PDA

View Full Version : Pure Capitalism



menmon
06-15-2012, 12:39 PM
Franco sighting Friedman made me think of this. Friedman is quoted saying that Hong Kong was the pruriest capitalism on the planet. This was before China took it back, too.

I worked over there for a while back in 1998 and will be the first to say his statement was accurate. My other observations were a very few people had a good standard of life and most of them appeared to be very wealthy and they wanted everyone to know it. The working man had very little and was not well educated. Even the folks that worked on the trading desk of a US bank were not creative and would preform any task you asked but you had to tell them exactly what you wanted on every task.

My point is that pure capitalism creates rich and poor...nothing in the middle. This is why so many have a good way of life here, so some deviation from pure capitalism is a good thing. Obviously socialism is not good either. Therefore, a capitalist society that has rules in place that protect the working man and the consumer is good.

So the battle goes on. Capitalism wants no bondaries but that is not good overall, so too much conservatism is bad just like too liberal is bad.

Think about a country with no unions and no government regulations and think about where we would be.

Franco
06-15-2012, 01:22 PM
There are a lot of people that seem poor in Hong Honk because the cost of living there is the highest in the world. I would guess that many of those worker bees live on the mainland and wouldn't have jobs outside of agriculture if it were not for the businesses in Hong Kong.

I can relate better to where I live. We've had oil drilling friendly government up until 08. That has brought a lot of prosperity to my area. Because of oil, we have also become a medical hub as we have the most doctors and hospital space per capita in the state. Not to mention the most restaurants per capita than any city in America, which is a sign of our robust economy. Add that we aslo have full employment and recruiters have to go to other areas to fill positions here. Capitalism is thriving here and the Recession that hit the country in late 08 didn't affect us. The reason being we have a friendly business climate, lack of unions and highest wages in the state.

Lets remember that we in the USA haven't really had Capitailism nor Free Trade and I think the rest of the country should try it sometime. Some regulations are in order but the strangling of investment capital is what is hurting the economy the most. I don't expect that to change until we get some real reform in DC.

ARay11
06-15-2012, 01:57 PM
How does Capitalism create rich and poor?

menmon
06-15-2012, 03:28 PM
Pure capitalism is survival of the fitest. No rules in place forcing a minimum wage of rules saying time and a half for overtime...nothing says there must me a safe work environment. So you work for what they have to pay you and they only pay what they have to pay you and it does not let you get ahead.

ARay11
06-15-2012, 05:47 PM
I disagree. (I know, you're surprised)
pure capitalism doesnt turn us all into sweatshop haggards

Gerry Clinchy
06-15-2012, 06:40 PM
Pure capitalism is survival of the fitest. No rules in place forcing a minimum wage of rules saying time and a half for overtime...nothing says there must me a safe work environment. So you work for what they have to pay you and they only pay what they have to pay you and it does not let you get ahead.

Friedman did not advocate total lack of regulation. However, he made a reasonable case for why a minimum wage actually prevented those with less education from getting a job where they could learn skills and advance themselves.

The self-employed routinely work over 40 hrs a week ... often for no additional pay at all :-)

menmon
06-16-2012, 01:17 PM
I disagree. (I know, you're surprised)
pure capitalism doesnt turn us all into sweatshop haggards

The point is that free unbound capitalism creates a few haves and a bunch of have nots...rules gives it a soul. Now if it is too contrained it is bad too. The problems we have experienced such as deregulation of airlines, power, telecom and financials proves the need for rules. And look at how many people are hurting while a few got rich with deregulating the financials.

menmon
06-16-2012, 01:20 PM
Friedman did not advocate total lack of regulation. However, he made a reasonable case for why a minimum wage actually prevented those with less education from getting a job where they could learn skills and advance themselves.

The self-employed routinely work over 40 hrs a week ... often for no additional pay at all :-)

Friedman also said that a minimum wage encourages one to hire fewer experienced workers and pay more than a bunch of non-experienced workers.

That is a decision the self-employeed make. If you expect a man to spend time away from his family for you, it is not too much to reward him for it.

Gerry Clinchy
06-16-2012, 02:16 PM
The point is that free unbound capitalism creates a few haves and a bunch of have nots...rules gives it a soul. Now if it is too contrained it is bad too. The problems we have experienced such as deregulation of airlines, power, telecom and financials proves the need for rules. And look at how many people are hurting while a few got rich with deregulating the financials.

And so does every other system ... in EVERY system, including our own, the ones who ALWAYS live well are the politicians! None of them ever go without food or shelter or health care.

The question Friedman asks is what other system does more for those at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Even compare the middle class.

There is also no denying that the US (and Canada) have been blessed with incredible natural resources that Europe doesn't have, except for Russia. So, you could compare the US to Russia,


That is a decision the self-employeed make. If you expect a man to spend time away from his family for you, it is not too much to reward him for it.
Everyone is free to make that decision. Some people take a second job (no overtime in there) when they aspire to have something extra that is outside their financial means ... providing something extra for their kids, for example.


And look at how many people are hurting while a few got rich with deregulating the financials.

And look at how many people have NOT gone to jail for that shell game.

NOBODY, not even Friedman, advocates for there being NO rules. Talking about rules, did we ever find out if Geithner ever paid his back taxes?

cpj
06-16-2012, 07:06 PM
Sambo, some people are dumb, lazy, unmotivated etc. They won't excel or succeed under any circumstances. if you are on Facebook check out the pages of Ludwig Von Mises or the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. The man had a great mind for economics and liberty.

menmon
06-17-2012, 05:12 PM
And so does every other system ... in EVERY system, including our own, the ones who ALWAYS live well are the politicians! None of them ever go without food or shelter or health care.

The question Friedman asks is what other system does more for those at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Even compare the middle class.

There is also no denying that the US (and Canada) have been blessed with incredible natural resources that Europe doesn't have, except for Russia. So, you could compare the US to Russia,


Everyone is free to make that decision. Some people take a second job (no overtime in there) when they aspire to have something extra that is outside their financial means ... providing something extra for their kids, for example.



And look at how many people have NOT gone to jail for that shell game.

NOBODY, not even Friedman, advocates for there being NO rules. Talking about rules, did we ever find out if Geithner ever paid his back taxes?

I'll be the first to agree with you that the system did not punish those that needed it to.

The world is much more complicated that economic theory and Friedman would agree with that. Economic theory is a staring point because you can not model all the variables.

Fogul is another economist that won a nobal prize that approach the social issues. His theories would apply to the lack of parenting, growing unprepared work force, cost of no wellfare vs cost of it, etc.

See you can't manage this stuff by itself...think about building a house and you change the width of a room and watch how it ripples though the rest of the house

coachmo
06-17-2012, 06:17 PM
Won't there always be the have's and have not's based on a variety of elements including self -determination, desire, motivation, etc. not just greed and the other negatives you and your kind always point too. You are always pissing and moaning about successful people while always questioning their motives! How about maybe alot of successful people earned their lot in life just like the lazy, unmotivated, do-nothing's have settled on theirs in part to your political party of choice pretending to always be there to help a brother out!! We all no that rarely happens.

menmon
06-17-2012, 06:48 PM
Won't there always be the have's and have not's based on a variety of elements including self -determination, desire, motivation, etc. not just greed and the other negatives you and your kind always point too. You are always pissing and moaning about successful people while always questioning their motives! How about maybe alot of successful people earned their lot in life just like the lazy, unmotivated, do-nothing's have settled on theirs in part to your political party of choice pretending to always be there to help a brother out!! We all no that rarely happens.

I'm not speaking about a fair place for the hard working folks as you described. Not having them taxed to death so the real rich don't pay. Access to affordable college for the working man kids...the rich don't need help.

I like my kind!

coachmo
06-17-2012, 07:01 PM
What kind is that? Please share with all of us exactly what kind you like. I can't hardly wait to see which demographic you neatly classify yourself into.

luvmylabs23139
06-17-2012, 07:16 PM
I'm not speaking about a fair place for the hard working folks as you described. Not having them taxed to death so the real rich don't pay. Access to affordable college for the working man kids...the rich don't need help.

I like my kind!


Hmm, 50% pay zero federal income taxes!!! When are they gonna cough up their money???
Don;t get me started on the large chunk that get a socialist redistribution check at tax time.
How is it fair that those people not only pay zero federal income taxes but also get part of my hard earned money stolen from me by this socialist idiot OBUMMA????
Explain that bs to me!

Gerry Clinchy
06-17-2012, 07:26 PM
See you can't manage this stuff by itself...think about building a house and you change the width of a room and watch how it ripples though the rest of the house

That is EXACTLY the point, Sambo. It is far too complex for govt to try to do so!! Every time govt has tried to manage it, they have failed. Soviet Union? China? When govt has tried to do the management, they fail miserably. It's also notable that when these two failed at govt management, they then used capitalism to improve what they had messed up so badly. Both of those countries still believe they can use capitalism and still maintain their repression of other personal freedoms. Once individuals learn they can create wealth, they are empowered. But in countries like China, they will be a step ahead of the US because they already know that govt management has not benefited them as well as capitalism.

Our founding fathers knew this, too ... from their European experience ... but today that experience is just history to us. We might have to go full circle before we re-discover what works for the most people.

Certainly, capitalism can be corrupted by evils ... and so can the other systems.

I read somewhere a couple of years ago, that if all the wealth (including the very rich) were distributed equally to everyone, each individual would end up with around $9000. And then there would be no more to distribute ... unless each of those who got their share used it to create more wealth. We might just find that those who were able to create wealth once, would do so again. Once again, imbalance would result. How many times do we have to reinvent the wheel?

menmon
06-18-2012, 09:23 AM
None of Obama's initiatives have been socialist. He has governed to the right from day one. In fact Obamacare requires folks to pay for it and that is why no one likes it.

You all want a tax cut we can't afford...bottom line.

How dare someone tax someone that is making $1MM a year, but you want to tax a bunch of people that can't afford it. Typical...just beat on the have nots and make it as easy as you can for the rich. I'm pretty sure very few of you are earning over $250,000 a year, but you want the people making $25,000 to pay the bill. Sick!!!

BonMallari
06-18-2012, 09:36 AM
None of Obama's initiatives have been socialist. He has governed to the right from day one. In fact Obamacare requires folks to pay for it and that is why no one likes it.

You all want a tax cut we can't afford...bottom line.

How dare someone tax someone that is making $1MM a year, but you want to tax a bunch of people that can't afford it. Typical...just beat on the have nots and make it as easy as you can for the rich. I'm pretty sure very few of you are earning over $250,000 a year, but you want the people making $25,000 to pay the bill. Sick!!!


From the right, the right of whom ? Joseph Stalin :confused:

the reason most dont like Obamacare is not that they have to pay for it, its the mandate that you can actually be fined for not having purchased it

unlike Madame Pelosi I have no doubt the mandate will be tossed by SCOTUS and possibly the entire law tossed out

ARay11
06-18-2012, 10:30 AM
None of Obama's initiatives have been socialist. He has governed to the right from day one. In fact Obamacare requires folks to pay for it and that is why no one likes it.

You all want a tax cut we can't afford...bottom line.

How dare someone tax someone that is making $1MM a year, but you want to tax a bunch of people that can't afford it. Typical...just beat on the have nots and make it as easy as you can for the rich. I'm pretty sure very few of you are earning over $250,000 a year, but you want the people making $25,000 to pay the bill. Sick!!!

Sambo, in your opinion, what is a proper tax rate for someone making $250,000?

Down East Labs 217
06-18-2012, 10:45 AM
None of Obama's initiatives have been socialist. He has governed to the right from day one. In fact Obamacare requires folks to pay for it and that is why no one likes it.

You all want a tax cut we can't afford...bottom line.

How dare someone tax someone that is making $1MM a year, but you want to tax a bunch of people that can't afford it. Typical...just beat on the have nots and make it as easy as you can for the rich. I'm pretty sure very few of you are earning over $250,000 a year, but you want the people making $25,000 to pay the bill. Sick!!!

This is why I am in favor of a flat tax. No loop holes and every swinging, breathing, american pays the exact same percentage on their gross income regardless of how they made it. Corporations pay a flat corporate tax on their gross income no deductions.

The argument that the rich need to pay a higher amount is bull. They argument that the poor can't afford it is bull. Everyone needs to pay their way. Once this happens the deficit can be wrestled under control.

My opinion

Richard

menmon
06-19-2012, 03:33 PM
Sambo, in your opinion, what is a proper tax rate for someone making $250,000?

39.6% before the tax cuts

menmon
06-19-2012, 03:44 PM
I'm for a consumtion tax (sales tax)....buy something you pay taxes...don't buy anything don't pay...rich people buy more, companies buy more so they pay more.

Flat income is not fair Example: guy making $100,000 pays 20% or $20,000 leaving him with $80,000...guy making $1,000,000 pays $200,000 leaving him with $800,000...guy making $1,000,000,000 pays $200,000,000 leaving him with $800,000,000....now the guy making $10,000 pays $2000 leaving him with $8000.

Now the guy making $10,000 and the guy making $100,000 don't use much of what the federal government funds so in essence they are paying for what the folks making $1,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 use.

luvmylabs23139
06-19-2012, 03:50 PM
39.6% before the tax cuts

What are they using to demand that amount of money???

Let us just start with the Dept of ED???
How are they even using that service which is not in the contitution?

luvmylabs23139
06-19-2012, 03:52 PM
I'm for a consumtion tax (sales tax)....buy something you pay taxes...don't buy anything don't pay...rich people buy more, companies buy more so they pay more.

Flat income is not fair Example: guy making $100,000 pays 20% or $20,000 leaving him with $80,000...guy making $1,000,000 pays $200,000 leaving him with $800,000...guy making $1,000,000,000 pays $200,000,000 leaving him with $800,000,000....now the guy making $10,000 pays $2000 leaving him with $8000.

Now the guy making $10,000 and the guy making $100,000 don't use much of what the federal government funds so in essence they are paying for what the folks making $1,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 use.

Sart with the dept of ED. WHO uses that crudd? Those that steal money from taxpayers!
Waste of my money and I want it back.

luvmylabs23139
06-19-2012, 03:56 PM
I'm for a consumtion tax (sales tax)....buy something you pay taxes...don't buy anything don't pay...rich people buy more, companies buy more so they pay more.

Flat income is not fair Example: guy making $100,000 pays 20% or $20,000 leaving him with $80,000...guy making $1,000,000 pays $200,000 leaving him with $800,000...guy making $1,000,000,000 pays $200,000,000 leaving him with $800,000,000....now the guy making $10,000 pays $2000 leaving him with $8000.

Now the guy making $10,000 and the guy making $100,000 don't use much of what the federal government funds so in essence they are paying for what the folks making $1,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 use.

Why should people not pay for what they use????? I mean if you want to have 6 kids shouldn't you pay for them ?
Why should my hard earned money pay for that?????
BREED IT FEED IT!!!!

Gerry Clinchy
06-19-2012, 05:05 PM
39.6% before the tax cuts

Do you mean 39.6% after removing all deductions that we now have in the tax code?

That leaves the earner with $151,000.

Where I live, there are also state and local taxes that then take a bit over 4% (no significant deductions. That makes the total income tax for that person 43.6%. That takes another $10,000, Leaving $141,000.

I'm not sure what the computation would be for SS & Medicare (due to the income caps), but lets say it works out to another 4% of gross. That's another $10,000. Now leaving $131,000.

Someone earning that much probably owns a home and pays property taxes. Around here that would probably be around $8000/year. Just as an aside, in my school district they spend $14,000/year per student, so if this earner has 2 kids in school, they're getting a veritable "bargain", while I haven't had a kid in school in the 20 years I've lived in this location. I'm kicking in about $3300 a year to make up his deficit. However, I digress. That earner is left with $123,000 of "disposable" income.

So ultimately that person is paying more than 1/2 their income in some form of taxes.

That is one reason why health & disability insurance became an attractive perk for employers to offer ... since it was non-taxable for income tax purposes.

Now, suppose this person is self-employed? All the taxes remain the same, but additionally they must pay for their own health and/or disability insurance; and only that amount over 7.5% of AGI is deductible. That is an inequity in the current tax code.

If we remove all the tax loopholes that those with more income can use, it might not be such a bad idea to have a flat tax that is lower. Franco cited 2%, but I'd guess it would have to be 5 or 10%.

menmon
06-20-2012, 10:57 AM
State income and property taxes are deductable under current law..these are the only loopholes a working man has so don't remove them.

menmon
06-20-2012, 11:01 AM
I'm not arguing that you are paying for others mistakes but you are focused on the smallest piece of the pie. The spin doctors want to make you mad and keep you focused on the individual wellfare receipants when they are a drop in the bucket to what is given to corporations. Those gifts are what you should be raising hell about...not the peanuts being given to the poor or lazy.

ARay11
06-20-2012, 11:04 AM
39.6% before the tax cuts

are you serious? a guy making $250,000 a year needs to pay in $99,000 in taxes?

are you aware of what "tax cuts" ARE NOT AVAILABLE in that tax bracket?

ARay11
06-20-2012, 11:09 AM
I'm for a consumtion tax (sales tax)....buy something you pay taxes...don't buy anything don't pay...rich people buy more, companies buy more so they pay more.

Flat income is not fair Example: guy making $100,000 pays 20% or $20,000 leaving him with $80,000...guy making $1,000,000 pays $200,000 leaving him with $800,000...guy making $1,000,000,000 pays $200,000,000 leaving him with $800,000,000....now the guy making $10,000 pays $2000 leaving him with $8000.

Now the guy making $10,000 and the guy making $100,000 don't use much of what the federal government funds so in essence they are paying for what the folks making $1,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 use.

I take it you are okay with the current system in which the guy making $10,000 has an effective tax rate of
-18%. (depending on how many rug rats he's claiming)

Buzz
06-20-2012, 11:11 AM
There is NO ONE making $250,000 a year who pays $99,000 in federal income tax. That 39.6 % is an incremental rate, it does not apply to the entire $250,000.

I think we had this conversation once.

What would you guess the monthly take home is on $250,0000 per year?



Do you mean 39.6% after removing all deductions that we now have in the tax code?

That leaves the earner with $151,000.

Where I live, there are also state and local taxes that then take a bit over 4% (no significant deductions. That makes the total income tax for that person 43.6%. That takes another $10,000, Leaving $141,000.

I'm not sure what the computation would be for SS & Medicare (due to the income caps), but lets say it works out to another 4% of gross. That's another $10,000. Now leaving $131,000.

Someone earning that much probably owns a home and pays property taxes. Around here that would probably be around $8000/year. Just as an aside, in my school district they spend $14,000/year per student, so if this earner has 2 kids in school, they're getting a veritable "bargain", while I haven't had a kid in school in the 20 years I've lived in this location. I'm kicking in about $3300 a year to make up his deficit. However, I digress. That earner is left with $123,000 of "disposable" income.

So ultimately that person is paying more than 1/2 their income in some form of taxes.

That is one reason why health & disability insurance became an attractive perk for employers to offer ... since it was non-taxable for income tax purposes.

Now, suppose this person is self-employed? All the taxes remain the same, but additionally they must pay for their own health and/or disability insurance; and only that amount over 7.5% of AGI is deductible. That is an inequity in the current tax code.

If we remove all the tax loopholes that those with more income can use, it might not be such a bad idea to have a flat tax that is lower. Franco cited 2%, but I'd guess it would have to be 5 or 10%.

Buzz
06-20-2012, 11:13 AM
are you serious? a guy making $250,000 a year needs to pay in $99,000 in taxes?

are you aware of what "tax cuts" ARE NOT AVAILABLE in that tax bracket?

Please educate yourself on how taxes are computed.

menmon
06-20-2012, 11:13 AM
Been in that bracket a long time. Oh yea I could have 8 more dogs in training if it was not for uncle sam. That is the price of making money.

Buzz
06-20-2012, 11:14 AM
I take it you are okay with the current system in which the guy making $10,000 has an effective tax rate of
-18%. (depending on how many rug rats he's claiming)

I am ok with it, and last year I paid enough taxes to support a family of four above the poverty level...

Buzz
06-20-2012, 11:17 AM
Been in that bracket a long time. Oh yea I could have 8 more dogs in training if it was not for uncle sam. That is the price of making money.


I am assuming that, like me, you realize that taxes are a cost of living in one of the greatest countries in history.

menmon
06-20-2012, 11:21 AM
One thing to keep in mind is these people in that bracket are making much more because they are deducting mortgage interest and property tax, so their income is more like $400,000 plus.

This small business man that is getting screwed by the system, typically is paying none because he is expensing assets and paying for personal items through his business and since you are taxed on income...most of his earning as expense and expenses of the company.

The small business man has it good...the proffesional is who gets hosed.

menmon
06-20-2012, 11:23 AM
A man can live on $151,000 as you say, but a man can't live on $10,000....so why should we want the man not making enough to live pay taxes and the rich not?

Buzz
06-20-2012, 11:26 AM
A man can live on $151,000 as you say, but a man can't live on $10,000....so why should we want the man not making enough to live pay taxes and the rich not?

He could also afford to have a dog or two in training with a very good pro, which would amount to more than the poor man has to live on for a year.

huntinman
06-20-2012, 11:28 AM
A man can live on $151,000 as you say, but a man can't live on $10,000....so why should we want the man not making enough to live pay taxes and the rich not?

Sambo, since you make so much and like to pay taxes because of your love for the country, take advantage of the VOLUNTARY tax contribution. The IRS will take all that you will send. Buzz, you should do the same.

menmon
06-20-2012, 11:31 AM
I am assuming that, like me, you realize that taxes are a cost of living in one of the greatest countries in history.

Right...If after uncle sam gets his part and you need more, just got to pull up on those boot straps and make more money;-)

ARay11
06-20-2012, 11:33 AM
Please educate yourself on how taxes are computed.


I do apologize, perhaps I should have made my question more clear..............

WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE EFFECTIVE PERCENTAGE OF $250,000 TO DEDUCT FROM YOUR PAYCHECK AND GIVE TO YOUR GOVERNMENT?

menmon
06-20-2012, 11:46 AM
My experience with folk complaining about taxes has been they are living beyound their means so they complain about paying their part of government. See if government gives them a break it is just a matter of time and they are running short again.

ARay11
06-20-2012, 11:55 AM
[QUOTE=sambo;980372]My experience with folk complaining about taxes has been they are living beyound their means so they complain about paying their part of government. See if government gives them a break it is just a matter of time and they are running short again.

DO YOU ALWAYS SKIRT THE QUESTION?????

Our earnings are NOT $400,000, however,

We cannot deduct our two children (make too much money)
We do not deduct mortgage interest because we do not have a mortgage. (dumbasses that we are, we worked hard and paid for our property)
Thankfully, property taxes here are low.... or would I rather them be higher so I can deduct that??? As it is... the property tax deduction is meaningless here.
We do not have other deductions because we are employed, NOT self employed.

Effective tax rate cost me $65,000 (yes, SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS) last year.... and that was the EFFECTIVE RATE....

The price of making money? Yup.... BUT THE PRICE IS WRONG, BOB!! It's very very wrong.

I just don't know how you guys are okay with a government that takes away what you work your butt off to earn and then won't even be accountable for it.

But I say "Hello" to the guys fishing down under the bridge each morning and they don't even say "Thanks"

Greatest country in the world? YES.
Okay with taxes? YES.
Okay with $65,000 in taxes? NO. I AM NOT.

Living beyond my means? Not since I was a teenager and ran out of gas. Dad gave me a tank of gas and $20. Said whatever I needed beyond that, I better figure out how to earn it.

huntinman
06-20-2012, 11:58 AM
My experience with folk complaining about taxes has been they are living beyound their means so they complain about paying their part of government. See if government gives them a break it is just a matter of time and they are running short again.

The gov't does not give taxPAYERS jack. The gov't takes from taxpayers. You really need to lay off the bong.

ARay11
06-20-2012, 12:09 PM
[QUOTE=sambo;980372]My experience with folk complaining about taxes has been they are living beyound their means so they complain about paying their part of government. See if government gives them a break it is just a matter of time and they are running short again.

DO YOU ALWAYS SKIRT THE QUESTION?????

Our earnings are NOT $400,000, however,

We cannot deduct our two children (make too much money)
We do not deduct mortgage interest because we do not have a mortgage. (dumbasses that we are, we worked hard and paid for our property)
Thankfully, property taxes here are low.... or would I rather them be higher so I can deduct that??? As it is... the property tax deduction is meaningless here.
We do not have other deductions because we are employed, NOT self employed.

Effective tax rate cost me $65,000 (yes, SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS) last year.... and that was the EFFECTIVE RATE....

The price of making money? Yup.... BUT THE PRICE IS WRONG, BOB!! It's very very wrong.

I just don't know how you guys are okay with a government that takes away what you work your butt off to earn and then won't even be accountable for it.

But I say "Hello" to the guys fishing down under the bridge each morning and they don't even say "Thanks"

Greatest country in the world? YES.
Okay with taxes? YES.
Okay with $65,000 in taxes? NO. I AM NOT.

Living beyond my means? Not since I was a teenager and ran out of gas. Dad gave me a tank of gas and $20. Said whatever I needed beyond that, I better figure out how to earn it.


OOOPS....forgot to mention we also paid nearly $15,000 in Oklahoma State income taxes..... but here's why you won't hear me complaining about that...

http://www.ok.gov/OSF/

You see, at least the state tells me where my money is going. Some of it I agree with, Some of it I do not. BUT at least they show me the money!

menmon
06-20-2012, 12:14 PM
They give us a bunch....roads, schools, safe food, safe water, save building, desaster relief, protect us, medical research, parks, etc.

Yes they spend money on things we don't agee with but I could not buy this for $65,000 and would not want to do without it.

Bill you obviously do not care much for your fellow man....I'm not sure that you even like yourself...but I can assure you electing a republican is not going to change anything....so I guess no matter how thing turn out you will still be unhappy...too bad!

road kill
06-20-2012, 12:17 PM
My experience with folk complaining about taxes has been they are living beyound their means so they complain about paying their part of government. See if government gives them a break it is just a matter of time and they are running short again.
It's been my experience that when the GOVT complains about not having enough taxes they are spending beyond their means.
Give them more taxes it's just a matter of time when they are overspending again.

EX: CA, IL, but not WI, we fixed it!!!!!:D

huntinman
06-20-2012, 12:21 PM
They give us a bunch....roads, schools, safe food, safe water, save building, desaster relief, protect us, medical research, parks, etc.

Yes they spend money on things we don't agee with but I could buy this for $65,000 and would not want to do without it.

Bill you obviously do not care much for your fellow man....I'm not sure that you even like yourself...but I can assure you electing a republican is not going to change anything....so I guess no matter how thing turn out you will still be unhappy...too bad!

The part you don't get is that the gov't does not GIVE us anything. WE pay for it. Gov't works for US.

You... Sambo don't know anything about me other than what I type on here. What I think of my fellow man or anyone else is none of your business.

democrats thinks so much of our poor they have kept them that way for the last 50 years... And you want to keep those policies in place? i say that you must not really care for the poor...

menmon
06-20-2012, 12:24 PM
ARAY, paying taxes suck...I want argue that, and I think the middle class gets an unfair shake and probably always will. That is why I think the upper class should pay much more...but no matter what the law is they will game it, and that is just business.

The problem with not paying taxes is that the government will get it another way and that is by printing money and we lose our purchasing power that way, so in essence we pay the tax. When this happens it hurts the poor and the elderly, and this angers me. So some son-of-a-bi$tch can get a pass on taxes and some old person does without.

menmon
06-20-2012, 12:31 PM
Bill you are just angry about stuff that can't change...you attack me every chance you get...and I have not done anything to you accept not agree with you on most things...but when I think you get something right I say so.

ARay11
06-20-2012, 12:39 PM
ARAY, paying taxes suck...I want argue that, and I think the middle class gets an unfair shake and probably always will. That is why I think the upper class should pay much more...but no matter what the law is they will game it, and that is just business.

The problem with not paying taxes is that the government will get it another way and that is by printing money and we lose our purchasing power that way, so in essence we pay the tax. When this happens it hurts the poor and the elderly, and this angers me. So some son-of-a-bi$tch can get a pass on taxes and some old person does without.

You also won't state what you think is fair. C'mon... let's hear it... stop dancin around the question!

I never said I am against paying taxes.... only against the percentage of our income we currently pay.

Personally, I think we should close the loopholes, no deductions, and pay a flat 10% tax starting at $25,000 annual earned income. (yes, that should include capital gains income and yes the self employed cash intensive individual will still skirt the system)
Families below $25,000 would owe nothing, but would also receive nothing from the IRS.

huntinman
06-20-2012, 01:16 PM
Bill you are just angry about stuff that can't change...you attack me every chance you get...and I have not done anything to you accept not agree with you on most things...but when I think you get something right I say so.

I'm not angry at all. I just think you are full of crap and you can't handle being called on it. You will argue a point and when everyone proves it wrong you try to take the other side of the argument.. You are a classic BS artist. Just like your good friend, the CEO of Harley... oops maybe not...

You bash the so called rich... which Obama says is anyone over $250,000 a year... Then you brag that you make that and more... well you my friend are part of your own problem. You are a 1 percenter. Pay up...

As for things I can't change... change is coming... November can't get here soon enough.

Marvin S
06-20-2012, 01:37 PM
EX: CA, IL, but not WI, we fixed it!!!!!:D

Stan - until law enforcement & firefighters come under that same umbrella you have only partially fixed it ;)

menmon
06-20-2012, 02:19 PM
I asked you to give me an example of violation of the constitution and I'm still waiting. I pay my taxes and don't like it, but I don't want someone that truly struggling to get by to pay them for me so I can add-on to my house or buy new car. All I hear is Rush and Beck BS form you, and when someone call you on it you get angry and call names. But please keep it up because you are what Obama needs to get relected. See the people that will determine the outcome of this election are not like you and the more they hear your sh%t the more they want to disassociate themselfs from your party. In fact, Romney would like to disassociate himself from you and all the other ditto heads

menmon
06-20-2012, 02:23 PM
I said 39.6%...things were just fine when it was 39.6% and everyone complained about until life was good so they didn't mind paying anymore. Then Bush comes to bat promising a tax cut we did not need nor could afford, and with the help of his majority got it done. Now we need more revenue but can't afford to raise taxes...except on the top earners.

I like the concept of a flat tax, but it isn't going to happen, so discussing it is wasting energy.

road kill
06-20-2012, 02:29 PM
Stan - until law enforcement & firefighters come under that same umbrella you have only partially fixed it ;)
I truly do not see them the same.

WEAC & SEIU are whole differnt animals.

At least here in WI.

Buzz
06-20-2012, 03:15 PM
I said 39.6%...things were just fine when it was 39.6% and everyone complained about until life was good so they didn't mind paying anymore. Then Bush comes to bat promising a tax cut we did not need nor could afford, and with the help of his majority got it done. Now we need more revenue but can't afford to raise taxes...except on the top earners.

I like the concept of a flat tax, but it isn't going to happen, so discussing it is wasting energy.


Most on here couldn't figure out that you were talking about the Clinton rates and had no idea that it was a marginal rate, not applied to the entire income... Someone making $250 K pays closer to $60-70K, not $99K. A lot of money for sure, but still a far cry from $99K.

Franco
06-20-2012, 03:18 PM
Our progessive tax rates are Socialistic. If taxes were fair, everyone would pay the same rate. Why should the productive in this country be penalized for the sake of the under-achievers? Eliminate deductions and pay a flat rate on gross earnings! Make it fair for everyone.

Furthermore, any Fed tax rate over 2%-4% is criminal given the amount of waste and corruption in DC!

Just remember, the higher the tax rate, the more Liberty we cede to the Feds!
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/550514_465857036775128_1300847834_n.jpg

menmon
06-20-2012, 03:21 PM
Remember....Inflation is a tax.

Buzz
06-20-2012, 03:26 PM
Remember....Inflation is a tax.


Mostly it's a tax on the banker! :cool:

If I can get more for my services as costs increase while the rates on my mortgage and other loans remains constant, I win and you lose!

ARay11
06-20-2012, 03:39 PM
I said 39.6%...things were just fine when it was 39.6% and everyone complained about until life was good so they didn't mind paying anymore. Then Bush comes to bat promising a tax cut we did not need nor could afford, and with the help of his majority got it done. Now we need more revenue but can't afford to raise taxes...except on the top earners.

I like the concept of a flat tax, but it isn't going to happen, so discussing it is wasting energy.


That's the attitude that will keep us all right where we are... and sliding.....

ARay11
06-20-2012, 03:44 PM
Most on here couldn't figure out that you were talking about the Clinton rates and had no idea that it was a marginal rate, not applied to the entire income... Someone making $250 K pays closer to $60-70K, not $99K. A lot of money for sure, but still a far cry from $99K.


Not sure what all that "Clinton rates" and "marginal rate" means...... but I do know what we paid in last year....and it was $65,000.00

I could have made an even bigger difference in my community with that kind of money.

menmon
06-20-2012, 05:00 PM
See 20% across the board does not work well for the guy making $30,000...that's a big hunk of his money...that he worked hard for and is means the difference of paying rent or not. 20% of what I make is a big hunk of money too...that I worked hard for but probably not as hard as the guy making $30,000 worked, but it isn't going to keep me from paying my bills.

huntinman
06-20-2012, 05:37 PM
See 20% across the board does not work well for the guy making $30,000...that's a big hunk of his money...that he worked hard for and is means the difference of paying rent or not. 20% of what I make is a big hunk of money too...that I worked hard for but probably not as hard as the guy making $30,000 worked, but it isn't going to keep me from paying my bills.

10..9..8..7..6..5..4..3..2..1.. there I feel better now. Carry on.

ARay11
06-20-2012, 06:37 PM
See 20% across the board does not work well for the guy making $30,000...that's a big hunk of his money...that he worked hard for and is means the difference of paying rent or not. 20% of what I make is a big hunk of money too...that I worked hard for but probably not as hard as the guy making $30,000 worked, but it isn't going to keep me from paying my bills.


who said 20%? I clearly said "10% for families earning in excess of $25,000 annually"

And you may not work very hard, but I have and I do. My husband does as well. The guy making $30k does not work harder than I do... more hours, more weekends, or more holidays. I put in my fair share of sweating, freezing, or getting drenched by rain while working. I started out at minimum wage and thought to myself, "geez this just isnt enough, I better do something about this"

Ya'll have a good night... I will waive at the fellas still fishin on my way home. They still won't say thank you.

menmon
06-21-2012, 02:13 PM
All you want is to pay less...that's fair....but is it fair for those that make much less than you to pay more...don't say their fair share....because what is fair...do they travel, use airports, vist parks, have money in the bank, etc.....some but not as much as you.

All I have ever advocated is the ones making the most should pay a larger percentage. Unless you are one making the most...we should be on the same page

luvmylabs23139
06-21-2012, 02:26 PM
All you want is to pay less...that's fair....but is it fair for those that make much less than you to pay more...don't say their fair share....because what is fair...do they travel, use airports, vist parks, have money in the bank, etc.....some but not as much as you.

All I have ever advocated is the ones making the most should pay a larger percentage. Unless you are one making the most...we should be on the same page


I could reverse that. Is it fair that I pay for medicaid, food stamps, section 8, dept of ed? I certainly don't use any of that! By the way the dept of ed was just being created not up and running back in the old days when I was in school so no I never used it.

luvmylabs23139
06-21-2012, 02:28 PM
See 20% across the board does not work well for the guy making $30,000...that's a big hunk of his money...that he worked hard for and is means the difference of paying rent or not. 20% of what I make is a big hunk of money too...that I worked hard for but probably not as hard as the guy making $30,000 worked, but it isn't going to keep me from paying my bills.

Yes it is fair because unless people actually feel the pain of the gov't taking their money they will never vote to cut spending money.

Gerry Clinchy
06-21-2012, 02:28 PM
"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

I could swear I heard that somewhere before :confused:

coachmo
06-21-2012, 08:44 PM
Here's on for you sambo; I would like to see everyone pay less in taxes but wait that wouldn't work because the 49% that pay no income tax would still not pay anything and they wouldnt get the freebies!! You come on here and campaign as the voice of the little man and blame everything on those that have more. Geez that tune is sure getting old. You ever thought that no matter what there is always going to be someone better off than you and someone not as fortunate as you. Doesn't mean one group is worthy of support and the other is always greedy.

teddyg
06-21-2012, 11:36 PM
All you want is to pay less...that's fair....but is it fair for those that make much less than you to pay more...don't say their fair share....because what is fair...do they travel, use airports, vist parks, have money in the bank, etc.....some but not as much as you.

All I have ever advocated is the ones making the most should pay a larger percentage. Unless you are one making the most...we should be on the same page
That's it, let's cut the over achievers legs off at the knee cap. Those that choose to work hard and make wise financial investments should never be allowed to take full advantage of our tax code. We must protect and provide for the welfare state, can't leave them standing by the mailbox waiting on that next check. Sarcasm, for those that don't get it.

paul young
06-22-2012, 07:25 AM
speaking only for myself, i would love to make enough money to pay $60,000 annually in taxes.

i'm sure everyone in this discussion is aware that most hard working American citizens don't even make $60,000 in gross income.-Paul

caryalsobrook
06-22-2012, 08:19 AM
speaking only for myself, i would love to make enough money to pay $60,000 annually in taxes.

i'm sure everyone in this discussion is aware that most hard working American citizens don't even make $60,000 in gross income.-Paul

Don't you think that is true of everybody that doesn't pay $60,000 in income tax?? But how many of us are willing to work harder and longer hours just to pay more income taxes? You say you would love to make enough to pay $60,000 in income tax but are you willing to work more hours even at a lower hourly rate to pay even a LITTLE more income tax?? I think not or your would.:p

huntinman
06-22-2012, 08:51 AM
speaking only for myself, i would love to make enough money to pay $60,000 annually in taxes.

i'm sure everyone in this discussion is aware that most hard working American citizens don't even make $60,000 in gross income.-Paul


It's a free country. Anyone can improve their lot in life if they truly want to. You just have to have the desire and work ethic to get it done. It may take several tries... you just keep going till you get there. I have been at the bottom in my life and I have done well. It's about personal accountability.

paul young
06-22-2012, 09:05 AM
Don't you think that is true of everybody that doesn't pay $60,000 in income tax?? But how many of us are willing to work harder and longer hours just to pay more income taxes? You say you would love to make enough to pay $60,000 in income tax but are you willing to work more hours even at a lower hourly rate to pay even a LITTLE more income tax?? I think not or your would.:p

i work every hour that is available to me. you really have no idea how hard i work or what i do to earn it or the responsibilities my job requires. i don't whine about the sum i do pay in taxes. it's just the cost of living in the greatest country on the planet.

people on here rail incessantly about the number of people who don't pay federal income tax. that same percentage (50%) makes less than $26,363, which was the median income in 2011. that's $563 per week before tax. that's why they dont pay; they are still subject to sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

a flat tax of 20% would take $5200 from someone earning the median. someone referenced being cut off at the knees. this would be more like a beheading.

once we are earning a comfortable living, we tend to forget about those who don't. i'm guilty of it myself sometimes. luckily, i get reminded every once in a while. it helps me maintain a healthy perspective on just how fortunate i am and how easily it can all change due to circumstances that no one can control. i don't believe that's true for the "pure capitalist".-Paul

caryalsobrook
06-22-2012, 10:54 AM
i work every hour that is available to me. you really have no idea how hard i work or what i do to earn it or the responsibilities my job requires. i don't whine about the sum i do pay in taxes. it's just the cost of living in the greatest country on the planet.

people on here rail incessantly about the number of people who don't pay federal income tax. that same percentage (50%) makes less than $26,363, which was the median income in 2011. that's $563 per week before tax. that's why they dont pay; they are still subject to sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

a flat tax of 20% would take $5200 from someone earning the median. someone referenced being cut off at the knees. this would be more like a beheading.

once we are earning a comfortable living, we tend to forget about those who don't. i'm guilty of it myself sometimes. luckily, i get reminded every once in a while. it helps me maintain a healthy perspective on just how fortunate i am and how easily it can all change due to circumstances that no one can control. i don't believe that's true for the "pure capitalist".-Paul
First, I meant no disrespect to you. What I meant was that people make choices. When I graduted from college, I went to work for IBM and borrowed $400 from my father. My choice was to work long hours(100 hours a week) , spend about 1/2 of what I made(taxes were low at that time), share an appt. with a friend(not get married buy a house or have children). I drove a cheap car till it fell apart and all of this was just for starters. I could have worked more, lived cheaper and saved more but I didn't. I was 29 before I married, 36 before I bought a house(I chose to pay for an office first), and 39 before I had my only child. I certainly don't expect anyone else to make such decisions for those are choices that one makes for themselves. I made those choices to get where I am today. Had I gotten married at 18, bought a house, furniture ect, bought a car on credit had 3 kids, I am sure my net worth would be much less than it is today. Those were choices I made for the finantial rewards I have had. Had I worked longer which I could have, spent less which I could have, my net worth would surely have been greater. I CHOSE NOT TO!

kTaxes have nothing to do with charity because THE GOV IS NOT IN THE CHARITY BUSINESS. The gov is in the rules, regulations, taxes, control and dependence business, NOT IN THE CHARITY BUSINESS. Have I contributed tocharity in the form of money and time, yes. Have I done my share, who is to make that decision other than me and my Maker? Would I judge how much in the way of time and money should one give to charity, absolutely not.

There have been a couple of people on this forum who told some of the things they have done in their life to help their fellow man. Let me tell you about an experience I had with my father. He was the chairman of a commitee in our small town to collect maney and give food baskets to the needy at Christmas time and I was to take the truck and deliver them. I went to one house that evn had air conditioning(even we didn't have that). Evidently their name was on the list by mistake. When I got back he chewed me out for leaving a basket there. Later that day, I had to deliver a basket to a lady who was truly in dire straights. there was snow on the ground; she had 3 kids who didn't even have shoes on and the windows were for he most part broken. When I gave her the basket, she cried and was so thankful for the help. When I got back and told my Dad the story, I was again chewed out and as he said "why didn't you give her 3 baskets or even more?" He told me to go back and give her as many baskets as she thought she needed. The house wasn't even on a road and I had gotten stuck in the snow and mud and had had to get a farmer to get me out. In the end I could not find the house again. I have never forgotten the woman and her kids and I have never forgotten my Father's attitude. I only hope he would approve of what and how much I have done with what I have been able to attain.

I don't know why some people believe the gov is in the charity business. It would be easy to explain it by accusing them of having a lack of willingness to contribute their time and money to help those they feel in need so they use the excuse of let the gov. do it. I actually don't believe that. Sometimes I believe that they think THE OTHER PERSON soes not do his share but they do and they think the gov. is the solution.

There are 168 hours in a week. How you use them is your choice. What is right for me is not necessarily right for you. I do not judge how you use them nor should you judge how I use them. Just charity comes from the individual in the form of time and money. AND DOES NOT COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

ARay11
06-22-2012, 11:10 AM
[QUOTE=sambo;980871]All you want is to pay less...that's fair....but is it fair for those that make much less than you to pay more...don't say their fair share....because what is fair...do they travel, use airports, vist parks, have money in the bank, etc.....some but not as much as you. They may not travel, but they do pay only $28/month for rent (via government subsidy) They may not use airports, but they do get free food (via WIC and/or food stamps) They may not visit parks, but they have free healthcare. They may not have money in the bank, but our goverment writes them a check every month (welfare). I don't want any family making less than $25,000 annually to pay anything...I just don't think they should get back what they don't pay in.


All I have ever advocated is the ones making the most should pay a larger percentage. Unless you are one making the most...we should be on the same page. I think we almost are....but you seem to think I pay my "fair share" and I think I pay more than the lion's share. To add insult to injury, our goobers in DC can't even balance a budget!

menmon
06-22-2012, 11:18 AM
I'm sure most of you over acheivers went to puplic school, public universities, took advantage of some first time home buyer option, expensed student loan interest against income, worked for a company that took handouts or had reseached funded by the governemt, etc., etc.....Now you are earning good money and don't want to pay taxes...I don't either...but because somebody before me paid them...I was able to get ahead a lot easier than if the government had not helped. Clearly others have benefited more from government but I have had my fair share. Kind of like paying union dues...many before you paid dues and walk picket lines so that you have it better and now that it is your turn, it damn government and unions. Just listen to yourselves....It's selfish...and it is that cut and dry.

Bush cut my taxes and yes I have little more money because of it...but I was able to live the life I wanted before he did...so it was not a life changing event. However, you take a few hundred dollars out of that lower income earners check and you hurt him big time. See we forget that the man making sure we have electricity, water, fuel, etc. is pretty damn important. The old lady who watches out for our kids, who disrespected is struggling to get by at retirement age because she had things in her life that did not allow her to prepare for old age, so she is working for minimum wage to supplement her income, but tax her so us over acheivers can have a fancier car, take fancy vacations...their fault they don't have anything...there is truth in that, but it could easily be us. God wants us to take care of each other....all I hear is whinning and blaming the poor.

huntinman
06-22-2012, 11:33 AM
I'm sure most of you over acheivers went to puplic school, public universities, took advantage of some first time home buyer option, expensed student loan interest against income, worked for a company that took handouts or had reseached funded by the governemt, etc., etc.....Now you are earning good money and don't want to pay taxes...I don't either...but because somebody before me paid them...I was able to get ahead a lot easier than if the government had not helped. Clearly others have benefited more from government but I have had my fair share. Kind of like paying union dues...many before you paid dues and walk picket lines so that you have it better and now that it is your turn, it damn government and unions. Just listen to yourselves....It's selfish...and it is that cut and dry.

Bush cut my taxes and yes I have little more money because of it...but I was able to live the life I wanted before he did...so it was not a life changing event. However, you take a few hundred dollars out of that lower income earners check and you hurt him big time. See we forget that the man making sure we have electricity, water, fuel, etc. is pretty damn important. The old lady who watches out for our kids, who disrespected is struggling to get by at retirement age because she had things in her life that did not allow her to prepare for old age, so she is working for minimum wage to supplement her income, but tax her so us over acheivers can have a fancier car, take fancy vacations...their fault they don't have anything...there is truth in that, but it could easily be us. God wants us to take care of each other....all I hear is whinning and blaming the poor.

You will not acknowledge that it is not the governments money in the first place. It is the peoples money. We pay it in... The services we get from the gov't have been paid by us. In fact we send them far more than we ever see back. Most of it is pissed away on useles BS by the Gov't. The rest of your post is just tired Liberal BS.

menmon
06-22-2012, 11:35 AM
No someone else paid for your school...it is your turn and you don't want to.

caryalsobrook
06-22-2012, 11:37 AM
I'm sure most of you over acheivers went to puplic school, public universities, took advantage of some first time home buyer option, expensed student loan interest against income, worked for a company that took handouts or had reseached funded by the governemt, etc., etc.....Now you are earning good money and don't want to pay taxes...I don't either...but because somebody before me paid them...I was able to get ahead a lot easier than if the government had not helped. Clearly others have benefited more from government but I have had my fair share. Kind of like paying union dues...many before you paid dues and walk picket lines so that you have it better and now that it is your turn, it damn government and unions. Just listen to yourselves....It's selfish...and it is that cut and dry.

Bush cut my taxes and yes I have little more money because of it...but I was able to live the life I wanted before he did...so it was not a life changing event. However, you take a few hundred dollars out of that lower income earners check and you hurt him big time. See we forget that the man making sure we have electricity, water, fuel, etc. is pretty damn important. The old lady who watches out for our kids, who disrespected is struggling to get by at retirement age because she had things in her life that did not allow her to prepare for old age, so she is working for minimum wage to supplement her income, but tax her so us over acheivers can have a fancier car, take fancy vacations...their fault they don't have anything...there is truth in that, but it could easily be us. God wants us to take care of each other....all I hear is whinning and blaming the poor.

Sambo, you are amazing. Actually I have always considered myself an underachiever but there are some that might think differently. So I will answer your questions. Never went to any private school. Halls elementary and high school, University of NC undergraduate, Memphis State Univ. for prerequisites for Dental School, Unit of Tn. Dental school. Never had a 1st time buyer home loan. 1st house was bank loan and since I had paid for the office as a business loan in less that 5 years, bank made a 5 year baloon loan with no monthly payments. I just paid all I could and got it paid off as soon as I could. Has academic scholarship as undergraduate supplemented by my parents, NO STUDENT LOANS. Worked and saved before I went to dental school. Paid 100% and need no help from my parents and again NO STUDENT LOANS. I guess that was rather stupid of me if student loans are tax deductible, since I have never know that they were. I have only worked for myself, IBM and the gov. IBM did their own research, I always paid for my continueing education. So that leaves only the Gov. that gets handouts, and having worked for it, you must think that working for the gov. is a handout.

Again, When are you and others like you going to understand that the gov. is NOT in the charity business??? Are you so hard headed that you cannot UNDERSTAND THIS??

Franco
06-22-2012, 01:18 PM
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/403474_382680045123998_1311554079_n.jpg

huntinman
06-22-2012, 02:10 PM
No someone else paid for your school...it is your turn and you don't want to.

What kind of total numbskull are you? When I say "we" pay, that means the people. Those are the people older than myself and younger. I don't really believe you are that dumb, it's just part of your schtick.

As for paying taxes... I've been working since I was 14... I'm now 54... been paying all along. As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

My parents and grandparents paid taxes in the same county where I went to school. I think they covered it... But thanks for your concern.

menmon
06-22-2012, 02:39 PM
Your ther dense one....this is why we pay taxes, and I think we get a deal....don't like to pay them either....but it's a deal.

I've paid a lot and I've gotten a lot....and because of public education and student loans....I've done quite well. I did not pay much when I did not make much but now I pay a lot....don't like it...but I pay them and don't complain.

I also know that much is owed because they did not tax us when they should have to pay for it, so if it requires somemore, I get it.

But I damn sure don't want it falling on those barely getting by!

menmon
06-22-2012, 02:48 PM
I'm sure that business loan was an SBA loan...because banks don't lend to startups with out them. SBA is a government guaranteed loan. Your public education gets federal tax dollars. Your morgage rate is artificially low because of the implied guarantee of the government. Just because you don't get a check in the mail does not mean that government does not give you anything.

Trust me it is cheaper to send them a few foodstamps and a wellfare check than to educate them.

Bottomline....give them education or feed them. We do both...but feeding them is actually cheaper.

So now that I have shown you all the wellfare you have been given, shouldn't you lay off of them a little bit?

No one like to see someone get something for nothing, but they are paying a bigger price for that check than I'd be willing to pay.

huntinman
06-22-2012, 02:57 PM
Your ther dense one....this is why we pay taxes, and I think we get a deal....don't like to pay them either....but it's a deal.

I've paid a lot and I've gotten a lot....and because of public education and student loans....I've done quite well. I did not pay much when I did not make much but now I pay a lot....don't like it...but I pay them and don't complain.

I also know that much is owed because they did not tax us when they should have to pay for it, so if it requires somemore, I get it.

But I damn sure don't want it falling on those barely getting by!

So write a check for double and send it to the IRS. They will gladly take it. I will continue to pay what the law requires.

menmon
06-22-2012, 03:02 PM
Ok...do it gladly

coachmo
06-22-2012, 03:06 PM
Sambo how is it that you know so much about how all the rest of us think, what we are willing to pay or do for others, etc.? For someone who thinks he knows so much you really don't know crap.

caryalsobrook
06-22-2012, 04:14 PM
I'm sure that business loan was an SBA loan...because banks don't lend to startups with out them. SBA is a government guaranteed loan. Your public education gets federal tax dollars. Your morgage rate is artificially low because of the implied guarantee of the government. Just because you don't get a check in the mail does not mean that government does not give you anything.

Trust me it is cheaper to send them a few foodstamps and a wellfare check than to educate them.

Bottomline....give them education or feed them. We do both...but feeding them is actually cheaper.

So now that I have shown you all the wellfare you have been given, shouldn't you lay off of them a little bit?

No one like to see someone get something for nothing, but they are paying a bigger price for that check than I'd be willing to pay.

You have not made an assumption about me that has been correct. I HAVE NEVER HAD AN SBA LOAN. I worked for the state as an independent contractor in the health Dept. of Gibson Co. for 2 years. My wife worked also. I paid $22,000 cash for the lot and borrowed $130,000 for the office and equipment. I paid that off in less thn 5 years THEN I bought a house and AGAIN the bank loaned me the money. I suspect their loan experience was the reason for them loaning me the money for the house. As for an implied gaurantee of my loans by the Fed. gov. to me "implied" means to "trust the gov., the loan will be paid back". Sort of like trust the gov. "those that take chapter 13 bankrupsey will pay you back over a period of time." My personal experience is that I have never ever collected a penny from a patient who took ch. 13.

You say we give them(who is THEM) an education and feed them. Tell me about the "WE". Tell me who you have fed. Tell me who you have educated. Not about the gov. but ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. Unlike you , I make no assumptions.

ARay11
06-22-2012, 04:45 PM
I'm sure most of you over acheivers went to puplic school, public universities, took advantage of some first time home buyer option, expensed student loan interest against income, worked for a company that took handouts or had reseached funded by the governemt, etc., etc.....Now you are earning good money and don't want to pay taxes...I don't either...but because somebody before me paid them...I was able to get ahead a lot easier than if the government had not helped. Clearly others have benefited more from government but I have had my fair share. Kind of like paying union dues...many before you paid dues and walk picket lines so that you have it better and now that it is your turn, it damn government and unions. Just listen to yourselves....It's selfish...and it is that cut and dry.

Bush cut my taxes and yes I have little more money because of it...but I was able to live the life I wanted before he did...so it was not a life changing event. However, you take a few hundred dollars out of that lower income earners check and you hurt him big time. See we forget that the man making sure we have electricity, water, fuel, etc. is pretty damn important. The old lady who watches out for our kids, who disrespected is struggling to get by at retirement age because she had things in her life that did not allow her to prepare for old age, so she is working for minimum wage to supplement her income, but tax her so us over acheivers can have a fancier car, take fancy vacations...their fault they don't have anything...there is truth in that, but it could easily be us. God wants us to take care of each other....all I hear is whinning and blaming the poor.

Public Education through High School. (you will not find me complaining about Oklahoma State income taxes, property taxes, or school taxes. I understand their use and they all have published budgets that for the most part make sense)
No college education. (so, no student loans) Husband has a degree, fully funded by working his tail off and paying for it.. not one single student loan.
No handouts from the Govt for our employers.

Just because I am pissed off about MY tax rate does not mean I think they should go get it from the poor!!! They should get their affairs in order and pay those who NEED PAYING and NOT the jackasses fishing under the Little Wewoka bridge.

Yes, we are earning good money and I don't mind paying a reasonable tax rate. That which we are paying right now is not reasonable. Especially while the GSA parties it up in Vegas and Roger Clemens might have lied about baseball. :rolleyes:

Our govt is out of control while holding our checkbooks. In my opinion, the govt could rein in spending in areas OTHER THAN welfare and get a budget under control. But no, they want more tax dollars. So, where should they get more tax dollars? They piss off the Repubs by saying "you have money, so we want it" and it isnt very p.c. to say "tax the poor" but that gets you all wound up and ranting "vote democrat"
When the truth of the matter is:

THEY DONT NEED MORE MONEY. and THEY CAN DO THE SAME WORK FOR THE POOR WITH LESS TAX DOLLARS FROM ME.

IT'S ALL ABOUT PRIORITIES.


The rest of the country has had to "tighten the belt"... while the govt does not.

huntinman
06-22-2012, 04:52 PM
Public Education through High School. (you will not find me complaining about Oklahoma State income taxes, property taxes, or school taxes. I understand their use and they all have published budgets that for the most part make sense)
No college education. (so, no student loans) Husband has a degree, fully funded by working his tail off and paying for it.. not one single student loan.
No handouts from the Govt for our employers.

Just because I am pissed off about MY tax rate does not mean I think they should go get it from the poor!!! They should get their affairs in order and pay those who NEED PAYING and NOT the jackasses fishing under the Little Wewoka bridge.

Yes, we are earning good money and I don't mind paying a reasonable tax rate. That which we are paying right now is not reasonable. Especially while the GSA parties it up in Vegas and Roger Clemens might have lied about baseball. :rolleyes:

Our govt is out of control while holding our checkbooks. In my opinion, the govt could rein in spending in areas OTHER THAN welfare and get a budget under control. But no, they want more tax dollars. So, where should they get more tax dollars? They piss off the Repubs by saying "you have money, so we want it" and it isnt very p.c. to say "tax the poor" but that gets you all wound up and ranting "vote democrat"
When the truth of the matter is:

THEY DONT NEED MORE MONEY.

You got that right...

ARay11
06-22-2012, 05:41 PM
Your ther dense one....this is why we pay taxes, and I think we get a deal....don't like to pay them either....but it's a deal. It is NOT a "deal". Maybe you can tell me this...Doesnt the guy making $100,000 annually make enough to pay the same percentage as the guy making $250,000? They are both making a nice living and can afford taxes... so why does one pay a higher percentage than the other?

I've paid a lot and I've gotten a lot....and because of public education and student loans....I've done quite well. I did not pay much when I did not make much but now I pay a lot....don't like it...but I pay them and don't complain.

I also know that much is owed because they did not tax us when they should have to pay for it, so if it requires somemore, I get it.

But I damn sure don't want it falling on those barely getting by! You love throwing that out there. I don't think anyone wants the poor little widow woman who's net SSI check is $985/month over there on Quimberly Lane to pay taxes. What I want is those who are able bodied enough to go fishin to get off their tails and go to work. I do think that a family making $35000/year can afford a small tax bill.

I can only speak for my own area, but I think the story would be much the same in other towns:

Hypothetical Family of 4:
Average rent here is $800.mo
Subsidized rent: $28./mo. Subsidy paid for by taxpayer : $772 x 12 months: $9264. annually
WIC: $Free Paid for by taxpayers: $100/mo $1200. annually
FoodStamps: I dont know...maybe someone can help fill in this blank $ annually
SoonerCare: $Free My healthcare runs $500/mo $6000. annually

So, This family could be receiving nearly $20,000 in benefits. Also, earning $20,000 in income.
$40,000 in total compensation.
Turn around, and receive back 110% of their IRS withholding.

Fair?

This family would have to go out and instantly get a job making $50,000/year in order to get off the system.
And pay a higher tax rate.

Fair?


Fair?

menmon
06-23-2012, 02:48 PM
You love throwing that out there. I don't think anyone wants the poor little widow woman who's net SSI check is $985/month over there on Quimberly Lane to pay taxes. What I want is those who are able bodied enough to go fishin to get off their tails and go to work. I do think that a family making $35000/year can afford a small tax bill.

I can only speak for my own area, but I think the story would be much the same in other towns:

Hypothetical Family of 4:
Average rent here is $800.mo
Subsidized rent: $28./mo. Subsidy paid for by taxpayer : $772 x 12 months: $9264. annually
WIC: $Free Paid for by taxpayers: $100/mo $1200. annually
FoodStamps: I dont know...maybe someone can help fill in this blank $ annually
SoonerCare: $Free My healthcare runs $500/mo $6000. annually

So, This family could be receiving nearly $20,000 in benefits. Also, earning $20,000 in income.
$40,000 in total compensation.
Turn around, and receive back 110% of their IRS withholding.

Fair?

This family would have to go out and instantly get a job making $50,000/year in order to get off the system.
And pay a higher tax rate.

Fair?


Fair?



See the folks making that little would be elgible so it is more cost efficent to give them their money back and don't forget they take that check and go spend it. So it is popular with merchants. The merchant lobby is who you would be up against if you wanted that to change. WalMart loves it.

menmon
06-23-2012, 02:53 PM
Go look at that guy fishing's house and see how he lives...he made that decision...fish, drink, not work, pay no taxes and collect some wellfare. Not a bad trade if you really think about it. You and I on the other hand want a nice house, truck, dogs, etc. so we have to work and pay taxes. But we could choose that life...I still prefer paying taxes, but the fisherman will out live you because he is not stressed out about paying taxes.

ARay11
06-23-2012, 03:52 PM
Go look at that guy fishing's house and see how he lives...he made that decision...fish, drink, not work, pay no taxes and collect some wellfare. Not a bad trade if you really think about it. You and I on the other hand want a nice house, truck, dogs, etc. so we have to work and pay taxes. But we could choose that life...I still prefer paying taxes, but the fisherman will out live you because he is not stressed out about paying taxes.

WOW!! We finally agree on something!!!

:BIG:


We all CHOSE our lives!!

Now, quit asking me to pay for someone else's bad choices and continue contributing at an exorbitant rate to a government with zero accountability.

huntinman
06-23-2012, 04:42 PM
Go look at that guy fishing's house and see how he lives...he made that decision...fish, drink, not work, pay no taxes and collect some wellfare. Not a bad trade if you really think about it. You and I on the other hand want a nice house, truck, dogs, etc. so we have to work and pay taxes. But we could choose that life...I still prefer paying taxes, but the fisherman will out live you because he is not stressed out about paying taxes.

You finally get it!!!

luvmylabs23139
06-23-2012, 05:41 PM
Go look at that guy fishing's house and see how he lives...he made that decision...fish, drink, not work, pay no taxes and collect some wellfare. Not a bad trade if you really think about it. You and I on the other hand want a nice house, truck, dogs, etc. so we have to work and pay taxes. But we could choose that life...I still prefer paying taxes, but the fisherman will out live you because he is not stressed out about paying taxes.

Yes, he made a choice but why should I pay for his choice??
Oh and as for his house, ask me about the baby mommas that one point section 8 aid paid for them to live across from me and below me while I paid a mortgage, common charges, property taxes, income taxes and they had the same home as me but I had to pay for them to break all the rules, block my car in etc.
One of those welfare mom's drove a brand new car and mine was 8 years old. My tax dollars at work.

coachmo
06-24-2012, 11:54 PM
Sambo, you once again are making a huge generalization about how people live, work choices, etc. and basically don't know what you're talking about. So before you decide to dazzle us with your amazing intellect let me point out to you that my dad was a commercial fisherman, did work (very hard I might add), didn't collect welfare and paid taxes. So undoubtedly you are referring to a different type of fisherman which further proves my point that we should be concerned with our own well being and that of the people we choose to support and not everyone else. But on a side note and I believe I've asked this before; if you and all of the wonderful, concerned, compassionate, left wing, progressives are truly worried about your fellow man then how come there's so many rich liberals? Why dont you and your kind share some more of your wealth? Just wondering.

paul young
06-25-2012, 06:37 AM
Sambo, you once again are making a huge generalization about how people live, work choices, etc. and basically don't know what you're talking about. So before you decide to dazzle us with your amazing intellect let me point out to you that my dad was a commercial fisherman, did work (very hard I might add), didn't collect welfare and paid taxes. So undoubtedly you are referring to a different type of fisherman which further proves my point that we should be concerned with our own well being and that of the people we choose to support and not everyone else. But on a side note and I believe I've asked this before; if you and all of the wonderful, concerned, compassionate, left wing, progressives are truly worried about your fellow man then how come there's so many rich liberals? Why dont you and your kind share some more of your wealth? Just wondering.


ummmmmm, i think he was referring to the fishermen ARAY posted about, who are anything BUT commercial fishermen. please try to take things within the context they are presented.

FWIW, the commercial fishermen i know (a bunch) do pretty well for themselves. they probably work harder and smarter than any other profession, so they deserve it. The physical danger they deal with on a daily basis , alone, is a big reason why they should.-Paul

coachmo
06-25-2012, 08:11 AM
That's kinda of the point I was making. Should we really be concerned about everyone else and the style of life they live? But if it makes you feel better I'll read every post and make sure to take things within the context they are presented. Way to avoid the question I presented in my post.

Buzz
06-25-2012, 09:40 AM
Lots of talk about people making choices on here. There are a lot of people who can't work or can't find work that didn't make bad choices.

We are in the middle of a depression, and like during the great depression of the '30s, there are a lot of people pointing fingers and saying that the unemployed are that way by choice either through laziness or because the gooberment gives them incentives to stay at home.

And then we hear that it's Obama's fault. Well part of it is because he didn't take full advantage of the window of opportunity he had to have a huge impact when he first got into office. He let the conservatives have way too much impact on his stimulus bill. It got scaled way back, and a lot of infrastructure spending got ash canned in favor of tax cuts that have no multiplying effect in the economy. We had a financial melt down folks. Look back at history and see how those turned out in the past. From the beginning we were destined to a long slow slog getting out of the mess. Obama could have done more, but you all and your leaders in Washington would have fought it every inch of the way. If Obama had the stones, he would have barn stormed the US, got the majority on his side, and crammed the whole thing down your throats.

Our grandparents, at least the majority of them thought that pure capitalism was too harsh after what they'd seen in the '30s. They passed programs that helped the elderly and the unfortunate, and one party has been trying to undo it ever since. My opinion is, that effort to see that those programs are a failure is why they are fiscally in the position that they are in today.

Gerry Clinchy
06-25-2012, 11:33 AM
I believe the example I gave indicated a person actually making $250K/year ... that was his gross, not his AGI. So, the assumption that the gross income was $400K would not apply.

Is there something wrong with our thinking when we feel it is imperative to provide middle-class women with the cost of contraception (even though they could afford the cost), but we are also happy to pay for more children for someone who might not even know the father's name? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay for the contraception for the latter? Wouldn't it cost less for the former to pay for their own contraception, rather than pay the taxes that support children they chose NOT to have ... but someone else did choose to have? And the only reason the latter choose not to use contraception is that it is more lucrative not to. They see no benefit to using it. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the latter an additional amount of $ a month each month they do NOT have an additional child? Make it an amount large enough to be an incentive to use contraception. For example, if you get $300 more a month with a new child, give $200/mo for not having another. The $200 will go further for the parent without another child than the $300 with a new child. However, taxpayers would save millions in the medical care, food stamps, etc. for the children not born. Even if one gave the full stipend, it would be a savings!



so why should we want the man not making enough to live pay taxes and the rich not?

I don't think it's an issue of the rich not paying taxes. It's a matter of how much you feel (or I feel) they should pay.

Our Founders may not have perceived just how much the US would ultimately bear of the world's power and influence. And, maybe, we could not support our country's needs without an income tax. I'm not smart enough to know if it could be done some other way. However, one thing they DID know was that power flowed from the money. They saw that clearly from the European experience of kings taxing the populace to wage their wars. For that reason, they did NOT want the govt of their new nation to tax the fruits of one's labors. That required an amendment to the Constitution.

As I understand it, the original concept was "sold" to the population by presenting that it would be a low rate applied only to the income of the "rich" ... those who earned over $25,000/year, which at that time was a sizeable amount of money. As soon as govt acquired this new revenue source, they made sure to spend it; and come up with new ways to spend and continue to easily increase the revenue source by increasing the income tax.

I'd expect that the fellow earning $10K a year is getting substantial additional benefits from our social welfare system, so their effective living income would be more than that.

If we're talking about "fairness", how fair is it to treat a 75 year old who has worked all their life equally to a welfare parent who has, perhaps, never worked a day in their life?

I believe that it has been proven more than once, that perpetuating a welfare system has done as much harm as good. We have fallen way short in helping people aspire and work themselves out of the welfare system. There is a factor of self-esteem related to "earning" one's sustenance. It is part of human nature, I think. Our educational system goes to great lengths to try to instill self-esteem ... but I think most of us realize when we've done well, compared to when we're told we've done well when we know we have not given our best. However, over time, we can "learn" to lower the bar rather than raise it.

Just because some believe that our welfare system is flawed does not mean that they are heartless, @#$tards. Those who have learned to work the welfare system are obviously NOT stupid. Should we be wasting such native intelligence when our society could put it to productive use? Using these gifts constructively, could result in the ability for our society to give more meaningful help to those who are truly handicapped either physically or mentally and cannot provide for themselves.

menmon
06-25-2012, 11:44 AM
I look at rich peoples financials daily and they don't pay much. The rule book lets the not pay. The guy getting a check from someone pays.

huntinman
06-25-2012, 01:16 PM
I look at rich peoples financials daily and they don't pay much. The rule book lets the not pay. The guy getting a check from someone pays.

A while back you said working for a paycheck was the only way to make it in this world anymore... which is it?

paul young
06-25-2012, 01:27 PM
That's kinda of the point I was making. Should we really be concerned about everyone else and the style of life they live? But if it makes you feel better I'll read every post and make sure to take things within the context they are presented. Way to avoid the question I presented in my post.

First of all, the question was posed to Sambo, not to me. I wasn't avoiding it. I just thought he might want to answer it himself. But, if you are interested in my answer, i'll answer it with another question; how come there are so many rich conservatives?

The answer is, neither ideology has a lock on accumulating wealth. Some people have had some opportunities that they took full advantage of and prospered. Others inherited their wealth. Still others inherited some money and were able to turn it into more money. There are a lot of ways to get rich (AND POOR) and they have nothing to do with whether one is of the liberal or conservative political persuasion.

Now you have asked another question. YOU don't need to be concerned with anyone but yourself. whether or not WE should be concerned is up to our society as a whole. I am not ashamed that we have helped people less fortunate in the past. If, going forward, we stop doing so I won't be real happy with that decision.

Please do read carefully and try to keep comments in the same context as the original poster. That's what discussion is. To do the opposite is just trolling for a negative response.-Paul

coachmo
06-25-2012, 02:46 PM
Actually, the question was put out there for anyone to answer. I would agree that there are many rich conservatives; however, they are not the ones wanting the wealth of others taken away. The liberal stance is really hypocritical wouldn't you say. I surely don't want to be the one to upset the apple cart here on RTF so I'll brush up on my internet forums etiquette as to not to offend.

Buzz
06-25-2012, 06:44 PM
Posting this without time for comment. I just thought it the context of the original questions asked that this was interesting.

http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6

J Hoggatt
06-25-2012, 07:51 PM
I have stayed out of this for a while – but here it goes with some short comments:

• The pendulum almost always swings too far from one extreme to another – and at the extremes-there is pain – which causes the pendulum to reverse course – I think we can agree on this…. (Curious if we don’t). Referencing the PURE Capitalism Post—BUZZ.
• Obama’s lack of effective leadership is apparent to almost everyone—if not – (that would be considered denial). He was supposed to bring cross the aisle – bi-partisanship. AND don’t give me Congress didn’t allow him too—The First Two Years – OBAMA, PELOSI, REID – road the opposition like a coin-operated pony. – (if you don’t agree – denial). And then If we don’t agree with him – we were RACIST and or REDNECKS – and or NOT Intellectual enough to understand……. Sick of the rhetoric……
• Sambo – are you still employed? And with High Loan Demand? – You have a ton of time to post- during the day>>?? If you need loan assistance – call me – Our Grain and Cattlemen are doing fine today – but I am old enough to remember the 80’s – Do you guys remember some of John Cougar Mellencamp – Farm Aid Concerts – (accusing the bankers and auctioneers -- ) PENDULUM hmmmmm? Did you Read the article in Time Mag. this winter. “Want to be richer than a banker, become a Farmer”. --- BTW- a few quoted were our clients
• BTW – have you seen Oil Prices lately? – Right before election – how weird is this……. Who would have figured??????
• Lastly - Capitalism with a reasonable safety net – yet avoid “entitlement state” – someone figure that out – and I think we would have a WINNER…….Step forward and remove the Sword from the Stone….lol

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e179/jhoggatt/543380_278568238909156_1899349572_n12.jpg

huntinman
06-26-2012, 08:04 AM
I have stayed out of this for a while – but here it goes with some short comments:

• The pendulum almost always swings too far from one extreme to another – and at the extremes-there is pain – which causes the pendulum to reverse course – I think we can agree on this…. (Curious if we don’t). Referencing the PURE Capitalism Post—BUZZ.
• Obama’s lack of effective leadership is apparent to almost everyone—if not – (that would be considered denial). He was supposed to bring cross the aisle – bi-partisanship. AND don’t give me Congress didn’t allow him too—The First Two Years – OBAMA, PELOSI, REID – road the opposition like a coin-operated pony. – (if you don’t agree – denial). And then If we don’t agree with him – we were RACIST and or REDNECKS – and or NOT Intellectual enough to understand……. Sick of the rhetoric……
• Sambo – are you still employed? And with High Loan Demand? – You have a ton of time to post- during the day>>?? If you need loan assistance – call me – Our Grain and Cattlemen are doing fine today – but I am old enough to remember the 80’s – Do you guys remember some of John Cougar Mellencamp – Farm Aid Concerts – (accusing the bankers and auctioneers -- ) PENDULUM hmmmmm? Did you Read the article in Time Mag. this winter. “Want to be richer than a banker, become a Farmer”. --- BTW- a few quoted were our clients
• BTW – have you seen Oil Prices lately? – Right before election – how weird is this……. Who would have figured??????
• Lastly - Capitalism with a reasonable safety net – yet avoid “entitlement state” – someone figure that out – and I think we would have a WINNER…….Step forward and remove the Sword from the Stone….lol

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e179/jhoggatt/543380_278568238909156_1899349572_n12.jpg

Good post.

Signature line says it all...

paul young
06-26-2012, 10:06 AM
No one on here gives a hoot about wage earners Buzz.......

But thanks for the data. it confirms what i have known for years. -Paul

Pete
06-26-2012, 10:47 AM
My point is that pure capitalism creates rich and poor...nothing in the middle. This is why so many have a good way of life here, so some deviation from pure capitalism is a good thing. Obviously socialism is not good either. Therefore, a capitalist society that has rules in place that protect the working man and the consumer is good.

So the battle goes on. Capitalism wants no bondaries but that is not good overall, so too much conservatism is bad just like too liberal is bad.

Think about a country with no unions and no government regulations and think about where we would be.

I don't agree. I believe capitalism produces wealth and jobs for those who need it who may not have the initiative to start a business on there own. When The love of money creeps into a persons life they become vicious little basturds. The key word is LOVE. They may be able to look you in the eye and smile but behind it is a wall of black puke. I have seen first hand how corporations operate. Now with that said,,, I have been self employed my entire life. So I guess I would be called a capitalist but the last thing I am is greedy. I used to despise unions . But I appreciate the one my wife belongs to . They help keep the greedy basturds from abusing the workers. You know overtly and subtly screw with peoples performance records in order to fire them so they can hire some one ignorant for half the cost and rip of their lifes work. Things like that. So although capitalism is a good thing it gets perverted like every thing else in this world that is good. Because ,,,well,,, people will be people. You have to be able to see through it so you can understand it.

Its a good concept. People can be scum bags ,,,no different than politics or religion. Greed changes the formula
Pete

Buzz
06-26-2012, 10:50 AM
No one on here gives a hoot about wage earners Buzz.......

But thanks for the data. it confirms what i have known for years. -Paul


Glad someone looked. I doubt the conservatives will give it the time of day, and if they do, like you say, they won't give a hoot!

huntinman
06-26-2012, 11:02 AM
It's supply and demand... Unemployment is through the roof, so wages are down. If the gov't would get out of the way and let the economy work, the pool of available employees would shrink... forcing companies to be more competitive. But they are not in business to give their money away...

luvmylabs23139
06-26-2012, 11:05 AM
I don't agree. I believe capitalism produces wealth and jobs for those who need it who may not have the initiative to start a business on there own. When The love of money creeps into a persons life they become vicious little basturds. The key word is LOVE. They may be able to look you in the eye and smile but behind it is a wall of black puke. I have seen first hand how corporations operate. Now with that said,,, I have been self employed my entire life. So I guess I would be called a capitalist but the last thing I am is greedy. I used to despise unions . But I appreciate the one my wife belongs to . They help keep the greedy basturds from abusing the workers. You know overtly and subtly screw with peoples performance records in order to fire them so they can hire some one ignorant for half the cost and rip of their lifes work. Things like that. So although capitalism is a good thing it gets perverted like every thing else in this world that is good. Because ,,,well,,, people will be people. You have to be able to see through it so you can understand it.

Its a good concept. People can be scum bags ,,,no different than politics or religion. Greed changes the formula
Pete


Unions protect those who are lazy. Last in first out no matter who is the better worker. By the way I formed this opinion as a 20 something year old non union employee who made less than almost everyone in the union. I just knew due to my job as timekeeper who had lousy attendance, was hanging out in certain union hiding spots, had low productivity etc.

Buzz
06-26-2012, 11:10 AM
It's supply and demand... Unemployment is through the roof, so wages are down. If the gov't would get out of the way and let the economy work, the pool of available employees would shrink... forcing companies to be more competitive. But they are not in business to give their money away...


This is the graph of wages in per unit of GDP (PU is %/100). It is a trend that has been going since 1970. The trend was reversing during the 90's, then started down again in 2000.


3) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is both cause and effect. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying
employees
(http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6#) less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are other companies' revenue.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6#ixzz1yudalVyh

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807e69bedd095c000005-960/wages-to-gdp.png

menmon
06-26-2012, 11:27 AM
• The pendulum almost always swings too far from one extreme to another – and at the extremes-there is pain – which causes the pendulum to reverse course – I think we can agree on this….

The above is only thing I agree with. The only way a president can make jobs is through spending and that has to be approved by congress.

The tone on this website is always that the government employees are waste of your tax dollars. I know some government employees that will differ. Anyway, the job growth has been created in the private sector while jobs have been lost in the public...which is consistent with your desires. But you speak out of both sides of your mouth...by blaming him for high unemployment.

Anyway, this recession is different than anyone we have ever experienced in out lifetime, but one should look back at the history of the great depression. There was a conservative in office at the onset and he was replaced with a progressive because of the pain, and we finally worked our way out of it through government spending, i.e., WWII.

My point will continue to be that the burden of this should not be placed on the poor and middleclass.

As far as my job is concerned, I'm still gainly employeed and making lots of commercial loans.

luvmylabs23139
06-26-2012, 11:42 AM
• The pendulum almost always swings too far from one extreme to another – and at the extremes-there is pain – which causes the pendulum to reverse course – I think we can agree on this….

The above is only thing I agree with. The only way a president can make jobs is through spending and that has to be approved by congress.

The tone on this website is always that the government employees are waste of your tax dollars. I know some government employees that will differ. Anyway, the job growth has been created in the private sector while jobs have been lost in the public...which is consistent with your desires. But you speak out of both sides of your mouth...by blaming him for high unemployment.

Anyway, this recession is different than anyone we have ever experienced in out lifetime, but one should look back at the history of the great depression. There was a conservative in office at the onset and he was replaced with a progressive because of the pain, and we finally worked our way out of it through government spending, i.e., WWII.

My point will continue to be that the burden of this should not be placed on the poor and middleclass.

As far as my job is concerned, I'm still gainly employeed and making lots of commercial loans.

Many gooberment employees are a waste of money and must be fired. Let's be real. Half of them are clueless idiots. Half are too lazy to do their job.
Why are school classes a lot smaller than back in the day yet the US is in worse shape?
back in the day 30 kids in a class and much better scores than today when we have to pay for double the teachers and babysitting for 4 year olds. Explain the logic???
Why do taxpayers pay stupid amounts of money for some clown to not post your car taxes to the bill?

huntinman
06-26-2012, 12:00 PM


The above is only thing I agree with. The only way a president can make jobs is through spending



Clasic liberal mindset! How about if he just got the hell out of the way?

Buzz
06-26-2012, 12:50 PM
Clasic liberal mindset! How about if he just got the hell out of the way?


Correct. We should be competing on exactly the same ground with China. If only we could pay slave wages (we are well on our way), have no work safety or pollution standards, we'd be good to go.

luvmylabs23139
06-26-2012, 12:56 PM
Correct. We should be competing on exactly the same ground with China. If only we could pay slave wages (we are well on our way), have no work safety or pollution standards, we'd be good to go.

Should a person work their butt off to have their taxpayer money pay for babymomma to live next door and below them for free????

menmon
06-26-2012, 02:29 PM
What is the difference in it going to Exxon, Boeing, ConAgra, AT&T...at least the momma needs it.

You have a problem with it going to the poor but never the rich that don't need it.

Maybe you should raise as much hell about that too. Oh I forget...those are Romney's buddys. Can't cut them off or they want put money in his superpacs

Franco
06-26-2012, 02:38 PM
What is the difference in it going to Exxon, Boeing, ConAgra, AT&T...at least the momma needs it.

You have a problem with it going to the poor but never the rich that don't need it.

Maybe you should raise as much hell about that too. Oh I forget...those are Romney's buddys. Can't cut them off or they want put money in his superpacs

We already have the highest corporate taxes in the world! How much higher would you make them? And, how many more corporations do you want to relocated to other countries?

Signed,

not a Romney or Obama fan

menmon
06-26-2012, 02:44 PM
My post was not about taxes it was about wellfare...if you are going to complain about a poor person getting a few hundred dollars...please complain about the ones getting a few million.

Franco
06-26-2012, 02:47 PM
Correct. We should be competing on exactly the same ground with China. If only we could pay slave wages (we are well on our way), have no work safety or pollution standards, we'd be good to go.

Do you condem Apple for having thier products made in China?

I'm not a supporter of a World Economy but since the USA has embraced a world economy, we better get the cost of labor in line with the rest of the world or we will continue to deal with growing unemployment.

Franco
06-26-2012, 02:51 PM
My post was not about taxes it was about wellfare...if you are going to complain about a poor person getting a few hundred dollars...please complain about the ones getting a few million.

I agree then. The evil in DC begins with Lobbyist and the incompetant politicians we send there. All subsidies must end and we need to free the Private Business Sector.

Buzz
06-26-2012, 03:10 PM
Should a person work their butt off to have their taxpayer money pay for babymomma to live next door and below them for free????


That question has no connection with my post, so I'm not going to take a stab at it.

Buzz
06-26-2012, 03:11 PM
Do you condem Apple for having thier products made in China?

I'm not a supporter of a World Economy but since the USA has embraced a world economy, we better get the cost of labor in line with the rest of the world or we will continue to deal with growing unemployment.

Be prepared to see your standard of living fall hard then.

Franco
06-26-2012, 03:32 PM
Be prepared to see your standard of living fall hard then.

What's the alternative, how do we have our cake and eat it too?


Just one reson why I never wanted to see this country dependent on the success of other countries. It is a no win situation for the USA.

Yes, saleries have declined, I think mostly due to consolidation. Consolidation allows businesses to eliminate competition, lower standards, cut payroll/employees, benefits and raise prices. They can do this because of thier strong lobbying efforts with bought for politicians.
That and many large companies have moved their Accounting and other office functions overseas.
Personally, I was notified last December that this could be the last year that the company would provide Health Insurance. They are planning on cutting that expense as Heatlh Insurance cost have gone up over the last couple of years to the point that corporate would rather consider paying the fine. Lets just hope that SCOTUS rules against Obamacare.

road kill
06-26-2012, 03:40 PM
What's the alternative, how do we have our cake and eat it too?


Just one reson why I never wanted to see this country dependent on the success of other countries. It is a no win situation for the USA.

Yes, saleries have declined, I think mostly due to consolidation. Consolidation allows businesses to eliminate competition, lower standards, cut payroll/employees, benefits and raise prices. They can do this because of thier strong lobbying efforts with bought for politicians.

Personally, I was notified last December that this could be the last year that the company would provide Health Insurance. They are planning on cutting that expense as Heatlh Insurance cost have gone up over the last couple of years to the point that corporate would rather consider paying the fine. Lets just hope that SCOTUS rules against Obamacare.

Hey Franco,
I am begging you to consider voting for Romney.

Why you ask??

Because at least 2 Supreme Court Justices will likely be replaced in the next administration.
If we get 2 more like the last 2 we are doomed!

Thanks,

Franco
06-26-2012, 03:51 PM
Hey Franco,
I am begging you to consider voting for Romney.

Why you ask??

Because at least 2 Supreme Court Justices will likely be replaced in the next administration.
If we get 2 more like the last 2 we are doomed!

Thanks,


I'll probably vote for him as the lesser of two evils.

Besides, I'm not too keen on the Libertarian candidate and I don't think RP can be talked into a 3rd party run.

Oh, and congrats on getting married! She must be some kind of a Saint:D

road kill
06-26-2012, 04:04 PM
I'll probably vote for him as the lesser of two evils.

Besides, I'm not too keen on the Libertarian candidate and I don't think RP can be talked into a 3rd party run.

Oh, and congrats on getting married! She must be some kind of a Saint!!!!:D
HAHAHAHA!!!!!

No pun intended, right?:rolleyes:

luvmylabs23139
06-26-2012, 04:07 PM
What is the difference in it going to Exxon, Boeing, ConAgra, AT&T...at least the momma needs it.

You have a problem with it going to the poor but never the rich that don't need it.

Maybe you should raise as much hell about that too. Oh I forget...those are Romney's buddys. Can't cut them off or they want put money in his superpacs

I didn't work hard to buy a property, condo at the time just to have my tax money give babymomma lay around exactly what I worked for using my hard earned money !

Franco
06-26-2012, 04:23 PM
I saw that after I typed it. I'm sure she is green and gold 100%. I personally couldn't live with a woman that didn't at least like my teams.

Buzz
06-26-2012, 04:57 PM
What's the alternative, how do we have our cake and eat it too?


Just one reson why I never wanted to see this country dependent on the success of other countries. It is a no win situation for the USA.

Yes, saleries have declined, I think mostly due to consolidation. Consolidation allows businesses to eliminate competition, lower standards, cut payroll/employees, benefits and raise prices. They can do this because of thier strong lobbying efforts with bought for politicians.
That and many large companies have moved their Accounting and other office functions overseas.
Personally, I was notified last December that this could be the last year that the company would provide Health Insurance. They are planning on cutting that expense as Heatlh Insurance cost have gone up over the last couple of years to the point that corporate would rather consider paying the fine. Lets just hope that SCOTUS rules against Obamacare.

Please explain how the doom of Obamacare will save your health insurance.

In the past they have never had to pay fine.

I was looking for insurance costs over time and found these. I thought they were interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-history-of-health-care-spending-in-7-graphs/2012/01/09/gIQAFlCCmP_gallery.html#photo=1

Franco
06-26-2012, 05:25 PM
Please explain how the doom of Obamacare will save your health insurance.

In the past they have never had to pay fine.

I was looking for insurance costs over time and found these. I thought they were interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-history-of-health-care-spending-in-7-graphs/2012/01/09/gIQAFlCCmP_gallery.html#photo=1

Both sources point to the same fundamental long-term shift: Faced with continually climbing premiums, a record share of employers have moved to plans that require workers to pay more out of pocket.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/survey-rising-health-insurance-costs-shifted-to-workers/2011/09/26/gIQASSpx1K_story.html

In regards to Obamacare, how does one add 20-30 million uninsured to the insured rolls and not cost those paying for insurance more?

Buzz
06-26-2012, 05:47 PM
Both sources point to the same fundamental long-term shift: Faced with continually climbing premiums, a record share of employers have moved to plans that require workers to pay more out of pocket.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/survey-rising-health-insurance-costs-shifted-to-workers/2011/09/26/gIQASSpx1K_story.html

In regards to Obamacare, how does one add 20-30 million uninsured to the insured rolls and not cost those paying for insurance more?


That is what is behind the mandate in Obamacare and in Romneycare in Mass.

The idea behind insurance is you pay when you are healthy and your premiums pay for those who are sick. But someday, you're going to get sick unless you're one of the lucky ones that just one day drop dead with no long illness. At that time the healthy ones pay for your care. Paying when you're healthy knowing you might very well need healthcare someday is a conservative idea. I think it's called personal responsibility. That is how the mandate was born in the Heritage Foundation. They claim the contrary, but it is hard to deny when you read their old papers. I think I have given the rundown on that on here before...

Franco
06-26-2012, 07:01 PM
That is what is behind the mandate in Obamacare and in Romneycare in Mass.

The idea behind insurance is you pay when you are healthy and your premiums pay for those who are sick. But someday, you're going to get sick unless you're one of the lucky ones that just one day drop dead with no long illness. At that time the healthy ones pay for your care. Paying when you're healthy knowing you might very well need healthcare someday is a conservative idea. I think it's called personal responsibility. That is how the mandate was born in the Heritage Foundation. They claim the contrary, but it is hard to deny when you read their old papers. I think I have given the rundown on that on here before...

CATO Inst. a while back identified the Personal Mandate as a Conservative idea. I don't have a problem with it though it is unConstitutional. That is because healthcare, especially Medicaid is an anchor around our necks. I still don't see how making everyone pay with over the 30 million or so that will added to the insurance rolls without paying anything won't cost tax payers more. I've never known any program with Federal oversight to go down in cost. I would prefer the government to stay out of healthcare and let free market forces wotk its magic.

huntinman
06-26-2012, 07:14 PM
CATO Inst. a while back identified the Personal Mandate as a Conservative idea. I don't have a problem with it though it is unConstitutional. That is because healthcare, especially Medicaid is an anchor around our necks. I still don't see how making everyone pay with over the 30 million or so that will added to the insurance rolls without paying anything won't cost tax payers more. I've never known any program with Federal oversight to go down in cost. I would prefer the government to stay out of healthcare and let free market forces wotk its magic.

Hot damn... I agree with Franco 100% on something:shock:

BonMallari
06-26-2012, 07:36 PM
CATO Inst. a while back identified the Personal Mandate as a Conservative idea. I don't have a problem with it though it is unConstitutional. That is because healthcare, especially Medicaid is an anchor around our necks. I still don't see how making everyone pay with over the 30 million or so that will added to the insurance rolls without paying anything won't cost tax payers more. I've never known any program with Federal oversight to go down in cost. I would prefer the government to stay out of healthcare and let free market forces wotk its magic.


move over Bill...looks like I agree with Franco on this point too

Pete
06-26-2012, 08:13 PM
[QUOTE]Unions protect those who are lazy. Last in first out no matter who is the better worker. By the way I formed this opinion as a 20 something year old non union employee who made less than almost everyone in the union. I just knew due to my job as timekeeper who had lousy attendance, was hanging out in certain union hiding spots, had low productivity etc.[/QUOTE

]Yes they do, but they also protect the ambitious ones also.
Pete

teddyg
06-26-2012, 09:33 PM
Clasic liberal mindset! How about if he just got the hell out of the way?

This would be to simple, they must have their hand on everything, and that hand seems to screw up everything they touch. It's the liberal way.

Marvin S
06-26-2012, 11:22 PM
I have stayed out of this for a while – but here it goes with some short comments:

• The pendulum almost always swings too far from one extreme to another – and at the extremes-there is pain – which causes the pendulum to reverse course – I think we can agree on this…. (Curious if we don’t). Referencing the PURE Capitalism Post—BUZZ.
• Obama’s lack of effective leadership is apparent to almost everyone—if not – (that would be considered denial). He was supposed to bring cross the aisle – bi-partisanship. AND don’t give me Congress didn’t allow him too—The First Two Years – OBAMA, PELOSI, REID – road the opposition like a coin-operated pony. – (if you don’t agree – denial). And then If we don’t agree with him – we were RACIST and or REDNECKS – and or NOT Intellectual enough to understand……. Sick of the rhetoric……
• Sambo – are you still employed? And with High Loan Demand? – You have a ton of time to post- during the day>>?? If you need loan assistance – call me – Our Grain and Cattlemen are doing fine today – but I am old enough to remember the 80’s – Do you guys remember some of John Cougar Mellencamp – Farm Aid Concerts – (accusing the bankers and auctioneers -- ) PENDULUM hmmmmm? Did you Read the article in Time Mag. this winter. “Want to be richer than a banker, become a Farmer”. --- BTW- a few quoted were our clients
• BTW – have you seen Oil Prices lately? – Right before election – how weird is this……. Who would have figured??????
• Lastly - Capitalism with a reasonable safety net – yet avoid “entitlement state” – someone figure that out – and I think we would have a WINNER…….Step forward and remove the Sword from the Stone….lol

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e179/jhoggatt/543380_278568238909156_1899349572_n12.jpg

John - Excellent post, nice to see one banker on this forum with his head screwed on correctly - but I have this question - why do we have to help people whose assets run into the millions?

BTW - our Grandson is now in A'stan - I can not describe our thoughts on this, we are conflicted, to say the least.


This is the graph of wages in per unit of GDP (PU is %/100). It is a trend that has been going since 1970. The trend was reversing during the 90's, then started down again in 2000.



http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807e69bedd095c000005-960/wages-to-gdp.png

There is nothing that prevents you from having your employer distribute 20%, or whatever you feel is fair, of your gross pay to those at the bottom of the salary scale at your company - or you can do it on your own :p. Or is it just the money that others have that you want to redistribute?

I have two sons with businesses - one is thinking of shutting the business down & seeking other employment - the other is thinking of scaling back more as available help is not worth the money the government mandates they be paid.

paul young
06-27-2012, 06:32 AM
John - Excellent post, nice to see one banker on this forum with his head screwed on correctly - but I have this question - why do we have to help people whose assets run into the millions?

BTW - our Grandson is now in A'stan - I can not describe our thoughts on this, we are conflicted, to say the least.



There is nothing that prevents you from having your employer distribute 20%, or whatever you feel is fair, of your gross pay to those at the bottom of the salary scale at your company - or you can do it on your own :p. Or is it just the money that others have that you want to redistribute?

I have two sons with businesses - one is thinking of shutting the business down & seeking other employment - the other is thinking of scaling back more as available help is not worth the money the government mandates they be paid.

Marvin,

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of U.S. workers are wage earners, and they have been dealing with the reality depicted in the graph Buzz presented to us for over 40 years. Are you glad to see that son #1 is looking for a job so he can join that demographic?

Anyone who thinks that graph depicts a desirable situation that will benefit our Country has their head firmly planted in a dark, very smelly place. -Paul

Marvin S
06-27-2012, 12:48 PM
Marvin,

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of U.S. workers are wage earners, and they have been dealing with the reality depicted in the graph Buzz presented to us for over 40 years. Are you glad to see that son #1 is looking for a job so he can join that demographic?

Anyone who thinks that graph depicts a desirable situation that will benefit our Country has their head firmly planted in a dark, very smelly place. -Paul

I will not debate someone such as your self when I've heard the majority of what you repeat. I was just pointing out that government regulations & a very unlevel playing field force people to make choices that do not benefit the country :confused:.

As for the desirability or undesirability of what is depicted - we are responsible for ourselves - if we do not make ourselves indispensible as employees whose fault is that?

As for your philosophy - I would imagine that during a conversation I could point out many areas where your statements would conflict with each other ;-).

paul young
06-27-2012, 01:03 PM
I will not debate someone such as your self when I've heard the majority of what you repeat. I was just pointing out that government regulations & a very unlevel playing field force people to make choices that do not benefit the country :confused:.

As for the desirability or undesirability of what is depicted - we are responsible for ourselves - if we do not make ourselves indispensible as employees whose fault is that?

As for your philosophy - I would imagine that during a conversation I could point out many areas where your statements would conflict with each other ;-).

Bravo! the great Oz would be proud!

If your son has to seek employment among the unwashed masses, i wish him the best.-Paul

caryalsobrook
06-27-2012, 08:48 PM
This is the graph of wages in per unit of GDP (PU is %/100). It is a trend that has been going since 1970. The trend was reversing during the 90's, then started down again in 2000.



http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807e69bedd095c000005-960/wages-to-gdp.png

I have watched many talk about this graph with great amusement. I have no idea where you got this information or even if it is accurate, but let us just assume that it is. You imply that if wages as a percent of GDP are falling that somehow wage earners and the overall standard of living suffer as a result. This is TOTAL nonsense if not just an outright lie. Actually the reverse can be argued. Just a little BASIC economics. Those jobs that are LABOR intensive will of necessity command a high percentage of cost of the goods and services produced. Those jobe that are CAPITAL intensive will command a SMALLER percentage of labor cost in the production of goods and services and as a result command a greater percentage of GDP. Simply put, the more capital intensive the production, the higher percentage of GDP that goes to capital. The more labor intensive, the more that goes to labor. Picking peas is labor intensive and a greater peercentage of GDP goes to labor. Operating a massive crane in the construction of a high rise building, a greater percent of GDP goes to capital. Now it does not take a genious, only one that is honest to realize that capital intensive economies will have a higher standard of living and those economies that are predominantly labor intensive will have a lower standard of living.

So if you want to draw any conclusions from only the graph you show, you can only say that that economy is shifting from a lobor intensive economy to a capital intensive economy. Come on Buzz. Surely you are smrter than that which you implied when you posted the graphs.

ARay11
06-28-2012, 01:05 PM
I can only imagine how many jobs technology has cost us. Computers can make it so much faster, better, and cheaper than a human can, and there's no pension to pay.

I always wonder how many employees, and all the expense that goes with them, that WalMart eliminated when the self-checkout lanes were implemented.

Im not saying tech is bad.... just that it costs jobs.

menmon
06-28-2012, 03:12 PM
Aray....I have to agree with you on this one. In time we want need office building nor stores...thus not as many contractors.

Aray has hit on something big here that I think Obama should be telling americans, and that is that we are in a transition period regarding labor.

Workers have been displaced and are having to retrain themselves. This happen in the 80s when unit operators at oil refineries were let go because machines ran the units, thus the need for multiple operators turned into one or two. So these folks lost their good paying job and had to learn something new, and this took time. There are lots of jobs currently in Houston, just not enough qualified labor.

kjrice
06-28-2012, 04:45 PM
Since when is capitalism dirty word? In it's purest form, its by-product is a healthy middle class. The biggest problem is disguised legislation that actually impedes a truly free market.

caryalsobrook
06-28-2012, 06:43 PM
I can only imagine how many jobs technology has cost us. Computers can make it so much faster, better, and cheaper than a human can, and there's no pension to pay.

I always wonder how many employees, and all the expense that goes with them, that WalMart eliminated when the self-checkout lanes were implemented.

Im not saying tech is bad.... just that it costs jobs.
You need not imagine how many jobs technology has cost. Let me tell you where the greatest number of jobs lost due to technology, in the last 100 years were. It is in farming. 100 years ago 40% of the total opulation made their living directly in farming. In other words, it took 40% of the population to feed themselves(was that the word you were looking for Sambo??) and the other 60% that were not in farming. Today it takes less than 1 1/2% to not only feed the other 98+% but also export enough to feed a significant part of the rest of the world. It has lowered the percent of income that goes to food to an amount lower than any other country. It is the single most important factor in raising the standard of living OF ALL OF US!! Imagine it, over 38% of the total population of the US, not 38% on farmers but 38% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION have been displaced from their work and it is the single most important factor in raising the standard of living of all of us. Less than 60 years ago I can remember my father hiring 300 people to pick cotton, paying $3.00 per 100 pounds picked. A good hand could pick as much as 300 pounds a day. Today a cotton picker may pick as much as 600,000/day, more than 2000 good cotton picker could pick. Those that used to pick cotton are better off. You and I are better off. All in this country are better off. Do you really think any of us here on RTF would be on a computer if it took 40% of the population to feed the other 60%? When it takes less labor to produce goods and services all of us have our standard of living raised. That is truly the beauty of capitalism. That and individual freedom are the two most important qualities of life that socialism cannot tolerate. The socialist cries that it isn't fair! He advocates a "progressive" income tax and then again cries "it is not fair". So then he creates 70,000 pages of exceptions to the progressive income tax and AGAIN cries "it is not fair"! then obviously he wants to eliminate the "loopholes" and keep those deductions he deems "FAIR". Do you not get my point?

I made my initial post to point out what one might argue to be inherently bad, that the decreasing percent of GDP that went to labor was bad was in fact good and raised the standard of living of all of us. Being the first generation of my family in this country that has not been a full time farmer, I am acutely aware of the shift of those in farming to other fields and the resultant increase in the standard of living of us all.

A contry whose population is industrious, innovative, individually free, enjoys the rewards of their success and accepts the consequences of their failures, is a country that will thrive. A country that punishes succes, rewards failure, limits individual freedom, restricts innovation and hinders industriousness is a country that will eventually look like Cuba, North Korea, Spain, Greece, Portugal, France and Iceland just to name a few. I fear we are well on that path.

Franco
06-28-2012, 07:19 PM
Since when is capitalism dirty word? In it's purest form, its by-product is a healthy middle class. The biggest problem is disguised legislation that actually impedes a truly free market.

Exactly! WE should try Capitalism and Free Markets sometime since we haven't had it.

Sad thing is that neither candidate for President understands or is willing to support this.