What are the goals of liberalism?

[Dodds]

What I find funny about this thread is the OP whinging about Liberalism when the GOP have been in power for about twice as long as the Dems since 1980.

[lsbskins1]

With my daughter's store, the business depended on the ability to take in merchandise as well as selling it. So as it became established in the first few years and as the various local governmental agencies tacked on their fees and taxes the state and federal governments taxed the "potential" sales that the inventory in stock could generate. In other words they taxed the estimate worth of the inventory. Now if she didn't have a mortgage on her house and kids to raise she might have been able to stick it out. Indeed she gave it try by hiring a trust worthy friend to mind the store during the week while she worked a job. But that turned out to be rather expensive thanks to uncle sam. As it is commonly known that for every employee hired the government demands almost the same amount payed to the employee, in taxes. This occurred in the liberal bay area where the liberals constantly claim to stick it to the rich for our sake.

My friends bistro met a similar fate only his tax that did him in wasn't so much an inventory type tax. His bistro was in San Jose and the city constantly added regulatory certifications for all kinds little things like grease disposal and exhaust from kitchen equipment. He could have stayed open as well but as he put it, he was losing so much money trying to stay ahead of the onslaught of bureaucratic and environmental agencies with their hands out that he couldn't sleep at night. Always wondering what fee or fine he will be hit with next. And just so you know, he's liberal in his politics. Just another statistical casualty among a growing list as liberals continue their quest to "make the rich pay their fair share."

Bottom line is it doesn't matter what ideology is in control, if it's not offset enough by another, corruption and greed set in. Right now the pendulum is too far left. It needs to swing back to the right and loosen governmental oppressive bureaucracies on small business if we are ever going to come out of this economic stagnation.

Funny, my cousin's husband, who is a CPA and considerably more Conservative than I am, whose main client base is local small businesses, tells me that he gets sick of listening to his clients, who mostly do pretty well, bitching about having to pay the government any money. He is a small businessman (obviously) as well, and he does not seem to believe that he is unfairly taxed. He seems, as a matter of fact, to be becoming increasingly more disgusted with the rhetoric he hears, especially since, as their accountant, he KNOWS what they make.

And Lord Jesus, don't tell me that the city of San Jose won't just let businesses just pour their waste products down the sewers! They actually require them to dispose of them in a rational and safe manner? What the hell is the world coming to?! And they expect a food establishment to pass certifications! Imagine! What do they think, someone might take chances with the health of their patrons to increase their own profits! Why, I never! Now, being as I see many consignment shops and locally owned eateries open all over the place, my guess is that the problem might have been more along the lines of the individuals in question maybe not really doing the right research and not knowing beforehand the likely fixed costs involved with a small business and that might have been what caused the problems.

And, if your daughter was paying as much in payroll taxes as she was paying to the employee...she was reading the tax tables all wrong.

[finder]

Funny, my cousin's husband, who is a CPA and considerably more Conservative than I am, whose main client base is local small businesses, tells me that he gets sick of listening to his clients, who mostly do pretty well, bitching about having to pay the government any money. He is a small businessman (obviously) as well, and he does not seem to believe that he is unfairly taxed. He seems, as a matter of fact, to be becoming increasingly more disgusted with the rhetoric he hears, especially since, as their accountant, he KNOWS what they make.

And Lord Jesus, don't tell me that the city of San Jose won't just let businesses just pour their waste products down the sewers! They actually require them to dispose of them in a rational and safe manner? What the hell is the world coming to?! And they expect a food establishment to pass certifications! Imagine! What do they think, someone might take chances with the health of their patrons to increase their own profits! Why, I never! Now, being as I see many consignment shops and locally owned eateries open all over the place, my guess is that the problem might have been more along the lines of the individuals in question maybe not really doing the right research and not knowing beforehand the likely fixed costs involved with a small business and that might have been what caused the problems.

And, if your daughter was paying as much in payroll taxes as she was paying to the employee...she was reading the tax tables all wrong.

So that means what I described from first hand knowledge doesn't happen? I said almost and have you ever paid payroll taxes?

[lsbskins1]

So that means what I described from first hand knowledge doesn't happen? I said almost and have you ever paid payroll taxes?

Oh, I have no doubt that you know two people who made unsuccessful runs at starting their own businesses. What I doubt is that it was the very existence of taxes and regulations that made them fail. I also have no doubt that both your friend and your daughter prefer to believe that taxes and regulations did them in. And, I'm sure that absent having to pay taxes and follow regulations, they might have been able to make the businesses last longer. What I am saying is that there are literally thousands of privately owned businesses that face exactly the same tax code and regulatory environment who manage to be profitable. And, I also know two people who own their own businesses. My cousin's husband and my aunt both own their own businesses. I bet you a million dollars that there are more regulations governing the CPA business my cousin's husband runs than there were on the bistro. The tax code, which he has to operate under and is, you know, pretty much the driving force of his business, is rather complicated. And they do change it all the time. And call me silly, but I kind of want my local government making sure that the burger joint down the street is following proper food handling, disposal and safety procedures. They tend to cook with forms of fire, you know, and if things are not vented and all the exhaust fans and such up to code, things can burst into flames. I'm quite sure it would be less expensive to run a restaurant if you didn't have to bother with making sure all that kind of stuff was "right", but...too fucking bad. Your business plan sucked if you did not account for and expect those costs.

And no, I have never owned a business, but I can, you know, read. If I hire an employee and pay them 12,000.00 a year, they pay approximately 10% of that in income taxes, 6.2 % in SS tax and about 1.5 % in medicare tax. As the employer, I match those amounts. How in holy hell does 17-18% of 12,000.00 equal "close to" 12,000.00? Just wondering.

[barts]

... there are people living better then I, in government housing, receiving assistance that I'm not able to receive or take advantage of because I make too much at 60,000 per year. My compiled tax burden is above 50% of that.

Your problem, finder, is that you're in the wrong tax bracket. If you'd get of your ass and earn $600,000 a year or more your tax burden would drop to about 15%.

[CarlPilkington]

CarlPilkington,

My wife just reminded me rent on those apartments were income based ranging from 250 to 800 a month! I was mistaken on my 875 quote. doesn't that make you sick? When you gain success I hope these walls of discouragement are nonexistent where you are.

It really doesn't make me sick. These people have it better than I do and don't have to work as hard? I'm happy for them, well, to the extent that I even care. If it bothers you, just quite your job, make a low enough salary, and join them. Nothing's stopping you. Like you said, they're doing as good as you are now. Work smart, not hard.

Of course, I'm guessing you believe in hard work and certain fundamental principles to living that you were taught to live by. If so, don't be upset when other people have different principles, or none. That's they're business.

[Angry Citizen]

My wife just reminded me rent on those apartments were income based ranging from 250 to 800 a month!

And what is the maximum income to qualify for this?

Incidentally, you say you make 60,000 per year - that's 5000 per month. If rent is 1600, then that leaves you with 3400 with which to do as you please, minus electric, water and etc. My heart bleeds for you.

[Jack]

These people have it better than I do and don't have to work as hard?

We don't know that this is the case. Perhaps they work just as hard as we do but at jobs that pay less well than ours. Perhaps they have family members with medical conditions that have drained their savings and eat up much of their income. There are many possibilities beyond the notion that they're just lazy and shiftless.

[Charlatan]

It really doesn't make me sick. These people have it better than I do and don't have to work as hard? I'm happy for them, well, to the extent that I even care. If it bothers you, just quite your job, make a low enough salary, and join them. Nothing's stopping you. Like you said, they're doing as good as you are now. Work smart, not hard.

Of course, I'm guessing you believe in hard work and certain fundamental principles to living that you were taught to live by. If so, don't be upset when other people have different principles, or none. That's they're business.

I find hat the less money you earn the harder you work. Imagine doing roadworks? If the guys at the top earn so much and do so little, what is the justification for that? I guess it would be that the boss values them more?

So, it is value based enrichment. Seeing as how this is the case, they should up the minimum wage so that the people will be more balanced with how they exert thier effort. It goes a long way to know someone nowadays. Imagine some drop out kid that gains a good paying job because he knows someone?

What happened to the age thing? You know, the older you were the more you earned? This means that people that need to support lrge families were able to. Nowadays you get some study nuts that learn everything there is and they get the top jobs. But, is that earning it? If you were to study so hard and had to start at the bottom, then there would be something wrong too.

I suggest it be written into law that the company keep training the people that work for them. The problem is tha there can only be one boss. Maybe if the company were to utilise it's staf better and expand, then it could use its highly knowledgeable people in another venture. This would mean they could hire some more staff under the new boss and plan for the future?

[lsbskins1]

We don't know that this is the case. Perhaps they work just as hard as we do but at jobs that pay less well than ours. Perhaps they have family members with medical conditions that have drained their savings and eat up much of their income. There are many possibilities beyond the notion that they're just lazy and shiftless.

Statistically speaking, the government loses more to middle class tax cheats than to welfare cheats. But, you can't win elections promising to go after all the tax cheats. Statistically speaking, white collar crime takes more out of the average American's pocket than street crime. But, you can't win elections promising to crack down on white collar criminals. People prefer to demonize those they feel most different from and ignore the failures of those they feel similar to. Our priorities are all fucked up but I don't know how you fix the problem. The truth just does not effectively sell to the mass of voters.

[brendand]

With my daughter's store, the business depended on the ability to take in merchandise as well as selling it. So as it became established in the first few years and as the various local governmental agencies tacked on their fees and taxes the state and federal governments taxed the "potential" sales that the inventory in stock could generate. In other words they taxed the estimate worth of the inventory. Now if she didn't have a mortgage on her house and kids to raise she might have been able to stick it out. Indeed she gave it try by hiring a trust worthy friend to mind the store during the week while she worked a job. But that turned out to be rather expensive thanks to uncle sam. As it is commonly known that for every employee hired the government demands almost the same amount payed to the employee, in taxes. This occurred in the liberal bay area where the liberals constantly claim to stick it to the rich for our sake.

My friends bistro met a similar fate only his tax that did him in wasn't so much an inventory type tax. His bistro was in San Jose and the city constantly added regulatory certifications for all kinds little things like grease disposal and exhaust from kitchen equipment. He could have stayed open as well but as he put it, he was losing so much money trying to stay ahead of the onslaught of bureaucratic and environmental agencies with their hands out that he couldn't sleep at night. Always wondering what fee or fine he will be hit with next. And just so you know, he's liberal in his politics. Just another statistical casualty among a growing list as liberals continue their quest to "make the rich pay their fair share."

Bottom line is it doesn't matter what ideology is in control, if it's not offset enough by another, corruption and greed set in. Right now the pendulum is too far left. It needs to swing back to the right and loosen governmental oppressive bureaucracies on small business if we are ever going to come out of this economic stagnation.

This is the kind of crap you hear from the right which flies directly in the face of their whole "individualist" ideology.

MANY companies THRIVE despite the governmental regulation. Yet the right immediately blames the government that their own business failed. You make your own choices and it's your responsibility to know your market before you enter it.

Don't blame anyone else when it fails, because it is simply your choices that causes your own business to fail. You chose the location, the type of business, and the financing, and chose not to know enough about the regulation to avoid failure.

[JimmyNic]

Seriously, is there a set of defined goals that liberals have in mind?

It depends which group you are referring to when you say liberals. I'd say the only thing that unites all of the people who consider themselves "liberal" are the ideas of freedom and equality. It's also important to remember that the term is used relatively, and actually the vast majority conservatives would have been considered liberal a hundred years ago.

Do government entitlements equate to "freedom" for liberals?

The welfare state was created on the understanding that human beings deserve a basic set of living standards whatever background they were born into. This seems to me to be a sound principle, but has been taken too far in many instances, and could do with some regressive reform in certain areas. An example would be the prison system in England, which used to be a lot harder and fairer on criminals.

What level of taxation is the most they need and will never ask for more beyond it, if granted?

I suspect you ask this rhetorically, but I'll answer anyway. There are two competing ideas here: the rich are often deserving of their greater wealth because they create it out of greater expertise/talent but rich people are often rich because of advantages of background. Rags to riches stories are possible of course, but it is much easier to be successful if you come from a successful background. I think tax brackets are a good thing, but certainly tax can be too high.

Is forcefully taking from a few for the benefit of many a moral request or is it coercion?

The only people against coercion are anarchists, and I've no reason to believe that includes you. Everyone else believes in some coercion, so the question you should be asking is whether utilitarianism is correct or not. I'd say that all humans benefit from being part of a society and it is not unreasonable to expect the strong to carry the weak. Every decision the government makes will benefit some and deprive others, you have to weigh the good and the bad.

Do liberals acknowledge that corporations are entities made up of people of which the majority put in a lot of sweat and sacrifice to make the company the economic success and providers of essential goods or services that it is?

A lot of otherwise good people will behave ruthlessly in a business context. Not all companies provide "essential" services, (eg tobacco, alcohol). There are also many instances where the need for such companies arises out of aggressive lobbying by the rich. In short many companies are morally unscrupulous, and it is not unreasonable to regulate companies as we regulate people.

Are there any government programs the liberals are willing to declare obsolete outside of military expenditures that are only about 3.2% of our gdp? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent...n-military.htm

I'm of the opinion that the benefits in authority have been overlooked in the last 60 years of liberalisation. I've already mentioned the prison system, but I'd add the police service, affirmative action, restorative justice, abolition of corporal punishment, and comprehensive (unselective) schooling. I'm from the UK and I'm not that hot on the specifics of US law.

Considering President Kennedy was more to the right than most modern republicans today and Winston Churchill had this to say...

That I admire someone doesn't mean I think every opinion they had was pure gold. I'd be very interested to read Churchill's response to the modern world, but a lot of his attitudes were quite old fashioned.