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.
Compare federal/national taxes to federal/national social welfare benefits. That's a fair comparison.
No it is not, when they cover / do not cover different things.
So still waiting to hear if I can get some reimbursements, lol.
The total federal revenue is 3.33 trillion or so. Out of which approx. 1.17 trillion is the payroll taxes. We spent 1 trillion + in military expenses. Nobody else is crazy to that, not with a 22 trillion in debt.
Too many Americans are stupid. They're financially and/or math illiterate. Tax refunds are not an accurate reflection of one's actual effective federal income tax rate. If less is withheld each paycheck, of course one's rebate is going to be less. The advantage of that is that Americans get their tax savings up front instead of having to wait a year for the over-payment refund while also giving the Fed Gov an interest free loan on that over-payment amount.
blah blah blah.
The reason folk are angry is because they thought the increase in the pay packet was all from reduced taxation... It turns out it was mostly just recalculated withholdings and not reduced taxes. People thought the withholdings were per usual, not rejigged to juice the numbers short term...
Remember withholdings are purposely slightly too high mostly to ensure people get a pleasant surprise instead of a bill. .
For starters, I'd ask you attempt to answer your own questions, especially the first one you put in bold...
I asked first.
You're afraid to answer the question, because you know how wrong you are.
Around here Cincinnati State is $158/credit hour. $3,792 for one year. Everyone in poverty automatically qualifies for a combined Pell Grant/Ohio Educational Opportunity Grant of $6,095/year.
Do the math:
$6,095
$3,792 less
--------
$2,303 per year for books and anything else, and they never have to pay that money back.
So, what apologetic excuses are you going to make for them now?
The poor actually profit by going to school, because they get extra income for the years they go.
The Poverty Culture is a mindset all its own. Anyone who displays intelligence, attempts to excel, or desires to achieve is outcast, ostracized, condemned, criticized, demeaned, debased and degraded.
"You think you're better than us?"
That's their attitude, and no amount of money will ever change their attitude, but the lack of money will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
If anybody, the athletes, actors and entertainers truly don’t deserve their sky high pay. They produce absolutely nothing of value.
They create jobs and stimulate the local economy.
You're not aware of the number of films whose production start is either delayed, or never made at all, because the producers or directors (or both) can't get the actors they want.
When Tom Cruise was in town with Dustin Hoffman to film Rain Man, it stimulated the local economy, albeit temporarily. The set design is local workers. Transportation is local workers. Caterers are local workers. Extras are local.
Yes, they have caterers on set. Not only that, there are people going round providing candy, snacks, food and refreshments for the crew, who might number 100 to 350 people. It's not free, the production company pays for it. And they all stay in hotels and spend money locally shopping, dining and entertaining themselves, plus they attract visitors who do the same.
Every single worker working at a factory is just as important. He or she enables the company to continue to exist, which in turn safeguards the jobs of hundreds or thousands of fellow employees, and that in the long run, not just for a few weeks.
So no, no actor deserves millions for a movie. But since you mention Cruise, I think he deserves a bit more than most other actors because he does his own stunts, which is dangerous and requires much more preparations and effort.
Someone said aid/welfare should be paid for with voluntary contributions rather than taxes. I don't think it makes sense to make people's lives depend on the whims of potential donors. People should know that when they really need help, they are entitled to get it.
Why can't we just do what European countries do? They don't tax income/profits earned abroad, unlike the US which taxes US citizens' worldwide income regardless of where in the world they live and taxes US corporations' worldwide profits (Eritrea is the only other country besides the US that does so). That's how Ingvar Kamprad, the Swedish billionaire founder of IKEA was able to amass his fortune without paying a dime in income taxes to Sweden for 40 years. He simply lived in Switzerland and ran IKEA through a European tax haven located outside of Sweden. Imagine the riches Americans could amass if they could enjoy Euro-style tax haven-friendly tax laws.
The owners of many big Portuguese companies have also moved their residence or headquarters to other countries in order to avoid taxes. It is antisocial behavior. We need pan-European laws and tax rates for any person and company operating in more than one country.
That is a big problem in the EU, countries are egoistic and try to get advantages at the expense of the other EU countries. Think of infamous Luxembourg and Netherlands.
I actually like the idea that a person has to pay taxes in their country of origin, until and unless they change their nationality.
All companies should be forced by law to pay taxes in full wherever they are doing business.
The point sailed right over your head. Point being if there were no taxes and everyone had the ability to "vote with their wallets", and more importantly, there were no tax deductions for charity (since there wouldn't be taxes that would need deducting from), most people would spend the money on consumer goods and toys, and charity would dry up. No one would voluntarily contribute to the big needs in society
I am still waiting for the answer to my question. Who the hell are you to decide what the "the big needs in society" are?
If you say, the people decide. If people vote with their wallet to fund whatever they like, haven't they already decided that your "the big needs in society" are not important to them?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,590 posts, read 14,732,837 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Are you?
I am still waiting for the answer to my question. Who the hell are you to decide what the "the big needs in society" are?
If you say, the people decide. If people vote with their wallet to fund whatever they like, haven't they already decided that your "the big needs in society" are not important to them?
No, because most people aren't long term thinkers
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.
