My personal opinions on this topic are as follows. Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy and lower them for the poor. That sounds great.. like a modern Robin Hood right?..Problem is this isn't Sherwood forest . If you tax the wealthy they are not going to suffer, they will cut jobs move production elsewhere and whatever else they have to do to offset the tax. In the end the tax break you give the poor is only going to equal out in the end because of the companies raising prices on products again to cover the tax losses they are going to incur. There is no answer to this problem because the tax breaks these companies get aren't invested in employees either. Im sure the wealthy who get tax breaks aren't going..you know since my taxes are lower i am gonna give Jim from the mailroom a raise..first thing they are going to do is invest this extra money or buy themselves a new car or house. I think if both sides could just forget about the differences and try to come up with a good solution it could be beneficial to all..problem is it has never happened and i can't see it happening any time soon either.
You have identified some problem
ReplyDeleteareas , can you be part of the
solution? That's what everyone is waiting for!
Stop sending billions all around the world and cut federal spending on wasteful projects/war and taxes wouldnt even be an issue. Spend less, collect less.
ReplyDeleteFlat tax is the answer. No tax credits on anything.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like working with the homeowners facing foreclosure and seeing exactly what they can afford to pay to stay in their homes? Even if it stretches the loan out longer?
ReplyDeleteThe banks would get there money, may take longer however we keep people as homeowners and the banks would need a lot less from the government to stabilize their debt. Too much common sense in that theory. We have to make it so complex that the average layman would never pick up on the pork belly added to the bill just because they can.
Recent inflated home assessments should be corrected, lowering property taxes and giving the working men and women more money to spend in hopes of keeping the local economy afloat.
Beurocracy creates jobs. Jobs create revenue from the taxes. This is what "vodoo" economics is all about. Some leaders and most politicians can't mathematically understand why this can never happen. It's like perpetual motion, it goes against the laws that we live by. Not criminal laws, but phyisical laws. Capitolism is the closest we can get to our financial system working our mathematically, but it ceases to work when you add socialism and subtract oversight.
ReplyDeleteWe as a country, think that if we help out every other country, they will be our friends. If they are our friends, they will invest in our businesses and we in theirs. This creates jobs which inturn creates revenue from taxes, buying and selling of goods, the use of services, and everything else that comes along. Everything we do cost us more money in taxes than the product could ever be worth.
If you grow your own tomatoes, which takes very little work, you cut out the entire system of the farmer, growers, fertilizer, equipment, harveting, employees, shipping, fuel, it's all one big circle. So much tax money is raised through this cycle. Many jobs are created. It gives value and worth to a product that nature allows us to grow on our own in our back yard.
This is trickle down economics. The never ending branches of interaction. This is what gives people purpose in their life. It is very complicated.
If you go to most third world countries, they don't have all the things we have. Most of them don't need them or want them. They have a much simpler life. They wake up, eat some food. They may tend to farming for their food. They may hunt to put nutrition in their bodies. They may build housing for them or someone else. They might sit around and think about how easy life is.
Look at the life of an animal. We are after all, animals. Do animals go to work? Not most of them. They do the same things I described above.
So why do we go to work? What is the point? wouldn't life be better if there wasn't any money? People would wake up and work on something because they had a talent and enjoyed what they did. If they needed a tool, they would go to someone who enjoyed making tools and it would be free. Everyone would get along. Is your child sick? Go to a doctor. No cost. People would socialize together and these groups might grow into towns and cities. Someone would learn what everyone enjoyed doing, what their talents were and make sure that they were educated by someone who had experience doing that same thing. We could all live just like we do.
Money enslaves us all. It keeps us working in jobs we don't enjoy. It enslaves us to a way of life that takes the joy out of the things we truly love to do. As soon as we graduate high school, we have to decide whether to get a job, because we have to pay for the things we NEED in life. Or we can go to college and borrow money so that after we let a bunch of people teach us what we enjoy, we can be the journeymen of our desired field of work.
People that get to workin a field that they enjoy, would still do that job for no pay. Being forced to do things against our will, against the laws of nature, against the laws of our creator, creates a stress and tension in our bodies. It brings out anger and hatred.
We should live in a society that pushes us in the direction of doing something that we love. We don't need money to play. We don't need money to eat. You don't need money to laugh or love. We only need money so we can be enslaved to another person. We are not free. Third world countries? Those people are free.
Sorry but even if they do get a tax cut I still don't think Jim in the mailroom is gonna get a raise....
ReplyDeletewell they would not have to tax the rich more if you so called rich people would pay your employees enough to live on.
ReplyDeleteMost of the business people in and around salisbury are not rich, there wantabees republicans because they have a few dollars that mommy and daddy left them.
unions will rule again someday and all salisbury business people hate that.
And dont tell me you dont.
Your afraid we might make a descent living.
Grinch, You stated that the rich would invest their tax break on a new car or house. That is beneficial to our econemy because it means jobs to.....
ReplyDelete1- design the house
2- have the local govt. approve plan
3- excavating and site prep
4- repairs to above equip.
5- work for lumber supplier
6- work for carpenters
7- work for electricians
8- work for plumbers
9- work for roofers
10- work for landscapers
11- work to maintain the house
12- work for all suppliers
13- taxes to county to keep county employees busy
AND I know I missed a lot of people.
So you see that rich folks buying a new home for themselves does help the economy. Rich people help make me rich.
Anon 6:24
ReplyDeleteI thought I heard a lot of ridiculous sh*t on the debate last night from ppl who don't know what they are talking about. But you, sir, have absolutely outdone BOTH presidential candidates. Amazing.
This year Obama has not gotten one earmark (Pork rider) for his state in this election years. However last year he had earmarks to the tune of over $800,000,000. Yuppers close to a billion dollars slipped into legislation for items totally unrelated to the original Bill.
ReplyDeleteTo agree to sign a bill if one can get it's state a fat plate of pork, should just be criminal. If it doesn't support the root of the bill itself, it shouldn't be in appropriations. Not much different than a scam to rape the taxpayers.
Jim in the mailroom should be earning what it's worth for the employer. If Jim wants a raise, he needs to increase his value to the employer, it's that simple.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the union comment, our society (10:1 this includes the union folk) purchases goods from Walmart and such that are made in China by people making pennies per hour. They will NOT pay 20-100 times more for the same thing made in America by union labor.
Why can't you people understand that. Politicians have not hurt the unions, the unions have priced their goods and services out of reach for most of the people.