PDA

View Full Version : Secrets the Rich don't Want You to Know



Qtec
04-25-2011, 05:59 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k71DYM20WRM&feature=related)

Q

Gayle in MD
04-25-2011, 08:57 AM
Excellent! BUT....Duck! You will now be attacked by the lemmings who can't add and subtract, divide or multiply, think for themselves, or effectively read government charts!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Stretch
04-25-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k71DYM20WRM&feature=related)

Q </div></div>

Great find Q, thanks. St.

Gayle in MD
04-25-2011, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/multinationals-hire-abroad-fire-at-home_n_851094.html

U.S Multinationals Increasingly Hiring Abroad, Firing At Home

Large U.S. companies increasingly hire abroad and fire in America, according to new government data.
In the last decade, American multinational corporations, which together employ one-fifth of all U.S. workers, decreased domestic employment by 2.9 million workers while adding 2.4 million jobs overseas, the Commerce Department reported on Monday.

In 2009, a devastating year for the global economy, U.S. multinational companies' worldwide employment shrunk by 4.1 percent to 31.3 million workers. But the cuts were much sharper at home than abroad. Domestic employment by the same companies shrunk by 5.3 percent, leaving 21.1 million with jobs, while their overseas counterparts lost 1.5 percent of their workforce, with 10.3 million still employed.

"Emerging markets [are] growing at two-and-a-half times the speed of industrialized countries, which has made it imperative for companies to look abroad for opportunities," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego.

For large American multinationals, the geopraphical calculus is simple: Follow the money.

"[The report] is not surprising at all. It is harder and harder for companies in the U.S. to find the right skilled labor at the right price point," said Dave Niles, president of SSA &Co, a global operations consulting firm.

Construction titan Caterpillar, with a market cap of $67 billion, has added more jobs abroad than in the U.S. -- a result of their sales growing faster overseas than at home, spokesman Jim Dugan told the Wall Street Journal.



General Electric Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt also told the WSJ moving abroad was less about cheap labor than about deploying resources in countries with growing demand for their products. In 2000, GE conducted 30 percent of its business in other countries; today, that figure reaches 60 percent.

In the past five years, California-based tech giants Oracle and Cisco Systems added almost twice as many foreign workers overseas than in the U.S., according to the WSJ. But Microsoft, the paper reports, bucked the trend, adding more jobs at home than abroad.

The Commerce Department's report cuts to the heart of a crucial question about the state of the American economy, economists say. Can growth abroad for U.S. corporations be good for both companies and consumers?

Some argue the trend toward hiring workers abroad benefits both groups. Firms enjoy lowered manufacturing costs and an increased access to foreign markets, while consumers can purchase cheaper goods.

"It's good for companies and its also in someways the unfortunate reality of our economy. Is it good for consumers? Yeah. Because you're getting higher quality product at a lower price," Niles said.

But other economists point out an apparent Catch 22. Even if some goods become more affordable, consumers' spending power is undercut when jobs disappear from the American economy.

"The long point of all of this is that those jobs that were generating solid wages are very few and far between in the United States now. You look around and ask yourself, where is the middle class? Where are they working and how much are they making?" asked Ken Perkins, president of the RetailMetrics LLC research firm. "The middle class is really what led to the boom of the retail industry ... Where is the American consumer going to get money to spend more?"

Thus the fact remains: During the Great Recession's recovery, corporate profits have rebounded energetically, while job creation has not.

"One of the things that's generating the huge rebound in profits in the United States -- a rebound that is so astonishing that profits exceed what we saw at the peak of the last economic expansion -- is that the profits of these companies are more and more divorced from their actual operations here in the United States," said Gary Burtless, a economist at the Brookings Institute. "So now we can this situation where companies' profits are going gangbusters even though the U.S. economy has 8.8 percent unemployment."

Hiring in the U.S. will likely slow down even more this year as companies reassess the impact of sharp increases in food and energy costs, said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group.

Other advanced economies echo America's situation. "The issue of hiring in Europe is also very unclear, largely because there is this recognition that austerity plans will affect employment, and there is still a risk of Greece defaulting," said Baumohl.

"Most of the [new] employment that we will be seeing will be multinationals hiring in developing economies. That's where we'll see the most dynamic activity; that's where economic momentum will remain very strong."
</div></div>


AND, THE RW ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT NAILED THE LAST NAIL IN THE COFFIN, WITH THEIR FASCIST FRIENDLY RULING.

THE RW CORPORATE FASCIST PIGS, DESTROYING THEIR OWN COUNTRY. CONSESRVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE! AND THE GRAND OIL PARTY!

pooltchr
04-25-2011, 10:18 AM
Watch out, Q. Sounds like Gayle is getting ready to attack you!

"Excellent! BUT....Duck! You will now be attacked by the lemmings who can't add and subtract, divide or multiply, think for themselves, or effectively read government charts!!!!"

Steve

sack316
04-25-2011, 12:54 PM
Interesting. Let's say for the sake of discussion that indeed such economic ideas "never ever work" as the video says... what is the better alternative?

Sack

Sid_Vicious
04-25-2011, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting. Let's say for the sake of discussion that indeed such economic ideas "never ever work" as the video says... what is the better alternative?

Sack </div></div>

Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start. How? Stop doing what has not and does not work. The rest will fall into place, but you have to face facts that we are giving money to non-neady people while less fortunate people suffer.

I really enjoyed that video Q. I hope it gets lots of exposure between now and the 2012 elections. Obama is an articulate speaker. I wish he'd rammed it through and repealed Reagan's cuts, and a bunch of the chimp's crooked deals as well. That is oneof my biggest disappointments with Obame. He had control of all branches at one time, and remained a "nice guy" and didn't use his political capital.

So yes, the better solution is to end the non working junk from the Republican admins, Reagan and GWB. Our lower 90% will spend more, invest like they did in Clinton's admin, and the country's wealth will grow like it did with Clinton. That worked, trickle down didn't. But y'all non wealthy people here just keep on asking for more trickle down. You and your heirs will see yourself in a 3rd world country, and have only yourselves to blame. Stupid is the only word which applies to people who continue to elect to actually screw themselves, AGAIN. sid

pooltchr
04-25-2011, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start. </div></div>

So you would be fine with, let's say, 10% across the board for EVERYBODY...no credits, no deductions, everybody pay's 10% of their income. Would that be better?

Remember, before you answer, that would be a huge tax increase for about 45% of the population who presently don't pay ANY tax.

Steve

LWW
04-25-2011, 02:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k71DYM20WRM&feature=related)

Q </div></div>

That guy is the king of all idiots.

If you believe him, his first premise was that the rich invested in the stock market just so they could crash it and lose their own money.

LWW
04-25-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start </div></div>

So we should tax the poor at 36%?

sack316
04-25-2011, 09:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting. Let's say for the sake of discussion that indeed such economic ideas "never ever work" as the video says... what is the better alternative?

Sack </div></div>

Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start. How? Stop doing what has not and does not work. The rest will fall into place, but you have to face facts that we are giving money to non-neady people while less fortunate people suffer.
</div></div>

A nice thought in theory, but I believe that would require EVERYONE to be paying taxes.

I get your point, of say Mr. makes $10 million a year shouldn't have as many loopholes to crawl through. Let's say a nominal rate of 10% across the board, he pays his $1 million (10% used to simplicity's sake).

I'll use myself as another example. I had roughly $5000 income last year. Very much part of the lower class income brackets. My share of $500 sounds very fair... but that would make quite a big difference to me. "Exactly equal" hurts me, the poor guy much more.

Sack

Stretch
04-26-2011, 12:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting. Let's say for the sake of discussion that indeed such economic ideas "never ever work" as the video says... what is the better alternative?

Sack </div></div>

Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start. How? Stop doing what has not and does not work. The rest will fall into place, but you have to face facts that we are giving money to non-neady people while less fortunate people suffer.
</div></div>

A nice thought in theory, but I believe that would require EVERYONE to be paying taxes.

I get your point, of say Mr. makes $10 million a year shouldn't have as many loopholes to crawl through. Let's say a nominal rate of 10% across the board, he pays his $1 million (10% used to simplicity's sake).

I'll use myself as another example. I had roughly $5000 income last year. Very much part of the lower class income brackets. My share of $500 sounds very fair... but that would make quite a big difference to me. "Exactly equal" hurts me, the poor guy much more.

Sack </div></div>

Pftt 10%? Your getting off easy. I'd take that rate any day and run with it screaming start the car! start the car! St.

LWW
04-26-2011, 02:15 AM
I thought you wanted higher taxes?

eg8r
04-26-2011, 06:32 AM
I bet you would but the problem is that you are paying for overinflated government run healthcare. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
04-26-2011, 06:46 AM
Canadian health care is a joke compared to US care ... especially as it relates to non Canadians.

A buddy of mine slipped on some ice in Windsor leaving the casino and went to a local e-room.

He was told the direction of Detroit and given the boot unless he had hard currency in his pocket with which to pay.

LWW
04-26-2011, 06:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pftt 10%? Your getting off easy. I'd take that rate any day and run with it screaming start the car! start the car! St. </div></div>

So, you willingly admit that you would never pay "YOUR FAIR SHARE" without the threat of state instituted violence to force it upon you?

Not that most folks didn't already know that ... it's a typical attitude amongst leftists.

Stretch
04-26-2011, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I bet you would but the problem is that you are paying for overinflated government run healthcare. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Health care is extremely expensive any way you cut it. I favour the government run health care over private sector simply because of accountability. I simply don't trust big buisness to do the right thing. Not that Governments are pillars of virtue themselves but if they piss off enough people, they're out! St.

Stretch
04-26-2011, 08:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pftt 10%? Your getting off easy. I'd take that rate any day and run with it screaming start the car! start the car! St. </div></div>

So, you willingly admit that you would never pay "YOUR FAIR SHARE" without the threat of state instituted violence to force it upon you?

Not that most folks didn't already know that ... it's a typical attitude amongst leftists. </div></div>

How you arrived at what you said, from what i said, is a stunning display of stupidity. Unsurprised. lol St.

Gayle in MD
04-26-2011, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting. Let's say for the sake of discussion that indeed such economic ideas "never ever work" as the video says... what is the better alternative?

Sack </div></div>

Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start. How? Stop doing what has not and does not work. The rest will fall into place, but you have to face facts that we are giving money to non-neady people while less fortunate people suffer.

I really enjoyed that video Q. I hope it gets lots of exposure between now and the 2012 elections. Obama is an articulate speaker. I wish he'd rammed it through and repealed Reagan's cuts, and a bunch of the chimp's crooked deals as well. That is oneof my biggest disappointments with Obame. He had control of all branches at one time, and remained a "nice guy" and didn't use his political capital.

So yes, the better solution is to end the non working junk from the Republican admins, Reagan and GWB. Our lower 90% will spend more, invest like they did in Clinton's admin, and the country's wealth will grow like it did with Clinton. That worked, trickle down didn't. But y'all non wealthy people here just keep on asking for more trickle down. You and your heirs will see yourself in a 3rd world country, and have only yourselves to blame. Stupid is the only word which applies to people who continue to elect to actually screw themselves, AGAIN. sid </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Bravo!!!! But we can't expect the fly-overs to understand any of it, Martin. Remember, they were the ones who were saying, that our growing deficits, didn't matter?

They are still so dumb, that they think there is a huge number of people in this country, who don't pay any taxes, but they haven't realized yet, that everyubody pays taxes, except the very wealthy people...

Yep, they get everything assbackwards! That's how we got into this mess!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stupid is the only word which applies to people who continue to elect to actually screw themselves, AGAIN. sid </div></div>

And thaat is the perfect description of "The deficits don't matter" ignorant Repiglican voters!
G.
</span>

LWW
04-26-2011, 09:34 AM
You were the one saying you would pay and run if the tax bill was only 10%.

If you want to retract it, that's fine ... but don't get pizzy with me because you blurted out the truth.

Stretch
04-26-2011, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You were the one saying you would pay and run if the tax bill was only 10%.

If you want to retract it, that's fine ... but don't get pizzy with me because you blurted out the truth. </div></div>

Pizzy? Now you are delusional. But if thinking you can make me pizzy gets you through the day, enjoy the shower. St.

pooltchr
04-26-2011, 01:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

They are still so dumb, that they think there is a huge number of people in this country, who don't pay any taxes, but they haven't realized yet, that everyubody pays taxes, except the very wealthy people...


</div></div>

I am truely amazed at the level of ignorance that continues to come forth in your posts.

Steve

LWW
04-26-2011, 02:15 PM
I'm not.

sack316
04-26-2011, 11:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting. Let's say for the sake of discussion that indeed such economic ideas "never ever work" as the video says... what is the better alternative?

Sack </div></div>

Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start. How? Stop doing what has not and does not work. The rest will fall into place, but you have to face facts that we are giving money to non-neady people while less fortunate people suffer.

I really enjoyed that video Q. I hope it gets lots of exposure between now and the 2012 elections. Obama is an articulate speaker. I wish he'd rammed it through and repealed Reagan's cuts, and a bunch of the chimp's crooked deals as well. That is oneof my biggest disappointments with Obame. He had control of all branches at one time, and remained a "nice guy" and didn't use his political capital.

So yes, the better solution is to end the non working junk from the Republican admins, Reagan and GWB. Our lower 90% will spend more, invest like they did in Clinton's admin, and the country's wealth will grow like it did with Clinton. That worked, trickle down didn't. But y'all non wealthy people here just keep on asking for more trickle down. You and your heirs will see yourself in a 3rd world country, and have only yourselves to blame. Stupid is the only word which applies to people who continue to elect to actually screw themselves, AGAIN. sid </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Bravo!!!! But we can't expect the fly-overs to understand any of it, Martin. Remember, they were the ones who were saying, that our growing deficits, didn't matter?

They are still so dumb, that they think there is a huge number of people in this country, who don't pay any taxes, but they haven't realized yet, that everyubody pays taxes, except the very wealthy people...

Yep, they get everything assbackwards! That's how we got into this mess!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stupid is the only word which applies to people who continue to elect to actually screw themselves, AGAIN. sid </div></div>

And thaat is the perfect description of "The deficits don't matter" ignorant Repiglican voters!
G.
</span>
</div></div>

Very good for your Bravo. Since I know you will actually take the time and thought to respond to me generally (thank you btw), what about my response to this post your quoted?

Nobody but Stretch has bothered to reply to it, And St I hope you realize my 10% was only an example used for simplicity's sake to illustrate the point. Obviously the actual 'across the board' rate would need to be higher... which would still affect Mr. Little Guy much worse than my generously low example.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-27-2011, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting. Let's say for the sake of discussion that indeed such economic ideas "never ever work" as the video says... what is the better alternative?

Sack </div></div>

Making the tax rates exactly equal between the rich and the rest is a better start. How? Stop doing what has not and does not work. The rest will fall into place, but you have to face facts that we are giving money to non-neady people while less fortunate people suffer.

I really enjoyed that video Q. I hope it gets lots of exposure between now and the 2012 elections. Obama is an articulate speaker. I wish he'd rammed it through and repealed Reagan's cuts, and a bunch of the chimp's crooked deals as well. That is oneof my biggest disappointments with Obame. He had control of all branches at one time, and remained a "nice guy" and didn't use his political capital.

So yes, the better solution is to end the non working junk from the Republican admins, Reagan and GWB. Our lower 90% will spend more, invest like they did in Clinton's admin, and the country's wealth will grow like it did with Clinton. That worked, trickle down didn't. But y'all non wealthy people here just keep on asking for more trickle down. You and your heirs will see yourself in a 3rd world country, and have only yourselves to blame. Stupid is the only word which applies to people who continue to elect to actually screw themselves, AGAIN. sid </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Bravo!!!! But we can't expect the fly-overs to understand any of it, Martin. Remember, they were the ones who were saying, that our growing deficits, didn't matter?

They are still so dumb, that they think there is a huge number of people in this country, who don't pay any taxes, but they haven't realized yet, that everyubody pays taxes, except the very wealthy people...

Yep, they get everything assbackwards! That's how we got into this mess!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stupid is the only word which applies to people who continue to elect to actually screw themselves, AGAIN. sid </div></div>

And thaat is the perfect description of "The deficits don't matter" ignorant Repiglican voters!
G.
</span>
</div></div>

Very good for your Bravo. Since I know you will actually take the time and thought to respond to me generally (thank you btw), what about my response to this post your quoted?

Nobody but Stretch has bothered to reply to it, And St I hope you realize my 10% was only an example used for simplicity's sake to illustrate the point. Obviously the actual 'across the board' rate would need to be higher... which would still affect Mr. Little Guy much worse than my generously low example.

Sack </div></div>

Sack, I believe that the tax rate should be progressive.

I also believe that corporate interests, are too powerful, in our country, and that there is not enough oversight, too much corporate/government collusion, and not enough basic regulations, to deal with corruption in the markets, unprofessional activity by corporations, and also, our health affects, of their polluting our world, which also hurts our country, in many ways, health costs, and other ways, as well.


Unless someone is in agreement enough, to admit to those basic facts, for example, # 1., that millionaires, and billionaires, do not even begin to pay their fair share in income taxes, OR in corporate taxes.

#2., Agrees that trickle down economics, and deregulatory policies of the Republican Party, do not work, but believes that it is right for Republicans to be protecting corrupt corporations, in energy, on Wall ST., in the financial industry, the health insurance industry, such as, for example taking up for BP...as they did.

3#., And, they can also agree that tax cuts, for the wealthy top one percent, do not pay for themselves, nor do any tax cuts for the top five percent, ever pay for themselves, in this global economy, and agrees with me, that tax cuts for the wealthy at the top, does not help the economy, nor create jobs, then, if the other person doesn't agree with those basic, proven facts, then I don't like to try to debate with them about the subject, at all.

Those are my starting points, for any discussion on the subject, or, I suppose you might say, my ending points.


IMO, if there is no agreement on those proven facts, then I see little point in launchhing a debate.
Love,
Gayle

JohnnyD
04-27-2011, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You were the one saying you would pay and run if the tax bill was only 10%.

If you want to retract it, that's fine ... but don't get pizzy with me because you blurted out the truth. </div></div>
He is well known to not to read his own posts.He is another that cannot handle the truth.

sack316
04-27-2011, 12:43 PM
Thanks for the response, as always it is appreciated. What is your take on possibly doing away with income tax, and instead taking taxes in the form of say a sales tax instead (ie the wealthy would be paying more when they buy mansions, yachts, whatever).

Just curious of your thoughts on such a system. I've been looking at it some, and definitely consists of a few holes and details that would need to be addressed... but I do also see some potential when it comes to fairness (for example: say a lower class family on food stamps... purchases with their EBT card are tax free... hence they would not suffer tax-wise just to eat. But should that family purchase their big screen TV, they're not getting a "walk" so to speak.)

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-27-2011, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the response, as always it is appreciated. What is your take on possibly doing away with income tax, and instead taking taxes in the form of say a sales tax instead (ie the wealthy would be paying more when they buy mansions, yachts, whatever).

Just curious of your thoughts on such a system. I've been looking at it some, and definitely consists of a few holes and details that would need to be addressed... but I do also see some potential when it comes to fairness (for example: say a lower class family on food stamps... purchases with their EBT card are tax free... hence they would not suffer tax-wise just to eat. But should that family purchase their big screen TV, they're not getting a "walk" so to speak.)

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
I am for the progressive form of income taxes, where people pay, percentage wise, according to their ability to pay.

It surely didn't hold this country back, from becomming the greatest, and best, country in the world, and provided growth, posterity, and huge advantages for our citizens, since the end of the Great Depression.

Corporations will prefer slave labor, regardless of what we do as regards taxes, and, as I said, I don't really want to get into a debate, because, as I have written so many times, I believe that between the Republican Policies, of deregulation, failing to address the damages of corporate outsourcing, of American Jobs, and actually subsidizing the very corporations who have hurt our country, in many many ways, I know, that no debate could go anywhere, unless it was with another person, who at the very least, see and understand, what Republican Policies have done to us, and how they have failed us miserably.

I am all for going back to the higher tax rates, for the top five percent, who can well afford to pay more, and being proud to live in a country, which proves her honor, by how she takes care of the ill, the old, the hungry, the children, environment, and the down trodden, among us.

We all witnessed, that the country did quite well, under the Clinton Tax rates. Even under Eisenhower's tax structure, the country, and those willing to work hard, did quite well.

And, we have surely seen, the devastating results of trickle down, economics, didn't Reagan, raise taxes six times? Bush, too, raised taxes, and didn't we and see trickle down, fail, over and over again, including this last time?

People, who think that the common man, has as much opportunity, to cheat the government, as millionaires, and billionaires, do, as a way of life, are not living in the real world, IMHO.

Love,
Gayle

Sev
04-27-2011, 07:04 PM
The Fair Tax is the solution.

Only 47% of the eligible population is actually participating in the work force. That number is going to decrease as the boomers continue to retire.

28% of income is now coming in the form of government handouts.

The current tax code exceeds 1 million words and nobody fully understands it.

Progressive tax structures do nothing but promote class warfare.

sack316
04-27-2011, 10:51 PM
thank you for the response Gayle. And I assure you I am not seeking a debate or argument (if that was me you were talking about, but I don't think it was). I'm simply curious about people's opinions on the matter and I perhaps may follow up with an example or two and possibly a few questions. I won't pretend I have any better answer than anyone else on this matter /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Believe it or not, I COULD actually be with you on a progressive tax structure... though admittedly probably not to the extent you would be in the breakdown of percentages. But that is another chat entirely. For now, though, I'll simply ask how a progressive structure would (if at all) factor in cost if living. I mean, it's easy to say "rich people deserve to pay more". In fact, even a lot of righties will agree to that to a certain extent. It is a very logical conclusion to come to when we say that those who can, should. I won't argue that point one bit.

But I do ask, how do we decide that, and how do we make it fair? Making six figures could easily be considered relatively "rich" here in Prattville, Alabama. Take that same income to New York or many parts of California and it's a different story.

I suppose a progressive tax would play well based on <u>excess</u> income. But could we really police that?

OK, I'll leave it at that for now...

Thanks again for the discussion!

Sack

JohnnyD
04-27-2011, 11:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Watch out, Q. Sounds like Gayle is getting ready to attack you!

"Excellent! BUT....Duck! You will now be attacked by the lemmings who can't add and subtract, divide or multiply, think for themselves, or effectively read government charts!!!!"

Steve </div></div>That's what i thought.That was nice of you to warn them.