Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on July 17, 2012, 04:06:31 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/study-says-obama-tax-proposals-could-cost-700-145037841.html
Here is what the accounting firm concluded would happen:
· Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, in today's economy.
· Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5 percent, or roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today's
economy.
· Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively.
· Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8 percent, reflecting a decline in workers' living standards
relative to what would have occurred otherwise.
-
nothing?
one of the 5 biggest accounting firms in the country says that obamas tax plan could cost 700k and everybody still wants to talk about romneys tax returns?
curious, especially since we know that some individuals really do want to focus on the issues.
-
Most are too busy jizzing themselves over the Bain nonsense.
-
Most are too busy jizzing themselves over the Bain nonsense.
Agreed, I dont really know why with all the talk of wanting to focus on the issues.
This is a pretty big fuking deal, Ernst and Young are one of the most recognized accounting firms in the country
*Edit title change - I was mistaken they are one of the 4 biggest accounting firms in the US
-
Agreed, I dont really know why with all the talk of wanting to focus on the issues.
This is a pretty big fuking deal, Ernst and Young are one of the most recognized accounting firms in the country
*Edit title change - I was mistaken they are one of the 4 biggest accounting firms in the US
Doesn't matter. Romney farted yesterday.
-
Still nothing?
-
Huggy, Oz, Beach please pin this to the top
-
bump for the night
-
What part of his tax plan will cause this? The Bush tax cuts ending or..?
-
What part of his tax plan will cause this? The Bush tax cuts ending or..?
On my phone so I'll give specifics later but answer this for me.
What does it matter?
700k jobs lost is 700k lost does it matter what part of his plan it comes from?
-
On my phone so I'll give specifics later but answer this for me.
What does it matter?
700k jobs lost is 700k lost does it matter what part of his plan it comes from?
True but if companies where not outsourcing we might have a healthy economy. And republicans give money to firms that outsource. That makes Obamas plan totally irrelevant
-
True but if companies where not outsourcing we might have a healthy economy. And republicans give money to firms that outsource. That makes Obamas plan totally irrelevant
So youre squarely laying the blame at outsourcing?
BTW, provide proof they give money to firms to outsource please.
-
True but if companies where not outsourcing we might have a healthy economy. And republicans give money to firms that outsource. That makes Obamas plan totally irrelevant
That may be true but it has nothing to do with obamas tax plan costing 700k jobs, dont you think that one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world would have taken that into account?
you do know the admin gave tons of money to companies that outsource right?
you do know that obamas job czar is the CEO of GE, who specializes in outsourcing, RIGHT?
-
here you go whork
The Ernst and Young study looked at the impact of seeing the top marginal tax rates rise—but also studied the effects of a range of other proposals included in the president's budget and broader tax plans.
This report examines four sets of provisions that would increase the top tax rates:
· The increase in the top two tax rates from 33 to 36 percent and from 35 to 39.6 percent.
· The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers (the "Pease" provision).
· The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6 percent and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20 percent.
· The increase in the 2.9 percent Medicare tax to 3.8 percent for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains.
-
These people know what they are talking about and i dont.
Sounds like a bad plan i agree.
-
BUMP FOR ROMNEYS TAXES
-
BUMP FOR ROMNEYS TAXES
why bother? You said by wednesday this will be out of the news. Just another 72 hours and nobody will be talking about his taxes, right?
-
why bother? You said by wednesday this will be out of the news. Just another 72 hours and nobody will be talking about his taxes, right?
LMFAO just b/c its dead in the national media doesnt mean you wont try and keep humping it on here...
So no comment on the topic of the thread?
-
LMFAO just b/c its dead in the national media doesnt mean you wont try and keep humping it on here...
So no comment on the topic of the thread?
hahah this wont even be news in a week you moron
THis should be off the news websites by Wednesday.
and if you'll notice, i've defended romney as not breaking any laws. It'd hurt him politically to release them, so he should not.
BUT
I do think they'll leak (from obama or someone on mccain campaign or someone who gets paid $$$) in october.
-
THis should be off the news websites by Wednesday.
and if you'll notice, i've defended romney as not breaking any laws. It'd hurt him politically to release them, so he should not.
BUT
I do think they'll leak (from obama or someone on mccain campaign or someone who gets paid $$$) in october.
"Lets focus on the issues" hahahahha
-
"Lets focus on the issues" hahahahha
attack the messenger, not the message, much?
-
"Lets focus on the issues" hahahahha
and yes, it IS an issue for many people.
Romney called himself a job creator - now we see he was attending board meetings and taking a bain paycheck during that huge outsourcing phase. He tried to get the "I created all these jobs, but missed out on all the outsourcing" card, which was bullshit.
And there ARE some voters who, if they read romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years and became a billionaire off of it, won't vote for him. There are.
-
and yes, it IS an issue for many people.
Romney called himself a job creator - now we see he was attending board meetings and taking a bain paycheck during that huge outsourcing phase. He tried to get the "I created all these jobs, but missed out on all the outsourcing" card, which was bullshit.
And there ARE some voters who, if they read romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years and became a billionaire off of it, won't vote for him. There are.
this has what to do with the topic of the thread?
-
Raising this thread like obama wants to raise taxes!!!
-
Raising this thread like obama wants to raise taxes!!!
don't hold your breath. I keep updating my misery index thread w serious articles on our dire situation and get little attention at all.
-
Read the whole article. It's hilarious. The Democrat response: "WWWAAAAHHH this was funded by Republicans! WWWAAAHHH this report's methodology is biased!!! (how?) WAAAAHHH the rich need to contribute more to deficit reduction!!!!! (don't they already?)"
-
Read the whole article. It's hilarious. The Democrat response: "WWWAAAAHHH this was funded by Republicans! WWWAAAHHH this report's methodology is biased!!! (how?) WAAAAHHH the rich need to contribute more to deficit reduction!!!!! (don't they already?)"
Notice obamas shell game - he says the rich should pay more so we can "invest" more. He has zero plans to reduce the debt or deficit.
-
Read the whole article. It's hilarious. The Democrat response: "WWWAAAAHHH this was funded by Republicans! WWWAAAHHH this report's methodology is biased!!! (how?) WAAAAHHH the rich need to contribute more to deficit reduction!!!!! (don't they already?)"
uuuuhhhhh.......NO.
-
uuuuhhhhh.......NO.
Lol.
-
uuuuhhhhh.......NO.
+1 ;D
-
uuuuhhhhh.......NO.
ERRR WRONG: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1)
The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
-
ERRR WRONG: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1)
The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
You need the whole truth:
A number of studies by the US Department of Commerce, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and Internal Revenue Service, have found that the distribution of income in the United States — most commonly measured by household or individual — has become increasingly unequal since the 1970s.
One of the most recent and comprehensive studies on the change in income inequality in America was a 2011 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007". (It chose those two years because they both preceded an economic recession and so both were periods of "similar overall economic activity"[43]). The report found that real household income after federal taxes and including government transfers (payments from Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc.[44][45]) grew by 62%.
However, income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19 percent, just under 40% for the next 60 percent, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. "As a result of that uneven income growth," the report noted, "the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined … The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one-fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%." [46]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
-
ERRR WRONG: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1)
The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
As well it should be..I see nothing wrong with that...I also agree that the poor have to pay more as well..no one should get a free ride...we are all supposed to be in this together
-
You need the whole truth:
A number of studies by the US Department of Commerce, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and Internal Revenue Service, have found that the distribution of income in the United States — most commonly measured by household or individual — has become increasingly unequal since the 1970s.
One of the most recent and comprehensive studies on the change in income inequality in America was a 2011 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007". (It chose those two years because they both preceded an economic recession and so both were periods of "similar overall economic activity"[43]). The report found that real household income after federal taxes and including government transfers (payments from Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc.[44][45]) grew by 62%.
However, income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19 percent, just under 40% for the next 60 percent, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. "As a result of that uneven income growth," the report noted, "the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined … The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one-fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%." [46]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
nice post
-
You need the whole truth:
A number of studies by the US Department of Commerce, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and Internal Revenue Service, have found that the distribution of income in the United States — most commonly measured by household or individual — has become increasingly unequal since the 1970s.
One of the most recent and comprehensive studies on the change in income inequality in America was a 2011 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007". (It chose those two years because they both preceded an economic recession and so both were periods of "similar overall economic activity"[43]). The report found that real household income after federal taxes and including government transfers (payments from Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc.[44][45]) grew by 62%.
However, income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19 percent, just under 40% for the next 60 percent, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. "As a result of that uneven income growth," the report noted, "the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined … The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one-fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%." [46]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
So?
-
As well it should be..I see nothing wrong with that...I also agree that the poor have to pay more as well..no one should get a free ride...we are all supposed to be in this together
So your belief that the rich don't pay their fair share is wrong.
Total government spending has risen from $3.7 trillion in 2002 to $6.3 trillion in 2012 without any increase in the quality of government services. To claim that anyone should be paying more is pure nonsense.
-
So your belief that the rich don't pay their fair share is wrong.
Total government spending has risen from $3.7 trillion in 2002 to $6.3 trillion in 2012 without any increase in the quality of government services. To claim that anyone should be paying more is pure nonsense.
Howard - these are communists you are dealing with.
Whenever one points out that a heavy progressive income tax is part of the communist manifesto, they simply shrug it off.
-
Bump for the issues everyone are so fond of ;)
one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world says obamas plan could cost 700k jobs.
who needs outsourcing when we have a president advocating this?
-
they're all funded by billionaires. i read that 42 billionaires have donated to Romney, and 30 billionaires have donated to obama.
-
So your belief that the rich don't pay their fair share is wrong.
Total government spending has risen from $3.7 trillion in 2002 to $6.3 trillion in 2012 without any increase in the quality of government services. To claim that anyone should be paying more is pure nonsense.
First of all I respect the rich just as I do the poor...no one wants to see anyone get soaked, but believe me the rich have gotten so much richer over the past few years they can afford it easily....and traditionally anytime the gov't is broke it has gotten income from the rich and corporations.....you take money from where you can get it....but again the poor have to pay as well....
the rich have done a wonderful job of brainwashing people like you into believing that they are paying too much......they say they create jobs and this and that...so what???....they create jobs so that THEY CAN GET RICH.....they benefit as well as the public
-
Howard - these are communists you are dealing with.
Whenever one points out that a heavy progressive income tax is part of the communist manifesto, they simply shrug it off.
dude ..are you 60 years old>>>???..no one uses the word "communist" anymore......get a grip..you're living in the past
-
Andre so let me get this straight, you would still want to see taxes raised even if it meant losing 700k jobs?
-
Andre so let me get this straight, you would still want to see taxes raised even if it meant losing 700k jobs?
Yes...because we are headed down the wrong path and we have to right the ship as soon as possible,.......those 700,000 jobs mean nothing if we continue to go deeper in the whole...we have to close loopholes, raise taxes, reform the tax code, and get much more revenue into the federal coffers to right this deficit we have...also entitlements must be shrunk and fed spending has to be cut or frozen
-
First of all I respect the rich just as I do the poor...no one wants to see anyone get soaked, but believe me the rich have gotten so much richer over the past few years they can afford it easily....and traditionally anytime the gov't is broke it has gotten income from the rich and corporations.....you take money from where you can get it....but again the poor have to pay as well....
the rich have done a wonderful job of brainwashing people like you into believing that they are paying too much......they say they create jobs and this and that...so what???....they create jobs so that THEY CAN GET RICH.....they benefit as well as the public
You hit the nail on the head: the wealthy got that way by doing things that benefit the public. And yet you want to punish the productive activity that provides society with houses, cars, computers, and all of the other amenities of modern life. In effect, you are purposefully advocating for reducing the overall welfare of society in order to bring on more equality. That is truly despicable.
-
You hit the nail on the head: the wealthy got that way by doing things that benefit the public. And yet you want to punish the productive activity that provides society with houses, cars, computers, and all of the other amenities of modern life. In effect, you are purposefully advocating for reducing the overall welfare of society in order to bring on more equality. That is truly despicable.
Like I said - these are communists at heart.
-
Yes...because we are headed down the wrong path and we have to right the ship as soon as possible,.......those 700,000 jobs mean nothing if we continue to go deeper in the whole...we have to close loopholes, raise taxes, reform the tax code, and get much more revenue into the federal coffers to right this deficit we have...also entitlements must be shrunk and fed spending has to be cut or frozen
First of all, your approach of increasing spending and raising taxes during weak economic times has been tried... by Hoover and FDR - and it created a 15 year depression.
Secondly, I repeat this factoid:
Total government spending has risen from $3.7 trillion in 2002 to $6.3 trillion in 2012 without any increase in the quality of government services.
It's time to cut spending, shrink government, and return the people their stolen money.
-
Like I said - these are communists at heart.
Yup. Brainwashed by years of indoctrination in government schools. Scary.
-
Yup. Brainwashed by years of indoctrination in government schools. Scary.
Brainwashed by years of watching FOX and neo-con media. Scary indeed.
-
Brainwashed by years of watching FOX and neo-con media. Scary indeed.
More like years of keeping the TV and radio shut off and reading economics and political philosophy.
Now answer me - why raise taxes when your approach of increasing spending and raising taxes has failed (see: Great Depression, Japan's Lost Decade, the current Great Recession) while the alternative approach of slashing spending, cutting taxes, and allowing the money supply to shrink has worked (see: the Depression of 1920 (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/notsogreat-depression))?
-
Yes...because we are headed down the wrong path and we have to right the ship as soon as possible,.......those 700,000 jobs mean nothing if we continue to go deeper in the whole...we have to close loopholes, raise taxes, reform the tax code, and get much more revenue into the federal coffers to right this deficit we have...also entitlements must be shrunk and fed spending has to be cut or frozen
the proposed tax raises would only fund the govt for a few weeks.
even if we took all the rich made we would still be in debt.
We need to cut spending much much much more than we need to raise taxes.
lets get the spending under control first and then worry about trying to take money away from ppl who have earned it
doesnt that sound like a good plan andre?
-
More like years of keeping the TV and radio shut off and reading economics and political philosophy.
Now answer me - why raise taxes when your approach of increasing spending and raising taxes has failed (see: Great Depression, Japan's Lost Decade, the current Great Recession) while the alternative approach of slashing spending, cutting taxes, and allowing the money supply to shrink has worked (see: the Depression of 1920 (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/notsogreat-depression))?
Because we are nr. 64 when it comes to income equality in the world. And we are the richest country in the world.
Raise taxes on the rich we need the cash
-
Because we are nr. 64 when it comes to income equality in the world. And we are the richest country in the world.
Raise taxes on the rich we need the cash
So your goal is to make rich poorer while doing nothing for the business environment?
-
So your goal is to make rich poorer while doing nothing for the business environment?
Nope use the money to give the middle class tax cuts
and cut spending of course.
-
Nope use the money to give the middle class tax cuts
and cut spending of course.
50% pay nothing at all now
-
the proposed tax raises would only fund the govt for a few weeks.
even if we took all the rich made we would still be in debt.
We need to cut spending much much much more than we need to raise taxes.
lets get the spending under control first and then worry about trying to take money away from ppl who have earned it
doesnt that sound like a good plan andre?
bump for whork
-
Because we are nr. 64 when it comes to income equality in the world. And we are the richest country in the world.
Raise taxes on the rich we need the cash
Have you ever thought about how wealth is created?
There's no static income pie you can simply slice up differently in order to redistribute wealth. The more you raise taxes on ANY group, the more you punish the productive activities that create more wealth - activities like working, saving, investing, starting a new business, creating new products, conducting research, etc.
The reason why we have high income inequality is precisely because of our wealth. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs create a lot of wealth and thus get really rich. If you were to raise taxes on wealth-creation, then you'd get less wealth created and thus have less to redistribute.
And here's an example of how fucked up things are today - if you start a company with three other friends and that company brings in $1 million per year in profits but you guys keep reinvesting the profits for continued growth - you and your friends will be paying nearly a 40% tax rate on your income taxes because those profits count as being distributed to you (even though they were reinvested). And that doesn't count all of the other absurd taxes - like payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes - that your business would have to pay.
It should be rather obvious that government needs to cut spending in order to balance the budget while being able to cut the ridiculously burdensome level of taxation.
People are seriously hurting because of the way the left, the interest groups, and the Democrats advocate running the country. The government needs to be seriously shrunk and scaled back across the board if we want to see economic growth and job creation get back on track.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gop-continue-confrontation-taxes-100610050.html
I guess obama and his admin know better than Ernst and Young one the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gop-continue-confrontation-taxes-100610050.html
I guess obama and his admin know better than Ernst and Young one the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world.
Obama does not care! He already is on record as much w regard to the capital gains tax.
-
(http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1207/obama-the-anti-midas-obama-politics-1342067706.jpg)
-
50% pay nothing at all now
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/89076/the-tax-freeloader-myth
You live on a lie homie
-
In reply to Howard:
I dont agree.
What has happened the last 20 years is that the rich have gotton richer and the poor poorer.
A main contributor to this is the outsourcing that moves american jobs overseas.
Therefore the poor doesnt have the jobs to feed themselves and the rich stops being jobcreators.
I get your point and it was valid once but globalization has changed things
-
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/89076/the-tax-freeloader-myth
You live on a lie homie
50% pay no federal income tax whork thats not a lie...yes some pay other forms of taxes like payroll etc but so does everyone else who works...
-
the proposed tax raises would only fund the govt for a few weeks.
even if we took all the rich made we would still be in debt.
We need to cut spending much much much more than we need to raise taxes.
lets get the spending under control first and then worry about trying to take money away from ppl who have earned it
doesnt that sound like a good plan?
bump for andre or whork, why are you two ignoring this?
-
50% pay no federal income tax whork thats not a lie...yes some pay other forms of taxes like payroll etc but so does everyone else who works...
•Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In a year like 2009, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
•Moreover, low-income households as a whole do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households as a group paid an average of 4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007 (the latest year for which these data are available), not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are — the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
•Even these figures understate low-income households’ total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.
•When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent.
-
bump for andre or whork, why are you two ignoring this?
I cant keep up sorry:)
What was the question?
-
•Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In a year like 2009, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
•Moreover, low-income households as a whole do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households as a group paid an average of 4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007 (the latest year for which these data are available), not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are — the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
•Even these figures understate low-income households’ total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.
•When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent.
so you agree now that 50% of households pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX?
I dont believe I ever said they dont pay taxes at all did I?
if not then why are you bringing this up? to deflect from the fact that 50% of households pay no federal income tax?
-
In reply to Howard:
I dont agree.
What has happened the last 20 years is that the rich have gotton richer and the poor poorer.
A main contributor to this is the outsourcing that moves american jobs overseas.
Therefore the poor doesnt have the jobs to feed themselves and the rich stops being jobcreators.
I get your point and it was valid once but globalization has changed things
What you claim is factually incorrect:
-
bump for andre or whork, why are you two ignoring this?
Not ignoring this as at all..as I stated in another thread, no one is saying that just taxing the rich alone can run the federal gov't....what happens however is that all of that lost revenue that the rich should be paying has to be made up somehow....and guess how thats done???,,,through BORROWING...with millions upon billions of interest payments....thats the toll that underfunding the gov't takes on the treasury
-
Not ignoring this as at all..as I stated in another thread, no one is saying that just taxing the rich alone can run the federal gov't....what happens however is that all of that lost revenue that the rich should be paying has to be made up somehow....and guess how thats done???,,,through BORROWING...with millions upon billions of interest payments....thats the toll that underfunding the gov't takes on the treasury
What about overspending ?
-
Not ignoring this as at all..as I stated in another thread, no one is saying that just taxing the rich alone can run the federal gov't....what happens however is that all of that lost revenue that the rich should be paying has to be made up somehow....and guess how thats done???,,,through BORROWING...with millions upon billions of interest payments....thats the toll that underfunding the gov't takes on the treasury
you do realize that even if we took all their assets it would only fund the govt for like half a year?
The MAIN PROBLEM is spending, not lack of revenues!!!
you agree with that andre?
If so why not act to severly cut spending?
-
you do realize that even if we took all their assets it would only fund the govt for like half a year?
The MAIN PROBLEM is spending, not lack of revenues!!!
you agree with that andre?
If so why not act to severly cut spending?
actually I DO AGREE that spending needs to be cut...but I'm realistic enough to not spend too much time on this.....because it is very difficult to cut spending......inflation,....a growing population which means more and more people need to be taken care of ....and the politicians who keep spending going up because they promise the moon to the voters when they are trying to get elected and must fulfill those promises (which cost money) in order to be re-elected.....
-
actually I DO AGREE that spending needs to be cut...but I'm realistic enough to not spend too much time on this.....because it is very difficult to cut spending......inflation,....a growing population which means more and more people need to be taken care of ....and the politicians who keep spending going up because they promise the moon to the voters when they are trying to get elected and must fulfill those promises (which cost money) in order to be re-elected.....
so your answer is to keep increasing and increasing the amount we tax ppl?
you do know that sooner or later we will run out of ppl to tax right?
-
so your answer is to keep increasing and increasing the amount we tax ppl?
you do know that sooner or later we will run out of ppl to tax right?
YES ..of course....but the politicians do not care and they can't control themselves....look how they are now trying to find away around the automatic spending cuts that will take place by the end of the year.....
-
YES ..of course....but the politicians do not care and they can't control themselves....look how they are now trying to find away around the automatic spending cuts that will take place by the end of the year.....
So instead of putting a stop to the wild spending of politicians by adopting the Romney-Ryan-Wyden budget plan, or better yet the Rand Paul budget plan, you simply propose increasing spending more and more because that's what's easy for politicians? You do realize that the more tax money the politicians get the more they'll spend right?!? That's why Obama's budget plan NEVER balances the budget, whereas Romney's does.
-
What you claim is factually incorrect:
Not really. He says the poor and the rich have gotten richer individually because we all have gotten richer. However the rich is sitting on more and more of the total income. That means that % wise the rich sit on a bigger part of the cake than before. So why should they not pay more of that in taxes?
-
so you agree now that 50% of households pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX?
I dont believe I ever said they dont pay taxes at all did I?
if not then why are you bringing this up? to deflect from the fact that 50% of households pay no federal income tax?
Try reading it again.
Its not 50% and even then its elderly and children. You want to cut taxes for rich and impose them on old and children instead?
-
Try reading it again.
Its not 50% and even then its elderly and children. You want to cut taxes for rich and impose them on old and children instead?
LMFAO I did read it, I posted a quote DIRECTLY FROM IT...
this is just like the other thread where you said your link said something it didnt, its becoming a tactic of yours whork.
so now that you accept that 50% dont pay federal income tax youre trying to justify it?
cool, real cool
I want to cut taxes for everyone as raising them wont do shit for the deficit, only cutting spending will make a real impact.
But if you want to act like this is all in "fairness" dont you believe that everybody should have some skin in the game? otherwise those that dont will always simply vote to raise taxes on those that already pay the vast majority of the taxes collected in this country.
-
So instead of putting a stop to the wild spending of politicians by adopting the Romney-Ryan-Wyden budget plan, or better yet the Rand Paul budget plan, you simply propose increasing spending more and more because that's what's easy for politicians? You do realize that the more tax money the politicians get the more they'll spend right?!? That's why Obama's budget plan NEVER balances the budget, whereas Romney's does.
dude...I never said that I propose more spending..I have said that its a fact of life.....and even if that Rand proposal is enacted the gov't will still find a way around it...they always do....also do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE Romney is going to balance the budget?????????...if so, then you are really nuts
-
dude...I never said that I propose more spending..I have said that its a fact of life.....and even if that Rand proposal is enacted the gov't will still find a way around it...they always do....also do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE Romney is going to balance the budget?????????...if so, then you are really nuts
The bill that he endorsed and that the Republican leadership crafted and that passed the House with an overwhelming majority balances the budget by 2030. Obama and the Democrats, on the other hand, haven't offered ANY plans for reducing the deficit and eventually balancing the budget.
And what's the fact of life? If government gets more revenue, then it'll find a way to spend it. Raising taxes doesn't do jack shit for reducing budget deficits.
And while we're at it, here's a study by two Harvard economists showing that tax cuts are a superior economic stimulus compared to spending increases and that balancing the budget by cutting spending is better than doing the same by raising taxes: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438)
-
YAY ISSUES!!!!
obama still pushing a tax plan that one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world says could cost us 700K jobs!!!
-
Who needs jobs, "the private sector is doing fine" right?
-
Bump for the ISSUES!!!
is this a case where the end justifies the means?
-
700K jobs lost on top of the increasing unemployment rate...
"private sector is doing just fine"!!!
-
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/427525_10151061121548864_1853262725_n.jpg)
Lies?
-
:)
Lol. Look at the scaling manipulation.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/427525_10151061121548864_1853262725_n.jpg)
Lies?
-
:)
Lol. Look at the scaling manipulation.
You mean because they don't show before that time?
Well, I thought we all knew there were lots of jobs and low UE at that time.
-
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/427525_10151061121548864_1853262725_n.jpg)
Lies?
Not quite sure why you posted this in this thread
creating jobs is not the only thing that effects unemployment
the economy added jobs this month but the unemployment number still rose due to other factors.
-
Not quite sure why you posted this in this thread
creating jobs is not the only thing that effects unemployment
the economy added jobs this month but the unemployment number still rose due to other factors.
I thought it was all about job creation though... Isn't that what everyone keeps harping on?
Obviously job retention is a big part of it, but you gotta have a job available in the first place.
Personally, I think UE is a bullshit number... Not just because it's faked by everyone, but also because I believe that business hire enough people to do the job they need done... No more and no less.
-
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/427525_10151061121548864_1853262725_n.jpg)
Lies?
I bet if this chart was reversed, it'd be the first thing 333386 posted every morning.
-
I thought it was all about job creation though... Isn't that what everyone keeps harping on?
Obviously job retention is a big part of it, but you gotta have a job available in the first place.
Personally, I think UE is a bullshit number... Not just because it's faked by everyone, but also because I believe that business hire enough people to do the job they need done... No more and no less.
if job creation doesnt outpace factors like lost jobs and labor participation what does it matter?
thats why you can have a positivie job number and an increase in unemployment like we did today...
I can agree on that I think businesses have become more aware of the waste they had and cut the fat often times to much like in my company.
The issue also is that businesses arent taking the risks right now b/c of alot of the uncertainty in their outlooks on everything from labor costs to demand.
-
if job creation doesnt outpace factors like lost jobs and labor participation what does it matter?
thats why you can have a positivie job number and an increase in unemployment like we did today...
I can agree on that I think businesses have become more aware of the waste they had and cut the fat often times to much like in my company.
The issue also is that businesses arent taking the risks right now b/c of alot of the uncertainty in their outlooks on everything from labor costs to demand.
I would agree to some extent, but there are a LOT of businesses who are taking risks still... Not as many during the .com bubble or the housing bubble, but those were just that... bubbles.
I believe that if you have a skill of some sort and are willing to work hard to develop that skill, then you will find success.
-
I would agree to some extent, but there are a LOT of businesses who are taking risks still... Not as many during the .com bubble or the housing bubble, but those were just that... bubbles.
I believe that if you have a skill of some sort and are willing to work hard to develop that skill, then you will find success.
I agree with you on this but would add you have to be flexible.
You need to be willing to relocate, take a position that may not be everything youre looking for in regards to pay/benefits etc.
-
I agree with you on this but would add you have to be flexible.
You need to be willing to relocate, take a position that may not be everything youre looking for in regards to pay/benefits etc.
Isn't that what being self sufficient is all about? That's what adults do.
-
Isn't that what being self sufficient is all about? That's what adults do.
Totally agree but the fact remains there are tons of "adults" that dont do this.
Some b/c it is financially hard and some b/c they just refuse to move
-
Totally agree but the fact remains there are tons of "adults" that dont do this.
Some b/c it is financially hard and some b/c they just refuse to move
I know a PHD Chemical Engineer who lost his job (after about 3 years since he graduated) and he says he couldn't find a job.
I call bullshit... He just refused to move.
I have moved across the country and would move even farther if that's what it took.
-
I know a PHD Chemical Engineer who lost his job (after about 3 years since he graduated) and he says he couldn't find a job.
I call bullshit... He just refused to move.
I have moved across the country and would move even farther if that's what it took.
I agree, I was getting ready to move to Clovis, New Mexico before I found work in Houston.
CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO!!!! LMFAO
you have to be willing to do what it takes. I will say it would have been easier for me not being married and having no kids but still.
-
I agree, I was getting ready to move to Clovis, New Mexico before I found work in Houston.
CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO!!!! LMFAO
you have to be willing to do what it takes. I will say it would have been easier for me not being married and having no kids but still.
Fuck that shit... If your kids want to eat, they're gonna move with you... same for some wife.
If she likes the pay you bring in, she'll move her ass wherever it takes and be damn happy about it.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/study-says-obama-tax-proposals-could-cost-700-145037841.html
Here is what the accounting firm concluded would happen:
· Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, in today's economy.
· Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5 percent, or roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today's
economy.
· Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively.
· Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8 percent, reflecting a decline in workers' living standards
relative to what would have occurred otherwise.
why didn't you post the full article ?
here are a few salient points worth noting
Republican House Speaker John Boehner hammered President Barack Obama on Tuesday after accounting firm Ernst and Young released a study funded by pro-business groups hostile to the Democrat's agenda
But Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democratic member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, blasted the report
"The study's bias is obvious, its methodology is flawed and its purpose is clear: Republicans are seeking every opportunity to repeat a tired and discredited claim about small businesses in an effort to protect the highest earners from contributing toward deficit reduction," Levin said in a statement.
"The fact is that extending the high-income tax cuts would cost $850 billion and it is far past time for Republicans to join with Democrats in asking the very wealthiest to contribute toward deficit reduction," Levin said.
One flaw, according to Levin: The report allows for two possible uses for the revenues generated by allowing the high-bracket tax cuts to lapse—more government spending, or returning the money to the public "through an across-the-board reduction in tax rates." But Levin said: "The president has made clear this revenue should be used for deficit reduction."
-
LOL I linked it and was asked for specific points...
So I guess youre saying that Ernst and Young one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the country is now biased too? they are the ones who conducted the assesment not the ppl who funded it!!!
Please explain how their methodolgy is flawed.
and how is deficit reduction going to help job creation right now?
arent liberals always talking about how the govt needs to stimulate the economy with money?
thats what EY put in their assesment
-
LOL I linked it and was asked for specific points...
So I guess youre saying that Ernst and Young one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the country is now biased too? they are the ones who conducted the assesment not the ppl who funded it!!!
Please explain how their methodolgy is flawed.
and how is deficit reduction going to help job creation right now?
arent liberals always talking about how the govt needs to stimulate the economy with money?
thats what EY put in their assesment
what makes you think they are not capable of creating a biased report, especially when they are being paid to produce one?
Are you familiar with the recent history of the big accounting firms?
-
what makes you think they are not capable of creating a biased report, especially when they are being paid to produce one?
Are you familiar with the recent history of the big accounting firms?
I never said they werent capable only that its not probable.
They are one of the most respected firms IN THE WORLD, not just the US...THE WORLD...
what cause to you have to believe their methodolgy was biased, not the ppl who funded the study?
if all you have is the ppl who funded it are biased so that makes them biased how can you take anything seriously about the tax shit with romney?
-
I never said they werent capable only that its not probable.
They are one of the most respected firms IN THE WORLD, not just the US...THE WORLD...
what cause to you have to believe their methodolgy was biased, not the ppl who funded the study?
if all you have is the ppl who funded it are biased so that makes them biased how can you take anything seriously about the tax shit with romney?
the "cause" of my suspicioun of bias is in the article you posted
I assume "the tax shit with Romney" either refers to his refusal to show his tax returns or his nebulous deficit reduction/tax reform plan.....or something else?
?
-
the "cause" of my suspicioun of bias is in the article you posted
I assume "the tax shit with Romney" either refers to his refusal to show his tax returns or his nebulous deficit reduction/tax reform plan.....or something else?
?
yes straw i figured that much my question was what within the article causes you to believe the study itself is biased?