View Poll Results: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Income Taxes

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 33.93%
  • No

    72 64.29%
  • I don't know

    2 1.79%
Page 47 of 61 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 603

Thread: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

  1. #461
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,932
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Jesus H.Christ Jack, do you know when to stop this bull****?
    Your statement has no meaning.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #462
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Your statement has no meaning.
    That's because you have an agenda.


  3. #463
    User Clem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    22

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    The above is the only sentence in your comment that really advances the argument. Entry-level workers normally spend just about every penny of their income - and that would almost certainly not change if they were being paid a living wage. If every entry-level worker's making a living wage, pretty much every bit of that is going back into the economy...and back into the pockets of the rich.

    Here's a Harvard study for you - it turns out that Costco, which is paying its workers a living wage, is spending less per employee than Sam's Club, which pays its workers normal Wal-Mart pittances. Now doesn't that look strange? Costco's spending less per employee even though they're paying their workers a lot more? How could that possibly happen?

    The High Cost of Low Wages:

    Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Samís Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Samís Clubís pay scale is similar to Wal-Martís. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costcoís average pay is 72% higher than Samís Clubís ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Samís Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Samís Clubís average hourly wage at $11.52.

    On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costcoís employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Samís Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.

    Costcoís practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one yearís employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the workerís annual salary. To be conservative, letís assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Samís Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Samís Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Samís Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Martís, Samís Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Samís Club is $612 million. Thatís $5,274 per Samís Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.

    In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Samís Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employeesóadmittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Samís Club. Costcoís stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.
    (boldface mine)

    The above isn't liberal tripe - it's real-world numbers. Pay your workers a living wage, and you'll have more loyal workers and spend a heck of a lot less in turnover costs.
    I think we're on the same side. I support higher wages for economic reasons, In fact I think a significant increase in the FMW, in the range of 65% as a start and 85% within two years is vital and the only way to get folks who want and need jobs working. The labor participation rate is in dire straights. And wealth / income polarization continues to rise and we're not far off of where large South American economies were before collapsing quickly into dual economies which has taken them decades to now climb out of whilst we sprint toward the economic disaster they're overcoming. And that's a global economic doom scenario with the US economy being the driver of the world economy.

    And Obama has been a nightmare. In the face of the greatest crisis since the Depression he did next to nothing but bail out securities markets. Zip on tax policy. And shrinking middle class income with the FMW last raised on Bush 43's watch. Plus cap gains tax is absurdly low, which is why growth has been so anemic.

    Godspeed his replacement and this time I hope we elect a Democrat in spirit and action and not merely campaign rhetoric.

  4. #464
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,540

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Those liberals won't let it happen.
    Thanks - it's been a day - I needed the laugh -
    ďTo do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what heís doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  5. #465
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,540

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Clem View Post
    I think we're on the same side. I support higher wages for economic reasons, In fact I think a significant increase in the FMW, in the range of 65% as a start and 85% within two years is vital and the only way to get folks who want and need jobs working. The labor participation rate is in dire straights. And wealth / income polarization continues to rise and we're not far off of where large South American economies were before collapsing quickly into dual economies which has taken them decades to now climb out of whilst we sprint toward the economic disaster they're overcoming. And that's a global economic doom scenario with the US economy being the driver of the world economy.

    And Obama has been a nightmare. In the face of the greatest crisis since the Depression he did next to nothing but bail out securities markets. Zip on tax policy. And shrinking middle class income with the FMW last raised on Bush 43's watch. Plus cap gains tax is absurdly low, which is why growth has been so anemic.

    Godspeed his replacement and this time I hope we elect a Democrat in spirit and action and not merely campaign rhetoric.
    Actually I think that history will be rather kind to Obama...and not so kind to those who strove so hard to make sure that he could accomplish as little as possible during his time in office. All the gripes you listed about him above can be ascribed to two factors - Obama's determination to reach out to the GOP to make things happen for so long (see Boehner's "I got 98% of what I wanted in the debt ceiling negotiation!" and the TP hated him for 'giving away' the 2%), and the GOP's intransigence which they planned from the get-go, even from the night before his first inauguration.

    I supported Hillary against Obama in the 2008 election - I was an alternate WA state delegate for her - and I said even then that I thought that Obama was the future of the Democratic party...but also that America wasn't ready for him yet - he needed someone to pave the way for him first, to get America used to the idea before he took center stage, and that was why I supported Hillary and not Obama. I still stand by what I said then. Hillary not being able to be the president before him, I think, is a major factor in why he wasn't able to advance an agenda that both you and I could have really supported wholeheartedly.
    ďTo do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what heís doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #466
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean.McDonnell View Post
    The answer to this question depends on what one thinks is the responsibility of the wealthy to the state, and what our tax dollars should be spent on. As a left leaning man, I believe that any government should be evaluated on how they take care of their poorest citizens. In line with this idea, no, I don't think the wealthy pay to much. When you compare the tax structure in the United States to other nations with similar quality of life ratings, it is clear that they pay a fair amount. I mean of course we would be comparing ourselves to socialist systems, but hey, that's the way the rest of the world has gone, and I think they're on to something...
    Keep in mind in addition to helping the poor this money is also being spent on things like the drug war which would be more reasonably restricted if there were less income in the pipe.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  7. #467
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,932
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    That's because you have an agenda.
    No. I just follow the data.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #468
    User Clem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    22

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Actually I think that history will be rather kind to Obama...and not so kind to those who strove so hard to make sure that he could accomplish as little as possible during his time in office. All the gripes you listed about him above can be ascribed to two factors - Obama's determination to reach out to the GOP to make things happen for so long (see Boehner's "I got 98% of what I wanted in the debt ceiling negotiation!" and the TP hated him for 'giving away' the 2%), and the GOP's intransigence which they planned from the get-go, even from the night before his first inauguration.

    I supported Hillary against Obama in the 2008 election - I was an alternate WA state delegate for her - and I said even then that I thought that Obama was the future of the Democratic party...but also that America wasn't ready for him yet - he needed someone to pave the way for him first, to get America used to the idea before he took center stage, and that was why I supported Hillary and not Obama. I still stand by what I said then. Hillary not being able to be the president before him, I think, is a major factor in why he wasn't able to advance an agenda that both you and I could have really supported wholeheartedly.
    How history views Obama is not why I voted and campaigned for him and gave the federal maximum (first time; second time I gave a $1 and a demand for leadership on the issue he said were vital which they indeed are).

    I voted for swift reversal of Bush 43's trickle down redux, and not what in fact the comparatively poor performing president has done and even actively promoted: continuation and even some expansion of Bush 43 policies. History books do not solve economic crisis. Leadership does.

    And Obama has failed to lead on a single policy. Not one, even having been given the House and a Senate super-majority.

  9. #469
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,540

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Clem View Post
    How history views Obama is not why I voted and campaigned for him and gave the federal maximum (first time; second time I gave a $1 and a demand for leadership on the issue he said were vital which they indeed are).

    I voted for swift reversal of Bush 43's trickle down redux, and not what in fact the comparatively poor performing president has done and even actively promoted: continuation and even some expansion of Bush 43 policies. History books do not solve economic crisis. Leadership does.

    And Obama has failed to lead on a single policy. Not one, even having been given the House and a Senate super-majority.
    He had a supermajority in the Senate for precisely 62 in-session days. After Scott Brown took office, the filibusters began in earnest...and you know the rest from there.
    ďTo do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what heís doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  10. #470
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    He had a supermajority in the Senate for precisely 62 in-session days. After Scott Brown took office, the filibusters began in earnest...and you know the rest from there.
    Interesting.

    If being an ineffective leader, hamstrung by inexperience, and determined to use wedge issues to divide the country down race and economic lines is what you mean by "know the rest from there" then you have a point.

Page 47 of 61 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... 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
  •