New idea on Taxes & Jobs

[Sniperchoke]

jtab81 - 9/28/2010 1:30 PM

First, to answer your question Sniper, it benefits you because now someone has stuck it to your boss and made him pay for making so much and paying you so little. At least this is the way the liberals look at it. I dont think I have to give the real answer to that question. Either someone gets it, or they dont, its that simple

Second, Danny, The rich doesn't have a bigger piece of his PIE, in fact, he has less. When you say PIE, the infers a percentage of the whole. You cannot dispute that he would have a lesser percent of his total pay than someone in a lower tax bracket.
He may have more DOLLARS, but then we're back to the govt deciding what amount is too much to have left over, and that borders on socialism.

Yeah and then you don't have a job.

 

[ryantaylor]

This thread reminds me of someone who said, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That is from our good friend Karl Marx.

 

[outcaster]

jtab81 - 9/28/2010 2:30 PM

First, to answer your question Sniper, it benefits you because now someone has stuck it to your boss and made him pay for making so much and paying you so little. At least this is the way the liberals look at it. I dont think I have to give the real answer to that question. Either someone gets it, or they dont, its that simple

Second, Danny, The rich doesn't have a bigger piece of his PIE, in fact, he has less. When you say PIE, the infers a percentage of the whole. You cannot dispute that he would have a lesser percent of his total pay than someone in a lower tax bracket.
He may have more DOLLARS, but then we're back to the govt deciding what amount is too much to have left over, and that borders on socialism.

I beg to differ. Do some research.... Factor in ALL taxes/fees/licenses, then tell me who pays the bigger piece of their financial pie in taxes. The guy making 75K per year or Warren Buffet. Then get back to me. I never cease to be amazed that people that hardly have 2 nickles to rub together will argue so passionately on behalf of the super wealthy.

 

[outcaster]

Sniperchoke - 9/28/2010 1:44 PM

outcaster - 9/28/2010 12:38 PM

SpurHunter - 9/27/2010 10:44 PM

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck? <u>Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement</u>. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

</p>

 </p>

This proves my point perfectly Danny. The proof is in the puddin. Obamanomics cant spin this fact. </p>

 </p>

 </p>

 </p>

tjab81's opinions (un-documented) does not prove anything. After All taxes are paid the rich guy has more of his financial pie to spend, save, invest, or whatever. And yes, the rich do save/invest a much higher rate of their income than the middle class and poor. I do back up my statements with facts.
Results of a just completed study done on this very topic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Moody is hardy a left leaning organization.

Which brings me back to my original proposal: Extend the tax cuts for the rich for 18 more months, then we can see once an for all if the "proof is in the puddin"

One question. How does increasing my boss's taxes benefit me?

Your boss is most likely NOT the one who's taxes rates are going up. Small business's are driving the economy, their taxes are going down. You guys need to get past the FACT that the super rich are NOT the ones driving our economy. Either get past that FACT, or offer data showing that the Super rich IS the engine that drives the economy. Did either of you bother to read the Moody research on the subject?

 

[SpurHunter]

Danny, prove to me that Google DOESN'T drive BILLIONS in our economic system.

 

[outcaster]

SpurHunter - 9/28/2010 6:27 PM

Danny, prove to me that Google DOESN'T drive BILLIONS in our economic system.

Not sure what your point is?

 

[SpurHunter]

Google is run by two sper-rich, (15 BILLION each) founders. Please show us how they dont help drive the economy. I know they are evil, vile, despicable, non-humans, that want to see children starve and the elderly put into death camps and all.........
If you can show me they dont pay taxes, and stimulate the economy with personal and business taxes, and in during the course of all this mega-money-making, they REPRESS the economy and the millions of business's they serve, you win, and I vote Democrat for the rest of my life.

