Why don't US make a single tax bracket for everyone?
Just like in other countries (russia, china, latin america, etc.)
Open for discussion.
It will eliminate the need to have tax people
Save millions in new tax reforms. Why not?
Why people who work harder or smarter should be punished for it?
Get rid of all deductions but have a single tax
Easy for everyone.
Open for discussion.
It will eliminate the need to have tax people
Save millions in new tax reforms. Why not?
Why people who work harder or smarter should be punished for it?
Get rid of all deductions but have a single tax
Easy for everyone.
ASKER
But I am saying why don't US make a single tax bracket for everyone? It will solve that many problems. What's the reason? Why not?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Amake sense. Now how do the other countries afford to have a small percent of of income tax across the board. Russia for instance have only 13% flat income tax rate. How does it support the goverment and their "fabilous" programs?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
> If economists can't agree on an ideal tax system, I don't know if we're going to have much luck agreeing either.
Excellent point! There's no right answer. If you find it...somebody else can prove it's wrong.
Excellent point! There's no right answer. If you find it...somebody else can prove it's wrong.
>>It goes against the idea of social support. Pick a percentage, any percentage, and it will be "wrong" to somebody. Pick 10%. Now, there's not enough revenue to support a government and all the programs the politicians (and constituents) are demanding as "necessary".
So what if it goes against social support. I don't go to work and make a living to support people who don't work or unwilling to work. I think we should use a flat tax. 10% should be plenty to run the government. The welfare state is failing anyway. It doesn't work. The government can start with Social Security. Phase it out so that by 20 to 30 years from now you will not have it. Let the employee decide whether or not they want to save up for retirement. If they do, they do; if they don't, they don't. No big deal. This will save the government money. Of course repeal obamacare. Setup term limits for congress. Make them have the same benefits as private industry. Do away with all the Czars. Cut out useless departments. Downsize the federal government and turn most power back the individual states and the people.
So what if it goes against social support. I don't go to work and make a living to support people who don't work or unwilling to work. I think we should use a flat tax. 10% should be plenty to run the government. The welfare state is failing anyway. It doesn't work. The government can start with Social Security. Phase it out so that by 20 to 30 years from now you will not have it. Let the employee decide whether or not they want to save up for retirement. If they do, they do; if they don't, they don't. No big deal. This will save the government money. Of course repeal obamacare. Setup term limits for congress. Make them have the same benefits as private industry. Do away with all the Czars. Cut out useless departments. Downsize the federal government and turn most power back the individual states and the people.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
The current liberal policies are failing. The nanny state doesn't work. It is draining our economy. By 2087 the top bracket earners will have to pay 85% of their income tax to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's just a matter of time these programs will be unsustainable for all classes of people. So either we wait around for it to collapse or we do something now. All I am suggesting, since nobody else is coming up with any ideas, is to phase them out of our system. You guys don't have any plans. At least I am bold enough to recognize that we as a country have a serious problem and I have come up with a solution as barbaric and inhumane as it may seem.
Sure. The Nanny State doesn't work. And neither does the Wild Wild West. At least for most of us. There are some people who like hand-holding, and some who pack heat on a daily basis.
There's a medium...probably not a happy medium because in a compromise, no-one gets it the way they want it.
I'd still rather be struggling somewhere in the middle of this tug-of-war than going to the extreme of either side.
There's a medium...probably not a happy medium because in a compromise, no-one gets it the way they want it.
I'd still rather be struggling somewhere in the middle of this tug-of-war than going to the extreme of either side.
"I'd still rather be struggling somewhere in the middle of this tug-of-war than going to the extreme of either side."
Amen brother.
Amen brother.
I still don't see any solutions coming from anyone of you guys yet. Except implying that people who come up with solutions to the problems that were created by liberals to begin with are considered extreme. We tried the liberal way for almost an hundred years now and they don't work. Until you come up with something better I stick to cutting the size of the federal government by phasing out SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Cut out useless departments like the EPA. Cut the Czars, retirement for congress, term limits for congress, stop paying full benefits and salary to judges even after they retire, cut the presidents pay to $125,000 because he shouldn't be making over $250,000 anyway according to his rantings and ravings from his telepromter.
>I stick to cutting the size of the federal government by phasing out...
Sure...but that's somewhere in the middle. It's closer to the Wild-Wild-West, and not quite back to the days of tribal groups.
Your ideal still has a government that reaches across geographical boundaries, across state lines, and taxes citizens for the benefit of others.
Sure...but that's somewhere in the middle. It's closer to the Wild-Wild-West, and not quite back to the days of tribal groups.
Your ideal still has a government that reaches across geographical boundaries, across state lines, and taxes citizens for the benefit of others.
"We tried the liberal way for almost an hundred years now and they don't work."
How doesn't something like SSI work? Seriously? Sure there are some minor problems, but overall, it seems to be working pretty well. People put money in, people take money out. It's a little out of balance now with the baby boomers peaking, but raising the retirement age or any of a dozen other tweaks will easily fix that. Heck, immigration reform would fix that.
Military spending is just as much as SSI and Medicare. How about we cut down on that, given a jumbo-sized military tends to get us in more trouble than it's worth? If you really want to go back to the past, how about we just have citizen militias? How about we don't have United States at all and just have state governments run everything? Think about that for a bit and get back to me.
I'm all for spending cuts, but let's cut across the board, and figure out what really doesn't work rather than just ranting about the big evil government.
There are plenty of solutions to our problems, but it's a tug-of-war to enact them, and taking extreme positions doesn't help.
How doesn't something like SSI work? Seriously? Sure there are some minor problems, but overall, it seems to be working pretty well. People put money in, people take money out. It's a little out of balance now with the baby boomers peaking, but raising the retirement age or any of a dozen other tweaks will easily fix that. Heck, immigration reform would fix that.
Military spending is just as much as SSI and Medicare. How about we cut down on that, given a jumbo-sized military tends to get us in more trouble than it's worth? If you really want to go back to the past, how about we just have citizen militias? How about we don't have United States at all and just have state governments run everything? Think about that for a bit and get back to me.
I'm all for spending cuts, but let's cut across the board, and figure out what really doesn't work rather than just ranting about the big evil government.
There are plenty of solutions to our problems, but it's a tug-of-war to enact them, and taking extreme positions doesn't help.
SS doesn't work. It's deep in the hole because congress has been dipping their hands into it for years now. There are so much IOUs attached to Medicare, Medicaid, and SS that if we started paying backing what we really owe to these programs, it would barely pay the interest. You call this success? It's a failure on part of our government and now we have even a more massive program called the health care bill that we need to worry about. The government couldn't even run the three previous programs right so let's add another program to run. Let's see how much we can run our country into the ground before citizens will start waking up before it's too late.
I am not even addressing the amount of fraud that goes on with Medicare and Medicaid and also wasteful spending and mismangement of these programs. It's horrendous.
I am not even addressing the amount of fraud that goes on with Medicare and Medicaid and also wasteful spending and mismangement of these programs. It's horrendous.
Tiras,
The low/no income people will always whine about a flat rate. For some reason they feel they deserve all the same luxuries as the rich. I won't go to far into it since TLingit and aleghart already have, but it comes down to votes. If the no-low income people hate all the government that's a lot of votes that they would not get. It's all politics. It totally is not fair for there to be different tax rates depending on your income. IT IS a punishment for making money. the people making the money are typically the ones creating the jobs so those no/low income people can work, but oh that's right most are too lazy to even get out of bed in the morning to have a decent paying job. So the people who work their butts off are the ones that have to support them.
It's all a matter of political views and of course people on this forum are definitely split. for example Graphixer is a big believer in what's best for the community, where as I believe in what's best for the individual. He beleives in everyone putting into a pot to bring everyone's standard of living up, where as I believe in individual responsibility for your standard of living. Is either wrong? No, just like there isnt' a WRONG political group (well within reason). It's just different. There's nothing wrong with wanting the best for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with wanting individuals rights and responsibilities.
I do agree that SS, Medicare, Medicaide, etc needs to be phased out. I'll even throw in the Health care bill even though it hasn't even went into effect. The government seems to jack most things up. The biggest reason is because it's once again an example of the rich taking care of the poor, which I despise.
The low/no income people will always whine about a flat rate. For some reason they feel they deserve all the same luxuries as the rich. I won't go to far into it since TLingit and aleghart already have, but it comes down to votes. If the no-low income people hate all the government that's a lot of votes that they would not get. It's all politics. It totally is not fair for there to be different tax rates depending on your income. IT IS a punishment for making money. the people making the money are typically the ones creating the jobs so those no/low income people can work, but oh that's right most are too lazy to even get out of bed in the morning to have a decent paying job. So the people who work their butts off are the ones that have to support them.
It's all a matter of political views and of course people on this forum are definitely split. for example Graphixer is a big believer in what's best for the community, where as I believe in what's best for the individual. He beleives in everyone putting into a pot to bring everyone's standard of living up, where as I believe in individual responsibility for your standard of living. Is either wrong? No, just like there isnt' a WRONG political group (well within reason). It's just different. There's nothing wrong with wanting the best for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with wanting individuals rights and responsibilities.
I do agree that SS, Medicare, Medicaide, etc needs to be phased out. I'll even throw in the Health care bill even though it hasn't even went into effect. The government seems to jack most things up. The biggest reason is because it's once again an example of the rich taking care of the poor, which I despise.
Graphixer wrote:People put money in, people take money out.
That's the same with a personal 401k, or IRA, or even savings account. Why does the government need to be involved? The government should not be responsible for laziness and lack of planning on people's part. Not to mention the average return that people could get in the private realm with that money is leaps and bounds above what the government is able to provide. Then yes ther eis always the problem of not enough money to cover people, so they keep raising the age of retirement. Sorry, but that's totally unfair to those who were looking forward to that retirement. How is it fair that my grandpa got to retire at 55 but I won't be able to retire until 80? So I have to work for 25 more years to get the same benefits. That's a crock. I'd rather them keep the age the same but limit how long you can draw.
Military spending is just as much as SSI and Medicare.
You're right, and I've always agreed that there is wasteful spending. It can be greatly cut down, and it should be.
That's the same with a personal 401k, or IRA, or even savings account. Why does the government need to be involved? The government should not be responsible for laziness and lack of planning on people's part. Not to mention the average return that people could get in the private realm with that money is leaps and bounds above what the government is able to provide. Then yes ther eis always the problem of not enough money to cover people, so they keep raising the age of retirement. Sorry, but that's totally unfair to those who were looking forward to that retirement. How is it fair that my grandpa got to retire at 55 but I won't be able to retire until 80? So I have to work for 25 more years to get the same benefits. That's a crock. I'd rather them keep the age the same but limit how long you can draw.
Military spending is just as much as SSI and Medicare.
You're right, and I've always agreed that there is wasteful spending. It can be greatly cut down, and it should be.
TLingit and aleghart, I definitely agree with most you guys have said. :) Just thought I'd let you know.
ASKER
Guys, my question was more about the international tax politics. Compare to other countries flat rates and how they do it and US where we have a complex taxations and why.
I did not mean to get that deep and didn't mean to create some sort of 'war' here..
I did not mean to get that deep and didn't mean to create some sort of 'war' here..
No war...we all like discussions. Just imagine we're sitting back buying each other beers while bantering. :)
Sorry if we hijacked your thread!
Sorry if we hijacked your thread!
Tiras, like I said it gets politicians votes to have it this way. There are far less people who make a lot of money vs a little or no money. Thus the politicians cater to their every want and desire. I think what people are bringing up isn't war, it's just the reasons for all these tax issues goes deep. It's many years of government involvement and changes.
"That's the same with a personal 401k, or IRA, or even savings account. Why does the government need to be involved?"
Not everyone has access to a 401k, can figure out how to properly invest in an IRA (or can afford to), and are strapped as it is to be able to save...and not because of taxes. Many working poor can barely afford housing let alone retirement savings. SSI is absolutely necessary if we want seniors to remain independent. I for one don't want my parents to have to live withe me.
And why was SSI established in the first place? Because people lost their retirement savings in the market crash that led to the Great Depression. Again, think about whether or not you want to go back to those days?
If you look at SSI and Medicare with a microscope, of course you'll find problems. But again, overall, these programs are a huge success. This is partially why we aren't in a depression now. And nobody is going to insure someone over 65, so abolishing Medicare would be a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of people.
I just saw a Republican TV ad that slammed the Democratic candidate for voting for "Obamacare" because it allegedly took away a half a trillion from Medicare. And remember the ads about Obama pulling the plug on grandma? Preserve or abolish? You guys can't play it both ways.
BTW CCSOFlag, you sound like a French worker with your talk about the retirement age. :-) That's exactly what they're doing now...debating whether or not to shift the retirement age from 60 to 62. That's not reasonable? Why can't we go from 65 to 67? Fewer freeloaders, right?
Not everyone has access to a 401k, can figure out how to properly invest in an IRA (or can afford to), and are strapped as it is to be able to save...and not because of taxes. Many working poor can barely afford housing let alone retirement savings. SSI is absolutely necessary if we want seniors to remain independent. I for one don't want my parents to have to live withe me.
And why was SSI established in the first place? Because people lost their retirement savings in the market crash that led to the Great Depression. Again, think about whether or not you want to go back to those days?
If you look at SSI and Medicare with a microscope, of course you'll find problems. But again, overall, these programs are a huge success. This is partially why we aren't in a depression now. And nobody is going to insure someone over 65, so abolishing Medicare would be a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of people.
I just saw a Republican TV ad that slammed the Democratic candidate for voting for "Obamacare" because it allegedly took away a half a trillion from Medicare. And remember the ads about Obama pulling the plug on grandma? Preserve or abolish? You guys can't play it both ways.
BTW CCSOFlag, you sound like a French worker with your talk about the retirement age. :-) That's exactly what they're doing now...debating whether or not to shift the retirement age from 60 to 62. That's not reasonable? Why can't we go from 65 to 67? Fewer freeloaders, right?
Soylent Green.
That's all I'm sayin'.
We're headed for Soylent Green.
That's all I'm sayin'.
We're headed for Soylent Green.
Graphixer wrote:
...and not because of taxes.
I'm talking about replacing SSI with this. So everyone WOULD have the money. They should use the money that would be going to SSI. Know what I mean?
Because people lost their retirement savings in the market crash that led to the Great Depression.
Well of course there is always a risk, but if you want to be safe then there's always CDs or savings accounts. Everyone can choose how much risk to take.
I just saw a Republican TV ad that slammed the Democratic candidate for voting for "Obamacare" because it allegedly took away a half a trillion from Medicare.
I don't claim to support all that Republicans do that's for sure. Honestly I don't even consider myself a Republican. Even I understand that the health care bill itself doesnt' require as much money in Medicare, so of course it took some away. But also remember both sides pull crap like that. Always twisting facts to help their cause. It's sad.
That's not reasonable? Why can't we go from 65 to 67? Fewer freeloaders, right?
LOL, definitely. No I already stated my problem. It's not fair that as the years go on people have to work longer to get the same benefits. Eventually people are going to be bedridden by the time they can pull SSI. When will it end? Another suggestion may be to lower the benefits, or maybe give the choice to either lower the benefits or retire later.
...and not because of taxes.
I'm talking about replacing SSI with this. So everyone WOULD have the money. They should use the money that would be going to SSI. Know what I mean?
Because people lost their retirement savings in the market crash that led to the Great Depression.
Well of course there is always a risk, but if you want to be safe then there's always CDs or savings accounts. Everyone can choose how much risk to take.
I just saw a Republican TV ad that slammed the Democratic candidate for voting for "Obamacare" because it allegedly took away a half a trillion from Medicare.
I don't claim to support all that Republicans do that's for sure. Honestly I don't even consider myself a Republican. Even I understand that the health care bill itself doesnt' require as much money in Medicare, so of course it took some away. But also remember both sides pull crap like that. Always twisting facts to help their cause. It's sad.
That's not reasonable? Why can't we go from 65 to 67? Fewer freeloaders, right?
LOL, definitely. No I already stated my problem. It's not fair that as the years go on people have to work longer to get the same benefits. Eventually people are going to be bedridden by the time they can pull SSI. When will it end? Another suggestion may be to lower the benefits, or maybe give the choice to either lower the benefits or retire later.
I know what you mean CCSOFlag, but that goes to my argument. Let's say that everyone got to keep the money they now pay into SSI. Would everyone invest it into retirement? Probably not, but even if they did, would everyone invest it wisely? Even if everyone did, would those investments be guaranteed to not lose money? Of course not.
The "I" in SSI is for "Insurance" SSI is supplemental and never meant to be the sole source of retirement...just enough to ensure that people aren't destitute when they get older. It is a small price to pay for societal well being, which greatly benefits the individual as well as the group.
Any raises in retirement ages would be phased in gradually. People are living much longer and much healthier than they were just 30 years ago. It is absolutely fair to extend the retirement age, given the increases in life expectancy and life quality over the 1930's when SSI was established.
The "I" in SSI is for "Insurance" SSI is supplemental and never meant to be the sole source of retirement...just enough to ensure that people aren't destitute when they get older. It is a small price to pay for societal well being, which greatly benefits the individual as well as the group.
Any raises in retirement ages would be phased in gradually. People are living much longer and much healthier than they were just 30 years ago. It is absolutely fair to extend the retirement age, given the increases in life expectancy and life quality over the 1930's when SSI was established.
Tiras, if you want low income tax you will have to start cutting, no way around it.
>>It is a small price to pay for societal well being
Everything to a liberal is a small price to pay. FWH is a small price to pay, FICA and FICAMED are small prices to pay, local taxes and property taxes are small prices to pay, taxes on commodities are small prices to pay, state taxes are small prices to pay, and now health care is a small price to pay. Let me see do I have any money left for myself? Oops, I do. I must be greedy and selfish.
>>Would everyone invest it into retirement? Probably not, but even if they did, would everyone invest it wisely?
What concern is it of me if someone does not save up for their own retirement and why should I care how someone is going to invest their money.
Everything to a liberal is a small price to pay. FWH is a small price to pay, FICA and FICAMED are small prices to pay, local taxes and property taxes are small prices to pay, taxes on commodities are small prices to pay, state taxes are small prices to pay, and now health care is a small price to pay. Let me see do I have any money left for myself? Oops, I do. I must be greedy and selfish.
>>Would everyone invest it into retirement? Probably not, but even if they did, would everyone invest it wisely?
What concern is it of me if someone does not save up for their own retirement and why should I care how someone is going to invest their money.
>What concern is it of me if someone does not save up for their own retirement
The old will not leave the work force to make room for the younger.
Families will have to take on responsibility for un- or under-prepared relatives...which mean they need higher wages to support a larger household.
As many have said before.... "Mom, you're NOT moving in with me!"
The old will not leave the work force to make room for the younger.
Families will have to take on responsibility for un- or under-prepared relatives...which mean they need higher wages to support a larger household.
As many have said before.... "Mom, you're NOT moving in with me!"
We still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. Waddaya want, something like Somalia? Actually, you might like Somalia. Beaches. No government...at all. Er...beaches!
Graphixer wrote:
The "I" in SSI is for "Insurance" SSI is supplemental and never meant to be the sole source of retirement...
Ah, yes, but insurance should be voluntary shouldn't it? No matter what insurance it is? Why should I have to insure myself for something I'm not worried about? There are several communities that aren't required to pay it, so why can't it be at everyone choosing?
Would everyone invest it into retirement?
TLingit responded well and I agree.
It is a small price to pay for societal well being, which greatly benefits the individual as well as the group.
TLingit once again responded well and I agree again.
It is absolutely fair to extend the retirement age...
While I agree that life expectancy has increased, I don't think you addressed the issue of people having to work longer now to get the same benefits. How is that fair? We pay just as much as them, but yet they got to retire sooner? You have to still work if you aren't getting your retirement. Income is a must to live in this country now, which is another problem in itself.
The "I" in SSI is for "Insurance" SSI is supplemental and never meant to be the sole source of retirement...
Ah, yes, but insurance should be voluntary shouldn't it? No matter what insurance it is? Why should I have to insure myself for something I'm not worried about? There are several communities that aren't required to pay it, so why can't it be at everyone choosing?
Would everyone invest it into retirement?
TLingit responded well and I agree.
It is a small price to pay for societal well being, which greatly benefits the individual as well as the group.
TLingit once again responded well and I agree again.
It is absolutely fair to extend the retirement age...
While I agree that life expectancy has increased, I don't think you addressed the issue of people having to work longer now to get the same benefits. How is that fair? We pay just as much as them, but yet they got to retire sooner? You have to still work if you aren't getting your retirement. Income is a must to live in this country now, which is another problem in itself.
"Ah, yes, but insurance should be voluntary shouldn't it?"
Car insurance isn't voluntary. And I know what you're going to say; 'it doesn't affect me if I don't own a car'. Well it does. We're all pedestrians. We all shop at stores that sell products shipped in trucks that require insurance. If truck and auto insurance weren't mandated, our commerce system and justice systems would be severely hobbled.
Likewise, we're all citizens that enjoy some basic protections. I state these examples over and over, but we all expect to be protected by police, fire departments, emergency rooms and the military. We expect decent schools in our areas even if we don't have kids. If we never use any of these services directly, we all pay for them so we can live in overall safe and orderly society.
I think you forget that most people don't live in an isolated cabin in the woods. Nearly all of us have to deal closely with other people, and their cars, and their buildings, and their practices. Without rules, requirements, taxes and insurance, anarchy would quickly ensue. I think this is a big reason why urban dwellers tend to be liberal while rural dwellers tend to be conservative.
