Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 9:07:47 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Would you prefer they do nothing?....

YES!!!!!!!

Let them sit there and stare at each other.  Let them not pass any more laws, approve any more bailouts, spend any more money.

When governments spend money, everybody loses.


_____________________________



(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 9:15:33 AM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline 		How did I know YOU would say that.....NO PASTRAMI FOR YOU!....

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 9:23:09 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

How did I know YOU would say that.....NO PASTRAMI FOR YOU!....

At least, not with ham....


_____________________________



(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 10:22:05 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Still would quite reach your figure....even if you add the loans to GM and Chrysler....and as I searched I think of the 320 million people in the U.S. it is about $2200.00 per person.
A reach from 1 million by a bit wouldn't you say?



Easy way to increase that number is address it to the people who pay taxes, not those who don't. 320 million is the population. How many toddlers should be granted $2200? How many 14 year olds? How many people who don't pay taxes in the first place?

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 10:50:58 AM   
UncleNasty


Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Would you prefer they do nothing?....


I think your question needs to be modified slightly to "Would you prefer they continue to do nothing?"

My answer is yes.

I say "continue" as a result of them having done nothing in regard to what is considered the dominoe that started this mess by most - the sub-prime mess. Numerous regulatory bodies ignored complaints for years by literally thousands upon thousands of consumers claiming fraud on the part of their alleged lenders, mortgage brokers, loan servicing agencies, realtors, appraisors, rating agencies, etc. (the shit has yet to hit Standard and Poors, Moodys, etc.).

Courts in almost every jurisdiction, both of various states and federal, have consistently ruled in direct conflict with the laws. Many of these laws are about as black letter as can be and there is little to no legitimate room for judicial discretion.

Regarding the math involved in giving citizens bailouts as opposed to corporations:

The latest number I saw totalling bailout spending thus far was just a hair shy of $8 trillion. Let's ignore the FACT that there are going to be more bailouts and stick with that one, $8,000,000,000,000. If we assume the number of legal, adult citizens to be 200,000,000, even dispersal of those funds would be $40,000 to each.

Uncle Nasty (still nasty and still on the mend)

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 10:55:02 AM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline 		Hiz....not so sure I saw anyone saying they would balance the budget by lowering taxes?
I would be all for a balanced budget if it were possible but, at the present time it just isn't reallity. Depending on what school of economic thought a person follows deficit spending in time of crisis is not a bad thing and "might" very well help in the short term. Your issue with congress is one we can agree on, they should indeed work to rid themselves of all of the B.S. spending but, at present times balanced budgets have long since passed. Our military entanglements of the past 8 years and our blind leading the blind approach to government as it was, has lead us to the point that now we have a real crisis that cannot be fixed over night and at present cannot be fixed with a balanced budget.
Merc, you know I own my own business and much like you, I do what is neccessary to allow for the success of that business but, we are indeed for good or ill "our brothers keeper" and if we allow the economy to sink without intervention neither you nor I will have the rewards of our hardwork. I agree with your corporate stance....much due to your persuasion and logical thought but, I will never accept the argument that we allow those who cannot take care of themselves to wallow in poverty when we can help avoid it. If the economy doesn't turn a bit, we will be adding a new layer of poor that hasn't been seen in many years. I appreciate any attempt to stop that slide, no matter where it comes from. This tax cut is not an end all, it is a begining to what I hope is the return of the American economy, this is no time to sit on our hands as CL would have us do. Me, I am working harder and longer and shouldering more responsibility everyday within my business to help it succeed but, that is within my control and what I can control I do....imagine that!...<eg>.....

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 11:08:26 AM   
housesub4you


Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline 		Ahhhh.......  All I know is that what is in place now sucks!!!!!  I don't think anyone has the answer, and as to our national debt, today Obama said it will be over a trillion with or without his plan. 

As for people sitting on their asses and asking for hand-outs, In my area, we have lost 7 major employers (over 250 employees) in the last 4 years and about 60 small employers.  Not including the 2 auto plants within 40 miles of us.  A friend of mine placed an ad to fill 1 position, he had over 2000 people apply for the job.  From people with way to much experience to people with basically none.

It's not that people want to sit on their asses (of course some do) but for many there are just no jobs.  Looking in our local paper; the employment section has no ads, the section with people looking for work has about 300

Hell even the Micky D's in our area has a hiring freeze. 

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 11:35:34 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Merc, you know I own my own business and much like you, I do what is neccessary to allow for the success of that business but, we are indeed for good or ill "our brothers keeper" and if we allow the economy to sink without intervention neither you nor I will have the rewards of our hardwork. I agree with your corporate stance....much due to your persuasion and logical thought but, I will never accept the argument that we allow those who cannot take care of themselves to wallow in poverty when we can help avoid it.

Mark,
You misinterpret my strong stance on government charity with charity in general. I feel it is the reponsibility of every individual to do all they can to help others. If I had some of the time and money I've given to charity perhaps I'd already be retired in Italy. I don't begrudge it and I look forward to the next opportunity. I'll tell you this, I do the same research regarding charity that I do for any expenditure and only give to those not set up as 'businesses' where only 10% of the funds raised goes to the intended beneficiary. Since I always look for an opportunity to market them - I'll point to the 'Make-A-Wish' foundation as one where the percentage is nearly 100%.

As strongly as I feel about individual responsibility to help others I feel just as strongly that is should NOT be a government's responsibility to do so. The primary reason can be seen all around us - they NEVER work and only serve to create more bureaucrats and bureaucracy. The goal changes from helping the intended to making sure there is always a growing supply of more 'intended' and qualified beneficiaries. The result doesn't benefit the intended but it sure goes a long way to insure that the bureaucrat and the bureaucracy grow in power and suck more resources into their 'black hole'.

The government was never meant to be a provider of food, housing, clothing, or a job. It was set up to provide opportunity to do so. Religious and other non-government run facilities should be responsible for charity. Receiving it, shouldn't be an entitlement and shouldn't be indefinite.

Even considering I am an only child; I AM my 'brother's' keeper. One of the responsibilities I feel incumbent on me is that I should have as a goal, my 'brother's' self sufficiency. I will not enable him to sit on his ass and be comfortable, or get complacent. I'll remove any excuse for him to succeed but will not provide indefinite resources for him to continue to exist as a failure.

Currently, the problem with the economy in general and individuals in particular is that they expect to be 'saved'. Good intent, I'll go as far as the BEST intentions, produced this mindset. My parents didn't want me to 'suffer' as they did growing up the depression. They didn't want me to have to work as hard as they did. They wanted me to go to college. These are all good intentions! Somehow they got turned around and I think my generation did it.

Now the goals are - we don't want to 'suffer'; therefor we remove all the playground activities there the 1 in a million accident could happen, we don't let you suffer through a little league trophy presentation where only the winners get theirs - now you get yours too. We eliminated the 'F' from report cards so the work ethic denigrated in an environment were regardless of the effort EVERYONE passes, and if need be - EVERYONE is held back waiting for the slowest to catch up regardless if the reason was effort or ability. As a result of everyone going to college, coming from a 'move along' educational system; college degrees hold the same value in the workplace as that of a HS diploma in '70s. 

Much to my chagrin I HAVE to hire a marketing person. I should be writing and placing the ad right now, but I'm using CM to procrastinate. I'm just too old and lazy to keep going on the streets, and there aren't any travel points of interest that I haven't seen. I can't tell you how much I wish I didn't have to go through the process and see these 20 somethings come in listing their 'requirements' for me to hire them. You think dominant 'submissives' are delusional? Try interviewing a recent college grad with no experience who wants me to pay them $75k while I train them to potentially generate an extra dollar to my bottom line. I'd rather face an army of 'do-me' subs any day! 

My generations, Baby-Boomers, 'good intentions' generated these results and truthfully - we deserve them. We took away the struggle and incubated men and woman who, for the most part, are still children seeking to continue the nanny services we provided.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 1/6/2009 11:54:52 AM >

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 12:03:34 PM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline 		Merc, in so many ways you are correct....the government shouldn't be anyone's wet nurse....and people should certainly stand on their own but at present as we both know many cannot, if I mis-interpeted your stance it was not intentional. You and I have both created much or our own luck and thank the Lord it has been good. I have as many as 10 to 15 people in my stores every week looking for jobs, and believe me, the jobs I have for most aren't good paying but, the desperation that strikes those in that situation can often be seen on their faces so I hope for the best from anything done to help them. Wish I had more jobs to fill, but, as all companies mine has also been a struggle as of late and the prospects for a quick recovery aren't good. Before we go down( and we won't) we'll rattle the gates of hell in our attempts to make it! It's the way we do things!!!...

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 12:46:55 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Wish I had more jobs to fill, but, as all companies mine has also been a struggle as of late and the prospects for a quick recovery aren't good.


Mark,
Here's a question. If the incoming administration, party irrelevant, came in promising to cut or eliminate most of the current bureaucracy, promised to not raise or lower taxes until a complete and total audit of all government programs was completed, and was committed to changing the status quo of entitlement and rewarding failures; would you be more or less likely to want to project an expansion of your business?

I'll speak for myself and, you'll have to trust me that I have quite a few business associates who feel the same way, business plans for 2009 would be much different. We all wouldn't be bunkering down, we'd be out there looking for expanding.

Instead we've been promised more taxes, more bureaucracy, and the last PE Obama plan announced a goal of 600,000 MORE government employees. I had to make sure I read it right, because at first I thought it was a misprint and he really said that he was planning on cutting 600,000; but no - 600,000 MORE!!  (Link to video: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/prez-elect-make.html )

What kind of 'business manager' would do that in the face of the current economic conditions? The answer is one who can either print all the money needed, preparing to fund it by the hourly reducing percentage of people and businesses that still have a positive bottom line to give it to the government. The only other answer is one who has, as a goal, total government employment or ownership. Do you have any other reasoning?

This action doesn't contribute to the solution to the problem; it serves to increase it. According to PE Obama; "Potentially we've got trillion -dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on" (Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95HPUGG0&show_article=1 )

We'll DUH - adding 600,000 more bureaucrats is a sure path to fulfilling that prophecy don't you think? It seems the quote would be more accurate if it said "...because of the economic recovery that we are working on." For reference purposes the Federal deficit was about $455 billion for year ended September 30, 2008. Imagine, 2008 will be referenced as the 'good old days' when we had a deficit of less than $500 Billion. However, it does represent 'Change'.


PS - Mark, NEVER worry about 'misinterpretation; be sure I'll ask. Nothing you said wasn't well taken.  I enjoy our exchanges even when they get a little boring when we're on the same side - like this!

(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 2:10:23 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

this is no time to sit on our hands as CL would have us do.

Now, now, Mark, I never said PEOPLE should do nothing. My call has been for GOVERNMENT to do nothing--so that PEOPLE won't trip over them and their stupid policies.

_____________________________



(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 2:59:57 PM   
jakelogan01


Posts: 71
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash

Seems a bit out of proportion anyway, if it's just an across the board tax cut, rebate, or whatever. $500 for a single taxpayer (or $1000 for a couple) might seem like a decent amount to someone who is not financially comfortable, but for middle income & up it isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what is paid by them in taxes. I might get my head chopped off for this one (pretty sure of it actually), but giving a percentage back based on income level would likely inject more money into the economy. People with more money are much more comfortable spending larger amounts of money (like buying a car) while folks who are strapped for cash may just look at the windfall as extra cash to set back for paying their regular bills or perhaps pop for that cheesy flat screen TV they have been drooling over. Something tells me that the vehicle purchase (or other major purchase) might put a bigger dent in the problem.

quote:

Seems a bit out of proportion anyway, if it's just an across the board tax cut, rebate, or whatever. $500 for a single taxpayer (or $1000 for a couple) might seem like a decent amount to someone who is not financially comfortable, but for middle income & up it isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what is paid by them in taxes. I might get my head chopped off for this one (pretty sure of it actually), but giving a percentage back based on income level would likely inject more money into the economy. People with more money are much more comfortable spending larger amounts of money (like buying a car) while folks who are strapped for cash may just look at the windfall as extra cash to set back for paying their regular bills or perhaps pop for that cheesy flat screen TV they have been drooling over. Something tells me that the vehicle purchase (or other major purchase) might put a bigger dent in the problem.


ok, here goes the beheading...just kidding, hehehe. there is a political and economic argument against making the rebate (tax cut, less withholding, whatever) proportional to income (or taxes paid). the political argument is that it would be regressive, putting more money in the pockets of the richer and less money in the pockets of the poorer, and no money at all in the pockets of the poorest who pay no income taxes. some wouldn't care but many in the center and the left feel uncomfortable with that.

the economic argument is that empirical data show that people with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their incomes (yes, including that flat screen tv) than people with higher incomes. if you are making ends meet and get $500 or $1000, chances are you'll spend most of it right away. if you have a high income, a large percentage will be saved. if you want to put the money back in the economy, it is more effective to give it to people with lower incomes.

