Romney pays such low rates because he's paying long term capital gains on investments as opposed to regular income tax. He's also shelling out millions in charitable contributions annually also. Hilton inherited most of her wealth. Kardashian is one of the fortunate few who makes great money because of a combination of who's she's related to plus her looks. I'm talking about honest, hard working people who started a business and took risks and put in long hours. Or who developed an expertise that companies are willing to pay well for. The push is on to say that they don't deserve much beyond a certain amount and they should surrender most of their income beyond that amount. Which is an indication that the government is running out of funding sources for it's various programs(primarily because the huge debt load requires a lot of money just to pay the interest). So now the successful are expected to chip in. This will kill entrepreneurship and stifle innovation. And certainly won't create jobs. To have a thriving middle class we must have the opportunity to do well. And certainly the wealthy that control large corporations aren't helping by suppressing wages. The middle class is getting squeezed on several fronts.
Already Started for Some
- Thread starter vantexan
- Start date
Romney pays such low rates because he's paying long term capital gains on investments as opposed to regular income tax. He's also shelling out millions in charitable contributions annually also. Hilton inherited most of her wealth. Kardashian is one of the fortunate few who makes great money because of a combination of who's she's related to plus her looks. I'm talking about honest, hard working people who started a business and took risks and put in long hours. Or who developed an expertise that companies are willing to pay well for. The push is on to say that they don't deserve much beyond a certain amount and they should surrender most of their income beyond that amount. Which is an indication that the government is running out of funding sources for it's various programs(primarily because the huge debt load requires a lot of money just to pay the interest). So now the successful are expected to chip in. This will kill entrepreneurship and stifle innovation. And certainly won't create jobs. To have a thriving middle class we must have the opportunity to do well. And certainly the wealthy that control large corporations aren't helping by suppressing wages. The middle class is getting squeezed on several fronts.
DontThrowPackages
Well-Known Member
First of all, giving millions to the Church of latter day saints isn't the same as giving to charity. Secondly, this country, during the time, created it's most ever millionaires during the pre-bush tax cuts so I can't believe the argument of Killing entrepreneurship and such. I'm all for a "no loop hole" flat tax. Everyone is taxed 25perecent or so. This would stop the creative accounting that allows companies and people to circumvent the system in a way only the rich can benefit from. Yeah, I can live with a flat tax. If Im paying 33percent because I "put in the long hours" and someone else isn't because of he was born into a family with money, or his day just made him jr VP, that's not right.
Rich or ,as some people call them, the "successful" people we be just fine. They don't need me or anyone else like me championing their cause to pay little tax. I don't see them looking to keep our pay up to that of inflation or choosing Jim Smith over Chiang Hong or Rob Jones over Depak Patel. They don't care about us. Remember that. If you're one of them then great, Im happy you're rich. But I'm gonna look out for my best interest not someone who can't give a care about me and my peer.
You'd be more extreme than what the Republicans are proposing. A 10% flat tax that bumps up to 25% on income above, if I remember right, $100k. You don't pay 33% on all your income by the way, just above a certain amount. And there are plenty of retirees who pay only capital gains rates as opposed to regular income tax because their income beyond Social Security is just dividends on stock they own. Not talking millionaires here. But what you aren't seeing is the government is wanting to jack rates way up beyond a certain amount of income. France is right now instituting a I believe 85%, might be 80%, top rate. They are literally saying you can only make so much, we'll take most of the rest. If we go that route most of those pre-bush tax cut millionaires wouldn't have gotten that wealthy. By the way, the explosive growth we had in the 90's were a combination of the dot.com boom and Republican policies. And let's be clear here, I'm a mid-range FedEx courier. I'm anything but wealthy. There are people on this forum who do much better than I. But you don't need to be wealthy to know you won't have a healthy middle class if you stifle upward mobility. This is the politics of envy.
DontThrowPackages
Well-Known Member
80 or 85% is disgusting. I understand in the mid forties we were around 94% for the highest earners and I don't see how anyone stood for that. It's too much to expect a person to pay. I haven't heard The DEMs talk about numbers like that. A 10% flat, I can live with but I just don't see that happening.
