|
Post by musher on Mar 16, 2013 10:42:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Mar 16, 2013 11:42:11 GMT -6
It makes so much sense, how can any reasonable person just not get it?
Pam
|
|
|
Post by Gerald Schmitt on Mar 16, 2013 16:26:20 GMT -6
So what do you guys think a fair federal income tax rate would be for someone making, say, adusted gross income of $500,000.
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan on Mar 16, 2013 17:21:07 GMT -6
it depends if THEY are the one who is makeing that money or not ( Im excludeing myself ) if its not them than that person should only make maybe 40 grand take home and the rest should go to social programs and hand outs for those that lack creativety or ambition!you know the less fortunate! unlike you gerald Im sure you had every thing handed to you you capitalist pig!! just jokeing gerald
|
|
|
Post by TurTLe on Mar 16, 2013 22:53:57 GMT -6
I'd rather we had a flat tax with no deductions. Pay a percent of your income period. No more filing, and all the BS.
Having said that, I have no problem with the Walton kids paying more in taxes. They didn't build that business and 80% of their employees live in the poverty level.
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan on Mar 17, 2013 5:56:02 GMT -6
some time in life others just have a head start good for them! who cares if they didnt start that business are you going to throw your kids out with no money if you win the lottery? if wallmart workers are not happy there and worth more money go some place else or start their own business! its easy to bitch about wallmart but what did they do before wallmart? they took the job knowing what it paid and aparantly no one else was knocking their door down with offers! thats the mentality why we have participation trophys and crap like that these days they got a head start wa wa wa!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Velgang on Mar 17, 2013 6:50:39 GMT -6
I have to agree with Turtle, a SIMPLE flat tax, a percent of what you make. No deductions, no write offs, no refunds, just a SIMPLE flat tax. We would all pay the same percent. No matter how much or how little you make we would ALL pay the same percent. SIMPLE.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 17, 2013 8:02:26 GMT -6
Many of the persons who work part time for WALMARTS in our area worked part time or full time in retail stores that went out of business prior to the arrival of the WALMART. The several I know make less today in total then they did 6-8 years ago working for other retail outlets. Sure you can say they are under achievers but then 70% of our work force does not have education past High School as we encouraged people to get jobs instead of educations.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by TurTLe on Mar 17, 2013 8:32:19 GMT -6
I'm not pitching a fit because his kids got an inheritance. However, nobody can think it is a good thing that the majority of Walmart employees are on food stamps when the company is making record profits year after year.
You know when Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and the other big boys were doing the same thing, the Government Trust Busted them because they were too big. Now, everything is too big to fail.
I'm all for making money, and I believe Capitalism in it's truest form is the best system, but at some point too big is just too darn big. But I guess Walmart employees can just "eat cake."
I must of bumped my head checking beaver sets this morning. I'm starting to sound like a Liberal.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 17, 2013 12:06:43 GMT -6
There is nothing conservative about a hughe firm paying such low wages that their employees need federal assistance to just live in America at our current standard of living costs. That is corporate welfare as much as it is social welfare.
I also don't think it is far left liberal to want to tax a firm or highere income earners to pay the social welfare costs they help create. If we raised the tax rates for the wealthy quickly and significantly higher we may get the most rapid and complete changes in how large and complex our governments are. The way we operate today they have far too many benefits to want serious change.
Also the way SS works with a much higher percentage of the income from low income being used to calculate the bend points those that pay lower wages actually contribute more to the demise of SS than those that pay higher wages. They are increasing the welfare aspect of SS and even way, way more for Medicare.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Mar 17, 2013 12:33:00 GMT -6
"I also don't think it is far left liberal to want to tax a firm or highere income earners to pay the social welfare costs they help create." Amen to that. This one makes even more sense: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOsZSIcU9OMCheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 18, 2013 6:09:47 GMT -6
good thing that the majority of Walmart employees are on food stamps
source?
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan on Mar 18, 2013 11:29:22 GMT -6
if wallmart is the evil ONE why dont people go to ALL of these other jobs that are sooo much better than wallmart
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 18, 2013 11:39:30 GMT -6
bob, there is a reason corporations, even under "this impossible taxation" are having record profits
and that reason is reducing HC benefits, and wages PLUS hours. as pointed out, its far cheaper to employ 2 or three part time, over a full time.
are oy uunder the impression jobs avaiable, that DO pay good wages etc, are going unfulled?
cause thats not the case here, or elsewhere- and yes, we all know the guy thats offering $100 for no work, and can't get anybody decent.. but back in the real world
My God, there are those that balk at raising minimum pay-
the days of corporations caring about workers went the day international ownership occurred.
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan on Mar 18, 2013 12:15:11 GMT -6
steve wages cannot be force fed and people run business to make the largest profit possible if wallmart continues to make good profits at some point there will be competition that will hurt their profits or will take their better employees thus hurting their productivitie. if a person has a job they have to have a barganing chip and in most cases that is how much money they make the company if you dont do any thing special you have no chips. I think that most people are able to be good at some thing if they choose to its that as was said in cool hand luke they just need to get their mind rite!
|
|
|
Post by musher on Mar 18, 2013 15:03:31 GMT -6
The key words are "at some point." Until then people need to eat.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 18, 2013 15:55:40 GMT -6
WALMART retail amounts to about 40-50% of the nations retail and over 50% on groceries. Within 25 miles of my house in rural MTC CO there are 4 super WALMART stores. There used to be 26 other grocery stores within the same area and now there are 12 and that does not include those north and south of the area I referenced that have lost stores as well. Two malls have closed and two smaller strip malls have closed as well. There are several other retail stores that no longer are doing business either. So the fact is that most can't go to another retail job as those are drying up fast other than at WALMART. Some of the competitive stores have gone to part time commission only pay and with light traffic the turnover rates are sky high as many days one works for zip.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 18, 2013 16:41:40 GMT -6
bob, you make the perfect pro union arguement
what other chip, does the average worker have?
|
|
|
Post by bobbrennan on Mar 19, 2013 0:00:29 GMT -6
steve have you ever had employees? how much would you pay them? what would determine their wages and benifits? when you sell a product what determines the price you charge? do you think you are makeing too much money on those products? oh by the way I feel unions at this time dont do much to help workers there are too many people looking for jobs!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 19, 2013 5:45:51 GMT -6
yes bob, I have had employees when my dad and I owned a print shop-
we paid them a competative wage, to get what we needed
prices on products was time and material-
did I think we made too much? no, thats the benefit of competion to consumers- -------------
first you state switch jobs if you don't like yours, then you state too many looking for jobs- kind of covering both ends of the spectrum are you not?
unions aren't to GET jobs- where did you get that idea? Unions are to retaian wages and benefits- you know, that barginning chip YOU mentioned
|
|