- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 3, 2011 at 8:28 pm #738391
BostonmanMemberDP:
Could happen provided NAFTA is disolved. I think given the wage scale difference between manufacturing in Mexico versus the US it would have to be one heck of a tarrif.
That being said, sure I can see that possibility. I think repealing NAFTA would cost huge political capital though.
November 3, 2011 at 10:40 pm #738392
DBPMemberIn a global economy, our factories just can’t compete anymore. That’s why we developed into a service and intellectual property economy and left the manufacturing jobs to other countries. Unfortunately, Starbucks and Hollywood don’t spread as much wealth around as the carmakers used to. And you certainly can’t trade a Seattle latte for a Chinese toaster. Therefore, for our own national security, I think we should try to get back to making stuff here. And that’s going to take tariffs, which will hurt American consumers (at first) but will help American workers.
Also on the topic of how best to make jobs, here’s something the government did that I really liked. In the first year of the Obama presidency, there were big rebates for “going green.” (Remember?) In 2009, the government was offering a $2,000 tax rebate for folks who could plunk down the money to buy new, more efficient furnaces.
Well, that rebate was enough to motivate me to replace my old oil burner with a MADE IN USA Lennox high-efficiency heat pump.
I saved money on the deal — both in taxes and in heating costs — and an American company (Lennox) sold a unit that they otherwise wouldn’t have.
Yeah, the government lost some tax revenue on it, but I happen to think it was a great investment, and it might even net the govt. more tax $$$ in the long run.
So that is my idea of a good incentive program, of the kind my friend redblack mentioned.
Unfortunately, Obama didn’t give this program the ‘mmph it really needed to take off (typical!), and meanwhile, his presidency has been hijacked by other issues.
Anyway, the incentives thing seems like something both Dems and Repubs could agree on. It needs to be managed better, of course (no more Solyndras!) but I see no reason why it wouldn’t work.
November 3, 2011 at 11:19 pm #738393
BostonmanMemberI agree, I would love more incentives to the individual taxpayer for greener items. Solar panels on homes, hybrid cars, energy efficient heating. The list goes on and on. Definitly something I could support.
November 4, 2011 at 2:50 am #738394
blackwatchMemberI thought the ” don’t tax the rich they create the jobs” myth was debunked. It’s been out for a while that no they haven’t been creating jobs, they’ve been using that money to speculate on the stock market and buy more summer homes, so please stop using that argument.
I just can’t get over the selfish, mean spirit, that would allow suffering at the low end to allow the high end endless wealth, I just don’t get it, and much of the world doesn’t get it either. And you can argue all you want but it’s a morally indefensible position. Because I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it, whether you’re rich or poor, much of what you have is the result of LUCK and because of that you shouldn’t punish the unlucky or paint them all out to be lazy. It’s a matter of how good you are with what you’re given, and some are really good at it and some aren’t, but it’s no reason to make the unLUCKY suffer, and it’s mean spirited and selfish to do that.
And you can argue all you want about “Obamacare” But it’s amazing that anything got passed at all with all the industry money fighting any Healthcare bill at all getting through and all the unwitting people arguing against they’re own self interest. It’s not perfect because the powers that be would not allow it to be perfect. We need single payer , universal health care and anything other than that is a crime, simply put.
Who do we want to be as Americans? The ONLY major country that doesn’t have universal health care for all it’s citizens. I’ll say it one more time to let it sink in, It’s mean spirited and selfish……….and totally unacceptable
I’ll see you all out marching on Saturday…….
November 4, 2011 at 4:28 am #738395
kootchmanMemberConfiscating other peoples wealth is immoral. Sorry I’ve been in this rodeo too long to not laugh at success is mostly luck.. that is a fantasy statement. How’s the expression go? The harder I worked the luckier I got…. ? It’s not mean spirited to survey the landscape, see the explosive rise and bust in housing, the explosive rising in costs of higher education .. everytime government gets it’s nose in essential business and services. You want the services… you just want others to pay for them. Wow.. now that is the highest form of alturism… I loved the sacrifices you offered. Flat tax… then we will see your moral relativism in full expression.
November 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm #738396
JoBParticipantkootch…
No-one is confiscating anyone else’s wealth.
they are simply asking them to pay the same taxes the rest of us pay when we generate wealth.
you know that old saying
fool me once
shame on you
fool me twice
shame on me
well the tax holiday thing has been tried in these United States with the excuse that it would generate jobs.
the opposite happened.
shame on those who lied to get us to help them avoid the taxes the rest of us pay.
shame on us if we let them do it again.