Not sure why this thread became a political one..but anyways. Im surprised that they are still using 4 x10s . We have been for years and almost every wheel of the 4 routes has one rt that has been turned back to 5x8.... Tue-Sat. So now to get minimums they are basically a swing driver for that day
I fix Fedex
Member
"Though the people support the government, it is not up to the government to support the people" - Grover Cleveland (D)
Kind of a unique situation at this station. Two sets of 4X10's go through a pass in the mountains to two neighboring states. No Saturday service in those areas. Stem time is long enough that they are pretty much insured at least 9.5hrs on slower days. But if freight is greatly reduced soon they'll have to restructure back to 5X8's only this time they won't be getting OT and may struggle to get 35hrs. And a big chunk of that will still be stem time. Was told they tried 4X10's awhile back, but due to people leaving, injuries, etc they ended up still working a lot of OT. They've been working 50+hrs a week for years. The problem is there are 5 rts in my loop with one still working 5X8's. He doesn't get a full 40 but is happy with that. But if they all revert back to 5X8's there will now be 6 of us with myself, the cover driver. There may only be enough work for 5, possibly only 4 rts. Haven't heard anything about layoffs but I doubt if my loop is unique. What will they do with the extra people? These are all FTer's in it to make a living and already there's some real concern about losing all the OT going to a 4X10 system. The only way the company can use PTers in these 2 areas would be to go back to domiciled couriers(which they did years ago) with a FTer bringing the freight out to them. And then you'd have a bunch of displaced FTers. Will be interesting to see if anything is said about layoffs next week. If we keep 2 day service probably won't happen, but if Express is eventually just overnight deliveries I don't see how they can avoid laying off people.
This triggered the point with Gov't for me.
We need it for sound reasons. But programs/entitlements some look at them as "if you get them you are lazy/working the system". But we also know corps get so many kickbacks and programs to. So there is welfare'ish type means on both ends. But that isn't my point. The best reason for gov't is for it to act like a volume buyer for the people. The reason you have many large programs is the buying power of the masses. Many of these things wouldn't get done or they would be exploited by the open market. Energy really could be one, probably should be one. That doesn't mean no one makes a profit,etc. But it's a basic need and you can suffer the masses in an open market, where a gov't can act as a volume buyer to the public. Solar could be cheaper to install and more plentiful yet, but it can devastate traditional energies. So what's more natural, a clean free method, or a dirtier method that can be controlled by man to wield power? One's is more righteous. One is same ole, me big, you little, buwahahaha!
Problem is that solar doesn't work well further north. Not enough sun. And where it does work you need a very large array to replace what a typical household consumes in electricity. The technology isn't there to replace petroleum or coal and you can't somehow force it to work by pushing fossil fuels out.
Government has a long track record of being inefficient and wasteful. Putting the responsibility of providing basic needs to the masses on government's shoulders is a recipe for disaster.
Goldilocks
Well-Known Member
Which will lead to fewer doctors and rationed care. Good luck!
You may not always be. When you have to wait months to see a doctor for a procedure, or have that procedure deemed unnecessary by a review board, you may grow nostalgic for the old system.
Or you may be infected with the scare bug and 10 years from now all the gloom and doom will be reminiscient of Y2K.
Nah, I'm just going by what has happened with socialized medicine in other countries. It's why people from those countries who can afford it come to the U.S. to have operations. It's pure hubris to think we can do it right here in spite of evidence to the contrary.
It isn't uncommon for people who can afford it to travel over seas for some procedures. And it I only looking at facts to see that we spend more and get less for our health care dollar. To continue is ridiculous.
Of course it isn't uncommon. They can't get the work done they need where they are from. The inverse of that is that those who can't afford to go overseas are stuck with poor care. That's what we'll be looking at in 10 years, not some magic wonderland where all is well.
Well its not like an insurance company never ever deemed a procedure unnecessary...Oh that's right business is always right,gov't is always wrong.
Actually I experienced denial of payment for a stress test by Blue Cross. And then they reversed course. Not saying our system is perfect, but the U.S. is recognized as the best quality healthcare in the world in terms of the quality of physicians and facilities. Take away the business aspect of it, making a profit that keeps doctors and nurses happy(which attracts the best doctors from around the world) and watch the system degrade. If you put the time and expense in to finally get into a position that pays very well and have the government shut down your ability to do well you probably will look at alternatives. And young, bright potential doctors might just turn away from the medical field. Which leads, as has happened elsewhere, to a shortage of doctors and long lines. Business isn't always right but when your job is on the line to produce results you usually seek out the most efficient, productive method possible. Government isn't burdened with such silliness, and it shows in their wasteful spending. By the way, delivering pkgs by regular employees that have been flown in on planes is the most efficient productive way, but it's also the most costly. People are settling for slower service to save a buck, and it seems that's the direction our healthcare is going too. Problem is you can always find deliverymen, doctors are harder to come by.
