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.
Yep, and when you factor in that most roads are built for commercial interests the true costs of the road are NOT being paid for by the ppl that benefit most by those roads. Read the examples back in that link of yours, the three mile long highway was a truck bypass. You think those trucks funded that road or did the general public foot much of that bill? Fact is the middle class, thru that gas tax, has been funding road construction and maintenance that largely benefits the uber wealthy's money making exploits.
Really? And who is employed as truck drivers and truckers and this way support their families? The uberwealthy?
You make it sound like commerce only benefits certain group of people as in fact we all depend on commerce for incomes and products it delivers.
Of course state and federal governments are responsible for the infrastructure. That's why we, including the corporations, pay taxes.
Of course you know that in this country a small group of entities pays the most monies into the tax pot and it is NOT the middle class.
No, small business owners are no more "real America" than any other citizen. I am so tired of this arrogant classist attitude. And I guarantee the country can do without your little shop or your home repairs contracting business that might create a couple poor paying jobs. Get over yourselves! Plus, if you fail, bankruptcy is a type of entitlement, hardly noble.
Sure. Without all these little shops cumulatively providing services and employment to millions of people we would all be waiting for the welfare check... Is that your goal, comrade? All equal, all poor?
Go ahead. I'm not a chicken little on that one. I know the same thing will happen as the last time, the number of people in those tax brackets will decrease sharply. People who were previously at that level will simply hide their money, reduce their income, lobby for loopholes, and invest in tax free bonds.
I guess this is moot if income tax is taken out, however, if not, who cares if they lobby for anything? With the tax raise would be a closing of every loop imagineable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
Fine, set a floor for the flat tax so the poor aren't affected. You can't argue for fairness and then push for something that isn't equal. If you argue for a property tax rate, sales tax rate, gas tax rate, etc that is much higher for some and lower for others, then you'd be intellectually consistent at least.
The only people youd be able to levy a flat tax on and not have it harm them disproportionately, would be the insanely wealthy, where an extra million isnt going to hurt them one way or the other.
That is not the intent of the flat tax, ever. The intent of the flat tax is to shift a higher percent of the tax burden to people who cant afford the taxes they are already paying, or afford to pay taxes at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
I'm against the prebate, I don't want Americans all receiving a check from the government every month. Why not have built in exemptions for food, medicine, and other goods the poor depend on?
That would be the intent of the prebate for a set income amount. The theory would be that amount would be the level required for any person to live.
Im not quite sure how you propose to enact what you are talking about here.....would you just have ALL clothes/medicine/food.....tax free? Or are you proposing that people fill out paper work and mail in receipts, creating a tremendous burden that would probably require an expanded IRS to deal with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
This was a bi-partisan effort, and much of the catalyst for this was signed by a Democratic President. I'm for a repeal of NAFTA, I'm for a reinstatement of Glass Steagall, etc.
Who abstained Democrats from anything? Democrats, in general, have been aiding and abetting the systematic rape of the US almost as much as Republicans. They are two sides to the same coin, and are usually in agreeance when it comes to bending over for big business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
The remainder was simply due to the global economy catching up after World War II. Much of our post 1940s prosperity was due to our competitors being destroyed in war, so we were the only game in town for many sectors of the world economy.
The global economy didnt really catch up. Europe (particuliarly Germany and Scandinavian countries), Russia, Japan....they rebuilt, but if only given them, the USA would be fine globally. Quality can be debated, but but all of those countries but maybe Russia have wages and a cost of business comparitable to the US. Ironically, none of those other countries have the problems with income inequality that we do.
What happened was that the US actively shipped our economy out to the lowest bidder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
By the way, if wealth is a zero sum game, who is the loser when the US economy increases?
The problem is in how you are measuring the economic increase. Wealth is not in cash. That is a unit of exchange. If the US truly increases its wealth, its at the expense of another nation.
Ive used this example many times and Ill use it again
If a guy had land
He then grew potatoes on the land
He found he needed help growing them
He paid someone in potatoes to help him on the farm
What is wealth here?
Potatoes (cash) are not "wealth". Sure, the potatoes are being used as medium of exchange for labor, but, potatoes are consumed, created, spoil, etc. The only consistant is the land.
If a guy owned 100,000 ariable acres today, and he waited ten years, he will be no more or less wealthy assuming his land was not destroyed or became useless. I could care less if the value of his land went up or down in some medium of exchange. He can grow food, hunt, build a house, extract minerals.....while the guy with a million bucks cant do squat but hope to purchase things from the guy with the land.
I advocate that all wealth that will ever be on Planet Earth, exists right now. I dont care how many dollars the government prints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
And, why do those on the left seem to advocate a growing economy if they speak for the downtrodden?
By left do you mean Democrats? Or by left do you mean the actual left?
Sure. Without all these little shops cumulatively providing services and employment to millions of people we would all be waiting for the welfare check... Is that your goal, comrade? All equal, all poor?
Who said getting rid of anything? These businesses are a dime a dozen, and their owners should not be considered special. I think this is related to the backlash against illegals (or legals thought to be illegal) because they often bring these simple skills to the country (esp. retail and the trades) at the expense of our precious small business owners. Enlightened people would update and switch to fields that are in demand.
And comrade? One insult deserves another, so you are Rebel12, I guess a Southern boy stuck in the past... so sad.
Really? And who is employed as truck drivers and truckers and this way support their families? The uberwealthy?
You make it sound like commerce only benefits certain group of people as in fact we all depend on commerce for incomes and products it delivers.
Of course state and federal governments are responsible for the infrastructure. That's why we, including the corporations, pay taxes.
Of course you know that in this country a small group of entities pays the most monies into the tax pot and it is NOT the middle class.
Really, you need this explained to you?
That new road benefits commercial interests 100%. The truck drivers already had jobs using the existing roads. The new road shortens the route, saving commercial interest money and taking hours away from those drivers. The road got build with public funds to streamline corporate interest and increase their profits.
The problem is in how you are measuring the economic increase. Wealth is not in cash. That is a unit of exchange. If the US truly increases its wealth, its at the expense of another nation.
Ive used this example many times and Ill use it again
If a guy had land
He then grew potatoes on the land
He found he needed help growing them
He paid someone in potatoes to help him on the farm
What is wealth here?
Potatoes (cash) are not "wealth". Sure, the potatoes are being used as medium of exchange for labor, but, potatoes are consumed, created, spoil, etc. The only consistant is the land.
If a guy owned 100,000 ariable acres today, and he waited ten years, he will be no more or less wealthy assuming his land was not destroyed or became useless. I could care less if the value of his land went up or down in some medium of exchange. He can grow food, hunt, build a house, extract minerals.....while the guy with a million bucks cant do squat but hope to purchase things from the guy with the land.
I advocate that all wealth that will ever be on Planet Earth, exists right now. I dont care how many dollars the government prints.
That's kindergarden economics. The wealth is created everyday as value added (value of silicon is much less then semiconductor produced from it) and intellectual property that is being created every day. No, wealth is not a constant, it changes all the time. We can create wealth/value "from nothing" like in case of knowledge.
That new road benefits commercial interests 100%. The truck drivers already had jobs using the existing roads. The new road shortens the route, saving commercial interest money and taking hours away from those drivers. The road got build with public funds to streamline corporate interest and increase their profits.
No I don't have to You just don't make any sense, your whole premise is wrong: Look here:
A): "new road benefit commercial interest 100%" does not make any sense as individual users utilize the same road for their own benefits, for instance to cut their commute time, for which nobody is paying them or to get faster to the hospitals and stores
B) "The new road shortens the route, saving commercial interest money and taking hours away from those drivers." Not necessarily, new roads or more roads also mean additional capacity which means more trucks on the road and more job hours for truckers and maintenance people
C "The road got build with public funds to streamline corporate interest and increase their profits".This reads like some communist propaganda from 1965. Of course the roads that got build and are being build benefit all of the society. Everybody uses them and additional capacity means more work for drivers, more commercial exchange etc etc.
Who said getting rid of anything? These businesses are a dime a dozen, and their owners should not be considered special. I think this is related to the backlash against illegals (or legals thought to be illegal) because they often bring these simple skills to the country (esp. retail and the trades) at the expense of our precious small business owners. Enlightened people would update and switch to fields that are in demand.
And comrade? One insult deserves another, so you are Rebel12, I guess a Southern boy stuck in the past... so sad.
Comrade is an insult to you? Why? LOL
Of course business owners are special they CREATE WEALTH. We have to protect everybody who creates wealth as more and more people are only consumers of wealth. Small business maybe dime a dozen but kill them all of and who will support this welfare state?
That's kindergarden economics. The wealth is created everyday as value added (value of silicon is much less then semiconductor produced from it) and intellectual property that is being created every day. No, wealth is not a constant, it changes all the time. We can create wealth/value "from nothing" like in case of knowledge.
Thanks for demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the "kindergarden economics"......let me try again for you
Intellectual property is a medium of exchange, so is a semiconductor. In itself, it produces nothing for the owner of it. Their only value is in what someone who actually has wealth, or another medium of exchange, will trade for it.
Give me all of the land and water, and you can have all of the semiconductors. Who do you think is going to die? You, who has no food or clean water, or me, who cant run my computer.......The only value your stupid semiconductor, work of art, or bright idea has, is my willingness to either give you produce from my land, or a piece of my land in exchange for it.
Just a thought, every time someone turns down an offered job, that name should be submitted to the state to ensure they are no longer receiving unemployment, since they had the opportunity to have a job, and by their own actions, are not working, and should no longer be receiving any assistance.
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.
You just don't make any sense, your whole premise is wrong: Look here: 
"The road got build with public funds to streamline corporate interest and increase their profits".This reads like some communist propaganda from 1965. Of course the roads that got build and are being build benefit all of the society. Everybody uses them and additional capacity means more work for drivers, more commercial exchange etc etc.
