Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Why is it that when people complain about their tax dollars being eaten up by waste, fraud, and moochers, when it is intended to help the needy, do people like john stewart and jt (who has no idea how the business world works) run in and try to make it about corporations? When tax payers complain about moochers and people who work the system to their advantage, why do people like john stewart try to make it look like they are attacking the really needy people, the ones people want to help? When there are needy people in the country, why are we supposed to take on people from other countries and give them what our own people need? Why doesn't john stewart get upset when the government gives a "professor" three million dollars to study african grandmothers? A professor btw, that teaches at the college where michelle obama's brother coaches.

Why are churches allowed to rake in money, pay no taxes on it, and keep it to buy up more land and build bigger churches, while tossing out very few crumbs to the needy? 

Because people like to attack any flaw they can find in government, and say they want to operate government as businesses operate. There is no indication that business is any more efficient; it's just that government operations are mostly open for the public to view and analyze. For business, we are able to look that closely only when there is a major problem that affects thousands of people -- such as UPS's failure to deliver packages on time and the hacking of Target's system. If the postal service had performed as poorly as UPS, those who are eager to attack government for any flaw would have been saying we should get rid of the postal serivce and use UPS and FedEx.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Why is it if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman.  But, if you take advantage of something so as to not go hungry, you're a moocher.

Any comments

 


Apples to oranges comparison.  A business that takes advantage of a tax break is not breaking a law.  A person who takes advantage of the welfare system and illegally obtains assistance, they are breaking the law and they are in fact mooching off the tax payer.

 

Regardless of what percentage it is to their income/wealth, corporations and the rich pay most of the taxes that are used to run this country.  Corporations provide jobs and prosperity, what are the contributions to society from the truly lazy.....complaints on forum threads about evil corporations from their government supplied internet service (paid for by the taxpayer)? 

 

To Best, I may have a better grasp of how the corporate would works than you realize.  As far as working the system, who is working it better;  a corporate farm which gets thousands or millions from the government, or a corporation like GE, which paid no tax on billions of dollars of income and got hundreds of millions back in tax refunds or the needy person who got $150 per month of food stamps?

Those numbers are pretty accurate except for the $150 for food stamps.  In Tennessee, a single person who is retired and has an income of $1050 per month from social security draws $16 per month for food stamps.  They are really soaking it ain't they?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Why is it if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman.  But, if you take advantage of something so as to not go hungry, you're a moocher.

Any comments

____________________________________________________________________

Some corporate tax breaks, such as accelerated depreciation, are to encourage businesses to invest in capital equipment. Such equipment is expensive and purchasing it creates jobs. 

 

Ask Jon Stewart why his company takes advantage of local tax incentives to keep the Daily Show in NYC.  Bit of a moocher, much, isn't he!

 

Originally Posted by Lionsfan:

Because people like to attack any flaw they can find in government, and say they want to operate government as businesses operate. There is no indication that business is any more efficient; it's just that government operations are mostly open for the public to view and analyze. For business, we are able to look that closely only when there is a major problem that affects thousands of people -- such as UPS's failure to deliver packages on time and the hacking of Target's system. If the postal service had performed as poorly as UPS, those who are eager to attack government for any flaw would have been saying we should get rid of the postal serivce and use UPS and FedEx.

______________________________________________
Nonsense, if business perform poorly, consistently, they go out of business.  Government possess printing presses and unlimited taxing authority.  So far, the website for Obamacare has spent about $667 million on the website ($one billion was appropriated).  Kayak.com performs nearly the same actions and cost about $10 million at most. 

 

Business provide revenue to government to keep it in business.  .

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

To Best, I may have a better grasp of how the corporate would works than you realize.  As far as working the system, who is working it better;  a corporate farm which gets thousands or millions from the government, or a corporation like GE, which paid no tax on billions of dollars of income and got hundreds of millions back in tax refunds or the needy person who got $150 per month of food stamps?

Those numbers are pretty accurate except for the $150 for food stamps.  In Tennessee, a single person who is retired and has an income of $1050 per month from social security draws $16 per month for food stamps.  They are really soaking it ain't they?

=============

Who says that single retired person even needs food stamps? I know retired people that have enough money to burn a wet mule, and they still draw their SS check. They sure as heck don't need even $16 per month worth of food stamps. Your post just shows once again, you have NO idea how business works. Man, I don't think you have a clue about anything at all.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Mr Hooberbloob,  the rich may pay most of the income tax in this country, but I'm tired of people like Bill Gates having income of 400 million dollars and paying 15% and I pay 20%.  Please explain to me why he and others like him pay a smaller percentage than me.  Is it because they can buy the tax laws they want?

______________________________________________________

Gates pays the capital gains rate from sell of stocks, which is a lesser rate.  Such investments provides business with funds to grow and hire more people.  Plus, the Gates foundation proves million in charitable contributions. 

 

You may not like him paying a lesser rate, but he contributes more to society in jobs, resultant taxes, and charity work.  All in all, a plus.

To Best, if I ever need to learn anything, would you introduce me to all those retired people, that you know, who only draw $1050 per month and have enough money to "burn a wet mule".  They can teach me how to have a clue.

To Dire,  Bill Gates is donating Billions to charity.  Warren Buffet is also doing this.  Keep in mind, they are keeping a few billion to sort of tide them over.  Seriously, they are doing way more global good than I could ever hope to do.  One question, when he takes money to third world countries, is that taking money away from america?  I still believe that if investment gains is what you use for living expenses, it should have the same tax percentage as wages,  

Well gee whiz sport, aren't you retired? Don't you get SS? Do you need food stamps? Ask the retired people on this forum. When did retired mean broke and only getting SS? IF they only qualify for $16.00 in food stamps that sure tells me they have assets somewhere. When we retire and start drawing SS we shouldn't need food stamps. but then again, who knows what it's going to be like if we can't get out of the democrats death grip. With every post you make it becomes more and more clear you don't have a clue.

I have news for you. I had health problems at 50 years old. Ihad been self-employed for 18 years before. I was entitled to $12.00 per month in SSI benefits before SS started. It took 6 months before I drew the first payment. A little to ADD TO THIS! I don't qualify for any other things because I make $28.00 a month above the poverty level. If you retire with a good pension or have BIG savings account, you are fine but if you are like me and had neither, you don't live very high on the hog..

Retired means someone worked until they retired, and became eligible for SS. Again, retired does not automatically mean broke as jt would have people believe. Yes jt, there are many many retired people who have money. They worked for it, invested to get it, saved to get it, have pensions/retirement plans from businesses to get part of it, inherited some of it. 

 

Pooh, We don't live high on the hog now. We know we will need an income when we're older and unable to work or decide to retire. We give up a lot so we can afford insurance in case one or even both of us, have an illness or health problem.  We give up a lot so we can educate our kids so they can earn a living, and again, with the country in the democrats death grip that is iffy too. I can't speak to your circumstance because I have no way of knowing anything about you, but at age 50 I would think you would be have been in a better position than someone younger and just starting out. HOWEVER, if you weren't, and you need help, you should have it. And that takes me back to my first post on the subject.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that when people complain about their tax dollars being eaten up by waste, fraud, and moochers, when it is intended to help the needy, do people like john stewart and jt (who has no idea how the business world works) run in and try to make it about corporations? When tax payers complain about moochers and people who work the system to their advantage, why do people like john stewart try to make it look like they are attacking the really needy people, the ones people want to help? When there are needy people in the country, why are we supposed to take on people from other countries and give them what our own people need? Why doesn't john stewart get upset when the government gives a "professor" three million dollars to study african grandmothers? A professor btw, that teaches at the college where michelle obama's brother coaches.

Why are churches allowed to rake in money, pay no taxes on it, and keep it to buy up more land and build bigger churches, while tossing out very few crumbs to the needy? 

Another thing, income inequality is going to have to be looked at and something done to help those at the bottom.  I don't mean a government program either.

When I was in school and in civics class, it was a different century, but I seem to remember "sometimes you need to do something for the good of the community".  The business community (not the government) needs to level the playing field.

Add Reply

Post

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