- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Poor in America can be the top 1 percent in 90 percent of the nations of the world.
Relativity.
Relativity.
That was a lot of work but it does nothing to prove the point you were making about the states. The only state with higher unemployment was Florida and it's pretty much the same as Illinois.
That was a lot of work but it does nothing to prove the point you were making about the states. The only state with higher unemployment was Florida and it's pretty much the same as Illinois.
The article I gave you said:
Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average.
And then it said this:
Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.
It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.
Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times
So, they scared the state, and got what they wanted. What happens when they move in a few months or a couple of years anyway? There is also lots of information out there on this happening.Actually, here in Illinois the state just ponied up a boatload of tax incentives to get a number of Fortune 500 companies not to move away. Sears was the top of the list. In our case we would potentially have lost a sizable number of jobs.
Quinn signs Sears-CME tax breaks into law - Chicago Tribune
That sucks for you.
-wss
Thread after thread discuss this. Read a few.
Poor in America can be the top 1 percent in 90 percent of the nations of the world.\
Relativity.
Interesting how we are so quick to compare our poor to the poor of Uganda, Bolivia, the Congo, Somalia, etc.... as some type of justification that they have it so well. We don't compare our education, military, government or other standards of living to such a peer group; only our poor. Is it so we don't have to face the fact that the poor in America are no where near as well off as the poor in the countries that are real peer group; Japan, Canada, the UK, Norway, Germany, Australia. Yep. It is a convenient rationalization... which we are just so good at.
who cares? I prefer a society where we can have lots of winners rather than one where there is a concerted effort to try to make people "equal"
who cares? I prefer a society where we can have lots of winners rather than one where there is a concerted effort to try to make people "equal"
No one is speaking of equality; only equity. You should care as the current trajectory of class bifurcation is not sustainable in a democracy. Either it changes, or the democracy dies (which is what is happening here).
If you like being a rich man in a poor country, perhaps a relocation to Mexico would be in order. Oh, wait, Mexico is coming here.
So you think providing basic necessities to American citizens is an effort to make them equal? BTW I am still waiting for you to explain why you should not pay more when you use facilities and laws supported by all tax payers.
Excellent points. If one wants a sustainable society in an America that ones children and grandchildren can live in in peace and harmony with others, they better damn well learn to change the attitude which only thinksof SELF above SOCIETY.
No one is speaking of equality; only equity. You should care as the current trajectory of class bifurcation is not sustainable in a democracy. Either it changes, or the democracy dies (which is what is happening here).
If you like being a rich man in a poor country, perhaps a relocation to Mexico would be in order. Oh, wait, Mexico is coming here.
the rich dems who are creating addiction to government handouts are actively ruining this country so they can win elections and with it get the wealth and power they derive from holding public office
who cares? I prefer a society where we can have lots of winners rather than one where there is a concerted effort to try to make people "equal"
Your so called 'logic' has holes gaping enough to drive an elephant through. If these rich dems are rich why do they need to hold public office to get them wealthy? They do not need to win an election or anything else to get wealthy if they are rich as you claim they are.
Why don't you tell us how the Great Satan FDR did this and made himself wealthy in the process?
You do realize in a real competition, there is only one winner. If winner makes up only 1% of the population, I wouldn't call that lots of winners.
You seem to think that the one percent is frozen in time at one instant. Its like saying there is only one Olympic 100Meter gold medalist in the 2012 games and forgetting all the other games and the winners
You do realize in a real competition, there is only one winner. If winner makes up only 1% of the population, I wouldn't call that lots of winners.
Don't make leaps. You don't do it well.
Whether number is 1/2 % or 5% or hell, even 10%, that's a small percentage. So there are not a LOT of winners. But that's OK as long as the middle is strong. They see enough good to be comfortable and see a possible rise one day, even if it doesn't actually happen. But destroy the middle class, keep hating the working person, and that gap will be everyone's undoing sooner or later. It's just bad business.
Don't make leaps. You don't do it well.
Whether number is 1/2 % or 5% or hell, even 10%, that's a small percentage. So there are not a LOT of winners. But that's OK as long as the middle is strong. They see enough good to be comfortable and see a possible rise one day, even if it doesn't actually happen. But destroy the middle class, keep hating the working person, and that gap will be everyone's undoing sooner or later. It's just bad business.
so someone making 100K, 200K or 300K is not a winner?
Just like everything else top teir income levels bring people in and drop people out, year after year.
There is no permanence for some in upper, middle or lower.
In fact our current income disparity can have multiple and varied reasons, that you don't know about, yet you assume it's because there is 1 winner.
It's correlation = causation, crap logic.