OT: I want my vote back

[WinterPalm]

I think trickle down effect was dismissed sometime in the 90s as utterly fraudulent and unfeasible.
There is a trickle up effect though: workers, who produce everything on the planet, are severely underpaid and thus, through this system of underpayment, buy CEOs nice jets and islands.
I'll agree that this trickle up effect works...but I don't think it's the best way to do things.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Taxs should be cut to no more than 10-12% across the board for anyone making a living wage, or any business making similar level profits.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

It trickled down so much we gotta give the heavy hitters money to the tune os hundreds of billions.

reply]
How much tax money has the government taken from them over the years?

Figure how much 10-12% would be, and give them back everything they have paid above that for the last 16 years (Clinton & Bush).

Personally, I am not for a bail out, but in the end, the government has raped corporations, and regular people for decades. Since they cause the problems by thier interventions, they should do something to fix it.

However, the problem I see is that the government is not capable of doing anything but cause more damage, so the other part of me thinks we should just keep them out of it all all together and let the free markets fix things themselves.

In addition, cut thier over all tax rate significantly so they will be in a better position to compete with the rest of the world.

[CLFLPstudent]

reply]
How much tax money has the government taken from them over the years?

Figure how much 10-12% would be, and give them back everything they have paid above that for the last 16 years (Clinton & Bush).

In addition, cut thier over all tax rate significantly so they will be in a better position to compete with the rest of the world.

'Cause you konw they'll re-invest in their companies, see how many new refineries have been built since Big Oil started raking in the billions/quarter?

C'mon... it will be eaten up by executives and their 'perks'.

-David

[Becca]

When Taxes are low, commerce runs free. With more and more businesses prospering, there are a significant increase in the number of sources providing tax money to the gubernment. because of this, they actually have an increase in tax revenues.

It sort of like selling something cheap, and ending up making vastly more money on the volume...

Ha! I get it now. So why hasn't it started working yet? That is the basis for the tax reductions back in the eighties right? Oh, wait, they didn't actually lower the taxes; they just redistributed them in a way that caused the national debt to sky rocket through the roof......

History of the Income Tax in the United States

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.

[Becca]

reply]
How much tax money has the government taken from them over the years?

Oooo! I can answer that!!!!! In 2007, the top 5% richest Americans paid about 50 of all revenue from sales taxes. And through out U.S. history, revenue from taxes, either income or other, has always qualled about 19.5% of the Gross National Product. And 40% of the bottom earners don't make enough to have to be paying taxes. So.........

5% of our wealthiest pay half the tab, wich is equal to no more, and usually much less than 35% of thier income.

And 45% of our working families pick up the other half of the tab at about the same rate a Daddy Warbucks.

The other 40% are too poor to even pay thier power bills let alone taxes. Of course, they still have to physically pay the taxes, but uncle Sam gives it back at the end of the year, for the most part.

So say the GNP is 10 Billion. (it's catually higher, but it'll make the math work.)

Taxes are about 20% of that. (yea, I know 19.5% but one again for the math....)

Total revenue is then 2 billion. 5% pay 1 billion and 45% pay 1 billion.

On paper, it does, indeed look like the wealthy are being "raped". But it still avarages out to 35% for all tax paying citisens. And 35% of the $40,000 I rais my two kids on is much harder to compensate for than the 35% of 1.2 million most pro athletes make...

If being asked to pay a propotional amount as everyone else, even though that amount doesn't cause the hardship that it causes Mainstreet Americans is unfair.... No I'm sorry, it is fair. Saying it isn't is plain old selfish and childish.

[1bad65]

When Taxes are low, commerce runs free. With more and more businesses prospering, there are a significant increase in the number of sources providing tax money to the gubernment. because of this, they actually have an increase in tax revenues.

It sort of like selling something cheap, and ending up making vastly more money on the volume.

Personally, I am not for a bail out, but in the end, the government has raped corporations, and regular people for decades. Since they cause the problems by thier interventions, they should do something to fix it.

WOW!!!

RD has hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better myself.

A question to all you Obama supporters....How is this sub-prime crisis Bush's fault?

[1bad65]

When talking about the Japanese automakers, you guys ONCE AGAIN fall back on the old 'It's the past and does not count' bs again.

They are all receiving government subsidies NOW.

[sanjuro_ronin]

When talking about the Japanese automakers, you guys ONCE AGAIN fall back on the old 'It's the past and does not count' bs again.

They are all receiving government subsidies NOW.

Which ones? How much are they getting?
They don't get them here in Canada, that I know of, they don't have to.
And the past comment was referring to You bringing up WW2.
And it doesn't change the fact that they are selling more, or at least, their sales haven't dropped as much.
We don't see them asking Congress for billions either.
And I doubt that any subsidies they get are in the billions.

[CLFLPstudent]

When talking about the Japanese automakers, you guys ONCE AGAIN fall back on the old 'It's the past and does not count' bs again.

Shouldn't your stance against Mitsubishi also hold true for GM and Ford? Or do they get a pass because they are "American" companies?

-David

[Becca]

A question to all you Obama supporters....How is this sub-prime crisis Bush's fault?

Because it was Bush that signed the bill allowing Freddie and Fanny to back the sub-prime loans. It was Freddie and Fanny that got foriegn investors to buy these loans as a way to come up with the money to back even more sub-prime loans. And when the foreign investors started to loose thier shirts, they tried to back out of it. This caused the bubble to pop.


That being the actual case, had Dubya not allowed Freddie and Fanny the freedom to back sub-prime loans with the single minded effort to get more minority families into thier own homes, with vertually no oversight, they would not have been able to back the sub-prime loans, thus no bubble.

Clinton made a fuss about "how unfair it was" that minorities couldn't afford to own homes. Dubya was the moron who tried to just give them the homes rather than giving them the means to buy homes through conventional meens.

[SimonM]

The big 3 are angling for subsidies from Canada as of today through the Canadian Dealer association. But there is nothing to suggest that anyone other than GM, Ford and Chrysler are in line for subsidies up here.

I think it's almost funny... I went to look at the list of vehicles sold by Chrysler and I had trouble finding any vehicles that WEREN'T SUVs. In fact the numbers seem almost reversed compared to Japanese and Korean companies... This article has more details about the subsidy requests. Hopefully it'll be a wake-up call for the auto makers that the day of the giant personal-use truck are over!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

'Cause you konw they'll re-invest in their companies, see how many new refineries have been built since Big Oil started raking in the billions/quarter?

C'mon... it will be eaten up by executives and their 'perks'.

-David

Reply]
The government won't let them build refineries. again, GET the government off the backs of the corporations, the wealth, the middle class, and everyone else, and things will turn around.

[MasterKiller]

Reply]
The government won't let them build refineries. again, GET the government off the backs of the corporations, the wealth, the middle class, and everyone else, and things will turn around.

The government doesn't prevent them from building new refineries. The government does it job and enforces environmental laws and new refineries refuse to comply, so they don't build.

[1bad65]

Because it was Bush that signed the bill allowing Freddie and Fanny to back the sub-prime loans. It was Freddie and Fanny that got foriegn investors to buy these loans as a way to come up with the money to back even more sub-prime loans. And when the foreign investors started to loose thier shirts, they tried to back out of it. This caused the bubble to pop.

I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, but I'm gonna have to ask you for name of that bill.