Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,401,143 times
Reputation: 9618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
They can't take them at all or they can only take them up to 200k? Big difference there
many of the credits (ie tuition, energy, retirement YOU CANT NOT TAKE if the household income is over 180k for some...250k for others...some like the child credit, all can take
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:11 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,447,667 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Hostess didn't go under because of the union. That's a damned lie. They went under because the greedy bastards didn't know how to run a company. And yes, when you already have several hundred thousand dollars but you want more so you steal the workers pensions that makes you a greedy bastard and I'm being way to charitable there
It does not matter what the greedy executives at the company did. The fact is that at the time of the negotiations the union was presented with an ultimatum that Hostess could not survive a strike and would close if the bakers did not return to work, and the bakers union chose to disregard the warning. They did this despite knowing the company was in bankruptcy and despite knowing other unions had been forced to compromise. Hostess followed through with what it said it was going to do and all the workers suffered the consequences.

Your assertion can be used to claim that Hostess would not have been in the position of potentially closing had the management been more competent. I would agree with that. But what actually closed the doors and lost all those people their jobs was in fact the bakers union refusing to return to work. Had those people returned to work, Hostess would not have closed. Don't mistake what I've said as indicating any sort of support for the unethical behavior of the executives. I'm just relating the sequence of events. I never claimed the contracts the executives were offering were fair. I'm just saying the union did have a chance to save the jobs and chose not to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,401,143 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
No I have not made a false accusation. If a poor urban single mother applying for welfare transferred her bank account over to a relative or trusted friend because there was a restriction on how much money you could have in the bank she'd be accused of gaming the system. But if a rich person did the same thing to avoid taxes they'd say good for him.
1. there is a big difference between gaming to GAIN(RECEIVE) welfare or a GOVERNMENT CHECK...than avoiding PAYING taxes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:17 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,447,667 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Get one thing straight,


POOR PEOPLE VOTE!

and

THERE ARE MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN WEALTHY PEOPLE!


1 man, 1 vote.


The poor people are MORE responsible for the wasteful government spending than the small group of rich people!


The poor people have a BIGGER influence on the government than ANYONE ELSE!
Well that's debatable. Campaign contributions are vital to winning an election. One rich donor can take the place of many poor donors and end up allowing a candidate to spread his message to millions of voters.

Also, loopholes, subsidies, favorable regulations, government contracts, etc are generally influence by the rich much more than the poor. So while the poor may have more influence over getting a politician elected the rich may have more influence over what the politician does after being elected.

Example being that I think the rich had quite a bit more influence in how the bank bailouts were carried out than the poor did, and those bailouts involved an awful lot of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:25 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,447,667 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Are you really that sick or are you being sarcastic?

A poor person's fair share of income taxes is $0.00
Not if the poor person makes an income. A fair share of something can't be nothing. That's not a share. If the person pays nothing then they aren't participating at all. Now if someone's "fair share" of paying the tax is 0% - no responsibility, no contribution - then why should that person's fair share of voting on how that tax is spent or, more importantly, how high that tax is, be 100% of the rich person's share?

Why is it fair that someone who contributes nothing gets an equal say in how much the person who does contribute has to pay?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:28 PM
 
9,659 posts, read 10,204,436 times
Reputation: 3225
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:31 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,693 posts, read 44,457,584 times
Reputation: 13587
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
1. there is a big difference between gaming to GAIN(RECEIVE) welfare or a GOVERNMENT CHECK...than avoiding PAYING taxes
Correct.

The first is TAKING money from others. The second is keeping more of one's own money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:34 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,693 posts, read 44,457,584 times
Reputation: 13587
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
Not if the poor person makes an income. A fair share of something can't be nothing. That's not a share. If the person pays nothing then they aren't participating at all.
Exactly.

And according to Congress, 51% of the tax-eligible aren't participating at all.
Quote:
"In summary, for tax year 2009, approximately 22 percent of all tax units, including filers and non filers, will have zero income tax liability, approximately 30% will receive a refundable credit, and approximately 49% will have a positive income tax liability."
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:35 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,447,667 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
what world do you live in ?

Mitt Romney paid an overall tax rate of 15%

i paid 22% with no refund.(maybe i need a new tax person LOL)

even though the top tax rate is 39.5% that is only on a small percentage of of income.

it is misleading to say rich people paid a higher percentage of their income to taxes.
No it isn't misleading. It is correct.

He pays a higher percentage on his income than you do, and you both pay an equal percentage on your capital gains.

What's misleading is using the word income interchangeably with capital gains, then using "overall tax rate" to imply that you're paying the same type of tax when you're not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2013, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,401,143 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Are you really that sick or are you being sarcastic?

A poor person's fair share of income taxes is $0.00
WHY????


why should their """FAIR"""" share be nothing...?????

especially when they GET THE MOST FROM THE GOVERNMENT

every one should pay the same RATE...the same FAIRSHARE...be it an income tax, or a consuption tax...

a consumption tax is much more fairer, becasue a good portion of income is never reported
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top