Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO

Nov 8, 2012 Full story: Reuters 665

A man with a local group of upper income professionals who call themselves ''Tax-Us'' holds a sign during a rally at City Hall in San Francisco, California April 17, 2012.

Full Story
responder

Columbus, OH

#608 Nov 20, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
They have enough power to reject the House of Common's attempt to reform (in other words, to make them elected offices).
So- in case anyone is keeping track- I was right when I said a) UK is a monarchy b) most of the Parliament is appointed and c) the monarch can dismiss the Parliament
The Lords have just about that much power and no more, correct.

UK is a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy, and the only really powerful House of Parliament is elected - the Commons. Further, the Monarch no longer has the power to dismiss Parliament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parli...

Not sure why you want to pretend Britain is only a "monarchy" or that it's not also a parliamentary democracy, but that's your problem. You seem weighed down with the LEGAL rights of the Monarch and willing to ignore how British government works in a practical sense.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#609 Nov 20, 2012
If you run a company and know your gonna ge a tax increase one of the first things you do is look to make capital investments and to find other ways to get deductions. All of that increases jobs for people. If you know next year your gonna get a tax cut you know next year you will make more and nor eason to invest or do anything more.

Tax increases really create jobs.
responder

Columbus, OH

#610 Nov 20, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
The Prime Minister is appointed to his/her office. The monarch doesn't have to accept the recommendations (and hasn't always accepted) and can be called on to appoint the PM when it is disputed in the House of Commons.
The power to appoint the PM rests EXCLUSIVELY with the monarch.
I'm not arguing the definition of is-is.
You're correct, the PM is appointed by the Monarch. My error. In practice, however, the Monarch is bound to appoint someone who can command a majority in the Commons.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The President of the United States is technically the head of state in the USA.
Between the two: who has the power to declare war?
Tell me: which has the power to dismiss "Parliament"?
The Congress technically declares war, though that prerogative has been slipping in recent years. The Monarch of the UK, as already noted, does NOT have the power to dissolve/dismiss Parliament any more. The President NEVER had the power to dismiss COngress.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The terms monarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive.
The UK is a monarchy.
The UK is a constitutional or Paliamentary monarchy. Obviously, monarchy and democracy are not "mutually exclusive." A monarchy with a Parliament running the show is a democracy with a monarch as executive. Since you've already admitted that the Monarch acts as executive in a Parliamentary system, I don't know why you're now insisting that the OPPOSITE is true.
responder

Columbus, OH

#611 Nov 20, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Who's driving the bus maggot muncher......who won....remember. Are you trying to crawl already.
Mr. Obama won. We have a Republic, though, and the House is still reTHUGlican. The Greedy Old Party also can stall votes in the Senate using the outdated but still (for the moment) valid filibuster.

You're RIDING the bus....the short bus. Crawl onboard and head on out, Spambot...:)
Crooked liberal media

Concord, CA

#612 Nov 20, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Feinstein.
These are the people trying to take America over the ffiscal cliff. They have plenty of money no matter what their tax rates are. They are more interested in power than money...the kind of power they would get by destroying America and then remaking it into another Cuba.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#613 Nov 20, 2012
Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
These are the people trying to take America over the ffiscal cliff. They have plenty of money no matter what their tax rates are. They are more interested in power than money...the kind of power they would get by destroying America and then remaking it into another Cuba.
If you insist that the aforementioned people have "plenty of money no matter what their tax rates are", then it would stand to reason that their already wealthy political opponents would still have plenty of money as well. That being said... remind me again the why going back to the tax rates of 20-30 years ago would be so detrimental to our country. It seems to me you've made our point with your own argument. So... thank you!
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#614 Nov 20, 2012
Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
the kind of power they would get by destroying America and then remaking it into another Cuba.
Because remaking America into another Cuba is so much worse than remaking it into another China or India by forcing the standard of living down via wage, market and political manipulation. Open your eyes. Major corporations are shipping our jobs to other countries because they CAN. They are telling Americans that the only way to compete with the other countries' labor markets is to lower our own standards on wages, benefits, environmental standards etc. The end result like it or not will be an America that is essentially another third rate, third-world shit-hole. Do the math.
Orangelion

Mold, UK

#615 Nov 20, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
The Prime Minister is appointed to his/her office. The monarch doesn't have to accept the recommendations (and hasn't always accepted) and can be called on to appoint the PM when it is disputed in the House of Commons.
The power to appoint the PM rests EXCLUSIVELY with the monarch.
I'm not arguing the definition of is-is.
Give us an example, joke smith.
Orangelion

Mold, UK

#616 Nov 20, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course you felt compelled to take the thread in YET ANOTHER direction by commenting about my "going off the topic" in a condescending manner; thus forcing me to respond. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Those other posters have been going back and forth over this for days. I chimed in hoping to settle it once and for all so we could move on, but apparently a certain poster (who shall remain nameless) chooses willful ignorance... I should have known. And you... come on! You've been on Topix for years. You know how it works here. The threads go all over the place in terms of discussion. Why did you choose to be the subject Nazi now?
There is no reason to not be open about what you feel about another person when it comes to their actions(Remain nameless?).
responder

Columbus, OH

#617 Nov 20, 2012
Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
The Republicans don't want to go over the fiscal cliff you dummy. If we go over the fiscal cliff, then the rich will have to pay even higher taxes.
The rich will NEVER pay higher taxes under a reTHUGlican administration. And they know they can blame a return to recession on Dems.

Try READING the post next time...
responder

Columbus, OH

#618 Nov 20, 2012
Pamela wrote:
I thought Ruppert Murdoch got the Prime Minister elected same as he runs the elections in the U.S. and other countries.
I hear THAT!!:)
Orangelion

Mold, UK

#619 Nov 20, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
If you run a company and know your gonna ge a tax increase one of the first things you do is look to make capital investments and to find other ways to get deductions. All of that increases jobs for people. If you know next year your gonna get a tax cut you know next year you will make more and nor eason to invest or do anything more.
Tax increases really create jobs.
It may help the upper class, but the lower and middle class would lose more money.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#620 Nov 20, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because remaking America into another Cuba is so much worse than remaking it into another China or India by forcing the standard of living down via wage, market and political manipulation. Open your eyes. Major corporations are shipping our jobs to other countries because they CAN. They are telling Americans that the only way to compete with the other countries' labor markets is to lower our own standards on wages, benefits, environmental standards etc. The end result like it or not will be an America that is essentially another third rate, third-world shit-hole. Do the math.
You're better when you're on topic.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#621 Nov 20, 2012
responder wrote:
<quoted text>
You're correct, the PM is appointed by the Monarch. My error. In practice, however, the Monarch is bound to appoint someone who can command a majority in the Commons.
Point to the law which declares the monarchy is "bound" to declare the PM which (even still) is not elected by the subjects of the monarchy.

If the monarchy is so inclined, she could appoint her cat.

The current monarchy is literally a monarch without testicles. Even she has made a decision that wasn't presented on a silver plate by the House of Commons. Granted, males of the UK have tiny testicles but it may be that future monarchs will have opinions that are more forthright.

And to the question- the yes or no question- does the monarch appoint the PM, the answer- as I presented a long time ago- is yes, he or she is.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#622 Nov 20, 2012
responder wrote:
The Monarch of the UK, as already noted, does NOT have the power to dissolve/dismiss Parliament any more.
As noted here by people who don't know what they are talking about?

Because I have posted dozens of times websites that are convinced that she does- the Parliament website, the royal website, and others.

Do show me the law passed which has taken away this prerogative.

E.G.:
The monarch has the power to:

Choose the Prime Minister.
Dismiss ministers and governments.
Dissolve Parliament.
Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament.
Dismiss the governments of other countries of which she is monarch.
Pardon convicted criminals.
Declare a state of emergency.
Issue proclamations.
Command the army and raise a personal militia.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#623 Nov 20, 2012
responder wrote:
The UK is a constitutional or Paliamentary monarchy. Obviously, monarchy and democracy are not "mutually exclusive."
Obviously: they are.

Tell me: when was the last election in the UK where the head of state was elected?

Tell me: for close to 70 years, the Soviet Union held elections that all citizens were allowed to vote. They had no choice but they did vote.

The USSR a democracy?

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

#624 Nov 20, 2012
WHO PAYS THE INCOME TAXES IN AMERICA? The list of Democrats complaining the ... We are going to take back America in 2012.~~~~~~~~~ Exclusive ...

allow me to share some enlightening data on who pays what income tax in the United States. We have a progressive (or regressive if you choose to look it the tax code correctly) in 2009, the latest available figures on income tax collection:

The top 1%(1.4 million) paid 40.42% on income of $2.8 trillion.
The top 2.5%( 5.65 million) paid 20.2%
The top 5%( 7 million) paid 60%
The top 10% paid 71.2% of all income taxes on income of $4.227 trillion.

Collected taxes :$794 billion

The bottom 50% of American taxpayers paid only 7.89 % of all Federal taxes collected !!

The above data was provided by Turbo Tax.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#625 Nov 20, 2012
responder wrote:
A monarchy with a Parliament running the show is a democracy with a monarch as executive.
With a Parliament running the show?

Did you forget in the UK the monarchy is the head of the government and can dismiss the Parliament?

Have you also forget that in the UK, there are two houses, and the larger house is of members who are appointed or inherit by appointment- each and every one of them- by the monarch?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#626 Nov 20, 2012
responder wrote:
Since you've already admitted that the Monarch acts as executive in a Parliamentary system,
I've "admitted" no such thing.

I am responsible for what I say, not for the fiction of dullards who have lost their point.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#627 Nov 20, 2012
sage won wrote:
WHO PAYS THE INCOME TAXES IN AMERICA?
Not you, dear.

You lost the election, why not save this up for the next one? I'm sure Draft Dodger Romney will give it another shot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Small Business Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chamber names 2014's top businesses 21 hr will same happen ... 7
a1 best ways to make money online | make money ... Sep 26 gnewburn 2
Officers behind junk fax scam face Kan. sentencing (Nov '09) Sep 24 Stacia 3
Best Way To Make Money Online Sep 22 Tarry 1
Free eBay workshops begin Oct. 8 at HCC Sep 20 Philip Cohen 1
Chamber announces its award winners Sep 14 will they listen 1
4 accused in scheme to get construction contracts Sep 10 FriendofDog 1

Small Business People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE