So much for raising taxes on just the rich...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by brett636, Mar 14, 2008.

  1. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Wow, I never realized someone who makes $31k/yr. was considered rich! :knockedout: I guess this means I can go around and brag about how wealthy I am since the dems obviously believe I am. Oh well, look at the bright side. Atleast the democrats on capitol hill can now say they achieved something other than raising the minimum wage.
  2. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Oh, this gets even better!

    Oh yes Nancy Pelosi, I want higher taxes because it reflects my values and protects my economic future. How foolish can these people be? :greedy:
  3. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    How could you even ask how foolish these people can be? One of the first things they did was raise the minimum wage. That alone should give most people a clue as to how foolish they are.
  4. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Touche. Lucky for us that was the only thing they could get done in 2007.
  5. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    It's called fiscal responsibility, because history proves that it works, and we are convinced that massive deficits allowed to continue will undermine growth and weaken America's future. It is no different from your own personal bank accounts, how you take care of your home, your family. Sure, there may come times when you have to borrow money, but you need to PAY it back. You can't have deficit-spending as far as the eye can see. You cannot employ the Chaney rule that the deficit doesn't matter. Do you not see how far this current Republican Party has gotten off on allowing these huge deficits to keep building?

    Unfortunately, at the same time the administration is cutting programs important to the middle class and the poor, they are insisting on spending hundreds of billions of dollars for handouts for multimillionaires. I know the administration generally believes that the very wealthy are the engine of economic growth. Democrats disagree. We believe the real engine of growth is a strong middle class, and we think it is wrong to burden middle-class taxpayers with the cost of massive spending for those at the top of the economic pyramid.

    Is it possible that the minimum wage debate is 1% substance, 99% political positioning? Sure, there may be lost jobs and attempts to hire more ilegal aliens, but I wouldn't call it a foolish one sided argument. Essentially, your calling one half the nation fools (if not more), not a whole lot of faith in your countryman.
    The whole argument is muddied since many states have a higher Min wage than the Fed.

    Advocates of raising the minimum wage say today's federal minimum wage isn't enough for anyone to get by on. Because wages haven't been adjusted with inflation, each year a family living on minimum wage can afford to buy less and less.

    Today, the government's health and human services department sets the poverty line at around $20,000/$25,000yr for a family of four. Meanwhile two parents working full-time at minimum wage would only be expected to barely make above poverty. Their shopping at garage sales, weekend flea markets and buyings goods with cash under the table. Money not contributing to our tax base.

    Raising minimum wages may encourage some to join the workforce instead of criminal mischief creating more burden and tax dollars on our criminal justice system.

    Another example of the minimum wage hike may provide additional positive impacts on important social and economic issues. More welfare recipients went back to work in some states because of greater earning potential. Thus, the minimum wage increase could positively impact the economy by promoting the return to work of some welfare recipients, which in turn cuts welfare costs and increases the tax base.

    Now I will concede you do have legitimate arguments concerning the hike such as lay offs, pushing more into poverty, letting the free market set wages, not the Gov't, and raising the price of goods.

    But what I see and also some of you Independents can appreciate that
    Since November 2006, twenty-nine foolish states have raised their un-liviable minimum wage above the federal level, including six other foolish states that okayed ballot initiatives to up their minimum wage in 2007. So if you want to leave it up to the 52 states of the union, thats fine with me also.
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    What IMO hurts any general discussion about minimum wage is that in most cases it reduces itself down to a democrat verses republican or visa versa argument. Everybody does it because it is so easy to do and bad habits are hard to break. But sometimes it helps to step back and look at the whole process from a different angle and that is from a purely individual level.

    Minimum wage laws take away the individual worker the right to contract. It does because it takes away his/her ability to come into the free market at a lower cost that for him/her benefits them. Maybe you or I can't compete at that level because of our personal operating costs but why should by federal law these persons not be allowed to do so when by their own free will and knowledge and where no force or fraud exist enter the job market at those levels? I understand if people are allowed in mass to do this that this could effect us and our rates of pay over the longrun but it's not a one way street. These same employer/manufactures over time with a lesser paid workforce will also find one of 2 scenarios.

    1) Over time certain jobs because of conditions or risks will become harder and harder to fill with stable employees and the cost drain in other areas such as ever growing hiring costs because of turnover and increasing excess dollars spent of training and retraining become a drain. Are you thinking "Brown" at this point? Those employers will begin to have to spend ever greater amounts of money on internal gimmicks to get and retain employees that a better paid, better class of employee would not require. Better paid meaning better class also tends to equate with a lesser management needed workforce that even though the wage scale is higher, the risk of losing that wage means a more loyal and devoted workforce to the company and it's product or service. Retreating at once to the lowest common denominator is not in the best interest of longterm growth for a smart company.

    2) Going back to that lowest common cost denominator, let's say American business did that as a whole with the end of the minimum wage laws. Let's say across the board we had massive wage deflation but the cost of goods and services stayed the same as American business just got greedy. Who could buy the products and services? Who could afford it? Who would continue to work any job if working a whole week wouldn't even fill the gas tank to drive to work?

    Let's say you are working a job where 3.5 hours a day is guaranteed at $9.00 per hour but from that comes out federal state and in some cases local income taxes, social security and medicare. Then on top of that you are paying $3.50 a gallon for gas and it takes 2 gallons a day to come to work so take off another $7 a day just for gas. That $31.50 gross a day is most likely down to around $15 net so for 3.5 hours work you may be clearing $15 net.

    What's the incentive to come to work when you just don't feel like it? What's the downside to losing this job? What's the risk of coming to work and only going through the motions and not doing a good job of that even? LOL! Does this all sound so familar?

    OK, what about the employer who hires that low wage worker? Look at UPS for example. How many extra employees are carried on the payroll just to cover the shear numbers of employees who don't show up to work from shift to shift? Why did the contract even need to address a call in list for each sort operation to compensate for absent emplyees?

    And speaking of employers, do you or I or anyone else have a right to go to our neighbor and tell them what the minimum is they must pay to have their grass mowed, oil changed, trash collected. I mean they are employer's in the sense they are hiring someone else to provide a service on their behalf. What if I came to you and said from here on out you mush pay $100 an hour to the 19 year old kid at the local "Quicky Oil Change" and got a law making it so under the guise of minimum requirements? If we tell UPS, Walmart, 3M, McDonald's or Joe's Hardware via gov't mandate that there is a wage minimum, how long before that concept trickles down to us in our person hire's?

    I understand and appreciate the basis from where you are coming from and your arguments but until we begin as nation to look at many of these issues from the individual perspective, we will IMO lose sight of just what is true freedom and liberty and why we continue to lose it on an ever increasing level. Minimum wage is most likley not going anywhere anytime soon but when I look at laws I look at them from the standpoint of how they would effect 2 individuals interacting with one another. If there is a scenario where one individual acting in his own free will without force or fraud could be harmed, then at the very least it should not be mandatory enforcement by the gov't and thus become something one if free to volunteer for or can opt to stay out.

  7. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I was thinking since the republicans cut taxes for the rich just who are the rich.

    1999 Clinton was President 2008 Bush is President

    Single 30k Tax was 8400 Tax is 4500

    Single 50k Tax was 14000 Tax is 12500

    Married 60k Tax was 16,800 Tax is 9000

    These are the rich that congress is trying to raise the tax rate on now. Great job Congress. I guess I must be super rich.:happy2:
  8. 1989

    1989 Well-Known Member

    Most of my 2008 income will be taxed at 35%...We need another capital gains tax cut.
  9. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Wait a minute, you preach how the democrats are for the middle class yet they propose a tax increase on those same people? How can you not understand the hypocrisy on this subject?

    If the dems want to help the middle class they need to make the bush tax cuts permanent, and then tackle social security and medicare since they are the two biggest fiscal threats we face. Not only are we paying into them, but those who are currently part of my generation will never get to benefit from them. We only get to pay the bill afterwards. :sick:
  10. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Yes, minimum wage debate does boil down politically alright, Dem vs Rep or better yet worker vs employer. But I ask myself, is the Employer on the same level playing field or bargaining table as the unskilled, inexperience or foriegn worker? Without any form of Gov't regulation, should business expect workers to bid on jobs from one another for less pay simply out of neccessity. As they would say in Tennis "Advantage":tennisace: "Business" Game,Set, Match !

    Your scenario's are hard to argue against, IMO though, you get what you pay for when it comes to quality and retention instead of turnover. Until the wage gets set way above the bar I will jump to your side of the fence in a heartbeat, as it's neccessary we have independent "watchdog" anarchist groups reminding us of too much dependence and regulation is a bad thing. But for now IMO the bar is still set at poverty level. BTW What's UPS serving for brfst this morning ? Turnovers.
  11. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Brett, we are starting to sound like broken records. Republicans have no answers on reducing our defecit, because there are no answers with their idealogy except the customary "stay the course" and let another generation suffer and deal with their spending and borrowing. So what else is there to do besides man up to fiscal responsibility and rollback The Bush tax cuts, bring our combat troops home and yes, raise some taxes across the board. Historically, this is just another repercussion and typical clean up after another Republican dance in the Whitehouse. You guys pretty much force the Democratic hands to once again live up to their sterotype and raise taxes to sustain and replenish America's Dollar,workforce, strength and reputation.
    SS and Medicare, with a balanced budget and eventual surplus and a reduced defecit from being fiscally conservative and militarily responsibilty we should be able to off set and absorb SS and Medicare costs, or at the least begin to address innovative ways to modify or change it once we have a fiscal handle on things and a sustained thriving economy once again.
  12. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    When it comes to trying to explain this to you, it all seems to boil down to your uncanny inability to connect ideas and understand basic math(although you have the rhetoric down pat). We could eliminate the military and all government waste and we would still not have enough money to sustain SS and Medicare. In fact we spend more on social entitlement programs now than we do on national defense.

    Back to the topic at hand, I find it odd that you want to blame Bush and rising gas prices for the downfall of the middle class, but you applaud the democrats in attempting to tax the middle class more. If the bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, which is what this is all about, the average family of 4 making $50k/yr. will have to pay about $2,000 extra in taxes. Now even at $4/gallon for gas that would purchase about 500 gallons of gas for that same family. That is fuel needed by that family to drive to work, get the kids to school, run normal family errands, etc. If you wish to stifle economic growth even further in this country go ahead and raise taxes on the middle class. It will not make it any easier for people to make ends meet.
  13. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Eva Mendez Has A Nice (_!_)

    Let's face it.....the left thinks its fair to tax, therefore punish, America's most hard working and most productive employees to pick up the slack for the least productive Americans. The left always cries about the downfall of the middle class but doesn't seem to understand that their ways of dealing with taxes are actually hurting the middle class. They want to tax the hell out of upper and middle class but it's the lower end that needs to be handled. I think a good way to get the unemployed and lazy to get up and work is to require that they pay their share of taxes. If millions of illegal aliens can risk their lives to get here and then are willing to work illegally in order to make a living then there is no excuse for an able bodied American with a social security number to find a job or two and contribute to the pot. It doesn't make since to punish the upper and middle class because they might cut back on their spending if they are taxed to death. Why would it make since to punish those that are the very people that are spending and contributing to the economy?
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    I understand what you are saying but you make 2 points in sharpe contrast of themselves IMO. I'm not picking on you per say because what you said above is a general belief across conservative economic thought so in that sense you are right in the mainstream.

    However, as "conservatives" if you will or better yet, people who believe in small gov't, the statement above cancels itself out. "WE" decry the left who we say belive it's fair to tax and in a general way, that would be true. I'm sure for example that D (I use D since you proclaim him of the left) would in fact consider some gov't programs worthwhile that you would disagree with so the first statement in your case and mine would be somewhat true. (BTW D, I think you are a mixed bag of both so-called left and right ideas but that's just me!)

    But then you say the following, "I think a good way to get the unemployed and lazy to get up and work is to require that they pay their share of taxes." In the first you chastise the left for believing it's fair to tax and then you turn around and say it's fair to also tax a segment you believe are not being taxed or paying enough taxes. (Someone says the rich don't pay enough and someone else says the poor aren't paying enough. )

    IMO, this is the inconsistant "Trick Bag" small gov't types get pulled into. In the late 70's Ronald Reagan was decrying US gov't tax and economic policy and 2 things he said he wanted to do was to bring back gold backed currency and eliminate the income tax. I've heard talk upon talk upon talk over the years from so-called conservative elected leaders about killing the income tax or getting rid of the annual faceoff we have to have with the IRS but over the years what has happened? Is the income tax still here and do we annually have to file forms? Yep! Does there seem to be any end in sight? Nope and if you consider pure economics, it's seems fair to say there won't be and that taxes will in fact have to go up in order to service the debt. When you consider the babyboomers are nearing the time of leaving the wage earner tax status and the numbers to fill the void aren't there unless we allow the immigrate to take our place(Hint! Hint!), the tax from the smaller size wage earner class will have to go up to meet the demands.

    You might parade the "Fair Tax" but outside of lipservice on rare moments, the republican (read conservative) party leadership has yet to not only get behind this movement but even become co-sponsors of the legislation. Even the Bush adminstration refuses to back the legislation. Same thing when the flat tax idea came to light in the 80's (1984' first time I heard it and it came out of the growing American Tax Protestor movement of the time) and you thought Steve Forbes came up with something new! Nope, had been around a while and he saw it as a nice platform to run for office on.

    Me personally, I liked Ron Paul's idea of cutting gov't, selling large amounts of domestic and foreign lands incluidng many military bases that serve no other use this means of local federal subsidation and earmark magnets for local business interests (nothing to do with real national defense) end all corp. means of welfare to private business interests. You then take that money and pay down the national debt, pay down IOU's to the various so-called trust funds like social security with the idea of fully funding them to meet all current obligations and then end the tax for those funds and then let the plan die and the current obligated members die off. In other words, in this case all means of direct federal income taxation would end. You come back at best for the time being of paying only a user tax like the highway federal excise tax when you get gas or buy tires for highway use. Don't buy gas to use the road and you don't have to pay the tax. Completely voluntary. If the federal gov't needs funds they can do so by means of apportionment and going directly to the State legislatures as then return as another layer of checks and balances. Nobody get's thrown out in the cold which makes D warm and fuzzy and we get to finally take home a paycheck on Friday of the "GROSS" and not the "NET" so to speak. Not to mention the end of days for "K" Street and the bought and sold gov't to the hgihest bidder we have now because there is very little power if any to buy and sell.

    Do republicans plan to end Social Security? No not really. It would become a quasi-gov't/private plan as the money will be entrusted to private companies that the gov't grants status to and then by law you'll have to allot so much money (most likely the same amount now going to SS) to fund this account. In effect, you've still got the gov't telling you what to do and how to live your life and the money withheld is still an odd form of privatized taxation. Private is where by my own free will and own idea I come to someone and of their free will and own idea we exchange in a business way to meet the demands we both have. It is an act of complete and open voluntary action, encouraged nor mandated by no other party or interest other than the 2 of us involved in the exchange. The "pick list" idea of the federal gov't might be called privatization but it's more a merchantilist monopoly of the European model that we let enter our shores in the 19th century and even with name changes, it's never left our shores.

    Same is true of healthcare. Newt Gingrich back in 05' came out with his idea he's parading and has broad support among "conservatives" where by law you will be required to buy private health insurance and if you can not afford it, the gov't will buy it for you. Yeah, Newt really did say these things. Newt is creating a new gov't program that uses outside contractors (insurance companies) to give it all the glow of privatization but is using the police powers to force you and I into this plan so to speak and if we can't afford it, no worries, the public trough will again step up and pay. How long before this blows up into a massive giveaway plan. Much of Hillary's current ideas come from Newt's plan as in 05' she and Newt along with Patrick Kennedy worked on this idea together.

    Sounds to me like the left get's charged with loving taxes but how can we not also make that same claim against the so-called right? Oh yeah, they hide it behind the word "PRIVATIZATION!"

    Look, I think folks like ourselves for the most part realize the need to be responsible for our lives and futures and do so accordingly and if for example they did away with the SS tax, I'd take that weekly amount and either roll it into my 401k or some other means of savings or investment. Some people would do the same but others would not. The question comes down to a couple of simple thoughts.

    1) Does passing a law mandating a person do something that left to themselves, they would not do on their own equate to more gov't or less gov't?

    2) Does mandating a person take part in a private business or matter equate to more gov't or less?

    3) If you mandate even a privatized function, will it require police powers to assure total partcipation?

    4) If the gov't privatizes an industry and controls who is and who is not in the market place, does that constitute a government created monopoly and are monoplies anthama to Free Market/Free Enterprise Economics?

    5) Based on the answers, how does this all square with the idea of left/right, liberal/conservative political thoughts and ideas?

    If we believe in limited gov't then we must stay true to it IMO at all times. Do we force the "unemployed and lazy" into the same tax slavery as ourselves or do we maintain principle and figure out how to conform the functions of gov't so that we to can have the same tax bill as those folks?

    Out of the last 28 years, except for 8 years the republican party has controlled the White House and the bully pulpit. They have been in position to set the national agenda. From 1995' to 2007' they controlled the Congress and then in Jan. 01' they controlled both branches of gov't and some would argue the 3rd branch as well. In all of that, with all this power, did gov't decrease in size, scope and means of direct taxation? Upon that question is where the rubber meets the road IMO!

    Some here might think I'm carrying the democrats water and that comes as no real surprise. but the simple fact is the democrats have never in my political lifetimes extolled the virtues of real limited gov't. On the otherhand, republicans especially starting in 1980' have and when I hired them in 1980' to do the job, they didn't. Like any good customer I demand satisfaction and I doubt I'll get my money back!

    That said, my only recourse is to in effect complain to the better business bureau to warn other potential customers in the real hopes that someone within the republican ranks will realize where they went wrong and do the right thing.

    BTW: I'm not holding my breathe either!
  15. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Eva Mendez Has A Nice (_!_)

    There was no "trick bag" or contrast. It's quite simple really. There are millions of Americans that supposedly can't find a job or enough work to fend for themselves. Those of us with the drive to succeed and with initiative have to pay for their woes. Maybe if they were given a little incentive, such as being required to pay their share of taxes, they would get up from their reality tv programs and get out and find a job or a second job so they can learn to make ends meet themselves instead of depending on the government to give them handouts at the expense of the rest of us. It can't be that hard to find work. I mean just look at all the millions of foreigners (both legal and illegal) that come here and seem to have no trouble landing a job or two. My believing that the upper AND the middle class shouldn't have to pay more taxes and believing that EVERYONE should have to contribute equally aren't contrasting beliefs.
  16. brown bomber

    brown bomber brown bomber

    It's this "sense of entitlement" mentality that will be the downfall of this's become a multi-generational problem...............

    if it was a good enough for your grandparents..and your parents...why shouldn't you be able participate, also??

    this problem is one that crosses the bounds of's not a Black or White issue...not quite sure of the answers....
  17. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    You're not just working for other Americans who aren't. The sad part is you are working for illegal aliens who don't even belong in this country.... but who collect all sorts of gov't monies.

    The illegals are also eagerly awaiting their checks from our gov't as part of the stimulus package. I don't think I'm getting a check to spend and stimulate the fair is that?? :angry:
  18. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    Bingo. I guess I never noticed, but while Im out working, til late at night others are partying from my toil. I never really thought of it til I paid attention.
    I still think the answer is stand at the door of the welfare office, and start the cuts there. Dont want to work for minimum wage????, what do you have to offer which qualifies you for more?
    That question faced me when I quit school in 9th grade. And I could only make minimum wage. Or actually a buck 81 plus tips. Why I thought......I know I can do that job, but you have to have some kind of credential. I learned that. Others need to also. Any poor person can get educational assistance, but why try so hard, when its so easy, when a person can just settle? You dont need to starve, or go without, the govt will provide it all. No need to achieve, just live in your little black hole that you put yourself into and cry and whine, and take more money from me.
    While many will say that this is only a small part of the problem, to me it is big. This is where I can make a difference.
    Drug tests for welfare recipients, force them to take any job which will pay them a wage, get free child care, free education, free food, utilities and rent, but all while you are doing something to make yourself viable. If you dont want to do that, you starve and fall off the face of the earth. Period. You do not belong here. Every day is a struggle, not sure who to blame but until I know Ill just keep on doing what I do. I know the problems did not just start in the last 7 yrs. They just now are festering.
  19. brown bomber

    brown bomber brown bomber

    tooner...glad you agree w/ me...I've never had anything handed to me....paid for my own college education...I even paid for the last 2 yrs. of high school.....because I COULD..AND KNEW THAT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO parents were having a tough time in the mid-70's...and I did the " right thing"...........

    to this day..I keep reminding my daughters..that they're in charge of their own lives...don't depend upon anyone..except yourself

    it might sound self-serving...however, as a single (widowed) parent..I hope that I can instill this philosophy in my girls

    take care..a few of us still have some common sense
  20. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Eva Mendez Has A Nice (_!_)

    I know quite a few illegals. I am married to one. I can tell you that half of what the general public believes about them is wrong. Illegals aren't getting those checks. You have to have a valid social security number in order to qualify for the money. The majority of them don't get benefits at all. It's their kids (if they were born in the U.S.) that are getting the benefits. In most cases the kids have health insurance (provided by the government, which I agree is wrong regardless of immigration status) but have no coverage for themselves. Many illegals don't need health insurance because they tend to be more tight with their money. They usually have more than enough set aside for medical bills. So many of them work multiple jobs so that makes paying for medical bills well within their budget. I know some that have health insurance that they pay for. Yes, it's expensive but they treat it as a "must have" so they budget to pay for it. All of this is exactly why I always say "if illegals can do it then why can't Americans?"