101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,450
Points:2,719,595
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 1:40:12 PM
Wouldn't it be great if Obama's IRS scandal caused the United States to switch to a flat tax?
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 8:20:52 AM
Some have suggested that independence day me moved to April 15th. The new definition of patriotism is paying taxes.
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 10:29:41 AM
"So then this 'socialist' program was good in your opinion. Right? "
When programs like this are offered they become part of the market. They become the difference between profit and loss. Get rid of the programs, everyone competes on the same level.
It would be like not taking the mortgage interest deduction on your residence or the energy credit for instaling new windows. Get ride of the mortgage interest deduction and price of homes adjusts down and product cost, like windows, adjusts down as well.
The same would be true with ag commodities. Get rid of the subsidies and production would adjust to meet demand. You'd pay more for your peas and bacon. But, no tax dollars going to subsidies.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 8:52:24 AM
"shock, most farmers I know signed up for the programs when it was nearly impossible to make a living farming."
So then this 'socialist' program was good in your opinion. Right?
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,450
Points:2,719,595
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 12:39:44 AM
Shock doesn't care about farmers. He gets his vegetables from the supermarket. LOL
|
noseatbelt
Champion Author
Indiana
Posts:7,647
Points:205,610
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2013 3:10:11 PM
shock, most farmers I know signed up for the programs when it was nearly impossible to make a living farming. Sure, things look good for farmers right now, but the government reports on farm income are more then a little misleading, they talk about how good the prices we are getting now are so great, but there is one small problem, the prices we pay for everything we need to farm have also went up. Yes right now we are able to make money, but guess what, if history holds true, some day the price we get will start dropping, but what we pay for supplies will either stay the same or keep going up.
I think a lot of non farm people think farmers set the price we get for our product, but we don't, we are forced to take what ever the market is willing to pay. If you think farmers are in it for the money, you are wrong, if that were the case, most of us wouldn't be doing it, and the government would take over, and we all know how well the government is at managing anything.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2013 2:50:20 PM
flyboyUT - "RJ - who is it controls most all primary education again - how about high schools?"
The statement was that basic education has turned into a numbers game. That means driven by test scores, not by actual education. That's a variation on the capitalist concept of everything being driven by profit.
"What is the percentage of 'for profit' higher education institutions?"
Most of them, whether they advertise themselves that way or not.
And whether they measure 'profit' in the usual way or not. Fancy facilities, high salaries, there are many ways to measure 'profit'.
"Just how again is that capitalism when it is run by big government and under the auspices of the unions in most cases?"
Again, the basic principles of measuring success in education come from capitalism, not anything that actually matters in education.
Then there's the massive influence of the Peter Principle.
[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/9/2013 2:51:17 PM EST]
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2013 9:21:52 AM
"Just how again is that capitalism when it is run by big government and under the auspices of the unions in most cases?"
Seems to me the unions were a byproduct of capitalism, no?
With regards to teachers unions, totally different issue than in manufacturing, etc (private sector). An unfortunate necessity - if you think the teachers unions run the schools, you are kidding yourself.
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,894
Points:1,013,685
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 9:15:01 PM
RJ - who is it controls most all primary education again - how about high schools? What is the percentage of 'for profit' higher education institutions?
Just how again is that capitalism when it is run by big government and under the auspices of the unions in most cases?
|
wbacon
Champion Author
Philadelphia
Posts:13,430
Points:2,986,185
Joined:Jun 2004
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 6:00:17 PM
no..............
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 4:24:03 PM
SoylentGrain - "That's called fascism."
That's called blind ideology.
"Many of the billionaires on the Forbes list of wealthiest people do not have college degrees. The government has made it so easy to get into school that the McDonalds in our area are requiring a college degree to man the cash register."
True, higher education has become more big business than a benefit to a stable society. Blame capitalism.
And basic education has become more of a numbers game than education.
Again, capitalism.
[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/8/2013 4:26:45 PM EST]
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 4:18:15 PM
"Pure socialism doesn't work any better than pure capitalism. The trick is to find the optimum balance. "
That's called fascism.
"Most of the growth in the American middle class can be traced to post-WWII government programs such as the GI Bill that promoted education and growth."
Many of the billionaires on the Forbes list of wealthiest people do not have college degrees. The government has made it so easy to get into school that the McDonalds in our area are requiring a college degree to man the cash register.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 3:32:50 PM
SoylentGrain - "Ask yourslf a wuestion: Are you better off with 5 billionaires or 500 billionaires operating in the US. Your changes for a job and the opportunity to create wealth are, of course, are much greater with the 500 guys employing tens of thousands of people."
That's only if they're actually "employing tens of thousands of people" instead of sucking money out of the economy.
The usual "all jobs come from the rich", which ignores the role played by both small businessmen, who aren't rich, but are trying to get there, and large publicly-traded corporations. And investments by pension funds and 401k-fueled mutual funds.
Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs
Most of the growth in the American middle class can be traced to post-WWII government programs such as the GI Bill that promoted education and growth.
[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/8/2013 3:38:24 PM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 3:22:42 PM
SoylentGrain - "In the past four years, trillions of dollars have been borrowed and printedl by the government. Avery large portion of that money has been transferred into social programs. Don't you think your wealth transfer theory would have worked by now?"
Strawman. What does any of that have to do with my questions?
"Taking money from others is going to help you? It's never worked before. What would you suggest this time, to make socialism work?"
And, again, nothing but diversion.
Pure socialism doesn't work any better than pure capitalism. The trick is to find the optimum balance.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,148
Points:2,188,085
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 3:19:31 PM
"My contracts are up in two and three years."
If you are so opposed to taking money from others and having it payed to yourself, then why did you enter into the contract to begin with?
Hypocrisy at it's finest...
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 1:57:49 PM
"The growing desparity between the earned income of top 1% and the rest of us, however, is a systemic issue that you seem to support. "
Ask yourslf a wuestion: Are you better off with 5 billionaires or 500 billionaires operating in the US. Your changes for a job and the opportunity to create wealth are, of course, are much greater with the 500 guys employing tens of thousands of people.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 12:43:21 PM
"Tha's BS. It took four years for the current administration to grow the US debt 602% over the previous 225 years. That's over 6 trillion in additional debt. That doesn't include the printed money either."
Sorry - what is BS is your confusing 2 different subjects. The debt is a completely different issue (and truly bipartisan effort).
The growing desparity between the earned income of top 1% and the rest of us, however, is a systemic issue that you seem to support.
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 11:57:50 AM
"It took decades to get where we are at - you think it would only take 4 years to have corrected this problem? Please."
Tha's BS. It took four years for the current administration to grow the US debt 602% over the previous 225 years. That's over 6 trillion in additional debt. That doesn't include the printed money either.
"Soylent Grain, so you believe taking money from others to help those in need is a bad thing, yet it's alright to take money from others and give it to you to pay for the acres of land you have enrolled in a CRP program?"
Lobby to get rid of the program. I do. My contracts are up in two and three years. I'm not going back in. Are you lobbying for less money to the University of Illinois. Now, who's the hypocrite.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,148
Points:2,188,085
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 11:09:12 AM
"Taking money from others is going to help you? It's never worked before. What would you suggest this time, to make socialism work?"
Soylent Grain, so you believe taking money from others to help those in need is a bad thing, yet it's alright to take money from others and give it to you to pay for the acres of land you have enrolled in a CRP program?
Can you say hypocrite?
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 10:12:12 AM
"In the past four years, trillions of dollars have been borrowed and printedl by the government. Avery large portion of that money has been transferred into social programs. Don't you think your wealth transfer theory would have worked by now?"
Absolutely not. This is a systemic issue - the dollars borrowed and printed have nothing to do with this imbalance.
It took decades to get where we are at - you think it would only take 4 years to have corrected this problem? Please.
FYI - the middle class generally doesn't receive benefits from social programs.
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 9:45:29 AM
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 8:40:54 AM
"And it doesn't matter how much 'want' you can drum up for some new product if no one can afford it"
In the past four years, trillions of dollars have been borrowed and printedl by the government. Avery large portion of that money has been transferred into social programs. Don't you think your wealth transfer theory would have worked by now?
"And few can afford to support much in the way of demand, because most of the wealth is tied up by the few, so the economy is not recovering. "
Taking money from others is going to help you? It's never worked before. What would you suggest this time, to make socialism work?
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 1:46:34 AM
SoylentGrain - "Demand for what an existing product or something new?"
Do you even understand the concept of "projected demand".
And it doesn't matter how much 'want' you can drum up for some new product if no one can afford it.
And few can afford to support much in the way of demand, because most of the wealth is tied up by the few, so the economy is not recovering.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 4:45:01 PM
"It's moving in the right direction because, positions lost are not counted as a position, anymore."
Are you referring to people who have retired and are not counted as part of the labor force thus reducing unemployment numbers?
There is actually a rather large debate between economists with regards to the state of the current economy. Some think we are in a cyclical event in which we are recovering and others feel there is a systemic issue in that too many manufacturing jobs (etc) have been lost over the past 20 years and we will never see unemployment below 7% unless some drastic changes are made to the foundation of our economy - like fracking?
Either way, nothing Obama did to cause either.
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 8:12:39 AM
"Sorry, but you don't usually get investment without at least projected demand."
Demand for what an existing product or something new? In the case of existing product, existing producers, simply, make more product. There is very little investment required. On the other hand, if you want to produce something innovative, there is no demand, because there is no product. There might be a need, but demand is zero.
Apple Computer is an example you can identify with. I assure you, that Apple didn't create the Ipad, because people were demanding Apple make that product. Steve Jobs bought into the project and supported investing the capital to build the product. They invested, built the product, and then created the demand. If you create an environment that increases risk, as the current administration is doing now, people don't invest.
[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 4/6/2013 8:15:13 AM EST]
|
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author
Tucson
Posts:710
Points:9,720
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 7:38:06 PM
"That's not the way it usually works. You first, invest. Then, the grow follows the investment in a new product or concept."
Sure it is. Company A has a new shiny widget that everyone wants to buy. Only problem is that no one can really afford to but the new shiny widget. Because of this they are just keeping last year's model of the new shiny widget. The new shiny widget might be the most amazing widget to hit the shelves. Investors saw how much of a great idea the new shiny widget was and invested. How is it going to sell when people can barely afford gas let alone buy the new shiny widget.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 7:18:57 PM
SoylentGrain - "That's no reason to quadruple and pendipple down on Obama policy."
At least he's trying, however ineptly, to dig us out of that hole.
The Republicans just seem to be sitting there, going "We're fine down here, don't bother us".
"That's not the way it usually works. You first, invest. Then, the grow follows the investment in a new product or concept."
Sorry, but you don't usually get investment without at least projected demand. If nobody except the 'investors' has anything, there's zero projected demand for much of anything.
[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/5/2013 7:20:50 PM EST]
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 5:48:13 PM
"It was rising under Bush's watch - Obama has reversed that extreme negative trend... Could he have done better? Absolutely. Are we currently moving the right direction? Absolutely. "
It's moving in the right direction because, positions lost are not counted as a position, anymore. I heard a number on the radio today that the total number of employed people (that means total number of jobs) today is less than in 1979.
" If a company starts to grow there will be investors knocking at the door. "
That's not the way it usually works. You first, invest. Then, the grow follows the investment in a new product or concept.
|
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author
Tucson
Posts:710
Points:9,720
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 4:34:42 PM
We've seen how badly trickle down economic works. The mega rich sitting on their keisters claiming they need more tax breaks before they grace us with jobs. Then when they get them they need more just to be certain. Then they get their breaks and they still sit claiming that there isnt enough growth to justify investing.Its time we stopped coddling these con men. You want to increase demand so business has a reason to expand... put more money in the pockets of the poor and middle class. The rich don't need another tax break. They have shown us what they do with those. If there is demand investors WILL invest to make money. They dont need more tax breaks to convince them. If a company starts to grow there will be investors knocking at the door.
What we need is for the people who actually buy things to actually have pocket money.. not for the 1% to have a better looking cayman bank account. Maybe its time we tried trickle UP economics.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 4:18:48 PM
"So the number of unemployed people in this country has not risen under Obama's watch?"
It was rising under Bush's watch - Obama has reversed that extreme negative trend... Could he have done better? Absolutely. Are we currently moving the right direction? Absolutely.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 4:15:24 PM
"Create too many jobs and you might have to go to work."
Sorry, but this doesn't define 'anything' and is completely ambiguous.
Again - I give you a chance to define what and whom you are referring to if not the Conservatives mythical 47% of 'takers'.
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,450
Points:2,719,595
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 2:25:29 PM
So the number of unemployed people in this country has not risen under Obama's watch?
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 12:29:28 PM
"You inferred a large percentage of people, I defined your position for you. IF you would like to clarify, please do so. "
My post is only a couple lines down. It doesn't get any clearer.
Man, It's really entertaining to see how what I write gets translated in your brain.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 10:56:58 AM
""Back to that silly 47% myth, eh?"
I made no reference to that."
You inferred a large percentage of people, I defined your position for you. IF you would like to clarify, please do so.
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 8:09:58 AM
"We never did dig our way out of the hole he put us in."
That's no reason to quadruple and pendipple down on Obama policy.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 1:32:13 AM
SoylentGrain - "Half a decade later and you are still using the It’s George Bush’s Fault™ rhetoric."
We never did dig our way out of the hole he put us in.
Despite all the wealth that flowed to the private sector.
"President Barack Hussein Obama is the president and has been for over four years. He had a Democrat congress for the first two, that passed much of his agenda. Over regulation, higher tax burdens, a monetary policy that is ruining the value of the US dollar are Democrat policies that have produced those unemployment lines."
So who said he was any better than Bush?
But those unemployment lines were already there when he took office.
[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/5/2013 1:34:23 AM EST]
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 8:25:38 PM
"Back to that silly 47% myth, eh?"
I made no reference to that.
"No, you have to blame human instinct for wanting to continue to acquire more wealth (which conservatives seem to refuse to acknowledge as they still call these folks 'job creators' despite the facts staring them in the unemployment lines)."
President Barack Hussein Obama is the president and has been for over four years. He had a Democrat congress for the first two, that passed much of his agenda. Over regulation, higher tax burdens, a monetary policy that is ruining the value of the US dollar are Democrat policies that have produced those unemployment lines.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 6:48:51 PM
"Wouldn't want to leave money in the hands of the private sector. Create too many jobs and you might have to go to work."
Back to that silly 47% myth, eh?
"Half a decade later and you are still using the It’s George Bush’s Fault™ rhetoric."
No, you have to blame human instinct for wanting to continue to acquire more wealth (which conservatives seem to refuse to acknowledge as they still call these folks 'job creators' despite the facts staring them in the unemployment lines).
[Edited by: Weaslespit at 4/4/2013 6:50:27 PM EST]
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 3:26:48 PM
Half a decade later and you are still using the It’s George Bush’s Fault™ rhetoric.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 2:56:58 PM
SoylentGrain - "Wouldn't want to leave money in the hands of the private sector. Create too many jobs and you might have to go to work."
We tried giving all our wealth to the rich. That's why there aren't that many jobs out there now.
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 1:21:31 PM
"Which benefits those who make more and hurts those who make less? I don't wish for that... "
Wouldn't want to leave money in the hands of the private sector. Create too many jobs and you might have to go to work.
|
Weaslespit
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:8,964
Points:314,120
Joined:Sep 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 1:09:02 PM
"I wish we just had a flat tax."
Which benefits those who make more and hurts those who make less? I don't wish for that...
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,450
Points:2,719,595
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 12:03:30 AM
I am waiting to hear from my accountant how much I will owe Uncle Sam for my tax returns. I wish we just had a flat tax.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 5:45:44 PM
SoylentGrain - "The tax code is a monstrosity."
There we agree completely.
An irrefutable demonstration that Congress is full of incompetents.
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 5:40:18 PM
"...and It's not clear how "taxable income" should be calculated, since that can be different for each form of taxation."
It's not clear to me either. That's why I hire an accountant to compile my income tax returns. The tax code is a monstrosity.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 3:27:18 PM
SoylentGrain - "During the couple decades I spent working with Fortune 50 companies, we used the above definition, not CNN's."
But that isn't the calculation you gave. You only included income taxes and the income taxable under income taxes. Your definition requires "all forms of taxes", and it's not clear how "taxable income" should be calculated, since that can be different for each form of taxation.
The better definition is the part you skipped: "The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed." It's pretty obvious that they're not real consistent in their use of "earned income" and "taxable income".
And even then, "earned income" isn't total income. It doesn't look like they know what they're talking about.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 3:16:31 PM
SoylentGrain - "Rjhenn, you have his tax return, right in front of your nose. Which one do you chose? the original source or what CNN tells you? Use your head."
But is it the original source? Why would the figures from his campaign be different?
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 1:47:20 PM
investopedia/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp
"The effective tax rate is the net rate a taxpayer pays if all forms of taxes are included and divided by taxable income. "
During the couple decades I spent working with Fortune 50 companies, we used the above definition, not CNN's.
[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 4/2/2013 1:49:08 PM EST]
|
SoylentGrain
Veteran Author
Illinois
Posts:435
Points:7,940
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 1:27:23 PM
Rjhenn, you have his tax return, right in front of your nose. Which one do you chose? the original source or what CNN tells you? Use your head.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 12:34:04 PM
"Effective tax rate" is a fluid term, meaning pretty much whatever the user wants it to mean. It needs to be qualified to mean anything definite.
His effective tax rate, based on his gross income, was 14.1%, according to these numbers, from the Romney campaign, which, obviously, don't agree with your source (once I could find it).
|