The Income tax currently helps people were the cost of living is low.

I live in NYC and the cost of real estate together with local taxes cause the ATM tax to hit me.

If you lived in the Mid west the cost of living is lower and local taxes are less.

I think the Income Tax should take into account the cost of living.

not is Scotland it's not. it's ma twang / slang .

no matter your now a grumpy "auld" (scottish word) bugger.

__________________
http://www.x-trail-uk.co.uk

“Attitudes are contagious. Is yours worth catching?”

According to the first post of this thread, I'm sure the world is pleased because now we can become the appeasing, no spine country that the rest of the world wants( France and Russia are probably dancing in the streets so they can sell military weapons to whatever terrorist they want to now...not like they haven't been anyway).

Sorry, but I see dark days for the next two years( we may have to consult the ACLU now before we even have our coffee in the am) and I also see GB's pen getting worn out on veto's of crazy stuff the dems will send up the pike. This could bode well for the GOP in two years when we elect a President. Things will be sooooo screwed up that the country will pine for the GOP. George is still President and I know we'll see him step up and continue do what's right for America.

Thank you for referring back to the very reason why this thread was posted in the first place. Even if you're clearly not one of the people that made this change happen. But regardless of your pessimistic outlook, the outcome of these elections can only do the US, (and hopefully the rest of the planet) some good, for a change.

I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of the World's population does NOT want a USA as an "appeasing, no spine country".

But what we ALSO DON'T want is an allmighty, powerful US Military machine capable of absolutely devastating effects on mankind, being run by a Warmongering, one-sided, ultra conservative monetary interest group acting out of pure self-interest and greed (the same type of warmongering group that has fed terrorists and terrorists-to-be with more weapons than France, Germany or any other coutry put together ever has, by the way), hiding behind a Mass-media-backed facade composed of purely faked reasoning.

We want the US to be a strong leader, but fair, equitative, consensual and dedicated to some of the biggest problems this planet REALLY faces, such as the way in which we're recklessly erradicating the environment of the Planet we ALL live in (the US being by a vast far, the World's foremost pollutor ), assuring ourselves of a quick extinction of life as we know it.

We also want a US Strong in the fight against Terrorism, but doing the RIGHT things to erradicate terrorism; instead of creating actions that fuel and spawn the growth of terrorism and terrorists to unthinkable levels.

And by the way, George still being President Indeed, he might now have an actual chance of ruling by true democratic consensus-building, and not by absolute blinding empowerment. The kind of blinding empowerment that triggered the insane invasion if Irak, an act that has done nothing but harm, both to Irak (more that half a MILLION people killed) and to the US (billions upon billions and billions of tax-payer dollars spent, to get over 3.000 US servicemen and women killed - that's already as many as the people that were killed on 9/11).

For these, and many more reasons that should I mention I'd have to write a book about, I Congratulate the people of the United States on their action last Tuesday.

__________________
"Never Confuse a Legacy Improvement with a Vision of the Future"

I can't vote in the US elections, so this is another outside observer here. I am glad there are going to be more checks and balances in the system. I don't think anyone should confuse the voting patterns that took place this week as a vote for the Democrats, as opposed to a vote against the Republicans. As 6to says, maybe now there can be some democratic consensus based government, instead of the one-sided style that we have seen. That doesn't make the US weak, it makes it a living example of democracy.

From a Canadian perspective, I am not sure what the precise impact of more Democrats will be, but I don't see it helping the US's closest and largest trading partner much. It was tough enough to fight the increased protectionism with the Republicans.

On a lighter note, the Dixie Chicks sold out their local concerts. I wasn't there, but I heard that the best line of the night to the loud and happy crowd was "Is it free beer night, or did you guys see Rumsfield resign?"

__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver
2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue

Absolutely. Assuming you are making reference to the US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, there was no way to correctly predict the endgame at that time, nor is there any way to re-write history as if the European and Arab powers had determined that a prolonged presence in Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War had happened. Had Clinton sent an expeditionary force to take out Osama bin Laden the world would have howled in protest.

Focusing on the thread, there is an interesting article in "The Nation" by David Corn. He suggests that while the votors have spoken, he also quotes Terry McAuliffe who said the voters have "reluctantly given us the keys,".

Edit:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capit...d=3&pid=137918

__________________

it's still "you're now" jeeeezzzzz

we're separated by a common language

__________________
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

In case you have forgotton, the US sold weapons to Iran during the war as well. It would appear that the goal of the American military contractors during the Iraq/Iran war was not to take sides but to make money by selling destructive and sometimes illegal weapons (bio & chemical weapons) to both sides in the hope of a long lasting extremely destructive war that would yield high profits for them. Over 2 million people died in that war.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

OK, time to weigh in on some things.

Who the hell cares? That is about as arrogant of a statement as I have ever heard. It is entirely condescending and offensive, along the lines of "it's about time you morons woke up". We can run our own country, thank you.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, this is exactly what happened. Those in power had it coming - they fell on the sword of their own arrogance, and we will all have to live with it. Part of what makes us the greatest country on earth.

Your political views are too immature to warrant comment. Grow up, then come back, and maybe we'll listen. Until then, save it for you immature drinking buddies.

Very mature, and impressive CJ. Nice post.

I could not agree more. I own a small business. To start it, I risked everything I and my family was worth. If it failed (or fails - always a possibility), my family would live in a cardboard box. I borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond what I was worth. Those of you who have not done it can not possibly relate to the tremendous responsibility that comes with risking it all for a dream.

So, my reward for working my ass off, making it successful, taking a huge personal risk, and employing a staff of 30 with an average wage of about $80k is higher personal income taxes?

Me and my family consume hardly any government services. I provide an annual payroll of several million dollars. I provide excellent medical insurance to my staff, and me and my staff give back to our community.

Someone smarter than me has to explain how it is fair that I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes given the above.

I can assure you, my government bleeds me plenty.

All of the above is before you figure in taxes my business pays, homeowners taxes, sales taxes, etc.

That is crass and arrogant. How dare you or anyone say it is fair to provide additional penalties, solely because someone else is successful. This is America - not communist N. Korea or China.

I too worry about my fellow Americans living at the poverty line. Me and my company provides any number of charitable donations, in time and money, scholarships, etc, to try to help alleviate those conditions as best as we can. In addition, our people are paid well, have excellent health, life, and disability insurance (all at nominal or no cost), and get matching contributions to an excellent 401k plan. We contribute substantially to the local economy.

No one - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or anyone else, can tell me I need to pay more to do more for the country.

If I wanted, I could milk my staff for more hours, pay them less, make them pay for health care, and make a lot more money. I choose to earn less to do the right thing.

If my taxes rise substantially, because someone thinks anyone in the top 1% should pay more, then it will affect my ability to fund scholarships, give to groups like the United Way, donate to the public shools, fund relief efforts, etc, etc.

Is that what you really want?

Eric, or anyone, who is going to make an assanine statement like that needs to spend some time in someone else's shoes first.