Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree12Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old July 27th, 2011, 11:27 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Considering the current tax debates, how can they still have a base? especially with the wealth gap at its highest level EVER.

Advertisements
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old July 27th, 2011, 12:56 PM   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,716
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 177
Thanked 1,255 Times in 484 Posts
Default

Well that is a good question but the easiest answer is simply the republican party is really more of a general name then a specific entity. In reality people vote based on belief system not fact system. There are roughly 6 belief parties in the united states. 1.) socially conservative, financially conservative. 2.) socially liberal, financially conservative. 3.) socially conservative, financially liberal. 4.) socially liberal, financially liberal. 5.) Anti government conservative. 6.) anti government liberal. Now those belief parties randomly assign themselves to the democrat republican parties depending on who they are running against. For example. If you have a socially conservative, financially conservative person running as a republican, the democrat could easily be a socially liberal/conservative, financially liberal/conservative. But wants the party position more then the other guy. To answer the question, because of beliefs. People believe that one candidate suits them better then another. Those beliefs set themselves into a two party system, because of money.
RiverOfIce is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 01:12 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

I understand that there are social diferances as well as financial differances. However, beings as to how it is money that makes the world go round, wouldn't it be in the best interest of 99% of America to vote anything BUT republican?
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 01:16 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

The Democratic/Republican parties are marketing tools for the Chamber of Commerce and its constituent members. Tell a selected market segment what it wants to hear, but do the bidding of those that determine what the market segment wants to hear.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 01:24 PM   #5 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
The Democratic/Republican parties are marketing tools for the Chamber of Commerce and its constituent members. Tell a selected market segment what it wants to hear, but do the bidding of those that determine what the market segment wants to hear.
< flipping through old copy of das Kapital acquired at hippy store in '68 >

By golly you're right.. says so right here on page (pick a page, pick any page).
Bob Blaylock likes this.
__________________



Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 01:40 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
< flipping through old copy of das Kapital acquired at hippy store in '68 >

By golly you're right.. says so right here on page (pick a page, pick any page).
The ideal is not copyrighted, so therefor in the public domain, free to be used by anyone with sufficient resources to implement.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 02:21 PM   #7 (permalink)
Member
 
noah way's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 496
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 45
Thanked 142 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

Easy:
  • lots of corporate "donations"
  • corporate ownership of mass media
  • gerrymandering and election fraud

That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
noah way is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to noah way For This Useful Post:
brotherswing (October 29th, 2012), Frisco (July 27th, 2011), nlsme (July 27th, 2011), savethebees (November 4th, 2012)
Old July 27th, 2011, 03:58 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way View Post
Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

Easy:
  • lots of corporate "donations"
  • corporate ownership of mass media
  • gerrymandering and election fraud
That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
But, the media always leans left!!!!!!! /S
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 04:06 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way View Post
Easy:
  • lots of corporate "donations"
  • corporate ownership of mass media
  • gerrymandering and election fraud

That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
You just described the Democrat party as well.

The question shouldn't be "how is the republican party still around" but why do we still cater to a 2 party system? The ideals of all Americans can not be put into just 2 party's who are absolutely no different from one another.

I'm pretty sure George Washington made a reference to the dangers of a 2 party system in his farewell address. We should probably listen to the man, he might have known a thing or two.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to persim For This Useful Post:
Stinky Stinky (July 28th, 2011)
Old July 27th, 2011, 04:10 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
You just described the Democrat party as well.

The question shouldn't be "how is the republican party still around" but why do we still cater to a 2 party system? The ideals of all Americans can not be put into just 2 party's who are absolutely no different from one another.

I'm pretty sure George Washington made a reference to the dangers of a 2 party system in his farewell address. We should probably listen to the man, he might have known a thing or two.
The question was posed directly towards the republican party because of their policies that favor the rich, while hurting the poor. Look at the current debt talks to see exactly what I am talking about. Now, look at the article, and see how outnumbered the super rich are. I can understande the top 1% of American's (in terms of wealth) favoring the Republican party. I just can't understand the bottom 99% even giving them the time of day.
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old July 27th, 2011, 04:18 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 58
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way View Post
Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

Easy:
  • lots of corporate "donations"
  • corporate ownership of mass media
  • gerrymandering and election fraud

That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
I believe the last part of your statement probably says it best.All the gullible people that believe the Spokesmen of the rich such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck speak the gospel
robertj298 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 04:44 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post
The question was posed directly towards the republican party because of their policies that favor the rich, while hurting the poor. Look at the current debt talks to see exactly what I am talking about. Now, look at the article, and see how outnumbered the super rich are. I can understande the top 1% of American's (in terms of wealth) favoring the Republican party. I just can't understand the bottom 99% even giving them the time of day.
I can tell you I am certainly not in the 1% (in terms of wealth) you can only see supporting the Republican Party. But I don't like to be told what I should do with my money and the "spread the wealth around" philosophy favored by our current president and a good chunk of the Democratic Party makes me sick. Call me a terrible person but I don't give a crap about a drug addict on the streets of Seattle and certainly don't want my hard earned dollars going to programs for that person.

