My money...
11-04-2010, 07:48 AM
#41
Here's a little food for thought for the "tax the poor" crew: A majority of people, including a majority of rich people (250k+/yr), think that rich people should be taxed to reduce the deficit.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438
Question 49. Do you think - raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000
...should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?
Households making >250k/yr: 64% YES
Households making 100-250k/yr: 51% YES
Households making 50-100k/yr: 61% YES
Households making <50k/yr: 64% YES
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438
Question 49. Do you think - raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000
...should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?
Households making >250k/yr: 64% YES
Households making 100-250k/yr: 51% YES
Households making 50-100k/yr: 61% YES
Households making <50k/yr: 64% YES
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 08:30 AM
#42
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Is that why every president ever, including Clinton during his surplus, has dipped into SS funds?
Dump SS, dump welfare, and dump urban housing and you just freed up 41% of our Government's "budget". That's a lot of money that could stay in the "free" market.
FWIW, 250K a year is not rich. not remotely close. It's offense to believe that someone would think raising taxes on a select group of people, by force, is a just way to pretend to be doing good for another group of people. It's a great way to stay in power and give incentives for votes.
Higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods.
Those extra taxes most will surely hurt the economy and will increase the deficit. Find an ecomonist that says it s a good idea to tax the "rich" in a depression. All the extra taxes will pay for, however, is Obama's 200 million dollar a DAY trip to India with 3000 of his friends.
As far as the poll: #49 asks >250K and everyone says yes. #50 asks over 1mill and everyone says yes. #51 asks middle-class and everyone says no.
So what does that tell you? It tells you those that said yes think it's okay to force "rich" people to pay for their undeserved whatnots. So does that make it just?
Don't pretend to be a champion of minority rights and a champion of the people if you do it by force. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. The ends do not justify the means. If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Dump SS, dump welfare, and dump urban housing and you just freed up 41% of our Government's "budget". That's a lot of money that could stay in the "free" market.
FWIW, 250K a year is not rich. not remotely close. It's offense to believe that someone would think raising taxes on a select group of people, by force, is a just way to pretend to be doing good for another group of people. It's a great way to stay in power and give incentives for votes.
Higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods.
Those extra taxes most will surely hurt the economy and will increase the deficit. Find an ecomonist that says it s a good idea to tax the "rich" in a depression. All the extra taxes will pay for, however, is Obama's 200 million dollar a DAY trip to India with 3000 of his friends.
As far as the poll: #49 asks >250K and everyone says yes. #50 asks over 1mill and everyone says yes. #51 asks middle-class and everyone says no.
So what does that tell you? It tells you those that said yes think it's okay to force "rich" people to pay for their undeserved whatnots. So does that make it just?
Don't pretend to be a champion of minority rights and a champion of the people if you do it by force. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. The ends do not justify the means. If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Last edited by Braineack; 11-04-2010 at 09:16 AM.
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 08:45 AM
#43
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,893
Total Cats: 399
Here's a little food for thought for the "tax the poor" crew: A majority of people, including a majority of rich people (250k+/yr), think that rich people should be taxed to reduce the deficit.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438
Question 49. Do you think - raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000
...should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?
Households making >250k/yr: 64% YES
Households making 100-250k/yr: 51% YES
Households making 50-100k/yr: 61% YES
Households making <50k/yr: 64% YES
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438
Question 49. Do you think - raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000
...should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?
Households making >250k/yr: 64% YES
Households making 100-250k/yr: 51% YES
Households making 50-100k/yr: 61% YES
Households making <50k/yr: 64% YES
EDIT: Damnit Braineak beat me to it one post up. And I just heard about Bama's india trip this morning, again, WTF?!
So true.
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 09:30 AM
#47
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,893
Total Cats: 399
No. 
My salary at 4 days a week is just over what I started at after college, which was just below the average starting salary amongst my peers. The absurdflow stuff helps out our the hobby/long weekend fund.
Fortunately my wife is doing well working for a large corporation, otherwise we'd be f*cked a long time ago. I make sure she doesn't get pregnant.
My salary at 4 days a week is just over what I started at after college, which was just below the average starting salary amongst my peers. The absurdflow stuff helps out our the hobby/long weekend fund. Fortunately my wife is doing well working for a large corporation, otherwise we'd be f*cked a long time ago. I make sure she doesn't get pregnant.
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 10:05 AM
#49
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Not only was the government not intended to make a profit, they were not intended to create jobs, own companies or create welfare states. I don’t need them to take my money and redistribute it to some lazy SOB that is three generation into welfare.
I say hide the food stamps under their work boots and let them starve to death.
And you can't give a tax "refund" to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
I say hide the food stamps under their work boots and let them starve to death.
And you can't give a tax "refund" to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
I just reduced our expenditures by 62.88% by removing obvious illegitimate functions of our government. And I left the EPA, NASA, and most of the small budget departments alone. Can you imagine what an economic boom we would have if we reduced government back to its intended purpose? Wow!
As for the health system, it all free in Norway with small deductables adding up to a maximum of about $300 a year. After that, -everything- is free exept dental care. They're even considering adding that into the health care system.
If a country is able to create jobs for everyone, health care systems like ours is no problem to maintain. Everyone pays tax, so everyone pays for the health care. And you never have to fear to not get treated or to get into debt for the rest of your life because your insurance assfucked you after you were hospitalized.
I almost vomitted after watching "Sicko", and even though it is extremities, situations like that should never happen.
If a country is able to create jobs for everyone, health care systems like ours is no problem to maintain. Everyone pays tax, so everyone pays for the health care. And you never have to fear to not get treated or to get into debt for the rest of your life because your insurance assfucked you after you were hospitalized.
I almost vomitted after watching "Sicko", and even though it is extremities, situations like that should never happen.
So true.
Higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods.
Don't pretend to be a champion of minority rights and a champion of the people if you do it by force.
No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others.
The ends do not justify the means.
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others.
The ends do not justify the means.
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
with your brain, Brain.Wealth envy is a sin.
Never forget that taxes not collected on entire blocks of society are a free handout as well.
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 11:07 AM
#50
Costs to me for housing, food, heating, water, electricity, commute, insurance (all of the 'necessities'): Total less than $600/ month.
Amount into savings: $550/month
Total income after taxes: $4600/month
Amount returned directly to the economy for the unneccesaries including phone/ internet/ cable/ excess cars and their 'investments' / entertainment/ wining and dining/ clothes/ etc./ etc.: The rest of the $4600.
A "living wage" to me, in the case of $600/month and a 40 hour work week, is about $3.38/hour after taxes. I've also taken personal responsibility for my employment to the tune of a savings account. Currently, I could live without a job for nearly a year and a half without asking the gov't for handouts... I'm sure I could find a job at my local McDonalds for minimum wage in less time than that.
I could probably get a job working for almost any company in the United States if they could hire me for $3.38/hr after taxes.
Edit: Ohio voters recently passed what is effectively a "stimulus plan" for military personnel who have deployed. IIRC, I qualify for a $1000 one time payment. I refused to submit for it on principal --> The people that voted for it aren't the ones who will be paying for it. If someone wants to give me money, they can hand it to me themselves instead of forcing someone else to give it to me.
Last edited by fooger03; 11-04-2010 at 11:20 AM.
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 11:40 AM
#52
Elite Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,977
Total Cats: 356
Can I feel depressed? $1500 average monthly salary over here. Employer gets to pay about $500 as a retirement & insurance fund towards a state fund institute - so you get insurance from the state and a pension after 65 or 40 years of work. The average rent is $600 per month, power/water/phone is another $200 at best. Basic groceries at $100 per week, gas at $2 per LITER.
Anyone looking for a talented programmer/EE that actually likes to work 14hrs per day?
Anyone looking for a talented programmer/EE that actually likes to work 14hrs per day?
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 12:15 PM
#53
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Here's an easier to see graphic on the Fed Gov's 2010 budget:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...budget2010.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...budget2010.gif
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 12:47 PM
#56
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I just reduced our expenditures by 62.88% by removing obvious illegitimate functions of our government. And I left the EPA, NASA, and most of the small budget departments alone. Can you imagine what an economic boom we would have if we reduced government back to its intended purpose? Wow!
so lets say you axe social security.. you no longer spend 730B.
but you also no longer collect 934B.
it makes taxpayers happy because you lowered their (effective) tax rate but you also also increase your defecit by ~200B and now have a bunch of old people without any income to deal with.
Of course on the latter point, I now have an extra few hundred dollars a month to cover the cost of the old folks home for mom and dad... if I'm feeling generous. Or better yet, they could have saved it for their future (everyone has savings, RIGHT?)
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 12:48 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Round Pond, ME
Posts: 1,064
Total Cats: 232
Here's an easier to see graphic on the Fed Gov's 2010 budget:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...budget2010.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...budget2010.gif
So, what that indicates is that we would need to eliminate ALL military and other "Discretionary" spending to approximately balance income and spending.
Or we could chop SS and other entitlements, which will never happen. No one in any national office will have the *****.
Ultimately, this has to mean that I will end up paying more tax - probably significantly more. And, once means-testing is implemented, I will be ineligible for the SS I've been paying into because I've been living within my means and saving for retirement.
Is this a great country or what?
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 12:54 PM
#58
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
in 200 short years US become nothing to the best place on earth simply derived from a principle never seen in the world's existence...today we are fighting for some of the same reasons we signed the declaration of independence...
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 01:05 PM
#59
Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.
Reply
0
0
11-04-2010, 01:26 PM
#60
Wow, do they already know the future, or are they saying the economy is going to improve because they will it to...you'd think Obama was the president or something...
The SSA is not going to report "we're failing and we need to cut the SSA and our jobs immediately before we kick the nation (which we've already brought to its knees) in the nuts."
That would be silly, and people would lose their jobs.
Reply
0
0
