• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

Those with the ability have the oppurtunity. Unless, of course, the government over-regulates that oppurtunity out of existance.

A little off track, maybe?
What happens a lot, tho, is the job skill you train for goes away. The smart move is to keep your eyes open, and be training for your "next" job in case the present one becomes obsolete.
Myself, I have been in several different technical jobs over the years. The last one, tho, went obsolete too quickly for me. So I retired early.
If you want to enjoy middle class, you need to keep abreast of what is going on in your industry.
Sadly, you can't trust technical schools to help you. They will gladly take your money and train you in careers that are already becoming obsolete, or careers that will need less workers than before.
I was cut loose by my family right after high school, so I had an advantage. I KNEW that the only person looking out for me, was me....
 
However, it is a good time to allow tax breaks to corporations to remain in place, so all those poor people can go back to work.

Corporations hire people based upon demand and expected demand, not because of taxes. Sure tax incentives can provide short-term results, but sustainable results are achieved only when the product or service has real value to the consumer.
 
Corporations hire people based upon demand and expected demand, not because of taxes. Sure tax incentives can provide short-term results, but sustainable results are achieved only when the product or service has real value to the consumer.

and that is the crux of the matter. if a business doesn't have customers, it doesn't need employees. Lots of businesses, and individuals, have money to spend, but they are apprehensive about the future. We don't really know if the recession is over, despite what the govt says about that.
Businesses don't close their doors because taxes go up a little, and a little is all that is expected by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
I still find it hard to believe that so many people making $250K or less are worried about the rich having to pay a bit more in taxes.
I guess they believe that low taxes stimulates the creation of jobs. CONSUMERS create jobs far more than lower taxes ever will, and a few more or less rich people won't make much difference in how many consumers we have. It is the middle class that needs to grow in numbers, not the rich, and hopefully not the "poor".
 
and that is the crux of the matter. if a business doesn't have customers, it doesn't need employees. Lots of businesses, and individuals, have money to spend, but they are apprehensive about the future. We don't really know if the recession is over, despite what the govt says about that.
Businesses don't close their doors because taxes go up a little, and a little is all that is expected by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
I still find it hard to believe that so many people making $250K or less are worried about the rich having to pay a bit more in taxes.
I guess they believe that low taxes stimulates the creation of jobs. CONSUMERS create jobs far more than lower taxes ever will, and a few more or less rich people won't make much difference in how many consumers we have. It is the middle class that needs to grow in numbers, not the rich, and hopefully not the "poor".

That sort of puts the lie to the "the rich want the middle class to be poor" mindset. The rich surely want to prosper but they also understand that they need consumers. No one benefits from having 'the poor' except politicians and other 'community leader' types that benefit from class and race warfare.
 
You assume somehow he ISNT boosting the annual deficit? You assume he would be somehow fiscally responsible if he could just take MORE of other peoples income?

i can catagorically say he is NOT boosting the nation's deficit by allowing the tax rate to increase on those best able to afford to pay that tax increase

and i can catagorically say he would boost the nation's deficit dollar for dollar if he subscribed to the "fiscally conservative" republican position to borrow more money from china to afford to give billionaires a tax break

simple arithmetic. do the math
 
Corporations hire people based upon demand and expected demand, not because of taxes. Sure tax incentives can provide short-term results, but sustainable results are achieved only when the product or service has real value to the consumer.

Cash flow is the life blood of an economy. Without it, the economy won't flourish. If there is less cash in the private sector, then there will be less cash flow. Taxes will cause less tax flow within the private sector.

Again, it goes back to the incertainty that has been created by the government. They are him-hawing on the Bush tax cuts, no one has any idea what Obamacare is going to do, hence they're not spending any money. If, because of Obamacare and higher taxes, corporations have to close the door, then you can bet your boots that taxes and government legislation killed those jobs.
 
and that is the crux of the matter. if a business doesn't have customers, it doesn't need employees. Lots of businesses, and individuals, have money to spend, but they are apprehensive about the future. We don't really know if the recession is over, despite what the govt says about that.
Businesses don't close their doors because taxes go up a little, and a little is all that is expected by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
I still find it hard to believe that so many people making $250K or less are worried about the rich having to pay a bit more in taxes.
I guess they believe that low taxes stimulates the creation of jobs. CONSUMERS create jobs far more than lower taxes ever will, and a few more or less rich people won't make much difference in how many consumers we have. It is the middle class that needs to grow in numbers, not the rich, and hopefully not the "poor".

