It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should the poor and middle class just pay corporations and the wealthy to create jobs?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by ReluctantBlossom
reply to post by neo96

"considering that half this country doesnt pay taxes maybe they should."---Yeah...The TOP half with all their breaks and loopholes

" but them cant get a job? " (Presuming this is the half of the country you meant)---Because there aren't any jobs to get

"oh i know lets raise taxes on those people who employ the middle class and makes everything they use. " How about instead of raising taxes on them... we take away the tax BREAKS they've enjoyed for the last ten years and put them back at the rates they are SUPPOSED to be paying...Later we can raise them. And they are employing fewer and fewr people now and they don't make anything anymore. They do the manufacturing in other countries now...The countries that they sent all of our jobs to.

I love the little quote under your name: "The truth is out there but you won't find it listening to me" It seems to hold true in this instance.

Can you provide links to back this up with please. Thanks
edit on 15-8-2011 by bo12au because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:21 PM
A record 15 percent, over 45 MILLION Americans are on food stamps.

To qualify for food stamps, you have to make under 14,000 a year.

These people barely make enough to keep a roof over their heads and can't even afford food and need help....but some of you want to increase the tax burden on them?

Well you are increasing the tax burden on them with all of the spending cuts you are supporting that help them.

You are trying to increase the cost of living for those who are already struggling.
edit on 15-8-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Xeven
reply to post by EmVeeFF

Its a failed theory. It does not work. Has not worked. Will not work. It has been proven to fail over and over. Why beat a dead horse. We need alternatives. Yes we need to cut the budget as well as raise taxes on the Rich. Seriously can't take money from people who have to choose between "great value" peanut butter and name brand when you can make a rich guy settle for one new Yatch.

Actually it does work and has worked. Thanks for your provocative counter-point.

No offense dude, but you sound like a recording of a MSM talking head. If you have an issue with the method, respond with actual points, not "Nope doesn't work."

I could go on to explain why it doesn't seem to work in the instances you might have experienced, but taking your last reply into consideration I do not think it would be worth my time.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by EmVeeFF

That's what should happen. That's what logic would dictate that they do. The truth, however, is that those profits simply get sifted off to investors or the executives who own lots of the company simply pay themselves billions. Expansion only occurs and jobs are only created when absolutely necessary, and then, the payrolls are kept to running the store on skeleton crews.

Not nessisarily. The problem is our government only cuts taxes from companies that (for lack or desire to find a better word) suck. Big banks, Big aggro, big auto, GE, Wallmart, while kicking the little guy while hes down. you know, that local shop that provides better service and products at (quite often) the same or lower prices.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:06 PM
We do already. We buy their crap. And when we can't anymore they'll either move on to their newly cultivated markets and slaves or they'll reassess. My money isn't on the latter. Sorry, but this whole subject of "job creation" by the already rich and powerful who are pulling the strings of our government is on my last nerve. They're simply holding onto the money and/or looking elsewhere because they honestly don't give a damn about you or me or this country. And in many cases it was you and me and this country who gave these ingrates their start. There will be no new jobs here unless we force it (and I do mean force) or create them. The government isn't going to do it and neither are these existing employers, all of whom, both large and small, have agendas or are taking advantage. Politicians included. Term limits NOW. End the days of lobbyists and professional politicians. It's one of our only hopes for real reform and real change.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by EmVeeFF

That sounds nice on paper, but when you look at the facts, that's not how it played out in real life. They took the extra cash from their tax breaks and put it in their own pocket, they did not reinvest in their their company or employees.

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Xeven
Seriously, to listen to republicans you must believe that giving corporations tax breaks will cause them to create jobs. Well it did not do so in the 8 years of Bush.Nor is the Bush tax cuts helping the Obama economy. Why don't the republicans create a bill to just pay the corporations direct from tax revenues rather than having them pay taxes at all. That would surely cause them to create Jobs here in the good ole US?

You misunderstand. Let's first define "corporation"

Do you mean General Electric? Jeffrey Immelt (GE CEO) is on Obama's "Job Creation Council" and GE got a TAX CREDIT (as in: didn't pay any taxes) of 3.5 billion last year. So if you are in Obama's pocket, No. You don't have to pay any taxes. I guess Jeff isn't a private jet owner or one of the revile "millionaires and billionaires".... except he IS. So is Nancy Pelosi, who refuses to hire union workers, btw.

However, MOST jobs don't come from the liberal elite, like Immelt. they come from small businesses that own 1-5 shops in 1 or 2 towns. Those people have an incoming #storm from Obamacare, and if you increase their taxes, they will hire fewer people because, (it's simple math) they can't pay people unless they raise the prices of their goods. This isn't hard to figure out.

Wanna tax corporations? GO CRAZY! Since GOOGLE, GE, Facebook, Hollywood et. al, are all liberals, tax them into the dust! You have my blessing.

Have you even taken a math class?

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by James1982

Yes it does. Don't talk about what you do not understand. once you have experience (that I do) dealing with a family owned business (that employed over 100 people) then you can tell me it doesn't. Read the post above. It is the same old big this big that that get cridits and cuts, and do not hire. it is the small business that takes it in the face, even with the "bush tax cuts" (which empowered corporate jobs that allow no room for improvement to the employed).

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by James1982

It is the same old big this big that that get cridits and cuts, and do not hire.

Yes.... what exactly are you disagreeing with me about? My reply was to your first post, not sure if you took it out of context or something?

I said that the big corporations take their tax cuts, and pocket them. They don't reinvest it into their employees. Which you just agreed with. Where's the beef?

This is what I was responding to:

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by Xeven

You aren't understanding the concept...

Ok a business makes X money. Right now they have 100%

Say the Gov takes 20% tax, now they have 80%.

Part of that will pay salaries and the other part will be re-invested to the business.

The salary payout is finite where the reinvestment is variable.

So if the Business has more money, they will have a larger % to re-invest, which may be invested in exspansion, which creates jobs.

edit on 16-8-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by EmVeeFF

I see what you are saying. People saying its a failed concept lack imagination. I am not saying it would work in the simplistic form you put it into, but I think some mechanism could be conjured up like directly linking lower tax rates to businesses that create jobs. And businesses that make over a certain amount of money could reduce their tax rate the more jobs they create annually. It might give the larger businesses incentive to hire workers instead of automating us all out of work.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by James1982

the "beef" is that when the MSM gets everyone chanting "tax the rich tax the rich" the small business owner gets hit, and the big corp goes on doing the same #. Always. The bigs will always spend wastefully and get away with it, and the small business owner gets it worse and worse every decade.
edit on 16-8-2011 by EmVeeFF because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

Exactly. |Say you owned an electronics store. If you were robbed regularly, and couldn't do anything about it despite your best efforts, what would you do?

You would go into an "emergency" mode. You would probably keep your stock very limited.

Now, the US gov is "stealing" these companies' money, so their employees are being kept in short supply.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by EmVeeFF

I still don't see what we are disagreeing about?

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by David9176

You know what the problem with that is, that the unemployment numbers look good even if you are working and still working under the poverty level, because a jobs is counted as a job regardless, but with 51% of the population paying littler taxes or none taxes at all and living on welfare the working class that makes a meaningful living are the ones that are been gouged to pay for taxes to compensate for the those that don't make enough.

The difference in income is getting bigger and bigger, America is going backward when it comes to quality of living and the middle class is almost none existent.

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:48 AM
Ugh. Tell me you're all joking. Watch this video and go back and read this thread again and ask yourselves who's really screwing you. The rich? The poor? Democrats? Republicans? Or someone else? This entire thread gives me a headache in how vividly it demonstrates how easily mind-controlled our society has become if even the vigilant ATS members are this blind to the truth.

The New World Order Leviathan

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by marg6043

Republicans love the wealthiest and love corporate America that is why they give away tax payers money in incentives, Bailouts (Bush started them) and tax brakes.

So far they have not done a darn thing to create anything but profits for themselves.

Top 10 Richest US Lawmakers

Who’s the Richest?

Sen. John Kerry (D)—The former Presidential candidate leads all members of Congress with a net worth of $167.55 million. He has dozens of million dollar assets, and the bulk of his wealth actually comes from his wife’s money.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R)—Despite the recession, the California lawmaker has continued to increase his net worth to $164.70 million. He founded Directed Electronics, a car alarm manufacturer, and he has other valuable investments.

Rep. Jane Harman (D)—This California Democrat has holdings in Harmon International Industries, an audio products company. In 2008, she reported a more than 50% decline in her minimum net worth, but she’s still worth $112.13 million.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D)—When you hear the Rockefeller name, you immediately associate it with wealth. This West Virginia Senator is currently worth at least $80.45 million.

Sen. Mark Warner (D)—Warner is the richest of the 11 freshman lawmakers. He was the co-founder of Nextel telecommunications, making him incredibly rich. His minimum net worth is estimated at $72.37 million.

Rep. Jarred Polis (D)—Polis is a serial entrepreneur. He first founded American Information Systems, and later sold it for more than $20 million. He then grew his family’s greeting card business, and that sold for $780 million. After that, he founded and sold it for $477 million. His net worth is estimated currently at $71 million.

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R)—Buchanan has many assets, including real estate, car dealerships, and investment accounts, making his net worth $49.79 million. The Florida Congressman has reported a sharp decline in net worth during the recession.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D)—Lautenberg became rich from a payroll processing company he founded back in 1952. He maintains three blind trusts, and his total minimum net worth is $48.38 million.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)—The California Senator has an impressive portfolio that includes multiple trusts, real estate, and various partnerships. Her minimum net worth is estimated to be $42.94 million.

Rep. Harry Teague (D)—Another rookie lawmaker, Teague earned his wealth by founding an oil services firm, Teaco Energy Services. His net worth is $40.63 million.

Interesting letters behind those names, huh? Darned rich, elitist Republicans are too concerned...with...wealth...oh wait.


posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kitilani


yep all them must be lying and corrected by who?


edit on 15-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Not one of your links backs up what I called a lie.
So, it still stands as a lie.
Maybe you need to read it next time before you defend it?

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
He is likely referring to income taxes,

Is he now? You are saying that the poster did not know what they were writing then? They wrote out the wrong thing but it is ok because you know in your heart what they meant? Good for you. I know what was actually written.

and that is very close to being true as you well know and as has been proven multiple times here.

"Close to being true."

You gotta be kidding me.

Sure, if you change what he said and some other details, it might be "close to being true" but unlike you, I am not going to add what I think he meant to his post. I am reading what was actually written and it is a lie.

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by The Old American

Interesting letters behind those names, huh? Darned rich, elitist Republicans are too concerned...with...wealth...oh wait.

The only difference is, and while I don't know all of their stances, they are willing to increase taxes on themselves....that is if they support Clinton era tax rates or even higher ones.

Republicans do not....obviously.
edit on 22-8-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:28 PM
I am more concerned with people making money with money rather than work and effort. Money made by owning stock is simply in my view money that should be going to the employees of the company rather than some rich guy who never worked a day in his life, just inherited money makes an investment then sells it taking company profits for really doing nothing at all to contribute to society.

While I think it is fine to make "some" money in this way it should not be on the backs of workers. Tax that income to make up for the deficits along with deep cuts in government spending. If we don't have some equity between investment income and people putting in a hard days work we will see the system die as we are seeing now.

If we don't pay the government something there wont be anyone to protect the rich from the poor mobs that will come if we keep giving all the money to a few.

I just want to see a country were anyone working everyday can make enough to support their family in a decent way.

If the system was not Rigged to make the rich richer then workers could make a nice living for their family.

edit on 22-8-2011 by Xeven because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in