Well that proves my point sort of. If your dad owns property, and makes a living off of it, which I'm assuming he does because you're sitting comfortable on a computer. He pays no income tax? What's he making his money off then? Rentals? Than he needs to be taxed on that...its his income so to speak.

I think there are two questions here. 1. Is landownership considered a form of income, and therefor taxable, and 2. Do you agree with being taxed on you income. You don't have to answer them both, but I'd love to hear more from you.

-Dolce

Artur, I'm sure you're aware of economic cycles. The recession that is inevitable in China, will mean an economy that's reducing in size, not growing at 3%. The government in China is communist. There's no way to know what they will do, when faced with the cooling economy.

The good thing about the U.S. is that its economy is very flexible and can accomodate such shifts, which is not something you can say about CHina.


Bush has already made plenty of unpopular decisions, so I have confidence in his ability to make more of them.

Ok the land its self is not the income, it come from the tenants because he rents to poeple.

Yes it is ok for the government to tax the americans on there income but they are taking over 30% of your check than the state may want to take a little also so over half the money you made is taken from you. Its ok to tax income but i feel they are over taxing. Also the consitition only says they have the right to tax income what about all the other taxes we have. Americans get taxed for gas, and much more how can the government explain this. They are not suposed to tax amerian with out the majority of them agreeing to it.

BJ, you might enjoy this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

On the constitution: the Supreme Court have ruled many times that it is perfectly constitutional for the government to collect income tax. Take it for what it's worth.

I am well aware of economic trend cycles. But the thing is that with the GDP growth as of now China won't get hit as hard as say...Germany with a growth of 0.2%. China will be hurt, but it can afford it so far.

We both don't know how the Chinese government will react. Personally, I just believe that they are not dumb enough to scare off the investors.



Well, China didn't need to accomodate shifts like that so far. It's not like China's economy is threatened by any other country at the moment. And the question is, will the USA always be as flexible?




He has made too many unpopular decisions so far, I don't think he'll go with this one. C'mon, even the war had supporters, many patriots all over the USA. But when it comes to money, to cutting subventions, people are much less tolerant than with the war becausre it hits them more directly. Bush is a human being and in the end he is also selfish and he would not make an unpopular desicion like this one, like cutting subventions or something like that.

BJ: Overtaxing isn't the point. The point is the use of those taxes IMO. I don't mind paying more in taxes if the governemnt rpovides alot of things I have to pay for now. I lose $1000 more/per year but have health benefits. which, in Chicago cost nearly that/month for anyone between the ages of 21-39. at least, for Blue Cross Illinois if you wanted a PCP.

Please read this, its lengthy but an easy read, and let me know what you thought:

We need to set up ground rules for discussions. Rightwingers shouldn't cite don't cite Rush Limbaugh's crazy shit, and libs shouldn't trust Al Franken to present the issue fairly ;-)

And, btw, dolce, how many times do I have to repeat myself: the government can never provide the services to you efficiently. The problems that you mention (healthcare and education) are there because the government decided to regulate them heavily.

hm I think this is very true, Im one of those that are not effected by what the tax cuts have done. I dont know what to say about this :?

Krem that is great news indeed 8)

I know the consituiton says that Krem and I said its ok that they take that ,but there are manny more taxes other than income tax.

And they're all constitutional, because the constitution says nothing about local taxes.

who said anything about fair?

As to your second point. I think the fundamental difference of opinion is that you think since the ogvernment is doing a poor job, they should just pull out, while I think, they can invest in it heavily, just in a different way. Its called reform, and all reform does not necessarily aim towards withdrawel, some of it just aims towards better intercession.

-Dolce

:? why would they be ok because the consitution says nothing about them. how are they consitutional :?:

Comparing Limbaugh to Franken is just wrong, Kremmy. Franken is generally more fair than most talking heads, and at the very least he's not a raving psychopath.

Suuuure. ;-)

Franken's a nut, just like the rest of them.

Because the constitution relegates states' affairs to the states.

No, my opinion is that government will do a poor job regardless of what it does. The government has absolutely no incentive to do things effectively. We might get lucky from time to time and have a few truly great people in the government, but in general, the government is incompetent, no matter how much you invest in it.

Consider the one (and only) corporation the U.S. government runs: Amtrak. It hasn't turned in a profit in over 30 years, while enjoying a complete monopoly.

Dolce, btw, check your email.

oh.

Okay, I will. But by the way, voters make *the government* so if you vote for who you think will do what is appropriate, than it can get done. Sure it has an investment...just vote for people that are invested...I meant, in more than their side-line oil and weapons manufacturing businesses.

-Dolce

BJ - for you:

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Read the full text of the constitution when you have the chance.

Conspiracy theories aside, there are very few people you vote for. Most of the government members are appointed. Those people have very little incentive to do what's in the interests of the people. Hence, reducing the size of the government will remove those elements.

ok 8) Ill read it again sometime. havent read it in years.

8)

Right back at you.

-Dolce

No Taxation with out Representation (I think everyone that took history knows this one)

Its not they did not want taxes, Colonists just wanted some choices what their tax dollars would do.