The Drum Corps Discussion Group
Presented by The Sound Machine Drum Corps Scores Archive

Links to Other Sites: 

* FAQ   * Search   * Login   * Register 
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:53 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:13 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
Hostrauser wrote:
For example, in Q2 of this year (Apr-Jun) my company posted $2.555B in revenues and yet is on the hook to pay only $70M in taxes. That's a tax rate of 2.74%. Does only 2.74% of YOUR money go to the government?

Stop worrying about businesses. 99% of the time so little of their money actually ends up getting taxed that I have absolutely no qualms about raising the tax rate for the $250K+ crowd.


Good point, and perhaps your job can be one that's eliminated when your employer has to pay higher taxes.

Perhaps you should work for a small contracting firm and look at their books. The government already does more to stifle success than they should. How about rewarding success?

It is folly to state that only 2.74% of your employer's money goes to the government. There are so many ways that the government gets their hands on money through fees, payroll taxes, etc.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:43 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 12:40 pm
Posts: 1030
Hostrauser wrote:
I have absolutely no qualms about raising the tax rate for the $250K+ crowd.


Which highlights a philosophic difference between people who want equal treatment for all versus those like Obama, and Corzine here in NJ, who want to rip off a portion of the population because they can get away with it. Obama wants to continue the idea of "class warfare" by his plan, plain and simple.

Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:27 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
Quote:
John McCain is pouncing on Barack Obama's call for shifting more wealth from richer Americans to poorer ones, likening it to socialism. His remarks win applause at campaign events. But they ignore the nation's long tradition of redistributing huge amounts of wealth through tax-and-spending policies.

Placing a heavier burden on the wealthy has been a cornerstone of the federal income tax since its inception in 1913. Under its "progressive" formula, in which the wealthy pay higher tax rates, the richest 5 percent of Americans now pay well over half of all federal income taxes.

Forty percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all, although it is the government's largest revenue source. Meanwhile, they benefit from various social programs aimed at low-income households, another feature of a system that redistributes money.

Conservatives, citing such statistics, say the country needs no more top-to-bottom shifts of wealth...

In fact, Obama supporters note, the gap between rich and poor Americans has grown markedly in recent years as middle-class wages remained largely stagnant while corporate profits and high-earners' salaries soared. The nation's income inequality now ranks among the world's largest, reports show. The richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 a year; the poorest 10 percent make $5,800 on average.

Various economic and regulatory factors have fed that gap. But tax policies play a role, too, because some major revenue sources are far less favorable to low-income people than the income tax is.

For most Americans, the biggest tax burden is the payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. The tax rates are the same for everyone, and the Social Security levy does not apply to incomes above $102,000, a boon to the wealthy.

Moreover, Social Security benefits go to rich and poor retirees alike. That means low-income workers' payroll taxes are partly shifted to wealthier people, a reverse of the income tax's top-down construct.

Federal excise taxes on products including gasoline and cigarettes are more regressive still, as are sales taxes levied by many states...

Obama has proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and tax cuts for most other households. He would end the Bush administration's tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year, he says. He also would impose a new Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Currently, all annual income up to $102,000 is taxed at 12.4 percent for Social Security, with employers and workers splitting the cost evenly.

As for the claim that Obama might turn the Internal Revenue Service into a "giant welfare agency," liberal groups note that the number of Americans on welfare fell by more than 60 percent after a 1996 overhaul of the program approved by President Clinton.

For several years, a strong economy and social safety net programs helped many families avoid poverty. However, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says the recent economic downturn "has coincided with a sharp increase in food prices, which has exacerbated hardship for many low-income families who also face high gas prices (and will face high home heating bills this fall and winter)."

The group's chief economist, Chad Stone, says the degree to which U.S. tax policies favor the poor over the wealthy "should not be a concern to people."

"We still have too much poverty," he said. "And if it were not for the progressive nature of our tax system, it would be much worse."

_________________
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:37 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
Mike wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
I have absolutely no qualms about raising the tax rate for the $250K+ crowd.


Which highlights a philosophic difference between people who want equal treatment for all versus those like Obama, and Corzine here in NJ, who want to rip off a portion of the population because they can get away with it. Obama wants to continue the idea of "class warfare" by his plan, plain and simple.

