rushmc 18 #26 October 7, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... Properly stated, China does not take jobs. Positions in the US are moved there by the leadership of companies looking to maintain/increase profits. In their short-term glee over low prices for cheap crappy goods; consumers then fuel the death spiral of US manufacturing. Welcome to the dark side of globalization of labor. US workers are still the most productive workers in the world What screws them here is the cost of gov regulation and oversite. We could complete if the gov would get off the backs of business http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/obama-on-60-minutes/ I never thought I would see you quoting Obama. The last line is the key I could have stated that US workers are among the most productive in the world And with big Gov off the backs of business US workers CAN compete But saddly they can not in this regulatory environment"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gregpso 1 #27 October 7, 2011 I agree a lot of the occuppy Wall St stuff is looney left but.. How do you good folk in the USA allow such low minimum wages. I was at Walt Disney World last year and dicovered the cleaning and service staff get around $6 per hour. How can any one live on that ? (yes I tipped everyday) Its time the rich folk there paid their fair share of income tax like 40 per cent tax after the first $120 000 . It works fine here in Aus and our budget deft/surplus is just fine by international standards Of course every employer over there pays 9 percent into workers superannuations funds every month don't they . If they do not why ?? we do we afford it (Employers complained when first came in in 1985 but its a non issue now) I love the USA and its people and love visiting but I would not want to be an average worker I see it as the haves and have nots over there and the haves do not care about the have nots !! AND THE HAVE NOTS ARE BECOMING MORE ALL THE TIME !!! The aussie dollar is around 98 cents USA at present ( and will be higher again soon when Euro debt crisis is sorted out) so we are going fine in looking after the have nots way better than you but of course thats Socialism is it not !! My 20 cents worth .. plus tax (why on earth do you not include the tax on the price of things .. plus tax give me a break !!!! )I tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #28 October 7, 2011 QuoteI agree a lot of the occuppy Wall St stuff is looney left but.. How do you good folk in the USA allow such low minimum wages. I was at Walt Disney World last year and dicovered the cleaning and service staff get around $6 per hour. How can any one live on that ? (yes I tipped everyday) Its time the rich folk there paid their fair share of income tax like 40 per cent tax after the first $120 000 . It works fine here in Aus and our budget deft/surplus is just fine by international standards Of course every employer over there pays 9 percent into workers superannuations funds every month don't they . If they do not why ?? we do we afford it (Employers complained when first came in in 1985 but its a non issue now) I love the USA and its people and love visiting but I would not want to be an average worker I see it as the haves and have nots over there and the haves do not care about the have nots !! AND THE HAVE NOTS ARE BECOMING MORE ALL THE TIME !!! The aussie dollar is around 98 cents USA at present ( and will be higher again soon when Euro debt crisis is sorted out) so we are going fine in looking after the have nots way better than you but of course thats Socialism is it not !! My 20 cents worth .. plus tax (why on earth do you not include the tax on the price of things .. plus tax give me a break !!!! ) your country is tiny compared to ours. most of our states are larger than your entire nation. its not apples to apples. our problems are exponential. do you really think we could just act like Finland or your home and everything would be fine here? we are way to big and diverse for that."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #29 October 7, 2011 QuoteI agree a lot of the occuppy Wall St stuff is looney left but.. How do you good folk in the USA allow such low minimum wages. I was at Walt Disney World last year and dicovered the cleaning and service staff get around $6 per hour. How can any one live on that ? (yes I tipped everyday) Better than they can from countries south of the American border. With two minimum wage jobs ($7.25/hour for 40 hours a week - $290 a week, $580 for two jobs) they're making $500 a week more than they would someplace like Mexico (minimum wage of just $80/week) which lets them live here with enough left over to send some back home to support family in their home countries. Quote Its time the rich folk there paid their fair share of income tax like 40 per cent tax after the first $120 000 . 1) We already do with the top earning decile paying 70% of Federal income taxes but 47% of other American workers paying no income tax. In fact America already has the most progressive (defined as the ratio between the top earning decile's share of taxes to share of income) federal income tax system out of the entire OECD 24 which includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom. 2) Many of us are already paying a 40% marginal tax rate. 28% in Federal income tax, 1.45% in Federal Medicare, 1.45% employers share of Medicare, 9.55% California state income tax. This is worse than in other countries with similar tax rates because our taxes don't cover medical insurance (can be $14,000 a year for a family), a pension (our "social security" can replace just 1/3 of a person's working wages below the income cap which means saving an additional 10%+ a year to retain one's standard of living once past working age), or higher education (can be $10,000 a year for a public school in your state not including room and board or $30,000 a year for public schools in other states) 3) In high-cost areas where the jobs are $120,000 is poor enough to qualify for government moderate income housing programs (the cut-off in San Mateo county, CA is $150,000 a year). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #30 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteI agree a lot of the occuppy Wall St stuff is looney left but.. How do you good folk in the USA allow such low minimum wages. I was at Walt Disney World last year and dicovered the cleaning and service staff get around $6 per hour. How can any one live on that ? (yes I tipped everyday) Better than they can from countries south of the American border. With two minimum wage jobs ($7.25/hour for 40 hours a week - $290 a week, $580 for two jobs) they're making $500 a week more than they would someplace like Mexico (minimum wage of just $80/week) which lets them live here with enough left over to send some back home to support family in their home countries. Quote Its time the rich folk there paid their fair share of income tax like 40 per cent tax after the first $120 000 . 1) We already do with the top earning decile paying 70% of Federal income taxes but 47% of other American workers paying no income tax. In fact America already has the most progressive (defined as the ratio between the top earning decile's share of taxes to share of income) federal income tax system out of the entire OECD 24 which includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom. Kinda expected when you want to have a military bigger than that of all those nations combined. Americans just have to have more guns! PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. PPS the Gini ratio for the US indicates more inequality than those nations too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 October 7, 2011 Quote My 20 cents worth .. plus tax (why on earth do you not include the tax on the price of things .. plus tax give me a break !!!! ) Not everything is taxable in my state, though I guess your point is they could still mark up the taxable items. It would lead to some problems though, as taxes can change from one county to the next, and with legislative changes. Much easier just to tack it on later - keeps us doing some math on a daily basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #32 October 8, 2011 Quote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. 2. It's not our fault that other Americans prefer to leverage themselves with debt to buy expensive cars, houses, and consumer crap so they're instead of saving and investing. That behavior led to the current depression and should be discouraged. Quote PPS the Gini ratio for the US indicates more inequality than those nations too. So what? Income isn't a zero sum-game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #33 October 9, 2011 QuoteQuote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 October 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #35 October 10, 2011 How about this rule from the old west: If you don't work, you don't eat !!! ( nor get free drugs and alcohol ). How about that ?? And no, I don't include cripples, retired folks, housewives ( a tough job ), etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #36 October 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out a most basic and fundamental flaw in our system of raising revenue. It's based on the wrong thing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 October 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out a most basic and fundamental flaw in our system of raising revenue. It's based on the wrong thing. In YOUR opinion.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #38 October 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out a most basic and fundamental flaw in our system of raising revenue. It's based on the wrong thing. In YOUR opinion. Yes, it is indeed my opinion that a system which allows multimillionaires to avoid contributing to their nation is indeed flawed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 October 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out a most basic and fundamental flaw in our system of raising revenue. It's based on the wrong thing. In YOUR opinion. Yes, it is indeed my opinion that a system which allows multimillionaires to avoid contributing to their nation is indeed flawed. Maybe you can put your money where your mouth is, and send in the wealth tax on the Mooney and brownstone.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #40 October 10, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out a most basic and fundamental flaw in our system of raising revenue. It's based on the wrong thing. In YOUR opinion. Yes, it is indeed my opinion that a system which allows multimillionaires to avoid contributing to their nation is indeed flawed. Maybe you can put your money where your mouth is, and send in the wealth tax on the Mooney and brownstone. Did already... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 October 10, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote PS the top decile owns 73% of the wealth of the USA, so paying only 70% of taxes suggests they should pay more. 1. The top decile only earns 48% of the income, suggesting that we should pay much less. Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out a most basic and fundamental flaw in our system of raising revenue. It's based on the wrong thing. In YOUR opinion. Yes, it is indeed my opinion that a system which allows multimillionaires to avoid contributing to their nation is indeed flawed. Maybe you can put your money where your mouth is, and send in the wealth tax on the Mooney and brownstone. Did already Of *course* you did.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #42 October 11, 2011 Quote Explain why a multi-billionaire who has no "income" should be exempt? That is the logical outcome of your position. Because it's "income" tax and not "wealth" tax. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out a most basic and fundamental flaw in our system of raising revenue. It's based on the wrong thing. The current depression is a direct result of corporatist interests getting Americans to spend more and save less with the US government protecting the companies from the inevitable losses (the GSEs guaranteeing and buying up privately issued mortgages with ever increasing conforming loan limits, laws prohibiting the discharge of student loan debt in bankruptcy, etc.). We don't need tax laws which make the situation worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
