text:
President Obama has consistently suggested our economic health could be corrected if the wealthy paid their "Fair Share."
What is a "Fair Share"? How is it determined?
If we are expecting some to pay additional taxes because they are wealthy, will there be consequences?
Do legislators consider how they affect the general public, today and over time, or are they only focused on their term?
We, the citizens, need to reconcile how those we elect affect our ability to have sustainable conditions. What opportunities will survive the actions of a government that intrudes on our personal situations to forward their agenda's?
I am truly interested in how the general public is affected by the government ... are they helping, or hurting your situation?
Mr Lundt
2:31 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Fair share means if someone else wants what you have----its not fair...so they take it.
3:22 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
I think our federal government spends about $12,140.00 for every man woman and child in the country. Individual income and payroll tax pays for 82% of spending, so that is about $10,000.00 per person. I think that should be the baseline for "fair share". If you pay less than that, in federal taxes, you are not paying your fair share. If you pay more then you are paying more than your fair share.
Young Conservative
3:23 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
You won't likely get an answer because they don't have one. It's just a strawman to bang the class warfare drum. I guess if you pressed them they would want 100% from the "millionaires and billionaires," with their own wealthy liberal elites exempted, of course.
When I hear the term "fair share" it brings into my head the thought "It's a whole lot easier to steal what someone else has worked hard to earn than it is for me to get off my lazy ass and go out and earn my own money."
3:26 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The 47% who pay no taxes include those who get more back than they paid in.
How can a family with an annual income of $15,000 get a "tax return" of $10,000?
I have seen this happen, I believe it is welfare relabeled.
Fair Share means those of us who pay taxes have to pay more to share it with those who are already receiving handouts.
Two weeks ago I went to the local market grocery shopping on a Saturday night. The couple in line in front of me were dressed to the nines. I couldn't figure out why they had the groceries divided..the first batch was paid with a quest card, the remainder was paid with a credit card. They left, I checked out. As I went to the parking lot to load my groceries in my ten year old Chevy, I spotted the couple loading their booty in a New Escalade with spinners.
I was buying ground beef and store brand rice to make a meatloaf go further, they bought Porterhouse steaks and name brand goods.
I wonder why we work so hard to get by, when others coast and live like kings?
Jay Sykes
8:15 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Craig.... It is the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) that gives a family with low income the 'refundable tax credit'. There is a fair amount of evidence that supports doing this over welfare and/or raising the minimum wage. The known list of measurable benefits include, but are not limited to: increasing teen employment, less total inflationary pressure, teach people to be less government dependent.
10:25 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Jay: How long before we know if it works?
Seriously, Obamaphones are advertised on television. Public schools practically beg people to sign up for free lunch programs.
Seems to me it is not working, though one might argue it is a lot of work to sign up for all the free stuff..
Jay Sykes
1:53 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Craig... No social program is ever perfect;we will never eliminate every cheater. And, some programs, like the Obama-phone are out of control and need fixing:
I'm not defending the existence of every Social Program, just that we aim for the best and most statistically significant results;I'm after the best bang for the buck.
If you google it you will find research that shows we can spend EITC dollars more beneficently than Minimum Wage Increase Dollars (remember Minimum Wage Law is a TAX) and get the same benefit for 1/4 the price tag for the taxpayer and at 1/4 the inflation pressure, too.
3:14 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I just want people to understand when they get more back than they paid in, it is a handout in some shape or form.
The Donny Show
3:40 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
flat tax is the answer. Would save billions of dollars. ALL INCOME IS THE SAME
Lyle Ruble
4:08 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The 47% that pay no income tax still payroll withholding taxes and sales taxes. Much of the shortfall could be eliminated if we stopped subsidizing multi nationals and other big businesses. There is nothing wrong with the progressive tax system that couldn't be easily fixed by limiting deductions. These should include limiting personal deductions to four and mortgage interest deductions to a maximum of $5000 per family. No deductions for second mortgage interest or mortgage interest on second and third homes. Also, if we increased the capital gains back to 25% and inheritance taxes at 25%. Also, a national sales tax of 2% on all purchases except food and drugs. A flat income tax is the absolute worst idea, hitting those that least afford it paying more of their income.
4:09 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Why is "fair share" based on how much you make? If I go in on a pizza my fair share is based on what I intend to eat.
4:14 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Let's not worry about how we get there, we first need to define "fair share". How do you define fair share?
4:19 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
National sales tax ?!
Holey Moley, let's just add a bunch of taxes.
Lyle, the problem with your ideas: none do anything to fix the spending addiction our Government has.
4:22 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Inheritance taxes are currently at ~45% Lyle- are you proposing lowering them, or eliminating the $2 Million exemption?
5:03 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The 47% that pay no income tax still payroll withholding taxes and sales taxes.
They pay no tax...after it is withheld, they get it all back and then some.
Lyle Ruble
5:23 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
@Greg....If you sit down to eat pizza and there are people there who don't have enough to cover their share, don't you pitch in a little extra so they can eat too?
Lyle Ruble
5:29 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
@Craig....Spending addiction? What part of the spending do you want to cut? How about cutting military spending by about $200 billion a year and let the rest of the world pick up their share. How about going to a NHS and eliminate all the healthcare blood suckers? How about we stop subsidizing big business. You want to reduce tax revenues, as I do, let's do some significant program expenditures where they really count. How about the decriminalization of drugs and save all that money and not have to spend billions. Come on, let's get creative.
Lyle Ruble
5:32 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
@Craig...I would be more than willing to limit the inheritance tax to 25%. Leave the first 2 million exempt, but implement a tax system without all the crazy deductions that benefit only special interests.
Lyle Ruble
5:38 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
@Craig...How do you figure they get it all back. They're not getting back what they pay into SS or Medicare. They don't get back the sales tax they pay in. They may get an EIC, but you try raising a family of 4 on just $23 k. Of course, to be such low income they must not be personally responsible and sitting on their fat asses in front of their 60" HDTV watching cable and pay for view while talking on their IPhone 4S.
Urban Pioneer
6:12 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Or we could and should go to a straight national sales tax. Eliminate the income tax altogether. Why punish folks for producing that's "progressively" Back assward.
Johnny Blade
6:22 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Lyle said "If you sit down to eat pizza and there are people there who don't have enough to cover their share, don't you pitch in a little extra so they can eat too?" But in Lyle's collectivist world you are forced by gunpoint or get thrown in jail if you don't chip in a little bit .. These sneaky collectivists
9:36 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
"@Greg....If you sit down to eat pizza and there are people there who don't have enough to cover their share, don't you pitch in a little extra so they can eat too?"
It depends. Why don't they have enough? Do they expect me to pay for their pizza everyday? Are they family, friend or neighbor? Why did thet agree to go in on a pizza knowing they were short? Do they want me to pay for their bowling too?
11:16 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Lyle: Regarding your reply #1: Agreed
Regarding #2: I like that idea, but how would we pay for it? That is some serious tax breaks.
Regarding #3: A family of four with an income of 23K...it is very possible they will get more back than they paid in Federal Income taxes.
re:..sitting on their fat asses in front of their 60" HDTV watching cable and pay for view while talking on their IPhone 4S...I believe you are referring to the exception to the norm. In order to afford this they obviously are involved in tax fraud.
11:32 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Lyle: If I sit down for pizza and have just enough to cover my share, what then?
Should I not eat so someone else can?
Many people are on that cusp...
Jason J
8:08 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Your pizza comment brings up many good points. My point is the first time or 2 I would help cover his cost, after that and the trend continues where he makes no effort to pay his "fair share" then he would be gently reminded to pay his share or not go out for expenses he can't afford.
Which is exactly what our Generational welfare crowd needs. Living on handouts and money stolen from others is not a "Fair share" so why do they keep getting the benefits?
Craig said it best those of us who are fiscally responsible scrimp and save to provide for our families and possibly get a luxury item here and there, where as your people Lyle live high on the hog not worrying about anything because they will continue to get free money, rent paid, food stamps, etc etc despite committing crimes, being on drugs, having bad or no credit, being in collections, been evicted, filing for bankruptcy. It is sickening and a time for the rest of us to shed the freeloaders. (Not including those who rightfully earned their Social Security, Disability or retirement pensions)
8:12 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle...I would never TRY to raise a family of 4 on $23000. That is an absolutely absurd thing to even try to do. In one plain word, it's stupid. If I'm only making $23,000 why would I want others to be dependent on my?
