Great Depression of 2016

[hemet dennis]

"pro-life" right

Quote:

Sorry you don't realize that corporations don't really pay the taxes that get passed on to the government, didn't take economics 101 ? The only money they get is from their costumers.

Well you could have a minimum, say the first $20,000 everyone earns is tax free. But I think the guy paying $200,000 wouldn't think it was so bad for the poor guy only paying $2,000. How would the rich slip by on paying taxes with a flat rate ? You seem confused, uninformed.

Is it Walmarts fault that someone with a family and 3 kids can only qualify for a minimum wage job and so they can collect food stamps, should they not hire anyone with dependents ?

Glad I got my label of "pro-life" right from you.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

communism/socialism has been ingrained in to both parties for generations... Even in the 1950s...

The founders would not have thought Constitution gave the government the powers that it welds today...


We fought a revolution over taxes that were a fraction of what people pay now...

 

[Rosa moschata]

"pro-life" right


Sorry you don't realize that corporations don't really pay the taxes that get passed on to the government, didn't take economics 101 ? The only money they get is from their costumers.

Well you could have a minimum, say the first $20,000 everyone earns is tax free. But I think the guy paying $200,000 wouldn't think it was so bad for the poor guy only paying $2,000. How would the rich slip by on paying taxes with a flat rate ? You seem confused, uninformed.

Is it Walmarts fault that someone with a family and 3 kids can only qualify for a minimum wage job and so they can collect food stamps, should they not hire anyone with dependents ?

Glad I got my label of "pro-life" right from you.

That's like saying employees don't actually pay taxes, either -- their employers do, since that's where their money comes from.

The rich would "slip by" because generally, the "flat tax" proposed by the right would include only "wages" as "income" to be taxed -- so people deriving "other income" from investments would not be subjected to the tax. And they have good reason to exclude it, since non-wage income is often taxed at less than half the rate of wage income.

I just say look around you, if you live in a "red state". How are things going? I'm from a very "blue state", but lived at a very "red" part for a few years, and the difference was dramatic. Ironically, in that area, all the blame for the economy was placed upon the "blue" part of the state, locals claiming all the state tax revenue went down there to support it. But looking at actual figures of state tax revenue versus state funding, it was the "red" part of the state which was heavily subsidized -- while the "blue" part kept the rest of the state afloat.

I'm happy to be "blue", to vote "blue", and to live in a "blue" state. Y'all voting "red" seem convinced that that side has the answers. So look around you, if you live in a "red state". How are they doing for you?

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
Sure the employer pays the taxes with money from consumers, so when the minimum wage goes up the consumer will pay the business more to cover the increase, what part of the consumer pays all wages and taxes don't you understand ? Didn't you start off with helping the consumer ? So how will paying more wages and taxes help the consumer ?
I didn't say just tax wages did I ? Didn't I say earnings ? If we taxed all earnings at 10%, that would still be less then the 15% they pay now. The ones that would be making out would be the responsible middle class.
You people always count how much you make in a red state, but never want to count the cost of living in a red vs blue state.
I live in a blue state (Calif.) but live in a red part, I wouldn't mind living in Arizona (I know many people that have retired there to get away from blue taxes)

 

[Rosa moschata]

When tax rates were higher, there was less incentive to be greedy at the top. Businesses that prospered offered better wages to further distribute funds and reduce "profit" which would be taxed (for example, Costco). Those employees then had more money to spend.

You didn't say "just tax wages" but that's what people who actually affect policy and are proposing flat-tax say.

Yes, cost of living in the "red part" of my state was lower -- as was the quality of living. It was cheap to live there because there was little demand to live there. And that's the point -- more people WANT to live in the "blue" places, because things are just BETTER there. "Red" places that are all anti-govt have broken down roads, bad schools, etc. Is it more expensive to live where I live? Of course -- because living here offers more opportunities than back in the "red" part of the state, where I lived ONLY because I went to school there. I left as soon as I got my degree.

Additional tax income can be used by the government to employ more people in infrastructure jobs. That would create more consumer dollars, and producers would scramble to meet demand. I still find it amazing that the argument of "it won't work" is still being played, when history shows "it actually did work...but we changed it."

Carry on, though....I realize the futility in continuing on this thread. You are all convinced that doomsday is coming, and seem to be set out to prove yourselves right by voting for people who seem to be pushing for a return to feudalism.

Have fun!

 

[hemet dennis]

When tax rates were higher, there was less incentive to be greedy at the top. Businesses that prospered offered better wages to further distribute funds and reduce "profit" which would be taxed (for example, Costco). Those employees then had more money to spend.

You didn't say "just tax wages" but that's what people who actually affect policy and are proposing flat-tax say.

Yes, cost of living in the "red part" of my state was lower -- as was the quality of living. It was cheap to live there because there was little demand to live there. And that's the point -- more people WANT to live in the "blue" places, because things are just BETTER there. "Red" places that are all anti-govt have broken down roads, bad schools, etc. Is it more expensive to live where I live? Of course -- because living here offers more opportunities than back in the "red" part of the state, where I lived ONLY because I went to school there. I left as soon as I got my degree.

Additional tax income can be used by the government to employ more people in infrastructure jobs. That would create more consumer dollars, and producers would scramble to meet demand. I still find it amazing that the argument of "it won't work" is still being played, when history shows "it actually did work...but we changed it."

Carry on, though....I realize the futility in continuing on this thread. You are all convinced that doomsday is coming, and seem to be set out to prove yourselves right by voting for people who seem to be pushing for a return to feudalism.

Have fun!

Your first paragraph made no sense at all.
People that are saying a flat tax, are not saying only wages.
Where does that additional tax income come from ? Right we already decided all taxes come from consumers.
I think when you say it did work you're referring to after WW 2 when we had years of pent up demand and years of very high employment with nothing to buy. So when factories switched to consumer goods they couldn't make stuff fast enough. That was not a realistic economy.

I think the people that think doomsday is coming are completely wrong.

Gee look even New York is getting in on the tax breaks for businesses, when did N.Y. turn into a red state ?
http://esd.ny.gov/businessPrograms/Taxes_Incentives.html

 

[rufus]

I am still wondering who are all of the rich people that are supposed to be paying a lot more taxes? I suspect most of the invested funds now days are from institutional investors; our retirement funds plus a lot of foreign investors.

The Walton family still own a good portion of their business. But the stock is held world wide. I used to like them because I could drip invest buying just the amount of stock I could afford each payday. I think that has gone by the wayside. I suspect Chinese investors own a huge block of the stock.

Dennis, I don't think the world will come to an end real soon, but I am pretty sure my paltry social security check won't buy much in the future.

 

[WooingWyandotte]

That's like saying employees don't actually pay taxes, either -- their employers do, since that's where their money comes from.

The rich would "slip by" because generally, the "flat tax" proposed by the right would include only "wages" as "income" to be taxed -- so people deriving "other income" from investments would not be subjected to the tax. And they have good reason to exclude it, since non-wage income is often taxed at less than half the rate of wage income.

I just say look around you, if you live in a "red state". How are things going? I'm from a very "blue state", but lived at a very "red" part for a few years, and the difference was dramatic. Ironically, in that area, all the blame for the economy was placed upon the "blue" part of the state, locals claiming all the state tax revenue went down there to support it. But looking at actual figures of state tax revenue versus state funding, it was the "red" part of the state which was heavily subsidized -- while the "blue" part kept the rest of the state afloat.

I'm happy to be "blue", to vote "blue", and to live in a "blue" state. Y'all voting "red" seem convinced that that side has the answers. So look around you, if you live in a "red state". How are they doing for you?

Speak for yourself. I live in a blue state, and things are real messy. I wouldn't go by "who has political power in your state" (I.E. blue or red), because ultimately it is the government that overrules the state. So IMO whatever state you reside in, there is always going to be problems due to the nit-picking goverment; no use pointing at the result rather than the problem.

 

[hemet dennis]

I am still wondering who are all of the rich people that are supposed to be paying a lot more taxes? I suspect most of the invested funds now days are from institutional investors; our retirement funds plus a lot of foreign investors.

The Walton family still own a good portion of their business. But the stock is held world wide. I used to like them because I could drip invest buying just the amount of stock I could afford each payday. I think that has gone by the wayside. I suspect Chinese investors own a huge block of the stock.

Dennis, I don't think the world will come to an end real soon, but I am pretty sure my paltry social security check won't buy much in the future.

You guys may turnout to be right and everything could collapse, but I don't think so.

 

[Mike Winters]

The government has became bipolar. It has became a two party system were nether side contributes anything productive, but would rather reshape the country and the world to their own needs while calling out anyone that doesn't see their way as a heretic. Both sides running for office forget other countries look up to us or used to, and a lot are dependent.
What they believe in will affect everyone in the world not just the people that voted for them