Same to you cbus4life.
Sounds good, I don't think conservatives have the patent on work ethic, just as I don't think liberals have the patent on compassion. Maybe you could join our "lively" debates more. Gibby and Isadore are beginning to sound like broken records.

general94;437271 wrote:Funny, you actually know nothing about me, but if you want to turn this thread into a personal attack because I have a different political perspective than you, then more power to you. I would expect nothing less from a Liberal who blames society, corporations, and any other bogeyman you can create for the sad state of our country. God forbid we should tell people to look in the mirror. I am far from being rich. I am as middle class as they come, like my parents, grandparents, and everybody else in my immediate and extended family. My only claim to fame is that I was raised with a very strong work ethic, and I am proud to say I have worked my ass off to get where I'm at. I live comfortably because my wife and I choose to get up everyday and go to work and try to do our best for our employer. And you know what? we have both advanced in our respective companies to pretty stable jobs. Not to bad for two people that only have a little more than a high school education.

Unlike you, I do not believe compassion comes in the form of a government check. Why do we still have so much poverty if these great social programs worked? Hell, using your logic LBJ's "Great Society" should have ended poverty 45 years ago. Why is spreading misery around equally considered compassionate?

Gosh its so nice to read all the examples of self congratulations on this thread. Another example of rugged individualism, how you pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps. Again and again, you got yours, screw those who don’t. We still have poverty because poverty programs were always underfunded. But because of these programs the percentage of those in poverty has lessened. Even with the present economic downturn the poor are in better condition than they were when the Great Society programs began.
Spreading misery around. Now there is equivalence for you. On one hand the misery of having to pay your taxes, not as bad as most of the world/ But God we have to pay for those soldiers, parks, roads and those damn poor. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp
Then we have the misery of not having a job, not being able to put a roof over your family’s head, not being able to provide necessary health care for your children, not being able to feed them. Yep those are about even on a misery scale on your scale.

HitsRus;436994 wrote:First you say that business exists to make a profit and that there is nothing wrong with that....then you follow with the above quote. WELL, HELLO...thanks for making my point. It costs too much to make things here partly because of the government having its hands in everybody's pockets. IF you really owned a business, then you know I am 100% right when I say that government makes business an unpaid tax collector. The very act of hiring someone triggers employment taxes...costs that that business must pass on to its customers. They do not get paid or reimbursed for giving the government its cut. You might say that government and that politcal party who seeks to keep taxing is a modern day version of the the southern plantation slaveholder. Business is forced to work BY LAW without reimbursment, and a portion of the fruits of its labor is TAKEN. Meanwhile others are enslaved in a web of dependency from which their is little hope of escape. (just try----and we'll tax you!)

Someday, when you have an epiphany, you'll realize that the crowning 'achievement' of the Democratic Party is a ponzi scheme. The biggest con of all. If the government was honest and was actually looking out for your best interests, it might have required you to withhold a portion of YOUR earnings for YOUR retirement in a qualified plan . Instead it TAKES a portion of YOUR earnings and GIVES IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. The 7%+ that is TAKEN from your earnings and the 7%+ that your employer matches doesn't go to YOUR retirement...it goes to SOMEONE ELSE. Is their a bigger lie?.... a more hideous deceit?

Hits...how about this idea. Every small business man gets a $2000 tax credit for hiring a new worker at 10 bucks an hour or more...up to 10 employees, In addition, he or she gets taxed at 0 dollars on company profit. Employees that hire 10 to 20, get a 1k credit per worker and zero taxes for the company profit. 20 to 30 employees, no credit but no company taxes either.

Progress this baby up to where corporate conglomerates have to pay 45% on gross margins.

This would definitely stimulate small time American business owners (the former lifeblood of America), and disenfranchise the mega mergers that cause unfair competitive sizie advantages and price fixing.

The whole idea would be to bust up the big guys down to smaller size. This would reduce the incentives to merge....and would reduce a lot of the massive layoffs that mergers bring.

Give it some thought, before you respond.

HitsRus;437318 wrote:The wealthy are not oppressed, but they do provide jobs. Ever get a job from a poor man? They also spend money which provides jobs. Go ahead and tax them...they won't haveas much money to spend so some working class guy gets laid off because not so many people are buying the product he makes. Get it thru your head that it's always the middle class that suffers when taxes are raised...and it doesn't matter who it is levied upon.

gosh we shouldn't take a cent of their money because it is hurting the middle class. BS. Lets cut out their tax loopholes, fine them for assets overseas. No lets just get them. Hey when the poor get money, they spend it. On food, grown by Americans, on housing built by Americans, on healthcare provided by Americans.

HitsRus;437318 wrote:The wealthy are not oppressed, but they do provide jobs. Ever get a job from a poor man? They also spend money which provides jobs. Go ahead and tax them...they won't haveas much money to spend so some working class guy gets laid off because not so many people are buying the product he makes. Get it thru your head that it's always the middle class that suffers when taxes are raised...and it doesn't matter who it is levied upon.

Exactly. Businesses and corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers of their goods and services do. My raw materials increase in cost I pass it on to my customers. My taxes increase I pass it on to my customers. You made a good point earlier on how businesses are unpaid tax collecting agents for government. Really it is no different than an additional tax. Businesses hire tax accountants and lawyers to handle that aspect of doing business. Does the business owner pay for this? Nope. You got the consumer does. When will the sheeple in this country realize that a tax levied against those evil businesses is a tax levied against themselves. Businesses are not charitable organizations. They are profitable organizations. If a business ceases to profit. It will cease to exist.

I have always been a proponent of the fair tax. When an economic transaction is made in the country, it is printed out on a receipt for the consumer to view his share of the tax burden. No hidden bullshit. Right there in black and white.

another free pass for the corporations. But we can do, a more progressive income tax, higher capital gains taxes, tax those hedge fund managers, no more free ride, and no more upper limit on fica tax.

Taxing the hell out of the rich and businesses won't work but neither will giving them tax cuts and loop holes when they've already shown that they don't give a shit about Americans and will keep investing elsewhere as long as it's cheaper.

A progressive income tax is just such a slippery slope. In principle, I agree with it. A man who makes $50,000 will be more adversely affected by a percentage than the man who makes $500,000. I don't however, see the tax structure as being anywhere near where it needs to be.

I have never looked at what the tax structure is, here's where I'd set it:

I could be way off base. I'm an absolute novice, so kindly tear this apart and let me know where you think our progressive tax structure should be.

$00000 - $5,000 : 2.5%
$5,001 - $15,000 : 10.0%
$15,001 - $28,000 : 12.5%
$28,001 - $40,000 : 15.0%
$40,001 - $80,000 : 20.0%
$80,001 - $175,000 : 22.5%
$175,001 - $400,000 : 30%
$400,001 - $999,999 : 35%
$1,000,000 - $2,000,000 : 40%
$2,000,001 - $7,000,000 : 45%
$7,000,001+ : 49%

*If you are in the <35% brackets, you can sell two properties and/or houses not exceeding worth or $1,500,000 combined and have it be tax free if it goes into retirement savings.

I don't have a problem with rich people, I do have a problem with the mega rich people who are at the point where money is too abundant. Do they deserve their success? Absolutely, losing a half mil when you make five mil or are worth give hundred mil in a fiscal year is just chump change. Basically, if I'm going to tax, I'm taxing the uber rich, not the small business workers and working class.

IggyPride00;437083 wrote:Maybe it will be the impetus to finally get the voting public to educate themselves about the bums they are electing and the lies they are allowing them to spew.

The day of reckoning will come. I just hope it is as you say and the change is made peacefully at the ballot box.

IggyPride00;437083 wrote:Social Security will be bankrupt far sooner than it ever should have been because of our decision to allow our leaders to spend our Social Security money on things other than payee benefits.

That is our fault, not the programs. When Clinton was telling us there was a government surplus, and Bush was using the fact as the basis for a massive tax cut, the reality was we were running a deficit. It showed a surplus because of the S.S surplus, which was done by design because everyone realized 30 years ago that our demographics would make it impossible to be a pay as you go program. The idea was (and it was correct) to build a massive surplus when the boomers were working to sustain the program in the leaner years when they weren't.

Letting the Republicans and Democrats spend the surplus in new programs or use it as the basis for tax cuts knowing the money would be needed was never part of the deal. The problem is we are a public that does not want to get educated about our government, and the politicians know that.

It is only because we are willfully ignorant as an electorate that this has been allowed to spiral into the problem it has become.

I can't disagree with this. I realize in a free society, where all citizens are granted a say in who their representatives in government are, have a share in responsibility. Our rulers don't reign over us at the point of a gun with unjust power. They deceive us into granting them unjust power.

I also realize government institutions and laws will naturally evolve beyond the original intent of those that voted them into existence. Positions of great power will always attract corrupt individuals. Positions of great power will always seduce those with just intent into deviating away from their principles.

The majority of the founders understood this. The very foundation of our system of government (the constitution) is case in point. If anyone thinks the original intent of the signatories of the constitution is being honored they are a fool. The amendment process excluded. Even those amendments are subject to deviations from the legislatures intent.

I have always rejected the notion that the SCOTUS holds the trump card in defining the constitution (that is an argument for another day) and not given equal deference between all the coequal branches of the federal government. In any case the people of the United States are the ultimate guardians of the constitution.

This is why I espouse limited central government power. The rest divided amongst the state governments. When the chickens come home to roost with the consequences of the whole social security debacle, it will affect over 350 million.

Footwedge;437382 wrote:Hits...how about this idea. Every small business man gets a $2000 tax credit for hiring a new worker at 10 bucks an hour or more...up to 10 employees, In addition, he or she gets taxed at 0 dollars on company profit. Employees that hire 10 to 20, get a 1k credit per worker and zero taxes for the company profit. 20 to 30 employees, no credit but no company taxes either.

Progress this baby up to where corporate conglomerates have to pay 45% on gross margins.

This would definitely stimulate small time American business owners (the former lifeblood of America), and disenfranchise the mega mergers that cause unfair competitive sizie advantages and price fixing.

The whole idea would be to bust up the big guys down to smaller size. This would reduce the incentives to merge....and would reduce a lot of the massive layoffs that mergers bring.

Give it some thought, before you respond.

I understand your intent. But why would you want to accomplish those goals with increased layers of tax law? There are currently laws on the books against price fixing and collusion. If proven that a business is engaging in said practices why not demand strict enforcement? Any true free marketeer would stand with you. I just can't get behind more onerous layers of tax law for my business to sift through to accomplish this goal.

isadore;437402 wrote:another free pass for the corporations. But we can do, a more progressive income tax, higher capital gains taxes, tax those hedge fund managers, no more free ride, and no more upper limit on fica tax.

These kind of policies have worked great in Western Europe. Oh wait, they are in worse shape than us. Please give me an example of where these socialist policies have worked in the World?

Majorspark is right on. Why do you not understand that taxing the hell out of corporations and the rich always trickles down to the little guy? Or are you for the Feds being able to tell business what they can charge for their goods and services? That way you could raise their taxes, fix their prices, and bingo no more business. That way the almighty government can step in, and we have the United Socialist States of America. If that is your true philoshophy please just say so.

Also, you do realize that eliminating the upper limit on FICA taxes would not improve the shitty state of the Social Security Trust Fund? It may for a short time, but over the long haul it would be right back to where it is now. Why? because those "evil" rich would be entitled to much greater benefits if they are paying on more of their income. So, if you did away with the limit, a person making a million dollars right now would be paying more in, but when they retire they would be drawing much bigger benefits. Good Lord, the Libs would really go nuts if you had millionares drawing $10,000 a month Social Security Checks. Or maybe you just think the "rich" should subsidize everyone's retirement also. Make them pay more in, but then they don't get any benefits. Sounds like another massive wealth redistribution scheme.

^^^^^
Gosh if we look at Europe its economies unemployment rates are a mixed bag. But some of these &#8220;socialist&#8221; states are doing much better than us. Norway 3.7% unemployment, Austria 3.9%, Denmark 6.6% and that epitome of the welfare state the Netherlands 4.4%. With all those socialist programs, those high tax rates and that cradle to grave care of its citizens and still low unemployment. Populations will to be taxed to provide for their citizens in a time of need, something so different from the social Darwinian beliefs of so many on this site. Better to let people starve than to tax the wealthy or a corporation.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=teilm020&tableSelection=1&plugin=1
I see nothing wrong with taxing total income for fica then setting a maximum benefit that can be received.

Footwedge;437382 wrote:Hits...how about this idea. Every small business man gets a $2000 tax credit for hiring a new worker at 10 bucks an hour or more...up to 10 employees, In addition, he or she gets taxed at 0 dollars on company profit. Employees that hire 10 to 20, get a 1k credit per worker and zero taxes for the company profit. 20 to 30 employees, no credit but no company taxes either.

I have heard this idea floated many times, usually by "moderates" that think it intertwines tax credits with a stimulus and voila, an expanding economy. It does not answer the fundamental question, however. Using your $10/hr wage, that equals $20,800 per year. Can anyone explain why a business should spend +$20K to receive a $2K return? Why would any business make a conscious decision to throw away money just to employ somebody? As has been stated by several on here, businesses hire people because they have a need to produce more due to demand. It is not a social welfare state and never should be. If a corporation hires somebody, they do so in hopes that the individual's contribution will allow them to either gain market share, expand their geographic presence in order to grow the business, or, God forbid, increase profitability.

I remember reading last year that Obama was perplexed why businesses wouldn't be behind this idea because it made sense to him. Maybe he was flummoxed because he's never been in business his entire life, only derided and impugned it. And here we are.

Wedge, ...I'd be for any thing that would give small business incentives to hire workers, but I don't think that would would effect mega mergers. Would it have effected the Continental/ United deal?.

It might have a negative effect on entrepreneurs who start businesses then sell them and start something else.

I think the important thing is to realize that taxes on any level affects the middle class always and foremost. I think politicians that exploit this and use the schtick 'sock it to the rich' and 'the rich don't pay their share' are just the most disingenuous sort. You have to realize that your moneymakers....whether they are 'rich' people, businesses or corporations.... are the entities that create jobs for the middle class. when you raise taxes and create a hostile tax environment, they are going to move to an area where it is more favorable.
One has only to look at the news lately to see that. E.g.....1)Tax and spend liberal John Kerry bases his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying his home state of Massachussets' tax! Now here is a very icon of liberalism...and a man who by this thread's elitists standards ...should be able and deserves to be taxed....dodging his own home state's tax!. 2)Miami Heat is able to negate the extra money the Cavs could pay LeBron because Florida is a considerably more tax friendly state.
People/entities are going to make financial decisions on location and employment based on costs...of which taxes are a major one. Raise taxes on your moneymaking entities and they'll move somewhere else...to another state, or out of the country.

amazingly, there are rich people and corporations who go beyond their tax burden and do stuff for their community and the less fortunate...It is called philanthropy...and it is done without the heavy hand of government and without elitist meddling.

BGFalcon82 wrote:I remember reading last year that Obama was perplexed why businesses wouldn't be behind this idea because it made sense to him. Maybe he was flummoxed because he's never been in business his entire life, only derided and impugned it. And here we are.

And who can we thank for this hole President Obama is slowly pulling us out of. The Bush Administration put us here. George Bush&#8217;s extensive experience with crony capitalism sure did our country a lot of good.

If a small business is on the edge of hiring more workers an incentive might convince them to move forward ....slowly. The decision to hire doesn't tend to be based on one time tax credits or incentives but rather longer term views of product or service demands.

Pulling us out? The current administration is digging us deeper, I can't imagine a less business-friendly environment. Here is the most recent piece of boobery:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Paperwork-nightmare-A-apf-4153658133.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

I can only just begin to explain how stupid this is. For practically all business expenditures we'll need to ask for a W-9 or otherwise get a vendor's EIN and keep records for a year to see if expenditures total $600. Can you imagine a business involved with employees that drive unknown miles a year - they'd have to get this information every time they buy gas, and itsn't as if the vendor is apparent with franchising, etc. And how will this help the IRS in determining businesses cheating on taxes? They are going to be drowned by 1099's.

Maybe they'll have to hire more government employees to manage that increase in 1099s!!

See, our government creates jobs!

The U.S. Postal Service would probably have to double their ranks to handles all of these 1099's. A question I have is how this even got into a healthcare bill.

Gosh if we look at Europe its economies unemployment rates are a mixed bag. But some of these &#8220;socialist&#8221; states are doing much better than us. Norway 3.7% unemployment, Austria 3.9%, Denmark 6.6% and that epitome of the welfare state the Netherlands 4.4%. With all those socialist programs, those high tax rates and that cradle to grave care of its citizens and still low unemployment

Hahaha. Europe. why do people cite Europe? Didn't a lot of our ancestors leave Europe cause they hated it?

Low unemployment. There is a reason for that. The birth and fertility rates in the countries mentioned have been declining for years, and considerably below the U.S. for instance, the birth rate in the US is about 13/ 1000 people....Netherlands/ Scandinavia about 9/1000. Fertility rates are less than the replacement 2.0 /women....in the 1.66-1.75 range. They actually need young workers to service it's aging population!

Need a job?....emigrate! Go for it Isadore!...cradle to grave government pablum too, buddy!

isadore;437551 wrote:And who can we thank for this hole President Obama is slowly pulling us out of. The Bush Administration put us here. George Bush&#8217;s extensive experience with crony capitalism sure did our country a lot of good.

I gotta hand it to the socialists. Every time a legitimate point is made...BANG...it's all Bush's fault. You guys are truly amazing. Keep it up, it always lets me know you've quit.

I guess it beats saying, "uncle", when you can't debate the points, just blame Bush.

HitsRus;437571 wrote:Hahaha. Europe. why do people cite Europe? Didn't a lot of our ancestors leave Europe cause they hated it?

Low unemployment. There is a reason for that. The birth and fertility rates in the countries mentioned have been declining for years, and considerably below the U.S. for instance, the birth rate in the US is about 13/ 1000 people....Netherlands/ Scandinavia about 9/1000. Fertility rates are less than the replacement 2.0 /women....in the 1.66-1.75 range. They actually need young workers to service it's aging population!

