Tax Breaks Disproportionately Benefit Wealthier

Posted in the Keavy Forum

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of184
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Well

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, indeed. Low tax rates for the wealthy does make for BIG government, which is what you're against. So please don't distort my meaning for yours by no means. The govt. rubs their backs and they rub the govt.'s back. GWB proved that one. Problem is, it makes for BIG govt., but no job creation. We've experienced that one as well. One thing it did NOT do was create jobs, which was it's supposed intent? Yeah right.
You keep forgetting how these people made their money and we all do know that money goes to money. A little punk inherits $5B by the time he's 21, while a nation of people have gone without. It's the people in the nation that spend the paychecks they've EARNED by helping a company succeed. In other words, the wealthy get the money back and actually get a return on their investment because when the comsumer purchases their product, they pay more for it that they earned working. It's called "built in profit".
Let me again remind you. This is 21st century. The top 5% own 71% of the nation's wealth and growing. There were 10% more millionaires created 2012. It's pretty hard to be equal when the top 5% already has 71% of our money! Where should we start? lol Take your theory back about 80 years and we should fair fine with it.
John Rockefeller's wealth once counted for 1/2 of 1% of the total wealth of America. Today, it would take the accumulated fortunes of most of America's billionaires to account for that degree of wealth. I can't keep but thinking about that big pile of "our" money that some people got to first and took an unfair portion of it and thus became the odious wealthy. Your argument implies that there is a static amount of wealth in an economy and the only way a person can get richer is if another person becomes poorer. Your statistical concern about 5% accounting for 71% of the nations wealth would only be a problem if wealth creation was a zero sum game where people only get richer if other people get poorer. It does not work that way, at least not yet, SpeakUp.

You keep harping about the undue influence rich people have over government. Why don't you at least consider the fact that if government is strictly limited in the role it plays in our lives, there would be few reasons for rich people to seek favors from government? You are complaining about crony capitalism, mercantilism, and corporatism but instead of ending it you want to define who will be the approved recipient of the largesse. I cannot take you seriously about this issue unless you concede that government should be doing no more or no less for any other American. Its called equality under the law. And as far as tax cuts during the Bush years it was none other Nancy Pelosi who said, "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class." So take it up with Nancy-she disagrees with you and you know she had to be reluctant to admit that those tax cuts resulted in record low unemployment. But you probably agree with the latter half of her statement. But even if tax cuts had not created any jobs, that money was the property of those people so I am perfectly fine with them keeping their own money even if it had not resulted in a single job! Remember its not "our" money. You have a right to your money whether it's a lot of money or not and so does everyone else.
Well

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing has changed? Well, you walked right into this one. It's called GLOBAL ECONOMY. It's called TECHNOLOGY. Then there's the GREED that = the return on investment in a global economy. Speaking of greed, this I believe is the appropriate thread to release this information on.
A USA company's Manager in China has been LOCKED UP BY THE EMPLOYEES! This is the best news I've heard in a long time! This is only representative of what's to come and isn't the first time this has happened. Here we are in America, asking nicely for employers to just help employees out a little by paying a reasonable living wage, while they've skirted off supporting a communist country and they lock 'em up for less! I LOVE it. I guess this explains my theory that yes, employees have the upper hand if they only knew it! All these workers wanted was a little severance, but no, that $350/Month salary is WAY over that Manager's head so he can't afford it! lmao
Guess what, Well. If you crashed half the businesses in this country, the country still somehow could and would function because it's the workers that PRODUCE.
Consumers purchasing products manufactured outside this country that has taken jobs from this country and taken food out of baby's mouths, then desserve what they get. This is only a case where employers prey upon stupidity isn't it? Isn't that the REAL world of business? Well, since it's free enterprise here, I guess employees in American should consider locking the managers up...in other words, squeeze their lajoneses until they scream, since you support communism over America.
Free people should be free to buy products from whomever they want. Are you in favor of restricting Americans to buying only what is produced in America?
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well wrote:
<quoted text>John Rockefeller's wealth once counted for 1/2 of 1% of the total wealth of America. Today, it would take the accumulated fortunes of most of America's billionaires to account for that degree of wealth. I can't keep but thinking about that big pile of "our" money that some people got to first and took an unfair portion of it and thus became the odious wealthy. Your argument implies that there is a static amount of wealth in an economy and the only way a person can get richer is if another person becomes poorer. Your statistical concern about 5% accounting for 71% of the nations wealth would only be a problem if wealth creation was a zero sum game where people only get richer if other people get poorer. It does not work that way, at least not yet, SpeakUp.
You keep harping about the undue influence rich people have over government. Why don't you at least consider the fact that if government is strictly limited in the role it plays in our lives, there would be few reasons for rich people to seek favors from government? You are complaining about crony capitalism, mercantilism, and corporatism but instead of ending it you want to define who will be the approved recipient of the largesse. I cannot take you seriously about this issue unless you concede that government should be doing no more or no less for any other American. Its called equality under the law. And as far as tax cuts during the Bush years it was none other Nancy Pelosi who said, "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class." So take it up with Nancy-she disagrees with you and you know she had to be reluctant to admit that those tax cuts resulted in record low unemployment. But you probably agree with the latter half of her statement. But even if tax cuts had not created any jobs, that money was the property of those people so I am perfectly fine with them keeping their own money even if it had not resulted in a single job! Remember its not "our" money. You have a right to your money whether it's a lot of money or not and so does everyone else.
LOL, I think you just blew your cover by using the term "zero sum game". I thought I'd already informed you I was acquainted with one of the nation's best private investigators. ha

Enter Johnny. Well, I'm glad you brought that up. By the 1880's, he controlled 90% of U.S. refineries & pipelines. Some say he engaged in unethical practices-predatory pricing and colluding with railroads to eliminate his competitors in order to gain a monopoly.

In 1911, the Supreme Court found Standard Oil guilty of violating the anti-trust laws.

This is an example of exactly what we don't need...monopolies in both money and power.

Indeed he was a philanthropist, but.....so was Al Capone.
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well wrote:
<quoted text>Free people should be free to buy products from whomever they want. Are you in favor of restricting Americans to buying only what is produced in America?
No I do not in entirety. What I would prefer to see is, only jobs outsourced that are in excess of labor we can't fill and more restrictions on imports in limitation. I also believe pricing should be applicable to overhead. In other words, if they manufacture it in China, don't sell what you cheaply manufactured at American prices. If items are manufactured in the U.S. and come with a higher cost ticket, then charge accordingly. If items are manufactured in China at a lower cost ticket, then charge accordingly when sold in America. Both will create the necessary balance.

In summary, corporate America really shouldn't be called corporate America anymore. They should be called corporate India, China, the Phillipines or Bangladesh. They skirt behind an American corporate tent while in fact when they are ready to pis-, they urinate in China, thus getting their toilet paper cheaper.
Retired Farmer

Hopkinsville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
...pricing should be applicable to overhead. In other words, if they manufacture it in China, don't sell what you cheaply manufactured at American prices. If items are manufactured in the U.S. and come with a higher cost ticket, then charge accordingly. If items are manufactured in China at a lower cost ticket, then charge accordingly when sold in America.
Your logic is badly flawed. If what you suggest was done, it would only make the rich American retailers (like the Walton family who own Walmart)even richer and cost American consumers a lot more money. Goods made in cheap labor places like Bangladesh are not sold in America at "Made in America" prices. Those goods are sold at "Made in Bangladesh sweatshop" prices plus a fairly modest markup. Same goes if the foreign manufacturer charged American-level prices. Money would flow out of the U.S. into the pockets of the rich foreigners who own the sweatshops.
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is badly flawed. If what you suggest was done, it would only make the rich American retailers (like the Walton family who own Walmart)even richer and cost American consumers a lot more money. Goods made in cheap labor places like Bangladesh are not sold in America at "Made in America" prices. Those goods are sold at "Made in Bangladesh sweatshop" prices plus a fairly modest markup. Same goes if the foreign manufacturer charged American-level prices. Money would flow out of the U.S. into the pockets of the rich foreigners who own the sweatshops.
Point taken. However, I do believe jobs kept in America would offset that.

Let's take Appple for example. Almost all 70M iphones, 30M ipads and 59M other Apple products were manufactured overseas.

If you've checked out an Apple Store (which I refer more to as a monopoly of sorts because the Walmarts and other stores can't carry the products), you'd find them about the most expensive in the marketplace, given their "exclusivity" position.

Data shows that Apple profited MORE than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google, a rough $400,000 per employee profit.

More and more, capitalists are shooting for monopolies. Take Dell for example. The ONLY place you can purchase cartridges for a Dell is either thru Dell directly or Staples (monopoly) and when there's monopolies, there's "dictated" pricing.

As indicated in my above post, this is how Rockefeller became wealthy. So yes indeed...majority manufactured overseas, imported and sold at American sales prices.

Tell me there's a reason Apple needs to earn $400,000 profit PER employee? Tell me Apple needs to charge what they do for iphones that come with all their other exclusive replacement products for you to purchase? Tell me that Staples needs to charge $25 for a small cartridge of nonrecyclable ink that lasts about 50 pages? Tell me how it is that these corporate executives, although manufacturing overseas, still need to collect USA salaries, benefits, etc?

Believe me, they are not humbling themselves to US consumers just because they are making a $400,000 per employee profit.

If this is the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be concerned.
truth

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>

It is a statistical, proven fact, that the wealthiest benefit the most from the top 10 taxcuts.
Just think, given Obama's tax policy, how flourishing we would be had it not been for Bush's BIG taxcuts for the wealthy, starting 2 expensive wars on America's Visa Card and creating a housing and financial crisis he knew would cause a disaster, while counting his royalties.
Are you talking about the Bush tax cuts Obama promised to repeal while he was campaigning for president? The tax cuts that Obama never offered to repeal even though the Democrats had complete control of both houses of Congress? Do you know if that was his first lie he told you to get your vote?
NoLimitRalph

Barbourville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dang, now I know who was Capone's tax person.

What did Capone go to prison for...? lol
Political Economy

Kuttawa, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Point taken. However, I do believe jobs kept in America would offset that.
Let's take Appple for example. Almost all 70M iphones, 30M ipads and 59M other Apple products were manufactured overseas.
If you've checked out an Apple Store (which I refer more to as a monopoly of sorts because the Walmarts and other stores can't carry the products), you'd find them about the most expensive in the marketplace, given their "exclusivity" position.
Data shows that Apple profited MORE than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google, a rough $400,000 per employee profit.
More and more, capitalists are shooting for monopolies. Take Dell for example. The ONLY place you can purchase cartridges for a Dell is either thru Dell directly or Staples (monopoly) and when there's monopolies, there's "dictated" pricing.
As indicated in my above post, this is how Rockefeller became wealthy. So yes indeed...majority manufactured overseas, imported and sold at American sales prices.
Tell me there's a reason Apple needs to earn $400,000 profit PER employee? Tell me Apple needs to charge what they do for iphones that come with all their other exclusive replacement products for you to purchase? Tell me that Staples needs to charge $25 for a small cartridge of nonrecyclable ink that lasts about 50 pages? Tell me how it is that these corporate executives, although manufacturing overseas, still need to collect USA salaries, benefits, etc?
Believe me, they are not humbling themselves to US consumers just because they are making a $400,000 per employee profit.
If this is the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be concerned.
You and the Retired Farmer are talking about apples and oranges, or rather Apple hi-tech electronics and clothing made in Bangladesh. Your example and solution might work with iPhones but not with clothing or any other everyday product. The economics of things like iPhones are best compared to the economy of something like cocaine.
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about the Bush tax cuts Obama promised to repeal while he was campaigning for president? The tax cuts that Obama never offered to repeal even though the Democrats had complete control of both houses of Congress? Do you know if that was his first lie he told you to get your vote?
What Obama wanted and what his entire Party did are two different animals are they not. Otherwise, I'd question why 12 Republicans in the Senate voted for Obama's immigration reform as well?
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NoLimitRalph wrote:
Dang, now I know who was Capone's tax person.
What did Capone go to prison for...? lol
...the same thing you're going to go for if you keep it up. I would already expect you'd die with the same thing he did as well.
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Political Economy wrote:
<quoted text>
You and the Retired Farmer are talking about apples and oranges, or rather Apple hi-tech electronics and clothing made in Bangladesh. Your example and solution might work with iPhones but not with clothing or any other everyday product. The economics of things like iPhones are best compared to the economy of something like cocaine.
It's a product........sold in America. What's the deal with apples and oranges there? It is what it is. We can't be selective when we discuss outsourcing and US pricing.

Actually, about 98% of clothing is manufactured overseas. The value of clothing imported from Bangladesh has quadrupled over the past 10 yrs. because they are the cheapest laborers, to approx.$4.5B.

Stores include:

Gap
JC Penney
Sears
Walmart
H&M
Children's Place

....and more

Shall I go on?
truth

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
What Obama wanted and what his entire Party did are two different animals are they not. Otherwise, I'd question why 12 Republicans in the Senate voted for Obama's immigration reform as well?
Obama never asked the Democrat controlled senate and house to repeal the Bush tax cuts. He lied to you on the campaign trail about many things....as he continues to lie about many things.

The Libya Lies
We were told for two weeks that it was a demonstration when the White House knew within a few hours that it was a terrorist attack.

A live feed was available from a drone that was flying over Benghazi.

3 Requests were made for backup. Those requests were denied.
With a 7 hour battle, help was within reach.
White House refuses to say where Obama was while the attack occurred.

He also is covering up his Fast and Furious gun running program that caused the murders of hundreds of mexican citizen and one of our border patrol agents.
----------
I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.
(Remarks by President Obama to a Joint Session of Congress, September 9, 2009)

----------

If you like your plan you can keep your Plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

----------

Obama says hell save average family $8,000 in gas with new cars

----------

Said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

----------

Said he would not raise taxes one dime on the middle class.

----------
and the list goes on... and on ....and on

SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama never asked the Democrat controlled senate and house to repeal the Bush tax cuts. He lied to you on the campaign trail about many things....as he continues to lie about many things.
The Libya Lies
We were told for two weeks that it was a demonstration when the White House knew within a few hours that it was a terrorist attack.
A live feed was available from a drone that was flying over Benghazi.
3 Requests were made for backup. Those requests were denied.
With a 7 hour battle, help was within reach.
White House refuses to say where Obama was while the attack occurred.
He also is covering up his Fast and Furious gun running program that caused the murders of hundreds of mexican citizen and one of our border patrol agents.
----------
I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.
(Remarks by President Obama to a Joint Session of Congress, September 9, 2009)
----------
If you like your plan you can keep your Plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
----------
Obama says hell save average family $8,000 in gas with new cars
----------
Said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
----------
Said he would not raise taxes one dime on the middle class.
----------
and the list goes on... and on ....and on
You can bring up historical events until you're purple and it doesn't change a thing, but it was clearly stated back then there were alot of things on Obama's agenda and in order to get some of what he wanted, he had to reciprocate in others. That's what you call "teamwork", but of course you right wingers certainly wouldn't know what that's all about.

Most of your post is offtopic, but we realize you must keep bringing up the same ole' enuendos and speculatives because it gives you a sense of satisfaction. But get closer now...Obama is here until 2016.....until Hillary takes over.

It's going to be a long dry spell before you ever win another Presidential election.

Now, since you're so repetitively boroing and I'm bored, I'm going to go back and resume looking for all those jobs that 12 yrs. of taxcuts was suppose to produce, while reading statistics that 98% of the clothes on your back are manufactured overseas. I guess that's what taxcuts for the wealthy create more of?
truth

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Obama hates those evil wealthy people as much as you do, yet, he still goes out and begs for, accepts, and rewards them for them their donations to him and the Democrats.
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Jul 2, 2013
 
truth wrote:
Obama hates those evil wealthy people as much as you do, yet, he still goes out and begs for, accepts, and rewards them for them their donations to him and the Democrats.
Is that what the Bush administration did when they named Ken Lay to Cheney's secret energy commission? What did the Bush administration have to say when Ken Lay and company brought down one of the biggest corporations in history and took all the worker's lifetime pension plans with 'em?

You are aware there were more corporate bankruptcies under Bush than in history....don't you?

Gosh, Bush must have really come out...you know, given big oil and banking huh?
truth

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Jul 2, 2013
 
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what the Bush administration did when they named Ken Lay to Cheney's secret energy commission? What did the Bush administration have to say when Ken Lay and company brought down one of the biggest corporations in history and took all the worker's lifetime pension plans with 'em?
You are aware there were more corporate bankruptcies under Bush than in history....don't you?
Gosh, Bush must have really come out...you know, given big oil and banking huh?
Still can't come up with one legitimate defense for Obama, can you?
Well

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I think you just blew your cover by using the term "zero sum game". I thought I'd already informed you I was acquainted with one of the nation's best private investigators. ha
Enter Johnny. Well, I'm glad you brought that up. By the 1880's, he controlled 90% of U.S. refineries & pipelines. Some say he engaged in unethical practices-predatory pricing and colluding with railroads to eliminate his competitors in order to gain a monopoly.
In 1911, the Supreme Court found Standard Oil guilty of violating the anti-trust laws.
This is an example of exactly what we don't need...monopolies in both money and power.
Indeed he was a philanthropist, but.....so was Al Capone.
I have already given explanations as to why in relatively free economies a monopoly on money is impossible unless we are talking about federal monopoly over the money supply which is not what we are talking about. Undue power and influence is greatly diminished simply by restricting what favors and privileges government bestows on any corporation or any individual American. What we should be worried about more are the monopolies and power granted by government. I fully expect some people to seek favors and power from government if it serves their monetary interest but the problem isn't in the favor seeking business but rather in the favor granting business for favor seeking cannot happen without the favor granting.

As to my example of you viewing wealth creation as a zero sum game, would you agree or disagree with me that you look at wealth in this way or not?
SpeakUp

River Forest, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Jul 5, 2013
 
NoLimitRalph wrote:
Dang, now I know who was Capone's tax person.
What did Capone go to prison for...? lol
You do huh? I thought his brains was split out from a baseball bat?
Well

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Jul 5, 2013
 
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
No I do not in entirety. What I would prefer to see is, only jobs outsourced that are in excess of labor we can't fill and more restrictions on imports in limitation. I also believe pricing should be applicable to overhead. In other words, if they manufacture it in China, don't sell what you cheaply manufactured at American prices. If items are manufactured in the U.S. and come with a higher cost ticket, then charge accordingly. If items are manufactured in China at a lower cost ticket, then charge accordingly when sold in America. Both will create the necessary balance.
In summary, corporate America really shouldn't be called corporate America anymore. They should be called corporate India, China, the Phillipines or Bangladesh. They skirt behind an American corporate tent while in fact when they are ready to pis-, they urinate in China, thus getting their toilet paper cheaper.
How many more new workers will be needed at the Commerce Department to fulfill this wish list? We would need many more government workers to fulfill these new ways of regulating commerce. We could hire former members of the Soviet Union to advise and implement a system just like this because they were the experts at managing economies.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of184
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Keavy Discussions

Search the Keavy Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Review: Magic Vapor Shop 4 min nej 1
KY 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min News 138,771
Vote for Jailer 10 min yea 22
a new nation 28 min Omgyoureallyjustsaidthat 11
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 37 min curious 122,875
Bob Terrell 38 min history nut 5
World War III ?? 52 min Williams 43
•••
•••
•••
•••

Keavy Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Keavy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••