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.
"Total taxation in Sweden, including local taxes, is equal to 59.2 percent of that country's economy, the highest level in the 27-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In contrast, the U.S. total tax burden is 30.6 percent, lowest among the OECD members. Yet unemployment for the past two years in Sweden has been considerably lower than U.S. levels.
Put that in your "survival of the fittest" tax plan and smoke it.
Total tax burden is 30.6%? Including local taxes? Please provide backup. Start with federal taxes, state taxes, city taxes liberally add such taxes as Social Security, fuel taxes, hunting & fishing license fees, vehicle sticker fees, airport taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., etc., etc.
Thirty point six percent total tax burden? Please!
The thing is Republicans don't mind the wealth being spread as long as it's in their direction.
What is that supposed to mean? When people work hard and create a business, or move up the ladder in a position, don't you think they should get to keep their reward, for their families and children? What is the motivation to work hard, if it's all going to go to the slackers in life? My parents came to this country as immigrants (this was before welfare, English as a Second language, etc. so no handouts for them), had to learn the language, work in menial jobs, and never expected the government to provide for them. Guess what, they made a good life for themselves. How did they do that? Hard work..here in NJ, seniors are taxed to the point many have to move away. Businesses are already taxed highly here. At what point do you think we pay enough taxes?
What is that supposed to mean? When people work hard and create a business, or move up the ladder in a position, don't you think they should get to keep their reward, for their families and children? What is the motivation to work hard, if it's all going to go to the slackers in life? My parents came to this country as immigrants (this was before welfare, English as a Second language, etc. so no handouts for them), had to learn the language, work in menial jobs, and never expected the government to provide for them. Guess what, they made a good life for themselves. How did they do that? Hard work..here in NJ, seniors are taxed to the point many have to move away. Businesses are already taxed highly here. At what point do you think we pay enough taxes?
Believe it or not, not everyone who is poor is a slacker. Some of us don't want a hand out or the government to "take care" of us but we don't want to work two or three jobs just to be able to barely keep a roof over our heads.
Can you imagine what would happen to the homeless rate if we totally eliminate social service programs? Exactly what we are suppose to get rid of? I guess you would allow us to keep public schools or Social Security but what is suppose to happen to those in-between? Before you say get a job: have you heard on the news how many people are being laid off? How many jobs are going over seas? Cutting taxes will not keep these jobs here. Corporate America will only keep jobs here if they can pay almost nothing to the workers, while they charge a premium for their products.
I have an idea: why don't we eliminate corporate taxes altogether if the companies will agree to give ALL of the employees an equal share of the profits? According to your argument, the people who work and create the wealth should benefit from it, so that would include the laborers, right?
Believe it or not, not everyone who is poor is a slacker. Some of us don't want a hand out or the government to "take care" of us but we don't want to work two or three jobs just to be able to barely keep a roof over our heads.
Can you imagine what would happen to the homeless rate if we totally eliminate social service programs? Exactly what we are suppose to get rid of? I guess you would allow us to keep public schools or Social Security but what is suppose to happen to those in-between? Before you say get a job: have you heard on the news how many people are being laid off? How many jobs are going over seas? Cutting taxes will not keep these jobs here. Corporate America will only keep jobs here if they can pay almost nothing to the workers, while they charge a premium for their products.
I have an idea: why don't we eliminate corporate taxes altogether if the companies will agree to give ALL of the employees an equal share of the profits? According to your argument, the people who work and create the wealth should benefit from it, so that would include the laborers, right?
First of all I didn't say to eliminate ALL social programs. We have enough programs right now. No one wants to work two or three jobs, but if taxes weren't so high they wouldn't have to. Obama taxing small busines more, is only going to harm workers anyway. If someone tries to open a business, takes most of the risk, has an idea, etc., then he should share in equal with employees? Basically, what you're telling me is you want a socialist system.
No I want an equal system. It's not taxes that have people working two or three jobs, it's high rents, high food costs and low wages. And if employees are the ones who are creating the wealth haven't they earned a fair share? There is no such thing as a unique idea. If you create a company or product, I can come right behind you and create almost the exact same thing so wouldn't it be to my advantage to have other people help me win over the customers you and I both need? If they help me gain a foothold and succeed, why shouldn't they benefit? Because it was your idea? How successful would you be without those employees?
Do Republicans who keep repeating "Obama wants to spread the wealth!" not understand that McCain wants to "spread the wealth," too? Our progressive tax structure inherently "spreads the wealth" and it's been used in this country for a long time. Did you Republicans never realize this before?
The difference is that McCain wants to take more from the middle-class to spread among the wealthy and corporations!
Again, there is a difference. McCain has made no overtures about 'taking' anything, and 'giving' to another group of citizens. The concept of EARNING and RETAINING is important here. The top 1, 2, etc percent, the ones that are continuously demonized by socialists, have, by and large, EARNED their fortunes, by superior work ethic, brains, drive, etc. The left thinks there is something inherently unfair about a small percentage of individuals earning amounts of $$ significantly higher than others. I don't believe this. I am not that cynical. I've said this before, but it bears repeating: the left thinks the market is not a fair determinant as to what someone should earn. The left thinks, for instance, that someone who graduates with a degree in elementary education be compensated for at comparable levels to someone who has graduated with a degree in Chemical Engineering, Finance, Computer Science, etc, when the in reality, the market compensates group B higher than group A. But to examine it further requires rational thought: why do some earn more than others? Because the occupations in which some people pursue are less in number, however, higher in demand. Going back to occupations, how many here like doing their own personal finance? The answer is probably, not many. I'll include myself in this. Part of it is because its dry work, another reason is that it's not easy. Enter the financial planner. Someone who will actually take care of this, has an inate understanding on how finance and markets work, etc. These positions are higher in demand. Conversely, an English major or a psychology major is going to be LESS in demand. Hence, there are lower wages associated. Then there are those who have never attended college, or dropped out, and are stuck in a dead end job, and have no ambition to better themselves, rather, make 10 bucks an hour at a department store. My point is that there are varying degrees of skill, ambition, and yes, BRAINPOWER, that different people possess. This manifests itself in an uneven salary structure. Socialism tries to obscure these differences, and attempts to 'level the playing field'. The same message is conveyed early on, like in one of these kids shows on PBS, for instance, when there's some contest, and it always ends in a tie, with the underlying message: "we're all special!!!" In reality, however, that's not the way of the world. We live in a hypercompetitive society. The left thinks government should play an instrumental role, intercede into every avenue of the free market, and engage in social engineering, so at the end of the day, we'll all have filet mignon, because we are entitled to it.
That's why that audio released the other day regarding Obama's radio interview is dangerous. He lays out his manifest in plain English, and it invokes his skepticism into the content of the Constitution, which was a document authored to protect individuals from the tyranny of government. Obama's interpretation of this is that the same document be able to PROVIDE for the people. In other words, instead of a RIGHT to PURSUE HAPPINESS, a RIGHT to HAPPINESS (right to health care, right to housing, right to education, etc). He had it completely flip upside down backwards. And, so, too, evidently do many eligible voters.
No I want an equal system. It's not taxes that have people working two or three jobs, it's high rents, high food costs and low wages. And if employees are the ones who are creating the wealth haven't they earned a fair share? There is no such thing as a unique idea. If you create a company or product, I can come right behind you and create almost the exact same thing so wouldn't it be to my advantage to have other people help me win over the customers you and I both need? If they help me gain a foothold and succeed, why shouldn't they benefit? Because it was your idea? How successful would you be without those employees?
Take it up with your employer then. If you don't like their response, 'vote with your feet'. This isn't commmunist Russia (not yet, anyway). You aren't forced to work in a salt mine by decree of the premier. I know this sounds facetious, but I'm not kidding. How is government going to help you in this regard? If they raise the taxes of the company that you are working for, how do you think your employer is going to respond? They'll begin cutting expenditures. The greatest operating expense in any organization is worker salaries.
My point is that government shouldn't be involved here by taking from one group and giving to another. It's a matter between you and your employer.
Believe it or not, not everyone who is poor is a slacker. Some of us don't want a hand out or the government to "take care" of us but we don't want to work two or three jobs just to be able to barely keep a roof over our heads.
Hard to believe, but in many parts of the country, jobs go begging. For most of my early working life, I worked at least two jobs, and sometimes three; meanwhile, I went to night school 2 nights a week, and earned my Bachelors degree 10 years after high school. Granted, there are many people who cannot handle college, but the degree enabled me to get a good paying job. There are always avenues available for those who have a strong desire to get out of their current "pay grade."
Quote:
Can you imagine what would happen to the homeless rate if we totally eliminate social service programs? Exactly what we are suppose to get rid of? I guess you would allow us to keep public schools or Social Security but what is suppose to happen to those in-between? Before you say get a job: have you heard on the news how many people are being laid off? How many jobs are going over seas? Cutting taxes will not keep these jobs here. Corporate America will only keep jobs here if they can pay almost nothing to the workers, while they charge a premium for their products.
As I said above, there are lots of jobs that go begging in our economy, and there are even more jobs that are taken by unregistered aliens. Social service programs need to be confined to providing assistance to those with disabilities, and to providing training and educational programs for those who aren't disabled. As for the difficulty in finding a job in America, maybe if people bought everything AMERICAN that they could, then we could return this country to its former greatness. I for one will never buy a foreign car. Corporate America will only keep jobs here if they can maintain satisfaction AMONG THEIR STOCKHOLDERS which, given the current malaise, isn't all that easy. BUYING AMERICAN is a start, though.
Quote:
I have an idea: why don't we eliminate corporate taxes altogether if the companies will agree to give ALL of the employees an equal share of the profits? According to your argument, the people who work and create the wealth should benefit from it, so that would include the laborers, right?
In all the world, only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate than we do (among countries that are not predominately socialized), so a smaller tax rate would help — even if that reduction was brought down only to the median of the industrialized countries.
Consider, too, that UNIONS do nothing to promote the idea of quality American-made products at a reasonable price. One example is that the 3 USA automakers pay about $2500 per car in union benefits and pay that the non-unionized companies don't. As for having an equal share of the profits, I believe that's what 401K plans were intended to do.
I hardly see the fairness in someone like myself, who is single and paying taxes to "help" those that sit at home having more kids and collecting welfare. If I wanted a family I would have had my own, I shouldn't be made to support someone elses!
I totally agree with you here. I have chosen to remain single and NOT bring children into this world and yet I am punished by paying the lion's share of the tax burden because of this choice.
Again, there is a difference. McCain has made no overtures about 'taking' anything, and 'giving' to another group of citizens. The concept of EARNING and RETAINING is important here. The top 1, 2, etc percent, the ones that are continuously demonized by socialists, have, by and large, EARNED their fortunes, by superior work ethic, brains, drive, etc. The left thinks there is something inherently unfair about a small percentage of individuals earning amounts of $$ significantly higher than others. I don't believe this. I am not that cynical. I've said this before, but it bears repeating: the left thinks the market is not a fair determinant as to what someone should earn. The left thinks, for instance, that someone who graduates with a degree in elementary education be compensated for at comparable levels to someone who has graduated with a degree in Chemical Engineering, Finance, Computer Science, etc, when the in reality, the market compensates group B higher than group A. But to examine it further requires rational thought: why do some earn more than others? Because the occupations in which some people pursue are less in number, however, higher in demand. Going back to occupations, how many here like doing their own personal finance? The answer is probably, not many. I'll include myself in this. Part of it is because its dry work, another reason is that it's not easy. Enter the financial planner. Someone who will actually take care of this, has an inate understanding on how finance and markets work, etc. These positions are higher in demand. Conversely, an English major or a psychology major is going to be LESS in demand. Hence, there are lower wages associated. Then there are those who have never attended college, or dropped out, and are stuck in a dead end job, and have no ambition to better themselves, rather, make 10 bucks an hour at a department store. My point is that there are varying degrees of skill, ambition, and yes, BRAINPOWER, that different people possess. This manifests itself in an uneven salary structure. Socialism tries to obscure these differences, and attempts to 'level the playing field'. The same message is conveyed early on, like in one of these kids shows on PBS, for instance, when there's some contest, and it always ends in a tie, with the underlying message: "we're all special!!!" In reality, however, that's not the way of the world. We live in a hypercompetitive society. The left thinks government should play an instrumental role, intercede into every avenue of the free market, and engage in social engineering, so at the end of the day, we'll all have filet mignon, because we are entitled to it.
That's why that audio released the other day regarding Obama's radio interview is dangerous. He lays out his manifest in plain English, and it invokes his skepticism into the content of the Constitution, which was a document authored to protect individuals from the tyranny of government. Obama's interpretation of this is that the same document be able to PROVIDE for the people. In other words, instead of a RIGHT to PURSUE HAPPINESS, a RIGHT to HAPPINESS (right to health care, right to housing, right to education, etc). He had it completely flip upside down backwards. And, so, too, evidently do many eligible voters.
Total B.S. The point is, the workers who actually DO the producing should be able to share in the prosperity - the old Reagan "trickle-down" idea. Of course, they're not going to make as much as the "boss", but they should make enough money to LIVE on. Why would that be such a sin? That's the way it used to be, until the GREED took over these companies, and now instead of paying the workers a decent wage with their profits, they KEEP the money for themselves. Wages have stagnated for decades, and everything else has gone up. What's the point of that? Why is that necessary?
There is no reason for not paying employees well. We can't ALL be CEO's, there are many jobs in the U.S. that have to be done, but that doesn't mean people should be making slave wages. Look at the minimum wage - hasn't changed much in decades. Everyone is important, and every job is important.
I believe in a right to healthcare, food, shelter, etc. Apparently, that's what a lot of people want, because Obama is way ahead in the polls.
What kind of a society do you want to live in? People crawling on their hands and knees to get food and old people living on the street (which I see too much in my city)? I believe in helping each other, and watching out for our fellow citizens. So, sue me.
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.
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.
