The Shrinking Middle Class and Perhaps a Manic Appeal to my Conservative Friends.
-
HitsRus
believer...my post was directed at Isadore who can't seem to stay on topic. -
FootwedgeBoatShoes;432967 wrote:This Article lists 22 stats that supposedly demonstrate the destruction of the middle class;
finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-heres-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html
The Statistics from the Link;
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
•
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
•
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
•
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.•
•
• My Opinion;
It is a favorite method of those on the right to dismiss the incompetent ramblings of democrats and those on the left as "class warfare" and as attempts by jealous socialists to take money from those who have earned it via the sweat on their brow and redistribute to undeserving sloths; whether it be through a confiscatory tax code or punitive, anti-capitalist labor laws.
It's my opinion that those on the right have been had, scammed and tricked. The average republican I know, loves America, watches football on the weekends, enjoys the satisfaction of cashing a check earned with hard work, takes pride in seeing his children adopt his values and graciously waves an American Flag. These good folks have been tricked into supporting policies that have allowed a few, who aren't patriots and don't see nations, nor flags nor fellow country men but only quarterly profits, to send their jobs to Indians, lower their salaries and reduce their quality of life.
Good Americans on the right have been so caught up with protecting their middle class from ravenous, bleeding heart democrats taking this and giving it to the poor and undeserving that they have missed their entire middle class being stripped away and swallowed up by the very top. Words like "freedom" and "liberty" and "small government" have been perverted and used to hide this war.
Class warfare is real and as Warren Buffet has said; the rich are winning.
Since the 80's, tax rates have been lower than before the tax code was a "mass tax", interest rates have been low and the workforce has had more education than ever but the jobs and careers have continued to disappear.
Being lucky enough to have a job, every day I'm faced with a new task to generate foreign tax credits for someone working for some corporation that does not see Americans, neighbors, nations, ideologies....and I'm generally left with the job of advising people how to move their operations off-shore and generate more foreign-source income in their companies general limitation basket for their FTC's which, along with other reasons grounded in the realities of free trade will cost more hard-working republican white americans jobs. That pretty much sums up most of my days. I help rich people rape white middle class americans and then I watch the news or message boards and I listen to the raped defend their rapists; battered women defending their abusive husbands.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BoatShoes....Just had the pleasure of rereading your post. I've highlighted several bullet points from the link you referenced, and also highlighted your op-ed when I thought it appropriate. I give you kudos for recognizing that your daily work for what it truly is. It must be difficult to effectively present your case.
I worked with 4 mega-corp pharmaceutical companies as part of a contract force of roughly 500 people. I spent the first 17 years working for ma and pa industrial distributor sales...and 11 years of self employment industrial sales before being forced to leave because of health issues on product exposure.
My 8 years of corporate life are over. I was called back to work by my former employer a full 18 months after the lay-off...and I told them to shove their 80K a year job up their ass. Our company contracted with the following corporate giants: Abbott Labs, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Boehhinger Ingelheim. I have a new career in ma and pa America...and I will do well in making 55K...at least in year one. But I have my pride and my soul back...and I will never have to be first hand witness to price fixing, the pissing away of tens of millions of dollars on training junkets to Las Vegas. The gluttonous and hedonist behavior of corporate America is a thing of the past for me.
Good luck to you in resolving your own personal/professional conundrum. -
isadore
Gosh oh great lord of the thread, judge of rhetoric and obfuscation,HitsRus;437830 wrote:the top corporate tax for the Netherlands is 25.5%...personal tax ranges from 0-52% and a VAT tax of 6 to 19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
In the US the top corporate rate is 35% but then the state adds as much as 12% also. Personal tax tops out at 35%, with the state adding up to 10%.... and there is an additional 15% payroll tax. Typical state sales taxes are in the 6-8% range.
Tax advantage?...ugh Netherlands. Maybe if living in the Netherlands is so wonderful, we should try lowering taxes on corporations!
Look, I'm tired of the obfuscation and all the side tracking....
The thread is about the shrinking middle class and the cause.
Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with. Please try to stick to topic and eliminate the socialist, elitist rhetoric and not sidetrack or obfuscate.
I have to go, so I might not be able to respond till tomorrow.
you seem to play a little fast and loose with your figures
We are in Ohio the top state income tax rate is a little less than 6%
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_oh.html
A lot of deductions knock that corporate down below the stated rate.
And of course the very rich avoid that 15% payroll tax.
But hey, lets talk about what killed the middle class. And not the baloney on this thread about all of them moving on up to top income group, that aint happening to most former members of the middle class.
And its not the taxing either.
What is it?
By income a lot of factory workers were in the middle class but the decline of the unions, outsourcing, corporate greed wiped many of those people out.
Cold blooded corporate leadership who are quite willing to take care of themselves with great financial rewards but will not pay American workers a fair wage for their every increasing productivity sure doesn’t help.
So if we tax them a fair rate all the better. -
isadore
What defines you as a right winger to me is your cold hearted attitude toward those in need. That is much more definitive than your corporate tax policy. “"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'sjmvsfscs08;437854 wrote:It's funny that you do not hesitate to call me a right winger and yet I'm not the one on here who said we should go after huge corporations, break them up, and even proposed a 49% income tax on the super rich.
You're beginning to sound like a fool. I don't mean to get all ad hominem on you be Jesus Lord you didn't even respond to my theory haha you just said I was a rightwinger and thus hate the poor.
Is it or is it not, possible, if at all likely, that because we take such great care of our poor that there could actually be an incentive to have more and more children for the added financial assistance? Yes or no, wise guy. A program that was designed to help out families with an unexpected pregnancy in dire circumstances has more or less turned into an intentional operation to get a fatter monthly check.
Matthew 25:40. Read what you read, let them suffer because the rewards of being poor are so great. Your few little anecdotes are nothing, the suffering of those in poverty throughout this nation is real. And you want to cut their benefits. Now that is real social Darwinism. Maybe I am being too insulting to right wingers as one of them -
Manhattan Buckeye"before being forced to leave because of health issues on product exposure."
What exposure would that be? -
general94Isadore,
Now you are going to try and bring religion into this. Come on. Please lets not degenerate this conversation further by insisting that Jesus Christ was a communist. I am only a part time Baptist, but I doubt I just happened to miss the Sunday School lesson or sermon on that topic. We must have grown up in a very different religious culture too, because I am pretty sure most or all of the churches I have attended were..... Well lets just say I don't believe they or their good ol boy pastors shared your socialist views. -
isadore
I am far from a biblical scholar. I thought the quote was applicable.general94;437954 wrote:Isadore,
Now you are going to try and bring religion into this. Come on. Please lets not degenerate this conversation further by insisting that Jesus Christ was a communist. I am only a part time Baptist, but I doubt I just happened to miss the Sunday School lesson or sermon on that topic. We must have grown up in a very different religious culture too, because I am pretty sure most or all of the churches I have attended were..... Well lets just say I don't believe they or their good ol boy pastors shared your socialist views. -
majorspark
isadore;437893 wrote:What defines you as a right winger to me is your cold hearted attitude toward those in need.
He displayed no such thing. His attitude pertained to his comments on people he had personal experience, who he thought were gaming the system. But you love accusing people of being heartless because they have a different idea of how the needy should be taken care of. Classic political demagoguery.
I believe their should be no corporate tax or income tax. Just one national sales tax on the lines of the "fair" tax. That way everytime American citizens engage in a transaction they can see on their receipt what share of the product they are buying is going to the federal government.isadore;437893 wrote:That is much more definitive than your corporate tax policy.
I noticed you did not answer Hits question. Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with? You danced around the question like a ballerina.
Its as simple as this. Cost of bringing product to market + Profit + Tax on profit = Cost of product. The bottom line is I have to make a profit. Whether it is a raw material, insurance, legal, taxes, etc. There is no difference.