If I so choose to help people out anywhere, I will do so by giving donations to programs I see fit. Being forced to do so by way of taxes from our government is not something I support. A lot of candidates are forced to choose between the 2 party system we have in order to get elected even though they don't agree with all their ideals. So I have absolutely no problem electing a Republican or Democrat that favors my ideals.

We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
Bob Blaylock likes this.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to persim For This Useful Post:
Stinky Stinky (July 28th, 2011), Strings (October 30th, 2012)
Old July 27th, 2011, 04:48 PM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
I can tell you I am certainly not in the 1% (in terms of wealth) you can only see supporting the Republican Party. But I don't like to be told what I should do with my money and the "spread the wealth around" philosophy favored by our current president and a good chunk of the Democratic Party makes me sick. Call me a terrible person but I don't give a crap about a drug addict on the streets of Seattle and certainly don't want my hard earned dollars going to programs for that person.

If I so choose to help people out anywhere, I will do so by giving donations to programs I see fit. Being forced to do so by way of taxes from our government is not something I support. A lot of candidates are forced to choose between the 2 party system we have in order to get elected even though they don't agree with all their ideals. So I have absolutely no problem electing a Republican or Democrat that favors my ideals.

We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
The top 1% receive more of your money than the drug addict. You pay a FAR higher percentage than the 1%. Read the article.
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 05:10 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post
The top 1% receive more of your money than the drug addict. You pay a FAR higher percentage than the 1%. Read the article.
I did read it and many many others that have claimed this statistic. It's impossible to get around paying a payroll tax(unless you pull the classic CEO move and take a $1 salary with all those excellent stock options). Depending on your income this will range anywhere from 0-45%.

Whether you then manipulate the tax code with an obscene amount of deductions or credits is a totally different story all together. This could all be remedied by eliminating the IRS and having a simple code that taxes everyone at the same rate with no chance of deductions or credits.

Would you be happy then when everyone would be treated equally and paying the same percentage of their income?
Bob Blaylock likes this.
persim is offline  
Last edited by persim; July 27th, 2011 at 05:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 05:31 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

"And the rate of increase is even higher for the very richest of the rich: the top 400 income earners in the United States. The average income of the top 400 doubled during the first seven years of the Bush Administration. So by 2007, the top 400 averaged $344.8 million per person, up 31% from an average of $263.3 million just one year earlier.How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few.Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay."

Considering 75% of their income is not "payroll", it isn't that hard to get around.
nlsme is offline  
Last edited by nlsme; July 27th, 2011 at 05:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 06:04 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post

Considering 75% of their income is not "payroll", it isn't that hard to get around.
Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay.

Your point is what? Effective tax rate is just a net of all your tax rates. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to invest and have income from those investments, whether its 75% of your total income or 25% of your total income. That income is then taxed at a specific rate that is different from a payroll tax.

Just because 75% of their income happens to come from investments doesn't mean they are paying any less percentage (yes capital gains were lowered so that part of their income was paying less tax but so were everyone elses). They are paying exactly the rate that anyone who invested would pay on that income.

You can not compare effective tax rate to marginal tax rate as this article and many articles like it try to do. A person making 75k who had 75% of his income from investments and 25% from salary would pay a smaller effective tax rate than a person making 75k from salary only. But since they are both deemed middle class no one would argue that this person should pay his "fair share". Why are wealthy people treated differently just because they are wealthy?
Bob Blaylock likes this.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to persim For This Useful Post:
Stinky Stinky (July 28th, 2011)
Old July 27th, 2011, 06:17 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
Your point is what? Effective tax rate is just a net of all your tax rates. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to invest and have income from those investments, whether its 75% of your total income or 25% of your total income. That income is then taxed at a specific rate that is different from a payroll tax.

Just because 75% of their income happens to come from investments doesn't mean they are paying any less percentage (yes capital gains were lowered so that part of their income was paying less tax but so were everyone elses). They are paying exactly the rate that anyone who invested would pay on that income.

You can not compare effective tax rate to marginal tax rate as this article and many articles like it try to do. A person making 75k who had 75% of his income from investments and 25% from salary would pay a smaller effective tax rate than a person making 75k from salary only. But since they are both deemed middle class no one would argue that this person should pay his "fair share". Why are wealthy people treated differently just because they are wealthy?
Why are wealthy people treated differantly just because they are wealthy? Maybe a republican can answer this, as they are the ones that pass tax laws that overwelmingly favor them. Why should someones investments be taxed at half the rate as someones labor? Let me make a little hypothetical.

Two people, one rich, the other poor. The rich man employs the poor guys at a rate of $15/hr. The rich guy collects $30/hr for the work the poor guy does. After wages, the rich guy makes $15/hr off of the work the poor guy actually performs. Now, Uncle sam tells the poor guy he now owes $4/hr from his wages. He then tells the rich guy that he only owes $2/hr off the profit he makes from the poor mans labor. How is that fair?
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 06:39 PM   #18 (permalink)
Reformed PH
 
Steven58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 32,921
 
Device(s): Gnex AOKP Nightlies (KitKat)
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 8,948
Thanked 26,702 Times in 7,003 Posts
Default

<--------- Registered Republican.
MrDangerous and jefboyardee like this.
Steven58 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 07:07 PM   #19 (permalink)
Member
 
noah way's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 496
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 45
Thanked 142 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
You just described the Democrat party as well.
To a lesser extent, yes. Both Democrats and Republicans serve their corporate masters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
Progressive tax means the rate rises for each tax bracket. Taxes on the first 8,500 is 10%, from 8,500 to 34,500 is 15%, from 34,500 to 83,600 is 25%, etc.

So the guy on minimum wage is paying the exact same tax as you are on that level of income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
It's impossible to get around paying a payroll tax
Payroll tax is capped at $106,800 of income. Someone making that amount pays 6.2% (and their employer pays another 6.2%). Someone making double that amount ($213,600) only pays 3.1% payroll tax.

The more money you make (over $106k) the lower the percentage you pay. This is but one of many tax benefits the wealthy get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
Everyone in this country has the opportunity to invest and have income from those investments, whether its 75% of your total income or 25% of your total income.
If they have money they do. The poor and middle classes don't have money to invest, so they do not have the opportunity to receive the tax benefits that investors get. This is a clear case of tax policy that rewards the rich.
noah way is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011, 08:25 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post
Why are wealthy people treated differantly just because they are wealthy? Maybe a republican can answer this, as they are the ones that pass tax laws that overwelmingly favor them. Why should someones investments be taxed at half the rate as someones labor?
I am sure most Democrats in congress take full advantage of these tax laws, I have never seen any one of them ask to give the money back because they thought it was unfair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post
Two people, one rich, the other poor. The rich man employs the poor guys at a rate of $15/hr. The rich guy collects $30/hr for the work the poor guy does. After wages, the rich guy makes $15/hr off of the work the poor guy actually performs. Now, Uncle sam tells the poor guy he now owes $4/hr from his wages. He then tells the rich guy that he only owes $2/hr off the profit he makes from the poor mans labor. How is that fair?
This scenario is completely wrong. The rich guy is not an investor, he is an employer. He pays the employer part of the workers payroll taxes and pays for taxes on his earned income.


Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way View Post
Progressive tax means the rate rises for each tax bracket. Taxes on the first 8,500 is 10%, from 8,500 to 34,500 is 15%, from 34,500 to 83,600 is 25%, etc.

So the guy on minimum wage is paying the exact same tax as you are on that level of income.
I never said wealthy people are paying more on the lower income.

That is why I said you can not compare effective to marginal tax. Marginal=Progressive


Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way View Post
Payroll tax is capped at $106,800 of income. Someone making that amount pays 6.2% (and their employer pays another 6.2%). Someone making double that amount ($213,600) only pays 3.1% payroll tax.

The more money you make (over $106k) the lower the percentage you pay. This is but one of many tax benefits the wealthy get.
Payroll taxes maybe capped at 106k but income tax sure isn't. This small benefit does not make up for the outrageous income taxes the wealthy pay, anywhere from 35%-50% depending on who controls the government.

As I said in a prior post I am in favor of a simplified tax system where everybody would be charged 18-22% on all income no matter what their type of income.


Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way View Post
If they have money they do. The poor and middle classes don't have money to invest, so they do not have the opportunity to receive the tax benefits that investors get. This is a clear case of tax policy that rewards the rich.
This is completely untrue, I have been investing since I was 16 with a minimum wage job, when I was paying my way through college and up until today. Everybody has the opportunity to invest, whether they choose to or not is a completely different matter.
Bob Blaylock likes this.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old July 28th, 2011, 08:14 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
This scenario is completely wrong. The rich guy is not an investor, he is an employer. He pays the employer part of the workers payroll taxes and pays for taxes on his earned income.

This is completely untrue, I have been investing since I was 16 with a minimum wage job, when I was paying my way through college and up until today. Everybody has the opportunity to invest, whether they choose to or not is a completely different matter.
Semantics. A rich guy invests in a company. Said company has an employee that makes $15/hr. The return on the rich guys investment is $15 for every hour the poor guy works. The poor guy pays $2.5/hr in taxes, the "investor" pays $1.25 for every $15 return on his investment. How is this fair?

How is it completely untrue that the rich have far more to invest with? The top 20% of Americans hold 80% of the nations wealth. The top .6% hold over 50%. The bottom 80% only hold 20% of the nations wealth. It is pretty clear that the capital gains tax benefits the wealthy in an extremely lopsided manner. Considering that is where most of their money comes from, investment (not payroll), why even discuss margianal tax rates on the rich at all. That is not what their tax burden comes from, by and large.
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 11:01 AM   #22 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post
Semantics. A rich guy invests in a company. Said company has an employee that makes $15/hr. The return on the rich guys investment is $15 for every hour the poor guy works. The poor guy pays $2.5/hr in taxes, the "investor" pays $1.25 for every $15 return on his investment. How is this fair?
The situation is completely different. At some point in time said rich guy had income that was taxed at the proper income/payroll rate like everyone else. He then uses this money that has already been taxed to invest in a company. He makes money on this investment and pays the proper tax rate for investment income.

These our the rules of our current system. Whether it is fair or not is a different debate but every person in America has the ability to do what this rich guy has done with his money. As I stated above, I favor a flat tax on all income of 18-22% for everyone with no loopholes, deductions, credits nor exceptions. This is completely fair to me because everyone is treated equally.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post
How is it completely untrue that the rich have far more to invest with? The top 20% of Americans hold 80% of the nations wealth. The top .6% hold over 50%. The bottom 80% only hold 20% of the nations wealth. It is pretty clear that the capital gains tax benefits the wealthy in an extremely lopsided manner. Considering that is where most of their money comes from, investment (not payroll), why even discuss margianal tax rates on the rich at all. That is not what their tax burden comes from, by and large.
This is our current tax code. I didn't write it and I don't agree with it. But you and many others appear to upset with wealthy people just because they are wealthy. They follow the same rules as everyone else regarding marginal income tax and investment income tax. Money doesn't appear out of thin air. At some point in time money was made and was taxed at the marginal rate. They then invested that money and pay taxes on that as well.

Do capital gains tax decreases help people with money invested? Sure they do but they help everyone who has investments. Myself and my entire family(all middle class by the way)received tax decreases when the capital gains tax was lowered. As stated before everyone has the opportunity to invest. You appear to be upset because these people have invested their money wisely.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 11:13 AM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
The situation is completely different. At some point in time said rich guy had income that was taxed at the proper income/payroll rate like everyone else. He then uses this money that has already been taxed to invest in a company. He makes money on this investment and pays the proper tax rate for investment income.

These our the rules of our current system. Whether it is fair or not is a different debate but every person in America has the ability to do what this rich guy has done with his money. As I stated above, I favor a flat tax on all income of 18-22% for everyone with no loopholes, deductions, credits nor exceptions. This is completely fair to me because everyone is treated equally.




This is our current tax code. I didn't write it and I don't agree with it. But you and many others appear to upset with wealthy people just because they are wealthy. They follow the same rules as everyone else regarding marginal income tax and investment income tax. Money doesn't appear out of thin air. At some point in time money was made and was taxed at the marginal rate. They then invested that money and pay taxes on that as well.

Do capital gains tax decreases help people with money invested? Sure they do but they help everyone who has investments. Myself and my entire family(all middle class by the way)received tax decreases when the capital gains tax was lowered. As stated before everyone has the opportunity to invest. You appear to be upset because these people have invested their money wisely.
I get it, the top 400 ALL had jobs at Mcdonalds.... Not one of them did. You say you would be willing to have a flat tax of 18-22%, yet, say that I dislike the rich? BTW, the effective tax rate (what they actually pay) is below 18%. I don't hate the rich, I hate that they pay to have tax laws enacted that direclty benefit them. Yes, anyboidy can invest. Not everyone can invest where 75% of their income comes from returns on those investments. In fact, MOST Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and cannot invest. Most Americans could not come up with $2,000 to cover an unexpected emergency. I don't hate the rich, I hate that I pay a FAR HIGHER percentage of MY earnings in taxes than they do.
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 03:00 PM   #24 (permalink)
Member
 
noah way's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 496
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 45
Thanked 142 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
This scenario is completely wrong. The rich guy is not an investor, he is an employer. He pays the employer part of the workers payroll taxes and pays for taxes on his earned income.
GE Healthcare relocates its X-ray base to China

Ford announces new $1 billion plant in India

That a lot of jobs alright. Too bad none of them are in the US. Too bad that GE pays no taxes, and that foreign investment gets a tax credit (otherwise known as a subsidy).
noah way is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 03:49 PM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Stinky Stinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a Dumpster! :D
Posts: 3,794
 
Device(s): Huawei Ascend Y300 :D
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,121
Thanked 1,406 Times in 1,053 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
But I don't like to be told what I should do with my money and the "spread the wealth around" philosophy favored by our current president and a good chunk of the Democratic Party makes me sick.
Well said my friend.

I completely agree with you.

I live in one the most socialist countries and it is on the borderline of becoming communist. There are a lot of problems in my country because of socialism and cultural issues.

SA the biggest welfare state in the world, says economist - Business - Mail & Guardian Online

We are one of the most dangerous places in the world to live in because of socialism and cultural issues:

Top 10 Most Dangerous Places on Earth

You see, I have lived my whole life in a socialist / semi - communist country and our country is a real serious screw up and pathetic hell holl.

Socialism doesn't work and neither does communism. It has been proven during the Cold War and in other places too.

I am completely aware of the dangers of a socialist and communist system becuase I have lived my whole life in a socialist system and believe socialism is flat out dangerous.

And yes I agree with you, you shouldn't spread the wealth around, or have welfare it is dangerous.

That is basically like communism.

It is against human rights to have welfare, you are correct. I tried to explain this to other people but they did not understand me sadly.

And I also agree with you that you should not have to help someone out of their problems that you did not creat in the 1st place. It is forcing you to pay for someone elses problems. We did not creat their problems in life but some how we must pay for for their problems with welfare?

It is very wrong to be forced to do that.

Anywayz never mind that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
We are all supposed to be treated equally in this country but why am I forced to pay a greater percentage of tax than a person making minimum wage? My reward for becoming a more productive member of society is to pay a greater percentage of my wages to the government. Seems like the worst incentive policy I have ever heard.
Wow that is so true!

I agree with you 120%.

You should get rewarded for your hard work and not the other way round, which is what you have said there.

You are 120% correct again.

People should get rewarded for doing well in life and not the other way round.

You are right.

Seriously well said.

P.S. I might sound like a heartless person but you have to look after yourself and not bear the burden of every body else's problems / issues in life because that is not fair to take on others problems. You have to look after your self sad but true.
Stinky Stinky is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 03:55 PM   #26 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

They've taken in too far in S.A., for sure, Stinky. The old apartheid days needed to be turned to democracy, not to socialism.

Too bad, they had a chance early on with Nelson Mandela.. but something went wrong and I'm not sure what it was.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frisco For This Useful Post:
Stinky Stinky (July 28th, 2011)
Old July 28th, 2011, 04:06 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Stinky Stinky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a Dumpster! :D
Posts: 3,794
 
Device(s): Huawei Ascend Y300 :D
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,121
Thanked 1,406 Times in 1,053 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
They've taken in too far in S.A., for sure, Stinky. The old apartheid days needed to be turned to democracy, not to socialism.


Thanks Frisco this means a lot to me ;(

I really appreciate this.

Thank you man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
Too bad, they had a chance early on with Nelson Mandela.. but something went wrong and I'm not sure what it was.
These people completely believe in a stupid superstition called the "Tikoloshe".

It is a type of "demon" that they totally believe in... very sad actually.

Tikoloshe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sadly they have not changed culturally and ethically... so we are doomed.

Anywayz I don't want to turn this thread into another one of my disasters.

I have made too many disiaters on these forums.

I just used my country as an example because it is such a failure and is borderline communist / dictatorship and wanted to demonstrate the dangers of socialism thats all so thats why I brought up my contry, just to demonstrate the dangers of socialism.

Thanx Frisco
Stinky Stinky is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 04:21 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 891
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 88
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky Stinky View Post


Thanks Frisco this means a lot to me ;(

I really appreciate this.

Thank you man.



These people completely believe in a stupid superstition called the "Tikoloshe".

It is a type of "demon" that they totally believe in... very sad actually.

Tikoloshe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sadly they have not changed culturally and ethically... so we are doomed.

Anywayz I don't want to turn this thread into another one of my disasters.

I have made too many disiaters on these forums.

I just used my country as an example because it is such a failure and is borderline communist / dictatorship and wanted to demonstrate the dangers of socialism thats all so thats why I brought up my contry, just to demonstrate the dangers of socialism.

Thanx Frisco
The thing is, here the money from socialism overwelmingly flows to the rich, not the poor. That is the point of the thread.
nlsme is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 05:20 PM   #29 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S5, Galaxy Tab 7" 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,265 Times in 5,119 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme View Post
The thing is, here the money from socialism overwelmingly flows to the rich, not the poor. That is the point of the thread.
It appears to be the same way with capitalism, but with a chance for the poor to become the rich.. that's a difference, but one that is being washed away by creeping Republican manipulation of what used to be a free system.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2011, 06:13 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

South Africa is fairly far from socialism, the post-apartheid welfare programs were targeted, and made a lot of blacks wealthy, but poverty amongst blacks has increased. /OT

I am surprised by the strength of the GOP in the US, but perhaps its because the US has never had a major famine or major foreign invasion or whatever that sticks in memory.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old September 3rd, 2012, 12:08 AM   #31 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah way View Post
Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

Easy:
  • lots of corporate "donations"
  • corporate ownership of mass media
  • gerrymandering and election fraud

That pretty much covers it. Except of course for the stupidity of people who vote against their own self-interest.
The financial backers of the Republicans want a return to the Gilded Age, a large, cheap supply of labor, thus their opposition to women's reproductive health.

They also require no government interference in the formation of monopolies and government leaders are beholden to the extremely wealthy. Large propaganda efforts must be made to deceive the public, those not deceived need to be disenfranchised and the vote counting process needs to be controlled.

Government has to be limited and subservient to the few wealthy plutocrats that cheated and swindled to obtain great wealth, such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan, who are paragons of virtue compared to Koch, Adelson and VanderSloot.

Laissez faire ideology leads to economic collapse, which can lead to a rise of a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Tse-Tung.

Economy in The Gilded Age

"It is hard to ignore the contributions of these industrial giants to the development of the American economy. But some historians suggest that focusing on these sorts of individuals still fails to capture the full character of the emerging industrial economy. Like the statistical portrait, or the reduction of the economy to a list of abstract ingredients, this focus on just a handful of powerful individuals fails to capture the character of the economy for the vast majority of America's 75 million people. In particular, these approaches fail to reveal the impact of this particular form of economic growth on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The same economy that gave Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan the opportunity to amass the largest fortunes in the history of the world also required unskilled industrial laborers to work an average of 60 hours per week for 10 cents an hour. (Accounting for inflation, 10 cents in 1880 was worth about as much as $2 today.)"
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2012, 07:20 AM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Must we necro a year old topic just to beat up on the GOP? Really?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2012, 10:32 AM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jefboyardee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,658
 
Device(s): Fuel W7hp Mint
Carrier: Stray Talk

Thanks: 458
Thanked 520 Times in 445 Posts
Default

Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

You’ll find out November sixth.
__________________
jefboyardee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2012, 03:00 PM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jefboyardee View Post
Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

You’ll find out November sixth.
Lets hope not, Americans look bad enough as it is.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2012, 04:53 PM   #35 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Must we necro a year old topic just to beat up on the GOP? Really?
Still not able debate the subject ? Fine. The beatings will continue till morale improves.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2012, 08:21 PM   #36 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Let's see cut funding for Embassy security, incident occurs, blame victims for not having adequate security. Priceless.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
bberryhill0 (October 28th, 2012)
Old October 11th, 2012, 08:50 PM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Let's see cut funding for Embassy security, incident occurs, blame victims for not having adequate security. Priceless.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010."
you do realize that in order for anything the house voted on to take effect...... the senate (majority Dems) also has to vote on the same thing...... and then the President has to approve it

its kind of how the government works

the house cant just take a vote and dictate what gets spent where on their own

as far as blaming the victims......... HEH?

the attack was only on Dems or something?...... oh wait you forgot 4 people died...... they were the victims.... not the president
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2012, 01:26 PM   #38 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy SIII
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Republican thinking, or lack thereof

Ignorance feeds on ignorance. Look at their constituencies: the greed (and I will not include all the rich), the under-educated, the prejudicial (includes the close-minded), followers of most types who look for leadership rather than intellectualizing problems (there's that nasty word "intellectual" which means a person who has an ability to think), the misinformed (a huge number who are not curious to independently find the answer), single issue voters (who usually fit into other categories as well), and of course NASCAR followers (pardon to the few who actually do have the ability to think through the long term ramifications of their vote, and that also applies to most other categories).

Knowledge of history and work experience. I have some under-educated relatives who don't know what the word means when someone calls their positions reactionary. I ask how well they know US and world history because their positions would return us to life as it was know before FDR and under the administrations of earlier not-so-bright Republicans, most notable, Hoover.

If they agree, which few of them do, that living under conditions as they were before the middle class started its growth under FDR, that voting for Romney, and worse yet Ryan, would assure the appointment of Supreme Court justices that would assure our conversion to a Third World country in a few decades.

I am sure I have missed a few constituency categories and would like to hear which ones I have overlooked and which you would include. I also realize we have some of the under-educated on our side as well, but those on the reactionary side are so verbose about their lack of knowledge, compassion, and understanding.

I have written about five or ten more paragraphs but this must go into a cloud and never lets me finish. When I have time I will get back to this
Intruderboy is offline  
Last edited by Intruderboy; October 15th, 2012 at 01:44 AM. Reason: to clarify some thoughts
Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2012, 06:53 AM   #39 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intruderboy View Post
Ignorance feeds on ignorance. Look at their constituencies: the greed (and I will not include all the rich), the under-educated, the prejudicial (includes the close-minded), followers of most types who look for leadership rather than intellectualizing problems (there's that nasty word "intellectual" which means a person who has an ability to think), the misinformed (a huge number who are not curious to independently find the answer), single issue voters (who usually fit into other categories as well), and of course NASCAR followers (pardon to the few who actually do have the ability to think through the long term ramifications of their vote, and that also applies to most other categories).

Knowledge of history and work experience. I have some under-educated relatives who don't know what the word means when someone calls their positions reactionary. I ask how well they know US and world history because their positions would return us to life as it was know before FDR and under the administrations of earlier not-so-bright Republicans, most notable, Hoover.

If they agree, which few of them do, that living under conditions as they were before the middle class started its growth under FDR, that voting for Romney, and worse yet Ryan, would assure the appointment of Supreme Court justices that would assure our conversion to a Third World country in a few decades.

I am sure I have missed a few constituency categories and would like to hear which ones I have overlooked and which you would include. I also realize we have some of the under-educated on our side as well, but those on the reactionary side are so verbose about their lack of knowledge, compassion, and understanding.

I have written about five or ten more paragraphs but this must go into a cloud and never lets me finish. When I have time I will get back to this
The rhetoric in this post amuses me greatly. It amuses me because I've seen the exact same thing just from the opposite perspective where the exact same arguments were made just for Romney instead of Obama. The end argument was that Obama would turn us into a 3rd world country. In essence, take your entire post and substitute Obama for Romney and it's the same thing. Good to know the two parties are so different.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2012, 11:02 AM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jefboyardee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,658
 
Device(s): Fuel W7hp Mint
Carrier: Stray Talk

Thanks: 458
Thanked 520 Times in 445 Posts
Default

PC Mag opines:

I also think Sprint won't try to buy T-Mobile in the next four years, unless Mitt Romney is elected. Yes, there are a lot of Wall Street analysts slavering over the potential of dropping from four to three nationwide carriers, but Obama's FCC and DOJ, in rejecting the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, made it clear they want four nationwide carriers. No need to open that can of worms. A Romney FCC and DOJ would be much friendlier to consolidation.
jefboyardee is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old October 24th, 2012, 02:50 PM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Blah, Blah, Blah. Why is the democratic party still alive? Thousand silly answers to very complex questions that will not be answered here.
JimmyRayBob likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2012, 05:23 PM   #42 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 534
 
Device(s): Droid DNA
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 37
Thanked 57 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jefboyardee View Post
PC Mag opines:

I also think Sprint won't try to buy T-Mobile in the next four years, unless Mitt Romney is elected. Yes, there are a lot of Wall Street analysts slavering over the potential of dropping from four to three nationwide carriers, but Obama's FCC and DOJ, in rejecting the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, made it clear they want four nationwide carriers. No need to open that can of worms. A Romney FCC and DOJ would be much friendlier to consolidation.
Not even quite sure it will ever happen. T-Mobile just merged with Metro and Sprint is getting bought by a Japanese firm.
__________________
Known as Stonent on XDA
MrDangerous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2012, 06:44 PM   #43 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
oopsibrokeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Augusta,GA.
Posts: 70
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Prevail,Kindle Fire
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 12
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Ahhh smell the capitalism, if you're not happy with the status quo then re-elect nobody, stop creating career politicans, drop the income tax and implement a federal sales tax, no loop holes, if you buy things you pay taxes reguardless of your status in life or where your money came from.
__________________
If I can help, you've got bigger problems
oopsibrokeit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2012, 09:40 PM   #44 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,703
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,250
Thanked 1,532 Times in 1,170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oopsibrokeit View Post
Ahhh smell the capitalism, if you're not happy with the status quo then re-elect nobody, stop creating career politicans, drop the income tax and implement a federal sales tax, no loop holes, if you buy things you pay taxes reguardless of your status in life or where your money came from.
That would be a huge tax increase for lower income people, who have to spend most of the money they make.
__________________
"Machete don't text"
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2012, 03:00 AM   #45 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmash View Post
That would be a huge tax increase for lower income people, who have to spend most of the money they make.

that would be true if you ignore the fact that every proposal ever written for a national sales tax included welfare for the "poor"...... they can still afford underwear and toilet paper blah blah blah........ they wont, however, be able to afford that 60" flat panel they been saving up their food stamps to buy

but nice attempt at the scare tactics... par for the course with those that believe taxes are something that should be paid by others......... try paying some sometime and join the productive in society instead of advocating for laziness
copestag is offline  
Last edited by copestag; October 28th, 2012 at 03:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2012, 06:26 AM   #46 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
kool kat2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Carson, CA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,018
 
Device(s): HTC One M8
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 217
Thanked 140 Times in 116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
they can still afford underwear and toilet paper blah blah blah........ they wont, however, be able to afford that 60" flat panel they been saving up their food stamps to buy

You mean ive been spending all my food stamps on food all this time for when i could have bought tvs! ?!? Why was i not made aware of this sooner?
savethebees likes this.
kool kat2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kool kat2 For This Useful Post:
bberryhill0 (October 28th, 2012)
Old October 28th, 2012, 07:04 AM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oopsibrokeit View Post
Ahhh smell the capitalism, if you're not happy with the status quo then re-elect nobody, stop creating career politicans, drop the income tax and implement a federal sales tax, no loop holes, if you buy things you pay taxes reguardless of your status in life or where your money came from.
You can't just completely rely on sales tax (or VAT as we call it). The highest rate in Europe is 27% (minimum allowed is 15%), and I don't think it should be higher than that, as you then have to provide more transfers to the working and lower middle classes. Perhaps if the federal government was to set minimum income tax rates for states and obliged them to provide services (healthcare, third level education etc), the federal government could largely reduce income taxation, if they also brought in a 20-30% sales tax and removed the right for states and local government to levy such taxes.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2012, 08:19 AM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,703
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,250
Thanked 1,532 Times in 1,170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
that would be true if you ignore the fact that every proposal ever written for a national sales tax included welfare for the "poor"...... they can still afford underwear and toilet paper blah blah blah........ they wont, however, be able to afford that 60" flat panel they been saving up their food stamps to buy

but nice attempt at the scare tactics... par for the course with those that believe taxes are something that should be paid by others......... try paying some sometime and join the productive in society instead of advocating for laziness
Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but I actually work full time and pay my fair share of taxes. Personal attacks are unnecessary and lazy.
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2012, 08:23 AM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,703
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,250
Thanked 1,532 Times in 1,170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kat2 View Post
You mean ive been spending all my food stamps on food all this time for when i could have bought tvs! ?!? Why was i not made aware of this sooner?
Or underwear even lol.
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2012, 12:28 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmash View Post
That would be a huge tax increase for lower income people, who have to spend most of the money they make.
Depends. I've seen different proposals address this. Some propose no taxes at all on necessities like food. Others propose taxes on some foods that are deemed non-necessary. So if you buy hamburger, it's tax free, but if you buy caviar or lobster or prime rib you pay taxes. Others have simply done the math on how much it takes to live at the poverty level. They propose issuing a check to everyone every year for the amount you would pay in taxes if you live at the poverty level. This way the poor are paying no taxes at all. Anyone who lives above the poverty level pays taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
You can't just completely rely on sales tax (or VAT as we call it). The highest rate in Europe is 27% (minimum allowed is 15%), and I don't think it should be higher than that, as you then have to provide more transfers to the working and lower middle classes. Perhaps if the federal government was to set minimum income tax rates for states and obliged them to provide services (healthcare, third level education etc), the federal government could largely reduce income taxation, if they also brought in a 20-30% sales tax and removed the right for states and local government to levy such taxes.
Or perhaps the state could provide less services and people could fix their own mess themselves. I still remain completely unconvinced that wealth transfers are needed at all. Personally I don't want any money that I didn't earn myself, but that's just me. Maybe I'm weird that way. A handout mentality is what is wrong with some people in this country.
Bob Blaylock likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
bberryhill0 (October 28th, 2012)
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.