Mike


Well that's the problem with both Obama and McCain's tax plan. They BOTH do that. Obama will tax the rich more to give the middle class more tax relief..And he will also give a tax rebate on those who pay no income tax (not a fan of that at all). And the McCain tax plan will give the rich a larger tax break while giving some middle income families a very small tax cut. So both plans are "class warfare". Even Warren Buffet did research on this..He found under the McCain/Bush plan he was paying 17% on his income while his secretary paid 30% on hers. So the "class warfare" goes both ways..Although the libs refer to it as "social injustice". Also, we have a progressive tax plan in this country..The whole premise behind it involves redistribution of wealth. And last time I checked, neither candidate has proposed a flat tax. So of course there will be certain brackets taxed more under each plan..And each side can make their arguments. But both sides have class warfare no doubt..
McCain's plan equals to, the richer you are, the more tax break you will get. If you make $2.8 million a year, you get the largest break of 4.4%. If you are in the bottom bracket of $18,000 or less you will get a 0.2% break. For those in the $18,000-$66,354 you will get a tax cut of 0.6%-0.7%...Obama's plan equals to, the less you make, the more tax break you will get..He will increase taxes on those making $2.8 million or more a year to +11.5%. He will also tax the second bracket of $600,000-$2.8 million at around +8.7%..Those making $18,000 or less will get a 5.5% tax cut. Those making $18,000-$37,600 will get a 3.6% tax cut..And those making $37,000-$66,354 will get a 2.4% cut. Now the median houshold income in the United States is around $50,300. And 77% of American workers make less than $50,000.


Last edited by SCVStar on Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:21 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:42 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
This piece is quite possibly the BEST argument I have seen for NOT voting Obama! Nicely done Kevin!

Hostrauser wrote:
Quote:
Placing a heavier burden on the wealthy has been a cornerstone of the federal income tax since its inception in 1913. Under its "progressive" formula, in which the wealthy pay higher tax rates, the richest 5 percent of Americans now pay well over half of all federal income taxes.
Forty percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all, although it is the government's largest revenue source. Meanwhile, they benefit from various social programs aimed at low-income households, another feature of a system that redistributes money.


So the top 5% of wage earners pay over half of all Federal income taxes which is the government's largest revenue source. And then when they get a modest tax break, the government also has to give a refund to the 40% of people who haven't paid anything to begin with in the interest of fairness.

Yet this piece (o'crap) goes on to say that the gap is growing larger, not smaller. Hmmmm, maybe because it doesn't pay to succeed unless you can make the big jump. Workers refusing overtime work when needed because their take home pay suffers due to the asinine tax code. A coworker of mine whose "raise" resulted in a net loss on his check.

Quote:
The richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 a year; the poorest 10 percent make $5,800 on average.


Anyone here know someone who makes $93K (household income)?
NOTE: A family with two wage earners making only $23 an hour makes it into the top 10%, according to this. Does anyone know anybody making under $6K? I doubt it. A $3/hr. job would gross more than that. These numbers are meaningless.

Quote:
Various economic and regulatory factors have fed that gap. But tax policies play a role, too, because some major revenue sources are far less favorable to low-income people than the income tax is.

For most Americans, the biggest tax burden is the payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. The tax rates are the same for everyone, and the Social Security levy does not apply to incomes above $102,000, a boon to the wealthy.

Moreover, Social Security benefits go to rich and poor retirees alike. That means low-income workers' payroll taxes are partly shifted to wealthier people, a reverse of the income tax's top-down construct.

Federal excise taxes on products including gasoline and cigarettes are more regressive still, as are sales taxes levied by many states...


BS ALERT!!!! low-income workers' taxes are partially shifted to wealthier people. Are you kidding me? Benefits are based on length of employment and income (with a maximum limitation, by the way). The wealthier person has also paid more into the system so it is right that they should collect more.

Taxes on cigarettes and gasoline...hmmm sounds like Liberal Lou has been here again. And the libs want you, the poorest of the poor, to pay $7 a gallon for gas, even if the difference must be made up of taxes. This will purposefully drive people to public transit or to move into urban density projects (like you can afford to move to the urban core). They believe smoking is a public sin and so they tax the crud out of tobacco products, even though cigarettes are largely a vice of the lower income.

See, true conservatism wants you, the poor, to have opportunities to make a better life; to experience the risks and rewards of life. Of course we want a safety net; a temporary place where you can start over, but we don't want you to become a lifelong dependent on the government. We don't want the government mandating that home loans are made available that you can't afford. What kind of life is that? We want to provide plentiful, affordable energy, allowing the move to greener sources to occur under a booming economy, not by forcefully limiting your mobility and comfort.

Quote:
Obama has proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and tax cuts for most other households.
Assuming here he means the 40% already not paying ANY income tax.

Quote:
He would end the Bush administration's tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year, he says.

Since they are some of the only ones paying a significant amount already, right?

Quote:
He also would impose a new Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Currently, all annual income up to $102,000 is taxed at 12.4 percent for Social Security, with employers and workers splitting the cost evenly.

I don't agree but fine, as long as you increase the benefits accordingly!

Quote:
The group's chief economist, Chad Stone, says the degree to which U.S. tax policies favor the poor over the wealthy "should not be a concern to people."

"We still have too much poverty," he said. "And if it were not for the progressive nature of our tax system, it would be much worse."


FLAT TAX NOW! It still favors the poor while not penalizing success.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:09 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
Quote:
The richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 a year; the poorest 10 percent make $5,800 on average.


Anyone here know someone who makes $93K (household income)?
NOTE: A family with two wage earners making only $23 an hour makes it into the top 10%, according to this. Does anyone know anybody making under $6K? I doubt it. A $3/hr. job would gross more than that. These numbers are meaningless.

Your analysis is horribly flawed. The rest of the article refers to individual income (example: Social Security and Medicare is taxed on an individual basis, even if you "file" joint tax returns), so it would reason that the numbers in this paragraph are for an individual basis, too.

So, no, a family with two wage earners making $186,000 per year would be in the Top 10%, not the number you referenced.

Your $3/hr number is also humorous, because it assumes gainful, full-time employment (40hrs/wk) for the entire year. It obvious that the bottom ten percent of wage earners do not have full-time employment, but you missed it.

WE ARE XSABERS wrote:
Quote:
The group's chief economist, Chad Stone, says the degree to which U.S. tax policies favor the poor over the wealthy "should not be a concern to people."

"We still have too much poverty," he said. "And if it were not for the progressive nature of our tax system, it would be much worse."


FLAT TAX NOW! It still favors the poor while not penalizing success.

Nope, you fail basic math again. Here's a simple example...

Let's say, right now, Joe is earning $25,000/year and Mike is earning $100,000/year. Joe is taxed at 20% ($5,000) and Mike is taxed at 40% ($40,000), so the government is earning $45,000 off of them.

The key point that EVERY conservative misses is that, should a flat tax be instituted, the government would still need to collect the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. This can be figured out with a simple algebraic equation, where x is the flat tax rate:
25,000x + 100,000x = 45,000
125,000x = 45,000
x = 0.36

The new flat tax would need to be 36%. Thus, Joe's taxes would GO UP 80% (to $9,000) and Mike's would GO DOWN 10% (to $36,000). As you can see, a flat tax would SEVERELY hurt the poor: Joe's net of $20k would drop to $16k, which he likely can ill-afford; meanwhile, Mark's comfortable net of $60k climbs to $64k, or enough to pay for some extra features on his new BMW.

The government wisely realizes that a person who has trouble feeding themselves and putting a roof over their head cannot carry the same percentage of tax burden as a person living in a 5,000 sq. ft. house who owns three cars. Conservatism, which is totally heartless, prefers the "sink or swim" method, where everyone must carry the same load (regardless of context), we place too much burden on those who can't handle it and just let the poor die off.

Lastly, I reference this brilliant argument (not my own), which asserts that it's usually the wealthy who leech off the work of the poor, not vice versa:
Quote:
ENOUGH! Stop posting the same stupid, flawed argument over and over again! If you have a choice between making a million dollars a year to sit in an office 4 days a week or stand in a production line all day 6 days a week to earn $20,000, you're going to choose the former, EVEN IF you actually 'earned' $100 million dollars and were taxed a staggering 99%. So long as the profit motive is not completely trampled, it will continue to exist, and people will continue to strive to free-load off the hard work of others.

It just makes no sense to me at all... you blather on about how the people on welfare are just greedy leeches, exploiting the hard work of others to sit at home watching TV, and then you turn around and say it's OK to do that if you're wealthy, just because you happen to exploit that hard work in a different way? Sit down and THINK about how many double standards there are in your viewpoint. I don't think you've really thought this through at all... you just spout the same BS ultra-conservative fear-mongering over and over again. The elimination of the exorbitantly wealthy classes in favor of generally wealthier upper, middle, and lower classes will NOT eliminate the profit motive, no matter how many times you claim it will.

If you took all but a few million dollars away from the annual incomes of the top 1% of wealthy citizens in the nation, they'd still make more in a year than a vast percentage of the population will make in the majority of their careers... encouraging people to pursue exorbitant amounts of wealth and allowing them to do so does nothing but promote immorality. There's a reason there's so much corruption involved in the practices of the ultra-rich.

_________________
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:58 pm 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Upland, CA
After reading all this.... STUFF, I have a few simple questions for everyone to think about.

1. How people would be willing to attend a politcal event and ask the candidate a question if they knew it meant that their lives and family would be investigated by the news media and political/government officials? And what govenrments have allowed this practice over the past 80 years?

2. Did Joe the plumber put words into Obama's mouth or force him to say what he said? In otherwords, who is responsible for the words that were spoken? What kind of campaign then chooses to make jokes about a citizen that asked a question in an effort to cover their own mistake?

3. The corporate tax rate in the U.S. in the second highest in the world. If the government raises it and companies decide that it is in their financial interest to move their operations off-shore, what source will replace the tax income lost and the jobs that will disappear and go to workers in other countries?

4. If the European economy is such a stellar example to be followed, can anyone tell us how many years, over the last 40 years, has the European economy out performed the U.S. in percentage of annual growth?

I have more, but I'll keep it simple....

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:06 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
You sure pick and choose which figures to use when trying to make your point Kevin. I'll tell you what, why don't you take the first say $8.00 an hour that you earn (CA minimum wage) and then give the rest away? Don't wait for the government to take it. It will be much more efficient to just give it to someone making much less. See cuz someday, you may find yourself above whatever line of demarcation the left will use to determine who is obscenely wealthy. So get yourself used to it now; you'll be better off.

Your most recent quote reveals much. Most of the "wealthy" people I know have worked long and hard to get where they are. Certainly not on the backs of the poor workers. They don't sit in their offices four days a week simply making money of the sweat of others. They do things like create jobs, nurture business, take risks, work long hours, weekends... Too many of the poor workers (as per your example) remain on the production line due to lack of effort to go elsewhere. They cling to their union contracts and remain bitter in their jealousy of anyone who climbs from their ranks. There is nothing wrong with honest work at any level. This quote however is beyond the pale, conjuring up false images of greedy barons of industry from the industrial revolution.

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

- Karl Marx or Hostrauser??? :lol:

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:02 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
I would first like to apologize to all involved, I don't understand all of the numbers. I don't have the intellectual ability to understand that much math. One thing I do understand is this: If these SOB's have billions of dollars to give to multi-million dollar businesses whose only business is making money, then they can afford to cut my taxes. Cut them by a lot........Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:28 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
Bandmaster wrote:
2. Did Joe the plumber put words into Obama's mouth or force him to say what he said? In otherwords, who is responsible for the words that were spoken? What kind of campaign then chooses to make jokes about a citizen that asked a question in an effort to cover their own mistake?


Bingo!

Amen!

. . .and

Amen again!

Obama either misspoke or had a slip and said something he believes but did not mean to let out of the bag, and how does the media and his campaign react? And all the liberals follow suit drinkin' the kool-aid.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:35 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
Bandmaster wrote:
After reading all this.... STUFF, I have a few simple questions for everyone to think about.

1. How people would be willing to attend a politcal event and ask the candidate a question if they knew it meant that their lives and family would be investigated by the news media and political/government officials? And what govenrments have allowed this practice over the past 80 years?

2. Did Joe the plumber put words into Obama's mouth or force him to say what he said? In otherwords, who is responsible for the words that were spoken? What kind of campaign then chooses to make jokes about a citizen that asked a question in an effort to cover their own mistake?

3. The corporate tax rate in the U.S. in the second highest in the world. If the government raises it and companies decide that it is in their financial interest to move their operations off-shore, what source will replace the tax income lost and the jobs that will disappear and go to workers in other countries?

4. If the European economy is such a stellar example to be followed, can anyone tell us how many years, over the last 40 years, has the European economy out performed the U.S. in percentage of annual growth?

I have more, but I'll keep it simple....


1. Again..Enough blame to go around. The first news media to really push the interview (which was an edited clip) was Fox News..Then McCain made it clear "Joe the Plumber" would be a foucs for his campaign. So of course you're going to have the media find out what they can about the guy. Who in their right mind wouldn't think that would happen. I actually feel bad for the guy.

2. Again, both sides are to blame. If one campaign decides to use a line from a conversation with a voter, then of course the other will comment on how much Joe the Plumber actually makes, and which tax plan will help him more. I guess the joke is "how many plumbers do you know that make $250,000 a year? Good joke if you ask me..But of course Obama was dumb to say "spread the wealth around". He doesn't seem to be running away from that though. He has posted the full version of the video online.

3. Good question. The main reasons companies move to other countries isn't the coperate tax rate. It's mainly due to being able to produce MUCH cheaper labor. Not to mention labor laws are more flexable. Also, there is a difference between statutory rate and the real rate those companies actually pay. In most cases, those companies don't even pay near the statutory tax rate. I think some people obviosuly don't think about our deficit..Reagan tried to lower the coperate tax rate. Remember that? What happened to the deficit during that time? Reagan soon realized it wasn't smart economics and then put a big hike on those coperate taxes..I think it was the highest corperate tax increase in history at that time. Smart man considering the deficit was out of control. Bush Sr. had a high corperate tax also. And Clinton had a high corperate tax rate..The economy was strong to stable.. Jobs were created..Then W. Bush gave the largest tax cuts to those companies..During Bush's terms, we have had the lowest coperate tax rate since WWII. See, it will give you a boost at first..But then the deficit will start to grow, the dollar will weaken, and jobs will say bye-bye. So the myth is: Higher corperate taxes cost jobs. As many economists have said, that is just not the case. Look at Reagan..Look at Clinton..And look at W. Bush.

4..Well I've never been a big fan of the European economy. Also, of course our GDP is larger. But many people overlook the power of the dollar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:23 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
I noticed you said Fox news first broke the story, are they not a traditionally conservative network. Do not confuse this as me taking sides with either McCain or Obama................Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:45 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
Blurae1 wrote:
I noticed you said Fox news first broke the story, are they not a traditionally conservative network. Do not confuse this as me taking sides with either McCain or Obama................Bill


Ok, no problem. It just seems that people in general go straight with party lines in regards to this without thinking, "well maybe my ticket or party is to blame also". That was my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:13 am 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Upland, CA
SCVStar wrote:
1. Again..Enough blame to go around. The first news media to really push the interview (which was an edited clip) was Fox News..Then McCain made it clear "Joe the Plumber" would be a foucs for his campaign. So of course you're going to have the media find out what they can about the guy. Who in their right mind wouldn't think that would happen. I actually feel bad for the guy.

Enough blame to go around???? It was NOT an interview, it was live campaign coverage of a neighborhood walk-through. No other citizen has beed vetted for daring to ask a question! Why this citizen? Please name another time when the media decended on a person with broadcast trucks in his front yard for being mentioned by a candidate?

SCVStar wrote:
2. Again, both sides are to blame. If one campaign decides to use a line from a conversation with a voter, then of course the other will comment on how much Joe the Plumber actually makes, and which tax plan will help him more. I guess the joke is "how many plumbers do you know that make $250,000 a year? Good joke if you ask me..But of course Obama was dumb to say "spread the wealth around". He doesn't seem to be running away from that though. He has posted the full version of the video online.

Joe never said he made $250,000 a year, he said he wanted to buy his bosses busines that made $250,000 a year. The joke was told to make it look like there was something wrong with Joe for asking the question. Nullify the answer by discrediting the person that asked the question.

SCVStar wrote:
3. Good question. The main reasons companies move to other countries isn't the coperate tax rate. It's mainly due to being able to produce MUCH cheaper labor. Not to mention labor laws are more flexable. Also, there is a difference between statutory rate and the real rate those companies actually pay. In most cases, those companies don't even pay near the statutory tax rate. I think some people obviosuly don't think about our deficit..Reagan tried to lower the coperate tax rate. Remember that? What happened to the deficit during that time? Reagan soon realized it wasn't smart economics and then put a big hike on those coperate taxes..I think it was the highest corperate tax increase in history at that time. Smart man considering the deficit was out of control. Bush Sr. had a high corperate tax also. And Clinton had a high corperate tax rate..The economy was strong to stable.. Jobs were created..Then W. Bush gave the largest tax cuts to those companies..During Bush's terms, we have had the lowest coperate tax rate since WWII. See, it will give you a boost at first..But then the deficit will start to grow, the dollar will weaken, and jobs will say bye-bye. So the myth is: Higher corperate taxes cost jobs. As many economists have said, that is just not the case. Look at Reagan..Look at Clinton..And look at W. Bush.

Deficits grew because spending went up dramatically. How many new government security agencies and programs had to be paid for after 9/11? There have been massive spending on protecting the US from possible attacks, not to mention the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Government revenues have increase tremendously since 2001. In fact it is much high than during the Clinton years, but new spending has out stripped the increased revenue. Too many earmarks and wastefull projects were sent through the system because the Republicans in Congress lost their way. Name one time when a major tax increase actually increased government revenues?

SCVStar wrote:
4..Well I've never been a big fan of the European economy. Also, of course our GDP is larger. But many people overlook the power of the dollar.

GDP??? I said percentage of growth!

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:50 pm 
Offline
Soloist
Soloist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:01 am
Posts: 379
Location: the delta
SCVStar wrote:
It just seems that people in general go straight with party lines in regards to this without thinking, "well maybe my ticket or party is to blame also". That was my point.


What?? No one around here ever does that. Especially me. :jedi:

_________________
"Sounds like a bunch 'abalone' to me." --Brian T.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group