Now you are twisting scripture to support your statistist ideology.isadore;437893 wrote:"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Matthew 25:40. Read what you read, let them suffer because the rewards of being poor are so great. Your few little anecdotes are nothing, the suffering of those in poverty throughout this nation is real. And you want to cut their benefits. Now that is real social Darwinism. Maybe I am being too insulting to right wingers as one of them
Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Practically speaking, where does it say anything about using the taxing power of the government to take from your neighbor to help those in need. Practically speaking an individual who has wealth, the bible does teach that they should take care of the poor. It never mentions working through the state. Not that it is wrong for a state to do so.
The King by the way is the true King of the nation of Israel. He is judging the nations for their treatment of the nation of Israel.
How about I Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
I don't think anyone on this thread has called those gaming the system worse than an infidel.
You see Isadore there have always been two types of poor. Those in true need and those that have the ability but fail to provide for themselves. There can be many reasons. Laziness, drugs, criminal behavior, etc. As individuals, private groups, and government must be able to separate the two. Otherwise one will sap of the other and you end up not helping either and create undo burden on the middle class. Of course it is my opinion that deciding who the true needy are should primarily be done at the state, local, private groups, and individual. Those closet to those in need.
Personally I think that every able bodied adult person that receives aid from the state should be required to work a small percentage of community service for every dollar received. -
FootwedgeManhattan Buckeye;437949 wrote:"before being forced to leave because of health issues on product exposure."
What exposure would that be?
You want a PM? Not gonna discuss the particulars on a public forum. -
majorspark
He does it because he thinks all "right wingers" are Bible thumpers. You know the dreaded religious right. He pulls a piece of scripture out of context to make it appear that Jesus was a Statist. I mean if you are a right wing Bible thumper you have no choice but to accept that Jesus was a Statist.general94;437954 wrote:Isadore,
Now you are going to try and bring religion into this. Come on. Please lets not degenerate this conversation further by insisting that Jesus Christ was a communist. I am only a part time Baptist, but I doubt I just happened to miss the Sunday School lesson or sermon on that topic. We must have grown up in a very different religious culture too, because I am pretty sure most or all of the churches I have attended were..... Well lets just say I don't believe they or their good ol boy pastors shared your socialist views. -
Footwedget
Then link it. Because you say it's so doesn't make it so. I've never seen anyone offer tax credits to business owners for hiring people.BGFalcons82;437779 wrote:Footwedge - the idea was touted as a panacea to the blue dogs during the porkulus debate.
You didn't read my post then. I answered it. The company I now work for would love these tax incentives right now...and he would pull the trigger in a heart beat...in expanding into Charleston West Virginia. Yeah...he's really throwing away his money.Obama liked it because he thought it would garner him the blue dogs he so desperately wanted for passage. You still didn't answer the fundamental question as to why a business would make a conscious decision to lose money, in your example it would be $18,800 x up to 10 people.
I get it now. You think that business owners would not be more apt in taking advantage of huge tax incentives. Nobody on the left nor the right would agree with your logic. Nobody.If the additional personnel is not required in order to satisfy demand, replace a lost worker, expand market share, or eeee-gad create additional profits, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to hire somebody. Why would your ma and pa be excited to torch nearly $20,000 as they don't need the help?
IF they need the help, then that's a different story. In your scenario, you think businesses should hire people just because it's the socially right thing to do and to reduce unemployment.
(rolling my eyes now) Where in the fuck did I say that? Highlight it and post it. I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.
How does that increase profits or market share? Your "incentive" to possibly lose up to $20K per person isn't an incentive at all, but possibly could be called extortion or threat.
Really SMH at your postings. One last time....I said that these draconian stimulus incentives would collectively incentivize more ma and pa shops to take further risks in expanding their businesses. Nobody is forcing anybody to hire someone as a goddam gift to society.
If you want to discuss Paulson, Greenspan or the Federal Reserve, then start a thread on it. Where in the hell did this come into context?. I want to see a link from you showing that someone has suggested anything remotely close to my hypothetical suggestion. You won't because you can't.That's how they roll in Chicago, isn't it? That's what Paulson did to the banks in October, 2008 as well. Don't waste your time on the R or Bush argument, Paulson was and is a Democrat.
