02-03-2015 05:27 AM
401 ... 678910 ...
tools
  1. msndrstood's Avatar
    Corporations pay taxes on trucks and gas. They pay for the utilities and resources they use plus tax. Just because profits are not directly taxed does not mean taxes are not paid.

    And here is a curve ball. If we did not provide welfare programs, would companies like Walmart be able to pay as low as they do? Would the people just starve or would they demand higher wages?
    And... Those taxes are all deductible. But good effort on that one.

    Well, if Walmart and others didn't raise the pay and people were starving, they'd blame the government first and there would be rioting in the streets and looting those very Walmart stores, e.g. Katrina. So what's worse? In your scenario, raising wages to a liveable level or riots in the streets?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-01-2014 07:39 PM
  2. palandri's Avatar
    ...And here is a curve ball. If we did not provide welfare programs, would companies like Walmart be able to pay as low as they do? Would the people just starve or would they demand higher wages?
    They sure would, and if you asked for higher wages they would simply say they can't afford it and good luck pursing your dreams. Then we'd start seeing these popup:
    Attached Thumbnails Let's Make Them Squeal!-slums.jpg  
    A895 likes this.
    04-01-2014 07:42 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Complete overhaul of our thought process regarding economy and employment long term and an nonreversible shift to 22nd century scientific research and development with a refusal to participate in the trenches of fourth era debt slavery. We're not going to do what I want.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    msndrstood and Tall Mike 2145 like this.
    04-01-2014 07:45 PM
  4. msndrstood's Avatar
    Complete overhaul of our thought process regarding economy and employment long term and an nonreversible shift to 22nd century scientific research and development with a refusal to participate in the trenches of fourth era debt slavery. We're not going to do what I want.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    I think the link fairies attacked again, look at your quoted post. 😄

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-01-2014 07:51 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    I think the link fairies attacked again, look at your quoted post. 😄

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Fixed.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    04-01-2014 07:53 PM
  6. msndrstood's Avatar
    Fixed.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    That was... magical. 😆

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    04-01-2014 08:01 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    LOL! Don't try to make it complicated. What's so hard to understand about, " All income regardless of source is taxed at 15%, no exceptions". Now don't read anything into it that's not there and it's real simple to understand.
    Complicated? You still have to fill out and file tax forms in a flat tax, not the Fair Tax. You have to keep track of P&L for tax reasons instead of just accounting to monitor your business, not with Fair Tax. There's nothing to prepare for to pay the Fair Tax, it's automated. Billions would be saved under the Fair Tax by not having to file like the current system and a flat tax would require. Fair Tax removes the temptation to hide income, which has its own costs and complexity.

    Even with you not addressing the concerns of simply stating a flat whatever percent on all income, which system is really less complex?

    If your premise was correct, then the corporations that pay no taxes in the US now should bring all those overseas jobs back to the US, correct? But why don't they? Because they want to pay $2.00/day, that's why.
    They don't because they don't have to. They've used the tax structure (you know, the current one that is supposed to be penalizing said companies) to their favor in ways other companies can't. You want to level the playing field, then wipe all corp taxes for ALL corps, not just those with enough money to be (wastefully) spent on lobying congress and working the tax code to their favor.

    About the fair tax, I don't remember all of your numbers from other threads but, what would be the total annual revenue? And how would that pay down the debt of 17 trillion and maintain the country and the government.
    The sales tax rate has been researched to be around 22-23%, but don't have the exact number off the top of my head. All I can say on what the annual revenue is expected to be whatever it is now according to design. The rate can certainly be adjust for whatever reason, but there's no way to hide it under thousands of pages of tax code. It's out there in plain sight for all to see and hold them accountable on. The reason they can be revenue neutral without making the rate much higher is because now underground economies will be paying federal tax, as well as tourists and illegal aliens. I agree, spending needs to be addressed, but that's a different battle.

    The problem with just raising the minimum wage is that companies will just raise the prices on their goods and services to make up the difference and we still end up right where we started with minimum wage earners not being able to earn a living wage.
    Partially true, but I've changed my thinking some on what the realistic affects of raising minimum wage will be. I found this testimony recently on what the effects have been on prior minimum wage increases have been. It's actually a lot more than simply "it'll just make the prices go up for everyone."

    What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy
    toober likes this.
    04-01-2014 08:01 PM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    The reason I keep mentioning GWB when you mention something negative about Obama is because you don't seem to understand that while Obama is not without fault, a lot of the mess was inherited by GWB.

    As far as being snide, is it because I'm disagreeing with you? And as far as if we were face to face, is it because you think I'd be intimidated and would not be inclined to disagree with you? Sounds like typically gun-toting-tea-party type intimidation tactics, "try intimidation if they shoot down all your talking points". Please tell me that's not what you mean.
    You haven't shot anything down. You throw 30 more things off subject to the discussion with your own talking points. You acuse me of doing things that you are doing. As far as the snide comment, I mean whenever you reply to someone, you reply as if the person was dumb and try to throw people down to lift yourself up. Maybe i am taking your tone wrong but that is how it looks. Gun toting? Yes I am I need them to protect the rest of my rights, but I wouldn't need a gun of we were face to face and that wasn't what I was meaning, you lump everyone that disagrees with your ideology as a gun toting tea party nut. Where did you come up with this anyway? Cnn? Msnbc? Obama didn't inherit anything and I'm tired of hearing it. He spent billions on it and campaigned for months for it. He can't get in it then complain. I heard someone try to do the same thing for bush about Clinton when I was pissed at the money he was spending. Bush spent alot but obama has spent alot to and neither gets a pass on screwing up the economy.

    Speaking of shooting down my replies as you claim, you didn't respond to alot of what I posted.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-01-2014 08:08 PM
  9. A895's Avatar
    Can we all agree to disagree or no?

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-01-2014 08:12 PM
  10. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Cars put together within a couple of miles of our border are made by people who work 11 hour days (x6) for an average of $40-52 per week. We cannot compete on cost in any universe. That's around 2-3 hours for starting professionals here... We're 20-30 times more expensive BEFORE benefits.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    Question, what about a flat tax for any wages and bonuses from a company? How about we don't tax companies. But, the owner and everyone in the company must be paid as an employee.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    04-01-2014 08:13 PM
  11. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So both of you are saying that all these people would let themselves and their families starve. That no one would move. No one would demand higher wages. Walmart would continue to magically operate with workers that can't even feed themselves and everyone would continue to shop there while seeing it happen. Right...

    You really believe that people are a bunch dependent sheep don't you? You have no faith in these people's perseverance. No faith that they can do better for themselves. You think they will just bend over and take it without any resistance. You think these people would only resort to crime instead of legitimate solutions. You have no faith that society would stand by and let Walmart get away with this.

    You have a very dark outlook on life indeed. Similar to the self entitled politicians that think we need them. Only worse, you as voters think we need them. This is the type of outlook that destroys society.
    04-01-2014 08:13 PM
  12. A895's Avatar
    So both of you are saying that all these people would let themselves and their families starve. That no one would move. No one would demand higher wages. Walmart would continue to magically operate with workers that can't even feed themselves and everyone would continue to shop there while seeing it happen. Right...

    You really believe that people are a bunch dependent sheep don't you? You have no faith in these people's perseverance. No faith that they can do better for themselves. You think they will just bend over and take it without any resistance. You think these people would only resort to crime instead of legitimate solutions. You have no faith that society would stand by and let Walmart get away with this.

    You have a very dark outlook on life indeed. Similar to the self entitled politicians that think we need them. Only worse, you as voters think we need them. This is the type of outlook that destroys society.
    Its better to prevent the worse from ever happening than to hope for the best.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-01-2014 10:01 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Can we all agree to disagree or no?
    For some people, maybe. In regards to thing things you've said, no. I will not accept you having the opinion the government can do whatever it wants so long as it isn't with your money. That kind of thinking is just pure foolishness, and don't forget that there's people making less than you that would hold those same feelings for what the government can do with your money but not their's. Will I fight you on every point? No, that would be silly. But don't mistake that for simply agreeing to disagree with you.
    04-01-2014 10:38 PM
  14. toober's Avatar
    What is being overlooked is that employers don't automatically hire the person that will work the cheapest. While they do not want to overpay their employees, I believe that most are willing to pay fairly for someone that meets their needs. The problem is that we tend to over inflate the value of some jobs. Is it really worth $10 an hour for someone to flip burgers, stuff tacos, or bag groceries? At some point, we need to realize that just because someone "needs" to make a certain wage does not mean they are earning it.
    04-01-2014 10:38 PM
  15. toober's Avatar
    Its better to prevent the worse from ever happening than to hope for the best.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    To some people, the worst thing you can do is give money to those that have done nothing to earn it while millions of people fight every day to keep themselves off of government handouts.
    04-01-2014 10:54 PM
  16. palandri's Avatar
    Complicated? You still have to fill out and file tax forms in a flat tax, not the Fair Tax. You have to keep track of P&L for tax reasons instead of just accounting to monitor your business, not with Fair Tax. There's nothing to prepare for to pay the Fair Tax, it's automated. Billions would be saved under the Fair Tax by not having to file like the current system and a flat tax would require. Fair Tax removes the temptation to hide income, which has its own costs and complexity.

    Even with you not addressing the concerns of simply stating a flat whatever percent on all income, which system is really less complex?......
    A flat tax is simpler. You are equally taxing everybody with no exceptions on their income and you're filling out a 1040EZ. What was your gross income, your tax is 15%. If someone can't figure that out, we could have 3rd graders running H&R Block as a school project. How much simpler do you need it?
    04-01-2014 11:02 PM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    A flat tax is simpler.
    Once again, flat tax = paperwork (for auditing purposes), prep, and filing.
    Fair Tax = no paperwork, no prep, no filing (charged automatically at checkout).
    04-01-2014 11:14 PM
  18. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I think we need a new Constitutional amendment. Here's the text for it:

    Neither the Federal Government nor any level of government of the several states shall cause harm to any natural person.

    I think that is short enough that most people should be able to understand it.

    Regarding taxes, who here actually believes that the majority or even a significant percentage comes from individual tax payers? Most comes from capital gains, etc.

    If we were to cut out all the crap we spend money on (many entitlement programs, empire building, etc.) we wouldn't even be generating debt. If we get rid of this stupid fiat currency then we could have a much more powerful dollar. If we ever deal with the insanity that is our medical industry, we likely wouldn't need much in the way of health insurance.
    04-01-2014 11:50 PM
  19. palandri's Avatar
    Once again, flat tax = paperwork (for auditing purposes), prep, and filing.
    Fair Tax = no paperwork, no prep, no filing (charged automatically at checkout).
    A flat tax is a 1040EZ form. How much simpler could it be? Your fair tax, bases on consumption isn't equitable. Lower income people are still going to be paying a larger part of their income towards food, water, shelter, healthcare...etc which pays into system, than a millionaire. That's not equitable. If the tax isn't equitable it's not fair to everyone.
    04-01-2014 11:52 PM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I think we need a new Constitutional amendment. Here's the text for it:

    Neither the Federal Government nor any level of government of the several states shall cause harm to any natural person.

    I think that is short enough that most people should be able to understand it.

    Regarding taxes, who here actually believes that the majority or even a significant percentage comes from individual tax payers? Most comes from capital gains, etc.
    What constitutes "harm?" Are you talking physical only? Monetary? Emotional? If it's all of the above, what if they prevent harm to one at the expence of the other?
    For taxes, there is no getting around it being paid by the individual. It may take several steps to get there from the original taxed entity, but in the end, it's always to the individual.

    A flat tax is a 1040EZ form. How much simpler could it be? Your fair tax, bases on consumption isn't equitable. Lower income people are still going to be paying a larger part of their income towards food, water, shelter, healthcare...etc which pays into system, than a millionaire. That's not equitable. If the tax isn't equitable it's not fair to everyone.
    Now you're getting laughable on the easy/complex arguement. If you want to believe keeping up with paperwork year after year for taxes is easier than paying it like a sales tax that's calculated at the point of sale, that's your choice. Still doesn't mean it is.

    You're right about a sales tax in general being regressive. You'll get no arguement from me on that. One thing that wasn't mentioned yet in this thread is the prebate. In simple terms:

    The head of household fills out a simple form once that sets up the family size. That's it. No income requirements and such, just family size.
    The Fair Tax sets up a monthly check payment (the prebate) equal to the amount of sales tax paid for said family to spend up to the poverty line.

    So if you are living at poverty, you effectively pay no tax. If you live below poverty, you effectively are getting more than you pay in taxes. The more you spend over the poverty line, the more you pay in taxes. The only caveat is there are no economic models that currently exist to determine what the expected regressive/progressive rate would be above the poverty line. The reason why is only new goods and services are taxed, not used. That puts control back into the individual for them to legally decide if and when they want to pay taxes. It's possible for a millionaire to live a very meager life and pay little to no tax, but not very likely. They also can't forcast how the shopping habits of the middle class will be impacted with the ability to avoid the taxes. They can look to some local state situations for clues, like Texas that have no income tax and support everything by sales and other taxes, but they tend to tax everything and not just new. The Fair Tax organizers believe items should be taxed once and only once.
    04-02-2014 12:33 AM
  21. anon8126715's Avatar
    How much more "Pro Business" can we be? We give tax rebates to some of our wealthiest corporations that at the end of the year actually RECEIVE tax dollars, we allow them to pollute our environment and when they do it to such an egregious level, our government slaps a fine on them that is practically another tax write off for them at the end of the year. What exactly is left? Do we tell the large companies that we will look the other way if they want to incorporate slavery as a hiring practice? IMO the answer is NOT giving more resources and lessening restrictions on our companies that are already suffering from a "too big to fail" mindset.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    A895 likes this.
    04-02-2014 03:11 AM
  22. A895's Avatar
    For some people, maybe. In regards to thing things you've said, no. I will not accept you having the opinion the government can do whatever it wants so long as it isn't with your money. That kind of thinking is just pure foolishness, and don't forget that there's people making less than you that would hold those same feelings for what the government can do with your money but not their's. Will I fight you on every point? No, that would be silly. But don't mistake that for simply agreeing to disagree with you.
    You keep twisting my words. I said they can take taxes and I have no problem paying them.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-02-2014 04:14 AM
  23. A895's Avatar
    What is being overlooked is that employers don't automatically hire the person that will work the cheapest. While they do not want to overpay their employees, I believe that most are willing to pay fairly for someone that meets their needs. The problem is that we tend to over inflate the value of some jobs. Is it really worth $10 an hour for someone to flip burgers, stuff tacos, or bag groceries? At some point, we need to realize that just because someone "needs" to make a certain wage does not mean they are earning it.
    Jobs like that don't make $10 an hour they usually stay at $7.25 an hour or less than $8.00.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-02-2014 04:16 AM
  24. A895's Avatar
    To some people, the worst thing you can do is give money to those that have done nothing to earn it while millions of people fight every day to keep themselves off of government handouts.
    You are essentially hoping that people sort it out if the programs do go away. That is beyond foolish.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    04-02-2014 04:16 AM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    Question, what about a flat tax for any wages and bonuses from a company? How about we don't tax companies. But, the owner and everyone in the company must be paid as an employee.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I think I get what you're saying, and I'm not disinclined to try to think outside the box. What about we don't tax citizens at all and only tax companies? Or only tax imports? With some very small questions about the purpose and scope of government it's relatively easy to create scenarios where the burden is shifted away from real people almost entirely.
    04-02-2014 05:42 AM
401 ... 678910 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Make choose action menu GO AWAY!!!!!!
    By Dallas Medina in forum Android 4.1 / 4.2 / 4.3 Jelly Bean
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 03:52 PM
  2. [Free][3D]Fire Making
    By jkm0114 in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2014, 11:48 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 05:10 PM
  4. Nexus 7: Why does Google search want permission to make phone calls.
    By smoggyturnip in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 09:27 AM
  5. iCallYou - Making a difference - Remind Your Friend(s)
    By roselalalar in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 03:07 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD