| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I don't think it was the least bit coincidental and Bush was long out of office when the Dems crammed the near trillion dollar Porkulus bill into effect. They have also scared the living shit out of business people and passed a hideously inept inadequate and destructive 2000+ page Health Deform bill. Then theer is the looming threat of massive tax increases, which is all you ever hear out of the Dems. They cut almost nothing.
Yeah, I'm one of the schmucks that pays almost all of the taxes. My own business. Family income in the top 1% probably, which does not make me rich, in my mind. Fucking college is expensive but we're almost done paying for the little fuckers. It is foolish to demonize big corporations. They are the reason refrigerators and computers are cheap and that we even have things like MRI machines. There is no such thing as a Mom and Pop MRI manufacturer and if there was the product would be unbelievably expensive.
| |||||||
|
The Duk Abides Registered: 05/16/03 Posts: 94,392 Loc: Earthfarm 1 |
| ||||||
|
Really? All the news were reporting tax cuts. I dunno. I'm not there looking at the balance sheets, so I just go by what I read on the net.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 8 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Tax rates for the top 1% went from 39.6% under Clinton to 35% under Bush. That's a 12% tax cut. So why did revenue go up from the top 1%? Here's why: In 1979, the top 1% of wage earners earned 10% of all wages. In 2007, the top 1% of wage earners earned 23.5% of all wages. So the share of income by the top 1% went up by 2.3 but the share of taxes only went up by 2.0. That's due to a nice tax cut. -------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If their share increased and the amount they paid increased just how pretzeled do you have to be to call that a cut. Good fucking zappa, this country relies more on it's top tax payers than the socialist republics of Europe.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 8 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
Quote: By dropping the tax rate 13% on the wealthiest Americans, the Government took a 13% cut from what they would have taken in from that group. I'm surprised I have to explain this. The ONLY reason the top 1% paid more taxes than before is because they're making so much more income than before, but it's still a huge cut from the amount they would have paid under Clinton. Quote: Of course they do; our rich make a hell of a lot more. If you think that's wrong, your argument should be that the wealthy should pay their employees more. Then the taxes on the rich goes down, and that on their employees goes up. -------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Their share of the tax burden went up more than their share of the income. There is zero evidence that their income would have risen under oppressive tax rates and quite a lot of evidence that they would not. Which doesn't mean that the losers would have made more, either. Quote:Quote: Our country relies more heavily on the upper decile for it's share of taxes than Europe. There are immensely wealthy people in Europe and some of the most socialist phony rich people there have relocated to tax havens. Given that the tax rates for lower income workers are shit you want to shift income to people who pay lower rates? I think it is pretty stupid to propose decreasing the income of the people who you rely on to fund the government and who you want to rely on even more. The wealthy should pay their employees just exactly as much as they need to to run their businesses. To do otherwise would fuck the consumers of their goods. CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT! THEY FUCK UP EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH! And stop panhandling. It is unseemly.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 8 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I just showed this false in my previous post. The incomes of the top 1% went up by a factor of 2.3 but their tax burden only went by a factor of 2.0. It's easy to explain why - their tax rates were cut. Quote: I think there's zero evidence their incomes would change one way or another. If tax rates on the rich go up, then yes the rich will buy less. However, those that would receive these taxes (teachers, firefighters, military, etc) will then buy more. So gross income shouldn't change for anyone. Quote: You think it's stupid for working people to have a decent income after taxes? Quote: If a company makes $1 billion in profit, giving some to employees doesn't screw consumers any more than giving some to the CEO. -------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No, you didn't show that as false. Quote:Quote: Really? Why don't you look at what they paid when the rates were sky high. It was much less because they altered their behavior to avoid, legally, taxation. When the rates went down they acted more in accord with natural market behavior. The total amount of taxes they paid went up. What a fucking concept. Quote: What makes you think those are the people who would receive those taxes. Isn't your whole point to raise taxes to reduce the federal deficit? According to your plan nobody would get any more. Just some people would have less. Quote:Quote: I think they should have whatever income they can get in a free market. Not one cent more. Quote:Quote: Why do you think a CEO is not a worker? Why do you so ignorantly believe that CEOs do not produce value commensurate with their salary and bonus? Why do you think easily replaceable lazy jackasses deserve any more than a meager wage? If a company makes a profit it goes to the owners. If the workers of said company were, because of their particularly exceptional skills, responsible for the profit they could leverage that into higher pay. If they are nondescript ciphers that you can replace from the street they cannot. CEOs of major companies are exceptionally talented and brilliant people. Almost nobody can do their jobs. They play Centerfield for the Yankees. Their employees sell hot dogs in the stands. Nobody buys a ticket to a Yankee game to watch the hot dog vendors. Exit question. If the company owners lose money should the employees be forced to give their pay back?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 8 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I did. You'll either need to prove my numbers wrong, or accept the facts. Quote: No, that's not what your chart shows at all: Here we see a continuous increase in tax revenues coming from the rich, which corresponds to their making more and more money each year as I've shown in my previous graph above. There are two major dips: One in 1988, corresponding with the tax cut from 50% to 28% (as tax rates goes down, tax revenue goes down). The other is in 2000, corresponding with the Bush tax cuts. Your own chart proves my point. Please let me know what the hell you're looking at, because I don't see it. Quote: If we used the extra tax revenue to pay down the deficit, then I agree. But at least the deficit then goes down! Quote: Then everyone lives at or near the poverty level. Free market is great for business owners, terrible for workers. Quote: CEOs today have to concentrate on short term value to the company, to make shareholders happy and to line their own pockets in the process. There's little incentive to focus on long term growth anymore. Quote: Because they are human beings with families that work hard, and because America is a generally a civilized society that believes in rewarding hard work. Quote: If they participate in profit sharing, then absolutely that should get cut. Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/01/11 11:42 PM)
| |||||||
|
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw Registered: 06/06/07 Posts: 31,564 Loc: You get banned for saying that Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: well jesus dude. is it wrong to take this scenario: a man owns a company, he makes 10 million a year but gets taxed 1 million so only has 9 million, while his employees make $20,000, but only get taxed $2500, so that leaves them with $17,500 at the end. and turn it into this?: a man owns a company, he makes 10 million a year, but now pays his workers more, so only has 9 million a year instead, but with tax cuts he now only loses $250,000, giving him a total earning of $8 million seven hundred and fifty thousand. his workers now make $40,000 a year, but get taxed more at about $5000, so they only make $35,000 a year. i never understand peoples comparisons. first of all, this scenario doesn't compare at all to what has actually happened. second, if i make $50 bucks from selling lemonade, and get taxed $5 at the end of the day, then go up to making $200 a day selling lemonade, but now I'm getting taxed $30, big whoop. I'm still making more. and honestly my bleeding heart goes out to the guy who makes a million less from his tens of millions a year so he can pay his workers more, but at the same time gets taxed less but none the less makes a little less. i mean jesus poor guy ![]() and to be honest all these people who think rich people get the bad stick when they lose SOME money from their business, i mean to be honest a lot of people are willing to spend MILLIONS of their own money hiring exuberant amounts of middle management to do work for them they don't want to do on their own. it'd honestly be cheaper to hire some more people on the low end, pay the lowest end managers a little more money to do more work, and do a little more work yourself, then to pay out your ass half your fortune to hire hundreds of thousands of middle management people who each do just one thing and reliably have little tasks to complete, so do them with ease, and make sure the company works. i mean, only billionaires do such a thing. anyone else in their right mind would never value paying another dozen people an extra $20 an hour to run the company from the middle over paying an extra dozen floor workers an extra $2 or $3 an hour to raise productivity and give their managers more time to do office work then to watch over them every 5 minutes. -------------------- I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties! I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
| |||||||
|
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw Registered: 06/06/07 Posts: 31,564 Loc: You get banned for saying that Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: yes exactly. if mars company pays their workers an extra $1 an hour, then that's $10 extra in their employees pockets at the end of the day. now this is one company, but if mars expects to sell snickers, they can't just sell snickers to the richest people who own $50 million or more, they make their money by feasable economical balance. meaning a company will not lose by paying it's workers an extra few bucks to go spend, if they depend on people buying their products, they can't just tailer then to one social class. maybe some companies can afford to ONLY sell to rich people. but honestly the other 96.25% of them can't. it's not great for anyone to get rich if balance doesn't occur. -------------------- I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties! I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
| |||||||
|
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw Registered: 06/06/07 Posts: 31,564 Loc: You get banned for saying that Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: you honestly say this being a former construction worker, or was that previous construction worker? i can't remember. if a guy buys a lot of lot space, and hires people to do everything for him, he can sit on his ass and watch people build a building from the ground up, design the blueprints, and go on vacation while they are doing so. now people always see it as the opposite, but honestly anybody can buy out a real estate owner, if he can't keep up with his company, and own it themselves. the only reason floor workers are so replaceable, is because anyone will step up and take their job if they quit or are fired. if a construction worker had to go to college to work in the field even laying bricks, they would be more appreciated, paid better, and obviously company owners would realize that without thousands of hands building this crap