Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.
|
Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.
No, that's poor thinking on your part. How is he taking money from me and giving it to rich people? If you mean he is allowing them to keep more of what they have earned, then that is a different matter. How is he taking money from me or you to give to them?Quote:
Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.
Tal is confused like all leftists, he thinks what's yours is his
There is no confusion when it comes to simple math and it seems an ex bean counter would know that.
That is not an answer to the question.Quote:
There is no confusion when it comes to simple math and it seems an ex bean counter would know that.
I'm not an ex bean counter Tal I retain my professional qualifications. The simple math is that in order to pay for leftist largess the government has two options, Tax more or print money. If you print money then the math is it becomes worthless, if you tax more then, the math is, it is not the rich who pay the most tax, but the middle and lower classes who are fortunate enough to have an income. Why didn't Trump actually cut middle class tax, answer; he would have been killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Herein ends the math and economics lesson.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Cutting tax is not giving someone someone else's money, it is reducing the burden of individual taxation. Taxation is theft, that is the reality
Who paves the roads in Australia?
Yeah.. well I am SOOOOOOOO glad Hildebeast Clintard lost, we've been subjected to a year and a half of her mentally disturbed ranting about why she lost, blaming everyone and everything but the one thing responsible... herself. And Bernie wasn't much better. We have a BOOMING economy now and record low unemployment for certain ethnic groups no Democrat ever really bothered to help before... and there are more job openings than unemployed people. Yeah... Trump knocked that out of the park.. something OWEBUMMER never could.
That is an interesting question, road making contractors at the behest of local or state government authorities. If the point you are trying to make is it is paid for by taxation in some form then you may be correct. A large part of the revenues of such bodies arises in the form of property taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
since income tax and "sales" tax is a federal tax..
Back in the day when we had a draconian taxation regime, we had fewer paved roads so less income tax has meant more paved roads, go figure
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t02.htm
https://www.wltx.com/article/news/lo.../101-581306681
https://www.wltx.com/article/news/lo...unty/298820835
So go blast yesterdays news on Clinton and Obama, and I'll blast today's news about The Dufus and Dufus Jr. How's that for splitting the baby? See we both can have our FUN.
Of course I have links to facts.
why would it be any taxing authority except locals ? James Madison favored the Federal Government building roads . Yet he vetoed the bills he received under constitutional concerns .https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../99-01-02-5775Quote:
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with singal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
Well that was poli-speak, it said absoluely nothing
That may work for cities but what of the rural areas? I got time if you need to check the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Interesting "facts", I see you can't decide between micro and macro economics but perhaps you can discern why some places are going backwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As I said back in the day we had fewer paved roads, and that goes for rural areas too. I am not here to provide you with statistics but having driven over a large part of my state and other parts of the country I can tell you that once you didn't have to go far to find an unpaved road, these days they appear confined to fire trails and little used roads in remote areas As a Texan you may understand the concept of a large area and a smaller population slowing the pace of road construction, then again you may be busy constructing those north - south highways for immigrantsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://www.australiaonnet.com/touris...tion/road.html
Our states get federal funds for roads, bridges, and schools to be built and maintained to supplement local user taxes, like tolls and gasoline. The same as YOURS.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrast.../australia.php
We are not devoid of such innovations, there are federally funded road programs, infrastructure grants, toll roads and gasoline taxes here too. Like yourselves, if it can be taxed it is
That has always been my point. Everybody taxes stuff, and everybody has a peeve about it, and where it goes.
Yes Tal but what is important is to lessen the impact on any individual particularly vulnerable individuals. Few people would be able to avoid a 10% impost even if they are not paying income tax and obviously it is even more. I think it unfair to be taxed 30 or 40% of income no matter who you are, and particularly if it is to provide welfare to free loaders. The principle of user pays is well applied here so if you want a new highway which improves travel speed and the overall journey then you pay for using the highway, but why should I, a country dweller, pay for a super highway in the city
Our rich and corporate types never pay those high tax rates, because of loopholes, deductions and write offs they have. How do you not slam corporate welfare but can't stand poor people welfare? If left to individuals they would all eliminate what they don't like and leave it unfunded. I get that but the function of government is to act in everyone's interest, not just a few, or the wealthiest, or even the poorest exclusively. Isn't that what you elect your representative to do? Whose fault is it they are corrupted by special interests and don't work in YOUR interests?
Quite a statement considering that the top 5% of wage earners in the U.S. pay about 60% of the income tax.Quote:
Our rich and corporate types never pay those high tax rates, because of loopholes, deductions and write offs they have. How do you not slam corporate welfare but can't stand poor people welfare?
As I have said about twenty times now, I'm all for helping poor people. But I am completely opposed to supposedly charitable liberals forcing others to do so. But if we are going to do welfare, then let's at least be honest enough to give those people a voucher entitling them to part of my, Tal's, and other's income.
Stop crying about this charity for the poor that you conservatives blame on liberals. Like your job is so much more important than their jobs are. First of all it ain't charity, and second of all why not let a low wage earner take off his rent, child care and transportation costs and heating bills so he doesn't need charity in the first place. I just don't see where starving people helps the country, or pricing them out of the market for most stuff helps a CONSUMER driven capitalistic society in any way. Make the living wage 15 bucks to start and I might see your point.
Why don't you just keep holding your nose and let us liberals make sure we have a strong social safety net? You know like you hold your nose and support the lying cheating dufus run up deficits that make fixing your schools bridges and roads crumble under your feet while your kids share old books with no paper and pencils, and old people eat cat food pretty hard to do.
You can say 100 times how you are for helping the poor, but that one day a week charity doesn't cut it. Helping people through hard times is NOT charity, but human kindness that we treat our fellow humans, kids, and strangers as well as neighbors. I notice you live in a state that takes more out of the pot than you put in so if you can stop holding your nose long enough to explain why then I'll listen.
Are there that many liberals running things there? Or are conservatives BSing us?
Once again, you are making up positions I have never taken. I've never said that.Quote:
Like your job is so much more important than their jobs are.
If you knew your facts, you would know that is not necessary. Low income families pay either no income tax, or very near that.Quote:
First of all it ain't charity, and second of all why not let a low wage earner take off his rent, child care and transportation costs and heating bills so he doesn't need charity in the first place.
Yes, and I suppose you would explain to all the low income workers who lost their jobs because the employer would not pay that much how wise you are and how you have taken it upon yourself to dictate wages to them rather than let them exercise their own freedom in negotiating wages. And may I ask, how did you arrive at 15 dollars? If raising the minimum wage is the answer, then why not go to 25 or 30 dollars an hour?Quote:
Make the living wage 15 bucks to start and I might see your point.
I assume you are talking about President Obama, who was the absolute world champion of deficits. You liberals are so funny. You sat by while Mr. Obama doubled the national debt and said nothing. For me, I despise deficit spending, no matter which pres is leading it.Quote:
You know like you hold your nose and support the lying cheating dufus run up deficits
And there you go again. Amazing how liberals want to lecture all the rest of us about what we should, or should not, be doing with charity. "that one day a week doesn't cut it". Judge Tal has spoken. Typical liberal. Always prompt to tell the rest of us what we should do. You have set yourself up as judge and jury about my efforts at charity. That is really unwise. You just don't know what you're talking about concerning my charitable efforts.Quote:
You can say 100 times how you are for helping the poor, but that one day a week charity doesn't cut it. Helping people through hard times is NOT charity, but human kindness that we treat our fellow humans, kids, and strangers as well as neighbors. I notice you live in a state that takes more out of the pot than you put in so if you can stop holding your nose long enough to explain why then I'll listen.
[QUOTE=jlisenbe;3820246]Once again, you are making up positions I have never taken. I've never said that. ;/QUOTE]
You implied it though when you say your tax dollars should not go to them and you should be able to choose your own charity when you please, but our government cannot choose who to help, and you have to apply and qualify for that help. Once taxes are collected they go into a big pot and your ELECTED representatives, both local AND federal decide where it goes and who gets what. In Miss. Are not your reps elected mostly conservative? So blame them not the liberals.
Fact is they pay a payroll tax every time they get paid, while rich guys do not, and the poor get it back if they file and meet the requirements of income at the end of the year. Benefits are calculated differently and most are non taxable and non deductible. Now if you want to begrudge those with kids their deduction, then stop some of those rich guy deductions. No need to hate on the low wage worker, old persons or kids. If you can hold your nose for the Dufus, you can hold your nose for the poor.Quote:
If you knew your facts, you would know that is not necessary. Low income families pay either no income tax, or very near that.
I dictate nothing but I advocate for a LIVING wage. A fairer wage than the $7 that stands now, and has stood firm for years despite rising prices. If you say $30 COOL! I can go with your suggestion. You have just eliminated poverty and made welfare obsolete. Well done.Quote:
Yes, and I suppose you would explain to all the low income workers who lost their jobs because the employer would not pay that much how wise you are and how you have taken it upon yourself to dictate wages to them rather than let them exercise their own freedom in negotiating wages. And may I ask, how did you arrive at 15 dollars? If raising the minimum wage is the answer, then why not go to 25 or 30 dollars an hour?
You assume wrong since Obama inherited a mess left by... WAIT FOR IT... a conservative who inherited a good economy AND a balanced budget from WAIT FOR IT... a LIBERAL... AND a Clinton at that. No more assuming okay since it's a fact Obama left The Dufus a growing economy after he came into a fiscal mess and TWO wars off the books if you want to talk deficits. If your holding your nose with the Dufus, then keep holding it with his stench of scandals and corruption all around him. I am not assuming that either.Quote:
I assume you are talking about President Obama, who was the absolute world champion of deficits. You liberals are so funny. You sat by while Mr. Obama doubled the national debt and said nothing. For me, I despise deficit spending, no matter which pres is leading it.
You express your opinion, I express mine, but we both only get one vote. Only one of us is holding his nose JL. You better hold more than that if you are going to support and defend this lying cheating racist Dufus for the next 4 to 8 years(?). You got anymore assumptions you want to get off your chest?Quote:
And there you go again. Amazing how liberals want to lecture all the rest of us about what we should, or should not, be doing with charity. "that one day a week doesn't cut it". Judge Tal has spoken. Typical liberal. Always prompt to tell the rest of us what we should do. You have set yourself up as judge and jury about my efforts at charity. That is really unwise. You just don't know what you're talking about concerning my charitable efforts.
Hi Tal I agree with you on the living minimum wage fro an adult, not sure if $30 is the right level but certainly $20, the best way out of welfare is to provide employment at better than slave wage levels and people on minimum wage shouldn't pay tax at any time, none of this take it and give it back B/S
Get used to it Obama spent the money, presided over quantitative easing and promoted the war in Syria as well as taxing the population for medical cover
Hi Clete, cutting out the middleman for seeing a doctor makes sense to me but Obama couldn't get single payer, you know conservatives love capitalists that's why they're bringing back junk policies that cover nothing, and no policies if you have a health issue already. Many will get what they paid for.
Those insurance guys should be retrained to pick cotton. Plenty of openings there.
OK. We're not getting anywhere in our discussion, so let's change the format to "ask a question, answer a question." I'll go first, since it's my idea.Quote:
I dictate nothing but I advocate for a LIVING wage. A fairer wage than the $7 that stands now, and has stood firm for years despite rising prices. If you say $30 COOL! I can go with your suggestion. You have just eliminated poverty and made welfare obsolete. Well done.
You need to learn to read. I wasn't advocating for a 30 dollar minimum wage, I was asking you a question. And as is usual, you ran away from answering the question. So I'll ask it again. What is the basis for 15 dollars? Do you have research for that figure, or did you, and others, just pluck it out of the sky? And if 15 is a good idea, then why aren't you going with 30, or for that matter, 60 dollars an hour? Then everyone could drive a Mercedes. (Note: 60 dollars is part of a question, not part of a suggestion.)
Now you have to SERIOUSLY and thoughtfully answer the question first, and then you get to ask one. Fair enough? If you are unwilling to answer a serious question, then there is no point in this.
I'm Irish at the core so I'll answer a question with a question, don't you have an independent authority who investigates and regulates these things based on evidence presented. Your labour relations appear primitive to usQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I assume you are not American from the tone of your question. So even though you have broken the rules, I can at least provide you with some info. There are no independent authorities who regulate this. It's called "freedom". If you want to make more money, then make yourself more valuable by enhancing your job skills. Nurses make a lot more money than hamburger flippers. It's where freedom meets personal responsibility.
Besides, the question was really directed towards TAL.
How did you come up with "Paraclete" for a name? It's NT Greek, as I remember.
$15 was a consensus and sought after in many states and won, and is being implemented in increments over about 3 years in most places. I see it as a reasonable adjustment. I think the logic goes 15x8=120 per day times 5 days=$600 a week, which is $2400 a month x12 brings us to $28,800 a year before taxes, and that's a reasonable place to start. Yes it gets you out of poverty by shifting the burden from government to employers {Who make the big bucks anyway) and changes a charity/welfare case to a DIGNIFIED CONSUMER. If you define a minimum wage job as fast food and retail, which most new jobs are even when Reagan was KING, and make consumers instead of dependents, not only do you shrink the deficit but spur the economy by demand instead of that supply side trickle down stuff. Actually just from raising the minimum wage means more revenue for government for schools, roads, bridges, and infrastructure to underfunded rural areas. Then more citizens can enjoy a decent job and manage their lives even better... without digging into YOUR pocket... OR mine, or be subject to the derision and name calling by the mean old conservatives.
That's my answer, and I hope you know that I was just funning about 30 or 60 bucks for a floor to the minimum wage piggy backing on what YOU wrote. I got no problem with rich guys getting rich if they are circulating that dollar in a more reasonable way, heck if they did pay a living wage, I would be all for a tax break for them. I don't mind you calling me a LIBERAL, since I think it's the right thing to do. I'm probably as fiscally conservative as you are, so I live within MY means even if it takes a few years to save up for that new car, or a Disneyland vacation.
If the Dufus had those kinds conditions on HIS tax cut bill, Then I wouldn't be calling him The Dufus (YES I WOULD, but not about that), or rich guys ROBBERS, and GREEDY b@stards.
of course an excellent question that will go unanswered like my question about open borders . (if you don't want open borders as you say you don't ,then what level of enforcement of the borders do YOU find acceptable ? )Quote:
What is the basis for 15 dollars? Do you have research for that figure, or did you, and others, just pluck it out of the sky? And if 15 is a good idea, then why aren't you going with 30, or for that matter, 60 dollars an hour? Then everyone could drive a Mercedes.
Yes we do Clete, but repubs are effectively stripping those AGENCIES of any authority to do anything, in addition to stacking those agencies with feckless crony sycophants who answer to them, and not the job they are tasked with. It's not just primitive, but borders on CRIMINAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
tal you know and I know that the only reason for min wage is the create a higher baseline for union negotiations . What do you get in return ? Well fewer jobs for one thing . Loss of the ability for young untrained workers to get their foot in the door as those jobs become attractive to the older work force . And eventually there is a greater impetus for employers to invest in automation and robotics . What else does it cause ? Well since by your login the owners are greedy ;increased costs due to higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer .
How about one that complies with the law, and delivers result through ORDERLY due process instead of hiding kids and deporting parents. I don't subscribe to OPEN borders, nor do I holler invasion by women and children fleeing oppression, persecution, and loss of life. You know like all the migrants who came here throughout our history. Leave it to conservatives though to be narrow and closed minded and brand everyone they are afraid of as some kind of threat to be smitten. Anything less than a butt kicking for a misdemeanor will never satisfy a conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Does that answer your question, that I have answered MANY times before? A perfect example of a willingness to ignore what you don't like. None of your queries and assertions have gone unanswered since I've been here. Even Clete agrees with me... SOMETIMES!
8D
It's all good.
Of course we can't have workers negotiating a better deal for wages, benefits or conditions can we? Like you say they just pass the cost on anyway and have without raising wages. You make a great point though about raising the question what to do with workers displaced by technology which increases by leaps and bounds every year and has for decades now. I watched many fall by the wayside tackling that very problem. It's a BIGGIE!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, you didn't ask a question, so I'll ask another. If raising the minimum wage to 15 does all you say it does, then wouldn't raising it to 30 do even more? 30 x 40hours x 50 or so weeks = 60 thou. Wouldn't that be a great boost, by your logic, to the economy? Imagine all those new consumers with their pockets bulging with money. If it's as simple as you say, then why aren't you proposing that? Why did you stop at 15?Quote:
I think the logic goes 15x8=120 per day times 5 days=$600 a week, which is $2400 a month x12 brings us to $28,800 a year before taxes, and that's a reasonable place to start. Yes it gets you out of poverty by shifting the burden from government to employers {Who make the big bucks anyway) and changes a charity/welfare case to a DIGNIFIED CONSUMER. If you define a minimum wage job as fast food and retail, which most new jobs are even when Reagan was KING, and make consumers instead of dependents, not only do you shrink the deficit but spur the economy by demand instead of that supply side trickle down stuff. Actually just from raising the minimum wage means more revenue for government for schools, roads, bridges, and infrastructure to underfunded rural areas. Then more citizens can enjoy a decent job and manage their lives even better... without digging into YOUR pocket... OR mine, or be subject to the derision and name calling by the mean old conservatives.
I noticed you mentioned no research at all that arrived at 15. Just some sort of "consensus". But you did answer the question in a civil manner. Thanks for that.
I have read so much over the years that I cannot really source it adequately, but this older article came with some good background links to explore.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/o...imum-wage.html
Fact checked fairly well against government data. I fact check almost everything if you noticed, agree or disagree with the premise. Yes I will have questions and rather like this structure for debate, exchange and interactions. Good one JL.
But you didn't answer the question, so I'll state it again. If what you said in your earlier post is true, then why stop at 15? Why not go on to 30? After all, as you said, it would just be coming from the rich and wealthy business owners. So why not?
BTW, I read the article, but the question is to you. When I answer a question, I don't ask the reader to go read an article. I feel it is my job to make my case, and not just reference an article.
yes and you can make a case for government assistance in retraining even though I wouldn't wait for the government to do anything on my behalf . Look there are 450,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in this country waiting for an ambitious applicant .Quote:
You make a great point though about raising the question what to do with workers displaced by technology which increases by leaps and bounds every year and has for decades now.
According to a recent study by the Manufacturing Institute , 80 percent of manufacturers report difficulty in finding skilled workers.I'm not kidding when I say there are at least one job available for anyone in this country who can pass a drug test …maybe 2 jobs . These are not minimum wage jobs I'm talking about . Many employers post 'will train' . It is just a complete falsehood that someone has to settle for a 'dead end ' job.
Another falsehood is that jobs are lost due to technology . That has never been the case . The cotton gin created a demand for more slaves in the old south . And since then there have been century and a half that supports that technological advances creates more jobs than it destroys . Don't listen to luddites .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 AM. |