As I understand it, from the brief conversations I have had with a friend in Amsterdam, those high taxes also pay to make sure that the citizens have a college education, healthcare, and far better public schools. Among a myriad of other benefits. Also, from what he has said, the cost of living is much lower. Food and rent are not nearly as much, since frankly people are paying those taxes.

You can't want it all and expect to get it for free. If we want better schools for our children (which btw, is a NEED and not a WANT, as our kids are becomg less and less educated compared to the rest of the world), if you want for professionals like doctors and lawyers to be able to go to school and learn those professions at a reasonable cost, or at no cost, if you want to be sure that everyone has access to healthcare (which in fact will SAVE money for the gov't) then the money has to come from somewhere, and contrary to what our outgoing administration may think, it does not grown on trees.

Unpopular as it is, I will say this. We as a country need to start living by the adage charity starts at home. We cannot deport 11 million people, but we CAN refuse them the benefits that our taxes pay for. We CAN make ourselves a much less atractive option. We need to stop outsourcing the jobs, we need to fund public education, we need to make the choice to ensure that all our citizens have basic healthcare. Why? Because people are MUCH more willing to give when they are comfortable in their own lives. If we are unhealthy, jobless, uneducated people, we have nothing to offer as a solution.

Last I checked, France, Germany, and Denmark are not communist countries. So why would visiting those places, or stating the facts about their tax structure make Hope a communist?

WHAT DOES THE DRAFT HAVE TO DO WITH IT. WE HAVE A TOTAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE AND THE DRAFT AS IT IS ESSENTIALLY FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE IN A TIME IF AND WHEN NEEDED WILL CERTAINLY BE A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO PRESERVE OUR SAD STATE OF DEMOCRACY THAT WE BOAST ABOUT TODAY.

 

Two comments for Hope:  First, visiting Europe does not give you ANY insight as to the living conditions there. You would have to STUDY the issues of which you speak, while there, to speak with any authority. Secondly, while I will make no attempt to convince you, I'm afraid you will be horribly disappointed in Obama's Presidency - for at least two reasons: He (was) a person running for political office, which means 90% of his 'promises' were just talk, or lies to be precise. And he is just another Politician, just like all the other (liberal) Politicians who have inhabited Washington for years. Having a silver tongue doesn't change the standard Politicians' Mind behind it.

With all this talk about how we get all these benefits with high taxes, I feel the need to make an observation.

Who is it that decides if YOU are worthy of all this government largess?  You?  Not really.  THEY decide what YOU will pay; but they also decide if YOU are worthy of getting any of your own money back.  Social Security demonstrated to me exactly how government services work.

First wife paid social security taxes all her life.  (She didn't volunteer this - they just took it)  We always hear about how this is for our own good and how it comes back if we retire or can no longer work.  Well, she started having major problems with epilepsy and was unable to much of anything that would be required to do gainful employment.  We petitioned to get some of her social security money back.  Good luck with that!  Plenty of government people "studied" her case (being paid with our tax money) but after hassling her for a few months, decided her situation wasn't serious enough to let her get any of her own money back.  Complications from this "minor" problem killed her about 6 months later.  I was sure to go down to Social Security, with her death certificate, to get a measly $170 death benefit to apply to her funeral. I actually got that though!  Life time of payments so she could get me $170 to bury her.  (Somehow, that didn't cover all the costs though)

That;  Ladies and Gentlemen is how Government benefits work.  Now if we were criminals, and studied up on how to scam the system - we'd have a mail box full of YOUR money every month.  Honest people have no real right to benefits.

---

An ascendant man, living in a degenerate age, MUST, by definition, live in contradistinction to his times.

I agree with you. The working class has the best opportunity to take back the Government from the wealthy than it has had, since giving the congress back to the wealthy in 1994.

The reason they have to pay so much for schooling is because of the republicans thinking that if you want to go to school the government should not have to pay for it. You should. If you do not come from a wealthy family then you should borrow from the rich to go to school, and pay the money back.

Democrats have been saying that anyone who wants a two year degree should be able to get one without having to borrow any money. Now Democrats have been talking about only have to pay back 10,000 dollars no matter how much you owe.

The democrats are the best choice for the working poor, and they have always been that way.

Dear Sir, I read your comment's often you seem to have wisdom. could someone help me out this morning with meaning by dictionary of socialism, communism, I do not have a good dictionary on hand, but was under the assumption there basically the same.I expect to get really blasted from some over this, Not meaning to offend just need definitions Thank you

The comment's from woody were meant for badgeer, Ihit quick reply instead of contact.

time4change:

I agree with you. The working class has the best opportunity to take back the Government from the wealthy than it has had, since giving the congress back to the wealthy in 1994.

Well, this isn't a wealthy versus poor thing. It's a philosophical difference that comes down to a matter of balance. As I understand it, the wealthiest 5% of Americans already pay over 65% of the total tax collected, while the bottom 50% of citizens pay less than 5%, so the wealthy are already paying more than their "fair share". The socialists believe the wealthiest 5% should be taxed until their standard of living is no better than those who don't produce at all. Obama isn't suggesting anything like that. I suspect that most democrats just want to slide the balance point a little farther over -- maybe to the point where the wealthiest 5% pay 75% or 78% of the total tax and the middle and upper-middle class folks pay another few percent.

There's no way around it, that's a thorough screwing for the doctor/lawyer/small-business-owner example, it's one more burden on the most productive members of our society, and it rewards those who are lazy and don't produce at all, but it wont even put us in a league with the Denmarks and Norways of the world.

When the last public safety tax proposal was in the works, one of the anti-tax people interviewed was a guy who described himself as "middle class". He was interviewed out at the Florence dunes next to his $45,000 truck which was hooked to his $40,000 RV-trailer while his kids rode around burning gas on $10,000 worth of four-wheelers. He said he "couldn't afford" the extra $50 per month the tax would mean to him. Yes, he earned it, so he can spend it however he wants, but his claim just wasn't very powerful.

To the person whose dad said it would be hard for a small business to make $250,000, NONSENSE! Thousands of Oregon small businesses make that kind of money -- think doctor, lawyer, construction, restaurant, printing, landscaping, and on and one and on.

Even with all your percentages that you are throwing around you have to look at first how much does it cost to live in our society. The money that the wealthy business owner or Corporation is willing to pay a person to do a job, first has to cover the cost of living.

Many of the jobs out there do not even offer that. Once the cost of housing, clothing, transportation, food, health care, education, and retirement are met, than a person can start to afford to pay income taxes. That is what the standard deduction is suppose to cover. Today I believe it is at $10,200 or so. That is how much the Federal Government thinks it should cost for you to live on every year.

Jobs that pay less than 20 bucks an hour do not even meet the real cost of living. Then if you have children you can be look at 40 bucks and hour before a person should have to start paying any taxes.

As far as the percentages that means nothing. What you have to look at is does a person making 40k a year pay a higher percentage of their income in federal, state, local, and other miscellaneous fees than a person making over 250k. Of course the top one percent earners that make 100s of millions every year are going to be paying a much bigger part of the pie. The problem with our tax system is that they are still not paying a high enough percentage of their income as compared to someone making 75k, because they are able to hide the money. Believe me the top on percent do not want a national sales tax, and they do not want to make the tax code less complex and more flat. They want to be able to get away with hiding their money, and not paying their fair share via loopholes.

One falsehood that many folks have is that they all think they are part of the middle class.
The middle class starts about 100k to 120k now a days.

Being rich starts at about 5 million a year. Just think you can make a million a year and still only be part of the upper middle class. Your still not a part of the top 1 percent.

Next I do not agree with the statements that are being thrown around as if there were facts, for one thing 6000 a month does not add up to 100k just for student loan payment.

Many of the folks you see down there at the coast with there gas hogs, riding the atv's on the dunes are State workers retired in their 50s, and making fat paychecks from the working poor paying state income taxes, and all the outrages fees.

I think your view of socialism is lacking. Here is a basic starting point.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Finally some one in this thread that knows something, and states fact rather than opinion.

All of this socialist programs are good ones, because they make our society safer, healthier, and stronger.

We go into this mess because of republican's push towards deregulation. The arguement being that no business is going to do the wrong thing like take on more risk than it can handle in a down turn, because that would destroy the company.

Just like a fishermen would never over fish their fishing grounds, because that would destroy their source of income. Or a logging company would never cut down all the trees because then they would be out of work?

Yeah right, now we know for sure, self regulation means no regulation.

Listen to the experts. We are going to come out of this better and stronger than we have been in since Reagan started to tear it all down.

These are great days,  teach your children well.

Great comment hope.

I agree with you totally. Our best days are still ahead.

I recall one guys argument about choosing between living in Somalia, or Denmark.

Denmark where there was much government control, and high taxes, or Somalia where there is no government control, and no taxes.

Denmark where the Average man lives to be 78, and can get an education if you so desire,   and then there is Somalia where the average age for a male is 47, probably a high guess, in reality it probably more like 36. And any education is most likely self taught.

Which direction do you want your Nation to head towards?