I believe in the income tax. In the progressive income tax. The higher your income the higher percentage of it you pay in taxes. You pay for the success the society allows you to achieve. I wish we had that in this country. I sure don't want to go to the most regressive tax system possible: Sales taxes are terrible: anti-poor and anti-production at the very same time.

But the funniest thing is Bush's people suggesting that he faced "an unexpected question." That's not possible at a Bush campaign event.

More lies. Unexpected questions my ass.

Anyhow, I hate sales taxes. Everyone should pay straight from their income, and a bit for their property, and not have to worry about taxes after that. I understand paying property taxes to support schools, but sales taxes encompass so much. It completely raises taxes on the poor and cuts taxes on the rich, not only that, it takes money out of the economy and requires the rate to be higher than if it were an income tax. Which ends up being more, 50% of the $100 that you spend, or 30% of the 150 that you earn?

"You pay for the success the society allows you to achieve." -thenarrator

That's a very interesting way to look at it. You could look at it like this, you are rewarded for the success you've spent your life working for. With a flat tax rate, oh dear, Congress would have to spend its money wisely! Someone call Scotland Yard! They would still pay far more than their non-wealthy counterparts.

Please! It's distributation of wealth! They have done a great job splitting the American public in to two, determining who is rich and who is poor, and amazingly catered to the "poor" who just happens to be the majority. What a coincidence. You ave to speak for both parts.

Why is sales tax anti-poor? So only people above a certain income should have to pay sales tax? That's not "paying for what society has allowed" that's punishment.

neverworld, how does sales tax at a grocery store cater to the rich and deprive the poor??????

Just responding to the comment above.  Considering the rich spend much more than the poor at grocery and all other stores, wouldn't you think they'd be putting in more?  Just a thought.  Plus, it's harder to hire accountants to help you get out of paying so many taxes (like John Kerry who makes more than Bush but actually contributed less in taxes...) when you are simply taxed on what you purchase.....

Has anyone ever heard the story about the little creature that worked all summer while the other creature played, yet the little creature who worked had to give up half of his hard-earned savings to give to the lazy bum of a creature who was too busy out having a good time?  Maybe I changed it a bit.  But I have to put it in simple terms for you people who will never understand that some people will be rich, others will be poor, and others will be stuck in the middle.  You may not like it but taking away the money from people who worked hard to earn it is not the way to go.  Especially taking away more money from the people that have worked hard to earn it.  Progressive sales tax is INSANE.  "Hey, you worked really hard and have made a great life for yourself.  But we're going to take away more than half of what you earn, because other people refuse to get off their asses and want to watch soap operas all day yet still afford Gucci purses.  So thanks for doing your part to pay for them."

weezerbaby, please take a day before 8th grade starts and look around the whole city you live closest to: you will see various things: (a) those below the $50,000 a year mark spend all that they earn, almost as soon as they earn it. (b) those above say $200,000 a year, don't spend all they earn, and surely don't spend it all in the United States. This is why sales taxes are regressive. They punish purchasing, which, incidently, discourages purchasing, which discourages manufacturing. You will also see that those who are rich tend to use more services: they have better police protection. They use airports more. They rely on SEC protections more. They use publically funded colleges more often. They drive more on interstates. They are more likely to ride Amtrak. They depend on foreign consulates more. But that's not the key point. You like to pretend that your parent's success is due solely to their own devices. That's nonsense. As we've already discussed, they owe EVERYTHING they have to the government in one way or another. Your father makes all his money because of a government run court system. He went to public colleges. He goes to work on public roads. His electricity is produced by government projects. Shouldn't they pay for that? Why should they get all this stuff for free? You'll also see that countries with much higher tax rates on the wealthy still innovate and create and invent. See any Japanese cars? Any Chryslers or other German efforts? Any Mitsubishi or Volvo trucks? Hear or see anything made by Sony? Panasonic? Philips? Picked up a cell phone by any company other than Motorola? Made a phone call (no doubt through a Siemens switching unit)? Noticed any Airbus jets flying through the air? Gone to a lake and seen a Sea-Doo? Then look in a mirror. What is it about you that makes you inherently better than my kid? Why should you be guaranteed more opportunity? Because your daddy got rich John Edwards-style? If you really believe in what you're saying, you'll favor a 100% inheritance tax, so you can start from scratch, and prove your worth in the world.

and I'm mystified, neither I nor neverworld suggested a "progressive sales tax" we're saying progressive income tax, something we simply do not have now.

And Erin too. If you believe what uou say, then you're for a 100% inheritance tax and equal funding for all schools, at least. Then we'll see who succeeds because of "hard work."

I just wanted to point out that at the grocery store, we don't have a sales tax for the most part.  Any food product purchased is non-taxable unless prepared at that store.  That could just be my state though.

The idea of disposable income comes into play here.  And Erin...  Your story doesn't point out the people that aren't able to make enough money after working very hard.  Does your scope of reality not fall on them?  Do you think that working hard ALWAYS makes you enough money to live?

As for Weezer, if you can't pay the respects to the society that helped you, then you shouldn't be allowed to milk off of it.  This isn't a society that lets you make something from it w/o giving.  The reason that people get rich is because they got a break somewhere from the government.  Coming in as a poor family, having lower taxes than the rich gives a greater chance to increase wealth.  Don't be so greedy to think that your ascent to wealth should have any effect on others attempts at wealth.

The reason that people get rich is because they got a break somewhere from the government.

Are you insane?  Do you think that everyone who is rich got a break from the government?  Good luck with that one.  You see, my dad came from a horrible situation.  His mother never cared for him so he had to live with other people starting at age 11.  He hasn't seen his father since his childhood.  Yet instead of becoming some bum with a sad story about a negligent parent and a crack whore mother, he played football and made good grades in high school.  He got a scholarship at a college because of his athletic and academic talents.  He worked hard (full time) and got his Masters in business.  He then went on to a good job and has worked HARD, working his way up the ladder to making over six figures, having four daughters he can afford to provide many luxuries for and not having to worry about money.  Where was his break from the government?  (He didn't even go to a public college!!!)  Why should he have to be punished by having his hard earned dollars stripped and given to those who are "less fortunate?"  He was by all accounts "less fortunate" and look what he did for himself.  He went to a school that doesn't have a good reputation all through his K-12 years.  He didn't receive government funds.  He was a young father and husband who worked hard.  Do you really think he "took a break" from the government somewhere?  The thinking of you people astounds me.  Some people work hard and earn money, and they become wealthy.  You may be jealous of this, I really don't know why you're so against it.  But if you are willing to put in the effort and work hard (which I consider going to school and working full time while raising two daughters to be) you can be successful.

Yeah, I think we just saw who "succeeds because of hard work."  Before thinking all rich people are ignorant airheads, think about people who started with nothing.  Then, come up with a better argument.

You see only what you want to see Erin. You always do. OK. As I said, if you TRULY believe it, you start with nothing as well. The first question really isn't about your dad, it's about YOU. Why do you get advantages others don't have? After all. If you start with nothing you'll work hard and success is guaranteed.

The second question is this: The people who work in McDonald's and Wal-Mart for minimum wage and no benefits aren't working hard? Can we sit down, you and them, and we'll talk? You can tell them how lazy they are. In fact, come with me, I'll take you through farms full of people working 80 hours a week and remaining below the poverty line. You can sit around their camp stoves and tell your sad story.

The third question IS for your dad. What country did he succeed in? What society? Did he make money out of thin air or within our economic system? Could he have succeeded without: roads, railroads, airports, schools, police, firefighters, banks that don't go bankrupt, with courts, the electrical grid, the fact that his customers spend money? The answer is NO. He did NOT succeed by himself. If he thinks that he's an egomaniac. If you think it your eyes aren't open. People succeed within a system. And when they do, they owe something back.

My point was proven through your own father then Erin...  BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T HAVE A DIFFERENT TAX SYSTEM, your dad was able to save up enough money to provide for himself.  Not because it had a flat tax rate.  Say the government does change the tax rate...  It will increase for lower income families, and decrease for higher income families.  This is UNDENIABLE.  You may be getting your money back, but it will be taken from someone else to make up for it.

Now say your dad didn't play football... Would he have the same opportunity?  Are we forced to do well in school and sports to make it?  Are you just scared of larger amounts of higher-level educated people coming into the workforce and taking your "JERBS!" away?   Good for you dad for making it...  I'm sorry that you don't think that others should have it a little bit easier b/c you want to save a buck.  Once again, stop being selfious and start thinking about your nation first.  It's for the general welfare, not for rich people that don't want to take their hands off their money.

and can you please post something about the Warped Tour and their widely seen "anti-Bush"ness?  I would love to see some stuff from there Whackbush!

(isn't amazing how an entire genre of music is opposed to a president? wow!)

Not to mention the best genre of music. (and the warped tour is pretty tame compared to some punk. the real kind I mean.)

every time a conservative says someone should "get off their lazy ass and work for their money," I get a step closer to a shooting spree. I'm only 15. my mom works 3 jobs to support our family, and we're still behind on bills all the time. I wonder how much weezerbaby's and Erin2201's families got from Bush for their tax cuts? I know how much I got.

A dollar.

yeah... one single dollar. Thanks Mr. President, I can go to college now!

I'm confused. We already have a sales tax- 8.25%. It is already on food, including when you eat at restaurants AND (despite what Brande Roderick thinks) what you buy at supermarkets. So what is he trying to do? raise it?

that's a state sales tax Danielle... He wants a national sales tax.  I'm not sure about your state, but there is a tax at restaurants because they PREPARED THE FOOD.  It is because of this service that they must tax.  However, if you buy almost any food product at a supermarket, there is no tax on it.  If there is, I think your state might be mean in that aspect.  Having worked in a grocery store for a year and a half in my state, I know for a fact that we don't have tax on food products.  Just look at your receipt next time you get groceries.  I'm sure thenarrator can find a sales tax chart online .

This varies wildly state to state. In Michigan if you buy "prepared food" (like a cooked chicken) it gets taxed, if it's not prepared AND from a supermarket it isn't. Some states have no sales tax on clothing items under $50 or $100. There are all kinds of variations.

Of course the biggest problem with a National Sales Tax is what it would have to be to replace the income tax. Probably between 40 and 50%. Added to state and local sales taxes you could be paying 60% in taxes on everything you buy.

But that's not the issue: Here's why INCOME should really be the only thing taxed. It's because you want the government to have an absolute interest in people earning more (the more they earn, the more the government gets). If you have a National salesTax the government is only interested in what you buy. Think locally, and you'll see the problem. In states with local sales taxes governments tear down people's homes to build Wal-Marts and car dealerships to capture the sales tax. It doesn't matter where the product is made or what it is, Hummer or cheap alcohol, the government wants you buying it.In places that are property tax dependent you are punished for impriving your home AND it is in the government's best interest to replace housing with better tax-paying things. "Sin" taxes (alcohol, cigarettes, gas consumption, lotteries) of course get the government into the business of hoping people do really stupid stuff. Only the INCOME TAX makes sense. You make money, the government makes money. The better you do, the better the government does. From both a fairness point of view and a classic capitalist point of view, it is the only logical tax. Even if we were to dramatically raise taxes, to say, 40% of taxable income OVER $200,000 a year (not even close to German or British rates), there's still plenty of incentive to make money. (Those guys who run VW, BMW, Daimler, etc still love their profits.)

This is where I realize that everything I wanted to say has already been said and advise Erin and Weezerbaby to shoot for smaller fry than thenarrator, who has been pretty dominant in the debates he's involved himself in.

it all makes sense now Narrator...  Government wanting people to do better rather than government wanting people to spend more...  Wow.  Thank you for enlightenment.

Sorry, Fleigende, I've never got time to comment, and when I do, usually thenarrator has said everything I was going to say.

But, I have a hard time believing that Erin's father didn't go to a public college, or even a college that receives federal aid.

In any case, I'd like to thank weezerbaby for putting words in my mouth. I never once suggested a progressive sales tax. And, the rich would pay less of their income (%) based on sales tax. Why is this? Because the rich are less likely to spend ALL of their money. Income tax really is the only thing that is fair, and I would like to see a 60% tax on taxable income over $200,000 each year. Which means that weezerbaby's father will be able to keep from $40,000-80,000 (which one I'm not sure, because he hasn't decided on a statistic for how much his father earns). Let's say his father makes $400,000 every year. This means that on taxeable income over $200,000, his father will get to keep more than either of my parents make in a year. He's still rewarded for his hard work, he just pays more for using the services that the government provides him and few others (such as planes, my family has bought maybe 4 plane tickets -round trips counted as one- in the last 10 years. Why is this? Because we can't afford to fly)

Even if you think that the government hasn't provided your family anything (becuase you are a selfish ass), maybe you should look at a broader picture. Why did your parents succeed? Because of the capitalist system. Shouldn't they thank a country for a capitalist system by contributing to it's success? I have no doubt that weezerbaby's father is a good lawyer, nor do I doubt that Erin's father is good at whatever he does, but be honest, without the US, they wouldn't be where they are.

Oh yeah, in California, sales tax is on everything but unprepared food. Sometimes junkfood etc, but most of the stuff in the grocery stores aren't taxable.

I am sorry, there is one point I simply cannot refrain from commenting on.  You wish conservatives to "thank" a capitalist system by making it, by your own admission, less capitalist?  Am I the only one who sees the hilarity in this position?

What would you say a liberal who hated capitalism should do?  Not thank it by not giving it any tax money?  In that case, count me a liberal

To OhGodDammit, if what he says is true, which, unlike my liberal counter-parts, I will believe, then you are most definitely an exception. Those in your situation who go out everyday and try, should receieve benefits for their misfortunes.

However, there are MANY people and families who don't, as described by Erin. There are some awfully snobby rich people in the world. There are some very grouchy poor people. There are some exteremly generous rich people. There are some very humble and loving poor people. Money and taxing has nothing to do with it. When you add percents to someone's income because achieved the American Dream, what good do you to those who are poor, receieve benefits, but see that being "rich" isn't that great of a thing? They realize that not trying is easier especially when Government helps them every month and finally, the only working people become "rich" and finally you collapse.

Yeah, I'm a little futuristic, but it's down this road of mass-liberalism. I've been reading Michael Savage, sue me.

Ah, narrator, you missed me by 2 years, I guess I have to completely disregard your entire speech...

In my state, sales tax is charged on everything in grocery stores.

"The people who work in McDonald's and Wal-Mart for minimum wage and no benefits aren't working hard? Can we sit down, you and them, and we'll talk?" -thenarrator

Once again, I myself attack no hard-working American regardless of race or income. My dad's entrie family is filled with low-income, hard-working good people. I have problems with the 20 and 30 year olds who qualify for Medi- this and that and apply for Social Secuirty so they can stay home all day and shoot baskets. There are people like this, and a lot of them. My dad deals with them all the time at his office because they get into trouble with nothing to do. ("An idle mind is the devil's workshop.")

So, am I actually hearing this correctly: Dropping all sales tax? A Democrat who wants to actually drop a tax? Well if you are willing, then why not find a good flat tax rate percentage to go along with it. Even using your wacky way of thinking that we pay back for what society "allows" us to do, those with more money would still pay more.

To neverworld, how many times must I say that I am not anti-US. I am in fact extremely pro-US and pro-US government (at the time, it's going a little too far left). Didn't we have a dispute over too much of my patriotism once? I claimed we're the best country in the world, and you all just went off, but now you say that the US provides great things ofr many people.

Agreed. Whole heartidly. Thank God for the United States.

Once again, I ask why a flat tax rate isn't fair, seeing as how that would still take more money from the higher income.

I totally disagree with Government taking 60% of what I hope to earn one day. If I go to work 60 hours a week, and don't even get to keep the majority of my money, there is something wrong. I don't care how much you make. Every person deserves to enjoy the life they earned. But taking away 60% is not the way to go. Government doesn't NEED that much!!

You bet your ass, my dad's a good lawyer.

I knew it was coming, narrator. neverworld and backthatbillup claiming I'm so greedy and that I'm a "selfish ass" which is why i already posted the countless hours my family has put into out communtiy. Go to the previous entry and read my post dedicated to the charities I and my family are involved in. Then call me greedy.

When it comes down to it you have a bunch of loud, radical leftists that are speaking for the entrie party, and you Democrats just such up whatever they say and defend it to your death.

Haha, I don't do it like that. No way.

I'm rady for football season, so I can get politics the hell of my mind.

http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=WhackBush2004&tab=weblogs&uid=117415375&nextdate=last

Just scroll up a bit and read a handful of how greedy I am.

Maybe you aren't seeing the big picture Weezer...  The government faces a decision on who to take taxes away from...  If you tax the poor more than the rich, the poor are unable to work their way up and the rich dominate the economy.  A larger number of poor people are required to account for a single rich person's tax paid with our current system (just to even things out).

If you tax the people the same, there are two outcomes.  The poor are unable to afford saving their money, or the government is unable to fund itself.  This would force the government to raise the taxes for the poor and lower them for the rich.

Or we could live in our current system, under which the poor are not taxed as much to give them more money in their hands (more people w/ money equals varied buying which also equals better economy).  The few rich people are taxed higher rates.

Still not seeing how your dad is getting taxed 60% unless your state is absolutely cruel, in which case you might want to consider moving. http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/headofhousehold/

Once again I'll say that the nation works for the general welfare and not that of the few rich people.