"While I agree that life expectancy has increased, I don't think you addressed the issue of people having to work longer now to get the same benefits. How is that fair?"
If we don't do something and the SSI system collapses, nobody gets the benefits they paid into. How is that fair?
And even if raising the retirement age is not completely fair, so what? Wouldn't you be the first to say it's an unfair world out there, so man up and stop crying about it? :-)
Would it be fair if someone died at 66 rather than at 99? The person who dies a year after retirement age wouldn't get their full benefits. What if, at 66, that person were struck and killed by an uninsured driver? And what if Medicare didn't exist to treat that person? Too bad, so sad?
What do you think Tlingit? Leave the old geezer at the side of the road and let him die?
Tiras, sorry for the sidetracks. My answer to your question is in the first post, and I'm not sure I have much to add to it.
Car insurance isn't voluntary. And I know what you're going to say; 'it doesn't affect me if I don't own a car'. Well it does. We're all pedestrians. We all shop at stores that sell products shipped in trucks that require insurance. If truck and auto insurance weren't mandated, our commerce system and justice systems would be severely hobbled.
Likewise, we're all citizens that enjoy some basic protections. I state these examples over and over, but we all expect to be protected by police, fire departments, emergency rooms and the military. We expect decent schools in our areas even if we don't have kids. If we never use any of these services directly, we all pay for them so we can live in overall safe and orderly society.
I think you forget that most people don't live in an isolated cabin in the woods. Nearly all of us have to deal closely with other people, and their cars, and their buildings, and their practices. Without rules, requirements, taxes and insurance, anarchy would quickly ensue. I think this is a big reason why urban dwellers tend to be liberal while rural dwellers tend to be conservative.
"While I agree that life expectancy has increased, I don't think you addressed the issue of people having to work longer now to get the same benefits. How is that fair?"
If we don't do something and the SSI system collapses, nobody gets the benefits they paid into. How is that fair?
And even if raising the retirement age is not completely fair, so what? Wouldn't you be the first to say it's an unfair world out there, so man up and stop crying about it? :-)
Would it be fair if someone died at 66 rather than at 99? The person who dies a year after retirement age wouldn't get their full benefits. What if, at 66, that person were struck and killed by an uninsured driver? And what if Medicare didn't exist to treat that person? Too bad, so sad?
What do you think Tlingit? Leave the old geezer at the side of the road and let him die?
Tiras, sorry for the sidetracks. My answer to your question is in the first post, and I'm not sure I have much to add to it.
ASKER
Thanks guys!
>>What do you think Tlingit? Leave the old geezer at the side of the road and let him die?
Only if he is bleeding all over the road and making a mess, then of course move him. :-)
Your dealing with a lot of what if's my friend. I like to deal with what is happening now.
Only if he is bleeding all over the road and making a mess, then of course move him. :-)
Your dealing with a lot of what if's my friend. I like to deal with what is happening now.
Tlingit says:
"Your dealing with a lot of what if's my friend. I like to deal with what is happening now."
Legislation, insurance, taxes...nearly everything we do is all about "what if's". What if a car crashes? What if the stock market crashes? What if another country tries to invade us? What if insurance companies won't ensure the elderly? What if there were no pollution regulations? What if I lose my job? What if an infectious disease were to break out at a school?
It's perfectly rational, and necessary, to deal with what if's. Sure, it feels good to bash the government, but you need to ask yourself a lot of 'what if' questions before spouting off about abolishing everything.
"Your dealing with a lot of what if's my friend. I like to deal with what is happening now."
Legislation, insurance, taxes...nearly everything we do is all about "what if's". What if a car crashes? What if the stock market crashes? What if another country tries to invade us? What if insurance companies won't ensure the elderly? What if there were no pollution regulations? What if I lose my job? What if an infectious disease were to break out at a school?
It's perfectly rational, and necessary, to deal with what if's. Sure, it feels good to bash the government, but you need to ask yourself a lot of 'what if' questions before spouting off about abolishing everything.
(as adopted by the Third Session of the Fifth National People's Congress
on September 10, 1980
....
Article 3.1. Progressive tax rates in excess of specific amounts shall apply to wages and salaries, the rates being five percent to 45 percent (refer to the tax rate schedule attached).
Progressive tax rates in excess of specific amounts, at five percent to 35 percent, shall apply to the operating income of privately owned businesses and income from contracted management or leasehold management for enterprises or institutions (refer to the tax rate schedule attached).