 

[Sniperchoke]

outcaster - 9/28/2010 5:22 PM

Sniperchoke - 9/28/2010 1:44 PM

outcaster - 9/28/2010 12:38 PM

SpurHunter - 9/27/2010 10:44 PM

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck? <u>Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement</u>. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

</p>

 </p>

This proves my point perfectly Danny. The proof is in the puddin. Obamanomics cant spin this fact. </p>

 </p>

 </p>

 </p>

tjab81's opinions (un-documented) does not prove anything. After All taxes are paid the rich guy has more of his financial pie to spend, save, invest, or whatever. And yes, the rich do save/invest a much higher rate of their income than the middle class and poor. I do back up my statements with facts.
Results of a just completed study done on this very topic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Moody is hardy a left leaning organization.

Which brings me back to my original proposal: Extend the tax cuts for the rich for 18 more months, then we can see once an for all if the "proof is in the puddin"

One question. How does increasing my boss's taxes benefit me?

Your boss is most likely NOT the one who's taxes rates are going up. Small business's are driving the economy, their taxes are going down. You guys need to get past the FACT that the super rich are NOT the ones driving our economy. Either get past that FACT, or offer data showing that the Super rich IS the engine that drives the economy. Did either of you bother to read the Moody research on the subject?

Members of my family are small business owners and they make over 250,000.00 a year they also employ several people. One employs 11 to be exact and when his taxes go up then he could cut jobs. Not only are their payroll taxes going up at the end of this year but they also pay sales tax, business property tax, electrical tax, water tax, splost taxes, inventory tax, Medicare tax for employees, and employee Social Security tax. Is that enough? It has been proven time and time again that the most capitalistic nations are by far the most proporous and free.

 

[outcaster]

Funny you should mention them. Both co-founders of Google regularly contribute to Democrat campaigns and causes (Netpaq), and most likely agree with me on this issue. You are comparing apples and oranges. Google is a multi-national corporation with a board of directors, and Nasdaq traded company. The two men behind Google were college students at Stanford when they started Google. They were far from rich when they started the company. They, and their investors became wealthy when Google became successful. Guy's like these, that have a good idea, for the next Google , or whatever it may be, should be the ones getting the tax breaks. They will be the ones creating the next 10,000 new good jobs.

 

[outcaster]

Sniperchoke - 9/28/2010 7:02 PM

outcaster - 9/28/2010 5:22 PM

Sniperchoke - 9/28/2010 1:44 PM

outcaster - 9/28/2010 12:38 PM

SpurHunter - 9/27/2010 10:44 PM

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck? <u>Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement</u>. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

</p>

 </p>

This proves my point perfectly Danny. The proof is in the puddin. Obamanomics cant spin this fact. </p>

 </p>

 </p>

 </p>

tjab81's opinions (un-documented) does not prove anything. After All taxes are paid the rich guy has more of his financial pie to spend, save, invest, or whatever. And yes, the rich do save/invest a much higher rate of their income than the middle class and poor. I do back up my statements with facts.
Results of a just completed study done on this very topic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Moody is hardy a left leaning organization.

Which brings me back to my original proposal: Extend the tax cuts for the rich for 18 more months, then we can see once an for all if the "proof is in the puddin"

One question. How does increasing my boss's taxes benefit me?

Your boss is most likely NOT the one who's taxes rates are going up. Small business's are driving the economy, their taxes are going down. You guys need to get past the FACT that the super rich are NOT the ones driving our economy. Either get past that FACT, or offer data showing that the Super rich IS the engine that drives the economy. Did either of you bother to read the Moody research on the subject?

Members of my family are small business owners and they make over 250,000.00 a year they also employ several people. One employs 11 to be exact and when his taxes go up then he could cut jobs. Not only are their payroll taxes going up at the end of this year but they also pay sales tax, business property tax, electrical tax, water tax, splost taxes, inventory tax, Medicare tax for employees, and employee Social Security tax. Is that enough? It has been proven time and time again that the most capitalistic nations are by far the most proporous and free.

Sounds like your family members need a new accountant. lol

 

[SpurHunter]

I dont have to debate with you any more Danny, you have proven my point ten-fold with your last two posts.

A person with a good idea, DESERVES to reap the benefits of their hard work, (first post), and you finally admit that a person who makes lots of money is neither evil or corrupt.

Second, Liberals DONT WANT to pay their fair-share of taxes as is so often touted, but instead think you should get a "better", (i.e. corrupt) accountant to make sure that as little is paid as possible. Quite contrary to what Libs are always saying......Im just saying........

 

[beetlespin]

You picked up on that as well. I have seen several posts by our resident liberals about why rich people deserve to pay higher taxes but also that they are stupid if their accountant doesn't get them out of all their tax liabilities.

This all supportd my belief that a flat tax across all incomes with no deductions is best. We could eliminate tax returns which are inefficient and basically do away with the IRS. Seems like a good idea to me. As it stands now about half of all Americans don't even pay income taxes.

 

[elwestb]

beetlespin - 9/28/2010 7:12 PM

You picked up on that as well. I have seen several posts by our resident liberals about why rich people deserve to pay higher taxes but also that they are stupid if their accountant doesn't get them out of all their tax liabilities.

This all supportd my belief that a flat tax across all incomes with no deductions is best. We could eliminate tax returns which are inefficient and basically do away with the IRS. Seems like a good idea to me. As it stands now about half of all Americans don't even pay income taxes.

... I'm voteing for beetlespin!

 

[Sniperchoke]

outcaster - 9/28/2010 6:19 PM

Sniperchoke - 9/28/2010 7:02 PM

outcaster - 9/28/2010 5:22 PM

Sniperchoke - 9/28/2010 1:44 PM

outcaster - 9/28/2010 12:38 PM

SpurHunter - 9/27/2010 10:44 PM

jtab81 - 9/27/2010 9:37 PM I have the same question as Eric. Who decides "Who" has the "Ability" to pay? Do you drive down the street and raise taxes on the guy pulling a new Ranger Comanche with a brand new F 350, and lower taxes on the poor guy who is driving the 12 year old boat with a beater truck? <u>Do you really think that that people who make over 100k save a higher percentage of their money ie: not stimulating the economy by spending it? We I can tell you from being in the financial world for 6 years now, the more money people make, the more they spend. Period. I am constantly amazed how many people I see that make well over 100k, and yet have very little assets to show for it. If you were to ask a CPA, I'm sure they would agree with this statement</u>. Sorry, don;t have actual statistics to show this, but I'm sure somewhere someone has compiled data in such a way to support this.

</p>

 </p>

This proves my point perfectly Danny. The proof is in the puddin. Obamanomics cant spin this fact. </p>

 </p>

 </p>

 </p>

tjab81's opinions (un-documented) does not prove anything. After All taxes are paid the rich guy has more of his financial pie to spend, save, invest, or whatever. And yes, the rich do save/invest a much higher rate of their income than the middle class and poor. I do back up my statements with facts.
Results of a just completed study done on this very topic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Moody is hardy a left leaning organization.

Which brings me back to my original proposal: Extend the tax cuts for the rich for 18 more months, then we can see once an for all if the "proof is in the puddin"

One question. How does increasing my boss's taxes benefit me?

Your boss is most likely NOT the one who's taxes rates are going up. Small business's are driving the economy, their taxes are going down. You guys need to get past the FACT that the super rich are NOT the ones driving our economy. Either get past that FACT, or offer data showing that the Super rich IS the engine that drives the economy. Did either of you bother to read the Moody research on the subject?

Members of my family are small business owners and they make over 250,000.00 a year they also employ several people. One employs 11 to be exact and when his taxes go up then he could cut jobs. Not only are their payroll taxes going up at the end of this year but they also pay sales tax, business property tax, electrical tax, water tax, splost taxes, inventory tax, Medicare tax for employees, and employee Social Security tax. Is that enough? It has been proven time and time again that the most capitalistic nations are by far the most proporous and free.

Sounds like your family members need a new accountant. lol

Why would they need new accountants? So they can illegally hide income??? If they use part of their income to reinvest then that is income that is not in their pockets right.... That is income they can't use for personal items.

 

[outcaster]

SpurHunter - 9/28/2010 7:59 PM

I dont have to debate with you any more Danny, you have proven my point ten-fold with your last two posts.

A person with a good idea, DESERVES to reap the benefits of their hard work, (first post), and you finally admit that a person who makes lots of money is neither evil or corrupt.

Second, Liberals DONT WANT to pay their fair-share of taxes as is so often touted, but instead think you should get a "better", (i.e. corrupt) accountant to make sure that as little is paid as possible. Quite contrary to what Libs are always saying......Im just saying........

I think you should go back and read my posts. A person that gets rich because he has a good idea IS reaping the benefits.... He's RICH, and can afford to do or buy most anything he wants! Most Rich people are neither evil or corrupt, furthermore more than half of them agree with ME! None of you have come up with ANY data, or ANY studies to back up the position that the wealthiest 3% are the main driving force of our economy. NONE, ZIP, NADA! So claim victory if you like... But I'll wait for credible data from you. Additionally any real "small business" owner reporting a quarter million dollar adjusted gross income
DOES need to fire his accountant. Nothing corrupt about taking all the LEGAL breaks and loopholes. I guess we will all see in the next couple of years either way.

 

[Sniperchoke]

outcaster - 9/28/2010 8:22 PM

SpurHunter - 9/28/2010 7:59 PM

I dont have to debate with you any more Danny, you have proven my point ten-fold with your last two posts.

A person with a good idea, DESERVES to reap the benefits of their hard work, (first post), and you finally admit that a person who makes lots of money is neither evil or corrupt.

Second, Liberals DONT WANT to pay their fair-share of taxes as is so often touted, but instead think you should get a "better", (i.e. corrupt) accountant to make sure that as little is paid as possible. Quite contrary to what Libs are always saying......Im just saying........

I think you should go back and read my posts. A person that gets rich because he has a good idea IS reaping the benefits.... He's RICH, and can afford to do or buy most anything he wants! Most Rich people are neither evil or corrupt, furthermore more than half of them agree with ME! None of you have come up with ANY data, or ANY studies to back up the position that the wealthiest 3% are the main driving force of our economy. NONE, ZIP, NADA! So claim victory if you like... But I'll wait for credible data from you. Additionally any real "small business" owner reporting a quarter million dollar adjusted gross income
DOES need to fire his accountant. Nothing corrupt about taking all the LEGAL breaks and loopholes. Just sayin.

First of all you don't know how much over 250,000.00 the person makes. Here is some data for you everytime we have reduced taxes as a country the overall tax revenue increases because more people are working. Trickle down economics at its best.

 

[Jason F-18]

Two things Danny,
First, i take offense to your comment that I don't have two nickels to rub together. Who are to say what my financial situation is?

Second, lets just say that I don't have any nickels. That is what is so hard for Liberals to get, the selfless ideals that conservatives have. The reason i would still take up for the wealthy is this. It is WRONG to take someone's hard earned money just because i decide that they have more ABILITY to pay. I will not beg to take something away that someone worked hard for, just to make my life in the short run better. That is the problem with many liberals these days, they are all about WIIFM, what's in it for me? They cannot understand why you would fight to defend someone because it is was RIGHT, even if there is not direct benefit to them.

 

[digitalcb]

outcaster - 9/27/2010 8:04 PM

NOT paying their fair share according to their ABILITY to pay. I say take that money..

This scares me.

Straight out of Karl Marx (and others) Communist writings and the very reason the Soviet Union collapsed.

<font color="#cc0000" size="4">"From each according to his ability"</font> Karl Marx

 

[Guest]

digitalcb - 9/29/2010 4:13 PM

outcaster - 9/27/2010 8:04 PM

NOT paying their fair share according to their ABILITY to pay. I say take that money..

This scares me.

Straight out of Karl Marx (and others) Communist writings and the very reason the Soviet Union collapsed.

<font color="#cc0000" size="4">"From each according to his ability"</font> Karl Marx

What do you think a liberal is Steve? Nothing more than a modern day communist. They will not use the word communist because of the obvious implications.

 

[digitalcb]

cheez - 9/29/2010 4:27 PM

What do you think a liberal is Steve? Nothing more than a modern day communist. They will not use the word communist because of the obvious implications.

Actually that was part of my point!!! Sorry if it came across otherwise. :emoticon: