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 was disputing the absurd connection of the subsidized phone program with Obama when it was instituted under Reagan in 1985.
Yes, I was saying that you were dead wrong to say that the stock market has been so bad over the past 10 years that we still haven't recovered what we lost. You don't get to judge the entire market based on your poor investment decisions.
And once again you have utterly ignored the point that was under discussion and diverted the subject so you could avoid acknowledging that you were wrong. Knock it off; it's rude.
No, you were interjecting between two other posts that had nothing to
do with your Obamanism
I wasn't the poster who stated the past 10 years that haven't recovered what lost.
The stock market isn't my thing; but FB is an example of a flopped stock and the
other poster has a very good point.
I hear bonds are bailing faster than I can say Obama,
and commodities, well let's just say; that is my thing
"The remaning 80%"??? Um....80% + 1% = 81% or did you mean the remainder of 40% is 80%? Either way, your math sucks.
Not only is your math bad, so is your logic. We don't tax wealth in this country. We tax INCOME. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they have high income. They may be living off of previously earned wealth that they saved for the future. I have a BIL who is, probably, worth 20 million. He lives well. He works as a substitute teacher because that's what he likes to do (he quit the career he earned his money in in his 40's to become a stay at home dad.). If the stock market doesn't do well, and it hasn't lately, he doesn't earn much so he doesn't pay much in taxes but he's still wealthy. If you tax higher income, you will tax those who are trying to become wealthy. When that becomes futile because of taxes, people will quit trying. THEN who will pay your bills?
No one has ever "quit" trying to be rich in this country because taxes were three percent higher. No one has ever "quit" working because of taxes--ever. EVER.
The Great American Dream is to be financially secure. The Great American Lie (told by your conservative cronies) is that everyone can be rich--"the haves and soon to haves."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
It should be everyone's role in life. Unfortunately, only half of us are paying into the system. The rest just take.
A flat-out blatant lie that has been discredited a thousand times on these forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
The rich are doing very well, others not so much.
this graph is based on after-tax income gains over the last 30 years. Now which line would be affected less if their taxes were increased by a 3 or 4 per cent?
That chart, by the way, lists the top fifth (80-100%) and the top 1% separately. If you break it down to represent the 80-99% and then the top 1%, it becomes different. Instead of 95%, it's more like 65-70%. The top 1% is drawing in so much income it drags those numbers that high.
A friend of mine (who calls himself conservative) had the novel idea of tying executive income to employee income, I.e., an executive could not be paid more than 30x what his\her lowest paid employee was making. If the executive wanted higher pay, he or she would have to increase the wage of the lowest paid employee.
I was poking his idea full of holes, but it isn't a terrible idea--inequality exploded in part because of the tremendous difference in executive\worker pay--not to mention productivity skyrocketed while wages did not.
No one has ever "quit" working because of taxes--ever. EVER.
You do know one has withholding when they have a job, right...
I simply have to laugh at your statement, because we have a culture that would
rather get a welfare check, than work at Starbucks for minimum wage. They might
go there for a 5 dollar latte, but they won't give up that welfare check to go to work
there for minimum wage.
You do know one has withholding when they have a job, right...
I simply have to laugh at your statement, because we have a culture that would
rather get a welfare check, than work at Starbucks for minimum wage. They might
go there for a 5 dollar latte, but they won't give up that welfare check to go to work
there for minimum wage.
Possibly--but if your argument is that welfare offers better pay than minimum wage--that's not an argument against welfare, it's an argument for increasing the minimum wage. Thanks for agreeing with me.
You do know one has withholding when they have a job, right...
I simply have to laugh at your statement, because we have a culture that would
rather get a welfare check, than work at Starbucks for minimum wage. They might
go there for a 5 dollar latte, but they won't give up that welfare check to go to work
there for minimum wage.
They are already angry and no it would not soak them. A national sales tax with exemptions for food, medicines, clothing allowance, that's what I want.
Not to mention a balanced budget amendment
Yep, that's my dream list.
I'm sick of this tit for tat wealth vs poor horrible tax system we have now....
and the federal government's big fat thumb
The national sales tax as proposed, would tax RENT (by far the largest expense of low-income Americans representing at least half the income of half of those with low incomes) but not tax the purchase of an existing home.
This would represent an enormous redistribution of income upward from renters to homeowners. It would also allow homeowners to consume more than renters while paying less tax.
Possibly--but if your argument is that welfare offers better pay than minimum wage--that's not an argument against welfare, it's an argument for increasing the minimum wage. Thanks for agreeing with me.
NO, your's is an argument for entitlement and laziness.
You get tips when you work service jobs.
Minimum Wage jobs are for the lowest of the skilled. It give one
purpose. It gives them income. It gives them work experience.
I would never agree with one who doesn't think a guy can't make a
living as a fruit vendor or by growing plants and selling them
You do know one has withholding when they have a job, right...
I simply have to laugh at your statement, because we have a culture that would
rather get a welfare check, than work at Starbucks for minimum wage. They might
go there for a 5 dollar latte, but they won't give up that welfare check to go to work
there for minimum wage.
Republicans in Ann Arbor gave the finger to minimum wage workers when they blocked a Salvation Army proposal to open a rooming house for employed men within walking distance of downtown, which would have allowed these workers to live near their minimum wage jobs, instead of commuting from outlying communities.
Republicans took up the rallying cry of nearby homeowners, who argued that a rooming house would promote drugs, crime, and other social ills; and threatened to use the issue as a wedge against Democrats in upcoming elections, prompting Democrats to throw in the towel and abandon their support of the proposal.
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.
