R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote:I'm past your f-up now. You should get past it too.You only want to move past the argument now because I've shown repeatedly how the entire pissing contest was due to your desire to smear, and that you were fabricating the argument with either false accusations or false impressions. However, if you're willing to stop your childishness, and have a reasonable discussion, let's have at it:
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:RuggedZ wrote:customers also need jobs to have money, so why punish the businesses? it all comes back to them. i firmly believe if businesses had lower taxes, they would hire more workers.
I fail to see how current policies are "punishing businesses". Did I miss something?
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:No, you just refuse to admit that you got hung on looking like an ungrateful jerk who uses the system but then whines about having to pay into it. If you can't let that go, and you need to keep looking like a righteous "Patriot" who can take a break while at low income but can't extend one after moving up the income ladder, then keep proving it. It's just how I roll, making YOU roll in your own doody.Meh, just as I figured. You are unwilling or unable to have an intelligent discussion on the substance. That's how you roll, fool.
It's not like anyone reads this sh!t anyway, so keep smearing Bactine on that cut I pried open. So long as you continue to cry about being exposed, I refuse to move on to other points. Now whine about that; no sense changing your tune now, right?
Ztwenty4door wrote:There is a hourly worker at my place of employment who has 6kids and a wife that doesn't work, he gets housing assistance, food stamps and his children qualify for insurance. Come the end of the year is BEGGING to home early and doesn't want to use his PTO so that is annual income stays under a certain amount so he can keep all his hands out.This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the lack of incentive to better one's situation. When the laws make it better for a person to cut down their hours, they create an entire sector of the public that goes about their lives making sure they don't get ahead, because they will lose their hand-outs.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:That notion of : "lowere the rich mans business taxes, and he'll hire an extra worker, who will earn a paycheck, and spend it on rich mans goods" is a fallacy.You're forgetting an aspect of this. There are many, and I mean many, small business owners who have laid off employees, or cut hours back from full time to part time, and picked up the slack themselves, out of necessity to maintain their business, due to increased burdens placed on them by the government in the form of taxes on both the business, and the payroll. Not all of these type situations have to do with the slow economy. Lower these burdens, and many of these business owners will be able to pay the people to do the work again. I work with a lot of small businesses, and a large number of them have gone back to working long hours again over the past few years because they had to let people go or cut back their hours to cut down payroll. These people would rather have employees doing the work, so they could spend less time actually working their company, and more time running it, but the cost of employees has increased tremendously without the actual pay the employees receive going up.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Flat tax is only beneficial to the top. Much to the contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, nobody takes into account the ratio. You flat tax a person, let say... 25% and the person makes $20K per year (gross), that's $15K (net) that person gets to take home. That is enough to live bare bones basic, no amenities, and no amenities means absolute no movement in the economy. All in all, a tremendous dent in the way that person spends. 25% for a person making $20 million a year, that person will be paying $5 million, that person will take in $15 million (net). At $15 million you can live lavishly, and does not have to think twice on how that person spends, as opposed to the person making $20K per year. Now you put 10% for the $20K person, now that person takes $18K net. That extra $3K has more wiggle room to spend more, and actually contribute to the growth of the economy.As I've pointed out to you before, you forget the deductions. Let's say the person in your hypothetical situation is just a single man living alone. They would have a standard deduction of $5,700, and a personal exemption of $3,650, leaving a taxable income of $10,650. The 25% tax on that would only be 2662.50. This works out to 13.31% of his income, leaving 17337.50. That's close the $18,000 in your 10% scenario. However, the guy making $20M, after deductions (let's say he's married with 3 kids), he would be paying 25% of $19.97, which is $4.99M. The deductions don't significantly affect him at all. If a flat tax were to be instituted with higher personal exemptions, it would effectively take care of the low income earners the same way a lower marginal rate for them would, if not better.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Ztwenty4door wrote:There is a hourly worker at my place of employment who has 6kids and a wife that doesn't work, he gets housing assistance, food stamps and his children qualify for insurance. Come the end of the year is BEGGING to home early and doesn't want to use his PTO so that is annual income stays under a certain amount so he can keep all his hands out.This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the lack of incentive to better one's situation. When the laws make it better for a person to cut down their hours, they create an entire sector of the public that goes about their lives making sure they don't get ahead, because they will lose their hand-outs.
