tax cuts

T

Travis Bickle

Guest
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html

This link provides a chart with Rep. vs. Dem tax cuts...I can agree until it reaches the income of $1 mil and more.

How about you? Be honest.
 
They get the biggest tax cut because they were unfairly overtaxed in the 1st place.  If everyone were to "pay their fair share", there would be one income tax rate for everyone (flat tax).  With the current Robin Hood graduated tax, "the rich" are paying more than their fair share.  When the rich pay less taxes, they have more to invest in the economy and job creation.

Maybe this will explain it a little better:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
 
T

Travis Bickle

Guest
I tend to believe if the middle-class had more to spend it would create more jobs...

Do you favor eliminating tax breaks for Corporations that have shipped jobs overseas?
 

leadfoot4

Champion
Travis Bickle said:
I tend to believe if the middle-class had more to spend it would create more jobs...

Do you favor eliminating tax breaks for Corporations that have shipped jobs overseas?


First you have to understand why those "terrible" corporations shipped those jobs overseas..... Everybody and his/her brother jumps on the bandwagon, and says, "It's because of the cheap labor". That's true, to a point, but not the only reason. Reason #1 is because foreigh companies in many countries have absolutely ZERO EPA regulations to adhere to. The cost savings there alone, is a huge windfall, the labor costs are simply icing on the cake.

A company I'm familiar with, used to have an equipment rebuilding site in western New York, but they moved it to Mexico. I was talking with one of the product engineers who was working for them in both New York, as well as Mexico. One day, I bluntly asked him how they disposed of their spent trichlorethelyne, a chemical that is a highly effective cleaning agent, but a chemical that is highly regulated in the US. He laughed, and said, "We dump it in the pit behind the building". I laughed too, and then said, "REALLY, how do you dispose of the trichlor"? He replied, "Like I said, we dump it in the pit behind the building".....

Considering that the company was spending $3-4,000 per week, to dispose of the spent solvent, versus absolutely nothing in Mexico, tell me again why companies are fleeing the US....and taking the backbone of the middle class, the manufacturing jobs, with them??!!
 
T

Travis Bickle

Guest
Leadfoot...

I worked in Mexico and this is true....however your implication that the largest cost savings is the result of not having to adhere to EPA type rules is not accurate. Not all companies use trichlor....Low wages far outweigh avoidance of EPA type regulations
 
The EPA had a major roll in shutting down alot of oil companies we had to change every underground tank on properties if you had a aboveground tank you had to put a dike around it it cost us a fortune...
 
T

Travis Bickle

Guest
Do you favor eliminating tax breaks for Corporations that have shipped jobs overseas?

yes or no?
 

Rod Bolt

Rookie
Travis Bickle said:
I tend to believe if the middle-class had more to spend it would create more jobs...

Do you favor eliminating tax breaks for Corporations that have shipped jobs overseas?

Lets see Trav, tell me how many jobs you have created?????
 

leadfoot4

Champion
Travis Bickle said:
Leadfoot...

I worked in Mexico and this is true....however your implication that the largest cost savings is the result of not having to adhere to EPA type rules is not accurate. Not all companies use trichlor....Low wages far outweigh avoidance of EPA type regulations

Travis, don't just "zero in" on trichlor. It's dozens of chemicals that could create ground pollution either during use or disposal; various substances that become airborne, like automotive paint during spraying or sanding operations; and things like water filtration systems that are required for various cleaning operations, in order to trap contaminated materials. Then there's OSHA, requiring all sorts of safety equipment for workers, and volumes of procedural manuals for jobs being done, and record keeping of all those job responsibilities. Furthermore, there is a completely different discussion around "low labor costs" that I really don't feel like getting into at this point. It's not as rosy as people want you to believe.

I lived manufacturing for 40 years, and glad I squeeked out and got a chunk of my pension, before the whole thing collapses. The US government has become the greatest enemy of manufacturing, then turns around and says, "Where'd everybody go"???? They're just waking up to the fact that the "boomers" made up the biggest chunk of the manufacturing base, which, in turn, made up the majority of the tax paying middle class. The "boomers', and their manufacturing jobs, made up a huge chunk of the Federal Government's income. The income is shrinking, while the "feds" continue to "give it away" with welfare and other "freebie" entitlement plans. Guess where we're heading???
 
T

Travis Bickle

Guest
Leadfoot et al,

Do you favor eliminating tax breaks for Corporations that have shipped jobs overseas?

Yes ? or No?

I don't dispute environmental regulations are part of the decision making process but to the best of my knowledge wages are the number one reason.

I too worked in manufacturing for over 40 years. I was exposed to Tric, meth chloride, etc. at levels beyond belief. Often without any ventilation or gloves. In Juarez Mexico all these chemicals plus epoxies, acids, caustic solution went straight down the drain into the Rio Grande...

edit - I contacted the Administrator of this site requesting a "polling" feature be added but never got a response. Another site I visit has a daily poll on a variety of topics. It's actually pretty cool. It is basically tallies the yes and no's and indicates how many have voted. Beyond that one can add comments. Wish they'd consider the same here as you never get a good understanding how people vote or if they do.
 
T

Travis Bickle

Guest
Rod Bolt said:
Travis Bickle said:
I tend to believe if the middle-class had more to spend it would create more jobs...

Do you favor eliminating tax breaks for Corporations that have shipped jobs overseas?

Lets see Trav, tell me how many jobs you have created?????

Are you asking how many people I employ or how many jobs has my spending created?

 

Rod Bolt

Rookie
Travis Bickle said:
I tend to believe if the middle-class had more to spend it would create more jobs...

Do you favor eliminating tax breaks for Corporations that have shipped jobs overseas?

Actually the middle class primarily purchases inexpensive products that are for the most part are imported from oveseas.
The way I see it the only jobs that produces are logistics and retail (Walmart).
 
T

Travis Bickle

Guest
Rod,

Let's add a few....

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/exh8.pdf

Still don't know your view on eliminating the tax breaks. Do you feel tax cuts should be made to reduce the deficit? Can you be specific?

edit - As I mentioned in an earlier post if you can't don't bother, I can turn on the TV for that.
 

Top