America continues to lose! Ford to lay off workers because tariffs have cost $1B

[Ray From Cleveland]

Triggered for what? What did she get for those 3 million voters? She got drunk, that's what she got.

Makes zero sense...but whatever.

Then let me break it down for you: The popular vote means nothing in a presidential election. However if you want to use that as an indication as to who is in the majority in this country, let me remind you that we don't use the electoral college for House votes, Senate votes, or even governorships. Those are all popular vote positions, and we own them all.

Well the threshold was "nobody likes you". If they like you, chances are that means they will vote for you and if you use the voting as the barometer, people like Hillary more than Trump. Perhaps you can figure out the context in the future?

No it doesn't work like that.

DumBama won two terms because people liked him on a personal level. They didn't like him on a political level which is why why we voted to stop him by giving the Republicans control of the house and later the Senate.

Trump is disliked on a personal level, but nobody in their right mind can dislike him on a professional level because our economy has never been better. He is the first President in a long time to run the White House on pragmatism; he's running the country like a business.

But as long as you bring that up, many Republican voters stayed home because Trump was our nominee. Many Democrats stayed home on election day because of what they perceived Hillary doing to Sanders.

So the only other way to say YOU are in the majority is to look at everything outside of the presidential election. And again, we have leadership of the House, Senate, and 2/3 of the governorships across the country.

Economy better than ever? Inflation is at 6 year high, wiping out any wage gains. Tariffs are already killing more jobs than saving them. Thankfully Trump cant dictate to the fed about interest rates.

Run government like a business? This is just an enduring myth. Trump is not a business man; he's a mob boss. Its all fraud.

No, a fraud is what happened under DumBama. The feds poured trillions into the market. This is real, no bubbles. Now we have the lowest unemployment rate in almost a half century and jobs are still being created.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then let me break it down for you: The popular vote means nothing in a presidential election. However if you want to use that as an indication as to who is in the majority in this country, let me remind you that we don't use the electoral college for House votes, Senate votes, or even governorships. Those are all popular vote positions, and we own them all.

Well the threshold was "nobody likes you". If they like you, chances are that means they will vote for you and if you use the voting as the barometer, people like Hillary more than Trump. Perhaps you can figure out the context in the future?

No it doesn't work like that.

DumBama won two terms because people liked him on a personal level. They didn't like him on a political level which is why why we voted to stop him by giving the Republicans control of the house and later the Senate.

Trump is disliked on a personal level, but nobody in their right mind can dislike him on a professional level because our economy has never been better. He is the first President in a long time to run the White House on pragmatism; he's running the country like a business.

But as long as you bring that up, many Republican voters stayed home because Trump was our nominee. Many Democrats stayed home on election day because of what they perceived Hillary doing to Sanders.

So the only other way to say YOU are in the majority is to look at everything outside of the presidential election. And again, we have leadership of the House, Senate, and 2/3 of the governorships across the country.

And our yearly debt has never been higher. You used to hate deficit spending. Oh well....

As for Clinton, seldom do you vote for someone you don't like. This is why nearly 5 in 10 stay home during general elections total ambivalence toward the candidates.
More people liked her.

I do hate deficit spending. However if it’s going to happen anyway, it might as well be for things that benefit the country like a strong military. And let me remind you the minority can still shut down the government if we don’t spend on their stuff as well as ours. So it’s not entirely the Republicans fault.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I don't like military spending. What a waste. Infrastructure would be my pick.

I really don’t know what can be more important than the protection of our country. Outside of terrorists, many believe we are invincible because we’ve never suffered an attack from another country. If we do and are not prepared, it will be too late then. China is advancing their military technology all the time.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Doc1]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

It becomes a confiscatory weapon.

 

[sealybobo]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Great question.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) issued 20 full or partial vetoes of tax hikes and spending increases, vetoed an entire $334 million "emergency" capital investment bill. Two weeks later Pawlenty announced another important veto, this one to block a transportation bill containing more than $5 billion in tax and fee increases.

After the Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.


Through the 1950s, though, more and more loopholes for the rich were built into the tax code.

JFK pushed through a tax increase to take us back toward FDR/Truman/Eisenhower revenue levels, and we continued to build infrastructure in the US, and even put men on the moon. Health care and college were cheap and widely available. Working people could raise a family and have security in their old age. Every billion dollars (a half-week in Iraq) invested in infrastructure in America created 47,000 good-paying jobs as Americans built America.

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983. The lowest in the industrialized world. So when Republicans say we pay the hiighest taxes in the industrialized world, that's probably a big fat lie

Bernie Sanders says tax share paid by corporations has fallen from 33% to 9% since 1952

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund.

So he raised taxes on the poor and borrowed from my social security. Then the SOB raised the retirement age from 65-67. You poor and middle class Republicans are so fucking stupid.

 

[sealybobo]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

How come after the Reagan tax breaks you didn't ask, "how much less can they pay?"?

After the Bush tax breaks why didn't you ask how much less can they pay?

And after the Trump tax breaks to the rich, are you ever going to get it through your head that the rich are no longer paying their fair share?

Lets go back to the Reagan tax breaks which he should never have given.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress at a Howard Johnson's restaurant (what my wife did in the late 60s - I did so working as a near-minimum-wage DJ) now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

 

[sealybobo]

I know this will bother conservatives but

The Associated Press reported on August 4, 2007, that the president of Nike, Mark Parker, "raked in $3.6 million [in compensation] in '07." That's $13,846 per weekday, $69,230 a week. And yet it would still keep him just below the top 70% tax rate if this were the pre-Reagan era. We had a social consensus that somebody earning around $3 million a year was fine, but above that was really more than anybody needs to live in America.

How much does the President of Nike make today?

In the worldview Americans held in the 1930-1980 era, Parker's compensation was reasonable. But William McGuire (aka in the business press as "Dollar Bill") taking over $1.6 billion - $1,600,000,000.00 - from the nation's second largest health insurance company (you wonder where your health care dollars are going?) would have been considered excessive before the "Reagan Revolution."

There is much discussion of what the floor on earnings should be - the minimum wage - but none about the ceiling. That's largely because effectively there is no ceiling, and those who control vast wealth in America are happy to have Americans fight over "How poor is too poor?" just so long as nobody asks "How rich is too rich?"

 

[sealybobo]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

 

[ph3iron]

Indeed.

Bringing strategic manufacturing capabilities back on-shore is going to hurt.

Well... the sooner we 'take the pain' and get started, the sooner we'll be self-sufficient in those areas again, and the sooner the pain stops.

Continuing to be reliant upon adversarial nations for so much of our manufacturing is a deadly trap that we must escape before it's too late.

Short-sighted critters, unable to see the long-term strategic need, may be safely ignored during this painful stretch of time.

You're not going to get manufacturing back--get over it. The reason manufacturing has shipped overseas, is because our Employers are required to pay for social security, medicare, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, and now medical insurance.

Apple & other corporations have to compete in a Global economy, making certain that those I-phones are also affordable in foreign countries, otherwise they would be have to shut their doors. The benefit to you is--that you're not paying $3000.00 for an I-phone made and manufactured in the United states.

We are also moving into a lot of automation, ATM machines, self checkout's at stores, that are going to be the future. So get a job that cannot be shipped overseas, or done with a machine.

Manufacturing shipped over see because of overregulation in the US, which was one of the first thing TRUMP got rid of after taking office.

Automation is only productive to a certain point. Just look at how many people are employed by Amazon. And all those machines don't build themselves. There will always be a need for a manufacturing workforce to some degree.

And, frankly, I don't care anywhere near as much about the jobs as I do the native manufacturing capability.

Imagine having to go to the Japanese and Germans to manufacture the components for our weapons systems in the 1940s!

That's pretty much what the damned fools are advocating... those who insist that revitalizing American manufacturing is pointless.

It's time we stop listening to them.

Gawd, is this all you do sucking off socialist benefits?
Cut and paste from your double wide?
After WWII we had 50 % of the worlds production, the world caught up.
As Goldwater said humans are incredibly selfish.
Guess where they went to make the most $?
It's 70 years on Darlin, get used to it

If you're referring to Social Security & Medicare as "socialist" programs--you're wrong, Because employees & employers make those contributions. They're paid for, and you're not going to get anyone to give them up.

Keep the gov out of my Medicare as the non college trumpie said.
We do know we take out 40% more than we ever put in don't we??
Are you giving your excess back?

 

[Doc1]

So....what did we do prior to 1916? You suffer from wealth envy.

 

[ph3iron]

Are you surprised? You shouldn’t be if you have a basic understanding of economics.

Ford announces plan to lay off workers after tariffs cost them $1B

Imagine that, Ford has a tendency to lay off workers often.
Ford's '20,000' layoff number — cited by Challenger's jobs report — is wildly inaccurate
Ford Expected to Temporarily Lay Off Thousands of Workers At Michigan Plant
Ford to lay off 2,000 workers at Michigan plant for Ranger, Bronco retooling
Ford Laying Off 130 Workers in Ohio on Softer Demand for Work Trucks
Ford wants to lay off 380 workers from Louisville Assembly Plant

Lol oh you mean like what corporations in general do? In this case, they cited the tariffs as a reason. If the tariffs were helping, why would they pretend otherwise!

They gave several reasons for the layoffs; tariffs just one of them and who knows how much impact that had on their decision.

Doesn’t it bother you that before this tariff idea was proposed, just Trump and one retarded advisor were the only people who liked the idea? Actual non-partisan economists overwhelming said how stupid the idea was. If Obama had done this, you people would be whining about it to this day.

Can’t you think for yourself? You even acknowledged the tariffs were part of the reason for Ford doing these layoffs lol

The tariffs impact every auto producer in the USA. Consequently, the effect on Ford's layoff decision is minimal at best. BTW, add me to the list of those who supported these tariffs from the get go.

We are never going to get China to change its ways by just talking to them. We needed a stick, and that is where tariffs come in.

All this stealing info is hilarious.
Never a mention of our companies stealing Chinese data.
My company had a group in China specifically to do this.
But all we hear is CHINA IS STEALING OUR TECHNOLOGY

 

[Doc1]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Sorry, I dont quote FOX I dont believe anything Common Dreams has to say. Your position presupposes that all money belongs the Gov and we should be happy with what they decide to let us keep

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Let me put it this way: If the federal tax rate were 0%, the money collected by the federal government would be 0 dollars.

If the federal tax rate were 100%, the money collected by the federal government would still be 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

So let's say we need to drastically raise SS and Medicare deductions to keep these programs going. Those taxes would leave you with 30% of your paycheck. Would you continue working?

You assume that people will just sit back and let the government take all they want. But unlike years before, travel is more convenient and safer. Other places would welcome our wealthy any day of the week. Because after all, if you start to rob rich people, the rich people will look for somewhere else to make money.

800,000 people are about to flee New York and California because of taxes, say economists

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is much discussion of what the floor on earnings should be - the minimum wage - but none about the ceiling. That's largely because effectively there is no ceiling, and those who control vast wealth in America are happy to have Americans fight over "How poor is too poor?" just so long as nobody asks "How rich is too rich?"

Is that the kind of country you want to live in, where others judge if what you have is too much?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And after the Trump tax breaks to the rich, are you ever going to get it through your head that the rich are no longer paying their fair share?

They've always paid too much.

$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

So how much "fairer" do you want taxation to be?

 

[candycorn]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Let me put it this way: If the federal tax rate were 0%, the money collected by the federal government would be 0 dollars.

If the federal tax rate were 100%, the money collected by the federal government would still be 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

So let's say we need to drastically raise SS and Medicare deductions to keep these programs going. Those taxes would leave you with 30% of your paycheck. Would you continue working?

You assume that people will just sit back and let the government take all they want. But unlike years before, travel is more convenient and safer. Other places would welcome our wealthy any day of the week. Because after all, if you start to rob rich people, the rich people will look for somewhere else to make money.

800,000 people are about to flee New York and California because of taxes, say economists

In the extreme cases, you may be correct.
But what is also correct is that the SS contributions are capped at, I believe $128,000 or something like that. Meaning that the uber wealthy stop contributing at that point. Meaning that once you've made $128,000 for the year, you stop contributing to Social security if I understand it correctly. You still contribute to Medicare but not SS. I don't think we need to "drastically raise" the deductions but uncap the SS portion. I pay all year and you likely do as well. But they do not.

Why is there a cap on the Federal Insurance Contribution (FICA) tax? | Investopedia

 

[Avatar4321]

I’m shocked billy seems so excited about people losing their jobs

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We lost when we gave US monetary control to the Fed. We compounded that by approving the graduated income tax.

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Let me put it this way: If the federal tax rate were 0%, the money collected by the federal government would be 0 dollars.

If the federal tax rate were 100%, the money collected by the federal government would still be 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

So let's say we need to drastically raise SS and Medicare deductions to keep these programs going. Those taxes would leave you with 30% of your paycheck. Would you continue working?

You assume that people will just sit back and let the government take all they want. But unlike years before, travel is more convenient and safer. Other places would welcome our wealthy any day of the week. Because after all, if you start to rob rich people, the rich people will look for somewhere else to make money.

800,000 people are about to flee New York and California because of taxes, say economists

In the extreme cases, you may be correct.
But what is also correct is that the SS contributions are capped at, I believe $128,000 or something like that. Meaning that the uber wealthy stop contributing at that point. Meaning that once you've made $128,000 for the year, you stop contributing to Social security if I understand it correctly. You still contribute to Medicare but not SS. I don't think we need to "drastically raise" the deductions but uncap the SS portion. I pay all year and you likely do as well. But they do not.

Why is there a cap on the Federal Insurance Contribution (FICA) tax? | Investopedia

Then the question is, if they pay more, shouldn't they get more when they file for retirement? I've known several wealthy people, and none of them collected SS. They just contributed to it all of their lives.

After all, if we live to the average lifespan in the US, we will all get back much more than we contributed (us and our employers combined) so if the cap is lifted, would it not be fair for the wealthy to get the same deal? And if so, would we not be right back to where we started?

 

[candycorn]

I agree with you on the Feds but what are you talking about with the graduated income tax? Who lost when that happened and why? I'm not arguing I just don't understand. The rich are doing just fine. Dandy in fact.

I think a progressive tax is fair. A poor person should only pay 1% of their paycheck in taxes and a wealthy person should pay more than 1%. Don't you agree? If a flat tax worked we'd have tried it by now.

What I don't like is that the rich took over our government and now Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That's what's wrong with our tax system. Stop worrying that poor people aren't paying enough. It's rich people who aren't paying enough and the middle class that pays too much. The rich got you worrying about the poor but it's them that are fucking us.

Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Let me put it this way: If the federal tax rate were 0%, the money collected by the federal government would be 0 dollars.

If the federal tax rate were 100%, the money collected by the federal government would still be 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

So let's say we need to drastically raise SS and Medicare deductions to keep these programs going. Those taxes would leave you with 30% of your paycheck. Would you continue working?

You assume that people will just sit back and let the government take all they want. But unlike years before, travel is more convenient and safer. Other places would welcome our wealthy any day of the week. Because after all, if you start to rob rich people, the rich people will look for somewhere else to make money.

800,000 people are about to flee New York and California because of taxes, say economists

In the extreme cases, you may be correct.
But what is also correct is that the SS contributions are capped at, I believe $128,000 or something like that. Meaning that the uber wealthy stop contributing at that point. Meaning that once you've made $128,000 for the year, you stop contributing to Social security if I understand it correctly. You still contribute to Medicare but not SS. I don't think we need to "drastically raise" the deductions but uncap the SS portion. I pay all year and you likely do as well. But they do not.

Why is there a cap on the Federal Insurance Contribution (FICA) tax? | Investopedia

Then the question is, if they pay more, shouldn't they get more when they file for retirement? I've known several wealthy people, and none of them collected SS. They just contributed to it all of their lives.

After all, if we live to the average lifespan in the US, we will all get back much more than we contributed (us and our employers combined) so if the cap is lifted, would it not be fair for the wealthy to get the same deal? And if so, would we not be right back to where we started?

That is a valid way to look at it. If you're wealthy from birth (as few of us are) or you get your first job making six figures, yes the SS system may be somewhat unfair. I wouldn't have a problem with them receiving more from SS (base plus). I would set the threshold at the "plus" much higher than $128,000 though. But the idea that someone like Bill Gates or Mark Cuban or Jared Kushner having their contributions capped when they make $128,000 for that year is not fair when the rest of us contribute throughout the year and from every paycheck.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The rich people pay almost all of the income taxes collected. How much more can they pay ?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Let me put it this way: If the federal tax rate were 0%, the money collected by the federal government would be 0 dollars.

If the federal tax rate were 100%, the money collected by the federal government would still be 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

So let's say we need to drastically raise SS and Medicare deductions to keep these programs going. Those taxes would leave you with 30% of your paycheck. Would you continue working?

You assume that people will just sit back and let the government take all they want. But unlike years before, travel is more convenient and safer. Other places would welcome our wealthy any day of the week. Because after all, if you start to rob rich people, the rich people will look for somewhere else to make money.

800,000 people are about to flee New York and California because of taxes, say economists

In the extreme cases, you may be correct.
But what is also correct is that the SS contributions are capped at, I believe $128,000 or something like that. Meaning that the uber wealthy stop contributing at that point. Meaning that once you've made $128,000 for the year, you stop contributing to Social security if I understand it correctly. You still contribute to Medicare but not SS. I don't think we need to "drastically raise" the deductions but uncap the SS portion. I pay all year and you likely do as well. But they do not.

Why is there a cap on the Federal Insurance Contribution (FICA) tax? | Investopedia

Then the question is, if they pay more, shouldn't they get more when they file for retirement? I've known several wealthy people, and none of them collected SS. They just contributed to it all of their lives.

After all, if we live to the average lifespan in the US, we will all get back much more than we contributed (us and our employers combined) so if the cap is lifted, would it not be fair for the wealthy to get the same deal? And if so, would we not be right back to where we started?

That is a valid way to look at it. If you're wealthy from birth (as few of us are) or you get your first job making six figures, yes the SS system may be somewhat unfair. I wouldn't have a problem with them receiving more from SS (base plus). I would set the threshold at the "plus" much higher than $128,000 though. But the idea that someone like Bill Gates or Mark Cuban or Jared Kushner having their contributions capped when they make $128,000 for that year is not fair when the rest of us contribute throughout the year and from every paycheck.

I don't understand how you think it's unfair. Do you really think that Kushner, Gates or Cuban will collect any of the money they contributed?

These people are worth money you or I could only dream about. WTF would they do with a piddly SS check? It's not even worth their time filling yet alone cashing. So they contribute the maximum amount to support the rest of us who collect more than we contribute. And you think that they should contribute more for the sake of equity?

If we want these programs (and most do regardless of political affiliation) then they need to be properly funded. I can't recall the last time my SS or Medicare contributions went up. Can you?

We can't keep getting the goodies and sending the bill to the wealthy. If we want these programs, we need to support them ourselves.

 

[candycorn]

One more thing

In the years since Reagan, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance "conservative" think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation not just Soros), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the "estate tax" to the "death tax"), lobby congress and the president (who calls the "haves and the have-more's" his "base"), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan's footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush's new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

• over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
• nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
• median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
• three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
• three million American workers have lost their pensions;
• home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
• the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
• the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
• entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
• wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

And you guys blamed Obama?

The debate about whether or not to roll Bush's tax cuts back to Clinton's modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It's time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan's debt and rebuild this nation.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Let me put it this way: If the federal tax rate were 0%, the money collected by the federal government would be 0 dollars.

If the federal tax rate were 100%, the money collected by the federal government would still be 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

So let's say we need to drastically raise SS and Medicare deductions to keep these programs going. Those taxes would leave you with 30% of your paycheck. Would you continue working?

You assume that people will just sit back and let the government take all they want. But unlike years before, travel is more convenient and safer. Other places would welcome our wealthy any day of the week. Because after all, if you start to rob rich people, the rich people will look for somewhere else to make money.

800,000 people are about to flee New York and California because of taxes, say economists

In the extreme cases, you may be correct.
But what is also correct is that the SS contributions are capped at, I believe $128,000 or something like that. Meaning that the uber wealthy stop contributing at that point. Meaning that once you've made $128,000 for the year, you stop contributing to Social security if I understand it correctly. You still contribute to Medicare but not SS. I don't think we need to "drastically raise" the deductions but uncap the SS portion. I pay all year and you likely do as well. But they do not.

Why is there a cap on the Federal Insurance Contribution (FICA) tax? | Investopedia

Then the question is, if they pay more, shouldn't they get more when they file for retirement? I've known several wealthy people, and none of them collected SS. They just contributed to it all of their lives.

After all, if we live to the average lifespan in the US, we will all get back much more than we contributed (us and our employers combined) so if the cap is lifted, would it not be fair for the wealthy to get the same deal? And if so, would we not be right back to where we started?

That is a valid way to look at it. If you're wealthy from birth (as few of us are) or you get your first job making six figures, yes the SS system may be somewhat unfair. I wouldn't have a problem with them receiving more from SS (base plus). I would set the threshold at the "plus" much higher than $128,000 though. But the idea that someone like Bill Gates or Mark Cuban or Jared Kushner having their contributions capped when they make $128,000 for that year is not fair when the rest of us contribute throughout the year and from every paycheck.

I don't understand how you think it's unfair. Do you really think that Kushner, Gates or Cuban will collect any of the money they contributed?

These people are worth money you or I could only dream about. WTF would they do with a piddly SS check? It's not even worth their time filling yet alone cashing. So they contribute the maximum amount to support the rest of us who collect more than we contribute. And you think that they should contribute more for the sake of equity?

If we want these programs (and most do regardless of political affiliation) then they need to be properly funded. I can't recall the last time my SS or Medicare contributions went up. Can you?

We can't keep getting the goodies and sending the bill to the wealthy. If we want these programs, we need to support them ourselves.

Ok.