Hello:

There's a balanced budget amendment, and then THERE'S a balanced budget amendment... They SOUND like they're same, but one AIN'T like the other...

Now, you've got your Republicans looking, oh so sincerely, into the camera's BLAMING the Democrats for NOT wanting to balance the budget -- those wasteful spendthrifts... Only Republicans can save the day... But, when you look into THEIR balanced budget amendment, you find that not only does their plan balance the budget, but it HAMSTRINGS congress from raising revenues - EVER. It won't SAVE us money. It'll COST us a fortune.

Here's an example. We'll have to MAINTAIN an army BIG enough to defend us from ALL comers, for ALL time. That's because if we're attacked, we won't be able to BORROW to buck up our forces... It ties the government's hands just like the pledge Republicans made to Grover Norquist does, only this won't be a pledge. It will be the law.. In my view, that's national SUICIDE.

But, there IS a REAL balanced budget amendment around... It's called the CLEAN one.. Why? Here's how Republican, Mike Pence explains it, "It's the historic balanced budget amendment that passed both houses of Congress 15 years ago," Pence explained. That was the version of the amendment that had no caps on how much Congress was allowed to spend, no new rule that required two-thirds of Congress to approve new tax cuts. "That's the one that has an opportunity to get 290 votes, to pass by the sufficient two-thirds majority. We can make a good faith effort to pass the version that has a fighting chance."

I agree with Mike Pence. The Democrats agree with Mike Pence. I think EVERYBODY agrees with Mike Pence. So, what's wrong with your ordinary Republican?

DON'T be fooled when they talk about THE "balanced budget amendment".. It AIN'T a balanced budget amendment. It's Republican IDEOLOGY!

excon

Having just lived through a state shutdown because Republicans wouldn't bend and Democrats gave in to not raising taxes for those who can AFFORD the taxes (and how many members of Congress are in that 1% of Americans, hmmmm?), I despair of anyone ever doing ANYTHING to not only balance the budget, but to balance the disparity between the rich and the poor. Hell, just between the rich and the middle class would be great. That gulf is HUGE.

Tax big business, and take 10% away from EVERY area we spend money on our budget (including those benefits and salaries that Congress gets) and I'm betting we not only BALANCE the budget, we start paying back what we already owe in deficits.

SOME generation has to start giving government benefits up or start paying back the money that previous generations DIDN'T pay in taxes. Why not start now, BEFORE we hit rock bottom and have a revolution in our country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Tax big business...

---

Yeah, we can start with Apple, "the second largest company on the planet".

And FYI since ex isn't being completely honest here, "raising revenues" means "tax increases". Perhaps if the government was required to pass tax increases by a 2/3 vote they might learn to live within their means.

Perhaps if they had to give out of their own pockets to make up the difference every time they gave out tax CUTS, they'd do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Perhaps if they had to give out of their own pockets to make up the difference every time they gave out tax CUTS, they'd do the same.

---

I'm still waiting for all those billionaires and others begging to be taxed more to just forward their extra to the feds. Obama himself said he didn't need any more money so he could lead by example and walk it down to the treasury.

In principle I am opposed to a balance budget amendment because that would add Court involvement in the budget process .

I also oppose it because ,like Hamilton ,I think maintaining a well managed bebt is essential . I only oppose a debt that has gone out of control .Hint ,when obligations exceed the national GDP then it's time to reign in the debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And FYI since ex isn't being completely honest here, "raising revenues" means "tax increases". Perhaps if the government was required to pass tax increases by a 2/3 vote they might learn to live within their means.

---

Hello again, Steve:

So, Republicans continually repeating the talking point that Democrats DON'T want A balanced budget amendment IS true?? It's absolutely NOT!

Look, Steve. I'm an exconvict on a website. I don't RUN sh*t. In fact, you'd EXPECT me to lie... But, our LEADERS?? The people running things?? I don't want them to LIE to me. You do?

excon

Of course not, I'm fed up with hearing Democrats repeat ad nauseum about their "balanced approach", "increasing revenues", that Republicans are "running the country over the cliff" and especially, Democrats are saving the world and life as we know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Of course not, I'm fed up with hearing Democrats repeat ad nauseum about their "balanced approach", "increasing revenues",

---

Hello again, Steve:

Aside from the social issues, I can't understand why a working stiff supports people who DON'T have your interests at heart. You certainly don't believe in trickle down... You're certainly going to be drawing SS, and carrying a Medicare card. You have relatives who BANK on those services, don't you?

If tax cuts create jobs, I'm still waiting...

excon

How about getting rid of the two party system entirely?

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Aside from the social issues, I can't understand why a working stiff supports people who DON'T have your interests at heart.

---

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

---

*greenie*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.

---

Hello again, Synn:

I agree. But, you can't stop people from associating with whomever they want. You CAN pass term limits, though, and that would do the same thing.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

---

Hello again, Steve:

What you say, is essentially TRUE. However, I don't distinguish between the trillions they want to spend on domestic programs, from the trillions they want to spend on empire building. You do.

Let's speak some truth, here. BOTH sides want BIG GOVERNMENT. So, it boils down to what kind of country we want... If we're going to HAVE big government, I'd RATHER my big government tell me what to eat, than SPY on me.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

How about getting rid of the two party system entirely?

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.

---

I think it's less the fact that is a two=party system and more the fact that campaign donations direct the politician's voting.

My husband and I were talking about campaign donations.

I'd LOVE to see a cap on them. If you can't get elected on $1 million or less as a president and $500k or less as a Congressperson, then you shouldn't be in office, IMO.

If they couldn't take ANY donations above that mark, I'm betting they'd get a lot more efficient about their campaigns AND their spending of taxpayer money.

Quote:

---

"It's the historic balanced budget amendment that passed both houses of Congress 15 years ago," Pence explained. That was the version of the amendment that had no caps on how much Congress was allowed to spend, no new rule that required two-thirds of Congress to approve new tax cuts. "That's the one that has an opportunity to get 290 votes, to pass by the sufficient two-thirds majority. We can make a good faith effort to pass the version that has a fighting chance."

---

Here is the 1995 version of BBA

Quote:

---

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

Article--

SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a roll call vote.

SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

---

Yeah it was better .It required a 3/5 vote of Congress to approve spending above revenues .

However ,I oppose both versions. I'd go with the Jefferson plan however .
But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison)

And term limits would make much of the spending in campaigns obsolete .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And term limits would make much of the spending in campaigns obsolete .

---

It's not so much as the spending during the campaign itself but rather the subsequent voting for issue that support the corporate donors versus supporting the constituents in their riding.

Don't you worry folks, the leader of the chamber that hasn't put forth any budget resolution as required by law for over 800 days is going to swoop in to save the day.

Quote:

---

Calling his plan “the last train out of the station,” Reid said there are only hours to act before Tuesday's Treasury deadline, so he plans to file a procedural motion Friday to move towards a final vote in the next few days.

“That is why, by the end of the day today, I must take action on the Senate's compromise legislation,” he said.

---

The man who hasn't done his job in over two years is going to save us. I wonder if he's going to push the best known plan out there , the non-existent Obama plan.

Odd that Obamas concept of compromise "give me exactly what I want or else" is completely ignored by the drive by media. That's not compromise.. thats parading around like a pompous azz.

When was his coronation as King? The never taught the "smartest man to ever reside in the Whitehouse " the concept of co-equal branches of government? Apparently not.

Show me how to balance a budget with 50 million poor people and their kids running around??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Show me how to balance a budget with 50 million poor people and their kids running around???

---

We don't really have 'poor people', poor is all those living on less than a dollar a day. We need to wean a bunch of our 'poor people' off the government teat and save our money for those who really need it. Our 'poor people' drive nicer cars than I do.

Hello again, Steve:

Well, I suppose if it was MY view that there AREN'T any poor people, and EVERYBODY gets all the health care they need, then I, like you, would want the rich people to get more.

But, I DON'T share your view of this country.. Why?? Because it AIN'T a CORRECT view.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Show me how to balance a budget with 50 million poor people and their kids running around???

---

Tal it's not hard you take it off the military and make the fat cats pay. So long as tax isn't 100% they will still earn money. A balanced budget becomes possible when you get people to work so that you turn that outflow from social security around and some may even pay some tax. You see; those 50 million poor aren't socking away their money they are supporting the economy by spending. There is another way too you make a set of standard deductions and do away with the wastefull cheat sheet tax returns

Fact is Tal you don't need any more aircraft carriers and the planes you have will last fifty years. They are still using warthogs aren't there that's a Vietnam war plane. If you keep your army within your own borders then you don't need so many. Let MAD do its job. The Russians, that other superpower, get by with a derelect fleet and half an army

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, I suppose if it was MY view that there AREN'T any poor people, and EVERYBODY gets all the health care they need, then I, like you, would want the rich people to get more.

But, I DON'T share your view of this country.. Why?? Because it AIN'T a CORRECT view.

Excon

---

Um, again with the speaking for me? Enough of that BS, speak for yourself. I keep waiting for all those billionaires that want to be taxed more, and the president himself who says he has more than he needs, to walk their extra cash down to the treasury. You know why they won't? They ARE the rich people that are screwing this country over and they're nothing but fat cat hypocrites...

Quote:

---

Obama's Exclusive George Soros Waivers
By Michelle Malkin
7/29/2011

"Millionaires and billionaires," President Obama says derisively, must make more "sacrifices" and live by the same rules the rest of America lives by. But there are seven little words that will never appear on the White House teleprompter: "And that means you, too, George Soros."

For all his (and his wife's) bashing of greedy Wall Street hedge-fund managers, Obama has shown nothing but love to the world's most famous hedge-fund mogul. The feeling is mutual and deep(-pocketed).

Soros and his family shelled out $250,000 for Obama's inauguration, $60,000 in direct campaign contributions and untold millions more to liberal activist groups pushing the White House agenda. While the class warrior-in-chief assails conniving financiers who exploit loopholes and corporate titans who imperil the planet, he lets the Soros exemptions to his attack-the-rich rules slide like butter on a hot plate.

This week, for example, Soros announced he was "quitting" the hedge-fund industry. The headlines emphasized his decision to return about $750 million to outside investors (a drop in his $30 billion bucket of personal wealth). He's reconstituting the business that landed him on Forbes magazine's "wealthiest people" list as a "family" interest. But the move has "self-serving politics" written all over it.

Over the past year, Soros provided coveted support for Obama and the Democrats' Byzantine financial "reforms" under the sweeping Dodd-Frank law. He preached to financial publications around the world about the need for increased regulatory controls over his industry. And in November 2008, while paying obligatory lip service to concerns about going too far, he submitted a statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that recommended: "The entire regulatory framework needs to be reconsidered, and hedge funds need to be regulated within that framework."

Frameworks for thee, but not for he, however.

Under Title IV of Dodd-Frank, hedge funds were required to abide by new registration and reporting requirements in an attempt to better police systemic risk (not that the feckless Securities and Exchange Commission has ever been able to fulfill that mission). To evade the regulations, Soros and other firms have used a recently passed rule allowing so-called family offices to shield themselves from both registration and disclosure rules that would have subjected Soros Inc. to a new "Financial Stability Oversight Council."

Somehow, in touting its one-year anniversary last week, there was nary a peep about the myriad loopholes and de facto waivers being granted to Obama's powerful benefactors whose names start with "S" and end in "-oros."

GOP Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama called Soros' hypocrisy out, telling Reuters this week: "It appears that Mr. Soros talked up financial reform only to sell it short. Don't be surprised to see his fellow Wall Street financiers follow suit."

This comes on top of the Obama administration's $2 billion offering in 2009 to Brazilian state-owned offshore oil-drilling company Petrobras -- in which Soros and his management company own an $811 million stake.

Offshore drilling for they, but not for the rest of the USA. Membership in the self-exempting progressive billionaires' club has its privileges.

---

OK ex, sure sounds like Obama and his buddy share that "incorrect view" of wanting the rich people to get more. What are you going to do about it?

And NK, I don't care that you don't approve of the source, it's the facts that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

save our money for those who really need it.

---

Who are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And NK, I don't care that you don't approve of the source, it's the facts that matter.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Does your butt pucker up when you read something from Paul Krugman?? Now you know how NK and I feel reading something from Michell Malkin.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We don't really have 'poor people', poor is all those living on less than a dollar a day. We need to wean a bunch of our 'poor people' off the government teat and save our money for those who really need it. Our 'poor people' drive nicer cars than I do.

---

Lets see, at the minimum wage times 40 hrs/week, that's $14,400 dollars a year, add a few kids, try living off that anywhere in America, and let me know how that works for you, and your family. Tell me about where, and how you live, and the kind of car you drive, and the health insurance you have. Oh, and lets not forget, most people making that minimum wage don't even get 40 hours a week, because the boss has 'em on part time.

You have to have something to wean them off that government teat, and pray tell what is that? Ever wean a baby off a mama's teat, WITHOUT a bottle of milk? That's where you get those images late at night about starving children around the world.

If only the poor would be a bit more ambitious, right?? Are you kidding me??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tal it's not hard you take it off the military and make the fat cats pay. So long as tax isn't 100% they will still earn money. A balanced budget becomes possible when you get people to work so that you turn that outflow from social security around and some may even pay some tax. You see; those 50 million poor aren't socking away their money they are supporting the economy by spending. There is another way too you make a set of standard deductions and do away with the wasteful cheat sheet tax returns

Fact is Tal you don't need any more aircraft carriers and the planes you have will last fifty years. They are still using warthops aren't there that's a Vietnam war plane. If you keep your army within your own borders then you don't need so many. Let MAD do its job. The Russians, that other superpower, get by with a derelict fleet and half an army

---

Do you see how hard it is to get taxes raised on the rich here? The so called job creators, that have taken the loot to other countries for the cheap labor? And poor people aren't supporting the economy, the are surviving, not thriving! But you are right, nobody has a military like ours in the world. NOBODY, so why are their economy's in such a funk?

LOL, and since we have so many that don't understand that now raising the debt ceiling is a calamity, don't expect some NATIONS understanding Mutually Assured Destruction. Pakistan, India, and Iran come to mind.

But you have a great point about the military, except any place we can make a dollar is subject to invasion in our own interest. Specially if they got oil. We drink it by the gallon here you know. Even the poor people here, according o Steve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Does your butt pucker up when you read something from Paul Krugman??? Now you know how NK and I feel reading something from Michell Malkin.

excon

---

She makes my liver quiver, until she starts talking, and then I get sick. As bad as listening to the Bachman-Palin Overdrive... yargh!

I'd like to see Obama take all of his campaign donations and put them toward the national debt.

I'd vote for his re-election for that act alone.

Same with any OTHER government official.

If they took their MILLIONS in campaign donations and gave them to the COUNTRY---that would make me HAPPY.

But they won't. Nor will they "raise revenue" at all because EVERYONE is sick to death of being taxed to support fat-cat politicians.

I'm sick to death of ALL of it, but I know it will NEVER change as long as CORPORATIONS are the ones running the country through our puppet politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I'd like to see Obama take all of his campaign donations and put them toward the national debt.

I'd vote for his re-election for that act alone.

Same with any OTHER government official.

If they took their MILLIONS in campaign donations and gave them to the COUNTRY---that would make me HAPPY.

But they won't. Nor will they "raise revenue" at all because EVERYONE is sick to death of being taxed to support fat-cat politicians.

I'm sick to death of ALL of it, but I know it will NEVER change as long as CORPORATIONS are the ones running the country through our puppet politicians.

---

Two greenies

But "We the people" elected those politicians, so we sort of got what we paid for, or what they(corporations, and rich guys) paid for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Do you see how hard it is to get taxes raised on the rich here?

---

I have observed and basically I think it is because only about 50% of your people actually pay tax In my nation adjustments to income tax are part of the budget process and they happen because most people pay tax. Mind you we haven't needed to raise tax in a while because we have control of other factors in the economy

Quote:

---

The so called job creators, that have taken the loot to other countries for the cheap labor?

---

Hey it's happened here too but we have gotten past it and instead of sitting on our duffs lamenting it we have dealt with it and unemployment is only structural. In fact we need skilled people

Quote:

---

And poor people aren't supporting the economy, the are surviving, not thriving!

---

Poor people are always supporting the economy, they have to eat and thy have to live somewhere. It's a small but important contribution.

Quote:

---

But you are right, nobody has a military like ours in the world. NOBODY, so why are their economy's in such a funk?

---

People in other places bought into the same dream you did, affordable housing, and just like your dream, it evaporated and in some places welfare, etc is just too generous and some don't pay. For example in Greece tax evasion is a national pastime, and there are some places too unstable for industries to set up there

Quote:

---

LOL, and since we have so many that don't understand that now raising the debt ceiling is a calamity, don't expect some NATIONS understanding Mutually Assured Destruction. Pakistan, India, and Iran come to mind.

---

Tal raising the ceiling isn't a calamity, that your nation should tear itsself apart over a simple mechanism is the calamity, that your politicians don't understand simple economics is calamity

A little MAD applied to India, Pakistan and Iran would do them good, clear the decks so to speak but Iran has the message. You have more oil in your own territory than you know what to do with why would you invade to get more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I have observed and basicly I think it is because only about 50% of your people actually pay tax

---

Hello again, clete:

You didn't "observe" anything.. You just got the right wing email. Of course, it's basically a LIE.

Oh, it IS true, that about HALF of us don't pay federal INCOME taxes - but, there's PLENTY of federal taxes they DO pay. For instance, they PAY federal UNEMPLOYMENT taxes. They pay federal PAYROLL taxes.. They pay federal SOCIAL SECURITY taxes. They pay federal GASOLINE taxes. They pay federal TELEPHONE taxes. They pay federal INTERNET taxes. And, THOSE federal taxes are just the ones a dumb old exconvict like me knows about. Surely there's dozens more... Do you want me to mention STATE taxes?? They pay PLENTY of those...

The truth is that more than 50% of our federal budget is paid for by taxes that our working poor DO pay. Now, you may want them to pay more... Our right wingers do.

Now, if you want to talk about the scum who SUCK off society, I'll have that conversation with you.. But, our working poor ain't them.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

The truth is that more than 50% of our federal budget is paid for by taxes that our poor DO pay. Now, you may want them to pay more... Our right wingers do.

If you wanna talk about the scum who SUCK off society, I'll have that conversation with you.. But, our working poor ain't them.

excon

---

Yes ex there are plenty of taxes but who are these scum suckers, are they the welfare cheats who burden the system while crying poor? The way I hear it ex the idea was to raise tax on people with incomes over $250000, hardly working poor. More than 50% of your federal budget isn't paid by tax Ex it's paid by money you borrowed and continue to borrow so future citizens will pay, now that's scum suckin because the only way it can work is with massive inflation.

What has happened these days is that the tools used to manage the economy, taxation, interest rates and debt have been taken away until in the case of the US only one remains DEBT, It used to be that government could raise or lower tax, raise or lower interest rates, borrow or contract debt, but they can't anymore so the economy goes nowhere because the signals are stuck to keep those scum sucking fat cats rich

The debt limit is but a smoke screen as its about political posturing. We all know that and its frustrating, but that's the way we fight over here. Better than some places, and it's the price of our democracy.

Quote:

---

I have observed and basically I think it is because only about 50% of your people actually pay tax In my nation adjustments to income tax are part of the budget process and they happen because most people pay tax. Mind you we haven't needed to raise tax in a while because we have control of other factors in the economy

---

That's misinformed crap, as everyone that works pays a payroll tax, and have to wait for April 15th, the following year to claim a refund. Unlike the rich guys who pay no payroll tax, just file in April. See the difference? It's a big one because working people have no access, and get no interest from that money until they file and get a refund. What you think that cash just sits and doesn't make interest for the government??

Quote:

---

people in other places bought into the same dream you did, affordable housing, and just like your dream, it evaporated and in some places welfare, etc is just too generous and some don't pay. For example in Greece tax evasion is a national pastime, and there are some places too unstable for industries to set up there

---

Well we ain't Greeks, and all due respect, we had some slick swindlers and maybe affordable housing is a bit rocky, its still doable, and lets me clear we are a rather large nation, bigger than the Australia you put up as perfect, I mean you have 20 million folks and a trillion dollar budget. I understand your national pride, but we are all a works in progress moving to solve problems. You still have your national challenges too, as do all nations, so lets not act like Australia leads the world in living. That's very condescending. Sorry we don't meet your standards of civilized, but I really don't think we're trying to.

Get some popcorn, and enjoy the show, we will eventually get 'er done. We may not be as pretty as you Aussies, or the Greeks for that matter, but we are pretty capable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Well we ain't Greeks, and all due respect, we had some slick swindlers and maybe affordable housing is a bit rocky, its still doable, and lets me clear we are a rather large nation, bigger than the Australia you put up as perfect, I mean you have 20 million folks and a trillion dollar budget. I understand your national pride, but we are all a works in progress moving to solve problems. You still have your national challenges too, as do all nations, so lets not act like Australia leads the world in living. Thats very condescending. Sorry we don't meet your standards of civilized, but I really don't think we're trying to.

---

Herein lies the rub Tal when we speak about tax we are talking about the final outcome i.e. money you ultimately don't have. We all have stupid tax systems that take with one hand and give with another we are steadly reforming ours with plans for less and less people to lodge tax returns. You know that there is a reason companies test products in a small market and it is that it is easier to sort out the problems. What you call national pride is a recognition that we might have solved some of these problems you are finding to be a hump. It wasn't without pain. When we took on removing the protection of our industries there was great pain but our economy is booming today. I think you might be at that stage of development. Actually in living standards Australia is up there currently rated number 2 on the Human Development Index. Another small nation Norway is number 1. What that means is we might have got a good deal right despite having some extremely disadvantaged people in our midst. Your national pride prevents you from taking a solution from a "smaller" nation. We don't expect you to achieve our standards of civilisation because you seem to be going in the opposite direction and because you started with an entirely different ethos. You see Tal the twentieth century was your century and maybe this is ours, maybe not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Thats misinformed crap, as everyone that works pays a payroll tax, and have to wait for April 15th, the following year to claim a refund. Unlike the rich guys who pay no payroll tax, just file in April. See the difference? Its a big one because working people have no access, and get no interest from that money until they file and get a refund. What you think that cash just sits and doesn't make interest for the government???

---

Not sure where your getting your information from but many that are self employed or have taxable income must pay an estimated tax quarterly. Also there is a self employment tax.

Estimated Taxes

Tax Topics - Topic 554 Self-Employment Tax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Not sure where your getting your information from but many that are self employed or have taxable income must pay an estimated tax quarterly. Also there is a self employment tax.

Estimated Taxes

Tax Topics - Topic 554 Self-Employment Tax

---

Looks like a catch all there