money. Besides, there is no specific "millionaire tax" to apply as of this date.

] Solution 2: Correct the situations that make it more
] beneficial for a business owner to file their taxes
] personally. Then, allow small business to recieve a tax cut
] while forcing those making over $200,000 to contribute to the
] greatness of America that allow them to rise to wealth.

Then how do you designate who is a small business? Is it based on the number of employees? What if you own several small businesses? (A common tactic for avoiding the rules that apply to businesses with 20+ employees, like mandatory health coverage) Do you penalize each business if any of the partners in that business own other businesses? That would keep Dubya from investing in a timber company that only nets him $84 a year. Actually, he probably invested in a timber company to clear his own land so that he could claim a loss, but ended up making a profit. Nobody knows for sure, especially Dubya, since he seemed to not realize where his bread was being buttered.

] The recent revelation of flu-shot vaccine shortages
] underscores (but does not stand as sufficient proof) of this
] very problem. I hear that the suggestion is that we save
] these limited supplies for infants and the elderly. That's
] nice, but, if I may show a tinge of heartlessness, let's
] forget about the elderly and infants for a minute. They do
] less for our society than any other demographic. I will take
] the flu vaccine, I have at least 50 more years of living to
] do, I have a job that needs me there and I have people who
] would miss me numbering upwards of 50 (three on... [ Read More (0.6k in body) ]

Dolemite wrote:

] Define "millionaire" for me. Is that someone who *makes* a
] million dollars per year, or is this someone who *has* a
] million dollars? It's easy for people to hide their assets -
] especially by placing them off shore - so the litmus test of
] possession kinda falls by the wayside. If it's someone that
] makes a million dollars per year, that seems more fair to me,
] but then there are all these nice adjustments to income that
] can be made - regardless of income - that bring the number
] back down. $200K for an individual is a hella lot of money.
] Besides, there is no specific "millionaire tax" to apply as of
] this date.

For the purposes of our domestic issues relating to policies, I would define "millionaire" as one who earns over one million dollars in a fiscal year. It would approach the aires of comunism to tax back incomethat was not taxable at the time because of current laws at the time. Watch Dr. Zhivago to see the pain iherent in such a system of operation. We don't want to eat the rich, merely keep them honorable in terms of their contribution to society. The rich benefit from having less theives, traffic lights and running water as much as the poor. Hell, maybe moreso! I've lived in places where there was no lines painted on the road. It wasn't Westchester County, NY. It was West Virginia, come to think of it.

] Then how do you designate who is a small business? Is it
] based on the number of employees?

No. It is, rather, based on net profits, annually. Besides, Rupert Murdock is not, at the moment, filing the FOX empire under his personal taxes. My last boss did. That business went under because the boss was an idiot. If taxed further by the government, it would have been worse and it will be worse for any business. Separating the profit from the business is important, excepting big buiness income. It's that way for the workers! Why not the bosses? I believe a small business is one that is not a chain, or a multi-million dollar enterprise.

What if you own several
] small businesses? (A common tactic for avoiding the rules
] that apply to businesses with 20+ employees, like mandatory
] health coverage)

Each business should be treaated equally. The profit of a human being in America should not relate to "each personal income, but rather, their net profits for the year. What I am saying is, let's run taxes like and open business, not a religious scripture.

Do you penalize each business if any of the
] partners in that business own other businesses? That would
] keep Dubya from investing in a timber company that only nets
] him $84 a year.

No, you nail the personal income. The business is a separate entity.

Actually, he probably invested in a timber
] company to clear his own land so that he could claim a loss,
] but ended up making a... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

While I applaud your points on the issues, I see that your proposals reveal a systematic lack of knowledge on How Things Work. That's why I advocate more than a duopoly of parties seeking to solve these problems: they are not solved by black and white answers. Continued polarization of the populace will do nothing to solve these issues, and create more internal conflict and resource squabbling. To wit:

Vile wrote:
] So, we live in a country where everyday, people break their
] backs to further the profits and political interests of a
] corporate structure that hates individual rights, yet demands
] that its own structure be treated as an individual in the eyes
] of the law. Sounds a bit fishy to me.

agreed on this one. Corporations have grown far more powerful than the founding fathers could've anticipated, and the appropriate checks and balances are not there. I would venture to say that there are no real governments in the world at this point. There are religions, corporations, and the UN. Governments are just the bankrolls for the above to pillage.

] On the subject of Kerry's tax on those in the 200k or over tax
] bracket. Bush claims this is a bad idea because many small
] businesses file their business taxes personally and a tax such
] as this would hinder small businesses abilities to grow.

This is probably true, but I've yet to see an objective study that proves or disproves it. Regardless, it's very easy to determine what the appropriate contribution one should make given their income. The problems come in defining income (see below). A flat tax is a good idea in theory, but you lose important mechanisms for incentives (a la home ownership, saving for retirement, education, etc). The ideal capitalist mantra would be pure fee for service, meaning that you pay for what government services you utilize. But that's not practical, unless you want a revolution every generation or so. I don't see either candidate doing a good job here. Bush will continue to break off the top 2% of earners in this country to appease them. Kerry has the right spirit in re-balancing this equation, but his programs are too damn expensive to pay for, so the tax burden will rise for everyone. And at somepoint, we've got to pay off our debt and fast. My solution here would be more fiscally conservative than Kerry, but not allow for tax breaks that Bush would seek.

] Kerry dodges that issue to try to make the small taxpayer feel
] that he will only tax millionaires. Well, there's an 800,000
] dollar difference between 200,000 dollars and a millionaire.
] There are two solutions available, but neither of these two
] jokers care to explore this.
]
] Solution 1: Make the millionaire's tax only apply to
] millionaires. That seems logical enough.

what defines a millionaire? this is where the tax system is truly broken in the US. There's no way to ach... [ Read More (1.7k in body) ]