November 4, 2011 at 5:18 pm #738397
JoBParticipantkootch..
btw.. you do understand that a flat tax would lower the tax obligations of the top earners while increasing that of the middle class, don’t you?
if you don’t, do some research. the information is as available as your keyboard.
you also understand that it would lower total tax revenue, don’t you?
Again, if you have questions do the research.
So you think it’s fair to lower the tax burden on top earners while increasing it on low income and middle income earners and decrease tax revenue so there is less money available to fund programs like social security and medicare and …. ?
is there where i should mention roads and bridges and airports and … ?
because even if you can afford the tolls being proposed as funding… you will still pay the increased cost of transporting goods every time you go to the supermarket or order something online to be delivered or …
I will admit that there is one group that a flat tax would be really fair to.. the upper middle class who shoulder the biggest burden now…
I suppose i should be for it…
but i can’t get past that pesky fundamental difference between self interest and fairness.
it is not an advantage to be ethical in today’s winner takes all the means justify the end society.
but being ethical and honest and fair and compassionate does make me feel better at the end of the day.
that’s a kind of self interest that is too often overlooked.
November 5, 2011 at 6:01 pm #738398
blackwatchMemberBut Kootch, you prove my point. Why is it only some are born with the brains to look at that landscape and see opportunity? They were lucky enough to be born with brains, or a body that works, or the right color of their skin, etc…..Or born into an environment where they were taught to succeed.
Not to say you shouldn’t take responsibility for your own life, but to use this argument to argue against helping people who are sick or need healthcare? Or to argue against a form of government that helps it’s “unluckiest” members? The field is not level, on first glance it appears that way, but the more you see it the more slanted it becomes.
And but for the Grace of “LUCK” go I.
November 6, 2011 at 2:45 am #738399
JoBParticipantBlackwatch…
some people think the luck factor makes people vote against their own interests because they think they will somehow win that lottery and luck out.
i think it makes people vote against their own interests because of their fear that their luck may not hold out
so they have to get everything they can as fast as they can will they are still one of the almost haves.
November 6, 2011 at 7:56 am #738400
kootchmanMemberJoB you contradict yourself between two consecutive posts.
“No-one is confiscating anyone else’s wealth.
they are simply asking them to pay the same taxes the rest of us pay when we generate wealth.”
A flat tax does that. 15% is 15% no matter how hard you try the multiplicative effect remains the same no. Then you say…
“btw.. you do understand that a flat tax would lower the tax obligations of the top earners while increasing that of the middle class, don’t you?”
So? How about this? Balance the budget. THEN if there is a surplus, we could means test. As far as local taxes.. tell the city council to stop pissing so much money down the drain. You all grandly support ever increasing wages and benefits and staffing growth of every city department.. and then cry the blues when asked to pay for it. If you want 8 million to pay for an arts council… great pay for it. That is why we will never have a state income tax… you will all make it so ” progressive” .. we are not going to build a utopian world on taxes. We have a rabble of voters who want more and more…but they want someone else to pay for it. My church says tithe..and suggests an amount. It does not give a progressive tithe rate. Funny how that works.. they sure seem to get funded.. A LOT…in fact provides more shelter for the homeless than the city does… and supports an education system, second largest in the state, ….. somehow you feel better paying someone 120K working for the city that endlessly procrastinates … I watched the City Council debate N’ville…. the only thing I got from that? Lotta salaries being paid to do nothing… but god can they study the issue.
November 6, 2011 at 8:00 am #738401
kootchmanMemberNovember 6, 2011 at 8:12 am #738402
kootchmanMemberDidi a little research… I sorta scored myself on how well I dodge the tax bullet. Legally. My highest earning income year?.. It was also the year I paid less than 8%… and damned if I didn’t get an audit…which was even BETTER…. cause I got to expense a capital equipment purchase as an expense…if I hadn’t gotyen the audit.. I would have missed it. I wondered at the time who paid off what congressperson, a Democrat in an automotive district? Or a Republican Senator in TN… makes no difference. The sugar cookies wil always go yo whomever pays the baker. Hell, I;ve seen campaign donations where both the Democrats and the Republican have both gotten from one party and rough parity. Watch the oil sands pipeline…labor supports it, environmentalists don’t… now who is going to win? The bigger war chest. Won’t this be the irony? The Messiah duping and wasting “green” dollars for the votes of matrons of the environment … will have to approve it for for big labor. Now that is a spin I want to see. He will find a way to blame it on Bush I am sure.
November 6, 2011 at 9:53 am #738403
JanSParticipantwho’s Didi?
November 6, 2011 at 12:38 pm #738404
kootchmanMemberDid a
Just saw the polls. Obama tosses the environmentalists under the bus. The 12 swing states are trending harder away from him. Union States. So the thread “Untaxed Wealth Creates Jobs” … its a myth.. but the fairly tale you can tax your way to prosperity doesn’t seem to be a bedtime story for the electorate either. Pay off the credit card debts, give businesses a reasonable planning horizon and cut back on the goodies. If we do cut off NAFTA…. better do a better job on border control… instead of suing SC, and AZ… The more he campaigns on his “tax the rich” class warfare program the worse it gets. Keep that bus chugging … the message is falling on deaf ears. Well, except in Seattle… the Kool Aid still flows.
?http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/191825-poll-tough-fight-for-obama-in-swing-states
“In addition, nearly 75 percent of voters in the 12 swing states said they aren’t happy with the direction of the country”
“Sixty percent of swing-state voters said they were worse off than they were three years ago, versus only 37 percent who said they were better off. This is in contrast to the non-swing states, where the ratio is 54 percent to 44 percent.”
This being the best”…. so much for the tax the rich to pay for my goodies mantra.
“Swing-state voters “overwhelmingly prefer a Republican candidate to handle the federal budget deficit and debt,” and also prefer an unnamed Republican candidate to handle unemployment, according to the poll. “
November 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm #738405
JoBParticipantkootch
I can show you how to balance the budget..
I can show you the untaxed wealth
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/
Now, you show me the jobs
November 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm #738406
redblackParticipantwhich was even BETTER…. cause I got to expense a capital equipment purchase as an expense
this was democrats’ gift to you. be sure to thank them.
November 6, 2011 at 8:22 pm #738407
JanSParticipantNovember 7, 2011 at 3:52 pm #738408
kootchmanMemberNo it was George Bush .. but I do thank Clinton.. I got a bite of another side of the apple.
November 7, 2011 at 3:53 pm #738409
kootchmanMemberIf it’s legal, it’s not dodging taxes. Citizens for Tax Justice? Good heavens JoB that’s like asking a pro-abortionist to visit the vatican web site for the authoritative statement on morality of choice. “Loopholes” is your congress and president at work … flat tax em all… eliminate the loopholes, simple enough. It’s in the fine print where governance is truly accomplished. Y’now there is so much howling at my anti-government spin… yet.. the loopholes, exceptions, favortism… all those things come from your super sugar daddy…I would prefer a tax code where I sign my name on a one-sided tax return. I had to file over 34 attachments… and I am filing as a sole proprietor..and need a CPA … and a tax planner. If you are content with that.. well, more of the same is fine with both sides of the congressional aisle. I like offshore retained earnings… you like windmill subsidies… someone will promise us either or even both…fact, if I go to a $1500 per plate dinner for old McDermott.. bet I can tell him in person.
November 7, 2011 at 4:11 pm #738410
kootchmanMemberThe Reuters report was dead on. So, tell me again why the CEO of General Electric is on Obama’s economic advisory panel?
November 7, 2011 at 7:06 pm #738411
DBPMemberThis doesn’t have to be that complicated.
All you gotta do is boil each proposition down to the essential question of: Who does this help and who does it hurt?
Supposing you like the answer you get on that one. The next thing you gotta ask is: Can it work?
***************************************************************************************
Subsidies: Windmills [sic] vs. Offshore Retained Earnings
IMO government SHOULD subsidize wind turbine production, because wind power is sustainable and producing the turbines will be good for our economy. In other words, wind turbines help America AND the planet.
If Obama gave out wind turbine money to companies that gave kickbacks or farmed work out to China, that was a mistake. OK, so we were on the right path but made a wrong step. Should we therefore give up on the whole idea of sustainable energy? C’mon, dude!
By contrast, I don’t see how kootchman’s “off-shore retained earnings” help the economy or the planet. But I’ll keep an open mind just in case he’d like to try and explain that one to us.
*************************************************************************************
Tax: Flat vs. Progressive
I’m right with you on the “loopholes are bad” argument. I’m also with you on the “taxes are too complicated” thing. Both are legitimate gripes.
But what are you proposing to replace that with? –A system in which a barista and a Starbucks executive pay the same share of their income?
On the face of it, that seems unfair, because a hundred dollars out of the barista’s pocket hurts more than a hundred THOUSAND out of the executive’s.
But I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. If you can convince me that the economy can be rescued by a flat tax of say 15% on ALL capital gains and earned income, with NO exemptions for anything, then I’ll consider it.
This flat tax idea has been proposed by Steve Forbes and others, but it’s never really taken off, even among conservatives. Herman Cain’s carrying the torch right now, but I gotta tell you that this guy’s credibility as a financial wizard is somewhat dubious.
*************************************************************************************
–David
November 7, 2011 at 7:18 pm #738412
JoBParticipantDBP…
here’s the rub…
those who want a flat tax want to exclude investment income of any kind…
they want that flat tax to apply only to wages
not business income
not investment income
not inherited income
thus.. the income paid by the top 1% would go down..
and the income tax paid by the bottom 1% would go up…
that bottom 1%, that’s the working poor who rely on food banks and foods tamps to feed their families and are now losing even subsidized homes because they can’t pay utility bills
the same folks who think a flat tax is equitable
thought utility subsidies an extravagance
are are trying to make it even harder to get food stamps:(
there is nothing equitable about the proposed flat tax.
November 7, 2011 at 8:05 pm #738413
DBPMemberWell, you’re right that it’s not equitable as you describe it, JoB, but I think you’re mischaracterizing the flat tax somewhat. True, Steve Forbes’ old plan excluded capital gains, but Cain’s doesn’t. Moreover, I’ve heard flat-tax people on this very forum say they think EVERYTHING should be taxed, including capital gains.
This is from Cain’s Web page:
9% Individual Flat Tax.
◦ Gross income less charitable deductions.
◦ Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone.
Note that it says “Gross Income” (not earned income). So this means capital gains like stock profits and real estate sales WOULD be taxed under Cain’s 9-9-9 flat tax plan.
Cain’s plan is not as simple as it could be, since it would still allow the “Empowerment Zone” deduction, which would be susceptible to scamming. His business tax would also be susceptible to scamming. Still, I like the general thinking behind Cain’s deductions; he’s trying to encourage reinvestment in the economy, particularly in some of the areas that need it most.
More: http://www.hermancain.com/999plan
Anyway, I’m for reinvestment. But I can’t say, in good conscience, that I’m for it when a liberal proposes it but against it when a conservative does.
November 8, 2011 at 4:17 am #738414
kootchmanMemberSo, in a hypothetical world, I earn 300K . I pay my tax liability. What’s left is mine. Now, I take that money, I invest in job creating company. I picked right, the company is successful, jobs were created. I sell those shares and get taxed again? Nuts to that. On the other hand, I take that very same revenue which I paid taxes on, and since it no longer has a tax liability attached to it, I send it offshore where it can grow and I can prosper and preserve earnings. Which would a sane investor do? Same with estate taxes. I work for the benefit of my family. Not you or yours. I paid my taxes on the earnings I made. I used the remainder to build a business. Now upon my death, you all think it should be thrown back into the “gimme gimme” pool? I earned it it, I built it and it is for my heirs and whatever dispositions i feel appropriate. Given the barrista logic then, you are telling me his/her citizenship is not worth the same as mine? That is the flaw of entitlement thinking. It is a disincentive to both parties. The entitled have less ambition to achieve more, the overtaxed look at the marginal rate of return on the effort exerted. Let’s take that logic forward.. my moving violation should cost more? My tolls on the bridge assessed more? “Equitable” is in your minds eye JoB… it is a creation of no substance. Your equitable is your compass to follow, it is not something to foist off on others. I will follow my own compass, thank-you. Or, lets weight votes by income… progressive elections, the more you pay in taxes the greater your vote counts? If ya pay 50K in taxes, your vote counts twice as much someone who pays 25K… why that seems equitable to me. If my citizenship is worth 15% of my earnings so should yours be. BTY, when you review Cains proposal…you discount the value that only NEW items are taxed. I buy a new car, I pay the 9% federal sales tax (actually a VAT) however, when I sell that as a used car..there is no VAT. I can be resold fifty times over with no sales tax. It’s the local government fees that are sucking the juice out of the poor. As I posted before, a $144 ticket will piss me off…it won’t mean no winter coat, new shoes. school supplies etc.
November 8, 2011 at 4:40 am #738415
kootchmanMemberIf wind turbines are economical, reliable, they deserve a position in the market. If not, it is a fraud. Now I see how our man of purpose, principal and substance is going to handle the Keystone pipeline…. he isn’t until AFTER the 2012 election…what a hack. I just saw the windmill farm on Indian Joe ridge… are you kidding me? Those views were sacrificed for that?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.