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.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You don't get it.
I can see with and agree with a lot of waterboy's posts. I can see and agree with you too. I will take whatever credits and deductions that I'm legally allowed to take. I find the idea that people can use the EIC credit and actually get back more money than they actually paid in horrible. I see that the loophole's and the fact that corporations are not paying what they should be horrible as well.
If we've learned nothing else here on this thread we've seen that merely "taxing" the rich won't work. Perhaps, just maybe we should start dissecting our tax laws and instead start coming up with concrete solutions to raise capitol and also to lower spending. Kinda of like, I don't know, a balanced budget... Wow... what a novel idea?
When did we stop taxing the rich? Last time I checked they paid most of the FIT.
The highest marginal rates have been going down since the Johnson administration, and were most recently lowered under Bush. Which makes posts like this silly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375
And what do you think will happen when ya raise taxes on the wealthy only? Some who are not offshoring money now will.
This excuse, and excuses like it (the rich will leave! the rich won't spend as much! the rich won't hire!) have been used to justify tax cut after tax cut for the already obscenely wealthy despite the fact that they make no sense whatsoever.
The rich have no where else go to. Every other first world country is taxed more heavily than the US. So-called "liberal" states already have the highest taxes, and yet the majority of rich people still live there. How can we believe that they're going to move to Dubai if they won't even leave NY and LA?
And you know what, they're already not hiring, which is why we have such high unemployment. They're not hiring because there is reduced demand for the majority of products and services that they sell, which is because no one has any money.
I'm surprised to see such ignorance of the professed rich business owners in this very thread. The reason supply-side doesn't work is because what drives companies to expand is more demand for their services, not cutting their taxes. If you cut a company's taxes, they don't just go hire new workers with the savings, they either pocket it or pay it out to executives/stockholders. For example, if XYZ Widgets is selling 100 widgets a year, they will only employ enough workers to produce 100 widgets. Giving the company money (in the form of tax breaks etc.) won't cause them to hire more workers, since they'd still be selling the same amount of widgets.
Anyone running (or working for) a small business should want high taxes on the top 20% because that group spends the least amount of their income on "stuff". They invest it and try to earn more on the investments and then get taxed less on that income then if they earned it the hard way.
Instead I want more money in the hands of the lower 80% so I can have customers with money to spend. Its vary easy to not spend money when you dont have any.
First , I never said they would leave. I said their money would.
Second , many are not hiring because of a lack of demand, many have demand and are not hiring for other reasons , like uncertainty.
Like it or not politics is perception , and perception becomes reality. When a buss owner dosnt know whats going to happen with HC , whats going to happen with taxes , he will tend to sit on the sidelines for a while tring to figure it out.
Another huge reason for unemployement is unemployment payments. There are quite a few companies hiring, but mathmaticly its not worth it for those collecting to take the job. The difference between UI benies and they pay for many available jobs is only $2 an hr. I wouldn't work for $2 an hr and can understand why others wouldn't either.
In some past winters I have collected for the same reason.
It didnt go. It was a sales pitch. One that is still being used , only this time with the payroll tax. If you realy think either side gives a rats azz about you and me your smoking much better weed then I am. Like it or not , this country has turned into every man for himself. If I am forced to play that game, I will play to win.
Sales pitch meets reality. And you still take it as the truth. Hence: You don't get it.
Thats right , I stand corrected. The $13 a week is going to save the economy.
That $13 / week is over $600/year per person...
Or, a $112 billion a year stimulus into the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375
Not compared to the carribean
yes, to those robust carribean islands where they can deploy their capital... HAH.
i bet you're long sugarcane, aren't you?
If the global elite fled the United States with their wealth, that would be the best thing that could happen to us. First, they'd pay an assload of taxes on the way out. Second, no more stagflation, no more utilizing the printing press to acquire dollars which are used to bid up the prices of fixed assets, and thus the cost of living for all Americans.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 12-20-2011 at 09:43 AM..
Pretty much most of the third world countries... yeah, I'm sure they would be moving tomorrow if we were to go back to Clinton rates.
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.