It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Maher Rips Republicans Over California’s Booming Economy

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Abysha

You mean Swizterland?


That woulda been an "ah snap" moment except:

The Swiss can Vote, North Korea Can't



Voting in Switzerland (called votation) is the process by which Swiss citizens make decisions about governance and elect officials. The polling stations are opened on Saturdays and Sunday mornings but most[citation needed] people vote by post in advance (Abstimmungssonntag in German); at noon on that day, voting ends and the results are usually known at the end of the afternoon. Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy in parallel with representative democracy, which is why the Swiss system is known as a semi-direct democracy.[1] Direct democracy allows any citizen to challenge any law approved by the parliament or, at any time, propose a modification of the federal Constitution. In addition, in most cantons all votes are cast using paper ballots that are manually counted. At the federal level, voting can be organised for:

edit on 3-7-2016 by Connector because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

For society in general housing prices doubling in 4 years is a terrible thing. It means housing pressure is not being relieved due to either topography or zoning laws/bureaucracy.
It also means a class turnover. Roots are never established as the working class original buyers get a windfall and then leave as property taxes devour their incomes. Then the neighborhood gets priced out for normal individuals.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Housing coat doubling while wages stagnate and decline makes total sense.

The average person must be doing great.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I think trickle down theory is horse pucky.

But yeah... Um...


"The fundamentals of California and the U.S. suggest the most likely evolution of the California economy is more of the same — slow, steady and unexceptional growth," said Jerry Nickelsburg, a senior economist with the forecast.


Link

Not exactly a description of a "booming economy".



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Removing the income tax altogether sounds like a tax reduction to me, just a very big one. Of course, it would dis-proportionally benefit the rich a lot while having next to no positive impact (if not a huge negative one) on the poor.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Xtrozero

It really depends on your perspective. 2016 is great... If you're part of the wealthy upper echelon. Otherwise, not so much. 1976 must have been awful for them, the top 1% received only 8.9% of pre-tax income, as opposed to the approximately 23% in 2007. What did the economic situation look like in 1976? Actually, 1975, what did it look like in 1975?


I started working in 1978 and I can't say it was all that great... My first car was 18% interest rate... that kind of sucked too.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
If California is a good place I sure feel very sorry for the rest of the world.

When I'm trapped in traffic entering or exiting a freeway, often times their is a homeless person waiting to beg for money. I went to the beach the other weekend. On my way using the 110 freeway their were tents pitched on several overpasses of the homeless. They keep it a secret but occasionally wanna be gang members snipe and kill people driving on the 710 freeway. Don't hear about it in the news because they don't want to hurt business.

Even Barbra Boxer and Feinstein couldn't destroy California all the way. when Pete Wilson was in charge we had a surplus. Now we have a deficit.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I left California for the same reason.

Tent city at the civic center in Santa Ana. People just passed out everywhere all over town and people sleeping in their cars.

Homeless from south county all the way up to Long Beach.

Everywhere



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The jobs alone created by such a tax reform would benefit the poor immensely.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Yep, trickle down doesnt work.
Just wonder why people still have their head up their 4 point of contact about this.


edit on 23-9-2016 by Homeles because: Fat fingers and a cell phone



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The jobs alone created by such a tax reform would benefit the poor immensely.


The companies would flock back to the US to do business. But no. They would rather drive them and their technology out of the US because it isn't fair to benefit from hard work. You have to invent a global charity and steal the money for it to be fair.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Wealthy: Well let's see if you need 10 of something to live and one person gets 1000 of them and lose 400 of them and you reduce that to 200 so it's a difference between 590 extra somethings and 790 extra something.

Middle: Well let's see if you need 10 of something to live and one person gets 50 of them and lose 20 of them and you reduce that to 10 so it's a difference between 20 extra somethings and 30 extra somethings.

Low to poverty: Well let's see if you need 10 of something to live and one person gets 20 of them and lose 8 of them and you reduce that to 4 so it's a difference between 2 extra somethings and 6 extra somethings.

Which group is most devastated by the original percent and has in least dire straights as a result of the tax change?

There is a clear difference between how much a tax affects a person by class. When you take more from people struggling already or take less from people struggling it takes very little logic a reasoning to realize it makes a bigger difference than taking more from or less from a person not struggling at all. Especially the end result either way is they're still not struggling. There's only so much the rich are putting back into the economy, they spend very little of those extra somethings. The middle and lower class however don't have so much excess so they have plenty to spend that extra somethings on, thus putting it back into the economy.


edit on 9/24/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join