Well, maybe if you knew the everyday practices of huge corporations, you would then see and understand what BoatShoes and others have said regarding breaking rules, escaping personal tax liabilities, outsourcing without conscience, and shitting on the American public en masse.I have partially owned 2 businesses in my life and I work for a privately-held company now. I have never worked for "corporate America", so sorry to burst your assumption. I compete every day for new work and the bidding environment is as tough and nasty as I've ever seen it in my 33 years in the business. Guess what...we aren't hiring any help until we see some improvement in the economy, more opportunities to keep our people busy, and the cash in the bank to pay for them.
I am more of a follower of Milton Friedman, although I would take Adam Smith over John Maynard Keynes 24/7/365. -
queencitybuckeye
Based on the earnings numbers your threw out for yourself, you were never in the same area code as anyone who actually made any decisions of importance in a large corporation. At best, you were the towel boy for the 12th man on the deal team.Footwedge;437982 wrote: Well, maybe if you knew the everyday practices of huge corporations,
You're pretty goddamn condescending for a graduate of a 4th-rate dogshit diploma mill, and with a self-described career nearly approaching that of Wally from the Dilbert cartoons. -
isadore
major sparks wrote:He displayed no such thing. His attitude pertained to his comments on people he had personal experience, who he thought were gaming the system. But you love accusing people of being heartless because they have a different idea of how the needy should be taken care of. Classic political demagoguery.
I believe their should be no corporate tax or income tax. Just one national sales tax on the lines of the "fair" tax. That way everytime American citizens engage in a transaction they can see on their receipt what share of the product they are buying is going to the federal government.
I noticed you did not answer Hits question. Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with? You danced around the question like a ballerina.
Its as simple as this. Cost of bringing product to market + Profit + Tax on profit = Cost of product. The bottom line is I have to make a profit. Whether it is a raw material, insurance, legal, taxes, etc. There is no difference.
Now you are twisting scripture to support your statistist ideology.
Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Practically speaking, where does it say anything about using the taxing power of the government to take from your neighbor to help those in need. Practically speaking as an individual who has wealth. They bible does teach that they should take care of the poor. It never mentions working through the state. Not that it is wrong for a state to do so.
The King by the way is the true King of the nation of Israel. He is judging the nations for their treatment of the nation of Israel.
How about I Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
I don't think anyone on this thread has called those gaming the system worse than an infidel.
You see Isadore there have always been two types of poor. Those in true need and those that have the ability but fail to provide for themselves. There can be many reasons. Laziness, drugs, criminal behavior, etc. As individuals, private groups, and government must be able to separate the two. Otherwise one will sap of the other and you end up not helping either and create undo burden on the middle class. Of course it is my opinion that deciding who the true needy are should primarily be done at the state, local, private groups, and individual. Those closet to those in need.
Personally I think that every able bodied adult person that receives aid from the state should be required to work a small percentage of community service every .dollar received
Since his coldheartedness toward the poor is just a mirror reflection of your own, Your comments below show that beyond a doubt. And that determines the value I place on your supportive evaluation of his attitudes toward the needy. He has taken a few personal anecdotes that have been filtered through his prejudices and based on them has structured a policy toward the poor with increasing deprivation of their needs. Let’em eat cake, cause we are going to stop providing the bread.
And what tax have you picked to supply the needs of government, Why a sales tax of course, a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, Why should that be a surprise. No lets not use a truly progressive income tax with earned income credits for the poor, One that hits profit, dividends, capital gains, one that punishes those who try to hide cash overseas bank accounts. No what do you want, lets hit them with a sales tax.
Be far from a religious zealot like yourself but I admire much especially in the New Testament about helping those in need. A lot of that is in Matthew.
Of course you would prefer that as little as possible be spent helping the poor. Or why would you assign responsibility to them to the groups that at times of the greatest need have been shown to lack the resources or at times the motivation to provide the necessary aid. Individuals, local groups, private groups, local and state government when the Depression hit could not handle the need. When this recession hit loss funding quickly and will not meet the need. Also state governments in the South historically deprived poor blacks of needed funds. When need is greatest the national government is who comes through.
We could have your own ideas put into effect., the unemployed working on chain gangs to qualify for a pittance. And with you reigning from on high determining which of the starving meet your prejudices of the worthy poor. -
CenterBHSFan
What constitutes a "fair wage" ?
That phrase means different things to different people.
CHAPTER 558 WAGES
(c) "Fair wage" means a wage fairly and reasonably commensurate with the value of a particular service or class of service rendered, and, in establishing a minimum fair wage for such service or class of service under this part, the commissioner and the wage board, without being bound by any technical rules of evidence or procedure, (1) may take into account all relevant circumstances affecting the value of the services rendered, including hours and conditions of employment affecting the health, safety and general well-being of the workers, and (2) may be guided by such considerations as would guide a court in a suit for the reasonable value of services rendered where services are rendered at the request of an employer without contract as to the amount of the wage to be paid and (3) may consider the wages, including overtime or premium rates, paid in the state for work of like or comparable character by employers who voluntarily maintain minimum fair wage standards;
But that's not the only wage phrase we can use to propogate our arguments.
Don't forget: *living wage, basic wage, family wage, etc.
*living wage is also very subjective and able to be cherry-picked -
Footwedge
First off...you don't know what I made while self employed in the nineties. Secondly, what does my income have anything to do with the facts I posted? You attack me for posting my income? LMAO. How about entering the discussion...or you too askeered to get beaten by a "street dweller"?queencitybuckeye;437985 wrote:Based on the earnings numbers your threw out for yourself, you were never in the same area code as anyone who actually made any decisions of importance in a large corporation. At best, you were the towel boy for the 12th man on the deal team.
You're pretty goddamn condescending for a graduate of a 4th-rate dogshit diploma mill, and with a self-described career nearly approaching that of Wally from the Dilbert cartoons.
Typical ASSinine thinking in your part. 'I make make than you..therefore, I am more intelligent than you...and your facts don't hold any water." You and cousin MB can head down to Wall Street on Monday together and wallow in your paper shuffling and derivatives dealings. Make sure your shirt is pressed and your tie is straight. -
majorspark
This post possess no logical arguments and no facts. This post is nothing but pure unadulterated political demagoguery. There are other posters on this forum that many times disagree with my political ideology. Boatshoes, Footwedge, Iggypride00, come to mind. None of them to my recollection have ever resorted to baseless accusations of racism, bigotry, homophobia, or your latest, lack of compassion for the needy. They have at times made logical arguments of their position. Ones that make me think. Because of their reasoning I have a greater understanding of their arguments. Sometimes I agree with them but many times I disagree with them, I do however most times have respect for their opinions.isadore;437990 wrote:Since his coldheartedness toward the poor is just a mirror reflection of your own, Your comments below show that beyond a doubt. And that determines the value I place on your supportive evaluation of his attitudes toward the needy. He has taken a few personal anecdotes that have been filtered through his prejudices and based on them has structured a policy toward the poor with increasing deprivation of their needs. Let’em eat cake, cause we are going to stop providing the bread.
And what tax have you picked to supply the needs of government, Why a sales tax of course, a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, Why should that be a surprise. No lets not use a truly progressive income tax with earned income credits for the poor, One that hits profit, dividends, capital gains, one that punishes those who try to hide cash overseas bank accounts. No what do you want, lets hit them with a sales tax.
Be far from a religious zealot like yourself but I admire much especially in the New Testament about helping those in need. A lot of that is in Matthew.
Of course you would prefer that as little as possible be spent helping the poor. Or why would you assign responsibility to them to the groups that at times of the greatest need have been shown to lack the resources or at times the motivation to provide the necessary aid. Individuals, local groups, private groups, local and state government when the Depression hit could not handle the need. When this recession hit loss funding quickly and will not meet the need. Also state governments in the South historically deprived poor blacks of needed funds. When need is greatest the national government is who comes through.
We could have your own ideas put into effect., the unemployed working on chain gangs to qualify for a pittance. And with you reigning from on high determining which of the starving meet your prejudices of the worthy poor.
I think I will respond to this post in pieces so you can't avoid certain questions and hide behind a litany of political demagoguery. -
majorspark
It is my opinion that the fair tax will benefit the middle class. It is designed to protect the poor and the middle class from regressive taxation. I believe it will help to bring needed manufacturing jobs back to the USA. Allowing businesses to keep paying competitive wages in this country. If we are the first in the world to institute this it will pay dividends. I will respond to logical arguments from anyone but will not respond to baseless political demagoguery. Please educate yourself. I do realize that this type of tax system will not see the light of day because it limits the power of the federal government to use tax law to coerce its citizens.isadore;437990 wrote:And what tax have you picked to supply the needs of government, Why a sales tax of course, a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, Why should that be a surprise. No lets not use a truly progressive income tax with earned income credits for the poor, One that hits profit, dividends, capital gains, one that punishes those who try to hide cash overseas bank accounts. No what do you want, lets hit them with a sales tax.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#regressive
You should especially like this Isadore because it does not grant an advantage to married couples. Gay couples would have the same tax prebate as heterosexual couples. Pay close attention to figure 2 on page two."The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"
The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.
Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.
In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.
How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.
Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf -
majorspark
A religious zealot. Laughable. I will give you a challenge. Search my posts, find where I have personally and directly brought my religious beliefs into an argument other than responding to a poster that did so himself. Like you did in this argument. I sure can't recall a time.isadore;437990 wrote:Be far from a religious zealot like yourself but I admire much especially in the New Testament about helping those in need. A lot of that is in Matthew.
Remember when we butted heads over the abortion issue. Did I bring my religious beliefs into the argument? Did I cite any scripture supporting my argument? You know the answer is no.
You brought religion it to this argument. You cited scripture. I refuted it. You have no logical argument so now I am a religious zealot. How foolish. -
majorspark
Damn right. We should provide those in need with the basic necessities of life. Food clothing and shelter. In that respect as little as possible. Not cell phones, cable/satellite TV, internet, xbox, flat screen TV, etc. In the case of the physically handicapped that posses no physical means to provide some of these extras on their own. I will make an exceptions for them.isadore;437990 wrote: Of course you would prefer that as little as possible be spent helping the poor.
I prefer the states and the people handle the day to day care of our needy citizens. In the case of a national emergency I am not against federal intervention. I prefer that the power be granted to the feds through the amendment process. A declaration of state of economic emergency by the president and approval by congress seems reasonable to me.isadore;437990 wrote: Or why would you assign responsibility to them to the groups that at times of the greatest need have been shown to lack the resources or at times the motivation to provide the necessary aid. Individuals, local groups, private groups, local and state government when the Depression hit could not handle the need. When this recession hit loss funding quickly and will not meet the need. Also state governments in the South historically deprived poor blacks of needed funds. When need is greatest the national government is who comes through.
You bring up the past failures of some of our southern states as a reason to distrust them. Yet you ignore the Federal governments past deprivation of the needs of our Native American brothers. Both levels of government have committed wrongs on their fellow man. Both levels of government today have progresses from that. -
majorspark
Do you know how foolish you look? You just made the exclamation point on political demagoguery. Because I had the audacity to require that an able bodied person receiving aid from the state be required to give a small percentage of community service for every dollar they receive in aid, instead of unproductively sitting on their ass. I want them to be on chain gangs slaving for the state.isadore;437990 wrote:We could have your own ideas put into effect., the unemployed working on chain gangs to qualify for a pittance. And with you reigning from on high determining which of the starving meet your prejudices of the worthy poor. -
majorspark
Isadore I will give you one more chance to answer Hits question. Your dodging has answered it thus far for us. But come on, I am curious to any logical arguments against it.
Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with?
The equation is simple. Cost of bringing product to market + Profit + Tax on profit = Cost of product. The bottom line is I have to make a profit. Whether the cost of bringing my product to market is a raw material, insurance, legal, taxes, etc. There is no difference. -
sjmvsfscs08isadore;437893 wrote:What defines you as a right winger to me is your cold hearted attitude toward those in need. That is much more definitive than your corporate tax policy. “"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Matthew 25:40. Read what you read, let them suffer because the rewards of being poor are so great. Your few little anecdotes are nothing, the suffering of those in poverty throughout this nation is real. And you want to cut their benefits. Now that is real social Darwinism. Maybe I am being too insulting to right wingers as one of them
This is just laughable. For starters, you didn't anser my question:
If anecdotal evidence (some call it witnessing) is such a joke, why do people ever testify in front of Congress? Why do we listen to what anyone has to say who disagrees with us (because the CBO didn't churn out those numbers?)? Why do we interview anyone, ever? It's pretty funny how anecdotal evidence via The Jungle helped spurn social programs and business safety and cleanliness standards. But oh wait, my year's worth of experience working in the poorest section of Toledo is moot because.....I'm still wiating."Is it or is it not, possible, if at all likely, that because we take such great care of our poor that there could actually be an incentive to have more and more children for the added financial assistance? Yes or no, wise guy. A program that was designed to help out families with an unexpected pregnancy in dire circumstances has more or less turned into an intentional operation to get a fatter monthly check."
I taught the kids. I met their families. I drove them to and from school. I witnessed how they live and the culture of poverty. Am I denying poverty exists? Fuck no. Are there people who are dirt poor who need help? Absolutely. But ask yourself a question, should welfare be comfortable? If your answer is "yes," why would you ever desire to get off welfare? Many, many people don't. If your answer is "no," you're obviously a social Darwinist and should go fuck yourself.
Another question, is it at all possible welfare has been designed or ignored so people can take advantage of it? Would it behoove the government to get people to stay on welfare, to essentially stay in their miserable conditions? It's an interesting question. If I'm in the business of alleviating poverty, if I get more people out of it, I become less important don't I? Is it at all possible that's how some in the government treat welfare? If it at all possible the government blames hardworking and successful people, and blames the other party to garner votes from the poor? Is it at all possible that the same party who pledges to be on the side of the poor people would want them to stay poor so they can always have them on their side?
"Poor people have been voting Democrat for the last fifty years, and they're still poor." - Charles Barkley.
The man has a point. Perhaps some politicians want people to be poor, so they make it just comfortable enough for people not to get unruly and yet stay in their conditions. Maybe some politicians need the poor to need them. It's like that Cheap Trick song:
How ironic the band is Cheap Trick, because maybe it's possible it's all just a "cheap trick" to get votes via growing dependence on the government.I want you to want me, I need you to need me
I'd love you to love me, I'm beggin' you to beg me
Allow me to use one of your favorite tools, called "Show What is Happening in Europe."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8707652.stm
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510 -
queencitybuckeye
It can be inferred quite easily and accurately. When one sells a business and goes back to work for someone else, their salary will be in line with what they were making on their own. To pretend otherwise defies logic.Footwedge;438039 wrote:First off...you don't know what I made while self employed in the nineties.
Speaks to the credibility of your claimed expertise in knowing how big companies operate. You were a non-entity. You do not know.Secondly, what does my income have anything to do with the facts I posted?
No, I attacked the fact that your income proves conclusively that your claims of knowing what was happening in these large companies is untruthful. At that income level, you were a cubicle drone and have no inside knowledge of said businesses.You attack me for posting my income? LMAO.
Actually, income and intelligence have a high positive correlation in the studies made, but that's somewhat off-topic (a favorite trick of yours once simple lying is no longer effective). The facts are that you are making claims to have expertise that your self-admitted background prove conclusively that you do not have.Typical ASSinine thinking in your part. 'I make make than you..therefore, I am more intelligent than you...and your facts don't hold any water."
You and cousin MB can head down to Wall Street on Monday together and wallow in your paper shuffling and derivatives dealings. Make sure your shirt is pressed and your tie is straight.
I'd be proud to claim MB as a relative. As to Wall Street, as best I can tell, there isn't one in Charlotte. I do own some really cool ties, although I rarely wear one. -
general94I don't need to respond anymore on this topic anymore. Majorspark and sjmvsfscs08 have both hit grand slams.
-
believer
Majorspark, My hat is off to you. You have eloquently and succinctly stated your case against arguably the most rhetorically adept ultra-liberal on this forum. I'm with General94...there's nothing left to be said here.