State of the Union!

[logamus]

Originally posted by Miscue
Now what is everyone else's excuse?

i am extremely lazy, combine that with not having a clue what i wanted to do when i grew up. thats my excuse. its ok, ups pays pretty good and they dont really care if you went to college these days.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Yeah, generally conservative tax cuts really only benefit the wealthy.

And a small business owner that pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes is what? Destitute?

Sales tax really isn't a federal issue, and Bush did lower the income taxes on most small business owners considerably.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Still, making things easier for those who have it easy doesn't seem right to me. I'm just saying that I believe people in lower classes should gain more than they do for the tax cuts.

How?

Most of the "lower income" people that Democrats are talking about already pay ZERO income tax or get money they never paid into the system back! How can getting money they never paid in be too much?

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Rooster
"Yeah, generally conservative tax cuts really only benefit the wealthy."

This is so unbeleiveably wrong, it makes me laugh. First of all, the upper income brackets pay far more in both actual dollars, and percentage wise, than any poor person. The only reason people want high taxes on the rich is becuase they desire income redistrabution, aka socialism. They are too lazy, or too stupid to make large amounts of money, and want someone else's hard earned cash to make their lives easier.

Of course, thats the Democrat's only selling point. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. It is a party of idiots and thives. However the fact that they will be embarassed so throughly and completely in 10 short months, almost makes their existance tolerable. What good is a victory, if there is nothing left of the enemy to gloat in front of?

It's too bad I never once said tax the rich more, but hey, thanks for trying.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


And a small business owner that pays HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes is what? Destitute?

Sales tax really isn't a federal issue, and Bush did lower the income taxes on most small business owners considerably.

I'm talking idividuals, not business.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


How?

Most of the "lower income" people that Democrats are talking about already pay ZERO income tax or get money they never paid into the system back! How can getting money they never paid in be too much?

I'm not talking about the Democrats. I was saying that tax cuts generally benefit the wealthy more than the middle class.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in welfare for everyone; I think it should be highly discriminatory.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


You have to pay taxes for a refund to impact you.

The child tax credit is $1000 per child now. It was raised from $600, so middle class Americans got another $400 per kid in relief.

My mistake, in previous posts when I said lower class I should have put lower classes, i.e. blue collar working man, not lazy bum mooching off wellfare.

[Rooster]

"except...they DO keep it...in bank accounts..to gather money...and they create new jobs as a VERY last resort (i.e. when the employees start becoming seriously disgruntled about working OT every day to meet the production needs of the company). the flaw in your logic is that you need more employees to produce more. you don't. you just need more hours from each employee, which is what companies use to fulfill their needs."

Trickle-down economics has absolutely nothing to do with job creation. There is no direct relationship. It is an economic stimulation. The economy rebounds, then jobs are created. Most business either directly invest in business, or they indirectly invest in business. Poor people buy consumer goods. If you have kept track of debt to income spending lately you would see that a slow economy barely slows consumer spending. People are still going to buy junk, tax credit or not. However a small percentage tax cut to a coorperation translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars freed up for direct investment. Hiring people is a very small part of the equation. It also includes restructuring liabilities and aquiring assets. Both of those actions generate dollars that are pumped into the economy. The simple fact is, the Scrooge-esque COE is a liberal fallacy invented to play upon the fears of blue-collar labor, so that they clamor for more cash, at the expense of another person. There is a simple saying in business; "grow or die". There is no other option otehr than reinvestment. A CEO can't sock billions upon billions of dollars in cash away and expect his business to survive. Btw, you say companies use more hours from their employees to keep going, who do you think is getting overtime? (And if your arguement is that their saleried, then they are fools, becuase a saleried person can't legally be forced to work more than 40 hours per week).

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
"except...they DO keep it...in bank accounts..to gather money...and they create new jobs as a VERY last resort (i.e. when the employees start becoming seriously disgruntled about working OT every day to meet the production needs of the company). the flaw in your logic is that you need more employees to produce more. you don't. you just need more hours from each employee, which is what companies use to fulfill their needs."

Trickle-down economics has absolutely nothing to do with job creation. There is no direct relationship. It is an economic stimulation. The economy rebounds, then jobs are created. Most business either directly invest in business, or they indirectly invest in business. Poor people buy consumer goods. If you have kept track of debt to income spending lately you would see that a slow economy barely slows consumer spending. People are still going to buy junk, tax credit or not. However a small percentage tax cut to a coorperation translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars freed up for direct investment. Hiring people is a very small part of the equation. It also includes restructuring liabilities and aquiring assets. Both of those actions generate dollars that are pumped into the economy. The simple fact is, the Scrooge-esque COE is a liberal fallacy invented to play upon the fears of blue-collar labor, so that they clamor for more cash, at the expense of another person. There is a simple saying in business; "grow or die". There is no other option otehr than reinvestment. A CEO can't sock billions upon billions of dollars in cash away and expect his business to survive. Btw, you say companies use more hours from their employees to keep going, who do you think is getting overtime? (And if your arguement is that their saleried, then they are fools, becuase a saleried person can't legally be forced to work more than 40 hours per week).

you're saying that there are NO scrooge-esque "COEs" (whatever that is)? LOOK AT ENRON. THERE IS BLATANT PROOF IT! THEY EVEN ADMITTED TO DOING IT!!!!!!!! HOW CAN YOU REFUTE THAT!

and no, you can't legally be forced to work more than 40 hours per week, but if you end up having to work two to three person's jobs in a project because they lost their jobs because of our economy, and you somehow CANT do it in 40 hours a week (for some strange reason)...you HAVE to work more than 40 hours a week, to get the job done. if you don't get the job done (even if it's unreasonable), you're liable to get fired. it isn't fair but it's how BUSINESS works. corporations really don't care about the little man, which is all-too evident. why should they care about the little man, cuz in the grand scheme of things, he is just a replacable cog in a money generating machine.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


I'm not talking about the Democrats. I was saying that tax cuts generally benefit the wealthy more than the middle class.

But you're completely wrong. Just assume that everyone gets a 5% cut, just for comparison. For a guys making $50,000 he'll get $2,500 back. In middle class terms that literally means that he can now lease a mid sized sedan for the entire year based solely on his tax cut. For somebody making say, $1,000,000 a year he'll back back $50,000, which is more but it has less significance.

Plus, that's not how tax cuts tend to work. The lower income brackets get a higher percentage cut and the higher gets a bigger dollar cut. Now, discounting the benefits to the middle class that you get by cutting the upper class we can't ignore the greater effect the higher percentage has on the lower income.

Plus, all the stock cuts that were made (capital gains and dividend) are not just rich cuts. Almost 60% of all American families are in the stock market, so that cut benefit them all.

[-Carnifex-]

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks Albino.

[Restola]

Originally posted by impostal22
and you somehow CANT do it in 40 hours a week (for some strange reason)...you HAVE to work more than 40 hours a week, to get the job done.

If 3 people working 40 hours/week couldn't do the work that 1 person can do in 50 hours/week...they deserved to get fired. And congrats to the guy who got to keep his job. He was doing something right. Sounds like your complaining about having to work hard for your pay.

Have you ever worked for a corporation? One large enough to not care about the replacable "cog"? (I've spent the last 3 years working for a company with 13,000 employees) Or is this all just based on what mommy and daddy said?

[Lohman446]

The danger of trickle down economics...

Here it is folks, what if companies reinvest in making themselves more effiecent (better equipment makes the same amount or more of goods with less workers). This is in fact what has happened. American manufacturing is not necessarily down as far as the jobless rate in that sector would indicate. The fact is though, we have come to a point, where we produce more with fewer workers. It was something few could have seen coming, but I think the backfiring of trickle down economics, the help the economy received in building, creating that machine, does not overcome the harm done by the loss of jobs to that machine.

This is why Mars is such a great goal, we have a goal taht will help invention and keep it, for a time, away from manufacturing (to some degree) - just my two cents.

[Restola]

lol...

Perhaps if the manufacturers existed in a vacuum.

[Rooster]

"you're saying that there are NO scrooge-esque "COEs" (whatever that is)? LOOK AT ENRON. THERE IS BLATANT PROOF IT! THEY EVEN ADMITTED TO DOING IT!!!!!!!! HOW CAN YOU REFUTE THAT"

First of all, Enron is alot more complicated than a one sentence post, which really shows how little you understand about it. To water it down to its lowest level, this is what happened. The CEO was not socking company money away into his own pocket, that can't happen in a cooperation, without board approval. There are too many controls. What did happen was that Enron execs knew the company was going under, and told no one. They quietly liquidated their assets against SEC rules. Their accountant helped them cover their tracks, and keep the business afloat for a little while on paper. Enron was far closer to a bank teller robbing their own bank after hours, than a president of a company socking away all the company profits. By the way, one is completely legal, the other is not. There is nothing illegal about an owner taking profits from a company for himself, as long as he pays taxes.