Deficit Commission

[meazza]

I love this mentality. F the person who lost their job in possibly the worst economy since the Great Depression. They'll find something soon enough... they'll just have to fight it out with millions of other people looking for work. Merry F'ing Christmas.

 

Funny how Magox spelled it out for you and you completely ignored it.

 

Merry F'in Christmas.

[TPS]

 

I don't believe Sowell truly understands the Laffer Curve.

Because it's a crock.

[pBills]

It depends on your objective.

 

If you want to create jobs it absolutely makes sense to reduce the cost of doing business in America, because in a global economy, business will flow to lands of highest efficiency.

 

If you just want to cut an inch of your neighbors dick to make yours look bigger by comparison, then sure, jack the taxes up and let those "high earners" suffer to make you feel better about earning less. Sure a bunch of middle class jobs won't be created, but then you never had them to lose, so they won't look so bad on a report. I guess it's a win-win.

 

 

So the individual high earner is guaranteed to invest their earnings? Are they definitely going invest in American companies? I have no issue with giving companies who keep jobs in the US breaks. Companies who outsource... no.

[Magox]

No one is hoarding to screw over the President. They may be hoarding until they feel better about the market though.

 

Can you justify giving all of those tax breaks, especially if we're trying to reduce the deficit? I have stated for companies that keep jobs in the US give them the tax breaks, those who cut jobs here and ship them overseas... receive nothing. Their rate can go up to the scheduled 39.6%. Now, can you justify the high earners receiving such tax breaks?

You are mixing things up. The 39.6% is for personal income taxes, not corporate.

 

And yes, I can easily justify high "earners" getting "such" tax breaks. How about, they are paying much more in taxes as it is. Or maybe it's their money to begin with and no one should be entitled to feel that they should take more of their EARNED money as it is.

 

FACT: The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes

 

FACT: The top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes

 

FACT: Over half the US population (and probably half the people that complain about the "rich not paying enough taxes) after tax deductions don't pay ANY income taxes.

 

How's that for justification?

 

Because it's a crock.

Coming from you, this means absolutely nothing to me...

[Gary M]

I love this mentality. F the person who lost their job in possibly the worst economy since the Great Depression. They'll find something soon enough... they'll just have to fight it out with millions of other people looking for work. Merry F'ing Christmas.

 

I didn't say F them, I said they will find jobs.

 

I know plenty of people who have been laid off over the last two years, and I know how many of them are just sitting there waiting for the next extension. I also know people have gone out and found jobs even when they could have stayed on unemployment. I see the want adds in the papers, people are not looking because they don't have to.

[pBills]

You are mixing things up. The 39.6% is for personal income taxes, not corporate.

 

And yes, I can easily justify high "earners" getting "such" tax breaks. How about, they are paying much more in taxes as it is. Or maybe it's their money to begin with and no one should be entitled to feel that they should take more of their EARNED money as it is.

 

FACT: The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes

 

FACT: The top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes

 

FACT: Over half the US population (and probably half the people that complain about the "rich not paying enough taxes) after tax deductions don't pay ANY income taxes.

 

How's that for justification?

 

 

Coming from you, this means absolutely nothing to me...

 

 

So they are suggesting in the high earners to possibly go from 35% to somewhere in between 23% and 28%. Nice break!!! I guess they earned that break? Hell I would be happy with their rates staying at 35%. There is no reason what-so-ever for their rates to possibly go down 10%.

 

Now you are talking about those people who receive deductions. Yeah, let's complain about those people who may be earning $30k per year. They don't deserve anything right?

 

Protect and give more breaks to those pulling in a butt load of money vs. not doing as much for those who live paycheck to paycheck.

[IDBillzFan]

Or maybe it's their money to begin with and no one should be entitled to feel that they should take more of their EARNED money as it is.

 

This is where you lose him. And every other progressive/liberal.

[pBills]

I didn't say F them, I said they will find jobs.

 

I know plenty of people who have been laid off over the last two years, and I know how many of them are just sitting there waiting for the next extension. I also know people have gone out and found jobs even when they could have stayed on unemployment. I see the want adds in the papers, people are not looking because they don't have to.

 

 

And if they don't? You're basically saying F them. Do you also see that for one opening a company may receive hundreds of resumes? Hundreds for ONE open position. Do you also see that the average opening even in the resume acceptance stage can take upwards of 14-19 weeks to fill?

 

This is where you lose him. And every other progressive/liberal.

 

 

No A-hole. I completely understand that it is they earned their money. So how does that justify giving them even lower rates? Will they invest that money?

 

My stance on corporations will not change.

[Rob's House]

And if they don't? You're basically saying F them. Do you also see that for one opening a company may receive hundreds of resumes? Hundreds for ONE open position. Do you also see that the average opening even in the resume acceptance stage can take upwards of 14-19 weeks to fill?

Actually the burden is on you to offer up a solution. Unless, of course, you just want to complain about the lack of perfection in the world and need a boogie man (i.e. the rational) to blame for it?

 

Is your solution to offer indefinite aid to anyone who claims need? To what extent are the rest of us responsible under threat of incarceration for providing this aid? Where do you draw the line pBills?

[erynthered]

I love this mentality. F the person who lost their job in possibly the worst economy since the Great Depression. They'll find something soon enough... they'll just have to fight it out with millions of other people looking for work. Merry F'ing Christmas.

 

 

Well, how much time on unemployment is enough then? When do you say that thats enough, ever? What do you think that would create if they had unending unemployment benifits?

 

Answer the questions, please.

[Magox]

So they are suggesting in the high earners to possibly go from 35% to somewhere in between 23% and 28%. Nice break!!! I guess they earned that break? Hell I would be happy with their rates staying at 35%. There is no reason what-so-ever for their rates to possibly go down 10%.

 

Now you are talking about those people who receive deductions. Yeah, let's complain about those people who may be earning $30k per year. They don't deserve anything right?

 

Protect and give more breaks to those pulling in a butt load of money vs. not doing as much for those who live paycheck to paycheck.

If this doesn't seep into your thick skull then I will have to begin with the real insults.

 

I said they are going to BROADEN the tax base. For the second and last time, broadening the tax base includes taking out certain deductions and loop holes that these "high earners" were able to use before, which means that most will end up paying more in taxes then they were before.

 

OK? Do You understand now?

 

ANd in regards to the $30K people, you are so way off base it isn't even funny. Over half the US population doesn't pay income taxes after tax deductions which means many people earning above $30K.

 

You really shouldn't post about things that you have no earthly clue in what you are talking about. It just makes you look...

 

well

 

ignorant

[3rdnlng]

If I'm not mistaken, you can currently receive unemployment benefits for up to 46 weeks. FORTY SIX FREAKING WEEKS!

 

How is that "no help what-so-ever"?

 

 

Try 99 weeks.

[Magox]

And if they don't? You're basically saying F them. Do you also see that for one opening a company may receive hundreds of resumes? Hundreds for ONE open position. Do you also see that the average opening even in the resume acceptance stage can take upwards of 14-19 weeks to fill?

 

 

 

No A-hole. I completely understand that it is they earned their money. So how does that justify giving them even lower rates? Will they invest that money?

 

My stance on corporations will not change.

You are too thick-headed

 

They've been receiving benefits for almost two years, when is enough enough? When? Answer the !@#$ing question? When?

[Rob's House]

No A-hole. I completely understand that it is they earned their money. So how does that justify giving them even lower rates? Will they invest that money?

 

My stance on corporations will not change.

Again, you don't even know what you're arguing. You're talking about personal income tax brackets for "the rich" at whatever arbitrary line you draw to designate them, when the issue at hand is corporate tax rates. Regardless of your infantile outlook to corporations, they are the engines that produce wealth, and they will continue to exist either here or abroad.

 

It's not a question of whether they invest their extra earnings. It's a matter of whether they'll do business in an environment that lends itself to more profitability (low corp taxes) or less (high corp taxes). We're no longer living in a world where you get to decide what they'll pay. If you !@#$ them they will go somewhere else and leave you standing there with a bad attitude and an empty pocket. Then and only then will you realize what an immensely stupid !@#$ you really are.

[pBills]

You are too thick-headed

 

They've been receiving benefits for almost two years, when is enough enough? When? Answer the !@#$ing question? When?

 

 

 

We had to go to this dumbass automated system... push a button if you looked for a job. I wonder where the issue lies... making it so easy for people who want to live off of unemployment. They need to remove that system and make people prove that they are looking. Those who can't, won't receive anything. Of course that means bigger government... a big no no for people.

[IDBillzFan]

So how does that justify giving them even lower rates?

How does it justify giving them higher rates?

[pBills]

Again, you don't even know what you're arguing. You're talking about personal income tax brackets for "the rich" at whatever arbitrary line you draw to designate them, when the issue at hand is corporate tax rates. Regardless of your infantile outlook to corporations, they are the engines that produce wealth, and they will continue to exist either here or abroad.

 

It's not a question of whether they invest their extra earnings. It's a matter of whether they'll do business in an environment that lends itself to more profitability (low corp taxes) or less (high corp taxes). We're no longer living in a world where you get to decide what they'll pay. If you !@#$ them they will go somewhere else and leave you standing there with a bad attitude and an empty pocket. Then and only then will you realize what an immensely stupid !@#$ you really are.

 

 

My infantile look on corporations? Really? I have been saying offer tax breaks for those who create jobs within the US. Don't reward those who ship jobs overseas. Is that hard to understand?

 

And if the corporations are looking to sit back... wait till they feel as though the economy is right for them then they shouldn't receive breaks, stimulus packages, nothing. OR we could follow your philosophy let give them more and more and hope they will do something... cause god forbid we don't bend over to them they may leave us. $%#$@& dumb.

 

How does it justify giving them higher rates?

 

 

Keep them right where they are now.

[erynthered]

You are too thick-headed

 

They've been receiving benefits for almost two years, when is enough enough? When? Answer the !@#$ing question? When?

 

 

Maybe we should waterboard him until he answers the questions?

[IDBillzFan]

We had to go to this dumbass automated system... push a button if you looked for a job. I wonder where the issue lies... making it so easy for people who want to live off of unemployment.

At some point you have to accept the fact that we're out of money. It's just that simple. You can't just keep feeding the beast because it's too hard to come up with a different way of doing things. That's the ultimate definition of irresponsible.

 

Not to mention, where was all this concern for the unemployed while the government was working around the clock to deliver a health care bill that to this day a full 58% of American's want repealed?

 

The government had their window and they blew their wad on some BS entitlement that we can't even afford. Say what you want about people not having an income for Christmas, but it's not like the WH couldn't have addressed this in the past two years when it owned everything.

[Magox]

 

OR we could follow your philosophy let give them more and more and hope they will do something... cause god forbid we don't bend over to them they may leave us. $%#$@& dumb.

This is a perfect example of the entitlement mentality. No one is "giving" them anything, factually speaking it is TAKING away. No one is giving anything to them..

 

Until you can break through this mentality, you will always be on the losing end of this argument.

 

Maybe we should waterboard him until he answers the questions?

He has been trained well by the wise union boss sage, I don't believe even waterboarding would work.