Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,173
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    The "rich" in this country already pay an unfair share of the overall tax burden.

    Either enacting a flat tax or closing loopholes in the current tax code and start generating revenue from the nearly half that don't pay at all is a better more logical fix.

    We've already seen what happens to the economy when business and people who invest even think there's going to be a tax hike of any kind. We've been living through it for the last two years...longer if you count when the Dems took over the House and Senate.
    Well the rich have recived a tax cut in the last 5 years (or kept the one they had) and for some reason jobs are flooding overseas.
    Last edited by Bailey; 04-21-2011 at 02:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    But if the party numbers don't match the percentage of the population, it skews the results accordingly.


    As opposed to what percentages in the general population?
    A random sampling should come up with fairly representative proportions of party identification, but it won't always.

    As it is, the poll has more conservatives and moderates than liberals so if anything the results are going to be skewed in the other direction.

    Feel free though to find data on population party identification and we can keep any discrepancies in mind when examining the data.





    Which explains why they are so enamored of Social Security and Medicare.
    okay


    Except that they weren't popular options, they were the only options offered. See what they would have chosen if eliminating federal departments like Education, Commerce and Energy were offered.
    Right this poll was choosing between medicare and medicaid vs raising taxes on the wealthy.

    It would be a good idea to see if people support cutting the Department of Education vs raising taxes on billionaires.




    Exactly how much of an individual's income should government be allowed to redistribute? Historically, various religious movements demanded tithes, meaning 10%, to as much as 20% (the Muslim Zakat, although the taxes on non-Muslims, the Jizhya and land taxes could reach 90% or higher, depending on how badly the Caliph needed funds and how much he wanted to persecute the dhimmis). What I would like to know is how much of a person's income you think that they are entitled to keep? No equivocation, just a hard number. How much of what I earn should actually stay mine? How much do I "owe" to the government for the privilege of allowing me to mind my own business?
    It's a matter of pragmatism. Tax rates in the US have been as high as 90% for the top brackets, so I think we can survive a few percentage points increased before we start cutting healthcare for seniors.

    Its not about what tax rate is "morally correct" in fact I think our entire economic system is morally bankrupt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    Well the rich have recived a tax cut in the last 5 years and for some reason jobs are flooding overseas.
    Would you support preferential tax policies and other laws that benefit domestic corporations who hire locally over multinational companies that outsource their jobs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Would you support preferential tax policies and other laws that benefit domestic corporations who hire locally over multinational companies that outsource their jobs?
    Yes I'm in favor of taxing imports over domistic products (yes yes I know this would not go well in the WTO)

    Are you in favor of the 47% or so people not paying taxes begin to start paying them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    It's easy to compare the tax rates you obtuse assclown.

    46% of the country doesn't PAY ANY TAXES.

    Yet you and other latte sipping Marxist ball bags continue to play the tired old class warfare meme.

    And in this case you do it to totally ignore the very VERY uncomfortable fact that the "rich"...which according to your Lord High Priest Obama starts at $250K are carrying the burden for the entire fucking country.

    Probably even for your worthless ass.

    And instead of applying any real rational though to the matter...you treat the whole thing as some kind of GD joke and toss out vacuous trip about how the rich are somehow taking advantage of the poor simply because they have money.

    Do you EVER stop to think about intellectually vacant and dishonest that line of thinking is?

    Or do you care?

    I'm guessing the latter because being the elite arrogant pompous ass you are...you think that because you've giving a Monica to the Communist line for all these years...you'll be one of those enlightened ones that doesn't suffer under the type of shit hole lifestyle you want the rest of us to live in.

    And you think that you'll live some kind of Politburo lifestyle off of MY tax dollars while I and others thank you for the fucking scraps you toss us off your table.

    You don't even deserve the short hand of this you ball bag.

    Go FUCK yourself you choad eating Marxist douche bag.




    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    Yes I'm in favor of taxing imports over domistic products (yes yes I know this would not go well in the WTO)

    Are you in favor of the 47% or so people not paying taxes begin to start paying them?
    yes.

    There will be some people who don't make enough money to even fill a tax form but yes for the most part people should be paying into the system especially if they want to claim protections and benefits from it.

    sales taxes can be used very intelligently like you pointed out, and these taxes do generally affect poor people more than wealthy people (because the less money you have, the greater percentage of your income gets spent, as opposed to invested or saved)

    in general, during this recession, working people have hurt FAR more than the wealthy class (who have actually been doing consistently well throughout this recession) and that should be kept in mind when we are looking at "painful cuts". yes everyone needs to put in some, even working class people, but you've got to be a clown if you're gonna sit there and claim that the unfortunate billionaires are being shafted by those greedy teachers and seniors and poors
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    Well the rich have recived a tax cut in the last 5 years (or kept the one they had) and for some reason jobs are flooding overseas.
    You are mixing corporate taxes and individual taxes together.

    The tax rates were lowered on everyone. Not just the rich. You've bought into the media hype.

    Look it's real easy. The more money you keep from your paycheck...the more you have to do with however you see fit.

    If you're not one of those evil rich dudes that Libtards envy so much...you use that extra cash for savings...for a trip...maybe some home improvements. Things that stimulate the economy.

    Small business owners use the extra money...to invest in their business.

    The ultra rich types...you know the ones that are constantly telling us we need to pay more...buy big fancy boats...jets...and invest more into their own business ventures.

    The economy picks up.

    When people get to keep more of their own money (less taxes) they return it into the economy and things pick up.

    When their taxes are raised...at any income level...people will hang on to to what cash they have to help them get through the lean times.

    They spend less and in turn the economy suffers.


    Now for the Corporate jobs you talk about heading overseas.

    Thats thanks to outrageous and unsustainable Union contracts...high taxes...all of this green energy bullshit and a lot of over zealous regulation that drives up their costs and drives down their profit margin.

    Now the company can do one of two things...pass on the cost to the consumer and force you and me to pay more...or move their operations to a more business friendly environment and keep the cost of whatever we are buying form them at the same price we are paying now.

    Companies are in business to make money...no one ever starts a company with the end goal to be bankruptcy.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    Yes I'm in favor of taxing imports over domistic products (yes yes I know this would not go well in the WTO)
    We already tax imports and impose tariffs.

    Are you in favor of the 47% or so people not paying taxes begin to start paying them?
    What Wee Wee is in favor of is no one but what he and the other Class Warfare pimps call the "rich" paying taxes.

    He wants to soak those that have been successful in life as a punishment for doing something well.

    And he wants that so you and I can live in a womb to tomb cocoon of Government provided everything.

    EVeryone will want for nothing and no one will feel bad or jealous because you have something they want.

    In Wee Wee's Socialist utopia we will all exist on the same shitty level so that everything is "fair".

    Everyone that is...except for the elite's like himself who think they are owed something because they saved us from our miserable existence.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,206
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    You are mixing corporate taxes and individual taxes together.

    The tax rates were lowered on everyone. Not just the rich. You've bought into the media hype.
    It wasn't proportional.

    A $10 tax break for poors and a $10 Billion tax break for the rich counts as "lower taxes for everyone" but really it's not.



    Look it's real easy. The more money you keep from your paycheck...the more you have to do with however you see fit.

    If you're not one of those evil rich dudes that Libtards envy so much...you use that extra cash for savings...for a trip...maybe some home improvements. Things that stimulate the economy.
    Using that money to buy furniture and food is both taxed differently, and has different stimulatory effects than does using that money to invest in GE or putting it into an overseas bank account.

    Different classes use their money differently.

    You can give $10 million to a bunch of poors and you better believe almost all of that money will be spent fast. Spending money on goods or services ALWAYS increases demand for that product, which necessitates hiring.

    You can give $10 million to a small group of billionaires and you better believe they aren't going to take it to walmart to spend it. It might get invested, at which point capital gains returns will be taxed at a lower rate, or it may be used to increase productivity, which usually results in lower worker pay and higher profits, or it may be simply saved, at which point it may be used to invest in more jobs, but because these corporations and banks are multinational, there's nothing to be sure that hiring will occur here.



    Small business owners use the extra money...to invest in their business.

    The ultra rich types...you know the ones that are constantly telling us we need to pay more...buy big fancy boats...jets...and invest more into their own business ventures.

    The economy picks up.
    This might be hard to grasp, so I'll slow it down a bit. sometimes what is economically good for Person A is economically bad for Person B. Sometimes it's also bad for Person C, D, E. and F as well. Sometimes it is good for multiple people and bad for multiple people.

    A person with huge sums of capital is more able to create scenarios that are good for him (Person A), at the expense of Persons B through T. It is more easy to "rig the game" when you have more Capital.

    So, for reasons that are not evil or mean or bad, but rather simple rational self-interest, a person with huge sums of capital, with $10 million can use that money to benefit himself at the expense of many other people.


    I've already explained in depth in multiple threads how supply-side economics doesn't work because it's based on the flawed assumption that there is always a huge demand for job growth, which isn't the case from the side of the employer. I can revisit this if need be.
    I admit that too high taxes can impede job growth at a certain level, but employers aren't simply going to hire purely because they have more money. Hiring makes no sense if there isn't corresponding increases in Demand.

    You can increase demand by increasing the amount of disposable income people have, and poor people spend the greatest percentage of their income (because they don't have as much to save)



    When people get to keep more of their own money (less taxes) they return it into the economy and things pick up.

    When their taxes are raised...at any income level...people will hang on to to what cash they have to help them get through the lean times.
    Except cash doesn't help you through lean time,s only the stuff that cash can buy does.

    Having a big pile of money doesn't do anything on it's own, you can't eat a money sandwich.

    Saving money is what people do when they already have enough money that they are able to save.

    Spending money stimulates the economy, and poor people spend the highest percentage of their money (and they're more likely to spend their money on domestic small businesses, rather than travelling to Europe to spend it all on vacations and liquor)

    They spend less and in turn the economy suffers.


    Now for the Corporate jobs you talk about heading overseas.

    Thats thanks to outrageous and unsustainable Union contracts...high taxes...all of this green energy bullshit and a lot of over zealous regulation that drives up their costs and drives down their profit margin.
    As the global market place becomes wider, the answer to employment in America isn't to make US labor so cheap that it can compete with China. That's just stupid.

    The argument is that 99% employment is desirable even if people are making $1.25 an hour.

    No that's not how it works, you are demonstrating without even realising it that wealthy people in the US can only make extreme profits by exploiting their workers, you seem to have a baby understanding of the labor theory of value, even though you don't realize it.

    Now the company can do one of two things...pass on the cost to the consumer and force you and me to pay more...or move their operations to a more business friendly environment and keep the cost of whatever we are buying form them at the same price we are paying now.
    Either way we lose. We can have American workers being paid a fair wage, and have to pay higher prices for our goods, or we can have cheap shit but let American workers get paid Chinese slave wages .

    What's never questioned, however, is if it is necessary to exploit labor for high profits in order to live the lifestyle that we do?


    Companies are in business to make money...no one ever starts a company with the end goal to be bankruptcy.
    infinite growth is not a sustainable business plan.

    Capitalism relies on the assumption of infinite growth, which was cool to use back in 1842 when people still believed that infinite growth was possible but it's not.
    Last edited by Wei Wu Wei; 04-21-2011 at 02:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •