U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 07-22-2009, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
28,200 posts, read 24,305,295 times
Reputation: 33887

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I'm on board.


Nope. Implemented as a flat income tax on everyone above poverty level. That way everyone has an equally proportionate stake in ensuring the gov's fiscal responsibility.

Both. Flat tax and additional sales tax.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2009, 03:13 PM
 
771 posts, read 518,789 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Firstly, trickle down has indeed helped to tank our economy by removing much of the income that companies and service providers count on. Less disposable income means less spent. Why do you think GM tanked in the first place, besides the complete lack of consumer R&D and quality vehicles? Less people in the working class has money to spend on new vehicles.

Secondly, no one forced banks to make sup-prime loans. It is their own fault and own greed that made them take toxic loans without adequent background and credit checks for their loan customers. You simply will not find any legislation demanding quotas. A "Free Market" doesn't mean free from regulations as well. Deregulations under the past administration, again part of the trickle down philosphy, have also contrubuted to our current economy.

Neither of these are very accurate. GM failed, yes in part to lack of R&D and bad vehicles, but also in large part being stuck between Unions and the government. The Union wages and pensions have been cited as the reason they would finally collapse for 20 years now. Their pensions, as were their hourly wages, were perposterous. Almost twice what the same worker for Toyota or Honda was making. GMs other problem was government regulation of emissions. Their heavy hitters were large trucks so they had to make fuel efficient models which they completely took losses on just to meet the fleet wide fuel efficiency standards.

No one forced the banks to make sub-prime trades, but lets look at the root of the problem. Why were they trading so many toxic assets?? It is not in a banks best interest to lend to a high risk borrower, so they used to not do it. In '94 with the government/private business of Freddie and Fannie, the government guaranteed high risk loans if they bought them, so for them that means no risk. They passed this no risk on to the banks who would gladly make the lend if they had no risk either. As more and more people were able to get houses the banks were pushed to lend to riskier and riskier borrowers. This is how government intervention causes problems. No bank would have made any of those loans left by themselves.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 03:18 PM
 
2,229 posts, read 572,082 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Firstly, trickle down has indeed helped to tank our economy by removing much of the income that companies and service providers count on. Less disposable income means less spent. Why do you think GM tanked in the first place, besides the complete lack of consumer R&D and quality vehicles? Less people in the working class has money to spend on new vehicles.
Can you source this.

People have been buying cars for the last 50 years at a progressivily faster pace than in times previous. The problem, they are buying foreign cars. GM lost millions of dollars because the union contracts forced them to spend more money on employee benefits than on steel. That is what happened to GM.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 04:09 PM
 
31,063 posts, read 19,339,538 times
Reputation: 15203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellise View Post
From the article:

"... That wage shift toward the already well-paid puts more of the nationís paycheck out of reach of the payroll tax, which isnít collected on salary and wages above the legal ceiling, which this year is $106,800. (In effect, the payroll tax operates as a surtax on the income of the working and middle classes, with much of the income of upper earners exempt.)Because of that shift toward high earners, an additional $1 trillion in annual salary is now out of reach of the payroll tax, meaning the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to use up its surplus by 2037, four years earlier than expected."

I never knew that there was such a cap. But if I ever had any doubts that the USA is a plutocracy, they're gone now.
You realize that the benefits are ALSO capped at that amount? The part of social security that is in big financial trouble is actually the MEDICAL portion.

I tell you what...if you want to siphon additional money out of me beyond any benefit I will ever see...to fund your retirement healthcare, I should REQUIRE all the slobs I see waddling around walmart to lose 50lbs and thus contribute towards the solution if they cannot do so monetarily.

Nah, eating a 3lb box of cheez-it's while watching American Idol and expecting someone else to pick up the tab is easier.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:09 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 3,234,691 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterK View Post
Neither of these are very accurate. GM failed, yes in part to lack of R&D and bad vehicles, but also in large part being stuck between Unions and the government. The Union wages and pensions have been cited as the reason they would finally collapse for 20 years now. Their pensions, as were their hourly wages, were perposterous. Almost twice what the same worker for Toyota or Honda was making. GMs other problem was government regulation of emissions. Their heavy hitters were large trucks so they had to make fuel efficient models which they completely took losses on just to meet the fleet wide fuel efficiency standards.

No one forced the banks to make sub-prime trades, but lets look at the root of the problem. Why were they trading so many toxic assets?? It is not in a banks best interest to lend to a high risk borrower, so they used to not do it. In '94 with the government/private business of Freddie and Fannie, the government guaranteed high risk loans if they bought them, so for them that means no risk. They passed this no risk on to the banks who would gladly make the lend if they had no risk either. As more and more people were able to get houses the banks were pushed to lend to riskier and riskier borrowers. This is how government intervention causes problems. No bank would have made any of those loans left by themselves.
I agree with the above,mostly, however, you are leaving a few key issues out of the matrix.

GM's wages and benfits packages were based on a strong economy, when people were able to buy cars. When the economy faltered, certainly the Unions should've renegotiated to follow suit. But the fact still remains. When those contracts were written, and including much of the past twenty years as well, the economy was strong enough to make those contracts viable.

Also, emissions had little to do with it. Other car manufacturers, US and abroad, adjusted quite readily. Why did GM refuse to do so or were reluctant to do so?

And as for the banks, thank you for clarifying and further defining my comments. Greed, not the g'ment, collapsed the banking system.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:10 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 3,234,691 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu View Post
Can you source this.

People have been buying cars for the last 50 years at a progressivily faster pace than in times previous. The problem, they are buying foreign cars. GM lost millions of dollars because the union contracts forced them to spend more money on employee benefits than on steel. That is what happened to GM.
And why do you think people have been buying foriegn?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:12 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 3,234,691 times
Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
You realize that the benefits are ALSO capped at that amount? The part of social security that is in big financial trouble is actually the MEDICAL portion.

I tell you what...if you want to siphon additional money out of me beyond any benefit I will ever see...to fund your retirement healthcare, I should REQUIRE all the slobs I see waddling around walmart to lose 50lbs and thus contribute towards the solution if they cannot do so monetarily.

Nah, eating a 3lb box of cheez-it's while watching American Idol and expecting someone else to pick up the tab is easier.
And chances are those waddling through walmart are also paying into the system as well.

So please, spare us the fake outrage.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 4,814,483 times
Reputation: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
Really, if you work for a living, you should read this:

Why a sudden shift in earned income to the already well-paid? | Jay Bookman

This is why the cap on income that pays the Social Security tax and Medicare tax should be eliminated completely.
"Excellent Column About The Rich Getting More While YOU Get LESS " -- wonder how many of them are politicians?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2009, 07:58 AM
 
31,063 posts, read 19,339,538 times
Reputation: 15203
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
And chances are those waddling through walmart are also paying into the system as well.

So please, spare us the fake outrage.
No. Healthcare costs are a per unit thing...so a person making 20k or 200k would be paying in disproportionate amounts for Medicare etc. but essentially receiving the same benefits.

So, I think that people that cannot contribute more should be contributing in another manner. Basically, you want to force people to pay in to help the system....but only if they make a certain income. Shouldn't everyone contribute to the common good in what ways they can?

So no, my outrage is not fake. I find it patently insulting that someone wants to squeeze one group ONLY to find the solution...but that is the new America. Ask not what you can do, ask what everyone else can do for you.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2009, 08:02 AM
 
4,090 posts, read 3,206,262 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Feel free to source "the rich carry this country", especially considering that they don't pay as large a portion of the tax burden as the rest of us.

uh, suggest you visit here:

www.irs.gov

download the taxpayer stat file, then retract your statement before you lose anymore credibility.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, 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 - Top