Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 18th, 2010, 09:48 PM   #41
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
Speak for yourself! Low taxes, less bureaucracy, a total legal workforce, abundant inexpensive energy and a strong dollar with the total absence of unions to falsely shake down employers is the only way businesses will return to the US to do business.


No how about tariffs duh. And what country have your modal today Zack that works? hmmmmmm



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
Do you have a link to prove the $24K drop? If that were true almost everyone in Puerto Rico would be working for free now. Your facts seem very suspect other than union levels which is a good thing, wish they would drop to zero. It seems in your make believe world if only we would raise taxes to 75% on everyone the head of household could work three or four days a week and wallow in benefits that the employer could hardly wait to offer him?


Oh come on ZACK, I've posted this stuff doing our discussion. This is common knowledge for people who actually try to look for the truth and stuff. It's post rebuttal #85 for you, fxashun and Ralph to read.



http://www.defendingthetruth.com/pol...ts-rich-9.html



But I'll post something more recent. If you guys don't want to believe that (I don't see why you wouldn't) then this is from the WALL STREET JOURNAL.com.



It's titled The Lost Decade Lost Decade for American Income - WSJ.com and a course your conservative friends didn't want to report this to you guys that for TEN years it's been the "anemic, stagnate growth for the middle class for a half a century. And THAT'S IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. I'm sure Rupert Murdoch was sicked when he read his own newspaper LOL. But somebody, somehow got that story in their.



Here I'll post some of the quote form the article. The first little paragraph says that "The downturn that some have dubbed the "Great Recession" has trimmed the typical household's income significantly, new Census data show, following years of stagnant wage growth that made the past decade the worst for American families in at least half a century."



Median income started falling in 2007. From 2007 and 2009 it fell almost 5% and from 2000 to 2009 it was even WORST, in the 1970s when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes PLUMMETED and incomes fell 4.2%. The only group of people that have been somewhat unscaved are the oldest Americans. "Without Social Security income, the report showed, some 14 million people eligible for benefits would have fallen below the poverty line."



food stamps, heating-oil assistance and the Obama stimulus and tax cuts have prevented even more (4 million) people from being below the poverty line. So it could of even been worst, the numbers could of climbed higher. Without the stimulus to the states, we would of had cops, fire fighters, teachers laid off and without the extension of unemployment we would of have more people living in poverty. Do you guys know how many people live in poverty in America? it's 44million people or 1 in 7 (you guys can look up the numbers yourself it's like over $10.8k thousand for individuals and family of four it's like $22.5k thousand a year).



41.3 million people are getting food stamps, 2008 decline in income was the greatest, gains achieved in the 1990s were wiped out, median family incomes were 5% lower in 2009 then in 1999, and 51 million people without health insurance today because they get their health insurance thou their jobs but now they don't have jobs. They also say because we have food stamps and tax credits for people who are still working, 8million of those are just above the poverty line but we would of have 8 million more added to the 44 million if it wasn't for food stamps and extension of unemployment. Well if you add all of it up, 3 million without the extension of unemployment (that would be 47million), plus 8 million if it wasn't for the earned income tax credit and food stamps so that would be about 55 million Americans living below the poverty line. There's over 307 million Americans, that's like 1 out of 5 people



That the conservative party for you Zack, fxashun and Ralph. We really love republican leadership don't we [sarcasm]. 9.4% of them are white, 25% are black, 25% are Hispanic and 12% are Asian. That the republicans ideas for a Zack. ROLL BACK THE REAGAN TAX CUTS
Fayt is offline  
Old October 18th, 2010, 10:14 PM   #42
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
It's not an argument it's an observation. You seem to think there's enough income in the top tier of our economy to just make everything totally honky dory.



Too bad "the rich" isn't a segment of the population worthy of constitutional protection from "hate".



Funny you would be the one claiming someone doesn't know anything about "economics". Cause what you are proposing is less about "economics" and more about "social engineering".


Come on fxashun, we have so much going to the top right now that the vast middle class and working class, they don't have enough money to buy all the things that are produced by the American economy at full employment. And that's why we can't get out of this Great Recession. The rich would do BETTER with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy because more people have more money to buy into it, then they (the rich) would do with a large share with an economy that's almost dead. The last time we had this much wealth at the top was in 1928 like I posted in a rebuttal before. We can't get out of this problem if we have this gap that centrality robes the middle class and working class of the kind of money they need to go and buy all the things they to produce an economy. We have to stop these boom and bust economies.
Fayt is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 05:20 AM   #43
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Democrat administrations have done more to advance capitalism than the republicans consistently since 1933. It is statistically a proven fact. No matter how many times that the republicans would like to pretend otherwise, the democrats are better for the economy, the GDP, job creation, and corporate profits as a share of GDP every time they are in power.
waitingtables is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 05:45 AM   #44
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
Democrat administrations have done more to advance capitalism than the republicans consistently since 1933. It is statistically a proven fact. No matter how many times that the republicans would like to pretend otherwise, the democrats are better for the economy, the GDP, job creation, and corporate profits as a share of GDP every time they are in power.


I feel like waitingtables that they will only believe what you, me and other libs say if we put on a Glen Beck mask.
Fayt is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 05:28 PM   #45
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
Come on fxashun, we have so much going to the top right now that the vast middle class and working class, they don't have enough money to buy all the things that are produced by the American economy at full employment. And that's why we can't get out of this Great Recession. The rich would do BETTER with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy because more people have more money to buy into it, then they (the rich) would do with a large share with an economy that's almost dead. The last time we had this much wealth at the top was in 1928 like I posted in a rebuttal before. We can't get out of this problem if we have this gap that centrality robes the middle class and working class of the kind of money they need to go and buy all the things they to produce an economy. We have to stop these boom and bust economies.
The world has changed so much since 1928 that any comparisons to the economic climate back then are almost laughable.

Middle class in 2010 is nothing like "middle class" in 1928.

We didn't have Medicare trying to keep old people living much longer using medical procedures that cost much more than some towns entire yearly budget from that time.

We didn't have nearly everyone expecting to have a car in 1928 nor the gas to run them.

We didn't have college expenses outpacing income while still becoming almost mandatory in 1928.

My verizon bill for 2 lines with unlimited text and internet is $1600 yr. I doubt I'm alone. Didn't have that in 1928.

Everyone has to have internet, phones, life insurance, college education, nice houses and furnishings etc etc etc....



I agree that we should probably raise the capital gains taxes to the same as regular income. Especially since the vast majority of the truly wealthy make their money from using their money fro investments. But then if they stop investing their money and keep it out of circulation even more, we'll still have flat revenue.



I disagree with your characterization of "lower tier would buy more stuff". The vast number of Americans ALREADY pay little federal income tax, how is jacking the income tax on the rich actually going to help them? Unless you want the government to just start cutting checks for free money to "less fortunate", like the EIC. I mean, when you have family of 4 not even owing income tax until they make $50K.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance

When you have a lot of the country (almost half) already paying nothing, your "tax the rich even more" mantra still stinks of hatred of people that you deem to have too much.
fxashun is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 06:23 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
Democrat administrations have done more to advance capitalism than the republicans consistently since 1933. It is statistically a proven fact. No matter how many times that the republicans would like to pretend otherwise, the democrats are better for the economy, the GDP, job creation, and corporate profits as a share of GDP every time they are in power.
That's just not true! Starting in 1933 FDR prolonged the depression just like Obama is prolonging the recession now. Carter destroyed the economy leaving the economy in shambles with super high interest rates, damn I think house mortgages were around 16%.



Eisenhower, liberal as he was is responsible for the great economy of the 1950's where moms stayed at home and people lived well. But even that was just a freak of events equal to Clinton being in office during the NASDAC bubble.
Zack is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 06:40 PM   #47
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
That's just not true! Starting in 1933 FDR prolonged the depression just like Obama is prolonging the recession now. Carter destroyed the economy leaving the economy in shambles with super high interest rates, damn I think house mortgages were around 16%.



Eisenhower, liberal as he was is responsible for the great economy of the 1950's where moms stayed at home and people lived well. But even that was just a freak of events equal to Clinton being in office during the NASDAC bubble.




Here we go with the revisionist history again. Zack, you are wrong and the facts prove it. FDR saved this country and was responsible for creating the middle class. Before that time, you had poor people and rich people. And robber barons and an unjust system with no worker pretections, the elderly were the poorest goup in the country and the sick poor people could only stay home and hope they got better and if they didn't they died. Yes, things were very different in 1928 that's for sure, and no one except the very rich robber barons of today would like to go back to that shit. I gave you charts and statistics about democrat administrations that prove that the democrats have been the true friends of capitalism, and have outdone the republicans in all areas, job creation, expansin of GDP, handling the national debt, etc. I don't know what teacher you're listening to, but if it's Glen Beck, that would explain a lot.
waitingtables is offline  
Old October 19th, 2010, 06:47 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables
Here we go with the revisionist history again. Zack, you are wrong and the facts prove it. FDR saved this country and was responsible for creating the middle class. Before that time, you had poor people and rich people. And robber barons and an unjust system with no worker pretections, the elderly were the poorest goup in the country and the sick poor people could only stay home and hope they got better and if they didn't they died. Yes, things were very different in 1928 that's for sure, and no one except the very rich robber barons of today would like to go back to that shit. I gave you charts and statistics about democrat administrations that prove that the democrats have been the true friends of capitalism, and have outdone the republicans in all areas, job creation, expansin of GDP, handling the national debt, etc. I don't know what teacher you're listening to, but if it's Glen Beck, that would explain a lot.
You post your lie sheets and I'll post these:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom



JIMMY CARTER--A FAILURE AS A PRESIDENT AND AN EMBARRASMENT AS A FORMER PRESIDENT
Zack is offline  
Old October 20th, 2010, 10:38 AM   #49
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
The world has changed so much since 1928 that any comparisons to the economic climate back then are almost laughable.

Middle class in 2010 is nothing like "middle class" in 1928.

We didn't have Medicare trying to keep old people living much longer using medical procedures that cost much more than some towns entire yearly budget from that time.

We didn't have nearly everyone expecting to have a car in 1928 nor the gas to run them.

We didn't have college expenses outpacing income while still becoming almost mandatory in 1928.

My verizon bill for 2 lines with unlimited text and internet is $1600 yr. I doubt I'm alone. Didn't have that in 1928.

Everyone has to have internet, phones, life insurance, college education, nice houses and furnishings etc etc etc....


What's laughable is your rebuttal above. You TOTALLY missed the point fxashun or you don't want to get it. The comparison I'm making in 2007 and in 1928 (and I should also mentions Reagan tax cuts too), is the concentration of wealth into fewer hands. Did you forget? I posted this not to long ago.



post #31 Please read it again and understand it.

http://www.defendingthetruth.com/deb...ropping-4.html





Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
I agree that we should probably raise the capital gains taxes to the same as regular income. Especially since the vast majority of the truly wealthy make their money from using their money fro investments.


GREAT WE'LL GETTING SOMEWHERE YES : ) I hope you can also agree that we should go back to just paying CEOs/Excutives in just salaries (cash).



Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
But then if they stop investing their money and keep it out of circulation even more, we'll still have flat revenue.



I disagree with your characterization of "lower tier would buy more stuff". The vast number of Americans ALREADY pay little federal income tax, how is jacking the income tax on the rich actually going to help them? Unless you want the government to just start cutting checks for free money to "less fortunate", like the EIC. I mean, when you have family of 4 not even owing income tax until they make $50K.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance


COME ON fxashun, The I posted that the top 1% owns over 23% of income (wealth) and the top 10% owns over half of all the income SO WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU fxashun? PEOPLE CAN'T PAY TAXES IF THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY TO DO SO (good wages). You add the fact that corporations don't pay the 35% tax rate because of the tax loopholes, and giving these huge tax cuts to the top percent does nothing but cause them to just stash that extra unnecessary cash and gamble with it. IT'S WELFARE FOR THE RICH. I've posted before that the People income have DROPPED because of the Bush tax cuts and also including the whole 30 years of Reaganomics.



post #40

http://www.defendingthetruth.com/deb...ropping-4.html



Remember that most of the top percent don't do anything with it but stash it (UBS swiss bank). If a wealthy person earns so much money that he doesn't or can't spend it all each year, when his taxes go down his income after taxes goes up. This is largely because theres little or no relation ship between what he "need to live on and what he's earning. Somebody living on $1 million per year but earning $5 million after taxes can sock away $4 million in a swiss bank. If his taxes go up enough to drop his after tax income to only $3 million per years, he's still living on $1 million per year and socks away only $2 million in the swiss bank. Although his lifestyle doesn't change, his discretionary income (some call it "disposable" income) goes down when his taxes go up and vice versa.



like I posted above in the link that the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from73% to 25%) lead directly to the 'Roaring Twenties' real estate and stock market bubbles, a temporary boom, and then the crash. Then from the 1930s to the 1980s, rates on the very rich went back up into the 70 to 90% range. As a result, the economy grew steadily, and form the first times in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure. It was also during this period that the American worker's wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.



Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
When you have a lot of the country (almost half) already paying nothing, your "tax the rich even more" mantra still stinks of hatred of people that you deem to have too much.


People who think like myself don't hate fxashun, that's an silly opinion and don't make the least amount of sense. You make it seem like the progressive (democrats) are arguing against that. Look faxshun, any income tax is redistributed, so we have had that for about 100 years. Do you really want to keep these insane low taxes because if we do, all our jobs will disappear to countries like China in a heart beat like it has been doing. And we will continue to have these boom, bubble, and bust economies while at the same time continuing to be the MOST unequal developed county on earth. Even the top two riches guys in America believe they should be tax more. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.



Just an add on

I also like to just say because the middle class and working class pay sales tax, gas taxes, property taxes (even renters end up paying that tax), vehicle license taxes etc etc etc



If we added up all the taxes that people pay IN ADDITIONAL to the income tax it can be agrue that the middle class and working class pay a much higher tax rate than the wealthy or it just hurts them more because they continue to see their wages drop. I just wanted to note that.
Fayt is offline  
Old October 20th, 2010, 04:49 PM   #50
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayt87linegod
What's laughable is your rebuttal above. You TOTALLY missed the point fxashun or you don't want to get it. The comparison I'm making in 2007 and in 1928 (and I should also mentions Reagan tax cuts too), is the concentration of wealth into fewer hands. Did you forget? I posted this not to long ago.
I know you think simply raising income taxes will be the panacea for all our woes. Making a simple comparison without taking into consideration ALL of the differences in todays economy vs. yesterday's is a very simple minded thing to do.



Quote:
GREAT WE'LL GETTING SOMEWHERE YES : ) I hope you can also agree that we should go back to just paying CEOs/Excutives in just salaries (cash).
Unconstitutional. The government should not have the authority to tell a company how to pay their employees.



Quote:
COME ON fxashun, The I posted that the top 1% owns over 23% of income (wealth) and the top 10% owns over half of all the income SO WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU fxashun? PEOPLE CAN'T PAY TAXES IF THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY TO DO SO (good wages). You add the fact that corporations don't pay the 35% tax rate because of the tax loopholes, and giving these huge tax cuts to the top percent does nothing but cause them to just stash that extra unnecessary cash and gamble with it. IT'S WELFARE FOR THE RICH. I've posted before that the People income have DROPPED because of the Bush tax cuts and also including the whole 30 years of Reaganomics.
I've also posted graphs that show corporate tax receipts have dropped to near nil, and nearly all income already comes from the top tier.

Corporations should pay their fair share, but that of course will create higher prices of more job cuts. Only the Feds can get money out of thin air.

I've always advocated for flat taxes, if the rich get richer, so be it. AS long as it's not illegal, I ain't hatin' on them.



Quote:
Remember that most of the top percent don't do anything with it but stash it (UBS swiss bank).
Then you won't have any income to tax. If they are just stashing their cash, then they aren't investing it, so it can't be taxed. Rendering your whole premise moot.



Quote:
If a wealthy person earns so much money that he doesn't or can't spend it all each year, when his taxes go down his income after taxes goes up. This is largely because theres little or no relation ship between what he "need to live on and what he's earning. Somebody living on $1 million per year but earning $5 million after taxes can sock away $4 million in a swiss bank. If his taxes go up enough to drop his after tax income to only $3 million per years, he's still living on $1 million per year and socks away only $2 million in the swiss bank. Although his lifestyle doesn't change, his discretionary income (some call it "disposable" income) goes down when his taxes go up and vice versa.
Good for them.



Quote:
like I posted above in the link that the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from73% to 25%) lead directly to the 'Roaring Twenties' real estate and stock market bubbles, a temporary boom, and then the crash. Then from the 1930s to the 1980s, rates on the very rich went back up into the 70 to 90% range. As a result, the economy grew steadily, and form the first times in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure. It was also during this period that the American worker's wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.
You tax "the rich" at that rate today, with no manufacturing for the uneducated unskilled masses, I doubt very seriously you'll see that kind of growth.



Quote:
People who think like myself don't hate fxashun, that's an silly opinion and don't make the least amount of sense. You make it seem like the progressive (democrats) are arguing against that. Look faxshun, any income tax is redistributed, so we have had that for about 100 years. Do you really want to keep these insane low taxes because if we do, all our jobs will disappear to countries like China in a heart beat like it has been doing. And we will continue to have these boom, bubble, and bust economies while at the same time continuing to be the MOST unequal developed county on earth. Even the top two riches guys in America believe they should be tax more. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
Then they should give the government their money. I'm sure it'll take it.

But there is a difference between charity and taxation.

Again, I advocate for a flat tax, with a possible offset for payroll taxes. That everyone is responsible for what happens to the country. When you come to the point that no one pays real taxes for the government, you no longer have a democracy, it's no different than mob rule. We're getting there.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-under-bush/

After dipping in the early part of the Bush administration, by 2007 the top quintile of earners - the 20 percent who made the most - paid nearly 70 percent of all the taxes that the federal government collected, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. That includes a staggering 86 percent of the income tax being paid by just the top quintile of earners.

By contrast, the bottom 40 percent on average not only pay no income tax, but they siphon money back from the federal government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a 35-year-old program designed to offset some of what low-income workers pay in Social Security taxes.



You're advocating to move that up a bit to the top 10% paying even more? Bullshit.



Quote:
Just an add on

I also like to just say because the middle class and working class pay sales tax, gas taxes, property taxes (even renters end up paying that tax), vehicle license taxes etc etc etc
Nearly all of those are state and local taxes, not federal.



If we added up all the taxes that people pay IN ADDITIONAL to the income tax it can be agrue that the middle class and working class pay a much higher tax rate than the wealthy or it just hurts them more because they continue to see their wages drop. I just wanted to note that.[/quote]Then they should get a better job.
fxashun is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt

Tags
america, dropping, ranking



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Are Cows Tails Dropping Off? imaginethat Current Events 0 December 2nd, 2012 11:09 PM
Levin open to dropping 'don't ask' from defense bill CNN Current Events 94 November 30th, 2010 08:26 AM
Biden Dropping Out? Rumor Thrives on Internet Cubbie Politicians 9 September 25th, 2008 01:48 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.