I for one would like to hear from Tracy how Obama has decimated high tech jobs. Also, I wonder now as I have often wondered in the past, is the idea of universal healthcare (which I'm pretty sure is not what the Democrats passed) really so anathema to the American population.

Debt was rising when Clinton comes into power, Clinton slows the rise then reverses it, you can't expect an upward trend to be reversed instantly, as rapid spending cuts lead economic contraction, ditto rapid tax increases. With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan.


Difference between your graph and mine is simple. Mine correlates to what we were actually discussing, government debt. Note yours says total debt, mine says federal debt, yours includes private debts. This new graph will explain the difference, note that it is a stacked graph, you want t be looking at the thickness of the bands here..

That's quite funny, Anna, and also true. :lol:

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government!:eek: Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

I do agree that a flat tax would be hard to figure a correct percentage. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale, starting at 5% for the lowest income bracket and increasing by 2-5% from there.

I would assume that the statistics come from the number of people who filed their taxes.

Another common misconception that the right likes to spread...The old "half the population pays no taxes." Due to the myriad of deductions and credits, it's more accurate to say that a certain percentage of the population pays no INCOME TAX. Nobody (except for kids or people that have no income) pays NO taxes. This percentage that pays no income tax still pays payroll taxes on their earnings as well as a myriad of state and local taxes.

Personally, I don't know where they derive this statistic. My family has never made in excess of $50,000 annually and yet we've ALWAYS had income tax liability. It seems like clever accounting to me to arrive at this statistic.

Yes, SOME of that was from the Iraq war, but let's not forget that Obama's stimulous package cost more than 8 years of war.

I agree, we should have let them fail.

That's nice. The CBO says otherwise. They say by 2019 it will raise deficits $226 billion/year.

Yeah, but federal courts have declared it unconstitutional. I won't deny it would be great for everyone to get health coverage. It would also be great if the government would buy us all houses and cars. The problem is we can't afford it and if the rest of the world isn't having 2nd thoughts about whether we can repay our debt, they sure should be having doubts now.

After letting the shuttle retire without a follow on plan an estimated 30-50,000 high tech jobs will be lost. As for the 2nd part of your post, Obamacare was one of the main reasons the democrats got routed in the 2010 elections.

I support the fair tax.

Note: I am not a right wing republican, so you can't attack me for being that.

Here is what the fair tax does.

Eliminate the federal income tax and replaces it with a federal sales tax.

That way, the IRS only has to collect info from all the businesses in America instead of every citizen. (probably 3 million vs. 200 million). This way we can shrink the IRS by about 90%, and eliminate headaches for filling out taxes for most citizens. This replaces the chaotic system we have now with lots of loopholes, deductions, and different tax rates for different kinds of income (work, long and short term capital gains, rent, etc).


The way it is written now is that every purchase would be subject to the federal sales tax, and then the federal government would send a rebate to every family the amount of sales tax that a person subject to the poverty line would pay. So if the poverty line is $12,000 per person per year with the federal sales tax at 25%, the government would send a check to every person for $3,000 a year.

The way I would do it, is that the basic standards such as milk, bread, water, rent will not be subject to the sales tax (so that poor people do not pay a disproportionate share of their income to taxes).

This will encourage people to automatically save. This will help them for retirement and in emergencies such as job loses.

Plus I believe that lots of businesses will start up and come to the US, because we would be one of only a few countries in the world without an income tax.

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

What do you think about the fair tax?

I haven't looked at it real close, but it looks like there's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and the elimination of the IRS. Might be a good idea.

But like flat tax or any other fundamental change in the tax system there's going to be a lot of resistance in changing it.

... if this home is so bad probably need to stop fixing other people's homes, and the able bodied people in this home need to get a job.

Yep, this is where we are heading. Unfortunately, its not just the Republicans ruining the country, the Democrats and Obama are complicit. Instead of pouring billions into the fuckedup financial industry, the government could have taken over the banks and invested in infrastructure and energy efficiency creating new industries and thousands of jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead we bailed out the rich and preserved their dominance over congress.
Obama didn't betray, us he conned us. He is just another corporate lackey.
The rich have a strangle hold on us and I have no idea how we are going to break their hold. Elections don't work, voting doesn't work, complaining doesn't work. What would work?
Somehow, develop enough support to raise taxes on the rich back where they were before Reagan. The government would then have sufficient funding to sustain the type of society the majority of Americans want.

So we possibly have some kind of deal where we raise the debt ceiling by up to $2.5 trillion and we cut a matching amount over 10 years.

Whoopty doo.

That won't mean 10 years from now our debt will be back to where it is now at $14.5 trillion. It means we cut up to $2.5 trillion off of the next $8 trillion we're going to add to the debt in 10 years! So this debt cutting deal actually allows $5.5 trillion to be added to the debt in the next 10 years bringing us up to $20 trillion in debt. And they're all patting themselves on their backs for these huge "cuts". We still have a lot of work to do.

And to add $5.5 trillion they're telling us they're going to have to make huge cuts to defense and entitlements.... ???

Obama really didn't do anything here other than agree to sign this latest compromise. He didn't promote any plan of his own and just made veto threats in all this. Some leader.

Typical Tracy Coxx bullshit.

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e., rich exploiters) America that Tracy Coxx advocates.

Kick the can down the road
 

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e.,wagon riders) America .

Surely, franalexes has carefully calculated her federal and Maine state taxes and does not accept anything from the government that she does not choose to buy and pay for directly.

Here in Californicatus there is increasing discussion of getting political control back to the local level, control of school and property taxes that were lost with Prop. 13. has left local schools and city and County operations depleted. Sacramento is arguably even mode dysfunctional than Washington.
We are now in the process of redistricting by an independent commission. This may bring back some accountability to Sacramento and kick out some of the entrenched corrupt politicians.

I hope the California citizens repeal the Amazon Sales Tax.

A sales tax in addition to shipping fees might make Amazon somewhat less competitive. I am already finding it cheaper to order a product from a local supplier rather than ordering it on the internet. Twice now I have checked the price of a repair part on the internet and the shipping fees were almost twice the value of the part. :frown:

So, you partake of no services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine? You plan on collecting no Social Security? Were you to be in an accident on the Maine Turnpike, you would reject ambulance services or the assistance of the State Police? Etc.?

The libertarian icon Ayn Rand in spite of ranting against government and proselytizing the stand alone independent self centered ego dominated pristine individual received social security and medicare.

During the Neut revolution many conservatives pledged to run for only one term Guess what, many of them are still in Congress.

Hypocrisy rules on the far right.

Ayn Rand was also in favor of abortion, because she said that an unborn baby was a parasite, because it couldn't live without its host (mother).

But the far right ignores that part of her.

YOU do not direct what I plan or do not plan to do.
I wilfully do not partake of services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine. ( if I have a choice)
note: The Maine Turnpike Authority does not provide ambulance services nor does the Maine State Police. ( you should do your research before you embarrass yourself publically)
Furthermore, a "wagon rider" is not someone that uses services, but someone that PLANS on services in eccess of what they pay for or could do for themselves. Or better said," they take more out of services than they put in." ie: Some, not of their doing, are un-employed while others plan on being un-employed.

I haven't "publically" embarassed myself. If an hypothetical question intended to make a point (i.e., the one about the ambulance services) is the equivalent of public embarrassment, then every person who has ever had a serious discussion is walking around red as a beet.

As for directing what you "plan or do not plan to do," I ended each sentence with a question mark. Thus, they were not directives.

Finally, as for your definition of "wagon-riders," now one wonders what in the world you meant by adding it to my quote in your earlier post. It makes no sense in the context of what I wrote.

This clip from "The Town" was played at the Republican caucus to stoke up opposition to the democrats prior to the debt cap negotiations. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxYjJ5bcv0

I give them credit for honesty: they do hurt people.

Wagon Riders
 

Wagon Riders take note:
This is a INSULT, a KICK in the butt, a SLAP in the face, a KNIFE in the back to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a
woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.
Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement..

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees !

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

Of course, it doesn't occur to those who support dog-eat-dog capitalism that the solution might be to reallocate federal monies so the pensioners get enough to have a full, rich retirement. It's simply a matter of priorities: don't take their money and spend it on aircraft carriers, subsidies for corporations that already make billions in profits, etc., etc., etc.

But I understand ... it just feels better to beat up on, say, a refugee.

The truth is that the United States, the richest country in the world, has the resources to make a better life for everyone in our land. But those who would consistently support the policies that go against their economic interests have been taught in our schools to be against social solidarity. It's the greatest shame of America.

Actually I kinda felt bad for you. It didn't look good.

Do you feel better about yourself for your lame attempt at insulting me, despite the complete lack of content in your post?

lol loosen up big guy

Looks like Putin hit the nail on the head:

I cannot find anything to laugh about in any of your posts (other than the absurdity of your political positions), since the root of your posts is always your dangerous and harmful ideas, whether you are expressing them directly or using failed or fake attempts at "humor."

I hope we don't have to administer banned-aids if this keeps up. :lol:

Speak for yourself. I don't see jokes that aren't there, and in any case I always consider the source when responding to anything directed at me personally. Hence, I wouldn't waste any energy being pissed off by an insult from Tracy Coxx.

Fran's distaste for the social safety net finally makes sense. The comment "my net worth is no longer measured in seven figures" makes her Republican ideology make sense. If you have no need of social security or medicare, why not destroy it to save you from having to pay into a program that the less fortunate DO need?

by Sam Pizzigati

Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a President of the United States committed to greater equality realistically hope to accomplish?

The answer from today?s White House: not much. Advocacy for equality has to take a backseat, Obama administration insiders insist, once fanatical friends of the fortunate in Congress recklessly put at risk our nation?s full faith and credit.
But history offers another alternative. Back in 1943, halfway through World War II, a President of the United States confronted a debt ceiling crisis eerily similar to our own. That President, Franklin Roosevelt, faced a congressional opposition to inconveniencing the rich ? with higher taxes ? every bit as rabid as ours.
FDR?s choice, in the face of this opposition? He doubled down on equality.
Roosevelt?s debt ceiling battle actually began in the months right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed dollars ? and lots of them ? to wage and win the new war. FDR wanted those dollars raised as equitably as possible.
That would require, FDR and his New Dealers believed, a steeply graduated income tax, with tax rates on income in the top income brackets much higher than rates on income in the bottom brackets.
How high should the top rates go? All the way, FDR proposed, to 100 percent. At a time of ?grave national danger,? the President told Congress in April 1942, ?no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,? an income just shy of $350,000 in today?s dollars.
The year before, gun executive Carl Swebilius had pulled in $243,204 after taxes, the equivalent of over $3.7 million today. Steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary. But conservatives in Congress looked the other way. They never gave FDR?s plan any love.
Four months later, Roosevelt would try again. In his Labor Day message, FDR repeated his $25,000 ?supertax? income cap call. Again Congress ignored him.
FDR would not back down. In early October, the President flexed his authority under the newly enacted Emergency Price Control Act and issued an executive order that limited top corporate salaries to $25,000 after taxes, a move, he pronounced, needed ?to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort.?


Obama is no FDR. :(

Kind of like in DO need social security because I can't afford to properly pay into my 401k because I'm required to put money into my social security.

That's probably true, but then I've never seen Tracy post an insult.

Well, since you want to beg the issue, I will respond without specificity.

Moderators routinely delete posts that insult other members and issue violations. Some members have a history of such violations and have received bans of increasing number of days over time; often, this ends up leading to a permanent ban. We both know that you are well aware of this fact. For instance, one member recently received a 7-day ban for a particularly nasty insult against one of the transwomen very active on this site.

Barney, Freddie and Fannie
 

A lot of people put what they had into a home; above and beyond what they could really afford, thanks to Barney Frank and his Fannie-May and Freddie-Mack. Not only are these people upside down on their mortgage but the housing market for those above water has been adversly affected.

So having housing connected to the government did not create a safety net. As you say," insane idea."
It is more of a black hole.

:respect:cosign:kiss:

Don't forget the illegal aliens; who use our ERs (that they don't pay for), send their kids to our schools (that they don't pay for), they send their kids to our hospitals (that they still don't pay for), in some states and cities they can apply for special Federal grants to send their kids to college (that, you guessed it, they don't pay for). -umm what else, oh yeah- They don't speak our language, they don't respect our laws or customs, they have no intention of assimilating into our culture.

Most undocumented workers pay taxes. Facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of xenophobic vitriol.

Just as protection money to keep the mafia from torching your store or breaking your kneecaps doesn't count as a business expense, taxes don't count as payment.

Just sayin...

Actually, the percentage of undocumented workers (aka, illegal aliens) who pay taxes is fairly low. A majority of them work as day laborers, which is mostly "under the table" jobs, which they pay no taxes on (I used to work those types of jobs, so I know what I'm talking about.). Those who work in jobs that take taxes out of their pay mostly use a false Social Security Number.

Well with freedom comes responsibility. You're free to choose your retirement plan, and responsible for the results. But this country isn't what it used to be either.

Schools are paid for with property taxes, so unless these aliens are living under bridges or in hotels, they are either directly paying the property taxes on the home they live in, or indirectly paying the property tax through the rent they pay.

Go ahead and mock my use of the accurate term "undocumented workers" in favor of your deliberately fear-mongering term "illegal alien." Go ahead and try to change the discussion by citing the use of false SSNs, which is a separate issue. Meanwhile, again, facts are facts.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a non-profit, non-partisan research and education organization based in Washington, D.C., has been providing tax information to state policy makers and others for years. ITEP maintains a model of state and local tax structures that allows researchers to estimate the state and local tax contributions of families at different income levels.

Here's a recent headline based on an ITEP study, followed by a link to the article. I chose this one because it points to a real fact: undocumented workers pay more in taxes than many U.S. corporations.

"Study estimates that illegal immigrants paid $11.2B in taxes last year, unlike GE, which paid zero"

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/..._in_taxes.html

Undocumented workers obtain false SSNs precisely to get decent jobs that then require them to pay federal taxes, along with the associated Social Security and Medicare taxes, either via payroll withholding or at tax filing time via self-employment taxes. The Social Security Administration has estimated that about three-quarters of undocumented workers pay these taxes. I don't know in what universe three-quarters is a "fairly low" percentage (to use your words), but perhaps it is the same universe in which a human being is referred to as an "alien."

Oh, and by the way, these same workers who pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems are subsidizing documented workers (that includes me, and assumedly you, tslust), because they don't get to collect the benefits they paid for upon retirement.

Whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean, I suggest you need to lay off the crack. :lol:

Crack is whack. What evidence do you have that supports the notion that I am in any way a drug abuser?

smc has totally owned this thread.

The xenophobic quotient of the thread is now rising. I really hoped such hateful and blind garbage would not have taken root.

You know as well as I do that it is meant to suggest that the complete senselessness of what you wrote might (in jest) be explained by the use of mind-altering drugs. Hence the LOL emoticon.

If we adopted the fair tax, everyone would pay taxes.

Illegals have to buy stuff, as well as drug dealers and prostitutes.

A fair tax sounds good at first but once you really look in to it more it's another GOP FU to the poor and working poor
A fair tax will place a 30% tax on everything your phone bill cable bill rent food you name it there's that 30% or higher tax plus there will be on top of that the state tax
no thanks rule number one only a fool would trust the GOP to fix or make a fair tax system
:eek: JG J

But if you read the fair tax proposal, the government will send out rebates each month to poor families.

So if the poverty rate is $12,000 per person per year, and the fair tax is 25%, the government will send the poor people $3,000 a year back.

The way I would do it is to make water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rent, and all the essentials not subject to the tax.

Where I live (Massachusetts, USA), water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rents, and even "non-luxury" clothing are all non-taxable.

A poor person earning $12,000 a year can ill-afford an outlay of 1/4 of effective annual income then wait for it to be rebated, even if it's on a monthly basis.

In addition, such a tax serves to marginalize even further the have-nots. Imagine you are a poor family making perhaps $20,000 annually. Once each year, for one day, your family can afford a "vacation" ... say, an early-morning drive to the beach and nearby amusement park, and back that night because you can't even afford a motel room to crowd the family into. Suddenly, the cost of everything associated with that is 30% greater. The haves suffer not from this imposition; the have-nots no longer can afford this minuscule piece of what might make life living.

You have not thought through your proposal, I imagine, but I guarantee those who came up with the idea and advocate it have. They see it as another smoke-and-mirrors way of protecting the wealth and privilege of the exploiters and taking from the mass of people, who are viewed as less than human and whose existence only has meaning to the wealthy in two regards: as a source of labor (to the degree this is even needed any more, in the age of wealthmaking via electronic financial transactions based on speculation and phony money) and as a constant thorn in their side, always seeking "entitlements" and a "safety net."

If you want to see a "fair tax," let's have a 100% tax on all income over $250,000. That'll sort things out for sure. No one needs more money than that to live a decent life.

So how does this do away with the IRS? some one still needs to collect the tax plus issue refunds checks
Like i said it sounds nice until you sit down and really think it out
And under this system you'll be paying that high tax on every single car payment so a stanard 5 year car loan means you will pay that high tax 60 times on your new car
:no: no thanks

First off, I never said this would do away with the IRS. What it would do is cut it by about 90% and do away with filing income taxes for about 90% of people. Plus it would eliminate all the headaches associated with different tax rates for different kinds of income (wages, rent, long term capital gains, social security, deductions, loopholes, etc).

The IRS would only have to look at forms filed by businesses in the US (say 3 million) as opposed to forms filed by almost every single citizen over 18 (say 200 million)

Second of all, you are assuming everything will be 30% more expensive than it is now. That is not true. Income taxes are already figured in to company's margins and expenses. If I'm selling a product and I want to make a $1000 profit and the taxes are 33%, I'm going to sell it for $1500 (assuming other costs are $0, which they aren't, buy I'm trying to keep this simple). Now, with a fair tax at 33% and I want to make a $1000 profit, I could sell it for $1000 (again assuming costs are $0) and the customer pays the 33% tax for a total of $1,333.


I don't trust Republicans either, but I do like this proposal. In fact Mike Gavel, former Democrat Senator for Alaska is for this.

Taking your points in reverse order.

1. The fact that a Democrat is for this doesn't matter one wit to me. I do not support any politicians of the Republocrat Party.

2. I think you are being na?ve about prices to consumers. Businesses exist to maximize profits. Without some "fair tax"-related price controls, there is nothing to stop a business from continuing to charge the same as before. Sure, so-called "market forces" may result in adjustments of the sort you describe, but while you may be willing to rely on the market, I think we've had enough experience to known that there is no guarantee of the market adjusting in favor of consumers. (And I'm being kind to the market by only saying that.)

3. More to the point about prices, your construct seems flawed. Are you saying that the seller (i.e., a corporation) will no longer pay a tax? Seems to be what you wrote.

Most important, your proposal would replace a progressive tax (income) with a regressive tax. The solution is to fix the progressive taxation by making the wealthy pay more, not impose yet another hardship on working people. To be honest, you sound like the very thing you claim not to trust.

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however. ;)

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

Prostitution should be legal.

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.

Yes and so should pot. The drug trade is terrible.

Well, I guess this kind of post in the middle of a serious discussion is better than hyperbolic xenophobia. :lol:

sex tax
 

Which is more likely, people come here because it's a porn site; or is this the home of political enlightenment?

Really people!:rolleyes: A post about having a sex tax. Somebody had to say it.:respect: and somebody did.:turnon:

I'm not necessary disagreeing with you, but what is your solution? I'm guessing your solution is to have the rich pay more income tax and to close tax loopholes and end corporate subsidies right?

I just don't think that is going to happen. Companies lobby congress to get special deductions and loopholes, and then those companies hire the people from the IRS who know the tax code inside and out so those companies don't end up paying tax anyways.

If they can't figure out how to lower their taxes more, they'll just funnel their money to the Caymen Islands and hide it there.

You talk about the fair tax hurting the poor, because they pay a higher % of their money to taxes, well that is the way it is now. Warren Buffet's tax % is less than his secretary's due to capital gains. Then add on gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social security (which is a regressive tax), and the poor pay a way more disproportionate % of their wages to taxes.

The primary reason people come here is obvious, but keep in mind who it is that has started all these threads (Liberal free for all coming to an end; GOP'ish candidates; Immigration law; If police question/detain a black person is it racism?). The answer is not me. :no:

I gave my solution earlier. The problem in the United States is that everyone ends us saying what you wrote: "I just don't think that is going to happen." How about we make something happen?

How it pays to tax corporations
 

From Emerson?s quarterly earnings conference call August 2, 2011:

Emerson (NYSE: EMR) is a diversified global manufacturing and technology company. Emerson is widely recognized for its engineering capabilities and management excellence. Emerson has approximately 135,000 employees (over 34,000 in the United States) and 240 manufacturing locations worldwide. Sales are estimated to exceed $7.5 billion in 2011. Capital expenditures are estimated to be around $740 million in 2012, (about 2.7% of revenues) as announced by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Emerson?s quarterly conference call today. He inferred that none of that will be invested in the United States In answering a question from and analyst he went on to passionately criticize the Obama Administration and the ?flood of regulations and taxes?.

Cap-ex plans for 2012

??in the US, they are not really addressing the ?gut? issues. There is a flood of regulations coming at us from the US. The incentive to invest in the US is negative. And from my perspective I have all the clarity I need. They?re spending. They?re taxing. Our tax rate in the US will be over 36% in the US this year. We pay actually pay the US government over $500 million in this year, and they say they want to raise it even more. I run a company. I have a lot of money to invest, but I?m not going to invest it here. And then when you have a company like Boeing, an iconic American company, gets sued by the Federal Government, if that doesn?t get your attention, nothing will. They get sued for investing $2 billion in South Carolina. Last time I saw South Carolina was part of the United States of America, and you get sued for that? I tell you what, as a CEO of a company, you got my attention. And so, from my perspective, people are very nervous about regulation. They have no idea how much healthcare cost is going to get thrown at us. And all I see is things coming at me. The new whistleblower rule, or the new commodity rule, or take a look at everything that is coming at us. You sit there and say how much can you burden companies that want to invest and create jobs? And the answer is, ?I guess it?s never ending,? because they think that we?re going to sit around and take it all. The environment [in the United States] is not very good and I think Washington does not understand how to create jobs. You know they are talking about raising taxes, getting rid of corporate planes, I mean it?s amazing, or doubling the CAF? standards, that?s going to create a lot of jobs. That?s my opinion. And we happen to control a lot of money to invest. We have over 135,000 employees and over 35,000 in the United States.?

:respect:I'll give you that. He struck a raw nerve in a lot of people.:eek:

You're kidding. I have to look that up now.

We'll never have a free market, or eliminate tax subsidies and loopholes until we overturn Citizen's United.

You got that right, Citizen's United is a terrible ruling.

In other countries especially in Europe, corporate tax rates are very high compared to the US. They are also subject to substantial regulation, yet they are thriving. Whining by wealthy corporate executives is like a spoiled child having a tantrum when it's parent won't give it more candy.
Also, one of our graduate students father worked for Emerson. He said the exec's take huge bribes to set up a plant in a foreign company.

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?

That is the very analogy I use myself often. It always amazes me how greed, selfishness, and control are not encouraged and in fact punished by parents when they encounter it in their children yet in the economic sphere they are some kind of twisted, debased high virtues.

Technically, only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate than the US. However, we all know that many companies don't pay the statutory 35% rate thanks to the myrian number of deductions and loopholes.

Actually, quite a few companies are moving production back here because of low taxes, cheap labor and lower shipping costs. Japanese and European car makers for example. Even China is in Central America and Mexico.

You posted something that allowed me to make a point. My argument is with the substance of your post, and my response could not be more serious ... your mocking aside. The point is that the corporate bosses really want to eliminate everything that gets in the way of their profit-maximization. Regulations, standards, and so on are only tolerated by the corporations to the degree they are the will of the vast majority of people, either directly or by inference. Opportunities to circumvent them, including by moving elsewhere, are always entertained.

Yep. All across the world, big drug lords LOVE their billions of dollars annually of completely untaxable income.

And don't forget, China is establishing a foothold in Africa as well.

So, being forced by an organization to pony up money under the threat of violence and then calling the the money that has been extorted as part of "paying your dues" or "taxes" or whatever you want to call it counts as a legitimate payment for goods and services? It is extortion money, plain and simple and no matter what it is used for, be it good or bad, it is still extortion money. I do not see the "senselessness" of calling a spade a spade.

Yeah, China is buying land in Africa for food production to export to China. What are the poor souls living in Africa going to do for food?
This is the kind of thing England did in Ireland, India and Africa years ago.

Not just food production but resources in general. They are buying farmland, mines, oil wells and numerous other parts of the country. I wouldn't doubt that they are colonizing parts of the African continent and will become a major influence in the region.

Useless yes useless all this post is nothing but talking points of both parties and has changed no ones minds
So this is all useless
In the end the unsupreme court on 12/21/12 will rule 5 to 4 that Bachman is the next president sealing our fate to this
http://youtu.be/8fxFkue8gZ8

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

The big ouch! :eek: