Allright, whatEVER, but all of you cannot convince me that lower tax burden for me and those like myself is not better than paying higher taxes .
I guess I am the only person on this forum who makes less than 1/4 million dollars per year.
Zip, like a lot of you, talk big talk about lower taxes, but now 95% of the people in this country are actually getting lower taxes and you are calling that a bad thing. I wish I made enough to complain about paying higher taxes, but right now, I am one who is paying lower taxes. For me it is a good thing, but for those of you who are brainwashed by FOX into believing that lower taxes are bad (unless it is for rich people) - well like I said -- whatEVER !
Excel,
Just posting the facts, and they did not come from Fox news.
95% of Americans are not working. The tax credit is a very small amount each week, yes, you can buy bread and milk, but it was a lot nicer to get the rebate check for $1200 to spend on the big stuff. Plus a lower tax bracket.
No, I am no where near $250,000, more like $50,000.
What ever!
Just posting the facts, and they did not come from Fox news.
95% of Americans are not working. The tax credit is a very small amount each week, yes, you can buy bread and milk, but it was a lot nicer to get the rebate check for $1200 to spend on the big stuff. Plus a lower tax bracket.
No, I am no where near $250,000, more like $50,000.
What ever!
quote:Originally posted by LMM:
Excel,
Just posting the facts, and they did not come from Fox news.
95% of Americans are not working. The tax credit is a very small amount each week, yes, you can buy bread and milk, but it was a lot nicer to get the rebate check for $1200 to spend on the big stuff. Plus a lower tax bracket.
No, I am no where near $250,000, more like $50,000.
What ever!
Back in the '80s, my wife and I would get a tax rebate of around $1,600 per year. We were a young couple just getting started and that rebate check was always used to add things we needed as time went on. However, in the first year of clodton, we got back less than $700. I knew exactly who to blame. You'd be surprised at how many people didn't know who to blame. For millions of people, there were 2 people to blame: clodton and themselves.
LMM, sorry, that rant was directed more toward Zip who on and on rants about the value of lower taxes, and now that we (I) have them, he thinks it is bad.
I would like to respectfully disagree with you on the value of the lower tax credit each week rather than the $1200 rebate.
If the purpose of the tax cut is to stimulate the economy, then the $10 to $20 each week may be a lot better for our country- here's why:
Back when we got the "stimulus checks" I , like a lot of people, didn't spend it- just socked it into savings, as I probably will do when I get my $250 "rebate" on SSI. On the other hand, if you (or I) get it as $15 / week , we will tend to fritter it away by spending it on who knows what.
While for an individual, socking our money into savings is a great thing, for the economy of our country, it is not so good. Millions of people, spending that little $15/ week may , hopefully, do more to bring our economy back, than if everybody just socks it away. Possibly a different view of that situation.
As for myself, because I am on SSI and younger than 66, I am limited on how much I can make by working, but if I could work full time (although I don't think I would at my age- time to live a little) , I probably could approach the point where the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts on rich people could start to be of concern to me. Right now I am delighted that possibly for the first time in my life, I got a tax cut that can buy more than 1/2 cup of coffee.
I would like to respectfully disagree with you on the value of the lower tax credit each week rather than the $1200 rebate.
If the purpose of the tax cut is to stimulate the economy, then the $10 to $20 each week may be a lot better for our country- here's why:
Back when we got the "stimulus checks" I , like a lot of people, didn't spend it- just socked it into savings, as I probably will do when I get my $250 "rebate" on SSI. On the other hand, if you (or I) get it as $15 / week , we will tend to fritter it away by spending it on who knows what.
While for an individual, socking our money into savings is a great thing, for the economy of our country, it is not so good. Millions of people, spending that little $15/ week may , hopefully, do more to bring our economy back, than if everybody just socks it away. Possibly a different view of that situation.
As for myself, because I am on SSI and younger than 66, I am limited on how much I can make by working, but if I could work full time (although I don't think I would at my age- time to live a little) , I probably could approach the point where the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts on rich people could start to be of concern to me. Right now I am delighted that possibly for the first time in my life, I got a tax cut that can buy more than 1/2 cup of coffee.
Excel,
No problem. I see your point but I got more use out of the $1200 than I am the $15. If that is multiplied by a few million, it may help buy it will be such a small a mount spread over the entire sector,that I don't see how it can help businesses.
Fast foods may do well, but durable goods will still be out of reach for most people.
No problem. I see your point but I got more use out of the $1200 than I am the $15. If that is multiplied by a few million, it may help buy it will be such a small a mount spread over the entire sector,that I don't see how it can help businesses.
Fast foods may do well, but durable goods will still be out of reach for most people.
I guess if you need to buy a washer or dryer, then the lump sum would be very helpful, and I gotta admit I enjoyed putting it in savings, and eventually adding to it and buying a CD. Didn't help the economy one dammed bit, but put a smile on my face. 
quote:Originally posted by teyates:quote:Originally posted by Chow:
Here's a novel idea, lets cut everyones taxes and MAKE our Government quit spending the next 2 generations money!
No, you must be kidding....that makes too much sense. Let's just stick it to one group, those who make more can afford to pay more of a percentage!! They just drive around in their fancy cars, eating lobster and grey puopon mustard sandwiches anyways. let them pay more of their money to government to redistribute the wealth!!! Power to the peoples!!!!
Let's not get the socialists in here, too excited.
Excel,
Of course, you savings deposit helped the economy. It provided funds for the bank to lend.
I discussed the upcoming 50 percent tax rate with a colleague in the UK. With his private pension and public pension (like social security) he computed the government will reduce his public pension by 20 percent for having a private pension, resulting in a 67 percent tax on his pensions. The US will have one more resident later this year.
Of course, you savings deposit helped the economy. It provided funds for the bank to lend.
I discussed the upcoming 50 percent tax rate with a colleague in the UK. With his private pension and public pension (like social security) he computed the government will reduce his public pension by 20 percent for having a private pension, resulting in a 67 percent tax on his pensions. The US will have one more resident later this year.
''Let's not get the socialists in here, too excited.''
The only thing Republicans want to privatize is profits. They are all for socialism, as long as the only thing that is socialized is their own losses.
The only thing Republicans want to privatize is profits. They are all for socialism, as long as the only thing that is socialized is their own losses.
quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:
''Let's not get the socialists in here, too excited.''
The only thing Republicans want to privatize is profits. They are all for socialism, as long as the only thing that is socialized is their own losses.
We'll just let that monumental thought stand alone. If I could make one suggestion; go back to cut n paste.
quote:Originally posted by excelman:quote:Originally posted by interventor1:
Excel,
Of course, you savings deposit helped the economy. It provided funds for the bank to lend.
My bad on this one, you are correct (to an extent)
I discussed the upcoming 50 percent tax rate with a colleague in the UK. With his private pension and public pension (like social security) he computed the government will reduce his public pension by 20 percent for having a private pension, resulting in a 67 percent tax on his pensions. The US will have one more resident later this year.
Sorry , kinda lost my gin and tonic drunk ass on this one. Are you suggesting the upcoming demise of the Bush tax rates will raise taxes on rich people 50% ?
quote:Originally posted by kperk:quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:
''Let's not get the socialists in here, too excited.''
The only thing Republicans want to privatize is profits. They are all for socialism, as long as the only thing that is socialized is their own losses.
We'll just let that monumental thought stand alone. If I could make one suggestion; go back to cut n paste.
I have a question for you. If your luck should run out on you, which I hope it doesn't, and for some reason because of health issues you became disabled and your doctor said you could not go back to work doing what you were doing but you could work sitting down, work some where less stressful and had to take a lower paying job, would you do it? Or would you try to seek your benefits? I know a lot of conservatives that are on disability. Some of them complain that it was hard to get on it, that they had to go to a liberal doctor because their conservative doctor said they were able to work. The patient didn't feel like they were able to work. Yet these people still vote republican when they know the system works against them.
By the way, I'm still waiting on an someone with two grains of sense , to tell me why ME getting a tax break is a bad thing, and some fat cat making 1/4 million dollars is a good thing. Not wanting to hear talking points from FAUX news, just real logic.
quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:quote:Originally posted by kperk:quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:
''Let's not get the socialists in here, too excited.''
The only thing Republicans want to privatize is profits. They are all for socialism, as long as the only thing that is socialized is their own losses.
We'll just let that monumental thought stand alone. If I could make one suggestion; go back to cut n paste.
I have a question for you. If your luck should run out on you, which I hope it doesn't, and for some reason because of health issues you became disabled and your doctor said you could not go back to work doing what you were doing but you could work sitting down, work some where less stressful and had to take a lower paying job, would you do it? Or would you try to seek your benefits? I know a lot of conservatives that are on disability. Some of them complain that it was hard to get on it, that they had to go to a liberal doctor because their conservative doctor said they were able to work. The patient didn't feel like they were able to work. Yet these people still vote republican when they know the system works against them.
Go ahead and admit you don't know any one but the voices in your head.
''Go ahead and admit you don't know any one but the voices in your head.''
''The Left Wing is all for free speech-as long as it agrees with them.''
I see where you failed to answer my question or perhaps you did not know the answer.
''The Left Wing is all for free speech-as long as it agrees with them.''
I see where you failed to answer my question or perhaps you did not know the answer.
Excelman,
“Sorry , kinda lost my gin and tonic drunk ass on this one. Are you suggesting the upcoming demise of the Bush tax rates will raise taxes on rich people 50% ?”
In the UK, the present rate is 40 percent for those making over £34, 600. Soon, the 50 percent rate will apply to those making over £ 150,000.
One pound equals about $1.47.
Labor is implementing the high rates to raise revenue for spending levels lower than Obama’s. Where do you think Obama is going to meet his goals?
“Sorry , kinda lost my gin and tonic drunk ass on this one. Are you suggesting the upcoming demise of the Bush tax rates will raise taxes on rich people 50% ?”
In the UK, the present rate is 40 percent for those making over £34, 600. Soon, the 50 percent rate will apply to those making over £ 150,000.
One pound equals about $1.47.
Labor is implementing the high rates to raise revenue for spending levels lower than Obama’s. Where do you think Obama is going to meet his goals?
quote:Originally posted by excelman:
By the way, I'm still waiting on an someone with two grains of sense , to tell me why ME getting a tax break is a bad thing, and some fat cat making 1/4 million dollars is a good thing. Not wanting to hear talking points from FAUX news, just real logic.
I haven't seen anyone say that it was a bad thing for you to get a tax break. However, when they jack up the taxes on the wealthy, you'll never even notice your little tax break. It'll all go to the wealthy in the form of higher prices across the board. I'm sorry, that's just the way it works.
quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:quote:Originally posted by kperk:quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:
''Let's not get the socialists in here, too excited.''
The only thing Republicans want to privatize is profits. They are all for socialism, as long as the only thing that is socialized is their own losses.
We'll just let that monumental thought stand alone. If I could make one suggestion; go back to cut n paste.
I have a question for you. If your luck should run out on you, which I hope it doesn't, and for some reason because of health issues you became disabled and your doctor said you could not go back to work doing what you were doing but you could work sitting down, work some where less stressful and had to take a lower paying job, would you do it? Or would you try to seek your benefits? I know a lot of conservatives that are on disability. Some of them complain that it was hard to get on it, that they had to go to a liberal doctor because their conservative doctor said they were able to work. The patient didn't feel like they were able to work. Yet these people still vote republican when they know the system works against them.
There are so many who are on the system fraudulently, that truly disabled people can't access the benefits they've been paying in on, all these years. Can you imagine the disaster "free health care" would cause? People who have never paid in a penny to the government would clog the health care system with their little cards every time they get a headache. It would be a nightmare!
"By the way, I'm still waiting on an someone with two grains of sense , to tell me why ME getting a tax break is a bad thing, and some fat cat making 1/4 million dollars is a good thing. Not wanting to hear talking points from FAUX news, just real logic."
No one is attacking your tax break. However, a family making $250,000 are well off, but not fat cats. That category easily includes small businesses, professionals (like doctors or CPAs), and medium sized family farms. Raise their taxes and they must forego something. It may be an employee, new equipment, or simply not work as hard to make over $250,000.
No one is attacking your tax break. However, a family making $250,000 are well off, but not fat cats. That category easily includes small businesses, professionals (like doctors or CPAs), and medium sized family farms. Raise their taxes and they must forego something. It may be an employee, new equipment, or simply not work as hard to make over $250,000.
Andrew Lloyd Webber stated that he fears the UK's top talent leaving, as they did in the 1970's. He's staying.
" Here's the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That's not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country."
" Here's the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That's not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country."
quote:Originally posted by interventor1:
Andrew Lloyd Webber stated that he fears the UK's top talent leaving, as they did in the 1970's. He's staying.
" Here's the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That's not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country."
Even though our taxes were extremely high at the time, British musicians in the 70s came to Muscle Shoals partially to get away from the even higher taxes in Britain. By the time o'guano is through, we won't have to worry about people coming here to escape ruthless taxation anymore. They can stay home and get screwed just as bad.
In the EU, they also have a value added tax (VAT) -- a sales tax. In the UK, it’s 17.5 percent. Switzerland will be getting a number of new immigrants. I believe that New Zealand, even with its mini-bureaucracy, is attracting more Brits because of taxes.
I recently bought a suit from Burberry's. Several things influenced my purchase -- dollar to pound sterling rate is good, the VAT will be rebated to me after I leave the UK, the suit looks really good, and its made in the USA.
kperk,
Sean Connery bought a wine distributorship in New England to qualify as a legal resident.
Sean Connery bought a wine distributorship in New England to qualify as a legal resident.
quote:Originally posted by interventor1:
kperk,
Sean Connery bought a wine distributorship in New England to qualify as a legal resident.
Did he go in halfers with Ms Pushy Galore?
No, he got a younger prettier partner.
''Ask yourself how democratic it is for the richest 1 percent of Americans to own 43 percent of all stock? Or for this same 1 percent to account for 33 percent of total household wealth, according to the Federal Reserve Bulletin? Is it far-fetched to suggest that class inequality and economic insecurity are permanent hallmarks of life under capitalism?''
quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:
''Ask yourself how democratic it is for the richest 1 percent of Americans to own 43 percent of all stock? Or for this same 1 percent to account for 33 percent of total household wealth, according to the Federal Reserve Bulletin? Is it far-fetched to suggest that class inequality and economic insecurity are permanent hallmarks of life under capitalism?''
So what are you suggesting, blewthedog? Communism?
So, blue, you would what? Remember, after destroying this source of wealth, there will be no more for investment or taxation. Looters get rich, one time!
''Ask yourself how democratic it is for the richest 1 percent of Americans to own 43 percent of all stock? Or for this same 1 percent to account for 33 percent of total household wealth, according to the Federal Reserve Bulletin? Is it far-fetched to suggest that class inequality and economic insecurity are permanent hallmarks of life under capitalism?''
Capitalism is not to blame. The government is. We have NEVER operated as a purely capitalistic country, and both parties share an equal amount of blame.
Capitalism is not to blame. The government is. We have NEVER operated as a purely capitalistic country, and both parties share an equal amount of blame.
