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.
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.
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.
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.
"... That wage shift toward the already well-paid puts more of the nation’s paycheck out of reach of the payroll tax, which isn’t 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
download the taxpayer stat file, then retract your statement before you lose anymore credibility.
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.
