Originally posted by RobtardWhat if the millionaire would give the job to some asian child instead that would ask for even less?
What if that minium wage worker works for that millionaire, ie that millionaire is a millionaire because he/she pays employees that bare-wage and says on overhead that way?
Originally posted by Bardock42
What if the millionaire would give the job to some asian child instead that would ask for even less?
Many already do under current conditions, or are you not aware just how many mega-companies send their work overseas.
If I call Verizon, I get greeted by "John", who just happens to have a thick Indian accent.
Originally posted by RobtardI'm not sure what the last part meant, regarding overheads. Was that meant to be saves?
What if that minium wage worker works for that millionaire, ie that millionaire is a millionaire because he/she pays employees that bare-wage and says on overhead that way?
Not to state the obvious but my point was that the job market is after all a market, and if its deemed that the doctor, with the requisites entailed by the profession, performs a more valuable occupation than the maid, with the requisites entailed by that profession, then the doctor will be earn more than the maid.
The millionaire is presumably a millionaire due to some form of aptitude of mind or body.
In a way one can say it's fair to tax the wealthy more, in another way it's incredibly unfair.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not sure what the last part meant, regarding overheads.Not to state the obvious but my point was that the job market is after all a market, and if its deemed that the doctor, with the requisites entailed by the profession, performs a more valuable occupation than the maid, then the doctor will be earn more than the maid.
The millionaire is presumably a millionaire due to some form of aptitude of mind or body.
In a way one can say it's fair to tax the wealthy more, in another way it's incredibly unfair.
Meant "save on overhead", not "say".
Originally posted by RobtardOh, I know, just saying, good on the millionaire not to do that with his American minimum wage employee, isn't it?
Many already do under current conditions, or are you not aware just how many mega-companies send their work overseas.If I call Verizon, I get greeted by "John", who just happens to have a thick Indian accent.
Originally posted by RobtardIf the worker earns a bare minimum wage then presumably that's the value that has been given to the work that's performed...
Meant "save on overhead", not "say".
The millionaire isn't technically saving on overheads by paying a minimum wage, he's just not overpaying his employees above market value. He's certainly not being particularly altruistic, but then that's to his discretion as the employer really...
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not sure what the last part meant, regarding overheads. Was that meant to be saves?Not to state the obvious but my point was that the job market is after all a market, and if its deemed that the doctor, with the requisites entailed by the profession, performs a more valuable occupation than the maid, with the requisites entailed by that profession, then the doctor will be earn more than the maid.
The millionaire is presumably a millionaire due to some form of aptitude of mind or body.
In a way one can say it's fair to tax the wealthy more, in another way it's incredibly unfair.
I think most people would agree that if you are not of the opinion that it is equally unfair either way, it's a bit less unfair to tax the rich more than the poor.
Originally posted by Bardock42That's where my overall political compass lies; however I'm equally aware that the "wealthy" produce and provide a massive amount by way of taxes and gross domestic product etc... so I generally find the bashing of the wealthy for being wealthy relatively silly.
it's [a bit] less unfair to tax the rich more than the poor.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, I know, just saying, good on the millionaire not to do that with his American minimum wage employee, isn't it?
Yeah, just not sure how concrete the "if we tax them more, they'll ship their business overseas" line of thinking is, as companies already do under current tax regulations.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the rich should be taxed more simply because they're rich, I'd be happy with even taxes for all and doing away with the loopholes in the tax system, which are abused by the rich more so than the poor.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, just not sure how concrete the "if we tax them more, they'll ship their business overseas" line of thinking is, as companies already do under current tax regulations.Don't get me wrong, I don't think the rich should be taxed more simply because they're rich, I'd be happy with even taxes for all and doing away with the loopholes in the tax system, which are abused by the rich more so than the poor.
I have zero tax exemptions.
It's not abuse of the system. The system is set up for them to have loopholes. That's just using it the way it was meant to be used.
Originally posted by RobtardOh, I don't mean to be arguing that. I don't know how true that is either. I'm just saying that the argument "the rich are just rich because we minimum wagers work for them" goes both ways, really.
Yeah, just not sure how concrete the "if we tax them more, they'll ship their business overseas" line of thinking is, as companies already do under current tax regulations.Don't get me wrong, I don't think the rich should be taxed more simply because they're rich, I'd be happy with even taxes for all and doing away with the loopholes in the tax system, which are abused by the rich more so than the poor.
Originally posted by chithappens
How?Sounds cute but it doesn't sound feasible.
As posted earlier, everyone pays the same percentage.
I also say give companies who keep their work-force in the US tax incentives, they'll be getting breaks, but in return for directly contributing back. I believe Ron Paul (and Obama possibly) ran on something like this.
Here's an e-mail sent to me.
Have an of you seen this e-mail?:
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America ina 'We Deserve it Dividend'.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000bona fide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, womanand child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as aWe Deserve It Dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free.So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.A husband and wife have $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or elseRemember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. and of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG.. Liquidate it.. Sell off its parts.. Let American General go back to being American General.. Sell off the real estate.. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in WashingtonDC. And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam. Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest. Kindest personal regards,
This was my reply (to the massive list that that e-mail was sent to):
Originally posted by dadudemon in an e-mailThat person really sucks at math. Off by a factor of 1000.$85,000,000,000 divided by 200,000,000 = $425
What we should really do is give the $700,000,000,000 planned to be used for the financial crisis to the American citizens.
It only took 1 minute to find the current population of everyone over 18.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
It says that there are 24.6% of people under the age of 18. So, multiply by the remaining percentage of the whole to find out how many there are 18 and over, as of 2006. (That is 75.4%)
299,398,484 * .754= 225746456.936
So let's round up to 226,000,000 people 18 and over.
Now, to find out how much money we would get:
$700,000,000,000 divided by 226,000,000 = $3097.35
That's quite a bit of money, isn't it?
Well considering the top 1% pay much more in taxes each year, that isn't very much. The top 1% paid 27.6% of all federal taxes in 2005! http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html
Our federal income tax burden is mostly on the backs of the top 10% of earners. They paid 70.3% of all federal income tax in 2005. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-T4-The-Top-10-Percent-of-Income.html
I could use $3097.35, though. I'm sure the old lady living only on Social Security who got one of these troublesome sub-prime loans could use that money too.
Aren't you proud of me, mom, I showed all my work this time?
I have a better plan. Why doesn't the government give ALL tax brackets a tax cut? Wouldn't employing the "trickle down effect" and "empower the primary spenders by cutting taxes for the middle class" be the best of both worlds?
Some of you may say, "where does the missing tax money come from, then, if everyone gets a tax break?" Simple. Cut back on government spending and eliminate stupid federal programs.
I posted this to show those who got that chain e-mail how stupid that guy was, and also to show the taxes paid by the rich because that was the topic of discussion recently.
Doom and Gloom,
Thanks for posting your response on my tax question. Any increased spending is just that, increased spending. If Obama eliminates more spending than he spends, that's better than what we have now, isn't it? I would rather the spending be eliminated to the point of a budget surplus to start paying of the national debt. I'd be better off wishing for shit that tasted like blueberries, though.
I don't give a damn the total number of what the top whatever pays. It does not proportionally makes sense.
Do we measure how fast a fat man can run against a Olympic sprinter? You could, but it doesn't make sense to do so.
It is the fact that the people under the 5% are getting screwed. We are bailing out some of the rich who screwed up in the first place. Regardless of all the bitching the top percentage does, they are not being hurt.
They stay in their homes. They are not losing jobs. They are not losing commas out of their accounts. They are not taking up extra work to make ends meet.
That argument about what they pay is complete bullshit.
Originally posted by dadudemonHaha, I was just going to say. He added a bit too many zeroes there.
Here's an e-mail sent to me.Have an of you seen this e-mail?:
This was my reply (to the massive list that that e-mail was sent to):
I posted this to show those who got that chain e-mail how stupid that guy was, and also to show the taxes paid by the rich because that was the topic of discussion recently.
Doom and Gloom,
Thanks for posting your response on my tax question. Any increased spending is just that, increased spending. If Obama eliminates more spending than he spends, that's better than what we have now, isn't it? I would rather the spending be eliminated to the point of a budget surplus to start paying of the national debt. I'd be better off wishing for shit that tasted like blueberries, though.
Originally posted by chithappensErr...the bottom 5 don't get screwed. They get much more than anyone else in proportion to what they do. And dude, it wasn't just a few rich people screwing up. That's a simplistic view of the crisis. Besides, even if it was, when someone in the lower brackets goes broke, it's a tragedy and they didn't deserve it and boo hoo, but when someone rich screws up and loses all it's the evil rich not upholding their responsibility to the people. Ridiculous 🙄
I don't give a damn the total number of what the top whatever pays. It does not proportionally makes sense.Do we measure how fast a fat man can run against a Olympic sprinter? You could, but it doesn't make sense to do so.
It is the fact that the people under the 5% are getting screwed. We are bailing out some of the rich who screwed up in the first place. Regardless of all the bitching the top percentage does, they are not being hurt.
They stay in their homes. They are not losing jobs. They are not losing commas out of their accounts. They are not taking up extra work to make ends meet.
That argument about what they pay is complete bullshit.
Originally posted by chithappens
I don't give a damn the total number of what the top whatever pays. It does not proportionally makes sense.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, that's the way the numbers work out.
Originally posted by chithappens
Do we measure how fast a fat man can run against a Olympic sprinter? You could, but it doesn't make sense to do so.
That's an illogical comparison. Your comparison would actually apply if you tied a rope to the professional sprinter, tied the other end to a skate board, put the fat man on the skate board, and had the fat man give a push with his feet every now and then.
Even then, the analogy still fails because the professional sprinter needs the fat guy, too. Why not keep it simple and just stick to the numbers? The top 10% of income earners foot 70% of the federal income tax bill. 😐
Originally posted by chithappens
It is the fact that the people under the 5% are getting screwed.
No, we are not. In my factual example, it would be the people under 10%. Even then, they are far from screwed.
Anecdote time (Bardock, cover your eyes)
I'm doing better, financially, then I have in my entire life. I certainly make more money than last year and I have fewer bills. I will pay little to no federal income taxes for the 2008 tax year.
So how am I supposed to feel screwed again? 😮💨
Originally posted by chithappens
We are bailing out some of the rich who screwed up in the first place.
True, but the defaulted home owner is also at fault. Even a child can figure out that you don't spend more money than you have.
Originally posted by chithappens
Regardless of all the bitching the top percentage does, they are not being hurt.
False. Are you aware of the financial crisis that is occurring currently? It's hitting the little guy, too. (401k, etc.)
Originally posted by chithappens
They stay in their homes.
Probably true.
Originally posted by chithappens
They are not losing jobs.
False. They most certainly are losing their jobs.
Originally posted by chithappens
They are not losing commas out of their accounts.
Correct...but they are still losing shit loads of money. A factor of 1000, or one comma, is highly unlikely. A factor of 10 is a HUGE loss, don't you think?
Originally posted by chithappens
They are not taking up extra work to make ends meet.
How do you know? It makes sense that they wouldn't take up extra work when they are out of a job.
Originally posted by chithappens
That argument about what they pay is complete bullshit.
Regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, they pay the majority of the income taxes. You can call it bullshit all you want.
However, we could eliminate income taxes altogether if we drastically cut back on spending. How's that sound? Then NO one would have an excuse to whine about taxes. 😄 I'm all for that. Kill government programs, withdraw foreign troops from many nations (but not all of them), and increase our own domestic production through business development.