Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[Sarah G]

Look no further than any business that cares about their bottom line.


In other words every business thats run by a sane person.

Where's your link to the US being on the verge of another recession?

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense as I believe you have a lot of both:
The bond market:
With low interest rates there has been the largest shift of investment dollars into the bond market over the last 3 years ever.
California is about bankrupt and many bond holders, primarily middle class retirees and investment holdings for company retirement accounts, are invested in California and other state bond funds where the states have been running large deficits for many years.
So how are the states different than the Federal government when it comes with dealing with debt?
The states CAN NOT print currency and THEY MUST pay all of their debts off. They reach a point where they MUST cut services and/or raise taxes.
And the states are now at the tipping point.
So what is the problem?
As soon as the interest rates rise, and they will rise sooner or later, there will be a mass exodus of investment dollars OUT of municipal bonds into other areas of investment because of the rise in interest rates.
And when that happens the states will get a lower rating on their bonds and will have less $$$ coming in to finance their debt.
And that will cause a MASSIVE recession. Coming soon.
It gets even worse. Guess how the Federal government and the Obama administration is keeping interest rates low?
They are printing more money and more and more and more.
And guess what does to the value of the dollar when the money supply gets flooded with all this government printed cash?
IT DEVALUES THE DOLLAR and your $$$ is worth less every day.
That is the SOLE reason gasoline is so high, Obama printing so much cash it devalues the dollar against other world currencies.

So all of this points to another recession rather than a slow recovery? We are moving in the right direction and once we get rid of obstructionist House Republicans, we might even be able to get some work done to finish that job.

 

[Gadawg73]

Where's your link to the US being on the verge of another recession?

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense as I believe you have a lot of both:
The bond market:
With low interest rates there has been the largest shift of investment dollars into the bond market over the last 3 years ever.
California is about bankrupt and many bond holders, primarily middle class retirees and investment holdings for company retirement accounts, are invested in California and other state bond funds where the states have been running large deficits for many years.
So how are the states different than the Federal government when it comes with dealing with debt?
The states CAN NOT print currency and THEY MUST pay all of their debts off. They reach a point where they MUST cut services and/or raise taxes.
And the states are now at the tipping point.
So what is the problem?
As soon as the interest rates rise, and they will rise sooner or later, there will be a mass exodus of investment dollars OUT of municipal bonds into other areas of investment because of the rise in interest rates.
And when that happens the states will get a lower rating on their bonds and will have less $$$ coming in to finance their debt.
And that will cause a MASSIVE recession. Coming soon.
It gets even worse. Guess how the Federal government and the Obama administration is keeping interest rates low?
They are printing more money and more and more and more.
And guess what does to the value of the dollar when the money supply gets flooded with all this government printed cash?
IT DEVALUES THE DOLLAR and your $$$ is worth less every day.
That is the SOLE reason gasoline is so high, Obama printing so much cash it devalues the dollar against other world currencies.

So all of this points to another recession rather than a slow recovery? We are moving in the right direction and once we get rid of obstructionist House Republicans, we might even be able to get some work done to finish that job.

So borrowing 45 cents of every dollar we spend, doubling the size of the food stamp program and raising taxes is a step in the right direction?
Not to anyone that knows economics.
We spend too much as a nation giving government benefits to many that should never qualify for them to begin with.

 

[depotoo]

Depends on what you are using it for, doesn't it?

If we are taking money you would use to buy a dressage pony and give it to a family so they can put food on the table, that isn't greed, it's common fucking decency, but I don't think you understand the concept.

So are you willing to give up your internet connection for someone else? Just curious.

What gets me is you and others don't really care other than they have alot of money. I bet those you have such disdain for you haven't even bothered to see what their charitable contributions are. And direct contributions provide much more than government controlled bureaucracy does.

My internet connection is necessary to two of the three jobs I have... so it isn't a luxury.

NOr do I care that rich douchebags give to charities after they've spent their lives taking food out of the mouths of working people. Just because Mitt Romney gave money to some Mormon Charity Scam doesn't make up for the fact his greed killed Joe Soptic's wife.

oh, come on, you are typical 'do as I say, not as I do'. You have no idea what Romney supports besides the Mormon church. Ever heard of the Tyler Foundation? Look it up.
And seriously? Do you not check facts before you believe the worst in people when there is a known left bias? Even though you are left leaning, surely you know that many times they print stories that are false. Pays to check rather than look like a fool. And this is where you are being led around by the nose by the party, as you don't care to check facts first. They know how gullible some are and take complete advantage of it.

Fact check: Woman in pro-Obama death ad had health insurance - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

 

[depotoo]

So business owners are either going to stop hiring or start hiring illegal workers, because they don't want to pay Americans over $7.25 an hour? We should all look up to these patriotic "job creators".

Look no further than any business that cares about their bottom line.


In other words every business thats run by a sane person.

Where's your link to the US being on the verge of another recession?

Why US Economy May Be Headed for Another Recession
CNBC

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Just think

If we raise the minimum wage high enough....all those people would have to pay federal taxes

Conservatives should be thrilled

Sure, I'm up for paying $25 for a super sized Big Mac extra "value" meal. Why not? What else should we tack onto the things we buy, that will help with our shrinking economy?

So all that whining about the 47% who do not pay taxes is bullshit

I don't think you've quite grasped the cost of doing business. When you tack on Obamacare, minimum wage, increased federal taxes, onto a small business.... where do you think that money comes from? It's the fuzzy liberal math that the left has a hard time explaining, however when these liberals are so used to hearing the words "government provides" and "free", it comes as no surprise when they become dumbfounded when businesses don't want to hire. Now we are left with a mess from a shrinking economy, that is stuck in a rut and hasn't shown significant signs of job growth.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How would you clowns know?

There were lazy people working when I was making minimum wage as a child and it was at it's record high in real dollars. There are still people unemployed, so if the person is lazy, get rid of them.

WTF are you asking?
Know what? I made no statements on anything other than MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.

Call me what you want, clown, whatever.
I earned every cent I make and have made and had to bust my ass for many years to step on the field.

Do you need me to quote you talking about how lazy "these" people are too? I'm sure plenty of them work harder than you clowns and that goes all the way back through college and whatever it took to pay for it. You ought to be thankful you had the opportunity and understand everybody doesn't.

Last time I checked, everyone who doesn't like how their boss runs their business has the opportunity to start one themselves. Then with a little hard work, paying your taxes, and balancing your books, you can choose to pay your employees whatever hourly amount your heart desires. However, this is where most of the business CEO complainers clam up. You see they are willing to whine and complain about how OTHER people do their business, but when it comes to going through all those long hours, hard work, keeping up to date by filing the proper government paperwork, keeping track of costs, etc.... you begin to see where the rubber meets the road. Some, all they want to do is complain for the sake of attention or hearing themselves talk, however when you give them the choice to say "ok, you don't like it, form your own company", they usually clam up or make up some worn out excuse for not wanting to go through all that added extra hard work and effort. However, they will still complain they aren't earning enough as the owner, unfortunately for them actions DO speak a lot louder than words.

 

[Katzndogz]

When a liberal thinks of "small" business, they think of British Petroleum. They don't think of the one guy who owns the gas station franchise.

 

[JoeNormal]

At the end of WWII government spending was 42% of GNP.
Socialists in government cried that ANY CUT in government spending would spiral the economy down into a deep recession.
Within 2 years deep government cuts slashed the government spending to 14% of GNP and guess what:
THE ECONOMY TOOK OFF.
Why?
More $$$ left in the economy for people to get rich creates jobs and opportunity.
And that created the middle class we have today, not government.
When people get rich the economy booms.
When you tax them too much they leave or put their money where it is tax free and not in capital investments that create jobs.

On to the BS here about "it is not fair we do not have a level playing field"
Total BS.

I hear this all the time and am amazed you fall for it.
I have been in business for over 30 years self employed and I own 2 other businesses.
My main business provides 90% of my income.
I lost a good client recently. The firm is very big with over 30 lawyers. I started working with them 25 years ago doing work for their litigation side which is civil and criminal litigation. They just hired a new a partner that is a former politician and that will bring in a lot of corporate work for their corporate attorneys. This new lawyer has a nephew that worked 2 years at the jail in the sheriffs department and is automatically granted a license in my field of work because of over 1 year in law enforcement. Other than a few classes at POST he has no field work but he is the nephew of the woman that used to be a politician that was brought in as a rain maker in the corporate work there.
So he gets the litigation work now as he just received his private license there.
REAL WORLD
Fair? No
A level playing field? No
Does this happen all the time all over America? Yes
Should government play any role to make things "fair".
HELL NO
Life is not fair and then you die.
Some people cry and bitch about it.
I move on and work to obtain new clients daily as that is how capitalism always works.
An imperfect system but it beats an ounce of socialism every day.

The top tier tax rate remained at 91% until Kennedy 'slashed' it to 70%. There was less money for 'investors' to pump into job creation then than there is now. What there was was a shared sense of community and citizenship and a whole lot less greedy douchery.

You are right, there is less of a shared sense of community these days.
Citizens that vote for government that steals from producers to give to the moocher and parasite class is the reason why.

Back then, the captains of industry wouldn't have even considered outsourcing or moving American jobs to third world countries. They'd have been considered traitors and rightfully so. The guys at the top fired the first salvo in this class war and now that most working class jobs are gone, why does it surprise you that a lot of people need assistance?

 

[depotoo]

Sure, I'm up for paying $25 for a super sized Big Mac extra "value" meal. Why not? What else should we tack onto the things we buy, that will help with our shrinking economy?

So all that whining about the 47% who do not pay taxes is bullshit

I don't think you've quite grasped the cost of doing business. When you tack on Obamacare, minimum wage, increased federal taxes, onto a small business.... where do you think that money comes from? It's the fuzzy liberal math that the left has a hard time explaining, however when these liberals are so used to hearing the words "government provides" and "free", it comes as no surprise when they become dumbfounded when businesses don't want to hire. Now we are left with a mess from a shrinking economy, that is stuck in a rut and hasn't shown significant signs of job growth.

here is an example for them -
Employment costs fall into several broad categories:

Recruiting Expenses.

Finding technically qualified people who can function effectively in a rapidly growing start up venture is not easy task. In an earlier column we discussed the economic alternatives for head hunting. For this column it suffices for me to remind you to be sure to devote the time to make sure that your hires are as close to perfect “10s” as possible. Anything less will be a drag on your business.

Basic Salary.

Basic salaries vary all over the place depending on the industry and a variety of other factors. There are data that can help you calibrate an appropriate base salary. For example, the Massachusetts Software Council puts out an annual Compensation Survey and there are similar publications in other industries. Be sure to establish rational salary ranges given your growth plans. This means that in most cases there should not be great salary differentials between early hires and later employees- any "risk component" of being an early hire should be made up in the equity compensation component.

Employment Taxes.

In preparing your personnel budget be sure to include allowances for Social Security/FICA (currently 6.2% on the first $90,000 of salary – The United States Social Security Administration), Unemployment/FUTA (6.2% on $7,000 of salary - Unemployment Insurance Tax Topic, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor) and Medicare (1.45% with no salary cap – The United States Social Security Administration). Workmen’s compensation premiums will depend on the category of your employee, with clerical at about 0.3% of salary and manufacturing at 7.5%.

Benefits.

Basic salary and employment taxes are a minimum- in most cases you will need to provide some benefits. Typical benefits for a $50,000 salaried employee include life insurance ($150) and health coverage ($2,000-$3,000 for single persons; $6,000-$7,2000 for families - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Home). The costs to this point (basic salary, employment taxes and benefits) are typically in the 1.25 to 1.4 times base salary range- e.g. the cost range for a $50,000/year employee might $62,500 to $70,000.

Unless you are hiring traveling salespeople, you need to provide some physical space to house the new employee. Obviously the rent per square foot varies depending on the fanciness and location of the facility. But how many square feet does an employee need? Again this varies but there are some guidelines. Work cubes are typically 8' x 8' in size and private offices range in size. In high tech figure on 225 to 250 square feet per employee when you add in common space. Furnishing the space, even with used work cubes will probably run $2,000 at a minimum.

Other Equipment.

The basics these days for high tech or office workers have to include a computer and telephone. Even with decreases in PC prices, figure on $1,000+ for a computer, $500 to several thousand for software and $250 to $300 initially per telephone handset on average when you factor in installation. Don’t forget the periodic expensive upgrades you will need to your LAN and voice mail systems.

How Much Does An Employee Cost

the average with federal costs for someone making $21 an hour, suddenly becomes $30 an hour just in the taxes and workers comp, etc. IF there are any local or state costs those must also be included and that $30 an hour cost goes up even more. Depending on whether they receive matching 401k, vacations, what insurance benefits, etc. It all adds up much quicker than anyone could ever guess.

 

[JoeNormal]

The top tier tax rate remained at 91% until Kennedy 'slashed' it to 70%. There was less money for 'investors' to pump into job creation then than there is now. What there was was a shared sense of community and citizenship and a whole lot less greedy douchery.

Was there? Really? How many people, do you suppose, actually paid 90%? or 70% for that matter? We've allowed our leaders to create a byzantine tax code that fails to generate meaningful revenue and serves primarily to enhance their power.

Exactly, amazing the left does not admit to this.
VERY FEW, if any paid that 90%.
The wealthy that are subject to that 90% shift their focus from income producers to investing their wealth.
They put their money into TAX FREE municipal bonds, draw their interest and pay NO taxes or just sit on their $$$ and live off of their capital investments that have large amounts of deductible depreciation to make their net income at or below taxable income.
Because of the tax code that Democrats refuse to change as there are more millionaire Democrats in Congress than Republicans.
FAIR TAX and watch the revenues roll in!

How many people pay 35% today? What with all the BS deductions and such. Then you have shit bags like Mitt Romney who pay 13.7. Actually, the 13.7% was the tax rate he wasn't embarrassed to make public. I'll bet his average rate is in the single digits. The point is that the rate was almost three times what it is today.

I won't dispute your point that the tax code is a joke. What would you consider a fair tax?

 

[depotoo]

Was there? Really? How many people, do you suppose, actually paid 90%? or 70% for that matter? We've allowed our leaders to create a byzantine tax code that fails to generate meaningful revenue and serves primarily to enhance their power.

Exactly, amazing the left does not admit to this.
VERY FEW, if any paid that 90%.
The wealthy that are subject to that 90% shift their focus from income producers to investing their wealth.
They put their money into TAX FREE municipal bonds, draw their interest and pay NO taxes or just sit on their $$$ and live off of their capital investments that have large amounts of deductible depreciation to make their net income at or below taxable income.
Because of the tax code that Democrats refuse to change as there are more millionaire Democrats in Congress than Republicans.
FAIR TAX and watch the revenues roll in!

How many people pay 35% today? What with all the BS deductions and such. Then you have shit bags like Mitt Romney who pay 13.7. Actually, the 13.7% was the tax rate he wasn't embarrassed to make public. I'll bet his average rate is in the single digits. The point is that the rate was almost three times what it is today.

I won't dispute your point that the tax code is a joke. What would you consider a fair tax?

considering he wasn't drawing a salary...

 

[Bern80]

Where's your link to the US being on the verge of another recession?

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense as I believe you have a lot of both:
The bond market:
With low interest rates there has been the largest shift of investment dollars into the bond market over the last 3 years ever.
California is about bankrupt and many bond holders, primarily middle class retirees and investment holdings for company retirement accounts, are invested in California and other state bond funds where the states have been running large deficits for many years.
So how are the states different than the Federal government when it comes with dealing with debt?
The states CAN NOT print currency and THEY MUST pay all of their debts off. They reach a point where they MUST cut services and/or raise taxes.
And the states are now at the tipping point.
So what is the problem?
As soon as the interest rates rise, and they will rise sooner or later, there will be a mass exodus of investment dollars OUT of municipal bonds into other areas of investment because of the rise in interest rates.
And when that happens the states will get a lower rating on their bonds and will have less $$$ coming in to finance their debt.
And that will cause a MASSIVE recession. Coming soon.
It gets even worse. Guess how the Federal government and the Obama administration is keeping interest rates low?
They are printing more money and more and more and more.
And guess what does to the value of the dollar when the money supply gets flooded with all this government printed cash?
IT DEVALUES THE DOLLAR and your $$$ is worth less every day.
That is the SOLE reason gasoline is so high, Obama printing so much cash it devalues the dollar against other world currencies.

So all of this points to another recession rather than a slow recovery? We are moving in the right direction and once we get rid of obstructionist House Republicans, we might even be able to get some work done to finish that job.

What are they obstructing and how do you believe it will help?

 

[Bern80]

I won't dispute your point that the tax code is a joke. What would you consider a fair tax?

Personally I would like to see a flat tax. 20% on any and all income no matter how it is derived. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes. The benefits of this would be many. Obviously would make figuring taxes easier for individuals. Fairness across the board. Eliminating the deductions, credits, etc. would probably increase tax revenue. The only downside would be for the politicians. The tax code could no longer be used as a bargaining chip and congress would have to learn to actually live within a budget.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense as I believe you have a lot of both:
The bond market:
With low interest rates there has been the largest shift of investment dollars into the bond market over the last 3 years ever.
California is about bankrupt and many bond holders, primarily middle class retirees and investment holdings for company retirement accounts, are invested in California and other state bond funds where the states have been running large deficits for many years.
So how are the states different than the Federal government when it comes with dealing with debt?
The states CAN NOT print currency and THEY MUST pay all of their debts off. They reach a point where they MUST cut services and/or raise taxes.
And the states are now at the tipping point.
So what is the problem?
As soon as the interest rates rise, and they will rise sooner or later, there will be a mass exodus of investment dollars OUT of municipal bonds into other areas of investment because of the rise in interest rates.
And when that happens the states will get a lower rating on their bonds and will have less $$$ coming in to finance their debt.
And that will cause a MASSIVE recession. Coming soon.
It gets even worse. Guess how the Federal government and the Obama administration is keeping interest rates low?
They are printing more money and more and more and more.
And guess what does to the value of the dollar when the money supply gets flooded with all this government printed cash?
IT DEVALUES THE DOLLAR and your $$$ is worth less every day.
That is the SOLE reason gasoline is so high, Obama printing so much cash it devalues the dollar against other world currencies.

So all of this points to another recession rather than a slow recovery? We are moving in the right direction and once we get rid of obstructionist House Republicans, we might even be able to get some work done to finish that job.

So borrowing 45 cents of every dollar we spend, doubling the size of the food stamp program and raising taxes is a step in the right direction?
Not to anyone that knows economics.
We spend too much as a nation giving government benefits to many that should never qualify for them to begin with.

I'm trying to understand that myself. You devalue the dollar by making it worth less, but then turn around and complain when food, clothes, cars, restaurants, tuition, and fuels steadily increase. How is that heading in the right direction exactly? Your cost if living is going up during a period in time when a vast majority of Americans are trying to find work, while receiving unemployment.

Yet we have a President who thinks draining our government with more unemployment extensions was a better decision than allowing for a pipeline that would actually put some Americans back to work. Then the next brilliant move is to lower the cost of buying a home, since the unemployed are still looking for work having to settle with an unemployment check, I'm sure that makes buying a home their top priority. It's this backwards mindset that has made this economy worse, rather than focusing on the real issue ..... allowing private and small business the opportunity to spend their money, invest in their business, and have the finances available to hire. When you raise taxes, and choose the worst time to start talking about and passing Obamacare, you take more money out of the hands of the business owner (small business particularly) and make it harder for businesses to spend money ..... and then hire. Then the left is just shocked when all these policies, approved and pushed by Obama, leads to an economy that is currently shrinking and more government wasted taxpayer debt !!!

Why is Obama in favor of raising the minimum wage? A good part of that reason is he KNOWS all that printing of the US dollar, which makes the dollar worth a whole lot less, is going to raise the overall cost of living when people go to buy food and clothes, etc. This president is in damage control trying to fix one mess, printing more money, which was the answer to another mess - how to keep government interest rates down. So now he is hoping raising the minimum wage will offset his policy decision to print more money. The problem is he is still left with the problem he started out with ..... JOBS...... "Oh well, time to put focus on blaming Republicans again, so as to divert attention from what this administration has been doing."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I won't dispute your point that the tax code is a joke. What would you consider a fair tax?

Personally I would like to see a flat tax. 20% on any and all income no matter how it is derived. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes. The benefits of this would be many. Obviously would make figuring taxes easier for individuals. Fairness across the board. Eliminating the deductions, credits, etc. would probably increase tax revenue. The only downside would be for the politicians. The tax code could no longer be used as a bargaining chip and congress would have to learn to actually live within a budget.

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that "measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes," but we're given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I'm spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I'm free to give a larger chunk to charity.

A new study by a team of researchers from Rice University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Pennsylvania State University shows that the unyielding political split in the U.S. does indeed apply to philanthropy as well.

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity – so says Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper, which will be published next month in the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal.

They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.

 

[JoeNormal]

I won't dispute your point that the tax code is a joke. What would you consider a fair tax?

Personally I would like to see a flat tax. 20% on any and all income no matter how it is derived. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes. The benefits of this would be many. Obviously would make figuring taxes easier for individuals. Fairness across the board. Eliminating the deductions, credits, etc. would probably increase tax revenue. The only downside would be for the politicians. The tax code could no longer be used as a bargaining chip and congress would have to learn to actually live within a budget.

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that "measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes," but we're given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I'm spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I'm free to give a larger chunk to charity.

A new study by a team of researchers from Rice University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Pennsylvania State University shows that the unyielding political split in the U.S. does indeed apply to philanthropy as well.

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity – so says Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper, which will be published next month in the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal.

They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.

I have a hard time believing the charity stats are accurate. I live in Utah where a large percentage of the population are ultraconservative, tithe paying LDS. I'm sure that 100% of that donation would be considered charity by members but actually only about 1% of that amount goes to actual charity. The rest is spent on building edifices and PR efforts.

 

[Bern80]

I won't dispute your point that the tax code is a joke. What would you consider a fair tax?

Personally I would like to see a flat tax. 20% on any and all income no matter how it is derived. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes. The benefits of this would be many. Obviously would make figuring taxes easier for individuals. Fairness across the board. Eliminating the deductions, credits, etc. would probably increase tax revenue. The only downside would be for the politicians. The tax code could no longer be used as a bargaining chip and congress would have to learn to actually live within a budget.

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that "measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes," but we're given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I'm spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I'm free to give a larger chunk to charity.

A new study by a team of researchers from Rice University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Pennsylvania State University shows that the unyielding political split in the U.S. does indeed apply to philanthropy as well.

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity – so says Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper, which will be published next month in the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal.

They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.

That is a pretty good book. And yes, zip, zero, none, nada, deductions or credits for anyone or anything, but certainly willing to entertain any argument you may have that's a bad idea.

 

[Bern80]

Personally I would like to see a flat tax. 20% on any and all income no matter how it is derived. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes. The benefits of this would be many. Obviously would make figuring taxes easier for individuals. Fairness across the board. Eliminating the deductions, credits, etc. would probably increase tax revenue. The only downside would be for the politicians. The tax code could no longer be used as a bargaining chip and congress would have to learn to actually live within a budget.

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

A new study by a team of researchers from Rice University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Pennsylvania State University shows that the unyielding political split in the U.S. does indeed apply to philanthropy as well.

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity – so says Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper, which will be published next month in the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal.

They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.

I have a hard time believing the charity stats are accurate. I live in Utah where a large percentage of the population are ultraconservative, tithe paying LDS. I'm sure that 100% of that donation would be considered charity by members but actually only about 1% of that amount goes to actual charity. The rest is spent on building edifices and PR efforts.

I'm sure lefties will have a hard time believing. It flies in the face of everything people are told about libs. They're supposed to be the generous compassionate ones. If someone can show the author's methodology was wrong or numbers are inaccurate, I'd say go for it. I'd rather know the truth. But yeah, the gut reaction of the left to something like this is obviously going to be disbelief. I think the main difference comes down to how they give and frankly the axiom seems to hold true in reality. Liberals indeed are very generous and compassionate.......with other people's money. Both libs and cons are charitable and giving. One group gives of what they can afford of their own. The other advocates to government to give to people.

 

[JoeNormal]

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

I have a hard time believing the charity stats are accurate. I live in Utah where a large percentage of the population are ultraconservative, tithe paying LDS. I'm sure that 100% of that donation would be considered charity by members but actually only about 1% of that amount goes to actual charity. The rest is spent on building edifices and PR efforts.

I'm sure lefties will have a hard time believing. It flies in the face of everything people are told about libs. They're supposed to be the generous compassionate ones. If someone can show the author's methodology was wrong or numbers are inaccurate, I'd say go for it. I'd rather know the truth. But yeah, the gut reaction of the left to something like this is obviously going to be disbelief.

Do you know the methodology? Didn't think so. You're just as entrenched in your experience as I am in mine.

 

[Bern80]

I have a hard time believing the charity stats are accurate. I live in Utah where a large percentage of the population are ultraconservative, tithe paying LDS. I'm sure that 100% of that donation would be considered charity by members but actually only about 1% of that amount goes to actual charity. The rest is spent on building edifices and PR efforts.

I'm sure lefties will have a hard time believing. It flies in the face of everything people are told about libs. They're supposed to be the generous compassionate ones. If someone can show the author's methodology was wrong or numbers are inaccurate, I'd say go for it. I'd rather know the truth. But yeah, the gut reaction of the left to something like this is obviously going to be disbelief.

Do you know the methodology? Didn't think so. You're just as entrenched in your experience as I am in mine.

No. There's a difference between experience and simply believing in how an ideology tries to define itself. My experience personally, at least anecdotally, supports the author's findings. My father has a much more conservative belief system than I do, but I can honestly say is one of the most charitable people I know. He volunteers his time mentoring under priviledged children. He volunters in clubs tha help the community. He gives to the church. I can't say that to that extent about the liberals I knew growing up. So again, if you can show the author isn't right, go for it. Heck see if anyone else has tried, but considering what I think both sides can agree on, that liberals do things like 'raise awareness' about issues and that they advocate to government to fix social problems, I really don't think it ought to be suprising to anyone to see that they give less of themsleves than conservatives.