The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 100

Thread: Should The Rich Pay More Taxes?

  1. #61
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotel4dogs View Post
    I saw a bumper sticker that said,

    "If You Can't Feed 'em, DON'T Breed 'em "

    love it!
    Where can I get that bumper sticker?
    I really want one!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  2. #62
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie R. View Post
    While that was quite a thoughtful post Jeff, it's a little off topic. The original post was about how more taxes on the wealthiest hurts JOB CREATION. When was the last time a anyone got a job from a poor man, government leech or welfare queen? And playing your violin for the overtaxed poor isn't exactly music to the ears of those who try to make the right choices for their families:




    Let's have a pity party for the overtaxed downtrodden

    If lower income people pay "too much" in taxes, it is because proportionally more of them make bad choices: smoke, drink, eat fast food and squander gasoline. Everyone has the choice to drive or not or use more fuel efficent cars (even, gasp, older ones) instead of late model SUVs, or use public transportation, and cigarettes, booze, KFC & Happy Meals aren't exactly part of the five major food groups. In short, if the poor were really trying to stretch dollars by cutting out all non-essential items, fixing meals at home, etc. they'd pay much less in taxes. Probably wouldn't be hatching out babies on the government nickel every 9 months, but I digress.

    And, nice try comparing tax reduction to tax elimination and therefore, a Somalia-like state overrun with lawless thugs. No one, even the most hard core righty, is suggesting we get rid of all taxes because they're inherently "unfair." But we definitely need to cut spending, entitlements and find ways to eliminate waste and fraud, and there are a lot of ways to do that and still have a functioning economy. The exponential growth of the welfare class has abundantly proven that handouts and entitlements do nothing to promote family stabilty and improvement of one's lot in life.
    The job creation aspects of so-called trickle down economics are a nice theory, but remain just that. The spending and investment decisions of the wealthy are made to serve the interests of the wealthy. And with countless efforts to justify tax cuts for the wealthy based on the benefits that would accrue to everyone else in the economy, the impact has been stark. The percentage of gross income going to the wealthiest 1-2% of the population has more than doubled, while the percentage going to the lower 50% has declined 40%. Trickle down has actually proven to be a reconcentration of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

    As to the appropriatenmess of the absolute magnitude of public expenditures, I suspect that we have already cut too far in non-defense spending to maintain a position of economic leadership. We have stripped our educational systems, under-invested in infrastructure, and allowed free market philosophies to degenerate into support for corporate monopolies and oligarchies that stifle competition, rather than enhancing it. If we are looking for ways to modify our tax structures to enhance competitiveness and job creation, we should:
    • eliminate preferential treatment of certain types of income such as dividends, capital gains, inheritances, and non-cash employee benefits.
    • eliminate corporate taxes
    • get employers out of the business of subsidizing health benefits
    • either fund social security, medicare, and unemployment from general taxes or eliminate income caps for existing taxes, while eliminating employer contributions to these programs -- employers should not be taxed for providing jobs.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie R. View Post
    While that was quite a thoughtful post Jeff, it's a little off topic. The original post was about how more taxes on the wealthiest hurts JOB CREATION. When was the last time a anyone got a job from a poor man, government leech or welfare queen? And playing your violin for the overtaxed poor isn't exactly music to the ears of those who try to make the right choices for their families:


    [[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    "Rich men create jobs". While this has become a mantra of the trickle down theorists, there is absolutely no historical evidence to support it. It started as a theory and has never been proven in practice in the United States over the last 30 years. What creates jobs is demand for products or services. Period.
    The most recent proof of this is the last 3 years. The government has created all kinds of tax breaks and incentives for capitalists (those who control capital) to start or increase business activity. Net result- little to nothing in job creation. In a capitalist system jobs are just another reflection of supply and demand. If strong demand exists for a product, someone will figure out how to acquire the capital necessary to produce that product. Without demand there will be NO investment.
    Economic theory asside, the elephant in the room squashing US jobs is Globalization. We have to figure out how to participate in globalization while still creating and protecting job growth in the US.

  4. #64
    Senior Member hotel4dogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SW of Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,347

    Default

    yeah, me too...unfortunately, it was in another country that I saw it. That in itself says something.

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Where can I get that bumper sticker?
    I really want one!

    Barb Gibson
    with
    CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA SH MXP MJP XFP T2BP VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
    also UCH HR UUD UJJ URO1 UHIT
    (golden retriever) born 3-10-07
    a.k.a. "Tito", "The Tito Monster"
    www.GoTeamTito.com

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The job creation aspects of so-called trickle down economics are a nice theory, but remain just that....
    No theory. It's reality. Further, the government (at any level) adds nothing to the GNP. So what remains - what business (in all forms) produces. As Julie said, when was the last time a poor person hired someone? History has clearly shown that when small businesses pay more taxes, jobs are eliminated. I also provided you a real life case as it played out, that showed clearly that the potential for a number of good paying jobs could not be fulfilled in favor of paying income taxes. Your macro-approach/justification has way more variables than just whether ALL lower income persons benefit or not. No one (with any sense) who espouses the benefits of lower taxes believes there is a direct correlation to lower taxes for the wealthy (those making over $200K, according to the current Admin approach) to improving the plight of the ALL of the poor. However, I can say without equivocation that had I paid less income taxes, my company would have hired more workers as a direct correlation. Notice the qualifications I have made/am making, 1) small business is the engine of job growth since small businesses employ over 50% of all Americans, 2) small businesses (less than 100 shareholders, less than 250 employees & less than $500M in revenue), not large corporations, 3) small businesses that are growing, and most importantly, 4) small businesses are sole proprietors, partnerships, LLCs & s-corps where the owners pay income taxes even on income they don't personally receive - mistakenly making them part of the "wealthy" class. In virtually every growing small business, lower taxes would not only result in higher employement, it would multiple the effect of putting revenue from income taxes in the fed's coffers beyond just collecting the increased tax from taxing the shareholder/owners.
    David Didier, GA

  6. #66
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granddaddy View Post
    No theory. It's reality. Further, the government (at any level) adds nothing to the GNP. So what remains - what business (in all forms) produces. As Julie said, when was the last time a poor person hired someone? History has clearly shown that when small businesses pay more taxes, jobs are eliminated. I also provided you a real life case as it played out, that showed clearly that the potential for a number of good paying jobs could not be fulfilled in favor of paying income taxes. Your macro-approach/justification has way more variables than just whether ALL lower income persons benefit or not. No one (with any sense) who espouses the benefits of lower taxes believes there is a direct correlation to lower taxes for the wealthy (those making over $200K, according to the current Admin approach) to improving the plight of the ALL of the poor. However, I can say without equivocation that had I paid less income taxes, my company would have hired more workers as a direct correlation. Notice the qualifications I have made/am making, 1) small business is the engine of job growth since small businesses employ over 50% of all Americans, 2) small businesses (less than 100 shareholders, less than 250 employees & less than $500M in revenue), not large corporations, 3) small businesses that are growing, and most importantly, 4) small businesses are sole proprietors, partnerships, LLCs & s-corps where the owners pay income taxes even on income they don't personally receive - mistakenly making them part of the "wealthy" class. In virtually every growing small business, lower taxes would not only result in higher employement, it would multiple the effect of putting revenue from income taxes in the fed's coffers beyond just collecting the increased tax from taxing the shareholder/owners.
    "No theory. " - I'd love to see your proof

    "the government (at any level) adds nothing to the GNP" - That would certainly be a surprise to economists since government spending is a major part of GDP, reflected both in spending by consumers employed by the government , spending by people who work for companies producing their goods under government contract )e.g., the entire defense industry), and the majority of the health care industry which is financed through government funding, among many others.

    "As Julie said, when was the last time a poor person hired someone?" - Like the rest of us, poor people "hire" by creating demand for goods through their purchases. Very few people are hired directly by individuals regardless of wealth. They are hired by companies.

    "History has clearly shown that when small businesses pay more taxes, jobs are eliminated." - If you read my initial post, you will see that one of my recommendations was that all business taxes be eliminated. Business taxes make no economic sense and only serve to make our goods and our workers less competitive in a global market.

    BTW, I've been a business owner since 1984, of both large companies and small, and am well familiar with the economics involved.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    ....As to the appropriatenmess of the absolute magnitude of public expenditures, I suspect that we have already cut too far in non-defense spending to maintain a position of economic leadership. We have stripped our educational systems, under-invested in infrastructure, and allowed free market philosophies to degenerate into support for corporate monopolies and oligarchies that stifle competition, rather than enhancing it. If we are looking for ways to modify our tax structures to enhance competitiveness and job creation, we should:
    • eliminate preferential treatment of certain types of income such as dividends, capital gains, inheritances, and non-cash employee benefits.
    • eliminate corporate taxes
    • get employers out of the business of subsidizing health benefits
    • either fund social security, medicare, and unemployment from general taxes or eliminate income caps for existing taxes, while eliminating employer contributions to these programs -- employers should not be taxed for providing jobs.
    To talk intelligently about "cuts" you must first distinguish spending on entitlements from discretionary spending/cuts. This entitlement category makes up over 62% of our national budget. Defense is the largest discretionary portion of the remaining "discretionary" budget (near 38% currently of the total budget). When Obamacare takes full effect over the next 10 yrs, entitlements are projected to rise to 78% of the total budget, leaving 22% of the total budget for defense & everything else. Remember too, that the federal government has two constitutional mandates, 1) to provide for a common defense & 2) to regulate interstate commerce. The current "entitlements" are not mandated by our constitution. So 10 yrs from now, you could advocate eliminating the entire discretionary portions of the budget and still run deficits annually.

    Also above, you included capital gains & inheritance as categories of income while neither is income.

    Then while implying the wealthiest 1-2% don't pay enough tax, you then say eliminate corporate taxes. Since the wealthiest persons own & direct the wealthiest multi-national corporations this would provide them a means of no income tax consequences at any level in the US???

    I'm assuming instead of companies paying for employee health insurance, you'd have everyone on the government health rationing system that will surely result.

    Since the vast majority of our politicians are more concerned about being re-elected that actually passing needed legislation, we have no one in Washington willing to cut anything where they have created an "entitlement" - welfare, medicare/medicaid, unemployment compensation & debt service. I'd advocate returning ss to its original purpose to provide a safety net of essentials for the poor who cannot provide themselves shelter & food in their old age. I'd eliminate welfare as it currently exists, making some productive form of work mandatory in order to receive benefits (meaning no direct welfare for able bodied persons unless they work). I'd limit unemployment compensations to 90 days, no exceptions, no extensions (we'd find this would eliminate our illegal alien problem because there would be no jobs for them). I'd take the savings from these entitlement cuts and pay down/eliminate the national debt. Once eliminated, the saving from national debt service would allow an orderly increase in ss & medicare limited to funds received to fund it.

    As for education, you are also mistaken. The current government contribution to education (fed & st) is higher per student than ever before in actual dollars, rising much higher annually than the rate of inflation over the last 40 yrs.

    Remember reality is that small businesses provide the majority of jobs in the US, not large corporations that you seem to want to benenfit with no corporate taxes.

    And for the comment someone made 'that rich men don't create jobs, demand for goods & services creates jobs". Sounds good, but it's incomplete. Demand for goods and services come from people being gainfully employed. Therefore, jobs create demand for goods and services. The question is who creates these jobs, it's small businesses in the US (small business employs over 70% of all employed in the US). It's time our government understands this & provides small businesses with lower taxes (meaning lower income taxes on small business owners who are currently labeled as the rich - making over $200K per yr). Instead our government bales out large inefficient businesses, provides these large inefficient businesses with tax breaks all the while advocating higher taxes on the small business owner through raising his income tax rate.
    David Didier, GA

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    "No theory. " - I'd love to see your proof

    "the government (at any level) adds nothing to the GNP" - That would certainly be a surprise to economists since government spending is a major part of GDP, reflected both in spending by consumers employed by the government , spending by people who work for companies producing their goods under government contract )e.g., the entire defense industry), and the majority of the health care industry which is financed through government funding, among many others.
    My proof is as real as my company that I related in the intial post starting this thread, above. We couldn't hire as many & fast as we'd have liked because of the high personal tax rate. This is basic to any small, growing business - they are limited in creating jobs by the taxes they pay.

    Where does the government get its funds? The answer is elementary, by collecting taxes from those who actually produce goods and sevices. Therefore the net effect of the government jobs, services, etc is a subtraction (not a multiplier) from those who actually produce goods and services -the same that pay the taxes the government collects...Econ 101. The government portion notation of the GNP is only to provide identification of the various sectors of the economy involved, not who creates GNP.
    David Didier, GA

  9. #69
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granddaddy View Post
    To talk intelligently about "cuts" you must first distinguish spending on entitlements from discretionary spending/cuts. This entitlement category makes up over 62% of our national budget. Defense is the largest discretionary portion of the remaining "discretionary" budget (near 38% currently of the total budget). When Obamacare takes full effect over the next 10 yrs, entitlements are projected to rise to 78% of the total budget, leaving 22% of the total budget for defense & everything else. Remember too, that the federal government has two constitutional mandates, 1) to provide for a common defense & 2) to regulate interstate commerce. The current "entitlements" are not mandated by our constitution. So 10 yrs from now, you could advocate eliminating the entire discretionary portions of the budget and still run deficits annually.

    Also above, you included capital gains & inheritance as categories of income while neither is income.

    Then while implying the wealthiest 1-2% don't pay enough tax, you then say eliminate corporate taxes. Since the wealthiest persons own & direct the wealthiest multi-national corporations this would provide them a means of no income tax consequences at any level in the US???

    I'm assuming instead of companies paying for employee health insurance, you'd have everyone on the government health rationing system that will surely result.

    Since the vast majority of our politicians are more concerned about being re-elected that actually passing needed legislation, we have no one in Washington willing to cut anything where they have created an "entitlement" - welfare, medicare/medicaid, unemployment compensation & debt service. I'd advocate returning ss to its original purpose to provide a safety net of essentials for the poor who cannot provide themselves shelter & food in their old age. I'd eliminate welfare as it currently exists, making some productive form of work mandatory in order to receive benefits (meaning no direct welfare for able bodied persons unless they work). I'd limit unemployment compensations to 90 days, no exceptions, no extensions (we'd find this would eliminate our illegal alien problem because there would be no jobs for them). I'd take the savings from these entitlement cuts and pay down/eliminate the national debt. Once eliminated, the saving from national debt service would allow an orderly increase in ss & medicare limited to funds received to fund it.

    As for education, you are also mistaken. The current government contribution to education (fed & st) is higher per student than ever before in actual dollars, rising much higher annually than the rate of inflation over the last 40 yrs.

    Remember reality is that small businesses provide the majority of jobs in the US, not large corporations that you seem to want to benenfit with no corporate taxes.

    And for the comment someone made 'that rich men don't create jobs, demand for goods & services creates jobs". Sounds good, but it's incomplete. Demand for goods and services come from people being gainfully employed. Therefore, jobs create demand for goods and services. The question is who creates these jobs, it's small businesses in the US (small business employs over 70% of all employed in the US). It's time our government understands this & provides small businesses with lower taxes (meaning lower income taxes on small business owners who are currently labeled as the rich - making over $200K per yr). Instead our government bales out large inefficient businesses, provides these large inefficient businesses with tax breaks all the while advocating higher taxes on the small business owner through raising his income tax rate.

    Great post, Dave. Too many facts however. Hard to convince ANY libs with that much common sense.

    I'd also eliminate the welfare baby bonus...and all the anchor babies, regardless of their current age. They were either born by bona fide registered citizens of the USA, or they are undocumented immigrants.

    As to my first comment...it was prompted by this:



    Bread Winner of the Family...Making Babies!

    I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20s came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated, "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Child and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care.







    The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois . Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" of the family.







    This is how the ruling class spends our tax dollars.







    Sebastian J. Ciancio, M.D. Urologist,







    Danville Polyclinic, LTD









    And liberals wonder why the TEA party got started???

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    ...."History has clearly shown that when small businesses pay more taxes, jobs are eliminated." - If you read my initial post, you will see that one of my recommendations was that all business taxes be eliminated. Business taxes make no economic sense and only serve to make our goods and our workers less competitive in a global market.

    BTW, I've been a business owner since 1984, of both large companies and small, and am well familiar with the economics involved.
    Obviously, you don't understand how the majority of US businesses' income is taxed. The majority of US businesses pay no direct corporate income taxes already. Not because these businesses avoid them (like large multi-national corporations), rather because the tax structure for small businesses has all income flowing to the owners & is not taxed at the comapny level. And as good as that sounds, the business income of sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC & s-corps flows (via K-1)directly rather to the owners who are taxed as part of the rich class (as you refer to them) even though these small business owners don't actually receive that income. Owners of small businesses fund their growth through business profits which are plowed back into the business. Except the government makes no distinction between owners of small business from individuals who actually have take home income over $200K. Taxing them all at the rate of 39% of total income.

    Surely if you had read the initial post, you'd understand the circumstances unique to small business.
    Last edited by Granddaddy; 01-30-2011 at 01:48 PM.
    David Didier, GA

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •