 | |
|  |
Darren
Red State Cowboy
September 19th, 2011 @ 3:37PM
Registered:
2004-08-30
Location:
Dallas, TX
Posts: 1145
| @Obama: Like we didn't see this coming with the tax raises. Who anywhere believed he would come up with a more clever and well thought out idea besides "raise revenue". The man's got no idea what damage he's going to do for years to come.
Hate to say it but OMG, Hillary in 2012. At least she's served in the corporate board room for a few companies and has a clue. Besides, it will give Bill a chance to start dating again. For Reps, sorry, but if she runs I'd go that direction. There's not a single Rep candidate that has a real grasp on anything, except Romney but I can't see him being a good POTUS.
OMG now means Obama Must Go, for the uninitiated.
|
GroverDill
Special Ops
September 19th, 2011 @ 4:52PM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| Hate to say it but OMG, Hillary in 2012. At least she's served in the corporate board room for a few companies and has a clue.
You really think that Hillary Clinton wouldn't try to raise taxes if she was President? Why would her tax raising be any better than Obama's? |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 19th, 2011 @ 5:46PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| @Obama: Like we didn't see this coming with the tax raises. Who anywhere believed he would come up with a more clever and well thought out idea besides "raise revenue". The man's got no idea what damage he's going to do for years to come.
Just tax the goddamn wealthy. Our nation is reeling and they still enjoy all the fruits of our society. It's absolutely retarded that they should get a free ride while the majority of Americans suffer through this.
|
killer6600
Marine
September 19th, 2011 @ 6:27PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| i love the rep. upset that he only has 400k after feeding his family.
thats right after all his bills are paid he only has 400k to buy boats or throw parties
and how hard does he have to work for this? well, he has the time and money to run for congress, speaking of which, how much money is he making from congress? i bet thats not included in his 400k calculation.
why is it class warfare to raise taxes on millionaires, but fiscal responsibility to get rid of foodstamps? |
Jubedgy
Marine
September 19th, 2011 @ 7:55PM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Groton, CT
Posts: 288
| There's not a single Rep candidate that has a real grasp on anything.
I'll give you that for Huntsman, but what about Herman Cain? He's a successful CEO, so surely he has a grasp on _something_?
As for Hillary, she has made so many stupid mistakes in her tenure as Secretary of State that I don't see how anyone could say Hillary '12 with a straight face. The mis-spelled Russian "reset" button, giving the royal family DVDs as presents (some significant portion of which were for the wrong region), etc... That's even neglecting her old monster in the closet: Hillarycare (if you remember, Cain schooled Clinton (the Bill type) during a debate in that period). If she wins the primary, Hillarycare will be the same albatross for her that Obamacare will be for Obama a
It's absolutely retarded that they should get a free ride while the majority of Americans suffer through this.
They should pay the same fraction of their income that everyone else in the country pays, that's the only fair way to do it. Except nearly half the people in this country don't pay any fraction of their income to the gov't. Screw those guys. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 19th, 2011 @ 9:24PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| why is it class warfare to raise taxes on millionaires, but fiscal responsibility to get rid of foodstamps?
Because the Rich are already paying for most of the taxes and the people on food stamps are paying nothing?
We need to cut spending not raise taxes on the rich further.
I will only support a tax raise that affects everyone equally. If you want to tax the rich then start taxing the poor by the same percentage. Until the MAJORITY of the population starts being subject to these tax increases they will never support common sense spending practices.
|
dmikon
Peon
September 19th, 2011 @ 10:10PM
Registered:
2004-11-05
Location:
USA
Posts: 398
| Charkoth: I 90% agree with you. The parts that I agree with is that everyone should pay taxes, and everyone should feel the burden. I don`t care if someone makes $1 a year, they should still pay some tax. It`s absolutely ridiculous that we`re in so much debt, and yet half the country pays no income tax. We can all yell at each other and throw feces and play the blame game on the debt, but we all can agree we need to deal with it, and it won`t be easy. Everyone needs to feel the pain in some way.
That said, I disagree on the equal percentage part. I believe in a progressive tax system. I think someone making $300k a year, should pay a higher percentage in tax than someone making $30k. Obviously, I think the person making $30k should under no circumstance have a $0 tax bill. |
BiVRiP
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 1:51AM
Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 1890
| We need to cut spending not raise taxes on the rich further.
The federal income tax rate for those earning more than $250,000 is at a historic low. Since the end of WWII, the tax rate has steadily fallen from an all time high of 94% down to the present day level of 33%. The only time they've been lower in recent history is between the years of 1988-1990 when it was at 28%. Even then, the rich still enjoy several tax perks such as not having to pay into social security after their first $106,800 earned.
In principle, I agree that everyone should pay some level of tax. But lets stop pretending that we've backed the rich into a corner and are bleeding them dry. Nothing could be further from the truth. |
killer6600
Marine
September 20th, 2011 @ 4:25AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| everyone does pay taxes, there`s more than just income tax, there`s tax everytime you buy something from the store.
all the tax cuts on the "job creators" has put nearly 50 million americans below the poverty line, maybe it`s time to stop nation building outside of america and stop sending food to africa before we start scraping education social security and foodstamps |
GroverDill
Special Ops
September 20th, 2011 @ 6:25AM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| Because the Rich are already paying for most of the taxes and the people on food stamps are paying nothing?
I will only support a tax raise that affects everyone equally. If you want to tax the rich then start taxing the poor by the same percentage.
It's weird to suggest that we should increase taxes on someone that is already receiving food stamps or other types of subsidized social services from the government. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to increase taxes on someone that the government has already decided is in enough financial peril to warrant a subsidy - if you take an additional $10 from these people, that's $10 less of their own money that they have to spend on food, which may result in the government having to pay $10 back in food stamps (which will always be less efficient and more expensive than the government simply letting the welfare guy keep his $10 to buy food with in the first place).
|
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 20th, 2011 @ 7:43AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| Because the Rich are already paying for most of the taxes and the people on food stamps are paying nothing?
ummm.. the Rich also get to enjoy most if not all the luxuries this country has to offer while the people on food stamps, are on food stamps. I refuse to believe you don't see a difference in those two financial situations. |
Istari
Kali Compton
September 20th, 2011 @ 7:52AM
Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
Lexington, Kentucky
Posts: 927
| Think how much drugs and liquor Charlie Sheen can buy now with his millions! |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 20th, 2011 @ 8:15AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| That said, I disagree on the equal percentage part. I believe in a progressive tax system.
I was talking about an increase only. If we are going to raise taxes on the rich then the poor should have their taxes raised by the same percentage.
The federal income tax rate for those earning more than $250,000 is at a historic low. Even then, the rich still enjoy several tax perks such as not having to pay into social security after their first $106,800 earned.
First off the "Rich" aren't making multi-million dollar salaries. The Rich are paying the second highest corporate tax in the world right now (or do you think poor people own all the companies?). Those taxes are taken directly from profits that would then go to them. As far as the social security cap, the payout is capped as well so it isn't a "perk". It was designed so that people without the financial responsibility to save could be forced to save. If you're making 6 figures +++ a year you're probably not spending it all on cigarettes and beer every weekend.
And Joe I do see a difference between those two financial situations. With a small percentage of exceptions everyone who is on foodstamps is on foodstamps due to the CHOICES they made in their lives. The same can be said of the rich with once again a limited percentage of exceptions.
I don't understand why you think we should subsidize shitty choices and penalize people for making good choices.
EDITED: 2011-09-20 08:34:46 |
hjparcins
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 8:21AM
Registered:
2008-10-27
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 980
| "ummm.. the Rich also get to enjoy most if not all the luxuries this country has to offer while the people on food stamps, are on food stamps. I refuse to believe you don't see a difference in those two financial situations."
The difference I see is that the guy on food stamps doesn't like to work and knocked his girlfriend up at 14, whereas the guy "enjoying all the luxuries" worked his ass off from age 14 to age 40 to secure his future as a wealthy guy that you despise and envy.
Maybe stop smokin' so much and work a little harder and you can be that rich guy too.
It's just irritating when people jump to attack "the rich" because they're so "privileged". The vast majority of these folks work to get where they are. And the vast majority of people on food stamps DIDN'T work to get where they are. Anyone can become wealthy in this country, that's the beauty of it. I fail to see why it isn't fair that people be rewarded for trying.
The tax system is already lopsided enough, do we really need to punish the wealthy for working hard? |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 20th, 2011 @ 8:48AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| And Joe I do see a difference between those two financial situations. With a small percentage of exceptions everyone who is on foodstamps is on foodstamps due to the CHOICES they made in their lives. The same can be said of the rich with once again a limited percentage of exceptions.
That is one of the more ignorant things I've heard you say.
The majority of people on food stamps are there because of poor choices, specifically by them?
And those that are rich are so because of good choices?
So, when a wealthy business owner decides to lay off 100 workers so they can maintain their revenue, he made a good choice and the now unemployed workers made a bad choice?
The difference I see is that the guy on food stamps doesn't like to work and knocked his girlfriend up at 14, whereas the guy "enjoying all the luxuries" worked his ass off from age 14 to age 40 to secure his future as a wealthy guy that you despise and envy.
Maybe stop smokin' so much and work a little harder and you can be that rich guy too.
You fucking serious? Have you never known anyone less fortunate than you? You honestly think that specific characteristic makes up the majority of the low-income people in this country?
You both realize that not everyone lives the same exact life that you both do, right? |
Disastrous Fate
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 9:31AM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| I love how people think the poor are just lazy, stupid drug addicts. I think it says a lot more about who you are and where you come from than about the economy at large. At the end of the day, people vastly overestimate the importance of hard work and merit in this country, and vastly underestimate the importance of personal connections, a supportive home life/childhood, good education, having a little fallback money, and knowing exactly what options are available out there. Oh, and luck. Luck matters WAY more than people realize.
But yeah, poor people are stupid and lazy, so they should just die.
In any case, Charkoth is wrong about taxation. When you include sales tax, social security, and other taxes besides income taxes, poor people pay more as a % of their overall income than other classes. As a result, the overall taxation system is actually REGRESSIVE. In order to get at that magic "everyone pays the same proportion" number for overall taxes, we need to tax the rich more, and I`m damned pleased that Obama finally has the balls to say so. |
Disastrous Fate
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 9:43AM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| As a sidenote, U.S. corporate taxes are among the highest in the developed world.. de jure. But, in practice, they are actually fairly standard. Why? Because there are about 10,000,000 loopholes to lowering corporate taxes. I mean, really, how many corporations are paying literally 0%?
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9f00ef02-f59b-46Acd1-9335-6ddd33bceffc - More than you`d think.
In fact, according to the CBO, corporate taxes as % of GDP are among the lowest in the U.S. in the world. - http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf. Also, the -effective- corporate tax rate is almost always near the median or the bottom of the rankings. |
GroverDill
Special Ops
September 20th, 2011 @ 9:51AM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| First off the "Rich" aren't making multi-million dollar salaries. The Rich are paying the second highest corporate tax in the world right now (or do you think poor people own all the companies?). Those taxes are taken directly from profits that would then go to them.
Typically corporate and payroll taxes are paid by the company itself and not the guy who owns it. If somebody wants to start a company and can't figure out how to create a separate bank account for the business or how the company will be able to cover its own corporate taxes out of the company's normal business income, he is probably a pretty terrible businessman.
Nobody is forcing the "rich" (not sure why we're putting this in quotes, but whatever) to start businesses here, but they do so anyway because they believe that doing so will be a good investment.
Corporate taxes have nothing to do with income tax rates for the "rich" though. If some job creator is getting rich off of starting a business, that either means they are drawing a salary off of the business like any other employee or he is selling shares of the business. Either way, the "rich" business owner should absolutely be taxed on that personal income like anyone else would, and by all rights probably isn't really in a position to bitch about it afterwards.
I don't understand why you think we should subsidize shitty choices and penalize people for making good choices.
Idunno, at some point I guess some lefty liberal scum got together and decided that they don't like to see American kids starving because of the stupid decisions their parents made. I do applaud you for your bold "let poor children starve" stance and wish you luck with it! |
killer6600
Marine
September 20th, 2011 @ 11:47AM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| if you wanna talk about shitty choices lets talk about incorporating your business instead of just keeping it as a private ownership, i mean, why don`t all these idiots just let obama put a pump on their wallets and a nozzel on the other end to spray the money at stoners
i like how charkoth quotes someone about how historically low the rates for people making over 250k a year are, thennnnn says jack about it |
hjparcins
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 11:53AM
Registered:
2008-10-27
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 980
| "Idunno, at some point I guess some lefty liberal scum got together and decided that they don't like to see American kids starving because of the stupid decisions their parents made. I do applaud you for your bold "let poor children starve" stance and wish you luck with it!"
So when does that end? OK I get it - you say they had bad parents. Fine. So let's support those parents, perpetuating the idea that you don't have to be productive and you can still have 6 poor starving children with 5 different dads. No worries, the government will support you.
OK, next generation. Now you have 6 formerly poor starving children who are now lazy, ignorant adults. Being supported by the government, they each go on to have 6 more poor, starving children.
Repeat ad nauseum.
I don't see why it's my job to take care of these ingrates. My wife has a professional doctorate, couldn't find a job, and had to work at Macy's for a year while being scolded by Cubans all day for not speaking enough Spanish. We have well over $100k in student loans hanging over our heads. But you know what? We sacrificed a large portion of our youth and invested a lot of time and money into our educations. We don't have children yet because, right now, we couldn't provide them with the best of everything. I don't feel bad that when we're both 40, if we stay on track, we'll have a 5 year old and a toddler and be pulling in $500k a year.
As opposed to being 40, unmarried, pulling in $25k a year (if anything) and having a few kids in their mid 20s that work at McDonalds and a few that live on the dole.
I don't want to give my hard earned money to the scum bags banging out 6 kids with 5 different dads and expecting a handout so they can continue spiraling into animalism. Do you honestly think that if we give these people a 3 story home and a BMW they'll start analyzing business opportunities in financial spreadsheets? No. They'll go buy beer, drugs, rims, stereos and stupid looking outfits.
The kids aren't going to starve. If the options are "work and live" or "don't work and die", everyone will choose the former. If you present a third option, "don't work and live", there are going to be some dickheads who choose it. Stop giving people that third option. |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 20th, 2011 @ 12:24PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| HJ, have you ever moved out of the small town you were born in? Or did you just refuse to believe that the actual people you saw in various cities really existed?
I don't understand what logic you use to imply that low-income upbringing causes lazy and ignorant adults.
Frankly, I think that being raised with a silver spoon in one's mouth more significantly increases the likelihood of laziness and ignorance in adults. Unlike kids who had to earn everything they receive, these trustafarians get everything they need from mom and dad or their allowance, giving them no experience in actually saving and being financially responsible. These kids then grow up to become adults who refuse to work for their money and would rather receive a 'free raise' by lowering the taxes on their wealth.
It would also show a slight amount of class if you didn't call low-income families ingrates.
EDITED: 2011-09-20 12:33:42 |
hjparcins
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 12:43PM
Registered:
2008-10-27
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 980
| Reading comprehension bro. I'm talking about the families pumping out 6 kids with 5 different dads. Those people aren't just ingrates, I'd go so far as to call them animals. "Low-income families" is a bit broad for my tastes, I'm sure there are some good folks in that group. The 6 kids/5 dads group, though - animals.
As for moving out of my small town - I was born in Detroit. I've lived in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Ann Arbor, Naples and Miami. I've seen my fair share of America and its people thus far. |
Gabe
Special Ops
September 20th, 2011 @ 12:51PM
Registered:
2006-04-19
Location:
Boston
Posts: 54
| "So when does that end? OK I get it - you say they had bad parents. Fine. So let's support those parents, perpetuating the idea that you don't have to be productive and you can still have 6 poor starving children with 5 different dads. No worries, the government will support you.
OK, next generation. Now you have 6 formerly poor starving children who are now lazy, ignorant adults. Being supported by the government, they each go on to have 6 more poor, starving children.
Repeat ad nauseum."
You are describing the bottom 10%, the real mooches. Read any piece of political philosophy since they started writing the stuff, and there has never been a good solution for what to do with "those people." America probably does a better job with them than most other societies have...we could probably do better.
The reality is that, in America, they are not the problem. It’s classic scapegoating, and it is no different than Obama saying "people with private jets don't pay enough taxes and that’s why you don’t have a job"
The entire US government budget for food assistance is about $80bn. That is food stamps, school lunches, WIC and a few others. 80bn out of 3.7T of spending. TANF (Temp. Assistance for Needy Families...welfare) is about $18bn. So 100bn out of 3.7T on the guy with the 6 kids. I guess those kids need to go to the doctor, fucking dicks…so ill tack on another 400bn for Medicaid…so 500bn out 3.7T
It's really easy for you to sit on a high horse and talk about the dead beat with the 6 kids who will probably take in 500k of government aid over the course of his life. But come talk to me when your 70 year old father is dying of cancer and needs 500k of medical care for his last 3 years of life, on top of 50k a year in medications. Cause that is about $500bn of the spending. Did your dad work his whole life? Does he get social security? Would he be in poverty without it…like the majority of elderly people in this country? Fuck him…there is another $800bn.
You can spin anyone's life however you want...You have 100k of student debt, which is government subsidized by the way, and you and your wife went to four year colleges and deferred your tuition. So yeah while you may have "sacrificed a large portion of your youth" let's stop pretending you were working 15 hour days in a shoe factory, you were in school...you probably had classes 3-5 hours a day, and if you were really responsible you had a part-time job. I really don't know how you managed to get through it.
The fact that you even went to college means that you made it through whichever primary and secondary schools you genetic-lotteryed into by virtue of your parents...if you want to take credit for that, that's fine, but let's not pretend that the kids of the guy you cite above ever had that chance. They didn’t.
Stop thinking you are better than other people just because you made a few responsible choices, you could have cancer tomorrow...and then you are 10x as much of a drain on society as the people you are bitching about...but the people who you lambast for helping them would be first in line to help you.
Personal responsibility is important, and I am all for it…as is self-made success and sacrifice. The truth is though is that most of the people in this country who are successful worked very very hard…but also…quite often, they were lucky. Not everyone is.
EDITED: 2011-09-20 12:53:37 |
GroverDill
Special Ops
September 20th, 2011 @ 3:19PM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| Stop thinking you are better than other people just because you made a few responsible choices, you could have cancer tomorrow...and then you are 10x as much of a drain on society as the people you are bitching about...but the people who you lambast for helping them would be first in line to help you.
Nice post Gabe. It's like a well-reasoned oasis in the great desert of herpderp that this thread has become.
One other point that seems to be lost in this conversation is that there are reasons to respect the poor that go beyond a general well-meaning desire to not be a dick to those who happen to have less than you (which seems to be enough of a reason for most people, but based on this thread, clearly doesn't work for everybody).
Rich guys in the tax debate love to throw around the term "class warfare" when the government tries to raise their taxes, but seem to forget about it when the subject turns to welfare for the poor. The thing is, the poor have power too, especially as their numbers increase and as moves are made to disenfranchise them further. History has shown many times that when the poor feel threatened by their society, they tend to respond less with class warfare as a metaphor, and more with class warfare as actual warfare. At the very least, crime against individuals and property will increase and occasionally, can snowball in more revolutionary directions.
An anecdote: I have spent some time in China this year working on putting a factory together for my American company. The factory workers mostly consist of Chinese workers who make on average maybe $600/mo and they are mostly aware that the Americans who work there make much, much more.
The factory is located in a massive industrial park in the middle of a town that has a bunch of other factories by big name American companies around it. There is a large police presence in the industrial park, with prominent checkpoints all over the place. I asked the guy who runs our factory out there if the large police presence was to discourage thefts or break-ins or that sort of thing from the local citizens, and he said "No, it's mostly to try to prevent the Chinese workers from coming back and burning down the factory when they've had a bad day at work." He wasn't kidding.
I mean, another way to look at the welfare question is simply as a cheap means of continued self preservation by those who have (or wish to have, in the case of your debt-riddled ass, hjparcins) actual property to protect from their many, many neighbors who have none. |
hjparcins
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 6:08PM
Registered:
2008-10-27
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 980
| "You are describing the bottom 10%, the real mooches."
Yep, although I'd argue that the number of mooches that are "real mooches" is higher than 10%.
"The entire US government budget for food assistance is about $80bn. That is food stamps, school lunches, WIC and a few others. 80bn out of 3.7T of spending. TANF (Temp. Assistance for Needy Families...welfare) is about $18bn. So 100bn out of 3.7T on the guy with the 6 kids. I guess those kids need to go to the doctor, fucking dicks…so ill tack on another 400bn for Medicaid…so 500bn out 3.7T"
Don't forget housing. State spending. And law enforcement. And court administration. And prisons and jails. And the countless programs we have in place to try to give people a leg up into a higher class that don't even try once they get it.
"It's really easy for you to sit on a high horse and talk about the dead beat with the 6 kids who will probably take in 500k of government aid over the course of his life. But come talk to me when your 70 year old father is dying of cancer and needs 500k of medical care for his last 3 years of life, on top of 50k a year in medications. Cause that is about $500bn of the spending. Did your dad work his whole life? Does he get social security? Would he be in poverty without it…like the majority of elderly people in this country? Fuck him…there is another $800bn."
You're changing the discussion here. Let's not get into the "right" for $500k of medical care for a 70 year old dying man. You won't like my answer, so we'll agree to disagree on that one. As a side note, my father DID get diagnosed with cancer this year - football-sized malignant tumor on his kidney at 72. Luckily he was a success in life and had private health care and sizable savings. One of the rewards of hard work I suppose.
"You can spin anyone's life however you want...You have 100k of student debt, which is government subsidized by the way, and you and your wife went to four year colleges and deferred your tuition. So yeah while you may have "sacrificed a large portion of your youth" let's stop pretending you were working 15 hour days in a shoe factory, you were in school...you probably had classes 3-5 hours a day, and if you were really responsible you had a part-time job. I really don't know how you managed to get through it."
Admittedly, college is a bit of a joke. Adult babysitting, and definitely not where my loans came from.
I'm talking about both my wife and my post grad degrees. Trust me, it wasn't 3-5 hours a day when you include upwards of 200 pages of reading each night and volunteer legal work for the needy at an elder law center, public defender and VITA. In addition to the internships I took for practical experience.
So maybe 12-14 hours a day at the peak. Granted, it's not 15 hours a day at a shoe factory - I'm not working for GroverDill in China.
"The fact that you even went to college means that you made it through whichever primary and secondary schools you genetic-lotteryed into by virtue of your parents...if you want to take credit for that, that's fine, but let's not pretend that the kids of the guy you cite above ever had that chance. They didn’t."
The kid didn't have a chance? Get lost. Every time I hear this argument I think of my father-in-law. The guy's dad left to start a new family when he was maybe 5 years old. His mom was a drunk who had him when she was 15. He grew up in a real dump of a town. He basically had to raise his two younger sisters by himself. As soon as they were old enough they all worked to help support the family. Now he's general counsel at a huge corporation and drives a Maserati. His sisters are a cosmetic dentist and an accountant. When I think about how he grew up I don't really feel sorry for people who are given free money and scholarships and keep failing. It's not secret elite class-only info that you have to work hard and do things that aren't fun to be a success. Every 10 year old knows that.
This whole 'tax the shit out of the rich' thing is just trying to make life fair for everyone. It's never going to happen, ever. I don't see why it's my responsibility to make it happen for people who don't want to do it for themselves.
This isn't China. Those guys don't have a chance. But anyone in America can go from rock bottom to the top - it just takes hard work and yes, a bit of luck. But even if you take the luck out, that person at rock bottom will at least wind up somewhere in the middle if they put in the work.
P.S. I find it humorous that GroverDill, a true bleeding heart, is setting up factories in China to pay the poor Chinese "maybe $600/mo". And I bet that's shooting a little high. C'mon man, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem! Way to sell out to the man.
EDITED: 2011-09-20 18:12:22 |
hjparcins
General
September 20th, 2011 @ 6:09PM
Registered:
2008-10-27
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 980
| Double post.
EDITED: 2011-09-20 18:09:22 |
Zelph01
Marine
September 20th, 2011 @ 7:14PM
Registered:
2005-06-20
Location:
Posts: 648
| Romney isn`t just the best Republican solution. He is the best overall solution to our problems. He is the only candidate with a realistic grasp of the problem and the executive and political experience to execute.
Plus, I heard if he becomes president men will be allowed to marry more than one woman.
|
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 20th, 2011 @ 7:23PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| God so much to respond to where to begin. First Hj I know EXACTLY how you feel. My wife racked up 100K in school loans (only 20K of it "government subsidized" at 6%, the rest at much higher rates because we're white and I have a job). It has been now 13 months since she has graduated and she can't find a job in her field. Due to Obamacare the medical industry has been cutting back especially in her department(Nuclear Medicine) to save on operating costs. Most of the people with experience that were let go are now saturating the market and people out of college with no experience have zero chance at a job.
I grew up in a middle class family. My dad worked in a union at Ford. My mom worked while raising 4 children. We didn't have a great childhood and I definitely didn't have a silver spoon. I would wager that compared to most of your lives my childhood was dysfunctional. 2 of my 3 older brothers are receiving disability social security and have been since they were 30. My other brother just got fired from his past job of 14 years. All three of their lives are screwed up because of drugs, alcohol, and bad choices.
I went to college after high school and ended up dropping out to form a company with friends and was making good money until the internet bust. We ended up selling the business and I went back to work. Now I make pretty good money working at my job but I'm about to quit yet again to start another business. It may crash and burn again but I'll keep trying because that to me is the American Dream. I think of all I have sacrificed in my life, kids, finishing school, and vacationing for the sake of busting my ass working 10-16 hours a day for the past decade only to be punished by liberals and moochers who want someone else's sacrifices to pay for their desires and it is infuriating.
As I mentioned no not everyone on welfare can help it...only most of them. Almost every person I know working in our warehouses is there by choice. I watch them blow their money on cigarettes, on booze, on weed, and most of them have several kids. They are all good people at heart but they have zero ambition and zero desire to improve their lives if it requires sacrifice on their end.
If I make it in life and become "Rich" I'll never have kids. I will most likely raise an ophanage, adopt children, or start another charity in some name of helping mankind but I know that every dollar of my hard earned cash given to charity will go towards people who are willing to help themselves, and none of it will be wasted on the government bureaucracy that we see in our government today.
By the way, my own Mother who I love more than anyone else other my wife needs a double lung transplant and has for the past few years. In the past decade of her life she has EASILY spent over 5 million dollars in treatments, drugs, hospital stays, and therapy. Do I think our society should continue to pay for her to live until there is nothing left to do and she dies? No. Honestly my mind tells me that she should have died a decade ago. We cannot as a society afford to keep every terminal person alive indefinitely. My heart says otherwise but that to me is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
|
GroverDill
Special Ops
September 20th, 2011 @ 8:59PM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| P.S. I find it humorous that GroverDill, a true bleeding heart, is setting up factories in China to pay the poor Chinese "maybe $600/mo". And I bet that's shooting a little high. C'mon man, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem! Way to sell out to the man.
Haha, that's a funny criticism. Yeah, that might be sort of hypocritical of me if I was a liberal. I'm not though. Unfortunately, I am both an atheist and I don't mind paying my taxes, which pretty much puts me at odds with the entire Republican base today. There's no reason that it has to be that way though - if a Republican candidate ever comes along who isn't afraid of admitting they've seen a science textbook and can make an economic argument other than repeating "NO-BA-MA" over and over again, then I'd seriously consider for them over Obama or whoever. Given the way the Republican base is now, I don't see that happening for a while though.
Regarding China, pretty much all manufacturing nowadays is overseas someplace. If you've bought brand name consumer electronics in the last 20 years, you're every bit as complicit in this "problem" as I am. Further, the workers in our factory are skilled and well-paid in relation to most of their countrymen and their working conditions (indeed, most of the factory operations) are heavily regulated by the Chinese government.
I mean, there are no chickens running around or anything - it's a real nice, dignified setup. |
RowdyRoddyPiper
Nut Job
September 21st, 2011 @ 3:53AM
Registered:
2003-06-20
Location:
Nashville TN
Posts: 1684
| RED ALERT GUYS Go to my blog and read the latest news. Nasa says its just an old sattelite falling but they upped the date to the 23rd. and fema has plans too for it. its a chinese missle attack or aliens. im going with aliens. Read the msnbc article i posted too there today. This is important show these space.com articles to your friends and familys. If you think nothing is going to happen fema sure does.
get ready to see stuff falling outta the sky |
BiVRiP
General
September 21st, 2011 @ 4:29AM
Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 1890
| If conservatives truly think with their brain and not their heart where economic matters are concerned, than I'm afraid they're in a desperate need of a wake up call (and perhaps a few lessons in math). If a picture is worth a thousand words, than pictures/graphs in the below link speak volumes.
Income Inequality
If there is class warfare happening, than it's certainly not targeted towards the rich who are faring better now than at any point in recent history. If anything, it's the middle class that is getting the shaft. |
TheSilver_Ghost
is awesome.
September 21st, 2011 @ 6:44AM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
wisconsin, USA
Posts: 1066
| That Syria story was scary and amazing.
It's scary and amazing that news stories like that are still being written today. : / |
ROBOKATZ
Marine
September 21st, 2011 @ 6:45AM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
Melbourne, FL
Posts: 405
| I`m sure it was fun for a while keeping the middle class arguing with themselves about their own piddly regular income tax brackets. Finally people are starting to realize that the truly wealthy are only or mostly paying capital gains (15%).
I think it`s funny now that people finally realize this, it has become standard to implicitly add in full 35% corporate tax rate and simply state that the wealthy are paying 50% income tax. Fact is, this only applies to dividends (as opposed to sale of long-term holdings), and encourages the corporation to re-invest (i.e., "create jobs") rather than disperse profits (and pay the tax). Not to mention, few corporations actually pay the full 35%, due to deductions (I refuse to call explicitly written exceptions to the tax code "loopholes" -- these are quite intentional policies, for good or bad).
Of course, this is only if the entirety of your capital gains is via dividends from corporations. Which if you`re truly wealthy, would be incredibly unlikely and unwise.
You too can tax advantage of low capital gains rate though. Too bad you`re socking away your extra cash in a tax-deferred 401k or IRA (lest you be punished by the highest regular income tax bracket you fall in, which is probably substantial if you`ve got extra cash to "invest") and it will be taxed as regular income if you withdraw it, plus penalty if you`re not retirement age. Of course it`s kind of pointless because you don`t have any insider connections, so you`d just be gambling. So stop reading this and get back to work, wage slave. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 21st, 2011 @ 7:31AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| Here is a great video that touches on all of our financial issues as a country right now: Peter Schiff |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 21st, 2011 @ 9:59AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| So stop reading this and get back to work, wage slave.
( ._.) ~ okay..
|
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 21st, 2011 @ 11:02AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| Why are you a Peon again Robokatz? Did you piss Nebu off or something? |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 21st, 2011 @ 12:01PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| Why are you a Peon again Robokatz? Did you piss Nebu off or something?
If that were the case, then he would be all rainbowy hippy styled.. As I was a little while ago, that is some miserable stuff.
Very clever!
But extremely miserable to deal with. |
Bashkir
Special Ops
September 21st, 2011 @ 12:28PM
Registered:
2003-04-30
Location:
Alexandria, VA
Posts: 181
| We`re going to have to raise taxes at some point. The thing that I can`t stand is that there are so many people paying NO TAXES. This was part of the Bush tax cuts but isn`t publicized because it also cut taxes for the wealthy--less proportionately but far more in total dollar value. |
Bluntdogg
Marine
September 21st, 2011 @ 2:30PM
Registered:
2003-03-27
Location:
VA
Posts: 63
| All this talk about class warfare... I say we start raising the tax rate on terrible drivers. Driving slow in the left lane and refusing to get out of the way? Tax hike! Slamming the brakes at the mere sight of a yellow light and causing those behind you to get screwed, when you AND them easily could have made it? Tax hike! Taking off from a stop at 5mph and needing over a mile just to get up to speed because you think you`re somehow saving this huge amount in gas mileage by doing this, all the while completely snarling traffic in the process? TAX HIKE!
F`ing stupid drivers. |
GroverDill
Special Ops
September 21st, 2011 @ 4:20PM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| RED ALERT GUYS Go to my blog and read the latest news.
Hey, nice job on your blog RRP. I thought for sure that you would only post like two posts before getting bored with it and then moving on to selling protective amulets made out of the sacrificed goat skulls on Etsy. 25 posts in 2 months isn't too shabby, though.
I'm going to subscribe to the RSS feed so I never miss an urgent update. |
killer6600
Marine
September 21st, 2011 @ 4:48PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| ok, so people don`t pay taxes when they don`t make enough money,and thats at 46%, based on 300 million people thats 138 million people that don`t pay income tax, now michelle bachman says "even if they pay a dollar it`s something!" ok, so, 1 dollar, thats 138 million dollars a year in new tax revenue, seems silly, ok how about 10 dollars 1.38 billion dollars, thats almost 14 trillion dollars to get the debt gone.
taxes do have to be raised, people like to say how great the 50`s were, lets go back to the tax code we had then ok? |
Nebuchadnezzar
The King
September 21st, 2011 @ 4:53PM
Registered:
2003-03-20
Location:
Irvine, CA
Posts: 3637
| Everyone starts as peons and stay there forever unless they claw their way up. |
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 21st, 2011 @ 7:00PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| It's so painful to read internet discussions on economics.
Like people who spout the '47% (or whatever bullshit figure) don't pay taxes.' Really? Don't pay taxes? Thinking that requires having no idea how taxes work. Ever heard of payroll taxes? How about the taxes on the alcohol and cigarettes everyone says those 47% are always buying?
Meanwhile you have guys like Charkoth who in a single post state that for some reason his wife is justified in being unable to find a job, but that most of ten freaking percent of everyone ELSE in America (unless you want to use the 20% figure) who can't find jobs are just being lazy about the whole thing and don't need to be on welfare.
God, what a clusterfuck. I'm so glad I don't live in America anymore.
Competent nations raised taxes AND cut spending to deal with this stupid recession. Republicans and Democrats hold onto their stupid ideological purity (whether that's 'no raising taxes!' or 'no cutting entitlements!') at their own peril. Try being pragmatic for a change instead of buying into the bullshit pretend two party system.
And I don't even WANT to get into how taxing lower incomes immediately removes disposable income from the economy (you know, the kind that funds business?) Or how equal tax cuts per bracket are basically just subsidized capital gains handouts to investors.
The sad fact is, with this no-compromise garbage in politics today, America probably has to crash and burn long before it ever has a real chance to recover.
/end rant.
EDITED: 2011-09-21 19:01:01 |
ROBOKATZ
Marine
September 21st, 2011 @ 8:35PM
Registered:
2003-03-25
Location:
Melbourne, FL
Posts: 405
| Why are you a Peon again Robokatz? Did you piss Nebu off or something?
Probably, but I don`t think I was ever anything else.
Everyone starts as peons and stay there forever unless they claw their way up.
Nice, I actually read the comments backwards and just thought you were talking about taxes until I read forwards again. |
RowdyRoddyPiper
Nut Job
September 22nd, 2011 @ 3:15AM
Registered:
2003-06-20
Location:
Nashville TN
Posts: 1684
| thanks grover appreciate your support |
hjparcins
General
September 22nd, 2011 @ 5:12AM
Registered:
2008-10-27
Location:
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 980
| "God, what a clusterfuck. I'm so glad I don't live in America anymore."
We're glad too. |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 22nd, 2011 @ 10:41AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| We're glad too.
Care to elaborate? |
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 22nd, 2011 @ 1:44PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| Can't have people around that let pragmatism get in the way of ideology, Smokin Joe. |
Nebuchadnezzar
The King
September 22nd, 2011 @ 2:39PM
Registered:
2003-03-20
Location:
Irvine, CA
Posts: 3637
| 47 comments. Thanks! Also Ads :) |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 22nd, 2011 @ 2:43PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| Can't have people around that let pragmatism get in the way of ideology, Smokin Joe.
Instead of being concerned with why fellow citizens are leaving, people believe that means that their opinons are 'winning.'
|
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 22nd, 2011 @ 2:49PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| There's a lot of oil that needs stealing from Canada. Can't really blame politics for where all the oil is. Though that doesn't mean I'm not extremely glad to be missing all the craziness going on.
Nebu, is google ever going to let you go back to having their ads? |
BiVRiP
General
September 22nd, 2011 @ 3:54PM
Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 1890
| There's a lot of oil that needs stealing from Canada.
Hey now! No need for such talk, we're happy to help our fellow brethren south of us. Just don't mess with our coffee or our hockey :) |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 22nd, 2011 @ 4:29PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| Just don't mess with our coffee or our hockey :)
Or beer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_5w_35Y6ns
One of my favorite scenes in movies. |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 22nd, 2011 @ 8:11PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| Nalcomn we all know we're talking about income tax.
Also they may call social security and medicare a "tax" but it isn't really a tax any more than 401K is a tax in theory. You get what you pay into it (and for many people much more than that.
You'll also note that I support a tax increase as long as it was equal to ALL Americans and not just one class. |
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 22nd, 2011 @ 9:32PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| Nalcomn we all know we're talking about income tax.
Tax on things you buy with your income isn't some form of 'income tax' now? Wacky. Oh, only one is real because it's federal. But state taxes don't count because that is the position you are required to take in this argument if you want to make any sense, gotcha.
But hey, while you're in the mood to count federal income tax as a different beast from state income tax, let me know why there are so many republican welfare states who take money from federal taxes instead of managing to pay into them. Doesn't seem like that sort of governance is working out so well, economically.
It's already been pointed out that an equal tax increase among tax brackets doesn't really make sense when it comes to bolstering the economy. People in lower tax brackets spend a greater percentage of their income on necessary expenditures like food and clothing and housing. Raising taxes on them basically just means they spend less on buying things, putting less money into all those businesses that just happen to sell food and clothing and everything else people need to get by in life.
Basically we're faced with a choice: if you increase taxes on the lower classes, you know they'll put less money into the economy. These people are living payday to payday, and don't have money to invest. That's taking money that otherwise gets regularly infused into the economy and putting it directly into the government, which I expect in your opinion is less capable of managing it than private industry.
Alternatively you can raise taxes on the richest, and on corporations by closing 'loopholes.' Does anyone here sincerely think GM isn't doing so well that they shouldn't pay more than zero percent income tax? Yet even closing these loopholes is described as a tax raise which is for some reason unconscionable now by the republican party. Something a remarkable amount of politicians have pledged specifically not to fix.
The whole idea that 'raising taxes on folks with extra money (sorry: 'job creators.' Gotta be politically correct) kills jobs and cutting taxes creates jobs' simply isn't reflected by reality.
EDITED: 2011-09-22 21:34:49 |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 23rd, 2011 @ 2:03PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| Naturally when talking about the Federal Debt....you would like to concern yourself with Federal Income. However considering your liberal ideology and tendency to twist the facts to suit your argument I can't blame you for trying.
State income taxes are far more progressive than federal taxes because they offer far fewer deductions. Warren Buffet for example has to pay the highest Nebraskan State tax rate on his capital gains.
"Republican Welfare States" would be less populated but would have similar infrastructure needs.
I never put raising taxes in context with bolstering the economy. I only said the ONLY way I would support raising taxes (to lower the Federal Deficit) would be if they affected all people equally. Consumption does not grow the economy when it must be funded by borrowing....that line of thinking is complete stupidity suffered by both Republicans and Democrats.
What you fail to realize that the "extra" money owned by the rich isn't just sitting in their banks collecting interest at such exuberant rates that we see today.....it is financing the economy by providing capital to small businesses all the way up to mega corporations.
|
killer6600
Marine
September 23rd, 2011 @ 3:40PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| "What you fail to realize that the "extra" money owned by the rich isn`t just sitting in their banks collecting interest at such exuberant rates that we see today.....it is financing the economy by providing capital to small businesses all the way up to mega corporations."
thats why there was a story back in july that apple has 70 billion cash on hand, is on hand a new form of investment? |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 23rd, 2011 @ 8:32PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| I wasn't aware that "Apple" was a person. Or are we including corporations in the top 1% of wealthiest people in this country?
Do you guys even think about what you are saying before you write it down? |
killer6600
Marine
September 23rd, 2011 @ 8:55PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| the supreme court says corporations are people
or are you saying that raising taxes on corporations is ok? |
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 23rd, 2011 @ 9:17PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| Ah yes, Charkoth. Liberal ideology and fact twisting. Evil Nalcolm thinks we should respond to an economic crisis by raising taxes and cutting spending. What a fucker!
Well, given your general level of ignorance (like your stated belief in abiotic oil genesis --the Lysenkoism of petroleum theory- and apparent complete ignorance of economic history) I can't really say I'm surprised to hear you throw out bullshit like that.
Anyhow, we're talking about taxes. Period. Delineating between federal and state taxes is just a ruse to give people one more sound byte with which to disparage the poor. 47% of Americans don't pay taxes! Except all those ones they do pay!
But while we're talking about it: republican welfare states need extra money to support their population because of the conditions that population choose to live in? Hmmm. Replace a few words there and you have the justification for helping out the poor anywhere. It's not my fault that people are born and choose to live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, is it? Why should I subsidize some hillbillies so they can marry their cousins? If they had bootstraps and some gumption, they'd move to a place where they didn't need welfare to get by. Right?
Also, rich folks don't pour money into the economy in the middle of a recession. They save it, because recessions are scary and people like to protect their money. This is exactly the type of ignorance I'm talking about. Providing capital to small businesses? What a lark. Have you been paying attention for the last ten years at all? How did you ever get the idea that this is actually what rich folks do in a recession when their taxes get cut? Certainly not by observing reality.
And by the way, borrowing to support the economy in a recession makes perfect sense. Given the recent tendency to try and equate running the largest economy on earth to balancing a household budget: would you never borrow money to start a business? Buy a house? Borrowing money in the short term can make you money in the long term.
That said, you've already admitted your position on taxes has nothing to do with the current economic situation. ie, reality. So I really just don't give a fuck about it. I couldn't care less about your ideology. I care about America avoiding another great depression. You don't like taxes. Great. No one does. News at eleven.
btw: since it seems like I have to point this out often, I'm actually a centrist. Hence, you know, the concept of both raising taxes and cutting spending.
EDITED: 2011-09-23 21:26:17 |
killer6600
Marine
September 25th, 2011 @ 6:24PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| isn`t it funny.....someone labled "right wing extremist" is getting owned by someone labeled "thinker" |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 26th, 2011 @ 8:49PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| Yes I'm getting "owned" by a so called "centrist" that knows so much he can't argue my facts so he attempts to sound intellectual by throwing out big words concerning arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand and then showing his elitist colors by attempted insults on honest hardworking Americans. Pretty typical of his kind.
We're talking about Federal taxation and spending. State taxes go to the State and the taxes you pay are influenced by the State you live in. Federal spending versus income by state makes zero sense as there are far too many variables to take into consideration. If you're so concerned with "welfare" in "Republican states" then break it down by county and exclude infrastructure like roads. I think you'll find that cities that vote largely Democratic will take in far more spending than revenue compared to urban and suburban areas.
Borrowing to support the economy in a recession makes zero sense when that very borrowing is the root cause of the recession itself. Its the economic equivalent of throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out. That isn't even considering the inefficiencies of the Federal Government.
I only said I would support raising taxes only if everyone suffered the same percentage increase across the board. Until the people who are receiving the majority of the Federal Handouts have to share in the sacrifice, this cycle of spending and continually going to the rich for more money will never end.
I'm not rich but I protect the rich as much as I protect the poor because this country was founded a Republic that protected the rights of the individual over the tyranny of the mob. |
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 26th, 2011 @ 10:25PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| Yes I'm getting "owned" by a so called "centrist" that knows so much he can't argue my facts so he attempts to sound intellectual by throwing out big words concerning arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand and then showing his elitist colors by attempted insults on honest hardworking Americans. Pretty typical of his kind.
Speaking of people who disparage others rather than addressing their arguments... Nice work there. And the topic at hand seems to be: how to save the economy. Thanks for the scare quotes on "centrist", too. I'll reflect on that next time I'm debating some idiot who thinks we need more gun control or who doesn't think parents should be able to educate their children.
I love how (the people you would like to paint) as democrats are alternately either elitists or societal parasites, depending on who you're talking to at the time. But I'm happy to expound on myself: I paid my way through college. Getting student loans seemed fiscally irresponsible. I picked up a couple properties (using mortgages, by God! Evil fiscally irresponsible borrowing, I know) after the real estate crash, renovated them myself then rented them. I make most of my money doing work doing contaminant testing, in oil and natural gas fields. I guess that makes me an 'elitist' to you, though I can't really think it's much different than the stories of other folks in this thread.
We're talking about Federal taxation and spending. State taxes go to the State and the taxes you pay are influenced by the State you live in. Federal spending versus income by state makes zero sense as there are far too many variables to take into consideration. If you're so concerned with "welfare" in "Republican states" then break it down by county and exclude infrastructure like roads. I think you'll find that cities that vote largely Democratic will take in far more spending than revenue compared to urban and suburban areas.
Just an utterly senseless argument all around. You don't like how things break down on the state level so you want to take the argument elsewhere. Well, go on then, take it: you've made the assertion. I've already backed up in previous posts (though I'm happy to do so in this particular thread if you like) that republican states make up most welfare states. Using a conservative think tank. But it'll be fun to see how majority republican states manage to get screwed over by hordes of needy democrats without being democrat states. I can only think such a thing would require an amazing amount of gerrymandering.
Though I'll point out most city centers in republican states are very profitable and most are also democrat despite the urban republican vote.
So which is it? Are republican states being dragged down by their democratic constituents while engaging in remarkable amounts of vote manipulation, or are republican states just incapable of managing their finances.
As an aside: once again, taking your ideology, it's not my fault people choose to live in an area where they need subsidized roads. Laissez-faire. If you can't afford to build roads AND make a profit, you're just a welfare bum.
Borrowing to support the economy in a recession makes zero sense when that very borrowing is the root cause of the recession itself. Its the economic equivalent of throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out. That isn't even considering the inefficiencies of the Federal Government.
... Yeah, you generally aren't an utter idiot so I'm going to have to assume that this is just another case of ignorance. Which is certainly preferable to intentional deceit. But let's find out.
Are you trying to compare responsible borrowing (by a government that drives a third of the world economy) to irresponsible lending in the subprime mortgage crisis?
Or are you just... well, again, ignorant? Unaware that borrowing --provided it (over time) remains below GDP growth- is generally extremely profitable? Because borrowing money in general didn't fuck the U.S., lending money to people who couldn't pay it back did.
(in case you're going to ask: this was the democrats fault. As a """"centrist"""" I don't really have a problem saying that.)
Second aside: inefficiencies in federal government are irrelevant to my argument. I've already said we need to cut spending. Find someone who disagrees with you on that topic if you want to argue about it.
I only said I would support raising taxes only if everyone suffered the same percentage increase across the board. Until the people who are receiving the majority of the Federal Handouts have to share in the sacrifice, this cycle of spending and continually going to the rich for more money will never end.
Yeah, again, not reflected by reality.
This 'cycle'? It's been one of tax cuts for the last 60 years, genius. Taxes in America have dropped steadily. It's just bitching about them by ignorant fools (and their choice of media) that has increased. The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer. Once again, your view simply isn't reflected by reality. This terrible decline of the country? It's happening under the conditions you desire. Maybe you should think about that.
There's a reason places with greater welfare spending tend to have better outcomes for everyone. The welfare state concept was basically introduced (on the national level, initially it was philanthropy) to protect the rich. It serves a nation to have a relatively healthy population not living in the throes of poverty, turning to crime because, hey, people don't like starving very much.
I'm not rich but I protect the rich as much as I protect the poor because this country was founded a Republic that protected the rights of the individual over the tyranny of the mob.
Give a few people enough power, and they're the mob, Charkoth. Also, maybe I'm crazy, but I always found the rich folks didn't need much protecting.
*shakes head*
Don't know what to make of you, man. You're not an idiot, but, truly, I'd love to sit down some time and just get a feel for where in general you get your information about the world.
EDITED: 2011-09-26 22:34:00 |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 27th, 2011 @ 8:50AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| You didn't have an argument so there was nothing to address. Your elitism was made pretty evident by the "hillbillies marrying their cousins" comment even if I'm guessing it was said in half jest.
Your inserting an argument(Republican Welfare States) into a discussion on Federal Spending where 47% of the population(during one year) paid zero federal income tax. Ignorance is thinking that because some states take in less federal revenue than they spend is even remotely similar. A glaring difference if you want to use that absurd argument is the fact that ALL of those states are paying taxes.
Regardless you're basing your entire Welfare state argument on a Republican/Democrat breakdown when in fact it is a population density breakdown. Less populous States are going to make less revenue yet have many similar costs to a more populous yet equally sized state. You're also using data that is 5 years behind (I'm assuming Tax Foundation data found HERE and not particularly accurate since the formula that is used to calculate that states particular spending for things such as a bank bailout, war, or stimulus package is assigned based upon a percentage of actual spending which amplifies things like infrastructure and school expenditures by an amount that is proportional to our current deficit spending. You call yourself a "centrist" but many of your arguments like the "Republican Welfare State" argument have been thrown around in Liberal circles since Bush was first elected.
When talking about a "cycle" I'm talking about Spending and THEN going to the Rich to pay for it. The Spending is happening NOW. I don't see how the is 60 years in tax cuts considering in the Carter(Obama ver 1.0) years the top tax rate was 70% and we all know the rich never paid 70% of their income. The only way to measure anything is effective tax rate and effective tax rates show we have a very progressive tax system (we're talking averages so please leave Buffett or other exceptions out of this) and while we have been cutting taxes the cuts have benefited everyone as a percentage pretty equally.
I don't understand how places with greater welfare spending have better outcomes for everyone. There is evidence of a trend of people fleeing major cities for the past 2 decades now and welfare spending in cities as a percentage of population is much higher than in rural and suburban areas. Cities across the nation have been suffering from high crime, poverty, and run down neighborhoods.
I believe the rich need protecting as much as anyone. A few people can't amass power in this country unless it is through direct control of the mob. The mob right now isn't looking to protect the rich it is looking to fleece them. The last thing I want is a country where all of the power rests in the hands of Government like China or Russia, where the rich can be on top of the world one day and bankrupt and in prison the next.
The less involvement the government has in our lives the better yet that has been steadily increasing for the past 50 years along with our deficit.
EDITED: 2011-09-27 11:58:47 |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 27th, 2011 @ 11:07AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| where the rich can be on top of the world one day and bankrupt and in prison the next.
You seriously see this happening? You must be delusional.
|
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 27th, 2011 @ 11:55AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| Do I need to dig up a host of articles for you Joe? Do you only read huffington post or what? Do you even know what goes on in Russia and China? The rich live in far greater fear than the rich here as when they government comes they don't just throw you in prison but they take control of everything you own. In the US currently you only have to worry about your future earnings and no prison (yet).
I remember this one like it was yesterday: Mikhail Khodorkovsky
EDITED: 2011-09-27 11:56:49 |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 27th, 2011 @ 1:31PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| The Rich are not in fear of being thrown in prisons or having their wealth taken away by the petty lower classes or even the Government. Some, if not all rhetoric about this bullshit comes from Political Action Committees and the absolute garbage that is the Media essentially trying to steer reasonable discourse and spread disinformation - and they're run by the wealthy.
Wanting to raise taxes on those that make a healthy living is not the same as class warfare.
And we are not China or Russia. I'd assume you were intelligent enough to know that. And I do believe in Russia a lot of the issues are coming from the Rich vs. the Rich utilizing corrupt Government officials and Organized Crime.
The rich live in far greater fear than the rich here as when they government comes they don't just throw you in prison but they take control of everything you own.
Right, we're so close to this in the United States. Only two or three gay marriages away from Eminent Domain turning into this.
You really are delusional.
EDITED: 2011-09-27 13:32:41 |
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 27th, 2011 @ 1:52PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| Charkoth, you can say 'no no, we're only talking about who pays what in federal taxes' all day long, but actually reading all the comments makes it clear most everyone here is talking about the economy and Obama's proposal. I know it's a long way to scroll up, but try doing it.
Your elitism was made pretty evident by the "hillbillies marrying their cousins" comment even if I'm guessing it was said in half jest.
Uh, it was said entirely to point out that comments like these:
Screw those guys. -Jubedgy
If you're making 6 figures +++ a year you're probably not spending it all on cigarettes and beer every weekend. -Charkoth
the guy on food stamps doesn't like to work and knocked his girlfriend up at 14 -hjparcins
With a small percentage of exceptions everyone who is on foodstamps is on foodstamps due to the CHOICES they made in their lives. -Charkoth
I don't want to give my hard earned money to the scum bags banging out 6 kids with 5 different dads and expecting a handout so they can continue spiraling into animalism. ... They'll go buy beer, drugs, rims, stereos and stupid looking outfits. -hjparcins
Are utterly distasteful, whoever they're made about. So if I'm an elitist: congratulations, so are you and a lot of other people here. But at least my elitism was feigned.
And I'm using data 5 years out of date because the tax foundation never ran the numbers again after they proved to be somewhat embarrassing to the conservative cause.
I have to say I'm impressed once again that you have totally managed to avoid answering why I should have to subsidize infrastructure in places that can't afford to build it themselves. Why should I have to pay money for people choosing to live in a situation they can't sustain on their own? Why are you ok with that sort of welfare spending? You're confident the poor are just poor because they want to be (even though your own wife can't find a job,) why aren't you confident that people can figure out how to live somewhere the cost of infrastructure isn't so high relative to the population?
You call yourself a "centrist" but many of your arguments like the "Republican Welfare State" argument have been thrown around in Liberal circles since Bush was first elected
Yeah, it's almost as if I spend time in all sorts of venues, both conservative AND liberal (and a couple that are libertarian.) You know, like a centrist would. I'll hear this from you today, but tomorrow it'll be some liberal telling me I'm obviously just a conservative calling myself a centrist.
When talking about a "cycle" I'm talking about Spending and THEN going to the Rich to pay for it. The Spending is happening NOW.
Once again: recession. Revenues have dropped and spending has been increased to try to stop the economy from collapsing completely... this is not a difficult concept to grasp. Or at least it shouldn't be.
I don't see how the is 60 years in tax cuts considering in the Carter(Obama ver 1.0) years the top tax rate was 70% and we all know the rich never paid 70% of their income. The only way to measure anything is effective tax rate and effective tax rates show we have a very progressive tax system (we're talking averages so please leave Buffett or other exceptions out of this) and while we have been cutting taxes the cuts have benefited everyone as a percentage pretty equally
Have a look:
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
As to your 'they've benefited everyone pretty equally'... I'll refer you to bivrip's chart:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
See the 'winners take all' section.
There's a reason the wealthiest 1% own 35% of all privately held wealth and the top 20% own 85% of it.
I don't understand how places with greater welfare spending have better outcomes for everyone. There is evidence of a trend of people fleeing major cities for the past 2 decades now and welfare spending in cities as a percentage of population is much higher than in rural and suburban areas. Cities across the nation have been suffering from high crime, poverty, and run down neighborhoods.
Nah, aside from cities like Detroit, there's still the greater trend towards urbanization in the US. Welfare spending absolutely is higher in cities than in urban areas. Thankfully, revenue is much higher.
Also, the US isn't really getting more dangerous. For some reason everyone (well, about two thirds of everyone) thinks it is, but it seems to be a case of selection bias. You're no more likely to get murdered today than you were in the 70s.
I believe the rich need protecting as much as anyone. A few people can't amass power in this country unless it is through direct control of the mob. The mob right now isn't looking to protect the rich it is looking to fleece them.
Oh, there's fleecing going on alright, but it's not being done TO the rich.
About a few people amassing power: we've seen the rich convince the government that money = speech. We've got lobbyists organizing loopholes in taxes tailor made for certain corporations. We've got one guy with a vast media empire whipping people into a frenzy to support his own policies. We've got politicians that step out of office and right into jobs that amount to corporate retirement plans.
It's a little easier for a few people to amass a lot of power than you believe.
EDITED: 2011-09-27 13:53:22 |
Disastrous Fate
General
September 27th, 2011 @ 1:54PM
Registered:
2004-02-09
Location:
Posts: 1012
| They missed Chester Cheese Doritos.
Those were the best.... |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 27th, 2011 @ 6:00PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| We were talking about Obama's proposal at which point we have this pearl from Joe "Just tax the goddamn wealthy. Our nation is reeling and they still enjoy all the fruits of our society. It's absolutely retarded that they should get a free ride while the majority of Americans suffer through this." among other things. I simply tried to set the record straight. We have a progressive tax rate, the people who are getting a "free" ride are not the wealthy which brings us full circle.
My comments were not improper, distasteful or incorrect in the slightest....they certainly weren't bigoted or elitist. Comparing the poor in the southern Republican States(out of which ironically the poorest are the African Americans who vote 95% Democratic) to a bunch of inbred hillbillies was where the elitism entered this thread.
And just how does your "Republican Welfare State" argument have any bearing on anything? What conclusion can you draw from that article? None. You have zero idea what money what spent on what state or how it was proportioned. I'm not the guy bringing up an article I know nothing about and using it as evidence to support my claims. I'm not about to take a stance on whether or not I suppose these "Welfare" states until I understand exactly where the extra money is going and why. I do know however the largest difference between the biggest "welfare" state and the biggest "donor" state is less than 100% which isn't the case between the richest and the poorest person in this country.
You keep trying to fit this abstract State argument to your agenda where anyone with any sense would have discarded it long ago.
My wife can't find a job in her field that she went to school for but she has worked full time through school and still as a pharmacy tech making $11/h. She's worked there 7 years now. That is exactly my point. Those jobs are available to anyone who is willing to work and while they don't pay the greatest they are good honest work that allow personal advancement until you make a better opportunity for yourself.
On to tax cuts. Those graphs are misleading. Sure the rates were 91% in the 60s but no one paid it. That was why they put the AMT in place in 1969 because the rich weren't paying any taxes!
The difference between then an now if you do some tax research is we have a far larger number and percentage of Americans in the highest tax brackets and they are actually PAYING taxes. In 1955 Corporate taxes accounted for 3 times the revenue as a percentage that they do today while federal income tax has nearly double as a percentage of income.
Once again, this should be clear to everyone now: Tax rates do not equate to taxes paid. If you are going to do ANY tax analysis it had been show effective tax rates and percentages of people paying those rates.
That winners take all graph gives a great visual but it proves nothing for two reason. We have seen an immense amount of paper wealth created by the stock market and almost all of your super-rich have all of their money tied up in stocks. The Down Jones has grown %1000 since the 1970s. Do you think Warren Buffett actually has billions of dollars in liquidity?
Secondly this doesn't take into account the wealth that the US is siphoning from third world countries. The rich are getting a larger portion of this naturally but does that make our poor any less wealthy? No.
I could post dozens of arguments making my case but this is what Obama would term "playing the statistics game". You can find sources to prove any argument you want but none of them show all the facts and most of them leave facts out intentionally to reinforce their argument.
Americans Fleeing Cities
EDITED: 2011-09-27 18:01:46 |
BiVRiP
General
September 27th, 2011 @ 9:34PM
Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 1890
| Tax rates do not equate to taxes paid. If you are going to do ANY tax analysis it had been show effective tax rates and percentages of people paying those rates.
I sincerely hope that you believe this as it is the same position I and others have argued with respect to corporate tax rates yet oddly enough instead of agreeing, the refrain has always been "but the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world!". |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 28th, 2011 @ 8:51AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| We were talking about Obama's proposal at which point we have this pearl from Joe "Just tax the goddamn wealthy. Our nation is reeling and they still enjoy all the fruits of our society. It's absolutely retarded that they should get a free ride while the majority of Americans suffer through this." among other things. I simply tried to set the record straight. We have a progressive tax rate, the people who are getting a "free" ride are not the wealthy which brings us full circle.
nevermind what I just said.
I'll just go back and say that I didn't literally mean they get a free ride, bad choice of words.
I'll say that the Wealthy have been making/saving money, buying nice things and having a fairly high quality of life while the rest of the population loses their jobs, assets and quality of life.
EDITED: 2011-09-28 09:01:18 |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 28th, 2011 @ 12:34PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| BivRip the US DOES have the second highest tax rate and effective tax rate as well Corprate Tax Rate
In this case high tax rate means high taxes paid.
And Joe the rich have lost a boatload of money in the stockmarket these past few years. I have a couple of friends who are millionaires who are both moving their retirement dates back several years to ensure they can afford the retirement lifestyle they want.
These economic times have really screwed the working rich and aside from a few robber barons like buffett who are preying on crumbling companies most of the rich are losing money(and thus paying very little tax in many cases). |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 28th, 2011 @ 1:50PM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| And Joe the rich have lost a boatload of money in the stockmarket these past few years. I have a couple of friends who are millionaires who are both moving their retirement dates back several years to ensure they can afford the retirement lifestyle they want.
Wow, what hard times they have fallen on.
We really are a degree away from locking up our wealthy a la China and Russia.
..I'm supposed to feel bad that they lost money on the giant gamble that is the Stock Market? That's like me feeling bad when my friend loses a bunch of sure-thing bets because the underdog won every game.
EDITED: 2011-09-28 13:51:52 |
killer6600
Marine
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:51PM
Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1171
| oh no, they`re pushing back their retirement date? excuse me while i cry for them, forget the people that push back the next time they eat food because they can`t find a job.
|
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 28th, 2011 @ 5:01PM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| No I'm not asking you to feel bad for them I'm only trying to point out that things are tough for EVERYONE not just the poor. Yeah tough means different things to different people but just because someone has saved/earned enough money to feed themselves and their family on their own doesn't mean that should have to be forced in to feeding everyone else as well.
The stock market is a major source of a lot of this supposed "wealth transfer" from the poor to the rich so it is fine that they lose money as long as people recognize the fact that most of them ARE losing money. |
Nalcolm
Thinker
September 28th, 2011 @ 5:04PM
Registered:
2005-04-16
Location:
Posts: 617
| My comments were not improper, distasteful or incorrect in the slightest....they certainly weren't bigoted or elitist. Comparing the poor in the southern Republican States(out of which ironically the poorest are the African Americans who vote 95% Democratic) to a bunch of inbred hillbillies was where the elitism entered this thread.
Who called you bigoted? An evil strawman, Charkoth? As for elitism only entering this thread with me, I'm just going to go again and post those quotes.
Screw those guys. -Jubedgy
If you're making 6 figures +++ a year you're probably not spending it all on cigarettes and beer every weekend. -Charkoth
the guy on food stamps doesn't like to work and knocked his girlfriend up at 14 -hjparcins
With a small percentage of exceptions everyone who is on foodstamps is on foodstamps due to the CHOICES they made in their lives. -Charkoth
I don't want to give my hard earned money to the scum bags banging out 6 kids with 5 different dads and expecting a handout so they can continue spiraling into animalism. ... They'll go buy beer, drugs, rims, stereos and stupid looking outfits. -hjparcins
Yeah, you're right, nothing elitist there!
Once again, I bring up welfare states to point out that you're fine with some forms of welfare but not others. And you yourself stated that republican welfare states would 'be less populated but have similar infrastructure needs.' So, using your reasoning, why --if people should all get by on their own gumption- should I have to pay money to some people that choose to live in the wrong places? You blamed people on welfare for making poor choices. I'm blaming people who live in states that need federal funding to get by for making poor choices in where they live. How is this hard to understand?
My wife can't find a job in her field that she went to school for but she has worked full time through school and still as a pharmacy tech making $11/h. She's worked there 7 years now. That is exactly my point. Those jobs are available to anyone who is willing to work and while they don't pay the greatest they are good honest work that allow personal advancement until you make a better opportunity for yourself.
I apologize for not realizing your only meant your wife couldn't find a job in her field. That said, uh, no, there aren't a huge number of open jobs that need filling by people who just happen to be too lazy to do it. Didn't you hear about that mcdonalds job fair where about ten times as many applicants showed up as positions? For McDonalds. If you think people just aren't getting jobs because they aren't looking for them, you're totally out of touch with reality.
On to tax cuts. Those graphs are misleading. Sure the rates were 91% in the 60s but no one paid it. That was why they put the AMT in place in 1969 because the rich weren't paying any taxes!
Fine! Start in the 70s! That still gives us 40 years of the governing you wanted, with constantly reduced taxes (outside of the Clinton era.) And how well has it been working out, Charkoth?
I have a couple of friends who are millionaires who are both moving their retirement dates back several years to ensure they can afford the retirement lifestyle they want.
I guess you just don't recognize what elitism sounds like, Charkoth.
EDITED: 2011-09-28 17:06:02 |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 29th, 2011 @ 7:04AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| Sorry Joe I missed your comment above. I was never implying that we were like China or Russia, only that we wanted to avoid emulating them. Those ideas may seem far fetched to you now but that is down the path you're suggesting.
Nalcolm
If you want to compare welfare recipients to welfare states you'll have to make the argument not me. I've already pointed out that ALL states pay taxes which isn't true of welfare recipients. Not to state the obvious here but it seems I have to. States are what make up the USA, they're not people and have exactly nothing in common with people in any stretch of imagination I can think of. You're trying to break down the United States like it is a country of 50 people and that is just absurd. Infrastructure needs to be present in all 50 states. When Newegg ships a package to your doorstep wherever you live it has to travel through federally funded highways along with every other thing you've ever bought. Maybe you'd like to pay to airlift your next car to your doorstep instead of it arriving via car carrier from Mexico or wherever? I also pointed out that the "welfare" numbers assigned to each state are not actual expenditures. It is the statistical equivalent of saying every taxpayer in the US is responsible for $130K of the national debt.
I understand the point you are trying to make however, but I don't agree with it. I do not believe long term welfare helps people and no matter how much you try to compare it to "welfare" States they share no rational similarities.
Yeah I read the articles on the McDonalds job fairs as well. To say that is the case across the entire US however is misleading. Sure crowded inner cities with decades of economic decay are going to have those scenarios. That is why if you are really interested in being productive you move like so many others have done to an area that can support the population around it.
The tax reductions haven't been noticably hurting our revenue. Yeah you can look at recession data as contracted revenue but that will happen no matter what the tax rate is. Or are you trying to blame our economy on tax cuts? The MAIN reason (tax cuts are only partly responsible) that our deficit is so large is due to an out of control increase in spending.
And yes because I happen to actually have some real contact with some of the very people so often vilified here, defending those people with real world perspective is so elitist. It's not like I said we sit around and supping on caviar while laughing at the misfortunes of the common man. I in no way include myself in their class but you do realize rich people are people too right? With some of the comments I see around here I really wonder if some of you understand that.
EDITED: 2011-09-29 11:23:12 |
GroverDill
Special Ops
September 29th, 2011 @ 8:37AM
Registered:
2003-04-09
Location:
your mom's house
Posts: 802
| I in no way include myself in their class but you do realize rich people are people too right? With some of the comments I see around here I really wonder if some of you understand that.
This is a great point. It reminds me of that one Phil Collins song, which, contrary to popular belief, was written to try to make the poor step back from their lives of spending food stamps on gallons of generic-brand ice cream, having sex with animal abandon and being foreclosed on (or, as Collins calls it, "paradise"), and really THINK about the plight of the rich, even for one short minute.
Ssshhh, enraged poor people - don't comment yet. As Collins says, "just think about it"... |
Smokin Joe
Marine
September 30th, 2011 @ 8:53AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| No I'm not asking you to feel bad for them I'm only trying to point out that things are tough for EVERYONE not just the poor. Yeah tough means different things to different people but just because someone has saved/earned enough money to feed themselves and their family on their own doesn't mean that should have to be forced in to feeding everyone else as well.
I agree with you in that these people have saved/earned money and deserve to retain as much of it as they can.. However, the process of them earning this money wasn't exclusive to their lives. They probably had employees, they probably ordered products made in a factory downtown - essentially that sure, they earned that money, but there were a lot of variables and people throughout that mix that provided services to help owners make a profit.
But now those links in the chain are disappearing, they are going bankrupt, getting laid off, having services denied, not having enough money to pay debts. Their misfortunes due to this recession are quite a bit more heavy than, for example, your friends who won't even have a decline in Retirement Lifestyle Quality, simply needed to delay it a few years more - that, in my opinion, is peanuts compared to what American citizens are dealing with.
Citizens that were instrumental in wealthy people earn their wealth. The wealthy owe it to the many people who provide the work needed to render services and keep the economy going and products being manufactured.
The stock market is a major source of a lot of this supposed "wealth transfer" from the poor to the rich so it is fine that they lose money as long as people recognize the fact that most of them ARE losing money.
You don't get taxed for losing money. So, what's wrong with taxing those that are making money? And with the mess the stock market is in, why do people still refuse reforming the regulation?
Sorry Joe I missed your comment above. I was never implying that we were like China or Russia, only that we wanted to avoid emulating them. Those ideas may seem far fetched to you now but that is down the path you're suggesting.
I hear what you're saying, that we need to stay vigilant - however, your friends delaying retirement (which, as I mentioned above, the quality of which won't be decreased) is not a step down such a path you envision.
If we can't ask the Rich and Wealthy to support those who helped actually build their wealth, then.. what the fuck? |
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist
September 30th, 2011 @ 10:23AM
Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2223
| I only mentioned my friends to point out that they were hurting too, not that that was indicative towards a move to a communist society. I would say having to work a few extra years would be a pretty significant impact to anyone's life regardless of lifestyle requirements.
Warren Buffett actually came out with something that I definately agree with as he has finally qualified his "Tax the rich" with "Tax the rich who are paying a low tax rate".
Warren Buffett
Maybe now people will stop invoking his name as an excuse for raising taxes on ALL of the wealthy.
Excluding those people he mentions, the Rich are paying far more (federal) taxes as a percentage of their income.
EDITED: 2011-09-30 15:46:08 |
Darren
Red State Cowboy
October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:27PM
Registered:
2004-08-30
Location:
Dallas, TX
Posts: 1145
| Citizens that were instrumental in wealthy people earn their wealth. The wealthy owe it to the many people who provide the work needed to render services and keep the economy going and products being manufactured.
Honestly, having been a business owner (and not wealthy), I would tell you that the wealthy have already given at the office. No, really, they've already paid. They paid those people what they felt they were worth to do the work for them by either hiring them or buying from those companies which provided incomes. This argument sounds like Elizabeth Warren's line of reasoning... which is extremely screwed up. She's #1 on the list for people that will collapse this country's business model.
I think it's funny that Warren Buffet's disingenuous statements will possibly turn into a revised tax that doesn't even tax people like him that owe the IRS and make their money off capital gains and not personal income. He's been reduced to scumbag in my mind anymore.
You know what happens when you jack with your country's Prime Movers and their incomes? They stop doing what they were doing. Donald Trump even said they'd leave the country and find a place more open to letting them pursue what they do best. This leaves the working class holding the bag and stockpiling food and ammo. We're global today, and other countries are open for business. I know this is a tired statement, but Atlas Shrugged is coming to reality. |
Smokin Joe
Marine
October 4th, 2011 @ 11:50AM
Registered:
2006-06-10
Location:
The Land of Chocolate
Posts: 2254
| You know what happens when you jack with your country's Prime Movers and their incomes? They stop doing what they were doing. Donald Trump even said they'd leave the country and find a place more open to letting them pursue what they do best. This leaves the working class holding the bag and stockpiling food and ammo. We're global today, and other countries are open for business. I know this is a tired statement, but Atlas Shrugged is coming to reality.
Then those people are pieces of shit.
They didn't bury themselves in a hole and earn their fortunes isolated from the rest of the world, they created jobs, hired people, and in turn - those people provided services and products and 'the human touch' to give the business legs.
Now we owe the owners?? It should be mutual. |
