The level of civility is deteriorating rapidly

What do you mean? You want me to go around and introduce you to them personally or something? According to the current US tax code, approximately 49% of income earners, pay no income tax. Apple says we should ALL pay... so that means, those 49% would have to start paying, right???

That's right, after they receive a minimum income. Or, considering capital gains are taxed at a lower rate there could be a law that incomes under a certain amount are off the books. A law stating in order for something to be considered a job it has to pay a certain amount.

Why not? They can make any law they want. Capital gains...a little tax, corporate profits...no tax, inheritances, gifts........

Unless a job pays a living wage it isn't considered having a job. How about that?
 
When Gabby Giffords was shot by Jared Loughner, we heard pleas from liberals to "tone down" the rhetoric. Much was made of Palin's imagery on a website 'targeting' hot political races across the country. Condemned for telling her followers not to retreat, but to "re-load!" Even though these comments were nowhere near the context implied, most on the left and right agreed, we need to "tone down the rhetoric" in politics.

However, since this tragedy, the liberals have gone off the hinge with a relentless barrage of personal and general insults, false claims of racism, and just outright slanderous lies, one after the other, with no end in sight, directed at the TEA Party movement. It's as if their own calls for civility went in one ear and out the other. Or maybe the calls for civility never meant LIBERALS should be civil, only those on the RIGHT? I think that is more likely the case. In the wake of the Giffords tragedy, what they really meant to call for, was the RIGHT to shut the fuck up and sit down. Let's let the LEFT say and do anything they see fit, and the RIGHT can just sit there and cower in shame, for the low-life garbage they are. We don't dare even raise our heads to the liberals, because it's ALL our fault... everything! THIS is what the Liberal pinheads meant, when they emotively "called for civility" in political discourse.

I have studied the 1861 War Between the States, (aka: Civil War)... One thing I find amazing, is the similarity in the divisive political tone leading up to that war, and the divisive tone we hear today. If you ever have the chance to read (or watch) North and South, you can observe the times much as they were, the people on both sides who pushed us into a war, simply by being too stubborn and prideful to think they needed to compromise. Two "sides" rallying bases... the Secessionists and the Abolitionists... both perpetuating the anger and vitriol until it finally boiled over into an all-out WAR! Many of those same people, who pushed for and WANTED a war, would live to regret their choices. Hundreds of thousands dead sons, brothers, fathers... a nation in ruins... all because of two sides with uncompromisable positions, unwilling to even try to reconcile. This is exactly what we see today, but instead of 'slavery' being the catalyst, it is 'labor' or 'class' which is being used.

Yep, today is just like the civil war. This is accomplishing something other than making the split worse.

Anyway, today is NOT as split as in the days of the civil war. In the civil war, Lincoln won despite the fact that he couldn't even get on the ballot in many southern states and literally won no votes.

Each day, the left-wing liberals peel back another layer and reveal how remarkably similar their views are to socialist communist style government, where the state controls everything and every aspect of our lives. This isn't "freedom" at all, it's the antithesis of it.

Dixie can't end a post without bringing hyperbole to new levels.
 
Well, that 10% who pay no FEDERAL taxes, would need to start paying some, according to apple. But we were talking about INCOME taxes, which 49% of income earners don't currently pay.........

Social security taxes don't count? Well, that's awfully convenient for the rich, who don't pay SS taxes on income above 90k a year. This has a huge flattening effect on our tax system. A person who makes 50k a year pays roughly 25% of their income in taxes. A person who makes 500k a year pays roughly 30% of their income in taxes.
 
That's right, after they receive a minimum income. Or, considering capital gains are taxed at a lower rate there could be a law that incomes under a certain amount are off the books. A law stating in order for something to be considered a job it has to pay a certain amount.

Why not? They can make any law they want. Capital gains...a little tax, corporate profits...no tax, inheritances, gifts........

Unless a job pays a living wage it isn't considered having a job. How about that?

But this all relieves people of responsibility for paying their part. You said we should ALL pay in... how are we ALL paying in, when we cut breaks for certain people?

The government can't determine wages in a true capitalist system, that's how communists do things. Here in the USA, we allow business to determine, through the market demand and supply, who gets paid what. You can't really do it any other way, unless government is going to 'own' the business and be responsible for profit and loss. It's impossible to even develop a tenable business model, if you have no control over the wages you can pay, or prices you can charge.

But I want to get back to your original thought, that we should all have some skin in the game... I think this might be one of the smartest things you've ever said here! I agree 100%.... Let's modify the tax code, so that ANY person earning ANY income, has to pay SOMETHING... doesn't have to be much, we can start them out at 10% or so... Such and idea would generate billions in new revenue. What we have to stop doing, is absolving people from the tax rolls entirely, or claiming they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they don't make as much income.
 
But this all relieves people of responsibility for paying their part. You said we should ALL pay in... how are we ALL paying in, when we cut breaks for certain people?

The government can't determine wages in a true capitalist system, that's how communists do things. Here in the USA, we allow business to determine, through the market demand and supply, who gets paid what. You can't really do it any other way, unless government is going to 'own' the business and be responsible for profit and loss. It's impossible to even develop a tenable business model, if you have no control over the wages you can pay, or prices you can charge.

But I want to get back to your original thought, that we should all have some skin in the game... I think this might be one of the smartest things you've ever said here! I agree 100%.... Let's modify the tax code, so that ANY person earning ANY income, has to pay SOMETHING... doesn't have to be much, we can start them out at 10% or so... Such and idea would generate billions in new revenue. What we have to stop doing, is absolving people from the tax rolls entirely, or claiming they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they don't make as much income.

How do you justify bankers getting obscene bonuses, as well as CEO's of failing corporations awarding themselves crazy salaries and perks? I cannot for the life of me understand why you concentrate on minimum wage earners who are struggling to keep afloat in an ocean of debt. Of course, knowing your fixation with fractions, the 2010 bonuses are roughly 1/3 less than the heady heights of 2007.

http://www.economicvoice.com/bankers-bonuses-at-gbp-14-billion-says-ons/50021790#axzz1WvltWOWy
 
Last edited:
How do you justify bankers getting obscene bonuses, as well as CEO's of failing corporations awarding themselves crazy salaries and perks? I cannot for the life of me understand why you concentrate on minimum wage earners who are struggling to keep afloat in an ocean of debt. Of course, knowing your fixation with fractions, the 2010 bonuses are roughly 1/3 less than the heady heights of 2007.

http://www.economicvoice.com/bankers-bonuses-at-gbp-14-billion-says-ons/50021790#axzz1WvltWOWy

kudos. common sense.
 
How do you justify bankers getting obscene bonuses, as well as CEO's of failing corporations awarding themselves crazy salaries and perks? I cannot for the life of me understand why you concentrate on minimum wage earners who are struggling to keep afloat in an ocean of debt.

http://www.economicvoice.com/bankers-bonuses-at-gbp-14-billion-says-ons/50021790#axzz1WvltWOWy

Bonuses are generally handed out by employers for a job well done. I don't know the specifics of which bonus you are referring to, but I would suspect a board of directors or shareholders thought it was appropriate, or they wouldn't have voted for it. I can't for the life of me understand why you think an outsider who knows nothing of a business or it's employees, can dictate what is appropriate compensation for their services or talents.
 
But this all relieves people of responsibility for paying their part. You said we should ALL pay in... how are we ALL paying in, when we cut breaks for certain people?

The government can't determine wages in a true capitalist system, that's how communists do things. Here in the USA, we allow business to determine, through the market demand and supply, who gets paid what. You can't really do it any other way, unless government is going to 'own' the business and be responsible for profit and loss. It's impossible to even develop a tenable business model, if you have no control over the wages you can pay, or prices you can charge.

But I want to get back to your original thought, that we should all have some skin in the game... I think this might be one of the smartest things you've ever said here! I agree 100%.... Let's modify the tax code, so that ANY person earning ANY income, has to pay SOMETHING... doesn't have to be much, we can start them out at 10% or so... Such and idea would generate billions in new revenue. What we have to stop doing, is absolving people from the tax rolls entirely, or claiming they shouldn't have to pay taxes because they don't make as much income.

The point is some people are not able to pay their part. If you insist on those folks paying taxes when they can't afford it why help people at all? Why insist a person making minimum wage pay taxes when giving tax breaks to people who make capital gains? If interest rates are kept low, below the cost of living, people will always invest to try and make more money even if tax on capital gains is the same as income.

People with money will be forced to either invest or loan out their money for a small return or watch their money slowly lose value so a tax break on capital gains is not necessary to spur investment.

Talking about investment my wife just bought my portion of the business we owned together. It's all belongs to her now. So, any tips where I should park my acquired funds?
 
Bonuses are generally handed out by employers for a job well done. I don't know the specifics of which bonus you are referring to, but I would suspect a board of directors or shareholders thought it was appropriate, or they wouldn't have voted for it. I can't for the life of me understand why you think an outsider who knows nothing of a business or it's employees, can dictate what is appropriate compensation for their services or talents.

So you are unable to understand that the banking crisis was precipitated by short termism on Wall Street and the City of London. Why do you think that many of those casino banks are now being pursued by The US Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) which has filed lawsuits against 17 banks, including RBS, Barclays and HSBC, over mortgage-based investments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14775177
 
So you are unable to understand that the banking crisis was precipitated by short termism on Wall Street and the City of London. Why do you think that many of those casino banks are now being pursued by The US Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) which has filed lawsuits against 17 banks, including RBS, Barclays and HSBC, over mortgage-based investments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14775177

Yep, unable, but also unwilling. If they don't discuss it on Fox news, it didn't happen.
 
Bonuses are generally handed out by employers for a job well done. I don't know the specifics of which bonus you are referring to, but I would suspect a board of directors or shareholders thought it was appropriate, or they wouldn't have voted for it. I can't for the life of me understand why you think an outsider who knows nothing of a business or it's employees, can dictate what is appropriate compensation for their services or talents.

Imagine...someone who has no concept of business, or finance, or share dealing, looking on as the experts in business, finance, and share dealing, take a huge bonus when their company has made huge losses and/or destroyed an entire states/continents economy.

You'd think people would just shut up and be grateful that the American dream is still alive and well wouldn't you?
 
The point is some people are not able to pay their part.

Not able? If they earned an income, they were able to earn it, I presume... therefore, they should be able to afford to help the needy who weren't able. It seems you have become confused on who IS able, and who is NOT. You wish to maintain the notion that if someone doesn't make much, they shouldn't have to pay any, and I disagree on a philosophical basis. Everyone should have to pay SOMETHING... you said so yourself. I have no problem with cutting them a break over what others who can better afford to pay have, but I disagree with the idea they should be completely excused from pitching in.

If you insist on those folks paying taxes when they can't afford it why help people at all? Why insist a person making minimum wage pay taxes when giving tax breaks to people who make capital gains?

Recently, we had a devastating spree of tornadoes in Alabama, I am sure you heard about it. I volunteered several weekends to help with the clean-up and humanitarian efforts. While I was in Tuscaloosa, I met a woman who was also a volunteer... she had lost her home and everything she owned... her sister was missing and presumed dead... her elderly mother was in a hospital clinging for life, after the hospital she was in was hit... but she was there volunteering her time and effort to helping others. I asked her how she could deal with all this and still be there helping others, when she was clearly someone who needed help herself? She said... what am I supposed to do? Sit in a shelter feeling sorry for myself, worrying about my mother or crying about my sister? She said, if I didn't have this to do, I think I would go crazy... this gives me something to focus on and know I am doing something productive to help.

In a nutshell, this is why I agree with you, that everyone should pay income taxes on any and all income. When everyone has some skin in the game, is having to pay the bills along with the rest of us, it gives them a sense of purpose, doing something productive, to contribute to the cause. It's the principle of the matter, and the good part is, it would generate billions in revenue, reducing the deficits, reducing the debt.

If interest rates are kept low, below the cost of living, people will always invest to try and make more money even if tax on capital gains is the same as income. People with money will be forced to either invest or loan out their money for a small return or watch their money slowly lose value so a tax break on capital gains is not necessary to spur investment.

Talking about investment my wife just bought my portion of the business we owned together. It's all belongs to her now. So, any tips where I should park my acquired funds?

Why did this random thought pop into your head? It has nothing to do with the argument you are having. It's a completely different losing argument you can have, but it just doesn't have a place in the debate over who should pay income taxes.

As for investment, now??? I have no idea... In the current economy, you're probably best off planning a trip to Vegas! Are you any good at blackjack?
....or maybe you could open a soup kitchen? That way, think of all the hungry and poor you would help? Or buy a cheap foreclosure, since there is an abundance now, and convert it into a homeless shelter... you could do so much potential good with your money! Keep us posted on what you decide!
 
Back
Top