I mourn for my country - Page 17 - Victory Forums - Victory Motorcycle Forum
» Insurance
» Sponsors
» Our Partners
»ATV Reviews
»Motorcycle Games
Go Back   Victory Forums - Victory Motorcycle Forum > Rider's Lounge > Victory Forums Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-16-2012, 01:16 PM   #161
Lance
Premium Member
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So. Calif.
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALStensby View Post
While what you say is correct, it's missing a great deal of information that is very important. While I have heard some people complain that flat out the amount of money some people make is not fair, that doesn't fly. We live in a capitalist society. However, the common "complaint" you'll find is that they're not doing their fair share.

On the surface, it seems unfair for the top 10% of the population to be paying roughly 70% of the taxes (1% pays just under 40%, actually). The problem though? The top 10% also accounts for about 85% of the wealth in this country (1% for about 42%). When you're talking about $100, 1% isn't a big deal. Or even $100,000 which is a good amount of money to your average person. But we're dealing with a MUCH larger scale here. We're talking money in the trillions. And at that amount, a mere 1% can have a very large impact over time.

The biggest culprit in all of this is the failed concept of trickle down economics that continues to permeate the minds of the public. Cutting taxes to the "job creators" does not create jobs as they like to believe. Companies don't work like people. Your average person most actively for ways to save money (i.e. taxes). Companies look more actively for more ways to MAKE money (obviously, both do apply but the onus is different). Companies need two things to succeed: an educated and hard working employee base combined with a strong middle class to consume their goods/services.

Companies will only add jobs when it helps their bottom line. Not simply because they saved a few hundred grand on taxes. Want further proof? Look at the states with the most large companies starting and/or headquartering in their states? And with the most diverse economies. I'll give you a hint...there aren't many in the likes of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada and Alaska (four lowest taxes for businesses in the country). States like Cali, NY and Minnesota are all in there. And they're all three in bottom (48, 50 and 45 respectively). Why might that be?

I can promise you...ANY business person with a brain would much rather pay 30% taxes on $1M than 10% on $500,000. But, given the way our gooberment works, they can have that $1M and pay 10% while everyone else bites the bullet. There's a reason billions are spent on elections for jobs that pay in the hundreds of thousands.
They EARNED THEIR MONEY. It's THEIR MONEY. Just because you, like Obama, think there should be a point when "they've made enough money", that YOU should be allowed to take it and give it to somebody else dosen't make that right. It simply makes you a supporter of some system moving toward socialism/communism... the government SPENDS TOO MUCH, which is the problem none of you liberals want to accept. Sure, the rich could 'afford' 30%, how about 40%?, maybe 60%?? What's your top rate? And of course you've factored in the unintended consequences of taking so much from those who make this economy work right?

You know why Obama won't state some 'maximum' tax rate on the rich? Because his number would simple continue to rise into oblivion, he has contempt for capitalism and the rich. (I mean the rich conservatives, sorry)
__________________
2012 Victory Cross Roads
2003 BMW R1150R
1978 BMW R75/7
.........
1974 BMW R75/5
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-16-2012, 01:26 PM   #162
Lance
Premium Member
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So. Calif.
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
WRONG! Demand creates jobs. CEOs are better known for shipping jobs overseas to fatten their own wallets.

Sure, but in our country, most things are "stolen" (by gov't) from people of modest means to give to the well to do. Why is it that pennies of welfare to the poor irks you so much more than POUNDS of welfare to corporate interests?
Fine, CEO's identify demand, then create jobs.

Things are done overseas to keep prices low (and companies make profits, oh how terrible, profits!) I know I can't afford to pay ten times as much for everything if we insisted it was made in the U.S.

I do agree that the gov't 'steals' from us to give to the poor, and that's gotten WAY out of hand.. I imagine you think all the millions on food stamps need that to survive, check out some of their waist lines... and perhaps they could WORK, oh, they don't want jobs that are beneath them, and yes, despite the unemployment numbers there are lots of jobs available, but those food stamps make it a lot easier than working...

whatever corporate welfare you are talking about has a plan behind it to allow companies to expand etc., not simply a give-away because the gov't likes to give more money to the rich... where that does happen it is wrong of course, and of course in four years Obama has put a stop to such things right???????
__________________
2012 Victory Cross Roads
2003 BMW R1150R
1978 BMW R75/7
.........
1974 BMW R75/5
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:32 PM   #163
BBob
Lifetime Premium
 
BBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Western Arizona
Posts: 4,911
Garage
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALStensby View Post
On the surface, it seems unfair for the top 10% of the population to be paying roughly 70% of the taxes (1% pays just under 40%, actually). The problem though? The top 10% also accounts for about 85% of the wealth in this country (1% for about 42%). When you're talking about $100, 1% isn't a big deal. Or even $100,000 which is a good amount of money to your average person. But we're dealing with a MUCH larger scale here. We're talking money in the trillions. And at that amount, a mere 1% can have a very large impact over time.

Seems fair to me.

The biggest culprit in all of this is the failed concept of trickle down economics that continues to permeate the minds of the public. Cutting taxes to the "job creators" does not create jobs as they like to believe. Companies don't work like people. Your average person most actively for ways to save money (i.e. taxes). Companies look more actively for more ways to MAKE money (obviously, both do apply but the onus is different). Companies need two things to succeed: an educated and hard working employee base combined with a strong middle class to consume their goods/services.

Companies will only add jobs when it helps their bottom line. Not simply because they saved a few hundred grand on taxes. Want further proof? Look at the states with the most large companies starting and/or headquartering in their states? And with the most diverse economies. I'll give you a hint...there aren't many in the likes of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada and Alaska (four lowest taxes for businesses in the country). States like Cali, NY and Minnesota are all in there. And they're all three in bottom (48, 50 and 45 respectively). Why might that be?

And... I don't see the problem. When business is good you need more people to provide a product or service. When business is down or if there is an extra drain on its bottom line something has to give. That usually means downsizing or cutting benefits.


I can promise you...ANY business person with a brain would much rather pay 30% taxes on $1M than 10% on $500,000. But, given the way our gooberment works, they can have that $1M and pay 10% while everyone else bites the bullet. There's a reason billions are spent on elections for jobs that pay in the hundreds of thousands.
Somehow I doubt a business would rather pay 30% in taxes than 20% just like I would rather pay $200 for a computer than $300 for the same computer.

I think you are talking about corporate welfare. I agree. Let's cut the loopholes so companies like GE will pay their fair share. Did you know that the CEO, Jeffrey Imelt, of GE is also head of obloomers job council and his company paid nada, zilch, nothing in taxes last year. I think I smell a rat.

Odumbo won't go for a fair and balanced approach because that would take away his ability to pay off companies he likes and screw the ones he doesn't. To be fair, it's not just Ofluffer, it's permeated throughout the democrat doctrine and even in much of the DC culture in general. Yes. That means some pubs too. Not the Tea Party pols but certainly much of the rest.
BBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:45 PM   #164
ALStensby
Senior Member
 
ALStensby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brooklyn Park, MN
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance View Post
They EARNED THEIR MONEY. It's THEIR MONEY. Just because you, like Obama, think there should be a point when "they've made enough money", that YOU should be allowed to take it and give it to somebody else dosen't make that right. It simply makes you a supporter of some system moving toward socialism/communism... the government SPENDS TOO MUCH, which is the problem none of you liberals want to accept. Sure, the rich could 'afford' 30%, how about 40%?, maybe 60%?? What's your top rate? And of course you've factored in the unintended consequences of taking so much from those who make this economy work right?

You know why Obama won't state some 'maximum' tax rate on the rich? Because his number would simple continue to rise into oblivion, he has contempt for capitalism and the rich. (I mean the rich conservatives, sorry)
At what point did I say they've made enough money? I take no issue with people making money. Nor am I a liberal. And my comments have nothing to do with what they can or cannot afford. Obviously, the point was completely lost on you which doesn't really surprise me. They aren't what makes the economy work so put the Kool-Aid down. With no demand, there is no product/service. But having a product/service does not magically create demand. this is why businesses rise and fall.

If I may ask (I don't recall if you've stated it or not and don't feel like combing through), who did you vote for for president? And for what reasons?
ALStensby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:59 PM   #165
ALStensby
Senior Member
 
ALStensby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brooklyn Park, MN
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBob View Post
Somehow I doubt a business would rather pay 30% in taxes than 20% just like I would rather pay $200 for a computer than $300 for the same computer.

As I've seen you do many times on this thread, you skirt around the entirety of the issue which was an overbearing point in my post. At no point did I say someone would rather pay 30% taxes versus 20% taxes (or $300 vs $200 for a computer. Stop picking and choosing bits and pieces and look at the subject matter as a whole. My statement was very clear that anyone would rather pay 30% on $1M than 10% on $500,000. It's called the bottom line. $700,000 vs $450,000. Business are looking to make money, not simply save money. There is a different mentality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBob View Post
I think you are talking about corporate welfare. I agree. Let's cut the loopholes so companies like GE will pay their fair share. Did you know that the CEO, Jeffrey Imelt, of GE is also head of obloomers job council and his company paid nada, zilch, nothing in taxes last year. I think I smell a rat.

Yes, I am fully aware of both points. I'm not a fan of loopholes at any level. The amount of money spent on tax compliance is ridiculous. Things like this happen all the time. Look at Romney's not so subtle push for more warships during the debates. Take a guess who would have stood to gain from that move? One of his top advisors. Or back when everyone was so for drug testing when FL passed it? Aside from right or wrong or if it helped tax payers, take a look at who stood to gain financially from it. As stated at the end, there's a reason billions are spent for such relatively low paying jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBob View Post
Odumbo won't go for a fair and balanced approach because that would take away his ability to pay off companies he likes and screw the ones he doesn't. To be fair, it's not just Ofluffer, it's permeated throughout the democrat doctrine and even in much of the DC culture in general. Yes. That means some pubs too. Not the Tea Party pols but certainly much of the rest.

And I really hope you aren't foolish enough to think it's one sided between the two main parties or that it hasn't touched the Tea Party.

Last edited by ALStensby; 11-16-2012 at 02:04 PM.
ALStensby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:06 PM   #166
Lance
Premium Member
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So. Calif.
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALStensby View Post
If I may ask (I don't recall if you've stated it or not and don't feel like combing through), who did you vote for for president? And for what reasons?
1. I voted for Romney.
2. Couldn't vote for an enemy of our Country and Constitution.
3. I'm in Calif. though, so it was symbolic.

P.S. The 'reason' I voted for Romney is primarily #2, but also, we need someone with some business sense, Obama has none of that, or any other sense for that matter.
__________________
2012 Victory Cross Roads
2003 BMW R1150R
1978 BMW R75/7
.........
1974 BMW R75/5
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:13 PM   #167
BBob
Lifetime Premium
 
BBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Western Arizona
Posts: 4,911
Garage
Default

Quote:
And I really hope you aren't foolish enough to think it's one sided between the two main parties or that it hasn't touched the Tea Party.
Yup. That's me. Mr. Naive. Out of the cesspool called DC I do believe the Tea Party pols are the best and least compromised compared to most of the rest. I would like to think there are a few good ones not in the Tea Party as well.

I guess I missed your meaning on your tax rate. Still do or maybe I'm just not looking at it the same way you are.

As far a picking out a part of your post, it's something everyone does, not just me. I was merely pointing out a part of your post I wanted to address just like anyone else. I'm sure you can understand that. I can also see our thought processes are very different so the chances of us meeting a consensus are probably between slim and none.
BBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:15 PM   #168
Lance
Premium Member
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So. Calif.
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALStensby View Post
As I've seen you do many times on this thread, you skirt around the entirety of the issue which was an overbearing point in my post. At no point did I say someone would rather pay 30% taxes versus 20% taxes (or $300 vs $200 for a computer. Stop picking and choosing bits and pieces and look at the subject matter as a whole. My statement was very clear that anyone would rather pay 30% on $1M than 10% on $500,000. It's called the bottom line. $700,000 vs $450,000. Business are looking to make money, not simply save money. There is a different mentality.

Yes, I am fully aware of both points. I'm not a fan of loopholes at any level. The amount of money spent on tax compliance is ridiculous. Things like this happen all the time. Look at Romney's not so subtle push for more warships during the debates. Take a guess who would have stood to gain from that move? One of his top advisors. Or back when everyone was so for drug testing when FL passed it? Aside from right or wrong or if it helped tax payers, take a look at who stood to gain financially from it. As stated at the end, there's a reason billions are spent for such relatively low paying jobs.

And I really hope you aren't foolish enough to think it's one sided between the two main parties or that it hasn't touched the Tea Party.
The blah, blah, blah, tit-for-tat Rep. vs. Dem. etc., isn't the main issue, the main issue is vision, you either want a spend/tax/give-a-way focus or a cut gov't/lower taxes/be prudent with give-a-ways approach... the choice was CLEAR on THAT issue and the libs chose the former. (We can only vote on what they 'say' they'll do, until we have some history to show what they really will do, we HAVE that history with Obama)

If you aren't a liberal why do you spend so much time trying to point out that both parties are bad? We all know that both do some political stuff that is wrong (hence something different with the Tea Party movement). One party is 'talking' about moving toward a more Constitutional fed gov't one wants to continue ignoring the law of the land... that point is clear. So the Rep. vs. Dem. points you make are perhaps true, but not relevant as to who should have been elected this time... that's clear.
__________________
2012 Victory Cross Roads
2003 BMW R1150R
1978 BMW R75/7
.........
1974 BMW R75/5
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:19 PM   #169
ALStensby
Senior Member
 
ALStensby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brooklyn Park, MN
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance View Post
1. I voted for Romney.
2. Couldn't vote for an enemy of our Country and Constitution.
3. I'm in Calif. though, so it was symbolic.

P.S. The 'reason' I voted for Romney is primarily #2, but also, we need someone with some business sense, Obama has none of that, or any other sense for that matter.
I'll "give" you #2, though it's essentially nullified by your #3. But you sit there and talk about how the gooberment needs to cut spending...yet you voted for someone who oversaw (and had direct say in much of) annual 5% increases in spending. He made and proposed some cuts but also increased some taxes and spending. Oh, and my favorite. He pulled a Tim Pawlenty. We won't raise taxes...we'll just levee fees. Durp.

As for business sense, his type of business is not what our country needs. He's never built anything other than larger accounts for himself and his friends. He was essentially the poster boy for lining pockets by destroying things...or reorganizing as they put it. There is a big difference between the two. Perhaps you should have looked more in to the likes of Gary Johnson.
ALStensby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:29 PM   #170
saddlebag
Lifetime Premium
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 4,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance View Post
You know you get dumber with every post.. such entitlements were wrong and failures
They may well have been, but you've already paid for it. Why give it to a Romney progeny in the form of a tax break instead of to secure your retirement?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance View Post
, you've heard about social security going broke
No I haven't, but I have heard that people making over $106k don't pay an additional dime into it. Pretty easy fix there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance View Post
you must have believe that "push granny over the cliff" commercial, you seem easily duped.
You confuse the hell outta me. Are you for old age insurance or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance View Post
And it's sad that a return to Constitutional values, and the LAW, is met with such contempt by you liberals, although you do confirm your 'traitor to this country' status with such comments.
Not everyone who realizes that life has changed a little since the founders drafted the Constitution is a "contemptuous liberal." And I'm pretty sure the founders themselves were bright enough to realize the document was not some divine writing beyond interpretation or growth.

Let's take radio communications for example. Is that best covered by "states rights" since it wasn't an enumerated power? This means the military gets no spectrum for their use right? And every state has the freedom to use the radio waves as they see fit with no national format, use, or governance. Does this seem like a good idea to you? Does 50 bureaucracies rather than one make more sense to you? Can you answer any question you're asked without devolving into name calling and foot stomping?
__________________
http://www.victoryforums.com/signaturepics/sigpic6903_1.gif
2011 Cross Roads
saddlebag is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.
Motorcycle News, Videos and Reviews
Honda Grom Forum Harley Davidson Forum Honda 600RR Kawasaki Forum Yamaha R6 Forum Yamaha FZ-09 Forum
1199 Panigale Forum Roadglide Forum Honda CBR1000 Forum Vulcan Forum Yamaha R1 Forum Yamaha R3 Forum
Ducati Monster Forum Harley Forums Honda CBR250R Forum ZX10R Forum Star Raider Forum Yamaha Viking Forum
Suzuki GSXR Forum V-Rod Forums Honda Shadow Forum Kawasaki Motorcycle Forum Star Warrior Forum KTM Duke 390 Forum
SV650 Forum BMW S1000RR Forum Honda Fury Forum Kawasaki Versys Forum Drag Racing Forum Ducati 899 Panigale Forum
Suzuki V-Strom BMW K1600 Triumph Forum Victory Forums Sportbikes BMW NineT Forum
Volusia Forum BMW F800 Forum Triumph 675 Forum MV Agusta Forum HD Street Forum Suzuki GW250 Forum
Yamaha Motorcycles Victory Gunner Forum Honda Vultus Forum