Tax Cuts Are Destroying America

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I find it amusing that when espousing a fair system that treats everyone the same, I get called a bigot!


Only a leftist can defend a system that treats one class of people better than another, and call that :fair".

As for voting rights? Notice how I stated the wealthy and the poor yet some refuse to consider equality in any shape or form. I guess equality means one voting block gets preferential treatment over another voting block, to an extreme leftist.

As for the other poster who talks of "paying for tax cuts".

Allowing people to keep more of the money they earned does not need to be "paid for".

The government functions at our request. We pay them a certain wage (taxes). THEY work for us. If they cannot budget and fail at fiscal responsibility, it is not our responsibility to cover their poor fiscal efforts with more of our money.




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



I find it amusing that when espousing a fair system that treats everyone the same, I get called a bigot!


Uhhh, no, you said people should have to pay to vote, that isn't fair. That's regressive, it goes back to the mindset that only land owners could vote. You also tried to say that only poor people do not pay income tax, that is a GOP talking point and it is dead wrong.


The government functions at our request. We pay them a certain wage (taxes). THEY work for us. If they cannot budget and fail at fiscal responsibility, it is not our responsibility to cover their poor fiscal efforts with more of our money.


Cuts or spending had nothing to do with the study. I'm not advocating anything, all I said was that tax cuts lead to a larger income gap between the rich and the poor/middle class. Which is what the study was all about, not federal spending.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 

This is no argument/debate, you're just name calling...

Can you source something specific which he said that angered you?

Youre complaining about "tax breaks" for corporations and the wealthy. So Im sure you must have been against the banker bailouts, passed by both Bush and Obama. That was much more than a "tax break". That was trillions of our money given to the banksters. Peter Schiff was one of the biggest opponents to this wealth transfer as was Ron Paul, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber etc.

Romney free market?
Romney is about as free market as Obama. Like Obama, he favored the banker bailouts. Bailing out the banks is not free market, its crony capitalism. The health care extortion, I mean Bill, was based on Romney's legislation...

I'm not sure if Campbell's is a billion dollar industry unlike both the auto industry and the banking sector (Wall St.). "Billion dollar" industries can and do fail. Citigroup alone received a $2.1 TRILLION dollar bailout.

edit on 21-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I already linked a video of what he said that bothered me.



Yeah the poor are poor because they don't work hard enough. Everyone can start a business and become a millionaire! They aren't paying their fair share when they have nothing to give. All worship the "job creators"........ Peter is a dis-info agent, as he knows that capitalism has to have a lower class for it even to exist.



Blaming outsourcing on big government and not corporate greed and being able to hire workers for slave wages. Kind of sad that anyone would really defend Mitt Romney outsourcing at Bain. And we owe everything to "wealthy people" because they're job creators who all worked really hard.
The people that work at their business aren't hard workers at all! When the usually have the most labor intensive jobs.



While Bain was largely a parasite and made money regardless if the company succeeded or failed


Romney free market?


I know that Romney isn't free market. I called Peter a free market version of Romney, meaning he is out of touch with reality like Mitt is, and only lives to serve the rich while demonizing poor people.


Peter Schiff was one of the biggest opponents to this wealth transfer as was Ron Paul, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber etc.




And? He blames the government for the bail out and not the corporations themselves. Sure the government had a role in it, but so did the banks. Goldman Sachs KNOWINGLY sold garbage securities...




I'm not sure if Campbell's is a billion dollar industry


It is, they grossed a billion+ dollars last year, with profits in the hundred million


Campbell Soup Co. said it earned $127 million, or 40 cents per share, for the period ended July 29. In the year ago period — when the company was weighed down by restructuring charges — it earned $100 million, or 31 cents per share.

Revenue was basically flat at $1.61 billion, but beat Wall Street's $1.59 billion estimate.


news.yahoo.com...
edit on 21-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
We have an extreme debt/deficit issue. This essentially means that the government is providing more service than contributions from the population should allow.

This is a problem that must be solved by EVERYONE contributing at a greater level. People need to take social responsibility. People at higher incomes should probably pay a bit more. At least for a while, in the name of collectively solving America's problems.

A scary thought is that the rich are in a much better position if the economy were to collapse, so they might not be all that interested in fixing the system if their thinking follows such selfish lines.

But the lower income scales have to contribute more, too. Right now there isn't much disposable income, but there is certainly effort being left on the table in terms of community service. If localities took responsibilities for themselves in taking care of the needy, the burden on the Fed would decrease. That's as good, or better than tax payment.

This is a cultural problem as much as fiscal.

Rich blame the poor or free loading, poor blame the rich for not paying enough. This problem is exacerbated by the parties. Obama can't offend his base, generally middle class and below, by saying you have to do more. And Romney can't offend his guys, the wealthy, by increasing taxes.

What needs to happen is initiatives nationwide that focus on improving at the local level instead of the federal obsession. Especially in urban communities. You know what would be better than a tax increase for the wealthy? If more of them got directly involved in helping out low income kids, particularly in education.

Increasing the responsibility and contribution of individuals, and localities by nature decreases the demand for federal spending.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



Simple math. It kills me to watch as the idiots we choose as our leaders keep reducing revenue and increasing spending while the debt baloons. WTF is wrong with this picture? Then the GOP says that to fix the debt, they will reduce spending by cutting programs we need instead of the BS programs we dont AND they pronise to cut our taxes.

People we are seriously f'd up with who we choose to lead us. We are doomed unless we pull together and put smart people in office. Right now we are led by the least among us.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Yeah the poor are poor because they don't work hard enough. Everyone can start a business and become a millionaire! They aren't paying their fair share when they have nothing to give. All worship the "job creators"........ Peter is a dis-info agent, as he knows that capitalism has to have a lower class for it even to exist.


Where does he say that we shouldnt have a lower class? He's just spouting off about Eric Cantor and what a jerk he is. This reflects the attitude of the GOP in general. Feed the rich and let the underclass eat cake.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


For the most part I agree but relying on Govt to fix it is not going to work. Especially local government. If you think the federal gov is bad at running things, wait till you see local government try to do it. At least in my state they are incompetent and corrupt. Many other states are the same or worse.

The real fault lies with us, the voters. We put these people in office and stood idly by while they destroyed the economy. Until we take responsibility by speaking up together, we are in denial and the problems will spiral out of control. The GOP will take us into a nosedive while the Dems will continue the spiral to destruction.

I dont see people pulling together and these days, mass protests will get ugly since the gov will use new weapons and laws to put down protests. I remember the VietNam war protests which were for the most part peaceful and pished the Gov to pull out of Indochina. Those were the days....

edit on 21-9-2012 by Mike.Ockizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


My suggestions generally apply to the private sector and the voters. I'm saying people need to spend more time on community service, which would reduce the burden of benefits for governments at all levels. Local governments fail because few in the populations are contributing directly.

Yeah, I agree. Too bad politicians can't tell the electorate that they share responsibility because it would cost votes. Honestly, I think the entire representative system should be restructured.

What has to happen is the private sector needs to become more invested in society as a whole instead of being oriented toward the goals of individual units. There has to be individuals who step up outside the government and start to change the culture. In the meantime, the only means of balancing the budget is a combination of increased revenue and spending cuts. The budget can't just be slashed right now. Too many would suffer. As the OP lays out the wealthy can afford to pay a higher percentage without a major risk to slowing the economy.

I'd do away with the charitable deduction aspect of the tax code completely. That's redundant to the goal of helping the poor while lowering spending.
edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I'm not American but I thought that this little snippet from Broadsheet.ie regarding U.S corporations who base their operations here in Ireland and in other tax havens may interest this thread.




Using complex schemes to shift U.S. revenue overseas, Microsoft was able to avoid paying taxes on $21 billion in revenue between 2009 and 2011, amounting to about half its total U.S. sales, according to the subcommittee report. The company avoided paying $4.5 billion in taxes, or about $4 million per day, during that time, according to the report.

Using similar schemes, Apple avoided taxes on $34.5 billion between 2009 and 2011, and Google has dodged taxes on $24 billion.


Our (Ireland's) contentious 12% corporation Tax which the rest of Europe dislikes as it creates an unfair advantage in foreign investment may contribute. It is fiercely protected by our political class as it brings these corporations to base their European operations here.

San Fransisco Chronicle

While it is a natural instinct to retain as much profit as possible I think it may alter the public perception of these corporations when they try to appear patriotic and defenders of American free enterprise.

Next time you purchase a product or service from one of these gigantic corporations spare a thought that your taxes go up while these behemoths can afford to dodge their proportionate share.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by HumansEh
 




Thanks for posting that, it demonstrates why Peter Schiff outsourced to Ireland and the Carribean Islands, these two are both tax havens. It had absolutely nothing to do with "regulations" like he is trying to say, it has to do with nothing but greed. I'm so sick of these wallstreet/corporate liars that go on the media, gain a following, and then people actually believe them.

edit on 21-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 



But the lower income scales have to contribute more, too.


Contribute to what? Paying interest on a federal debt? And the poor have nothing to give, you should go see how these people live.


If localities took responsibilities for themselves in taking care of the needy, the burden on the Fed would decrease.


With what money? Or room in housing?

It is mathematically impossible to pay off the debt, reducing it would not matter, spending more really wouldn't matter, either way we are bankrupt.

But anyway, anyone's political ideology or rhetoric doesn't have to do with the study, all it says is that they lower the tax rate, the higher the wealth gap increases. This is because the rich hoard money, or outsource.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


I was referring to the first 30 seconds-ish of the video where Peter Schiff is talking. He is saying why aren't the poor all business owners, but if that were the case capitalism couldn't exist, as it needs workers to survive.
edit on 21-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Not talking about money, I'm saying people in general have to take care of each other better in the community through direct action. Volunteering, community service. I think even people who aren't making money can contribute a few hours a month in direct service of the needy.

By increasing volunteering hours in general, only 26% volunteer and that includes once a year people, then the burden on government would be less. Stuff like picking up trash, running errands for the elderly, supervising kids after school and on weekends.

I believe if we had a better culture in these areas federal spending could be reduced.

Probably over idealistic, I realize that. But it's an understated part of the problem.

Edit: Also, I disagree that it is impossible to pay off the debt. It is definitely possibly to get it in a manageable range of 5T or so by 2040. I think A Budget of 2.5 trillion is realistic with waste and defense cut out, a strong economy, and increased community and individual social responsibility. Increase revenue a little so we bring in 3 tril, pay off a trillion every 2 years and it's gone in 40 years. Over-optimistic, always.

I think it's a better attitude than seeing a problem with no solution.

edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Should probably qualify that last post by admitting I don't do nearly enough, haven't done any community work since stuff I was forced into in high school. In my defense, though, I've had a rough few years. Anyway, I'm looking for volunteer opportunities now and trying to get politically involved as well. I don't know, gotta do something.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 

The clip ends abruptly but when you listen to more of it, I think its clear that hes saying some things tongue in cheek. But he does resent the idea that someone like him isnt "paying his fair share".

Theres a distinction between people who are wealthy because of their own merits and those who have gotten wealthy because of crony capitalism (ie a rigged system, bailouts, government contracts etc). For people like Peter and even those who arent as wealthy, they/we resent how much of our income is confiscated by this out of control, wasteful, bloated government.


Peter is absolutely correct in the second clip. Government should make it easier to employ people in the US. This government (not just Obama) is driving jobs and employers overseas. Puerto Rico's Governor Luis Fortuno is a very good example of how government should function (a start anyway):


Goldman Sachs was at fault. They overextended themselves. As Peter Schiff advocated, they should have been allowed to fail. But the government is in collusion with the banks (crony capitalism), both Bush and Obama bailed them out.

Point being with regards to Campbell's that being a "billion dollar" industry does not mean that you cant fail. The auto industry failed. The investment banking industry failed as did the "big" banks and these were trillion dollar industries...

edit on 21-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Good point. I'd argue that mandatory civil service could be used in a new model for our society. It would serve to humble people to someextent and make them realize that its not all about them.




new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join