That's fine for businesses that operate on volume, like Wal Mart. The small businesses suffer in that case.
 
i can catagorically say he is NOT boosting the nation's deficit by allowing the tax rate to increase on those best able to afford to pay that tax increase

and i can catagorically say he would boost the nation's deficit dollar for dollar if he subscribed to the "fiscally conservative" republican position to borrow more money from china to afford to give billionaires a tax break

simple arithmetic. do the math

I say let's do away with the earned income credit. Whatcha think? Let's let everyone get some skin in the game and collect taxes from those folks who don't even pay taxes.
 
Woody Allen couldnt have been Michael Jordan, but Spudd Webb could be Spudd Webb. And maybe Woody isnt good enough to play pro ball so he works his ass off to become Jeff Van Gundy...successful still working in the basketball realm. You may not be able to BE Bill Gates but nothing would stop you from creating a successful computer store or becoming a promrammer, or designer. You cant be the queen OF England but you can be a queen IN England. Or...you can make excuses why you cant succeed. And then blame the rich people for stealing your money hopes and dreams.

Nope...not buying it. You fail because you didnt work to succeed...Because mommy and daddy pampered you and didnt expect you to succeed. Because you made a bunch of stupid decisions that got in the way of your success. A million excuses...but they arent on the rich...they are on the individual.

If woody Allen couldn't become Micheal Jordan, and he never could have, then there are limitations. No one says he couldn't be better than he likely is, but that there are limitations. If there are limitations, and we all are not capable of everything, some people being natually marter, or larger, or stronger, or faster, equal under the law but not with the same or even equal abilities, opportunities, or even possibilities, isn't it kind of silly to expect everyone to achieve the same success?

Not saying we all can't work hard and do better. But let's not pretend there is a utopia where we all can be successful.
 
Sure. Higher taxes. Fewer jobs. Those conditions are murdering the middle class.

All I ask is that you give OBJECTIVE evidence that your claim is true. Not opinion. Nothing SUBJECTIVE.
 
I say let's do away with the earned income credit. Whatcha think? Let's let everyone get some skin in the game and collect taxes from those folks who don't even pay taxes.

now there is a "fiscally conservative" idea republicans should be proud of [/s]

let's have people who are motivated to work and are earning an income - albeit a low income - and remove the supplement they receive to allow them to have a modest standard of living

in your view, it's so much better to withdraw that supplement because they are working. why would we want to incentivize work, and the exhibition of life skills that are present to go to a job, when we could instead motivate them to quit their jobs so that they could again enjoy a government subsidy. only now, it would be a larger one, and they could eliminate the need to work to qualify for it

very clever how you thought through the ramifications of your proposal [/s]
 
That's fine for businesses that operate on volume, like Wal Mart. The small businesses suffer in that case.

"Small" businesses can be quite large and still be considered small by the govt.
My point is, the rich won't suffer if they pay another 3 to 5 percent, and it can't possibly affect job creation negatively in our current economic situation. The rich don't consume, or spend, as much as a lot of people think. They are just as busy as the rest of us, going to work, earning money, raising families. They don't play all day. Certainly the ones I know don't.
The only ones who have time to play might be the unemployed but they don't have the money to play.
If and when confidence returns, jobs will pick up. In the mean time, those of us who have money and a secure income should be spending it. Beats me why so many well off retirees are holding on to their investments that are drawing about 1%.
One thing about the job of a retiree, he can't be fired....
 
now there is a "fiscally conservative" idea republicans should be proud of [/s]

let's have people who are motivated to work and are earning an income - albeit a low income - and remove the supplement they receive to allow them to have a modest standard of living

in your view, it's so much better to withdraw that supplement because they are working. why would we want to incentivize work, and the exhibition of life skills that are present to go to a job, when we could instead motivate them to quit their jobs so that they could again enjoy a government subsidy. only now, it would be a larger one, and they could eliminate the need to work to qualify for it

very clever how you thought through the ramifications of your proposal [/s]

That same logic applies to businesses, as well. Raising taxes on businesses and cutting even more into an alrady shrinking bottom line, will only motivate them to close the doors and layoff their employees, or cut salaries and jobs, in an attempt to keep the doors open. Thank you for illustrating my point.
 
That same logic applies to businesses, as well. Raising taxes on businesses and cutting even more into an alrady shrinking bottom line, will only motivate them to close the doors and layoff their employees, or cut salaries and jobs, in an attempt to keep the doors open. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Are taxes on business being raised?
 
"Small" businesses can be quite large and still be considered small by the govt.
My point is, the rich won't suffer if they pay another 3 to 5 percent, and it can't possibly affect job creation negatively in our current economic situation. The rich don't consume, or spend, as much as a lot of people think. They are just as busy as the rest of us, going to work, earning money, raising families. They don't play all day. Certainly the ones I know don't.
The only ones who have time to play might be the unemployed but they don't have the money to play.
If and when confidence returns, jobs will pick up. In the mean time, those of us who have money and a secure income should be spending it. Beats me why so many well off retirees are holding on to their investments that are drawing about 1%.
One thing about the job of a retiree, he can't be fired....

