Skip to main content

Renegade-

I agree with you, but what you're refuting isn't really the point I was making.

I technically said "among the wealthiest Americans," not including all of them.

b50m questioned, "Got any proof for those billionaires having 'ill gotten gains'?" I was just shocked at the question because "among the wealthiest Americans" there are numerous examples of ill-gotten gains.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Jug is going a bit too far, but are you seriously asking for proof of wrong doing among the wealthiest Americans?


Once again...all "wealthy Americans" are not the same...All this Rich vs Poor...the Rich exploit the poor, etc...leads to the "benelovent" politician riding in to save the day...who then steals from us all.

Not to sound to "jugflier"...but the Federal Reserve, politically connected, super rich and politicians are the ones who make us ALL poor...from the Forbes, Sam Walton types (all though they can better insulate themselves...to the...take your pick...rich local family (Darbys?)...to those schmucks jugflier refes to making 25K or less...We are harmed not by productivity...but by the politically connected.


I'm confused here. You did indeed just make my argument, albeit with a few changes. I never referred to those who made 25k and under. I said that there were people who probably made 25k arguing to continue a political/economic system that insured their economic slavery.

I agree wholeheartedly with the statements you and Dolomite have made. End crony capitalism, and to some degree, decentralise power of the government. But do you really believe that's going to happen soon? Do you think a senator who spends 30 million to get elected is going to then promptly eliminate the power of that office? Not hardley.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Renegade-

I agree with you, but what you're refuting isn't really the point I was making.

I technically said "among the wealthiest Americans," not including all of them.

b50m questioned, "Got any proof for those billionaires having 'ill gotten gains'?" I was just shocked at the question because "among the wealthiest Americans" there are numerous examples of ill-gotten gains.


Thankyou Dolomite. Too bad you had to state the obvious.

While you and I don't always agree, I can count on your intellectual honesty.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
I agree wholeheartedly with the statements you and Dolomite have made. End crony capitalism, and to some degree, decentralise power of the government.


We probably agree on more than disagree...but you have a problem of distinguishing between "crony capitalism/state capitalism" and true "free market" capitalism.

Granted, examples of free market capitalism becomes harder and harder to find...but that is overwhelmingly the cause of the centralizing of bureaurocratic power in DC...

Economist Ludwig von Mises's theory of government interventionism...one intervention leads to market distortions which create problems for which the public "demands" solutions. Government responds with even more interventions, usually in the form of more regulation of business activities, which cause even more problems, which lead to more intervention, and on and on. The end result is that free-market capitalism is more and more heavily stifled by regulation. And on top of that, usually the free market, not government intervention, gets the blame.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Renegade-

I agree with you, but what you're refuting isn't really the point I was making.

I technically said "among the wealthiest Americans," not including all of them.

b50m questioned, "Got any proof for those billionaires having 'ill gotten gains'?" I was just shocked at the question because "among the wealthiest Americans" there are numerous examples of ill-gotten gains.


OK...tounge in cheek...you actually said "of wrong doing among the wealthiest Americans"

Which seemed to imply you were grouping "wrong doing" among the wealthiest...

But we both know that's not really the point...OK no more derailing...

I would still maintain the "wrong doing" is the intervention of government. Subsidies do not attract profitable business people...it attracts those who fail...
quote:
I would still maintain the "wrong doing" is the intervention of government. Subsidies do not attract profitable business people...it attracts those who fail...



Here is where we disagree. Wall Streeyt and it's money conglomerations are ACTIVELY involved in the lobby of government for concessions. The money managers of Wall Street will take money for any source, including the government. In that, there is no difference between the redistribution of wealth upward, to the rich, or downward to the poor. I abhor both.
But the distribution of wealth upward is far more damaging to our wealth and freedom that the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
I would still maintain the "wrong doing" is the intervention of government. Subsidies do not attract profitable business people...it attracts those who fail...



Here is where we disagree. Wall Streeyt and it's money conglomerations are ACTIVELY involved in the lobby of government for concessions. The money managers of Wall Street will take money for any source, including the government. In that, there is no difference between the redistribution of wealth upward, to the rich, or downward to the poor. I abhor both.
But the distribution of wealth upward is far more damaging to our wealth and freedom that the other.


Well, I don't disagree...YOU may disagree with me...but your missing the point...You continually point out the SYMPTONS...not the underlying problem....

Un-Constitutional government interfering with the markets/finance with powers that are not delegated to them...If government were stripped of the power to interfere (pass out favors)...all that you point out would be moot.

Yes you are right it may never change any time soon...but that still doesn't change the root of the problem.

Yes scumbags will take money where they can get it...starve their source is the solution.
Last edited by Renegade Nation
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:

No you just paid 20% of your earning (2000 of 10000 would be 20% not 2%.




No. We both spent $2,000 even though I had an additional $10,000. Therefore, if the tax were 10% (I said "assuming a tax rate of 10%"), we both paid $200 in tax. That is 10% of his remaining income (which is the whole additional $2,000 he spent) and 2% of my $10,000 that I have remaining because I only spent $2,000 of it as well. On top of that, I have $8,000 left that I can earn interest on.

By the way, additional taxes on a higher income would not deter me from working harder. They are not taking away 100% so I still end up being better off. And the additional % is marginal as I would still have to pay the lower rate on it whether I got bumped into a higher bracket on that portion of my income or not. Plus, I was always taught to do my best so half a**ing it is not in my nature. I will say, though, that if it comes down to whether it is worth it to someone, then they clearly have more important ways to spend their time (family, fun interests, etc) and likely should not work more anyway. Life is too SHORT! Gotta have balance and draw the line regardless of how much money is involved.
Last edited by MOBY
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

Un-Constitutional government interfering with the markets/finance with powers that are not delegated to them...If government were stripped of the power to interfere (pass out favors)...all that you point out would be moot.



A free market economy works when you have a local economy (US only) as opposed to global. How do you insure that all of the economy's dollars don't flow out of the economy, never to return? People want to buy cheaper and they can when a company can pay a worker $1 per day. No one in the US could support themselves on $1 a day so consumers will want the foreign made product. The money supply will continue to shrink as we send it out but no sends their $ in (we are seeing that already).

Other countries don't want our more expensive stuff and we screwed ourselves a long time ago by thinking that we could outsource all of our manufacturing and just be a service economy. Now that services can be outsourced to cheaper workers, what is left for us? We have nothing to sell and will only be buying. That cannot sustained.


How do you come back from what you have already broken?
quote:
Un-Constitutional government interfering with the markets/finance with powers that are not delegated to them...If government were stripped of the power to interfere (pass out favors)...all that you point out would be moot.



The commerce clause makes the "unconstitutional" meddling of the government in the economy Constitutional.
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
What are/should be the objective criteria for taxation??? Should it be wealth-based instead of income based???


What about doing away with income or possession based taxation altogether? Everybody makes purchases.


Sales taxes are regressive. They burden those who make less unfairly. A person who makes a low income will spend 100% of their income, or close to it, on necessities. I on the other hand, will spend a lower percentage than that including luxury purchases, recreation, and travel. I am free to then hoard the rest tax free AND earn money on it. Therefore, either the poor would be taxed on 100% of their income or the necessities would be excluded, which means people will ***** that they are not paying their fair share.

While a flat tax seems more fair, I would still be paying a bundle for services that I do not use. I do not have children and do not need schools. I only put out my trash once every 2-3 weeks and then the can is still only half full. The only really fair system would be pay for what you use. The rich could then pay for all the additional services their additional possessions and properties require, people who insist on having 9,000 kids can pay for them themselves, and I can pay only for the services I use. Unfortunately, that horse is so far out of the barn, it could never happen.


As I said not all sales tax proposals are regressive, as some give every taxpayer a exemption for necessities. It is obvious by your post you think having a good career that pays well is wrong to people who do not. You use words like "hoard" to refer to saving money and investing. You think it is wrong to save or "HOARD as you say" but it is ok to tax someone more who had the drive to become a doctor, lawyer or other high income earner.

