|
Post by parfive on Nov 17, 2012 14:17:27 GMT -5
Well, if you’re gonna go Jim Crow, Mel, why go half way? Whadya afraid of? Five little itty bitty words on a literacy test? All ya gotta do is write ‘em all inta one sentence and spell ‘em all right. Piece of cake, no? (Ring Dings or Yodels, by the way. Twinkies are for twinkies!!)
• their • they’re • there • you’re • your •
Oops!!! There goes the base. Romney still loses. ;D
|
|
unclestu
Cave Dweller
WINNER OF THE FIRST RTH KILLER CAB CONTEST UNCLESTU'S AGUA NUEVA AGATE
Member since April 2011
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by unclestu on Nov 17, 2012 14:34:42 GMT -5
"If we continue feeding the beast it will never go on a diet." We need meaning full cuts in spending Entitlement programs should have an exit strategy so they don't perpetuate from one generation to the next, Thus breeding generations of dependency. Wouldn't that be for the common good? Stu
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 17, 2012 14:50:02 GMT -5
Rich, you silly fellow. If one is smart enough to work and pay taxes, one does not need a literacy test. Though judging by the results of this last election you are crowing about, a lot of folks could really use an intelligence test before voting. Just watched a couple of hours of the business channel while I resting my back ( pulled it horseback yesterday) and things are already not luuking gooood at all....Mel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2012 22:29:43 GMT -5
The person making $35 000 and pays 35% tax has $22,750 to live on.. . The person making $10,000,000 and pays 35% tax has $6,500,000 to live on.
Wheres the argument?
Maybe some of ya'll are looking at it assbackward.
Oh boo hoo, I can not live on $6,500,000. What shall I do? Oh, I know, I will fire 10 employees that are making 35,000 so my income is will be 350,000 more. That will save my bacon and the kids can eat. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Nov 18, 2012 0:25:37 GMT -5
The 90% tax rate is a myth, for a number of reasons. First off it kicked in at a annual income that in todays dollars would be a little over $2.5 Million. That doesn't mean 90% of the income, just the amount over $2.5m. in effect the richest of that time never could have paid over about 38%, assuming there really were little or no deductions. Speaking of deductions, sure, there were less of them in the actual tally of deductions, if you include all the modern deductions that mostly only apply to low and middle incomes anyway. For instance, you could deduct all forms of interest paid for ANYTHING. ALL meals were tax deductions if you simply mentioned your business in the course of the meal. "Business" travel expenses included ALL expenses for spouse and children, and again, all trips were business trips if at some point you had a business conversation with someone. In those days there was no such thing as an illegal tax shelter, the rich could hide money wherever they pleased. And to prove it below is a graph showing that tax reciepts as expressed as a percentage of our GDP stay steady no matter what is done in terms of tax rates. Our tax reciepts have always been between 15% and 20%, our current spending is more like over 25%. Most economists agree that taxation of 18% or under is healthy and sustainable. The problem is not the level of taxation but the level of spending. When the spending junkies in DC point a finger at the rich as the reason for all their ills, any of us who have ever been through recovery should know what it is, classic denial. We need a DC chapter of SOPMA (Spending other peoples money anonymous) and membership is mandatory. Lee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 5:10:40 GMT -5
No, the 90% rate is not a myth. The top rate did indeed exceed 90% from the late 1940s until 1964. That it was a progressive system indexed so that the highest rate only applied to income above a certain threshold is why it is called the "top rate." That is also the situation we have now. So, someone prior to 1963 making $50 million per year only paid the 91% rate on the portion of his/her income that exceeded $200,000; and today somone making $50 million only pays the top 35% rate on the portion of his/her income that exceeds $379k (the first $379k of his/her income amount is taxed at even lower rates). This is how graduated/progressive taxes worked then and work now. The bulk of the Bush era tax cuts went to the top earners (some 80% to the top 20%, and around 34% just to the top 1%). Our tax reciepts have always been between 15% and 20%, our current spending is more like over 25%. Most economists agree that taxation of 18% or under is healthy and sustainable. The problem is not the level of taxation but the level of spending. That's a highly deceptive overgeneralization that simply isn't true. Spending and receipts never go hand-in-hand. Recessions, wars and other emergencies cause drops in revenues and/or increased spending (which your chart shows, but you or your source seem to ignore in drawing conclusions). The forecasts for future years, such as those on your chart never pan out. OMB factors in worst cases, so if the recession resumes and unemployment spikes, there will be less people paying taxes, and thus spending will exceed revenue even more (conversely, with improving employment, the percentage of GDP will not spike). Receipts as a percentage of GDP has been fairly on a fairly even level, especially when you factor in the cycle of economic downturns and bubbles. The Bush years were exceptional in that revenues dropped as percentage of GDP due to huge tax cuts. During the same time, spending increased, bringing back deficits. Some of that spending was justified, but cutting revenues while increasing spending was an inevitable way to cause deficits to balloon. Even worse, the budgets for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were taken off the books (as was the new Homeland Security apparatus) until Obama had them put back into the budget – a nasty surprise to those who believed the illusion that tax cuts promoted growth and the deficit hadn't been as bad as it actually was. Then there are those who believe the propagandists that the wealthy are somehow "being persecuted for their success" simply because they are being asked to give up ill-advised tax breaks that played a big part in turning surpluses into deficits, or that higher tax rates stifle productivity and jack up prices (it has never happened). I'm not drinking your kool-aide, and I'll pass on blindly swallowing the line from those who blame the rich for every ill. I'm tired of the so-called facts being vomited up by well-paid demigogues on the far right and to a lesser extent by the far left (who don't seem as good at inflamatory rhetoric these days). The truth and a solution is somewhere in the middle, never as dire as propagandists like to portray, and will take laying aside the hothead irrationalities and adopting some reasoning and compromise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 9:57:13 GMT -5
Quote Then there are those who believe the propagandists that the wealthy are somehow "being persecuted for their success" simply because they are being asked to give up ill-advised tax breaks that played a big part in turning surpluses into deficits, or that higher tax rates stifle productivity and jack up prices (it has never happened). I'm not drinking your kool-aide, and I'll pass on blindly swallowing the line from those who blame the rich for every ill. I'm tired of the so-called facts being vomited up by well-paid demigogues on the far right and to a lesser extent by the far left (who don't seem as good at inflamatory rhetoric these days).The truth and a solution is somewhere in the middle, never as dire as propagandists like to portray, and will take laying aside the hothead irrationalities and adopting some reasoning and compromise. Itsandbits, I am fairly ignorant as far as financials go but I can recognize a paragraph that pretty much says it all and I solute your intelligence. In fact that may be the most intelligent thing that I have read on this forum excluding the pile of rock information. Thanks for stopping by and enlightening me and hopefully some others. AND I still feel that people are looking at it assbackwards like I stated before. Someone that is working his butt off and taking home $22750 because he is taxed at 35% and someone that is sitting on his butt watching his money grow by extra millions because he is taxed at 14% just does not compute. One would think that most of the people on here have an income over $250,000 but I know that is not true so it has to be republicans believing every little piece of garbage that their rich leaders are dishing out to them. They also are so mule headed that they will not believe that Bush popped us for three plus trillion dollars with the Iraq war. Jeeze, it is a simple google and there are multiple sources so ya'll do not need to believe someone stupid (the favorite attempt at a put down by republicans) like me. The favorite call to arms by the republicans is CUT ALL THIS DAMN SPENDING and QUIT BLAMING BUSH even though Bush spent, speNT, SPENT OVER THREE TRILLION DOLLARS IN IRAQ. So, now whom shall we call stupid? Certainly not the people who were actually alive and watching the news during the Bush years. Jim Hey Rich, can you say all that in five words or less because I am quite sure nobody reads what I have to say anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 10:05:04 GMT -5
Nope , no vote for youse Rich. I worked for year with roids and sore feet and still do, you freaking cry baby *L*. Dependent children do not get to vote themselves more candy. You can vote again when you work and pay taxes and contribute to the common good, Isn't that "common good" thing what you libs like? You would need a tax receipt showing you had paid income taxes in the last year. I'd consider property tax too but not sales or gas or any of those "use" taxes. Until then, the folks who work, earn, money and pay taxes get to make the decisions as you are like a dependent child and should have no say on how the money others contribute is spent or in what politicians are elected *L*. Of coarse a renter can vote if they work and pay income taxes. No work, no taxes, no chips in the game, dependent, no vote. Non working spouses still theoretically contribute work to the household. If your wife is willing to support you while you lay on the sofa, cry over your roids and play video games, and you file a joint return, lucky you, you still get to vote *L* However, if you're still living in your mom's basement and are still a dependent, suck it, no vote for you unless your parents feel your services are valuable and issue you a paycheck for housesitting and you have taxes taken out *L*...Mel You are not working Mel. You know damn well that you are playing. Plus, you whine all the time about your poor horsie problems but nobody else can whine? A little one sided aren't you. Jim
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 18, 2012 11:26:52 GMT -5
Jim, First off *L* Worked hard at jobs I mostly did not like since about 11 years old and I still work plenty, just work for free now at different work that I do like so I guess you could call it play if you so desire. Both the wife and I have more associations and advisory groups we work for, meetings and reports to write and physical ranch labor than we ever had on the job. My wife is even on the board of directors and just answering the phone here is like a full time job. *L*. This ranch runs on volunteer labor as we only have two paid ranchhands for 3000 acres.
Sorry if my comments about having fun with horse training sound like whining to you. Actually, it's fun and challenging, if a bit physically demanding for a 65 year old. However I don't remember prohibiting others from whining. Feel free to do so if you so desire. *L* I was merely teasing Rich for his Roids etc comments as I suffer from both those maladies in real life. Heck, most us older folks wake up to that sort of thing every day. I hack on Rich often because let's face it, we are diametrically opposed on everything and most likely we'd never be friends and neither of us would be heartbroken about it. *L*
You know, Jim, I am though, a bit offended by your comments about sitting one's butt and watching your money grow. That's typical ignorant Obamaite class warfare bullsh*t. Some folks figure managing rather complicated finances is easy and it is not. Not every worker is out there breaking rocks for a living or erecting buildings. Do you insult secretaries about their work, or office managers, teachers, accountants etc just because the work they do is not physical? It ain't truly physical, but desk work is still work. Phoning brokers, studying thick prospectuses and following charts, managing taxes and paperwork etc to me is mindnumbing, soulsucking miserable ndoor work that I hate big time. In addition, it can be traumatic to one's psyche because one screw up can cost you and your family a lot of your funds. But I have to do it because it's part of the "job" of financial management. Much more fun for me to be hauling rocks, cutting wood, or training horses or probably doing what you do for a living. But then again I did say it's OK for you to whine so I suppose you whining about other folks making money with "no work" has to be OK huh? *L*....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 18, 2012 13:40:33 GMT -5
I agree that the left has to work much much harder at improving their inflammatory rhetoric to counter the lies on the right. Unfortunately, the left consist of the scientists, the academians, the attorneys, the professors, and the truly wealthy business people. People not nearly so talented at making things up.
I can't decide if that's a crying shame, or admirable just yet.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Nov 18, 2012 15:41:35 GMT -5
I agree that the left has to work much much harder at improving their inflammatory rhetoric to counter the lies on the right. Unfortunately, the left consist of the scientists, the academians, the attorneys, the professors, and the truly wealthy business people. People not nearly so talented at making things up. I can't decide if that's a crying shame, or admirable just yet. So Helen, you must fall into the "other" category since you just made that up. Neither of the major parties have a corner on intellectuals. The main difference is income. The democrat voters tend more towards poverty than the republican voters. To keep that voter base they must insure that they will never prosper. They must keep them dependent on the government. The parties who skew more towards intelligent, thinking people are found in choices other than Democrat or Republican. It weeds out the Sheeple. Lee
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 18, 2012 16:22:53 GMT -5
If 'poverty' is the criteria for being Democrat, want to explain why Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, nearly every single Hollywood star making well over $1 million, and entire groups of millionaires (see this interesting article where millionaires marched on Congress last year to raise their taxes: money.cnn.com/2011/11/16/news/economy/tax_millionaires/index.htm ), MANY bank executives, and the vast majority of the UPPER middle class (not lower middle class) are Democrats? While it may be easy to accuse the poor to vote themselves largesse, the fact is that in the USA, most poor people have too much pride to even admit they are poor, and MANY of them vote Republican for that reason. It's a psychological thing. How many people on this forum make over $250,000 a year that the Republican party would actually benefit you directly? I know there are a few, but how few? Edit: Deleted unnecessary personal info:).
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 18, 2012 16:52:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 18:05:04 GMT -5
You know, Jim, I am though, a bit offended by your comments about sitting one's butt and watching your money grow. That's typical ignorant Obamaite class warfare bullsh*t. Some folks figure managing rather complicated finances is easy and it is not. Not every worker is out there breaking rocks for a living or erecting buildings. Do you insult secretaries about their work, or office managers, teachers, accountants etc just because the work they do is not physical? It ain't truly physical, but desk work is still work. Phoning brokers, studying thick prospectuses and following charts, managing taxes and paperwork etc to me is mindnumbing, soulsucking miserable ndoor work that I hate big time. In addition, it can be traumatic to one's psyche because one screw up can cost you and your family a lot of your funds. But I have to do it because it's part of the "job" of financial management. Much more fun for me to be hauling rocks, cutting wood, or training horses or probably doing what you do for a living. But then again I did say it's OK for you to whine so I suppose you whining about other folks making money with "no work" has to be OK huh? *L*....Mel
Sorry Mel but I have a friend that is quite wealthy and he sits on his butt while OTHERS do the work. I am sure there are bunches and bunches more. I also have a friend that is an accountant and he works his butt off right along with his wife who is a secretary. Second wife is a secretary and she worked herself sick because of the stress she was under. I did not put down anyone that sits behind a desk.
I had to do the financial stuff which I thought was a bunch of work and a pain in the butt but then I was not wealthy enough to have other people do it for me. But I will admit that if I was wealthy enough I would sure as hell have someone else doing the work while I played. The huge difference would be that I would not complain about having to live on seven million dollars because I had to pay 35% tax. Plus, I happen to be one of the people who is pretty damn sure that I can not take it with me. Jim
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 18, 2012 18:29:12 GMT -5
Yeah Jim, I think I can agree that there are uber wealthy types ( fewer than you think I'm sure) who maybe inherited money and really don't feel like they have to work to manage their investments. Most folks who have made money though, want to keep it and to do so takes a heck of a lot of work. If you don't so the homework and watch what you are doing, you might not have money for long *L*. In fact lots of wealthy folks, especially in the entertainment industry, who think they can trust someone to manage their money while they sit on their asses or play and party, wind up stone cold broke. In the days of high paying CD's one could maybe sit on their ass and do nothing but that sure ain't true these days with most investments being much more volatile. I know I have to spend way more time than I would like and often drink more Mylanta when things get really crazy. It's work, that's for darn sure.....Mel
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 18, 2012 18:43:59 GMT -5
*LOL* Helen, many of my neighbors are scientists as am I. This place is a Mecca for engineers of all sorts, petroleum guys, several biologists, botanists, and even a spook or two with science degrees. Most are Republicans and few believe the man made global warming BS either, because they are scientists and know the history of the Earth. Might be regional differences and it is hard to generalize about this issue but you are correct, lots of academics are Democrats, mainly those who teach, work in theory, or are dependent on government grants. The ones who do things and make things rather than teach, seem to often vote Republican. Guess that's why the young'uns in school mostly have their heads up their asses *L*. Too much influence from academics....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 18, 2012 18:52:30 GMT -5
You know Mel, I play the stock market. Actively. I sit here and watch it go down one trade at a time on 12 different windows with 2 huge monitors via Level II trading. It's not a job, I do it for myself only, and I only do it when I feel like it. I am no pro. But I have access to all the toys because of my accounts, so I do know something about it, and how 'hard' it is.
I think they should raise Capital Gains tax. I think it affects me more than you. I further think they should tax EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION with a transaction fee. Because when we all go to the drugstore, or even McDonalds, we have to pay tax. Every single trade is an exchange of goods. We exchange money for a stock certificate (which the broker holds for us, but it's a physical item). People who trade less often (to balance their portfolio annually for example) would pay very little in tax. People who make 150 trades a day will get walloped... for manipulating the market.
When you go to buy a house, you will pay taxes on it. Doc Stamps, Mortgage Stamps, Intangible Tax in most states, and some tax even more. Yet not only do capital gains for stocks not get taxed, the transaction doesn't either... which allows abuses in the market you wouldn't believe. Abuses which affect everything from the price of gas to the price of food. It SHOULD be taxed. Instead, not only are transactions NOT taxed, there's a reduction for Capital gains... 15%.
To say that ANY stock trader or fund manager works harder than ANY Walmart clerk or Secretary is ludicrous. Most Fund Managers work 2 hours a day from their laptop while floating in their pool in the morning, sipping their latte. For that, they make up to 100 million dollars a year.
The BIGGEST problem is that most Republicans have NO IDEA what they are supporting. Talk about drinking the Kool-aid.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 18, 2012 20:08:16 GMT -5
Helen,*sigh* With the current Prez in power you may have all your wishes come true. Don't think it will help me or you or the country much but we'll see. Did not say the finance guy works harder but he does work. Finances are 'work" to me, maybe not to you, so what? The worker in Wal Mart don't work as hard as the oilfield driller, the soldier or the ditchdigger either so what's your point? None of them are sitting on their asses. All are working. Stacking rocks or cutting wood is fun for me, financial stuff is not but both are work. Following your theory, the uneducated janitor who cleans the toilets should make more than the CEO of the corporation because he works "hard". The brokers you so demean are just working smart if they can do it in two hours. Usually the more education and training you get the smarter you work, the faster you work and the more you make. It is not a crime except in the mind of folks are too lazy to get education and training necessary for success, who hate success in others, or feel guilty about the success they've achieved. Why the heck else do poor folks try to get their kids educated? They do it so their children will be smarter, work smarter, work less, and make more money so they can have a better life. It's all about incentive. That's why Commie countries fail eventually, if you punish and demonize success and steal from the successful to spread the wealth around, you destroy incentive and make it so no one wants to work or study hard to achieve that success. That's why folks from socialist countries and poor countries like to come here, to be free to try to become rich and successful or at least live better without being punished for doing so...Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 18, 2012 21:12:09 GMT -5
No Mel. I did not say that everyone should make the same money, anywhere, ever.
What I said was, it's absurd to say that people who do not work harder, yet make more, should pay less tax rate than those who work harder to make less. I demean no brokers, I simply stated the fact that they don't work very hard, and should pay the same tax rates everyone else has to. Their work is neither hazardous nor difficult, why should they get breaks others don't get?
People who make more understand that they have to pay for the services they enjoy. Rich people do not want to drive over potholes, and do not like traffic. More and better roads help. Thus the Dems are happy to pay for infrastructure for example.
When the Republicans want to trick the populace into voting for direct corporate subsidies instead of infrastructure, and give tax cuts to the wealthy as the poor get poorer, people with any sense of conscience and civic duty balk. That's why they become Democrats.
The greedy selfish pricks in business are the ones paying for ads to fool the less wealthy into voting against themselves. All that free money from the tax cuts went right into political propaganda.
Commie countries have slave wages that beat the pants out of living wages, and no national health care. You said it yourself, you don't want to be a commie country, yet here you are promoting everything the commie countries have nonstop. All the things you claim to admire... the rich get to keep all their money and the poor can just get poorer, no health care requirements, wages should be as low as someone is desperate enough to work for... that's EXACTLY what goes on in China and Russia today. That's where YOU want to live, not the rest of us. Why keep calling Dem's communist, when in fact, what you want is communism as practiced today in communist nations?
|
|
elementary
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since February 2006
Posts: 1,077
|
Post by elementary on Nov 18, 2012 21:16:38 GMT -5
"Quote" Usually the more education and training you get the smarter you work, the faster you work and the more you make. It is not a crime except in the mind of folks are too lazy to get education and training necessary for success, who hate success in others, or feel guilty about the success they've achieved. Why the heck else do poor folks try to get their kids educated? They do it so their children will be smarter, work smarter, work less, and make more money so they can have a better life. It's all about incentive. ...Mel"
I agree with almost all of what Mel says here, and the only stumbling point is the inclusion of "work less". If you are talking not working two jobs or long nights, yes, but for the most part, I see business success (ownership of and running of) as excessively time consuming and stressful, but this accomplishment provides freedom from the hourly or the manual labor that many of the parents at my school are occupied with. Long hours can mean greater responsibility and success as well. Parents feel a sense of pride in providing this level of education to their children and therefore a shot a greater stature in a society that looks down on the farmworkers, restaurant workers, and low paying clerk positions. Lawyers and CEO's and business owners burn huge percentages of their day to be successful. I think it's not working less that these parents are pushing their offspring towards, but rather a successful, more secure future - one that is considered 'accomplished' - and education does lead towards this. Unfortunately, there is a large percentage (25% or so) who do not see or value education as a viable path to security - I hate to admit, and their kids reflect this feeling that things should be handed to them rather than earned. It's the children whose parents understand that education = opportunity that succeed the most.
At our school I often hear teachers completely dumbfounded about how certain parents don't seem to realize the value of education and I tell them that teachers are ALL college educated - beyond the normal BA or BS - and so have come to learn or were taught by parents the value of work and responsibility. The parents who they are trying to convince come from families with value systems at times diametrically opposed to ours. These parents are not the majority, but they do exist in numbers enough that the "where's mine" style of living instead of "how do I earn it" gets redundant. In my class, students are given what is needed to do their work, but practically everything else is earned via work, responsibility, and accomplishments. Even voting for the classroom president can be lost if one is suspended, detained after school, or sent to the office for misbehaving and punished. I tell them people convicted of a felony can't vote, and they need to learn that behavior has benefits and consequences. It amazes me how many of them believe that the two aren't connected. (But that is another arguement/comment.)
I'll leave you all to your argument. I just wanted to comment on the 'work less' aspect as I see it not exactly reflective to Mel's argument. Working longer is not working worse. Sometimes it means your more successful - depending on the responsibilities involved.
Now back to our regularly scheduled argument...
|
|