February 20, 200818 yr So???? You see no problem with this country heading in a socialist direction? I think there is a happy medium. In some regards, it would bother me. In other regards, it would not.
February 20, 200818 yr How about reducing the size and waste of government and overhauling the tax code? So going back to LBBC's post earlier about Shaq, do you feel that the government should take more money from him since he "wastes" money on some things that we feel are absurd? LBBC, are you referring to a higher luxury\consumption tax? The oppertunity is there by a free public education, what people choose to do with that education is their buisness. My friends do not get me wrong, if a person of faith gives, it should not be because of their Civic Duty, but because their Creator who has blessed each of us many times over has commanded usto do so and to do it with a grateful heart. Does this mean that we will be rich beyond my wildest dreams, not in the terms that you believe. I am to love my neighbor, I try, but has anyone ever heard of tough love? In the area that I am from, people do not work, mostly because they Choose not to because they will count on someone like you and me to pick the tab up. Is that right? What have they learned? What are they teaching their children? God does not want laziness and that is exactly what is being promoted, we are to work. There is a distinction between those who can and those who won't. I just think it is awful that we can not seprate(sp) the difference! Thoughts? This works if you really believe that compulsory education for the masses is designed to enable everyone to become "rags to riches millionaires". Wasn't the original plan of government controlled institutional education to produce good soldiers for the army, a more malleable citizenry and later, good cogs in the industrial\manufacturing wheel? Many believe it continues today. Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie and Sam Walton are the exceptions, not the norm. A great many people are born into segments of the population that severely limit or prohibit them from ever having much financial success. Real, substantial inter-class mobility is a well-loved, long-perpetuated myth. A MYTH.
February 20, 200818 yr Author So? You would prefer pure capitalism that those who are weak would be cast off as undesirables and not supported by it's country. Someone once said something to the effect of , if you want to judge a country's heart or character look at how it treats it's weak and elderly. I just don't feel the government should have a role in social welfare. I feel the government is big enough already. The more we tax those that produce, the more production will decrease. You do realize high income earners supply the majority of all jobs in the country? What happens when you raise taxes on those who produce? (probably the same thing that happens when you raise taxes on smokes.... the number of people doing it decreases.)
February 20, 200818 yr Unless it is the new math, yeah it is. So? No. Not when your wealth came because your last name is a certain name and you had the luck to be born into it. Or because you were born 7'2". This is a trait that the market says is worth alot. What is wrong with letting the market determining the value of such traits? People should now be punished because of thier last name? My point about the 20% it is rate that everyone pays and it stays the same period. No sliding scale, if people do move up in the world they are not punished? My question is this what is the incentive of making money if you get taxed higher and higher? My second question is this if their was a flat tax, would that not cause an incentive to people to try to better themselves, i.e. education, job promotion, work productivity?
February 20, 200818 yr How about reducing the size and waste of government and overhauling the tax code? LBBC, are you referring to a higher luxury\consumption tax? This works if you really believe that compulsory education for the masses is designed to enable everyone to become "rags to riches millionaires". Wasn't the original plan of government controlled institutional education to produce good soldiers for the army, a more malleable citizenry and later, good cogs in the industrial\manufacturing wheel? Many believe it continues today. Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie and Sam Walton are the exceptions, not the norm. A great many people are born into segments of the population that severely limit or prohibit them from ever having much financial success. Real, substantial inter-class mobility is a well-loved, long-perpetuated myth. A MYTH. I live in area highlighted above, however, do to student loans I was able to get out and break the cycle of proverty. Why? Because of an education. I believe that K-12 I agree with the first bolded part, however, at college, you pay for what you get.
February 20, 200818 yr I just don't feel the government should have a role in social welfare. I feel the government is big enough already. The more we tax those that produce, the more production will decrease. You do realize high income earners supply the majority of all jobs in the country? What happens when you raise taxes on those who produce? (probably the same thing that happens when you raise taxes on smokes.... the number of people doing it decreases.) I was always taught that small businesses provide the majority of the jobs.
February 20, 200818 yr Unless it is the new math, yeah it is. So? No. Not when your wealth came because your last name is a certain name and you had the luck to be born into it. Or because you were born 7'2". This is a trait that the market says is worth alot. What is wrong with letting the market determining the value of such traits? People should now be punished because of thier last name? My point about the 20% it is rate that everyone pays and it stays the same period. No sliding scale, if people do move up in the world they are not punished? My question is this what is the incentive of making money if you get taxed higher and higher? My second question is this if their was a flat tax, would that not cause an incentive to people to try to better themselves, i.e. education, job promotion, work productivity? Glass half empty, punished. Glass half full, greater responsibility to society. If paying less taxes is the incentive to people to try and better themselves, than we have a messed up country. A sliding scale should not take away incentive. Totally for example, a family earning less than $100,000 could pay %15% and be left with $85,000. A person earning $1,000,000 might pay 35% or left with $650,000. Where is the incentive taking away? Just because they pay $335,000 more in taxes they are not going to want the $565,000 more in income???? If they are that dumb, than they are not smart enough to have $565,000 anyhow.
February 20, 200818 yr LBBC, are you referring to a higher luxury\consumption tax? . Don't know what it is by that name. I do know that Huckabee's (VOTE HUCKABEE!!!!!!!!!) fair tax plan intrigues me. You want to buy, buy, buy, spend, spend, spend on luxury items you carry more of a weight of supporting this country.
February 20, 200818 yr Do you agree to giving tax breaks to companies that have taken jobs to other countries? Absolutely not! That would be one of the worst financial policies the government would have ever had if they did that. Foreign competition improves the quality of goods and lowers the price. In 2005, 29.4 million American jobs were destroyed. We hear that plenty. Thing that is left out a lot is that 31.4 million new jobs were created.
February 20, 200818 yr Author Glass half empty, punished. Glass half full, greater responsibility to society. If paying less taxes is the incentive to people to try and better themselves, than we have a messed up country. A sliding scale should not take away incentive. Totally for example, a family earning less than $100,000 could pay %15% and be left with $85,000. A person earning $1,000,000 might pay 35% or left with $650,000. Where is the incentive taking away? Just because they pay $335,000 more in taxes they are not going to want the $565,000 more in income???? If they are that dumb, than they are not smart enough to have $565,000 anyhow. They might even be smart enough to move themselves and their business/jobs they generate out of the country.
February 20, 200818 yr Absolutely not! That would be one of the worst financial policies the government would have ever had if they did that. Foreign competition improves the quality of goods and lowers the price. In 2005, 29.4 million American jobs were destroyed. We hear that plenty. Thing that is left out a lot is that 31.4 million new jobs were created. Depends on the type of jobs that left or created. Low wage with miminal to no benefits, no problem seeing them leave to other countries.
February 20, 200818 yr Author Don't know what it is by that name. I do know that Huckabee's (VOTE HUCKABEE!!!!!!!!!) fair tax plan intrigues me. You want to buy, buy, buy, spend, spend, spend on luxury items you carry more of a weight of supporting this country. So are you a fan of his tax plan?
February 20, 200818 yr They might even be smart enough to move themselves and their business/jobs they generate out of the country. I don't think business leaders are dumb enough to cripple one of their best markets by taking all jobs out of this country.
February 20, 200818 yr Author I was always taught that small businesses provide the majority of the jobs. Who do you think are the people earning 500% times the poverty rate?
February 20, 200818 yr So are you a fan of his tax plan? It intrigues me, cause this one doesn't seem to be working well, and I would want to know more about it.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.