This thinking is what is wrong with America, very few people are born wealthy most have legally worked hard for it. I worked my way through college and sacrificed to have the career I now enjoy. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
What are/should be the objective criteria for taxation??? Should it be wealth-based instead of income based???


What about doing away with income or possession based taxation altogether? Everybody makes purchases.


Sales taxes are regressive. They burden those who make less unfairly. A person who makes a low income will spend 100% of their income, or close to it, on necessities. I on the other hand, will spend a lower percentage than that including luxury purchases, recreation, and travel. I am free to then hoard the rest tax free AND earn money on it. Therefore, either the poor would be taxed on 100% of their income or the necessities would be excluded, which means people will ***** that they are not paying their fair share.

While a flat tax seems more fair, I would still be paying a bundle for services that I do not use. I do not have children and do not need schools. I only put out my trash once every 2-3 weeks and then the can is still only half full. The only really fair system would be pay for what you use. The rich could then pay for all the additional services their additional possessions and properties require, people who insist on having 9,000 kids can pay for them themselves, and I can pay only for the services I use. Unfortunately, that horse is so far out of the barn, it could never happen.


As I said not all sales tax proposals are regressive, as some give every taxpayer a exemption for necessities. It is obvious by your post you think having a good career that pays well is wrong to people who do not. You use words like "hoard" to refer to saving money and investing. You think it is wrong to save or "HOARD as you say" but it is ok to tax someone more who had the drive to become a doctor, lawyer or other high income earner.

This thinking is what is wrong with America, very few people are born wealthy most have legally worked hard for it. I worked my way through college and sacrificed to have the career I now enjoy. Nothing is stopping anyone else from doing the same.


I have a good career that pays VERY well. And I sacrificed and worked my way through college as well as working my ass off for many years (sadly just a figure of speech, my ass is still there). That is why I am gracious and not afraid to help others. Also, as a Christian, I will get back what I put out in this world.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a tax that will be fair to everyone. That is why it is best for those of us who will not be destitute to bear the greater burden.I would like to pay a heck of a lot less but, until we straighten this mess out, that is what is required.

And, since you think you have the right to tell me what I think and I believe when you do not even know me, I will do the same for you. First I DO save but do not act like Gollum guarding the precious. I find your attitude toward money vulgar and low class. People that really have it aren't selfish with it and we do just fine thank you very much.
Last edited by MOBY
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
Un-Constitutional government interfering with the markets/finance with powers that are not delegated to them...If government were stripped of the power to interfere (pass out favors)...all that you point out would be moot.



The commerce clause makes the "unconstitutional" meddling of the government in the economy Constitutional.


Wrong...we are only bound to what the state ratifying conventions agreed to...and as plainly can be seen...and has been commented on by several founding participants...if the Constitution was as elastic as some try to make it...it would NEVER have been ratified...
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:

Un-Constitutional government interfering with the markets/finance with powers that are not delegated to them...If government were stripped of the power to interfere (pass out favors)...all that you point out would be moot.



A free market economy works when you have a local economy (US only) as opposed to global. How do you insure that all of the economy's dollars don't flow out of the economy, never to return? People want to buy cheaper and they can when a company can pay a worker $1 per day. No one in the US could support themselves on $1 a day so consumers will want the foreign made product. The money supply will continue to shrink as we send it out but no sends their $ in (we are seeing that already).

Other countries don't want our more expensive stuff and we screwed ourselves a long time ago by thinking that we could outsource all of our manufacturing and just be a service economy. Now that services can be outsourced to cheaper workers, what is left for us? We have nothing to sell and will only be buying. That cannot sustained.


How do you come back from what you have already broken?


"People want to buy cheaper"...Yes that is a free market...consumers and producers VOLUNTARILY making decisions...is the US at a disadvantage?...probably...but once again that is because of government interference...price controls, wage controls, protectionism...in a nutshell...the very antithesis of "free market".

You say "think global, shop local"...but what you are really advocating is "neomercantilism".
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
You say "think global, shop local"...but what you are really advocating is "neomercantilism".


Buying local helps my fellow citizens and the people I know. Buying local reduces the pollution of packaging and transporting things long distances. Buying local offers a greater financial return to my community and therefore me. Buying local assures me fresher food and the ability to know it is good quality since I am familiar with the producers. But buying local means being willing to pay slightly more because it is the right thing to do. While some cannot afford that, those who can don't always see it that way. Hopefully, the personalized service it offers will make it worthwhile to those folks.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
Un-Constitutional government interfering with the markets/finance with powers that are not delegated to them...If government were stripped of the power to interfere (pass out favors)...all that you point out would be moot.



The commerce clause makes the "unconstitutional" meddling of the government in the economy Constitutional.


Wrong...we are only bound to what the state ratifying conventions agreed to...and as plainly can be seen...and has been commented on by several founding participants...if the Constitution was as elastic as some try to make it...it would NEVER have been ratified...


The Constitution, Article 1 sction 8

quote:
Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;



Section 10
quote:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.



These sections specifically gives congress the right to regulate interstate, as well as impose tarriffs and negotiate treaties.
All these things are directly linked to the economy.
Therefore your dream of an unregulated economy is a pipe dream and unconstitutional.
With all due respect.
quote:
You say "think global, shop local"...but what you are really advocating is "neomercantilism".


In these United States, the income tax was decreed to be unconstitutional until the turn of the last century. That means for 140 years the U.S government collected revenue the only way the Constitution allowed; Taffiffs.
That's right, Tarriffs ARE Constitutional.
Moby,
You are right I should just be happy a pay whatever YOU deem appropriate in taxes, no mind I worked for it. I am in the 28 or 33% tax bracket and that combined with state income taxes approaches 40%, plus sales taxes so how much is enough?
I am to a Christian and a member of several charitable organizations that I contribute too. I save for retirement and so my family can weather bad economic times, if that is somehow low class so be it. I could simply have spent myself into bankruptcy like several friends with the same income by having all the toys and going on all kinds of vacations. Since you feel you should give more, you can simply donate more to the Government no one is stopping you. Saving and hoarding are two different things.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
One more time, the US is still the LARGEST MANUFACTURING NATION IN THE WORLD. However, if we continue to let trading partners violate trade conditions they agreed to several years ago, we will not continue to be the largest.

Currency manipulation, using government funds to subsidize companies in direct competition with the US must stop.


China will surpass the US in value of manufactured goods in either 2010 or 2011. Manufacturing is 35% of the Chinese economy and 13% of the US. Even high tech companies like Intel are moving all their production to China. The new Boeing passenger jet will have multiple large components made in China, one reason being that China will be a primary customer in the next decade.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
Paid propaganda mouthpieces are great. Because of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. We have people who make 25k a year in here arguing to let a rich billionaire keep all his ill gotten gain.
This is tantamount to the slaves in the confederate south fighting for their rich owners to ensure their continued bondage.
And to top it off, when the rich billionaire starts war so he can get richer, you little people will send off your babyfaced sons to get blown apart for the principle of "freedom" while the rich man counts up his new wealth.

Congratulations..... Sucker.


Which rich billionaire has these so-called "ill gotten" gain? Furthermore, how is it that this "gain" is defined as ill gotten?
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
You say "think global, shop local"...but what you are really advocating is "neomercantilism".


In these United States, the income tax was decreed to be unconstitutional until the turn of the last century. That means for 140 years the U.S government collected revenue the only way the Constitution allowed; Taffiffs.
That's right, Tarriffs ARE Constitutional.



Sorry, NO, tariffs, which constitutional, were not the only source of revenue. Import duties on individuals were a second. However, excise taxes were the largest source of revenue. Whiskey provided a major source of revenue, much to the chagrin of the early farmers, who protested violently. President Washington personally lead the army in the field to put down the rebellion known as the Whiskey Rebellion.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
One more time, the US is still the LARGEST MANUFACTURING NATION IN THE WORLD. However, if we continue to let trading partners violate trade conditions they agreed to several years ago, we will not continue to be the largest.

Currency manipulation, using government funds to subsidize companies in direct competition with the US must stop.


China will surpass the US in value of manufactured goods in either 2010 or 2011. Manufacturing is 35% of the Chinese economy and 13% of the US. Even high tech companies like Intel are moving all their production to China. The new Boeing passenger jet will have multiple large components made in China, one reason being that China will be a primary customer in the next decade.


I've read that claim but haven't seen any competent explanation for that estimate. Most estimates are in the 2015 to 2018 time frame. China has major problems with not enough skilled workers and the second largest aging population in the world, after Japan. As one Chinese military official stated, "China may get old, before China gets rich."

Other complicating factors are that India may out pace China by 2013 to 2015.

Boeing is experiencing major problems with outsourcing components of the Dreamliner overseas. The parts either don't fit or are not up to specifications. I expect to see more insourcing soon.

Intel is expanding overseas production to meet demand overseas. Over 80 percent of chips used in the US will continue to be made in the US. Unfortunately, better automation will produce more chips without more workers. Chips used in most US weapons systems and other items must be made in the US. Otherwise, the provenance is not trusted.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
You say "think global, shop local"...but what you are really advocating is "neomercantilism".


In these United States, the income tax was decreed to be unconstitutional until the turn of the last century. That means for 140 years the U.S government collected revenue the only way the Constitution allowed; Taffiffs.
That's right, Tarriffs ARE Constitutional.


Well...what did you say in an earlier post? Thanks for "saying the obvious"...

Tariffs are constitutional..."Revenue" tariffs, not "Protectionist" tariffs.

quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
These sections specifically gives congress the right to regulate interstate, as well as impose tariffs and negotiate treaties.
All these things are directly linked to the economy.

Therefore your dream of an unregulated economy is a pipe dream and unconstitutional.
With all due respect.


Well...with all due respect...you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about an "unregulated" economy. But one free of government influence and distortion.

But back to the "commerce clause". I really don't know what you are trying to argue, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. The original intent of your thread was to show how those "evil" rich people are enslaving us all...but yet you seem to be advocating an extremely broad view of the commerce clause...one that allows the government the ability to co-conspire with the politically connected "evil" rich to do those things you are railing against!...sigh...

"These sections specifically gives congress the right to regulate interstate, as well as impose tariffs and negotiate treaties."

Are you seriously making the argument that those passages give the federal government the power to have their hands in every aspect of our economic life? I mean...I know that's what generations of presidents, congressmen, and judges have ruled...but when held to the standard of original intent...they and you are clearly wrong.

Congress has the authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”...this means to keep things "regular"...not to dictate how all economic activity is to take place. The understanding at the time was "commerce" equaled "trade"...in other words keep "trade" regular among the several states...A free trade zone in the confederation of states. James Madison said as much, and that was the original understanding the "commerce clause".

This idea that commerce meant more than trade, that it means "all gainful economic activities" or even broader...that it means "any human interaction", is a total innovation of original intent...a progressive idea of the 20th century. Not the vision of the founders.

This "interpretation" of the commerce clause flies in the face of history. By looking at the understanding of the founding generation...the convention in Philadelphia...the state ratifying conventions...letters by the founders, etc shows clearly that “Commerce” in the Constitution means trade and associated activities and nothing more.

So once again I affirm that whether it be "rich" people or politically connected people...they would not have the extreme advantages over ordinary workers and business owners if it were not for the power of GOVERNMENT...hold them to the Constitution and that power is severely limited.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me jug, any body broke start a business lately? Any hiring by someone broke?

This attitude of tax the rich until they are broke is ridiculous.

Obama has already tried to circumvent a supreme court ruling on corporation donations. I thought the libs were all for the constitution?


The wealthy have had these tax breaks for the last 10 years. If I am not mistaken...didn't the bank bailouts happen within the past 10 years. Weren't there record home foreclosures and business closings within the past 10 years. Didn't the unemployment rate go UP....WAY UP? Where were the rich with their tax breaks while all this was going on?
quote:
Originally posted by True-Blue:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me jug, any body broke start a business lately? Any hiring by someone broke?

This attitude of tax the rich until they are broke is ridiculous.

Obama has already tried to circumvent a supreme court ruling on corporation donations. I thought the libs were all for the constitution?


The wealthy have had these tax breaks for the last 10 years. If I am not mistaken...didn't the bank bailouts happen within the past 10 years. Weren't there record home foreclosures and business closings within the past 10 years. Didn't the unemployment rate go UP....WAY UP? Where were the rich with their tax breaks while all this was going on?


Well I'm sure raising taxes will cure the problem...(sarcasm)...

This class vs class is nothing more than "economic voodoo" that allows the political class to ride in on their white horse and "save" everyone...and the vicious circle continues...

That is no solution...
quote:
Originally posted by True-Blue:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me jug, any body broke start a business lately? Any hiring by someone broke?

This attitude of tax the rich until they are broke is ridiculous.

Obama has already tried to circumvent a supreme court ruling on corporation donations. I thought the libs were all for the constitution?


The wealthy have had these tax breaks for the last 10 years. If I am not mistaken...didn't the bank bailouts happen within the past 10 years. Weren't there record home foreclosures and business closings within the past 10 years. Didn't the unemployment rate go UP....WAY UP? Where were the rich with their tax breaks while all this was going on?


Actually, about seven years! Sometimes, I act as a subcontractor and employ myself and others -- most recently in Paris. After talking to a CPA, I see that when the tax increases are coupled with the healthcare penalties, there is no way in Tartarus I would ever do this again. I will simply work for two years or so and retire.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by True-Blue:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me jug, any body broke start a business lately? Any hiring by someone broke?

This attitude of tax the rich until they are broke is ridiculous.

Obama has already tried to circumvent a supreme court ruling on corporation donations. I thought the libs were all for the constitution?


The wealthy have had these tax breaks for the last 10 years. If I am not mistaken...didn't the bank bailouts happen within the past 10 years. Weren't there record home foreclosures and business closings within the past 10 years. Didn't the unemployment rate go UP....WAY UP? Where were the rich with their tax breaks while all this was going on?


Actually, about seven years! Sometimes, I act as a subcontractor and employ myself and others -- most recently in Paris. After talking to a CPA, I see that when the tax increases are coupled with the healthcare penalties, there is no way in Tartarus I would ever do this again. I will simply work for two years or so and retire.


The point is someone else will. If you are a ceo used to getting 25 mill a year, you say I won't work for 5 million. There are a lot of people who will.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by True-Blue:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me jug, any body broke start a business lately? Any hiring by someone broke?

This attitude of tax the rich until they are broke is ridiculous.

Obama has already tried to circumvent a supreme court ruling on corporation donations. I thought the libs were all for the constitution?


The wealthy have had these tax breaks for the last 10 years. If I am not mistaken...didn't the bank bailouts happen within the past 10 years. Weren't there record home foreclosures and business closings within the past 10 years. Didn't the unemployment rate go UP....WAY UP? Where were the rich with their tax breaks while all this was going on?


Actually, about seven years! Sometimes, I act as a subcontractor and employ myself and others -- most recently in Paris. After talking to a CPA, I see that when the tax increases are coupled with the healthcare penalties, there is no way in Tartarus I would ever do this again. I will simply work for two years or so and retire.


The point is someone else will. If you are a ceo used to getting 25 mill a year, you say I won't work for 5 million. There are a lot of people who will.


The flaw in your reasoning is not that the CEO may or may not work. Its the hiring of more personnel will not occur.
Simply put, the percentages and rules and shelters don't really change the big picture as much as spending. SOME folks getting free rides are used to it, their kids get used to it and it grows. I get up @4:AM work all day, drive a so so car, have the moderate electronics, take care of what I've been able to save and pay for and retired for rest around 10PM. 40 hours a week will not get you ahead in the blue collar World. But, I have pride and self respect so I don't mind working a little extra.

Yet I wake to news of the whine of gimmes, no please or anything. Living on assistance, no job, nicer car than I have, fancy phones, and a BUD at 10AM. What ever happened to an equal day's pay for and equal day's work.

Not patting my own back, know their are folks that really need help, and I don't mind helping them. How long will I be able to keep mentally and financially motivated, before I look around and see....SOME folks "ain't working and their living better than me. They got free health care, free housing, free groceries, free time, ....hummh"

Look around us at the World, there will never be complete equality.(on this Earth) There will always be folks who are better thinkers than craftsmen and vice versa. Those who are living within their means are the successful prople. BIG GOVERNMENT can't do it, haven't we been reading history?
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by True-Blue:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me jug, any body broke start a business lately? Any hiring by someone broke?

This attitude of tax the rich until they are broke is ridiculous.

Obama has already tried to circumvent a supreme court ruling on corporation donations. I thought the libs were all for the constitution?


The wealthy have had these tax breaks for the last 10 years. If I am not mistaken...didn't the bank bailouts happen within the past 10 years. Weren't there record home foreclosures and business closings within the past 10 years. Didn't the unemployment rate go UP....WAY UP? Where were the rich with their tax breaks while all this was going on?


Actually, about seven years! Sometimes, I act as a subcontractor and employ myself and others -- most recently in Paris. After talking to a CPA, I see that when the tax increases are coupled with the healthcare penalties, there is no way in Tartarus I would ever do this again. I will simply work for two years or so and retire.


The point is someone else will. If you are a ceo used to getting 25 mill a year, you say I won't work for 5 million. There are a lot of people who will.


The flaw in your reasoning is not that the CEO may or may not work. Its the hiring of more personnel will not occur.


The flaw in your reasoning is that this would allow more companies to compete in the same market instead of being dominated by one large monolithic company. So yes there WILL be more hiring, by more companies and upstarts to fill the void.
Thus spreading the wealth more evenly.
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:

No you just paid 20% of your earning (2000 of 10000 would be 20% not 2%.




No. We both spent $2,000 even though I had an additional $10,000. Therefore, if the tax were 10% (I said "assuming a tax rate of 10%"), we both paid $200 in tax. That is 10% of his remaining income (which is the whole additional $2,000 he spent) and 2% of my $10,000 that I have remaining because I only spent $2,000 of it as well. On top of that, I have $8,000 left that I can earn interest on.

By the way, additional taxes on a higher income would not deter me from working harder. They are not taking away 100% so I still end up being better off. And the additional % is marginal as I would still have to pay the lower rate on it whether I got bumped into a higher bracket on that portion of my income or not. Plus, I was always taught to do my best so half a**ing it is not in my nature. I will say, though, that if it comes down to whether it is worth it to someone, then they clearly have more important ways to spend their time (family, fun interests, etc) and likely should not work more anyway. Life is too SHORT! Gotta have balance and draw the line regardless of how much money is involved.

I think I undertnd what you are saying, but 10% is 10%. And 10% of $1000 is much less than 10% of $100000. By the time you give the the exemptions for cost of living which are given rightly so to both the lower and uppoer earners the lower earners end up paying a less percentage of their income, yet they all share the benefits of the taxes equally (os hsould). Then along comes the government, in an effort to redistribute wealth, they give out food vouchers, clothing vouchers, free healthcare, and then earned income credit for children. This creates a system where there is no incentive to do better. Many people, including young single mothers find it easier to have another a child, draw more money, and allow the taxpayers to help care for the child. I do not begrudge the care the government is giving, but we are creating a situation where in the next few generations the vast majority of people in this country will be totally dependent on the government for everything they do and have.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×