GOP Policies Nationwide Directly Leading to Massive Job Losses (Obama, downturn, insurance)
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.
Let me ask you something. If Person A lost a job, and the government raised income tax rates on everyone, how will Person A have to pay more in income tax if they don't have an income?
Ponder that for a moment.
Well, if person A isn't paying taxes than person B will have to pay way more to make up for person A and the tax increase.
Tax increases are rarely the answer. I have yet to meet a person who has spent their way out of debt.
As far as the GOP is concerned cutting any jobs reduces costs so they can make more in the short term. Vilifying public workers is just another way to keep the already racially divided workers form recognizing their common enemy. So long as the uppermost 10% gets richer why should they care about economic suffering? It is no skin off their a**s.
The goal of the GOP is to completely financialize the economy and create an exclusivity of wealth not seen since the New England industrialists and the Southern slavers. They want us to become a truly divided nation consisting of them, that can still make money by financing the spread of their thievery all over the world, and everyone else living a marginalized existence with no hope for economic security let alone a decent living.
Fortunately it's not that simple. Since half of the workforce didn't lose their jobs, they aren't going to see twice the increase in taxes.
Person A lost a job yes. But Persons B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J will easily be able to afford the increased tax rate as a group.
Also, raising revenues is not equal to spending. That is basic economics.
About 10% of the population has lost their jobs so the remaining employed would see a 10% plus increase in taxes. It certainly isn't true that the rest of the population will "easily" be able to afford a 10% plus tax increase. Wow the left is tone deaf.
True raising revenues doesn't equal spending, with the government it has equalled over spending. hence the deficits we find today.
I agree..States cant print their own money so they have to follow a budget.
Its how these governors decide to balance the budget that is at issue.
I'm just wondering what political affects laying off and firing these people will have...they cant ALL be democrats right?
Well isn't it obvious?
The GOP Governors HAD to lay off all these people so all the private companies could hire them....
With the big tax breaks corporations in states like Wisconsin are going to be getting, I expect the private hiring to be off the HOOK here in the next month or so..... Just wait!!!
True raising revenues doesn't equal spending, with the government it has equalled over spending. hence the deficits we find today.
Federal tax receipt in 2000 was $400 Billion more than federal tax receipt in 2010. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that was also true in 2002? And in 2003? And in 2004? Do such revenue shortfalls not contribute to the deficits, and debt plus its long term implications (interest on debt)?
Historically, the federal tax receipts have averaged about 18% of the GDP, slightly lower at times of recession, slightly higher at times of booming economy. When was the last time the percentage was below 15% after doing it TWICE in recent years? 1950. Tax revenue is not the only problem, but it is a substantial part of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler
Well isn't it obvious?
The GOP Governors HAD to lay off all these people so all the private companies could hire them....
With the big tax breaks corporations in states like Wisconsin are going to be getting, I expect the private hiring to be off the HOOK here in the next month or so..... Just wait!!!
Texas is about to do that. This was a state that was bragging about low unemployment rate, and with massive cuts on the horizon, I won't be surprised to see unemployment rate skyrocket within the state.
About 10% of the population has lost their jobs so the remaining employed would see a 10% plus increase in taxes. It certainly isn't true that the rest of the population will "easily" be able to afford a 10% plus tax increase. Wow the left is tone deaf.
True raising revenues doesn't equal spending, with the government it has equalled over spending. hence the deficits we find today.
You do understand math, right?
Let's do an example. My favorite state of Pennsylvania (which has a slightly above average state income tax rate) has a tax rate of 3.07%. Now, raising that rate 10% doesn't mean add 10 to 13.07%. It means multiply by 1.1.
3.07*1.1= 3.377%
So on a fairly average salary of $45,000. The total income tax originally (not including deductions, credits, etc.) would have been $1381.50. The new income tax would be $1519.65... an increase of $138.15 on the year. If being paid biweekly, that works out to an additional ~$5.31 per paycheck.
If Republicans could pass their budget without any opposition, it would lead to 750,000 men and women losing their jobs as a direct result of the cuts they are seeking.
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.
