Sunday, November 2, 2008

Socialism in the US and US income taxes

We already have Socialism in the US.

In order for business to succeed in this country:
  • Roads so the work force and customers can get to locations
  • Police to reduce theft at those locations
  • Firemen to put out the fires at locations
  • Schools to provide an educated work force
  • etc.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Federal_spendings.png/350px-Federal_spendings.png

All of these are provided by the government and paid for by taxes. Taxes have been around forever. Federal income tax was adopted by Congress in 1861 and 1862 to pay for the Civil War. Even in 1862 the income tax was progressive (higher percentage on higher income).

So, here's the reason most everyday Americans don't understand taxes:
As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States.[8] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10] If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[11]
Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal tax avoidance loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the payroll tax system (FICA), a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $97,500 and a 2.9% Medicare tax (a 15.3% total tax that is often split between employee and employer) is a regressive tax on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[12] The Tax Foundation has stated that the burden of the corporate income tax (a 15-39% tax) falls on customers and workers of the corporations, who are often not rich.[13] (Source Wikipeida - really it is less dry than the other sources)
Did you understand it all? I certainly didn't fully understand it, but whatever way you look at it Socialism is already here.

Here's the thing ~ when they talk about raising (or lowering) you taxes, you need to keep in mind that our taxes are progressive.
Progressivity in the income tax is accomplished mainly by establishing tax "brackets" - branches of income that are taxed at progressively higher rates. For example, for tax year 2006 an unmarried person with no dependents will pay 10% tax on the first $7,550 of taxable income. The next $23,100 (i.e. taxable income over $7,550, up to $30,650) is taxed at 15%. The next $43,550 of income is taxed at 25%. Additional brackets of 28%, 33%, and 35% apply to higher levels of income. So, if a person has $50,000 of taxable income, his next dollar of income earned will be taxed at 25% - this is referred to as "being in the 25% tax bracket," or more formally as having a marginal rate of 25%. However, the tax on $50,000 of taxable income figures to $9,058. This being 18% of $50,000, the taxpayer is referred to as having an effective tax rate of 18%.
Essentially, if person A makes $10,000 a year, and person B makes $50,000 a year, and person C makes $100,000 a year, all three of them pay the same amount of taxes on the first $10,000. Person B will be taxed on his remaining $40,000 at the next appropriate bracket. Person C will be taxed on his next $40,000 at the same rate as person B was, and now will be taxed on the remaining $50,000 at the next appropriate tax bracket.

With that being said, when the candidates talk about raising or lowering your taxes, you need to look at what tax brackets are being affected. It may impact you differently than you had first thought.

Here's an interesting article on both McCain's and Obama's tax cutting plans:
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2008/09/11/tax-calculator-for-how-your-taxes-would-change-under-obama-or-mc/

"In the simplest terms, McCain is going to cut everybody's taxes, but cut the very richest people's taxes most. Obama is going to cut everybody's taxes except the really rich. As the Tax Policy Center points out, both plans are lousy for the federal debt: Obama's would raise the debt by $2.9 trillion, McCain's by $4.2 trillion."

Shouldn't we consider how to get out of the National Debt before we talk about lowering taxes?

Corporate taxes are another thing entirely. The majority of corporations PAY NO INCOME TAX in the US.

In the United States, the federal corporate income rate for the year 2006 varies between 15 and 39% depending on taxable income. But since 1999, when Treasury announced the "check the box" system many corporations can elect to be treated as a pass-through entity, thereby skipping the entity level 35% tax and having all income pass through to the shareholders. This is the tax treatment that the much discussed "S" corporations receive; but now many more types of state-law corporations may avoid double taxation by "checking the box". Dividends are also subject to a lower rate of income tax in the United States. The U.S. corporate tax rate is ranked as the second highest statutory rate among the OECD countries (the U.S. average rate of 39.3 ranks just behind Japan's 39.5 and well above the OECD average of 28.7).[27] However, the U.S also has the greatest number of corporate tax loopholes of any OECD member,[28] allowing many corporations to achieve a lower effective tax rate than the published rates.

So, that doesn't prove the statement I made necessarily that corporations don't pay income taxes, does it? Guess who pays those taxes - YOU do! That's right Companies charge you, the consumer/customer/client, higher prices for the goods and services to pay those costs. So then would it be fair to say you are, essentially, being double taxed? And is this also Socialism?

Anyways, there is far too much about taxes to get too in depth. We'll leave that one to the economists. My main points are:
  • Socialism is already here, like it or not.
  • We should not be increasing the deficit even more to cut taxes - anyone's taxes
  • If taxes are cut on the Federal level, that burden gets shifted down to your state, county, and local levels anyways.
  • It is our responsibility as law abiding Americans to pay taxes - it is also our responsibility to keep our elected officials honest about how our taxes are being spent. You do this by paying attention, voting, and writing and calling your officials.

