|
|
Post by 911rob on Nov 13, 2012 20:53:30 GMT -5
Earned income credit =bonus money for having more children than you can afford/ rewarding bad decisions. If you get more money back than you pay in they should at least call it unearned credit, as you didn't earn it.
|
|
|
|
Post by derbythis on Nov 20, 2012 10:16:00 GMT -5
Interesting that when you put actual facts and common sense out there the democrats immediately drop out of the discussion. I guess their talking points don't give them how to defend against us learned people. I have been waiting for the non name calling response to my 4 posts now for a week giving actual facts or a common sense approach to combat them from their viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by teamele1x on Nov 20, 2012 16:31:55 GMT -5
Interesting that when you put actual facts and common sense out there the democrats immediately drop out of the discussion. I guess their talking points don't give them how to defend against us learned people. I have been waiting for the non name calling response to my 4 posts now for a week giving actual facts or a common sense approach to combat them from their viewpoint. [/quote]
And you never will get an answer from them
|
|
|
|
Post by catscratch on Nov 20, 2012 16:54:57 GMT -5
Someone explain to me why we have to give tax incentives to the rich and "hope" they use it to create jobs. Why not give them great tax incentives AFTER they create long term/full time jobs? I've seen a lot of businesses spend a lot of money on stuff that didn't create jobs after a city gives them incentives to come to town and set up shop.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Bryan on Nov 20, 2012 19:35:14 GMT -5
Hello. I think it has to do with the corporate tax rate at 34%? Highest in the world? If you do not give a tax break locally, the jobs will go some where else. Another state, such as Texas? Mexico? Canada? I am sure the tax rates there are much lower. Some one knows more than me on this subject. David Bryan
|
|
|
|
Post by catscratch on Nov 20, 2012 22:17:43 GMT -5
Then make it 25%... IF they create 100 jobs. 20% if they create 200 jobs. Added jobs and spending in the local economy will make up for the loss in corporate.
|
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Nov 20, 2012 22:42:59 GMT -5
If you are referring to me not commenting, I will tell you why. First, I dont jump on peoples post and tell them how dumb or stupid their opinions are. second, it was very hard to read with no spacing and no seperate paragraphs. third, you drifted off on two subjects that didnt have too much to do with my posts. Feel free to keep calling me out on here all you want. And your "actual facts" are more like your opinion, which is yours to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Bryan on Nov 21, 2012 0:51:20 GMT -5
Hello, catscratch,....shaazamm. More jobs and more spending in the local economy. You answered your own question. So...having a big company DOES help the local economy. They buy "stuff". This does not create jobs? Well, some one SOLD them that "stuff". There are your jobs! Just a thought. David Bryan
|
|
|
|
Post by wessvobodas6 on Nov 21, 2012 16:51:41 GMT -5
It all depends on how you define rich. What is rich? If you talk about the top 1% earners as the rich, then I say yes, tax the heck out em. They are rich beyond knowledge. They millions that they dont even know about, and they dont even have control over where it's spent anyway. They dont need it, so raise their taxes. But you define rich as 250,000$/year and above as this tax increase plan is insinuating, then yes, that will be very detrimental. Close the loopholes in our income tax system. Look, you're in a 35% tax bracket. That means youre gonna pay 35 cents on the dollar of what you made. The only write offs you get are for increases in payroll, hence, you created more jobs. Dun. It's really common sense folks. Our problem is that common sense is detrimental to the special interests that are really running our country. Behind the scenes bullshit that you can't possible fathom. It would make your head fucking head explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by wessvobodas6 on Nov 21, 2012 17:04:32 GMT -5
I also need to add is that-call me a debbie downer all you want-we're fucked either way. We're in too deep. It's not an Obama problem. It's not a Bush problem. Not a democrat or republican problem. It's a social problem. This country has gone soft. People are lazy. They cant live within their means. TV says we have to have this and this and that. We dont have the money for it, so visa, who's constantly sending you credit in the mail, is busted out to get you that fancy new flat screen for 900 bucks, when the 10 year old 150$ tv was just fine to begin with. People are so caught up with perception and what others think of themselves that they often fail to do the "right" thing, often doing the exact opposite. These issues spread into many other aspects of life, beginning decades ago and escalating from there are why we have the problems we have today.
|
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Nov 21, 2012 18:28:12 GMT -5
Great posts wessvobodas6.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremybailey13 on Nov 21, 2012 18:51:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by derbythis on Nov 27, 2012 13:01:50 GMT -5
Conservative Financial Rules (Republican as it was in the 20s and should be again)
1. Be Honest
2. Work Hard
3. Stay out of debt
4. Save as much as you can
5. Your word is your bond
Liberal Financial Rules (Democrat, Current Republican Party, and current American viewpoint)
1. Buy the biggest house you can get not what you can afford
2. Save money if you want to but only after you have everything you want and not what you need
3. Relax. It is government's responsibility to stimulate the economy and take care of you if they fail to do so
4. Always look good no matter the cost
5. Your employer probably won't mind if you stay in touch with your friends on facebook during work hours because after all you have a life outside of work and it is okay to take small stuff from the office as they have plenty of money.
If we can get back to the first set we will get out of the crisis created by the failed policies in Washington. If we stay on the second set we will continue down the path we are on.
A great quote I read the other day. "Trying to spend or borrow your way out of financial trouble is like trying to stop the bleeding by licking a razor blade...Unless you're the government." The last bit is sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
Post by wessvobodas6 on Nov 27, 2012 13:19:52 GMT -5
Conservative Financial Rules (Republican as it was in the 20s and should be again) 1. Be Honest 2. Work Hard 3. Stay out of debt 4. Save as much as you can 5. Your word is your bond Liberal Financial Rules (Democrat, Current Republican Party, and current American viewpoint) 1. Buy the biggest house you can get not what you can afford 2. Save money if you want to but only after you have everything you want and not what you need 3. Relax. It is government's responsibility to stimulate the economy and take care of you if they fail to do so 4. Always look good no matter the cost 5. Your employer probably won't mind if you stay in touch with your friends on facebook during work hours because after all you have a life outside of work and it is okay to take small stuff from the office as they have plenty of money. If we can get back to the first set we will get out of the crisis created by the failed policies in Washington. If we stay on the second set we will continue down the path we are on. A great quote I read the other day. "Trying to spend or borrow your way out of financial trouble is like trying to stop the bleeding by licking a razor blade...Unless you're the government." The last bit is sarcasm. You forgot one part of the liberal rules. If you go against any part of public perception, you are either a racist or bigot. Enough said. I literally got called a racist by a african american once becuase he was going on about the rich this and that and how great obama was. All i said was I didnt agree with Obama's principles and that they just were'nt, to me, the proper way to right things. He went of and called me a "racist cracker muther fucker" . yes, exact words. hilarious. I told him he and his fuckbuddy obama can stick it in his butt. It's not my duty to put food on your table because you cant find a job with your pants around your knees and chains hangin off your neck. Then I ran away before I got shot, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by derbythis on Nov 27, 2012 13:33:23 GMT -5
Someone explain to me why we have to give tax incentives to the rich and "hope" they use it to create jobs. Why not give them great tax incentives AFTER they create long term/full time jobs? I've seen a lot of businesses spend a lot of money on stuff that didn't create jobs after a city gives them incentives to come to town and set up shop. Define create jobs. Do you mean direct jobs or indirect jobs. As I tried to explain in my post on economy trickle down economics is exactly how it works and no one with common sense can explain it otherwise. In fact to explain it as money flows uphill would be defining a Ponzi scheme which is illegal. Any time a company comes in saying they are going to create x number of jobs you need to know direct or indirect. If they say they are going to create 500 jobs and they are only hiring 400 they are talking indirect. What this means is they are going to bring in x number more people which then means the local businesses are going to have to hire more staff in order to give the same service to the increased customers. This all trickles down to the lowest business. This is indirect. For direct they say we are going to bring in 500 more jobs and they hire 500. In reality with the way economics works they technically bring in on 500 jobs closer to 600-700 jobs locally but these are not necessarily high paying jobs or in many case not hired local positions. The amount of corporate tax a company pays directly reflects their willingness to enter an area. A great example right now is the Adobe Software building currently being constructed in Lehi, Utah. The state of Utah gave them incentive to come here. Is it the ideal place Adobe would like to be. My guess is they would rather be somewhere like Palo Alto, California. However due to the current economy in California and their tax the wealthy and corporations attitude they missed out on a great opportunity. I think they are talking about somewhere around 5000 jobs and given the size of the building I would say direct jobs. My guess is the best jobs will be people they bring in from outside that are currently employed by them. They will still however hire some for lack of a better term lower positions locally and the indirect influx of people at 5000 jobs will bring on a great number of indirect jobs. This is why government is and should be willing to work with corporations. |
|