I'll do math with you, because you claim that family of 4 is paying taxes. Let's assume this is a married couple, with 2 dependents...as the number work better for your argument. Standard deduction is $6100 per person x 4 people bringing taxable net income down to 0. Now, the two pay the SS/Medicare tax. So. 7.65 of $23000 is roughly $1700. State income tax is another 6.75% roughly, for $1500 in state income tax. All withheld, as are income taxes, so take home pay for this couple will be $23000-$1700-$1500-$2000 for a take home of $17800. I'm Let's tax that full amount in sales tax at 5.6% for another $1000 (which is generous, because all purchases aren't taxed) in taxes paid for a total of $6200 in taxes paid. This couple will bet back $2000 in child care credit, $5372 in EIC, and their original $2000 in Fed. Tax withheld. So, this family with a cash after taxes withheld is $16800 + $2000 + 5372 + 2000 =$26172. Exactly where are they actually paying anything?
11:27 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle said: How do you figure they get it all back. They are not getting back what they paid into Social Security or Medicare...
They get this back eventually too Lyle, presuming Washington doesn't screw it up.
Furthermore, let's say they earn $25,000 per year. The $2000 they pay into SSI and Medicare is made up in another form of a freebie. EIC, Obamaphones, food stamps, heat assistance, subsidized health care.
Holy Crap !
That seems like a pretty good trade to me.
Mr Lundt
4:30 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Here is an idea Lyle
Have the government stop wasting money and spending far more than they take in. Your plan NEVER compels the government to spend wisely--as a result they don't.
Bob McBride
4:54 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
It's easy to think up ways to take more in the way of taxes. Generally those who do ,tend to choose ways that don't effect them personally (increase that on income brackets other than their own, decrease mortgage deductions to a level that won't effect them personally, etc). Increasing efficiency and insisting on across-the-board reductions or 0% increases in spending w/o a reduction in the quality of services provided (not impossible - businesses do it all the time) - that's the hard stuff.
When the solution is always to increase revenues, there's absolutely no incentive to be efficient and cost effective. Unless it's mandated it will never occur. It needs to be mandated before we start exploring newer and/or increased revenue streams.
Lyle Ruble
5:44 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
@Bob McBride...I'm all for spending reductions and a re-prioritizing what we are spending money on. You can't run a service provider in the same way you run a business, so stop trying. Why is Medicare administration so much more efficient than private health care third party providers? Business doesn't have an answer for everything.
Bob McBride
6:14 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Lyle, there are plenty of "service providers" that operate as businesses rather than government organizations. As for Medicare, it gets to set its own prices and forces those who provide services it pays for to accept those prices, with others, including its beneficiaries (via supplemental insurance, if not out of pocket), making up the difference. That's not efficiency - that's utilizing your position as a government entity to force others to make up for your own inefficiencies.
Lyle Ruble
6:33 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
@Bob McBride...I know all about private service providers for profit and I know what they charge in administrative costs. Even if Medicare had to pay full price, administrative costs at below 10% is better than admin costs at 20-30%. I've worked with plenty of companies that aren't efficient and they continue in business. You can't make the blanket claim that you did. Successfully running a government agency or non-profit requires a different skill set than running a business. I've done both and I know the difference. So don't try to use a single brush to cover all scenarios.
Mr Lundt
7:28 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
business is incentivized to become more efficient. Government has a totally different agenda in which success for a liberal is defined by the number of of people on the dole.
The government has not ever measured themselves on the efficiency or effectiveness of their programs. Primarily because the left sees that they are able to simply legislate both income and clients.
Bob McBride
7:56 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
What blanket statement did I make that wasn't correct, Lyle? That government agencies aren't incentivized to provide the most bang for the buck? I don't see where you've disproven that, Lyle.
Medicare, your example, doesn't have to promote itself against competitors, doesn't need a sales force, contracts out much of its paper pushing and shifts costs to beneficiaries and other providers. You can't compare an organization that is, essentially, granted a government monopoly and that is allowed to circumvent market forces to organizations that don't have those government granted advantages. Again, it's not true efficiency. It's the government shifting costs to others.
5:25 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Business will always be more efficient than Government. It has to be accountable or it goes away. We are not that lucky with Government .
J. B. Schmidt
7:09 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Fair share is defined as what the government can take. We as a people have allowed the government that position. The only way to correct it is to reverse the entitlement mentality. Unfortunately, the materialism brought on by the progressive entitlement system is nearly impossible to correct. (See Europe)
Bottom Line
7:57 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The Federal Government is involved in programs that would be better handled by the States, Counties, and local Municipalities. The programs that are being administered Federally are inefficient and contain caveat spending to ensure all possibilities are handled. In fact, the added administrative cost is exactly why they should be programs handled as locally as possible. Communities are better suited to resolve the issues their taxpayers can identify as worthy.
The Federal Government should only be addressing issues that cannot be properly dealt with on State and local levels. International Issues, the Federal Treasury, and National Defense should be their primary function.
We are (last I checked) still a Republic. The States should resume and address their States issues without the Federal government intruding. The taxpayers will be better able to address the effect of local governance, and they will not suffer the demands put on them by ill managed States like California, and Illinois.
Bottom Line
8:06 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Capital Gains taxes, in my opinion, are like taxing the Lottery Winners. The losses are not recoverable by the investor (gambler), but the gains are ripe for picking. Further, the money invested or gambled has already been taxed once. I am against Capital Gains taxes.
Inheritance Tax is the most onerous tax in my opinion. The chosen benefactors of someones lifetime of work are receiving property that has already been taxed. Worse, the property is not necessarily monetary. If I bequeathed a multi-million dollar painting to Lyle, he would be unable to keep it if he couldn't cough up the taxes.
11:18 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Bottom Line: Spot on !
Ask a farmer about the death tax and how it can destroy his family farm.
8:30 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
yep- ANY family business- the owner dies accidentally, or before he can "transfer" ownership...suddenly the kids are left with a business they cant possibly affort the "death tax" on....frigging retarded our tax laws are.
Lyle Ruble
10:31 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Bottom Line....Why should I benefit from your hard work and success. Shouldn't each generation be personally responsible for their own success? What do you really owe your progeny? As far as I'm concerned, raise your children with good values, learn how to work hard, assure they get a good education and then pat them on the backside as they go out the door to pursue their lives. You don't do kids any favors by giving them too much. I don't know how many successful second generation businesses end up folding because "the kids took it over".
The idea of a large inheritance is archaic at best. Real inheritance is good values, moral and ethical living, not material possessions.
Lyle Ruble
10:36 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Craig...Inheritance tax is not a "death tax". The family farm is a business like any other. If you owned a business, wouldn't you set up legal mechanisms to assure that it would survive beyond your death? The family farms that are lost due to death is because the farm owner didn't do what was necessary prior to the inevitable.
Lyle Ruble
10:38 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Bottom Line....What is investing if not legalized gambling? Gamblers must pay taxes on their winnings, why shouldn't the investor not be considered in the same light?
Lyle Ruble
10:48 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@yomammy...A person that sets up a business needs to be smart about how they set it up. Every business that I have set up and owned is set up from the very beginning with a survivor's plan, including key man insurance owned by the company to provide for eventuality I wouldn't survive. People that don't take the necessary personal responsibility are just plain stupid.
10:50 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle: ...death tax or inheritance tax- it is the shaft either way you name it.
Try to convince a farmer to purchase a $2million dollar life insurance policy to cover the "tax" on his assets when he dies. He is consumed with buying next years crop and what the new combine will cost him. What if we have a bad year for the cash crop and I can't pay the premium? This is why you see so many farms selling off a big chunk of their land to developers.
You asked Bottom Line about investing. Though I am not sold on the idea, there is the thought process that says: I invest in a business that pays taxes on profits, why should I pay taxes on those same profits? This is why Cap Gains tax is lower than income tax.
This is beneficial to Granny who lives off Social Security and a little Cap Gains from her investments. At one time she was fortunate to pay zero capital gains, but those days are behind us.
11:07 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle: I applaud you for your business savvy. Not everyone does this, and for some it is not affordable/possible to do so. In some cases the key man is uninsurable. Just having Diabetes can be the reason.
The same can be said about buy/sell agreements. Often the owner (future seller) is uninsurable, making the future buyers unable to secure the coverage to assume ownership at death. With this situation, the business must close and be liquidated. People become unemployed. The owner's next of kin is forced to take pennies on the dollar for the fire sale.
Kudos to you for doing things right.
The Anti-Alinsky
5:30 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle, as a business owner, you know that it's not like you have 25% of the value of the business laying around in cash. That means the heirs may need to sell off a large part of the business to pay for taxes. A business that they likely grew up in and wanted to keep running as the family business for another generation.
You asked "What do you really owe your progeny?" The other side of the coin is what more do you owe the government? Business owners have paid income taxes, matching FICA and Medicare taxes, business taxes, unemployment taxes,... Most people would prefer to give whats left to their kids rather than the government.
Let's say somebody has inherited the family business and managed to pay the inheritance tax without destroying the business. What will happen? One possibility is that the heir is totally inept and the business will go down the drain anyways. This will just open the door for a new competitor or open market share. The other is that they really do have a good head on their shoulders and manage to keep the business running , keep employees on the payroll, and continue to pay taxes.
Our biggest problem goes back not to revenue, but to spending!!!
Lyle Ruble
6:13 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
the Anti-Alinsky.... I have several friends and acquaintances who started businesses that became successful. In two of the cases, they have, over the last ten years, sold the businesses to their kids. Since they have already sold their interests there won't be any inheritance tax in either case. One of them is under contract as a consultant to the firm so that he can guide the new owners. In a couple of cases they have set up ownership with trusts. My point is that proper planning will take care of the inheritance problem. My personal plan is that by the time my wife and I'm gone we'll have already transfered our assets and will own nothing.
Jay Sykes
11:17 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Lyle Ruble... In your example, "sold the businesses to their kids" prior to death, you likely just 'Cost Shifted' the Inheritance/Estate Tax burden into the Capital Gains Tax burden column.
Your "set up ownership with trusts" example avoids the capital gains tax, as it transfers the assets to trust at 'current fair market net asset value', so the 'appreciated value' from 'date of trust creation' forward avoids the Inheritance / Estate Tax. Any amount transferred to trust, while still alive, counts against ones lifetime Estate Tax exemption amount.
FYI: The current Estate tax exemption is just over $5 million/person.( It is inflation indexed and I think it's going to 5.25 million/person next year.) So, a couple can protect over $10 million, Net Asset Value, from the Estate Tax.
C. Sanders
8:11 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Fair hare must be based on what you consume and not on how much you make.
J. B. Schmidt
8:22 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
@ Sanders
Why must you bring the rabbit industry into this?
Bottom Line
8:19 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The constriction of the Federal Government would solve many of our problems. Financially and Socially we would be subjected to resolve fewer issues, because citizens would be able to situate themselves with like minded people. Simply look to Nevada regarding gambling and prostitution. If you found those issues agreeable you might choose to live there. If they are conditions you find objectionable you could choose to live elsewhere.
A consumption tax would likely satisfy the realities of economics, and ability to pay. Some essential items could be tax free.
Bottom Line
8:22 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
I believe non-profit status should be eliminated. Most are advantaging this once necessary classification to build institutions that belie the original reason we granted this status.
Bottom Line
8:24 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Lyle, in your example, the people sharing a pizza can certainly choose to pay for another persons share if they believe it is warranted. There is not a law forcing them to do it. Charity is best handled this way.
9:28 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Personally, if I can not afford to dine out for pizza with friends, I am not going to sit down at the table.
I have been in this boat before. I went home to a yummy Hamburger Helper meal.
Bottom Line
8:28 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
As to my question .... I believe a fair share would include a higher contribution by those willing and able to afford it, if they could agree that the expense was worthy. It is exactly why we need to have government programs handled on a State and Local level. Those levels should be set by the individuals involved, it is after all, our country ... not the legislators.
Lyle Ruble
11:01 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Bottom Line...In a perfect world it would be better to handle things on the local level and through private contributions. However, we tried that in the past and it was a total failure. Under your system, if someone was completely destitute and the local community or government choose not to help the destitute, then there is no redress. Look at the history of almost all of the southern tier of states. Throw in West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee and you'll see how effective your system works. This condition persisted until the federal government got involved and forced them to adequately provide for the poor and disabled. Do you realize that there wasn't a mandate for universal education in the south until after the civil war and that not all states implemented it until 1894? Obviously you don't know your history very well. The states and local communities have always been able to take care of issues at the local level, but failed to do so.
Bottom Line
9:58 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Lyle ... you claim the States and Local communities were able and chose not to take care of issues. If the citizens made a choice you should respect that, they are more intimately aware of their conditions than you or the Federal Government. Some look at issues differently than you do, and you haven't the right to do more than plead your case. Mandating your measure of charity fails to respect the rights and wishes of those States and Municipalities.
Lyle Ruble
6:34 am on Friday, March 1, 2013
@Bottom Line...This is a question of sovereignty and priority. It's been pretty well documented what the minimum needs are for survival. The sovereign community has a duty, morally and legally, to assure survival and security needs are met. For those communities and or states that either choose or are unable to meet those needs, then it is the role of the federal government to move in and meet the needs. The practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws are a prime example. We can review our history through centuries that demonstrate the failure. Your whole idea of fair share is misleading and should focus on the question of what are the minimum needs everyone has a right to expect by simply being a citizen of this nation.
Jay Sykes
12:56 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
Lyle Sez ... "Your whole idea of fair share is misleading and should focus on the question of what are the minimum needs everyone has a right to expect by simply being a citizen of this nation."
Lyle, it our President, not Bottom Line, that is tossing around the words 'fairshare', sans clear reasonable definition;that is in-fact what created the need his blog post.
It is, in-fact, the President that is misleading with his usage of 'fairshare'. I have not heard the President tie 'fairshare' to anything other than 'Pay MORE Taxes'.
I'd like to see a Lexus/Nexus of the Presidential use of 'fairshare' . I'd bet we would only find 'fairshare' tied to paying more taxes;never to your point Lyle, 'focus on the question of what are the minimum needs everyone has a right to expect by simply being a citizen of this nation.'
That Lyle, sadly, very sadly, is the very definition 'Presidential Failure to Lead'
Lyle Ruble
1:29 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
@Jay Sykes....I don't think in terms of fair share and whether Obama or Bottom Line uses the term is meaningless to me. I also don't blindly support everything the President claims or proposes. As usual, my support is for meeting survival and security needs. Whether one is able to achieve is entirely up to them as long they have a reasonable opportunity to do so.
Jay Sykes
4:08 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
@Lyle... I did not intend to suggest that you unilaterally support the President;only point out that the man with the bully pulpit shapes the debate and defines the terms. What you, or I, say will not change that one iota. The way the President is discussing 'fairshare' reminds me of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again:
"They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
10:05 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
More Americans know what a "free hand" is far more than a "fair share.". The current Administration define fair share as much as they can take by what ever means possible with exemptions to friends. Of course the fact that it kills the economy, growth and jobs never even enters their minds
Lyle Ruble
11:10 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@skinnyDUDE....What an irresponsible statement. Where's the proof of your supposition. The economy gets "killed" by stupid people who can't look any further than the nose on their faces. Business ruined the economy and then turned around expecting us to bail them out.
3:19 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
How did business ruin the economy . Business is the economy. Your comment is the height of economic ignorance. As to Irresponsible statements.....You have perfected the concept with your ever changing ideas and broken ideology. You clearly do not understand even Basic economics. Practice this = Government ruins economies while it produces nothing.
As to your re wording my statement it clearly shows you agreed with it to some degree or you wouldnt of changed the content of the statement. I didnt call anyone Stupid . In fact the people on the bottom learn how to manipulate the government for maximum benefits, If you pay for more and more unwanted outcomes it is not stupid to think that you will get more of those outcomes. Its Economics 101 . if you agree with the bad outcomes than you not be concerned . The fact is those Bad outcomes will always grow if you tie resources to failure by rewarding those outcomes. That is what government does. A good intention with a bad result is not doing anyone any true favors. But you liberals are ALL IN on bad outcomes. You are not only bankrupt of fiscal responsibilities . You are bankrupt of positive results .
Lyle Ruble
4:42 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@skinnyDUDE...Business decisions made without regard to long term consequences. If the economy goes south and business is the economy, then how can you not hold business responsible. I was in business for too many decades not to know how it works. As a social institution, government is only an actor and agent of the citizenry; blaming government is blaming the citizenry, what good does that do? Blaming government is shifting the blame from those truly responsible to a faceless entity. BTW, I took many econ courses and much of what is wrong with business and the economy can be traced directly back to the garbage being shoveled out at the business schools. Economics is a measurable social science and provides value, whereas Business schools provides -ZERO-. Business has to be learned through doing.
Bottom Line
10:40 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Very true, SkinnyDUDE.
The economy is suffering, and many will introduce reasons that vary. Yet we should recognize that when the economy is challenged, government exacting more of the funds ensures will be late to recover.
Some have suggested taxing corporations. This is equivalent to another consumer tax, while distancing the consumer from the true cost. Additionally, some of the burdens we place on corporations cannot be placed on companies abroad, unless we levee a tariff, so we ensure our corporations operate at a disadvantage.
If we place tariffs on imports, we might protect our own corporations, unless we consider the detriment when our goods are unaffordable abroad, or other countries respond in kind. If we close our economy to international exchange, we will continue to reduce equity as our public sector reduces the the economy over time.
It would be prudent to remove protectionist legislation that hides true cost by affording select or connected business to receive government subsidies. Unless the subsidy is conditioned to allow investment here that would otherwise go abroad.
A perfect example would be farm subsidies, and those afforded "green" technologies, which hide the true cost from the consumer, while gathering it from the taxpayer that may or may not want to engage or support those enterprises.
3:31 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@ Bottom Line
I agree totally . Too bad liberals support the impossible . The only hope is pro growth capitalistic policies . It is a new world economy today. But the general cause and effects that grow and economy are relatively unchanged. Liberal policies can be examine on a state level . Look at CA which is geographically a place people want to be . The Liberal Government policies have made prosperity flea .The hunger for new revenues to pay for massive spending has shrunk the tax base and any new growth prospects in the state are very limited . So they basically killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Than when revenues are stunted and spending is increasing they kill the goose again and again and again .
The same is true for any nation . The rest of the world represents other potential prospects to create wealth .The more the government kills those prospects here, the more they will show up in areas that welcome commerce and jobs . USA is where most want to be , But the Govt policies simply discourage it under Obama.
Lyle Ruble
4:47 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@skinnyDUDE...Having lived in California for quite some time, you don't have a clue as to what caused CA's problems. It started with Ronald Reagan and then Prop 13.
5:11 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@ Lyle
Having seen so many of your ideas on this very forum. The overwhelming view is you are the one that is clueless as to how the real world works. As you never really answer questions posed to you . You only move on to other non sense and babble meaningless views not founded in reality. You are in Denial and will die that way. Those of us that have seen your constant misguided views all accept that reality.
Steve ®
11:33 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Did you know there is a gas guzzler tax? If you buy a super car that gets say 6 mpg you pay tens if not hundreds of thousands in tax. Yet you buy more fuel (presuming you drive it) meaning you pay more tax. Fair share?! Liberals are out of control. Think of the increased spending without these crazy taxes and if we really opened up this economy from its socialist iron fist.
Bottom Line
12:15 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Steve, all should realize the taxes are a means to their end. They aren't interested in how just, or justified they might be.
It is truly the point of most of my posts. We have a government that is being clever in marketing to a majority that they create by adopting legislation that confounds a market that would otherwise provide opportunity for that same majority. In effect, they are competing with industry for consumers. Currently they are winning that battle because most consumers are not applying critical thinking to realize they are being advantaged by the government that claims to be their savior.
A citizenry that is dependent on it's government perpetuates that condition. Our Forefathers established conditions that would restrict the government position found in other Nations in an attempt to prevent servitude to government. We, in our affluent times, relaxed, and allowed, our government to arrest our former position of strength.
.... I guess we invited (elected) the fox into the hen house ... and now we are suffering the result.
7:38 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I keep hearing this talk about "fair share" and the government "taxing the job creators out of business" ad nauseum. The question I have for you bloggers/flamers out there is: How much is enough? Does anyone "need" to earn 1 million, 2 million, or more dollars? And for doing what?
For you "Christians" out there: If Jesus said, "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (and according to Mark 10:21, he did), why are you so worried about protecting other peoples' (and your own) wealth?
J. B. Schmidt
7:53 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Did Christ tell that to us as a legislative proposal to force the extraction of cash from the wealthy or did he pose that as an individual response to the salvation he was offering? You are making the assumption that Christians are hoarding cash and not providing help to poor; rather than surrendering ever penny not needed for survival to whom? The government? Was that really Christ's message? Christ's message was never forced obedience. The liberal message is forced obedience.
As for limits on earning, please tell me what the appropriate limit is? If I have a house of 7 people with an income of $100k, does that mean that the government should mandate that every citizen can exist on $14,300? Or what monetary limit do you believe should be imposed. 'Need' is subjective and not definable as a blanket policy. 'Enough' is subjective and not definable as a blanket policy. However, as you appear to be able to define the subjective, please enlighten the rest of as to what level of 'need' and 'enough' each citizen should be capped off at.
8:40 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
the poor lady at church offering the last of her money while the rich man throwing in 1000 bucks....yeah, we know, the poor lady "gave more"...blah blah...
point is...she had a CHOICE....
9:43 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
First off, please know I am a different "Mike", and I don't like my name being sullied by such silly statements. It is not anyone's right to tell me how much I can earn. If I start a company and that company is hugely successful and leads me to make millions of dollars, then I am earning that money and after paying the taxes I owe by law, the rest is mine to do with what I choose. People like the Mike above want everyone to have freedom, except the rich, who shouldn't have the freedom to earn money and do with it what they please.
10:13 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
"Does anyone "need" to earn 1 million, 2 million, or more dollars?"
Do you think it is right to limit how much a CEO can make? When Lee Iococca saved Chrysler, do you think maybe he earned his pay? Along with that big paycheck come some very heavy burdens.
A self employed man making anything, including a million per year doesn't qualify for unemployment. Should he be limited by the Government? He is already being taxed to death. And if he accumulates more than 2 million in assets- after death they are taxed at 45%. Some incentive to save, huh? All his working life he paid income tax on his earnings, likely ~35%. Then the Gvt takes half at death...
The market dictates what a CEO makes. If he doesn't perform, he gets fired. I doubt he will be happy sitting home collecting UC at under $400 week.
10:52 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Jesus was a carpenter, I doubt he worked for free.
I bet he wasn't in a union either.
Lyle Ruble
12:19 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@J.B. Schmidt..."Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's....."
There are objectives statistical studies that indicate how much each person needs per geographical area. It's not quite as subjective as you suggest.
J. B. Schmidt
1:07 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
"And to God what is God's" I get it. I am not claiming to stop paying taxes. There is no biblical doctrine that prevents a Christian from voicing opposition to a government not using God's blessings of tax revenue with good stewardship.
'Needs', Lyle? Like I need warmth in winter. I will need a certain level of dietary subsistence. I require shelter from the elements. Those needs are subjective based on personal experience and ability. Not unlike Mrs Obama assuming the lunch needs of school students and making a blanket policy to fill those needs. She failed to take into account the differing caloric intake based on activity or the availability to unhealthy foods pre and post school hours. Sure we all need lunch, I don't need study to show me that; however, our lunches all vary. No study can expose those needs.
Robert Kelly
8:13 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Instead of arguing about "fair", which will never be resolved, we could look at out history and look for examples of "effective".
Example, Eisenhower era had monster taxes on the wealthy, but still did not deal with the deep poverty or racism of the era. Clinton era taxes were much lower, and the country still prospered, middle class expanded, and the rich still increased their net worth. Bush era taxes were cut even further, and all hell broke loose for the middle class and for the national prosperity. This might provide a clue as to the appropriate view toward the "best" tax rate and military activity.
If the country does well, people are employed and spending their hard-earned money to buy things, which keep more people employed, there will be much less talk about "fairness". We should try to learn something from our history. The Teabaggers just can't see that what they claim is "fair" has never benefited the country, and has not proven to be "effective".
10:34 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Yes the middle class faired well under Clinton...until recently.
By granting China Most Favored Nation status, he doomed our economy.
It is hard for any American manufacturing firm to compete with decent American wages vs China's pay of a bowl of rice per day.
Monica Lewinsky wasn't the only one who got the shaft from Slick Willy.
4:17 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
When did the Tea baggers claim anything as "fair"? It is the left that wants "fair". It is the left that doesn't want kids to keep score. It is the left that loves affirmative action. It is Obama that keeps on pushing "fair share" and who is afraid to define it. It is what this blog is about. Robert help us out, define "fair share", define the amount the rich should pay and be ready to back up your definition.
The Donny Show
8:16 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
According to the liberal catch rag Sentinel Journal a fair share is the top 20% of WI tax payers (those over $100K) paying MORE than 63% of the taxes and the bottom 52% (those under $40K) paying LESS than 9% of the taxes.
It used to amaze me how slanted a newspaper could be. Nothing surprises me anymore with the Sentinel Journal. How much less than 9% can they pay? Do they want to pay NO taxes at all?
Jay Sykes
8:34 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Bottom Line asks: What is a "Fair Share"?
Thanks to Greg (the only one that actually answered the question) we have a working definition of "fair share".
"Fair Share" = = = = = $10,000
Baring anyone on this board providing a more complete, definitive and compelling set of calculations, I'm going with Greg.
I think our federal government spends about $12,140.00 for every man woman and child in the country. Individual income and payroll tax pays for 82% of spending, so that is about $10,000.00 per person. I think that should be the baseline for "fair share". If you pay less than that, in federal taxes, you are not paying your fair share. If you pay more then you are paying more than your fair share.
8:41 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
good god, half of the state makes that combined couples income...
The Donny Show
8:58 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
No Yo, half that state makes less than 40K. Check the facts.
The top 20% begins right at 100K.
9:06 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
100k aint #@$%$ for combined income in many areas of the state.
and if you think anyone making around 100k should be taxed more- you are nuts.
The Donny Show
9:26 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I totally agree. That is my point. Those making $100K+ are paying a vast majority of the taxes. But the Sentinel Journal wants you to think that the tax cuts only are helping the rich (BTW, Supreme Leader Obama said 250K is where the middle class ends). Those making $100K will get more $ savings, BUT ARE STILL PAYING WAY MORE TAXES THAN THE REST!
That is my point. Relax Yo. I am on the side of less taxes.
9:51 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
There was a time when poor people on assistance went without certain luxuries the working people usually had.
Many people getting assistance have a newer car or high end SUV.
Most have cell phones with data plans, the internet, cable TV.
Heat assistance, central air conditioning (and they use it despite the high energy bills). I do not have a problem helping those who truly need it. Those who are fully capable of working but chose to live off the programs have a comparable lifestyle to a family living on a $50k income. It is almost a deterrent for those struggling to get by.
The only noticeable difference in a family making $100k is typically the size of their house. They still have the same issues with bills, repairs, lunch money for the kids, new shoes, etc. Yet they pay about $25,000 of that income in taxes. It is almost enough for them to say to hell with it too. The bigger home has higher energy bills, the bills are also higher to pay for those in need of energy assistance. It is a snowball effect. Add in the threat of taxing them more, and they may just join the ranks of the takers and not the makers.
What then? 80% of the workforce makes less than $100k, who the hell will we tax then? I'd like a numbers cruncher to examine how we can sustain living on the top 20%. My guess is even if we taxed them at 100% we would be in the red.
10:00 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
go to google and search for "eat the rich"
shows exactly what taxing the rich gets us...
Mr Lundt
9:11 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Liberals define fair only as "MORE."
Their greed is unquenchable.
9:36 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
America....the only place in the world that the "poor" (that collect welfare, food stamps, etc...) have late model vehicles, 50" plasma, iphones and spinners....
somehow these people feel they deserve to have all the goodies that working folk have...without the work.
The Donny Show
9:49 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
That is the problem. As long as we give to them, they will demand more.
Think about it. If you choose to get no education why work? You can subsist on handouts instead of working.
Get rid of handouts and we will have a lot less people that need them. They will be forced to be productive.
9:58 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
oh...nooooo...cant have people "work"...that will be labeled as "racist" and "hurting the poor/children"... No politican will touch this with a ten foot pole. THATS the problem. Politicians more worried about re-election than doing anything.
Its like rasing the minimum wage....NOT every job out there needs 10.25 an hour...
10:37 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Kerry said that Americans have the right to be stupid.
Think about that.
His party wants more of these people, so they can be reelected.
NObama 2012
9:59 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Never before in our countries history has the person living in OUR White House hated the average American citizen like Barack Obama. He is the worst thing to happen to this country in the past 50 years. Not to mention the fact that Obama has singlehandedly set race, class relations in America back at least as many years. Barack Obama is in every possible sense and meaning a national disgrace and a complete and abject failure as the President of the United States.
10:39 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Agreed. Obama never should have been elected in the first place.
Avenging Angel
10:56 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The liberal definition of fair share = "MORE"
J. B. Schmidt
11:10 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle said, "If you owned a business, wouldn't you set up legal mechanisms to assure that it would survive beyond your death? The family farms that are lost due to death is because the farm owner didn't do what was necessary prior to the inevitable."
Sounds like pulling yourself up by your boot straps. Could I not make the same argument for any welfare program? You are pretending inheritance is a government subsidy, as if it wasn't the business owners possession that he could do with as he chose or are you simply trying to encourage government power via the seizure of assets it deems inappropriately utilized.
5:21 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@ J.B Schmidt
Thats all True J.B. But I might point out that Lyle isnt a the standard bearer for logic and common sense. He seldom considers cause and effect of even his own ideas.
J. B. Schmidt
5:29 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I would disagree that doesn't consider cause and effect. The problem with him and most liberals is that the effect (some supposed utopia) is their goal and to do so all causes are acceptable no matter the harm inflicted on the country. As example, look at Obama's most recent release of illegals. He understands the possible outcomes (increased violence); however, the outcome of forcing his socialist policies is more important the current state of the country.
5:47 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@ J.B.Schmidt
Indeed. If we cant even slow the growth of increased spending when we are spending .47 cents on every dollar with borrowed money there is little hope in a STRONG prosperity in the USA in the future. We have a President that cant even lead on logical cuts on Increases . This is even more laughable from a President who said he was going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Unfortunately , we have a President who's only instinct is to divide the nation while he inflicts maximum economic harm with his anti capitalistic views.
Mr Lundt
11:20 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
You clearly cannot understand the difference between the role of society and the role of government.
Prior to the nanny state, the US did not have citizens dying on the street. Te reality was that society helped other people out and got them off the dole. There was a sense of responsibility and accountability.
Now thanks to the lefty agenda, we have generational government dependency that continues to grow because
1) Some find it easier to mooch
2) The left loves to FEEL better and morally superior regardless of the impacts.
To see the utter failure of Lyles socialist world---the war on drugs.
11:32 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Very well said Mr Lundt,
People were able to get just enough help to get by, which was an incentive to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and better themselves.
The Nanny State on the other hand, keeps them happy with everything they need and many things they could ever want. So there is no incentive.
Lyle Ruble
2:22 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Mr Lundt....I don't know how old you are, but I can remember poverty very well. When I was younger I traveled and lived in many areas of the US and poverty was very much a part of the fabric of the nation. We had a large number of people dying from the affects of poverty. It was common for people to die of infections and untreated injuries because they didn't have money to pay for medical treatment. The War on Poverty was started to address the issues found in the rural south, Appalachia, and chronic poverty in the cities. What is different now compared to then is the availability of low skilled jobs. Back then you could get a low skill job doing manual labor or working on an assembly line. Those jobs don't exist in the quantities needed to employ those needing employment. Also, when the War on Poverty began we had a national population of 192 million and a poverty rate of approximately 20%, now we have a population of over 300 million and a poverty rate of 14.3%. That sir, is a significant change and to claim that things have gotten worse is just plain wrong.
What you don't seem to understand is that government is the agent of the sovereign community. By the power vested in the government by the majority of sovereign individuals, it carries out the public will. The government is not separate from society. Your position of treating government as a separate entity is entirely incorrect.
11:57 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Ever see a skinny "poor" american?...just saying...
Mr Lundt
2:37 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
You have given the classic answer from the left. You highlight real needs and then magically it expands to where we are today.
There is NO REASON that people need to have multi generations that live totally off of the government dole. Yet your policies encourage hat and the massive growth of these programs show it.
No one suggest all government programs should be eliminated. However---your ilk have regularly carried any attempt at reform and getting people off the dole.
3:00 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@lundt There will always be generations of people who live on government dole as long as our largest employers, WalMart et al, continue paying minimum wage to their employees to keep their profits up because they know that their employees have to qualify for welfare in order to survive. It's not always about laziness, there is a significant cycle that needs to be broken.
3:21 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
and...why should stocking shelves be compensated $10,12,15/hr?
3:39 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Walmart doesn't pay their employees based on them getting welfare to survive, they pay their employees based on the value of the work they are doing. How much should a person get paid to hand out shopping carts or to stock shelves? If people feel they aren't earning enough working for Walmart, they should apply for work at one of the many other department store chains.
2:40 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Our white founding fathers enshrined the right to PERSONAL property in our constitution. If white men work hard to build something it should belong to them unequivocally, I believe this right is also God given. If you are a Socialist or Fascist you are my enemy. Get your hands away from what I have rightfully built. Instead of stealing from me be a man and produce something of your own for your family. One of the consequences of this feeling of entitlement is that people who have contributed nothing think that everyone else owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their existence. No one wants Socialism except a bunch of nutty jackboot radical Progressives who have failed in society and think they are owed something.
2:55 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
if it came from the govrenment, its somebody elses money
Mr Lundt
3:06 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
McAvoy less than 5% of the workforce works for minimum wage. However when Obama comes in and taxes and vilifies employers, they hire and pay LESS.
Not to mention---some jobs just are not worth $12 / hour.
But for a kid in high school it worth $5 to BOTH sides.
4:06 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Obama February 23, 2009:
► "Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."◄
Weve gotten more than are fair share of Lies from President Obama.!!!
7:06 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Perhaps one should ask what is fair, not what is your fair share?
Obama's uncle is in the US illegally....well you be the judge.
8:52 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit
We're going to need more of that fair share.
Steve ®
10:28 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
"This will not add one dime to the deficit" - Obama hundreds of times.
He's right. It adds billions of dimes, not just one.
Bottom Line
1:15 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Steve ... what he says is not important .... obviously ... and that what he does ensures the poor are left wanting ... what a pathetic leader.
Steve ®
9:49 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
You give him too much credit by calling Obama a "leader" The only thing he leads is more division, fear and pain. He is truly pathetic.
Bottom Line
11:26 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle ... You seem conflicted ... "Why should I benefit from your hard work and success. Shouldn't each generation be personally responsible for their own success? What do you really owe your progeny? As far as I'm concerned, raise your children ... etc. ... I don't know how many successful second generation businesses end up folding because "the kids took it over".
... You shouldn't benefit from my hard work, unless I decide to extend it to you, and my reasons are not pertinent to any one but me.
... should each generation be responsible for their own success? I suspect they should, but you excuse many their responsibility without regard for your own projection that they be responsible, why is that?
Further, you, and those that subscribe to your ideology are indifferent to the deficit you leave future generations, why is that?
As to my progeny, I owe them nothing beyond the protections and rearing through their youth. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to give them, or any other my fortunes that I have earned. Why should your progeny be able to lay claim to my assets via redistribution?
I commend your support of extending values and responsible behavior to our children ... yet you continually exempt some from that expectation. That some lose what they are given is a silly defense.
Bottom Line
11:29 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
As a side comment ... by your measure you have no right to pay for the pizza someone else cannot afford ... you should forfeit that amount to the government so they can decide who deserves it.
Bottom Line
11:37 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lyle ,,, you add in other posts that it is incumbent on owners to utilize insurance and other legal means to protect the inheritors .... apparently you would excuse inheritance tax if one is clever and affords the various opportunities that legislators have divined for those aware. Even you must admit the hypocrisy. Shouldn't we eliminate the equivocations?
Lyle Ruble
10:50 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
@Bottom Line....Philosophically I don't support inheritance in the way we have allowed it to evolve. I am an advocate of equality of opportunity. My main opposition to inheritance is that it gives an advantage to those who benefit from the accident of birth. If one looks to socio-biology and its impact on positive evolvement of the species, the best is brought out by enduring and coping with external and internal stress. This is the role concept in social organization called exceptionalism. In other words it is where the best of the best rises to the top. We see this played out in athletics over and over again. It doesn't matter that someone is born to a great athlete, each individual starts at the bottom continuously proving themselves over and over again, having the opportunity to achieve greatness on their own. We hold dearly the value of self fulfillment and see that society, in general, benefits from people having to prove themselves. Those that receive large inheritances short circuit the process and do not necessarily deserve the position at the top. For example; would the Koch Brothers be as successful as they are if they would have had to start at the bottom like their father did? Would the inheritors of Sam Walton have been able to accomplish what their father did? One of the problems encountered by children of successful parents is whether or not they could succeed without the success of their parent/s.
Young Conservative
11:00 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
And I could point to countless heirs who have squandered their inheritance.
Shut up Ruble, you make no sense.
11:10 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Lyle: While I do not agree with you I think I understand your point. Where would Al Gore be without all that family tobacco money, etc?
But why should the Government get it?
This will somehow equate to equality of opportunity?
J. B. Schmidt
11:10 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Who cares? Whether or not Sam Walton's kids got a lot or a little, makes no difference to me. You are trying to sell some idea that their inheritance has an impact on whether or not I can succeed. That's bull plop.
More importantly, you make the example of the professional athlete. There are people who will practice for hours, day, years hoping to gain the abilities that most professional athletes are born with. They have been born with an unequal advantage (genetic inheritance) that the rest of haven't. Watching my kids, it is plain to see that athleticism is an advantage some possess over others. How to propose to equalize that opportunity?
In both cases the desire to develop your inheritance is what separates all of us. Many inner city blacks that could go pro choice not to and live the thug life. If the Koch money would have gone to Lindsay Lohan, she would have snorted it long before it could have been put the good use. The difference between Lebron James a street thug is his choice to use his inheritance. The same goes for the Koch brothers. That choice is the American Exceptionalism, equality in opportunity you wish to denounce and destroy.
Your post reads as pure envy/jealousy. True to liberal form, materialism makes the man.
Lyle Ruble
12:25 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
@Craig...Thank you for acknowledging you get me point. I don't necessarily think the government should get your inheritance. The proper model is what I think that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner are following, to donate their wealth to make the world a better place. They represent only the latest examples of such thinking. Andrew Carnage was one of the first benefactors to society. The Rockefeller Foundation has given to the world and much of it has benefited humanity. Look at the giving of the Walton Family and the Koch Brothers, it has had a positive impact.
My view and philosophy makes it more important to spend one's fortune on making the world a better place. I would much prefer it go somewhere that it could do some good rather than give it up to the government.
Something else one needs to look at is what was the purpose of inheritance. Prior to the advent of the nuclear family and welfare programs, inheritance was kept within the extended family to maintain the health and security of the basic structural unit. The extended family functioned as banker, landlord, old age security, child care center, etc. Usually the eldest son of the eldest son was the executor of the economic structural unit. The family owned the wealth, not the individual. Much of what we pay for now to provide essential services were provided for by the family. Also, family need was placed over individual need. We still see this model in Asian and Mid Eastern societies.
12:56 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
I agree Lyle.
All are great points.
The problem with family owning the wealth as opposed to individuals is the regulations. It is a separate entity that requires oversight, costs, taxation, etc.
The person who accumulated the funds has a right to do with them as (s)he sees fit. They can give everything to charity, give it to an individual, or place it in a trust. That should remain their right. Some people have the opinion that trusts are control from the grave, but so is the decision to leave everything to a charity.
Family dynamics often dictates what the decision will be.
Lyle Ruble
1:11 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
@J.B. Schmidt...Please don't take things so literally, the Walton's was just an example. Let me see if I can't show you some examples that might better illustrate my point.
One of your children has the desire to go to one of the service academies. They work hard and achieve the academic record required, they are reasonably athletic and show a great amount of self discipline. They apply to your local congressman to get an appointment. At the same time a kid that doesn't have your kid's qualifications also applies, but his or her parents are big political contributors to the congressman and the congressman sponsors their kid. In this case merit doesn't matter, but social position and wealth does. Another example is someone who applies to medical school. They have all the right qualifications, tested very well on the MCAT. Another student not quite as qualified as your child also applies and gets in when your child doesn't. The other child's parent is a physician that has been contributing thousands a year to their alma mater. Did wealth and position not limit your child's opportunity?
This is not anything to do with envy, but everything to do with stacking the deck to assure you have or your progeny have a winning hand. If you, as you claim, support the idea that with enough hard work and desire, one can succeed; maybe not when privilege and position is unequally distributed. Inherited wealth is a means for unequal privilege.
J. B. Schmidt
1:25 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
When one of children fails to get the things you mentioned because of an affirmative action requirement, will you claim the same thing? Or is that equality in action?
If my child is that obsessed with the material, then I already failed. They are entitled to no position in life and at any number of crossroads life will slap them down. You are basing your justification for fairness on purely material things.
The examples you list are impossible to stop and they happen at every level of education and career path. My family faced it in an elementary school. By attempting to restrict the passage of inheritance as a means to end favoritism, is like trying to kill a weed by cutting off the top 1/4 of the plant. If you restrict inheritance, people who wish their wealth be given to their kids will find other ways of doing it. The expansion of the tax code always produces those that find a way out of paying. Not to mention, the actions you list will continue, because even if you remove the wealth, something like fame or celebrity status will replace it.
In the end, you have made an emotional piece of legislation that feels good, but has no bite. It would never correct the problems you list.
1:31 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Lyle: Serious question for you.
I am broke, my kid is in the process of preparing to take her MCATs.
From what you said, am I correct to assume she is screwed and has no chance?
Should I be looking for someone to sell a kidney to so I have the means to grease a wheel?
Lyle Ruble
4:10 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
@Craig....Fortunately, there are other options such as Public Health and military scholarships for training physicians. No need to sell a kidney.
4:14 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Lyle: At this point, I'm all in at 23 grand a year. I'd double down if I have to.
No one would take my organs anyway, they are out of tune.
Bottom Line
11:45 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Jay ... Thank You for focusing on my inquiry, but I hope you realize that I was suggesting all along that there isn't a "Fair Share", and that legislators have been projecting empty rhetoric to continue their control of an unwary majority.
Simple Economics would correct our plight. A Government that is fixated on ulterior motives has preyed upon our citizens to manipulate our economic condition.
We would do well to assert our control on government and afford the benefits of economic growth without their intrusion. Those least among us would benefit the result.
Jay Sykes
1:19 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
T. Boone Pickens 'sizes-up' the vacuous rhetoric of "fairshare" during an MSNBC Morning Joe visit. I've seen him do this on CNBC too, but the way he handles the MSNBC crowd is always...... entertaining. Nobody frames it better than T.Boone!
Bottom Line
11:57 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
What if everyone decided to wait for someone else to create wealth and opportunity? Who would be considered evil then?
If WalMart, to pick the most current "enemy of the State" were to withdraw from the economy, what would result? Who would stand to lose the most?
Critical thinking is lacking. We, as an affluent Nation, allowed some pretty ridiculous notions to contaminate an economy that would correct itself, if not for intrusion.
BTW, Jay (and I find your review correct) ... consider how ridiculous the contortions you provided to explain the process of inheritance via different avenues .... really? .... really???? This is what have become .... pathetic.
7:00 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
If you make "too much money" you are on the radar. companies, personal, whatever, If you have (earned) it- they want it. the FSA needs your money to keep up their lifestyle.
Young Conservative
9:39 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
This is what happens when you allow Liberals to be in charge of the economy.
The U.S. economy grew in the fourth quarter - but just barely - 0.1%
11:16 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
@ Bottom Line. By now you've seen that "fair" is a moving target subject to liberal line drawing and definition games. This is why the war on poverty will never by won, because there is always the next version of the Obama phone. Even if it isn't a phone. After all, it isn't fair everyone doesn't have an iPad. You get the drift.
Classes will never be "fully funded" and we always need "smaller" class sizes. Of course we know money has little to do with actual teaching, but it sure helps prop up the institution of education. I've also noticed how big city polititians always clamor for more money for infrastructure, yet the money they receive always ends up being spent on some other pet project. Now that is neither fair nor good stewardship of public (taxpayer-provided) funds.


text:
Home » Products » Input/Output Systems » Electro-Sensors' Ion Modbus Network Nodes
Electro-Sensors' Ion Modbus Network Nodes
Ion Modbus network nodes simplify remote sensor installation and help save on wiring costs. Directly connecting to PLCs, touchscreens and PCs, they offer high data throughput with less than 1 mS latency. Pluggable terminal blocks for power input, isolated 2-wire RS485 network port, sensor connection and relay outputs make wiring and installation minimal and easy.Company Information
6111 Blue Circle Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343 (see map)
Phone: 800/328-6170
Fax: 952/930-0130
Website: www.electro-sensors.com
Related Products
- Signal Conditioning: Balluff's Smart Light Functions In Three Modes
- Mitsubishi Electric's CC-Link IE Field Network Upgrades
- Yokogawa's ProSafe-RS R3.02.00
- Turck's On-Machine I/O Block
- Acromag's TT330 4-Wire Transmitters With USB-Configuration
- Alliance Sensors Group's S1A AC-LVDT Signal Conditioner
- Data Translation's DT9838 USB Acquisition Module
- Pepperl+Fuchs' KFU8-VCR-1 Transmitter Signal Conditioner
- Lantronix's xSenso Analog Device Server
- AutomationDirect's FC-ISO-C and D High-Speed Optical Isolators
- All products »
Sponsored Links
Control Digital Edition
Access the entire print issue on-line and be notified each month via e-mail when your new issue is ready for you. Subscribe today.
- Featured White Papers

subset: commoncrawl


text:
spybot 4 beta.jpg 11.25K 9 downloads
May the fourth be with you!
Spybot Search & Destroy 2.0.6 Beta 4 is here!
PepiMK Software - 45.1 MB (Freeware) -
The fourth beta release of Spybot-S&D 2.0 is now ready! We would especially like to thank all users who have submitted bug reports and suggestions for Spybot-S&D 2.0 in recent weeks. Your efforts greatly helped to eliminate lots of bugs. Please keep up the good work and test our fourth public beta as well!
Beta 4 has much improved Live Protection and many bug fixes in different areas. We have also focused our efforts on testing Sypbot-S&D 2.0 for compatibility with third-party products in this release cycle.
Some highlights of this release are:
- Live Protection is now enabled by default
- Performance improvements for Live Protection
- Live Protection scans can be cancelled
- Improved compatibility with third-party products
- Explorer Context Menu Extension for files and folders
Download it here: [Mirror 1] [Mirror 2] [Mirror 3] [Torrent]
Shy's Hash = File size: 45.1MB MD5 sum = DEF2C22520C079094854204809255C57
ScreenHunter_01 Nov. 30 12.32.gif 11.99K 2 downloads


text:
Thousands of single Russian and Ukrainian women are looking for a loyal and caring man to share love and romance. With the help of our marriage agencies and quality matchmaking service, we can help serious men from all over the world to meet beautiful ladies from Belarus, Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine who are looking for a life partner.
Because of the lack of available men in their own country, thousands of Russian and Ukrainian women are broadening their search of a husband to other regions of the world. Being outnumbered by approx. 10 million men, it is obvious that many Russian ladies will never find their husband in their homeland.
At the same time, men from many different countries find it more and more difficult to find a life partner who still believe in the traditional family values. Russian women are well-educated, contemporary women who still believe in the traditional family. Each year, thousands of Russian ladies become the beautiful brides of men from all over the world.
Our international dating website and matchmaking service have partnered with honest and reliable marriage agencies in Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine. Every marriage agency owner is an experienced matchmaker and takes pride in introducing their beautiful Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian women to men from different countries. They meet in person with each Russian woman, Belarus woman and Ukraine woman and verify her identity with passport.
We guarantee that each Russian woman displayed on our website is real and seeking a husband outside her country. Every Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian marriage agency on our international dating website offers a full range of matchmaking services for introducing their beautiful women to single men seeking a Russian wife. When traveling to Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine to meet your future wife, our marriage agency owner and staff will assist you with transportation, accommodation, interpreter and all required services so you can travel with peace of mind and concentrate on the purpose of your trip: meet your future Russian wife.
Russian women are sometimes still labelled as mail order brides. This is an old concept which doesnt apply to these modern, beautiful women. Russian ladies, Belarusian ladies and Ukrainian ladies are simply seeking a decent man to become his beautiful wife and share a lifelong of romance. Thousands of men were lucky enough to make one of these beautiful women his Russian wife. Maybe youll be the next lucky man?
Russian women are intelligent, well educated, family oriented and beautiful! However, the family values are always kept above financial and career issues. This is part of what makes each Russian woman such a wonderful wife! This international dating website is not about mail order brides. We offer matchmaking services to meet beautiful Russian ladies seeking to be the wives of decent, faithful and good hearted men.
Russian scammers and their dating scams are detected from the moment they meet our marriage agency owners. A dating scammer will most likely opt to perform her scam on dating websites where she doesnt need to meet anyone to register. Scammer artists know the rules of our marriage agencies and will most likely use free dating websites to perform their scams. Our marriage agency staff validates the identity of each Russian woman, Belarus woman and Ukraine woman with passport and interviews her to evaluate the truthfulness of her intentions.
My Partner Forever does not tolerate any agency scams. Our international dating website and matchmaking service works with the best marriage agencies in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. Our reputation relies on our integrity and honesty. Russian scammers know our rules and know that scams are not tolerated; thus they will avoid our dating website and perform their scam elsewhere.
It is widely known that Eastern European Women from Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine are some of the most beautiful and sexy women in the world. But Russian women, Belarus women and Ukraine women arent just pretty on the outside! They are gorgeous on the inside, too -- and they know how to make their husbands happy!
Russian women, Belarus women and Ukraine women are seeking a good man for husband and become his beautiful wife. Our dating website, marriage agencies and matchmaking service will assist you in every step of finding your beautiful Russian Bride.
Many Eastern European women cannot find the man who will make their dream come true: become beautiful wives and share lifelong romance with their husband. In a similar way as you are doing, they are broadening their horizons in the search of a life partner and heres your opportunity to find a beautiful Russian bride!
I am Inna from Kharkov, Ukraine. Im 22 years old, never married and seeking a partner. | |
Are you looking for a beautiful 22 years old girl from Odessa? It is me! My name is Evgeniya and Im looking for my second half. | |
My name is Olga. Im 28 years old. I was never married and live in Grodno, Belarus. |
By tradition, any Russian woman and Ukrainian girl makes it a priority to create a strong family with a decent and faithful man for who shell be the most beautiful and sexy bride. Living in a country where there is 10 million more women than men, she will register with a marriage agency that works with international dating websites and internet personals to find the man who will make her dreams come true; become a beautiful Russian bride.
It is not a secret that single Russian men are spoiled and reluctant to engage in serious relationships. Thousands of beautiful Russian girls are leaving their homeland each year to be with their husband who they found with the help of an international dating website. As thousands of lucky men do every year, make a beautiful Russian woman or sexy Ukrainian girl become your future wife.
Russian girls, Belarusian girls and Ukrainian girls become beautiful brides and make the best wives because they offer the most of both worlds exotic beauty and traditional family values.
From the beginning of their teenage years, girls from Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine are taught by their mothers how to become beautiful Russian brides and good wives. They are taught how to be beautiful and feminine and how to be a good housewife who always puts her family and husband first.
We want to make this perfectly clear: Every Russian girl, Belarusian girl and Ukrainian girl on our website is 100% REAL.
What you see is what you get, GUARANTEED.
...Could YOU be that man for one of these beautiful Russian girls?
In case youre wondering if you really CAN form a deep, loving relationship with a Russian woman youve met on an international dating website, let us assure you, you can!
I (Alain from Montreal, Canada) feel like the luckiest man on the planet. I married a beautiful and wonderful Russian woman named Yuliya. A few years ago, we were living in different parts of the world, seeking a life partner without any success.
Because we weren`t able to find our "other half" in our own country, we decided to broaden our search to other parts of the world. As fate would have it, we met through an international dating website and struck up a correspondence with each other. We sent letters, exchanged pictures, and our casual online relationship soon deepened into something more meaningful.
Some months later, I flew to Eastern Europe to meet Yuliya in her hometown of Grodno, Belarus. Though we were nervous about our first "real" meeting, we soon became quite comfortable with each other. By the end of the week, my beautiful Russian woman and I knew we were in love!
Yuliya and I exchanged emails and talked to each other via "Skype" and our love kept on growing. Soon we were vacationing on a beach in Cuba together!
For our next meeting, Yuliya came to Canada to become familiar with what we hoped would become her future home. She met my family and friendswho were charmed by my beautiful Russian womanand explored the local schooling options for her young daughter.
Before long, the immigration process was underway and within six months, we were all living together as a new family!
Our story is special... but it ISN`T unique. Any man with a decent heart who is trying to find a good woman to make his wife can have the same success that we enjoy.
All you have to do is take a chance!
If youd like to talk to one of these beautiful Russian women RIGHT NOW, sign up for our 10-day free trial today!
Looking at sexy Russian Women in Moscow and St Petersburg, beautiful Belarus women in Grodno and Minsk, and nonetheless pretty Ukraine women in Odessa and Kiev; one has to agree that sexy ladies are everywhere in former USSR. Although most of them have the looks of a top model, only a few are professional models.
How can there be so many sexy ladies in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine? They eat healthy, live an active way of life and since they compete for fewer men; they need to always look their best. Check the pictures and videos of these sexy Russian ladies and read their profiles; you will want to travel to Russia!
Anyone who travelled Russia will agree that the Russian Mail Order Brides concept is inappropriate. Russian women have a very rich culture and heritage. However, they cannot find the most precious: a decent and faithful man. This is why so many Russian singles are seeking a husband from outside their country.
As in any part of the world, there are dating scammers in Russia. The best way to avoid them is to deal with our reliable international dating website and matchmaking service. When traveling to meet your Russian lady, we and the staff of our marriage agencies will assist you in every step so you can concentrate on the purpose of your trip: meet your beautiful Russian bride.
Leaving their country, family and friends is a big decision which thousands of Russian women, Belarusian women and Ukrainian women take every year. You cannot find a suitable life partner in your homeland? You are tired of being alone? Dont wait any longer: browse our Russian singles profiles and one of these beautiful women may be your future Russian wife!
Russian women and Ukrainian girls are considered to be excellent wives and sexy brides. Beautiful women from Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine are seeking a foreign husband. They want to create a strong family and to become the beautiful wife of a faithful and good hearted man. Use our dating website and matchmaking service to make one of these sexy girls your hot Russian bride.
Russian girls and Ukrainian girls still hold the value of creating a strong family deep in their heart and too often they cannot achieve this dream within their own country. As any modern woman; they are intelligent, well-educated and career minded but the family always remains the top priority. This is exactly why many men from western countries decide to seek their future wife in Russia.
Our international dating website and matchmaking services will help you find this special lady. One of these beautiful Russian women may be your future bride. Every marriage agency owner is an experienced matchmaker. They proudly introduce their single Russian women to serious men seeking a life partner. Youre tired of being lonely? Introduce yourself to a Russian woman and you may be on the way of finding your beautiful Russian wife!
All our best wishes,
Alain and Yuliya


text:
New 28, 000 SF retail building with 9600 sf already leased. Available are seven 2, 400 SF units. Can be consolidated. All units are condo'd for future marketability too. All units delivered as a warm white box. Build out to be with lease terms with consideration of some abated rent. SELLER WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ALL OFFERS !!!
Click for more info
Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
The information contained in this listing is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Listing data provided by Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. as of 12/13/2012