U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-10-2018, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,447,497 times
Reputation: 14953

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Well, you have a point there if "type" is considered as having 20 top lawyers and tax attorneys studying every cent of your income.

However, it is somewhat disingenuous in context - as you seemed to be saying that the "the rich" pay the same as everyone else. No. A newly rich person (lottery winner, etc. or even started a biz and made the big bucks) pays a LOT more taxes than a long term wealthy person who figured out (or his professionals figured out) all the loopholes.
Name 10 loopholes. I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

 
Old 03-10-2018, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,447,497 times
Reputation: 14953
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundapeanut View Post
Don't think the IRS would allow the deduction on 3 homes, but I get what you are saying. The CPA also has to depreciate that part of our house. They also take the sq ft of the house and how much of the homes you use is what you get to write off. We have 4 rooms that are business. so that is where CPA comes up with 1/3.
When you sell the house, all of that depreciation is recaptured.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,447,497 times
Reputation: 14953
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003 View Post
Social Security is not an "Entitlement" WE WORKED ND PAID FOR S.S.

It really burns my ass when they start calling it and "Entitlement."
The word “entitlement” has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups. Persons who have demonstrated their eligibility to claim such payments are entitled (i.e., “qualified for by right according to law”) to receive them.

The usage has nothing to do with pejorative connotations associated with the word (e.g., “a sense of entitlement”) which are often applied to denote people expecting or demanding something they do not merit.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Central IL
13,407 posts, read 7,152,384 times
Reputation: 31141
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Why would anyone believe it is Walmart's duty to pay their employees a living wage?

Furthermore, why is Wal Mart always singled out? What about the Mom&Pop shops who are often held up as heroes standing tall in the face of corporate hegemony, they pay worse than Wal Mart so let's go have a protest in front of their store as well.
It's why minimum wage should be a living wage - so that Walmart and ALL businesses, large AND small have to pay it...so the government (that is, you and I) don't have to subsidize it.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Central IL
13,407 posts, read 7,152,384 times
Reputation: 31141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
The word “entitlement” has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups. Persons who have demonstrated their eligibility to claim such payments are entitled (i.e., “qualified for by right according to law”) to receive them.

The usage has nothing to do with pejorative connotations associated with the word (e.g., “a sense of entitlement”) which are often applied to denote people expecting or demanding something they do not merit.
Sure - but many have begun to misuse it in a very negative manner to connote the opposite - that's what is wrong - when "entitlement" is used as a term to denigrate what they are truly entitled to.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 09:04 AM
 
Location: midvalley Oregon and Eastside seattle area
2,946 posts, read 1,356,147 times
Reputation: 2443
JMO,
Yes, it is time to control entitlements but the peoples's representatives and elective President said, 'debt is good' .
I am not going to dwell too much on it. We have in the past year taken on more debt (mortgages) to fund a higher life style and continual stream of Income (rentals) in retirement.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,447,497 times
Reputation: 14953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
I’m sure the names pub911 is referring to are multiple American presidents, their economic advisors, and no less than 3 federal reserve chairmans.
Not to mention the food truck driver from outside the Fed.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,447,497 times
Reputation: 14953
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Sure - but many have begun to misuse it in a very negative manner to connote the opposite - that's what is wrong - when "entitlement" is used as a term to denigrate what they are truly entitled to.
Fine -- call it a transfer payment. Unfortunately, I cannot rename the thread to "Now is the time to get transfer payments under control."
 
Old 03-10-2018, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
3,078 posts, read 1,040,161 times
Reputation: 3930
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Time will tell. . .
Yes, it will. And nothing else.

(My silliness was in private homes and small functions, mostly. But this is the interwebz, so that's irrelevant.)
 
Old 03-10-2018, 09:47 AM
 
5,230 posts, read 2,383,065 times
Reputation: 5119
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
It's why minimum wage should be a living wage - so that Walmart and ALL businesses, large AND small have to pay it...so the government (that is, you and I) don't have to subsidize it.
Once again for those who missed it the first time. . .

We as a society have decided that we need a social safety net to provide for those “less fortunate.” For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the value of that comprehensive array of benefits is $30,000 per year. One can access those benefits just be existing - nothing more needs to be done.

Let’s look at the example of Bob. . .

Now, when Bob is on the dole, ALL of us pay for that comprehensive array of benefits that Bob is receiving (well, all of us that pay taxes, that is). Why? Because as a society, we decided it was important for us to do so.

Now Bob decides that he wants to get a job. Who-hoo! So Bob starts looking, but he is unsuccessful. It turns out that Bob spent his formative years smoking pot and playing video games. He didn’t graduate from high school, he has no skills, and no work ethic. Bob has nothing to offer an employer. However, Wal-Mart, a great American company with a wonderful sense of social responsibility steps up and gives Bob a job. Now remember, Bob can’t actually do anything. So he becomes one of those Wal-Mart employees that just wanders around with a dazed look on their face, and clogging up the aisles, and occasionally picking an item up off the floor where it has fallen and puts it back on the shelf. Wal-Mart, being a very socially responsible company, pays Bob $7.50/hour, $.25/hour more than the Federal Minimum wage, and allows him to work 40 hours per week.

Let’s review the financials and make sure everyone’s on the same page. . .

While on the public dole, Bob got $30,000/year in benefits, paid for by the taxpayer. Working for Wal-Mart, Bob gets $15,000 year, paid for by Wal-Mart.

Now, since Bob only makes $15,000 at his job, but we as a society have determined that Bob deserves $30,000, we as a society provide him with $15,000 in benefits to make up the difference.

The perverse result of all this is that you and others of your ilk believe that since Wal-Mart was gracious enough to give Bob a job, that Wal-Mart should now assume 100% of society’s obligation to Bob, even though Bob only provides $15,000 in value to Wal-Mart. And worse still, you accuse Wal-Mart of being subsidized for this little scenario, when nothing could be further from the truth (it is impossible for Wal-Mart to be subsidized for its labor when, in every instance, it pays a market rate for labor).

The reality is that by giving Bob a job, Wal-Mart has SAVED the taxpayers $15,000 a year. And your response to this is to excoriate Wal-Mart at every turn. You, and the rest of your ilk that share such misguided beliefs, should be ashamed of yourselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top