R.W.E. Protector of the Rich wrote:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Flat tax is only beneficial to the top. Much to the contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, nobody takes into account the ratio. You flat tax a person, let say... 25% and the person makes $20K per year (gross), that's $15K (net) that person gets to take home. That is enough to live bare bones basic, no amenities, and no amenities means absolute no movement in the economy. All in all, a tremendous dent in the way that person spends. 25% for a person making $20 million a year, that person will be paying $5 million, that person will take in $15 million (net). At $15 million you can live lavishly, and does not have to think twice on how that person spends, as opposed to the person making $20K per year. Now you put 10% for the $20K person, now that person takes $18K net. That extra $3K has more wiggle room to spend more, and actually contribute to the growth of the economy.As I've pointed out to you before, you forget the deductions. Let's say the person in your hypothetical situation is just a single man living alone. They would have a standard deduction of $5,700, and a personal exemption of $3,650, leaving a taxable income of $10,650. The 25% tax on that would only be 2662.50. This works out to 13.31% of his income, leaving 17337.50. That's close the $18,000 in your 10% scenario. However, the guy making $20M, after deductions (let's say he's married with 3 kids), he would be paying 25% of $19.97, which is $4.99M. The deductions don't significantly affect him at all. If a flat tax were to be instituted with higher personal exemptions, it would effectively take care of the low income earners the same way a lower marginal rate for them would, if not better.
ScottaWhite wrote:Is it a problem that I work with baby mamas or that they ARE baby mamas? Are you assuming something?
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:That notion of : "lowere the rich mans business taxes, and he'll hire an extra worker, who will earn a paycheck, and spend it on rich mans goods" is a fallacy.You're forgetting an aspect of this. There are many, and I mean many, small business owners who have laid off employees, or cut hours back from full time to part time, and picked up the slack themselves, out of necessity to maintain their business, due to increased burdens placed on them by the government in the form of taxes on both the business, and the payroll. Not all of these type situations have to do with the slow economy. Lower these burdens, and many of these business owners will be able to pay the people to do the work again. I work with a lot of small businesses, and a large number of them have gone back to working long hours again over the past few years because they had to let people go or cut back their hours to cut down payroll. These people would rather have employees doing the work, so they could spend less time actually working their company, and more time running it, but the cost of employees has increased tremendously without the actual pay the employees receive going up.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:R.W.E. Protector of the Rich wrote:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Flat tax is only beneficial to the top. Much to the contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, nobody takes into account the ratio. You flat tax a person, let say... 25% and the person makes $20K per year (gross), that's $15K (net) that person gets to take home. That is enough to live bare bones basic, no amenities, and no amenities means absolute no movement in the economy. All in all, a tremendous dent in the way that person spends. 25% for a person making $20 million a year, that person will be paying $5 million, that person will take in $15 million (net). At $15 million you can live lavishly, and does not have to think twice on how that person spends, as opposed to the person making $20K per year. Now you put 10% for the $20K person, now that person takes $18K net. That extra $3K has more wiggle room to spend more, and actually contribute to the growth of the economy.As I've pointed out to you before, you forget the deductions. Let's say the person in your hypothetical situation is just a single man living alone. They would have a standard deduction of $5,700, and a personal exemption of $3,650, leaving a taxable income of $10,650. The 25% tax on that would only be 2662.50. This works out to 13.31% of his income, leaving 17337.50. That's close the $18,000 in your 10% scenario. However, the guy making $20M, after deductions (let's say he's married with 3 kids), he would be paying 25% of $19.97, which is $4.99M. The deductions don't significantly affect him at all. If a flat tax were to be instituted with higher personal exemptions, it would effectively take care of the low income earners the same way a lower marginal rate for them would, if not better.
If through the deductions you now cite, a similar outcome as now is achieved...what's the point of revamping the code to do a flat tax?
Let's cut to the chase: avoid hypotheticals and endless rationalizing, and simply state why a flat tax would be an improvement. In doing so, indicate how it will increase revenues, and who will shoulder the addtional burden required to achieve said increase.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:That notion of : "lowere the rich mans business taxes, and he'll hire an extra worker, who will earn a paycheck, and spend it on rich mans goods" is a fallacy.You're forgetting an aspect of this. There are many, and I mean many, small business owners who have laid off employees, or cut hours back from full time to part time, and picked up the slack themselves, out of necessity to maintain their business, due to increased burdens placed on them by the government in the form of taxes on both the business, and the payroll. Not all of these type situations have to do with the slow economy. Lower these burdens, and many of these business owners will be able to pay the people to do the work again. I work with a lot of small businesses, and a large number of them have gone back to working long hours again over the past few years because they had to let people go or cut back their hours to cut down payroll. These people would rather have employees doing the work, so they could spend less time actually working their company, and more time running it, but the cost of employees has increased tremendously without the actual pay the employees receive going up.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:More obviations. People have been avoiding higher tax brackets forever. Like this is some kind of revelation. It's the way the system's worked as long as I have been in it. What makes you think it should change just because you now make enough to be offended by it?Once again, you missed the point. This isn't about people trying to avoid higher tax brackets, it's about people trying to avoid losing their hand-outs. The system should be there to help people when they fall on hard times, and get them back on their feet. The problem is there are too many entitlements these days that are set up in a way that provides all the incentive to stay where you are instead of working to improve your situation. This has nothing to do with me being offended by it because I'm not in that income bracket anymore. My views on the subject have never changed. I got out of that bracket by accepting the fact that it was up to me to do it, and no one else. I firmly believe that this culture of entitlements causes less and less people to accept responsibility for improving their own life.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:If through the deductions you now cite, a similar outcome as now is achieved...what's the point of revamping the code to do a flat tax?See, there you go again, taking the narrow view and making it the main point of your response. The similar outcome is at the bottom end, where the person in the example wouldn't be hit with a massive tax increase. However, to have a flat tax like that would incentivize investments and growth. Why would a flat tax work? History has proven that lowering marginal rates ends up stimulating economic activity in such a way that the end result is that revenues increase. The reason for this? Even though taxes take a smaller piece of the pie, the pie becomes much larger, so the take still increases. By making a flat tax, the incentive for investment is even greater, and the end result will be that the government realizes more revenues, and the system is fair to everyone, since everyone keeps the same percentage of their taxable income. You talk about shouldering the burden, but this is to believe income tax is a zero-sum game, which proponents of higher taxes for the higher earners always ignore. Another thing to consider regarding the history of lower rates producing higher revenues is that opponents claim it doesn't work, because they look at a short 4-5 year period, and show that for that entire period, the higher tax rates would have produced higher revenues. What they ignore is the fact that the annual revenues have actually begun to skyrocket toward the end of that period, because of the growth following a logarithmic scale.
Let's cut to the chase: avoid hypotheticals and endless rationalizing, and simply state why a flat tax would be an improvement. In doing so, indicate how it will increase revenues, and who will shoulder the addtional burden required to achieve said increase.
...if it's your impression that tax burdens should be reduced for business, and not raised for the individual or family, but you are also concerned about the total tax revenues...how can you reconcile the fact that your points are in direct conflict with one another? You propose 'solutions' that do not generate additional revenue.
Quote:
The top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers (roughly speaking those making over $200,000 a year) saw their share of income tax payments rise from 7 percent in 1981 to 14 percent in 1986. The share of taxes borne by the top 2 percent of taxpayers (roughly those making over $60,000) rose from 26 percent in 1981 to 34 percent in 1986. Taxpayers on the bottom half of the income scale saw their share of tax payments fall from 7 percent at the start of the decade to only 6 percent by 1986. The great American middle class, people earning between $20,000 and $60,000 in the early 1980s saw their tax share fall from 67 percent to 60 percent between 1981 and 1986.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Run that tale to Sarah Palin so she can use it as another scare tactic to the RNC. Business lets of go folks because the lack of business or employers get accustomed to one or couple of folks doing the same job instead of a few doing the same job. That's capitalism and one of it's aspects. If employer sees the job gets done with the least amount of people, why keep more on the pay roll? Maximize profit, not because of "tax burden." Government is not out to destroy business, do you even comprehend how ludicrous and insane that logic is? What does government get out of it, if it's out to destroy a business? The end result is all negative in every aspect for them. I can give you... regulations to run thing appropriately, yes. No regulation equals products like the ones found in China... or now Toyota.LOL. There's your demonization of business owners, right on schedule.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote: More obviations. People have been avoiding higher tax brackets forever. Like this is some kind of revelation. It's the way the system's worked as long as I have been in it. What makes you think it should change just because you now make enough to be offended by it?Once again, you missed the point. This isn't about people trying to avoid higher tax brackets, it's about people trying to avoid losing their hand-outs. The system should be there to help people when they fall on hard times, and get them back on their feet. The problem is there are too many entitlements these days that are set up in a way that provides all the incentive to stay where you are instead of working to improve your situation. This has nothing to do with me being offended by it because I'm not in that income bracket anymore. My views on the subject have never changed. I got out of that bracket by accepting the fact that it was up to me to do it, and no one else. I firmly believe that this culture of entitlements causes less and less people to accept responsibility for improving their own life.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Take Back the Republican Party wrote: If through the deductions you now cite, a similar outcome as now is achieved...what's the point of revamping the code to do a flat tax?See, there you go again, taking the narrow view and making it the main point of your response. The similar outcome is at the bottom end, where the person in the example wouldn't be hit with a massive tax increase. However, to have a flat tax like that would incentivize investments and growth. Why would a flat tax work? History has proven that lowering marginal rates ends up stimulating economic activity in such a way that the end result is that revenues increase. The reason for this? Even though taxes take a smaller piece of the pie, the pie becomes much larger, so the take still increases. By making a flat tax, the incentive for investment is even greater, and the end result will be that the government realizes more revenues, and the system is fair to everyone, since everyone keeps the same percentage of their taxable income. You talk about shouldering the burden, but this is to believe income tax is a zero-sum game, which proponents of higher taxes for the higher earners always ignore. Another thing to consider regarding the history of lower rates producing higher revenues is that opponents claim it doesn't work, because they look at a short 4-5 year period, and show that for that entire period, the higher tax rates would have produced higher revenues. What they ignore is the fact that the annual revenues have actually begun to skyrocket toward the end of that period, because of the growth following a logarithmic scale.
Let's cut to the chase: avoid hypotheticals and endless rationalizing, and simply state why a flat tax would be an improvement. In doing so, indicate how it will increase revenues, and who will shoulder the addtional burden required to achieve said increase.
...if it's your impression that tax burdens should be reduced for business, and not raised for the individual or family, but you are also concerned about the total tax revenues...how can you reconcile the fact that your points are in direct conflict with one another? You propose 'solutions' that do not generate additional revenue.
It should also be noted that I'm a proponent of major budget cutting, so increasing the revenues to keep up with the spending is not exactly a top priority. Stimulating major growth in the economy is #1, while simultaneously reigning in the budget, and maintaining a founding principle of this country, which is personal liberty.
If you want to do some reading on how lowering tax rates in the higher brackets actually increases the percentage of the tax burden paid by those at the top, as well as how lowering the rates affected an economy that had been sliding for years turn into an economy that boomed (for everyone) for a decade, read this. An important group of statistics:Quote:
The top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers (roughly speaking those making over $200,000 a year) saw their share of income tax payments rise from 7 percent in 1981 to 14 percent in 1986. The share of taxes borne by the top 2 percent of taxpayers (roughly those making over $60,000) rose from 26 percent in 1981 to 34 percent in 1986. Taxpayers on the bottom half of the income scale saw their share of tax payments fall from 7 percent at the start of the decade to only 6 percent by 1986. The great American middle class, people earning between $20,000 and $60,000 in the early 1980s saw their tax share fall from 67 percent to 60 percent between 1981 and 1986.
ScottaWhite wrote:The term "Baby Momma" is not exclusive to any race or ethnicity. It means "single unwed mother". I work with two white girls currently. Both single, both with more than 1 kid each. March, they begin counting down the days til the next tax refund payday. It used to be three baby mommas, with whom I worked, but Kelly (the black baby momma), got a first shift job, so she could work while her kids were in school...and saving a lot of daycare money.
The closest you'll get to finding actual bonafide racist content from me, is in regard to Muslim terrorists- aka- terrorist Muslims.
If I see someone do something and say " hey guess what person "X" was doing today? If they were doing it...well it just happened to happen that way.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote: the Toyota comment, really? Because those cars aren't built in the US, under US regulations, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm no Toyota fan, but let's be realistic about that statement.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Wrong. It's ZERO different than people holding back their income to avoid paying higher taxes. You are running in circles now. It's a DEPRESSION. It is a time of MAXIMUM government assistance. Your pleas don't just fall on deaf ears...they fall on NO ears. No one is listening right now.LOL. So now your head is so big that you think you speak for everyone, huh? Not only are you the authority on everything, but you think people aren't listening to me just because you say so? How about the fact that since you've been so hot and heavy back in the War Forum 6 months ago, too many have left, because every time they try to have an intelligent discussion, you jump in and start with your insults and name-calling, bringing it down to a first-grade schoolyard level?
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:The 'pie' is not going to get bigger until more jobs materialize. That will take years, if ever, thanks to the destructive economic policies that gutted our job base in the 2000's.Oh, really? Then explain this one: Between January 2001 and August of 2008, there was an increase in employed persons of 7.4 million. That's just about 1 million new jobs per year. In 2001, Bush took office with a rising unemployment rate, and we were in a recession. Following 9/11, the recession continued with a slight kick. Following tax rate cuts in 2003, we turned around and unemployment dropped steadily, bottoming out in 2007 at 4.5%. We had an economic crash that was tied to the housing bubble inflated by horrible lending practices on the highest risk buyers, pushed by liberal policies, not conservative ones. The source for my numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Radically revamping the tax code right now is pure folly. You cannot achieve such grandiose effects while the bulk of the nation's businesses and families are struggling so hard just to stay afloat. There is no more MONEY to take from anyone to close the deficit gap. You cannot reduce entitlements either when people are starving. A flat tax does not "create" economic activity...if it forces those in the upper brackets to pay more tax, it destroys it. This "cure" would be far worse than the disease.First off, where did I say we need to radically revamp the tax code right now? LOL. Scott brought up a flat tax, and you started asking for an explanation of why it works. Now that I've given an explanation, you're acting like I've been saying this needs to be done now. Do I believe we should get there? Absolutely. Do I believe we should litterally throw out the system right now and put in a new one? No. However, we could get there in a similar fashion to the ERTA of 1981, where it's staged in over a period of years with decreases in rates, as well as reductions in loop-holes, until we get to where it needs to be. As for there being no more money? Exactly why we need to stop this ridiculous spending. Hell, if they lower taxes, and collect less right now, and cut spending, the country would still be better off, since we wouldn't be setting the table for inflation, or racking up massive deficits which add compounding interest burdens on the national debt.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:What will work is what's happening now in a natural economic way. Survival of the fittest for businesses, competitive improvements, belt tightening, and changes in attitudes leading to improved savings and reduction in rampant consumerism. You seem to think a tax overhaul is some magic bullet, an elixir of Hope and Change. Oops. Yes, I said it...that is, YOU said it.At least we can agree on one thing. As for tax overhaul being a magic bullet? It doesn't happen overnight, but lowering taxes works. What I find rather interesting is that a few months ago, you jumped into a thread where I was discussing this with someone else, and you agreed with me. What's changed your mind since then? Do you really believe now that it doesn't work, or do you just have such a bug up your ass to argue with me that you no longer care what it's about?
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Quik, all you do is parrot what your handlers have told you, over and over, ad infinitum. You do not have an original thought in your head.This holds no more truth than the first time you claimed it. Just because you can't comprehend basic logic doesn't mean I'm simply repeating what I've heard. It may make you feel better about yourself to continue trying to smear me, but you're failing, as usual.
RWE of JBO wrote:...you think people aren't listening to me just because you say so? How about the fact that since you've been so hot and heavy back in the War Forum 6 months ago, too many have left, because every time they try to have an intelligent discussion, you jump in and start with your insults and name-calling, bringing it down to a first-grade schoolyard level?
By the way, explain how in a depression, it's a good thing that people have an incentive to avoid improving their income so that they can stay on a hand-out? How exactly do you see that being a positive for the country? As I said, government assistance should help people get back on their feet, not become a way of life.
RWE of JBO wrote:At least we can agree on one thing. As for tax overhaul being a magic bullet? It doesn't happen overnight, but lowering taxes works. What I find rather interesting is that a few months ago, you jumped into a thread where I was discussing this with someone else, and you agreed with me. What's changed your mind since then? Do you really believe now that it doesn't work, or do you just have such a bug up your ass to argue with me that you no longer care what it's about?