Thanks Stan, but I would have to put on some really thick plastic underpants for Esten to kiss my ass, after all I practice safe sex and would not like to catch anything!
Printable View
Thanks Stan, but I would have to put on some really thick plastic underpants for Esten to kiss my ass, after all I practice safe sex and would not like to catch anything!
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 416871]Esten, he [b][u]is[/u] Paying more[/b] That's how our tax system works. Are you really this stupid?
If he made $50, 000 before he became successful, and $150, 000 after he became successful, he's paying [b]three times more in taxes[/b]! [/QUOTE]Guys, this is more liberalspeak, similar to the "income vs net wealth" definition of who is a millionaire.
When liberals talk about "the rich need to pay more", they don't mean that the rich should pay a greater dollar amount that those with lesser income, which they already do. What liberals mean is that "the rich" should be paying a [U]greater percentage[/U] of their income, which of course they also do, but that's lost in the class warfare rhetoric.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416855]Did I mention my state unemployment taxes tripled last year? I ate that one but there is a limit to how many cuts to my income I am willing to absorb. While we are talking about taxes, Federal income taxes are just part of the picture, there is employers matching Social Security & Medicare, state and federal unemployment tax, state sales tax, state property tax (no income tax in Texas) , state franchise tax and the list goes on. When you add them all up you have reduced your net income to about 50% or less of your gross!
[/QUOTE]Doppelganger, you ingrate.
Here's an example that's not atypical, where taxes add up to more than the business' earnings before state and federal income tax. It wouldn't surprise me if American business on the whole pays more in tax than it makes in net profit.
Federal Income Tax = 35% of income before state & federal income tax.
State Income Tax = 7% of income before state & federal income tax.
Employment Taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) = 45% of income before state and federal income tax (1)
Property Tax = 10% of income before state and federal income tax (2)
Sales Tax = 10% of income before state and federal income tax (3)
Miscellaneous Tax (unemployment tax, etc.) = 3% of income before state and federal income tax (4)
Total Taxes Paid: 110% of income before state and federal income tax.
(1) Assumes employee wages are 30% of sales; employer's share of employment taxes is 15% of gross wages; profit margin before income tax is 10%
(2) Assumes Fixed Assets = 50% of sales; Property tax = 2% of fixed assets; profit margin before income tax is 10%
(3) Assumes total Sales Tax paid on purchases is equivalent to 1% of company's gross sales; profit margin before income tax is 10.
(4) Wild guess
I knew this was going to be a rich discussion when Doppel started talking about his business. But the comedic content from businessmen defending and praising themselves is priceless.
The award for the biggest laugh goes to Stan for his tutorial on our tax system. Stan thank you so much. I never understood how it worked until you explained it so well.
As you may have heard, we have a significant federal deficit and debt issue. This is due to both a loss of revenue and an increase in spending. And it could be addressed by raising revenue and cutting spending. Spending cuts will impact the poor and middle class the most, while raising taxes will impact the rich / well-off the most.
Going forward, it is clear sacrifices have to be made somewhere. But some folks like Doppel don't want any part of that sacrifice. He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts. And if faced with a tax increase, he'll pass it on to others. His justification? He's done enough as a successful small business owner. In his mind, that makes him entitled to an exemption from the sacrifice. That is the entitlement I referred to.
Let others do with less, but don't ask Doppel to.
Esten, the answer is less (spending) not more (taxes). I love the liberal's guilt trip they try to load on every one of "shared sacrifice'. Where was the 'shared sacrifice' in 50 years of Welfare and every other government give a way program beyond fleecing the productive citizens of our country to support the lazy and unproductive?
Esten is right, it is time for sacrifice, but not the type he has in mind. Its time for the sacrifice of the liberal democrat's sacred cow programs from which they harvest votes for reelection every year. It is time for bad joke departments to be sacrificed, Department of Energy (abolish) , Environmental Protection Agency (reduce or abolish) , Department of Health and Human Services (reduce or abolish) , Department of the Treasury (severely reduce) and the list goes on much further than this website has room to allow.
Time for term limits in the House and the Senate (if it's good enough for the president it's good enough for them) to two 4 year term with 1/4 turned over every 2 years and an absolute prohibition of any of them becoming lobbyist. The near eradication of the upper level bureaucrats who remain from one term to the next and exert undue control over our country even though they are never elected.
Time to rid ourselves of the leeches on the body politic and let the bleeding heart liberals fund their give a way projects with THEIR MONEY via PRIVATE projects an no longer be permitted to use government for their social engineering projects.
Esten, it's time for some 'Tough Love' and "Sacrifice"! Are you up to it buddy?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416887]Esten, the answer is less (spending) not more (taxes). I love the liberal's guilt trip they try to load on every one of "shared sacrifice'. Where was the 'shared sacrifice' in 50 years of Welfare and every other government give a way program beyond fleecing the productive citizens of our country to support the lazy and unproductive?
Esten is right, it is time for sacrifice, but not the type he has in mind. Its time for the sacrifice of the liberal democrat's sacred cow programs from which they harvest votes for reelection every year. It is time for bad joke departments to be sacrificed, Department of Energy (abolish) , Environmental Protection Agency (reduce or abolish) , Department of Health and Human Services (reduce or abolish) , Department of the Treasury (severely reduce) and the list goes on much further than this website has room to allow.
Time for term limits in the House and the Senate (if it's good enough for the president it's good enough for them) to two 4 year term with 1/4 turned over every 2 years and an absolute prohibition of any of them becoming lobbyist. The near eradication of the upper level bureaucrats who remain from one term to the next and exert undue control over our country even though they are never elected.
Time to rid ourselves of the leeches on the body politic and let the bleeding heart liberals fund their give a way projects with THEIR MONEY via PRIVATE projects an no longer be permitted to use government for their social engineering projects.
Esten, it's time for some 'Tough Love' and "Sacrifice"! Are you up to it buddy? [/QUOTE]In regards to government reforms, I endorsed your recommendations. But when it comes to entitlements and benefits that government provides, then everybody has to pay more into the programs, not just the rich. A recent article points to the fact that most medicare receipients collects FAR more from the program than they pay into in their lifetime. A flat tax seems to be best answer.
When we refer to conservative values, I think of individuals who accept their circustances as they are, and rather than moaning about it or depending on winning the lottery, they then go about solving their problems with determination and hard honest work. But these people could also use a boost in terms of govenment programs. It is a far more complex urban enviroment that we live in today. As we know, the American culture with the breakdown of the family unit and extended family, cannot provide temporary relief that many other countries and cultures can. Even the large number of street dogs in Bangkok are well-fed, their only worry that their adventures do not include getting hit by a car, I am very familiar with their large numbers as they often have choir practices in the middle of the night.
Ever since life evolve, the rich and powerful will always to try maintain their status, by whatever means. That is never going to end, whether it is in Omaha or Pattaya.
Black Shirt, Thanks for another thought provoking post. About government programs, my big problem is that they're inefficient in the USA Take health care. Singapore spends 2. 6% of GDP. That's for all public and private expenditures on healthcare. We spend almost double that just on Medicare and Medicaid.
With regard to remaking the urban environment, I don't know what the solution is, but what we've done over the last 50 years hasn't been successful. I suspect that throwing additional money at the problem isn't going to help. There needs to be some fundamental rethinking. Improving the educational system would be a good start. While I don't agree that the rich and powerful maintaining their status is a problem in the USA, again, better education is what's needed to give everyone a fair start. Like health care though, we spend about as much as anyone on education, and the outcomes are poor at the pre-university level.
By the way, a little off the subject, thanks also for your post a couple of weeks ago on Singapore. It got me to thinking about some of my fundamental beliefs, about the appropriate role of government in business.
[QUOTE=Esten;416886]Going forward, it is clear sacrifices have to be made somewhere. But some folks like Doppel don't want any part of that sacrifice. He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts. And if faced with a tax increase, he'll pass it on to others. His justification? He's done enough as a successful small business owner. In his mind, that makes him entitled to an exemption from the sacrifice. That is the entitlement I referred to.[/QUOTE]Esten, He will indeed pass it onto his customers. He has no choice. Take a look at my post below, and also realize that American business reinvests the majority of net profits. The amount that business pays to federal, state and local governments in taxes is far, far greater than the amount that goes into the pockets of the owners, in the form of dividends or whatever.
Your way of thinking plays into the hands of politicians who raise taxes on business. This is ideal from the politician's perspective. Corporations don't vote. The higher taxes are passed on in the form of higher prices. The consumer blames business for "price gouging" instead of the politicians. I guess depending on what the company is selling and who the owners are, this sort of taxation may be regressive. It certainly would be for a company like McDonalds or ExxonMobil, although not for, say, Tiffany.
This is a big, big problem in the USA We have among the highest income tax rates anywhere in the world on business, and we're becoming less competitive as a result.
[QUOTE=Esten;416886]He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts.[/QUOTE]First, when liberals talk about "the poor and middle class", they are in fact talking only about "the poor", because the middle class pay taxes, thus they are generally net contributors to the government's budget, and thus their interests are not the same as "the poor" who are beneficiaries of the government's largess.
Second, when liberals talk about "the burden" of spending cuts falling "all on the poor", or balancing the budget on the backs of "the poor", they make it sound like the poor are going to be asked to somehow pay more, as in shouldering an additional burden.
In fact, what it really means is that the taxpayers are not going to be able to [B][U]give[/U][/B] "the poor" as much [U][B]free[/B][/U] [U][B]money[/B][/U] as before.
Thanks,
Jackson
Mongers-
This has nothing to do with Obama or the current drivel being heaved around in this thread, but here is an interesting article about Mohammed El Baradei (2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner and former head of the IAEA) calling for opening up an investigation as to whether George W. Bush and his minions committed War Crimes in the lead up to and operation of the 2003 Iraq Invasion. I have been saying for years (the war started when I was still a student of International Relations) that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Richard Pearle should be charged as War Criminals. Naturally, as the US refusing the recognize universal jurisdiction of the ICC, nothing is likely to come of this.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_us/us_elbaradei_memoir[/url]
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Some scholars analyze that the unilateralist attitude of the USA in question is a partial cause of her trade deficit. Many people in the world conciously or subconciously avoid buying products from a country with bad image.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 416896]Naturally, as the US refusing the recognize universal jurisdiction of the ICC, nothing is likely to come of this.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_us/us_elbaradei_memoir[/url]
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]
The description is about "progressive" income tax, ie. Fed tax. Some (about 15) states have flat tax, however. Also, sales tax is "regressive" imposing burden on poor. Rich and poor pay same percentage of "the price of purchased goods", but not of their respective income. Therefore poor pay a larger percentage of income for sales tax and rich pay a smaller percentage of income. Price increase in imported goods due to governmental tarriffs, and inflation caused by expansionist monetary policy are regressive for the same reasons.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 416876]Guys, this is more liberalspeak, similar to the "income vs net wealth" definition of who is a millionaire.
When liberals talk about "the rich need to pay more", they don't mean that the rich should pay a greater dollar amount that those with lesser income, which they already do. What liberals mean is that "the rich" should be paying a [U]greater percentage[/U] Of their income, which of course they also do, but that's lost in the class warfare rhetoric.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
Speaking of drivel, Richard Pearle should be indicted for war crimes? Why? He wasn't even a politician or government employee. I was extremely pissed off when the US went into Iraq, because I was going to have to pay for it. However if it had played out as Cheney et al expected, with Iraqi's welcoming the USA with open arms, Bush would have been a hero. Sanctions would have ended, Sadam would have disappeared, and many, many Iraqi lives would have been saved.
If that list of characters deserves to be prosecuted for war crimes then how about JFK, LBJ, Abraham Lincoln, and Jefferson Davis? They're all more culpable than Bush IMHO.
Mongers-
Richard Perle, aka "the prince of darkness" was Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee during the first three years of the Bush Administration and was one of the chief architects of the war and a huge advocate of the invasion. He was also responsible for doctoring up some of the bullshit evidence on WMD's and Saddam's alleged links to OBL that was sold to the American public in order to win support for the invasion.
RH
The fabrication of evidence was done by subordinates of Rumsfield. And fabrication might be too strong a word. The Bush administration probably believed there were WMD, despite what El Baradei and Blix were coming up with. Rumsfield believed the ends justify the means, so he gave his people orders to find something, or at least that's what I got out of an article Seymour Hersh wrote. The CIA also apparently believed there were WMD, although they were skeptical of the Al Quaeda connection. The Bush administration may have been guilty of hubris or stupidity, but not war crimes.
RH, Sometimes people f*ck up. And sometimes the repercussions are grave, like Iraq and like BP in the Gulf. But they shouldn't be executed or thrown in jail because somebody has a political agenda or wants a scapegoat.
Milocevic f*cked up in a similar context, and was indicted by the International Court. Although the news media in the U.S. did not report, thousands of Iraqi civilans were killed by the U.S. troops during the war. The world opinion, except Americans who maintain that it is an irrelevant analogy, considers that there are double standards and hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 416905]The fabrication of evidence was done by subordinates of Rumsfield. And fabrication might be too strong a word. The Bush administration probably believed there were WMD, despite what El Baradei and Blix were coming up with. Rumsfield believed the ends justify the means, so he gave his people orders to find something, or at least that's what I got out of an article Seymour Hersh wrote. The CIA also apparently believed there were WMD, although they were skeptical of the Al Quaeda connection. The Bush administration may have been guilty of hubris or stupidity, but not war crimes.
RH, Sometimes people f*ck up. And sometimes the repercussions are grave, like Iraq and like BP in the Gulf. But they shouldn't be executed or thrown in jail because somebody has a political agenda or wants a scapegoat. [/QUOTE]