Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Their View: Money drives our (political) way of life.

robert38-55robert38-55 Senior MemberPosts: 3,621 Senior Member
I came across this article in the local Las Cruces Sun-News and thought it had some pretty good dicussion points in it:


http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_19377761
"It is what it is":usa:

Replies

  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    I came across this article in the local Las Cruces Sun-News and thought it had some pretty good dicussion points in it:



    Well money drives my way of life. I need more and so the quest continues.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    I could get on board with this. Across the board everyone pays.

    Let's say there is a 10 percent flat tax. If I have $2 million, I pay $200,000 in taxes. If I have $20,000, I pay $2,000. So the person with more money still has $1.8 million left while the other person only has $18,000.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,435 Senior Member
    The author does have some good points. Here are a few others.

    -Know what creates jobs? Paying workers a living wage so they can afford to actually buy the things they needs for their families. Trickle up economics! If I have the money, I can spend it buying things!

    -No CEO, no matter how talented, needs to make a quarter of a billion dollars in year. That kind of greed is disgusting. If that person cures cancer, we can discuss that kind of cash. I saw the CEO of Coca-cola get that almost 20 years ago. Basically for selling sugar water. It's wrong, and it needs to stop. Let me clarify. I don't begrudge CEO's a fat salary, I'm sure the work is hard and never ending, but let's have a bit of realism.

    -No more golden parachutes for CEO's. A realistic severance is one thing, allowing someone to screw up the company and walk away with another 10-100 million is insanity. Why is my job always tied to performance, but the higherup's can basically do what they want?!
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    The author does have some good points. Here are a few others.

    -Know what creates jobs? Paying workers a living wage so they can afford to actually buy the things they needs for their families. Trickle up economics! If I have the money, I can spend it buying things!

    What do you suggest a living wage be?
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,435 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    I could get on board with this. Across the board everyone pays.

    Let's say there is a 10 percent flat tax. If I have $2 million, I pay $200,000 in taxes. If I have $20,000, I pay $2,000. So the person with more money still has $1.8 million left while the other person only has $18,000.

    Except that person making only 20k needs that 2k more than the rich person giving from their excess. Why tax someone 2k if you just have to give it back with food stamps or other governmental assistance? Anyone above say 50K should pay 10%, below that say 8%, and below 25K, 4%. Simple and effective.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,435 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    What do you suggest a living wage be?

    That would depend on the area, like cost of living allowances. Too many people are having to swing 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. That's just wrong.

    And another point, any American corporation using other than American labor to service Americans and build goods to be sold in America, another 5-10% either taxes or tariffs. It's about time to close that door.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    That would depend on the area, like cost of living allowances. Too many people are having to swing 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. That's just wrong.

    And another point, any American corporation using other than American labor to service Americans and build goods to be sold in America, another 5-10% either taxes or tariffs. It's about time to close that door.

    I know it has nothing to do with taxes but on the living wage and cost of living allowances bit, the REALLY need to do that for vets. I'm 100% Disabled. That pays 3K a month. 3K a month is pretty good in MT, it would be outstanding in the south and it would barly pay my rent in AK or CA. If my family were from AK or CA and I wanted to move home I could just forget it or live in the slums because that's not enough to live there and I have no way at all of making any more.

    Even if I could work, I'm not allowed unless I drop to 90% which cuts the pay down to 1,900 and takes the med/dental away. So if I were to tell them yeah drop me to 90% so I can get a job I'd need to make $9 an hour x 40 hours a week plus benfs and that not counting the insane 30someodd % taxes here JUST to get back to the income I had to start with.

    If I need more money my only option is college and hope to hell I can get a good 100K a year job after that. Problem is the reason I'm 100% makes college a no go. So yeah as a vet I'm just stuck with what I got. I don't think that's right. I'd be ok taking less if I lived some where like FL where less is fine. But if I wanna move to say AK I'd expect the pay to go up for cost of living. Fixed income sucks and needs an over haul as much as the taxes do.

    Sorry if I hijacked the thread the whole money system just really bothers me
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    For the year 2010 some 45% of U.S. households paid no income tax at all. Payroll taxes, sure, but zero income taxes. The rich who pay no income taxes seem to be those invested in tax-free bonds, and who get credit for taxes paid to foreign governments. The rich, like Buffet, benefit from capital gain and dividend rates which are capped at a lower rate than normal income rates, and for good reason. Dividends represent corporate profits that have already been taxed, and are paid to anyone and everyone, as corporate stockholders, regardless of wealth. Capital gain rates are lower in order to promote investments in our economy and are enjoyed by taxpayers of diverse incomes, not just the rich.

    As a matter of fact, corporation tax rates are too high in the U.S., and is one of the primary reasons that companies look overseas and park their profits there, because the foreign tax is much less than the U.S. tax.

    I have no idea how one would go about limiting salary and renumeration packages for CEOs. Sounds like pure socialism to me. Atlas Shrugged, where are you?

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,435 Senior Member
    As a matter of fact, corporation tax rates are too high in the U.S., and is one of the primary reasons that companies look overseas and park their profits there, because the foreign tax is much less than the U.S. tax.

    It's also become a double edged sword. You can't pay taxes if you don't make enough to contribute. The corporations went overseas, but in doing so they removed good jobs and didn't replace them. Here is a great example. A Curtis-Mathis TV would cost you more, but it built better. Now you go to Wal-mart, buy a dvd player for 20-30 bucks, sold to you by the person making maybe $8 an hour, and all the profits go to China and the Waltons. Mei-Ling might make $4 an hour, if she's really lucky.

    I would less of a problem with buying Chinese goods if the Chinese would buy more American production. Global economy indeed.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    Payroll taxes, sure, but zero income taxes.

    Since when are payroll taxes NOT incomes taxes...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Since when are payroll taxes NOT incomes taxes...

    I was referring to SS taxes, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. Income tax is a separate item last I looked.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Tugar wrote: »

    I would less of a problem with buying Chinese goods if the Chinese would buy more American production. Global economy indeed.

    The Chinese need grain. Why aren't we exporting more grain to China, instead of supporting ethanol production, a needless government program. Why don't we tax Chinese imports? Why is Obama wavering on that Canada to Texas oil pipeline that would give our economy a great boost? Why aren't we negotiating more international free trade agreements? Why are we going bankrupt because of government spending? Get Obama out, and let's get the marketplace moving. We need leadership, not obstructionism.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    It's also become a double edged sword. You can't pay taxes if you don't make enough to contribute. The corporations went overseas, but in doing so they removed good jobs and didn't replace them. Here is a great example. A Curtis-Mathis TV would cost you more, but it built better. Now you go to Wal-mart, buy a dvd player for 20-30 bucks, sold to you by the person making maybe $8 an hour, and all the profits go to China and the Waltons. Mei-Ling might make $4 an hour, if she's really lucky.

    I would less of a problem with buying Chinese goods if the Chinese would buy more American production. Global economy indeed.



    Foreign companies can build their factories cheaper, pay their workers less, have fewer and less stringent regulations to follow and generally have an easier time bringing their products to market. Other than that, I can't see any reason why their products are so much less expensive than ours.

    I've heard the 'living wage' B.S. before, but the fact of the matter is that we collectively tend to spend what we have regardless of what that amount is. There is no magic amount where all "God's chillin' is happy and content", so any talk of a living wage is just that...talk. Some N.Y.C. legislator a while back was making noise about bumping the minimum wage up to what he felt was a 'living wage'. As I recall, (grain of salt here) the amount was in the range of $23/hour. Not bad money for flipping burgers or cleaning toilets. Of course, the problem for any wage mandate is that while employers are required to bump the wages, they are not required to hire the employees. Every prospective employer has a figure in mind where hiring somebody makes financial sense and if that number isn't met, no ticky, no laundry. I'm guessing that for the vast majority of employers out there that number is well below what most would consider a 'living wage', at least to start. Not only that but as costs rise, the money required to buy each product also rises. Stands to reason right? Costs more to make, so it costs more to buy. Mandating a certain wage so that everybody can have a decent living only puts the things that we're trying to put in reach even farther out of reach for the folks we're trying to help.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    I was referring to SS taxes, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. Income tax is a separate item last I looked.

    Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment are "Contributions"
    Federal, State and Local deductions are "Taxes"
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment are "Contributions"
    Federal, State and Local deductions are "Taxes"

    You may prefer to call Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment amounts deducted from paychecks as "contributions", but they are "payroll taxes" by definition.

    U.S. federal payroll taxes are:

    •Taxes withheld from employee pay for federal income taxes(FIT) owed by the employees. The amount of FIT is determined by information employees provide on Form W-4 at hire. This form can be changed by the employee at any time and as often as the employee wishes.

    •Taxes paid for social security and Medicare. Employees and employers share these taxes, with the employer deducting the employee share (one-half the total due) from employee wages/salaries, and the employer paying the other half.


    http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryp/a/payrolltaxes.htm
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    Well money drives my way of life. I need more and so the quest continues.

    I don't remember who said this" "Money is a good servant, but a cruel Master" Seems like we all need more money Buford and the quest will continue for all.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    Seems like we all need more money Buford and the quest will continue for all.

    And the point of this post is?
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement