We're All Greeks Now

Of course, you haven't factored in the fact that MOST of these non-white people have COME to the West in order to become Western themselves. And as we KNOW from our OWN immigrant experience, it TAKES a generation or two, or even THREE before these folks becaomse assimilated.

Depends on if they are actually becoming western or not. Muslim immigrants into Europe still hold fastly to the culture of their native land, usually a distinctly non-western (or even anti-western) culture steeped in superstition and tribalism. They aren't in Europe to become western, but to make Europe middle eastern.

Likewise with illegal immigrants in the SW united states. Most, if not all, still declare allegiance to Mexico, and view southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico as Mexican lands that were wrongly taken, and they are there to take it back.

Your base premise is false, Eric1. Not all immigrants to western countries are immigrating to become western. many, if not most, are there to spread their own backwards culture and spread their 3rd world failure to those who long ago threw off such culture and became successful.

Ezequiel, I don't agree that it is a racist statement. It is however a fact that will have to be addressed. Fortunately language, technical skills, and education are all things that can be acquired easily in the US.

I'm not sure I accept your suggestion that sales taxes are "regressive" in the same sense that income tax is progressive. The rich and poor alike pay the same sales tax rate -- in order for sales tax to be "regressive", the poor would have to pay a higher rate (as the rich do for income tax). Sales tax is, by definition, a "flat" tax. The rich, of course, pay higher total sales taxes because they consume more, and more expensive items.

As to the fairness of a "flat" sales tax, one might also argue that the bottom 50% of wage-earners also receive a disporportonate share of government benefits in the form of government-provided social programs, such as food stamps, rent subsidies, etc.

Finally, with respect to your assertion that the top 1% of Americans are on an "income-free ride" (presumably you meant to say "tax-free" ride), how do you reconcile this with the oft-cited figure that the top 1% of earners pay 40% of the taxes?

@Dom--

The regressivity of a consumption tax doesn't reflect its rate, nor is it absolutely proportionate to levels of consumption. It's regressive when it takes a disproportionate bite out of lower incomes. You're essentially making an everyone-sleeps-under-the-same-bridge argument there.

As to the fairness of your second point, one might make such an argument indeed, and one will definitely be wrong. The reality in this economy is that its bottom reaches have a disproportionate share of subsistence benefits because they have a disproportionate need for them and, post neoconservative wealth-siphoning and budget-cutting, a need disproportionately unfulfilled.

Finally, re "income-free ride": Wasn't my assertion. Check the sentence structure, which parallels Buchanan's. Subject = "The top 1 percent of Americans in income." Predicate = "ride free." And how does that reconcile with your "oft-cited" 40% figure? You don't, because the context is irrelevant when it's 40% of a revenue that's been slashed 60% from its optimum levels during the Eisenhower through Nixon administrations. Returning the rates to Clinton levels would be an equitable good start.

Relative to total income, ANY expenditure, whether sales tax or purchase price, is going to be proportionately higher in lower income people. What is your solution – to charge more for, say, a loaf of bread for wealthier buyers than poorer ones?

As to the second issue, the real question is, what is the extent to which the wealthy should be required to subsidize the poor – or the upper middle class to subsidize the lower middle class? Is not taxation to pay for benefits not realized by the payer simply forced redistribution of wealth? The logical end game here is pure socialism in which all wealth is controlled by the state and redistributed uniformly – regardless of individual productivity or value to the economy. It simply doesn’t work because it removes all incentive to productivity. I am not suggesting that the appropriate extent of wealth redistribution is zero, I am merely asking where YOU would draw the line (apparently at the levels extant in the Clinton administration. I am not sure how different they are now).

Finally, I did misread your last sentence. However, now that I have re-read it and gleaned your meaning, I still find myself disagreeing. I myself am in that top 1% of income earners that you apparently decry. My annual income is about $340K. My tax burden is about $120K, local, state and fed – not counting sales and other property taxes. Somehow, I don’t view myself as “riding free.” Nor do I think I necessarily am receiving much value for my $120K – it seems to me to be a very expensive “ride” for the amount I receive. Now, I realize that many wealthy individuals receive much of their income from capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. The ostensible rationale is to encourage “investment” which is considered good for the general prosperity – including the less well off. That may be a debatable premise, but that is not at issue in your argument.

This has to be the dumbest, most racial post that I've ever read!

Ezequeil with the exception of Japan, South Korea, and China what nation with nonwhites in charge and/or where whites are a minority has ever prospered with a high living standard.

It doesn't help the white man's fertility rate that he is burdened and brow-beaten into giving away the civilization he built to the coloreds and has been brainwashed to believe that he and his kind are inherently evil and have a permanent white guilt. Perhaps if we weren't guilted into taking care of all the children born from minority profligacy, we could afford more of our own.

@Dom: You are the winner for the most reasonable and thought out post on here so far. I don't have a problem providing a safety net for those who have fallen, but that net has become a hammock over the last couple of decades.

To qualify for welfare in Brazil, parents are required to send their children to public school daily and ensure they get good grades. Their argument is that a more educated populace will require less govt. dependence. And while I think something like that would work wonderfully in the US, I wonder how hard of a brick wall it would hit when the anti-public school/pro-voucher and home school wing of the GOP started whining that they want a share of the pie.

Another way to get people off the system would be a manditory requirement for adults on welfare to attend govt.-subsidized job training or technical schools that are privately run. I would rather subsidize schools than individuals and it would be cheaper in the long run to do so.

Caldude - your point is well taken, but we chose to homeschool our children to give them a better education. I don't want any government assistance, and I have never met a home schooler that was on public assistance either. That may not turn out to be such an issue.

In addition, it may be a good idea for adults on welfare to pass a drug screen as well.

While academically correct, the truth of the matter is people from spain make up a tiny fraction of hispanic immigrants. Most hispanic immigrants come from south america, and surely you don't believe they are all European. They're descendents from Mayan's, Aztecs, and a whole host of tribes of natives from before Spain arrived in the new world.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just correcting your perception of the hispanic populations.

I agree with you both -- obviously the average Mexican is of primarily Native American descent -- but the dominant culture is European.

Democracy in truth is the management of the fools. While every voter try to believe he/she is constituent of the person he/she voted the truth is the he/she is one of the fools being managed. Don't belive that? Think harder why "representative democracy" instead of "direct democracy"! The super-riches are the only constituents of the "elected officials" regardless who or what race or gender or age they are. The super-riches provide the resources to manage the fools so that their puppies get "elected" and implement policies for them to become richer. When wealth is mainly coming from robbing other countries, some of that also trickle down to the fools. When the fools find the differences between them and the super-riches become bigger and bigger, they disgruntle. When the portion of wealth coming from other countries become smaller and smaller, the trickle-down effect disappears, the fools revolt and new set of puppies get elected to manage them.