from scratch, they wouldn't have jack shit. it's like saying that a general doesn't need thousands and thousands of soldiers to win a war. patton was a genius and could've taken rommel on with his own bare hands, everyone else was expendable. if such is the case then so be it next war that goes down i say obama fights gadaffi and his entire army on his own. everyone else is expendable and isn't worth even a penny more then they are paid. -------------------- I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties! I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: http://www.american.com/archive/ Quote:Quote: There was an immediate decline in receipts because it takes time for the cuts to spur investment, which they did, then they rose: Quote: Did you think the behavior change would have an effect on tax receipts right away? That would be stupid. Quote:Quote: While mine goes up and nothing happens to yours. No thanks, pal. Quote:Quote: Bullshit. Complete bullshit. You seem to have some idiotic notion that business owners collude to set wages. They do not. They compete with each other for workers. If that was the case nobody would be getting paid more than a minimum wage. But that isn't the case. At all. Quote:Quote: No they don't and there is plenty of incentive to create long term stable companies. Some shareholders demand it. Not every shareholder is a day trader. In fact, hardly any of them are. Quote:Quote: Lazy jackasses don't work hard. Lazy jackasses make up the bulk of the work force. Quote: I didn't ask that. I asked if they should have to give their pay back.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Let's play the game. Tax rates for the owner are 40%. Tax rates for the employees are either 10% or 15%, depending on how much they make:
Company A has gross receipts of $2M. The owner gets $1.5M and pays $600K in taxes. Each of 20 workers makes $25K and pays (at 10%) $2,500 in taxes for a total of $50K. Total taxes paid: $650,000 Let's double the workers' pay at company B: Owner gets $1M and pays $400K. Workers each get $50K and pay (at 15%) $7,500 for a total of $150,000. Total taxes paid: $550,000. Net loss of tax receipts is $100,000. By paying the workers more the government has lost about 15% of taxes. By shifting just $500K from the owner to the employees you have lost $100K in taxes. I really don't care who your heart goes out to. Your heartfelt redistributionism doesn't cost you a penny because it isn't your money being talked about. That isn't philanthropy. It's theft.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Contractor. I own the company. I was formerly a worker. Built my own company from nothing. Quote: Although completely abdicating is a bad idea because people will rob you, yes, he can sit on his ass. Which is none of your damn business. he made the investment, it's his company, he can manage or mismanagement anyway he sees fit. Quote: No they can't. The owner can choose not to sell Quote: No, not anyone, just one of millions. Quote: Now here we have a particularly heinous bit of snobbery. First of all, college is already over attended by morons who have no business being there and is largely useless in preparing people for work. Second of all, I did both and I can assure you it was a lot easier getting a degree than it was learning a trade and how to run a business. It took a lot less time, too. We don't need any more people wasting time and treasure going to college. The ambitious intelligent skilled people in construction make more than most college grads. Quote: I didn't say they were expendable, I said they were replaceable. Easily in most cases. And no, they aren't worth one penny more than I can replace them for.
| |||||||
|
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw Registered: 06/06/07 Posts: 31,564 Loc: You get banned for saying that Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: then why in the world do you think the second the obama administration stepped in the deficit went up to a trillion, with half a trillion in debt already he had no choice but to make the 700 billion bailout. if you understand that things take time to process through the system you'd realize we'll be seeing his mistakes when he leaves next term and someone comes in to replace him. right now we are saying bush's bullshit. -------------------- I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties! I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
Edited by imachavel (05/02/11 10:31 AM)
| |||||||
|
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw Registered: 06/06/07 Posts: 31,564 Loc: You get banned for saying that Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: and yet you dispute even taxes for everyone, despite wage rises. sure it's theft, the government is irrefutably the biggest thief in history. never in the world has such stakes of capitalism been employed as to us making so much money while exploited the poverty of other countries and to some extent our own to make billions for the wealthy. company owners taxes should be the same no matter the wage their employees OR their company makes. a tax is a percentage. 10% of 100 million is going to be a lot higher then 10% of 100 dollars. there shouldn't be a need to change the percentage based on the numbers, it's a percentage so you get a big chunk of whatever is spent. my mistake was to mix an argument of the charity of a company owner to his employees with how it should effect his tax rates based on what he makes versus what his employees make. for a minute i got caught up in a good versus evil battle, whereas a business is a business and people need to be taxed no matter how nice or mean mr. forbes is. but you disagree with even taxes don't you? getting back to the subject. or do you? i thought i've seen you post this before, maybe i'm mistaken. -------------------- I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties! I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
| |||||||
|
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw Registered: 06/06/07 Posts: 31,564 Loc: You get banned for saying that Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: likewise who i work for is none of his damn business, especially if i don't want to work for him. if you do work for a friends business, he owns it, etc. you usually get a share of the company, as you bought in with your own money so if their profits rise so should yours. a floor worker just happens to be one of millions, who are easily replaceable. if a company owner didn't pay his workers well, and for some reason these '1 of millions' decided not to show up and replace a guy that quit, and the company couldn't continue without workers, well, sucks for that guy. this will never be the case, but like wise his investments are none of my business and who i work for is none of his business. now being that you think company owners are SO responsible and don't constantly get bank loans and capital venture, even though these people honestly make enough money to expand the company on their own but need to get stock money forwarded to them etc. don't think i'm going to care if for some reason the world one day, decides to deny this guy a loan, and give some other guy with a smaller business and less credit the loan. when that guy bitches that banks only give money to minorities, and his company goes bank rupt because he doesn't understand supply and demand is just a fundamental analysis of stock, and not just a technical day traders analysis, and can't handle his money. tell him not to come bitching to me. what he does with his money is none of my business, and what i do with my money is none of his damn business either. i'm tired of rich people thinking they can know where every dollar spent by americans go, including MY fucking taxes. those are MY dollars, and I can spend them how i want, and it's none of bill gates damn business. but for some reason every time donald trump speaks, they hold a microphone to his throat to record what he thinks. i don't give a shit what he thinks, and i personally think if i tell the world that my pennies are earned fair and square, and i don't want him thinking about my money. then i have a right to do so. he can mind of his own business. i don't work for him, there are plenty of trump towers, like 10 blocks of them to be exact, lined up way up north on miami beach, right before broward county, and a few trump towers in brickell as well. but i never did any work on them while they were being built. i never worked for the guy. no association. seem fair? Quote: i don't even know how to argue with you on this one. you really think that's true? i'm just going to opt out of the argument, to think you believe in most states a good long term construction worker makes more than most college grads. i don't know if they start construction workers in new york off at $20 an hour or what.i don't think starting pay in south florida being $12 an hour is more than "most college grads make". unfortunately most of these people make this their entire career, and later can't afford to pay for their health problems from hernias and shit from working a damn job that might as well rip your arms out of your sockets. my dads friend is a contractor in dubai and works for turner construction. he is actually a very nice guy and takes almost every dollar he earns and turns it into an investment for start up companies and what not. probably one of the few contractors I've met that is a nice guy that i really respect. some of them are really nice and appreciate if you work hard. some of them are nobodies that watch everyone else sweat and die to build their building, and sit in the office all day doing paper work and coke or whatever. Quote: so be it man. no one is, from the ground up to right under the very top. -------------------- I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties! I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It wasn't the bailout, it was the porkulus and it didn't happen overnight, it took 2 years of Dem Congress to get the ball rolling and then when Obama got in it skyrocketed. See my sig. And the government can increase the deficit in a flash. All they have to do is spend. It takes people a few years to adjust their tax strategy. That you can't do so quickly. See my sig!
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Theer are often very legitimate tax reasons for financing things through debt. Also spreading risk. Not any of your business. Quote: I don't give a fuck what you do with your money and I don't give a fuck what that slimeball Donald Trump says. He doesn't speak for anyone but himself and he's a serial bankrupt. Quote:Quote: Yes. Absolutely. In NY it is sometimes more than that and a lot of college grads are making much less than $40K a year. Quote: Why do you think their starting pay ois their finishing pay? And like I said, you have to spend time learning the trade. You don't do that in school. Quote: Once again what they do with their time is none of your sanctimonious business. I don't hump lumber any more, I can assure. My body is destroyed. I calculate and point and direct. That is my job. Quote:Quote:
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war ( |
4,858 | 39 | 03/26/03 09:09 PM by luvdemshrooms | ||
![]() |
ATTN: Supporters of Bush's tax cuts ( |
3,744 | 66 | 07/16/03 08:19 AM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
U.S. Budget Deficit Mounts Toward All-Time High | 839 | 13 | 09/18/03 01:50 PM by PsiloKitten | ||
![]() |
Internet controlled by the government! | 1,117 | 9 | 02/09/04 08:48 AM by Crobih | ||
![]() |
Lies about sex.... lies about the budget ( |
2,875 | 23 | 02/17/02 10:10 PM by nugsarenice | ||
![]() |
Privatisation and Tax Cuts at work...USA ( |
2,589 | 39 | 02/13/03 04:59 AM by Prisoner#1 | ||
![]() |
The Shadow Government ( |
4,360 | 28 | 08/29/17 03:23 PM by Happy Days | ||
![]() |
W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs ( |
5,735 | 40 | 03/03/02 09:53 PM by sparafucile |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 4,816 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

If their share increased and the amount they paid increased just how pretzeled do you have to be to call that a cut. Good fucking zappa, this country relies more on it's top tax payers than the socialist republics of Europe.

I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties! 