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:
''Ask yourself how democratic it is for the richest 1 percent of Americans to own 43 percent of all stock? Or for this same 1 percent to account for 33 percent of total household wealth, according to the Federal Reserve Bulletin? Is it far-fetched to suggest that class inequality and economic insecurity are permanent hallmarks of life under capitalism?''
Capitalism is not to blame. The government is. We have NEVER operated as a purely capitalistic country, and both parties share an equal amount of blame.
You are interspersing politics/government and wealth/worth as if they had some kind of connection. The government has no, NO, responsibility to make you rich, they mostly make people poor. People are rich because they are smart, people are rich because they made the right decisions, people are rich because they are risk takers, people are rich because they prepared, had a plan and worked that plan. The government takes money away by means of taxes, some obvious some not so obvious, but when the government gives money away it is not because the recipient deserves it, has earned it, NO, it is because they have failed to succeed and they have their hand out. The government was never intended to make every one finiacially equal...IT IS JUST NOT THERE. If the gap between rich and poor gets wider, it is because the rich are putting forth the effort, not because they are robbing or exploiting the poor.
quote:Originally posted by Nobluedog:
''Ask yourself how democratic it is for the richest 1 percent of Americans to own 43 percent of all stock? Or for this same 1 percent to account for 33 percent of total household wealth, according to the Federal Reserve Bulletin? Is it far-fetched to suggest that class inequality and economic insecurity are permanent hallmarks of life under capitalism?''
Perfectly democratic.
Next question.
quote:You are interspersing politics/government and wealth/worth as if they had some kind of connection.
How did you come to this conclusion from my defense of capitalism?
Also, do you realize that this:
"If the gap between rich and poor gets wider, it is because the rich are putting forth the effort, not because they are robbing or exploiting the poor."
...is not true?
quote:Originally posted by excelman:
By the way, I'm still waiting on an someone with two grains of sense , to tell me why ME getting a tax break is a bad thing, and some fat cat making 1/4 million dollars is a good thing. Not wanting to hear talking points from FAUX news, just real logic.
Everyone getting a tax break is a good thing. You getting a tax break because the government extorts more money from me to give it to you is simply wealth distribution. I'm simply going to take whatever action is necessary to keep as much money as I can. I may not buy something (and the manufacturing sector suffers); not hire someone (and unemployment takes a hit); charge more for my products or services (and my customers take it in the shorts); or give less to charity (and innocent puppies are put to death).
The original framers of the income tax code wanted to put a 3% limit on the amount of money levied. It was tossed out because no one believed it would ever go that high. But when government discovered it could extort your money, and give it back in favors to maintain their positions, things changed.
I think tax cuts are good things. To counter the effects, I think the size of government should be reduced by around 80%.
Everyone getting a tax break is a good thing. You getting a tax break because the government extorts more money from me to give it to you is simply wealth distribution. I'm simply going to take whatever action is necessary to keep as much money as I can. I may not buy something (and the manufacturing sector suffers); not hire someone (and unemployment takes a hit); charge more for my products or services (and my customers take it in the shorts); or give less to charity (and innocent puppies are put to death).
Another form of wealth redistribution is for my taxes to go up and yours go down. I may decide not to buy a new car, a new suit of clothes, or even another 6 pack of beer. I may not give as much to charity (and innocent puppies die as well).
What I am trying to say is that all I have heard from you and most of "your kind" is that Obama is increasing your taxes in somewhat of a constant droan. In your case, and possibly a couple more, it may actually be true. On the other hand, it is my suspicion that almost all the people on here are actually getting a tax break but have been brain washed by the puppet masters to chant on and on about getting a tax increase.
As for government spending, in fact, it tends to go DOWN in Democratic administrations, although this one may be an exception as was the FDR term. I don't recall you complaining about our country pissing away over a TRILLION D
Dollars to invade, occupy , build new schools and hospitals, provide free health care and on and on for the people of Iraq; all for the personal gratification of the last president.
Why would you now, object to our money being used to rebuild the infrastructure in our own country and provide some of that help to our own people ?
Another form of wealth redistribution is for my taxes to go up and yours go down. I may decide not to buy a new car, a new suit of clothes, or even another 6 pack of beer. I may not give as much to charity (and innocent puppies die as well).
What I am trying to say is that all I have heard from you and most of "your kind" is that Obama is increasing your taxes in somewhat of a constant droan. In your case, and possibly a couple more, it may actually be true. On the other hand, it is my suspicion that almost all the people on here are actually getting a tax break but have been brain washed by the puppet masters to chant on and on about getting a tax increase.
As for government spending, in fact, it tends to go DOWN in Democratic administrations, although this one may be an exception as was the FDR term. I don't recall you complaining about our country pissing away over a TRILLION D
Dollars to invade, occupy , build new schools and hospitals, provide free health care and on and on for the people of Iraq; all for the personal gratification of the last president.
Why would you now, object to our money being used to rebuild the infrastructure in our own country and provide some of that help to our own people ?
quote:Originally posted by excelman:
Another form of wealth redistribution is for my taxes to go up and yours go down.
No we don't want your taxes to go up either. What most of us are upset with is the unfair distribution of taxes. Why should one group pay 39% and another pay 35%? Why punish those who make more? Why should their dollars be worth more to the government than yours? Do they get a higher voice in the governance? Does their vote count more than yours?
I am all for a fair tax plan that is an even distribution of the tax burden. Stop punishing those who make more just because you can get away with it. It does nothing to enhance productivity nor is there an incentive to do better. No one here is advocating that you should pay more taxes, but simply want the field to be leveled.
On the other hand, it is my suspicion that almost all the people on here are actually getting a tax breakquote:
I may be getting a tax break,but is my employer?What good will an extra 13 dollars do me if I am layed off?
quote:Originally posted by excelman:
Everyone getting a tax break is a good thing. You getting a tax break because the government extorts more money from me to give it to you is simply wealth distribution. I'm simply going to take whatever action is necessary to keep as much money as I can. I may not buy something (and the manufacturing sector suffers); not hire someone (and unemployment takes a hit); charge more for my products or services (and my customers take it in the shorts); or give less to charity (and innocent puppies are put to death).
Another form of wealth redistribution is for my taxes to go up and yours go down. I may decide not to buy a new car, a new suit of clothes, or even another 6 pack of beer. I may not give as much to charity (and innocent puppies die as well).
What I am trying to say is that all I have heard from you and most of "your kind" is that Obama is increasing your taxes in somewhat of a constant droan. In your case, and possibly a couple more, it may actually be true. On the other hand, it is my suspicion that almost all the people on here are actually getting a tax break but have been brain washed by the puppet masters to chant on and on about getting a tax increase.
As for government spending, in fact, it tends to go DOWN in Democratic administrations, although this one may be an exception as was the FDR term. I don't recall you complaining about our country pissing away over a TRILLION D
Dollars to invade, occupy , build new schools and hospitals, provide free health care and on and on for the people of Iraq; all for the personal gratification of the last president.
Why would you now, object to our money being used to rebuild the infrastructure in our own country and provide some of that help to our own people ?
Charities are NOT tax deductible, what impact do you think that will have, more dead puppies? You and your type are the ones following the pied piper.
Like Jon Stewart said last night, the last time there was a Democratic majority running the Country was during Carter, "everything was alright then" he exclaimed as he made the sour face.
Your delusional if you think that the middle class won't be taxed higher in the next few years, how do you think the US will be able to pay off the last 100 days of spending that TOPPED ALL previous Presidents COMBINED?
Some of those making past the now $200,000 mark are claiming they will cease working when they reach that high taxation mark.
The past proves your thoughts wrong, only when taxes across the board are lowered does the revenue actually increase.
Read up on the Great Depression, you'll find that many rich company owners shut down rather than pay high taxes and the wealthy stayed on the sidelines holding onto their money, these days they'll just go to the Caribbean.