Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
Hilarious.[/QUOTE]
It comes down to the fact that that Republican Rhetoric is designed to take advantage of people like Knoell and their ignorance.
They don't like the deficit but they don't want to end all those nifty wars, they are against welfare programs but hands off their medicare. They don't want to raise taxes on the rich people who can afford it because then they think those kindly rich folk wouldn't give the rest of us jobs. They want to cut government waste but they cannot even begin to tell you what the government spends money on. They seem to think that foreign aid is about a quarter of what we spend and a third goes to brown people so they can buy Cadillacs.
They don't like the deficit but they don't want to end all those nifty wars, they are against welfare programs but hands off their medicare. They don't want to raise taxes on the rich people who can afford it because then they think those kindly rich folk wouldn't give the rest of us jobs. They want to cut government waste but they cannot even begin to tell you what the government spends money on. They seem to think that foreign aid is about a quarter of what we spend and a third goes to brown people so they can buy Cadillacs.
[quote name='Knoell']Obama is not against government waste, or else he would have made good on his campaign promises and went line by line through the bills, and took it out. The stimulus for example has situations in which cities are getting millions of dollars for studies on homeless people and why they smoke. Oh and my favorite millions of dollars to study why if you pay attention you can achieve better results. Why is this stuff necessary in the stimulus? There is a reason that the unemployment rate is at 10 percent still.
So there is no limit to the tax debt you owe the government? After all the money doesn't really belong to you, money is for the good of the nation. Slippery slope dont you think?[/QUOTE]
No no, Obama has said he's against government waste just like you have, so it's true. You're both using the same word and everything, so I'm guessing that you agree on what is and isn't wasteful and how to cut that waste.
Why do you always make it into a slippery slope? Do you think that there should be no taxes and no government?! Why didn't you just say from the start that you're an anarchist?
So there is no limit to the tax debt you owe the government? After all the money doesn't really belong to you, money is for the good of the nation. Slippery slope dont you think?[/QUOTE]
No no, Obama has said he's against government waste just like you have, so it's true. You're both using the same word and everything, so I'm guessing that you agree on what is and isn't wasteful and how to cut that waste.
Why do you always make it into a slippery slope? Do you think that there should be no taxes and no government?! Why didn't you just say from the start that you're an anarchist?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Obama is not against government waste, or else he would have made good on his campaign promises and went line by line through the bills, and took it out. [/QUOTE]
Do you think President Obama should use his line item veto powers?
Do you think President Obama should use his line item veto powers?
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']I can't take credit for it, as I'm pretty sure I picked up the expression on here. Maybe The Crotch used it a while back? 
[/QUOTE]
It does kinda sound like me, but I can't recall ever having said it.
[/QUOTE]It does kinda sound like me, but I can't recall ever having said it.
[quote name='Msut77']It comes down to the fact that that Republican Rhetoric is designed to take advantage of people like Knoell and their ignorance.
They don't like the deficit but they don't want to end all those nifty wars, they are against welfare programs but hands off their medicare. They want to cut government waste but they cannot even begin to tell you what the government spends money on. They seem to think that foreign aid is about a quarter of what we spend and a third goes to brown people so they can buy Cadillacs.[/QUOTE]
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/waste-watcher/
Actually if you have read anything I have stated, I want major cuts across the board. The only reason republicans are bashing medicare cuts is because it is popular to hand out freebies. Democrats do the same thing.
One example is that I love space, and astronomy. Obama cut NASAs funding dramatically, and I didn't flip out, I was a bit disappointed, but I realized cuts are necessary.
What I am saying is that the whole system is screwed up, and we keep piling on more and more entitlements for EVERYONE, and not cutting anything while we watch the deficit go higher and higher.
I will say that this november will be the biggest rout of republicans AND democrats in history.
You keep making the fatal flaw that because I have conservative tendancies that I hate low income people, and love war. That is a very generalized statement. Who is using talking points now? Have you ever thought that people are trying to do what is unpopular and make cuts to entitements because it is necessary? Sure you can say these people are big mean racist people but how else are we going to cut back on spending if we cant cut anything for fear of being big mean racist people?
They don't like the deficit but they don't want to end all those nifty wars, they are against welfare programs but hands off their medicare. They want to cut government waste but they cannot even begin to tell you what the government spends money on. They seem to think that foreign aid is about a quarter of what we spend and a third goes to brown people so they can buy Cadillacs.[/QUOTE]
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/waste-watcher/
Actually if you have read anything I have stated, I want major cuts across the board. The only reason republicans are bashing medicare cuts is because it is popular to hand out freebies. Democrats do the same thing.
One example is that I love space, and astronomy. Obama cut NASAs funding dramatically, and I didn't flip out, I was a bit disappointed, but I realized cuts are necessary.
What I am saying is that the whole system is screwed up, and we keep piling on more and more entitlements for EVERYONE, and not cutting anything while we watch the deficit go higher and higher.
I will say that this november will be the biggest rout of republicans AND democrats in history.
You keep making the fatal flaw that because I have conservative tendancies that I hate low income people, and love war. That is a very generalized statement. Who is using talking points now? Have you ever thought that people are trying to do what is unpopular and make cuts to entitements because it is necessary? Sure you can say these people are big mean racist people but how else are we going to cut back on spending if we cant cut anything for fear of being big mean racist people?
For shits and giggles what do people think the brackets should look like?
I'd go with something along the lines of:
$1-10,000- 0%
$10,001-20K-10%
$15,001-25k-15%
$25,001-35k-20%
$35,001-50k-25%
$50,001-75K-30%
$75,001-100K-35%
$100,001-199,iii-37%
$200k-399,999-39%
300k-499,999-41%
500k-749,99-43%
750k-999,999-45%
$1 million-1,999,999-47%
$2 million to $4,999,999-50%
$5 million to $9,999,999-55%
$10 million and up-60%
And of course, thats an incremental system, not a flat tax.
Something like that. Only things I don't like about that quick off the top of my head projection is the $50-75K group sees a 5% from current rates, so that may need rethought. But otherwise that saves money for people making next to nothing (who are paying 10% currently) and would bring more tax revenue and hopefully cause some reduction in corporate executive salaries etc.
I'd go with something along the lines of:
$1-10,000- 0%
$10,001-20K-10%
$15,001-25k-15%
$25,001-35k-20%
$35,001-50k-25%
$50,001-75K-30%
$75,001-100K-35%
$100,001-199,iii-37%
$200k-399,999-39%
300k-499,999-41%
500k-749,99-43%
750k-999,999-45%
$1 million-1,999,999-47%
$2 million to $4,999,999-50%
$5 million to $9,999,999-55%
$10 million and up-60%
And of course, thats an incremental system, not a flat tax.
Something like that. Only things I don't like about that quick off the top of my head projection is the $50-75K group sees a 5% from current rates, so that may need rethought. But otherwise that saves money for people making next to nothing (who are paying 10% currently) and would bring more tax revenue and hopefully cause some reduction in corporate executive salaries etc.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']I will say that this november will be the biggest rout of republicans AND democrats in history.[/QUOTE]
And they'll be replaced by ...?
And they'll be replaced by ...?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And they'll be replaced by ...?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don't see how both parties can get routed simultaneously in a
ing two party system!
Democrats will lose some seats, but it will be much more minor than conservative talking heads, tea partiers etc. expect.
Yeah, I don't see how both parties can get routed simultaneously in a
ing two party system!Democrats will lose some seats, but it will be much more minor than conservative talking heads, tea partiers etc. expect.
[quote name='SpazX']No no, Obama has said he's against government waste just like you have, so it's true. You're both using the same word and everything, so I'm guessing that you agree on what is and isn't wasteful and how to cut that waste.
Why do you always make it into a slippery slope? Do you think that there should be no taxes and no government?! Why didn't you just say from the start that you're an anarchist?[/QUOTE]
No, see this is the generalization you make about conservative. "they are for lots of war, and and poor people suffering, and they dont want government so they can screw over everyone else"
Thats completely wrong, conservatives know there is a need for government. But where is the limit? For example now that the government has a vested interest in healthcare, do you think they should pass laws on how we should eat? and before you say it won't happen look at this link.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=75227&provider=gnews
Why do you always make it into a slippery slope? Do you think that there should be no taxes and no government?! Why didn't you just say from the start that you're an anarchist?[/QUOTE]
No, see this is the generalization you make about conservative. "they are for lots of war, and and poor people suffering, and they dont want government so they can screw over everyone else"
Thats completely wrong, conservatives know there is a need for government. But where is the limit? For example now that the government has a vested interest in healthcare, do you think they should pass laws on how we should eat? and before you say it won't happen look at this link.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=75227&provider=gnews
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And they'll be replaced by ...?[/QUOTE]
people who run on fiscally conservative policies. They will still be republicans and democrats, and maybe nothing will change, but to say oh well its a two party system so we are going to either go left or right is sad. We have control of our government not the other way around.
Hopefully if the newly elected officials don't fulfull their promises their will be outrage, but I doubt it because like I said, we have become complacent.
people who run on fiscally conservative policies. They will still be republicans and democrats, and maybe nothing will change, but to say oh well its a two party system so we are going to either go left or right is sad. We have control of our government not the other way around.
Hopefully if the newly elected officials don't fulfull their promises their will be outrage, but I doubt it because like I said, we have become complacent.
[quote name='Knoell']No, see this is the generalization you make about conservative. "they are for lots of war, and and poor people suffering, and they dont want government so they can screw over everyone else"
Thats completely wrong, conservatives know there is a need for government. But where is the limit? For example now that the government has a vested interest in healthcare, do you think they should pass laws on how we should eat? and before you say it won't happen look at this link.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=75227&provider=gnews[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that it's possible to define a role for government that isn't a slippery slope? That you can set up tax brackets without saying "is there no limit?"?
Thats completely wrong, conservatives know there is a need for government. But where is the limit? For example now that the government has a vested interest in healthcare, do you think they should pass laws on how we should eat? and before you say it won't happen look at this link.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=75227&provider=gnews[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that it's possible to define a role for government that isn't a slippery slope? That you can set up tax brackets without saying "is there no limit?"?
[quote name='SpazX']So you're saying that it's possible to define a role for government that isn't a slippery slope? That you can set up tax brackets without saying "is there no limit?"?[/QUOTE]
Which is silly, as no one thinks there should be no limit. I stopped at 60% in my bracket proposal, for example.
Which is silly, as no one thinks there should be no limit. I stopped at 60% in my bracket proposal, for example.
[quote name='SpazX']So you're saying that it's possible to define a role for government that isn't a slippery slope? That you can set up tax brackets without saying "is there no limit?"?[/QUOTE]
I am saying that sometimes the government has to be reeled in, and that has nothing to do with racism. We have let them go to far, and now anyone who tries to reel in spending is called a hypocrit and racist.
I am saying that sometimes the government has to be reeled in, and that has nothing to do with racism. We have let them go to far, and now anyone who tries to reel in spending is called a hypocrit and racist.
I say go back to the old tax brackets. It was apparently misleading to say that tax brackets before were higher since the caps were higher (even though the argument is always that X% is fundamentally wrong). So let's get rid of the misleading-ness. People who make over $16 million are taxed 94%, people making over $1 million are taxed 70%. Make up something in-between - say over $10 million is 80%.
That would be acceptable because it directly mirrors the past, considering inflation, when the country was not destroyed by high taxes, right Knoell?
That would be acceptable because it directly mirrors the past, considering inflation, when the country was not destroyed by high taxes, right Knoell?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']people who run on fiscally conservative policies.[/QUOTE]
I'll save you some time - it's not going to happen.
I'll save you some time - it's not going to happen.
[quote name='camoor']I'll save you some time - it's not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
Yep, most people vote on pointless social issues like abortion etc.
Or buy into rhetoric like "the democrats are turning the US into a socialist country." The majority of voters are interested and/or intelligent enough to stay informed, do research and vote on matters like fiscal issues.
Beyond the "democrats will raise your taxes!" type of rhetoric of course.
Yep, most people vote on pointless social issues like abortion etc.
Or buy into rhetoric like "the democrats are turning the US into a socialist country." The majority of voters are interested and/or intelligent enough to stay informed, do research and vote on matters like fiscal issues.
Beyond the "democrats will raise your taxes!" type of rhetoric of course.
[quote name='SpazX']I say go back to the old tax brackets. It was apparently misleading to say that tax brackets before were higher since the caps were higher (even though the argument is always that X% is fundamentally wrong). So let's get rid of the misleading-ness. People who make over $16 million are taxed 94%, people making over $1 million are taxed 70%. Make up something in-between - say over $10 million is 80%.
That would be acceptable because it directly mirrors the past, considering inflation, when the country was not destroyed by high taxes, right Knoell?[/QUOTE]
Answer me this. Who do you think creates the businesses in this country? who employs the most people? what bracket do you think they are in?
That would be acceptable because it directly mirrors the past, considering inflation, when the country was not destroyed by high taxes, right Knoell?[/QUOTE]
Answer me this. Who do you think creates the businesses in this country? who employs the most people? what bracket do you think they are in?
[quote name='camoor']I'll save you some time - it's not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
I have my doubts that they will live up to that as well, but what kind of way is that to look at your government? You people seem to agree that this would be a good thing, yet you downplay it because it seems impossible. Complacency.
I have my doubts that they will live up to that as well, but what kind of way is that to look at your government? You people seem to agree that this would be a good thing, yet you downplay it because it seems impossible. Complacency.
[quote name='SpazX']Not the same as in 1971-1981?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I am asking you though. You seem to think that laying out those brackets is a simple solution yet you don't even know how that would affect job creators, small businesses and such. I can throw out a bunch of numbers too that look good on paper. Fact is that they don't usually work when you factor everything else in.
I don't know, I am asking you though. You seem to think that laying out those brackets is a simple solution yet you don't even know how that would affect job creators, small businesses and such. I can throw out a bunch of numbers too that look good on paper. Fact is that they don't usually work when you factor everything else in.
[quote name='SpazX']Not the same as in 1971-1981?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Business are driven by profit, they will continue to do everything they can to make as much money as they can, expand etc. if taxes go up. As the experience in the past showed when taxes where high the economy was still growing rapidly.
Again, if anything taxing some of the highest income earners more if anything may get executive salaries down some, leaving the corporation more capital to expand, create jobs etc.
Higher personal income taxes give individuals less incentive to make super absurd salaries. They don't give large corporations less incentive to expand and make more money.
Exactly. Business are driven by profit, they will continue to do everything they can to make as much money as they can, expand etc. if taxes go up. As the experience in the past showed when taxes where high the economy was still growing rapidly.
Again, if anything taxing some of the highest income earners more if anything may get executive salaries down some, leaving the corporation more capital to expand, create jobs etc.
Higher personal income taxes give individuals less incentive to make super absurd salaries. They don't give large corporations less incentive to expand and make more money.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. Business are driven by profit, they will continue to do everything they can to make as much money as they can, expand etc. if taxes go up. As the experience in the past showed when taxes where high the economy was still growing rapidly.
Again, if anything taxing some of the highest income earners more if anything may get executive salaries down some, leaving the corporation more capital to expand, create jobs etc.
Higher personal income taxes give individuals less incentive to make super absurd salaries. They don't give large corporations less incentive to expand and make more money.[/QUOTE]
Executive salaries make up a small piece of a major companys pie. Secondly higher personal income taxes gives individuals less incentive to buy anything. Add those two together and you have it completely wrong my friend.
Edit: This is another example of how America gets its panties in a bunch about the wrong things.
Again, if anything taxing some of the highest income earners more if anything may get executive salaries down some, leaving the corporation more capital to expand, create jobs etc.
Higher personal income taxes give individuals less incentive to make super absurd salaries. They don't give large corporations less incentive to expand and make more money.[/QUOTE]
Executive salaries make up a small piece of a major companys pie. Secondly higher personal income taxes gives individuals less incentive to buy anything. Add those two together and you have it completely wrong my friend.
Edit: This is another example of how America gets its panties in a bunch about the wrong things.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
We somehow managed to have plenty of employment from 1940 to 1980, the era is known as the golden age of the middle class. Oh, and also the top tax bracket was between 71% and 91%. People still got rich, but they did so in a way that did not suck the demand out of the market, causing massive cycles of boom and bust.
Though the bigger difference is that from the founding of our nation until the 1980's, we protected our domestic industry by levying tariffs on imports so that the domestic industry always had a competitive advantage. Once we dropped that under the guise of free trade, we allowed other countries that have cheaper costs (due to free health care, human rights violations, environmental destruction, etc.) to get the upper hand.
The private market, from small to large businesses, are the chief producers of jobs. And they should be. The government hiring isnt a long term job strategy. However, it is the governments job to create an environment in which business can thrive. That is to say, we go back to what works, as Spaz is suggesting. High top tax rates, strong commons including an educated, healthy workforce. Tariffs out the wazoo.
Though the bigger difference is that from the founding of our nation until the 1980's, we protected our domestic industry by levying tariffs on imports so that the domestic industry always had a competitive advantage. Once we dropped that under the guise of free trade, we allowed other countries that have cheaper costs (due to free health care, human rights violations, environmental destruction, etc.) to get the upper hand.
The private market, from small to large businesses, are the chief producers of jobs. And they should be. The government hiring isnt a long term job strategy. However, it is the governments job to create an environment in which business can thrive. That is to say, we go back to what works, as Spaz is suggesting. High top tax rates, strong commons including an educated, healthy workforce. Tariffs out the wazoo.
[quote name='Knoell']I don't know, I am asking you though. You seem to think that laying out those brackets is a simple solution yet you don't even know how that would affect job creators, small businesses and such. I can throw out a bunch of numbers too that look good on paper. Fact is that they don't usually work when you factor everything else in.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying the random brackets I came up with are perfect, there should be research done for it.
As for business creation, I think a lot of small businesses are created by people who might barely make it into the top bracket, but are often in the 2nd highest. Huge businesses aren't created/sustained by individuals, they're made by and sustained by the pooled resources of many people. And the bigger businesses often drown the smaller ones into oblivion, so individuals usually don't do very well in job creation.
So I'll ask you - what do those individuals do who actually make salaries in the millions? What is required to do that?
I'm not saying the random brackets I came up with are perfect, there should be research done for it.
As for business creation, I think a lot of small businesses are created by people who might barely make it into the top bracket, but are often in the 2nd highest. Huge businesses aren't created/sustained by individuals, they're made by and sustained by the pooled resources of many people. And the bigger businesses often drown the smaller ones into oblivion, so individuals usually don't do very well in job creation.
So I'll ask you - what do those individuals do who actually make salaries in the millions? What is required to do that?
[quote name='SpazX']I'm not saying the random brackets I came up with are perfect, there should be research done for it.
As for business creation, I think a lot of small businesses are created by people who might barely make it into the top bracket, but are often in the 2nd highest. Huge businesses aren't created/sustained by individuals, they're made by and sustained by the pooled resources of many people. And the bigger businesses often drown the smaller ones into oblivion, so individuals usually don't do very well in job creation.
So I'll ask you - what do those individuals do who actually make salaries in the millions? What is required to do that?[/QUOTE]
small business make up 99.9 percent of all business in the united states.
So lets say a small business owner brings in 1 million dollars. Under your tax brackets he would be taxed at 47%. How do you think that will affect the small businesses will to hire?
As for business creation, I think a lot of small businesses are created by people who might barely make it into the top bracket, but are often in the 2nd highest. Huge businesses aren't created/sustained by individuals, they're made by and sustained by the pooled resources of many people. And the bigger businesses often drown the smaller ones into oblivion, so individuals usually don't do very well in job creation.
So I'll ask you - what do those individuals do who actually make salaries in the millions? What is required to do that?[/QUOTE]
small business make up 99.9 percent of all business in the united states.
So lets say a small business owner brings in 1 million dollars. Under your tax brackets he would be taxed at 47%. How do you think that will affect the small businesses will to hire?
Getting back to the notion of supporting fiscal conservatives to cut wasteful spending---it's not that cut and dry.
Vote for those kind of people and we'll probably see cuts in areas like education that we don't want to see, lose any chance at universal health care etc.
Most of us on the liberal side would mostly probably like to see an increase in government spending, and certainly no main reductions. We want to cut wasteful spending and redirect it elsewhere, while also finding ways to spend more on public and higher education, health care, educational/vocational programs for the lower class to help people break out of the cycle of poverty etc.
So there's no chance of voting for a fiscal conservative as we're not physical conservatives. What we want is someone that supports large government, but also accountability in spending wisely.
Obama campainged on that, we'll see how much he keeps to it at the end of his 4-8 years.
Vote for those kind of people and we'll probably see cuts in areas like education that we don't want to see, lose any chance at universal health care etc.
Most of us on the liberal side would mostly probably like to see an increase in government spending, and certainly no main reductions. We want to cut wasteful spending and redirect it elsewhere, while also finding ways to spend more on public and higher education, health care, educational/vocational programs for the lower class to help people break out of the cycle of poverty etc.
So there's no chance of voting for a fiscal conservative as we're not physical conservatives. What we want is someone that supports large government, but also accountability in spending wisely.
Obama campainged on that, we'll see how much he keeps to it at the end of his 4-8 years.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']We somehow managed to have plenty of employment from 1940 to 1980, the era is known as the golden age of the middle class. Oh, and also the top tax bracket was between 71% and 91%. People still got rich, but they did so in a way that did not suck the demand out of the market, causing massive cycles of boom and bust.
Though the bigger difference is that from the founding of our nation until the 1980's, we protected our domestic industry by levying tariffs on imports so that the domestic industry always had a competitive advantage. Once we dropped that under the guise of free trade, we allowed other countries that have cheaper costs (due to free health care, human rights violations, environmental destruction, etc.) to get the upper hand.
The private market, from small to large businesses, are the chief producers of jobs. And they should be. The government hiring isnt a long term job strategy. However, it is the governments job to create an environment in which business can thrive. That is to say, we go back to what works, as Spaz is suggesting. High top tax rates, strong commons including an educated, healthy workforce. Tariffs out the wazoo.[/QUOTE]
I would be for tariffs, the only problem is that then the other countries would be too. There has to be a solution in which we can offer incentives to companies to remain here, and raising taxes is not one of them.
Though the bigger difference is that from the founding of our nation until the 1980's, we protected our domestic industry by levying tariffs on imports so that the domestic industry always had a competitive advantage. Once we dropped that under the guise of free trade, we allowed other countries that have cheaper costs (due to free health care, human rights violations, environmental destruction, etc.) to get the upper hand.
The private market, from small to large businesses, are the chief producers of jobs. And they should be. The government hiring isnt a long term job strategy. However, it is the governments job to create an environment in which business can thrive. That is to say, we go back to what works, as Spaz is suggesting. High top tax rates, strong commons including an educated, healthy workforce. Tariffs out the wazoo.[/QUOTE]
I would be for tariffs, the only problem is that then the other countries would be too. There has to be a solution in which we can offer incentives to companies to remain here, and raising taxes is not one of them.
[quote name='Knoell']small business make up 99.9 percent of all business in the united states.[/QUOTE]
Yet they employ only 52% of workers. And most of those working for places with less than 100 employees. Those owners/CEOs aren't raking in the millions.
[quote name='Knoell']So lets say a small business owner brings in 1 million dollars. Under your tax brackets he would be taxed at 47%. How do you think that will affect the small businesses will to hire?[/QUOTE]
If his personal income is 1 million dollars he will have a personal income tax of that percent. Her business' income is a different matter and may be taxed at a different rate.
So I'll ask my question again - what do those millionaires do to make their money, what is required to produce that amount of money for them personally?
Yet they employ only 52% of workers. And most of those working for places with less than 100 employees. Those owners/CEOs aren't raking in the millions.
[quote name='Knoell']So lets say a small business owner brings in 1 million dollars. Under your tax brackets he would be taxed at 47%. How do you think that will affect the small businesses will to hire?[/QUOTE]
If his personal income is 1 million dollars he will have a personal income tax of that percent. Her business' income is a different matter and may be taxed at a different rate.
So I'll ask my question again - what do those millionaires do to make their money, what is required to produce that amount of money for them personally?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Getting back to the notion of supporting fiscal conservatives to cut wasteful spending---it's not that cut and dry.
Vote for those kind of people and we'll probably see cuts in areas like education that we don't want to see, lose any chance at universal health care etc.
Most of us on the liberal side would mostly probably like to see an increase in government spending, and certainly no main reductions. We want to cut wasteful spending and redirect it elsewhere, while also finding ways to spend more on public and higher education, health care, educational/vocational programs for the lower class to help people break out of the cycle of poverty etc.
So there's no chance of voting for a fiscal conservative as we're not physical conservatives. What we want is someone that supports large government, but also accountability in spending wisely.
Obama campainged on that, we'll see how much he keeps to it at the end of his 4-8 years.[/QUOTE]
I think it is more about one congressman wanting to show that he got that big project for his district rather than saying "for the good of the country lets spend it here."
I think if we reigned in alot of spending, we would be much more efficient at spending our money on the important things like education.
Vote for those kind of people and we'll probably see cuts in areas like education that we don't want to see, lose any chance at universal health care etc.
Most of us on the liberal side would mostly probably like to see an increase in government spending, and certainly no main reductions. We want to cut wasteful spending and redirect it elsewhere, while also finding ways to spend more on public and higher education, health care, educational/vocational programs for the lower class to help people break out of the cycle of poverty etc.
So there's no chance of voting for a fiscal conservative as we're not physical conservatives. What we want is someone that supports large government, but also accountability in spending wisely.
Obama campainged on that, we'll see how much he keeps to it at the end of his 4-8 years.[/QUOTE]
I think it is more about one congressman wanting to show that he got that big project for his district rather than saying "for the good of the country lets spend it here."
I think if we reigned in alot of spending, we would be much more efficient at spending our money on the important things like education.
[quote name='SpazX']Yet they employ only 52% of workers. And most of those working for places with less than 100 employees. Those owners/CEOs aren't raking in the millions.
If his personal income is 1 million dollars he will have a personal income tax of that percent. Her business' income is a different matter and may be taxed at a different rate.[/QUOTE]
A personal business owner's profit from their business IS their personal income. Usually they reinvest alot of their profits back into their business.