Need a job?....emigrate! Go for it Isadore!...cradle to grave government pablum too, buddy!

HitsRus wrote:Hahaha. Europe. why do people cite Europe? Didn't a lot of our ancestors leave Europe cause they hated it?

Everyone once in a while you should read what other people have written, try to get the context of the conversation. These statements were made and I replied to them. It is not the distant past. Almost all European nations are functioning democracies, protecting the rights of their citizens and providing economic support. Some of them are doing a much better job of it than we are.

General94 wrote:These kind of policies have worked great in Western Europe. Oh wait, they are in worse shape than us. Please give me an example of where these socialist policies have worked in the World?

The United States birth rate is not much different than those nations, it is below replacement rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

And what is happening to these children born in the United States
&#8216;The poverty rate for children is higher than for any other age group. In fact, U.S. children are nearly twice as likely as adults to be poor. The overall figures are staggering. In 2008, over 14 million children&#8212;19 percent of all children in this country&#8212;were living below the poverty line.&#8221;
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/pdf/profile_early_childhood_US.pdf
http://www.soundoffforpoverty.org/youth-and-poverty/poverty-facts.php
I am an American and as opposed to you and your fellow social Darwinist, I want to see my country adopt policies that will help those in need, not punish them and reward the greedy.

BGFalcons82;437574 wrote:I gotta hand it to the socialists. Every time a legitimate point is made...BANG...it's all Bush's fault. You guys are truly amazing. Keep it up, it always lets me know you've quit.

I guess it beats saying, "uncle", when you can't debate the points, just blame Bush.

A legitimate point, lol.

BGFalcon82 wrote:I remember reading last year that Obama was perplexed why businesses wouldn't be behind this idea because it made sense to him. Maybe he was flummoxed because he's never been in business his entire life, only derided and impugned it. And here we are.

Well I would think a legitimate point would be that we are here in this economic situation because of his predecessor whose administration put us in the Great Recession. And he is a man with extensive if not successful, experience in business. It did not seem to do him any good. Is experience in business a good sign of ability to handle the economy. Lets look for a historical example, how does that sound. What American president in the last one hundred years had the most experience in business, in fact very successful experience in business. Why that would be that self made millionaire, Herbert Hoover. He sure did a helluva job with our economy.

isadore;437616 wrote:A legitimate point, lol.

Well I would think a legitimate point would be that we are here in this economic situation because of his predecessor whose administration put us in the Great Recession. And he is a man with extensive if not successful, experience in business. It did not seem to do him any good. Is experience in business a good sign of ability to handle the economy. Lets look for a historical example, how does that sound. What American president in the last one hundred years had the most experience in business, in fact very successful experience in business. Why that would be that self made millionaire, Herbert Hoover. He sure did a helluva job with our economy.

Welcome back. This just in....breaking news....Hoover is dead and can't do anything about today's mess, except give us the experience of what NOT to do...like raise taxes on 1-1-2011. But I digress.

Yeah, I guess we are in the midst of a great economic tsunami. The likes of which have never ever been seen before by anyone. What was that...2.4% GDP growth? Truly amazing number there. It will allow for millions of Americans to be hired by...hmmm...let me think here...ummm...the government? Oh that's right, we are in the Summer of Recovery, so all is candy canes and gummi bears. Who am I to question the naked emporer?

Obama is likely the most unqlualified and inexperienced President of all time. He's learned all he knows from radicals, his marxist father, community agitating, and from textbooks. He never met a payroll, doesn't know what a payroll looks like, has no concept of how to run a business, and yet, he's telling auto companies how to run their corporations. He's an ideologue through and through and has ZERO real world experience in anything economic. But he sure can deliver a great speech as a candidate. BTW - where is the hope, optimism, and joy he spoke of if he were to be elected? Don't see it and sure as hell don't hear about it from him anymore.

Sorry Isadore...my facts come from the CIA 2010 statitstics...you need to get your facts straight.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

The fertility rates for the Scandinavian countries are in the 1.7's...Netherlands 1.66.. The U.S. is above the replacement rate at 2.06. The birth rate is almost 30% higher in the U.S. HUGE difference.

I am an American too...and I oppose all the lying, deceiving politicians who make their living telling the less fortunate that rich people are to blame for all their problems, and all the elitists like you that think they know what is best for everybody. Seriuosly, if you really want to help people, then get the hell out of their way, quit lying to them, and let them help themselves instead of trapping them in a web of government dependency.
The epiphany and the realization that the policies that you support actually hurt the people you are trying to help, cannot come too soon.