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.
I mean who wouldn't appoint a new board if they could when said board is looking into $230,000 of illegally laundered contributions some of which went through their former lobbying firm and to their governorship campaign.
Dumb and corrupt...what a combo.
Yeah ok....ever heard of Jim Black? Mike Easley? Bev Perdue? All NC Democrats that have either been investigated, charged, or have close aides tied to corruption?
Yeah ok....ever heard of Jim Black? Mike Easley? Bev Perdue? All NC Democrats that have either been investigated, charged, or have close aides tied to corruption?
Maybe they will also cut spending. Also you have to figure that about 45% of the population doesn't work and the ones making less than 15K don't pay anything.
So it just will shift the taxes to those who aren't paying anything.
My point is its good for those with a job and bad for the moochers who don't pay anything. Simple math and I'm in favor because I have a job.
I'm tired of supporting people who don't pay their fair share!
Forty-five percent of the population doesn't work? Got that from the Romney campaign did you? You do realize he lost. Yes?
You wouldn't mind closing loopholes that allow the wealthy to pay less tax than you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandMike
Why don't we get the poor people out of poverty instead of devising ways of keeping them in poverty?
In a capitalist economy someone has to be poor, what you are speaking of is a socialist economy.
Forty-five percent of the population doesn't work? Got that from the Romney campaign did you? You do realize he lost. Yes?
You wouldn't mind closing loopholes that allow the wealthy to pay less tax than you?
In a capitalist economy someone has to be poor, what you are speaking of is a socialist economy.
The rate is actually not 45% its over 50%
About 64% of the population is employed. This includes only people aged 16 - 65.
Seems like a sweet deal to me and other people who work for a living.
The rate is over 50% now? Your own math disputes that.
Understand by taxing the poor means they will spend less money by going without out or digging deeper for bargains which, means less tax revenue. Furthermore, the wealthy will be putting more in their pockets due to reduced income & corporate taxes because 6.5% on $100 worth of groceries or clothes is the same no matter how you shake it out. The only time the wealthy will contribute more is when purchasing large ticket luxury items.
The rate is over 50% now? Your own math disputes that.
Understand by taxing the poor means they will spend less money by going without out or digging deeper for bargains which, means less tax revenue. Furthermore, the wealthy will be putting more in their pockets due to reduced income & corporate taxes because 6.5% on $100 worth of groceries or clothes is the same no matter how you shake it out. The only time the wealthy will contribute more is when purchasing large ticket luxury items.
You are right. Welfare systems like food stamps have a greater than 1:1 return because the money is fully injected back into the system. The less money folks at the lower end of the income range have to spend, the slower our economic gains would be. In fact, cutting taxes at the top tends to have a negative multiplier. Money does not go back directly into the economy and stimulate jobs, despite what those who propagate the "trickle down" theory actually say.
You are right. Welfare systems like food stamps have a greater than 1:1 return because the money is fully injected back into the system. The less money folks at the lower end of the income range have to spend, the slower our economic gains would be. In fact, cutting taxes at the top tends to have a negative multiplier. Money does not go back directly into the economy and stimulate jobs, despite what those who propagate the "trickle down" theory actually say.
I agree, and in my observations companies needing to expand/hire do so regardless of the tax rate. This causes me to be suspicious of the whiners in the sense the reason they advocate tax cuts is to pocket more money. No company with a cell for a brain is going to hire anyone if the demand is not there.
This is a big problem with the 15% investment tax, while it was meant to encourage investing the end result has been money being made on investments and not going into the economy.
Regardless what the 2% say the economy depends on the actions of the other 98%
The rate is over 50% now? Your own math disputes that.
Understand by taxing the poor means they will spend less money by going without out or digging deeper for bargains which, means less tax revenue. Furthermore, the wealthy will be putting more in their pockets due to reduced income & corporate taxes because 6.5% on $100 worth of groceries or clothes is the same no matter how you shake it out. The only time the wealthy will contribute more is when purchasing large ticket luxury items.
If 43% are working then 57% aren't working.
Lets be honest, I think you can pay 2% more in sales tax to get rid of the income tax completely don't you!
How about you pay 2% more and let NC grow for once. Stop being a taker!
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.