(in reply to ScooterTrash)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 3:07:30 PM   
jakelogan01


Posts: 71
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		oh, and merc, i agree with you, 600,000 more bureaucrats like the ones at the sec chumming with the companies they are supposed to supervise instead of checking on madoff are not exactly what we need

(in reply to jakelogan01)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 4:34:10 PM   
ScooterTrash


Posts: 1407
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jakelogan01


quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash
Seems a bit out of proportion anyway, if it's just an across the board tax cut, rebate, or whatever. $500 for a single taxpayer (or $1000 for a couple) might seem like a decent amount to someone who is not financially comfortable, but for middle income & up it isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what is paid by them in taxes. I might get my head chopped off for this one (pretty sure of it actually), but giving a percentage back based on income level would likely inject more money into the economy. People with more money are much more comfortable spending larger amounts of money (like buying a car) while folks who are strapped for cash may just look at the windfall as extra cash to set back for paying their regular bills or perhaps pop for that cheesy flat screen TV they have been drooling over. Something tells me that the vehicle purchase (or other major purchase) might put a bigger dent in the problem.


ok, here goes the beheading...just kidding, hehehe. there is a political and economic argument against making the rebate (tax cut, less withholding, whatever) proportional to income (or taxes paid). the political argument is that it would be regressive, putting more money in the pockets of the richer and less money in the pockets of the poorer, and no money at all in the pockets of the poorest who pay no income taxes. some wouldn't care but many in the center and the left feel uncomfortable with that.

the economic argument is that empirical data show that people with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their incomes (yes, including that flat screen tv) than people with higher incomes. if you are making ends meet and get $500 or $1000, chances are you'll spend most of it right away. if you have a high income, a large percentage will be saved. if you want to put the money back in the economy, it is more effective to give it to people with lower incomes.

Jake, I do understand your reasoning, although I guess the best I can do is agree to somewhat disagree. Along the same line as Merc and Mark being more willing to invest in expanding or increasing investment in their businesses if the upcoming policies (read fixes) projected a more promising outlook on the future, I think the folks who really need the money will hoard it for necessities for similar reasons...the future don't look good. Now they may in fact spend it quickly, but that may really not be for anything new, it may be spent to cover the bills and debts that they were just going to miss or default on in the first place. Maybe that's a good thing...but I don't know that it will have much of a positive impact on the economy as a whole (although their landlord might be thrilled). Give the same $500 or $1000 to me (or perhaps Mark & Merc) and it's going to get spent quickly, because it's not really that big of a deal. At the very least, it will be spent on something new, not used for an already accumulated debt. Now, I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but the folks I know who are struggling, and I know a few, are not going to run out and drop the cash on a quick purchase, they are going to use it on what is causing them to struggle in the first place, necessities (once again, perhaps a good thing, hard call).

_____________________________

Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound.
-Albert Einstein

(in reply to jakelogan01)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 6:06:14 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		~FR~ (edited to add)

I have a novel idea. How about balancing the damn budget and trimming the pork before anymore tax cuts.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to ScooterTrash)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 6:28:27 PM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Edited for length

... My generations, Baby-Boomers, 'good intentions' generated these results and truthfully - we deserve them. We took away the struggle and incubated men and woman who, for the most part, are still children seeking to continue the nanny services we provided...


*stands and applauds*

When will you be running for President, Merc? 

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 6:51:22 PM   
hizgeorgiapeach


Posts: 1672
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Edited for length

... My generations, Baby-Boomers, 'good intentions' generated these results and truthfully - we deserve them. We took away the struggle and incubated men and woman who, for the most part, are still children seeking to continue the nanny services we provided...


*stands and applauds*

When will you be running for President, Merc? 



Never, if he's as intelligent as he comes across.  He'd be assassinated long before he could take an oath of office, instigated by those who insist on maintaining the status quo!

_____________________________

Rhi
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Essential Scentsations

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 7:14:46 PM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, but at least Merc could run for city council or the local airport board.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 7:16:41 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		Another novel idea.

Stop "wet nursing "corporate America.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama - 1/6/2009 7:18:56 PM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		Perhaps.  But wouldn't Beth make a rocking first lady?  

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: New tax cuts proposed by Obama Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094