Even Fox admits that income inequality is hurting this country

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Good answer but not at all progressive. Poor people spending somewhere around 100% of the money they take in every week would get hammered and rich people would pay almost nothing as a percentage of earnings.

So what, the rich will still pay more. We can end the BS EIC redistribution program and let people be responsible for themselves. Then we can keep our military at home where they belong, stop giving billions to other countries and before you know it the WORKING poor/low income seniors can get a card that limits their tax liability to 1%.

When, in your opinon, did the US economy hit it's pinnacle? The 60s? The 80s? Libs and Cons might give different answers but those are probably the 2 decades that would be chosen most often. Pick one and I don't really care which. Why not reinstate the tax system we had then? It obviously worked.

The 50's for a modern decade.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

WanderngFool

Active Expediter
Progressive taxes SHOULD be illegal. The ONLY FAIR tax is one where all pay the same rate. Progressive taxes punish success and reward sloth.

Because it's considered by most people to be somewhat fascist to not make an effort to level the playing field a little. Why shouldn't people that are better off pay a little more? A few bucks out of some rich guy's yacht budget will hurt much less than a few bucks out of a poor person's food budget.
 

WanderngFool

Active Expediter
So what, the rich will still pay more. We can end the BS EIC redistribution program and let people be responsible for themselves. Then we can keep our military at home where they belong, stop giving billions to other countries and before you know it the WORKING poor/low income seniors can get a card that limits their tax liability to 1%.



The 50's for a modern decade.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

I agree with almost every thing you said.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Because it's considered by most people to be somewhat fascist to not make an effort to level the playing field a little. Why shouldn't people that are better off pay a little more? A few bucks out of some rich guy's yacht budget will hurt much less than a few bucks out of a poor person's food budget.[/QUOT

There will not be tax on food, clothes, medicine etc. Also only one tax per item. NO more double or triple taxing. It would also start taxing those who are scamming the system or the "underworld" and "underground" economy. FAR too many are not paying anything.

It is considered Marxist by hard working Americans to redistribute wealth.

Fair is fair.

Remember when our idiots in Washington put a 10% luxury tax on yachts? They collected very little and many of those who built those yachts were laid off. They did away with that tax a few years after. Soon the laid off people were back to work.

The free rides have to end. What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

High taxes kill jobs.
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
Gorbachev hijacked back in the 80's. "Glasnost what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"[h=1][/h]
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Raising taxes does nothing but take money from the people who have it. Which of course are the very people that create the jobs. No jobs, and you hit the poorest the hardest. Take too much, and what incentive do the rich have to create jobs?

Want to fix the problem? Stop fighting winless and endless wars, stop printing money we don't have, stop borrowing, utilize our oil and natural gas, and stop wasting money.
Address those things and you have money for jobs, money for the poor and pay down our foolish debt.
Nancy Pelosi says the "cupboards are empty" Just no place to cut anything. Really?
Just pages and millions we are wasting daily.
And one last one....stop sending money to people who hate us!

24245391_SA.jpg
 
Last edited:

WanderngFool

Active Expediter
Raising taxes does nothing but take money from the people who have it. Which of course are the very people that create the jobs. No jobs, and you hit the poorest the hardest. Take too much, and what incentive do the rich have to create jobs?

Want to fix the problem? Stop fighting winless and endless wars, stop printing money we don't have, stop borrowing, utilize our oil and natural gas, and stop wasting money.
Address those things and you have money for jobs, money for the poor and pay down our foolish debt.
Nancy Pelosi says the "cupboards are empty" Just no place to cut anything. Really?
Just pages and millions we are wasting daily.
And one last one....stop sending money to people who hate us!

24245391_SA.jpg


Has anyone else noticed how war fatigued we are? Conservatives coming out against military campaigns? Your fellow conservatives would have labeled you unamerican and run you out of town just a few years ago. This is a good thing. It's something that we can all agree on. Let's bring our soldiers home.

Something else conservatives and liberals are starting to agree on is the need to reduce our usage of foreign oil. I remember how upset cons were about the incandescent light bulb thing just a couple of years ago. Someone started a thread about incandescent bulbs on this forum a short time ago and I think it generated 2 very minor rants. I'm guessing everyone else just yawned. It's a good policy in that it helps us all and hurts people that don't like us.

Also, are we seeing a shift on green energy? Are cons realizing that solar panels and windwills help us and hurt people that don't like us?
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Has anyone else noticed how war fatigued we are? Conservatives coming out against military campaigns? Your fellow conservatives would have labeled you unamerican and run you out of town just a few years ago. This is a good thing. It's something that we can all agree on. Let's bring our soldiers home.

Something else conservatives and liberals are starting to agree on is the need to reduce our usage of foreign oil. I remember how upset cons were about the incandescent light bulb thing just a couple of years ago. Someone started a thread about incandescent bulbs on this forum a short time ago and I think it generated 2 very minor rants. I'm guessing everyone else just yawned. It's a good policy in that it helps us all and hurts people that don't like us.

Also, am I seeing a shift on green energy? Are cons realizing that solar panels and windwills help us and hurt people that don't like us?

We are only dependent on foreign because we are not being allowed, by our government, to develop our own resources.

Why is it that "Liberals", AKA the 'Great Banners", revel in the idea of less freedom and MORE government control over our everyday lives. Being told what kind of light bulb, or how much water our toilet can use etc, is not freedom.

Wind turbines? Green? Maybe, in certain limited applications. Ripping down thousands of acres of wildlife habitat, however, is NOT green. Polluting that same ground with tons upon tons of toxic herbicides is NOT green. Killing large numbers of eagles is NOT green. Is solar and wind the answer? No, not by themselves.

What about other "green" answers? Let's dam up some more rivers, destroy MORE habitat, wipe out more species. Hydro power has the "added advantage of taking out swamps and marshes, some of the most important and productive habitat on earth. Green?

From what I have seen, the policies of the federal government is doing more right now to hurt the environment than help it. There is no balance. Very little they are doing, besides making no economic sense, is based on any kind of real, sound, science.

We need to continue to clean up our act. We have made tremendous strides in the last 40 years and we need to insure that continues. We don't want to return to the "old ways". No more gutting of mountain tops to put up wind farms, just one example. We need to reduce the amount of ethanol production. In the Great Lakes region it is already beginning to have a negative impact on the Lakes. The increased use of phosphorus based fertilizers is reversing a decades long decline in the phosphorus levels in the Lakes. Lake Erie, because it is a very shallow lake, is seeing the return of Lake killing algae blooms due in part to the increased use of phosphorus. The increasing numbers of golf courses, and the resulting increases of even more phosphorus, is contributing to that problem. Golf courses have the added bonus of dumping tons of toxic herbicides and pesticides into the water table. Those pesticides are likely contributing to the world wide decline of the honey bee, which if it goes away, will have far reaching negative effects on the environment.

We ran willy nilly into the "oil age", paying little attention to what the results may be. We are again, doing exactly the same thing, with "green energy", We are barely looking at the potential downsides to some, or all, of the "green answers".

We need to first, point out the great strides we have made in cleaning things up. Air pollution levels have been dropping and continue to drop. The Great Lakes are much cleaner than they were 40 years ago, and will continue to get cleaner if we can reverse a few of the recent set backs, like the phosphorus levels. We need to start looking at the improvements? Why? The facts must be known. It is important to continue the work that was started, in some cases, more than a hundred years ago. People need to know what has been done, what effects it has had, good or bad, and then and only then will we come up with a solid, science based answers.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Has anyone else noticed how war fatigued we are? Conservatives coming out against military campaigns? Your fellow conservatives would have labeled you unamerican and run you out of town just a few years ago. This is a good thing. It's something that we can all agree on. Let's bring our soldiers home.

Something else conservatives and liberals are starting to agree on is the need to reduce our usage of foreign oil. I remember how upset cons were about the incandescent light bulb thing just a couple of years ago. Someone started a thread about incandescent bulbs on this forum a short time ago and I think it generated 2 very minor rants. I'm guessing everyone else just yawned. It's a good policy in that it helps us all and hurts people that don't like us.

Also, are we seeing a shift on green energy? Are cons realizing that solar panels and windwills help us and hurt people that don't like us?

There are still plenty of people looking for war on both sides of the isle within the 2 party system. Just don't confuse being conservative with being a Republican.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
That would be my take. I was in favor of going after Bin Laden, but never was sold on the Iraq or Afghanistan war. I think some conservative would have been in more favor of Iraq if it was a quick campaign and we were out. Turned into something much different.
As for wind and solar, we are losing more than we are gaining. Wind generates little for the cost, and solar has potential but we should have bought from the Chinese. We decided to do it ourselves and it was a total bust and waste of money. Solyndra easily comes to mind among a whole host of other solar firms that burnt taxpayer money then folded.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
You mean like calling discrimination "affirmative action" so people will vote for it and applaud it?

I got it! I got it! How about... get this... The Affordable Healthcare Act! Talk about putting perfume on a pile of shat!!!
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I forgot one: "Job Creators". It's one of my favorites. Fox News repeated the term over and over again until it stuck. People are so easily trained. In reality, 10 years ago they were the Job Exporters (has China ever gotten around to saying thank you btw?). Now I don't know what they're called but like louxio pointed out in another thread these are the jobs that are being created today:

How the Amazon Warehouse Works

That vid is awesome, lol. I know it's not good news for workers, but it's the future, and we need to find ways to adapt. Without losing the hope for 'upward mobility' that has sustained us for generations.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
It's possible they are looking at what some of their future workers may be like.;)

obama_mirror_pajama_boy.jpg
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
That vid is awesome, lol. I know it's not good news for workers, but it's the future, and we need to find ways to adapt. Without losing the hope for 'upward mobility' that has sustained us for generations.

It's tough for a lot of people to swallow as we lost manufacturing jobs many moved to warehousing which is going to be endangered soon.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There was a major paradigm shift in the early 20th when we shifted from an agrarian based economy to a manufacturing based economy. Many then were not able to adapt. There were glimpses of the next paradigm shift, the shift we are in now, was back in the '50's.

There was a series of films put out by Bell Telephone about "future" jobs. They were talking about computers and robots "freeing up" people to to more productive things with their lives. Even science fiction writers of the time wrote about it.

As with any paradigm shift many today will be left behind. In a majority of cases, it will be by choice. People will refuse to upgrade skills, etc, to meet the demands of the new work place. Those people will find upward mobility difficult.

Another impediment to upward mobility is the progressive income tax. That tax helps to keep people in their places. As those taxes rise, their upward mobility will be further retarded. Each raise will be eaten up by taxes, effectively keeping them static.
 

WanderngFool

Active Expediter
Another impediment to upward mobility is the progressive income tax. That tax helps to keep people in their places. As those taxes rise, their upward mobility will be further retarded. Each raise will be eaten up by taxes, effectively keeping them static.

How would raising taxes on the upper 1%, the Job Destroyers and lowering your taxes a likewise amount hinder your upward mobility?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
How would raising taxes on the upper 1%, the Job Destroyers and lowering your taxes a likewise amount hinder your upward mobility?

That will never meet the needs of this governments spending, and they know that. Taxes will be raised on everyone. We have already seen a large tax increase and we are not any where near the "top 1%". The taxes being leveled to cover Obama Care are aimed at the working "middle class". Many of those taxes has yet to be realized.

ALL our tax rates, are too high. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. 40% is out of line. It has to be lowered. We need rates to be fixed, for 50 -100 year, to provide stability.

We must insure that everyone pays taxes. The free ride days have to end. That goes for BOTH sides of the scale. Everyone has a responsibility to hold up their end of things. Too many deadbeats these days.

I am not sure by what you mean by the 1% being job destroyers. More than 90% of our work comes from major corporations and VERY rich people. I do the work, thank them for their business, and bank the profits.

People are not owed a job. Business is in business to produce products or services at a profit, nothing more. Jobs are a by product of that. As the paradigm shift we are in continues, fewer "grunt jobs" will be produced. People need to learn to keep up.




Corporate tax rates table | KPMG | GLOBAL
 

WanderngFool

Active Expediter
I asked how your upward mobility would be hindered by uber wealthy people paying more and you paying less taxes.

To humor you though here's some economic data from today just to show you I do try to "keep up". :) The first is a table from an economist showing progress on the debt. It's not gloom and doom like you keep repeating and the more the economy improves and the more people that get back to work and pay taxes instead of getting benefits the more the rate of improvement should accelerate.

Wolfers.jpg

Oh and about the economy improving, we've had great jobs data, consumer sentiment data, manufacturing data etc etc etc in the last month or two and revised qtr3 GDP came in at a quite respectable 4.1%.

U.S. Third Quarter Third Gross Domestic Product (Text) - Bloomberg

Can you explain in economic terms (without getting into values!), the mechanism that shows how the truly rich paying a little more and you paying a little less in taxes hinders your upward mobility?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I asked how your upward mobility would be hindered by uber wealthy people paying more and you paying less taxes.

To humor you though here's some economic data from today just to show you I do try to "keep up". :) The first is a table from an economist showing progress on the debt. It's not gloom and doom like you keep repeating and the more the economy improves and the more people that get back to work and pay taxes instead of getting benefits the more the rate of improvement should accelerate.

View attachment 8148---

Oh and about the economy improving, we've had great jobs data, consumer sentiment data, manufacturing data etc etc etc in the last month or two and revised qtr3 GDP came in at a quite respectable 4.1%.

U.S. Third Quarter Third Gross Domestic Product (Text) - Bloomberg

Can you explain in economic terms (without getting into values!), the mechanism that shows how the truly rich paying a little more and you paying a little less in taxes hinders your upward mobility?

Please give me a number of what you consider "really rich".
 

WanderngFool

Active Expediter
Please give me a number of what you consider "really rich".

The top 1% is how people usually frame this discussion. A quick google reveals... WTF? Forbes is at it again with painting pictures of rich people as victims. Like battered wifes they are. lmao!!!

Are You Rich Enough? The Terrible Tragedy Of Income Inequality Among The 1% - Forbes

Anyway, it looks like $400K/year and $1.5M in "liquid assets". What's "liquid assets"? Richspeak for everything but retirement accounts and real estate?
 
Top