Jon Beydler is a 32-year Valley resident and the former mayor of
Fountain Hills who now lives in Chandler.
Current users sign in here.
Step right up folks, freebies for everyone! Going once, going twice, ......
Americans want those making over $200k to pay their fair share? They already do Jon and then some.
The richest 5% already pay taxes at THREE TIMES higher than the average tax rate of the remaining 95%. We would have to raise the effective tax rate to 88% to shoulder the deficit. So a family earning $300,000 would only earn $36,000 after taxes. Makes me want to go right out and start a business right away!
Over the past century, lower rates have shifted the tax burden onto high-income earners and away from the middle class while maintaining the tax code's progressiveness. When Clinton raised tax rates in the 1990s, the economy boomed and the share of taxes paid by the rich increased. But the otherwise depressive effect of higher tax rates was counteracted by the lighter burden of government on the private sector—federal spending declined to 18% of GDP in 2000 from 22% in 1993. That's no longer the caswe.
My bet is punishing the producers in America even further than they already are is going to deepen the recession, more layoffs, investment retraction. There's literally no reason for an entrepreneur to invest in the American economy with people like you voting Jon.
The problem for the middle class isn't taxes but that the dollar has depreciated so badly from printing so many that a dollar doesn't go far anymore. To create more tax revenue, you must create an economic environment that creates more millionaires that employ 70% of the workforce not punish them for their achievements.
Fired up and ready to go.....or over the financial cliff to collapse? Time will tell if I"m right. 30 years of experience tells me I am.
Jon, Yes your side won. Now you and the other 47% that pay "no share" will have to be supported by us "Old White Republican Men" as the Big Government takes from us the "Makers" and gives to you the "Takers". I hope you enjoy your tide of winning as we watch our country dissolve before our very eyes. Now let the liberal/progressive/socialist/democrat/anti-god party own this catastrophe.
A couple of things:
A. Despite these guys above claiming that the "47%" somehow carried the day in this year's election, maybe they should look at the demographics of the election. Specifically, the states that get more federal "stuff" were the red states, the Romney states. Look it up -- more states that voted for Romney get disproportionately larger amounts of federal aid, more bang for their buck.
B. Beydler's commentary is that of the arrogant. Before he started gloating too much, he should consider the possibility that the minority/young voter turnout is peculiar to who ran, that they voted for Obama because he's the first black president.
I just wonder if that coalition will show up in similar numbers for the Dems in future elections.
mnjcpa -- you are insane!!You said " Over the past century, lower rates have shifted the tax burden onto high-income earners "Just how in the name of heaven have the tax cuts given to the wealthy over the last 30 years shifted the tax burden onto high-income earners?THEY are the ones who have been getting tax cut after tax cut LOWERING THEIR TAXES -- shifting the burden onto the LOWER classes.
Insane Willie? Try 30 years of tax experience. You've been fed a con job and it's obviously worked.
Lower tax rates are good for EVERYONE. We need an economy that creates more millionaires that Obama loves to excoriate, not more taxes from those who already exist. Taxes paid by millionaires fell by almost $100 BILLION between 2007-2010. The drop isn't from low tax rates, but from a recession, and ineffective expensive policies Obama put in place that thinned the ranks of the wealthy.
Over time with lower tax rates, the burden has shifted to the upper income taxpayers. The richest 5 percent of Americans already pay a tax rate almost THREE TIMES higher than the average tax rate of the remaining 95 percent.
Clinton raised tax rates in the 90's and the economy boomed - but fails to tell you that the share of taxes paid by the rich increased. The depressive effect of higher tax rates was counteracted by the lighter burden of government spending on the private sector as evidenced by federal spending declined to 18% of GDP in 2000 from 22% in 1993.
The middle class is hurting because of a dollar that's depreciated from printing trillions of pretty color paper. The same dollar can't buy anywhere close to what it used to. Fixing the problem isn't putting even more burden on the people that already pay the majority of tax. Obama has made the private sector people's enemy and government the champion. Welcome to socialism.
Time will tell if I'm right. Massive layoffs, retraction of investments, moving operations to countries friendlier than the US are all items my clients strategies include. My bet is I'm right. Another four years of the same and the articles I'm reading in Pravda - in Russia (they're laughing at us) will be true.
There's simply no reason to invest your own money and start a business in America anymore.
Interesting – Wal Mart workers are planning a Black Friday walk out!
The nerve of those peons ( some of the 47%), trying to negotiate better wages and to end the retaliatory actions by Wal Mart. I am so glad that Mitt Romney is NOT in Washington handing the wealthiest people in the world (the Waltons) more tax cuts just so they can hire Christmas help without dipping into their Cayman island accounts.
While Jon should be dismissed generally, a few thoughts with regard to his assertions. I too am for taking away the income tax and creating the point of purchase tax. Ironically, this would shift the payment and proportion of taxes away from the rich and down the income scale. Stimulus package was absolutely necessary to jump start the economy. Hmmm. Are we now in the jump started portion of that process? Obama won because of the truth he told us for the last 4 years. So even though days before the election, his minions tied a terrorist attack to a Youtube video, Jon thinks that this is a truthful administration? Interesting. Impossible to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.
There are many reasons why the Republicans lost the election, not the least of which is the fact that people with traditional American values are out-numbered now. I am 65 years old and never thought I would see the day when belief in personal/fiscal responsibility, hard work, traditional marriage, and the sanctity of ife would be mocked and ridiculed. No matter - I am prepared to be called hateful and bigoted (those terms are thrown around so frequently now that they hold little meaning any more) for believing in what America used to stand for. People like Jon think they are "enlightened" to be going into this "brave new world". They don't realize that many civilizations before ours have gone this route - to their destruction. There is nothing new under the sun, Jon - just a different time in which it is tried.
This is good Cerulean. The workers of Walmart operate in the same free country that everyone else does. If they are unhappy with their current employer, they are free to go and work for whomever they would like. Similarly, if Walmart has a policy to fire a worker who walks off the job, they are also free to do so. That hard negotiation seemed to work well for Hostess workers- no?
This would be a hoot. Maybe Jon should run again to be the Mayor of Fountain Hills. I am sure with the kind of smart philosophy and logical ideas, he would be a sure win.
Couldn't agree with you more gilbertgrandma.
I believe the only thing that's going to change our trajectory now is an `event` to wake people up. When I read comments like Cerulean, I start thinking I must be living in Russia, but realize that the problem you so aptly describe starts in our inept government education system.
The `event` will likely be monetary collapse. We're on the verge of it now. Today's WSJ feature article is the number of companies scaling back spending. What does that lead to? Unemployment.
For this commenter, you're words ring loud and true.
If I was WalMart management Cerulean, I would fire every one of those employees.
Romney couldn't do anything if he wanted to. Learn free markets.
Gilbert Grandma and mnjcpa like the idea of the makers and takers, that the makers are abused by the takers. However . . .
Once again, the red states tend to be greater takers than the blue states. That is, they get more federal money back to them than they send. Seems that the Republican red states like to be the takers from the makers.
How about that?
And what exactly does that prove Mike? Not a much of nothing.
Why is it that no one other than the same commenters ever posts an idea? I truly like to read the comments from the same people but it would be interesting to hear from someone less predictable.What is wrong with people that they don’t read the paper and make comments? [tongue]
mnjcpa – Mike’s comment suggests that Republicans are out of touch with reality.
Maybe because the ideas you favor are right out of Russia.
mnjcpa ,You are, indeed, delusional.What good did the Bush tax cuts do, except allow the richest 10% of the population to put more money in the bank.Can you show us any reinvestment or even any increased hiring as a result.Lier, lier, pants on fire!!!!
First, downtown you might learn to draft an original thought on this column. I don't believe I've ever seen one from you. Secondly, learn to spell. Liar with an a.
downtown - You'd prefer to go along with the mantra your party convinces you to believe but check out my post at 11:06 am this morning as to why tax cuts are good for everyone.
The front page editorial article today in the Wall Street Journal is the massive cutbacks American businesses are going to do now facing a second Obama administration.
Time will tell which of us is right. Or will it take economic collapse to finally get a liberal's attention?
Your column reminded me of H. L. Mencken:
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. "
You 'won' because:"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."
And then, of course"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods. "
You have rather validated this advice"Before a man speaks it is always safe to assume that he is a fool. After he speaks, it is seldom necessary to assume it."
Back to the makers and takers. I just read an interesting article about the guys who run PIMCO. And they note that the "makers" sure are taking:
"90% of the income gains since the recovery have accrued to the top 1%."
Yep, the "makers" are making out just fine. So fine that the PIMCO CEO's believe a 4.6% tax increase on the top 1% "wouldn't drive entrepreneurs abroad."
That would bring the top tax rate to 39.6%. Given that currently our tax rates are the lowest since WWII, a modest tax increase on the top, combined with smart spending cuts and some painful entitlement reform, would bring our country some significant debt reduction.
The last of the three is the third rail, however. Until we do something with SS and Medicare, we are heading for trouble, period.
Mike, I'm sorry you misunderstood my point. I am not talking about "makers and takers" - I'm talking about values. Traditional values and beliefs can be embraced by people at all economic levels. My values have not changed since I was a young military wife in the 60's & 70's to now that I'm retired. It has nothing to do with the amount of money you earn.
Jon Beydler wrote: “I am so tempted to write the words “I told you so” over and over again….”
Just like the way Jon Beydler forecasted (predicted) the 2012 ARIZONA GENERAL ELECTION??
1. IN ARIZONA ELECTION: Sheriff Arpaio will not resign from office. Additional charges will be levied against him by the Department of Justice. He loses in his attempt to win a fifth consecutive term. (So, Beydler predicted).
But, the voters in Arizona’s Maricopa County did convincingly re-elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the “toughest sheriff” in America. “Sheriff Joe”, the Republican incumbent who first took office in 1992, won a sixth four-year term.
2. IN ARIZONA ELECTION: President Barack Obama is re-elected (in Arizona) for a second term by defeating the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. Obama carries Arizona by a narrow margin turning the State “Purple” versus “Red”. (So, Beydler predicted).
But, in Arizona, President Barack Obama LOST THE ELECTION. Even though, Obama did win the victory in other states, for a second four-year term.
3. IN ELECTION: The Democrats regain the U.S. House. (So, Beydler predicted).
Going into the election, Republicans controlled the U.S. House of Representatives by 242-193 . . . Former Congressman and Republican Matt Salmon won the U.S. House seat in Arizona's 5th Congressional District, and Republicans maintain the majority in the House. Democrats failed to recapture the majority in the House of Representatives they lost two years ago, and President Barack Obama, in his second term, will face the same divided Congress in 2013.
4. IN ARIZONA ELECTION: Republican Rep. Jeff Flake becomes the next U.S. Senator from Arizona. (So, Beydler predicted).
Beydler’s prediction was right, concerning the race for the U.S. Senate; in which Republican Jeff Flake ended up winning over Democrat Richard Carmona.
5. IN ARIZONA ELECTION: The Arizona House of Representatives is taken back by the Democrats albeit by the slimmest of margins. The Senate remains in the hands of the Republicans. (So, Beydler predicted).
The state's redistricting commission injected a strong dose of competitiveness in at least its new congressional districts . . . But, there was no such major shift in the Arizona House of Representatives, where the Republicans remain the majority. Re-elected Andy Tobin of Paulden will run that chamber for the next two years. And State Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs was chosen by fellow Republicans to become Senate president in January.
Mike – First, comparing tax rates to what they were in WW2 is like comparing public schools to chartered schools. The top 5% ALREADY pay a tax rate that is THREE TIMES higher than the average tax rate of the remaining 95 percent.
It is true when Bill Clinton raised tax rates in the 1990s, the economy boomed and the share of taxes paid by the rich increased. But what Clinton doesn't tell you is the depressive effect of higher tax rates was countered by the lighter burden of government on the private sector—federal spending declined to 18% of GDP in 2000 from 22% in 1993.
Bush cut the top income tax rate in 2003 to 35% from 39.6% and cut taxes on capital gains, too. Federal tax revenues surged by a record $780 billion from 2003-07, when the housing bubble collapsed. And once again, the rich paid MORE TAX, not less. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% rose to 41% in 2007 from 35% in 2003. Tax payments by millionaires doubled from 2003 to 2007 because there were more millionaires and their before-tax incomes rose rapidly.
Liberals argue that tax revenues from the wealthy increased simply because the rich got richer. And so they did. But the economic growth that was touched off by lower tax rates, particularly in the 1960s and 1980s, also benefited middle-class incomes and living standards.
The US has too much debt – public and private – relative to GDP, and an increasing portion of this debt is unproductive or even counterproductive. This means that we are not going to be able to generate income in the future to service the debt. In the last 15 years, the debt-to-GDP ratio has risen from roughly 250-260% to almost 400% today, and our standard of living is no higher. By “debt” I am talking about our $55-60 trillion of public and private debt. By "standard of living" I mean the median household income. This is creating the permanent underclass problem that I constantly write about. The new debt has bought us some gains in GDP, but it has not improved the welfare of the majority of Americans. Nor will Obama's policies going forward.
You may disagree, but time will tell which of us is right.
That theme, "All fired up, Ready to go!" was a theme used repeatedly in 2012 by Organizing for America, the organization that out witted and out worked Mitt Romney's get out the vote operation. If I recall correctly and as you report, it was used in 2008 as well. Judging from the age of today's O4A's volunteers, it would appear that the youth have taken over from us old folks. The geriatric crew lost!
Jon, you see it. I see it. But most of the critics of your piece do not. Too bad, they'll loose again and again and again.
The theme goes like this. A leader [or someone moved in the audience] first shouts
"All fired up" which is immediately followed by the crowd shouting back "All fired up",
Then the single voice goes on "Ready to go" and the crowd follows again. The cheer may be repeated several times, and often is taken over by the leadership. I would not call this brain washing. For there is no directly associated message. Rather I'd call this contageous enthusiasm, a commodity unknown in Karl Rove Republican circle$.
Now I've got to go find my wheel chair! I voted for Trickly Richard in 1968 and have not stopped regretting it since.
Dale, “All fired up” is the call, “Ready to go” is the response. In African culture, “Call and response is a pervasive pattern of democratic participation – in public gatherings, in the discussion of civic affairs, in religious rituals, as well as in vocal and instrumental musical expression.” (wiki)
If mnjcpa were to watch this video: http://youtu.be/iK0t-uNEa8o he would see many Republicans in the audience.
I would feel the same way Dale if I looked back and knew I voted for Obama.
As the left presses its current advantage, the temptation among some Republicans is to offer a tactical surrender on social issues in the hope of winning support on fiscal ones. The target in the culture war must remain Obama’s statism, which I will continue to hold up for ridicule. Young people will cross over because liberty provides a deeper and more fulfilling reconciliation of the contradictions young people face.
Accepting the basic truth that individuals bear the ultimate responsibility for their own fate. Even if some inherit advantages of wealth and talent allows us to escape the crippling guilt of success or the paralysis of victimhood. Not through the personality of a political leader, but through an embrace of individual potential. But it will not be easy.
Winning the culture war means fighting it--which means piercing the boundary between the separate universes into which American political and cultural discourse has become segmented. It is no longer adequate for conservatives to share quietly the things we believe, and hope enough of us show up at the polls.
To convince, we must first be willing to provoke and offend, in order to awaken--before it is too late. I’m up to that charge.
mnjcpa, you misunderstand the tax stat -- this is the lowest tax rate since after WWII.
Partially as a result, the richest are doing just fine -- 90% of the income since the recovery began has gone to the top 1%.
So to argue that adding a modest 4% tax increase to their income somehow would hinder investment and spending is silly. Especially in light of the top tax rates over the last 65 years:
During the 1950's, for example, what was the top rate? 90%.
And the economy grew an average of 4% a year in the 50's, even with a mid-decade recession. During the last decade -- with a 35% top rate -- the economy grew by 2%.
In fact, since 1950, the economy grew faster when the top tax rate was 50% or more than it did when the rate fell below 50%. Below 50%, the economy has grown at 2.7% per year; above 50%, 3.7% growth per year.
As far as "winning the culture war" by provocation and offending others, that's what the Conservative Entertainment Complex HAS been doing. You want to "win" this "war," start by finding some common ground. It exists, but both sides' extremists tend to have the loudest voices.
You, mjncpa, have just advocated getting even louder. Big mistake.
Mnjcpa......What Mike and others fail to grasp is, very few if any income earners were ever taxed at the highest rate on income in the past, no matter what that rate was....or now is. With all of the options for deductions, exemptions and tax shelter creations by politicians for their friends and money donors, only those in the lower income tax brackets have ever really been taxed close to the maximum applicable rate.
That said, using the "top rate" argument, as Mike does, is merely pettifogging the issue instead of illuminating it. Of course, that's what the Left does best; spin selected facts to make a point.
As to comments about why Obama won, including winning the large majority of young voters, the inescapable fact is that without all the freebies the feds dole out these days, the picture would have been far different. Consider: exit polling shows that voters with incomes of $30,000 or less voted for Obama 63% to 35% for Romney. How do most of that income group keep up their standard of living? By receiving entitlements of one kind or another: food stamps, housing allowances, child support, etc. It is obvious that they have to be far more concerned with maintaining their ration of freebies than they are in wanting policies which should create more private sector jobs from which they could improve their own situation, but of course, who can blame them? After all, who would risk losing some or all of the free stuff he's getting now in the somewhat risky hope that a job might come along months later which would then require him to work hard for a decent living? This isn't to claim that a majority of those with that income don't work, or wouldn't work if they now are out of a job, but it is a claim that financial practicality dictated far more to their vote than other issues, IMHO.
And your analysis of the effects of inflation on the value of the dollar are spot on, too. But that's what we get with a government which refuses to live by its true means, borrows outrageously, and in partnership with the evil Federal Reserve System, manipulates interest rates and prints money hand-over-fist to fund all of the unConstitutional programs which ultimately allow venal politicians to make a lifetime job of elective office instead of it being what the Founders envisioned, temporary service to one's country.
Finally, in all this talk of soaking the "rich" more and more while exempting vast numbers of others of any personal responsibility, including contributing to the cost of the very government which supports them, where is there any consideration of fairness in applying the law to everyone equally? Isn't that an American ideal? Shouldn't tax law also comply with that standard, just as we expect other civil and criminal law to do? Should Warren Buffett or Bill Gates be forced to pay $1,000 for a loaf of bread just because they can afford it?
Lost in most of the "compassionate" rhetoric from the left is any sense of applying their "fairness standard" to tax law. But it appears that the Left, in its constant attack on successful people, can't let true fairness interfere with its perpetual clamor for more and bigger government, and the money to fund that has to come from somewhere.
Stick with education issues where you've got great ideas. You really don't grasp the totality of the problem. Putting even more burden on the 5% that already pay 3 times as much tax as the other 95% will be a disaster. Taxes aren't the reason we're in this mess. It's the vast amount of pretty paper that we print called dollars (Keynesian economics) that's devalued so severely that it kills a middle income family's budget. You think unemployment is bad now? You'll see.
JNelson - I'm claiming some of your comments as my own! Your understanding of taxes and economics couldn't be said any better.
I'll be interested to see the opinions in this column after January when people start seeing the impact of Obama policies in their paychecks. Everyone thinks it's just the rich that are getting soaked, but it's everyone.
JNelson - Pay attention to what the Left's doing with taxes, using the tax code to accomplish their new marxism ideas of controlling people's consumption, behavior, and other liberties through government vehicles like Obamacare.
Many commenters on this blog can't get their thinking beyond `soak those stinking rich people` to see that their freedoms are being ripped out from under them ~ right before their eyes. They're so consumed with vilifying success, that they don't realize what liberty and freedom means to be a free nation any longer. Check out the editorials in the Russian newspaper - Pravda. They're laughing at us.
Well, thanks to JNelson and mnjcpa, we've learned that Truman, Eisenhower and Bush the Elder are all marxists.
Meanwhile, JNelson continues the polite fiction that somehow Entitlement Nation carried the day for Obama, when, in fact, the states receiving the most federal aid in relation to tax revenue produced are red states.
And thanks to Dale (the "Republican who never heard a Dem talking point he didn't embrace), Mike McC and (ooch) Jon B for furthering the ironic concept that more spending, taxing the rich and Federal creep into all facets of life (ergo Obamacare) is the solution. There is no doubt he won a 2nd term. There is also little doubt that the people who America would assume will start igniting jobs are very very wary. Listen to the Business owners if you want to get an idea of which way the wind has blown.
Mike....."... the states receiving the most federal aid in relation to tax revenue produced are red states." You might find it surprising to know but all "federal aid" to states isn't entitlement benefits to individuals. My citation concerning the voting results from voters whose income is $30,000 or less is far different than just "federal aid". And that 27% difference in favor of Obama (63% to 35%) amounted to some 7,000,000 votes; if just half of them were more votes for Romney instead, he'd be president.
Plus, I don't know where you read in my posts any reference to Marxism since I've never mentioned that at all. But again, that's something those on the Left seem happy to do: deliberately (or not) confuse what one has said and attempt to turn it into something else.
Finally Mike, since I'm pretty new to this forum, readers likely are not familiar with my political outlook. For years on the AZCentral forum, I've often pointed out that the Republican Party is just about as guilty as the Democrats in the last 4 decades or so in driving the country to the edge of the cliff, being about 80% as guilty, IMO. So...if by saying "marxist" you believe my criticism of politicians is confined to Democrats and their policies, you are mistaken. That's why I am a Libertarian, one who believes our major troubles result from straying so far from the US Constitution's provisions.
"...continues the polite fiction that somehow Entitlement Nation carried the day for Obama, when, in fact, the states receiving the most federal aid in relation to tax revenue produced are red states."
How does your cherry picked stat (or fact if you prefer) relate? Furthermore, what is Federal aid, just entitlements? Are agricultural price supports included? Highway funds? If you are going to go to the trouble of looking it up, you might want to focus on a series of statistics that might tell you who people being bribed through entitlements voted for. Good lord, you taught 'critical thinking' to children? Certainly brings the election into clearer focus. If this is what you taught them, you made them the victims of anybody who can spin a cherry picked stat out of context.
Let's see, let's see. . . aren't you the guy, Rich, who argued on my column about spice and bath salts that instead of outlawing them, we should find an alternative?
Yep, that was you.
And when I asked you what the alternative would be, you wrote,
"Would probably involve trying other things, but when you rely on something that doesn't work, chances are you won't find anything that does."
"Would probably involve trying other things."
That about says it all about the powers of critical thinking.
And you couldn't think critically about that? If what you rely on doesn't work, what do you do? You try other things. It is the essence of critical thinking. Instead of repeating the same mistake, you try other things, since we generally don't kids die snorting bath salts and spice, which is pretty much what you were advocating. Unlike you Mike, I don't have answers, I am not certain of things, but I do know when someone is totally blowing smoke, as you are doing now, to cover up the fact that you got caught in an obvious spin.
You taught kids critical thinking? And you want more money for education? We probably deserve at least a partial refund.
Well, I bet even kids I taught could understand that when someone says we should try something else, and this is asked what the alternative would be, his answer of "trying other things" is a non-answer.
The powers of critical thinking on display:
Rich: Try something else.
Me: Like what?
No Mike, it isn't a non answer and it is fairly simple minded to consider it one. It is, in fact a paraphrase (close to a translation) of Leibnitz and denotes an entire method of problem solving from the man who invented calculus. But of course, you taught children to jump to conclusions that support their already established viewpoint or more likely yours and called it 'critical thinking', teaching a course in art that you obviously didn't understand, hence the 'critical thinking' addition to the curriculum. You advocated prohibition as an answer to drugs, a method that has proven to be an abject failure since tried by pharaohs. Does someone have an answer? No if anyone did the problem would have gone away over the past four or five thousand years. Instead, people who don't care to think run the the 'obvious' solution that has never worked, the antidote to that is to try something else.
As I said, if you taught children, we are due a refund.
Boys, Boys [Mike and Rich]
Have you forgotten my piece on what it means to be conservative? When a liberal like Mike sees something not working, he tries something else. A conservative, perhaps fearing the unknown, tries what he believes to have been tried and tested before. And doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results has been defined as insanity. So are conservatives insane? For my sake, I hope not. But then I behave more like an independent, don't I.
Mike, I regret having moved from the Dobson High area to Chandler before my kids entered even junior high. I'd have liked you to have been their teacher.
Wouldn't it have been honest for today's conservatives [Neo-conservatives] to have admitted that Romney's theme was in reality "trickle down economics" from the Reagan years? And even Reagan turned away from that theory! Anyone care to explain why?
And Mike and Rich, isn't vouchers something different and new to try? Or perhaps Social Security hasn't failed yet! It will, though. Where once the average family size was 4 kids, today it has sunk to something nearer 2 kids per family. And two does not fund Social Security, does it. So something new is needed. But what?
You're right Rich and JNelson. A former high school English teacher takes a 30 year CPA to task on tax issues that are cheery picked and have NOTHING to do with what JNelson and I are discussing.
The best thing my family ever did was bite the bullet and take on the expense of pulling our kids from the public (aka Government run) school system.
Dale.....re the question of answers to today's problems.....I believe that I might have one or two of them, at least where the federal government is concerned. If we just look back at the US Constitution, especially Article 1 Section 8, and compare what it says there to what the federal government does today, we see that much of government activity has no true Constitutional authority even though the Supreme Court often has ruled otherwise. The latest example is ObamaCare. Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint that government may force a citizen to purchase any commodity; nowhere is there a hint that government may take assets from one person and give them to another; yet, Social Security, Medicare, MedicAid, food stamps, housing allowances, etc., ad infinitum, are huge government programs sucking up a very large portion of national wealth.
How did the Supreme Court find ObamaCare Constitutional? Chief Justice Roberts' vote was the deciding one. He said the word "penalty" in the ACA actually means "tax" and then said because Congress has a taxing power, ObamaCare becomes Constitutional. He completely ignored the fact that Congress' power to tax is still confined to taxation that funds LEGITIMATE federal policies; Congress has no power to tax willy-nilly and perhaps gamble the funds on Lotteries all over the world, for example. Yet, SC justices rule otherwise.
So, one of my answers is, go back to the Constitution. Judge every federal program by whether or not it has clear authorization under Article 1, Section 8. If not, faze it out in short order.
Answer #2 is one naturally following the implementation of #1: people are responsible for themselves. People have no power to force others to care for them in any way. It is the government instigated notion that people have rights beyond those stated in the Bill of Rights where the trouble arises. When people believe that others are required, and can be forced, to make their lives "fair" or bring their material wealth up to some standard which they cannot or will not attain by themselves, big trouble looms.
Finally, simple observation and an understanding of reality would go a long way to resolve our economic and fiscal difficulties. We have the prime example of Western European nations falling apart right before our eyes; yet, the liberal left here seems driven to copy the very policies that put those countries in dire jeopardy anyway.
I'm sure some will dispute my answers but that's OK by me. Let's discuss them, or other proposals, and see what happens.
mjcpa – you wave your credentials (Certified Public Accountant) as some sort of password that gives you superiority in the field of economics. Accounting and economics are two very different fields of study. Taxes fall in the field of economic fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is what congress does to adjust spending to taxation. There are no clear answers in economics. Economies are ever changing, mutable, capricious, unlike accounting, no one can be certain. You are not better qualified in the argument than Mike McClellan.
mnjcpa, you copy pasted your culture war thoughts from Breitbart.com. You do know that Breitbart died from a heart attack, and that it is contagious.?
Cerulean, mnjcpa likes to make a big deal of CPA and his " clients " and he worships business owners as though they were Jesus re-incarnated.I, at first, thought he had his own shop but then I saw a post he made to an attorney who posted here a few weeks ago and he said he consulted an attorney who works at the same company and I realized that mnjcpa is just another cube warrior, whether he is a CPA or not. He is not a successful one who has opened his own business.It explains his jealousy of people who retire early. He spews about his 30 years of tax experience and then you need to realize that after 30 years he is still slaving away counting other peoples money and it sends him into a fury to see other people who have retired after their 30 some years and he knows he probably won't ever be able to retire.
You have no idea what you're talking about AZWillie. You think I'm jealous of a uneducated construction worker that landed a windfall? How funny. What you don't like is I call you out for your hypocrisy criticizing Republicans and the real troopers of the economy - the small business owner..
Cerulean - you're not interested in learning anything that contrasts with the liberal doctrine that you've been fed. And I certainly don't need to justify my knowledge for someone with such closed thinking.
I'm committed to helping people that are receptive to understand that the 1% and `fair share` has another side to the story. Fortunately there's still plenty of people that want to understand different points of view. I'm afraid you're not one of them.
Hey Willie - the lawyers in my office are my partners. We own three businesses together, something you wouldn't know the first thing about what that takes.
Hey everyone - pardon for my snarkiness. I'll blame it on too many relatives in the house and too much food to resist.
To those going after mnjcpa . . .
Though I disagree with almost everything he writes, I find him to be a guy who's thoughtful and at least tries to explain his views so that some schlub like me can understand them. Plus, he tends not to demonize those who disagree with him, even, again, someone loud-mouthed like me.
And for that, I appreciate what he writes. Even though he's wrong.[smile]
"There are many reasons why the Republicans lost the election, not the least of which is the fact that people with traditional American values are out-numbered now."
And THANK GOODNESS for that! We don't need "traditional American values" like racism, segregation, accepted cultural misogyny, religious bigotry...and let's not forget women's rights, "grandma".
I wonder, since GilbertGrandma implies she voted, I guess the "traditional American value" of not allowing women to vote isn't one she champions? ;)
"he tends not to demonize those who disagree with"
Except when he does...
"You think I'm jealous of a uneducated construction worker "*cough* AN uneducated construction worker...someone failed their grammar class!:)
Decided to try to cancel my last post. Think perhaps in the spirit of Thanksgiving I should apologize to mnjcpa for yanking his chain. It's just such an easy target. Last post was perhaps a bit over the top so, if so, I apologize. I shouldn't rub it in that way.
Fired up and ready to go?
Just read the details in the Wall Street Journal of the Hostess debacle. This is a perfect example of ALL things wrong with supporting labor unions.
The workers were offered the following to AVOID bankruptcy.
- 25% equity stake in the company- With 8% paycuts. The cuts were for EVERYONE - including management- Pay 17% more of their own healthcare- Slowdown in pension contributions (the same kind that's made AZWillie a retiree at 50) [smile]
AND THEY TURNED IT DOWN. They'd rather go bankrupt - and lose their jobs - rather than take a reasonable solution to the problem.
It's not hard to see how Obama got reelected. He promised low and middle income taxpayers FREE STUFF that the rich will pay for. I'll devote the rest of my career helping business owners avoid this kind of devastating result of outdated labor unions and big government.
Mnjcpa......and what about all the non-union workers with Hostess who also lost THEIR jobs? Nobody on the left seems to care much about them; certainly the union didn't.
I'm GDI. I vote for the PERSON (Note that race, color, creed, sex, religious belief or sexual orientation is NOT CONSIDERED). My father never finished high school, let alone "Jr. High" (Which didn't exist back then). When he was a child, he had to work to make sure they could eat, and pay their bills. When I was a child, I had to wear "hand me downs that my two older brothers wore before me, and were OLDER THAN I WAS! I started working at an early age because I WANTED to have more, so I went out and EARNED IT! I paid for my education by taking out loans (And then later paying them off, until these days!), and WORKING FULL TIME while attending college. I didn't qualify for any aid because I was "white" and governmental funds was being given to "Non-white". It didn't matter that I was just as poor as them! I EARNED everything I have through MY HARD WORK, not because it was handed to me!
gilbertgrandma is correct, many beneficial traditional values are gone, or quickly going. I fear for America's future because the entitlement minded are going to feast off the "fat of the cow", and said cow will soon be nothing but bones....
PS- Add after "Person": I think is best qualified.
ONLY A POLITICIAN WHO WAS RECALLED FROM BEING THE MAYOR OF FOUNTIAN HILLS WITH IN A YEAR OF HIS ELECTION HAS THIS KIND OF POLITICAL INSIGHT.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND....THE GOOD CITIZENS OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STARTED THE RECALL PETITIONS ...6 MONTHS AFTER POOR BEYDLER WAS SWORN IN (EVEN SOME OF THE GOOD FOUNTAIN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE SQUARELY BEHIND THE RECALL.......[sad]).
More from Columnists
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications