[quote]but saying that anything above 250k is going to hurt the small guys.[/quote]Only if you continue the chop logic of some on this site that claims there will be mass layoffs or that investments will fall short. Relax it ain't gonna happen.[e digicons]:beer:[/e]
Thank you! I hope you had a happy thanksgiving. Btw, this was just the first stanza of a very long poem I put together many years ago.
W will soon be heading to the ranch of oblivion and Cheney to his happy hunting wilderness; The trillion dollar shovel will be taken out of the hands of Paulson; The war on terror will be downsized to police action; Bush is handing over a better Iraq than if he had had to hand it over to Kerry four years ago; Wall Street seems to be returning from insanity; Apparently Obama is keeping Gates and listening to Patraeus; Ted Ste
[quote]thats what needs to happen. As much as i feel for anyone loosing a job, if they really want to work they will go back. Heck I would move if i was promised a job there lol[/quote]PAYBACK TIME: STHU, scab.
STHU: do you make 250k a year? if not then STHU because your not the one that has to pay it "And the same could be said to the rich: 'do you make less than 20k a year? If not then STHU because you're not the one that has to struggle to survive'." Thanksgiving for Maudlin! [e digicons]:beer:[/e]
[quote]Where do you even get your statistics on "most of the wealthy"?[/quote]Talking about the truly big guys; certainly not small business owners who work their ass off to survive. [quote]So who decides what "non productive" items are?[/quote]Never heard of drivatives and default swaps? Ask the 800 Starbucks franchise owners that were shut down if it was "productive."
[quote]Most people who make $250k or more in taxable income are small business owners. If you raise their taxes, they simply have less to invest back into their businesses in terms of hiring more people, building infrastructure, etc.[/quote]Not so. Small businesses may have over 250k of revenue but that is not the same as taxable income. Most use Scedule C and make all kinds of write offs and are lucky if they come close to 100k. As for the example of investing back into the company there is
[quote]look at Citi bank..... two weeks ago it was trying to buy another huge bank [/quote]Yeah, Wachovia, too, only six months ago bought out World Savings. Like someone said above the jokes on us.
JoeUser Forums
[quote]your kidding right? Its not bashing but is a fact. everything in here is true. Have your worked a union job? You see a need to have one person put the screw in and another one just to run the screw gun? Because that is the way it is. In fact why are people still paid to sit around and do nothing because of more automation? Because by union and laws they cant just lay them off. [/quote]No, I'm not kidding and I could ask you the same question. You are blowing this up bey
JoeUser Forums
[quote]It's fairly well documented I think that if you have a strong union in a company, that company is far less likely to cut wages than if there was no union - i.e. you have less wage flexibility.[/quote]I trust you're not saying this is bad. [quote]various statistics/reports etc. that back this up, as well as the basic intuition - if you're a company with a union, and try and cut wages, the union will likely strike, costing you money, meaning you're less likely to cut wages and ma
[quote]Even in the the Dark ages people with wealth still paid more tax mate.[/quote]BS, mate, how do you think they filled their storage bins but from the tithes on the poor.
As if Eos’ mantle draped the eastern sea, Artemis touched red on Plymouth Bay By raining bloody arrow tips of sorrow On this too salted rock — freedom’s shrine That blunted man’s courageous folly Lashed by tidal current s bent on common rank, <p align
[quote]It's merely a question of who spends it better.[/quote]There's the rub. Most of the wealthy--since they have enough excess to invest--have chosen all too heavily to invest in non-productive items or foreign markets. After marginal rates go back to 39% I'd like to see a moratorium on capital gains for those who invest in America, especially the green market and other infrastructure.
[quote]So they pay you less based upon what they have to pay the government.[/quote] Goes without saying. [quote]I like Robin Hood but people don't remember history. He wasn't robbing from the rich to give to the poor. He was robbing from the tax collector and giving it back to the people. [/quote]Technical; nevertheless an excellent point, particulary in those days most of the taxes came from the POOR.
Comparative advantage that we held since WWII and decades after, and one could argue others should now have that advantage. However, as you point out changing the rules is an arrant disadvantage: it was a stroke of luck that Japan could take advantage of the 70s oil crises by flooding the inventories--and liberal credit--of much wanted economy cars when we were caught flatfooted and to buy an American car we had to place an order with stringent credit requisites--and waiting weeks for it
[quote]Bailing them out is not going to teach them anything (or congress) and just grease the slide.[/quote]Does that go for Japan's bailout of their cars? [quote]shoddy cars! [/quote]To a point I grant you that. But it was as though they had forgotten how to the build 4cyl and all thay had to do was to go back to Ford's early drawing board. In fact I had a '39 Ford coupe that--though who was really counting then--got over 25 mpg; it was a 60hp V8!
[quote]Every 10-20 years we do through the same thing with the AUto industry.[/quote] Not so. Actually the Big Three was so competitive that it killed American Motors, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, Deusenberg, Terreplane, etc. much to my chagrin. If we follow your thinking, you would rather one company Toyota. [quote]So lose it.[/quote]You must be of a tender age. A sure sign of the fall of a civilization is to lose an industrial base. I won't be saved by the keyboard.
[quote]Jokes on us![/quote] Yes, once the money is out from under the mattress we're all at risk. [quote]It cost money to run your CC though the system to charge it[/quote]True, the merchants are still charged.
JoeUser Forums
Pure, exaggerated myth--the epitome of union bashing in the war against public employees, teachers, truckers--only union free workers are responsible. That is why non-plumber Joe is preferred to fix one's toilet than a licensed plumber. The fact remains up until the credit crisis the Big Three has managed to remain relatively competitive--why are American cars priced lower than foreign?--ever since the 80s.[e digicons]O:)[/e]
Volume has always been the aim--I suppose since the old white sales of Woolworth and Macy's--to reduce prices so that in the end you make more by thinking smarter and working harder. Model Ts, too, showed this in order to produce for the masses, not to mention the move to raise wages to make products more affordable. That's also the theme behind progressive taxes: indeed, spread the wealth to make more products available for the little guy and as TA suggested the rich still get richer.[e
[quote]Wow and the current US corporate tax is 35% the second highest in the world. I guess those "thugs" are pretty incompetent. I think you're confusing Wall Street with corporate America, but at the end of the day they just sell or buy stocks at the pleasure of their clients (CEO's to common Joe's), if you believe that is inherently evil, that's your opinion. Communism is an allowed ideology in the the US.[/quote]The few corporations who actually pay 35% are low and they have huge write of
[quote]So the solution to the fire sale is to poor more gas on it? The reason they are moving out is partly due to wages, but mostly due to a more amiable business climate. If you want business to stay here, make it worth their while. [/quote]Jeez, you're a wimp! Give leniency to those who thrive in the safest, governmentally backed economy by justifying the cowardice move to another country to make things and then sell them back to us! Get real. These businesses are what they are because of
Your tax rate is based on "taxable income" which means the excess[or profit] above and beyond what the cost is to survive. The reason taxes is progressive is that "survival" doesn't mean the cost of a yacht or the latest fashion so that the more you make the more you spend on frivolity which will cost you another marginal percentage above the base tax. A person making $20,000 probably pays 10% on the amount separated from survival--say, $3,000 or $300.
[quote]come on have we seen any of this money going anywhere besides the execs pockets? Im not seeing growth unless your calling growth in the unemployment claims[/quote]Hopefully, Paulson has mandated that this infusion must go to borrowers--consumers and small business--who are relatively financially secure.
Social Security is matched by the employer, but anything including UI is factored into the value of labor--nothing is charitable.
Stardock Forums