Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 94

Thread: Unemployment

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Other than buying something from another country, how could the wealthy walk around it?

    RE: Regressive…everyone pays the same rate for most items. If you want to have a higher rate for luxury items…boats, planes, certain houses…that's fine. But for everyday items…all pay the same. Just like gas, cigarettes etc.
    Poor people have to spend 100% of thier income, rich people a fraction, Therefore It's regressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,460
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Poor people have to spend 100% of thier income, rich people a fraction, Therefore It's regressive.
    If poor people can't afford to buy food they should just not eat.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    First bolded…I never said any of that. I did say that carping about the wealthy getting all these breaks is flat out wrong. First of all they pay most of the taxes to begin with and secondly, as I have said ad infinitum (that means a lot) the wealthy just don't sit on the money. Money moves, money churns…more positive things will happen when business has more money with which to make those things happen. End result is jobs and a positive moving economy.

    Second bolded… I agree completely. I'd be in favor of no taxes on income and place a federal sales tax on everything that everyone pays. You want a cheap car…you pay less sales tax. You want a Ferarri…you pay more sales tax. Cheap house…less sales tax than an expensive house. And everyone pays. Everyone. No exceptions. And stiff penalties for cheaters. Very quickly the market will adjust itself to a different structure.
    Why not give the money to consumers who spend nearly 100% of their income (that’s the money they make)? They buy stuff from companies using actual supply and demand and not just the government picking winners and losers. It’s way more efficient (that’s when something isn’t wasteful) than giving money to rich people who are more likely to save extra money they get.

    Sales taxes are regressive (that means they hurt poor people more than rich people) because poor people spend a much higher percentage of their income than rich people do.

    Hope the parentheses helped you understand the harder words.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    13,835
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Hope the parentheses helped you understand the harder words.
    Why be such a condescending ***?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    48,356
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Why be such a condescending ***?
    Because that's exactly what the guy he's responding to ALWAYS does.

    PSD: Where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Why be such a condescending ***?
    You must just skip over Sluggo’s posts. Honestly it’s a good policy.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,361
    I'd rather people be more civil in general.

    Contempt for each other ends the possibility of learning from each other.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    You must just skip over Sluggo’s posts. Honestly it’s a good policy.
    Feel free.

    There are several posters here that I do not read nor will I respond to.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Why not give the money to consumers who spend nearly 100% of their income (that’s the money they make)? They buy stuff from companies using actual supply and demand and not just the government picking winners and losers. It’s way more efficient (that’s when something isn’t wasteful) than giving money to rich people who are more likely to save extra money they get.

    Sales taxes are regressive (that means they hurt poor people more than rich people) because poor people spend a much higher percentage of their income than rich people do.

    Hope the parentheses helped you understand the harder words.
    The further up the ladder the money goes, the more money it creates moving (trickling) down.

    You give a factory worker $1,000 and he spends it and then, its gone. Now he probably needs some more.

    You give the factory tax breaks and relief from silly regulations…the owner expands the factory, maybe opens another factory, employs more people, creates opportunities for some to move up and keeps paying the employees every week.

    Seems pretty simple.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Poor people have to spend 100% of thier income, rich people a fraction, Therefore It's regressive.
    And they would continue to do so whether there is a national sales tax or not.

    With a national sales tax it would be looked at as a price increase. What do the poor do now when there is a price increase?

    They adjust. The market always adjusts. Their spending habits would change…maybe less of this and more of that. Manufacturers would react to the change in demand.

    'The market always adjusts,

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    The further up the ladder the money goes, the more money it creates moving (trickling) down.

    You give a factory worker $1,000 and he spends it and then, its gone. Now he probably needs some more.

    You give the factory tax breaks and relief from silly regulations…the owner expands the factory, maybe opens another factory, employs more people, creates opportunities for some to move up and keeps paying the employees every week.

    Seems pretty simple.
    If it's regular people and not companies that need more money how come companies are always asking the Government for more money?

  12. 05-27-2020, 01:27 PM
    Reason
    insults with no content

  13. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    If it's regular people and not companies that need more money how come companies are always asking the Government for more money?
    Because they are the ones that have the most expense, the ones that for the bill.

    Consider this…I found a building I am thinking about buying. About 5,000 sq ft+. It was a house at one time but could be used as a business (last tenant was a law firm).

    Why is it that an old 5,000 sq ft house in a so-so area of Tampa would sell for about $350K - $400K (or even less) yet the same sized house for a business is $1 million? It's because businesses get soaked on every expense.

    As far as looking for more money… businesses really want reasonable taxation and regulations more than anything.

  14. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    The further up the ladder the money goes, the more money it creates moving (trickling) down.

    You give a factory worker $1,000 and he spends it and then, its gone. Now he probably needs some more.

    You give the factory tax breaks and relief from silly regulations…the owner expands the factory, maybe opens another factory, employs more people, creates opportunities for some to move up and keeps paying the employees every week.

    Seems pretty simple.
    You give a factory worker $1000 and he is going to spend it at the businesses you just want to give money to. Not only that, it will go to businesses providing services that people want and not just who best lobbies the government. He is far more likely to spend all or most of it. That is driving supply and demand from the demand side.

    Give it to business and many will just pocket some or all of money given to them. This was shown in the most recent corporate tax cuts. They may spend some towards expanding their business or make capital purchases that will benefit the economy and workers but it is less certain they will, less certain there is a latent demand needing new business and it’s less certain they are the right company to be getting additional money. This is driving supply and demand from the supply side.

    Not saying it’s always better to drive supply and demand from the demand side, but I do believe it is more effective and it comes with the added benefit of more likely helping poorer people.

  15. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    And they would continue to do so whether there is a national sales tax or not.

    With a national sales tax it would be looked at as a price increase. What do the poor do now when there is a price increase?

    They adjust. The market always adjusts. Their spending habits would change…maybe less of this and more of that. Manufacturers would react to the change in demand.

    'The market always adjusts,
    But because they spend all or most of their income, all or most of their income will be taxed. Wealthy people save a much higher percent of their income so much less of their income would be taxed. A national sales tax is regressive.

  16. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    But because they spend all or most of their income, all or most of their income will be taxed. Wealthy people save a much higher percent of their income so much less of their income would be taxed. A national sales tax is regressive.
    The poor is paying sales tax now.If their local sales tax goes up, they pay that. This would be a slight increase.

    The wealthy also spend a lot more money…a lot more. The additional tax would also be paid by them.

    Your idea of a fair tax is to sock the wealthy. My idea of a fair tax is … well, a fair tax. A tax on what you spend.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •