|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:31 am
Tax spike for the wealthyOk I know alot of people think the wealthy should pay more taxes, here I am going to explain how this will balance the governemenal budgets but send the private sector into a race to slash jobs. Ok say you own a business and you make $250,000 a year currently you pay $87500 a year in taxes which means you're actually making $162500. Under the proposed change the amount in taxes you will pay will jump to $90,000, this means that while you make $250,000 you get to keep $160,000. I don't know about you, but if I paid 39.5% taxes I would spend a whole lot less, even if I made enough to absorb the loss, and we all know that when people don't spend money, the economy gets worse and companies have to slash more jobs. You see when it comes to politics and money, the facts don't matter to most people, perception is what matters. When the wealthy see almost 40% of their money disappearing they get angry and rightly so, did our wealthy work any less hard to amass their fortunes? People have a right to keep the maximum possible percentage of what they earn. You know who spends the most within the private sector? The wealthy, think about it when people have alot of money they think nothing of buying thier son or daughter a brand new top of the line car. To the rich in this country, money is expendable to a much larger extent than it is to those with less money. If I was making over 250,000 a year I would start moving my money into offshore banks right now, and I would trim my budget accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:50 pm
this is not a tax spike. THis is an end to the previous tax break that the Bush administration gave to the wealthy. Twizted Humanitarian did our wealthy work any less hard to amass their fortunes? yes...many of them did work less hard, and took advantage of unequal opportunity in order to do it...or they did nothing and simply inherited. Besides...in the past, it seems that the money has had a disproportionate influence over the political process, and the decisions that were made under that influence (the Iraq war, deregulation) put us in this situation. So I think, yeah...time for those who have had a disproportionate influence over the decision making power and used that power to make bad decisions to pay up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:14 am
Well buddy, I know we will all weather out the financial storm but it looks like we will never agree on how to stem the tide. I personally see the problem as not enough deregulation, as I have previously said I view the free market system as self sustainable as long as it doesn't have too many tethers attached to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:05 pm
naw, dereg caused the 2008 crisis. too much dereg is bad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:01 pm
Twizted Humanitarian Tax spike for the wealthyOk I know alot of people think the wealthy should pay more taxes, here I am going to explain how this will balance the governemenal budgets but send the private sector into a race to slash jobs. Ok say you own a business and you make $250,000 a year currently you pay $87500 a year in taxes which means you're actually making $162500. Under the proposed change the amount in taxes you will pay will jump to $90,000, this means that while you make $250,000 you get to keep $160,000. I don't know about you, but if I paid 39.5% taxes I would spend a whole lot less, even if I made enough to absorb the loss, and we all know that when people don't spend money, the economy gets worse and companies have to slash more jobs. You see when it comes to politics and money, the facts don't matter to most people, perception is what matters. When the wealthy see almost 40% of their money disappearing they get angry and rightly so, did our wealthy work any less hard to amass their fortunes? People have a right to keep the maximum possible percentage of what they earn. You know who spends the most within the private sector? The wealthy, think about it when people have alot of money they think nothing of buying thier son or daughter a brand new top of the line car. To the rich in this country, money is expendable to a much larger extent than it is to those with less money. If I was making over 250,000 a year I would start moving my money into offshore banks right now, and I would trim my budget accordingly. Your name says "Humanitarian". I hope that's irony because liberals are nothing of the sort. Basically you're trying to justify as right the insane ammounts of money the wealthy earn. I feel compelled to stress, on the other hand, that making money out of the exploitation of the working class is anything but justified which, by all means, makes the rise in rich people's taxes perfectly reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:41 pm
XeYeX Twizted Humanitarian Tax spike for the wealthyOk I know alot of people think the wealthy should pay more taxes, here I am going to explain how this will balance the governemenal budgets but send the private sector into a race to slash jobs. Ok say you own a business and you make $250,000 a year currently you pay $87500 a year in taxes which means you're actually making $162500. Under the proposed change the amount in taxes you will pay will jump to $90,000, this means that while you make $250,000 you get to keep $160,000. I don't know about you, but if I paid 39.5% taxes I would spend a whole lot less, even if I made enough to absorb the loss, and we all know that when people don't spend money, the economy gets worse and companies have to slash more jobs. You see when it comes to politics and money, the facts don't matter to most people, perception is what matters. When the wealthy see almost 40% of their money disappearing they get angry and rightly so, did our wealthy work any less hard to amass their fortunes? People have a right to keep the maximum possible percentage of what they earn. You know who spends the most within the private sector? The wealthy, think about it when people have alot of money they think nothing of buying thier son or daughter a brand new top of the line car. To the rich in this country, money is expendable to a much larger extent than it is to those with less money. If I was making over 250,000 a year I would start moving my money into offshore banks right now, and I would trim my budget accordingly. Your name says "Humanitarian". I hope that's irony because liberals are nothing of the sort. Basically you're trying to justify as right the insane ammounts of money the wealthy earn. I feel compelled to stress, on the other hand, that making money out of the exploitation of the working class is anything but justified which, by all means, makes the rise in rich people's taxes perfectly reasonable. Or we could just put laws in place to make sure workers receive fair treatment, conditions, benefits and pay, and not steal money from people just to put it in the hands of our incompetent government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:04 pm
death angel712 XeYeX Twizted Humanitarian Tax spike for the wealthyOk I know alot of people think the wealthy should pay more taxes, here I am going to explain how this will balance the governemenal budgets but send the private sector into a race to slash jobs. Ok say you own a business and you make $250,000 a year currently you pay $87500 a year in taxes which means you're actually making $162500. Under the proposed change the amount in taxes you will pay will jump to $90,000, this means that while you make $250,000 you get to keep $160,000. I don't know about you, but if I paid 39.5% taxes I would spend a whole lot less, even if I made enough to absorb the loss, and we all know that when people don't spend money, the economy gets worse and companies have to slash more jobs. You see when it comes to politics and money, the facts don't matter to most people, perception is what matters. When the wealthy see almost 40% of their money disappearing they get angry and rightly so, did our wealthy work any less hard to amass their fortunes? People have a right to keep the maximum possible percentage of what they earn. You know who spends the most within the private sector? The wealthy, think about it when people have alot of money they think nothing of buying thier son or daughter a brand new top of the line car. To the rich in this country, money is expendable to a much larger extent than it is to those with less money. If I was making over 250,000 a year I would start moving my money into offshore banks right now, and I would trim my budget accordingly. Your name says "Humanitarian". I hope that's irony because liberals are nothing of the sort. Basically you're trying to justify as right the insane ammounts of money the wealthy earn. I feel compelled to stress, on the other hand, that making money out of the exploitation of the working class is anything but justified which, by all means, makes the rise in rich people's taxes perfectly reasonable. Or we could just put laws in place to make sure workers receive fair treatment, conditions, benefits and pay, and not steal money from people just to put it in the hands of our incompetent government. Which will have companies up in arms, and those companies have lobbyists that would get Congressmen to vote the bill down and it won't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:10 pm
death angel712 XeYeX Twizted Humanitarian Tax spike for the wealthyOk I know alot of people think the wealthy should pay more taxes, here I am going to explain how this will balance the governemenal budgets but send the private sector into a race to slash jobs. Ok say you own a business and you make $250,000 a year currently you pay $87500 a year in taxes which means you're actually making $162500. Under the proposed change the amount in taxes you will pay will jump to $90,000, this means that while you make $250,000 you get to keep $160,000. I don't know about you, but if I paid 39.5% taxes I would spend a whole lot less, even if I made enough to absorb the loss, and we all know that when people don't spend money, the economy gets worse and companies have to slash more jobs. You see when it comes to politics and money, the facts don't matter to most people, perception is what matters. When the wealthy see almost 40% of their money disappearing they get angry and rightly so, did our wealthy work any less hard to amass their fortunes? People have a right to keep the maximum possible percentage of what they earn. You know who spends the most within the private sector? The wealthy, think about it when people have alot of money they think nothing of buying thier son or daughter a brand new top of the line car. To the rich in this country, money is expendable to a much larger extent than it is to those with less money. If I was making over 250,000 a year I would start moving my money into offshore banks right now, and I would trim my budget accordingly. Your name says "Humanitarian". I hope that's irony because liberals are nothing of the sort. Basically you're trying to justify as right the insane ammounts of money the wealthy earn. I feel compelled to stress, on the other hand, that making money out of the exploitation of the working class is anything but justified which, by all means, makes the rise in rich people's taxes perfectly reasonable. Or we could just put laws in place to make sure workers receive fair treatment, conditions, benefits and pay, and not steal money from people just to put it in the hands of our incompetent government. That would be a big no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:29 pm
mr_zoot naw, dereg caused the 2008 crisis. too much dereg is bad "Do you remember the letter that granny wrote me?
You do? You remember how I ended it?...
Here's the sitch: for those of you who have not taken an Economics 100 course in your entire life, here's the general summary of what's going on. Too much regulation of economic policies is socialist. Socialist economies just fail - they collapse within years (see India). Deregulation, on the other hand, promotes massive economic growth, remarkable my economists' standards (see Hong Kong).
I pose to you this question: if deregulation is bad, how come in Hong Kong (which is a place where there is absolutely no economic regulation) there is tremendous stable economic growth. In Hong Kong, you can apply for a business license with one, JUST ONE, piece of paper, turn it in, and receive your license right then and there. Now, whether or not you're successful is another story entirely, but many American and other foreign entrepreneurs go there to start their businesses, and have now become successful. Many Chinese live there comfortably, and they're currently building many new apartment complexes for the middle-class. In stark contrast, a place like India (with very high and strict economic regulation), there is economic disaster. With so many regulations, it's impossible to do anything or react in a timely manner. People are living in active drain pipes and dying of starvation.
So I ask you, which is better?
This isn't a freak accident either, this is happening/has happened in other countries as well: Zimbabwe and Cuba, and the European Union's high regulatory economic bias is slowly but surely having an effect of their economy as well. The world as a whole is in a tough spot right now. There's a balance somewhere.
... 'I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day:
'Grandpa were you a hero in the war?' Grandpa said
'No. But I served in a company of heroes.'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
