Value-added: the tax increase that may fly

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Crime was low and you didn't have the ghettos, no-go zones, ghost towns throughout America.

Ghettos have always existed. Read the book Gangs of New York.

Ghost towns have always existed too, littered throughout the West.

[Ali G. 37]

Ghettos have always existed. Read the book Gangs of New York.

Ghost towns have always existed too, littered throughout the West.

I am talking about the 40's and 50's here. Trying to even argue those points in 2010 is ridiculous. Look at photos of Jersey from then and look at it now. It's an absolute craphole. Sure you will mention the pockets of wealthy areas but these isolated - often gated - regions don't interest me.

Obviously if someone has grown up in a craphole, they will not see anything wrong with it.Sure rights-wise the country has progressed, but in terms of prosperity, aesthetics and quality of life, the country has gone backwards for a lot of people. You won't admit it because the very same demographic you root for, is the one responsible for a large part of the destruction of inner cities.

A colleague from work is planning a vacation to Aus and wanted to know which areas to avoid, the no-go zones. I told him there were none and he thought I didn't understand the question. I was like 'no seriously, while there is petty crime, there are no inner city no-go zones in Melbourne or Sydney'.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am talking about the 40's and 50's here.

I thought you were talking about 100 years ago.

That's what we had 100 years ago.

Hey, that was a good era for America. The entire first world actually looked up to America back then. Crime was low and you didn't have the ghettos, no-go zones, ghost towns throughout America.

[Ali G. 37]

I thought you were talking about 100 years ago.

No, I was responding to ######### post of who he considers heroes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am talking about the 40's and 50's here.

BTW - ghettos existed in the 40s and 50s. As did crime and gangs.

No, I was responding to ######### post of who he considers heroes.

My mistake.

[Ali G. 37]

BTW - ghettos existed in the 40s and 50s. As did crime and gangs.

My mistake.

Never said it didn't. Before anyone starts posting articles, nor did I say AUS has no crime. However, when compared to the US, it's negligible.

It's all about priorities. As we saw yesterday, freedom in America is being able to to distribute animal cruelty videos or burn your flag. Whereas, freedom over there comes in terms of equal opportunity to acquire wealth, an education and have access to a high quality of life. Furthermore, the freedom to 'freely' walk down a street or move anywhere within your country, without ending up a victim or crime.

It's wrong of me to say which is better, however, personally I prefer the latter.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Never said it didn't.

BTW - ghettos existed in the 40s and 50s. As did crime and gangs.

The electronic record says otherwise.

Hey, that was a good era for America. The entire first world actually looked up to America back then. Crime was low and you didn't have the ghettos, no-go zones, ghost towns throughout America.

I am talking about the 40's and 50's here.

[Ali G. 37]

The electronic record says otherwise.

You're pulling a spook. Contrary to your personal belief, there is a huge difference in the number of ghettos from the 50's to now. That is the point. Heck even Harlem was thriving at one stage.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What's a good era, and what's a bad era is a matter of perspective. I imagine having 2 or 3 pages of war dead listed in your hometown paper daily might just suck, as would driving on dirt and gravel roads everywhere you went. Compared to the war years, the 50's was an improvement. As someone who lived through the 60's, that sorta sucked, because the war was being fought on the streets of America, not just in Southeast Asia. However, things improved for a lot of people in the later years.

Edited April 22, 2010 by ##########

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

That's what I would like to see - a flat income tax for any income over the existential minimum. No deductions, no exceptions. Ain't going to happen, however, because that would make those with ultra high incomes - from all sorts of sources - actually pay their fair share. They don't want to have that happen.

so much for it being "fair"

[mawilson 2,133]

so much for it being "fair"

What's not fair about it, if the same limit applies to everyone?

Whether you make $20,000,000 or $20,000, you pay no tax on the first, say, $10,000 of your income.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's not fair about it, if the same limit applies to everyone?

Whether you make $20,000,000 or $20,000, you pay no tax on the first, say, $10,000 of your income.

Exactly.

[Texanadian 10]

Hey, that was a good era for America. The entire first world actually looked up to America back then. Crime was low and you didn't have the ghettos, no-go zones, ghost towns throughout America. The wealthy paid 90 percent in income tax and it was treason to think you could sell out your country or its people for a profit. Entertainers were not idolized or paid 5,000 times the average American. Neither kid or parent had to worry about being kidnapped in broad daylight or some fanatic trying to destroy their government, because they disagree with it. The nostalgia goes on and on. However, this is 2010 and both America and the world has changed. For some it's been an awesome change, while others have severely regressed and turned into crapholes.

The wealthy paid 90%? Not quite....

In 1910, there was no personal income tax. There was a 1% corporate income tax on corporate income above $5,000. Personal income taxes started in 1913. The top tax bracket in 1913 was 7%. And that was on personal income above $500,000.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

What's not fair about it, if the same limit applies to everyone?

Whether you make $20,000,000 or $20,000, you pay no tax on the first, say, $10,000 of your income.

still get the same thing we have today - a large chunk of the populace not paying taxes. and that bar would get raised again and again by special interest groups.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The wealthy paid 90%? Not quite....

In 1910, there was no personal income tax. There was a 1% corporate income tax on corporate income above $5,000. Personal income taxes started in 1913. The top tax bracket in 1913 was 7%. And that was on personal income above $500,000.

BY doesn't actually read history. He makes it.