By that logic, middle class folks won't suffer by paying another 3-5 percent, either. They'll just have to live within their means. Won't they?
 
Yes, they are. Where you been?!?

I thought all this debate was about personal income taxes being raised for people making over 250 000 dollars a year.

Where are taxes on business' being raised?
 
I thought all this debate was about personal income taxes being raised for people making over 250 000 dollars a year.

If that's the case, then the tax hike will effect far more than just 1% of the country. It will certainly effect all those folks who elected to become an s-corp and file their business taxes on their individual return.

Where are taxes on business' being raised?

When the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go up for corporations.
 
When the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go up for corporations.

I can't find anything that supports that. Even the WSJ treats business taxes as being separate from the Bush tax cuts expiring:

Those pressures will be all the greater because Congress also must address the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts at the end of 2010. Extending those tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people will create a further drain on the federal budget. So Congress could be looking to businesses as well as high-income individuals to make up some of the difference.

Plan Would Raise Taxes on Businesses - WSJ.com

Perhaps I'm missing something. What do you have to support your claim?
 
If that's the case, then the tax hike will effect far more than just 1% of the country. It will certainly effect all those folks who elected to become an s-corp and file their business taxes on their individual return.



When the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go up for corporations.

hopefully, you are not preparing your own returns for an s corp using that approach

the corporation has its own revenues and deductions to report. it is only the resulting taxes which are paid by the owner(s) on his/their return(s) ... pro rata based on their ownership position

so, if the individual had income other than from the s corp, that would be reflected on the individual return and the taxable portion due from the s corp would then be added to his/her personal FTR, the result being the amount owing
 
I can't find anything that supports that. Even the WSJ treats business taxes as being separate from the Bush tax cuts expiring:

Those pressures will be all the greater because Congress also must address the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts at the end of 2010. Extending those tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people will create a further drain on the federal budget. So Congress could be looking to businesses as well as high-income individuals to make up some of the difference.

Plan Would Raise Taxes on Businesses - WSJ.com

Perhaps I'm missing something. What do you have to support your claim?

Perhaps you should read the article, before you post it.
 
hopefully, you are not preparing your own returns for an s corp using that approach

the corporation has its own revenues and deductions to report. it is only the resulting taxes which are paid by the owner(s) on his/their return(s) ... pro rata based on their ownership position

so, if the individual had income other than from the s corp, that would be reflected on the individual return and the taxable portion due from the s corp would then be added to his/her personal FTR, the result being the amount owing

This is basically how an s-corp works:

In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation's income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. This concept is called single taxation; if the corporation is taxed as a C corporation, it will face double taxation, meaning both the corporation's profits, and the shareholders' dividends, will be taxed.

And, no I don't have an s-corp. I have a c-corp. I move money in and out of my business too much to deal with the stipulations of an s-corp. Even though I have to pay self employment taxes, it would cost me more in payroll taxes to operate as an s-corp.
 
i can catagorically say he is NOT boosting the nation's deficit by allowing the tax rate to increase on those best able to afford to pay that tax increase

and i can catagorically say he would boost the nation's deficit dollar for dollar if he subscribed to the "fiscally conservative" republican position to borrow more money from china to afford to give billionaires a tax break

simple arithmetic. do the math

Providing this government...democrats, republicans, and this president access to more taxpayer dollars will translate to one thing...more spending. Thats simply fact. You give them more they will spend more...not less. You cannot possibly say it WOULDN'T increase deficit spending because that calls for you to make the assumption they wouldn't just spend more and more recklessly. And based on their current track record...you REALLY want to bank on that?
 
If woody Allen couldn't become Micheal Jordan, and he never could have, then there are limitations. No one says he couldn't be better than he likely is, but that there are limitations. If there are limitations, and we all are not capable of everything, some people being natually marter, or larger, or stronger, or faster, equal under the law but not with the same or even equal abilities, opportunities, or even possibilities, isn't it kind of silly to expect everyone to achieve the same success?

Not saying we all can't work hard and do better. But let's not pretend there is a utopia where we all can be successful.

You are adding three plus truck and getting a total of ostrich. No one can set UNREALISTIC goals and expect them to acheive them. Woody Allen cant be Michael Jordan. However there are any number of smaller players that have acheived success in the NBA. If THAT is his goal all he has to do is WORK at it. He could have been Woody Allen, NBA great alongside smaller players like Nate Tiny Archibald, SPudd Webb, J Will, John Starkes, John Stockton, and any number of great smaller point gurads and shooters.

HARD WORK equals SUCCESS. Excuses GUARANTEES failure. Theres the stink of a whole lot of failure going around.
 
Back
Top Bottom