If his personal income is 1 million dollars he will have a personal income tax of that percent. Her business' income is a different matter and may be taxed at a different rate.[/QUOTE]
A personal business owner's profit from their business IS their personal income. Usually they reinvest alot of their profits back into their business.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Most other countries already protect their domestic industries. Its not a matter of saying, we cant get into a trade war. The war is already on, and we're losing.
Regarding your last comment on taxes, this is where we make a distinction between corporate taxes and individual income taxes. The personal income tax should be very high, the corporate income tax should be very low. If a business makes a million dollars, the tax is low. However, once you take money out (in the form of individual paychecks), then it gets taxed at a higher rate. This pushes the incentive to keep that money in the business and to grow it further.
Regarding your last comment on taxes, this is where we make a distinction between corporate taxes and individual income taxes. The personal income tax should be very high, the corporate income tax should be very low. If a business makes a million dollars, the tax is low. However, once you take money out (in the form of individual paychecks), then it gets taxed at a higher rate. This pushes the incentive to keep that money in the business and to grow it further.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']A personal business owner's profit from their business IS their personal income. Usually they reinvest alot of their profits back into their business.[/QUOTE]
You don't pay any taxes on the money you put back into the business.
You don't pay any taxes on the money you put back into the business.
[quote name='Knoell']A personal business owner's profit from their business IS their personal income. Usually they reinvest alot of their profits back into their business.[/QUOTE]
Yes the profit is, if it's a single individual owner. But many small companies aren't making profits in the millions and many business expenses are tax deductible.
Same question from me.
Yes the profit is, if it's a single individual owner. But many small companies aren't making profits in the millions and many business expenses are tax deductible.
Same question from me.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Most other countries already protect their domestic industries. Its not a matter of saying, we cant get into a trade war. The war is already on, and we're losing.
[/QUOTE]
If you let him know that Europe doesn't charge the VAT on exports but does on imports, it might blow his mind.
[/QUOTE]
If you let him know that Europe doesn't charge the VAT on exports but does on imports, it might blow his mind.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You don't pay any taxes on the money you put back into the business.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, so if anything raising taxes on the highest brackets encourages cutbacks in executive/owner salaries and more re-investment in the company which will lead to expansion, new job creation etc.
Not some huge boon as people are greedy and most will still take as much as they can get even if some of their income is getting taxed at 50-60% as it's still more money in their pocket.
But I see raising taxes on the highest brackets/adding more high income brackets not stymieing growth at all--and the growth through during the 20th century from the post depression through Reagan years when taxes were much higher is evidence of taxes not killing growth.
Exactly, so if anything raising taxes on the highest brackets encourages cutbacks in executive/owner salaries and more re-investment in the company which will lead to expansion, new job creation etc.
Not some huge boon as people are greedy and most will still take as much as they can get even if some of their income is getting taxed at 50-60% as it's still more money in their pocket.
But I see raising taxes on the highest brackets/adding more high income brackets not stymieing growth at all--and the growth through during the 20th century from the post depression through Reagan years when taxes were much higher is evidence of taxes not killing growth.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']No shit. He's like thrust before he got even lazier and stopped putting any effort into posting his talking points.[/QUOTE]
Nice.
I'm glad you found a worthy replacement so-called conservative target-board for your standard issue John Stewart branded leftist super-soaker. Congrats.
I learned a long time ago that putting tons of effort into trying to change how you, or anyone here, FEELS about things, was a waste of time. Its akin to trying to convince you that you don't really love your girlfriend.
Intense and pointless ideological bible bashing is only entertaining when my game backlog catches up, which at this rate will be a while.
Nice.
I'm glad you found a worthy replacement so-called conservative target-board for your standard issue John Stewart branded leftist super-soaker. Congrats.
I learned a long time ago that putting tons of effort into trying to change how you, or anyone here, FEELS about things, was a waste of time. Its akin to trying to convince you that you don't really love your girlfriend.
Intense and pointless ideological bible bashing is only entertaining when my game backlog catches up, which at this rate will be a while.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you let him know that Europe doesn't charge the VAT on exports but does on imports, it might blow his mind.[/QUOTE]
It is kind of amazing. And I am not talking about the fact that Knoel doesn't know that "money brought in" isn't the same thing as taxable income, but economists Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Kuttner talk about some of those who are supposed to be handling these things in government and quasi-government agencies who have drank the free trade kool-aid so deep they basically sell out American businesses and workers. It is perverse.
It is kind of amazing. And I am not talking about the fact that Knoel doesn't know that "money brought in" isn't the same thing as taxable income, but economists Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Kuttner talk about some of those who are supposed to be handling these things in government and quasi-government agencies who have drank the free trade kool-aid so deep they basically sell out American businesses and workers. It is perverse.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Now, let's discuss.
Conservatives say, "There will be death panels and it won't save money."
Krugman says, "If there were death panels, it would save money.
If the plan is to save money, how is it done again without "death panels".
BTW, "Further, "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.
He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.
Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.
At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.
But Oregon's health officials nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134401
So, a person wants society to pay $4,000 a month to keep her alive a little bit longer. Would it really worth it? Should there be a lifetime limit on healthcare benefits with Obamacare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aogCaGv9i78
Conservatives say, "There will be death panels and it won't save money."
Krugman says, "If there were death panels, it would save money.
If the plan is to save money, how is it done again without "death panels".
BTW, "Further, "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.
He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.
Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.
At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.
But Oregon's health officials nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134401
So, a person wants society to pay $4,000 a month to keep her alive a little bit longer. Would it really worth it? Should there be a lifetime limit on healthcare benefits with Obamacare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aogCaGv9i78
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']Please post links of federal employees making more than their private sector COUNTERPARTS.[/QUOTE]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
This has been in the news recently. Not in every sector, but in most sector government jobs pay a lot more. Which is really the opposite of what it should be, since government employees have more job security.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
This has been in the news recently. Not in every sector, but in most sector government jobs pay a lot more. Which is really the opposite of what it should be, since government employees have more job security.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
This has been in the news recently. Not in every sector, but in most sector government jobs pay a lot more. Which is really the opposite of what it should be, since government employees have more job security.[/QUOTE]
Great article. Two thoughts. Is there a historical graph? The private sector has taken a huge hit in the last two years. The public sector is starting to take a hit, but it doesn't shift as quick as the private sector can.
Also, what about mercenaries? Blackwater or whatever their name is now pays well into six figures to do what a public soldier does for less than my tech support wages.
This has been in the news recently. Not in every sector, but in most sector government jobs pay a lot more. Which is really the opposite of what it should be, since government employees have more job security.[/QUOTE]
Great article. Two thoughts. Is there a historical graph? The private sector has taken a huge hit in the last two years. The public sector is starting to take a hit, but it doesn't shift as quick as the private sector can.
Also, what about mercenaries? Blackwater or whatever their name is now pays well into six figures to do what a public soldier does for less than my tech support wages.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Now, let's discuss.
Conservatives say, "There will be death panels and it won't save money."
Krugman says, "If there were death panels, it would save money.
If the plan is to save money, how is it done again without "death panels".
BTW, "Further, "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.
He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.
Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.
At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.
But Oregon's health officials nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134401
So, a person wants society to pay $4,000 a month to keep her alive a little bit longer. Would it really worth it? Should there be a lifetime limit on healthcare benefits with Obamacare?
[/QUOTE]
Krugman's right on this one. In many cases, we spend a lot of money on hopeless situations... people who are nonresponsive with anoxic brain injury who remain full code/full care... and the family does not want to let go... sure, they should have the right to proceed in this fashion, but they sould have to pay for it! That's more egregious than giving someone tarceva.
I'm a big supporter of Obama's death panels! Please people, fill out your advance directives and make yourselves DNR/DNI (unless you are young and healthy). We should also reserve the right to refuse service to people who cross the border just for the purpose of getting medical care (this actually happens more often than we care to admit).
Conservatives say, "There will be death panels and it won't save money."
Krugman says, "If there were death panels, it would save money.
If the plan is to save money, how is it done again without "death panels".
BTW, "Further, "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.
He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.
Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.
At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.
But Oregon's health officials nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134401
So, a person wants society to pay $4,000 a month to keep her alive a little bit longer. Would it really worth it? Should there be a lifetime limit on healthcare benefits with Obamacare?
[/QUOTE]
Krugman's right on this one. In many cases, we spend a lot of money on hopeless situations... people who are nonresponsive with anoxic brain injury who remain full code/full care... and the family does not want to let go... sure, they should have the right to proceed in this fashion, but they sould have to pay for it! That's more egregious than giving someone tarceva.
I'm a big supporter of Obama's death panels! Please people, fill out your advance directives and make yourselves DNR/DNI (unless you are young and healthy). We should also reserve the right to refuse service to people who cross the border just for the purpose of getting medical care (this actually happens more often than we care to admit).
bread's done