Hawaii Health department verifies Obama's health certificate

I can't believe we even have talk about this in this day and age. Just because a man's skin color may not be the same as others, it DOES NOT automatically make him a foreigner, a terrorist, or anything other than a HUMAN BEING! It really makes me wonder if Barack had light skin and a name like "Mike Smith"would this ever have been a discussion. Well for the haters here it is AGAIN:

http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg

State Can't Legally Release Barack Obama's Birth Certificate, But State Health Department Verifies The Original is On File
By Dr. Chiyome Fukino, 10/31/2008 5:28:13 PM

There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino is the director of the Hawaii Department of Health

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d285c0ee-1fb9-4b5f-81bd-2d77864bd7c4

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Now ladies and gentleman, can we please begin reuniting as a country and leave the hate, lies, and fear behind us? After all, we are the UNITED States of America, aren't we?

I read this on a blog and it sums up my position pretty well:
Here are some of the things I think and believe. Here are some of the things my heart tells me.
  • I believe that every time we do something that limits the rights of others, we make it that much easier for someone else to limit our own rights. Therefore, the best way to protect my own rights is for me to fight to protect the rights of others.
  • I believe that if the racial/ethnic/cultural group I happen to be a part of is some day to be a minority, then I ought to do everything I can to treat existing minorities well since my behavior might serve as an example of how I could be treated.
  • I believe that a society is ultimately judged by how it protects its weakest members.
  • I believe that we are all obligated to provide some form of voluntary, long-term service to our communities and that there are many ways that this can be done.
  • I believe that we should vigorously exercise each of our rights, even to voting in the most obscure local elections, so that no one can take away our rights by asserting that we never used them anyway.
  • I believe that while all of us are entitled to the rights and privileges we enjoy as citizens, very few of us have actually earned them and that we only have them by the good luck of having been born here. Therefore, those who suffer and struggle and fight to share in the benefits of our society may be more deserving of them than I am.
  • I believe that we should read banned books.
  • I believe that paying taxes is a responsibility to be fulfilled and not a hardship to be dodged.
  • I will support those who seek to expand the rights we all enjoy and not those who find it necessary to restrict our rights. I do not believe that we must destroy the Constitution in order to save it.
    http://www.roundrockjournal.com/?p=3025
I also believe.

I believe that we the people have a responsibility to leave this leave a better place for our children.

I believe in my family values. Hate and racism is not one of them.

I believe in fairness and equality.

I believe that the People should come before the Corporation.

I believe in the people that fought and died for our Constitutional rights, and I believe we need to uphold those rights.

I am not in the upper tax bracket - not even close, but if all of the things I believed in could happen based on my taxes, I willingly would pay 10 times the amount I do now.

I also believe that I have worked just as hard my whole life to get to where I am in life as those in the high tax brackets. I have worked every day of my life since I was 15. I was a teen mother. I moved away from home while a senior in high school. I went to school while working 2 jobs. I still graduated high school with high-honors with a one year old and our own place. I put my self through college, again while working two jobs and raising a baby graduated technical college again with honors. Still today (the baby is almost 16!) I work full time and also run my own business outside of being a mother, a wife, a gardener, etc. I have worked every single day of my life to get to where I am, and never once take any of it for granted, nor would I have changed any of it. Every struggle, every tear, every pride filled moment, all the good days, but especially the bad days have made me the person I am today.

Who decided that because I only make $60k a year means I don't work hard??? They need to take a walk in someone else's shoes.


Judge orders White House to produce wiretap memos

WASHINGTON – A judge has ordered the Justice Department to produce White House memos that provide the legal basis for the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 warrantless wiretapping program.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. signed an order Friday requiring the department to produce the memos by the White House legal counsel's office by Nov. 17. He said he will review the memos in private to determine if any information can be released publicly without violating attorney-client privilege or jeopardizing national security.

Kennedy issued his order in response to lawsuits by civil liberties groups in 2005 after news reports disclosed the wiretapping.

The department had argued that the memos were protected attorney-client communications and contain classified information.

But Kennedy said that the attorney-client argument was "too vague" and that he would have to look at the documents himself to determine if that argument is valid and also to see if there is information that can be released without endangering national security.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said Saturday the department is reviewing the opinion and will "respond appropriately in court."

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists abroad without obtaining court warrants. The administration said it needed to act more quickly than the court could and that the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

After the program was challenged in court, Bush last year put it under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established in 1978 after the domestic spying scandals of the 1970s.

"We think just as a common sense matter the legal theories for the president's wiretap programs cannot be classified and should be available to the public," said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, one of the groups seeking the memos.

"It's an important decision because up to this point the judge has relied on the government's assertion that it has done everything properly under the law and that it has disclosed everything it needs to disclose," Rotenberg said Saturday.

___

On the Net:

Court ruling: http://tinyurl.com/5c5g4j

Electronic Privacy Information Center: http://epic.org/

The National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/(tilde)nsarchiv/

American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.com/

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov/

Saturday, November 1, 2008

“Too many people, I think, base their principles on their politics when I think you really ought to come to your politics based on your principles.”

Watch Slacker Uprising by Michael Moore for FREE!

If you are thinking about staying home Tuesday - WATCH THIS. Get out and VOTE!

Click to watch Slacker Uprising

Watch it all: http://slackeruprising.com/download/location.php?utm_medium=download&utm_source=15209299

At that link, there are five ways you can watch it free and without advertising:

  1. blip.tv is providing streaming right from slackeruprising.com, free of commercials and advertising.
  2. Amazon Video on Demand will provide a higher resolution version of the above stream for people with lots of bandwidth. It will be available in a few hours.
  3. iTunes will make it easy for you to download "Slacker Uprising" on your iTunes, iPod, or Apple TV, and view it there or transmit it to your television. This way, the film can be portable as well as for home viewing. This will be available soon.
  4. Hypernia is providing bandwidth and servers to host MPEG4 and DivX versions of "Slacker Uprising" online, so you can burn a DVD or download the film to watch on your computer, XBOX, or PS3.
  5. Lycos is providing free streaming of the film and an on-demand version.

Stream it, download it, burn it now. It's the first time a major feature-length film is being released for free on the internet. You can be part of this historic moment by logging on now!

What Bush is up to in his last days at the white house

Do you need more proof after these last 8 years that the Republican party agenda does not have your health or welfare in mind? After the de-regulation of the financial industry has lead to 3 trillion dollars of our savings and retirement lost in the past month, President Bush is pushing in the eleventh hour to de-regulate corporate business - the impact on the environment and our health will be just as disastrous.

Before you vote on Tuesday, take a close look at McCain's voting record. He has indeed voted with Bush 90% of the time, and especially in areas concerning Corporations and his history of de-regulation.


A Last Push To Deregulate
White House to Ease Many Rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008; A01

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

"They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "This administration has taken extraordinary measures to avoid rushing regulations at the end of the term. And yes, we'd prefer our regulations stand for a very long time -- they're well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind."

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered "economically significant" because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.

In some cases, Bush's regulations reflect new interpretations of language in federal laws. In other cases, such as several new counterterrorism initiatives, they reflect new executive branch decisions in areas where Congress -- now out of session and focused on the elections -- left the president considerable discretion.

The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Bush's aides are acutely aware of the political risks of completing their regulatory work too late. On the afternoon of Bush's inauguration, Jan. 20, 2001, his chief of staff issued a government-wide memo that blocked the completion or implementation of regulations drafted in the waning days of the Clinton administration that had not yet taken legal effect.

"Through the end of the Clinton administration, we were working like crazy to get as many regulations out as possible," said Donald R. Arbuckle, who retired in 2006 after 25 years as an OMB official. "Then on Sunday, the day after the inauguration, OMB Director Mitch Daniels called me in and said, 'Let's pull back as many of these as we can.' "

Clinton's appointees wound up paying a heavy price for procrastination. Bush's team was able to withdraw 254 regulations that covered such matters as drug and airline safety, immigration and indoor air pollutants. After further review, many of the proposals were modified to reflect Republican policy ideals or scrapped altogether.

Seeking to avoid falling victim to such partisan tactics, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten in May imposed a Nov. 1 government-wide deadline to finish major new regulations, "except in extraordinary circumstances."

That gives officials just a few more weeks to meet an effective Nov. 20 deadline for the publication of economically significant rules, which take legal effect only after a 60-day congressional comment period. Less important rules take effect after a 30-day period, creating a second deadline of Dec. 20.

OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said that Bolten's memo was meant to emphasize the importance of "due diligence" in ensuring that late-term regulations are sound. "We will continue to embrace the thorough and high standards of the regulatory review process," she said.

As the deadlines near, the administration has begun to issue regulations of great interest to industry, including, in recent days, a rule that allows natural gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures and new Homeland Security rules that shift passenger security screening responsibilities from airlines to the federal government. The OMB also approved a new limit on airborne emissions of lead this month, acting under a court-imposed deadline.

Many of the rules that could be issued over the next few weeks would ease environmental regulations, according to sources familiar with administration deliberations.

A rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service and now under final review by the OMB would lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and would give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.

An Alaska commercial fishing source, granted anonymity so he could speak candidly about private conversations, said that senior administration officials promised to "get the rule done by the end of this month" and that the outcome would be a big improvement.

Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group said the administration has received 194,000 public comments on the rule and protests from 80 members of Congress as well as 160 conservation groups. "This thing is fatally flawed" as well as "wildly unpopular," Crockett said.

Two other rules nearing completion would ease limits on pollution from power plants, a major energy industry goal for the past eight years that is strenuously opposed by Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups.

One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming.

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But Scott H. Segal, a Washington lawyer and chief spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said that "bringing common sense to the Clean Air Act is the best way to enhance energy efficiency and pollution control." He said he is optimistic that the new rule will help keep citizens' lawsuits from obstructing new technologies.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman, said that he could not discuss specifics but added that "we strive to protect human health and the environment." Any rule the agency completes, he said, "is more stringent than the previous one."